Prominent Conservative Talk Show Host Has A Change Of Heart?

[ihavenobias]

Run time: 02:29 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZHycYmewng   Posted on YouTube: January 07, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 07, 2008 By DU Member: ihavenobias Views on DU: 3669

 
Glenn Beck's horrible hospital experience may have changed some of his arrogantly conservative views.

PS--- http://bravenewfilms.org/election

[billybob537]

1. WOW he realized he was GLENN BECK

then wanted to kill himself? Welcome to the club.

[AspenRose]

2. Doubt it.

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. It's a universal law.

[texasgal08]

3. Beck's healthcare stance

This correspondent is clearly misinformed about Glenn Beck's ideas about the healthcare industry (even before his surgery). He has never been a "bootstraps" kind of guy when it comes to healthcare issues. He supports healthcare reform, but as a capitalist solution, not a socialist solution! Socialized medicine (aka "National Healthcare") cannot be sustained long-term financially or logistically. In fact, it cannot be delivered in the first place--not by a Dem or a Rep President.
Back to my original point, anyone who is familiar with Beck's style (or who has even heard him speak about the issue even once) knows that he is all about compassion in the healthcare industry. He is adamant that healthcare reform begins with compassionate people--from investors and philanthropists who invest money in facilities to the people who are the hands and feet of healthcare--nurses, technicians and nurse's aides. The indifference of people is causing more problems in the system than anything else!
Anyway, I thought I'd point out that this "reporter" doesn't know what he's talking about.

[ihavenobias]

4. Something tells me that

this will be "texasgal08"'s last post here at DU, unless there is another conservative to defend.

But hey, who knows, I could be way off base (and I apologize in advance if you become a regular contributor here).

Something about the username, the fact that *that* is your *first* post and the fact that you rip on "socialized medicine" add up to a bit of trolling IMO. Oh yeah, and using Glenn Beck and compassion in the same sentence (without using the words "has no") is a dead give away.

[niceypoo]

7. That was my first thought

Short timer

[skater314159]

33. Wow. You guys were right...

Are you psychic?
:silly:

[niceypoo]

5. Beck is a pompous bigot

Investors are not compassionate either, don't delude yourself. The US is the only industrialized country with 'for profit' medical so there goes your theory that it can never work here. Beck is a paid mouthpiece, nothing more and nothing less.

[ExPatLeftist]

6. RNC Talking points

...and a nice collection of talking points at that!

I especially liked this: "Socialized medicine (aka "National Healthcare") cannot be sustained long-term financially or logistically."... Stated as a fact that it simply CANNOT be sustained long term. How do you know this as a fact? Did Rush tell you? Nice use of references as well and you deserve bonus points for fear mongering by bringing out the big oogie-boogie man in the form of the word SOCIALIST repeated over and over. Oh, and the compassionate conservative line about anything good beginning with compassionate individuals has been proven wrong time and again since Bush took office - note that faith-based "compassionate conservative" organizations have yet to solve... Well, anything really.

Oh, BTW, I would welcome you to DU but somehow I get the sneaking suspicion that you won't be here long.... Call it a hunch...

[Amonester]

8. NO compassion for 47 millions AMERICANS but 600 BILLIONS for...

the illegal aggression and occupation of a country that NEVER ATTACKED texasgal08 & US

TRILLIONS FOR BUSH'S UNNECESSARY WARS but NOTHING FOR SICK AMERICANS WHO NEED HEALTCARE!!

buh-bye. :grr:

[BeliQueen]

9. I appreciate your view point

but I fail to see how a "capitalist" solution is the answer.

HMOs are the "capitalist" answer, and yet they've created a system that is inhospitable (a pun--I realize) to everyone--insured or uninsured.

So what in your view point would be the "capitalist" solution, and how would it be different from what we have right now?

Please enlighten.

Thanks.

