I love Jimmy Carter

[TotallyOz]

He does say what the thinks. He has said that Joe Wilson's outburst was based on Racism and nothing to do with the Health Care debate. What do you think? Racists? Just plain stupid? Acceptable?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/us/polit...arter.html?_r=1

“I think it’s based on racism,” Mr. Carter said at a town-hall-style meeting at his presidential center in Atlanta. “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”

Mr. Carter, a Democrat, said the outburst was a part of a disturbing trend directed at the president that has included demonstrators comparing him to Nazi leaders.

“Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care,” he said. “It’s deeper than that.”

Mr. Wilson’s spokesman was not immediately available for comment. But his eldest son, Alan, defended him, saying, “There is not a racist bone in my dad’s body.”

[JKane]

"There's not a racist bone in my dad's body."

Not even when Senator Craig had him bent over the sink in the congressional restroom?

[caeron]

Look at the number of birthers. I think there is a large pool of folks who do object to a black president. I think many republicans are happy to draw on that poisonous attitudes whether they believe it or not. They may not be racist, but they're happy to enjoy the fruits of racism.

[Guest Conway]

The again, maybe there are those of us who are legitimately concerned about adding the cost of health care to the deficit which is already $2.7 trillion.

If that makes me a racist, feel free to call me one. Personally, I think that the American left finds it easier to label me than to explain to me how it intends to fund this program without taxing me.

[RA1]

Where did you get the idea that either party or any proposed "health plan" will not tax you severely?

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest Conway]

I guess those White House statements issued as recently as August would be the first place:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...75BC0A96F9C8B63

[MsGuy]

If anything I have been surprised how well having an African-American president has gone down with white folks in my small Mississippi town. No they haven't suddenly turned liberal but their opposition seems to center more on his policies than his race. We do have our share of birther/teaparty types and with those guys I do detect a good bit of racism in their anger. Could be that folks are just holding back to be polite around me, but, if so, they are doing a good job of pretending.

Whether Wilson is an asshole flamer, a racist asshole flamer or a clever politician playing to his district is an open question.

[RA1]

Conway-

As I think you very well know, any time the government is involved, there will be increased costs. That always means more taxes. The government doesn't do any thing to generate revenue or make a profit except levy taxes.

MsGuy-

Your post just generally describes pols of every description, doesn't it?

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

MsGuy-

Your post just generally describes pols of every description, doesn't it?

Best regards,

RA1

Not at all. What of the dummies, the loonies, the clueless et al. ? Of course, just as with asshole and racist, the categories are not mutually exclusive.

[Guest Conway]

Conway-

As I think you very well know, any time the government is involved, there will be increased costs. That always means more taxes. The government doesn't do any thing to generate revenue or make a profit except levy taxes.

MsGuy-

Your post just generally describes pols of every description, doesn't it?

Best regards,

RA1

I agree. I'm more infuriated by the claim than bamboozled by it. I don't know anyone whose opposed to the concept of good health care for all. But, as a responsible citizen who believes that this program will leave debt for generation of Americans to come, I think that we're entitled to something other than spin when we ask how its going to be paid for if passed into law.

[MsGuy]

I agree. I'm more infuriated by the claim than bamboozled by it. I don't know anyone whose opposed to the concept of good health care for all. But, as a responsible citizen who believes that this program will leave debt for generation of Americans to come, I think that we're entitled to something other than spin when we ask how its going to be paid for if passed into law.

The current health care load on the economy is north of $7,500 per capita and climbing a lot faster than the general economy is expanding. Doesn't make one whit of difference whether that load is paid for by government, by business firms, by individuals or by charities, the burden to the economy is the same; it's a tax of one dollar in six on economic output (heading fast toward one in five) levied by our health care system.

We need good health care for all citizens and we need it at a cost that doesn't cripple the U.S. economy. Somehow every other developed country in the world has managed to achieve both those goals. Most do it by some sort of single payer system for basic health care combined with bells and whistles for those who can pay extra either through private insurance or out of pocket.

