Where it leads you.

Tuesday, September 13th, 2011 @ 1:39 am | Crazy Tea Party People, Health Care

Allow me to distance myself from the people shouting YEAH!!! at the prospect of letting an uninsured person die in the hospital.

The Republicans have built their little boat and they’re sailing out to sea in it, searching for that pure libertarian paradise. My question is, can we keep these debates going forever, and can the audiences be entirely teabaggers?


20 Responses to “Where it leads you.”

  1. The Zindi Asshole Collective Says:

    Allow me to distance myself from liberal hypocrisy, distortion and double speak.

    There’s nothing wrong with people cheering for the freedom to choose and the concept of individual responsibility. As to a person in the audience shouting YEAH!, Henry has no clue if that person was Libertarian, Republican, or Tea Party. No clue. Yet he pretends to be an authority on the subject, casting all Republicans into a little boat, and using the term, ‘teabaggers’. It’s cheesy crap what Henry writes.

    The WHERE IT LEADS YOU question of the day: If the Stimulus spending was such a resounding success, then why is unemployment still up over 9%?

    The “stimulus package” was passed over two and a half years ago. After it passed, unemployment jumped from 8% to over 10% and has never come down anywhere near that 8% since.

    The stimulus worked so well that the economy was downgraded. And, the stimulus worked so well that the economy created no jobs last month. The stimulus worked so well that Obama finds himself pleading for another $450 Billion be spent on a Jobs Bill of regurgitated ideas.

  2. Henry Whistler Says:

    So in protest of double speak, you call it “cheering for the freedom to choose!”

    “Are you saying society should just let him die?”

    So how many doctors, besides Ron Paul, support that position of letting patients who can’t pay die?

    Here’s the Hippocratic Oath:

    I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
    I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
    I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
    I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.
    I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.
    I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
    I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
    I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
    I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
    If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

    Where is “You don’t have money? Fuck you, pay me!” in there?

  3. The Zindi Asshole Collective Says:

    If the 2009 Stimulus bill worked, then why do we need the 2011 Stimulus bill?

  4. mike g Says:

    What happened to that critique of Keynes, Zindi? Why are you abandoning it so soon?

  5. Henry Whistler Says:

    Can you stick to a subject? Do you want to discuss the stimulus now? Does that mean you conceded the point on universal health care? Or when you lose (and you will) the argument on the stimulus, will you shift to another subject?

    Let’s have some ground rules here.

  6. Thomas Tallis Says:

    this guy’s a treat

  7. Jldmeyer Says:

    The whole uproar over death panels was an absolute farce and it has now been confirmed.

  8. Henry Whistler Says:

    Well, death panels always were a farce. What was it after all, but the threat that the government would stop providing a patient with treatment? In a protest against the government doing more to help? Eh? It was always a crock. But yes, the Tea Party has certainly crossed the t’s and dotted the i’s on that one.

  9. Change you can chart Says:

    US Poverty Rate Highest Since 1994, 43.6 Million Americans Living Below Poverty Line

    Unemployment rate, 9.1%

    White House projections for 2009 Stimulus package indicated unemployment rate would be about 6.5% by now

    Record number of people on Food Stamps

    That’s change all right

  10. Henry Whistler Says:

    Funny what happens when you let the arsonists turn off the firehose, claiming water doesn’t work because the fire still burns.

    Republicans deliberately struck a body blow to the economy this summer with the debt ceiling hostage situation. Sabotage is politically advantageous to you guys, and you just can’t put the country above party, can you?

    Firefighters vs arsonists, it’s that simple.

  11. Norm Says:

    Look everybody, Henry is making stupid stuff up again!

  12. Obama admin corrupt Says:

    Two years after Americans were sold a phony bill of goods in the $1 trillion stimulus bill, we are now learning the extent of the corruption. In September of 2009, Obama administration officials pushed through a $528 million loan to a Solyndra, a solar panel company.

    E-mails subpoenaed by a House committee investigating the deal reveal that the administration knew the company was on shaky ground. It was well known that a credit-rating agency predicted the company would run out of money in two years.

    As predicted, the company declared bankruptcy two years after receiving the loan. Instead of properly vetting this company, e-mails show that the administration was rushing the project. The goal was to force the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the loan in time for Vice President Joe Biden to make the loan announcement at the groundbreaking ceremony for the company’s new factory.

    Today, Solyndra has closed its factory and is facing financial ruin. Sadly, 1,100 employees have been released and U.S. taxpayers are on the hook for the big loan.

