Right winger’s argument against a right to health care: ‘Should food be a basic human right?’
Right winger’s argument against a right to health care: ‘Should food be a basic human right?’
On MSNBC this afternoon, Firedoglake’s Jane Hamsher engaged in a spirited exchange with Townhall’s Jillian Bandes about health care reform. After Hamsher mentioned that she was speaking out in favor of the public option as “a sixteen-year cancer survivor,” Bandes replied, “I’m sorry I’m not a cancer survivor, but that doesn’t mean I can’t criticize a public plan.” When Hamsher argued that access to health care should be a human right, Bandes interrupted her and threw up her arm, asking “should food be a basic human right?” Watch it:
Bandes might not like it, but for most of the world, food is considered a human right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U.N. in 1948, states that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food.” The U.S. voted for the declaration.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Right winger’s argument against a right to health care: ‘Should food be a basic human right?’
Yes, it should, but it isn’t under capitalism. The same with health care.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:56 pm“Should food be a basic human right?”
Stupid poll from jeffboste in 3… 2… 1…
July 9th, 2009 at 4:57 pmWhere do they find these cold-hearted lunatics?
Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick these people suck!
July 9th, 2009 at 4:58 pm“derrrrr, should food be a basic human right”
what a stupid parallel to draw proving what i’ve always known-cancervative stop emotionally developing at about the third grade level.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:00 pmWhat could everyone expect from this GOP backing tool from Clown Hall ……………
July 9th, 2009 at 5:01 pmIt seems the Right Wing has an endless supply of these bimbos. Where the heck do they find them?
July 9th, 2009 at 5:01 pmConservatives are immoral.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:02 pmpersonally,
July 9th, 2009 at 5:04 pmi would have turned it right back around on this shrew with, “please, tell us what you consider basic human rights.”
The other day, some troll asked me where I got the idea that conservatives don’t care about people.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:05 pmAmericasBack Says:
——————————————————————————–
Hey, going hungry gives you motivation – right?
July 9th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Yeah …………To steal , so you don’t starve
July 9th, 2009 at 5:05 pmLet’s take food and health care away from Ms. Bandes and see what she thinks then!!! What a crazy foolish woman.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:06 pmBozo The Neoclown Says:
——————————————————————————–
personally,
i would have turned it right back around on this shrew with, “please, tell us what you consider basic human rights.”
July 9th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
We all know the answer to that :
TAX CUTS
July 9th, 2009 at 5:07 pmlol mcmetal,
July 9th, 2009 at 5:08 pmi stepped right into that one.
My goodness what a worthless piece of dogshyte Bandes is. Not to insult dog shyte but this just further exposes the lies of the GOP and their rightwingnut agenda. They may as well say “Just die!” to those who are sick and uninsured.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:09 pmLet’s ask Jean Valjean.
Where do these cretins come from???
July 9th, 2009 at 5:09 pmThe health insurance companies will not insure everyone. That right-wing cow is a liar.
I know people who have the money to pay premiums, but who are denied coverage. The right wing is lying constantly about this.
The for-profit motive has denied universal access to health insurance. The insurers do not want to cover people with current maladies, or those who they think will become ill in the future.
It is a monopoly, not a market.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:10 pmWhat is so hard to understand about that?
In a matter of hours I will watchhundreds and hundreds of pounds of perfectly good food go to waste. There is no need for hunger. Just a need for more equitable distribution of food resources. By the way anyone interested in a few pounds of mahi? It is free and in fact there are free lunches as well as dinners…. I eat themall the time…
July 9th, 2009 at 5:10 pmFood and Health are something that is easy to attain. All one needs to do is pray. Ask and yee shall receive.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:12 pmSomeone should tell Ann Coulter
that her parrot escaped.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:12 pmWhy stop at food? How about water or oxygen…
Television’s talking heads are as hapless as America’s horrific leaders.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:12 pmChristian Taliban Says:
——————————————————————————–
Food and Health are something that is easy to attain. All one needs to do is pray. Ask and yee shall receive.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Is this snark ?
I certainly hope so…………
July 9th, 2009 at 5:13 pm“Should food be a basic human right?”
___________________________________________________________
Um…YEAH…
This is why we have food stamp programs and free school lunch programs. This is why we give government assistance to those who can’t afford food. No citizen of this country — one of the richest in the world — should be left to starve. Yes — it’s a basic right.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:14 pmNever underestimate the ability of a neocon to say something stupid.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:16 pmWhen all else fails a food fight is always a good, last, and reasonable option. Of course what she implies by this is that when the going gets tough I’d rather let people in America starve than contribute to the feeding of them. As Hunter S. Thompson said “when the going gets weird, the weird turn professional”. They turn out to be professional nutcases speaking for the reichtwing of America.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:17 pmThat interview was a public disservice. MSNBC should be embarrassed.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:19 pmBTW
This Bandes dope was dismissed as a columnist for The Daily Tar Heel – UNC’s student-run newspaper back in 2005 (when she was a junior there) , for a highly controversial op-ed that she wrote for the fourth anniversary of September 11th. She wrote about the necessity of racial profiling during security screenings.
So she already has a history of behaving stupidly……….
July 9th, 2009 at 5:19 pmHow come some minion of Borgen’s with a funny name hasn’t shown up yet?
July 9th, 2009 at 5:19 pmWe have to be sure we allocate our resources in the order that God demands. If I’m reading the Bible correctly I’m pretty sure he meant us not to think about any of our other needs until we were armed. Once we’re sure we can kill other people then we need to think about clothing and shelter. With that out of the way we need to spend a moment contemplating whether there’s anyone around us who needs to be killed right now. Then, we think about food and water. And finally, after a nap, we can consider broadband access, television, and health care.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:20 pmIs Jillian, Bill-O’s illegitimate love child.
Poor Jane. Too bad they didn’t have more time and a moderater keeping it fair.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:20 pmAlert the Cato Institute! There’s no mention of a “right to food” in the Constitution so any government-sponsored or -funded initiative to feed the hungry must be unconstitutional.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:21 pmWow, what a cold uncaring young republican and probably very well cared for in all areas of her life.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:22 pmHere’s the deal, they get this public single payer plan passed, it will turn this country around both financially and in matters of the heart (hope).
I wrote both of my representatives and told them not to compromise and get it passed or i promise if they let this opportunity slip by, i will not vote democrat.
No. All poor peeple shud starve. I make lots of money so I dont kare.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:23 pmSigned, iggerint Publican.
Yes, by all means, if we’re going to have government take over and run health care in this country, then lets have them take over food production as well. Lets nationalize all the farms, grocery stores and restaurants; government can run them so much better than private firms could, without all that nasty concern for evil profits. After all, its immoral to want to make money off of people’s hunger, the nerve!
Besides, there’s so many examples where its worked elsewhere, right?
Later,
July 9th, 2009 at 5:23 pmHow did one party take on so so many stupid people? Seriously!
July 9th, 2009 at 5:24 pmIf ultra conservatives had their way they would turn the US into feudal society where food was not a human right, but a luxury reserved only for the privileged few
July 9th, 2009 at 5:25 pmCicero:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:26 pmIt is a privately owned food distributer who will be throwing out the food I speak of and 6 other days a week as well…Max profit drives massive waste…
Cicero Says:
——————————————————————————–
Yes, by all means, if we’re going to have government take over and run health care in this country, then lets have them take over food production as well.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Who here has ever suggested a government takeover of food production , you delusional jackass ?
July 9th, 2009 at 5:27 pmKudos to Jane for calling Bandes out on her rude idiocy…
July 9th, 2009 at 5:28 pmIf we as a nation would just realize that a social Democracy is the best route to go, we could get universal healthcare lickity split, and stop messing with this public option nonsense.
Palin and Hannity are already on board. Don’t believe me? See for yourself.
