Eric Cantor and Republican “Compassion”
According to Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), if you’re sick (even seriously sick, like with cancer) and don’t have insurance, you should either look for “an existing government program” or beg for charity.
This is what passes for Republican “compassion” these days.
You’re sick? Tough luck.
**********
“No one in this country, given who we are, should be sitting without an option to be addressed,” he added.
Yes, but existing government programs and “charitable organizations” aren’t viable options for most people. When you’re sick, and even when you’re healthy and trying to prevent sickness, what you need is an option guaranteeing care — yes, a public option that is either (and preferably) universal or that provides insurance coverage where private options don’t.
When you’re sick, you want to know that the care is there for you no matter what and that you can focus on getting healthy, and that you can be as comfortable as possible no matter how serious your sickness.
What you certainly don’t need is the worry that comes with not having coverage to begin with, with your life possibly turned upside down as you struggle to find whatever care might luckily come your way.
Indeed, when you’re sick, you certainly don’t want to have to apply to a government program or to beg for charity, in either case being required to make your case for treatment and care.
It’s not just unrealistic to think that these are viable options, it’s cruel to oppose, as Republicans do, Cantor included, any serious reform to a system that keeps so many people, tens of millions of them, on the outside looking in, with little to no hope of getting the treatment and care they so desperately need.
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
42 Responses to “Eric Cantor and Republican “Compassion””
[...] from: Eric Cantor and Republican “Compassion” Share and [...]
Michael, do you ever tire of posting this drivel? Kathy already posted her driveling on this.
Cantor gives a lady good advice, to do things she should have already had the sense to do and you try to paint his assistence as a lack of compassion?
Sorry but this posting like Kathy's is ridiculous.
Michael
What you wrote seems undeniably true. It's also true that the idea of a government safety net is not unprecedented. After all, we have public police departments, fire departments, and a military all based on the notion that the health and survival of *all* Americans is important regardless of personal wealth.
Why is it that all you seem to be doing lately is attack TMV Authors? Must you keep posting this “drivel”?
Because some of the authors are putting up pure rubbish.
When a “Moderate Voice” author puts up such immoderate garbage, I have no problem calling them on it. This trash seems more fitting on the Democratic Underground site. I miss the days when the moderate voice actually had a moderate atmosphere among the topics selected for starting threads. .
Part of it is the truth about this Web site, and part of it is the current desperation about the Dems' self-engineered failure with health care “reform.” Hence the barrel scrapings, of power-dredging quality.
And now that the economy is trashed by republican mismanagement in the Cheney administration, the charities are the first thing scratched off the list by ever more stre$$ed donors. And the goverment's tax base is shrinking so the “government programs” also will be less availible. So what the republicans are saying is “go away and die” to the disenfranchised numbers that grow by the day.
Which includes many republicans…lol…
Which is why I've always marvelled at why poor people register as republicans? The blind dragon promotes the eating of its own tail..
You know you may be right, the flurry of Progressive author postings have likely increased due to the inability of democrats with control of all three branches of government to pass public healthcare may well be the reason. Frustrated by being stopped dead by moderates in their own party, they can't afford to antagonize those who they need so they lash out blindly at Republicans who can't actually stop them if they could make plans that appeal to the Blue Dogs.
Its probably this frustration that has led to such behavior.
And I've always been amazed that Jews and Catholics will vote for democrats (real believers not just people who are Jews and Catholics on paper). Some things just don't make much sense.
As for the poor people who vote Republican, just because your poor doesn't mean you don't have pride and support personal responsibility. Not ever poor person is looking for a handout.
Dear Mr. Stickings —
Did you not realize that it is your responsibility, and indeed the responsibility of all of the authors here, to post exactly what I want to see every day? Did you not realize that I am, personally, the grand judge as to what is and is not “moderate”? I'm sure you've come to the understanding that should you fail to realize these things, I will jump into the first commenting spot on every single article you write in order to tell you what a failure you are at not only being moderate, but at bowing to my every whim. It will be my goal to make every thread I deem insufficiently moderate a thread about *me* and how *I* think you suck.
That is all.
Thanks,
roro80
I don't think he needs to post what I want every day but I do expect a certain level of quality and moderate balance on a site called “The Moderate Voice” (maybe I'm wrong to do so). Also I'd expect the authors not to repost the very same piece with the very same link, that someone else already did. Finally criticizing someone for trying to help a lady find existing avenues for assistance to treat a relative without healthcare just because they are a member of the GOP strikes me as….. how can I put this….. vile.