[texasgal08]

11. Finally a civil response to answer

Hi! I really appreciate the civil response to my post. I'm an independent, and I'm looking at points of view from all sides of the spectrum to make my 08 decision. I stumbled on DU, having seen a link from the AP. I had never heard of it before today. Judging from the response to my first post, however,it seems like free and open dialog is not welcomed or appreciated here, but we'll give it one more try.
When I assert that "capitalism" is the answer to the health care crisis, I am specifically referring to the fact that competition in the marketplace will weed out the non-performers in terms of poor service/value for services. This may/may not be the answer for quality of services, but it's a start. Money being equal to compassion...well, that's not an exact science, but it's a good start. I don't think people realize how compassionate IT IS when philanthropists open their checkbooks and add wings onto hospitals. Let us not forget that w/o contributions from the public (voluntary & involuntary), most health care facilities (private & public) would be broke. I know this may be anecdotal, but in the Dallas/Ft Worth metroplex where I live, we have new hospitals cropping up every year in the suburbs and even into more rural areas to accommodate the surging population, leaving the "downtown" hospitals behind, but "old money" continues to keep those hospitals open for the homeless and immigrant constituency who seem to flood the lobbies every night and every weekend.

So, back to my original point, Beck's assertion (and mine) is that health care system doesn't just need an injection of money or public funding to get straightened out, it needs compassion from the inside out. No candidate is zeroing in on this problem, and no candidate is offering any solutions (not even monetary solutions!). I have scoured the Blue and Red websites to find detailed plans for health care reform that even rivals Sen. Clinton's plan from the 90's. I haven't seen anything that even touches HER, and her plans failed.

I am hoping that someone out there comes up with answers that are WORKABLE, not just MENTIONABLE.

[ihavenobias]

12. I've gotta be honest but

I rarely hear independents writing things that suggest they regularly watch (and agree with) a hyper-partisan conservative like Glenn Beck.

I also rarely hear them use conservative talking points regarding "socialized medicine".

In my experience, there is an increasing number of people who claim to be "independent" because it's trendy and makes them think they are somehow above the fray of partisan politics. It also provides convenient cover when speaking to a particular group and pushing a position that is known to be (generally) widely disliked by that group.

Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT saying there aren't plenty of real indes who simply refuse to align themselves with any one party. And I can't say I totally disagree with them as the democrats can be incredibly frustrating and hey, it's not like *I* agree with party line position. I agree that we should encourage a healthy debate on these differences and not fear a backlash *within reason* (as some arguments can be inflammatory and or ridiculous).

In my original response to you I apologized in advance if I was way off base in my assumption that you weren't on your way to being a long term poster and I'm willing to be proven wrong, but you can't blame me (or the others) for having some degree of skepticism *in the context* of all of these things.

So I'll apologize again and hope to see you around to make this apology worthwhile!

[texasgal08]

13. I Understand

Hi There,
Yes....I  know there are a lot of buzz words out there that
seem to only pop up for one side or the other, but I'm
actually a true "Indie," trying to find a way to
support someone who won't give us 8 more years of more shit,
but I also have terrible memories of the 70's, so I don't want
8 years of Jimmy Carter either!  He's the only democrat who I
even remember.  So, I hope this website will help me stay in
touch with a diverse crop of ideas.

Thanks again!

[ExPatLeftist]

53. Only remember Carter...?

Were the nineties a blackout for you, or...?

I would suggest that you look at the MANY nations that have "socialized" medical care, in an unbiased way, and see how they are doing... As someone that has lived in a few countries (and stayed for long periods of time in several others) with national healthcare systems, to me your assertion as FACT that it "cannot be sustained long-term financially or logistically" seems (to me) extremely closed-minded in the face of so many examples to the contrary worldwide. Many countries with much higher standards of living than the US have national healthcare systems, and the care received is often rated better than that received in the US (which is also NOT received at all by over 47 million Americans). And before anyone brings out the wait-time chestnut, there is nothing to back that up and my experience (anecdotal, I know) is that wait times in the US tend to be longer than in nations with national healthcare.

When you state, as a fact, something which is not provable and has in fact been disproven the world over, which also happens to be the same talking point, stated as a fact (and without anything to back it up), by much of the furthest right talking-head punditocracy in the nation, you are bound to run into some dissent.

[theredpen]

21. You are delusional

When I assert that "capitalism" is the answer to the health care crisis, I am specifically referring to the fact that competition in the marketplace will weed out the non-performers in terms of poor service/value for services.

