It’s Saturday, Sept. 19, and this is SJI’s open forum—the last of the summer of ‘09. What’s on your mind?
51 Comments
Congressman Honda embarrassed San Jose last week when he issued a series of racially-charged accusations at the minority white residents of San Jose calling them “morally inept” on health care legislation and accusing them of opposing health care legislation on racial grounds, specifically claiming that the opposition was coming from the fact that President Obama is black.
This is bizarre given the overwhelming support for Obama’s election by white San Joseans in 2008. It’s like Assembly Member Fong’s willingness to label a city manager of San Jose with “white boy.” What’s going on here?
On Tuesday, both California Senators voted to suspend funding to ACORN in HUD and Transportation budgets. The amendment was adopted in the US Senate.
But on Friday, Congress Member Mike Honda voted against an amendment to the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act that would deny federal funds to ACORN. Notwithstanding Honda’s vote, the amendment was adopted in the House of Representatives.
It’s laways fascinating to hear lefties calling other folks racist if they disagree with that persons iew on AN ISSUE.
But Pres. Obama himself put this bogus claim that racism dominates the health care debate the other night when he said “First of all, I think it’s important to realize that I was actually black before the election,” Obama said to huge laughs from Letterman and the audience.
Voters in New York City have sent a blow to the careers of Phil Bump, who escaped to France, and Justin Schall, SAN JOSE’S POLITICAL PLUMBERS.
Bump and Schall went from Bumpgate, the money laundering and campaign scandal of the summer, to working for Gioia for Public Advocate in New York. Voters hearing of the work of the two “Segretti” twins, voted for reform and Gioia lost to Mark Green and Bill del Blasio. Bump and Schall now are the toxic duo to any campaign,
I haven’t posted or read in a long time, but I was surpised that no one seemed to comment on Ron Gonzales’ appointment as CEO of the Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley.
I’m supportive of the mission of this organization, but I will never contribute directly or indirectly now that they have hired Gonzales.
To be effective as a fund raiser you have to be liked and respected. I have seen Gonzales operate first hand and he is despotic and vindictive. Not a nice guy by any means.
There are a lot of people who really, really dislike Ron Gonzales. Choosing such a polarizing figure was a big mistake by the Foundation Board.
I’m assuming this was a way to throw some money in Ron’s direction. Did his companies Presencia Technology and Presencia LLC ever have any real clients?
Second acts occur regularly in politics, but generally people go through some kind of repentance. I’ve never seen any sign of that from Gonzales.
Very disappointing that he is still representing the movers and shakers in the Hispanic community.
When the announcement was first made, there were those on this site who voiced their strong opposition. I, and others I know, will also never contribute to this organization as long as Gonzales is at the helm. Why any organization would put this guy at the top is simply incomprehensible.
As you state, he has never shown the slightest inclination towards repentance or apologizing for the many lives he ruined and the City he nearly destroyed.
If I were on the Board of this group I’d be holding onto my wallet and looking over my shoulder all the time. This is a guy who only knows vendetta-driven politics. Hardly the kind of message most non-profits want to send to their potential donors.
Um, did either of you ever contribute to the Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley before Gonzales was on the scene? Would either of you have considered contributing going forward? My guess is no. It’s really meaningless to hear non-contributors say that the current leadership will prevent them from contributing.
I’ve contributed in the past and I like to support local charities.
Also, many times people will attend social events where a portion of the proceeds benefit local charities (that’s what my comment about indirect support referenced.)
I won’t give money to, or attend events that benefit, the Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley. And I know a lot of people who feel exactly the same way. There are many distinguished and respected Hispanics in Santa Clara County. Why didn’t the Foundatin Board select one of them?
Racial politics is a funny thing. I think this has come up a few time for supreme court nominees where it was made clear that “someone who looks like me will understand me better…” and that kind of stuff. So a woman can better understand woman, a latino can better understand latinos, etc. Given this, even a tainted politician of color is preferable for race voters who want to feel a connection to their representative on this (superficial or real?) basis will get these votes. I think we’ve also seen this in some blighted areas like DC or the new south where a convicted official is still re-elected over the non-racially identifiable alternative candidate.
It is what it is, so don’t complain to me if people in the community that subscribe to this thinking get the less than stellar representation.
I actually worked at one time for one of Gonzales opponents when he first ran for mayor because having read all about Sunnyvale I thought he came from a nice background, but not San Jose, and so it was dishonest to import leadership just because he showed good on TV and had all the right supporters. I don’t think, however, that he’s any worse than any of our current mini-mayors representing San Jose in piecemeal fashion from their little fiefdoms ruled from the top floor of city hall where the same gaggles of moneyed folks show up and pop in for chats about projects that create private wealth for individuals and increase public debt for the future as short-sighting planning decisions create more demand for city services (housing) without concurrent revenue creation (job/business).
I’ve also seen plenty of bad decisions made by elected and unelected folks in the city establishment and good old DA George Kennedy didn’t even bat an eye while they played the money for projects game (even buying up land under wives names once they found out where the next redevelopment projects were going to be and then selling at a huge profit.) I think Gonzales did a good job with a number of projects including library and community center bond projects that added fairness to the previously downtown-centric redevelopment efforts, and I don’t believe in unpardonable sins, even in politcs. His errors were not for personal profit, and he was trying to serve his political allies (labor) by fulfilling promises made to a core constituency about the kind of jobs to be created by some new garbage contract. If you want to talk about dirty money, take a look at all the other municipal rackets like cable tv franchises, but white collar business doesn’t make for good scandals.
Isn’t it funny how, in the wake of violence and property destruction of the most mindless sort by mobs of young people, liberals like Mike “Did I Tell You I Was Interned” Honda will immediately get to work on identifying and addressing the allegedly complex issues underlying the riot, but when faced with a conservative crowd that is blatantly clear about the source of its outrage, these same liberals will not only refuse to address their concerns, but will arrogantly brand it them as really behind something else—something sinister and disreputable, like racism.
So is this the new rule, Mr. Honda? From this moment on will it be racist for whites to oppose Obama’s policies in Afghanistan and Iraq? Will whites who dare object to the president’s policies on taxes, immigration, or education be doomed to don the white hoods and robes in which you Democrats are so eager to dress your enemies? For someone who has built a career having been deprived of your rights decades ago by FDR, you seem to have no qualms about denying rights today. And let’s not kid ourselves: in politically correct America, the risk of being accused of racism is enough to shut up almost anyone.
Here’s a question for the congressman: Had a group of citizens showed-up at a town hall meeting during WWII to protest FDR’s decision to intern Japanese-Americans, would you have treated them to a fair hearing of their complaints, or would you have instead refused to hear them and accused them of being something that was, at the outbreak of the war, as career-ruining and socially unacceptable as is being branded a racist today? Would you? Would you have done then to the good people of the war era as you are doing to the good people of today? Think about it. Would you have really opened up your big, stupid mouth and called them Jap-lovers?
Congratulations! No matter how well you try and make your argument you always sink to the depths of racial and ethnic attacks. And if that were not enough, you go on to use a word as offensive as the N-word.
I know you can’t be ashamed of yourself, as your previous posts show you are not capable of shame, but in a civilized society there is no place for your ongoing hate-filled diatribes. Reasonable people can and should disagree, but when they stoop to the level that you do, it is clear that reasonable has left the building.
BTW – I’m white and I disagree with Obama about Afghanistan—have a field day.
