THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™

28 Comments so far ↓

• GawdDayumAmerica // Sep 1, 2009 at 9:47 PM

  I believe that we are in need of health care reform in this country. The problem with health care reform is this.

  1. Spending lots and lots of money will not fix the problem.
  2. Price controls will not fix the problem. Medicare is going bankrupt. They keep squeezing the prices they pay and it doesnt do any good.
  3. If you add money to the system you just increase demand because now you got 45 million more people WANTING health care then before with the same amount of doctors.
  4. More patients, same amount of doctors means HIGHER PRICES.

  So as you can see just saying hey….were gonna give everyone health care is in fact going to result in rationing because now we have everyone running to the SAME AMOUNT OF DOCTORS.

  Solution is to bring more doctors and nurses into the system. To relax some restrictions on PA’s and Nursing assistants.

  We will not fix health care by throwing money at the system. If you want to fix health care then throw money at doctors, nurses and health care professionals. Make it EASY to become a Doctor or Nurse… By easy I mean financially….not make the course easier.

  Get more doctors and nurses into the system.

  Folks basic economics 101. If you add 45 million more patients to the doctors rolls……the costs are going to escalate..not drop. If you price control…….then you have rationing and government intervention in health care.

  That is the debate and that is what Every American that is out yelling about this understands. We may not be brilliant but we do understand the basics of economics and what Obama and the democrats are selling stinks right now.

  I reposted this from another topic.

  • Alabama Moderate // Sep 2, 2009 at 7:21 PM

    @GawdDayumAmerica, I think you might be mistaken as to what is actually in this bill. Here’s a good rundown on some common misunderstandings:

    http://wordpress.asc.upenn.edu/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

    • GawdDayumAmerica // Sep 2, 2009 at 9:24 PM

      @Alabama Moderate,

      Out of respect I read the entire article you linked.

      I think however I didn’t miss anything.

      Let me reiterate. IF…you…add…45,000,000 people to the system but leave the amount of hospitals, doctors, nurses etc. as is you are going to get price increases.

      Its called supply and demand. More demand….you know more people now want health care….more the prices go up.

      Hence the only way to regulate prices is to regulate prices. Rationing will become a way of life because unless you address the shortage of doctors in any bill you are going to guarantee an overload on the system which will lead to rationing and price controlling by the government.

      Its called unintended consequences of any legislation. This bill and every other bill that Ive seen addresses these issues with like on loosely worded page and moves on.

      • Alabama Moderate // Sep 3, 2009 at 11:39 AM

        @GawdDayumAmerica, Unfortunately, the answer is long and complicated, so you’ll need to stay with me. It’s why I gave a shorter answer earlier. “Supply and demand” is a nice argument if you ignore everything else, but it’s a nice, short response that’s misleading. The answer that would clarify is much more wordy, and by the time I’m done, you might prefer not to pay attention. This particular method is starting to become known as a “one way hash” argument, in reference to the math term. But I assure you that if you’ll stay with me, I’ll try to answer your argument the best I can.

        What you’re actually asking for is a type of education legislation (and believe it or not, a “socialist” one). While it’s a good idea to increase funding for federal grants for medical students who pursue needed fields, and while this particular type of legislation tends to bring in more money to the U.S. Treasury than is spent (see also, the GI Bill), it really needs to be in a separate bill– not tacked onto this one. We already have way too many people complaining about the complexity and length of this bill without adding to it.

        Just going a bit off topic, the same actually goes for addressing illegal immigration. This bill does specifically exclude illegal immigrants (even though technically the clause isn’t necessary since illegal immigrants are already disqualified from government programs). But it still won’t stop the less than 17% of the uninsured who happen to be illegal aliens from showing up in ERs. It does alleviate the sting some by making sure that the other 83% are covered, but you can’t eliminate the problem completely without either letting people die in the street outside or allocating money for them to be covered– neither of which would be rationally suggested by folks on the right.