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2025
July 9th, 2009 at 5:29 pmI believe Colbert covered this issue in the context of that idiot Missouri legislator who wanted to cut food programs for poor chidren during the summer because “hunger is a motivator”. Paraphrasing his proposal, I suggest that anyone who sees this hateful rightwing harpie take away any food on or near her person. After all, she has no right to it and her hunger will be a great motivator.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:31 pmHere’s the thing about food and healthcare. Unlike all other necessities, these cannot be recycled. One can’t use someone’s food or healthcare after they’re done using it themselves. Clothing can be purchased used, shelter exists (for most) even if someone’s lived there before, but food and healthcare are on-time use items, which is why they are the first offerings for the poor – food stamps and Medicaid.
But the ‘pubs resent the government providing food stamps and Medicaid, so I guess I have no point.
PEACE
July 9th, 2009 at 5:31 pmBandes: Let them eat cake!
July 9th, 2009 at 5:33 pmWas it just me or in the beginning was Jillian glancing down at her talking points?
July 9th, 2009 at 5:36 pmLet me guess. The right wing bimbo is the one on the right?
July 9th, 2009 at 5:36 pmOh and before anybody starts that stupid teach a man to fish crap let me just remind you that that most often leads to fisheries depletion…. Please make responsible seafood purchases…
July 9th, 2009 at 5:36 pmBozo The Neoclown Says: #4
“cancervative”
That pretty much sums it all up!
July 9th, 2009 at 5:37 pmdbadass Says:
So there’s nothing else they can do with the food, can they not give it to a food bank? After all, if they’re just going to throw it away, why wouldn’t they give it away, couldn’t they get a tax write-off?
In a lot of cases (not necessarily in yours, I don’t know your situation), its local health codes that require businesses to throw out food, and will not allow them to give them away. I remember a corporate lunch a few years back, there was a lot of food left over, some of it hadn’t even been touched. I asked what was going to be done with it, and they said they were required by health regs to throw it all out.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:38 pmBrianFL Says:
——————————————————————————–
Bandes: Let them eat cake!
Can I have a glass of milk with that cake?
July 9th, 2009 at 5:38 pmJillian Bandes: Sat Sep 17, 2005
All I need to know about Jillian…
July 9th, 2009 at 5:38 pmCan you imagine an MSNBC producer asking this dullard if she would represent the side opposed to “food as a basic human right” in pre-appearance meetings?
July 9th, 2009 at 5:40 pmShould intelligence be a human right?
July 9th, 2009 at 5:42 pmWhen a party becomes driven by negativism’s, hate, and fear you get your modern Republicans. What a lesson for those that choose to learn from it. Political parties can turn bad over night. Best to delegate the Republicans to the likes of the commies, nazi, and fascist cabals of the past, and leave them there.
Republicans snap and whine and cheat, but they are doing what they are happy doing, after all. It’s only up to the rest of us to see that they don’t get on the ballot as the official opposition ever again. It’s the only way.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:43 pmHaving been hungry in the past I can attest it’s not too much fun.
Where’s that idiot Alejandro? Can’t he come here and explain how his hard earned tax dollars shouldn’t be used for food programs for the needy?
July 9th, 2009 at 5:44 pmgodotiswaiting Says:
——————————————————————————–
Should intelligence be a human right?
July 9th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
It’s forbidden in the GOP………….
July 9th, 2009 at 5:45 pmFace it everybody. Unless we’re willing to take to the streets en masse like the Iranians did then we must be willing to endure living in the stupidest nation on the face of the Earth.
We could have it all with great lives, great jobs and great futures for our children. But the bankers and CEO’s want it all for themselves and our whore politicians hand it to them on a silver platter. Our representatives are less than pathetic! Jillian Bandes doesn’t give a shit about anyone but herself. Her life is good; to hell with the rest of us.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:46 pmI think she needs some food. How about a nice sausage you cold hearted bytch.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:46 pmWhat offends me is decent shows like Shuster’s inviting idiot reslugs like this ill-informed child! And then letting them interrupt an intelligent person who has a viable opinion/solution to the issue over and over again. I don’t get why we keep diluting honest, intelligent, and forthright individuals and their opinions/solutions with hateful, ill-informed GOP talking point reciters.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:49 pmIt appears FOX is having trouble finding any people who are sane and intelligent to argue against Public Health Care. So they put the stupid crazies on.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:49 pmMr. Evil,
There’s been marches on Washington before and they’ve done no good whatsoever. The politicians are too insulated to give a shi* about anything that doesn’t line their pockets.
I think the best way would be what the French do. Call a general strike and close the whole friggin country down. But then we’d all starve to death. Oh well.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:49 pmAt the very LEAST, from birth until eighteen, not only is it a
right, it’s the LAW.
It’s also a basic human right to breath clean air and drink clean water, something the right has always denied.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:49 pmShe must have a permanent butt plug because there’s nothing but shit coming from her mouth.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:49 pmPlease don’t wish Alejandro on us. He wastes too much space and time.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:51 pmI don’t know, she looks just like the cowardly lion.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:52 pmO/T But just breaking on MSNBC web site.
LAS VEGAS – Sen. John Ensign said Thursday his parents gave his mistress and her family nearly $100,000 “out of concern for the well being of longtime family friends during a difficult time,” providing his first public acknowledgment that the woman received payments tied to the affair.
Maybe Ensign should give up food. And his free health care.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:52 pmRich H Says: #60
If tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands in every city doesn’t work then we need to start breaking things! And yes, that would include a “general strike.” I’m all for it!
July 9th, 2009 at 5:52 pmmuy rosada,
Your right, my deepest apologies. I just fled another thread to get away from his bullshi*.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:52 pm“Look, I’m on TV…
July 9th, 2009 at 5:53 pmI’m young, brash and ignorant!”
Sparky keeps barking
Mr. Evil,
If you thought of it. I’d bet a one week general strike would allow us to pass anything we wanted in congress and the senate.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:54 pmApe-man,
I keep hoping the socialists are the official/main opposition to the Dems., but no one else seems to support that idea.
We could get more progressive legislation passed that way.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:59 pmThere are far too many conservatives like this woman who simply have no soul.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:01 pm“Where does it say you have a right to healthcare…or food for that matter…in the Constitution…?”
Who gives a rat’s crap?
It’s all the Law of Jungle.
The great big bully bugs have done a very successful job of feeding the dim little servant bugs all kinds of tidbits and marrows of mumbo-jumbo while running them down and chewing them up.
Therefore…if the dim little servant bugs can summon the guts…they might consider knocking the great big bully bugs out of the box BAMN! They won’t be punished by some ethereal cosmocratic Big Bug Daddy in the Sky. Because such a creature doesn’t exist and never existed.
However, the dim little servant bugs might get their little buggy asses whipped by the rough tough guardian bugs of the power and privilege of the great big bully bugs who let’s face it would be more useful in Mulligan Stew.
If this be nihilism…make the most of it…!
July 9th, 2009 at 6:01 pmHey Rich H, one day would get there attention, two would make them cringe, three would make them panic. On the forth day they would capitulate.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:02 pmOops, I meant “their.”
July 9th, 2009 at 6:03 pmI seem to recall the right’s argument food and water was a “basic human right” during the Schiavo fight.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:05 pmIf she’s really a conservative…she would wonder what Jesus would say..
July 9th, 2009 at 6:05 pmnot Ronald Reagan….. about taking care of each other..
