Skip to content

Rep. Grayson says Republicans Want Sick People to “Die Quickly” in a “Holocaust”

October 1, 2009

art.grayson.housetv

Congressman Alan Grayson, Democrat from Florida, has garnered a lot of media attention as a result of his outlandish statements about Republicans who are opposed to a leftist government takeover of healthcare. From the floor of the House — on CSPAN for all to see — he claimed that the Republican plan for healthcare consists of nothing more than advising the uninsured to not get sick, and telling those who do fall ill that “[we] want you to die quickly.”

Grayson is so proud of his speech and the criticism it generated, that he posted it on his own Youtube site!

His horrible speech was condemned by Republicans and even by some on the left. Many called for Grayson to apologize.  So he went back to the House floor but then refused to apologize.  However he didn’t just refuse. He decided also to offend Jews all over the world by comparing some Americans’ inability to afford health insurance to a “holocaust.”  I guess he didn’t get the memo that you don’t use the extermination of the Jews by Nazi Germany as an illustration for pretty much anything that doesn’t involve millions of people being murdered.  Again, though his words were shameful, he has proudly placed the video on Youtube:

Even left-wing MSNBC host Rachel Maddow called out Grayson for using “inflammatory rhetoric.” In an interview with the congressman, she gave him three chances to apologize for his use of the word “holocaust,” and he never did!  Congrats to Maddow for drawing attention to this despicable display (even though Maddow tried to deflate the criticism by providing Republican examples of “inflammatory rhetoric”).

Here is Grayson trying to make  his case on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer:

Grayson claims on this video that his real goal is “to work together [with Republicans] to solve problems.”  Yet he yells repeatedly that Republicans have no viable healthcare plans.  Then, when Republican spokesman Alex Castellanos starts to actually explain the Republican proposals, Grayson simply shouts him down.  He even calls Republicans “Neanderthals,” and then explains he isn’t really name-calling because his charges are true.

My only guess is that Grayson saw the money that Congressman Joe Wilson made for his campaign with his controversial shout of “you lie” during President Obama‘s recent speech. It appears Grayson decided the best way to jumpstart his own fundraising efforts for his next campaign was to make a fool of himself in as many public venues as possible. How else do you explain him proudly posting all these videos on his own Youtube site which provides links for donors who would like to contribute to his campaign?

Advertisements
54 Comments
  1. In the know permalink
    October 1, 2009 7:33 am

    Grayson ran on a conservative, reform platform. He duped a significant number of conservatives into voting for him based upon a campaign that focused on “cleaning up waste and fraud” in D.C. He shamelessly accused military contractors of endangering U.S. ground troops through fraud. He has proven that he is a liar and not to be trusted. That was obvious to those of us who did a little more research beyond watching his campaign ads. I admit contractor fraud exists, however, it is the responsibilty of CONGRESS to provide oversight (thats for Lance). He is a freshman tool of Nancy.

  2. David Forsmark permalink
    October 1, 2009 7:44 am

    Has anyone seen an analysis of this fishy “study” Grayson is using to justify his “holocaust” claim? Just off the top of my head, it seems like it quantifies the unprovable…

    • jbtrevor permalink
      October 1, 2009 12:57 pm

      Here’s my analysis of the study – Useless! Why? Read the “limitations” provided by the authors near the end of the study.

      Julie

      http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths/

      • David Forsmark permalink
        October 1, 2009 4:38 pm

        Thanks Julie! I feel a post coming on… too many good targets today.

    • Mike permalink
      October 2, 2009 1:27 am

      The study was done by one of the major hospitals in the northeast, though the name isn’t coming to me right now.

      About 14,000 people in the USA die each month due to lack of insurance or their insurance companies messing around with them with denials, etc., that often aren’t even true. However, you can have the best insurance a major hospital in Louisville, Kentucky, offers; and still spend $20,000 out of pocket in a year with no major surgeries or hospitalizations. There is something wrong with that.

      I do fault Grayson for his Holocaust remark. I think he was mostly trying to get attention in the whole thing.

      At the same time, the only solutions I have heard from MANY Republicans is more of the same which equates to do what Grayson says here:
      Don’t get sick.
      If you do get sick,
      then die.

      There is a solution that includes the Republican Party, though. Just get really rich or elected to congress; and you’ll be able to afford health care and NOT die.

      This is an ethical call to justice. So far the Democrats and Republicans are both siding with the health care industry, though. We’ll probably get a bill; but if it isn’t changed it will just enrich the Insurance and Drug companies and BOTH raise taxes AND make for increased insurance costs.

  3. Pops permalink
    October 1, 2009 9:00 am

    Has he seen the latest numbers on the holocaust of abortion that his party has supported.
    He will have to discuss that one with his Maker

    • Swemson permalink
      October 1, 2009 10:55 am

      “the holocaust of abortion” ???

