An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Scary and Depressing Times

The Prince of Gracie Square and the Paupers of Jefferson County »

Red and Blue Hypocrites

Posted by KATHY KATTENBURG in Health, Politics, Society.
Aug 1st, 2009 | Comments

Zack Space and Roy Blunt — from Ohio and Missouri, respectively — are members of the House of Representatives. Blunt is a Republican and Space is a “Blue Dog Democrat,” which means for all practical purposes he’s a Republican.

Down With Tyranny! challenges them:

Good thing Lou Dobbs was lying as usual when he made up all that crazy nonsense about how immigrants are bringing leprosy to America! Otherwise Space might be condemning schoolchildren in Chillicothe, Zanesville and New Rumley to falling off toes and fingers and a life without noses, just so he could seem like even more of a Republican than he already has been since being elected in 2006.

Did you know that Rep. Space’s district in Ohio has one of the highest poverty rates in the state? It’s also one of the worst off in terms of health care:

• 390 residents of Ohio are losing health insurance every day, and 14,000 Americans nationwide lose insurance daily.

• The average family premium in Ohio costs $1,000 more because our system fails to cover everyone– and $1,100 more nationally.

• Our broken health insurance system will cost the Ohio economy as much as $7.1 billion this year in productivity losses due to the uninsured– and up to $248 billion nationally.

• In Ohio there has been a 14 percent increase in the uninsured rate since 2007.

• 1,500,000 are uninsured today in Ohio.

That’s just half of the list — read the rest if you have the stomach for it.

On to Roy Blunt who, as noted above, is from Missouri:

Blunt is one of the House members who has benefited most from the legalized bribes given to “cooperative” members of Congress by the Medical-Industrial Complex. He’s taken $1,660,898 from them and another $556,682 from Big Insurance. He expects them to pick up a major part of the tab for his Senate election bid next year and he’s working his ass off to destroy health care reform hoping people in Missouri will be taken in by the barrage of lies being put out in the form of twisted TV ads.

Here is what’s up with the people in Missouri whom Rep. Blunt does not represent:

• 210 residents of Missouri are losing health insurance every day, and 14,000 Americans nationwide lose insurance daily.

• The average family premium in Missouri costs $400 more because our system fails to cover everyone– and $1,100 more nationally.

• Our broken health insurance system will cost the Missouri economy as much as $3.7 billion this year in productivity losses due to the uninsured– and up to $248 billion nationally.

• In Missouri there has been a 16 percent increase in the uninsured rate since 2007.

• 770,000 are uninsured today in Missouri.

Again, that’s about half of the complete list.

Not everyone is having such hard times, however:

Blunt and his latest wife Abigail get the best health insurance and the best health care available on the planet– courtesy of the American taxpayers– so when he, and the rest of the Republican swine and their filthy Blue Dog allies, say they don’t believe in government-sponsored health care, remember, they just don’t believe in it for us; they love it for themselves and their families. They like things just as they are; do you?

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

Holly_in_Cincinnati

Blunt is from Missouri, not Ohio: http://blunt.house.gov/

I'm proud to support Blue Dog Democrats.

DaGoat

Why exactly are you upset with these two? downwithtyranny is upset because one won't extend health insurance to illegal aliens and the other doesn't want the government to pay for abortions, is that what you're upset about? And how does Lou Dobbs figure into this?

Do you think it's productive to refer to Republicans as swine and Blue Dogs as filthy?

kathykattenburg

Holly, I said Blunt was from Missouri. Read the whole post.

pacatrue

Kathy, you can imagine there might be some confusion on where you think Blunt is from when the lead sentence is "Zack Space and Roy Blunt are two creeps from Ohio."

That said, if you start down the road of 'all non-liberal Democrats are Republicans', then you're going to end up with the sort of minor but pure party that many Republicans are currently advocating for. You'll be able to agree all the time with the party, but they won't be able to do anything. Progressives need to persuade the people electing Blue Dogs to elect progresssives, not toss the impure out.

kathykattenburg

Whoops, Holly. I just saw the part you were talking about -- the first line of the post. It's fixed now, and my apologies.

adesnik

I gather there is some disagreement about the merits of certain healthcare reform bills. I'm not sure that calling anyone a "creep" raises the level of debate. Nor do I think it's productive to quote (approvingly) of other bloggers who talk about "Republican swine and their filthy Blue Dog allies."

TMV aims higher.

alphonsegaston

You source should check out the local online newspaper remarks about Space. The local conservatives don't seem to think he's very "blue," but they do agree about the "dog."