I just have to say it. Ms. Bandes is a wretched little B!tch. It’s bad enough she lies through her teeth but she’s nasty and rude as well. A perfect demonstration of the modern Reichwing woman.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:06 pm…When I was hungry you fed me,
When I was sick you comforted me…
It always gets me how conservatives talk about christian values, but it’s only a hypothetical exercise. When it comes down to actually living and doing and pushing policy to be “Christ-like” Liberals and Progressives have them beat hands-down without ever referring to it as such. What a bunch of low-life hypocrites.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:11 pmI recall that the arch-cancervative Melanie Morgan is no longer invited to PBS for her rude behavior of interrupting the other speaker. May the same happen to this b-tch.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:11 pmBeing a conservative means never being embarrassed to show just how stupid, ignorant, and lunatic you are -the bigger the audience for your bigotry, the better.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:18 pmLOL…#81 Proves #82 & #83 Right….lol
July 9th, 2009 at 6:21 pmTracy__5 Says:
The self-rightous snob is the one on the left.
No, I’m pretty sure that’s Jane.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:26 pmI wonder why “principled conservatives” keeps confusing me.
Going hungry when so much food is wasted in this country does not sound principled.
Going with out health care when so much over capacity has been built into the system does not sound principled.
Hunger and sickness sound conservative.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:26 pmTracy 5000 came in at just the right time. Good going tracy. We’ve already identified you for what you are.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:28 pmMr. Evil,
I’ve been waiting for that strike since Reagan took office and broke the unions. What a way to bring them to their knees – and all peaceful, of course.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:30 pmShould more than two brain cells be a basic human right?
WTF is wrong with these ReichWingers, these people are very disturbed and need to go rethink their lives.
They have proven time and again what sociopaths they are.
Should AIR be a conservatives basic right? Maybe not.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:39 pmAhhh the pain that so longs for comfort in the neocons heart. Such a sad sad place they find themselves. If they only knew to open their eyes…
July 9th, 2009 at 6:41 pmNot surprising how the incredibly rich & elite such as Jillian Bandes want to take food away from the poor. Let them starve!!!- says Bandes.
Bandes also said, “I’m sorry I’m not a cancer survivor,” what a stupid, condescending, totally unfeeling comment!! — yeah, sure, you lying moron, you are sorry you never had cancer. What an idiot. How do hateful bigots like Bandes sleep at night? We’ll never know, because many of us, unlike icy-cold Bandes, actually care about people.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:43 pmYou have to wonder why idiots like Bandes feel that letting poor American children starve is absolutely fine with her. What a disgusting Repub child-hater. Why does she hate children?
July 9th, 2009 at 6:45 pmTracy Ahole,
My sister has cancer and her insurance wouldn’t cover it. She had to quit her job and apply for public assistance and medicaid. Now she’s getting treatment – and thank god, it looks like she’ll be alright.
Go Fuc* Off and Don’t Come Back you Right Wing Piece of Shi*!
July 9th, 2009 at 6:48 pmDamn, I broke a rule never to address a troll. But sometimes some things are just Too Stupid To Ignore.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:48 pm“should food be a basic human right?” Um, yes. Especially in countries such as the U.S.A. that labels itself as the biggest super-power in the world. If the U.S. can’t feed its starving children– & in Bandes’ view– who cares??? — then we can never- EVER– criticize other countries for letting their children down. It’s hard to imagine a more heartless person than this idiot woman. I pray she has no children of her own, because she apparently has no love or empathy for children, her own or anyone else’s.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:51 pmO/T (or maybe not)
South Carolina – ugly places and ugly faces. Governors and Senators – Both don’t know when to shut their mouths.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:51 pmI didn’t realize she was from SC. Are we looking at the next Congresswoman from SC, the next Senator? She’s got the right GOP qualifications.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:57 pmi don’t like being catty, outloud, but this one …
… BANANA CURLS…
“do you have any pride whatsoever?”
(sorry to twist your words, jane… THANK YOU for saying that.)
July 9th, 2009 at 6:57 pmBandes has the Reichwing “pundit” act perfected. When her opponent, who is only an opponent because she doesn’t put an (R) after her name, comes to a point? She interrupts and yells and makes a scene.
The whole damn movement acts like toddlers.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:02 pmI liked how Jillian whittled down the number of uninsured by pulling numbers out of her butt.
A right-wing friend of mine tried that a while back. When I mentioned the number of 45 million uninsured, he objected and claimed tat the number was actually closer to 5 million.
I said I got my figure from the US census Bureau and asked him where he got his from.
I never heard back on that question.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:03 pmAh, delightful!! Another large serving of UGLYSTOOPID! So tasty.
NOT. >:oP
July 9th, 2009 at 7:05 pmAt least Jane wasn’t the one who rudely interrupted the other each time she tried to speak.
But yes, Tracist, we know how credible authoritative voices bug the Right. Are you suggesting that Jane Hamsher could not have survived cancer with any other health care delivery system?
Because that seems like the only argument that might make a little sense, if it had any validity. Otherwise you’re simply acknowledging her credibility to speak on the health insurance issue given her experience.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:07 pmTracy__5 Says:
“No, I’m pretty sure that’s Jane.”
And in this exchange she the condescending snob. She’s a 16 year cancer survivor on which healthcare system?
So the fact that she’s had a particularly significant experience with health care providers is, what, irrelevant? As irrelevant as your question about “which healthcare system”? What was the point of that?
July 9th, 2009 at 7:11 pmTracy__5 Says:
——————————————————————————–
“No, I’m pretty sure that’s Jane.”
And in this exchange she the condescending snob. She’s a 16 year cancer survivor on which healthcare system?
July 9th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
How is that relevant or any of your fu(king business , jackass ?
The woman who had/has a horrible disease and been (fortunately) treated , wants to make sure EVERYONE has that same opportunity ; the typical GOP backing moron , who isn’t even in her 30’s yet , and who appears to be an empty-headed , spoiled twit , is the one arguing AGAINST HER OWN INTEREST HERE………
Sheesh , you GOP/Chimpy backing chumps are ignorant as hell…….
July 9th, 2009 at 7:12 pmTracy 5000, are you and Jillian Bandes horsy carousel’s? I think I saw you today. Both of you were in front of Wallgreens. People where riding you all day for .25 cents.
Personally, I wish you were a door – so I could slam you all day.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:15 pmIf Ms Hamsher had her way, I’m afraid she would not have survived. Just ask any Canadian how long and how difficult it is to get seen by a specialist.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:18 pmThis is affixed on a bronze plaque on the Statue of Liberty, and greeted immigrants to the new world, back when most Americans were still good people.
The girl in this video represents the foul, ugly selfish spoiled refuse we’ve become. Acting pompous and arrogant and verbally attacking a cancer survivor twice her age, just to sell her right wing political nonsense.
No one “doesn’t want” free health care.
No one.
Maybe a complete idiot perhaps, but if people were given the choice, most would of course take it. Especially when it would cost less than bailing out the banks, or the war in Iraq.
This girl in the video is a disgrace to everything that our country stands for.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:21 pmThis is what John Stossell argued the other day when he was talking about government run supermarkets. I guess if walmart made money denying people food instead of selling food then we would need government run supermarkets. Food is a human right, but regardless businesses don’t make money by denying people food as the healthcare industry does by denying people coverage.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:24 pmWell, we have several regular posters who claim Canadian citizenship, and they all give their health care system high marks.
Why? Have you personally run afoul of the Canadian Health Service? Or are you just spouting third-hand platitudes?
Are you suggesting that there are no sixteen-year- cancer survivors in Canada?
Let’s take a look at the five-year survival rates. If what you claim is true, then Canada should rank far below the U. S., right?
Not so much:
For breast cancer, Cuba had the highest survival rates — another country with free health care. The United States was second, and Canada was third, with 82 per cent of women surviving at least five years.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:27 pmDid I actually hear this peabrain, heartless reslug refer to health care reform as pork??!! Man, she’s way dumber than she looks.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:27 pmThanks
July 9th, 2009 at 7:28 pmHaving finally had an opportunity to listen to this clip, I have to say that TP has completely missed the boat. The first minute(s) in which the townhall mouthpiece spins her story, is the real piece of irony and a truly awe-inspiring load of shameless crap–assisted, unsurprisingly, by the “moderator.”