      Try to engage your brain before you open your mouth…

      If you don’t like abortion, then don’t have one.. but equating a woman who chooses to have an abortion with a Hitler, you show how hateful and bigoted people who lack religious intolerance can be…

      • Paul Cooper permalink
        October 1, 2009 1:29 pm

        Swemson, no where does “pops” say that the women who have the abortions are the Hitler in the case of abortions. He might think abortion providers who make profit from their uses of salt poisoning and knives are. I don’t know. You didn’t even ask him.
        And then you attack “pops” as hateful and bigoted. Try to be a little kinder instead of coming off like the person in the discussion who seems hateful and bigoted. We don’t need personal attacks. And I’d encourage you to see Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled”. It makes comparisons with the holocaust and abortion too. And he’s someone who “engages [his] brain”.

        Try to debate the issue instead of just attacking the person.

        • Swemson permalink
          October 1, 2009 6:22 pm

          LOL…

          Again you and Pops (in his posting below) assume that I’m a leftist, when I’m not…

          He wrote:

          “Has he seen the latest numbers on the holocaust of abortion that his party has supported.”

          BY USING THE WORD HOLOCAUST, Pops shows that he’s the one with the hatred for anyone who defies his interpretation of what god’s will is…

          If abortion is a holocaust, then of necessity, he’s blaming the women.. they’re the ones who make the decisions about THEIR bodies.. not the doctors or the politicians… And… you might remember, abortion happens to be LEGAL, in this country…

          But as has happened several times before on Newsreel, whenever I say anything that challenges religious dogma, rather than arguing why I’m wrong, they attack me personally for being bigoted and intolerant…. and most surprisingly they call me a leftist, when in fact I’m a libertarian who advocates PURE LAISSEZ FAIR CAPITALISM…

          Part of the reason for why they attack and hate me so is that there IS no rational basis on which they can argue their cause.. but that’s not the real issue here.

          Now please show me how the way the religious folks immediately call me a hate filled bigot, is ANY different than the way that the far left immediately brands anyone who says ANYTHING negative about BHO a racist…

          Same reason… it’s because they have no rational basis on which they can argue their cause..

          No Paul.. I’m not the hate filled bigot here, it’s the religious folks who attack me who are the hate filled bigots simply because I DARE to challenge their ”HOLY” beliefs.. and THAT’S why I continue to INTENTIONALLY stir the pot to bring religious hatred and bigotry out into the open for all to see…

          I’ve never hated religious folks.. (well except for the mullahs in Iran of course…. and maybe Jim & Tammy Faye….), if I did, I would have been compelled to hate my grandparents and more than 50 % of my friends… and why should I hate them ?… they pose no threat to me…

          But THEY all HATE me, because the very idea that someone doesn’t buy into their “sacred” fairy tales and their silly superstitions, makes them question the foundation of their own beliefs, and that’s simply too horrid and idea for them to even contemplate..

          • Swemson permalink
            October 1, 2009 7:24 pm

            WHOOPS !

            Big typo there (2 posts up)

            When I said:

            “you show how hateful and bigoted people who lack religious intolerance can be…”

            I meant to say:

            “you show how hateful and bigoted people who lack religious TOLERANCE can be…

            Sorry about that…

          • Paul Cooper permalink
            October 3, 2009 3:44 pm

            Swenson – I never implied any assumption that you were a leftist. It’s hard to discuss something with you if you are not going to read what I write and then make up my side of the argument for me.

      • October 1, 2009 5:08 pm

        “you show how hateful and bigoted people who lack religious intolerance can be…”

        Uh, Swemson, your Freudian slip is showing.

  4. Pops permalink
    October 1, 2009 3:47 pm

    Thank you Paul…as you can see when the left disagrees, it is all emotion and attack with a slander……it is hypocritical of them to be against the death penalty etc and not against the murder of an innocent….they talk about social justice but when the unborn get in the way, just do away with it….it is a life and you take it…you should decide before you get in the sack (men and women) before you do the deed that creates a life…if you are not willing to take responsibility, grow up first….I do not know if you are a female or male but just in case you are a female, real feminists do not believe in the killing of innocents….check out what Susan B Anthony and others like her believed….swemson, do you know any women that have aborted a child…do they have any suffering from it….one dead and one wounded…
    if they have not felt any conscience then you better check their temperature, they are dead inside…..not only that, do you know how many lives have been sacrificed at the altar of “Do it if it feels good”? 51 million….may God have mercy on you and those that support this holocaust…..even murderers get lawyers, the innocent unborn get instant death penalty…

    • In the know permalink
      October 2, 2009 12:25 pm

      In defense of Swemson, he is not a leftist at all. I believe he is an Athiest. However, he does tend to go off on religious people. I am religious but very Libertarian, so I believe in the whole freedom from and too concept. I think if we spend our time scanning for the 1% of an allies opinion we disagree with, we jeopardize our cause.

