Active Users:456 Time:26/11/2024 12:16:35 AM
Perhaps, since we seem to disagree on the facts as well as how they were spun. Joel Send a noteboard - 10/11/2010 01:10:21 PM
You're saying that the ketchup thing is factually correct and I'm saying that's a very rhetoric heavy interpretation of a minor 'oops' event that took place 30 years ago and is viewed by those who remember it outside the left as an amusing blunder of no ill intent. The GOP certainly never conspired to make ketchup a vegetable to starve kids, and that's how you're using it.

The problem is that even after the bureacratic snafu was brought to their attention one of Reagans "all regulation and taxes are bad" flunkies still tried to defend making ketchup a vegetable AS SUCH. Not "oops, that's really not what we meant to do, here's what actually happened" but "yes, ketchup is a vegetable, you regulation crazy commies; deal with it!" Even THAT might have been understandable (if no more acceptable) on the basis of overall economizing, except that Reagan and his pals were FAR more understanding toward the independently wealthy they gave tax cuts even as they cut vegetables from school lunches because we couldn't afford them. They said we couldn't afford to feed kids but could afford millionaire tax cuts; you may not like how that was "spun" but it's a fact, and even when given a chance to rectify said fact the adminstration didn't want to take it.

We can dance around the issue all day long, but at the END of the day it still boils down to Reagan and his party being more able to empathize with impoverished millionaires than malnourished schoolchildren. They made that choice, a habitual one for the GOP leadership, but that's not my fault, not my responsibility, and shouldn't be my problem. If you don't like it, your beef is with them, not me.
You clearly don't want to see, and you're not going to convince me 'death panels' are false, I already consider them strong on the rhetoric but at least they are relevant to the issue. What is false about it? Someone has to decide when treatment is not worth the cost, and if the taxpayers are funding the bill then that means a government panel of some sort, that's as it should be, we can't be cutting million dollar checks for risky treatments with little clinical trial that only buy someone another week of life or something, there has to be a cut off somewhere, someone must make that decision, I don't scoff at death panel because its a false comment but because I consider such a decision panel a necessary evil of using a single-payer option and calling it that strikes me as rhetoric heavy, just as if we called a jury or appeals court for a capital offense a death jury or a death court, the term is mean, not inaccurate.

What's false about it, and this the WHOLE PROBLEM with criticisms of a public option, is that the care will still be available to anyone who can pay out of pocket; there are just some things that won't be covered by your taxes. In other words, it'll be JUST LIKE PRIVATE INSURANCE ALREADY IS (oh noes!) The very thing that the public option would reduce is the chief criticism of it, because it doesn't completely ELIMINATE the problem. It's like saying you don't want your broken leg set because the splint is uncomfortable. :rolleyes:

The death panel charge is false because it claims that:

1) the government is trying to "create" something that's been widespread in the US for decades and

2) a public option would eliminate life saving treatments that would otherwise be available.

Both of those claims are simply false, and the people making them know it as well as you and I do. Not that is slows them down for a second.
What your basis for saying the ketchup shows republicans conspired to starve kids but that in single-payer nobody form the government would have any say on whether or not we proceeded with a treatment?

Because private insurance, as well as paying for it without insurance, would still be every bit as much on the table as they are when private "death panels" deny CLAIMS (NOT treatment) now, and because when given the opportunity and encouragement to back away from starving children, the Reagan administration refused to do so, defended calling ketchup a vegetable on its face. Obama and Co. have never tried to say, "Hey, what's wrong with a bunch of bureacrats deciding if your gramma lives or dies?" but rather denied the false claim completely.
Because if your claiming that no such decision making group would be involved, then the authors of the bill deserve to be beaten for incompetence, someone has to evaluate whether something is a good treatment or effectively expensive snake oil or not only would there be a lot of waste and thus suffering from a non-infinite supply of funds but epic fraud form those offering snake oil.

Your not being logical, I don't think you're open to objective truth on this one Joel, or you wouldn't be bringing up something that even if matched to your interpretation is 30 years old.

Obviously, I disagree; I think I'm being both consistent and logical, and I brought up the 30 year old case because it was an example of a sitting Republican President LITERALLY denying children food to save money he wanted to return to millionaires who didn't need it. They literally starved children to enrich the wealthy, and even when given the opportunity to clarify the matter the official administration was the same as mine: The charge was accurate. All of that is stated in YOUR "debunking" link, so I don't have to take any liberties to get there. The difference is that St. Ronnie was OK with that and I'm not.

