When CNN's Dana Bash asked Harry Reid, "But if you can help one child, why won't you do it?"
I wish he'd responded, "Sure I'll help one child. Which one should it be?"
The GOP tactic of offering up one hostage at a time is despicable. This isn't just about 800,000 GOV employees. Millions of Americans are being needlessly impacted by this charade, from elderly shut-ins whose one meal a day is in peril to private business owners who do business with the GOV. Inventories aren't shipping. Bills aren't getting paid.
Those indignant GOP congressmen lambasting Obama over the closing of the WWII Memorial turn my stomach. Make no mistake--the grandstanding we saw out of Bachmann, Gohmert and King at that memorial reduced the country's most cherished veterans to human shields.
All the while millions upon millions of other Americans are flocking to the ACA webpage.
ALLOW THE VOTE, BOEHNER.
* * *
20 comments:
I don't understand how running such an end-around past the democratic process is even legal. The law was already passed, the time for a vote was then, and they had it, and it passed. This is an abuse of power and an attempt to undermine the system. There won't be any consequences for it because there never are - if you can lie your way into a war that kills thousands and not even get investigated, then the manslaughter of a couple of old people isn't going to trigger so much as a charge - but I can dream.
Got hyperbole?
Two elections, one Supreme Court decision. We know how this story ends. It's great for Tea Party fundraising however.
RJ
C'mon folks. You know how much this is hurting you!
From the Washinton Examiner
“How has the government shutdown affected you?”
That's the question posted Thursday at 7:50 p.m. on the White House blog by Nathaniel Lubin, acting director of digital strategy for the Obama administration.
Don’t forget that at the top of the blog, a handy little disclaimer notes that “due to Congress’s failure to pass legislation to fund the government, the information on this web site may not be up to date.”
From the Washinton Times
“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”
People are going to the (non-working) websites because they have to sign up under penalty of law. You might as well claim the Gulag was a popular vacation spot since there were thousands of people there.
Or maybe they just want to get health care coverage.
"People are going to the (non-working) websites because they have to sign up under penalty of law. You might as well claim the Gulag was a popular vacation spot since there were thousands of people there."-Anonymous
False Equivalence. In most cases the penalty is no more than a 100 bucks and there are numerous provisions for waivers of the fine. Given the rather convoluted manner in which the ACA was cobbled together it's actually a pretty good law. Of course, as regular readers of the Owners Manual are aware, I am a single payor guy so I think the ACA still falls far short of the goal. But the only grounds upon which "The Right" can oppose it are because they're selfish assholes. Unfortunately Mr. Anonymous you're not only a selfish asshole but you're a Chickenshit Selfish Asshole because you won't even add your name to your comment.
Randy Johnson
Randy Johnson
@Anon-
Yeah, if you are going to lie, or to twist the truth in such a way that it loses any practical meaning, I'd go in unannounced too.
If there are any among the readership curious about the standards of journalism of the above-cited Washington Examiner, it is owned and operated by a gentlemen named Philip Anschutz, and like many billionaires he has been sucking at the public teat practically from his first day in the oil business*.
When he opened the Examiner as an amalgamation of several suburban weeklies, his hiring instructions were 'nothing but conservative columns, and nothing but conservative op-ed writers.'
When someone with a conservative bent claims that there is a need for an alternative to media bias, they don't mean a balanced approach. They just want an entity that will say only what they want it to say.
In any event, the glacial drift of the belt-way media away from the false-equivalence narrative surrounding the President and the Congressional GOP, or quantitative analyses of events like the 2000 election campaign** (with reference to 'pundit' attitudes towards Al Gore) pretty much demonstrate how unfounded the 'liberal mainstream media' trope is.
MR
*see 'oil-depletion allowance'
**-not the post-election machinations-just the campaign.
Unfortunately for the Readership I feel compelled to comment.
"In most cases the penalty is no more than a 100 bucks and there are numerous provisions for waivers of the fine."
RJ, interesting point, but it is still the law. You have to sign up if you do not have insurance. A parking ticket is only a few bucks, but law abiding citizens do not generally park willy-nilly. Besides, the IRS will take the penalty from any refund you have coming if you fail to comply. And yes, if you do not pay the penalty -- a tax according to the SCOTUS -- you can eventually end up in jail. Not likely, but true under the tax code.
Claiming the websites are overwhelmed because folks are clamoring for the ACA is disingenuous at best. It assumes facts certainly not in evidence.
BTW, if opposition to the ACA is a sign you are a greedy pig, then a majority of Americans under nearly every poll are greedy Americans.It is not only righties that are opposed, good old fashion left-leaning types like the Longshormen and the Teamsters are opposed too.
Because I do not want to take my hard earned wages and give them to my neighbor does not make me greedy.
Say, do you donate to charity all of your wages beyond the bare basics you need to survive? If not, then you and I are only separated by degrees of greed according to your philosophy.
Joe, you're the only person to bring up greed in this thread.
As for the ACA, I'm with Randy: bring on a single payer system. In the meantime, the law is here. You don't like it. I get that. Lots of people dislike lots of laws. Get over it.
Thanks for dropping in. And as I heard Ohio Tea Party darling Chris Littleton say yesterday, happy Government Shutdown!
Bonus tip: Watch. Sweet. Virginia.
@Joe,et al- I will stipulate I meet my own criteria for "greedy pig" because of examples like you pointed out. However I do not believe my lack of character negates the fact that comments like "I do not want to take my hard earned wages and give them to my neighbor" used to support one's position against the ACA or any component of the so-called "Safety Net" (SS, Medicaid, etc.)are motivated by selfishness.
Now, if you and I were in the position to negotiate the "Grand Bargain" would you allow me abortion on demand, gay marriage, legal prostitution, legal gambling, legal drug use, an opt out on contributions toward national defense etc if I exempted you from taxation for universal healthcare?
RJ
Sorry, "selfish" which in this case can only mean I want to keep something for myself, namely my money.
We have had lots of laws that were passed that should have been scrapped,and were: Slavery, DOM (well this one is not enforced and defunded), internment of Japanese, Prohibition, denying women the right to vote, access to abortion, Jim Crow laws...
Thank goodness people did not say "get over it", but continued the fight.
Also, I do not equate my support of universal health care to giving money to my neighbor.
"Thank goodness people did not say "get over it", but continued the fight."-Joe
Did Resurrection City shut down the government? I have no objection to fighting for a cause but I do object to putting innocent people in harms way to do it.
RJ
The ACA has little to do with the legislative cases you cite.
The GOP failed to stop the legislation from passing and have failed to repeal it. They failed to gain any legislative power in the 2012 election to help their "cause." The courts failed to find the ACA unconstitutional.
Get over it.
A note on selfishness.
I think this ship has already sailed but just for the record...When I talk about selfishness vis a vis my neighbor I basically mean I have more in the way of food and shelter than I need to live comfortably. As an example I hardly know what a gallon of gas costs. I fill up my vehicle without even thinking about it, about 60 bucks a tank if I'm on E. Many of my peers do the same. If all of us were willing to throw an extra ten percent in a public transportation kitty at each fill up we could probably help a lot of folks who have trouble with transportation. And none of that cohort would miss the extra 6 bucks. I think if that type of behavior were generalized something like universal healthcare could be accomplished with little pain and suffering.
RJ
If more people would worry about their own behavior instead of trying to push your own "feel good" ideas onto everyone else, the world would be a better place. Want to help someone? Go help someone yourself instead of filtering everyone else's money through various levels of government overhead. Leave your neighborhood. Go to a Catholic church that is in the heart of a poor neighborhood. Give the Parish Priest a hundred bucks and tell him to give it to a family that he knows really needs it. Then shut up about it. You can do that once a month. Don't tell me that I should pay more for gas because you think it's a good idea. Do something yourself.
"The word of the Lord"
"Thanks be to God"
RJ
HYPOTHETICAL #1: Some portion of your tax dollars go to subsidize health care insurance administered by private sector insurance companies. The insured pay co-pays and deductibles. The insured have access to free or low-cost wellness and/or preventative care. The insured can find a doctor and/or practice that fits their wants and needs, and can see the same doctor and/or practice on a repeat basis. The insured have the opportunity to take ownership of their healthcare program. The insured experience a sense of dignity in their healthcare.
HYPOTHETICAL #2 Some portion of your tax dollars go to subsidize a local public, municipal or charity hospital administered in most cases by some governmental body, entity or agency. The uninsured clients mayor may or may not pay a co-pay, and seldom ever pay a deductible. The uninsured have zero access to wellness or preventative care. The uninsured see a doctor at random from amongst those on duty on that occasion, often without reference to their complaint or to the doctor's area of expertise. The uninsured have little or zero chance of seeing the same doctor twice in a row, or even ever again. The uninsured have very few or perhaps zero opportunities to take ownership of their healthcare needs. The uninsured seldom ever experience a sense of dignity surrounding their healthcare visit.
MR
Ever been to California? Don't make shit up!
Post a Comment