Her story is that the poor, underfunded, grassroots movement (Republicans) represent the real victims and that the big mean Democrats pushing the reform movement are simply throwing money around in order to push their agenda.
“It’s David and Goliath out there!” “Conservatives are concerned for patients’ rights!” And the biggest pile of crap: “This just goes to show how the grassroots are against the plan, and big industry are for it.” True, she obviously spent the Clinton years in grade school, but the unbelievable audacity of someone from the Right claiming to represent the Little Man against big bad corporate interests . . . it’s mind-blowing. Like Jane asks her at the end, “Have you no shame?”
Apparently not. And if I was running townhall, I’d find a slightly more credible mouthpiece — one that at least looks like she’s out of high school.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:29 pmAttention Republicans: We know what you are now! There is nowhere to hide.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:32 pmI caught that too, gummitch. She actually tried to spin that Big Pharma was on the side of reform, and David Shuster let her get away with it.
But she really demonstrated her humanity when she claimed, “I’m sorry I’m not a cancer survivor” like she’s sorry she didn’t go to the prom or she’s sorry she didn’t graduate college. It just makes clear that she’s not interested in the truth; she just wants to score rhetorical points.
Too bad she’s so inept at it.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:33 pmBut she really demonstrated her humanity when she claimed, “I’m sorry I’m not a cancer survivor” like she’s sorry she didn’t go to the prom or she’s sorry she didn’t graduate college.
Anyone who has had to deal with a 13 y.o. recognizes that one.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:39 pmHesiod #106
You’ve done this before I see. Pretty good too.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:39 pmLorne Woo Says:
If Ms Hamsher had her way, I’m afraid she would not have survived. Just ask any Canadian how long and how difficult it is to get seen by a specialist.
You’re Canadian? You know a lot of them? Do you know anything at all about their health care system other than talking points from the Right?
Ask yourself a simple question, honestly. If Canadian health care is so bad, and if people in the UK and Western Europe have endless waits for treatment, why in god’s name have they not privatized? England’s NHS started in 1948!
You’ve been blinded by lies from the Right, and haven’t bothered to fact-check those lies.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:44 pmIsn’t it interesting how people with dual citizenships like British/U.S. almost always go back to Britain for medical treatment. The same goes for Canada, Sweden and others. If our healthcare is so good, why do people with a choice choose not to use it?
July 9th, 2009 at 7:48 pmTracy__5 Says:
——————————————————————————–
“No, I’m pretty sure that’s Jane.”
And in this exchange she the condescending snob. She’s a 16 year cancer survivor on which healthcare system?
July 9th, 2009 at 6:40 pm Recommend (0) | ReportAbuseI usually ignore you, because you’re an arrogant twit. But what the HELL are you talking about here?
July 9th, 2009 at 7:49 pmYou really do lack the ability to act like a rational human being
tony and lido
Is Tracy__5 the same old lame Tracy”?” that used to contaminate TP? Well, if it is, I’ll give you my same old lame reply, go swallow a turd.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:52 pmTracy hasn’t posted since #90. I guess he decided it wasn’t much fun making fun of a cancer survivor.
He’s still an ahole.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:55 pmJust a philosophical point that may be of use:
One can label something a basic human right and still attach conditions to it, as long as those conditions are not arbitrary or exclusive.
You can have a right to vote, but be required to register and identify yourself.
You can have a right to food, but be required to do something in return.
You can have a right to free speech, but still be prevented from interrupting somebody else while they’re talking.
Righties love to argue from absolutes–talking about rights in the most extreme fashion, and when you say, no, a person capable of work who refuses to leave his house doesn’t have a right to force people to bring him filet mignon, they say ‘See! It’s not a right!” and they thing that’s logic.
Our Declaration of Independence states that we have the right to life–but they thing that’s only about fetuses. But the righties really believe that it’s not a bad system that allows children to starve to death–but taxation? Horrors! The Basic Right to Property must be protected–even though that was deliberately left out of the D of I.
It’s all Social Darwinism–pernicious and horrible–but even that makes no sense when you’re talking about children. A society which arbitrarily starves it’s young devours itself.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:06 pmI had a friend tell me this morning that she didn’t want to see her health care costs rise 30% just so that “some poor people that are too lazy to work can get health care” and that she was scared of what “Obama was turning this country into.” (Sometimes you just know what kind of Radio/TV people get their information from.)
I told her that 45 million Americans were uninsured for Health Insurance…. projected to rise to about 54 million by 2019 if we do nothing. Since our current Unemployment Rate is about 5 million people (not counting the people who have stopped looking) that leaves about 40 million people that presumably have jobs and are not lazy that DO work and have STILL no health care.
I found that this was a stunning disconnect that conservatives think that the poor shouldn’t get health care if they are sick. But that’s how they think.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:10 pmBut most Americans already feel that they would be willing to be taxed more so that Everyone can get covered.
LibertyLover Says:
But most Americans already feel that they would be willing to be taxed more so that Everyone can get covered.
If we had universal health care in this country, would most people really pay more. Yes, they would pay more in taxes, but if you count the money that your employer is deducting from your pay check for health insurance would the “take home pay” be any different?
This is the analysis that I would really like to see. I don’t think it would a burden for most people. And if done right, it wouldn’t be a burden on the people with no or little income.
For the people that don’t have employer provided coverage, then yes, their take home pay would be reduced.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:37 pmOne of the measuring sticks of a civilized society is the extent to which it provides basic necessities (food, shelter, critical medical care) for those unable to provide for themselves or their families.
God help you if you get laid off from your job and thus lose your health benefits, and then discover that you or a family member has a life-threatening health condition.
Can’t afford treatment? Go away and die quietly.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:44 pmI just love how Bandes accuses Hamsher of using an arbitrary number to describe the number of the uninsured… then begins to arbitrarily whittle that number down to 20 million. When I was watching this video, I shouted back at her, “But that’s STILL 20 million people uninsured!”
July 9th, 2009 at 8:46 pm“Should food be a basic human right?”
Yeah, what’s next? Life, education, work, and freedom of expression as human rights!?
Wow! You libs are so radical!
/sarc off
July 9th, 2009 at 8:46 pmGregor Samsa Says:
“Should food be a basic human right?”
Yeah, what’s next? Life, education, work, and freedom of expression as human rights!?
Wow! You libs are so radical!
/sarc off
Well, we have the death penalty, detention without any due process, the cost of a college education is almost unaffordable, with the economy the way it is there is no work available, and you can only have freedom of expression if you express yourself 3 miles away from the politician and it must be within a certain “box”.
So, yeah, libs have to be pretty radical these days!
July 9th, 2009 at 8:59 pmWell, it’s easy for a bunch of armchair bureaucrats at the U.N. to simply declare that all humankind has a “right” to (insert item), but that doesn’t make it so.
All right, I’ll bite. Let’s assume for argument’s sake that we all have a right to sustinence. Natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society. I think this is the category we are talking about.
Without delving too deeply into philosophy, the question then becomes if this is indeed a right we can recognize independent of other natural rights, how is the right exercised?
Now we must also differentiate between a right to something and actually giving it to someone. Remember that true rights have one particular characteristic that can be used to determine their validity: they cannot reduce the rights of anyone else. In other words, If you assert that you have a right to something, but that right requires the reduction of one of MY rights, then what you have isn’t a right.
So, let’s apply this to the U.N.’s assertion of a basic human right to sustinence. For this to be a true right, a particular society would be required to do nothing that interferes with its citizens ability to provide themselves that sustinence. It would cease to be a right if that society forced its citizens to provide that sustinence to each other, say through taxation.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:03 pmTim Vaculik Says:
It would cease to be a right if that society forced its citizens to provide that sustinence [sic] to each other, say through taxation.