That's the system we have now and it doesn't work.

How can 45 million uninsured people help "weed out the non-performers"? They aren't "in the game" at all. How can those of us with health insurance effectively "weed out the non-performers" when that usually involves someone dying because they were denied healthcare?

All those people can do is show up at emergency rooms and receive healthcare in the most inefficient possible way at taxpayer's expense. How is that not socialized medicine? And if we're going to have socialized medicine anyway, why don't we make it cost-effective — or is "cost-effective" not a capitalist concept you understand?

I know this may be anecdotal, but in the Dallas/Ft Worth metroplex where I live, we have new hospitals cropping up every year in the suburbs and even into more rural areas to accommodate the surging population, leaving the "downtown" hospitals behind, but "old money" continues to keep those hospitals open for the homeless and immigrant constituency who seem to flood the lobbies every night and every weekend.

My wife was an intern chaplain at one of the downtown hospitals and she's seen those people yanked off life support and thrown into the street to die when the cost/benefit analysis crossed thresholds that allowed them to do that. These "too expensive to live" provisions were signed into law by Governor George W. "kill 'em all" Bush.

In one case, a Mexican national (one of them thar "immigrant constituency" people) was admitted to Parkland. She had insurance, but Parkland thought she was an uninsured illegal (hey, she was brown) so they threw her out. Her family took her to my wife's hospital, who was happy to have a paying customer. Unfortunately, despite their best efforts, she didn't make it due to the delay in treating her.

That's American health care. If that woman had been sick in Mexico, she'd probably be alive.

It seems that we both have imaginary invisible friends. Yours is the Invisible Hand of Adam Smith and this particular deity has proven to be a miserable failure at creating a robust healthcare system. This is because in a "capitalist" system, there is a motivation not to treat people. Still, keep the faith in your deity and Its high priestess, Ayn Rand.

My invisible friend is Jesus Christ. His plan is that everyone should love one another and try to create a better world. That's a plan that can actually work, if you try it. People of all faiths (and none) recognize that obvious fact. That's the plan that's going to lead to — gasp — national healthcare. Notice that the best hospitals are named in honor of Him or His Saints — or have other associations with faith. How about those named for your god? "Healthcare Company of America" (HCA)? That's a great place to go and die unless your have great insurance. It's been embroiled in financial scandal.

I'll put my imaginary invisible friend against yours to build a healthcare system any day of the week. I'll even go so far as to bet that most of the atheists in this forum would rather go with my imaginary friend's plan than yours.

[MrsBrady]

27. rules

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

[moc]

31. From one "Texas gal" to another, you're wrong in so many ways. Where to start?

FWIW, I live in North Texas and I work in public health, so I have more than a passing level of information regarding the status of healthcare in this part of the country.

The "old money" doesn't keep Parkland open. Parkland is on the verge of bankruptcy, as are many public hospitals in other parts of the state and the country. One challenge for Parkland is serving the surging uninsured population, not only in Dallas County but in the outlying counties. Technically, Parkland is only supposed to serve Dallas county residents, but because of the lack of health care resources for uninsured in suburban counties, residents from those outlying counties are swamping Parkland resources. Because of rapidly changing demographics in Collin County, for example, there is a crisis with regards to uninsured in that county.

If you want to be better informed, I urge you to review the presentation by our local NPR station, KERA, called "Life in the Balance". (See http://www.kera.org/lifeinthebalance/). Although this aired several years ago, it is excellent. It will give you a much more realistic perspective on health care in this area.

The major problem with your "capitalism" solution is the assumption that the "bottom line" will enhance health care service delivery. The problem is that the delivery of health care cannot be a profit-making endeavor. Making profits and insuring the health of a population are mutually exclusive. You seem to think that capitalism only "weeds" out on the provider side. No, what it does is "weeds" out the sick on the "consumer" side. Hence, we get pre-existing condition exclusions and denials of claims by insurers. When profit is the motivating factor in delivering health care, people die.