      • Swemson permalink
        October 2, 2009 1:01 pm

        Thanks… you’re exactly right…

        And please remember everyone that Atheists do not claim that there is no god.. they simply say that they have never seen any evidence to support the idea that there is one…

        If Atheists come to the same moral and ethical conclusions that religious people do, then there’s no reason why they can’t all be friends and neighbors.

        Our founding fathers built our country on the foundation of the absolute sanctity of INDIVIDUAL rights.

        That’s the key… so I don’t care if 99% of the people in this country believe that abortion is a sin.. they still have NO right to tell the other 1% of the people how to live…

        The ONLY time that the govt has the right to prohibit an individual’s behavior, is when the individual’s behavior negatively impacts on OTHER people’s freedoms, liberties and property…

        Part of religious freedom includes freedom FROM religion….

        Believe whatever you want… but don’t ever TRY to tell me what you think I should believe…

  5. Fritz Becker permalink
    October 1, 2009 7:52 pm

    A little off topic to be certain but one of many things that surfaces from time to time on the pro abortion side is their propensity towards advocating eugenics. In other words arguing that abortion is an effective method for eliminating “undesirable persons” from society, they aren’t always up front about this but it does slip out from time to time. As always they have insisted that a fetus is not a human being, some comparing a fetus to a cancer or an “inert” mass of tissue, that way it isn’t killing it’s a routine surgical procedure. This has happened to the victims of every atrocity and genocide throughout human history, the target group is reduced to becoming sub human, compared to rodents, an infestation, a disease, including the Jews and the Holocaust. That much they do have in common with Adolph Hitler, in fact Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, a prominent activist in the eugenics movement and the inspiration for Hitler’s eugenics policies through the 1930s and 40s.

    • Swemson permalink
      October 1, 2009 8:32 pm

      FRITZ:

      That some advocates for abortion WERE also advocates of eugenics, is absolutely true, but IF you’re implying that all who favor A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE are advocates for eugenics then you are totally out of line…

      I believe that I’m typical of many on the subject in that I don’t approve or disapprove of abortion. What I disapprove of is people who are against abortion trying to influence others to act according to their beliefs, and what’s MOST offensive to me is when they try to enact laws to force their ideas on the rest of society.

      The bottom line for me is that the decision is 100% up to the woman involved, and neither I nor anyone else have any business interfering with her decision….

      In a way, this reminds me of the way that the liberal intelligentsia castigated William Shockley back in the 70’s & 80’s for his theory of dysgenics…. To this day, almost everyone refers to him as a racist, and it’s totally unjustified….

      • jbtrevor permalink
        October 2, 2009 3:35 am

        “The bottom line for me is that the decision is 100% up to the woman involved,”

        Why only the woman? Why doesn’t the male involved have a choice?

        • Swemson permalink
          October 2, 2009 11:40 am

          If a married couple with lots of children gets pregnant again, and decides that they don’t want another child, then in the vast majority of cases, the husband will probably be involved in the decision… but the ultimate decision comes down to the woman… it’s her body after all.

          Many anti-abortionists refer to it as murder… Like it or not, a fetus is not legally a person… that’s why we say “abort a fetus” rather than “kill a fetus”

          I know this is a big deal to lots of you, and I totally respect your right to feel the way you do… But I DO NOT respect your practice of trying to tell others what to do…..

          I think it was Robin Williams who once said that the right way to get the anti abortion people to mind their own business, is to make them adopt and raise all the damaged crack babies that they’re trying to protect…

          The decision to abort a fetus is usually a difficult, painful and emotional ordeal for women, and they don’t need outsiders to lay additional guilt trips on them while in that situation….

          It’s HER body…

          It’s HER decision…

          It’s called freedom of religion folks…. learn to live with it, because there’s no way in hell that you’re ever going force your beliefs on everyone, and you have NO damn business even trying…

          • jbtrevor permalink
            October 2, 2009 1:27 pm

            Swemson said:

            “But I DO NOT respect your practice of trying to tell others what to do”

            My post did not do that, I simply asked “Why doesn’t the male involved have a choice?”
            I’ll rephrase the question – Why can’t men choose reproductive rights. Why can’t they get their half of the “products of conception” back?

            Julie

            • Swemson permalink
              October 2, 2009 2:06 pm

              Julie, I never meant to imply that YOU were doing that… I was speaking about VERY religious people in general…

              “Why can’t men choose reproductive rights. Why can’t they get their half of the “products of conception” back?”