[Guest Conway]

The current health care load on the economy is north of $7,500 per capita and climbing a lot faster than the general economy is expanding. Doesn't make one whit of difference whether that load is paid for by government, by business firms, by individuals or by charities, the burden to the economy is the same; it's a tax of one dollar in six on economic output (heading fast toward one in five) levied by our health care system.

We need good health care for all citizens and we need it at a cost that doesn't cripple the U.S. economy. Somehow every other developed country in the world has managed to achieve both those goals. Most do it by some sort of single payer system for basic health care combined with bells and whistles for those who can pay extra either through private insurance or out of pocket.

My opinion is that a great deal of the cost that we incur that other countries don't is related to tort claims and the defensive medicine that so many doctorrs practice to defend themselves from tort claims.

In my mind, it seems logical that we could reduce costs significantly by placing some legislative limitations on tort claims. By doing that, the costs savings could be passed on in the form of lower premiums to privately funded insurance participants. That seems a far more cost effective fix than nationalizing and entire industry and subjecting 85% of the privately insured population who are happy with their coverage to a government controlled and managed insurance product.

But, as Howard Dean said recently when asked about tort reform:

"This is the answer from a doctor and a politician. Here’s why tort reform is not in the bill. When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that, the more stuff you put in it, the more enemies you make, right? And the reason that tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everyone else they were taking on. And that is the plain and simple truth."

The fact that lawmakers don't have the sack to take on the trial lawyer lobby isn't a reasonable excuse for avoiding tort reform when you're trying to convince me that we should nationalize the entire health care industry.

[JKane]

The fact that lawmakers don't have the sack to take on the trial lawyer lobby isn't a reasonable excuse for avoiding tort reform when you're trying to convince me that we should nationalize the entire health care industry.

The lawmakers don't have the sack to take on anybody as the Bacchus bill shows. I will never understand why THE FUCK Obama didn't use his initial popularity to pass significant campaign finance reform--possibly with McCain's help.

Think about how much easier Heathcare reform would be if the top donors to the FUD commercials had to be named personally instead of hiding behind BS PAC names. If Senators and Congressmen knew that their next campaign was going to rely on public funds and maybe a max of $250 from *individuals*.

Hell, we could've even enacted real banking reform laws within A YEAR OF BANKS KILLING THE ECONOMY.

/rant

[caeron]

As long as we treat groups and corporations as people, we're going to have this problem. There is nothing in the constitution that suggests that the free speech rights that individuals have need to apply to corporations or groups. It is now the law of the land, but I think it has resulted in the confused issues of acceptable campaign speech that we now have.

[Guest Conway]

The lawmakers don't have the sack to take on anybody as the Bacchus bill shows. I will never understand why THE FUCK Obama didn't use his initial popularity to pass significant campaign finance reform--possibly with McCain's help.

Think about how much easier Heathcare reform would be if the top donors to the FUD commercials had to be named personally instead of hiding behind BS PAC names. If Senators and Congressmen knew that their next campaign was going to rely on public funds and maybe a max of $250 from *individuals*.

Hell, we could've even enacted real banking reform laws within A YEAR OF BANKS KILLING THE ECONOMY.

/rant

Come on, now. If ever there was an issue where there is real grassroots anger in middle America, this is it. These people aren't stupid. They're asking the same legitimate questions that I have and are getting the same generalized political bullshit from both the administration and their members of Congress.

Elections are won and lost in the middle of the political spectrum. If the Democrats pass this legislation deceptively without a full vote of the house, as some are speculating they will, they will pay dearly, from an election perspective in 2010 with the middle political voters.

[RA1]

And people wonder why I propose and support sunshine laws, term limits and sun set laws. It amazes me how this can be when one looks at the current state of the "political USA".

Best regards,

RA1