Congratulations! No matter that my use of an offensive word was essential to my point, that being that when Mike Honda throws around today’s shut-up word he mimics the behavior of those who once cheered his own internment, you still managed to react with shock and ah as expected of a member of the psychologically fragile, neutered masses populating this increasingly weak and pathetic nation.
My it must be a blessing to be stupid—to be too dense to realize exactly how un-American it is to give an elected official the freedom to unfairly slander the people he serves. Mike Honda considers himself to be a champion of civil rights. He’s not. He’s a tired, uninspiring actor, spouting lines that were scripted by hacks specializing in political porn. A public servant who believes in the rights of his fellow men does not recklessly disparage those exercising them; he does not ignore their concerns only to malign their character; he does not do what Mike Honda did.
Just weeks after the president recklessly insulted the Cambridge police department—demonstrating the shallow depths of his own cognitive well, along comes Mr Honda and the rest of the legislative stooges insulting citizens opposed to the health care plan. One can only wonder who is next on their insult list. Maybe you’re looking forward to people like me being officially labeled Nazis. I’m sure Barbara Boxer has it in her. I guess if you have half a brain it can be fun living under a regime that explains its policies as would Professor Irwin Corey, and treats its adversaries the way Don Rickles does his audience. Under Obama and Nancy it’s almost as if the circus came to town.
Note the SJI advertisement that is in the left column of the screen this week.
It’s from Sutter Health asking – “Looking for a doctor within 5 miles of your home…who specialized in …?” The ad links to Sutter’s thedoctorforyou.com website.
I find this ironic since Sutter is everywhere in the Bay Area EXCEPT San Jose. If you go to the website and enter zip code 95112 there are 9 doctors listed. Try a zip code from Mountain View or Fremont or Santa Cruz and you’ll have hundreds of choices.
We need more healthcare delivery and service options in San Jose. If San Jose is to tout itself as a major City, then re-establishing a downtown hospital and attracting large scale clinics is as important as any other economic or community development effort.
Not that there’s much room for facts in this discussion, but for those who don’t have an agenda here the actual Politico.com quote from Re, Honda that is being discussed, and misrepresented, here:
“There’s a very angry, small group of folks that just didn’t like the fact that Barack Obama won the presidency,” Honda said, adding: “With some, I think it is [about race].
I guess if Honda is wrong it means we have vanquished racism from our society and there is no “small group” who oppose Obama based on race.
“There is a very angry, small group of folks” —correct, though some might argue about it being a small group
“that just didn’t like the fact that Barrack Obama won the presidency” —imagine that… election results that don’t please everyone (this is Mike Honda at his analytical best)
“With some, I think it is [about race]” —that innocuous little “some” should be seen for what it is: a broad brush of political expediency
That the congressman has learned to tread softly when stepping out-of-bounds does not change the fact that he did. And let’s not confuse this quotation as an isolated observation by a fair-minded politician caught in a moment of candor. Honda’s comment was scripted, part of a larger effort by Obama supporters to de-legitimize the opposition by:
a) branding them as racists (Jimmy Carter, Mike Honda, Maureen O’Dowd)
b) dismissing the participants individually, as did Nancy Pelosi, as unpatriotic and phony, before declaring them collectively as “Astro-turf” (orchestrated grassroots activism)
c) insinuating that they might, with their rhetoric, provoke Moscone/Milk-like violence (Pelosi again)
d) claiming that “swastikas and symbols like that” were being carried into town hall meetings (Pelosi transposing sex fantasy and reality)
e) accusing them of “brown-shirt tactics” (Congressman Baird)
f) calling them “rabid people” (Congressman Hoyer)
g) insultingly attributing the basis of the opposition to fear of change (Obama)
If Mike Honda thinks it’s okay to use the media to slander the Americans he serves, then I suggest he try doing it at a town hall meeting, where, according to his own analysis, there are bound to be evil racists for him to identify using his evidence. Let Mr Honda put his convictions to the test, as you would expect any real leader to do.
Honda puts his convictions to the test every two years. What do you do except snipe from behind the cover of your slimy keyboard? You add nothing of substance to the discussion. Any chance you could provide something of substance? Something other than your usual nasty attacks would be refreshing but I won’t hold my breath. Your specialty seems to be slash and burn and hide. Have a nice night.
All,
Would Honda have made this same statement if Obama were white? Even Obama himself said he doesn’t think opposition to this health care proposal is based on his race, so what’s going on? Did everyone forget the hell the Clintons went through when they tried to pass something similar to this when he was President?
Not surprisingly there seems to be quite a lot being read into Honda’s statement. I guess nothing is taken at face value anymore. But maybe there are times, and maybe this is one of them, when people should be given the benefit of the doubt. Even politicians. Or have we become so cynical that we cannot believe anything anyone says?
finfan: I have a different interpretation. “Some” means just what he said, parts of the whole. Clearly Honda like many Americans has seen the racism that, lets face it, has been shown by fringe elements in the health care debate. He clearly attributes this racism to, again quoting “a very angry, small group.”
Mr. Galt: 2 quick points: 1) I always find it a little unfair when people, in effect, say “Here’s what he shoulda said…” and then attribute meaning to the non-statement. 2) You’re turning to Jon Edwards to bolster your point? That’s a surprise.
Reader,
You make some very good points. Myself personally, I’m sick and tired of race being the key issue in just about everything. I think being brought up color blind has been a blessing for me because I honestly don’t vote, look at, or consider race as a factor in my choices. I look at the person, their actions, and their accomplishments.
Since Obama is bi-racial, I can understand him saying he doesn’t think this opposition is about race. I guess he like me chooses to see the world filled with human beings, not races. We all bleed red, we all feel the same feelings, and we all walk around in the same structure called a body. Too bad the color of our skin means more to “some” than the content of our character.
Ha. I knew something didn’t sound right about that name when I wrote it.
You’re right, Reader. You probably won’t hear me using Jon Edwards to bolster any arguments unless it has to do with what sort of hairspray is best.
I hate to upset your apparently unique sense of reality, but exactly what else, on a mere blog, might one do other than to upload words typed on a keyboard? Even were I able to leap tall buildings at a single bound, how might I credibly convey that on SJI?
And by the way, do you chastise telephone callers for doing nothing but talking?
Okay, so you hate me. Fine. But rather than make false accusations to soothe your feelings you might consider launching a counter-attack that would send me, and the opinions you find so objectionable, running for cover. C’mon, kick my ass. Bring forward your troops, flank my position, and pound me with your artillery.
I am aware, of course, of the likelihood that you lack the necessities for such a counter, but that’s your fault for joining an outfit whose troops only huddle and hug, and whose cannons blow only smoke.
You claim I submitted nothing of substance. You’re wrong. My original point, inspired as it was by Ms. Ramon’s comment, was that the Pelosi army, under which Mike Honda serves, was abusing its power with its campaign of reckless slander. I went so far as to list the evidence, apparently to no avail. I considered my post, as I do with most, a form of challenge to those who believe differently. But, as usual, all I got in response were insults—from those who obviously find nothing objectionable in Ms Pelosi’s cheap, unconvincing, nasty tactics.