              Well they can of course choose NOT to have children by having their tubes tied….. but that doesn’t apply to the other side of the debate.

              It’s a VERY interesting question……. I’m not sure why they can’t, but in the real world they actually can’t…..

              Let’s see:

              In the case of an accidental pregnancy when the parents are NOT married… In the early stages of the pregnancy, if the woman wants to abort, it’s not like they can give the fetus to the man to nurture….

              I think it becomes more complicated once the fetus is nearing the end of it’s development, I may be wrong, but I think that there isn’t all that much difference between taking the fetus as a premie by c-section and a late term abortion…

              Practically speaking of course, in the case of MOST unmarried young folks in this position, the father is rarely in a position to care for the child if the mother doesn’t want it….

              I just don’t know the answer Julie.. It’s VERY hard for a male to truly and objectively understand all of the nuances of what a woman goes through in this situation, and frankly I don’t think that this can even be decided by men at all.

              My gut feeling is simply that the opinion of the woman who’s bearing the fetus is the only one that really counts…

              If I think up a better answer I’ll let you know

              • jbtrevor permalink
                October 2, 2009 2:32 pm

                Swemson, does it bother you that only the woman’s opinion counts?
                Julie

                • Swemson permalink
                  October 2, 2009 4:31 pm

                  Not really..

                  I can only tell you my personal perspective.

                  If I and a lady friend decided we wanted to have a child now, we’d have to sit down, and discuss all of the ramifications of the situation… It would be something that we would do together.

                  But one of the things that I’ve learned in life, is that I’ll never truly understand women 🙂

                  Therefore, if she got pregnant and then she changed her mind, I don’t think it would be a good idea for us to bring a child into the world, unless we both wanted it together…

                  I may be disappointed and sad, but it’s still her body, and I don’t think that a man can ever truly understand what having a child actually means to a woman…

                  Men & women are simply different, and yes, it’s quite obvious to me that women are the superior of the two …

                  • theblanque permalink
                    October 3, 2009 11:42 am

                    Men & women are simply different, and yes, it’s quite obvious to me that women are the superior of the two …

                    For someone who claims to be a libertarian, and who castigates others for following dogmas, you adhere to Leftist feminist dogma quite closely.

                    Exactly how are women superior to men? How can you claim to believe in “absolute individual rights” while at the same time superior rights to an entire gender?

                • Swemson permalink
                  October 3, 2009 1:39 pm

                  I was replying, tongue in cheek, to Julie’s question

                  Had I not been joking however, and was trying to answer your question seriously, I’d say that I WASN’T talking about women’s RIGHTS.. but rather their capabilities….

                  I can’t think of anything that men can do that women can’t… and it’s pretty obvious that men can’t do everything that women can…

                  Interestingly, many science fiction writers, suggest that women will one day be recognized to be better than men in other areas, such as quicker reflexes and faster reaction times…

                  It’s SciFi of course, but those guys have typically been prescient on many subjects…

                  • theblanque permalink
                    October 3, 2009 8:50 pm

                    “Tongue in cheek”? Are any of your responses serious?

                    Had I not been joking however, and was trying to answer your question seriously, I’d say that I WASN’T talking about women’s RIGHTS.. but rather their capabilities….

                    Ah, but you have– when you stated the following:

                    The decision to abort a fetus is usually a difficult, painful and emotional ordeal for women, and they don’t need outsiders to lay additional guilt trips on them while in that situation….

                    It’s HER body…

                    It’s HER decision…

                    Here you grant the superior right of deciding whether a child shall be born to an entire gender, while at the same time claiming this:

                    and most surprisingly they call me a leftist, when in fact I’m a libertarian who advocates PURE LAISSEZ FAIR CAPITALISM…

                    How, exactly do you reconcile the two contradictory statements?

                    Interestingly, many science fiction writers, suggest that women will one day be recognized to be better than men in other areas, such as quicker reflexes and faster reaction times…

                    Science fiction writers–your appeal to the authority of speculative thinkers doesn’t answer the question: Exactly how are women superior to men?

                  • Swemson permalink
                    October 4, 2009 1:31 am

                    Your questions are ABSURD…

                    I DON’T GRANT THE RIGHT… because it’s not mine to grant !

                    Of course it’s the WOMAN’S right to choose because it’s HER body that we’re talking about…If you get pregnant, then it will be your right to make the decision..

                    And there’s NOTHING contradictory about that position and Libertarian thought…

                    LIBERTARIAN…. think about the word… it has something to do with LIBERTY… and more specifically INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES… & that means that everyone is free to decide what’s good for them, and that includes THEIR bodies…

                    The second you give any rights on this issue to men, or ANY third party, you’re taking a fundamental right away from the woman involved…

                    “Exactly how are women superior to men?”

