Yes, but Grayson is a very smart guy and generally avoids saying things he knows can provoke even manufactured offense.
On my Outrage Meter, 1 to 10, this doesn’t even nudge into “2”, but still, I would have preferred otherwise.
We recognize the good by reserving some comparisons, we don’t say that a tepid speech about tolerance is “Martin Luther King” territory, we reserve, we preserve. We admire King too much, we revere and respect the sacrifices he made. And if someone should deserve to wear such a laurel, we are bestowing something that actually has value.
The Holocaust was unmitigated evil: calculated, planned, banal. We should reserve it a special remembrance, lest we forget the demons lurking within. There is no such thing as “Holocaust Lite”, nor should there be.
As said, not even nudging into Big Hairy Ass Deal territory, but another word would have been much better.
I’m pretty sure he was trying to provoke, but it seems that he is a bit recalcitrant on his choice of words.
I still think he owed no apology, for the reasons I stated above, but it’s already over and done with.
Tort reform would protect negligent and incompetent physicians but it would not significantly increase quality, affordability, or availability of health care for most Americans.
I guess making it cheaper for a surgeon to remove the wrong leg is a form of health care reform, but it’s not what most of us are looking for.
http://www.factcheck.org/president_uses_dubious_statistics_on_costs_of.html
"[The Congressional Budget Office] found “no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending. … In short, the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency.”
This does not make it a requirement that he always do so; although I’m certain there are some on the right who would seek to muzzle smart guys this way, if only they could.
His congressional seat isn’t a sure thing; he defeated long-time Republican incumbent Ric “Chubby Bunny” Keller, who will probably run against him in his re-election bid.
You, and many in this thread, are missing Ravenman’s point entirely. He isn’t defending the GOP’s proposals on healthcare (e.g. health savings accounts, tort reform, etc.), he is demonstrating the obvious that the GOP had ideas about healthcare that don’t involve people dying quickly.
The whole “but what have they done for me lately?” line is also pretty lame. It’s not as if the Obama reforms are brand new ideas that have never been discussed. The Democrats are now fighting for what they believe is best, not much changed since 1992, and the Republicans are opposing it (often dishonestly). If Republicans were in power, they would be fighting for their vision of healthcare reform, as they did under Bush. And Democrats would be opposing it (with some, but less dishonesty).
I don’t understand the relevance. There is top notch private healthcare also available in the UK. One does not have to use the NHS, which I agree is pathetic.
What republican vision are you talking about? They made some amorphous remarks about health care being broken ,but never came up with anything resembling a plan. Tort reform was a political move since it is less than 1 percent or health care cost. And it is almost all justifiable. But it rallied some not too bright voters. That is what it was about anyway. The repubs work for big business and will not do anything to hurt PHARMA or insurance companies. The fact that the repubs are into " just say no" mode indicates how much they really want to fix health care. They ofter only obstruction. In committee they bitch and the dems give then input. Then they do not vote for the bill anyway. They never intended to. It is dishonest.
What short memories.
It was just 4 short years ago when Democrats were being painted as “the party of no” for their opposition to various Republican proposals without affirmative proposals. And what did we say then? We said that opposition to a bad ideas is something to be applauded. And we were right (see midterm elections, 2006).
When you’re in the opposition, there’s no point proposing plans that are certain not to be passed (likely by veto, if not before). The Republicans simply aren’t going to get the reforms John McCain talked about in his campaign. Because he lost. But that doesn’t mean they must sit on their hands, and not oppose Obama’s plans.
And it doesn’t mean they don’t have any ideas on healthcare. They do. Now if you want to argue that they’ve chosen dishonest debate over a clash on the merits, I’m not going to disagree. They clearly have done so.
But I’m missing the leap in logic from dishonest opposition to the opposition wants people to die.
“Die quickly” and “die” are not equivalent in the context of Grayson’s statement.
To use an example from my own life, I didn’t want my dad to die, but I’m glad he died quickly.
However, if your argument is that we aren’t really capable, as a nation, of seeing the difference, then that might be true. We’re not a subtle people.
I grasp the distinction (I think). I just didn’t think it was relevant to my point, which is this: opposing one way of achieving a goal is not equivalent to opposing the goal. Republicans oppose the Democrat’s proposals to achieve better health care in this country. That is not the equivalent of wanting to keep the same system in place, a system that benefits in the way Grayson suggests.