Lastly, to demonstrate exactly how off base Mike Honda was with his stupid, insulting remark, this, from Bill Clinton, no doubt trying to undo the damage of the Pelosi strategy:
“If he were not an African-American, all of the people who were against him on health care would still be against him. They were against me, too,”
Note that Mr Clinton, known for his exacting, lawyerly use of language, very specifically said “all of the people,” not some, not most, not anything short of the only thing that can rightfully be concluded from the town hall meetings, that being that these angry folks are opposed to a policy—not a people.
Yes, the same folks who are bigoted are also opposed to helping the less fortunate have health insurance or help make it affordable for small business. That doesn’t change the fact that a fraction of those who are opposing Obama are putting forth racist rhetoric and ratcheting their opposition up a notch because of his race. But I don’t doubt that the same people would oppose the policies if they were proposed by a white president because party loyalty trumps all. I just believe that a smaller number would be coming to the town halls and fewer would be engaged because it is the race of the president that motivates them to be more vocal about their opposition.
I hope you’re holding the Politico columnist who wrote the story to the same high journalistic standards that you hold the humble bloggers to here on SJI.
It’s pretty obvious that Jonathan Edwards felt that Honda’s remark substantiated his story about how prominent Democrats are trying to portray those opposed to Obama’s policies as being motivated by racism. I may not be as sublimely fair and non-judgmental as you, Reader, but I happen to think that Edwards was right.
After all, there’s a reason why Honda DIDN’T say, “of course there will always be some racists, but the vast majority of those who are opposed to current healthcare reform efforts are good, conscientous people who simply disagree with the President.”
What Honda said was nothing like that, was it.
No, Honda didn’t say that, but what he said was true. The language being used by those who are leading the opposition is veiled racism. “I want my country back.” From whom? “This isn’t the America I know.” Why, because the leaders look different? Those are not statements of policy disagreement. I believe if it weren’t for veiled racism, the opposition to progress in America wouldn’t be so motivated and would be much more muted.
Sure, there would always be opposition, as there should be. But the level of rhetoric we are seeing (and the toting of guns to town hall meetings) is not typical policy disagreement.
But I don’t think we will agree on this. It is clear those on this site who are reflexively opposed to anything that Obama supports are not going to recognize where much of the opposition is coming from.
I think we must look closer at classism, as opposed to racism. Classism is more of an issue when it comes to this type of policy. You can’t discount party politics, or paid crap disturbers either. This is a political issue more than anything.
I fully agree, this isn’t the same country it once was. The poor and working class are getting the crap kicked and taxed out of them. Small business owners are early extinct! Things are far from what they were when I grew up, during the ice age. I feel sorry for our youth!
Somehow the debate got defocused. It shouldn’t be about the cost of health insurance (never mind the overhead & “evil” profit levels). It should be about the cost of health care, and how we provide adequate access to health care for all.
I posit that Medicaid/Medicare help provide health care for those who otherwise couldn’t afford it, and emergency room care for those in need.
We need more transparency in the cost of medical care, so that consumers can make informed choices. Can someone point to the language in any of the “reform” bills floating around that addresses that?
Pat, you nailed it. The real solution is to expand Medicare to those who need coverage. Simple. The result would be fewer uninsured, better health outcomes and lower overall costs.
Folks like FinFan still don’t get it. This isn’t about paying for those less fortunate out of our tax dollars (we already do that through our higher premiums in order to pay for the uninsured who show up at emergency rooms and can’t pay their bills). This ultimately will REDUCE our costs and boost our economy.
I still don’t understand why we are so hung up on upfront costs. No Republican in Congress ever publicly wondered how we would pay for wars in Iraq and Afganistan because they thought they were the right thing to do. In this case, they are blocking the right thing to do over disputes of costs, when the intent is to reduce costs for everyone, which will happen if health care reform is done right.
Though you’ve convinced yourself that you “get it,” I have to wonder given that you failed so miserably in comprehending what I’ve posted here. What I’ve written about is really two things: the first, the right of the town hall protesters to have their point-of-view heard, and second, the unacceptable conduct of the likes of Pelosi, Honda, and the president himself, in choosing slander as the strategy for dealing with their opponents. When people standby and let this kind of thing happen, allow a segment of population be insulted by their elected servants to a degree they would not inflict on our nation’s enemies, they demonstrate their own weakness—as they weaken the rights of every citizen.
As for my views on health care or any other of our alleged entitlements, I’m not inclined to participate in a debate about providing anything for the nation’s “deserving” when that debate intentionally ignores the presence here of tens of millions of trespassers who are “deserving” of nothing. I’ll leave the politics of delusion to the rest of you.
When it comes to the real costs of providing health care to the uninsured, whether it’s for the bums arriving at our hospitals by ambulance or the illegals walking in by the millions, I’m under no delusions—I’ve seen it firsthand. But my particular knowledge, or yours, has nothing to do with what I’ve been posting about, which is the outrageous conduct of our elected officials—and the defense of it by people blogging here. After all this reaction, and all the defense offered for the slanderers, I’m still waiting for someone to justify the slander itself.
You say “opposed to helping the less fortunate have health insurance”… what does “helping” mean? Does it mean the same as “helping” the less fortunate have a place to live, a monthly check on which to survive, food stamps for groceries, free meals at school, free criminal defense, and free on-demand medical treatment?
If so, then the correct word isn’t “helping,” it’s paying. These taxpayers you so rudely brand as bigots are opposed to paying for health insurance for the less fortunate. Apparently you not only think they should pay for it, but don’t believe they have a legitimate right to a differing opinion.
My goodness, you compassionate folks certainly have a nasty side. If you get any more compassionate you just might try to get the likes of me jailed.
You say you “believe” that fewer opponents would be showing up at these town hall meetings were the president a white man. That, sir, is a powerful argument. What else do you believe… Scientology? Santeria? The power of the Force? (I’m taking notes.)
Please notice that when I respond to a comment I address the substance of the comment. I don’t accuse the author of writing one thing and believing another. I may not agree with or respect someone’s position on an issue, but I certainly accept it on face value as genuine. Why is it that the Democratic Party, and so many of you here (who post under ever-changing pseudonyms), refuse to do that with the citizens protesting at the town hall meetings? Are you so afraid of a no-holds-barred examination of the issues—the real costs and pitfalls, that rather than engage in an honest debate you commit yourselves to Nancy Pelosi’s filthy little campaign?
Lastly, is you pseudonym “Opposition” because you are opposed to allowing the town hall folks to exercise their legitimate First Amendment rights?
good one, ff. so you don’t want to “pay” for less fortunate folks to have health care. who do you think is already paying for this under our current broken system? you and me, that’s who. why wouldn’t you at least want to pay less than you are now under a system that insures everyone? if you don’t want to pay anything to assist the less fortunate then i feel as sorry for you as those who cannot afford adequate health care.
regarding your folks who attend the town hall meetings because they oppose health care—sure, there are those who have legitimate concerns and they should express those concerns. the discussion on this blog primarily is focused on those who clearly have a bigoted edge to their argument. they aren’t a majority but they are the loudest. being loud does not equate with being right or anything else. you, and others, like to try and ignore these uninformed mouth-pieces for the extreme right and fold them into the mainstream. they are no more mainstream than any extremist ideas, but the fact you don’t condemn their tactics and their vile rhetoric speaks louder than they do.
The wise voices are all in agreement. “It’s simple. Just expand Medicare to include the uninsured”, they say.
Bernie Madoff, the ultimate authority on pyramid schemes like Medicare, would advise against it. Adding more people to the top of the pyramid is never a good idea, especially one that’s already beginning to crumble.