I don't give Dems free passes, you know that; the biggest argument for each major party is how AWFUL the other is. You'd think we could do better, but that's neither here nor there to this dicussion: GOP leadership and policy has self identified with the nations plutocrats for decades, even as it condemned liberal "elitism" (often with some accuracy as well). Hence their thirty year assault on public education has produced a generation that honestly BELIEVES we can cut the deficit AND taxes. I'm managing not to opine on how that affected the federal school lunch program, but only just.... ;)
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Why do conservatives hate Nancy Pelosi? - 07/11/2010 09:26:53 PM 1271 Views
possibly because she is too good at her job - 07/11/2010 10:10:28 PM 897 Views
Re: possibly because she is too good at her job - 08/11/2010 12:12:19 AM 661 Views
Misogyny? Really? - 08/11/2010 08:18:41 PM 632 Views
Well, not to point out the obvious, but she was Speaker of the House - 07/11/2010 10:18:33 PM 742 Views
Re: Well, not to point out the obvious, but she was Speaker of the House - 08/11/2010 12:14:42 AM 636 Views
One of those charges is valid though, sadly. - 08/11/2010 03:02:35 AM 685 Views
The ketchup controversy, seriously? - 08/11/2010 06:00:58 AM 943 Views
Which neither you nor Cecil Adams have disproven here, so, youbetcha. - 08/11/2010 09:50:07 PM 1032 Views
This probably one of those rare ones where will have to agree to disagree - 09/11/2010 01:08:54 AM 764 Views
Perhaps, since we seem to disagree on the facts as well as how they were spun. - 10/11/2010 01:10:21 PM 704 Views
Joel has a few pet "facts" that he bases his world view around - 10/11/2010 02:08:20 PM 668 Views
Hey, I didn't bring up the GOP starving kids to enrich millionaires. - 10/11/2010 05:53:07 PM 724 Views
really one interview with one guy who has been out of power for decades - 10/11/2010 06:57:16 PM 599 Views
The interview was quite relevant when given. - 10/11/2010 09:32:27 PM 647 Views
but you know all about the inner workings because of an entire party? - 10/11/2010 11:29:35 PM 636 Views
Never said that, but I didn't quote myself, either. - 11/11/2010 01:40:35 PM 743 Views
No, Pelosi did, that's the point - 10/11/2010 09:41:39 PM 759 Views
Re: - 08/11/2010 02:13:25 AM 642 Views
Because Nancy Pelosi is rather...liberal in her Political Positions. - 08/11/2010 02:20:56 AM 713 Views
I'm not sure calling her "pro-Obamacare" isn't slander. - 08/11/2010 03:03:52 AM 669 Views
I wouldn't call myself conservative but I don't like her because... - 08/11/2010 02:40:19 AM 683 Views
Yet she accomplished a lot more than Obama and Reids bipartisanship. - 08/11/2010 03:13:33 AM 643 Views
No, she didn't. - 08/11/2010 03:42:45 AM 678 Views
Bipartisanship was never on the table, and Obama DID try (too hard). - 08/11/2010 09:30:15 PM 626 Views
he had a luncheon and everything - 10/11/2010 04:16:01 PM 597 Views
Trying to work with people dedicated to his demise was a SYMPTOM of his leadership failings. - 10/11/2010 05:44:29 PM 730 Views
Trying to pick off a few republicans is not the same thing as working with them - 10/11/2010 06:56:04 PM 644 Views
After that link... - 10/11/2010 09:44:32 PM 611 Views
yes but when the middle hate you then you are in real trouble - 10/11/2010 11:34:28 PM 707 Views
I'm just gonna put this idea out there... - 08/11/2010 07:17:36 PM 798 Views
I can see Russia from my house? *NM* - 09/11/2010 12:15:40 AM 309 Views
Yeah, I thought he explained it rather well, until... - 09/11/2010 08:26:13 AM 623 Views
You could probably talk directly to me... - 09/11/2010 03:33:32 PM 634 Views
That's true - 10/11/2010 08:24:33 AM 649 Views
Did she actually say that? - 09/11/2010 03:31:50 PM 660 Views
She did say that, I'm not sure if it's EXACTLY what she said... - 09/11/2010 04:04:02 PM 625 Views
it doesn't matter what she says people need to believe she is stupid so they find proof even - 09/11/2010 04:36:28 PM 812 Views
well if it makes you feel better, I don't think she's particularly unintelligent - 09/11/2010 05:03:03 PM 662 Views
I don't agree with a lot of what she says either - 09/11/2010 06:33:14 PM 667 Views
Believe she actually said something about having Russia for a neighbor gave her foreign policy cred. - 10/11/2010 06:04:15 PM 804 Views
she did what every govenor who runs for the White House did - 10/11/2010 07:00:50 PM 671 Views
True. - 10/11/2010 09:36:59 PM 729 Views
Re: Did she actually say that? - 09/11/2010 04:05:55 PM 751 Views
Whaaaaaaaa? Where have you BEEN? *NM* - 09/11/2010 06:44:04 PM 229 Views
She merely said one could see Russia from somewhere in Alaska, which I believe is correct. - 09/11/2010 04:15:05 PM 933 Views
But silly in the context - 09/11/2010 04:36:09 PM 654 Views
great job proving his point - 09/11/2010 04:23:02 PM 593 Views
Re: Why do conservatives hate Nancy Pelosi? - 09/11/2010 02:21:28 PM 715 Views
I don't hate her. I just have a great dislike for her political views. - 10/11/2010 09:38:38 PM 648 Views
She's too conservative for you? Really? *NM* - 11/11/2010 05:22:59 PM 386 Views
Yes. I come from a country where she would be seen as quite right-wing politician. - 13/11/2010 12:29:26 AM 614 Views
Wow, what qualifies as far to the left in Sweden? - 13/11/2010 01:52:40 AM 590 Views
Leftist anarchist. - 15/11/2010 05:50:10 PM 856 Views
Yes, that would fit, thanks - 16/11/2010 01:29:35 AM 621 Views

Reply to Message