And this is what I fuc*ing HATE about you idiot Republicans. The ONLY thing that you think will solve a problem is to lower or eliminate taxes.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:09 pmLefty Liberal,
But can you argue the point I’m making?
July 9th, 2009 at 9:21 pmThat would be a fair point, if that is what had happened. Unfortunately for you, Timmeh, as the article makes clear, it wasn’t exactly “a bunch of armchair bureaucrats at the U.N.” It was a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the United States voted for the resolution. In fact, the vote on the declaration was 48-0 in favor.
But if you want to keep dismissing a Universal Declaration, that’s fine. You got any evidence as compelling to support your contention?
Besides your intricately argued treatise, I mean. (Note that I said intricately argued, not cleverly argued)
July 9th, 2009 at 9:29 pmTim – if you hate America so much, why don’t you just move to North Korea? They’d love you there.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:32 pmFood isn’t exactly a right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ant_and_the_Grasshopper
Though to be fair I have a hard time condeming a person who kills to prevent their offspring from starving.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:35 pmTimmeh, the point you’re arguing is utterly confused and depends on arbitrary judgments.
For instance, the statement, “For this to be a true right, a particular society would be required to do nothing that interferes with its citizens ability to provide themselves that sustinence. It would cease to be a right if that society forced its citizens to provide that sustinence to each other, say through taxation.” may make sense to you from your perspective, but it makes no sense to me, since the premise does not lead to the postulate.
Why would adequate food supply “cease to be a right” if it’s provided by others “through taxation”? Why is taxation a necessary component of your imagined delivery system? That is by no means clear.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:37 pmralph the wonder locust,
O.K., but you haven’t addressed my central contention. I am open to the idea of defining universal, natural rights, but just enumerating them isn’t enough.
Rights are meaningless without a properly functioning civil society. Rights aren’t of much use if you are denied the ability to exercise them.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:41 pmralph the wonder locust,
If you tax me to give sustinence to someone else, you have reduced my right to “life and liberty.”
It isn’t the taxation that I’m especially hung up on, it’s the principle of taking my money by force of law to give it to someone else. I’m sorry, but that is the definition of reducing individual rights for the collective good.
The issue is actually pretty clear cut.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:48 pmThe Jesus party strikes again.
For I was hungry and you said food wasn’t a right, I was thirsty and you polluted my water, I was a stranger and you called me alien. I needed clothes and you wanted oil. I was sick and you refused to care for me. I was in prison because you unjustly imprisoned me.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:48 pmBullshit. Utter and complete bullshit. You live in a seriously different world than I do, Timmeh.
I don’t measure my right to life nor to liberty by the number of dollars I have in my wallet.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:53 pmTimmeh,
Yes, I could argue your point, but first you will need to go to school and learn about economics, food production and distribution, and nutrition. That way we would have the basis to have an intelligent conversation.
I say this because your post was so nonsensical that it really doesn’t make much sense.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:54 pmHey Tim,
July 9th, 2009 at 9:55 pmDo you think that saving all those tax dollars you’re so concerned about will allow you to buy back your soul?
With rights come responsibilities. If you are going to assert a right, but refuse to accept the responsibility engendered by that right, then I’m sorry, what you have isn’t a “right” at all.
Unfortunately, we see this phenomenon a lot these days.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:55 pmRodeskawler Says:
The Jesus party strikes again.
For I was hungry and you said food wasn’t a right, I was thirsty and you polluted my water, I was a stranger and you called me alien. I needed clothes and you wanted oil. I was sick and you refused to care for me. I was in prison because you unjustly imprisoned me.
WOW – This needs to be used against the Religious Right as an answer to anything they spew out of their filthy little mouths!
GREAT POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 9th, 2009 at 9:58 pmLefty Liberal,
There’s no need to talk about food at all. What we’re talking about is rights.
We could just as easily talk about the U.N. declaration on the rights of children.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:58 pmHow would you define “taxation”?
Because it sounds like it is exactly the taxation that you’re hung up on. the weird thing is why you won’t cop to it.
You are sorry, but that’s neither here nor there. MONEY does not equal “rights”, Timmeh.
The idea that campaign contributions constitute “speech” is one right-wing bastardization of the concept of Free Speech that has led us to the quagmire of unresponsive government that we have today — corporate concerns are the ones that get the service, because they’re the ones who pony up the cash.
Money does not equal speech, any more than money equals the right to life or to liberty.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:59 pmTim Vaculik:
My comment is still the same. You don’t have any basis in reality to discuss the issue. Your only point is “I’ve got mine, screw you!”
July 9th, 2009 at 9:59 pmLefty, as you’ve probably recognized, it gets harder and harder to make any sense out of Timmeh’s comments as the night wears on. This is probably about the best we’re gonna get from him.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:00 pmTim,
I’m not the philosopher here, but you said
“Remember that true rights have one particular characteristic that can be used to determine their validity: they cannot reduce the rights of anyone else. In other words, If you assert that you have a right to something, but that right requires the reduction of one of MY rights, then what you have isn’t a right.”
Then you said
“Rights are meaningless without a properly functioning civil society. Rights aren’t of much use if you are denied the ability to exercise them.”
So my neighbors unfortunate habit of throwing wild parties till four in the morning blaring 10,000 watts of music is his right, which impinges on my right to peace.
According to your logic one of us has a right, or neither of us do – which would mean our rights are denied. Then you go on and state that rights are part of a civil functioning society. Which is it?
Please, I could go on forever but that would be counterproductive. I guess if your relating this to the original post, then having something to eat isn’t a right – but it is if your not impinging on anyone.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:01 pmralph the wonder locust,
Oh, I see. Then it’s O.K. with you if the government takes away some or most of your rights to provide what it wants to whomever it wants for whatever purposes it has.
I see.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:03 pmTim Vaculik Says:
With rights come responsibilities. If you are going to assert a right, but refuse to accept the responsibility engendered by that right, then I’m sorry, what you have isn’t a “right” at all.
What responsibilities does a hungry child have, exactly?
July 9th, 2009 at 10:03 pmRodeskawler #139,
Wow. Too the point – and quick.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:05 pmI have posted this in the past, and while I don’t want to be accused of spamming, I think it is appropriate in this context:
Essay: A Day in the Life of a True Conservative
Joe Conservative wakes up in the morning and goes to the bathroom. He flushes his toilet and brushes his teeth, mindful that each flush & brush costs him about 43 cents to his privatized water provider. His wacky, liberal neighbor keeps badgering the company to disclose how clean and safe their water is, but no one ever finds out. Just to be safe, Joe Conservative boils his drinking water.
Joe steps outside and coughs–the pollution is especially bad today, but the smokiest cars are the cheapest ones, so everyone buys ‘em. Joe Conservative checks to make sure he has enough toll money for the 3 different private roads he must drive to work. There is no public transportation, so traffic is backed up and his 10 mile commute takes an hour.
On the way, he drops his 12 year old daughter off at the clothing factory she works at. Paying for kids to go to private school until they’re 18 is a luxury, and Joe needs the extra income coming in. Times are hard and there’re no social safety nets.
He gets to work 5 minutes late and misses the call for Christian prayer, and is immediately docked by his employer. He is not feeling well today, but has no health insurance, since neither his employer nor his government provide it, and paying for it himself is really expensive, since he has a precondition. He just hopes for the best.
Joe’s workday is 12 hours long, because there is no regulation over working hours, and Joe will lose his job if he complains or unionizes. Today is an especially bad day. Joe’s manager demands that he work until midnight, a 16 hour day. Joe does, knowing that he’ll lose his job if he does
not.