” the flurry of Progressive author postings “
Flurry, flailing, or florid psychosis in Mikey's (but not Kathy's) case. …
That, and annoying resentment by others when such is identified. …
Oh, well.
As I asked aloud before, what's it going to be like if the public option fails to be included in legislation?
“Obama the Republican has betrayed us!” [chuckle]
if you’re sick (even seriously sick, like with cancer)
Maybe nitpicky but she didn't say cancer, she said tumors. In fact the way she framed the situation I think the tumors are probably benign, like uterine fibroids.
Anyway I thought Cantor gave a pretty good answer. My state does have a program for people in this situation where the surgery would be done at the University Hospitals. She would have to pay something depending on her resources, but the surgery would get done.
Hi there< Just a note to say re plaints about one thing or another not being writ about… as you know, writers at any blog are going to write what they wish, as usual, just as in NP, choosing their topics as they wish, ignoring those they wish to ignore. That's not going to change; the blogosphere is filled with memorandum and technorai pointer articles for any reader who wishes to pursue them.
The occasional plaint about whether TMV is moderate gets old here, in part because the word has several meanings and interpretations and is carried differently by various writers and readers, and most of our writers would prefer to spend time debating more substantial matters… if they're going to argue anything.
Most all our writers have day jobs to support themselves and their families, are raising children, have health challenges that are serious, just like you, have parents who need time and attention, and occasionally… a 'moderate' amount of time sometimes is carved out to just sit and be still for a moment in the midst of all the different kinds of maelstroms.
Different readers of TMV have different interests, and I personally like and find interesting and often informational, most TMV commenters. I enjoy your strange, funny senses of humor too ( I too, have a strange sense of humor sometimes) . From my work at TMV admin, I learn something from commenters every day, often many things each day. I'm glad for that. So, there's a view from the TMV window, and…
appreciate commenters staying with topic of post. Our rules for commenters are: dont attack writer or each other, so a civil debate can ensue (which 99% of the time does so) and others who stop by can join in the topic which has not been diverted to some OT matter.
Thanks.
Dr.e
Editor/ TMV
You notice that some of our writers never interplay with commenters. That some do, is their choice, but is not in any way a requirement for writing at TMV. We are all apprised when we hired on (without pay) that we're not beholding to read nor respond to comments. Most of our writers I think might like to, but they havent the time, or wont/ cant set aside the time. I personally find it a treat when one of our writers engages with me and other commenters. I know they are literally setting aside time in between all else flying about. Just my .02
Leonidas,
Yes, Michael and I did both post on this incident, and what of it? There's nothing wrong with two contributors posting on the same news item.
As to the substance, Cantor did not “give the lady good advice.” If you even bothered to read my or Michael's post — or, better yet, read the original post at Think Progress and/or listened to and watched the accompanying video — you would know that Cantor's “advice” was uninformed and not terribly helpful. This woman's relative has tumors growing in her stomach; she needs *immediate* medical attention and treatment. Existing government programs have income requirements that she may not be able to meet, and in any case it takes time to vet those requirements, and on top of that, there are long waiting lists for most of these government programs.
Leonidas, if you truly believe that Michael's post, or mine, is “immoderate garbage” then you yourself have views that a reasonable person could call “extremist.” There is nothing immoderate about what Michael wrote, or what I wrote, and it's not “garbage.”
There are many observant, committed Jews (the term “believer” is not appropriate or accurate with regard to Judaism — there is no doctrine or dogma to “believe”) who are Democrats and/or liberals because the values liberalism holds dear — social justice, caring for the poor and sick, speaking and acting for the oppressed and persecuted — are Jewish values. They are also, I should add, Christian values and there are many committed Christians who live their lives accordingly.
DaGoat,
I see your point about the tumors, but she also said they are growing, and that she has been told she needs immediate medical treatment. Tumors growing in someone's stomach (not uterus, although that would be serious, too) are things that should be considered important enough to get immediate medical attention.
As for the program in your state (Iowa, I believe?) my state (New Jersey) also has such a program. It's called charity care, and there are, as in Iowa, income requirements, and it takes significant time to be approved. In New Jersey, the income requirements are pretty stringent (you have to be basically indigent, have no form of savings or income, and no health insurance) and it's entirely possible that this woman's relative would not meet them, even for partial payment.