CStanley

Blunt and his latest wife Abigail get the best health insurance and the best health care available on the planet– courtesy of the American taxpayers– so when he, and the rest of the Republican swine and their filthy Blue Dog allies, say they don’t believe in government-sponsored health care, remember, they just don’t believe in it for us; they love it for themselves and their families. They like things just the they are; do you?

Congressional members and other employees get to choose from a menu of private insurers, not from a govt run public option plan.It is funded by the taxpayers, since we basically act as their employers- but it's not 'government sponsored healthcare' in the sense of how their plans are administered. And when put to a vote, Congress declined to take the public option in place of their current insurance. What does that tell us about their confidence that this will be a good alternative plan?

Jazz

CStanley, if you're going to continue to insist on clouding the issue with facts we're never going to get anywhere in this discussion.

:-P

CStanley

LOL, sorry, my bad, Jazz!

Actually, that's one fact that's been misstated so many times that I actually thought it was true until recently when I heard otherwise and checked into it.

Rudi

Blue dogs represent their districts. I doubt the voters of Space's district would prefer Kucinich over their rep.

JasonArvak

It is very unfortunate that the starting and ending point for debate over a complex issue like health care is to condemn all who might have concerns about cost, effectiveness, underpayment rates, underinvestment rates, and other potential downsides of nationalized health care as "creeps" who should receive the "contempt they deserve" rather than rational debate.

I've been very critical of TMV in the past, but I was recently challenged by a friend to give things another chance. I've honestly reevaluated many of my criticisms, regretted many of my earlier statements, and my view of TMV and its writers has increased dramatically. But when Kathy writes hateful posts like this day in and day out, it makes it very troubling for those of us that would prefer a truly moderate/centrist voice in the blogosphere. As one of TMV's writers said above, TMV should shoot higher than this. Indeed, we all should.

Dr J

"When Kathy writes hateful posts like this day in and day out, it makes it very troubling."

Jason, I agree with the sentiment. I don't think "hate" is an accurate read. My sense is Kathy doesn't understand public policy, its complexities, and why they matter in an issue like this. So she's talking about what matters to her, which is a fairer health care system, and gets impatient and frustrated with people who are inclined to derail the issue to sweat the policy and economic details. She is obviously not unique, except perhaps in airing this frustration in six posts a day.

Like you, I'm wishing for more thoughtful debate on the topic too. There are certainly moderate voices to be had here, but since they tend to agree with each other, they alone don't provide much debate.

JasonArvak

Dr J,

I think the real problem is that substantive debate in the public sphere -- an especially the blogosphere -- tends to be overwhelmed by the shouting of the extremists and purists for whom any deviation, criticism, or even questioning is considered a moral crime of heresy. That would explain why the responses tend to be so personal and moralistic instead of substantive as well as why they are so repetitive and strident.

I've tried several times to raise some substantive issues with health care reform, ranging from problems with low reimbursement rates from Medicare combining with the elimination of the current system of de facto subsidies to reduce overall access to issues of simple cost and the way that year-to-year budgeting rules produce disincentives to investment in expensive equipment like MRI machines under single-payer systems. I've raised these issues not because I oppose reform (I don't, because I recognize the problems and unsustainable nature of the current system), but rather because I oppose hasty and ill-conceived reform that happens just to fulfill ideological diktats or emotional desires to "beat" Republicans.

Unfortunately, so far, all the responses I have received from the pro-reform side to my repeated efforts both on this site and on my own have been in two categores: (1) personal abuse towards anyone who would even raise such issues at all; (2) vague and unsubstantiated insistence that a single-payer system will somehow just make these problems disappear, but with no explanation as to how or even how it could address the inevitable tradeoffs. Basically, the pro-reform case seems to boil down to "don't just stand there, do something" which is understandable as an emotional response, but very foolish as a policymaking foundation.

I would very much like to see a serious policy-making debate about health care, but I don't think that either our political system or the blogosphere is capable of generating or sustaining it. Most of the people doing the arguing are fundamentally ignorant of the basic issues and armed only with sweeping stereotypes that boil down to "my side GOOD, your side BAD". As a result, from the far right we get much blathering about "socialism" but zero engagement with the long-term sustainability cost of having 47 million who get their health care through emergency rooms only. And from the far left purists we get, well, stuff like Kathy calling anyone who raises a criticism "creeps" who deserve only "contempt" and characterizes any move towards compromise or even slowing down long enough to read the bill as a betrayal of the basic goal of beating Republicans. In short, we get tons of vitriol, but no real arguments.