        The key way to handle this problem is to make sure that as few illegal immigrants are here as possible in the first place– and that is handled through immigration legislation, such as going after those who employ them. Of course, then we have the right arguing that this would result in higher costs for farmers, etc., but then you can’t have it both ways. Either you keep them and deal with the problems they cause, or you use effective legislation to remove them.

        Now, back to the topic at hand… Rationing already exists. The insurance companies are doing a pretty good job of it now. So consider that basically what you’re suggesting is that we should keep rationing so that we don’t have to ration. That sounds fine if you have insurance, but if you happen to be between the ages of 40-65 and have a decent job, you’d better hope you don’t get seriously ill under the current system or you likely WILL experience rationing.

        Canada actually tends to be the worst case scenario when it comes to government health care and rationing, but even they have better quality care (via proven results) than we do, and the system being suggested for us isn’t at all what is in Canada. However, if we pretend for a moment that we live in Canada, consider that those who have the highest risk problem or those with the most need for, say, a surgery would be immediately given priority for that procedure. It’s not first come first serve or let the sick and/or elderly be given low priority. It’s the exact opposite. Here, however, insurance companies are less likely to cover the elderly and/or seriously ill, so in fact, that’s who is feeling the rationing here now.

        We’re already paying for coverage for folks without insurance, and they’re already getting “care.” That’s why you could bleed to death while waiting for a doctor in an ER– insurance or not. The key is to take those folks who show up in the ER for several hours coughing up blood and instead make sure they get an occasional appointment for a 30 minute checkup so that when the illness first shows up they can just call the doctor on call to get an antibiotic prescribed. It’s much cheaper and much less burdensome on the system.

        As for controlling costs, the U.S. currently pays more per person for health care than any other country. And yet we rank a whopping #37 in quality of care. The biggest difference is that the U.S. is the only developed country that allows private insurers to profit without restrictions. The truth of the matter is that insurers will still make money, as we’ll still be buying their plans through this legislation. But they won’t be making AS MUCH of a profit as before. Private plans offered through the exchange (think a miniature version of the FEHBP) will have to be completely portable and must provide a minimum of coverage and meet other guidelines. The idea is to have everyone who can afford coverage to get it so that the insurance companies have a good pool of young, healthy patients to offset the older, sicker ones. (This is similar to plans in other countries as well, so it’s been proven to work fine.)

        Believe it or not, doctors actually do better under this type of plan because with so many people covered and with the insurance companies actually required to pay up and in a timely manner, they’ll actually get paid for their services. Right now, insurance companies can (and do) refuse to pay for services that they’re supposed to cover, leaving the patient to fend for themselves. This can (and does) lead to bankruptcy and can leave the doctors and hospitals with no payment (which often gets passed down to you). And if insurance companies DO pay up, they can take an average of 6-8 weeks at best to do it as opposed to the average 2 weeks in countries like Germany. I’d say the concept of them getting paid properly in a timely manner for their services might provide more incentive to go into the field (in addition to federal education grants).

        Don’t forget that supply and demand works both ways. When there is a demand for a field, students will go there. Often, an employer will offer tuition reimbursement. In fact, I was reading something the other day about how a nursing shortage a few years back had caused a lot of students to go into that, but because they’re now flooding the job market, many new nurses no longer have their pick of hospital positions. The same happened with a demand for computer jobs some time ago. It may happen that a sudden demand for more doctors who are now guaranteed to get paid better (and hey, your med school might be free!) will result in the same thing.

        • GawdDayumAmerica // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:04 PM

          @Alabama Moderate,

          Well AM. I really don’t want to rehash this because yours is the same Obama Talking points that has gotten the Prez down to 40 percent in the polls.

          Is health care a Right…….or a benefit. Insurance companies have operated under the premise that health care is a benefit that people earn or are willing to buy out of pocket. Just as life insurance is a benefit and not a right. Some people die with no life insurance. Others die with millions.