Considering how much time they had to do things their way, I disagree that the Republicans have any desire for anything but the status quo. When have they even started a debate? You’re saying that just being in opposition to this plan isn’t proof, but the Republican party has existed for quite some time and the only times health care reform have become national issues is when Democrats have brought it up–and the Republicans opposed viciously.
After a point, failure to act means you’re content with the way things are.
Was Clinton’s failure to pass health reform evidence that he was content with how things are? Carter? Kennedy? If Obama fails to pass healthcare reform, will you say his failure to act means he’s content with the way things are?
It’s not as if the GOP didn’t make attempts at reform during the Bush years. Ravenman already cited several GOP healthcare reform proposals that were either passed or shot down by Democrats in the Bush years, including tort reform, Medicare Part D, and health savings accounts.
The GOP believes that the main problem with healthcare is that there isn’t enough market pressure on it. They want increased consumer involvement, which they believe will lower costs (along with tort reform to decrease “defensive medicine”) and improve care. They also believe in creating government subsidies, in the form of tax-free savings accounts, to help those who cannot afford insurance but are too rich to receive Medicaid.
Now, I think they’re simply wrong on many aspects of their vision of health reform. And it may be a fair criticism that theirs is not as coherent a vision as that proposed by Obama, et al. But it a far cry from the equivalent of “do nothing,” and it is incorrect to say they haven’t made efforts to make it happen.
(I would add, if the criticism is that they haven’t bundled all their ideas together into one sweeping package labeled health reform, it is because they don’t believe in that style of governance. You may believe that piecemeal reform is bound to fail (as I believe), but–again–that isn’t the same as them doing nothing.)
I don’t consider that even remotely a far cry from doing nothing. It is still an attitude of “don’t get sick unless you’re rich.” Tort reform, HSAs do NOTHING if you can’t afford the money in the first place. Saying you want a market solution is absolutely saying that you’d better be rich if you want the good stuff and if you can’t afford it, tough shit. See all those references to buying people houses and cars as evidence.
Now you’re acknowledging that the GOP has ideas for reform and cost-reduction, but you think those ideas will fail to make things better. That’s a fine and reasonable position. But it just isn’t the same as saying that the GOP wants to do nothing about health care.
In other words, if all Grayson was saying was that the GOP wants people to die quickly because all of the GOP ideas to avoid that result are not going to work, that’s one thing. If Grayson was saying the GOP wants people to die quickly because that’s what the GOP prefers, that’s quite another thing entirely. The argument for his apology is that he was saying the latter.
So, in your mind, proposing something that doesn’t pass is the same as not proposing anything at all? :rolleyes:
So this is your (and Ravenman’s contention: Republicans continue to propose things that the vast majority of Americans do not want and have already rejected?
Did I get that right?
Mr. Grayson did not say that the GOP wants people to die quickly. He didn’t say the GOP wants people to die. You are misquoting him, and mischaracterizing what he said.
It is really frustrating that the dominant mode of argument from so many posters is sarcastic, rhetorical questions. It doesn’t further discussion. It shuts it down. Snowboarder Bo, I see some inkling of argument in your posts, but instead of going back and forth while I try to distill actual arguments from your sarcastic questioning, perhaps you’d prefer to just state plainly what it is you disagree with me on instead of (mis)characterizing my positions and then rhetorically questioning them.
As for misrepresenting Rep. Grayson, I’ve done nothing of the sort. He very clearly stated that the Republican plan for healthcare was for Americans not to get sick, and if they do, for them to die quickly. Watch the video.
I’m not mischaracterizing anything you say. They’re your own words. I quoted them. I’m just trying to make sure you wrote what you actually thought. I’m essentially giving you a chance to say “wow, perhaps I phrased that poorly”, but it seems you actually wrote what you meant. You wrote:
You equate “fail to pass” with “failure to act”, when in fact they are not even close to the same thing. Failure to hit a home run isn’t the same as not swinging at all. How could you not know that?
You wrote:
The implication is that these same things are currently being proposed by the Republicans. Again. Despite the fact that no one wants them. Now, since I have yet to see anything labeled “Republican health care plan”, I’m asking:
You wrote:
I’ll say it again: Mr. Grayson did not say that the GOP wants people to die, quickly or otherwise. He made no comment indicating a desire, a longing, an ambition, a lust, or a hankering for people to die on the part of the GOP. You have used words and meanings and nuances that Mr. Grayson did not use or even imply. You are misquoting him, mischaracterizing what he said, and either through ignorance or misunderstanding, totally missing his point, IMO.
In case you missed it in post #123, I already explained it: