Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 3:38 PM ET, 12/14/2010

Don't let the tax cut deal's current popularity overshadow DADT repeal

By Adam Serwer

At least two polls show the tax cut deal between President Obama and congressional Republicans with strong bipartisan political support. But Democrats shouldn't assume that because the tax cut deal is popular now, they're free to drag their feet on other matters that are important to Democrats, such as repeal of don't ask don't tell. 

As Greg reported earlier today, the House leadership announced it was introducing a standalone don't ask don't tell repeal bill. The House should pass it as soon as possible, narrowing the possibility that it'll become a victim of Senate procedure.

On the tax deal, recent poll numbers show a significant discrepancy deal between what has been derisively referred to as "the professional left" and the liberal base, with the former being largely supportive of what much of the latter has termed an act of capitulation. Substantive policy objections to the deal aside -- and I think there are plenty of them -- I think it would be a mistake to assume the popularity of the deal as a constant. 

As Greg wrote a couple of weeks ago, a poll of Obama donors and volunteers commissioned by MoveOn showed broad opposition to the tax deal. This poll is distinct from the other two surveys in that it polled not merely registered voters, but the kind of people who make Democratic victories possible by donating money, phone banking to persuade leaners and working to get out the vote. While I think a primary is unlikely unless Obama is looking like a profoundly weak candidate, in order to win in 2012, Obama will need this segment of his coalition to be motivated and active -- and I'd wager they're less likely to be if the tax cut deal is the only major element of the Dem agenda to survive the lame duck.

While the DREAM Act remains something of a longshot, if both it and DADT repeal go down in flames, it's entirely possible that the Democratic base, more amenable to compromise than their Republican counterpart, might not remember this deal as fondly in hindsight. With the the deal not even done yet, it's a little premature to assume that it will remain as popular as it is today, especially if Congress fails to repeal don't ask don't tell. 

Adam Serwer is a staff writer at The American Prospect, where he writes his own blog.

By Adam Serwer  | December 14, 2010; 3:38 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Harry Reid must vow to hold vote on DADT repeal
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

RIDDLE ME THIS


What is hurting the repeal of Dont Ask more ? The Republicans OR all these games the democrats are playing ???


________


Republicans poring over a 1,924-page overarching spending bill proposed by Democrats to cover the rest of the fiscal year are threatening to grind the legislation to a halt, citing hidden earmarks and massive spending that would be enacted into law without a review process.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 14, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Greg, what's your reporting show on the likelihood House Democrats actually being able to successfully amend the tax cut bill to change the estate tax provisions that Ezra reported?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/the_logic_--_and_illogic_--_of.html

Presumably if this happens, everything blows up and we go to Plan B where the Republicans filibuster everything except a continuing resolution and the new Republican House starts over in January with a new tax cut bill.

Posted by: jnc4p | December 14, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

What happened to the televisions and the computers of all the liberals?


Are they all broken???


The liberals lost the election. Did you know that ???


Sent packing


Failed agenda. Goodbye, get lost. Run out of town 63 democratic Congressmen are packing their offices and looking for jobs - all on account of a bait-and-switch that no one wanted to ADMIT.

>

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 14, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

"...especially if Congress fails to repeal don't ask don't tell."

Congress already failed to repeal don't ask don't tell. I'm all for calling them out for having done that, it is a disgrace.

"Obama will need this segment of his coalition to be motivated and active." ...though evidently he thinks he can pander to his base and the center right at the same time, which explains all this choreography around DADT.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 14, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, Out in Arizona, Governor Jan Brewer(R) has established her very own version of death panels.

From Think Progress:

"Arizona’s Gov. Jan Brewer (R), who is committed to gutting Arizona’s Medicaid program at the expense of transplant patients. Ignoring pleas from Democratic lawmakers and transplant patients to restore the $1.4 million in funding to the transplant program, Brewer insists that such “optional,” “Cadillac” treatment for the dying must go toward recouping one-tenth of a percent from Arizona’s projected budget shortfall."

Posted by: Liam-still | December 14, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

"it's a little premature to assume that it will remain as popular as it is today"

That's an understatement. Right now the White House has all its partisans ginned up to defend the president no matter what. But just wait for the hangover. As the deficit sinks in and the government cuts start, the Democratic Party will convulse. And that won't help Obama is 2012, never mind the Democratic Party. And let's not even mention the nation. That's why I keep saying this deal serves only Obama's short-term self-interest.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 14, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Brewer insists that such “optional,” “Cadillac” treatment for the dying must go toward recouping one-tenth of a percent from Arizona’s projected budget shortfall."
-------------------------------------------
By their acts, shall you know them.