It’s understandable that people are under the illusion that Medicare is a perfect perpetual motion machine of medicine. After all, we only ever hear about it from those at the top who are quite chuffed about being awarded their bonus payouts. “It’s a wonderful system!”, they exclaim. Those lower down have no idea just how much they’re paying in order to support the relatively small apex above them but try piling on 45 million freeloaders up there and they’ll find out real quick. Suddenly, the designers of this system would be exposed as the con artists that they are.
Most sensible people agree that flimflam men like Madoff deserve to be sent to prison. It would be a shame to see our President and 2/3 of our Congressional representatives being hauled off to the Graybar Hotel.
If you are opposed to Medicare, that’s fine. I believe you are and you are consistent about it. The problem is that those who are fighting the President’s plan to overhaul health care are NOT opposed to Medicare. We hear things like “government hands off my Medicare.”
There was a proposal in Congress this summer to eliminate Medicare to get Republicans on the record as to where they stand. Either they oppose a government run health care plan or not. Not a single Republican voted to cut Medicare. They all support it. Is that because it is working? Or because they don’t want to stand up to seniors who benefit from it? Either way, it exposes the hypocrisy on health care reform. They publicly support Medicare and say it is working, but are unwilling to expand the working program to benefit more of our citizens.
David, I don’t understand how expanding coverage will “reduce overall costs.”
I can think of only two ways to reduce overall costs: reduce the number of participants, or reduce the cost per participant. Other than wishful thinking about reducing Medicare “waste,” the geniuses in control in D.C. have offered neither…
You have it backward. Increasing coverage by making sure that the healthy young folks who don’t buy insurance, do buy it, increases the pool. Insurance is about pooled risk. Bringing folks into the pool reduces the cost for those of us who are insured, because we currently pay the cost for everyone else. As the number of insured rises, the number paying increases, as does the number receiving health care.
The second reason is that people with insurance get care sooner, meaning that their health care is cheaper. Emergency room visits are more expensive than preventive care, which would reduce the number of emergency room visits.
There is a reason that we pay more per capita for health care in the US than anywhere else in the developed world and yet our outcomes are only 37th best, according to reputable rankings.
Let me see. If I understand Nancy Pelosi, Jimmy Carter, and the fairminded and reasonable lefties on this site correctly, it’s ok for me to quietly and calmly disagree with the President, but the moment I express any anger or get loud, my opinion shall automatically be rejected because by definition I must be a racist.
This hope and change crap gets better every day.
You can’t possibly be as dense as you pretend to be. Can you? Of course, that is not what has been said on this site and you know it. Civil discussion and disagreement is fine. Even loud civil discussion and disagreement, although less effective, is fine. When the argument reaches the level of comparing the President to Hitler or a socialist regime or other levels of insanity, then it’s time to call these folks what they are. Nuts! Go ahead and keep defending them. I guess you want to be a member of their club for some reason.
-30-
I’m not dense. It’s possible though, that I’m being a little hyperbolic- but only a little.
You lefties keep lowering the bar in the extremist high jump. It’s gotten to where it’s pretty easy to step over it without even noticing. If calling Obama’s presidency a socialist regime is all it takes to be considered a nut then I and about 100 million other Americans are a diverse group of filberts, almonds, and cashews.
Maybe the problem is that we speak different languages. I’m fluent in English but I can barely speak a sort of broken PC and I don’t understand it at all. Here’s the English definition of socialism.
socialism; any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and the distribution of goods.
That’s the English definition. What’s the PC definition? Hmmm?
If you guys want to argue that more socialism is a good thing, that’s fine. At least I’d know you were debating in good faith. But to condemn and vilify your opponents for calling a feathered, webfooted, aquatic bird that swims like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, a duck, makes you guys appear to us nuts to be sleazy, manipulative used car salesmen who are trying their best to hoodwink us into buying a lemon.
I don’t think the problem folks are those calling Obama a socialist (although I quibble with the idea that any of Obama’s policies truly are socialism). The crazy ones are those calling him a Nazi or fascist – those with pictures of Obama with Hitler mustaches. Those claiming that there would be death panels. Those who are now starting to believe that Obama is building concentration camps. And the weirdest of all are those who call Obama communist and fascist at the same time.
Name Calling,
You raise an excellent point. Sadly, we seem to live in a world where stereotypes, misinformation, and labels are put on people out of fear and sheer ignorance. I have never understood why things have to erode to this level. Why can’t we have civil conversations based on facts and ideas?
We can disagree on the basics but we really don’t need to resort to making things personal. This site reflects a lot of what people do out in the real world, and honestly it saddens me. We have so many intelligent people commenting and for some reason it goes down hill into personal attacks. Same thing is going on in the media and with our leaders. Some of the things I hear coming out of the mouths of Congressmen/women, Senators, and read and see in the media etc. is just mind-boggling! And our youth are supposed to respect us? I don’t think so~
So, David, what you are saying is that we should impose a tax on our young people to make insurance cost less for those who currently have it? Aren’t we already stealing enough from them?
I agree with your point on early treatment being more cost effective, but I somehow doubt that merely having insurance is going to encourage people to take better care of themselves.
Is spending more per capita on health care inherently wrong? I don’t think so, I believe it is a sign of prosperity. We are, after all a very wealthy nation. We also are among the highest per capita consumers of energy, vehicle miles of travel, computers and food per capita. These are not necessarily bad things.
Can health care be more affordable. Absolutely! But increasing government intrusion into our health care system will not solve our problems. Remember, the government already pays for almost 1/2 of all health care in the U.S.
Spending more per capita on health care is wrong if it prices people out of the health care market. More home foreclosures and bankruptcies are due to health care spending than any other cause. It is unconscionable that anyone would be forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket when they have a health emergency. I continue to hear no suggestions to solve that problem from people who oppose changing the system.
Pat, I should also respond to your comment that requiring young “healthy” people to be insured is imposing a “tax.” The point is that young people who seem healthy get sick or injured and end up once again having their care paid for by the rest of us. We need to pool ALL the risk in order to reduce the costs.
Note that my discussions have been about whether or not we need to fix the system in order to insure those who for one reason or another don’t have insurance. I haven’t once mentioned the public option. While I happen to believe that is the best way to make sure costs are contained, my postings were a response to FinFan’s statements that he isn’t interested in making sure the unfortunate amongst us deserve our help to make sure they have health care.
David, do not confuse opposition to additional government intrusion into our health care system as opposing changing the system. This is not a case of “my way or the highway.” Something this important deserves a considered debate to find the appropriate solution.
Many people opposed to the “public option” propose leveling the playing field by allowing credits or deductions for the purchase of private insurance, allowing competition across state lines, reducing mandated coverage (do we really need to make insurers provide hair pieces?) and improving the transparency of medical cost information.
Those are all good and valid proposals that proponents of a “public option” dismiss out of hand.
Congressman Honda embarrassed San Jose last week when he issued a series of racially-charged accusations at the minority white residents of San Jose calling them “morally inept” on health care legislation and accusing them of opposing health care legislation on racial grounds, specifically claiming that the opposition was coming from the fact that President Obama is black.
This is bizarre given the overwhelming support for Obama’s election by white San Joseans in 2008. It’s like Assembly Member Fong’s willingness to label a city manager of San Jose with “white boy.” What’s going on here?
On Tuesday, both California Senators voted to suspend funding to ACORN in HUD and Transportation budgets. The amendment was adopted in the US Senate.