          To buy into your premise one must believe that health care is a right and if thats the case then the Insurance companies are evil and need to be regulated.

          I will say once again….adding 45,000,000 to the rolls will only increase demand without increasing supply and your assertion that people will flock to the field because of need does not hold water because for years we have had a shortage in the field and the kids are NOT flocking to the field because their is little incentive to do so.

          Pick up any paper and the local hospitals are offering bonus’s for signing on and yet when you go look at the pay a nurse typically receives it is less then a teacher these days. A teacher gets 4 months a year off with pay. A nurse gets to work midnights to 7.

          No there are huge unintended consequences and the pro health care people are ignorning them or trying to sweep them under the rug to get health care passed. If you try to focus on getting more doctors and nurses into the field AFTER health care is passed it will just get argued away and we will end up with worse of a mess then we have now.

          The Cost is estimated at 1 trillion over 10 years. I submit it will be 3x, 4x’s that amount and will be a back breaker to this nation.

          We are so hopelessly in debt now its not funny and we want to add trillions more to mandatory funding.

          Insane.

        • bad dog // Sep 3, 2009 at 2:08 PM

          @Alabama Moderate, Nice try talking to that brick wall. But hopefully readers of the blog actually interested in their healthcare will get it.

          • GawdDayumAmerica // Sep 3, 2009 at 5:50 PM

            @bad dog,

            Oh I think I get it AM.

            If you look at my first post you see that I opened my first post with:

            “”"I believe that we are in need of health care reform in this country. The problem with health care reform is this.”"”

            I get it but what Obama and the democrats are selling. I aint buying and neither is the rest of the country it seems.

        • bad dog // Sep 3, 2009 at 6:22 PM

          @Alabama Moderate, Now he’s pretending that he speaks for the entire country. How cute!

          • GawdDayumAmerica // Sep 3, 2009 at 6:51 PM

            @bad dog,

            What is it with the people that seem to make up Obama’s side of the isle?

            Cant you guys just have a debate and not resort to snide, snarky or silly remarks.

            It seems………Seems….definition………To appear to be true, probable, or evident:

            Neither is the rest of the country it seems…..Poll: Americans want health care bill, but not the cost Source USA Today.

            Congressional Democrats and a barnstorming President face deep skepticism from the American public about the details of their effort to change the nation’s health-care system, even as enthusiasm for the prospect of reform remains high, according to a new TIME poll. Source Time Magazine.

            Without Public Option, Enthusiasm for Health Care Reform, Especially Among Democrats, Collapses Source Rassmussen.

            And the Coup De Gra. Look it up.

            http://www.pollster.com/blogs/summing_up_the_new_health_care.php

            A majority in every poll thinks Obamas plan is a bad idea….whatever that plan is.

            So to reiterate……I get it but what Obama and the democrats are selling. I aint buying and neither is the rest of the country it seems.

            I believe to be a true statement.

            • bad dog // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:11 PM

              @GawdDayumAmerica, “What is it with the people that seem to make up Obama’s side of the isle? Cant you guys just have a debate and not resort to snide, snarky or silly remarks.”

              To quote Joe Lovell, one of this site’s resident right wingers—oops, I mean “libertarians,” with a lower-case L on purpose—from another thread:

              “No … salivating sycophants such a Bad Dog … So, go back to your fantasy of eating AlGores caviar and jacking off over your gay porn – and maybe get over your denial about being gay yourself.”

              So, I’ll make you a deal. YOU tell Joe Lovell to stop being such a big meanie and I’LL be less snarky to you. OTHERWISE, I get to make fun of you for having principles that apparently apply only to right wingers, but not yourself.

              Oh, and this is you responding to my first column on this site:

              “I actually started to go thru line by line and refute the assertions made here and it was pointless. They are so blatantly out of touch with reality that they have no merit and merit no response.”

              Wow, you’re nice! (Not!)