Matthew 7:20

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 14, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

An Irishman on the street explains what brought about the collapse of the Irish Banking system, and sees much the same thing happening in North America.

He speaks his, mind using the F. word a lot, so if small words scare you, do not go to the video clip.

It is well on the way to becoming a youtube sensation, with almost 900,000 views, since it was posted on 12/7/2010.

It is very cathartic, because he expresses what many of you are now feeling.

By the way, it was broadcast uncensored, on Irish National Radio, which is funded by the Irish government, so at least they are less afraid of free speech than the nation that keeps bragging about practicing it.

Take a look at the video. It will make you feel better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koY6kXhQDQo

Posted by: Liam-still | December 14, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

That is just revolting, Liam.

Life-saving transplants are now "optional" care? What the...

Letting constituents literally DIE so she can pull her budget shenanigans is quite obviously the biggest insult imaginable to concept of public service.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 14, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

Pretty much what jnc4p just said. In January, this all does not matter to Americans. In January, we will all be cheering when the NEW Congress passes what Pelosi has refused to, and I think you and I both know that this dies in the process, along with a lot of other Liberal Dreams.

They have not been Statesmen for a long time. Don't expect them to grow a pair on your wishes on this one issue. That is somewhat perverse on sooo many levels!!!

Tax Cut or NOTHING is *very* real.

83 - 15 says it all. Some have already thrown the towel in, and they might *even* switch sides on the cloture votes needed to get this over the hump, making the defeat even *more* humiliating.

Call for the Democrats to PASS the Tax Cut, Flawed as even I will agree with you that it is, and things can move forward.

You Know It. I Know It. And with that 83 -15 vote, more importantly, some people in the Senate Know it. More than that they might start getting pissed off that they have to repeatedly take beating after beating on this because someone is going to go die hard on this. It is an agenda item that more Americans think is of little or no importance than think it is important very much at all!

Get real. Pass the Tax Cut and this becomes almost a slam dunk. Whizz in the wind, and it flys back in your face and makes *everything* taste and smell funny for quite some time...

;'{P~~~

Posted by: Clearbrook | December 14, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Adam, I thought this was Greg's line. I did not mean to slight you...

Posted by: Clearbrook | December 14, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"Whizz in the wind, and it flys back in your face and makes *everything* taste and smell funny for quite some time..."

Well said. Or something.

Seriously tho, I agree 100%.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 14, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"Irishman on the street" in 2012! (He'd probably be in prison in the U.S.)

Hey did you hear this one? It's only right that we get the Bush Tax Cuts since we're getting Bush's third term anyway.

Try the veal.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 14, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Brewer insists that such “optional,” “Cadillac” treatment for the dying must go toward recouping one-tenth of a percent from Arizona’s projected budget shortfall."
-------------------------------------------
By their acts, shall you know them.

Matthew 7:20

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 14, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

I guess Palin was right about the Death Panels. Who knew?

Posted by: wbgonne | December 14, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

From Benen:

"REID REMINDS GOP: 'CONGRESS ENDS ON JAN. 4'

"there are several key priorities the majority intends to tackle in this lame-duck session. Several Senate Republicans believe if they use enough obnoxious delaying tactics, Democrats will simply give up and go home.

In the latest example of this, the Senate is preparing to vote on an omnibus spending bill that would fund the federal government through the rest of the fiscal year. Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), the chamber's most right-wing members, intend to demand that the clerk of the Senate read the spending bill, out loud and in its entirety, before it's voted on.

The omnibus is 1,924 pages.

Coburn and DeMint aren't just motivated by "dickishness" -- though that's part of it -- the goal is to slow things down to prevent votes on other bills.

...

It's already assumed that members will be working next week. More to the point, Reid also said today that coming back after Christmas if next week doesn't go as smoothly as it should.

"There's still Congress after Christmas. We're not through," Reid told reporters today. "Congress ends on Jan. 4."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_12/027085.php

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 14, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

How many millionaire US Senators will leave estates, that will be able to take advantage of the new reductions in estate taxes, that they are now voting for?

Wanking Bankers and The Wanking Politicians they are in bed with, are destroying the working classes.

Think about that for a moment. We know that the place is filled with mostly millionaires, on both sides of the aisle, so was this brand new gift for the wealthy, added on, in order to get the vast majority of both parties to vote for it? Hmmmm!