                    Well for one thing they can create life which perpetuates the species…

                  • theblanque permalink
                    October 4, 2009 3:57 pm

                    Well for one thing they can create life which perpetuates the species…

                    Except they don’t; humanity does not reproduce by parthogenesis. Both men and women are needed for the creation of human life. That’s basic human biology.

                    Your assertion that “it’s a woman’s body” is nothing more than Leftist feminist dogma, and ignores a man’s part in the perpetuation of life. You deny men their fundamental right–even though they are equal contributors!–and conveys it entirely on women.

                    What’s libertarian about that?

                  • Swemson permalink
                    October 4, 2009 4:55 pm

                    I don’t deny that the husband’s should be heard… But we wouldn’t be having a debate about this if all we were referring to is married couples with normal relationships…

                    Most of the examples that the abortion debate is referring to involve single women, some of whom don’t even know who the father is..

                    And the real crux of the issue is that many religious people are so adamant about abortion being such a heinous sin, that they believe they have the right to stop a woman from making that choice.

                    They DON’T.. it’s none of their business..

                    As an atheist, I could easily make the counter argument that it’s not fair to the children for a poor woman with no resources, to keep bringing children into the world that she is incapable of caring for, and when religious loons try to pass laws prohibiting abortion, they’re also forcing people like me to pay for the child’s support in this welfare state we’re living in…

                    But since their position is based on their religious convictions, forcing others to live according to their beliefs is unconstitutional… which is another reason why I think everyone should obey George Carlin’s new commandment.

                    “KEEP THINE RELIGION TO THINE SELF”

                  • theblanque permalink
                    October 5, 2009 4:44 pm

                    I don’t deny that the husband’s should be heard… But we wouldn’t be having a debate about this if all we were referring to is married couples with normal relationships…

                    None of which changes the fact that the man still has no say on the life of his progeny–only the woman. And you’re ok with that.

                    As an atheist, I could easily make the counter argument that it’s not fair to the children for a poor woman with no resources, to keep bringing children into the world that she is incapable of caring for, and when religious loons try to pass laws prohibiting abortion, they’re also forcing people like me to pay for the child’s support in this welfare state we’re living in…

                    An argument that ignores the possibility that such children could rise above their circumstances to become contributors to society; and your welfare state exists with the legality of abortion–and expanded enormously since the Roe vs. Wade decision.

                    But since their position is based on their religious convictions, forcing others to live according to their beliefs is unconstitutional… which is another reason why I think everyone should obey George Carlin’s new commandment.

                    “KEEP THINE RELIGION TO THINE SELF”

                    And there you are, attempting to force your beliefs on others.

                  • Swemson permalink
                    October 5, 2009 5:52 pm

                    You write:
                    —————————————————–
                    “An argument that ignores the possibility that such children could rise above their circumstances to become contributors to society; and your welfare state exists with the legality of abortion–and expanded enormously since the Roe vs. Wade decision.”
                    —————————————————–
                    The idea “that such children could rise above their circumstances to become contributors to society” is totally irrelevant to my point, which is simply that I don’t want to have to pay for the upbringing of all those unwanted fetus’s, and in a free country, I have no legal or ethical responsibility to do so. This current welfare state makes me pay the bill if the fetus is not aborted… So IF i have a choice in the matter, I vote to abort… simply because I don’t want to pay the bill.

                    And then, after I say “I think everyone should obey George Carlin’s new commandment.”

                    “KEEP THINE RELIGION TO THINE SELF”

                    You write:
                    —————————————————–
                    “And there you are, attempting to force your beliefs on others.”
                    —————————————————–

                    And herein your HYPOCRISY, DISHONESTY AND RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY AND HATE is displayed for all to see.

                    I stated my OPINION, that people should KEEP their religious views private…

                    HOW SIR, BY WHAT I SAID ABOVE, AM I TRYING TO FORCE ANYTHING ON OTHERS ?

                    It’s you religious loons who want to pass laws prohibiting things that YOU consider SINFUL, that are trying to FORCE your beliefs onto others. I’m just the guy standing up and saying that you have NO RIGHT TO DO THAT !

                    So you can spin the truth any way you want to, the FACT remains that you have NO RIGHT TO INTERFERE IN THE PRIVATE MATTERS OF OTHERS THAT DON’T AFFECT YOU ONE BIT…. SO………

                    MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS !!!