But on Friday, Congress Member Mike Honda voted against an amendment to the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act that would deny federal funds to ACORN. Notwithstanding Honda’s vote, the amendment was adopted in the House of Representatives.
What’s going on?
Based on your previous misrepresentation of Honda’s comments, I’ll get my news from a source other than you.
WOW, larger fields to write in. An improvement.
It’s laways fascinating to hear lefties calling other folks racist if they disagree with that persons iew on AN ISSUE.
But Pres. Obama himself put this bogus claim that racism dominates the health care debate the other night when he said “First of all, I think it’s important to realize that I was actually black before the election,” Obama said to huge laughs from Letterman and the audience.
Voters in New York City have sent a blow to the careers of Phil Bump, who escaped to France, and Justin Schall, SAN JOSE’S POLITICAL PLUMBERS.
Bump and Schall went from Bumpgate, the money laundering and campaign scandal of the summer, to working for Gioia for Public Advocate in New York. Voters hearing of the work of the two “Segretti” twins, voted for reform and Gioia lost to Mark Green and Bill del Blasio. Bump and Schall now are the toxic duo to any campaign,
I haven’t posted or read in a long time, but I was surpised that no one seemed to comment on Ron Gonzales’ appointment as CEO of the Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley.
I’m supportive of the mission of this organization, but I will never contribute directly or indirectly now that they have hired Gonzales.
To be effective as a fund raiser you have to be liked and respected. I have seen Gonzales operate first hand and he is despotic and vindictive. Not a nice guy by any means.
There are a lot of people who really, really dislike Ron Gonzales. Choosing such a polarizing figure was a big mistake by the Foundation Board.
I’m assuming this was a way to throw some money in Ron’s direction. Did his companies Presencia Technology and Presencia LLC ever have any real clients?
Second acts occur regularly in politics, but generally people go through some kind of repentance. I’ve never seen any sign of that from Gonzales.
Very disappointing that he is still representing the movers and shakers in the Hispanic community.
When the announcement was first made, there were those on this site who voiced their strong opposition. I, and others I know, will also never contribute to this organization as long as Gonzales is at the helm. Why any organization would put this guy at the top is simply incomprehensible.
As you state, he has never shown the slightest inclination towards repentance or apologizing for the many lives he ruined and the City he nearly destroyed.
If I were on the Board of this group I’d be holding onto my wallet and looking over my shoulder all the time. This is a guy who only knows vendetta-driven politics. Hardly the kind of message most non-profits want to send to their potential donors.
Um, did either of you ever contribute to the Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley before Gonzales was on the scene? Would either of you have considered contributing going forward? My guess is no. It’s really meaningless to hear non-contributors say that the current leadership will prevent them from contributing.
I did and would have again. Same goes for several friends. Thanks for guessing, though.
I’ve contributed in the past and I like to support local charities.
Also, many times people will attend social events where a portion of the proceeds benefit local charities (that’s what my comment about indirect support referenced.)
I won’t give money to, or attend events that benefit, the Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley. And I know a lot of people who feel exactly the same way. There are many distinguished and respected Hispanics in Santa Clara County. Why didn’t the Foundatin Board select one of them?
Racial politics is a funny thing. I think this has come up a few time for supreme court nominees where it was made clear that “someone who looks like me will understand me better…” and that kind of stuff. So a woman can better understand woman, a latino can better understand latinos, etc. Given this, even a tainted politician of color is preferable for race voters who want to feel a connection to their representative on this (superficial or real?) basis will get these votes. I think we’ve also seen this in some blighted areas like DC or the new south where a convicted official is still re-elected over the non-racially identifiable alternative candidate.
It is what it is, so don’t complain to me if people in the community that subscribe to this thinking get the less than stellar representation.
I actually worked at one time for one of Gonzales opponents when he first ran for mayor because having read all about Sunnyvale I thought he came from a nice background, but not San Jose, and so it was dishonest to import leadership just because he showed good on TV and had all the right supporters. I don’t think, however, that he’s any worse than any of our current mini-mayors representing San Jose in piecemeal fashion from their little fiefdoms ruled from the top floor of city hall where the same gaggles of moneyed folks show up and pop in for chats about projects that create private wealth for individuals and increase public debt for the future as short-sighting planning decisions create more demand for city services (housing) without concurrent revenue creation (job/business).
I’ve also seen plenty of bad decisions made by elected and unelected folks in the city establishment and good old DA George Kennedy didn’t even bat an eye while they played the money for projects game (even buying up land under wives names once they found out where the next redevelopment projects were going to be and then selling at a huge profit.) I think Gonzales did a good job with a number of projects including library and community center bond projects that added fairness to the previously downtown-centric redevelopment efforts, and I don’t believe in unpardonable sins, even in politcs. His errors were not for personal profit, and he was trying to serve his political allies (labor) by fulfilling promises made to a core constituency about the kind of jobs to be created by some new garbage contract. If you want to talk about dirty money, take a look at all the other municipal rackets like cable tv franchises, but white collar business doesn’t make for good scandals.
Isn’t it funny how, in the wake of violence and property destruction of the most mindless sort by mobs of young people, liberals like Mike “Did I Tell You I Was Interned” Honda will immediately get to work on identifying and addressing the allegedly complex issues underlying the riot, but when faced with a conservative crowd that is blatantly clear about the source of its outrage, these same liberals will not only refuse to address their concerns, but will arrogantly brand it them as really behind something else—something sinister and disreputable, like racism.
So is this the new rule, Mr. Honda? From this moment on will it be racist for whites to oppose Obama’s policies in Afghanistan and Iraq? Will whites who dare object to the president’s policies on taxes, immigration, or education be doomed to don the white hoods and robes in which you Democrats are so eager to dress your enemies? For someone who has built a career having been deprived of your rights decades ago by FDR, you seem to have no qualms about denying rights today. And let’s not kid ourselves: in politically correct America, the risk of being accused of racism is enough to shut up almost anyone.
Here’s a question for the congressman: Had a group of citizens showed-up at a town hall meeting during WWII to protest FDR’s decision to intern Japanese-Americans, would you have treated them to a fair hearing of their complaints, or would you have instead refused to hear them and accused them of being something that was, at the outbreak of the war, as career-ruining and socially unacceptable as is being branded a racist today? Would you? Would you have done then to the good people of the war era as you are doing to the good people of today? Think about it. Would you have really opened up your big, stupid mouth and called them Jap-lovers?
Congratulations! No matter how well you try and make your argument you always sink to the depths of racial and ethnic attacks. And if that were not enough, you go on to use a word as offensive as the N-word.
I know you can’t be ashamed of yourself, as your previous posts show you are not capable of shame, but in a civilized society there is no place for your ongoing hate-filled diatribes. Reasonable people can and should disagree, but when they stoop to the level that you do, it is clear that reasonable has left the building.
BTW – I’m white and I disagree with Obama about Afghanistan—have a field day.
Perhaps some day, the “progressives” will understand that being called “racist” is just as offensive as being called “jap”.
Mike Honda’s not there yet. Sounds like you’re not either, NFoFF. Keep “progressing” though.
You’ll get here.
What is finfan talking about now? What channel shows the fantasy world this guy inhabits?