Bankers and Politicians are: A Confederacy Of Wankers.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 14, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Totally unrelated to anything on this blog, but nonetheless, good news and potentially incredibly important:

"Stem Cell Transplant Cures HIV In 'Berlin Patient"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/14/hiv-cure-berlin-patient_n_796521.html

On the heels of World AIDS Day comes a stunning medical breakthrough: Doctors believe an HIV-positive man who underwent a stem cell transplant has been cured as a result of the procedure.

Timothy Ray Brown, also known as the "Berlin Patient," received the transplant in 2007 as part of a lengthy treatment course for leukemia. His doctors recently published a report in the journal Blood affirming that the results of extensive testing "strongly suggest that cure of HIV infection has been achieved."

Brown's case paves a path for constructing a permanent cure for HIV through genetically-engineered stem cells.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 14, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

"How many millionaire US Senators will leave estates, that will be able to take advantage of the new reductions in estate taxes, that they are now voting for?"

That definitely occurred to me as I was calling Sen Kerry's office to ask him to vote against the Tax Cave In and Wealthy Family Protection Act. I thought: this is even more hopeless than my usual calls to Kerry' office.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 14, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Their used to be a US Senator from Wisconsin, that used to give out: annual Golden Fleece Awards. I think he might have awarded all those voting for this latest give away to the wealthy, a collective Golden Fleece Award, in perpetuity.

I think that Senator was named William Proxmire. I will have to go a googling, to see if me auld memory is correct. I seem to recall that he use to run for reelection by spending only a few hundred dollars on his campaigns.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 14, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

"Brewer insists that such “optional,” “Cadillac” treatment for the dying must go toward recouping one-tenth of a percent from Arizona’s projected budget shortfall"

Brewer is a withered prune of an old witch. The modern face of the GOP.
I hope her bedroom becomes invested with fire ants.

Posted by: filmnoia | December 14, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

How effective can any government death tax be if the NYT is still in the Sulzeberger family? How is there still a fortune in the Kennedy family? How is wealth still passed on in this country?

Isn't the death tax really designed to steal, er, take from those to stupid to not estate plan? And aren't those people therefore most in need of protection?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 14, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Head Romney lays the first plank in his 2012 campaign platform, by declaring that he will seek to make unemployed people pay their own unemployment checks.

Lovely Mitt Head. I assume, as a logical extension of such reasoning, your next plank will be a promise: to make all disabled soldiers pay for their own disability checks and health care.

Way to go Mitt; you are well on the way to making that Grizzly Granny From Alaska, a more rational choice for President.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 14, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still said:

-------------------------------------------
"How many millionaire US Senators will leave estates, that will be able to take advantage of the new reductions in estate taxes, that they are now voting for?

Wanking Bankers and The Wanking Politicians they are in bed with, are destroying the working classes.

Think about that for a moment. We know that the place is filled with mostly millionaires, on both sides of the aisle, so was this brand new gift for the wealthy, added on, in order to get the vast majority of both parties to vote for it? Hmmmm!

Bankers and Politicians are: A Confederacy Of Wankers."
-------------------------------------------

Maybe a few of the more STUPID ones will need this, but I seriously doubt that any of them are not using Trust Funds and other such Estate Planning items that are availible to them, and using them to the fullest extent possible, since they may have even WRITTEN THE LAWS already that they will be using.

You and I, were we to become millionares today, would have to take years to get this all set up. I am unlikely to be able to use their tactics, but should I actually make some money before I die, this might allow me, as a member of the "unwashed" newly rich, avoid some of the taxes that people like John Kerry will *never* have to worry about paying.

I don't think you understand much about estate taxes and assume that NO-ONE can avoid them. Well, if your money is tied up in ways that you can't move it around easily, such as many self-made millionare men and women are in the position of finding themselves in, what you've worked all your life for will be given to the Governement at tax rates even higher than CORPORATE rates. Yeah, you won't be able to avoid it! But if you are filthy rich and know how to use Trust Funds, international investments, and other such legal schemes, this Estate Tax bill means that you can have just a little more "loose cash" hanging around when you die. I dare say, the ones who benefit most in that circumstance, are those working for those Rich People to keep their money protected and yet still usable.

;'{P~~~

Posted by: Clearbrook | December 14, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

"Brewer insists that such “optional,” “Cadillac” treatment for the dying must go toward recouping one-tenth of a percent from Arizona’s projected budget shortfall"

Brewer is a withered prune of an old witch. The modern face of the GOP.
I hope her bedroom becomes invested with fire ants."