[Chulanowa]

34. I have to disagree

But first off, you might want to take a look at what you agree to when you register here. DU really isn't a forum for open debate from all sides. We have enough issues just between candidate camps. Bringing in everyone from every party would just leave this place a smoking ruin when the day is done :D It's DemocraticUnderground, after all. It's not the intent to stifle debate - just check around, this place is hardly backslapper central - But it's nice to be able to talk about liberal ideas without someone barging in and telling us how Hitler was a democrat and we're all going to hell for not lynching "teh gayz," y'know? :)

Anyway, on topic... Not all "businesses" are the same. The gigantic problem with free market philosophy is the assumption that it's always Radio Shack vs Circuit City; Businesses selling a luxury product competing with one another. It applies this to every sort of business, from schools to hospitals even into government. And it's stupid, because many "businesses" by their very nature, don't follow that model. In the case of health care, it is not a commodity. It's a necessity. I'll use myself as an example.

Last year, I got bitten by a dog. He tore off a chunk of my left nostril. The fact that I went to the hospital was not a choice of preference for me - I had a gaping wound on my face and my nose was half-shredded. I honestly didn't consider treatment to be "optional" you get my drift? what's more, I didn't call around to see who had the best rates. I didn't try to see who had the best service. I just went to the closest damn hospital I could so they could try to keep any more blood from gushing out of my nose, and rebuild it as best as they could.

That is how hospitals operate. People NEED to go to one - hospital care is not elective, they're guaranteed business - and they will go to whatever one is closest. It is just not a "competitive market." Ever heard of some car wreck victim telling the EMT "No, no, don't take me to Municipal, I do business with St. Marcus across town!" 'Course you don't.

Relying on charity is a good cop-out, because it's, well, unreliable. A hospital's every need is not going to be met when it needs to be met by some random philanthropist. For starters, there's not really that many philanthropists to go around, and second, even they can get strapped for cash, in all practicality. Or maybe they just don't... y'know... want to. There's a few other hoops that charity fails to jump through - such as inner-city hospitals. Poor people need care too, but your solution (free market all the way!) would have them closing down, unless some kind-hearted soul wants to take their finances in as personal good will. Which, if someone wanted to do so... would have happened already.

And of course "free market" only makes the problem of HMO's and pharmaceuticals worse. You see, the "free market" has already been applied to insurance companies, and how did they respond? By running pure profit schemes that are essentially theft - you pay for a service after agreeing to a contract stating they are not bound to provide that service. Pure money. On the pharmaceutical side, it's all about money. Dead people don't buy pills, but neither do healthy people. So the goal is to make "treatments" rather than cures, and convince healthy people that they're sick and in dire need of medication (Restless Leg Syndrome? You're kidding me?). As a result the actual medicine is limited in supply, overpriced, and under-researched, but the pharma companies are making a bundle.

I'm afraid that capitalism and health care don't mix that well.

[ihavenobias]

35. You made some

very good points!

Sorry to hear about the nose though and I hope it's ok.

http://bravenewfilms.org/election

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

44. There is a flaw in your argument

Britain, France, and the Scandinavian countries all have some form of "socialized medicine". If you check out their infant mortality rates and overall health care, you'll find they are much better than the US. If you watch Michael Moore's film "Sicko", you'll get a better insight into how the health care systems in Britain and France work.

Another concern I have with the for-profit insurance industry is that they have a reputation for interfering with doctor's suggestions for treatment. The most blatant case happened recently, when a 17-year old was denied a liver transplant by CIGNA (the company finally succumbed to pressure from doctors and nurses' associations, but it was too late for the young lady). My doctor has related horror stories where patient's insurance agencies will not pay for certain prescriptions because another drug is cheaper. It didn't matter that the cheap drug would react negatively with other medications the patient was taking. And since the drug she needed was terribly expensive and she was on a fixed income, she opted to not take anything. How is this sort of thing right?

[catbyte]

15. Um...

Just to point out, Bill Clinton (remember the 90's?) is a Democrat.

[skater314159]

19. Yeh...

Reading post #13 made me think:
"Hey! I was in diapers and pre-school for Carter, but I know he was better than either Bush... and Clinton was AWESOME! CLINTON WASN'T A REPUBLICAN!" :silly:

[Diclotican]

23. texasgal08

texasgal08

Sir

USA are the LAST modern country in the world, who doesn't have national healtcare for all.. Is that not a shame for a nation who claim to be the most powerfully, and rich country in the world. They cannot even all citizen a healtcare coverage where ALL can get the healtcare they need..