  6. Mike permalink
    October 2, 2009 1:30 am

    Here’s the link showing the 45,000 per year death toll.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE58G6W520090917

    • jbtrevor permalink
      October 2, 2009 1:30 pm

      Mike the high IQ guy,

      Why don’t you read the study itself and pay particular attention to the “limitations” section the authors provide.
      Reuters obviously didn’t read it..I would have thought someone with a high IQ who in one of your posts said you do your own research, would do just that…

      Or do you prefer to have all your opinions formed by Reuters and other media?
      Julie

      • In the know permalink
        October 2, 2009 2:12 pm

        Mike is a code pink troll. His assertions are assumptive and he repeats talking points incessantly. Let’s see. Bush lied people died, no blood for oil, 45000 people die every second without socialist healthcare, mercenaries are killing innocent terrorists, ets… Remember the “Don’t attack Iran” campaign. I’m so glad that one worked, aren’t you?

  7. Judy permalink
    October 2, 2009 3:51 am

    Swemson, many feel that the death of an innocent child is not a choice for the woman. What is the choice of the child?Having spoken with women that have had an abortion, I can tell you that they are indeed horrified at their decision and that the anguish is life-long. Obama advisor’s Sunstein and Holdren already refer to humans as eco-tumors and eco-malignancies.The drum beat march towards a culture of death in this country is deafening.If a 3 pound baby is born today it stands an excellent chance of survival with a normal life. What makes aborting a 3 pound baby ok? The difference between the two is location.Why provide medical care to a baby born with Down Syndome? a 3 pound baby that could be argued was born by a natural abortion since it was not full-term? other genetic abnormalities? We have entered a place where the value of human life is subjective and cheap.

    • Swemson permalink
      October 2, 2009 11:48 am

      Judy

      “Swemson, many feel that the death of an innocent child is not a choice for the woman”

      Then people who feel that way shouldn’t have abortions….

      END OF STORY…

      This is (or once was) a free country, and everyone is free to make these decisions for themselves………

      I had dinner the other night with some friends & learned that the wife was pregnant.. I was very happy for them, but there were ONLY THREE people at the table, NOT FOUR!

      What OTHER people do is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS … and that happens to be THE LAW OF THE LAND !

      Learn to live with it.

  8. Joseph White permalink
    October 2, 2009 5:20 am

    Could it be that the pieces of paper that the republicans were waving, were actually fans? After all, with such hot air coming from the democrats, it must have been sweltering in the congress and Senate chambers.

    What I find deplorable, is that he told three lies in ten minutes and his own party isn’t censuring it, but then Politicians do lie.

  9. Judy permalink
    October 2, 2009 11:45 am

    Mike, I have a take on the healthcare study that you highlighted that incorporates a different approach to statistics in the M & M’s (morbidity and mortality) of any population. I will give you an example to demonstrate the ease in manipulating end statistics to meet the primary assumption. I have been a nurse for 36 years covering areas of trauma/ER, ICU, Oncology,Endocrinology, and specialty infusion (everything from IV hydration to chemo and investigational drugs) and question the end validity of the study based on the small patient population and not correlating the patient previous and current health status with the death statistics. If I found a population of 9,000 lung cancer patients, the rate of death, even with insurance would be astoundingly high. Were any of the study participants without insurance for 1 day or 365 days? I personally have been a participant in the Harvard Nurses Health Study for the past 22 years. The study choose nurses as the basis of the study because we are able to provide scientific and specific data as it relates to finely defined areas within the study.Many of the health information known today comes out of this study.As a healthcare professional I too see the need for healthcare coverage for Americans especially those with chronic or catastophic illness/injury. But, I also look at the flip-side of this with the focus on prevention and compliance with prescribed regimens. Many Americans are simply non-compliant with health recommendation and follow-up and this significantly impacts M & M’s. Correcting areas of coverage for all Americans is actually easy and does not require 1100 pages to do so. We have to change the life style and mental focus of Americans away from indulgence and lassitude towards self-reliance and responsibility.I can provide you with excellent insurance coverage but, if you do not follow prescribed treatment, you will fare no better than someone without insurance. Trust me this will not be easy. One of the most difficult jobs in teaching patients to perform self-treatments is to get them to wash their hands first. Sad but true. There are several options on the GOP site that were written with the assistance of doctors and other healthcare professionals that would resolve the problem and create a system of healthcare prevention and steer us away from the intervention model (created by government regulations and interference). This is just my two cents. If we just eliminated tobacco and limited alcohol consumption, the problem would be resolved almost immediately and the hemmorhage of dollars into a never-ending cycle of treatment and re-treatment for the same diagnosis would end.

    • jbtrevor permalink
      October 2, 2009 1:41 pm

      Judy,
      I agree (I am a nurse also). If you read the study, the authors omitted many people with health insurance (publicly funded) because they tend to have diseases with high mortality rates!!

      Hello!! Wasn’t the study designed to determine if lack of insurance results in higher mortality.

