Encounters with “the mob”
Enjoy Steve Crowder’s hilarious reportage from deep inside “the mob:”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Choosing Life and Beating the Odds
February 11, 2012 11:50 AM by Doug Powers
32 CommentsObama’s fraudulent abortion mandate “accommodation” Updated: Prez condemns “cynical” opposition
February 10, 2012 10:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
244 Comments‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
February 10, 2012 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
153 CommentsCPAC vs. the Occupiers: Keep calm and carry silly string
February 9, 2012 10:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
109 Comments
Former Democrat Rep. Regrets Vote for Obamacare Due to Contraceptive Coverage
February 7, 2012 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
How to Make a Liberal Politician Stand Up Against Intrusive Government
February 6, 2012 04:28 PM by Doug Powers
95 Comments
Your Friday IRS regulation dump: Obamacare’s job-killing medical device tax
February 3, 2012 04:21 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
The SIGA scandal: Calls for investigation mount
January 27, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
Categories: Health care,Tea Party
JustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidRiehl World View
» Whitney Houston: If I should stay I would only be in your wayPatterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooksRiehl World View
» Romney's Blood Is Blue, Not ConservativePundit & Pundette
» King Barack vs. the Nonconformists
I love Steven Crowder’s work. Been following him on you tube for awhile now. Best part is if you read the comments on his site, the libs Hate what he does.
Heh heh.
unfortunately i’m sure parts of that will end up on ms/nbc and cbs and cnn and in numerous newspapers tomorrow. the kid saying “yes I’m angry” crowder saying “maam you have to lower your voice” the crowder quip ” talking with the crazies” are all great msm headlines. the department of propoganda will set the stage, and just as with dr lane’s interview with wapo, the TRUTH WILL OUT IN THE MSM!
Dude … WHERE’S MY BAILOUT?!?!?!
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
“I was frightened for my life! Someone would have forced me to think for myself. I can’t do that!” (Typical SEIU member)
I wish John Culberson would have a town hall meeting. Those angry Memorialites might just… shake his hand?
Did you see the blonde woman in the purple top, and her look of surprise when Crowder said, “This interview is over.” She was a bit shocked. I hope she got the satire. If not, I’d love to help her out… explain it to her… maybe over a bottle of wine… oops, there’s my wife! Gotta run (literally).
They hate him because he doesn’t fit into any of their ‘boxes’ of hate!
Steve, say “Howdy” to the black helicopter and the black sedan that’s following you around.
Duh One has you on his list, now.
Hehe, That’s sweet. It’s great to see younger people (my age) with a sense of humor, respect for Americans and their sovereignty, getting the message out that these really ARE normal Americans with REAL concerns.
now that I’ve picked myself off the floor…that was great….
That angry mobster in the scooter had an evil gleem in his eye….
You’d think Washington would be getting the message by now, wouldn’t you? Gov’t Hands OFF OUR HEALTH CARE!!!
If you watch reeeeeaalll close, you will see there are swastikas everywhere. /sarc off
Now I see what li’l jim m was so afraid of! Those old ladies scared the bejeezes out of me!
Now we know. Li’l jim m is afraid of li’l old ladies. Case closed.
Progressivism is based primarily on cowardice.
The video is a little funny but not very original (Daily Show, Colbert Report). The only person who gets to say what they’re there for, the kid, is spectacularly ill informed.
Interviews with other anti reform demonstrators show them also to have been pumped full of nonsense. Health care reform will not:
* lead to a government takeover of Medicare (It’s already a government program)
* lead to forced euthanasia
* create death boards
* lead to rationing of health care (insurance companies already set care limits)
lgm and ilmc seem to be repeating the same talking points.
Can anyone say astroturfing???
lgm just woke up and logged in for his daily swoop and poop.
I think you’re a bit mistaken. We are not against reform. We are against an unconstitutional takeover of the healthcare system by the federal government.
*None of those bullet points are mentioned in the video.
*The kid is correct, the debt is mounting and he will be enslaved to it. Some day the bills must be paid. Someday the left’s free ride on the taxpayer’s back will end, its only a question of when and how.
It’s funny because there is a lot of truth to it:
As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday in Denver made the case for health care reform, outside the Stout Street Clinic was democratic pandemonium.
A woman circled the sidewalk outside the downtown homeless health resource center with megaphone in hand, “Health care, now,” she shouted.
Trailing close behind, an older man screamed in her ear, “Health care, no,” he yelled.
“I feel endangered,” said the woman. “I need more personal space.”
http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=5242
You got it? Whenever someone disagrees with you, they are endangering you.
I need much more personal space between me and the federal government.
So its okay for an obamabot to scream in your ear with a freaking MEGAPHONE, but you yelling back is “endangering” her???
You’re absolutely right about Medicare and Insurance companies. The problem is that Medicare costs much more than projected (an indicator if extreme inefficiency) and Insurance companies’ imposed limits are likely much higher than what gov’t imposed limits are likely to be.
Remember: we are being told that a large part of this gov’t initiative is to reduce costs. One verified way of doing that is to lower allowable limits. If you don’t think that’s what Obamachev has in store, I don’t think you’ve been listening to his words. That’s exactly what he’d like to do.
Forced euthanasia and death boards? Well, that does happen to be another way to reduce costs. And we know that in Western Europe people after a certain age do not receive expensive treatments, based on cost. This usually does lead to an earlier death. If your own parent were faced with one extra year or 5 extra years, which would you want for them? What is a year of life worth? Does anyone trust the gov’t to put a price on that? I know you don’t any more than I do, you’re a better man than that. But the road we are on I believe will lead to that.
Nice!
I need a reprieve from the overburdening expanding government. I NEED MY SPACE! (a line very popular with left, but applies nicely here)
lgm yesterday:
lgm today:
Ah, Salt, why do you embarrass lgm in front of his friends?
Oh, wait, his friends are on the kos site. Never mind.
Oh, give him a break. When you lie like a Clinton, it’s hard to keep them all straight.
Dead on, Salt.
and by the way…if competition is suddenly such a critical thing, why won’t they open up the Social Security market?
IMHO, health care is already rationed. It is rationed by the ability to pay.
LGM wants to take away Grandma’s unused health savings money, and give it to somebody he thinks might deserve it?
This nonsense should have been stopped when Bush had the White House and the Congress.
Instead, he gave corporate America millions of cheap laborers.
We are so screwed.
SHoward said (#21):
Thanks. It’s amazing how fast the temperature goes down when people are talking about the real issues.
I agree with you — this is a real worry. On the other side: lowering treatment limits will become a political issue, like closing army bases and car dealerships. We see that that’s not always so easy to do. Insurance companies might do it more.
Yes, but none of it is in any of the current bills. You can oppose them when they appear in next year’s bill.
We do so here too. Decisions are made by insurance companies and hospital executives. Life expectancy is longer in western Europe, by the way.
These decisions are not easy. If you use medical insurance to pay for health care (like almost all Americans), they are made by others already — insurance companies and hospital executives.
“Trust” and “government” don’t go together very well. But “trust” and “insurance company” is not a better fit. I think the government would do at least as well. They’re elected to have our interests in mind (but the “trust thing — oh well).
Salt: yesterday I said we already have de-facto rationing. Today I said so again. Go look for Waldo.
There is a reason many doctors will not take more than a few medicaid, medicare or tricare patients. I use tricare select. They billed tricare 54,000 for my twins stay in the NICU. Tricare paid 1/4 of that and the hospital can not bill me for more money. Good for me right? But there is a reason the orginal cost was 54,000. Because they have to cover the other 3/4 of the cost that they can’t recover from government paid insurances. So they get it from private insurances, or self pays.
This drives up the cost for everyone else. Thank you.
This is why government run healthcare will bankrupt many many many hospitals.
And the survival rate from cancer is far LOWER in western europe BTW.
Unless you are supporting government mandated life style choices, government controled healthcare will do nothing but drive down the cancer survival rate in this country.
Yet you are willing to bet your life on that. Werid.
How generous of you. Is there a schedule of when we are “allowed” to speak mein furhrer?
Go look for a hole.
“The problem is that Medicare costs much more than projected (an indicator if extreme inefficiency) and Insurance companies’ imposed limits are likely much higher than what gov’t imposed limits are likely to be.”
I want to add a different point of view about that statement. Yes Medicare management is more costly than the private sector. Absolutely. Yes there is Medicare fraud. Absolutely.
However when one says Medicare cost are too high, there is the assumption that the projected cost is accurate. And the poster made that point as well with the “projected…” cost phrase.
When the government says Medicare is costing too much, well, based on what? What gauge did they use to determine and conclude the “too much” in the “too much”. And it is of course their projections of what cost should be in their federal government medicare world.
And they are way wrong. Not only that but Medicare reimbursement is so low many providers won’t take medicare and don’t care to. I see patients in a nursing home in which the nursing home refuses to be a “medicare” facility. They are doing quite well too.
The point is whatever the current projection is for the cost of socialized medicine, it was WAY off. As frightening as the big numbers is that is being thrown around out there, that number isn’t even close. All one has to do is look at Medicare’s financial mess as evidence that the government has never demonstrated their projections are ever close.
You make some good points, for instance the idea that treatment limits will become a political hot potato. I would imagine, however, that the long-ensconced reps we have will have learned a thing or two from the base closings and install a “neutral party” to make decisions on treatments. (Like they had to do with the Base Closure Commission.)
I have to disagree on the idea that gov’t wouldn’t be any worse than an insurance company in making decisions. I have one thing with an insurance company that I don’t have with the gov’t: I can get a new provider. If the Obama “gov’t option” plan turns into the gov’t being the only provider left, all choice is gone. I do believe that will happen, because no company can compete with free, no matter how adept they are at business.
We are in agreement that “trust” and “government” don’t mix. Our founders knew that, but I fear that many of us have forgotten. Here’s an example, however, of where they can be used together in a sentence: “I do NOT trust the government to implement any kind of health care reform.”
And I have an honest question: Are accidents and homicides included in the overall life expectancy figures? You know better than I do how including irrelevant data can generate an incorrect conclusion based on a statistic. If we have more fatal accidents and more homicieds, the numbers are of course going to be skewed.
Back to the end of life issue: wasn’t Obama asked about a 100 y/o woman and a pacemaker? His solution would have been to not allow her to have it (inferred in his answer.) She got it and is still alive five or so years later. I know they aren’t in the bill now, but I question whether or not that means the gov’t won’t force people to accept less care by default.
“This drives up the cost for everyone else. Thank you.”
Perfect illustration as to why managed care was not real savings but cost shifting. In other words it was appearance and not substance. We should not be surprised.
Who said this?
“As the author of the first HMO bill ever to pass the Senate”
Ted Kennedy.
“the gov’t won’t force people to accept less care by default.”
Sorry but the answer to that question is “No”. The government will not force you to accept less care by default. As today the insurance company does not force you to take drugs that are only approved in their formulary or have procedures only approved by the insurance company.
IF you want the insurance company to pay for it, IF the government today pays for it as in Medicare, THEN you are limited to what they approve. The payment part does not control the delivery part. Never has, never will.
We already have a two tier system. I see it every day. If you want “X+Y” and the insurance company, Medicare, only pays for “X”, folks and families routinely pay the extra for “Y”.
The government will not control your health care. The government wants to control what parts of your health care they will pay for. Two very different things and folks who want to get upset about socialized medicine, of which I am one, confuse the two all the time.
This is why Obama can say, “We are not going to keep grandma from her pace maker…” Why insurance companies today can say, “We are not going to keep grandma from her boob job…” You can have whatever you want. IF you want the insurance companies to pay for it, you do it their way.
“Back to the end of life issue:”
At risk of all sorts of things, be careful here. The “end of life” stuff in the current legislation is not that bad. The problem is not the end of life stuff. The problem is the health care rationing stuff that will force people to face end of life issues instead of facing those issues by choice.
In the current legislation the health care rationing that will force people to face end of life issues is what needs to be the target of our outrage.
If you read the stuff that is specifically about end of life, it is very close to what is already in place.
People are getting upset of thinking the end of life stuff is forcing us to kill grandma. It does not. The health care rationing that has to be practiced will however.
Sen. Johnny Isakson, (R-GA)re: the so-called “death panels”
chap….
That’s a great link.
JS,
In both of your above posts I agree with you concerning the current law and proposed bill.