Everyone understand that health care, provided by the state, or by other means is the most important, to have a heal ty public. Why do you thing we in Europe made so much hard work to have a healtcare for all? Because we was "communist influed":. NO. In fact Germany in the 1860s, and 1870s was one of the first industrialized nations who used public money to build up a public healtcare program. And GERMANY in that age cant be blamed for being socialist, og even a communist nation.... For the most part, after 1848-49 all social program, healtcare for worker and other group, have been imitated by the conservative group, who understand if they don't was doing something to help the poor to a better life, they may loose what they have, and even manage to be tr own down from the power they have... Better to loose some power to the "ordinary man" then to loose it all...

US can off course do it "US way" but if you want to have healtcare for ALL, you must have it federal.. Not just give it to the private world..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

[immoderate]

37. Very well said.

How come I understand you better than some of the native speakers around here? :shrug:

--IMM

[Diclotican]

38. IMModerate

IMModerate

I don't Know.. Maybe I am better than I believe myself?.. But thank you for the kind word;).

Or it can be that I have to be to the point, because of my "bad" English?.. Much "school English" I am afraid.. But I do manage to work it true somehow;)

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

[immoderate]

39. I'm sure part of it is clear thinking.

You might be right though, getting to the point is part of good writing. Not knowing cliches and meaningless phrases could be a strength. But I would guess you do that in your own language.

I've seen a few of your posts. You come across as accented but erudite. I've never had any trouble understanding your point ... somehow. :hi:

--IMM

[Diclotican]

42. IMModerate

IMModerate

Maybe, but as I may have to be to the point, becouse of, as you pointed out, are not knowing all cliches and meaningless prhaeses.. And It maybe even be a strengt?. I dont know. But I am litte "rounder" In my native language and sometimes "Lost it" when it come to writing right to the point. But I am better than I was.. And the last 8 year with Bush and his chatastropic policy have given my good teatching about coming to the point, both in engelish, and in norwigian;)

My engelish are not "Native" so to speak, and I would never try to get along as a engelish native speaker or writer, for that my language is to "bad" I guess: And I do belive my grammar is maybee not correct, but I manage somehow to write down what I want to say. The engelish language can be dificult to manage fully, and even with a dichinary the language are far from my best language.. I am mutch better in Norwigian then in Engelish, but I can speak it fairly but with a rather thick norwigian accent to it.. But I read it good.. And have been reading Time Magazine for some year now. And understand maybe 99 procent of what is writing there;)

Diclotican

Sorry my bad egenlish, not my native language

[Quantess]

54. But yet, it's very good!

And thank you for writing all that!
Velkommen!

[immoderate]

28. Compassionate capitalism -- now that sounds familiar...

Explain how we can have better health care, cheaper than the competition, and make better profits?

So far, it's not working so good.

As for people around here being "familiar with Beck's style," it's hard to tolerate the fascism and racism long enough to get anything more nuanced out of Beck. Somehow I couldn't hang around long enough to discover his "compassionate" side.

--IMM

[ihavenobias]

32. I have a very hard time watching more

than a few minutes of Beck.

It's not that's he's conservative, it's that he's so smug, sarcastic *and* incredibly uninformed/misinformed.

And he just got a $5 million dollar a year contract, and for some reason I think that's for his radio show. Really, THAT fool is worth $5 million a year?

Imagine Thom Hartmann pulling in that kind of money for presenting *informed* progressive talk (not informed simply because it's progressive, but because listening to even a few minutes of his show reveals his intense knowledge of history, economics and politics).

[immoderate]

36. Uh-huh! It's hard to enumerate all the ways...

in which Glen Beck is bad, but you hit a few. The few minutes rule is for the stronger days. I try to imagine texasgal08 cuddled up to sensitive Glen on her TV, but my mind come to a halt.

--IMM

[gaspee]

30. ignore

[hatrack]

40. Hey, if you want to defend a hypocritical pimple like Glenn Beck, have at it

Free country and all that . . .

