Journal pudge's Journal: Steve Pearlstein, Political Terrorist 15
Some of you may have read the other day Steve Pearlstein's idiotic assault on people who disagree with him as "terrorists."
He started off just fine, saying, in effect, it is wrong to lie and misrepresent the health care program. I can't disagree with that. Lies are bad. But then he insanely says, "... there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation."
Tell me, how is it a lie to call a "takeover" a system where the government would force all individual health insurance plans into an exchange that would dictate profits and prices and benefits and services and doctor networks and more?
Sounds like a takeover to me. You can disagree with the characterization, but calling it a "terrorist" "lie"? If he had focused on actual lies, that would be one thing, but this is mere political disagreement, by any logical standard. (I could pick apart much of the rest of his column, but he's not worth my time.)
This morning he was on Morning Joe and he said something even dumber, though. He said that what separates political discourse from political terrorism is that the former tries to improve a bill, while the latter tries to kill the bill.
So now we are "terrorists" if we think a bill is so terrible it should be killed, rather than improved.
Seriously? Yep, seriously.
Note for the record that all the tactics Pearlstein identified were used by patriotic writers like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine. I am sure this isn't the first time they were called terrorists (Franklin's son, also a journalist, was jailed -- and died there -- due to the enforcement of the Sedition Act), but I find the characterization more than a bit irrational.
I feel like Susan Powter here. How is it that Pearlstein is engaging in rhetoric that proponents of anti-sedition laws would be comfortable with? Granted, he is not endorsing laws to keep people quiet, but he is villifying them just as much.
Pearlstein said he is loathe to "question the motives of people with whom I don't agree," but that in this case he would do so. Allow me to return the favor: Pearlstein is so much in the tank for the Democrats and Obama that he will do and say anything to undermine the people who oppose the health care plan, in order to avoid having to respond to their actual arguments.
When the Democrats said years ago that dissent was patriotic, I agreed with them. I never once attacked anyone for dissenting. I disagreed with some of their dissent, I thought some of them were jerks, I argued with many of them. But I did not say or imply, "you should not dissent," "you should go along with the program," "it is wrong for you to try to kill bills you dislike," or anything else of the sort. On the contrary, I explicitly stated the opposite, and even criticized Republicans for saying they should keep quiet.
And how am I repaid for standing up for the Democrats' right to dissent? I am now called a terrorist for engaging in the same sort of dissent they engaged in under Bush.
That, friends, is true "political terrorism."
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Did you expect anything different? (Score:2)
In a million years, I would never expect anything different.
This is a generalization, and I know that there are a (very) few of those who fall under the label "Liberal" that don't necessarily deserve to fall under this generalization, but here it is:
They are generally childish bullies who say whatever they're feeling in the moment, and in the next moment what they just said doesn't matter any more if it no longer serves their point of view in the new moment.
So it should surprise absolutely no one with the b
"If you don't like it, then leave" (Score:2)
And how am I repaid for standing up for the Democrats' right to dissent? I am now called a terrorist for engaging in the same sort of dissent they engaged in under Bush.
I just had a liberal use the above line with me in a debate. "If you don't like it, move somewhere else" When I pointed out to him that this was the same line used a few years ago by some of the right-wing commentators that he hates so much he came back with "Well that's different!" Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. It's fine and dandy for your side to try and silence dissent and/or question the motives of those who are dissenting but when the other side does it they are obviously fascists who are out to destroy Ameri
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pudge, what would you like to see in a bipartisan health care reform bill if Congress was inclined to scrap the liberal mess they have now and start over? Tort reform is the obvious one, but what else?
End rescission except in cases of proven fraud. Drug patent reform. Take steps to make individual insurance more affordable, such as more options for ad-hoc group insurance. Lower health care COSTS through actual measures that make health care more affordable, such as more alternative options like local pharmacy clinics for basic first aid.
Do you agree with those who say that we need to find a different model of health care reimbursement and that the pay-for-service model is contributing to our problems?