Really quite amazing -- even for a goper -- to say that a life-saving treatment is 'optional.' But for Rs life is 'optional' if you aren't rich. They simply don't care if people die needlessly -- thre is something basic wrong with their brains, something missing, that prevents them from having human feelings. Movement conservatism is a psychiatric disorder.

Posted by: fiona5 | December 14, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

"Arizona’s Gov. Jan Brewer (R), who is committed to gutting Arizona’s Medicaid program at the expense of transplant patients. Ignoring pleas from Democratic lawmakers and transplant patients to restore the $1.4 million in funding to the transplant program, Brewer insists that such “optional,” “Cadillac” treatment for the dying must go toward recouping one-tenth of a percent from Arizona’s projected budget shortfall."

So are nowmsaying government should have less influence in the allocation of health care resources? I thought Obamacare was about using the power of government to make better health care resource allocation decisions that would not only improve healthcare, but bend the cost curve downwards?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 14, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

So are nowmsaying government should have less influence in the allocation of health care resources?
-----------------------------------------------
We're talking about Jan Brewer, not the government. She may be the governor, but I would never dignify her as representing the government.

I expect health insurance companies to place profits above the lives of their customers, because we all know they are soulless, but I don't expect a governor to make the same decision.

One thing is for sure: we know that Mrs. Brewer's value system places money ahead of life.

Forgive me for my old fashioned Christian values, I thought life was more important than money.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 14, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Troll,

Show me where anyone said we should save money by reducing funding for critical life-saving care.

Go ahead.

You won't because you can't.

The fact that you even attempt to come to the defense of someone who would look her constituent in the eye and tell them to either pay for an "optional" life-saving transplant or shut up and die shows how utterly morally depraved the right has become. Troll, you are example #1 of this unbelievably disgusting anti-life anti-human Republican mentality.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 14, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Why do you expect the government to make decision you'd be in favor of? We're talking about {a} limited resource (s) here. What if it's decided that spending more on, say, prenatal care is smarter than on transplants? It's not like you can switch governments. If healthcare is a right that is to be funded in part or in total through taxation, don't the people, through their elected representatives, have a say in how those resources are expended?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 14, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, calm down. I'm not necessarily defending governor Brewer's decision, I'm merely pointing out that if I have to pay for others healthcare, then I have a say in what gets paid for. Whoever pays the piper, calls the tune. Foa somebody who thinks that government should have more influence in healthcare, you sure get agitated when it does.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 14, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Let me pray that we do not live in Arizona, need an organ transplant, and need Medicaid. Those poor people, to be traded off for money! At least they know what they are worth. Or better yet, what they are not worth.

Every other country in the world can manage healthcare for all, including premies and organ transplants, and somehow they do not have to throw premies out in the snow or watch daddy die of liver failure. But not us! Maybe that's what makes us exceptional.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 14, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Troll, I am not responding to you on this topic because you have shown that you are totally disingenuous, actually petty and cruel, and thus not worth my time. Go tell your BS story to someone who cares like your fellow scumbag Brewer.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 14, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I see we have a brand new Joe The Plumber type joining in, to explain how he aspires to one day have a pot to piss in, so he can take advantage of the estate tax cuts now being handed out to those who already are wealthy.

Mitt Romney explains how the poor should pay their own unemployment checks, while the Tea Bag Morons, who are not rich, explain why the poor should get stuck paying back an expanded national debt, so that the super rich, can be over pampered.


The Republicans love to Afflict The Afflicted, and Comfort Only The Comfortable.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 14, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I'm merely pointing out that if I have to pay for others healthcare, then I have a say in what gets paid for. Whoever pays the piper, calls the tune.
-------------------------------------------------
You are paying for others' healthcare right now, through insurance premiums. Do you call the shots? Insurance companies might argue with you that you have that right, when that seems to be their right.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 14, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Here's some reality for you, Troll:

"Ariz. Man Denied Life-Saving Liver Transplant"

PHOENIX -- A Valley man was in the surgery room, prepped and ready for his life-saving liver transplant when doctors told him the state's Medicaid plan wouldn't cover the procedure.

Francisco Felix, who has Hepatitis C, has been on the waiting list for a new liver since April, his wife said. A liver became available and Felix was ready for surgery at Banner Good Samaritan Hospital.

Arizona's medicaid agency, AHCCCS, which has recently cut funding for some services, refused to pay for Felix's surgery.

AHCCCS no longer cover liver transplants but not for patients with Hepatitis C, according to Jennifer Carusett, a spokeswoman for AHCCCS.

The cuts were part of the Republican-lead legislature's plan to balance the budget, which Gov. Jan Brewer signed. The policy change took effect Oct. 1.

...

The liver Felix hoped to receive Tuesday was directly donated to him by a family friend who suddenly died Monday. But because Felix could not come up with $200,000 by 10a.m. Tuesday, the liver was given to someone else. Felix went to the hospital hoping AHCCCS would fund the operation on an emergency ruling.

"The liver is gone because we don't have the money. That's why we lost this opportunity. But we have hope that something good is going to come," said his wife, Flor Felix.

http://www.kpho.com/news/25811486/detail.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 14, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

And all this happened at Banner Good Samaritan Hospital. Ironic.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 14, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Ok, I'm still wondering why you'd want to give the government more power to make decisions over things like healthcare. Were talking a out a scarcity that requires rationing.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 14, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

But Republicans are Pro-Life, haven't you heard?.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 14, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

@liam,

It's all in the semantics. Republicans ARE prolife, but they are more promoney. Promoney trumps prolife every time.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 14, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

I can decide to buy, or not buy insurance. That's a voluntary transaction. Government takes by law, not voluntary.

These are decisions that will occur with more frequency with the models of healthcare financing were persuing. Dollar values are and will continue to be put on the value of lives. In the UK, they're called NICE. If you cost to much, you don't get it. We shouldn't act surprised.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 14, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

"But Republicans are Pro-Life, haven't you heard?"

Republicans wouldn't know Pro-Life from a grenade launcher.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 14, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

ok, troll, you like the present system. I don't.

I think that taking profit out of the system and reducing the number of payors to one, would cost a lot less. There are a lot of countries that do just that, and spend less than half of what we do.

You don't want that, for some reason. I do.

So what's new?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 14, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Troll, riddle me this...

There are a lot of other countries who pay far less for healthcare than we do, have longer life expectancies, better rates of infant mortality, and better outcomes on a number of other health related issues. AND PAY LESS than we do. (In case you missed that part.)

How can that be?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 14, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

There are a lot of other countries who pay far less for healthcare than we do, have longer life expectancies, better rates of infant mortality, and better outcomes on a number of other health related issues. AND PAY LESS than we do. (In case you missed that part.)

How can that be?
-----------------------------------------------------
@sue,

Maybe they are going around with machetes in the middle of the night and killing all the sick people and preemies, dumping them in mass graves dug at gunpoint by legions of elderly people.

Think that's how they're saving money? Cause we sure don't want any of that.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 14, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

I have no faith in our government to provide healthcare in a fashion better and or less expensive than what exists now. And what exists now sucks.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 14, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

12BB, that must be it! No other way would be possible.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 14, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, whatever, Troll. We know you just want your freedom to pay more and get less.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 14, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

To: Jan Brewer and Banner Good Samaritan Hospital in Arizona

Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?"

He said, "He who showed mercy on him."

Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

– Luke 10:30–37, World English Bible
-------------------------------------------
Jesus was wrong. It should be "Go and do likewise unless you live in Arizona".

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 14, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Yes Sue, obviously that's it. There are enough resources so that all Americans get all the best healthcare, and the government has proven, time and again, as the best, most efficient and most honest dispenser of these non scarce resources.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 14, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

12bar,

Are you saying that the Bible should be governments guide in how it allocates it's resources,

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 14, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Are you saying that the Bible should be governments guide in how it allocates it's resources,
---------------------------------------------
When it comes to healthcare, you can't do better than following the ethics of the Bible. You disagree? What system do you like?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 14, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

I think the Bible is subject to interpretation. Other would consider relying on it as arbitrary as relying on phrenology.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 14, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

But Republicans are Pro-Life, haven't you heard?

They're pro-life up until you're alive.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 14, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

troll,

Let's see. You don't want to follow the ethics of Jesus, because He was kind of arbitrary, but you'll follow the ethics of the insurance companies, who don't have souls.

Healthcare for all seems pretty straightforward. That means healthcare for preemies, old people, dying people, transplant-needing people, rich people, poor people, gays, straights and transgenders. All. The cheapest way to do that is to reduce the number of payors to the smallest number, even one, if possible. Every other industrialized country does it. So can we.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 14, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

But Republicans are Pro-Life, haven't you heard?

