Just Got Back From Health Care Gathering with John Conyers.

[Misskittycat]

I just got back from the San Diego Single Payer Health Care Coalition program with Rep. Conyers as the key speaker. Everyone was hot and cranky; even he looked hot and tired while he was waiting to speak, but then he got really fired up, and so did the crowd. Folks, as far as he's concerned, single payer is not off the table. The purpose of the gathering was to get some grass-roots citizen action going to demand what most people want - or would want -- if the truth about single payer were able to get out over the fog of misinformation and insurance co. propaganda. He made the point that HR 676 currently has over 80 co-sponsors -- more than any other health reform proposal in Congress.

[MADem]

1. Is he divorcing that crook of a wife of his? Did he mention her at all?

I don't think single payer should be off the table, either, though. I'm glad he's keeping the concept alive.

[marmar]

2. What does his "crook" wife have to do with a health care debate?

n/t

[MADem]

6. Nothing. She has to do with HIM, though, and he was at the health care forum. NT

[marmar]

9. But did the people in San Diego there to chat up health care really give a frog's fat ass....

.... about Monica Conyers' legal issues?

[MADem]

12. I don't know. I would have been interested, if I were there. NT

[No Elephants]

36. Really? You would have taken time away from discussing health care?

[MADem]

38. I asked the question "Did he mention her (his wife) at all?" Now you're

extrapolating that to suggest that "I" would "take time away" from discussing health care.

If he mentioned her (please note, and pay close attention to, that conditional word IF), I would have been interested in hearing what he has to say. The woman is a thief and an albatross around his neck. She negatively impacts his credibility. That's why I'm interested in the topic.

[Misskittycat]

15. I know I didn't. I was there to hear about health care.

I certainly didn't schlep there on a hot afternoon and sit in a muggy room to hear diversions from the main point that affects me and entire U.S. population.

[kenfrequed]

28. Sigh...

Is that subject line technically a red herring or some kind of rebounded ad hominem?

[MADem]

33. It's neither. It's a straightforward remark. Has everyone been hiding under a bushel barrel, or

something? His wife is in serious hot water. It's a matter that sticks to him. It impacts his effectiveness and credibility.

[kenfrequed]

34. This thread is not about nonsense.

This thread is about healthcare reform. The tactics of going after people for unrelated personal concerns that are outside of their control is unworthy as it is irrelevant.

Moreover, the only time someone brings up issues like this is to actually hamstring a politician. And since it isn't an election year there may be cause to question your reasoning for bringing it up.

Again though, this still fits neatly in both as a red herring and an ad hominem attack on Conyers with a lovely 'concern troll' spin.

[MADem]

37. I'm not "hamstringing" anyone. You're being overly dramatic, though.

I asked a simple question--you're trying to assign me a load of bullshit "internet" labels.

Red herring? Ad hominem "attack?" Could you possibly be more of a friken internet scold? Get a life. You're the one dragging this shit out with all your drama.

[kenfrequed]

41. This isn't about me.

You know nothing about me and I have told you nothing about me, therefore this is not about me. So, once again, knock of the distractions and nonsense.

Ad hominem and Red herring are sort of traditionally recognized fallacies in logic and argumentation. It isn't as though they are new, nor is this an internet thing. I don't think I need to tell you what either of those terms mean.

If there is a thread about a politician talking about a relevant and important issue and someone pops up with a 'what about his wife' thing then I bloody well think they need to be scolded.

Deal with it. Cope. If you truck in absurd, BS, arguments and diversionary nonsense than expect to be called out on it once in awhile. What do you think this is? Congress?

[MADem]

44. Oh really? Well, guess what? It's not about ME, either.

I asked a simple question. The answer to the question was apparently NO.

You decide you want to characterize me, and you expect me not to mention it?

You're the one who needs to "deal with it" and "cope." The man is a public official and his wife is up to her neck in sewage. It's not beyond all possibility that he might mention something about that in his opening remarks. He has a constituency beyond his district, and that includes donors who might be shaky as a consequence of the Missus's fuckups and illegal behaviours.