However, let’s not forget Hillarycare, the all-or-nothing attampt from 93-94. In that proposal (never made it to a bill), the gov’t would have controlled every facet of health care, including delivery. It would have been illegal for you to pay fee-for-service or buy drugs yourself, and for providers to take your money for services or drugs. That means precisely that gov’t would have controlled, and most likely limited, health care.
The end of life issue, no it is not currently in the bill, and I didn’t say it was, but the implication is that to control costs, certain things the gov’t doesn’t want to pay for it probably won’t, and if you cannot afford it, and your private insurance is gone due to trying to compete with the gov’t option, you’re pretty much screwed.
You’re right, js, right now the only thing on the table is the gov’t offering to pay for it, but I think we need to look farther down the road. Socialists certainly do, so we need to stay ahead of the curve.
SHoward said (#35):
Yes, life expectancy is the average time between birth and death, at birth.
True, they are. US health care is in some ways not as bad as it looks statistically because some of our shorter life expectancy is due to our higher murder rate. (Not a great selling point about the US, but that’s for another thread.) Other factors are that many Americans do not receive health care, for whatever reason (homelessness, …) .
There are lots of arguments back and forth about whose health care system is better based on statistics like life expectancy that can be (justifyably) nitpicked. Another figure is cancer survival — which seems higher in the US because (some say) old dying people in the US are treated for cancer when it’s not the thing killing them. I don’t know who is right in this. You can waste lots of time googling on this issue (I can tell you) and still not know.
Salt said (#42):
QED (as they say in my day job)
So, my cousin was right—-they do say that in the latrine-cleaning business.
I see. You find posting your previous comments to be insulting.
I think you got my point exactly. Alot of folks in this debate are using information that may not tell the whole story. For instance, do the two different styles of health care provision lead to two different rates of survival and quality of life? I don’t think we can know unless things not related to actual health care (fatal accidents, for example), are truly factored out.
No, the homicide rate isn’t a choice point when discussing health care, I agree. But it may skew the overall numbers, if we have higher instances of it than they do.
At least there is one thing: The current bill isn’t necessarily about going to that style of health care. I simply believe if the gov’t option is available for free, then private insurers aren’t going to be able to compete with it, and eventually we will get a de facto single payer system. If that happens, who knows what could be next.
As for google, I never seem to have any luck with that anyway. Maybe I just ask the wrong questions.
“The Debt Star” sign was CLASSIC!!!!!!
Where can I get a Debt Star poster? I think the conservatives are much more creative with the protest signs.
I also liked “Ration Government – Not Healthcare”
California Red – I don’t just want “The Debt Star” poster, I want a T-Shirt!!!! I agree about the creativity thing….
Oh THATS why LGM posted more than once today….
SHoward said ($47):
That’s for sure! The good ones have information that’s even part of the story. The bad ones, like Palin and Beck just make it up.
I agree. I think the bottom line, for normal people who are not policy wonks, is that European health care is more or less as good as ours. Maybe it’s slightly better in some ways and slightly worse in other ways.
Thank goodness some people here recognize this.
That’s not in the present proposals. People below a certain income level will get subsidized health insurance. They can use that to buy public option or private insurance. Everyone else has to pay (either directly or through their employers).
This is a real worry. The deck could be stacked against private insurers. All I can say about that is that there are plenty of people willing to pay for private school even though public school is free for everyone (which health insurance will not be).
You have to be under a certain age to use google effectively. My kids are better than I am. Look at Ezra Klein’s blog and people he links to. They seem to have lots of reliable health care information.
Re: information that may not tell the whole story. By all means, break down the bill and parse it line by line. Publicly, on CSPAN, as Obama promised, and let the debate begin. The opponents of they system seem to have a better handle on the bill than our so called representatives.
The only way to find out the relative survival/quality of life issues is to do it, and I, for one, do not wish to be a guinea pig for the government. If one observes the other government health care systems around the world, you can see that rationing is a factor, as individuals do with “free” health care what they do with anything else that is free: abuse it and essentially gorge themselves.