Hear, hear, dr e
Cantor was asked what a particular person should do. Not what should the country be or what would he prefer. As far as changing his vote just to get this woman treatment, get real it will be long resolved by then. His advice was reasonable and what anyone would say regardless on their stance unless they tried to use this sick woman as a political talking point instead of a person.
“get real it will be long resolved by then.”
Meaning…she'll die? Is that what you're saying? If so, I don't disagree, I just wouldn't have worded such a thing as “it” being “resolved”.
“unless they tried to use this sick woman as a political talking point instead of a person.”
EEllis — This is the point of telling people's stories. Policy, in a very real sense, is more than just political talking points. Policy becomes woman with tumors in her stomach and no good options. Those of us who think that that is bad policy want to see changes — not just for this one woman, but for ourselves and our families, should we ever be in such a position.
You know, for all the right sided complaints going on here, consider this quote from the cited article:
“Cantor, who serves as the chief whip for his party, has said that he cannot support a health reform bill with a public option. But despite his political opposition to government insurance programs, Cantor then emphasized to Churchill that every American should be given an “option” for health care, including a government program:”
Compassion is not the issue, consistency is the issue.
For all the ruffled feathers that Leo and DLS submit, we once again hear nothing from our esteemed critics on how this problem should be resolved. If charity is indeed the proper course, guys, how about putting your money where is mouth is. I for one would be more apt to consider your chronic complaints if you only had solutions to the real world problems beside your narrow ideology. If you can't pony up a couple bucks, maybe it's simply because you just don't give a crap about anyone else.
As old Scrooge said, “If they're going to die let them be quick about it and reduce the surplus population.” I've certainly heard your Humbugs, is that all there is?
If you have “failed to encounter” the several reform examples I have provided on numerous threads on this site, that is not my problem.
And are there no workhouses?
Cantor's answer was just a kiss off. If all of these 47 million uninsured relied on charity to help with their medical bills, the charities would go belly-up in no time flat.
I guess his answer sounded better than telling the woman “That's YOUR problem” – the GOP's solution to any shortage.
I always find it amusing when someone who disagrees with a message decides to ignore dealing with the message itself, and instead attack the messenger. That seems to be the modus operandi of the 'loyal opposition' these days – all whining about who is saying what, rather than dealing with the actual problem being discussed.
For the very small handful of complainers who whimper and wheedle on about how “The Moderate View is not moderate”, perhaps they should stop grousing how “everyone is wrong except for me”, and wonder *why* their views are so far out of the moderate mainstream. It's all a matter of perspective, really. If the political spectrum were a football field, then people on the left would mostly gather around the Liberal's 20-yard-line; moderates would largely be gathering around the Liberal's 40-yard-line; and conservatives these days would be far to the right of the Conservative end zone, somewhere in the bleachers. Of course, viewing mainstream discourse and moderate discussion from that perspective they would be getting an incorrect, warped view that everything leans to the far left.
Right-wing whiners – stop looking to everyone else as the problem, and start looking in the mirror as to why no one agrees with you.
I have always thought that Cantor was an empty suit. This is confirmation.
Leonidas, “Cantor gives a lady good advice, to do things she should have already had the sense to do and you try to paint his assistence as a lack of compassion?”
Well then. If Cantor gave the lady good advice I have to ask you what YOU would do in that situation.
Just so we're all clear on the circumstances: You are 42 years old, you lost your job and health insurance. You own your home. The doctor tells you that you have tumors growing in your belly and need an immediate operation.
Since you feel that Cantor gave good advice, tell me what you would do.
Or perhaps the Liberals who tell themselves they are moderate should wake up and smell the coffee and note that with Democratic control of all three branches of government and a filibuster proof majority they still could not pass Liberal healthcare reform legislation due to being stopped by the moderates of their own party and stop trying to blame Republicans and look in the mirror at their own immoderate selves.
Leonidas: “Democrats had filibuster proof control and could not pass liberal healthcare propossals?”
Belonging to a political party means different things to different people. Apparently for the Republicans it means “playing follow the leader” and do as you're told to do. If you don't walk lock-step with the party line you're out on your ass. For the Democrats it means debating different ideas. You would not be thrown out of the Democratic Party for just suggesting something different.
Naturally there is dissent in the Democratic Party and quite frankly after Bush rammed most of his policies down Americans' throats, even lying to do so, with the full support of his party, I think it's healthy for their to be debate and dissent.