  13. Obama is a drunken fool Says:

    I would like to offer this analogy, for anybody out there dealing with an individual or individuals who seem convinced that the problem with the 2009 ‘stimulus’ was that it was not large enough:

    Imagine, if you will, you have a friend, and he’s a drunk. And he’s in trouble: he needs five hundred bucks to get out from under his bills, but he doesn’t have it, and things get a little worse every month because of it. So you give him five hundred bucks… and he goes on an epic bender. Now, here’s the question: would he have been fine if you had given him five hundred bucks for the bender, and another five hundred for his bills? Or a thousand? Of course not: doubling or tripling the money that you gave him would have just meant that he would have gone on a longer bender, with better ingredients.

    Because that’s what drunks do. That’s why they’re considered drunks.

    Just in case the analogy is unclear: far too many people who espouse Keynesian economic theory (more accurately, their interpretation of Keynesian economic theory) seem to be doing so under the assumption that you can trust the government to spend revenue in a rational, objective, and non-partisan fashion. As both the stimulus and Obamacare shows, this is not a particularly sensible assumption – particularly when the Democrats are in charge of the process. Government spending is inherently wasteful at best, and corrupting at worst. And the effects get worse, the more you spend.


  14. Henry Whistler Says:

    Norm/whoever: And what did I make up, pray tell?

    P.S. Not that you haven’t already advertised yourself as an idiot.

  15. Henry Whistler Says:

    More studies show the stimulus worked for its size.

    China has invested $30 billion in solar, which has a lot to do with why American solar companies aren’t able to compete anymore.

    So, did you have anything else, Latest Dude Who Changes His/Her Name Each Comment?

  16. Henry Whistler Says:

    Oh, yeah, austerity boosts unemployment and lowers paychecks.

    In a new paper for the International Monetary Fund, Laurence Ball, Daniel Leigh and Prakash Loungani look at 173 episodes of fiscal austerity over the past 30 years—with the average deficit cut amounting to 1 percent of GDP. Their verdict? Austerity “lowers incomes in the short term, with wage-earners taking more of a hit than others; it also raises unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment.”

    More specifically, an austerity program that curbs the deficit by 1 percent of GDP reduces real incomes by about 0.6 percent and raises unemployment by almost 0.5 percentage points. What’s more, the IMF notes, the losses are twice as big when the central bank can’t cut rates (a good description of the present.) Typically, income and employment don’t fully recover even five years after the austerity program is put in place.

  17. Henry Whistler Says:

    Also, why is it so fucking hard for wingers to stick to the topic in the post they’re commenting on?

  18. thinker Says:

    I live in China. A few days ago I walked around outside and I counted 24 children. Out of the 24 kids, only three were girls! That is a sex ratio of 8 boys to 1 girl! Now I know the official rate is 5 boys to 4 girls, but this is ridiculous. Who are these beloved sons going to marry in 20 years?

    I am aware that China has a one child policy, has a historical preference for sons, a lack of a social security plan, and is backwards and undeveloped, but aborting females for males is beyond cruel. Estimates say that there will be a surplus of 60 million males in ten years.


    Chinese I have talked to say the imbalanced sex ratio is not a problem because parents can have another child if they have a girl, but not if they have a boy. Chinese, however, often ignore the law, abort the girl, and have two sons. I am also told that China will import women from Russia, Thailand, Japan, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, and the Philippines to make up for the lack of wives in China. However, these countries do not have an extra 60 million women and India, Pakistan, Nepal, Vietnam, South Korea, and Taiwan also have a severe shortage of women. An imbalanced sex ratio is a serious problem and could lead to social instability and even war.

    If you ever go to China, count the kids you see yourself. I bet you won’t find the sex ratio is better than two boys to one girl. If you are concerned about this problem, try to raise awareness by discussing this issue with others and ask them if they want to live in a world where everyone has an unmarried son.

  19. Henry Whistler Says:

    Hmm, not exactly on topic, but it doesn’t seem to be spam and it’s a pretty damn thought-provoking notion. Nothing is a bigger powder keg than men who can’t get laid, and sixty million sounds pretty frickin’ terrifying.

  20. AJKamper Says:

    Drat, now I’m trying to figure out what ratio of boys to girls I noticed when I was over there in April. I vaguely noticed more boys than girls, I guess, but not so much so that it jumped out at me.

    Interestingly, some of the Chinese ethnic groups (like Tibetans) aren’t subject to the population restrictions.