              Now to address your points about Obama’s healthcare plan polling, if I answer your questions, do you promise to then accept the answers and either 1) accept them as truth, or 2) debate them because you disagree, without 3) endlessly repeating your same points over and over mindlessly? One of the reasons I’m snarky to you, beyond your weird use of different personalities, is that you’re like that CNBC chick shouting at the Democratic Congressman from NY why doesn’t he have Medicare if it’s so great. He answered, “Uh, because I’m 44.” But the obvious didn’t matter to her, she started laughing and gloating over her zinger, yelling, “I mean come on!” Making a complete ass out of herself. Note, GDA, that the difference between “tedious” and “tenacious” is quality of content.

              Now to the issue at hand. If you are actually being serious, and you’re making a serious point, and you want a serious answer, then I’ll be happy to debate you.

              First, as you note, Americans’ enthusiasm for healthcare reform collapses without a public option. Although Rasmussen is a Republican pollster, I’ll accept the data. Because I really believe Americans want a public option. Strange that you bring this up, because it shows that a majority of Americans are about as communist as you believe the President is—which suggests that one of you—either you or a majority of the American people—is a little out of touch.

              Second, regarding your coup de grace, the poll found that a SLIGHT majority of Americans are AGAINST Obama’s healthcare reforms, as you point out. But the SAME POLLING shows that when shown an argument both for/against SPECIFIC HEALTHCARE REFORMS, a SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY APPROVE of Democratic health plans.

              So instead of the wild leap that your conclusions take based on this data, I think we can conclude instead that Republican lying and propaganda works because the Democrats won’t fight for what they believe in, the President won’t do the right thing and insist on a public option, the media is giving the craziest idiots in the country a constant, unchallenged megaphone, and the American people are just dumb enough to get the healthcare system they deserve, not the one they need.

              THAT, I believe, you have decisively proven. Propaganda works on dumb people.

              • GawdDayumAmerica // Sep 3, 2009 at 11:26 PM

                @bad dog,

                (AP) Soon to be in charge of Congress, Democrats are looking to chip away at billions of dollars in payments to the health insurance companies that run Medicare’s managed care programs.

                The cuts could range up to about $27.6 billion over five years, an amount the industry says would reduce the number of managed care plans serving seniors and the disabled. CBS News.

                The Democratic Party controls the White House, Congress, and Senate and, according to the Washington Examiner, they are so consumed with Healthcare that they are forgetting about seniors. For the first time since 1975, there will be no cost of living adjustment or COLA for seniors and the disabled that use social security and medicare. This will extend for the next two years. Washington Post.

                WASHINGTON — President Obama tried Tuesday to sell his health care plan to older Americans, as members of Congress said they were deluged with calls from constituents worried that their Medicare benefits might be cut to help finance coverage for the uninsured. NY Times

                WASHINGTON — Key House Democrats agreed Friday on steps designed to cut the growth of Medicare, clearing one of numerous obstacles blocking an early vote on health care legislation.

                What does that all mean. Simple. The democrats have convinced the country they are going to screw seniors to pay for health care.

                In other words people who have paid into Medicare for their entire adult lives might have their services cut in order to pay for a young woman with two kids who hasnt paid a dime.

                This is a fiasco for the Democrats and the harder they try the worse they look.

                Number one rule in DC politics…..Dont mess with Social Security/Medicare and Seniors and the democrats look as if they are Seniors Axe murders.

                • bad dog // Sep 4, 2009 at 12:45 AM

                  @GawdDayumAmerica, I think you may actually be right in your conclusions about this.

                  On the other hand, the CBO says healthcare reform legislation would significantly reduce the costs for seniors to acquire prescription drugs. The New York Times summarized the CBO findings:

                  “Premiums for drug coverage would rise an average of 5% in 2011, beyond the level expected under current law, and the increase would grow to 20 percent in 2019, the budget office said.

                  ““However,” [the CBO] said, “beneficiaries’ spending on prescription drugs apart from those premiums would fall, on average, as would their overall prescription drug spending (including both premiums and cost-sharing).”"