I've always said that I wish the Republicans would grow up so they can offer good ideas because I'm not too keen on all the Democratic proposals. But since the GOP insists on acting like spoiled and sore losers, I'm glad to see debate going on in the Democratic Party. It amazes me that conservatives talk about the Dems as if there's one strict ideology, when clearly there's not. How do conservatives reconcile the fact that they dump the Dems and their ideas in one bucket with the reality of many different ideas being thrown around?
Besides it's beyond me that anyone would actually belong to a party (the GOP in case anyone doesn't understand me) that tells them how to think, what to believe, which religion is “right”, etc.
“Meaning…she'll die?”
I hope not but she will have gotten treatment and will have a result bad or good.
” This is the point of telling people's stories. Policy, in a very real sense, is more than just political talking points. Policy becomes woman with tumors in her stomach and no good options. Those of us who think that that is bad policy want to see changes — not just for this one woman, but for ourselves and our families, should we ever be in such a position.”
BS. Policy should be about facts. Anecdotal (and how many times have people lied at those things) means crap. You want to try and help one person good for you. You decide the whole country should be a particular way because of the experiance of one person you are an idiot.
“Just so we're all clear on the circumstances: You are 42 years old, you lost your job and health insurance. You own your home. The doctor tells you that you have tumors growing in your belly and need an immediate operation.”
There are already laws giving unemployed insurance. We need more info for precise advice, what State she lives in, what about Cobra, her current assets, her income. Hell if it's me I put the house up for sale, try and get as much govt assistance as possible and get whatever treatment I need quick. I know here in Texas you could go to the county hospital and they decide if you need treatment, schedule that treatment, and then sit down with you to figure out how to work the payments if any.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by CAUSA. CAUSA said: Eric Cantor and Republican “Compassion” http://bit.ly/J2g74 [...]
“but she will have gotten treatment “
Or, you know, not gotten treatment.
“Policy should be about facts.”
Oh barf. In a country where millions of people have lost their jobs in the last year, and where health insurance is generally tied to employment (both *facts*), dang near everyone knows multiple people who've recently lost their health insurance (anecdotes). As a certain percentage of people require medical care for chronic or long-term conditions, and another percentage comes upon a major disease or injury each year, it stands to reason that there are many people out there with no means to get treatment for serious medical problems. The numbers and stats tell a story while the anecdote puts a face on that story. This isn't a difficult concept.
“and how many times have people lied at those things”
Let's say this person lied about her particular relative in this specific anecdote. Does that means that all the statistics that tell us how many people declare bankrupcy each year because of medical bills or how many people die because of lack of access to affordable care are lies? Does that mean that nobody really gets ulcers in their stomach with no way to pay for treatment? Does that remove the realness of every other story out there?
“You decide the whole country should be a particular way because of the experiance of one person you are an idiot.”
If you think there is only one person out there with this problem, you are an idiot.
“it stands to reason that there are many people out there with no means to get treatment for serious medical problems. The numbers and stats tell a story while the anecdote puts a face on that story. This isn't a difficult concept.”
Great because right now all we have is the story with you filling in the facts because of what you just “know”. You want to give a story to put a face on it I can't stop you (even if I think it is whoring that person out) but you need the hard data. The data we don't have in this case. Would she be covered already by the numerous Govt programs, could she get free care from the county, is her net worth enough that she can afford treatment.
“Let's say this person lied about her particular relative in this specific anecdote. Does that means that all the statistics that tell us how many people declare bankruptcy each year because of medical bills or how many people die because of lack of access to affordable care are lies? Does that mean that nobody really gets ulcers in their stomach with no way to pay for treatment? Does that remove the realness of every other story out there? “
This is priceless. Even if it's a lie then it's still true. Sure ok and so are death panels and waiting lines, delays in appointments and everything else anyone just makes up.
I'm not saying things are easy but I don't believe that people can't get help because a lack of money. Indeed her doctor would have a duty to see that someone does the surgery if it's needed. That is a legal duty as well as a moral one.
“because of what you just “know”. “
So you want me to go do reseach for you? Some quick stats: 4.6million jobs lost since the beginning of 2008. 1.5million new cases of cancer each year; 560K cancer-related deaths. 1.3 coronary attacks each year; 445K related deaths. Blah blah…we can come up with any disease and find the incidence rate each year. Or maybe they're all just lying.