Finally, after midnight, Joe gets to pick up his daughter and go home. His daughter shows him the deep cut she got on the industrial sewing machine today. Joe is outraged and asks why she doesn’t have metal mesh gloves or other protection. She says the company will not provide it and she’ll have to pay for it out of her own pocket. Joe looks at the wound and decides they’ll use an over the counter disinfectant and bandages until it heals. She’ll have a scar, but getting
stitches at the emergency room is expensive.
His daughter also complains that the manager made suggestive overtures towards her. Joe counsels her to be a “good girl” and not rock the boat, or she’ll get fired and they’ll be out the income. His daughter says she can’t wait until she’s 18 so she can vote for change or go to the Iraq War.
They get home and there’s a message from his elderly father who can’t afford to pay his medical or heating bills. Joe can hear him coughing and shivering. Joe turns on the radio and the top story is a proposal in Congress to raise the voting age to 25.
A rare liberal opinionator states that it’s an attempt to keep power out of the hands of working class Americans. The conservative host immediately quashes him, calling him “a Utopian idealist,” and agreeing that people aren’t mature enough to make good choices until they’re at least 25.
Joe chuckles at the wine?swilling, cheese eating liberal egghead and thinks, “Thank God I live in America where I have freedom!”
July 9th, 2009 at 10:06 pmTim Vaculik Says:
ralph the wonder locust,
If you tax me to give sustinence to someone else, you have reduced my right to “life and liberty.”
It’s comments like this that I wonder if “God’s Own Party” mixed up Jesus with the Pharisees…
July 9th, 2009 at 10:07 pmRich H,
No, that’s not what I said.
Your neighbor does have a right to have a party, but that right does not extend to the point it interferes with your right to peace!
July 9th, 2009 at 10:10 pmRalph,
Yeah, I know. I’m just now starting to learn the game of “whack a troll”. I’m still learning from you, dbadass, and a few of the others.
I live in the state of Mizzery, so I’m always around these kind of people that think the way he does. Completely illogical, but think they are being profound.
Maybe someday, the Progressives in this country will get enough control that we can put in a government that pays more attention to people than corporations.
“You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one”.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:11 pmNone. The parents or caregivers have a responsibility to provide sustinence for the child. Obviously society must not interfere with the caregiver’s rights to provide that sustinence.
BUT, it seems that some people argue that as a society we OWE the caregiver the sustinence he or she must provide to the child.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:15 pmVery poorly paraphrased, Timmeh, to the point of gross distortion.
See, i think the problem is that you appear to believe in a utopian libertarianism, otherwise known as anarchy, and that anything short of that is a diminution of your “rights”.
You seem to believe that any requirement imposed by a government — whether to abide by its laws or to contribute to its funding through taxation — reduces your rights.
It’s not a zero-sum game the way you imagine it. Without that government, YOU HAVE NO GUARANTEE OF ANY RIGHTS. It is the civil authority that decides and enforces rights. Humans form governments precisely in order to secure the rights they believe we are all entitled to.
By your theory, your “rights” are reduced when someone in authority tells you that you cannot take the goods that belong to another. Yet without that authority, you have no right to property. No civilized right, anyway, no right beyond that which can be enforced by Smith & Wesson.
Your idea of “rights” seems woefully simplistic and even unreasonable and, as Lefty points out, not grounded in reality.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:16 pmLefty Liberal #153
Great post. I hadn’t seen it before. I can tell where this is headed and I’m going to bow out. Good luck everyone.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:19 pm… and among those “people” are the United Nations, in a declaration of human rights to which the United States agreed.
So it seems like most caring people are on the opposite side of this question from you, Timmeh.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:20 pmFolks,
I know it’s a little difficult for some of you to grasp the concept of a society that truly values individual liberty. I guess a lot of you have grown up in an America that has changed dramatically over the past twenty to thirty years.
You may not have first hand experience, but you did take civis and history in high school. I didn’t think those courses taught you we lived in a socialist country.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:21 pmBy the way, LeftyLiberal, you’re doing just fine at Whack-A-Troll. You learn fast, my friend.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:21 pmRich H,
It is not my work, I wish I could find the name of the person that wrote it. Thanks for the comment anyway. I have always found it to be a pretty good summation of Libertarianism.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:22 pmLeave it to Timmeh to entirely miss the point.
Ms. Bandes is a lying, rude, little b!tch and we, as a nation, have rejected her “logic”. It’s time to either engage in meaningful discussions about this country’s priorities or STFU. I can guarantee you that I will never listen to what the heartless little b!tch says. Unless she stops lying and being a b!tch.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:23 pmRalph,
Thanks, that is high praise coming from you.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:24 pmTim Vaculik Says:
None. The parents or caregivers have a responsibility to provide sustinence for the child. Obviously society must not interfere with the caregiver’s rights to provide that sustinence.
BUT, it seems that some people argue that as a society we OWE the caregiver the sustinence he or she must provide to the child.
Okay, I’ll play. What if the parents or caregivers are unable to provide that sustenance?
I await your reply on tenterhooks.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:25 pmTimmeh, don’t talk down to people when you’re getting your butt waxed. It looks sorta ridiculous.
It’s absurdly obvious that your simplistic view of “individual liberty” has little or nothing to do with reality. Maybe that approach lets you think that you understand complex concepts. Maybe it simply appeals to your macho side. I don’t know. But like most conservative/libertarian ideas, if one follows it logically even a few steps beyond its conceptual origin, one quickly realizes how unrealistic and downright dangerous it actually is.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:25 pmralph the wonder locust,
Well, that’s exactly where my question lies! If this U.N. Declaration means we OWE the sustinence, then it isn’t a right at all. What this would be is simply socialism, nothing more. No individual rights are involved!
It’s simply the government deciding society as a whole OWES something to a particular segment of that society and then making it happen by force.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:29 pmCivics 101 folks!
July 9th, 2009 at 10:29 pmWhy is it that progressives are always so big on “rights”, but insist that these rights impinge on the rights of others?
Here’s why. They want “rights” without responsibilities.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:32 pmClass dismissed.
Your civics homework is due TOMORROW. Now, get cracking!
July 9th, 2009 at 10:33 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Civics 101 folks!
Yep, that’s right. Now when are you going to take that class? I would settle for you to take 9th grade civics. Even that would help.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:33 pmYeah, Tim, I took Civics. I also learned how to spell “sustenance.”
July 9th, 2009 at 10:34 pmI’m watching this from afar and don’t want to be drawn into the some mad hatters world.
But what exactly does Civics have to do with anything?
Please, don’t answer. It’s not what you think it is.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:44 pmTimmeh, I don’t know what else to tell you except that this makes no sense at all. You can repeat it a few more times if you think it will help, but it won’t make it any more sensical.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:44 pmWhy is it that conservatives want to live in a society that protects their “rights” but they’re so unwilling to contribute their energies and resources toward making that society strong?
July 9th, 2009 at 10:47 pmDon’t you just love how folks like Timmeh think that they’ve made a point by yelling “Civics 101 folks!”
They figure that if some idea makes sense in their heads, it should be self-explanatory to others.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:49 pmWhat’s Civics got to do with anything. If it proves any point, it’s that Tim is incorrect. I’m not sure if Tim remembers exactly what Civics taught nor what it was about.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:54 pmI was just watching Olbermann and he said “pullin a Palin” was now an entry in the Urban dictionary. O.k. I may not be the only one who said it, but I did when she resigned and predicted it right here.
Yeah for me, my own little party.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:02 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
Why is it that conservatives want to live in a society that protects their “rights” but they’re so unwilling to contribute their energies and resources toward making that society strong?
Because they don’t understand the basis of civilization. They don’t realize how many services society provides, and once those services are gone, they will be the first to yell about it.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:10 pmMy, my. I just stopped in here on my way to bed, and I see full-scale whack-a-troll going on. Sorry I didn’t get here earlier.
