Double Standard on Congressman Grayson?

Double standards do not exist. I know this to be true, because every Liberal I know tells me that is the case. Anyone disagreeing with that is a racist, btw.

That's because what Alan Grayson said is standard boilerplate rhetoric from Republicans. How many Republicans have said that the Democratic plans will literally kill people? Wasn't that the whole point of the death panel debate that even Senator Grassley thought was sensible? What Grayson said was not like shouting down the President. It was just standard over-the-top fearmongering on health care, which makes it unremarkable.

Here are some examples of Republicans making similar gestures about health care recently:

Take Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Fla.), who said in July: "Last week, Democrats released a health care bill which essentially said to America's seniors: drop dead."

Or Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), a doctor, who reviewed the public health insurance option in July and diagnosed that it is "gonna kill people."

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), not one to pull punches, suggested on the House floor that Congress "make sure we bring down the cost of health care for all Americans and that ensures affordable access for all Americans and is pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government."

July was a busy time for House floor death sentences. Also that month, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), noted: "One in five people have to die because they went to socialized medicine...I would hate to think that among five women, one of 'em is gonna die because we go to socialized care."

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) had a similar assessment. "They're going to save money by rationing care, getting you in a long line. Places like Canada, United Kingdom, and Europe. People die when they're in line," he said on the House floor in July.

AR, I agree with you. ;)

This is the silliest type of post. Take a select sample of the "other side" and then post it as proof they are hypocritical. Of course, some Republicans (very few) condemned Joe Wilson, but even more lauded him as a hero and donated money. Same with the tea partiers screaming fascists and killer, then claiming it contributing to debate. All this happens on the other side too, as I heard people screaming fascist and killer about Bush, and using scare tactic in healthcare and Medicare debates ... So here's a conclusion: SOME Dems are hypocritical hyperbolic morons. SOME Repubs are hypocritical hyperbolic morons. Can we stop with these "see how awful the other side is" posts now.

I don't think Republicans want un- and under-insured people to die; it's just an unfortunate side effect of the economic policies they support.

Hypocrites exist among both parties and their supporters, and idiots abound in each as well. The further to the left and right wing you go, the more plentiful they become. The hope of the nation is with the Blue Dogs and moderate Republicans.

The hope of the nation is with the Blue Dogs and moderate Republicans.

Let me correct that for you:
The hope of the nation is with the Corporate whores who got elected no matter their party.

Patrick -- I agree with you that it's frustrating to see people's willingness to overlook or excuse the ugliness on their own sides. However, I have to admit that the very first thing (maybe even the second) that went through my mind when I read Grayson's comment was, "Hunh. Sounds exactly like what many Republican politicians have been spewing for months."

Clearly, the mud-wrestling pit is neither full nor uncomfortable. At this point, though, I wouldn't expect anyone but the truly non-partisan to call these things out. Everybody's in it far too deeply now, and nobody's interested in the astounding amount of time it would take to acknowledge all those mea culpas.

I'm so tired of both the overheated rhetoric (from both sides) and the endless blogosphere debates about who started it and who is worse, that I can't even muster any outrage at all anymore.

I think elrod and PM have a valid point in comparing the GOP rhetoric about the presumed effects of the Dem legislation. I do think though that when Grayson doubled down by calling the current situation a 'holocaust', he crossed a line (if any GOP have also done so, I think it's equally condemnable.)

In short, I want them all to knock it off, and although I do see double standard in many cases I'm just plain worn out with all of the arguments about it and I think it's hugely distracting to the public when we should be discussing each party's policies on their merits instead of debating over who is debating more fairly. I think the distraction is by design, too- the parties find it much easier to get people emotionally worked up about how mean and terrible the other guys are than to actually defend their own ideas.

Elrod -

I thought that using 'they did it too' wasn't a valid defense? That is what has been thrown in my face so many times I cannot count

Oh, the hypocrisy!

I'm not saying it's OK, Austin. I'm just saying it's more akin to GOP overheated rhetoric on health care than it is to Joe Wilson's outburst. I suspect that Republicans figured that out too, which is why they yanked their censure resolution.

I agree with CStanley. Both sides should cut out this nonsense.

It's helpful when discussing this topic to discard the terms "right" and "left" and substitute the words "right" and "wrong" [not necessarily respectful of the original terms].

It's right to condemn those who would refuse affordable health care to the public of which 80% are in favor of the Public Option. It's wrong to tell the President he's lying when text reflects that he isn't. It's wrong to want to profit off the denial of healthcare to people. It's right to regulate that denial and force insurance compainies to be compassionate.