                  (snip)

                  “Republicans have criticized the House bill on the ground that it would finance coverage for the uninsured, in part, by cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from projected Medicare spending, in ways that could adversely affect some beneficiaries. In response, Democrats have said the bill would help beneficiaries by narrowing and eventually eliminating a gap in Medicare drug coverage, informally known as a doughnut hole.”

                  (snip)

                  ““In return for those higher premiums,” [the CBO director] said, “enrollees would receive greater protection against incurring high drug costs. As a result, beneficiaries’ spending on prescription drugs apart from the premiums would decrease, on average. That reduction in cost-sharing would outweigh the increase in premiums, again on average.””

                  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/health/policy/31drug.html

                  So as you can see it is projected that there will be higher Medicare premiums, but also lower drug costs. So some seniors may pay a little more, while those with high drug expenses will see savings. The funny thing is that the Republicans have tried to raise premiums for years, so the idea that they’re suddenly champions of Medicare, a program they’ve hated for decades with a level of loathing reserved for Satan, is laughable.

                  But while some seniors will understand this, not all of them will, and the Democrats will just have to take a beating as a result. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but TV news is not very good at communicating anything more complex than “he said, she said.”

                  • GawdDayumAmerica // Sep 4, 2009 at 2:43 PM

                    @bad dog,

                    I let you have the last word here Bad Dog because yours was actually a sensible post with facts and figures and not your usual.

                    Good job.

                  • bad dog // Sep 5, 2009 at 2:54 AM

                    @GawdDayumAmerica, I was going to say the same to you, GDA. In fact, you were being so rational I thought I was witnessing the emergence of another one of your personalities!

• Gunboat // Sep 2, 2009 at 11:36 AM

  This is a very complicated subject and I don’t pretend to have an answer that would satisfy most people. I just don’t see why we need 1000 pages of legislation to get medical insurance to those that don’t have it.

  The main problem with our health care, as I see it, is that the person receiving the care is not the person paying for it.

  Suppose there were such a thing as food insurance. When you went to the grocery store, someone else would be paying the tab. So you would grab the most expensive cuts of meat, only the freshest vegetables, and of course all the soda and other junk food you could carry. Much of it would go to waste. And, since everyone else would be doing the same, the demand and therefore the price of the best food would skyrocket and everyone would be wondering why food is so expensive. Those without food insurance would be forced to live on charitable contributions and whatever dregs were left over. Of course the politicians would blame it on the greed of the farmers and food insurance companies. It seems unlikely a “public option” food insurance would help bring prices down.

  • bad dog // Sep 4, 2009 at 2:58 AM

    @Gunboat, Most major legislation has hundreds of pages, often more than a thousand. It’s just the way it works. If you’ve ever read one of those laws—and a small part of my job is keeping up with legislation affecting a certain industry—you’d see why: Each section starts with pages and pages just of definitions and references to existing laws and regulations, then proceeds with the main content, referencing other sections constantly—in short, it’s The Way Things Work and That’s How It is. Republican-sponsored bills are very long. Democrat-sponsored bills are very long. Don’t let any bill’s length frighten you. Length is irrelevant.

    Then you say, “Suppose there were such a thing as food insurance.”

    But there IS such a thing as food insurance. It’s called I pay the government to do food inspection and regulate water quality. If it were up to the private sector, only people with money could have water that wouldn’t give you, say, cholera, or food that would give you e coli poisoning.

    “It seems unlikely a “public option” food insurance would help bring prices down.”

    If a little country like Canada can do it—providing public healthcare of high quality for a lower cost, producing a higher life expectancy and a lower mortality rate—then the U.S. I’m sure can somehow manage it. Somehow, and this may amaze you, but the Canadians don’t walk around like ***holes “grabbing” expensive operations just because they can. In fact, in a public system, just what you’re describing—with those “choice cuts” being available only to the rich—isn’t possible.

