Woman Who Asked "Death Panel" Question At Massa's Town Hall A GOP Donor

You missed the obvious point... (4.00 / 1)

She's obviously Medicare eligible, in addition to being a Kodak retiree on a pension with healthcare.

So she's got a double safety net.

Man I'm sick of hearing from the over-65 crowd about how we ought to shitcan healthcare reform.

---

by: rottenchester @ Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 20:19:45 PM CDT

Consider the point not missed... (4.00 / 1)

My problem isn't with her eligibility for Medicare. It's the fact that she is insured and complaining about a bill that is trying to get those who are uninsured covered. That is one of my main problems with this whole debate. A lot of the people complaining have health insurance. They have very little to worry about. Yet, they are standing in the way of those who have real stories to tell about the horrors of not having health insurance.

I don't care about the over 65 crowd complaining. They will complain about everything. That's what they do best.

But what angers me more than anything are the insured complaining because they are, well, insured.

It should be those who are uninsured who are being loud at meetings. But that hasn't been the case.  

Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 00:35:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, but no (4.00 / 1)

This bill is, in part about "trying to get those who are uninsured covered". But it is also about changing a broken system whose costs are out of control and to which access is difficult to gain and keep. A system that is hurting this Nation's competitiveness with respect to other countries.

I support health care reform because I think it is morally right to make sure that every member of society has access to decent quality health care.

But I also support it because I think that it is in society's best interest to make sure that people who otherwise might be injured or killed are able to be productive. And because providing health care through a regularized system is more cost effective-- and more beneficial to society-- than by doing it through a broken, over-burdened emergency room mechanism.

And I also support it because I could one day be in the category of people who do not have a job and might need it.

Further, I support it because not having a reasonable-cost healthcare delivery system puts our economy at a disadvantage compared to Canada and Western Europe. Ask the car companies.

Finally, I support it because although I have health care today, thanks to the benevolence of my employer, that benevolence could cease. Or I could loose my job and not win another that provides healthcare. Or I could choose to leave to start my own company and not be able to afford healthcare.

So yes, people without healthcare should be concerned and vocal.

But so should those us who do have it.

---

by: davesnyd @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 06:18:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed... (4.00 / 1)

But one of the points that has been made over and over again is that people with health insurance are happy with their insurance. I asked my mom if she was happy with her coverage. Is it the greatest plan in the world? No. But it was a plan that covered every cent of my father's three heart attacks and his hospital stays, procedures, etc.

Are there people who have insurance that aren't happy? Absolutely. One friend of mine has to pay an absurd amount of money just to see a doctor. In fact, her payment was more than what my doctor charges. And I don't have insurance.

My point isn't that those with health care should be silent. But I'm sick of those with health care (who apparently like their plan) being the loudest of the opponents. I'm all for the free speech/free thought that you keep repeating here, but I'm sick of getting drowned out by stories about rationing and death panels instead of hearing stories about those who had to pay exuberant hospital bills because they didn't have insurance or didn't have adequate insurance.

We haven't heard a lot of those stories yet. Just a whole lot of yelling.

Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 07:03:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What can I say? (4.00 / 1)

I'm a free speech kind of guy.

I agree that the deafening roar present in Victor, though, isn't helping the discussion.

How do you maintain free speech while simultaneously preventing one person's free speech from drowning out another's?

I tried in a previous diary to outline some ground rules that could be used.

How do you combat free speech that is full of lies, invective, and noxious rhetoric? I don't have a good answer to that, other than to make sure that the Truth gets voiced as much as possible.

I think we're into Lakoff territory-- and I don't think we're using his theories very much but should be.

I think we're loosing this debate, not because we're wrong but because we are more polite and not as loud.

I'd rather win, but I don't know that I have it in me to be rude to do so.

---

by: davesnyd @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 10:00:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Free speech... (4.00 / 1)

Is one thing. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is another.

There are a few problems I see at these meetings:

(1) These loud outbursts that take place disrupt the meeting. There needs to be some kind of order at a town hall meeting. You aren't restricting free speech. They have the right to attend and ask a question. But coming to a meeting to solely disrupt the meeting interferes with the rights of others. That's where the line needs to be drawn.

(2) Everyone in the meeting walks in with equal opportunity to ask a question. That needs to be clear from the start. Once you start shouting out of turn, that's where you cross the line. Imagine if a member of Congress started shouting during a floor speech because they didn't like the message. We wouldn't think that is a free speech issue. We would think that person is out of line. So why should we expect less from supposedly civilized people?

(3) The problem with the lies are that they are made using very simple talking points. That is why people like Limbaugh and Hannity have drawn such a crowd. They dumb everything down. Just look at "death panels." They took a portion of the bill that is certainly longer than two words and turned it into a catchphrase: Death panels.

I'm not saying we need to dumb it down. But we need to make the argument clear and simple for delivery. That is how the right have succeeded. They have been simple and dumb. We need to be simple and smart.

Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 10:15:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The way I see it, the disruptions are a much bigger infringement on free speech. (0.00 / 0)

Allowing a handful of disruptors to silence everyone else in the event is a much greater imposition and distortion of the whole idea of a town hall meeting than it would be to require residence in the district, or even ejecting people who get too obnoxious. They are, in effect, suppressing the ability to be heard of all the other people present.  

---

by: Adama D. Brown @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 14:32:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Debates have rules. (0.00 / 0)

Insisting that participants adhere to the rules of the debate is not a violation of the First Amendment.  It's more like how bloggers deal with trolls.  I wasn't there, so I have no idea how Rep. Massa responded, but I would have done something like this:

Me:  Was that your question?

T-bagger:  Yeah!  Wharrgarbl!

Me:  Well, I'm going to assume you are concerned about page 30 of, uh, which bill was that again?

T-bagger:  Uh, the BILL!  Wharrgarbl! You know, that BILL you're working on!  Wharrgarbl!Wharrgarbl!

Me:  There are several bills.  To which one are you referring to page 30?

T-bagger:  Sputter....wharrgarbl...

Me:  I'd be happy to read back page 30 and respond, if I only knew to which page 30 you were...

T-bagger:  DEATH PANELS!  OBAMA IS HITLER!1!  WHARRGARBL!!!

Me:  Uh, security?  Can we get this person out of here?  (security escorts the T-bagger out of the room, along with most of her chorus)  See?  See what I have to deal with?  Now that we've gotten that out of the way, does anyone else have a question?

---

by: Steaming Pile @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 07:35:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've thought about this since last night. (4.00 / 1)

You write:

It is one thing to be a real, concerned citizen who has serious questions about the bill. Those people do exist. It's another thing when your question is derived from a desire to derail reform for political gain.

There are reasonable objections to any kind of health care reform.

In short, any changes risk a decrease in the quality for people who are happy with their health care-- if you think your current situation is good and you buy the "government ruins everything" Reaganite mantra, then you could reasonably be concerned that any change that involves increased government involvement could cause detrimental effects to the health care system.

Plus, there is at least the possibility of a general tax increase in order to pay for the currently uninsured.

Finally, if you think that having the high price we pay for health insurance is worth it because it leads to increased innovation in pharmaceuticals or devices or because the best physicians will migrate to America, then any cost containment will naturally lead to a decrease in the improvements in medicine and the care provided in this nation.

Now, I don't happen to believe those things. I believe the first concern is false-- that our healthcare is mediocre now and that we need government involvement to improve it at least to Western European levels. I believe the second is both selfish and short sighted-- at any point in your life, if you find yourself without a job, you'll find yourself without healthcare. And the last is, I think, a falsehood sold by the large providers to justify their collective gobbling of almost 20% of the GDP.

But they are each at least reasonable arguments that can be had.

While reasonable, though, they are all arguments that apply to either single payer or socialized (British) medicine. They don't apply to a plan that includes a public option as one among many-- assuming that the current insurance companies are allowed to continue doing business as usual. And they certainly don't apply to the bill that these protesters are enthralled with trashing-- 3200-- which is so watered down it doesn't even include a public option.

I think the reasonable argument against a system that includes public option but does not require it (i.e., is not single payer) is that we could be put on a slippery sloap in which there is a race to the bottom in reimbursements leading to a decrease in quality of care and an inability of private insurance companies to effectively compete against the government.

I don't think that will happen. And if we collectively (this is still a democracy) are concerned about that, we could put safeguards in-- something to the nature of that physician reimbursements will be set at the median of the standard and customary for the region, for instance.

I remember Ms. Tillinghast speaking last night. It was towards the end of her rant that I left. She epitomized the group of people who were there to repeat the lies spread by the right wing lie machine about healthcare reform.

These are the people with whom there is no point in having a discussion-- they aren't listening; they've bought into the lies lock, stock and barrel; and they refuse to see truth.

The news clip you embedded said that she was from Argentina. I recall her saying she came from a communist country and was afraid of this health care because it would impose communism on the USA. I thought Argentina was largely ruled by military juntas in the post-war period until the Falkland Islands war?

---

by: davesnyd @ Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 20:22:00 PM CDT

Tillinghast said, (0.00 / 0)

"Somebody is making a decision for my health, and I don't want that."

She evidently prefers that for-profit insurance company claims-deniers continue to make decisions about her health care.

Good luck with that, should she ever make a major health care claim.

---

by: devtob @ Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 20:57:14 PM CDT

Republicans guilty of astroturfing? (4.00 / 1)

I'm absolutely shocked

"Generic comment signature."

---

by: cliffweathers @ Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 09:37:06 AM CDT

More censorship.... (0.00 / 1)

Boys,

I am disappointed. Not surprised. Just disappointed.

You get caught speeding and in a blatant act of hypocrisy and you respond by removing the comments from the thread.

That's very Conservative of you.

One of you had previously mentioned that Irene Jay Liu's daddy employment for Monsato occurs in China.

Interesting.

Isn't it also interesting that Ms. Liu, who could not make it through medical school, got caught this week failing to identify a Conservative operative making anti-health reform statements in The Times Union.