Before I bid you all good night, let me just present a few observations of my own.
“The Ant and the Grasshopper” is a lovely little fable about the folly of being frivolous, living only in the moment, and not planning for possible hard times ahead. Yet it’s too often wielded as some kind of weird evidence that people who are poor and struggling are in that situation because they’re lazy. In other words, being poor is a “choice”. But that’s not always the case.
The word “socialism” is flung around by the wingnuts as if it’s some sort of disease. We’ve always had some degree of socialism in this country. A country running on pure capitalism is destined to become like a banana republic — a small rich segment of the population, a very large poor segment (that gets poorer, because they’re the ones making the rich ones rich), and practically no middle class.
There are far too many people on the religious right who want the Ten Commandments on the wall of every public building, prayer in all public schools, and “In God We Trust” emblazoned on everything we touch, eat, or wear. Yet they never credit God for the bounty they have. They firmly believe that everything they have came to them because they themselves earned it, and they don’t see why they should have to give any of it back.
I have always believed that the healthiest economy is the one where the most people in a society are taking part in it. If we don’t have some safety nets in place, people fall through the cracks and quit contributing. I’d rather pay to keep people healthy so they can keep working and producing, instead of denying them health care to they point where they become sick and disabled. I’d rather pay to educate our children than have to work with illiterate adults. I’d rather pay to keep people from starving than have to pay for more police to protect me from desperate people who have turned to crime just to survive (and it goes without saying that I’d rather keep somebody from a life of crime than pay to imprison them later). And if I had a business, I’d want there to be enough people who can afford to buy my goods or services. Which means I want them employed, producing, and earning a living.
So you see, keeping people our society healthy, fed, sheltered, educated, and productive is actually kind of selfish on my part. Because society benefits when people are able to take care of themselves and remain productive.
Good night all.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:13 pmthe answer to Jane’s question is “no.” She does not have any shame in interrupting people. What she should have said is “yes… food is a basic human right…” The thing about rhetoric is that it comes from both the left and the right. Bring out the claws kitty don’t be afraid to use your nails.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:17 pmCan someone explain how you can have a right to life but not a right to those few requirements of life (i.e. food, water, shelter, oxygen)? Or is the right to life simply the right not to be killed by your neighbor who is in love with his right to wield firearms?
July 10th, 2009 at 12:30 am.
Dear Christian Conservatives of America(aka Daryyll),
Even Jesus Christ recognized the basic right to food…
… He feed the multitudes with a few loaves of bread and some fish His followers were able scrap together.
And when Jesus Christ provided His health care services…
… How much did he profit from it?
.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:43 amtbone,
July 10th, 2009 at 12:46 amDontcha know…
… The “Right to Life” ends after birth.
MAJ-1
July 10th, 2009 at 12:46 amDoes that mean a fetus has a right to food but not the mother?
I fully agree with all of your points, missmolly, but I especially agree with this one. My perspective is that the economy you describe is healthy NOT because it is just, but because, as you observe, the greatest number of people take part in it. In other words, because it is most sustainable.
A healthy economy NEEDS a healthy middle class, because that is where the widest purchasing power lies. A healthy middle class NEEDS a poltical system that is willing to protect that middle class, even if it’s at the expense of the wealthy and the corporations because, again as you observe, missmolly, without those protections, the power of wealth exerts itself and gathers a greater and greater share of the nation’s wealth, gradually starving the middle class of its purchasing power. Which is precisely what we’ve seen happen over the last decade in this country.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:06 amFrom billpressshow.com, and on his site each name is linked for info.:
Health Care: The Public Plan Option
These Democratic Senators have NOT agreed to support it:
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Senator Tom Carper (D-DE)
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT)
These names are reported by The Hill here and here
Update: Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) says she supports a public option.
Update: Senator Jeff Binghaman (D-NM) says he supports a public option.
You can also contact the White House and voice your opinion
July 10th, 2009 at 1:19 amComments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
One of a series of many emails and letters to my Senator, Ron Wyden
July 10th, 2009 at 2:11 am
Oxygen isn’t a basic human right either.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:19 amGood job “had enough”. I hope Wyden is getting a lot of those emails.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:48 amI’ve done the same in MN.
Lord if these people were any dumber they would walk backwards. How can people be so uncaring and ignorant?
July 10th, 2009 at 10:32 amI think the words we’re looking for here is “cognitive dissonance.” This is how conservatives can claim that we live in the “greatest country in the world” while at the same denying its citizens the most basic standards of living. So yes, food should be a basic human right in any country that wants to call itself “civilized.”
July 10th, 2009 at 11:22 amGODJOb racy, trying to get the last word in. But you failed at that too.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:36 amSenator Ron Wyden (D-OR) is on the list because he has been bought off by Blue Cross, among other health industry corporations.
Your premiums to these corporations are used to fight you, and they are used to destroy our system of government.
The health insurance corporations and an endless supply of young, stupid, lying airheads like Jillian Bandes are in control because they have the money, the influence, and the power to crush all of us.
Unless we become more than keyboard warriors, they will win out. I attended a rally at Wyden’s office yesterday: Only 35 to 40 people showed up. That’s called PATHETIC.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:40 amWhen someone says, “shit happens”, does it carry the same meaning as “conservatives” happens?
It seems that way, doesn’t it?
July 10th, 2009 at 2:31 pmRepublican: A word meaning “criminally ignorant.”
July 10th, 2009 at 4:58 pmJillian Bandes continued to intterupt even after the program’s host asked her to give Jane Hamsher a chance to speak. BTW, I didn’t feel that Hamsher acted condescending from the outset; that’s your and maybe Bandes’ interpretation. But even if she did, that does not justify Bandes’ continued rude stance of yelling over Hamsher while she was replying to the host’s question. Only the program’s host–not Bandes–basically had the right to cut Hamsher. Your side won’t win any arguments with rude temper tantrums.
Tracy__5 Says:
#103
“At least Jane wasn’t the one who rudely interrupted the other each time she tried to speak.”
She shouldn’t have started with the selfrightous(SIC) condesending(SIC) tone. If the jerk would have shown some respect in first place(comma needed) she wouldn’t have been cut off.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:16 pmTracy__5 Says:
The self-rightous snob is the one on the left.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Tracy you ignorant punk. The worthless, stupid, losers are always on the right.
July 11th, 2009 at 2:50 amTim Vaculik Says:
Tim I am in awe of how stupid you are. You say if there IS a right to sustenance then that means there can be no taxation, which would mean NO government and we would have a lawless might makes right society. You are so ignorant. I know you are just itching to re-enact the Lord of the Flies but the DECENT people in this society think the weak ought NOT to be predated on by the powerful. The DECENT people think it would be a good thing to take care of those who need help as we can. The soulless weasels among us pretty much act like you.
July 11th, 2009 at 2:53 am“Should food be a basic human right?” What kind of stupid question was that? Only by a brain-dead-nearing-insanity-right-wing conservative Christian can anyone expects a question like that. What’s wrong with these women? Is everyone of them trying to be a Sarah Palin? Do they feel there is money in being stupid, making stupid remarks, and speak in tongues?
The Republicans has a real problem here, folks. They are now on notice as being the most stupid of near-humans in America. Half of their brains didn’t make it to completion.
What’s Bandas next questions? Should stupidity be a basic human right? Is ignorance and arrogance a basic human right? Perhaps being born a stupid female a basic human right.
Wow, and no wonder why many republican menfolks feel women are totally stupid. This woman send their species back to an era of being dumb, barefoot and pregnant. But than again, only in the Republican party, folks. Not so with the women in the Democratic party in which one of them have more brains than the entire GOP of menfolks!
July 11th, 2009 at 11:02 amSomewhere the baby Jesus is WEEPING!