Why not do the reasonable thing and apply it to a small representative system? I suggest California. As an addendum, require that all politicians, federal workers, and union members be made part of the proposed system. It is good to have skin in the game. Secondly, take care of the truly poor and uninsurable (maybe 10-15 million people by most estimations; not illegals and those who just choose not to buy insurance) which will cost a fraction of the money Obama is proposing, and stop the deficit tsunami that he is creating by trying to overturn the whole system. Thirdly, take the government completely out of private insurance, no unfunded mandates, price and cost restrictions, interstate restrictions etc.) Let the public system compete on its own as Obama says, with no additional tax costs to the citizens, and let the insurance companies compete as best they can. People vote with their feet.
Aren’t you dead after a homicide? What has this to do with health care/insurance?
“..isn’t necessarily..” are weasel words. Politicians rarely consider the long term implications of their legislation. “Free” is not accurate either, when the government is both player and referee, and can arbitrarily raise taxes or print the money it needs, which the private systems cannot.
More words = more specific searches, less is more. Use quotes to get specific phrases. Wander around in it. You will pick it up faster than you think.
Inherent problems with your statement: public school is not free. In my town it is the largest budget item. People that pay for private school also pay for the public school, even though their children are not in the system. They pay twice. In the same way, public health care will not be free (see CBO projections), and those that want better care, analogous to the private school example above, will pay on top of the public system.
Double jeopardy for tax payers, if you will. Tax money for students and citizens buying health care should follow the person. For some reason, the unions and Democrats fight that tooth and nail. Let’s see if they do likewise with health insurance.
Is this a new federal law lgm?
Because you just have to be semi-literate to use the embarrassingly left leaning Google effectively… that is if you’re smarter than a 7 year old.
Some thoughts on the above posts:
Dimsdale, I’m with you perhaps more than you think. What I was arguing was exactly that I don’t want to be part of this, and I don’t want to pay for what will turn into another example of government costs out of control. As LGM put it earlier, trust and government are two words that don’t go together. And I agree completely on the fact that it isn’t actually free, anyway, no matter how you slice it.
Regarding the statistic including homicide, if the overall life span numbers include homicide and fatal accidents, you really can’t use them to compare the quality of health care systems. You’d want to get something like life spans excluding accident or homicide.
The current bill doesn’t go right into a european style of single payer health care, that much is true. I do believe it will lead to that, but not off the bat. I think Obama is smarter than that: he knows what happened when Hillary went for it all at once.
However, just today I listened to a replay of Obama saying in 2003 that he definitely favored a single payer system. LGM, I hope you can see why I distrust this whole nonsense about any gov’t sponsored “reform.”
LGM, I’ll agree that if you compared service for service, their doctors (euro) are as good as ours, and they have the same technology available. I happen to believe that rationing will occur, as I think Dimsdale pointed out. Maybe not right away, but I still think it would come sooner or later. As you have pointed out, we really already have it, just not nearly as bad.
Case in point: Several weeks ago I required a calcium score. My cardiologist sent me to the imaging lab, where I got right in (same day) and had the scan run. I honestly believe that in the Obama vision for health care that wouldn’t happen. I’d be on a waiting list. And that is supported by anectdotal evidence from Europe and Canada. Maybe a calcium score isn’t life saving surgery, but there is anecdotal evidence that people over there are waiting for that, too.
PKAmmoTroop, I’m the one that can’t seem to get GOOG to cooperate. I think LGM was adding some levity.
Although you may have a point: perhaps I lean too far to the right when I enter a search…
You don’t know what health care reform will or will not since there’s no final bill.
There’s merely one bill to have worked it’s way out of committee in the House. If reform starts gaining steam, then the kitchen sink will be inserted!
Meaningless information.
Please email your representatives in congress the following:
~~~
~~~
I am requesting that you sponsor the following amendment to the health care bill.
If you cannot support the below amendment then you cannot in good conscious vote to approve this bill.
1) UPON THE PASSAGE OF NATIONAL HEALTH CARE BILL IT IS RESOLVED THAT ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE REQUIRED TO BE SOLELY COVERED BY THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDED HEALTH CARE PLAN.
2) CONGRESS AND THEIR FAMILIES MAY NOT HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INSURANCE PLAN OR PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM APPLIED TO THEM EVEN IF THEY PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This health care plan does not look so good when YOU and YOUR FAMILY are forced to live by the same rules you are planning to force on the rest of us.