• Fandb // Sep 2, 2009 at 11:48 AM

  Tort reform legislation would bring prices down dramatically and quickly. Some Doctors pay as much as half of their gross income on malpractice insurance. Reducing that alone will help more than Obamacare ever will.

  • Alabama Moderate // Sep 2, 2009 at 7:23 PM

    @Fandb, Actually, that’s not necessarily the case. While the number of claims has remained steady, the cost of malpractice insurance has continued to rise at a rather alarming rate. That evil patient who got the wrong/flubbed surgery isn’t causing the problem.

    • Fandb // Sep 3, 2009 at 11:54 AM

      @Alabama Moderate, First, it isn’t the evil patients who got the wrong surgery who are a problem – they should be compensated at a reasonable rate. It is those who bring frivolous malpractice suits as a way to get rich quick. Even their contribution to the overall problem is small, but it reveals an underlying problem with the system as it is now. The justified suits also need to be controlled in a reasonable manner. If a surgeon mistakenly removes a young woman’s leg when he was supposed to remove a wart, that patient should receive $$ millions. But if the surgeon just removed the wrong wart, and the woman had to go back again to have the right one removed, that is NOT worth $$ millions, maybe a few hundred at best. So putting some controls and limitations on awards does make sense. Juries too often side with the patient out of sympathy and a desire to stick it to the doctor, hospital, and insurance company, and award outrageous settlements for relatively minor problems. So, part one is to fix that.

      Part two is to put more controls on the insurance companies as to how they set their rates and exactly what those rates are. For an anesthesiologist friend of mine who does pay half of his gross income in malpractice insurance premiums, but has never been sued even once in over 20 years of practice, his rates should reflect that, in my opinion.

      So, putting some controls and limitations on torts, and putting some controls and limitations on malpractice insurance providers, should help lower medical costs by as much as 5 to 10%. Which is a huge $ number when you consider the amount spent each year.

      This will also help remedy the practice that many doctors and hospitals have adopted that involves running every possible conceivable test mainly to avoid a malpractice suit if something goes wrong. If hospitals stop running MRI’s when X-rays are good enough, and stop putting patients on a treadmill when an EKG is good enough, etc., health care costs will plummet. And the way to change the mindset and the practice of running these excessive tests is through very thoughtfully constructed tort reform legislation.

• SJ // Sep 2, 2009 at 12:50 PM

  There was an interesting (I thought) opinion from the NYT by one of GWB’s former guy on his panel of economic advisers – Glenn Hubbard. It was pretty non-parisan (again, I thought). He was comparing Bush’s failed approach on Social Security reform to O’Bombers current woes with Health Care reform.

  Boiling it down, he compared O’bamas insistance of a Public Plan with Bush’s insistance on Personal Savings Accounts. Medicare and Social Security are unsustainable from a fiscal standpoint. And like Bush’s Personal Savings Accounts for SS reform, the Public Plan will not cure the real problem in Healthcare – it just creates and easy target for the opponents.

  Anyway, check it out if interested. I’m too stupid to link, I’m only an engineer.
  Steve

  • bad dog // Sep 4, 2009 at 3:00 AM

    @SJ, What is your evidence that a public option is sinking Democratic hopes for healthcare reform, when a majority of the public would like to have it, and the leading contending Democratic bills don’t include it, which is what the public is currently rejecting? Just not sure how you get from something popular to an albatross.

    • SJ // Sep 4, 2009 at 12:16 PM

      HI BD,

      In terms of evidence to support that OP-Ed piece (Again, I thought it was interesting from a tactical perspective – I did not do any detailed analysis), I think I can say with some level of confidence that GOP is nearly unanimously opposed to it. I can also say that at least some Blue Dogs are iffy. Whether that is enough to prevent it passing, I don’t know. If the Democrats can go it alone and pass w/ the public option, then it won’t be a concern (albatross) like the PSA’s were for W’s SocSec effort.

