Should Alan Grayson apologize for his "die quickly" remarks?

[Nametag]

Planning is not the same as wanting. What’s been clear during this whole debate is that, as sad as they may be about the human suffering caused by our lack of a health care system, Republicans are philosophically and morally opposed to creating one, to the point where they’d rather see people die than give in.

A parable: a single mother with a five-year-old son had a very accommodating dad who would look after his grandson after school. It worked out fine, except that the boy was VERY fond of candy, and grandpa didn’t believe in sweets. Wouldn’t have any in his house. Money was tight, and the boy had no allowance, so he just went into shops and took the candy. If he got caught, grandpa would come down and get him, pay the shop if need be, and give him a stern lecture about stealing, and about candy. The boy was always genuinely sorry, but he’d always end up doing it again.

Mom was getting tired of this, because she didn’t want her boy getting used to shoplifting, and she didn’t care if the boy had one damn piece of chocolate every day. But Grandpa was adamant – no candy in his house or in his presence: “I don’t believe in it,” he said.

“So,” Mom said one day, “apparently your plan is for Jimmy to keep stealing things until he’s old enough to go to jail for it!”

“Of course not,” said Grandpa, shocked. “My plan is for Jimmy to realize that candy is bad for him and that stealing has unpleasant consequences, so that he’ll stop.”

“You THINK that’s your plan,” shrieked Mom, “because you’re too f*cking blind to distinguish what you WANT to happen from what WILL happen!”

Then she took Jimmy home, hired a babysitter every afternoon, and despite their lowered standard of living, Jimmy’s life of crime was nipped in the bud.

[Richard_Parker]

@Snowboarder_Bo

You equate “fail to pass” with “failure to act”, when in fact they are not even close to the same thing.

You’re confused. My point was exactly the opposite. I’m saying that a failure to win a legislative battle is not the same as doing nothing. The reason you misunderstood is because I committed the very sin I was complaining about: phrasing arguments as sarcastic questions. Now let me get this beam out of my eye…

@Snowboarder Bo

The implication is that these same things are currently being proposed by the Republicans. Again. Despite the fact that no one wants them.

The fact that a plan is rejected doesn’t mean that bringing it up again is doing so “despite the fact that no one wants them.” If that were true, the same criticism would apply with equal force to Obama’s proposals.

@Snowboarder Bo

What he said was that was their health care plan.

Which is all I’m saying he said. If I inartfully expressed that, it was because it was not at all central to my point. So please take my previous sentences about Mr. Grayson was saying about dying quickly to be amended to whatever you think they ought to say.

[wonky]

@Richard_Parker

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.

I don’t think the Republicans prefer for people to die at all, with no other context. But rather they die than cost much money? Yeah, I think that’s the logical reading of their claimed preferred policies. I’ve just had too many self-proclaimed Republicans say it outright than to ignore it on a national scale. Again, the difference between “die” and “die quickly” is extremely important.

I disagree with your argument that the Republicans are putting forward ideas for “reform and cost reduction.” Reform, yes. Cost-reduction, no. HSAs might be a way for people to afford health care at the extant prices, but they are a tax reform, not a way to reduce the costs of care. Offering a payment plan so that you can buy my widget means you might be able to buy it, but it doesn’t make it cheaper.

[Richard_Parker]

@jsgoddess

I disagree with your argument that the Republicans are putting forward ideas for “reform and cost reduction.” Reform, yes. Cost-reduction, no. HSAs might be a way for people to afford health care at the extant prices, but they are a tax reform, not a way to reduce the costs of care. Offering a payment plan so that you can buy my widget means you might be able to buy it, but it doesn’t make it cheaper.

Many Republicans believe that high costs are a result of torts run amok (and the consequent defensive medicine and excessive tests) and insufficient market pressure. To remedy that they propose tort reform and various means of increased market pressure. The idea of HSA is both that people can save money tax-free and that they will pay more attention to where they spend that money, causing health consumers to put pressure on health suppliers to lower costs.

[Ravenman]

@Richard_Parker

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.

Precisely. I’m saying that some congressman, with whom I probably agree on health care reform, is using a strawman and an ad hominem to argue his points.

And this nonsense about, “Oh yeah? Well, what have they done lately?” is not a substantial point in this context of the debate. What was the Democrats’ health care plan in 2008? Or 2007? Or 2006? Or 1995?

Answer: there was no Democratic “plan” in those years. There were a lot of ideas, yeah, but there was no plan. The Republicans are essentially in the same boat right now. So if you’re going to be fair about it – and I am very sure that most supporters of Grayson’s comments have no wish to be fair about their opponents in this debate – one could say that the Democratic plan for health care from 1995 to 2008 was “die quickly.” If that wasn’t their (actually, “our”) plan, what was?