No Fan,
Congratulations! No matter that my use of an offensive word was essential to my point, that being that when Mike Honda throws around today’s shut-up word he mimics the behavior of those who once cheered his own internment, you still managed to react with shock and ah as expected of a member of the psychologically fragile, neutered masses populating this increasingly weak and pathetic nation.
My it must be a blessing to be stupid—to be too dense to realize exactly how un-American it is to give an elected official the freedom to unfairly slander the people he serves. Mike Honda considers himself to be a champion of civil rights. He’s not. He’s a tired, uninspiring actor, spouting lines that were scripted by hacks specializing in political porn. A public servant who believes in the rights of his fellow men does not recklessly disparage those exercising them; he does not ignore their concerns only to malign their character; he does not do what Mike Honda did.
Just weeks after the president recklessly insulted the Cambridge police department—demonstrating the shallow depths of his own cognitive well, along comes Mr Honda and the rest of the legislative stooges insulting citizens opposed to the health care plan. One can only wonder who is next on their insult list. Maybe you’re looking forward to people like me being officially labeled Nazis. I’m sure Barbara Boxer has it in her. I guess if you have half a brain it can be fun living under a regime that explains its policies as would Professor Irwin Corey, and treats its adversaries the way Don Rickles does his audience. Under Obama and Nancy it’s almost as if the circus came to town.
And look at all the clowns.
Note the SJI advertisement that is in the left column of the screen this week.
It’s from Sutter Health asking – “Looking for a doctor within 5 miles of your home…who specialized in …?” The ad links to Sutter’s thedoctorforyou.com website.
I find this ironic since Sutter is everywhere in the Bay Area EXCEPT San Jose. If you go to the website and enter zip code 95112 there are 9 doctors listed. Try a zip code from Mountain View or Fremont or Santa Cruz and you’ll have hundreds of choices.
We need more healthcare delivery and service options in San Jose. If San Jose is to tout itself as a major City, then re-establishing a downtown hospital and attracting large scale clinics is as important as any other economic or community development effort.
Even though I’m from San Jose, I was suprised to read of San Jose’s latest title being among the best cities to retire…
Not that there’s much room for facts in this discussion, but for those who don’t have an agenda here the actual Politico.com quote from Re, Honda that is being discussed, and misrepresented, here:
“There’s a very angry, small group of folks that just didn’t like the fact that Barack Obama won the presidency,” Honda said, adding: “With some, I think it is [about race].
I guess if Honda is wrong it means we have vanquished racism from our society and there is no “small group” who oppose Obama based on race.
Reader (with no agenda),
“There is a very angry, small group of folks”
—correct, though some might argue about it being a small group
“that just didn’t like the fact that Barrack Obama won the presidency”
—imagine that… election results that don’t please everyone (this is Mike Honda at his analytical best)
“With some, I think it is [about race]”
—that innocuous little “some” should be seen for what it is: a broad brush of political expediency
That the congressman has learned to tread softly when stepping out-of-bounds does not change the fact that he did. And let’s not confuse this quotation as an isolated observation by a fair-minded politician caught in a moment of candor. Honda’s comment was scripted, part of a larger effort by Obama supporters to de-legitimize the opposition by:
a) branding them as racists (Jimmy Carter, Mike Honda, Maureen O’Dowd)
b) dismissing the participants individually, as did Nancy Pelosi, as unpatriotic and phony, before declaring them collectively as “Astro-turf” (orchestrated grassroots activism)
c) insinuating that they might, with their rhetoric, provoke Moscone/Milk-like violence (Pelosi again)
d) claiming that “swastikas and symbols like that” were being carried into town hall meetings (Pelosi transposing sex fantasy and reality)
e) accusing them of “brown-shirt tactics” (Congressman Baird)
f) calling them “rabid people” (Congressman Hoyer)
g) insultingly attributing the basis of the opposition to fear of change (Obama)
If Mike Honda thinks it’s okay to use the media to slander the Americans he serves, then I suggest he try doing it at a town hall meeting, where, according to his own analysis, there are bound to be evil racists for him to identify using his evidence. Let Mr Honda put his convictions to the test, as you would expect any real leader to do.
But then again, we are talking about Mike Honda.
Honda puts his convictions to the test every two years. What do you do except snipe from behind the cover of your slimy keyboard? You add nothing of substance to the discussion. Any chance you could provide something of substance? Something other than your usual nasty attacks would be refreshing but I won’t hold my breath. Your specialty seems to be slash and burn and hide. Have a nice night.
All,
Would Honda have made this same statement if Obama were white? Even Obama himself said he doesn’t think opposition to this health care proposal is based on his race, so what’s going on? Did everyone forget the hell the Clintons went through when they tried to pass something similar to this when he was President?
Not surprisingly there seems to be quite a lot being read into Honda’s statement. I guess nothing is taken at face value anymore. But maybe there are times, and maybe this is one of them, when people should be given the benefit of the doubt. Even politicians. Or have we become so cynical that we cannot believe anything anyone says?
finfan: I have a different interpretation. “Some” means just what he said, parts of the whole. Clearly Honda like many Americans has seen the racism that, lets face it, has been shown by fringe elements in the health care debate. He clearly attributes this racism to, again quoting “a very angry, small group.”
Mr. Galt: 2 quick points: 1) I always find it a little unfair when people, in effect, say “Here’s what he shoulda said…” and then attribute meaning to the non-statement. 2) You’re turning to Jon Edwards to bolster your point? That’s a surprise.
Reader,
You make some very good points. Myself personally, I’m sick and tired of race being the key issue in just about everything. I think being brought up color blind has been a blessing for me because I honestly don’t vote, look at, or consider race as a factor in my choices. I look at the person, their actions, and their accomplishments.
Since Obama is bi-racial, I can understand him saying he doesn’t think this opposition is about race. I guess he like me chooses to see the world filled with human beings, not races. We all bleed red, we all feel the same feelings, and we all walk around in the same structure called a body. Too bad the color of our skin means more to “some” than the content of our character.
Ha. I knew something didn’t sound right about that name when I wrote it.
You’re right, Reader. You probably won’t hear me using Jon Edwards to bolster any arguments unless it has to do with what sort of hairspray is best.
…or about the triple jump!
FlimFlam,
I hate to upset your apparently unique sense of reality, but exactly what else, on a mere blog, might one do other than to upload words typed on a keyboard? Even were I able to leap tall buildings at a single bound, how might I credibly convey that on SJI?
And by the way, do you chastise telephone callers for doing nothing but talking?
Okay, so you hate me. Fine. But rather than make false accusations to soothe your feelings you might consider launching a counter-attack that would send me, and the opinions you find so objectionable, running for cover. C’mon, kick my ass. Bring forward your troops, flank my position, and pound me with your artillery.
I am aware, of course, of the likelihood that you lack the necessities for such a counter, but that’s your fault for joining an outfit whose troops only huddle and hug, and whose cannons blow only smoke.
You claim I submitted nothing of substance. You’re wrong. My original point, inspired as it was by Ms. Ramon’s comment, was that the Pelosi army, under which Mike Honda serves, was abusing its power with its campaign of reckless slander. I went so far as to list the evidence, apparently to no avail. I considered my post, as I do with most, a form of challenge to those who believe differently. But, as usual, all I got in response were insults—from those who obviously find nothing objectionable in Ms Pelosi’s cheap, unconvincing, nasty tactics.
