![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics
Susan Grigsby, who lost her brother, Steve, to cancer: What really horrified me about the debate was not the poorly phrased question, it wasn’t Dr. Paul’s answer, and it wasn’t even the scream after Wolf Blitzer asked, ‘Would you let him die,’ and somebody in the audience yelled ‘Yeah!’ That wasn’t as horrifying as was the silence from the stage, from these men and women who are running for office, not a word. Nothing.
This is the reality of the right wing libertarian attitude toward the sick. It is vile. It is inhumane. It is unworthy of Americans.
The question posed by Susan Grigsby needs to be asked of every Republican candidate. "Do you, as a candidate for President, really believe that if an American cannot get, or does not get insurance, that they should be treated the way Steve was?"
When they don’t answer it it needs to be asked again. And again. And again. They cannot be allowed to evade it. They cannot be allowed to look the other way.
Republicans are already trying. Here’s Mitch McConnell when confronted with that clip from the debate and asked if it troubled him:
(Brief chuckle) Look, we have a lot of people running for president, there are going to be a lot of debates, a lot of things said, a lot of audience reactions, I don’t have a particular reaction to what’s going on in the Republican campaign for president right now.
The silence that horrified Susan Grigsby continues.
Prominent Republicans are afraid of coming out in favor of saving the lives of the sick and uninsured.
(no subject)
Date: 21/9/11 17:39 (UTC)While this is technically correct
Heh!
it does not address the issue of accessibility. Most bankruptcies in this country are medical, and most of those are from people with insurance.
Well, no. Most bankruptcies list medical bills on them, but that doesn't make medical bills the cause of the bankruptcies, and the Warren study you're talking about decided that anyone with a bankruptcy and $1000 in medical bills was a "medical bankruptcy." Megan McArdle did a rather extensive discussion of the study's failings (sampling problems, study timing, the aforementioned criteria, etc: 1 (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/considering-elizabeth-warren-the-scholar/60211/), 2 (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/elizabeth-warren-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-utterly-misleading-bankruptcy-study/18826/), and 3 (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/why-warrens-new-bankruptcy-study-is-so-bad/18834/). Warren's sloppiness is one of the chief reasons I'm excited she's running against Scott Brown, as an aside.) That Canada (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/bsf-osb.nsf/vwapj/Redish-Sarra-Schabas-2006-ENG.pdf/%24FILE/Redish-Sarra-Schabas-2006-ENG.pdf), with universal health care, shows a number of "medical bankruptcies" as well should give pause to pushing that meme.
They're not asking if people are okay with the mandate, they're asking if people are okay with a PROGRAM for coverage.
Which is fine, but it's not comparable with anything being floated or anything anyone else really has. It's an idle question that's easily misunderstood, clearly.
How do you simultaneously claim I do not have enough evidence and then in the same breath claim that YOU know enough about the public to make this call?
Because you're pushing three polls about pet issues that you believe represents the whole of the ideology, while I'm pushing a poll that happens twice a year with consistent results describing how people actually describe themselves.
What you're doing is, for example, calling me a liberal because I support gay marriage, legal abortion, and cutting the military budget. Yeah, you have three issues you've picked out of the air that you believe are liberal positions, but that doesn't really accurately describe me at all. A more accurate (not most accurate) way to do it, when lacking an ability to find out where I stand across the board, is to figure out where my ideological alliances are.
No one is going to believe a word you say until you offer some counter-evidence, and after 20 replies I've yet to see a single one.
That you don't want to accept my counterevidence is not a problem I can solve. You can deny what's in front of you all you want - if you're not going to "believe a word I say," well, I don't have much of a chance period.
(no subject)
Date: 21/9/11 21:36 (UTC)Again, you can't discount this poll because you believe it's a misleading question when it's not. People are fully aware what a UHC system is.
The rest of your reply is making false equivalencies. Look them up.
(no subject)
Date: 21/9/11 21:49 (UTC)What makes you so sure? Do you think the polling has been consistent on the issue regardless of how it's asked?
The rest of your reply is making false equivalencies. Look them up.
They're inconvenient for you, you mean.
(no subject)
Date: 22/9/11 02:34 (UTC)Yes.
They're inconvenient for you, you mean.
No.
You haven't offered any counter-evidence. You just say that you have, but in our entire thread there is not a single link offered by you. You're just trolling me.
(no subject)
Date: 22/9/11 11:18 (UTC)That you can't recognize it isn't something I can help. Sorry.
(no subject)
Date: 22/9/11 22:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/9/11 02:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/9/11 08:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/9/11 02:45 (UTC)Which large portions of the New Deal were dismantled before the war?