The Philosophy of the Suicide Bomber inre Healthcare

Pages

My wife is a medical professional that works with the elderly. She works in an endocrinology clinic and sees predominantly diabetes sufferers.

Yesterday, she was taking a patient history and the patient was going on and on about the "death panels" and how "Obamacare" was going to put them all into gas ovens like the Nazis did. She's a smart woman and actually read HR 3200 and the specific section that Grassley and Palin have quoted and realized that the so called "death panels" were nothing more than doctors interviews for paliative medicine. This infurated her that folks like Grassley and Palin (and large portions of the political Right) should be so willing to destroy access to such a vital part of patient care for the sake of political advantage.

I thought about this and it struck me that this is precisely the philosophy of the suicide bomber. There is zero interest in the benefit to society. They are not interested in participating in good governance. Their single concern is the destruction of political leadership.

I mentioned this to one of my religious fundamentalist friends and his reaction was "wasn't it cool how Palin outflanked Obama?". I replied "yeah, just like Yigal Amir outflanked the Middle East Peace process".

Hopefully next week they will explain the health care reform. For now all I've heard is vague information and reactionary insanity.

Paleocon wrote:

I thought about this and it struck me that this is precisely the philosophy of the suicide bomber. There is zero interest in the benefit to society. They are not interested in participating in good governance. Their single concern is the destruction of political leadership.

Their primary concern is not the destruction of political leadership. Their concern is getting and keeping power, just like the Democrats. Destruction of the current leadership is merely a tactic.

I've been getting a lot of comments about healthcare lately from complete strangers. While buying a Coke at a gas station the lady behind the counter started randomly telling me that there was going to be a civil war and that the people were going to rise up against the government. Kind of taken aback I asked her why they would do that. She told me it's because of Obama. That he's taking everyone's insurance away, that you're not going to be able to get the treatment you need, and that there's nothing the people can do about it. That Obama can just put whatever laws he wants in place and that nobody can stop him. To this stirring and obviously heartfelt speech I replied that I would also like an apple pie with my Coke. I quickly paid and left the gas station.

While this particular incident was a bit off the wall I've heard milder versions of this same argument from many sane, educated people. It really does seem like nobody has a clue what the heck they're trying to do with this healthcare reform bill and everyone's just filling in the blanks with their worst fears. It's just so bizarre to me. It would be like a few years ago having nationally published and televised segments about how Bush eats babies for breakfast. It's just insane to believe some of this stuff but it's still getting traction with "the masses".

Part of it is Obama's fault. He let Congress take leadership for the plan, and Reid and Pelosi are both insiders without much ability either to connect with the public at large or, frankly, with any real demonstrated skill as congressional leaders.

Another big part of it is standard wingnuttery, and a third portion is just garden variety racism about a black guy in the oval office. Facts won't count for anything here. You can make any allegation you want about Obama and those folks will except it as true.

Part of it is Obama's fault. He let Congress take leadership for the plan, and Reid and Pelosi are both insiders without much ability either to connect with the public at large or, frankly, with any real demonstrated skill as congressional leaders.

This, to me, has been Obama's single greatest mis-step since taking office. Had the White House provided more structured leadership on health care reform from the beginning, perhaps even concentrating on providing some wins on all sides, I think we'd be much further along in this debate, nationally.

Actually, from what I understand, they've offered wins to the Republicans at every step, and every time they give a concession, the negotiators demand more. That's been the dynamic and it's obvious that nothing is enough, so they're looking to get enough support to push a bill through regardless of opposition. I don't think the chances are very good.

I have invented something that will change the world. I call it the Isaidwhat-o-tron.

It's a headset that picks up and deciphers your electromagnetic brain waves, in order to play the audio of what you're about to say into your own ear 4 seconds before you're say it, thereby allowing you to hear precisely how bats**t-inasane you're about to sound, and maybe allow you to rethink saying the wingnuttiest things.

Of course, I'd need to have it legally mandated as mandatory, but that should be easy, given that the current administration has sufficient of a facist bent to be considering euthanizing everyone over 60 (apparently).

buzzvang wrote:
Part of it is Obama's fault. He let Congress take leadership for the plan, and Reid and Pelosi are both insiders without much ability either to connect with the public at large or, frankly, with any real demonstrated skill as congressional leaders.

This, to me, has been Obama's single greatest mis-step since taking office. Had the White House provided more structured leadership on health care reform from the beginning, perhaps even concentrating on providing some wins on all sides, I think we'd be much further along in this debate, nationally.