[Quantess]

52. So, you love Glenn Beck?

Yes, I am familiar with Glenn Beck
he's horrible.

[grantcart]

10. We just need to get more personal experiences for conservative pundits

It is always the case that conservatives argue some arcane point until they experience the situation personally and then their whole metaphysical frame of mind changes. My favorite is when George Will used to campaign extensively against the intrusion of government when *gasp* crash bags were becoming mandatory. Then in the intersection in front of his house a woman went through the intersection hit a car coming from the side went through the window and was virtually dicapitated. George Will got up from his study where he was working on a column went out and after he returned wrote a very effective column, you guessed it, for crash bags.

[ihavenobias]

25. I *love* this story!

I have to remember it.

[Gato Moteado]

14. wow...beck almost offed himself? hopefully next time he'll be successful

republicans=human garbage

[DangerDave921]

16. Seriously

Does that really assist in the debate at all? My sister is a Repub. Listens to Rush every day of her life. But I love her nonetheless. So I have to disagree with your assertion that repubs equal human garbage and should by all rights die. Personally, I expect more out of a DU discussion than 2nd grade name-calling.

On the health care front, I am willing to listen to free market solutions. Free market does not, by definition, make things bad. And government does not, by definition, make things good. Government does some things well, and the free market does some things well. I am leery of a system whereby all medical care is suddenly "free" at the point of service and is run by the federal government. I think a blending of government safety nets and free market compeitition could help greatly to solve the current dilemma of those who can't afford insurance while trying to get the cost down.

[ihavenobias]

18. Free Market vs Government on Health Care

There is a difference between what some call "socialized medicine" and what they should actually call "socialized insurance". A single payer system is the latter, NOT the former. You may know that already, but far too many people don't and annoyingly keep confusing the too (likely on purpose to scare people) because "socialized medicine" sounds far more ominous than "socialized insurance".

We already have socialized medicine in this country in the form of the VA (i.e. the government hires and fires the hospital staff, etc.). We also has socialized insurance in the form of Medicare (i.e the government *pays* the hospitals instead of BlueCross Blue Shield, Humana, Aetna, etc.). Medicare runs about about 3% overhead vs 20-30% for private insurers.

This is largely because the government doesn't have to spend billions of dollars on bloated CEO salaries, advertising and marketing, lavish corporate headquarters and jets, etc (as Thom Hartmann brilliantly points out).

Also, I don't want profit motive to come before a care motive.

While both systems (private and public) will have some degree of rationing care, I'm willing to accept a delay/denial of care based on *need* but I am NOT willing to accept being denied because some shmuck at BlueCross BlueShield gets a bonus for finding ways to delay (in the hopes that I'll give up) or deny my claim. That is inhumane and unacceptable (or should be) in a civilized society.

[DangerDave921]

20. business

you hit the nail on the head. Insurance companies - being a business - can only stay solvent if the amount they take in in premiums exceeds the amount they pay out. So it is in their best interest to deny coverage when it is feasible. But even if the government runs the insurance program, there is still going to be some beaurocrat at a desk who can deny a claim. If some whacko is insisting on his/her 10th MRI when the first 9 were normal, then someone is going to have to say Sorry, we're not authorizing that. Unless all medical care is covered - no matter how expensive or how marginally necessary - we're always going to have to balance need for treatment versus cost. Not everyone with a simple tummy ache is going to get covered for a weekend at the Mayo clinic to run a battery of tests.

How do we provide necessary coverage and still have the checks and balances to be sure the system stays financially solvent?

[immoderate]

41. Profit is not the only insurance model.

Insurance doesn't have to be a business. It can be a collective.

Consider that during WWII, making a profit from the war was illegal. Now we have a war entirely for profit. Some things should not be for profit. I can't see paying people for denying services to patients that could save their lives.

--IMM

[DangerDave921]

43. collective

I have to admit I'm not really down on what a collective truly is. I've always heard the term but don't know a whole lot about it. I imagine some kind of 1960's commune thing where everyone pools their money.

[immoderate]

47. How about a non-profit? A credit union?

--IMM

[DangerDave921]

48. OK

How would those work in the context of health insurance?