As I said elsewhere, even Clinton touched on forgiveness (and sins) in the wake of his indiscretions. In the case of Conyers, it's guilt by association, but that guilt could impact him negatively. He's not a Senator--he's got to defend his seat on a frequent basis.

I am curious as to how he's going to "handle" her. She's a drag on him, to be blunt. She could cost him his seat. It's not diversionary or unrelated, particularly if someone decides to challenge his incumbency and uses his wife's indiscretions to take him out. 2010 is just around the corner.

[kenfrequed]

47. Than start your own damned thread.

If you wanna talk about her corruption and whether it will hinder or hurt his chances for reelection then start your own damned thread. Prove that it is of consequence by having it stand up on its own.

Find a poll that suggests that he won't win by 60+% and post your own damned thread.

If you don't want me to call you on crappy tactics. Again. Post your own damned thread.

Maybe you can find enough people who actually think it is an important issue of the day, or maybe you will get accused of worse things than logical fallacy.

In either case Good friggin luck.

[MADem]

49. I was not at the forum. I was curious as to whether or not Conyers used that

opportunity (the forum) to bring her up. It doesn't make sense for me to "start my own frigging thread" because I wanted input from a forum attendee as to the contents of his comments.

My question was specifically related to what he said (or did not say) AT THIS FORUM. Of course, if you actually bothered to read the question I asked, and didn't "interpret" my meaning (angrily, defensively, almost frantically, apparently) you'd see that starting my own thread wouldn't provide an answer to my question, as it would be unlikely that anyone who attended the forum would see the thread.

I am not terribly interested in 'speculating' about how Conyers will handle his wife. I'm simply interested in finding out what, if anything, he's doing about her. I asked a question as to if the man mentioned his problematic wife at that forum. There were two possible answers, yes, or no. I did not solicit a huge discussion on the issue of his wife, I simply wanted that one piece of information to get an idea if he's thinking about addressing the issue.

But you're in the asparagus business, I see. And you can't see past your own nose to the next election cycle, either.

Good frigging luck, indeed.

[Misskittycat]

4. Of course he didn't mention her.

He should be praised for schlepping around the country on a hot Sunday afternoon in July to fire up the troops.

[MADem]

5. I did praise him. His wife HAS been in the news, though.

Some people live their lives out loud and out front.

[Javaman]

29. way to hijack the thread. nt

[MADem]

32. I didn't do that, but thanks for your input. I simply said the first thing that

came to mind--and his spouse's problems ARE casting a big shadow over anything he does.

[kenfrequed]

35. Yeah

Hijacking the thread with an ad hominem/red herring mix served up with the style of a 'concern troll.'

[MADem]

39. The one who's "hijacking" is you--and calling me a "concern troll" for asking a simple fucking

question (which was--did he mention her?) is not on. So, too, is using idiotic internet phrases that are meaningless in the context of a DIRECT question like "ad hominem/red herring" to say absolutlely nothing.

Grow up. And stop extrapolating. And stop calling people names.

The answer to my question, apparently, was "No." But you're on a high horse, for reasons known only to you.

[kenfrequed]

42. Hate the sin...

I called your usage concern troll tactics. I did not call you a name. Read very carefully.

Why the hell would someone mention his wife at a conference, discussion, event, speech, or thing about Healthcare if she had nothing to do with any of it?

If you cannot answer that question than why would you ask if he had mentioned her?

[MADem]

43. I can say you are behaving like a didactic asshole, but not actually call you the term.

Of course, I would not do that.
That's against DU rules.

But we know what's going on here.

You were calling me a troll, and you know it.

I like Conyers. Always have. I have a record of being supportive of him here, even when his words are more forceful than his actions.

I asked a simple question, if he mentioned his wife, who IS in the news, and is OVERSHADOWING every move he makes. I wondered if he tried to break the ice, to do a little distancing, anything, in the context of his remarks. It's a valid question--she IS the elephant in the room, unless you're blind, deaf, dumb and incapable of the sense of smell or touch as well.

The easy answer, if he did not mention her, is NO. Instead, you and a couple of others decided to "characterize" my question and throw root vegetables at me.

Why the hell wouldn't he mention her? He doesn't HAVE to, but it's not inconceivable that he wouldn't. Her stink is all over him. Even Clinton mentioned "forgiveness" at every event he could possibly work it into, after Monica was revealed to have been waxing his carrot.

You know, it's silly to pretend shit didn't happen or act like matters of consequence that do impact a public official are inconsequential. It's as silly as the GOP pretending that Limbaugh makes sense.

[kenfrequed]

46. Ok...

So what would we say about this if a CNN were bringing this up (They really weren't-I checked). Or what would we say if someone that WASN'T a democrat?

Would we say? "Well gee that is a damned good question, wow, you are right Greta it does negatively impact his authority and ability to carry on the fight for universal healthcare?"

What kind of an actual democrat cedes the field on a stupid guilt by association scandal like this?

Haven't we done enough of this BS? I see nothing but DLC minions that run around screaming on this website about how those of us on the left are setting up circular firing squads. But who is pulling the damned trigger and encouraging the politics of personality and destruction here now?

Who has decided to, once more, play news-cycle trash over policy? Was it the Republicans? No, I guess it is us. We all have Stolkholm syndrome and are apparantly doing their work for them. I mean gimme a friggin break here.

[MADem]

48. It's not a question of "ceding the field" though.

I simply asked if he mentioned her. That's all I did. You're bringing in CNN and Greta (she's Fox) and who knows what else.

Here's the truth. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents vote for their reps in Congress. On an off-year (non-Presidential election), that's sometimes a good time to go after an incumbent, especially when a party is out of power and can afford to focus on making small, targeted and symbolic gains. You go after someone who is established, iconic, but vulnerable, you smear, you deride, you put all your eggs in those vulnerable baskets, and you GOTV like crazy. Conyers is a good target, from the GOP's perspective.

Who the fuck ever thought Rick Santorum would actually lose? He sure didn't, even with his house scandal. This shit can and does sneak up on people. Santorum is an example of what can happen to Conyers if he doesn't start playing a little defense. This is part of why I am interested in how he is conducting himself since his wife imploded in his public outings. Like it or not, his wife's criminality--yes, not "indiscretions" or "errors of judgment"--CRIMINALITY is a real problem for him. He needs to find a way to mitigate it.

Again, I asked a simple question. The answer to my simple question was "no"--but instead of an answer, I got a shitload of assumption and innuendo and name-calling from "so-called Democrats" (does that hurt, sort of like "concern troll" might?) who apparently don't think downstream the way I do. I keep my eye on the horizon because it's coming up sooner than most people think.

I AM--so shoot me--curious as to how he plans to "handle" her when he stands for reelection. And he's going to need to do just that. It's not uncommon for politicians to "try out" language in small venues, to see how it plays. That's why I asked, and for my trouble, I get a load of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain/you're an asshole for mentioning the obvious/Waah, waah DLC" retorts, along with accusations about my bona fides and character.

That kind of shit is LAME. Is this a political forum, where we discuss political issues, or a "Mindless Cheerleading/Don't Say Anything That isn't Pony-licious" forum?

[kenfrequed]

50. Again.

If it is an important issue. Start your own damned thread.

Of course a thread saying "Will the wife of John Conyers hurt his chances for reelection" might end up exactly where it deserves to end up.

[MADem]

51. I wanted an answer from someone AT THE FORUM.

Did he mention his wife AT THE FORUM, yes, or no. That's all I asked.

I wouldn't get that answer from a forum attendee if I started my "own damned thread."

Further, I don't want to know "Will the wife of John Conyers hurt his chances for reelection?" That's not what I asked. Eveyone knows it's a problem for him. Only a fucking idiot would think it wouldn't have SOME impact. There's no need to even discuss that. It's not the problem of the wife that is even in question, it's how he handles it.

I want to know if he's started MENTIONING the issue in public outings. Entirely different question. The way to find out the answer is to ask someone who has attended a forum where Conyers has been present.

You're the one who is making this an "issue" and questioning my motives, when I've explained them quite clearly.

Do you like to fight for no discernable purpose?

If I had to guess, I'd say yes, you do.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

3. I like John Conyers, but

he's mostly talk................

[enlightenment]

7. And this makes him different from all the other politicians . . .

how?
;)

[Tangerine LaBamba]

13. That's just it -

not at all...............

[enlightenment]

19. Unfortunately.

:-(

And I am so utterly sick of it.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

21. Me, too -

I'm watching Obama go down that same road, and I feel old and jaded, but I know I'm only old and smart.

Seen it before, here it comes again, life goes on, we get screwed.

Not the America I had in mind as I was growing up ........................................

[enlightenment]

26. Yes. It is wholly unfortunate that politicians have the same will

to survive as cockroaches - by any means, at any price.

I remember when election cycles lasted a year - now pols of all stripes start campaigning for reelection the minute they're elected. At the expense of everything else.

[JimWis]

8. Thanks for sharing that information. I guess we just keep trying.

Some days I don't know. I sometimes believe a good portion of senators and representatives know damn well that single payer is the best and least expensive way to go. But they are not about to do it. In my opinion, this battle lies between the people and the insurance companies.

Edit - and why has no one, to my knowledge, ever scored HR676.??

[Misskittycat]

11. His point was to not give up, and take it to the reps, and confront

them over and over and over again with the will of the people; make their lives a misery (my words, not his) until they throw off the shackles of the lobbyists.

I was pleased. There wasn't even a mention of "public option" and/or how many votes there are for or against it. At this meeting, "public option" or other half-measures weren't on the table.

[bemildred]

10. Conyers looks pretty much like a tool to me.

So I don't care much. I'm willing to be instructed about my error in this, but I watched through 8 years of Bush misrule, and he was pretty much "go along an get along" as far as I could tell. He's not my rep, so it's no big deal.

[Individualist]

20. Agree

His ongoing dog and pony show re. impeachment was what convinced me he’s a tool.

[harun]

30. I'll take the SPONSOR of H.R. 676 over a Blue Dog any day.

Note, not co-sponsor, he was the SPONSOR of the bill. I certainly wouldn't coin him a tool. I think he is really trying to do the right thing.

[quidam56]

14. 74% want health care reform with public option

As a former health care giver, I am shocked and saddened to see what has become of health care in America. $ 1. 4 million is being spent per day in DC by the health care lobbyists so your elected representative is getting taken care of and has quality health care we pay for and can't afford ourselves for our families, I know what is deemed, defended and supported in Tennessee and Virginia as quality health care and clearly profit care comes ahead of patient care. http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=62 MRSA ( methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureas ) is infesting our communities because filthy, uncaring hospitals and emergency rooms are breeding them and spreading them into our schools, homes, restaurants. How many more Americans' will be diseased or die while 74 % of Americans' are begging for health care reform ? More people died in America last year from MRSA complications than AIDS. When MRSA and a flu bug start mixing, it won't be pretty and we are being infected by the very health care system we depend on and trust to keep us safe and healthy.

[Misskittycat]

They want -- at least -- the public option. Many want single payer, or

would want it if they could hear the truth through the fog of crap coming from the right wing and from the health care insurance and big drug industries. Conyers told an anecdote about meeting a woman who told him: "I don't want single payer health care. I'm married!"

[bvar22]

16. K&R

Currently at 5 recommends...on The Greatest Page.