You boys don't suppose Ms. Liu, a resident of Wealth & Privilege, USA with offshore banking in the Caymans, has some sort of financial agreement with Big Pharma or the American Medical Association. Not for a medical career, mind you, but perhaps for lucrative seven- and eight-figure lobbying work in the years ahead?

Patricia Lynch switched over to the oh so lucrative dark side. Would it be a bit much to wonder if Ms. Liu, following in the footsteps of Daddy and his lobbying mad chemical firm, may well do the same?

Expecting you to censor in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ........

---

by: DoNotWantAccount @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 16:34:13 PM CDT

dude, you're a one-issue troll (0.00 / 0)

on grounds of sheer repetition alone you're earning yourself troll rating after troll rating, and the attitude doesn't help.

I think you made your point effectively about a dozen comments ago.  Or are you just here to troll, troll, troll?

---

by: simonstl @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 16:53:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

simon, I did not more than call out. the blog boss for.... (0.00 / 1)

hypocrisy and get censored in the offing.

When the blog boss tried to defend himself/herself, I responded in kind.

With me, it's simple:

1. Be consistent and you get the Eskimo pie.

2. Violate the rules of consistency, ethics, professionalism, and decorum, and you get a brick upside the head.

I do NOT negotiate. I screw up. I admit it. Others screw up and then run like little girls, I hunt them down and hold them accountable.

What part of that do you FAIL to understand?

---

by: DoNotWantAccount @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 17:02:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I argue with Robert regularly, and it's not a problem requiring bricks. (4.00 / 1)

Maybe your focus on "the brick upside the head" has distracted you from noticing the grotesque troll you've become?

You're screwing up, royally, and showing no sign of even seeing what you're doing.  And we're holding you accountable for it, the one way this site has to offer.  

Don't want to participate in the community, something I guess you'd call "negotiating"?  Expect a lot of zero ratings...

---

by: simonstl @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 17:14:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As for negotiation.... (0.00 / 1)

....Ethics and professionalism are no more matters of negotiation than torture and virginity.

Either you torture or you do not.

Either you are a virgin or you are not. (And spare me the unsettled stomach of reading your reply to that sentence, as it was neither a question nor do I have the slightest interest in said.)

Either you have integrity or you do not.

Either you are a professional or you are not.

Yes, I realize that such a mindset is rather rigid and offers little leeway. But some criteria must be applied with a stern, steady, unyielding hand.

Try it sometime, son. You just may find out you like it.

---

by: DoNotWantAccount @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 18:11:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

By the way Simon... (4.00 / 1)

I tend to think we debate, not "argue." I get a lot of value out of our discussions, whether we agree or not. I hope that feeling is mutual.


Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 23:52:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's mutual (0.00 / 0)

and yes, debate, is probably a nicer word.  My main point was that no bricks need be involved!

---

by: simonstl @ Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 07:44:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You mean if I don't mindlessly conform.... (0.00 / 0)

....nobody will play with me?

Aww, that hurts.

Either I have to nod my head and type so everybody will like me or you will take my comments away.

Jeepers, creepers, now I'll never attend a mindless cocktail party or burp, fart, and tell prepubescent jokes with the gang.

How will I survive???????????

---

by: DoNotWantAccount @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 21:59:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

actually, (4.00 / 1)

i'm the blog boss and no one is censoring you, though perhaps they should. your comment was hidden by the community, not an individual. it is still visible, in all it's wankish glory, by trusted users of the site, of which there are thousands.


TODAY is day one. It always is.

---

by: phillip anderson @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 18:35:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

DoNotWantAccount... (4.00 / 1)

This is the last time I waste time on you.

You can cry "censorship" all you want. Censorship would be deleting you into oblivion and not letting you return to this blog. We haven't reached that stage. You can make it right by either contributing something of substance to the discussion or you can continue on the path. It's your choice.

You come on here and make it seem like Irene Jay Liu is the only person ever to benefit from a wealthy parent or wealthy parents (and that's not even taking into consideration whether or not your claim is true, which is up in the air). You accuse her of "journalistic malpractice." You repeatedly post your comment trying to show said malpractice, even though no such malpractice exists.

Your story was a very different one than mine (and we took different approaches). You blame the media - Irene Jay Liu -  for not exposing this Republican poll worker. I chose to, instead of blaming the media, make the news myself.

Plus, mine was more than a volunteer Republican poll worker. My example was a former Kodak executive (which was a point made in my post). She also was a Republican donor and was appointed by a Republican (no doubt because of her Republican ties) to the board of Monroe Community College. I honestly can say that there aren't a lot of similarities there to your example.

But your point was never really about the Republican poll worker. That has been clear throughout your endless rambling. You have used that as a way to slam Irene Jay Liu not once, not twice, but many times over. It is one thing to criticize the media. It's another to personally attack members of the media.

This is yet another thread that you have hijacked. You don't like being "censored", yet you are willing to ruin the discussions in multiple threads. Your username is a reminder that you don't belong here. "DoNotWantAccount." Kind of speaks for yourself, if you ask me.

By the way, I am not the boss here. I am a front-page contributor. That's the extent of my role. Just thought I would clear that up for you.


Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 23:48:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]