      How this study made it through the peer review process is of concern to me.

      Julie
      PS – I found out today why the hospital CEO’s agreed to the Medicare cuts in reimbursements (to fund Obamacare)…
      It was a requirement before ANY discussion on the healthcare plan began…Agreeing to the cuts was the CEO’s ticket to a seat at the table to discuss details of the plan…UGH

  10. Steve R permalink
    October 2, 2009 12:05 pm

    If you think Republicans have no ideas, or have offered no alternatives, you need to do more homework. To date that I know of there are 32 separate GOP bills in the House hopper to address various problems with the current health care delivery system. The ones I’ve looked at use market solutions that aim to keep choice with patients and doctors, and try to reduce the already damaging presence of the federal government in the system — such as allowing insurance companies to market across state lines. Have even one of these bills received any hearings, any media attention, any nod from Obama, or the time of day from Pelosi, Hoyer and Company. Nope. None. Nada. Zilch. Check out what I say. Go here:

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0909/york091409.php3#

    Grayson is a loudmouthed demagogue, and typical of the left’s lying about and distortion of the whole healthcare debate.

  11. Paul Cooper permalink
    October 3, 2009 3:54 pm

    Choice is a misnomer in the abortion battle. Every girl/woman that I know of who had an abortion did it because they felt they had no choice. That is the problem. They are led to believe by – (ironically) mostly by men around them – that they have no choice – they better abort. If they want to live a happy life, or keep the guy, or still live at home, or not be an embarrassment to the family, etc. that they should abort. Women, wishing they had more choices – not realizing they do, but surrounded by no one supportive, head towards a Planned Parenthood clinic. They are usually scared and alone. They go into a cold environment where people will say anything to profit from killing their baby. Tell me – what is pro-choice about that? Those who really believe in freedom and choice should support pro-life causes like Crisis Pregnancy Centers which offer real choice and alternatives to a woman who feels she has no choice.

    • Swemson permalink
      October 3, 2009 4:31 pm

      Saying that women don’t have a choice is nonsense…

      The ONLY ones who tell her there’s NO choice, are the priests… who for the most part are men, and who therefore are unqualified to offer guidance for TWO reasons…

      Whenever a woman finds herself in that predicament, MOST of the people ACTIVELY OFFERING their advice and counseling are trying to sway her decision NOT to what’s best for her, but rather what best conforms to THEIR ideology…. and as I said above, the least qualified people for women to consult with are men…. (other than a boyfriend or husband, & in some cases a father…)

      I took an old girlfriend to a planned parenthood center years ago.. she needed my support because a guy she thought cared about her knocked her up and split as soon as she told him…. She came to me because we were close, and because she knew that I cared about her well being… but I was there basically to hold her hand, not help her make the decision…

      The counselor at planned parenthood gave her a perfect explanation of what ALL of her options were, and NEVER advocated abortion as her best choice…. She just helped her think the decision through…

      Women ABSOLUTELY have choices, and with the exception of a few unethical doctors like Dr. Teller who are just in it for the money, the only ones who try hard to influence their decisions are the loons from the religious right….

      Your prejudice AGAINST abortion is evident both in your thesis and in the way you phrase your argument…

      “They go into a cold environment where people will say anything to profit from killing their baby”

      That is a totally DISHONEST characterization of what happens there… When younger girls who really don’t want to have a child, express the fear that god will punish them…etc… of course they explain to the girl that that’s not something they need to be worried about, but when they do so, they always emphasize the idea that IF the girl’s religious beliefs are truly important to her, then deciding to have the abortion, is probably not the best thing for her to choose.

      You can’t KILL a baby until it’s BORN….

      Aborting a pregnancy is an entirely different matter, and unless we’re talking about your girlfriend, wife or daughter, you should simply MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS…

      • Paul Cooper permalink
        October 4, 2009 3:52 pm

        Swenson,
        You live in a fantasy world on this issue. I’m sorry. Planned Parenthood is being investigated in multiple states right now for covering up statutory rape and illegal telling minors where they can go to get abortions when it is illegal in their state without consent. Indiana, Arizona, and California are 3 states dealing with it right now. There may be more. They are the ACORN of women’s clinics. And they profited over 100 million dollars last year from abortions – even though they are supposed to be non-profit. They got over 300 million in funding from our taxes and returned none of it – even with their profits.

        I have made my case on women and choice in my last entry. I know of what I speak of from countless examples and conversations with women – not one experience of taking a girlfriend to a clinic.

        “You can’t kill a baby until it’s born.”
        That is one of the craziest statements I’ve ever read. I have a baby in my wife’s belly right now. Tomorrow I see 4d live feed of that kid. And guess what – it’s a baby. And if you open up my wife and cut that baby up or poison it with salt poisoning – you have killed a baby. That’s a fact.