It's all about right and wrong. If you have a soul, welcome to the 80% of people who want the Public Option. If you don't have a soul, welcome to the 20% who don't.

Leo
"Hypocrites exist among both parties and their supporters, and idiots abound in each as well. The further to the left and right wing you go, the more plentiful they become. The hope of the nation is with the Blue Dogs and moderate Republicans."

Your champions are the worst kind of hypocrites, Blue Dogs and many Republicans simply oppose health care reform due to the bucks they get from PIs. This whole line of selective outrage by both sides is merely hand puppet passion plays to keep the masses distracted.

Why do you fall for such obvious subterfuge?

Allow me my Thursday morning rant.

Are all you people oblivious to the game being played by both sides? Here's the recipe: start with a controversial statement devoid of any real facts that attacks the other side. Stir in liberal amounts of outrage, and add equal parts of BS attacks from the other side.

Whip the blogosphere thoroughly until peaks of outrage obscure any rational discussion about solutions to the problem at hand. Let it bake for a few days and then let it cool. Repeat. In the mean time, allow corporate interests tailor the real law, or the real defeat, behind the scenes.

Health care is the latest example, but there are plenty of other examples.

Don't get distracted by the shiny object. Whatch the other hand, it's doing the real work.

HemmD, you're definitely starting to make me nervous. If we get more Dems like you catching on to what has been the game we started in January, this could actually become a game-changer.

We've been counting on the predictable, self-righteous, whiny histrionics of the liberals to not only put-off mainstreet public opinion, but also serves as a delaying distraction to the Dems themselves from actually getting anything done.

We learned a lesson in a week from the stimulus package legislation. Thanks for taking your time on your end.

CO If we get more Dems like you catching on to what has been the game we started in January, this could actually become a game-changer.

Oh, the irony.

casual

your only half right - err correct....

the problem is BOTH parties. Greed knows no creed. Every time you see the problem is only on one side, you fall for the BS. I thought you were smarter than that.

Money is paid to both sides to guarantee all bets. Why become a tool of the pimps?

Just pay attention to the "progress" or the fate of the public option (subject of bogus stats by Sil yet again -- [sigh]), which hasn't had the stake driven though it yet, just faced a big setback recently in the Senate. Again -- what will the House, in particular do, and what will the lib Dems try to retain in the form of the public option, or get in exchange for losing it? That's what will count?

(If Sil and the many far-left talkers on the radio I've heard when on the road are any example, we cannot expect the lib Dems to act intelligently and re-engineer the co-ops to have a strong public option character to them, the obvious thing they should be looking to do as plan B if the option itself in name, at least, fails.)

I guess because I really don't feel I am that much a "tool of the pimps". Each year, I arrange for a manuscript HSA policy for myself and my employees with one of the massive networks. Everyone gets the most competitive network/drug discounts available and I/they set our deductibles, co-pays and oop maximums according to our planned usages and self-insurance appetites. I incent them on healthclub memberships, dental cleanings and annual physicals with a HSA contribution for each one completed. I see our experience results each year as well as our aggregate annual premiums. The math indicates we are not "working the streets" for the insurance carrier given that I have to allow for one or two whopper claims each year.

casual

And why, pray tell, does a good businessman like yourself have to pony up time and bucks to provide insurance? Do you enjoy the prospect of spending your hard won profits on insurance payments?

How do you compete with European companies that don't have this expense?
Casual, it seems to me it would be a good business move to back reform that fattens the bottom line. You sound like you should be for a single payer system, I never would have thought you were a left wing radical.

It's called pushback. Dems are tired of taking the lies laying down. Get ready for more GOP, and as their arguments are at least based loosely on fact, that should scare you.

And why, pray tell, does a good businessman like yourself have to pony up time and bucks to provide insurance? Do you enjoy the prospect of spending your hard won profits on insurance payments?

Actually Hemm, the more logical 'reform' that co might support is the elimination of the tax preference for employer provided insurance, which is what forces him to provide this as part of his employees' compensation. Get rid of that arcane tax law and he could then choose to increase his employees' wages by the amount he's currently funding the health plans if he doesn't want to expend his time on it, and they could use their own money to purchase a similar HSA.

He appears though to be coping with that situation quite well, just as the Whole Foods' CEO and just as a lot of other corporations could...except for those corporations that have had to bow to union demands for gold plated insurance policies.

CS

Good to see you jump right in.

I said CO appeared to be a good businessman. I'm just saying single payer removes the whole subject from the business spread sheets. Why should casual increase employee wages just because he no longer had to pay insurance?