@Snowboarder Bo

The implication is that these same things are currently being proposed by the Republicans. Again. Despite the fact that no one wants them.

I wonder if you could show me a poll that says that nobody wants association health plans, medical savings accounts, and tort reform. I’m not commenting on the value of these ideas – I don’t think they will solve anything – but I think all of those ideas would be pretty popular. After a bit of googling, HSA participation grew about twelvefold from 2004 to 2008. I believe most polls show tort reform to be pretty popular.

You’d be better off sticking with the argument that Republicans have bad ideas for reform, rather than saying ideas that people don’t want.

And I’ll bet anyone $100 bucks that Republicans will have some kind of alternative plan that they’ll start pitching before the Senate finishes its debate on health care. PM me if anyone’s interested in the bet.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@Sinaijon

Doesn’t sound like a bad plan to me. I mean, what’s the alternative? Get sick all the time? Doesn’t sound all that fun to me. Die slowly and painfully? No thanks.

Well, generally speaking, the aim of most health care systems is you get better.

[Ravenman]

And by the way, House Republicans came up with a plan a few months after the House passed their reform bill. It contains about as much specifics as Obama’s vision for a plan, but not nearly the detail as what Democratic leaders have put together.

PDF.

[Blalron]

@Ravenman

Precisely. I’m saying that some congressman, with whom I probably agree on health care reform, is using a strawman and an ad hominem to argue his points.

I say the ends justify the means when it comes to saving 45,000 lives a year, even if it requires stooping to GOP style rhetorical tactics. If Grayson’s outburst is somehow the event that gets health care reform through Congress, ultimately it was worth it for him to make the comment.

When someone has repeatedly kicked you in the balls, and you kick back once, your opponent can’t really cry foul that you aren’t playing by Marquis of Queensberry rules, can he?

No, it wasn’t exactly a fair comment. I’d love to see Alan Grayson and Sarah Palin hold a joint press conference where they both apologize for their comments and urge the public to demand a saner discourse on this important topic. But there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of that happening. We have to operate in the political climate we have, not the one we’d like to have.

[Richard_Parker]

@Blalron

I say the ends justify the means when it comes to saving 45,000 lives a year, even if it requires stooping to GOP style rhetorical tactics.

Precisely the logic used to justify deceiving people about the Iraq war. If we know our ends are just, then who cares if we lie to people to get there? It’s a noble lie, right? The arrogance in that logic is easy to identify when you’re in the opposition. No one knows what policy will have what results. All we have is a bunch of more or less educated guesses, fractured and incomplete knowledge at best. The whole point of widely representative, deliberative government is to aggregate that knowledge and wisdom to reach the ideal result knowing how fallible people are. And more importanty, to ensure that when we make the wrong decisions, we’re making them on behalf of everyone. You ruin that when you govern by deception.

[John_Mace]

@Blalron

I say the ends justify the means when it comes to saving 45,000 lives a year…

Leaving aside whether this is a justifiable moral argument, do you honestly believe that using Grayson’s tactic helps to advance the cause of getting health care reform thru Congress? I think you need to differentiate between what makes you feel good and what is an effective political strategy.

[elucidator]

Ofttimes an appeal to emotion can effect political results unobtainable by even the calmest and most deliberate position paper.

[Ravenman]

I’m trying to think of some times in which this kind of Rush Limbaugh-esque political arguments have a result that has actually served our country (not just a particular political party) well. And I’m not talking about passionate speech, I’m talking about speech which is at its heart, speech intended to insult, offend, and inflame.

The only example I can really think of is Johnson’s “Daisy” ad, in which it was all but said that Goldwater was going to start a nuclear war with the Soviets. Not electing Goldwater was a really, really good thing for the country.

I can’t think of any major legislation – aside from things like DOMA which is a bad result – for which incendiary rhetoric helped pass something and we can look back and say, “Yeah, we might not have liked what the politicians were saying, but thank god they said it.”

[wonky]

@Ravenman

I’m trying to think of some times in which this kind of Rush Limbaugh-esque political arguments have a result that has actually served our country (not just a particular political party) well. And I’m not talking about passionate speech, I’m talking about speech which is at its heart, speech intended to insult, offend, and inflame.

You know what? I think you’re right. I withdraw my lukewarm support for his statement.

[Bosstone]

…

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Ofttimes an appeal to emotion can effect political results unobtainable by even the calmest and most deliberate position paper.