They're pro-life up until you're alive.

Posted by: wbgonne | December 14, 2010 7:06 PM
----

I believe 12BB is Pro-Life, but I'm not sure she's a Republican. How about you, wbgonne? You okay with the mass murdering of unborn children as long as it's called by another name? The old guy who needs a liver transplant probably resents being treated like an unborn child. Don't you think? I wonder how many women would agree to bring their babies to term if someone offered them $200,000?

Posted by: Brigade | December 14, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

You sure read a lot into what I wrote. Interesting.

"The cheapest way to do that is to reduce the number of payors to the smallest number, even one, if possible. Every other industrialized country does it. So can we."

I see no evidence that government controlled healthcare is the cheapest way to allocate those resources. And if all other industrialized countries do that, how do we know that is the cheapest way of doing it.

What else do you think I wrote that I didn't?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 14, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

What else do you think I wrote that I didn't?
-------------------------------------
What makes you think I'm talking about you?

That is my opinion. Reducing the numbers of payors is way cheaper than what we are doing. You should do some research on the matter and you would come to the same conclusion.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 14, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

The old guy who needs a liver transplant probably resents being treated like an unborn child. Don't you think? I wonder how many women would agree to bring their babies to term if someone offered them $200,000?
---------------------------------------
You should know that the Arizona transplant guy isn't old. See the picture of him with his wife and children. Looks like he's in his 30's.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/13/medicaid-cuts-teeth-pulled-transplant-called-off/

As you correctly remember, I am prolife, always have been and God willing, always will be. I don't know what the theory is behind offering women $200k to keep their babies or whether they could be bought that way. I would hope that women would keep their babies because it is right, rather than for compensation. Don't know what else to say about that.

In my opinion, being prolife means far more than being against abortion. It means supporting a culture of life, and that includes getting transplants to people who can't pay for them. It's hardly frivolous surgery.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 14, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Well, I stupidly assumed you were referring to me since your post was addressed to me:

"troll,

Let's see. You don't want to follow the ethics of Jesus, because He was kind of arbitrary, but you'll follow the ethics of the insurance companies, who don't have souls.

Healthcare for all seems pretty straightforward. That means healthcare for preemies, old people, dying people, transplant-needing people, rich people, poor people, gays, straights and transgenders. All. The cheapest way to do that is to reduce the number of payors to the smallest number, even one, if possible. Every other industrialized country does it. So can we"

Sorry I came to such a ridiculous conclusion.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 14, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the AZ transplant guy is 32.

@troll,

Of course, if it is addressed to you, it is addressed to you. That doesn't mean that I am parsing your words and refuting them robotically. What I write in a post to you, is my opinion.

You think the Bible is arbitrary. A lot of people, myself included, would disagree that the concepts of neighbors and love are arbitrary. These are the big ideas. You can find arbitrariness in the Bible, if you want to go looking for small ideas, like food laws, female dress, and dozens of other examples. I've heard people argue about how to spell Yahweh. That's what I'd call a small idea, if it's even that.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 14, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

@12BB
"I don't know what the theory is behind offering women $200k to keep their babies or whether they could be bought that way."
------

It seems that's the price for a liver to keep the Arizona gentleman around. No theory, I was just wondering how many aborted babies may have been brought to term for the same going rate.

Posted by: Brigade | December 14, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

No theory, I was just wondering how many aborted babies may have been brought to term for the same going rate.
-------------------------------------------
I'm sure I don't know the answer to that. It all seems rather alien to me. I was advised to have an abortion with my second child because of rh disease. I just couldn't do it, it was wrong. But I went to parochial school for 12 years so this principle was deep within me. Luckily, she lived after 6 weeks in intensive care and several complete transfusions. Now she is a court reporter and the mother of five herself. How about that?

Personally, I don't like to see human lives translated into dollars, so much for this guy's life versus so much for a newborn baby's life. All are worthy.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 14, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Troll, you're subhuman and I don't want to hear from you anymore. Nor will I. PLONK.

I hope the family of the first patient to die from a denied transplant manages to blind and (further) disfigure that witch Brewer with a faceful of vitriol Let that be her next ration of special attention.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 15, 2010 2:31 AM | Report abuse


I have posted this already here before You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price check search online for "Wise Health Insurance" If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and believe me you are not going to loose anything!

Posted by: johnbaudoin | December 15, 2010 2:44 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company