I can’t believe such a notion would be considered, let alone spoken out loud.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:57 pmThere is an endless supply of hot, cumb dunts espousing GOP talking points. They’re like ants!!
Whatever, Ghost Walker. Don’t make the FACT that Americans don’t want American products about Obama.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:44 pmI have lived in a country that has a public health care option. The patient chooses which doctor/hospital he/she wants to visit, but the national health plan covers most of the bill, Ghost of a Brain.
Ghost Walker373 Says:
July 11th, 2009 at 7:17 pmwhile we are at it why don’t we make maditory(SIC) that they tell us where to buy our socks and shoes, and what make of car we can drive and what fuel station we can fuel at,
hhow(SIC) many times we can eat out and where can do it at——All Hail King Resident MowOboma(SIC)
To Ghost of a Brain,
So you sponged off a Canadian boarder, eh? I suggest you first look up the difference between “boarder” and “border.” I don’t see where a national health plan would make us pay $5 for an aspirin, and you don’t seem to have the language skills to explain it to me convincingly.
Ghost of a Brain says:
Lora—- i have lived off the canadan(SIC) boarder(SIC) and have seen just how good their system is, it is the same system we are heading for. i want no part of it. Yes, our health care is spendy(SIC). but if we are going to reform it let(SIC) make the hospitals stop charging $5 for a blimpin asperin(SIC). The cost of insurance would go down if we could stop the Fraud.
All Hail King Resident MowOboma(SIC)
July 11th, 2009 at 9:04 pmJesus and the Loaves and Fishes:
One bright day Jesus took his apostles into the desert to teach them privately. However, as they went the people heard and started to follow them. The sick, the weary of heart, and the curious followed into the desert hoping for miracles or just simply to understand;
Jesus welcomed all of them.
As the sun began to set in the west, his apostles began to worry. “Lord shouldn’t we send the people away…so they can find food and a place to sleep?”
Jesus looked at them and said, “Give them food and let them eat.”
“But Lord, we don’t have anything to give. There is only a boy who has only five loaves and two fishes, should we go into the town and buy more food? There are five thousand men here, not including the women and children,” they answered.
Jesus took the five loaves and the two fishes praying, He blessed the food and asked God to do a miracle. Jesus began to break the food into pieces and gave it to His apostles to give it to the people. All 5,000 people in the crowd sat and ate the meal made from five loaves and two fishes.
Jesus and the Loaves and Fishes, Conservative version, circa 2009:
One bright day Jesus took his apostles into the desert to teach them privately. However, as they went the people heard and started to follow them. The sick, the weary of heart, and the curious followed into the desert hoping for miracles or just simply to understand;
Jesus welcomed all of them.
As the sun began to set in the west, his apostles began to worry. “Lord shouldn’t we send the people away…so they can find food and a place to sleep?”
Jesus looked at them, threw his hands in the air and rolled his eyes as he said, “Should food be a basic human right?”
And then after shouting over the others that he’d never had cancer but could still criticize the local health care system, Jesus climbed into his BMW and turned the radio on so he could listen to Rush Limbaugh.
July 11th, 2009 at 11:22 pmYa just gotta love it.
I went to Townhall.com’s web site to send this joker a message, and wouldn’t you know it…the page listing her e-mail address “cannot be found.”
Classic.
July 12th, 2009 at 1:39 amGhost Walker373 Ghost Walker373
Well it is no suprise that not only are you an ignorant piece of garbage and a stupid punkass troll but a racist moron as well. Just STFU. You are too stupid for anything but laughing at.
July 12th, 2009 at 1:56 amI think that we have our new ad for health care reform we could title it “What Conservatives are Really Saying…”.
July 12th, 2009 at 10:56 amPlease explain to me why, as an employer, I have to purchase health insurance for my employees..after all…I have Workers Compensation which covers them for illness or injury that occurs ” within the course & scope of employment. If they engage in high risk activity or have an accident outside of work, why should I be responsible. One claim ruins it for the group…we all pay more…totally unfair when you are unable to ” self Insure a portion of the risk.
July 12th, 2009 at 10:05 pmFor all you idiots who never took a risk and started a company, you have no idea what you are talking about if you support the present ” employer based” system. It DOES NOT support the Free Market…it actually kills jobs and future business start ups… A government option would solve many problems that we, the small employers who CREATE 70% of the private sector jobs need. Yes, the private insurance companies can compete…look at the US Post Office….UPS,FEDEX and other carriers COMPETE with them for your package delivery…
Get rid of the employer based healthcare system now…level the playing field
MJT Says:
Please explain to me why, as an employer, I have to purchase health insurance for my employees..after all…I have Workers Compensation which covers them for illness or injury that occurs ” within the course & scope of employment. If they engage in high risk activity or have an accident outside of work, why should I be responsible. One claim ruins it for the group…we all pay more…totally unfair when you are unable to ” self Insure a portion of the risk.
You answered you own question. Workers Compensation is for on the job injuries and not for ordinary health claims. The ordinary health claims are for claims other than Workers Compensation. Your point is not well taken.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:43 amI forgot to add that in many states you can self insure on workers compensation claims but you need to put up a bond that is approved by the agency. If you are being told you can’t self insure then you should check that out with agency rather than the insurance broker.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:42 pmWhat question did I just answer ??? I know what Workers Comp is, so why do I have to buy Group Health Insurance ???
FYI…your health insurance Does Not cover on the job injuries or illness caused by work related issues. So, when my employees are OFF the job, why am I covering their health insurance ???….hell…should I also buy their auto insurance ??
Also, I am NOT talking about “self insuring” my Workers Compensation insurance, I am talking about the Group Health Insurance !
My point is not well taken because you obviously are missing the point. Here…I will spell it out for you….
An Employer based system for funding and underwriting group HEALTH INSURANCE is Unfair and discriminates against small employers and individuals. I am not talking about Workers Comp.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:26 pmYou brought up Workers Compensation which is different that regular health insurance. Depending on the size of the company you may not need to have group health for the employees. That is a question of federal and state law. Most employers pick up half of the premiums for group health while the employee pays the other half. Check the appropriate statutes about whether you are required to have group health. If you don’t need it then you can drop it, but you run the risk that employees will not stay.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:16 ampags2
The reason I brought up Workers Comp is because I am trying to educate the public that they should NOT expect their employer to provide GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE.
answer this question:
How does the current ” Employer Based” system for funding health insurance promote the free market ?
July 14th, 2009 at 6:42 amThe employer based system allows large companies to purchase group health care for all employees at a discounted rate. The employer may not be able to offer health insurance to just executives without running afoul of ERISA. If the employer has to offer all employees then it may not discriminate by offering different types based on employee status. Everyone in the corp. has to be offered all the same benefits. The employer must also treat employees equally when it comes to payment of health care premiums. In the end, a large corporation can get discounts because of the size of the company. If the public option is offered it may be cheaper for the small companies to pay a payroll tax rather than a private health care plan.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:26 pmSo how does this system promote the “Free Market”.
Your opening line states that it allows “large” companies to purchase at a discounted rate.
What about small companies, or self- employed 1 man operations, or individuals who are students or choose to be unemployed.
What about the individual who wants to start his own business but has some medical issues and can not get an individual policy ?
Again…I will ask you to answer this question:
How does the current ” Emp[loyer Based” system for funding health insurance promote the free market ?
July 14th, 2009 at 4:58 pmYou need to check what the law is about small businesses. Large companies provide health insurance as a benefit in order to attract and retain employees. This has nothing to do with free market theory.
July 14th, 2009 at 5:48 pmpags2
This has EVERYTHING to do with the free market. The reality is the current system supports large employers ( private or public) and leaves everyone else out to dry ….
Wake Up !
July 14th, 2009 at 5:54 pm