I'm not so sure it would have mattered in a positive way. He made it clear that he was going to let Congress fulfill its constitutional right and duty to write the legislation and debate it in a bipartisan manner. He was not going to throw a fully formed bill and ramrod it through like some Patriot Act or White House Energy Company Giveaway Bill. I think this speaks volumes about his understanding of the constitutional process and separation of powers.

Does Obama even have his Secretary of Health and Human Services confirmed yet? It took so long.. I lost track. Maybe this is part of the reason the Congress has had such a central role in defining and clouding the discussion?

Confirmed on April 28, 2009.

As a Brit living in the US, thing that scares me is all the stories about the British health system that the anti-Obama crowd trot out; sure wish there were charges people could be brought up on for telling half truths ... but then, all the politicians in the world would be in jail

Paleocon wrote:

I'm not so sure it would have mattered in a positive way. He made it clear that he was going to let Congress fulfill its constitutional right and duty to write the legislation and debate it in a bipartisan manner. He was not going to throw a fully formed bill and ramrod it through like some Patriot Act or White House Energy Company Giveaway Bill. I think this speaks volumes about his understanding of the constitutional process and separation of powers.

Exactly. Remember that Bill Clinton took the opposite approach--he sent a basically complete bill to Congress and asked them to rubber-stamp it, and was hugely criticized for doing so.

It's tempting to look at the stalled process and think that Obama must have made some kind of mistake, but that's not necessarily the case. It's possible that Obama played everything right, and health care reform still won't pass. Truman, Nixon, Carter, Clinton--they all tried and failed to overhaul health care. LBJ wanted universal coverage, but was forced to settle for Medicare and Medicaid. Health care is really hard to mess with.

Obama got the AMA and the pharmaceutical companies to sign on, and left the process mostly to Congress, and made certain that not one person would have to give up their current health insurance plan. And it still seems stuck. Maybe his address next week will help to move things forward, but I'm not too optimistic.

They should just run a poll in Canada and England. Ask them if they would trade their health care for our system.

Paleocon wrote:

I think this speaks volumes about his understanding of the constitutional process and separation of powers.

And maybe a naive misunderstanding of the way the American political system actually works. I'm surprised, frankly. He seemed so clever about politics during the campaign.

fangblackbone wrote:

They should just run a poll in Canada and England. Ask them if they would trade their health care for our system.

In fairness, there are a probably many perfectly wonderful things about the US that the Canadians and English would not want to adopt as their own. I like the fact that I can own an AR15, for instance, and am certain that Canadians and Englishmen would be horrified at the prospect.

Plus, the Canadians and Brits aren't paying for a gigantic military and multiple simultaneous wars.

How long did it take England to pay for the Falkland Islands?

Malor wrote:

Plus, the Canadians and Brits aren't paying for a gigantic military and multiple simultaneous wars.

To be fair, I don't think we're doing such a bang-up job of that either.

Malor wrote:

Plus, the Canadians and Brits aren't paying for a gigantic military and multiple simultaneous wars.

Neither are we. It's all someone else's money.

I would like to blame the news networks, but at this point it is like being mad at an incontinent dog. Ideally they would function to convey the bill in understandable terms, but well we are sh*t out of luck to expect that.

I blame the legislator and president for not releasing the plan in more plain terms. And the echo chamber of nonsense.

At this point, if you are not savvy enough to realize this, and go read the proposal yourself, you don't have an opinion you have ignorance.

I like the fact that I can own an AR15, for instance, and am certain that Canadians and Englishmen would be horrified at the prospect.

You can buy an AR15 in Canada. We're limited to five rounds per magazine however and the AR15 is on the restricted list requiring a second tier license, so military grade rifles like the SKS are much more common.

Give or take, you can buy around thirty of the Chinese rifles (parts/resale/z-day/whatever) for the cost of one AR15 as well.

KingGorilla wrote:

I would like to blame the news networks, but at this point it is like being mad at an incontinent dog. Ideally they would function to convey the bill in understandable terms, but well we are sh*t out of luck to expect that.

I blame the legislator and president for not releasing the plan in more plain terms. And the echo chamber of nonsense.

At this point, if you are not savvy enough to realize this, and go read the proposal yourself, you don't have an opinion you have ignorance.

Still counts just as much as a valid opinion to the masses though. That's the scary part.

Paleocon wrote:

He made it clear that he was going to let Congress fulfill its constitutional right and duty to write the legislation and debate it in a bipartisan manner. He was not going to throw a fully formed bill and ramrod it through like some Patriot Act or White House Energy Company Giveaway Bill.

Which alternate Earth Obama are you referring to? There was never any bipartisan debate. He wanted this thing passed prior to the summer recess. Now they are talking reconciliation. Where is the debate? Because they can't ven get their own party to vote for it, they are willing to resort to a 51 vote majority in order to get their way.

When you are listing ramrod bills, don't forget the stimulus bill.

Obama spent a lot of time pursuing the bi-partisan route on healthcare, figuring if he had big pharma and other industry groups on his side he wouldn't be opposed by republicans. It was a stupid move on his part because he was never going to get republicans on his side if he wanted any kind of public option, and without a public option he'd lose support for democrats. So he should have been thinking about 51 votes all along and the politics of making your political opponents looking stupid, greedy, or insane. That is the way big things get done in Washington.

Bush knew this. Why doesn't Obama?

Paleocon wrote:

Yesterday, she was taking a patient history and the patient was going on and on about the "death panels" and how "Obamacare" was going to put them all into gas ovens like the Nazis did. She's a smart woman and actually read HR 3200 and the specific section that Grassley and Palin have quoted and realized that the so called "death panels" were nothing more than doctors interviews for paliative medicine. This infurated her that folks like Grassley and Palin (and large portions of the political Right) should be so willing to destroy access to such a vital part of patient care for the sake of political advantage.

I thought about this and it struck me that this is precisely the philosophy of the suicide bomber. There is zero interest in the benefit to society. They are not interested in participating in good governance. Their single concern is the destruction of political leadership.

The thing I find most fascinating about this whole "death panel" nonsense isn't the people like Palin who go out there and lie for their own benefit. It's the people who swallow it. *All* of them can't be gullible enough to honestly belive it. It's so obviously full of sh*t that it doesn't survive the slightest bit of scrutiny, so they have to actively decieve themselves and deny reality. It's a bit like creationism in that regard, but instead of the obvious benefit that brings -- getting to hold on to a literal belief in the bible -- they get to believe that democrats are nazis, and feel really, really outraged.

It's a strange thing, that being just furious with someone can be that appealing.

Paleocon wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

They should just run a poll in Canada and England. Ask them if they would trade their health care for our system.

In fairness, there are a probably many perfectly wonderful things about the US that the Canadians and English would not want to adopt as their own. I like the fact that I can own an AR15, for instance, and am certain that Canadians and Englishmen would be horrified at the prospect.

Indeed.

My American wife hated the NHS, because she wasn't in control of what treatments she received and when.

My English self hates the healthcare system here in the US because I have no way of knowing what my medical costs are going to be a year from now.

And while horrified is a bit on the strong side of how I feel about owning assault weapons. Mystified is a bit closer - I see it like owning a tank. Sure it's kind of cool, but I've never found myself remotely close to a situation that would have been made better had I had a tank.

Jonman wrote:

Indeed.

My American wife hated the NHS, because she wasn't in control of what treatments she received and when.

My English self hates the healthcare system here in the US because I have no way of knowing what my medical costs are going to be a year from now.

And while horrified is a bit on the strong side of how I feel about owning assault weapons. Mystified is a bit closer - I see it like owning a tank. Sure it's kind of cool, but I've never found myself remotely close to a situation that would have been made better had I had a tank.

As a Korean American, I can think of one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Ang...

Jonman wrote:

And while horrified is a bit on the strong side of how I feel about owning assault weapons. Mystified is a bit closer - I see it like owning a tank. Sure it's kind of cool, but I've never found myself remotely close to a situation that would have been made better had I had a tank.

You've never parked at the mall around Christmas time then?

LilCodger wrote:
Jonman wrote:

And while horrified is a bit on the strong side of how I feel about owning assault weapons. Mystified is a bit closer - I see it like owning a tank. Sure it's kind of cool, but I've never found myself remotely close to a situation that would have been made better had I had a tank.

You've never parked at the mall around Christmas time then?

Interesting enough, my metaphor works here too. I imagine brandishing an AR-15 would help you find an available parking space.

Jonman wrote:
LilCodger wrote:
Jonman wrote:

And while horrified is a bit on the strong side of how I feel about owning assault weapons. Mystified is a bit closer - I see it like owning a tank. Sure it's kind of cool, but I've never found myself remotely close to a situation that would have been made better had I had a tank.

You've never parked at the mall around Christmas time then?

Interesting enough, my metaphor works here too. I imagine brandishing an AR-15 would help you find an available parking space. :)

Perhaps not, but it very well might get a hooded klansman to get back in his pickup truck and drive away before setting fire to your house.

Pages