Lastly, to demonstrate exactly how off base Mike Honda was with his stupid, insulting remark, this, from Bill Clinton, no doubt trying to undo the damage of the Pelosi strategy:
“If he were not an African-American, all of the people who were against him on health care would still be against him. They were against me, too,”
Note that Mr Clinton, known for his exacting, lawyerly use of language, very specifically said “all of the people,” not some, not most, not anything short of the only thing that can rightfully be concluded from the town hall meetings, that being that these angry folks are opposed to a policy—not a people.
Yes, the same folks who are bigoted are also opposed to helping the less fortunate have health insurance or help make it affordable for small business. That doesn’t change the fact that a fraction of those who are opposing Obama are putting forth racist rhetoric and ratcheting their opposition up a notch because of his race. But I don’t doubt that the same people would oppose the policies if they were proposed by a white president because party loyalty trumps all. I just believe that a smaller number would be coming to the town halls and fewer would be engaged because it is the race of the president that motivates them to be more vocal about their opposition.
Reader,
I hope you’re holding the Politico columnist who wrote the story to the same high journalistic standards that you hold the humble bloggers to here on SJI.
It’s pretty obvious that Jonathan Edwards felt that Honda’s remark substantiated his story about how prominent Democrats are trying to portray those opposed to Obama’s policies as being motivated by racism. I may not be as sublimely fair and non-judgmental as you, Reader, but I happen to think that Edwards was right.
After all, there’s a reason why Honda DIDN’T say, “of course there will always be some racists, but the vast majority of those who are opposed to current healthcare reform efforts are good, conscientous people who simply disagree with the President.”
What Honda said was nothing like that, was it.
No, Honda didn’t say that, but what he said was true. The language being used by those who are leading the opposition is veiled racism. “I want my country back.” From whom? “This isn’t the America I know.” Why, because the leaders look different? Those are not statements of policy disagreement. I believe if it weren’t for veiled racism, the opposition to progress in America wouldn’t be so motivated and would be much more muted.
Sure, there would always be opposition, as there should be. But the level of rhetoric we are seeing (and the toting of guns to town hall meetings) is not typical policy disagreement.
But I don’t think we will agree on this. It is clear those on this site who are reflexively opposed to anything that Obama supports are not going to recognize where much of the opposition is coming from.
I think we must look closer at classism, as opposed to racism. Classism is more of an issue when it comes to this type of policy. You can’t discount party politics, or paid crap disturbers either. This is a political issue more than anything.
I fully agree, this isn’t the same country it once was. The poor and working class are getting the crap kicked and taxed out of them. Small business owners are early extinct! Things are far from what they were when I grew up, during the ice age. I feel sorry for our youth!
Somehow the debate got defocused. It shouldn’t be about the cost of health insurance (never mind the overhead & “evil” profit levels). It should be about the cost of health care, and how we provide adequate access to health care for all.
I posit that Medicaid/Medicare help provide health care for those who otherwise couldn’t afford it, and emergency room care for those in need.
We need more transparency in the cost of medical care, so that consumers can make informed choices. Can someone point to the language in any of the “reform” bills floating around that addresses that?
Pat, you nailed it. The real solution is to expand Medicare to those who need coverage. Simple. The result would be fewer uninsured, better health outcomes and lower overall costs.
Folks like FinFan still don’t get it. This isn’t about paying for those less fortunate out of our tax dollars (we already do that through our higher premiums in order to pay for the uninsured who show up at emergency rooms and can’t pay their bills). This ultimately will REDUCE our costs and boost our economy.
I still don’t understand why we are so hung up on upfront costs. No Republican in Congress ever publicly wondered how we would pay for wars in Iraq and Afganistan because they thought they were the right thing to do. In this case, they are blocking the right thing to do over disputes of costs, when the intent is to reduce costs for everyone, which will happen if health care reform is done right.
David,
Though you’ve convinced yourself that you “get it,” I have to wonder given that you failed so miserably in comprehending what I’ve posted here. What I’ve written about is really two things: the first, the right of the town hall protesters to have their point-of-view heard, and second, the unacceptable conduct of the likes of Pelosi, Honda, and the president himself, in choosing slander as the strategy for dealing with their opponents. When people standby and let this kind of thing happen, allow a segment of population be insulted by their elected servants to a degree they would not inflict on our nation’s enemies, they demonstrate their own weakness—as they weaken the rights of every citizen.
As for my views on health care or any other of our alleged entitlements, I’m not inclined to participate in a debate about providing anything for the nation’s “deserving” when that debate intentionally ignores the presence here of tens of millions of trespassers who are “deserving” of nothing. I’ll leave the politics of delusion to the rest of you.
Ever-changing,
When it comes to the real costs of providing health care to the uninsured, whether it’s for the bums arriving at our hospitals by ambulance or the illegals walking in by the millions, I’m under no delusions—I’ve seen it firsthand. But my particular knowledge, or yours, has nothing to do with what I’ve been posting about, which is the outrageous conduct of our elected officials—and the defense of it by people blogging here. After all this reaction, and all the defense offered for the slanderers, I’m still waiting for someone to justify the slander itself.
Opposition,
You say “opposed to helping the less fortunate have health insurance”… what does “helping” mean? Does it mean the same as “helping” the less fortunate have a place to live, a monthly check on which to survive, food stamps for groceries, free meals at school, free criminal defense, and free on-demand medical treatment?
If so, then the correct word isn’t “helping,” it’s paying. These taxpayers you so rudely brand as bigots are opposed to paying for health insurance for the less fortunate. Apparently you not only think they should pay for it, but don’t believe they have a legitimate right to a differing opinion.
My goodness, you compassionate folks certainly have a nasty side. If you get any more compassionate you just might try to get the likes of me jailed.
You say you “believe” that fewer opponents would be showing up at these town hall meetings were the president a white man. That, sir, is a powerful argument. What else do you believe… Scientology? Santeria? The power of the Force? (I’m taking notes.)
Please notice that when I respond to a comment I address the substance of the comment. I don’t accuse the author of writing one thing and believing another. I may not agree with or respect someone’s position on an issue, but I certainly accept it on face value as genuine. Why is it that the Democratic Party, and so many of you here (who post under ever-changing pseudonyms), refuse to do that with the citizens protesting at the town hall meetings? Are you so afraid of a no-holds-barred examination of the issues—the real costs and pitfalls, that rather than engage in an honest debate you commit yourselves to Nancy Pelosi’s filthy little campaign?
Lastly, is you pseudonym “Opposition” because you are opposed to allowing the town hall folks to exercise their legitimate First Amendment rights?
good one, ff. so you don’t want to “pay” for less fortunate folks to have health care. who do you think is already paying for this under our current broken system? you and me, that’s who. why wouldn’t you at least want to pay less than you are now under a system that insures everyone? if you don’t want to pay anything to assist the less fortunate then i feel as sorry for you as those who cannot afford adequate health care.
regarding your folks who attend the town hall meetings because they oppose health care—sure, there are those who have legitimate concerns and they should express those concerns. the discussion on this blog primarily is focused on those who clearly have a bigoted edge to their argument. they aren’t a majority but they are the loudest. being loud does not equate with being right or anything else. you, and others, like to try and ignore these uninformed mouth-pieces for the extreme right and fold them into the mainstream. they are no more mainstream than any extremist ideas, but the fact you don’t condemn their tactics and their vile rhetoric speaks louder than they do.
The wise voices are all in agreement. “It’s simple. Just expand Medicare to include the uninsured”, they say.