US companies have time and again shown that paying less for employees, illegals paid under minimum wage, does not translate into a reduction of cost to consumers; so removing insurance costs doesn't guarantee casual will pass those savings on as increased wages.

Your idea improves the employer's fate, what guarantees do you have for the workers?

Hemm, I'll have to let CO answer for himself but if I were in his shoes I would not see an advantage in paying fines and higher taxes in exchange for getting the healthcare costs off of his books.

I don't accept the premise of your second paragraph. How is it proven that consumer costs wouldn't be much higher if there weren't so many employers paying lower wages to illegals, for instance? How do you know what effect it would have on prices if we didn't have a willing population of undocumented workers coming across our border?

Actually, I don't think that Wilson was wrong. Anything that isn't written down is fair game when it comes to politicians. Therefore, even if illegals weren't expressly covered in the bill, that doesn't mean that some politicians won't use that fact to indeed cover them, saying that because it isn't expressly forbidden, that it should be allowed.


SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.

(a) In General- Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

(b) Implementation- To implement the requirement set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act are provided (whether directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements) without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.


Also, I think that to penalize people for not having insurance is BS. Most people don't go without insurance because they want to. They do it because they can't afford it. And for those who can't afford it, we already have something in place: Medicaid. Is that where the money is supposed to come from? Apparantly not, because, if you've read the bill, you'll see that Medicaid continues to be in operation.

(here is the text of the bill, for anyone who is interested: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bi...)

Ultimately, this is going to come down on the taxpayer, regardless of what Obama says, and in that, he IS a liar.

He also said he was going to cut the National Debt in HALF (during campaigning), and instead, he's more than tripled it, bailing out businesses that should have been allowed to stand or fail on their own. In that he was also a liar.

I do, however, agree that health insurance companies should not be permitted to deny insurance to (or drop the insurance of) people who have preexisting conditions, become ill, or are higher-risk.

I simply have a problem with the Government's growth under Obama. He's gotten the government into things that it has no business in (such as bailing out businesses. and before you say it, I didn't agree with Bush getting the government into the Shiavo issue, either. Neither of those things is the business of the government). Instead of shrinking government, another of his campaign promises, he's grown it, getting into more and more of our personal lives.

THAT'S what we have to worry about. The health bill is just smoke to distract us from the fire.

And the funniest thing about all of this, is the the Dems are going to do all of this "deficit neutral".

That's what is getting fed to us.

That's a euphamism for: "You taxes are going up. We just aren't telling you yet".
Once they add in the higher electricity and gas prices for the Cap and Trade, we'll all be paying the governement about 10% extra out of our pay.

That's the biggest distraction of all.

CS
"I don't accept the premise of your second paragraph. How is it proven that consumer costs wouldn't be much higher if there weren't so many employers paying lower wages to illegals, for instance? How do you know what effect it would have on prices if we didn't have a willing population of undocumented workers coming across our border?"

Let's take Tysonh chicken. They have been caught hiring large numbers of illegals, paying them sub-legal wages, and yet their chicken costs as much as everybody else.

CS addendum to first response.

\" I don't accept the premise of your second paragraph. How is it proven that consumer costs wouldn't be much higher if there weren't so many employers paying lower wages to illegals, for instance? How do you know what effect it would have on prices if we didn't have a willing population of undocumented workers coming across our border?"

Let's flip this question. Can you cite any company that undercuts its competitors by using illegals? It's clear illegals are hired throughout our economy, but no where do you see a price break for consumers based upon the lower wages these companies pay. You wish to ignore the very obvious fact that illegals merely make companies more money because they sell their products at the same price that companies who play by the rules must.

Hemm, you're relying on very flimsy 'evidence' there and drawing sweeping conclusions that aren't supported by it. Tyson is a large company that has been caught hiring illegals- but I see no reason to assume that smaller producers in that industry aren't also hiring illegals. From what I see anecdotally here in my area, there are certain industries that are known to hire undocumented workers and it's not necessarily certain companies. It's logical that the govt, when it does enforce the immigration laws at all, conducts operations against the largest companies because that's where they'll find the greatest number of abuses- but that doesn't in any way prove that the smaller competitors aren't also reducing their labor costs with the pool of undocumented workers.

CS

Your logic is convenient to your conclusions. So you see illegals in all companies. Convenient. And wrong. Tyson's price is fixed by the market, they are not cheaper than other chicken providers. You are trying to require me to prove a price break that doesn't exist or agree that it doesn't exist because everybody does it. That's logically facetious. If everybody does it, cite it.

No dice, Hemm. You made the initial assertion and it's up to you to back it up.