I guess I don't really have a good idea for a solution. There are some TMV writers who do seem willing to question the purist approach to health care reform, but since the pro-reform Kathy refuses to substantively respond to her critics either on TMV or on alternative forums, there is no foundation for an actual substantive debate to emerge from the rage-pit.

Dr J

(1) personal abuse towards anyone who would even raise such issues at all; (2) vague and unsubstantiated insistence that a single-payer system will somehow just make these problems disappear
Yep, we're reading the same thing. I might add (3) rather breathtaking misreadings of other points of view.

The sad thing is the sober-minded case for health care reform is strong. Liberals would find many committed allies in the battle if they'd change their approach. Instead they're turning on their own for being insufficiently pure.

DaGoat

I've been very critical of TMV in the past, but I was recently challenged by a friend to give things another chance.

I'm not sure your friend was right. TMV has become TKV. Since your post there is another post up on the same topic by the same contributor, again with name calling. Frankly I've just about had it. If somebody knows of a moderate site to discuss issues let me know.

pacatrue

Jason, I think one of the main problems that one runs into with slow, considerate action on health care in particular is that the same forces you identify in preventing a good blog discussion are at action in the actual legislative process. Each day before the vote is a day filled with people doing their best to spin any action in as negative a light as possible. Hence, "the state must pay for a patient to sit down with their physician and discuss end of life issues such as living wills, should the patient freely choose to do so" becomes "they're trying to kill your grandmother". Even when the blatant falseness of the latter is pointed out, it sticks with some segment of the population and makes the reasoned discussion increasingly difficult. In my own life, I am the epitome of slow and steady. That's how I like to behave. But in the political world we inhabit, it appears that this really does need to move fast or it's not going to move. Opponents know this and that's why they are doing everything they can to slow it down.

pacatrue

DaGoat, my rec is to just scroll past Kathy's posts if they bug you that much. I used to skip Shaun Mullen's and I skip various commenters now. I'm sure a few skip me.

JasonArvak

If somebody knows of a moderate site to discuss issues let me know.

We try to have a serious and substantial discussion at Poligazette. Also, Pete Abel and Jazz Shaw here at TMV have had up some very moderate posts about health care where it might be possible to have a more substantial discussion than is made possible by the starting points Kathy provides.

CStanley

Hence, "the state must pay for a patient to sit down with their physician and discuss end of life issues such as living wills, should the patient freely choose to do so" becomes "they're trying to kill your grandmother". Even when the blatant falseness of the latter is pointed out,

I agree with most of your comment, paca, but what I notice about these misrepresentations by conservatives is that rarely do liberals actually do what you suggest and 'point out the blatant falseness.' It really seems to me that many or even most on the left have found it more convenient and effective to ridicule and harshly criticize anyone who either intentionally or inadvertantly misreports on the content of a bill like that. And after all, it wasn't as though that policy was clearly non-mandatory- because it was creating a mandate but it was a mandate for the insurance company, not for the patient. Bottom line is that most bills are not written in clear language for everyday folks to read, and much of that is probably intentional.

Now it is reprehensible when people who know better deliberately lie about the content of a bill- but in cases like that there are a lot of people too who read something with an appropriately skeptical eye and misinterpret what is written. If people on the other side of the debate were willing to engage in discussions, then speech that is accurate would win out over that which is inaccurate.

But in short, many on the left take this approach, and I guess they find it is working for them so they'll continue to use it instead of actually discussing and/or debating.

DaGoat

We try to have a serious and substantial discussion at Poligazette.

Thanks Jason I bookmarked it. I've enjoyed your comments on health care reform.

Paca - thanks for the advice. It's a tough question on health care reform - I think that by delaying it it may well kill it as you suggest, on the other hand the alternative was a bill that just does not balance on the funding side. We should not be given the choice between a bad bill and no progress at all. In one sense Obama is killing the bill by his insistence that it not increase the deficit or increase taxes on people under 250K. He has given Congress an impossible task.

While I consider myself moderate one of the weaknesses of being a moderate is it makes it a lot harder to do "big things". To do big things generally takes a large majority agreeing on something. On the other hand it does allow things to get done incrementally, which although that will not give people the results they want RIGHT NOW will eventually solve problems.

DLS

"Why exactly are you upset with these two?"

It's another temper tantrum. "I want my candy [public health care, the details of which I don't understand] NOW!"

DLS

"Republican swine and their filthy Blue Dog allies."

Just wait until a) the fever among the lefties increases; and b) there are more delays -- waiting until next year for something to be agreed among the Senate and the House could easily take that long, and doesn't surprise the informed, but what will be the result among the Kathys out there who are impatient?

blog comments powered by Disqus