Squeaky Fromme out just when more death threats against Obama are being reported. (Fromme here, threats here, found them on Memeorandum separated by a WSJ editorial.)
It’s not that I think interests are engineering a plot that involves Squeaky Fromme. It’s more like fate is setting up one of its dumb jokes. I think, “Yeah, that’s the shitty way things would work out. Obama gets killed, and right then there’s a Manson conspirator going free from prison.”
Well if anything happens, I'm sure the first person the FBI investigates is you, Tom. Hiding in plain sight. lol
Conspirator!
Oh, come on Tom; The threats were made by guys on a meth binge. Threats are made to all presidents. Could this be a case of the less-than-partisan ABC attempting to paint a picture which conflates the opposition to health care reform as violent/racist thugs? — That's certainly a very common theme right now.
I'm sorry, I just find it really ironic that the left is suddenly so freaked out by public demonstrations; when they are white middle Americans, they are essentially Klan members, when it's Code Pink or bands of college students causing a ruckus, it's democracy in Action..
btw, Aren't you Canadian?
Threat are made to all Presidents. And some Presidents do indeed get shot, unfortunately.
Tom's got dual citizenship, I believe….though obviously he'd know better than me.
I'm born & bred US but am getting my permanent-residence papers up in Montreal.
Uland, come on. Sit-ins are one thing, going armed to see the president is something else. Even Allahpundit condemned that shit.
Well, the guy is a gun rights activist. I don't see how him carrying a legal firearm relates to meth heads making insane threats, or protests in general.
When gun rights rallies are held in states where it's legal to carry, people bring guns to the state house lawns. Often governors and senators speak at those things.
This is all white-guilt panic over the "bad" whites, who apparently all secretly want to kill black people.
By the way, I can't imagine that the guy was not properly contained, or nowhere to be found by the time Obama showed up. He may have a right to carry, but he doesn't have a right to anywhere near the president.
The whole thing has been used in order to push buttons, and it's clearly pushed yours. They're playing on fears in order to present opposition to Obama in a certain light.
I mean, there is a certain level of disturbing nuttiness in some of the opposition to Obama. The birther stuff is fairly widespread, and it is unpleasant.
Overall, though, the main obstacle to health care is not popular opinion, which is broadly supportive, but the fact that we've decided in the last ten years that you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. If Harry Reid had the spine a snake was born with, he'd ditch this ridiculous and recent procedural innovation, and, , presto, we would have a marginally better health care system, just like our neighbors to the north.
"Well, the guy is a gun rights activist. I don't see how him carrying a legal firearm relates to meth heads making insane threats, or protests in general."
Because insane threats are carried out by using guns in close proximity to the president.
"This is all white-guilt panic over the 'bad' whites, who apparently all secretly want to kill black people."
Great, I'm having my motives explained to me. Always the mark of high-level argumentation.
As far as I can tell, the majority agree that healthcare needs to be reformed. This leaves out the obvious hows and fors. The particulars, the actual reforms, are still being worked out, and, if Bill Moyers and his guests the other night are correct, it's looking like more of a corporate/state merger than anything else. In their humble lefty opinions, the whole thing needs to be scrapped. But yes, the nuttiness, which seems so overwhelming because the networks are choosing to overwhelm us with it, is getting in the way of a real debate.
It's the Gun-belt set vs. the humble, working poor who can in no way afford care ( what I mean by that is those who are, in many states already recieving state-sponsored care). That accounts for , I'd wager, about %15 of our population. I wonder what everybody else thinks?
Leaving aside the very real questions about our Governments' Constitutional authority to socialize healthcare, I sort of wonder if a bill which seeks to offer tax-sponsored insurance to those in actual need of medical care ( not your fucking Zoloft perscription) and can otherwise not pay for it themselves, while at the same time placing sensible regulations on private insurers for the rest of us, is at all possible.
That would take care of the roughly 8 percent of Americans who are actually impoverished enough to not be able to pay, at all, for care, and allow those on the edge, those who'd have a difficult time paying, entry to Insurance.
Who knows, with that much more spare change, maybe people would be able to do things, like start businesses that pay people enough to get insured. Maybe people will be able to quit their Wal-Mart gigs rather than having our black jesus make it work for Wal-Mart.
But wait, that might involve the State and medical providers taking in less money. We don't want to retard our economic growth, do we?
No, best to just force everyone into the current system. Everyone wins, right? You get Wal-Mart plus. It's an UPGRAYED, y'all.
Given the interwoven nature of the State and Corporate America, I think it's foolish to imagine that we'll get anything like a Canadian system. Given the fact that we cannot pay for any of it, that we've accumulated the largest debt ever on the planet, I think it's foolish to imagine that such an expenditure – 10 trillion we'd have to print out of thin air- will not lead to greater dependency upon the state and into a greater spiral of impoverishment. But then we'll need a Nanny state more than ever, right? Right.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html
btw, If Obama really wants the birthers to go away, all they need to do is produce his birth certificate (as opposed to a "certificate of live birth"). I don't think they want to; The birthers are too useful right now.
And, no, I don't think he's not a citizen, nor do I care if he's not; I already have plenty of reason to oppose him.
If you can't see major skewering at work in a piece like this : http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8324481&page=1
I don't know what to tell you.
I think you're seriously underestimating the number of people for whom our current healthcare system is a serious problem. It's a crippling expense for many business owners, as just a starter.
"placing sensible regulations on private insurers for the rest of us, is at all possible. "
I don't think this is really possible. Is there an example of a place where this has been done without a robust public system?
Well, it was done, here, not that long ago. Throughout the last century it wasn't such a massive problem for the vast majority of Americans. Those restrictions were chipped away at.
So, It's a matter of policy and enforcement. If we recognize that medical care is not just another industry— that we live or die by it— it , and it's necessary component, Insurance, should be subjected to extraordinary restrictions.
We don't seem to have a problem differentiating between it and other industries; that's why we seem so willing to go ahead with Obama's reforms. I'm suggesting another m.o for reformation, one that enriches the public, rather than enriching the State and Industry; when it comes down to it, we will still be paying into the same system at outlandish rates, we're just doing some fancy math and calling it something else. The State is the new collection agency in this scenario, only they get to divy it up as they see fit.
I was insured only very briefly. I never used it. I've been to the doctor three times in the last ten years.
My wife pays in an insane amount, and has not used it. The only Insurance I would consider would be something for major illness or injury, the likelihood of either for me is pretty slim at my age, yet I cannot find Insurance that would be willing to assess these risks without collectivizing it against everybody elses' risk. Why not place restrictions on what is clearly a predatory shell game?
But, of course, if everyone in a situation like mine found such a deal, it would mean a massive decrease in revenue, not only for Insurers, but for providers as well; no clinic visits for tummy aches, no more Xanax, etc..
I could go on and on; I could talk about Nafta, the end of Industry in America, Factory farming, the dying middle class; but that's all old news, right? The tides of progress and endless growth have swept it aside..
"Well, it was done, here, not that long ago."
I don't know about that. Health care in this country has been a mess for generations. It has gotten worse, but that doesn't mean it worked especially well to start with. People have been trying to grapple with it for a long time.
" If we recognize that medical care is not just another industry— that we live or die by it— it , and it's necessary component, Insurance, should be subjected to extraordinary restrictions."
I agree with that. I'm just not sure it's possible in an insurance model. The incentive structures are all screwed up…and politically our system is just particularly susceptible to public interest pressure. It's very hard for us to put restrictions on a huge, powerful industry (essentially because we've got so many veto points in the system, it's easy for organized special interests to influence policy.)
"I've been to the doctor three times in the last ten years."
This is an example of part of the problem, not the solution though. It's in society's interest for you to get regular check-ups. If you do, you can catch problems early,and reduce the costs of treatment. Staying away from the doctor like that is ultimately bad for your health, and bad for everybody financially. This is one of the reasons that insurance incentives are so screwed up.
"no clinic visits for tummy aches, no more Xanax, etc.."
Again, you want people to go to the doctor when they have problems. In the long run, that reduces costs. Ideally they'll go to get a check-up rather than an emergency room visit, though.
My understanding is that the real problem with incentives is not that people go to the doctor for frivolous reasons but rather,
1. Doctors tend to be paid for procedures rather than by patient. This encourages unnecessary procedures, which is really expensive. (Worries about lawsuits may factor in here too, though I think most policy wonks believe this worry is fairly overblown.)
2. Because everyone isn't covered, a lot of people don't get check-ups, but instead go to emergency rooms. Again, this is really expensive.
I disagree. You shouldn't want to go to the doctor regularly until you're at an age where risks for severe illness make that necessary. My wife is an N.P; "preventative care" is often used as code for "sales opportunity"; prevention models have never been tested. The only real preventative care is in earnest efforts to maintain health, and Doctors can't and don't do that for anybody, they resolve issues after they arise. Preventative care models are business models; of course they want us to come in as often as possible.
There are very few common things that a doctor can actively prevent using medical expertise.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the idea that part of the problem is people not going to the doctor when it isn't necessary. It's quite the opposite.
Healthcare has not been a mess for generations. It has always been relatively expensive, but not like it is now.
The Insurance Industry was more regulated. I see no reason why it shouldn't be now. It's not like it would be difficult to get popular support going for it.