I will, however, add one comment on this:
Tyson's price is fixed by the market, they are not cheaper than other chicken providers

Tyson and a handful of other companies (Pilgrim's Pride, which is actually the largest poultry producer, and which has also been caught hiring massive numbers of undocumented workers) dominate the industry, so pricing as reflected by overhead of these very large producers does in fact help set the industry pricing.

Smaller producers either hire workers at similar low wages (if you do start to investigate to try to verify your claims, you'll see that a very large percentage of poultry plant workers are immigrants, which include some undocumented and some legal immigrants- all of whom are working for very low wages) or find a niche where they can charge higher prices (free range farms, for instance.)

Again, the onus really isn't on me to prove that other poultry producers are hiring illegals in similar numbers to Tyson, but I think you'll have a hard time proving that they aren't. I know for a fact that Pilgrim's Pride- the number one producer, has been caught out, and smaller producers here in my neck of the woods have as well.

To be honest, I was really surprised by your claim that illegal alien workers hasn't put downward pressure on consumer pricing, because I thought that everyone on all sides of that debate pretty much agreed that it does. I haven't seen anyone saying that certain companies are skimming higher profits by hiring illegals- instead it has always been pretty apparent that the hiring is industry wide and that consumers do in fact benefit by lower food prices. The question is whether or not it's ethical for us to want cheaper food at the expense of poor working conditions for immigrants.

Actually, I did.

It was your supposition that all companies employ illegals. My assertion was that, as example, Tyson, used illegals but did not reduce price as a result. You must prove that there is no price difference due to the fact that all companies employ cheap illegal labor. I don't have to prove you are right, and I believe I did back up my assertion.

My assertion was that, as example, Tyson, used illegals but did not reduce price as a result.

The conclusions you drew from that assertion rely on the idea that Tyson isn't just one example of many in that industry, but rather that it is the main perpetrator of hiring illegals. If you aren't claiming that Tyson does this to a greater degree than its competitors, then there would be no basis for claiming that their prices could in any way be lower than their competitors as a result of the practice.

In case this isn't clear, let me ask...were you, or were you not, trying to say that Tyson's hiring of illegals could possibly give them an edge in the market (which would then either allow them to lower consumer prices for their product or take higher profit as a result of the lower overhead?)

So, by your logic, even though Tyson et al have lower expenses than companies that do not use illegals, the fair companies must cut their own throats to keep up with the illegals?

If that is so, I take it the fair companies are operating at a loss? That's not the case, Tyson et al merely makes a larger profit while not reducing the price point.

Come on CS, prove your assertions.

So, by your logic, even though Tyson et al have lower expenses than companies that do not use illegals,

You are jumping past the need to prove your own assertion. What poultry producing companies do NOT employ large numbers of immigrants? Pick a poultry producer and google it, and I'll bet you'll find stories of INS raids, or at least allegations of undocumented workers, and most assuredly, a large percentage of immigrants (legal or not) working for very low wages across the board.

What evidence do you have that Tyson's overhead costs are lower than other industry participants?

CS

Sorry, I won't try to prove a negative.

How am I to prove that companies do not employ illegals? I rely on ICE. You may quibble, but Tyson was found guilty of using illegals. That's positive proof. Their price in the market is the same as everybody else. That's positive proof. The money they made from lower illegal costs went to extra profit.

Wal-Mart not long ago settled an 11 million lawsuit for hiring illegal cleaners. Did the costs at Wal-Mart go up after that? No. The money they saved previously via illegals went to extra profit, not lower prices they had to increase when they were caught.

Hemm, I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to provide proof for your positive assertion that Tyson has lower operating costs than its competitors due to a presumed increased hiring practice of illegal workers.

I've already pointed you toward a number of large poultry producers (like Pilgrim's Pride, for instance, which is larger than Tyson) which also hire illegals. I could also show you stories of small producers here in GA which hire illegals, and of the huge percentage of general immigrants in the poultry production industry.

I'm pointing out that your assertion that Tyson has lower overhead costs than its competitors due to this practice is not at all likely to be true. You, on the other hand, keep asserting that as fact even though you haven't shown any evidence of it and I'm showing you evidence to the contrary which you keep ignoring.

I don't understand your Walmart example at all. I'm not familiar with the case...how many workers were involved? Were they actually paying them less than their documented or citizen workers? If so, by how much? Enough of a difference so that you'd expect that this one group of workers decreased pay was influencing the overall pricing of every unit item sold at every Walmart across the country? That seems like an absurd stretch. Even the 11 million that they had to pay in the settlement wouldn't be a substantial difference in their total operating costs, so it makes no sense to argue that there should have been measurable price increases at Walmart as a result of this one incident.