Bernie Madoff, the ultimate authority on pyramid schemes like Medicare, would advise against it. Adding more people to the top of the pyramid is never a good idea, especially one that’s already beginning to crumble.
It’s understandable that people are under the illusion that Medicare is a perfect perpetual motion machine of medicine. After all, we only ever hear about it from those at the top who are quite chuffed about being awarded their bonus payouts. “It’s a wonderful system!”, they exclaim. Those lower down have no idea just how much they’re paying in order to support the relatively small apex above them but try piling on 45 million freeloaders up there and they’ll find out real quick. Suddenly, the designers of this system would be exposed as the con artists that they are.
Most sensible people agree that flimflam men like Madoff deserve to be sent to prison. It would be a shame to see our President and 2/3 of our Congressional representatives being hauled off to the Graybar Hotel.
If you are opposed to Medicare, that’s fine. I believe you are and you are consistent about it. The problem is that those who are fighting the President’s plan to overhaul health care are NOT opposed to Medicare. We hear things like “government hands off my Medicare.”
There was a proposal in Congress this summer to eliminate Medicare to get Republicans on the record as to where they stand. Either they oppose a government run health care plan or not. Not a single Republican voted to cut Medicare. They all support it. Is that because it is working? Or because they don’t want to stand up to seniors who benefit from it? Either way, it exposes the hypocrisy on health care reform. They publicly support Medicare and say it is working, but are unwilling to expand the working program to benefit more of our citizens.
David, I don’t understand how expanding coverage will “reduce overall costs.”
I can think of only two ways to reduce overall costs: reduce the number of participants, or reduce the cost per participant. Other than wishful thinking about reducing Medicare “waste,” the geniuses in control in D.C. have offered neither…
You have it backward. Increasing coverage by making sure that the healthy young folks who don’t buy insurance, do buy it, increases the pool. Insurance is about pooled risk. Bringing folks into the pool reduces the cost for those of us who are insured, because we currently pay the cost for everyone else. As the number of insured rises, the number paying increases, as does the number receiving health care.
The second reason is that people with insurance get care sooner, meaning that their health care is cheaper. Emergency room visits are more expensive than preventive care, which would reduce the number of emergency room visits.
There is a reason that we pay more per capita for health care in the US than anywhere else in the developed world and yet our outcomes are only 37th best, according to reputable rankings.
Let me see. If I understand Nancy Pelosi, Jimmy Carter, and the fairminded and reasonable lefties on this site correctly, it’s ok for me to quietly and calmly disagree with the President, but the moment I express any anger or get loud, my opinion shall automatically be rejected because by definition I must be a racist.
This hope and change crap gets better every day.
You can’t possibly be as dense as you pretend to be. Can you? Of course, that is not what has been said on this site and you know it. Civil discussion and disagreement is fine. Even loud civil discussion and disagreement, although less effective, is fine. When the argument reaches the level of comparing the President to Hitler or a socialist regime or other levels of insanity, then it’s time to call these folks what they are. Nuts! Go ahead and keep defending them. I guess you want to be a member of their club for some reason.
-30-
Blender,
I’m not dense. It’s possible though, that I’m being a little hyperbolic- but only a little.
You lefties keep lowering the bar in the extremist high jump. It’s gotten to where it’s pretty easy to step over it without even noticing. If calling Obama’s presidency a socialist regime is all it takes to be considered a nut then I and about 100 million other Americans are a diverse group of filberts, almonds, and cashews.
Maybe the problem is that we speak different languages. I’m fluent in English but I can barely speak a sort of broken PC and I don’t understand it at all. Here’s the English definition of socialism.
socialism; any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and the distribution of goods.
That’s the English definition. What’s the PC definition? Hmmm?
If you guys want to argue that more socialism is a good thing, that’s fine. At least I’d know you were debating in good faith. But to condemn and vilify your opponents for calling a feathered, webfooted, aquatic bird that swims like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, a duck, makes you guys appear to us nuts to be sleazy, manipulative used car salesmen who are trying their best to hoodwink us into buying a lemon.
I don’t think the problem folks are those calling Obama a socialist (although I quibble with the idea that any of Obama’s policies truly are socialism). The crazy ones are those calling him a Nazi or fascist – those with pictures of Obama with Hitler mustaches. Those claiming that there would be death panels. Those who are now starting to believe that Obama is building concentration camps. And the weirdest of all are those who call Obama communist and fascist at the same time.
Name Calling,
You raise an excellent point. Sadly, we seem to live in a world where stereotypes, misinformation, and labels are put on people out of fear and sheer ignorance. I have never understood why things have to erode to this level. Why can’t we have civil conversations based on facts and ideas?
We can disagree on the basics but we really don’t need to resort to making things personal. This site reflects a lot of what people do out in the real world, and honestly it saddens me. We have so many intelligent people commenting and for some reason it goes down hill into personal attacks. Same thing is going on in the media and with our leaders. Some of the things I hear coming out of the mouths of Congressmen/women, Senators, and read and see in the media etc. is just mind-boggling! And our youth are supposed to respect us? I don’t think so~
Kathleen, Amen to that!
So, David, what you are saying is that we should impose a tax on our young people to make insurance cost less for those who currently have it? Aren’t we already stealing enough from them?
I agree with your point on early treatment being more cost effective, but I somehow doubt that merely having insurance is going to encourage people to take better care of themselves.
Is spending more per capita on health care inherently wrong? I don’t think so, I believe it is a sign of prosperity. We are, after all a very wealthy nation. We also are among the highest per capita consumers of energy, vehicle miles of travel, computers and food per capita. These are not necessarily bad things.
Can health care be more affordable. Absolutely! But increasing government intrusion into our health care system will not solve our problems. Remember, the government already pays for almost 1/2 of all health care in the U.S.
And 37th best, according to the WHO, is bogus. They don’t even do that study any more, because of the “inherent difficulty of the measurement.” The ranking system is “inherently biased to reward uniformity of government delivered health care, independent of the care actually delivered.” (http://smartgirlnation.com/2009/06/popular-ranking-unfairly-misrepresents-the-us-health-care-system/)
Spending more per capita on health care is wrong if it prices people out of the health care market. More home foreclosures and bankruptcies are due to health care spending than any other cause. It is unconscionable that anyone would be forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket when they have a health emergency. I continue to hear no suggestions to solve that problem from people who oppose changing the system.
Pat, I should also respond to your comment that requiring young “healthy” people to be insured is imposing a “tax.” The point is that young people who seem healthy get sick or injured and end up once again having their care paid for by the rest of us. We need to pool ALL the risk in order to reduce the costs.
Note that my discussions have been about whether or not we need to fix the system in order to insure those who for one reason or another don’t have insurance. I haven’t once mentioned the public option. While I happen to believe that is the best way to make sure costs are contained, my postings were a response to FinFan’s statements that he isn’t interested in making sure the unfortunate amongst us deserve our help to make sure they have health care.
David, do not confuse opposition to additional government intrusion into our health care system as opposing changing the system. This is not a case of “my way or the highway.” Something this important deserves a considered debate to find the appropriate solution.
Many people opposed to the “public option” propose leveling the playing field by allowing credits or deductions for the purchase of private insurance, allowing competition across state lines, reducing mandated coverage (do we really need to make insurers provide hair pieces?) and improving the transparency of medical cost information.
Those are all good and valid proposals that proponents of a “public option” dismiss out of hand.