True indeed. Are you saying that this is an example? Because I don’t think so. This is a “rally the base” statement, not an appeal to broaden the base. The base isn’t big enough to pass health care legislation. Not the way our political system works.

[gonzomax]

@John_Mace

Leaving aside whether this is a justifiable moral argument, do you honestly believe that using Grayson’s tactic helps to advance the cause of getting health care reform thru Congress? I think you need to differentiate between what makes you feel good and what is an effective political strategy.

I don’t know how one side showing manners and class ,while the other is ranting over and over about everything they can dredge up or make up is reasonable. beck ,Rush ,Hannity and the other right wingers play very dirty. It gets tough to present your case like an adult when the other side is crying like babies. It just sounds so tame .

[The_Tooth]

It’s not my problem, but I’m completely fine with Republicans being ostracized for their non-stop obstructionism. The Limbaughs of the world insult those who oppose their side because it’s their job and because it’s impossible to defend the policies they support. I see Grayson criticizing Republicans for not doing their job, and that’s a far cry from Limbaugh telling his listeners to regard those who didn’t support Bush as freedom-hating traitors or orgasming with joy because Chicago isn’t getting the Olympics or assassinating Michael Fox’s character because he made a public announcement deriding Bush’s policies of crippling medical research to win the votes of fools.

The Republicans are not only incapable of serving your country well, they are hellbent on preventing anyone else from doing so. It’s not a bad thing that they are chastized for it, it’s a good thing. There’s nothing Limbaugh-esque about it.

[jayjay]

@Ravenman

I’m trying to think of some times in which this kind of Rush Limbaugh-esque political arguments have a result that has actually served our country (not just a particular political party) well. And I’m not talking about passionate speech, I’m talking about speech which is at its heart, speech intended to insult, offend, and inflame.

Funny how when Republicans and their allies do this sort of thing, it’s apparently okay, but the minute a Democrat gets a spine, everyone is a freakin’ concern troll.

I personally don’t care if Republican lawmakers get their widdle feewings hurt. I think it might be a good idea to see MORE of that…it’s not like a gentle hand offered sincerely has had any kind of positive effect when it’s extended to the GOP lately. They’re all going to be the Party of No no matter what the Democrats do. Fuck 'em.

[elucidator]

@John_Mace

True indeed. Are you saying that this is an example? Because I don’t think so. This is a “rally the base” statement, not an appeal to broaden the base. The base isn’t big enough to pass health care legislation. Not the way our political system works.

Aw goldurn contrary, as they say in Lubbock. It is precisely to “broaden the base”. It speaks in direct, nay, brutal terms, but it speaks the truth. And its a truth a *hell *of a lot of people have some direct experience with. And if not directly, a sister, a brother-in-law, a friend, a coworker. None of this shit is news.

To put it bluntly: the behavior of the health insurance industry, loathe these many years has been little short of a criminal conspiracy against the well-being of our citizens. They should be grateful to face nothing more than harsh rhetoric.

Before our very eyes, they launch a massive campaign with what is, essentially, our money. And they do it to work against our best interests. And to that end they employ tactics that make Mr Grayson’s remark seem like Rebecca of Donnybrook Farm.

It is also unwise to be seen as flaccid and feckless, it is also unwise to be seen as so mildly committed to your viewpoint that you are only slightly as warm as Luke, and luke-warm ain’t shit.

It isn’t aimed at the independent voter, it is aimed at the indifferent voter, its aimed to rupture apathy. And in America, that apathy is the conservative’s best friend.

[Richard_Parker]

@jayjay

Funny how when Republicans and their allies do this sort of thing, it’s apparently okay, but the minute a Democrat gets a spine, everyone is a freakin’ concern troll.

I personally don’t care if Republican lawmakers get their widdle feewings hurt. I think it might be a good idea to see MORE of that…it’s not like a gentle hand offered sincerely has had any kind of positive effect when it’s extended to the GOP lately. They’re all going to be the Party of No no matter what the Democrats do. Fuck 'em.

I don’t think anyone is advocating civility for civility sake, or that lawmaking ought to avoid hurt feelings. The point is that this kind of argument isn’t going to get healthcare passed. And even if it helps marginally, it harms the chances of passing everything else.

Look at the party favorability ratings right now. The GOP is doing about as well as Bush in his worst years. This campaign of misinformation has lowered their numbers like going negative in a campaign does. It has also lowered the Democrats numbers, but not by nearly as much. It may make you personally feel good to engage in this kind of shit, but it isn’t helping the people who need it.