[slipslidingaway]

17. knr #7 - thanks for the report nt

[Misskittycat]

18. You're welcome. Didn't think it was going to cause a commotion.

[slipslidingaway]

23. IMO it should not have - the HC issue is just too big n/t

[Ian David]

22. I'm sure he will write a sternly worded letter. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

24. Fortunately Conyers has not backed down in his support of

single-payer, not for profit HC, others have compromised from the beginning.

:(


Conyers Rips Rangel, Waxman for Backing Off Single Payer

http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/?p=919

"John Conyers (D-Michigan) was not happy last night with his colleagues Charles Rangel (D-New York) and Henry Waxman (D-California). Conyers is sponsor of the single payer bill (HR 676) in the House. The bill has 79 co-sponsors. Rangel and Waxman were co-sponsors last year.

But they are not co-sponsors this year.

Rangel, Waxman and George Miller (D-California) each chair committees that will be hearing health care reform proposals. Only Miller is cooperating with Conyers – remaining a co-sponsor of HR 676 and holding hearings.

...“I don’t mind losing a debate or losing the vote, but Jesus Christ don’t tell me that my proposal is off the table before we start, without even a hearing,” Conyers said. “What kind of a Democratic congress is this?” he asked.

Conyers also gave the back of his hand to President Obama. “I’ve finally persuaded my favorite president in life to – not put single payer on the table – but to at least let me in the room,” Conyers said. “That was a great complement I suppose.”

“How are you going to have a transformational health care program that has been vaunted and touted for so long if you take the most popular remedy for it off the table to begin the negotiations?” Conyers asked. “You won’t get it.” “The reason is elementary Dear Watson,” Conyers said. “The corporate health care people, the insurance people don’t want to leave the room. And they are not leaving the room. And as long as they are there, you are going to have some sad version of the same crap you were supposed to be fixing in the first place.”

[slipslidingaway]

25. Testimony of John Conyers - Examining the Single Payer Health Care Option

Examining the Single Payer Health Care Option: Rep. Conyers Testimony
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp8w7XtbzkE


http://edlabor.house.gov/hearings/2009/06/examining-the-single-payer-hea.shtml

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/testimony/20090610RepConyersTestimony.pdf

"...Another argument utilized by those skeptical of single-payer
reform is that we cannot afford a single-payer system where we
insure every man, woman, and child in the United States. In fact,
according Dr. Steffie Woolhandler of Harvard Medical School,
implementing a single-payer system with non-profit delivery
would save approximately $300 billion dollars per year and
contain long-term costs.

...The naysayers will also argue that dismantling our employer-based
health care system is politically and economically untenable. We
have heard this argument before. This argument was initially
raised when Medicare was debated in the Congress in the 1960s.
Yet, Medicare was enacted in 1965 and fully implemented in 1966.

...If the goal of
reform is to limit costs and improve access to care, I would
respectfully submit that single-payer offers a far better model for
reform than the incremental, private insurance giveaway pursued
in Massachusetts.

...Yet, our broken private insurance system burdens our
business community and allows many of our fellow citizens to die
and be hurt unnecessarily. Two thirds of our nation’s personal
bankruptcies can be attributed directly to an individual’s inability
to pay medical bills. A single payer system will allow us to cover
everyone without spending any more money than we do now. The
sooner we adopt a uniquely American single-payer system, the
sooner we can start enjoying a healthier and more prosperous
America."

[jazzjunkysue]

27. Yeah. Our hero. John Conyers. As. If.

[Wednesdays]

31. K&R

:kick:

[Vidar]

40. Maybe he'll actually do something on this, for a change.

[truedelphi]

45. Yeah ,Conyers always gets very excited about something, until

The possibility of actually accomplishing something comes about and then he suddenly decides the needed action shouldn't get any more attention.

I remember all too well how he told a small crowd of us back in 2005 that he would consider impeachment if the numbers were there in Congress. Then we got the Democratic majority in Nov 2006 - and suddenly he was not that focused on impeachment.

Once burned, twice shy, that's me.