[immoderate]

49. I'm not an expert, but there are many models.

European systems all offer universal coverage, and most have better outcomes for less money. There's also Medicare, VA, lots to look at. What we have now is perhaps the worst of all worlds with several layers of bloated overpaid management whose job it is to deny care and maximize profit.

People shouldn't profit from someone else's misery.

--IMM

[theredpen]

22. Well said

I am NOT willing to accept being denied because some shmuck at BlueCross BlueShield

They're the worst. My GP stopped accepting them because they have mandates that interfere with her ability to make medical decisions. Rethuglicans talk about "choice" while the insurers are usurping medical decisions! It's insane.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

46. My MD won't take it either

because they routinely tell her what she can and cannot do to treat a patient.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

45. Would you agree it would make sense to check out

the health care plans in other First World nations? After all, they are the ones with the longest life spans, the lowest infant mortality, etc. We don't necessarily have to invent the wheel here. If you look at Canada or Britain or France's system, I think you will see there is no reason to be "leery" of government run health care services. I don't think the free market is effective at giving the majority of Americans good health care. That puts bean counters in charge of deciding if someone gets treatment or not, or if they will pay for prescriptions that are vital to a person's health. Doctors and nurses have complained about insurance interference in their treatment plans. If it were you in the hospital, which would you rather have-an MD telling you this is your best option for a quality life, or an insurance company saying no, you have to use this treatment even if it isn't as good because it is cheaper?

[Quantess]

29. As much as I loathe Glenn Beck,

your statements about him and republicans in general are unclassy and hateful.

[Gato Moteado]

50. sorry to offend you, but......

....i couldn't give two shits about glenn beck's life. my heart bleeds for the innocent that suffer and die daily in this world because of right wing policies supported by right wing media whores like beck.

if more right wing whack jobs did us all a favor and offed themselves, maybe we wouldn't have to have this crappy war. maybe we could clean up our environment. maybe we could get healthcare to the poor and sick.

republicans are human garbage. what would you call dirtbags that throw jesus' name around every opportunity they get but then support criminal activity like war and corporate control? they're the hateful unclassy ones....i'm just calling it as i see it.

[Quantess]

51. It's just uglier thinking than I am used to.

Sorry, but I refuse to engage your hate fest.

[DangerDave921]

55. Satire?

Part of me thinks you're doing a satirical riff on what a true lunactic left winger might say. Kind of a "black comedy" SNL skit. But sadly, it appears you are genuine.

From a moral and philosophical viewpoint, I would counsel you to refrain from wishing for the death of others. Isn't that what you accuse RW'ers of doing in starting wars and enacting certain policies? You're exactly the same, only you reverse the labels. Do we really want a system whereby each side wishes death on the other?

Also, killing RW'ers would kill about half my family, and about half the country. Would that really please you to see all that death?

[Gato Moteado]

56. where did i say i wanted to kill anyone?

all i said was i am concerned for real victims in the world, not the perpetrators of death and destruction.

[DangerDave921]

57. well

you did say you wished Beck would die. Then you said RW'ers equal human garbage. I was just kind of putting 2 and 2 together.

[skater314159]

17. Well, you know, Karma can be a BITCH...

especially if you haven't been following Dharma. I don't think Glenn Beck was following Dharma at all... I mean I know the Universe needs assholes, and he was filling that quota, but still!

:silly:
:hippie:
skater314159

[Mithreal]

24. A key to understanding Republicans

My sister-in-law, a lifelong and absolute Republican recently lost her home, her husband lost second job in a short period of time and is on bedrest for the health reasons and when I talked with her about life, the universe, and everything I mentioned jokingly that she was starting to sound like a Democrat. Her response with glee was, "No, I am only concerned about those things for my family, not everyone else."

How some people are only concerned with themselves OR find compassion for others AFTER they have had direct experience is a mystery to me. She is not an exception as I have had a variety of encounters with self-professed Republicans that all say similar.

We are all in this together, aren't we? If a talk show host learns compassion for others than great, but I hope it will be about more than his personal experience.

[ihavenobias]

26. Sad but true