My apologies if you attempted to locate a quicker appointment somewhere else. Best of luck.
The truth can be highly offensive to Republicans. So be it.
As one of Grayson’s constituents, I’ll opine that
-
As a moral/ethical thing, there’s no reason to apologize, assuming he said what he really meant.
-
Politically speaking, it was foolish, as has been several things he’s said over the last year.
Like most House seats, FL-8 is gerrymandered to favor one party over the other; but unfortunately for Grayson, this is one gerrymandered for the GOP. It’s mostly white suburbs and exurbs. Lotta conservative Christians near city, lotta rednecks farther out.
Grayson won narrowly in '08, on his second attempt. A big factor in the election was that the incumbent (Ric Keller) was violating a promise not to run for a fifth term (There’s also the fact that Keller was an idiot). It was already going to be a tough reelection bid and a seat that the GOP would be targeting big-time.
Grayson’s emergence as a full-throated progressive since the election may make him popular elsewhere, and the fundraising is nice and all, but at the end of the day he has to keep the support of a district that went for Bush twice.
I notice that he did get in a subtle dig at the ‘pro lifers’:
(italics mine)
No, he should not apologize. He should get on the floor and point to specific instances to make his case again. Now that the Republicans have finally demanded an apology from a Democrat with enough spine not to apologize (and apparently Pelosi is going to back him on this one since she can’t force him to apologize) he should beat the hell out of them every day to make clear to the Republican district constituents that they have no power to prevent this direct insult to their only remaining power: whining.
I like the beat the hell out of them every day idea and the specifics. The republican on CNN had several concrete suggestions and made the claim that if Obama could get behind them the GOP would line up and agree. I suspect that’s a load of crap because they just can’t let Obama get any credit for doing something positive. He should demand that for the sake of the American public that the GOP come out with realistic concrete ideas they are committed to voting yes on.
Excuse me, are you disagreeing with me or not? Are you denying that the comments are offensive, or are you applauding that they are offensive? And aren’t you the same guy who opened the thread criticizing eliminationism, in which you complain that the right wing has gone to such extremes of calling liberals not just wrongheaded, but a threat to the people that must be neutralized? For someone to decry those efforts by the teabaggers, and then applaud statements that accuse Republicans of wanting sick people to die… well, I think you ought to take a look in the mirror.
The fact is that many Republicans have tried to improve the health care system. Most Republicans voted for the Medicare prescription drug benefit, health savings accounts were created by a Republican Congress and President, and Republicans (including odious ones like Rick Santorum and John McCain) proposed bills to expand association health plans to help small businesses group together to buy insurance for their employees. (That proposal was filibustered by Democrats, BTW.)
Now, do I support health savings accounts and AHPs? No. I think it is pouring more money and effort into a broken system that is in desperate need of a huge reform. I think Republicans, by and large, are hamstrung by an ideology that sees the free market as a literal panacea, and just refuse to accept that a better, more efficient system will help people and give businesses a huge boost.
So I think they are wrong. But to describe them in terms that they want others to die quickly? Hogwash. It’s as if the person making the statement is like one of those 19th century British explorers, naively trying to describe how backward the savages of some remote region are, only that the author has taken no effort to interact with the strange people. Better to rely on one’s own sense of innate superiority and inform the world how awful those savages are, wot wot!
What have they done for it this past year?
All I’ve seen is from them is hysteric obstructionism, and not just on healthcare. The entire party seems to have gone mad with hatred for government. It’s as if they want Washington itself disbanded until 2016, when they have a chance of getting their dude into the white house.
:dubious: No, sir, there is no similarity or connection, not until Grayson starts calling for the assassination of Republican officeholders/candidates or the extermination or disfranchisement of Republican voters.
None of which in any way goes against the interests of the health-insurance beancounters who own them. But neither the Pubs, nor the Blue Dogs, nor most Dems in Congress, nor Obama, are prepared to admit the truth that in this fight, the health-insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a place at the table.
How come they aren’t making a bigger deal of this? Why are they not coming out and saying “Big Healthcare is buying these congressmans’ votes by $X amount of campaign contribution”
Grayson forgot to add "die cheaply’. Quickly is not enough.There is no reason poor people should use resources which belong to the rich. Poor people are so inconsiderate.
Probably because almost every “they” in a position to say that and be listened to is likewise a recipient of such contributions. (There may be exceptions – I find myself wondering what big-money donors did and did not contribute to Grayson’s campaign.)
Excellent point. I had not considered that Republicans previously wanted to reform the health care system in a libertarian-like system of free markets, but this year had a big convention and decided that they’d rather see people die.
Just to recap your point: previous years, Republicans = market-oriented health care reform. This year, Republicans = sick people should die.
I will have to pause and consider the logic of your argument.
Who owns the Republicans today? Is is health insurance companies, the drug companies, or rich doctors? Or is it both? Because presumably, drug companies and rich doctors don’t want people to die and stop taking their pills or getting expensive surgeries.
So I guess my question to you is, which party do the drug companies own? Republicans or Democrats? Does your answer change depending on how you wish to criticize Republicans on any given day?
A variety of big companies/rich people own both parties, and there is continual back-and-forthing to see which corporate block will have their way. Politicians of any party will continually test to see which way the wind is blowing, and who has the deepest pockets.
eta: I would say that politicians are whores, but I like whores.
Great! He’s a first-term Congressman in a district with a Cook PVI of R+2, which means a Republican running there would be expected to get about 2% more of the vote, and a Dem about 2% less, than in a median district. So he can really use the money.
I’m reading something that says that Grayson was on the Ed Show, whatever that is, and said, “America is sick of you, Republican Party. You are a lie factory.”
Stay classy, San Diego.
I see no inaccuracies there.
For some reason, when I read this I kept seeing George Castanza screaming, “The Jerk Store called…”
I would say, as I have said many times before, that both parties are owned by major corporate interests; the difference, and it is an important one, is that the Dems are not wholly-owned. Only massive campaign-finance reform will change any of that; but that would be for another thread (I have run several on the topic).
Bsed on recent polls, most American doctors want UHC. That serves both their sense of professional duty to heal the sick, and their financial interests – they’ll get more business if they have to turn nobody away for lack of insurance; what difference to them whether their fees come from private insurance premiums or tax dollars? Perhaps under a UHC system doctors could no longer hope for astronomical personal incomes – I believe the average income of M.D.‘s is lower in Canada than in the U.S. – but most of them seem to be willing to accept that. But their collective capacity to contribute to political campaigns and organizations is probably negligible compared to the health-insurance companies’ capacity.
As for the drug companies, they are largely run by MBAs, not M.D.‘s, and probably do not fully share physicians’ sense of professional mission. They will favor whatever system allows them to sell the most product at the highest profit margin. Apparently they feel, rightly or wrongly, that they’re doing better under the current system than they would under a Canadian-style system; they can make more money selling expensive drugs at “market” prices that are essentially cartelized, even if some potential customers who can’t afford them die. And, like the insurance companies, they can afford to be major campaign donors.
Trying to reform health care with a “free market” approach is like trying to cure lung cancer by chain smoking.