“I don't believe that people can't get help because a lack of money”
Said like someone who's never had to deal with a lack of money. I could tell stories, but I'd surely be lying. If I weren't, it's clear that only “facts” — not people — matter to you anyway. Quite frankly, your “believing” something doesn't actually have any bearing on anything, does it now?
Maybe it's not “cancer” but for Rep Cantor to tell the person to sell everything they own and jump into Medicare is more than just a little hypocritical. Wasn't the Republican line that socialized medicine is bad? What is Medicare if it's not socialized medicine?
“Some quick stats”
To bad absolutely none of them are on point and do squat for your argument.
“Said like someone who's never had to deal with a lack of money.”
You must be joking? Because I never got married or had kids money has never been a big issue with me. I never made many choices based on money, but I never had much either. Trust me I have dealt with a lack which is why I don't think money is the issue.
“Quite frankly, your “believing” something doesn't actually have any bearing on anything, does it now?”
Fair enough now if you were honest enough and could apply that to yourself also…….
“Rep Cantor to tell the person to sell everything they own and jump into Medicare is more than just a little hypocritical”
He didn't say that so …….
“Wasn't the Republican line that socialized medicine is bad? What is Medicare if it's not socialized medicine?”
There is no blanket statement and I can thing unemployment insurance is bad for the country and still tell my neighbor he should apply.
“To bad absolutely none of them are on point and do squat for your argument.”
I guess the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association are lying, too?
“Trust me I have dealt with a lack which is why I don't think money is the issue.”
I used to volunteer translating English-Spanish-English at a free clinic; trust me: money's an issue. That's great you've never had to rub up against it so closely, and I do truly hope that that remains the case for you. It is the case for me, as well, and I thank my lucky stars and try not to take it for granted. But putting our fingers in our ears about the fact that it's not the case for many doesn't make it untrue. This is what I mean when I said that your not “believing” that money is an issue doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it is a huge issue for many. Since you don't like anecdotes, I won't elaborate.
“I guess the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association are lying, too? “
Huh? Why would I think that? It just doesn't have any point in this conversation.
“money's an issue. That's great you've never had to rub up against it so closely, and I do truly hope that that remains the case for you. “
Again huh? I am the working poor. I have almost always been so. Mostly because I don't really care about money but different subject. I am speaking from experience that care is available to everyone. I honestly believe that location is a much more critical concern than cash. If you live where there is no doctor for a hundred miles (which does happen in Texas), or 30 if you are poor, then the best insurance in the world doesn't help. If you live in Houston then you can take the bus to either county hospital or one of several Catholic hospitals and you will get treatment first and then they will sit with you to figure the finances. This is the community I live in. Saving up money for dental work going to the dental collage, these are things Ive done, so throttle back on the self righteous BS a little bit Mr. Easy Living.
[...] Eric Cantor and Republican “Compassion” (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
“It just doesn't have any point in this conversation.”
So how many people have lost their jobs and how many people will get extremely sick this year has no place in the conversation? Very interesting. The reason I brought up the numbers is that if 4.6million people lost their jobs, say half of them lost their insurance with it; 1.5million people got cancer last year, or about half a percent of the population. So somewhere over 10,000 people who lost their health insurance in the last year will get cancer while having no insurance. That's only counting people who, *like the anecdote in the story*, had a job a year ago, and got cancer instead of some other disease. Of course the numbers are much higher if we're talking about working people with no insurance. I don't know if you've ever been through cancer treatment (“Mr. Easy Living” has), but it's not like castrophic treatment where you walk into an ER on the brink of death and they treat you and you go home (not that that situation isn't terrible). Treatment takes place over the course of years, and has many different stages — each of which is astronomically expensive. And if you don't go through those treatments, you pretty much just die.
The point is, maybe this woman wanted to “whore out” (your phrase) her own story as a representative of the roughly 10,000 other people in similar situations. If it's “self righteous BS” to think that individuals matter in this discussion, so be it. I think it's pretty self righteous (or at least self important) to think that this woman's story of how she can't pay for the aggressive treatment she needs is an unimportant or irrelevant anecdote, while at the same time telling me your personal history about always having been able to get the treatment you need. Her story is no less important than yours: you are an example of how the system works well, she is an example of how it has failed. Lucky you and sux for her, but don't write off someone else's experience as incorrect or a lie because it's different from your own. Self righteous indeed.
BTW, I'm not “Mr.” anything.