He Said, She Said

In today's Washington Post, Rick Perlstein notes, as we have seen, that today's "librul media" has fallen off the horse and does not speak the truth when confronted by crazy talk. From "Crazy as a Pre-Existing Condition":

Conservatives have become adept at playing the media for suckers, getting inside the heads of editors and reporters, haunting them with the thought that maybe they are out-of-touch cosmopolitans and that their duty as tribunes of the people's voices means they should treat Obama's creation of "death panels" as just another justiciable political claim . . .

It used to be different. You never heard the late Walter Cronkite taking time on the evening news to "debunk" claims that a proposed mental health clinic in Alaska is actually a dumping ground for right-wing critics of the president's program, or giving the people who made those claims time to explain themselves on the air. The media didn't adjudicate the ever-present underbrush of American paranoia as a set of "conservative claims" to weigh, horse-race-style, against liberal claims. Back then, a more confident media unequivocally labeled the civic outrage represented by such discourse as "extremist" -- out of bounds.

The tree of crazy is an ever-present aspect of America's flora. Only now, it's being watered by misguided he-said-she-said reporting and taking over the forest. Latest word is that the enlightened and mild provision in the draft legislation to help elderly people who want living wills -- the one hysterics turned into the "death panel" canard -- is losing favor, according to the Wall Street Journal, because of "complaints over the provision."

Good thing our leaders weren't so cowardly in 1964, or we would never have passed a civil rights bill -- because of complaints over the provisions in it that would enslave whites.

IBD updates their editorial!!

Well the news isn't that good: Investor's Business Daily has modified their editorial (see below) to acknowledge that Stephen Hawking is, as we noted previously, indeed a citizen of the U.K. But that is ALL they updated.

You see, they still maintain that rationing of health care exists. But, Stephen Hawking's very residency and treatment by the NHS completely invalidates the scaremongering and the demagoguery of the IBD.

According to Mr. Hawking in The Guardian, UK:

"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he told us. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

Amazing, just Amazing

The Investor's Business Daily today published an editorial that is so full of shit, that it has gone beyond stink. This editorial mentions such gems as the following in describing the obviously absurd state of medical care in the United Kingdom:

The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof are legendary. The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror movie script.

The U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) basically figures out who deserves treatment by using a cost-utility analysis based on the "quality adjusted life year."

and here's the real diamond:

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

Obviously, the point to be made is that Stephen Hawking not only has a chance in the U.K., Mr. Hawking has lived in the U.K. his entire life, save for those times when he has been traveling outside the U.K.

The people who write this crap either don't know what the truth actually is, or they are so brought to orgasm by what they see as "the game of politics," that it doesn't really matter.

The sad truth of this whole matter is that there are more than a dozen people in the U.S. who will believe whatever Republicans tell them.

Who's winning the Health Care debate?

There is no way one could even charitably call what is going on in this country as a "debate." Fortunately, I agree with Elrod over at TMV that right now, Obama is winning the battle, despite all the effort and noise on the right. The bottom line--and I know this as a Medicaid Administrator--is that we will have no effective, economic health care in the United States until there is a public option, or better yet, single payer.

But I think there is a larger issue at work here. The Limbaugh-sycophants and the Palin-wannabe's who show at Democratic Legislator town halls, etc., to disrupt and prevent any rational discussion, may be doing more to reduce their precious liberties--solely by these tactics--than they could ever accomplish, even should they succeed in preventing "socialized medicine." [Ironically at one event--the exact one escapes me now--the protesters were shouting something to the effect of "no government-run health care for the US," but when queried, over half of these yokels were on Medicare. Okay . . . and of course the point to bring up is that a large percentage of the Medicare-eligible population likes Medicare: it is certainly preferable (for them) than the alternative, which in most cases would equal no healthcare coverage at all.]

It has always been a thesis of mine that rights and liberties continue to exist only so long as a vast majority of the population supports civility in their application. For example, what percentage of the population would continue to support the whole gamut of Miranda-types of rights, if 40% of the population were criminals? It's the same thing with free speech and the freedom of religion: when very large numbers abuse these fundamental liberties, then the very existence of those liberties becomes threatened.

Mobs that shout and intimidate will destroy free speech just as surely as a despotic government.

Euthanizing the Elderly, contd.

It seems that a lot of the mainstream left has jumped on this story of "euthanizing the elderly". Thought I'd point to the relevant website to get this information. It is run by Betsy McCaughey, president of a health firm, who also testified against government intrusion when the Clinton's were making their ill-fated effort to get the US into the 20th Century with respect to healthcare. Here is Betsy's website.

And here is the bill, on the idiots' website, on supposedly page 425, that lists this requirement.

On the right wing, I suppose that the premise is that you can say anything you want, but not expect any of the unwashed to actually read the document to which you refer. It is the ultimate of jingoism, to incite based upon no reason, just to pad your own pocketbooks.