        • Swemson permalink
          October 4, 2009 4:39 pm

          Please don’t play games with semantics here… whether you want to call a fetus a baby or whatever, doesn’t change what we’re talking about, and that’s whether anyone can force a pregnant woman to act according to their beliefs on the subject, to which I say NO… It’s the woman who ultimately has the final say…

          Nor an I even ADVOCATING that anyone should have an abortion.

          All I’m saying is that it’s the woman’s choice…

          And Congrats ! I wish you the best with yours…

        • jbtrevor permalink
          October 4, 2009 4:57 pm

          Paul/Swemson,
          Join guidestar.org (free) . You can get all the IRS form 990’s from any non-profit organization.
          What ticks me off about this one (planned parenthood) in particular is they claim to provide reproductive services to low + moderate income people when the top 10-20 people each make nearly $500K!

          Non-profit human “service” organizations are high on my hit list. They are subverting our country…and we allow it because they do soooo much good! Ugh!
          Julie

          • Swemson permalink
            October 4, 2009 6:16 pm

            Julie;

            I know you’re not a communist, so why are you complaining about what someone makes as a salary…?

            Executive compensation reflects the size and revenues of the organization. If planned parenthood is such a large operation, then they need competent management…. and they’re going to have to pay market value for someone with the skills to run an organization of that size.

            Remember non-profits only pay salaries.. Most executive compensation in the private sector includes profit sharing, bonuses etc… So a $500,000 salary isn’t really all that much these days, by comparison to executive compensation in profit making enterprises….

            In order to deliver lots of service at reasonable prices, you need competent people to do the job.

            I’m more concerned over the fact that Goldman Sachs execs received $11BB in bonus payments this past year…. I don’t know how any investment firm could make that kind of money in this market in a legal and ethical manner… The fact that they’re so chummy with the govt smells a little funny to me…

            • jbtrevor permalink
              October 4, 2009 6:30 pm

              Swemson, it bothers me because it’s my tax dollars that fund this organization’s operating costs … if they had a totally private means to running their organization i.e. private insurance, private donations – it wouldn’t bother me…

              • Swemson permalink
                October 4, 2009 7:30 pm

                I respect that Julie…

                In the same way that I don’t want to see public schools promoting any kind of religious thought to my kids, I also don’t think that the govt should fund anything that offends taxpayers with profound religious beliefs…

                I believe in the woman’s right to choose, but that doesn’t mean that I think that you or I should have to pay for it..

                IMHO, the government has no business getting involved with dispensing any related services at all…

                Years ago, before America was being taxed to death, churches and private charities did a decent job of taking care of those who couldn’t take care of themselves…. Americans are VERY charitable people, & if we can get back to a free market system, and stop the govt from wasting our tax dollars with all the nany state crappola, charitable giving will go right back through the roof.

  12. Keith permalink
    October 3, 2009 4:54 pm

    The elites wan’t to control population growth, and they’re many ways for then to do it in america and abroad.
    Some of the methods they use are birth control, not giving healthcare to the poor that die from preventable illnesses,starting wars that kill thousands of innocent people, or turn groups of people against each other, like stirring up racism and religion.

    • Swemson permalink
      October 4, 2009 1:03 am

      Give me a fu*k~^ng break…

      The elites control population with birth control ?

      What do they do.. force women to take the pill … or maybe they go around knocking them out and implanting IUD’s… ??

      And I suppose you think doctors & hospitals administer IQ tests to decide who’s worthy of medical care & who’s not ?

      And THEY start wars to control population ???

      What was it that made you become a paranoid loon ?

      Look out your window and tell me how many CIA black helicopters are hovering over your home…

      • Paul Cooper permalink
        October 6, 2009 11:32 am

        Swemson,
        Please watch the language – at least on my blog comment section. I have a lot of friends that read my stuff – and that kind of language will turn them off from reading it and viewing this website. Such coarseness is not helpful in open debate.

        • Swemson permalink
          October 6, 2009 12:23 pm

          Paul..

          Fair nuf…

          But I have to say that I don’t think that what I wrote above is out of line in relation to the disgusting lies in Keith’s post that I was commenting on…

          When I hear that kind of crappola I get angry, and I think that we would all be better off if more people got angry when they hear such blatant lies, and stand up and challenge them in an aggressive manner.

  13. Jenn permalink
    October 10, 2009 9:55 pm

    We live in Grayson’s 8th District. May Alan Grayson never accuse Sarah Palin of naming her children out of the ordinary names. Alan and Lolita have several also such named children.

Trackbacks

  1. Nation Magazine: Bring Back the Duels? « NewsReal Blog

Comments are closed.