Re: (Score:2)
No. That system worked fine until the govt and the HMOs colluded to separate the consumer from the cost.
That's a good point. I've always wondered why there aren't more "catastrophic" insurance plans out there? I'm not real worried about being able to afford my annual physical or the office visit for the head cold that just won't go away. I am worried about being bankrupted if I'm unlucky enough to get cancer or a similarly expensive disease. Even the fact that I have insurance wouldn't help me -- not when I have to pay expensive co-pays for each specialist office visit and proscribed drug. Why aren't the
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
No one is for the status quo. We just think we should have different alternatives to this monstrosity of a govt power grab.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is for the status quo.
You don't have to convince me of that :) No sane person can look at our health care system and come to the conclusion that changes aren't required. Unfortunately it seems that the Democrats are going to proceed under the assumption that the 47% of the country that didn't vote for them doesn't deserve a voice in the process of determining what those changes should be.
That disappoints the hell out of me but doesn't really surprise me. Remember back when Obama got inaugurated and his people were talking ab
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately it seems that the Democrats are going to proceed under the assumption that the 47% of the country that didn't vote for them doesn't deserve a voice in the process of determining what those changes should be.
Well, I don't really care about that. Their choice. But they shouldn't complain when we complain about the result: that's just retarded. Saying "we won, get over it" is anti-intellectual, anti-democratic, and un-American, because it is meant to shut up dissent.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying "we won, get over it" is anti-intellectual, anti-democratic, and un-American, because it is meant to shut up dissent.
Indeed.
Thanks for another illuminating conversation. I may not always agree with your positions and/or conclusions but I always come away with some new ideas to ponder.
Have a good one and keep fighting the good fight :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
why there aren't more "catastrophic" insurance plans out there?
Because the catastrophes are the expensive part while the rest is cheap. Your policy would probably be a couple of bucks less than a "comprehensive" policy.
Especially after the actuaries figure in the risk that if they won't pay for it, you'll skip checkups and seeing the doctor for "minor" problems, making you a greater risk for having a catastrophe.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the catastrophes are the expensive part while the rest is cheap.
It may be "cheap" on an individual basis but I'd imagine that paying for office visits and a dose of feel good antibiotics for every individual who sees the doc when they get the common cold adds up after awhile.
Besides, it's that separation of the consumer from cost that's driving a lot of the problems in our medical system. Co-pays attempt to rectify this to an extent but the problem with them is that you then wind up with an insurance plan that doesn't really protect you against catastrophe, which is a
Re: (Score:2)
It may be "cheap" on an individual basis but I'd imagine that paying for office visits and a dose of feel good antibiotics for every individual who sees the doc when they get the common cold adds up after awhile.
Which is why insurance companies decide what is and is not medically necessary, and typically refuse to pay for the things that they feel are not.
Co-pays attempt to rectify this to an extent but the problem with them is that you then wind up with an insurance plan that doesn't really protect you aga
Re: (Score:2)
bad example, in all likelihood they'd simply refuse payment and tell me to sue the bus company's insurance company for the money
Indeed they would. Every health insurance contract I've ever read (and I used to work for an insurance agency) has an exclusion for situations where your injuries are the fault of another party. They will pay if that person exhausts his insurance limits/financial resources but not until then. I can't really say as I blame them for this stipulation.
Incidentally and roaming onto another topic but that's why I've always maxed out the limits on my auto/homeowners insurance and purchased an umbrella policy o
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to have co-op non-profit health orgs instead of for profit HMOs. Being self employed, I have to get my coverage from my spouse, or else face the gauntlet of self insuring via a HMO, with its stupid high deductibles & 2yr "pre-existing condition" clauses, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I am open to the non-profit co-ops. Problem is, if this is in the bill instead of the public option and insurance exchange, you know the bill will also include massive regulations for those co-ops: no discrimination on preexisting conditions, price and profit limits, benefit requirements, etc.