      I guess the question I thought was interesting was whether O’Bomber should split the task in two pieces. Get the uninsured covered (I know nearly all the Dems – and some GOP’ers want to do this), then attack the longterm costs seperately (Not sure the Dems (or anybody) REALLY wants to do this), perhaps next year.

      I consider the polls as a side point, but noted. I would guess you are citing the latest national polls. Do the polls show differences in Blue Dog regions? Either way, the polls are not the end-all in getting legislation passed – though these latest ones will certainly help Obama. Polls can change quick though: Here’s a past poll (Aug 18 – NBC)

      –
      And according to a brand-new NBC News poll, 47% of Americans — a plurality — oppose the public plan, versus 43% who support it. That’s a shift from last month’s NBC/WSJ poll, when 46% said they backed it and 44% were opposed.
      –

      Have a good holiday BD and all,
      Steve

• Fandb // Sep 2, 2009 at 1:24 PM

  The latest from Politico is that Obama is taking the public option off the table in order to get some kind of health care passed this year.

  Further proof that Obama and the dems aren’t doing this to help the poor, downtrodden 47 million “uninsured”, they’re doing it to increase their power and to increase government control over We The People.

• bad dog // Sep 3, 2009 at 2:18 PM

  Obama wants the public option, but isn’t insisting on it, so it probably won’t happen. Americans won’t get the healthcare they need, but they’ll get the healthcare they deserve. Enjoy, America!

  The funny thing is on healthcare and many other issues, Obama is once again running afoul of the liberal wing of the Democrats, and losing their support. You lose your base, you lose elections. Hello, DNC? Anybody listening?

  But it makes ya wonder. Gee, if Obama is too conservative for real liberals, but the moonbats say he’s a communist*, I wonder what makes liberals? Super communists? Para communists? Antichrist communists? Ultra-left-extreme-commies-oh-christ-i-wet-my-pants-liberals-are-so-scary-theyre-under-my-bed-making-me-gay-wah-wah-wah communists?

  And these jackasses dominated the healthcare debate. Yes, the inmates are truly running the asylum.

  Mr. President, would you mind finally growing a pair and grinding the Republicans into the dust where they belong?

  *Actually the moonbats call Obama a socialist communist fascist, an entirely new political ideology combining previously mutually exclusive ideologies, so somebody call Webster’s. Oh wait … Hold that thought. The right wingers are just being stupid again. The moonbats probably wouldn’t know fascism if they voted for it. Oh, wait …

• Joe Lovell // Sep 3, 2009 at 3:51 PM

  Gee, even more peace, love, and tolerance from the the ACORN workers sycophants: http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20090903/NEWS/909039972

  and from other sources:

  Southern California — this just in

  « Previous Post | L.A. Now Home | Next Post »
  Healthcare activist bites off finger of counter-demonstrator, authorities say
  September 3, 2009 | 10:29 am
  Authorities are searching for a healthcare reform activist today who they said bit off the finger of a 65-year-old counter-demonstrator during a fight at a MoveOn.org rally in Thousand Oaks.

  “It all started with their difference in philosophy over healthcare reform,” said Senior Deputy Eric Buschow of the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department.

  The incident occurred about 7 p.m. Wednesday at a “We Can’t Afford to Wait Vigil” organized by affiliates of the activist group MoveOn.org, which drew supporters of President Obama’s healthcare plan, Buschow said. The rally also attracted several counter-protesters, he said.

  During the rally at Lynn Road and Hillcrest Drive, near the Oaks Mall, the two men got into a heated argument and began fighting.

  “At which point, one man bit off the left pinky of the other,” Buschow said.

  The injured demonstrator then drove himself to Los Robles Hospital and Medical Center about a mile away, he said.

  Ilyse Hogue, director of political advocacy and communications for MoveOn.org, called the incident “a regrettable act of violence” in a statement released this morning.

  “While we do not have any more facts about what happened than what we saw in press accounts, MoveOn condemns violence in all forms,” Hogue said. “We support the Ventura County sheriff’s investigation into the situation. It is in our firm hope that this event does not detract from the tens of thousands who were out peacefully making their voices heard for health care reform and a public option.”

  Authorities said they are looking for a white male in his late 40s or 50s who was last seen wearing black shorts and a black shirt.

  “We’re still trying to figure out who was the aggressor,” Buschow said.

  Anyone with information is asked to call the Ventura Sheriff’s Department at (805) 494-8201.

  – Ruben Vives

  Wow, a MoveOn thug for hire attacks an old man. How tolerant and inclusive of him.

  and

  a first hand account of this incident on the radio by “Scott” from Thousand Oaks who saw the whole thing and called in to share the story.

  The Obamacare supporter, who was on the side of the street with other supporters, came across the street toward the anti-Obamacare crowd and singled out an elderly man and proceded to “get in his face” about his views. The Obamacare supporter then pulled the old man out into the street, unprovoked I might add, and then bit the old guys finger off while the old guy was just trying to get away. The old man then shuffled off toward a hospital.

  The person giving this account,”Scott”, then went out into the street and found the old man’s finger. He and some others called 911 and the dispatcher gave them the location to the nearest hospital which she said would be thier best bet for finding the man. They rushed over and were able to find the old man and provide him with his finger. Scott then went back to the scene to wait for police. He gave the police the entire account and they tried to find the attacker amongst the Obamacare supports, but he had fled by then.

  So, Nancy, who are the real thugs?

  • bad dog // Sep 3, 2009 at 4:56 PM

    @Joe Lovell, And the Republicans play the victim yet again. I like your invented story. Man, are you gullible. If only I were a right wing talk show host, I could sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. You’re an easy mark. But what’s fascinating is you also have ESP. You could reach across space and time to read the mind of one of the guys in the fight, and conclude he was a “MoveOn thug for hire.” Or maybe you’re just laughably wrong. Maybe you’re being taken like you did last time somebody got “beaten up” at a healthcare town hall. Cuz I heard from this guy named, “Robert E. Lee,” and he said it went down like this:

    The right winger mouthed off to the MoveOn guys, screaming obscenities about blacks and Jews and fascist Obamas, and the MoveOn guy finally got sick of it and told him to zip it before he lost some teeth. Then the old guy tried to take a swing and got his ass kicked. The MoveOn guy bit the finger off and said, “That’s just for voting for Bush in November 2000. Come back and I’ll do to you what Bush did to this country for eight years.” The right winger cried and wet his pants, begging for forgiveness. Crowds of people for miles around cheered. The elderly in the crowd paraded by, spit on the gullible loudmouthed liar lying in his own filth, and told him he doesn’t speak for the senior citizens of this nation, who know which party gave them Medicare and which party wants it destroyed.

    That’s how I heard the story, anyway. Maybe Robert E. Lee, who I heard is a general in the Army, got some details wrong. But it sounds so TRUE. So it must be.

    So, Joe, who are the real wimps? Some little MoveOn latte-drinkin, true-huggin, dirty hippie commie sissy beat up a big tough NASCAR-lovin, beer-swillin, pig-eatin, truck-drivin right wing jerk?

    • bad dog // Sep 4, 2009 at 3:07 AM

      @bad dog, Yeah, Joe, your story checks out, except for the lying about who was a thug and who was for hire and who attacked who and basically the rest of “Scott”‘s account.

      Only a right winger would accept on faith the story of a man named “Scott.”

      But now “Robert E. Lee”—now, he’s real! And he was there and tells the story completely differently. He said the old guy gave the MoveOn guy the finger and the MoveOn guy basically ripped it off and stuck it up the right winger’s ass. I can’t verify the story, but it sounds so TRUE.

  • Fandb // Sep 3, 2009 at 5:03 PM

    @Joe Lovell, Good find Joe. Your story checks out, it’s on the AP wire now.