ornate line
Tell It Like It Is

There is no politician more frank than Massachusetts congressman Barney Frank. If all politicians would just say what they are thinking instead of trying to be tactful for reelection purposes, we might not have to put up with so much nonsense. In this clip, he responds to a woman who called the proposed health care reform plan a "Nazi policy" last night at a town hall meeting in Dartmouth. I expect some day someone will stand up and explain that the Nazis were the political opposite of socialists, but Frank just cut to the heart of the matter.

Share on Facebook StumbleUpon ToolbarStumble This    Submit to RedditReddit!


Ha! Talk to the hand beeyatch.

said E on August 19, 2009 11:34 AM.

I think I've actually had better conversations with my dining room table.

He sure told her..!!

said Cindy on August 19, 2009 1:05 PM.

I hate to be the voice of reason for once, but the National _Socialist_ German Workers Party, from whence the term "nazi" is pulled, was, indeed, the exact political equal to socialism.

The Party believed that social welfare was the business of the State. The nazis, of course. The Democrats believe nothing of the sort...

said Don't Swayze Bro on August 19, 2009 1:26 PM.

I stand corrected. I thought Hitler and his cronies were fascists.

said Miss Cellania on August 19, 2009 2:22 PM.

I agree with Barney. At my house we never discuss politics with the table.

said Tincase on August 19, 2009 2:23 PM.

Uh. The Nazi's killed millions of people and started WWII. If she's saying the Health Care bill is equivalent to that, she's fukken nuts.

said E on August 19, 2009 2:40 PM.

So he followed up an ad hominem attack with an ad hominem attack? Classy! I still haven't seen a Democrat address the issues.

said strathmeyer on August 19, 2009 2:49 PM.

Fascism and socialism are very very similar either way. Government control of everything. The main substantive difference is that fascism officially doesn't allow dissent.

said epnolte on August 19, 2009 2:51 PM.

@ Don't Swayze Bro
No need to hate being 'the voice of reason' - because you're wrong.
While the Nazis considered their ideology as "National Socialism", it actually has nothing to do with what is regarded as Socialism. In fact, National Socialism is the opposite of contemporary Socialism.

Socialism, as is commonly understood, is a branch of liberalism where the state assumes responsibility to ensure that the citizen's free will be made available to them. Contrast that with more classic liberalism where the state only provides the atmosphere for the individual to execute their free will.

The Nazi's National Socialism is actually fascism. It's a political belief that it's the job of the citizen to promote and support the will of the state, at the expense of their own freedoms. An example of this would be the "Lebensborn' initiative. In this program, Germans were encouraged to give birth to 'pure blood' children, which the state would then assume care for.

said Alan on August 19, 2009 2:52 PM.

You're right Alan, The direction That the current administration is heading is more communist than socialist. Marxist at the very least.

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
-Karl Marx.

I don't think our country is headed down the road to Nazi Germany, But i don't think that the U.S.S.R is a very good model either.

p.s. Nazis were national socialists, Mussolini was the Fascist.

said Sheriff Pablo on August 19, 2009 3:03 PM.

Alan - To quote the great philosopher, "Sorry, but you're wrong."

National Socialism had EVERYTHING to do with what "is regarded" (by whom?) as "socialism"

"The job of the citizen to promote and support the will of the state" is no different from the notion that "the state assumes responsibility to ensure that the citizen's free will be made available to them." How, exactly does a state assume such responsibility, when free will is inherent to the individual, and not a "gift" of the state?

National Socialism is a subset of your more general definition of Socialism, not an anathema to it.

Now, there are political nuances that differentiate some aspects of the bureaucratic execution of nazi socialism from modern "popular" socialism.

Modern socialism requires less buy-in.

said Don't Swayze Bro on August 19, 2009 3:04 PM.

Well said Swayze.

Also, Barney Frank is a Jackass.

said Sheriff Pablo on August 19, 2009 3:06 PM.

Interesting to note is that National Socialism frequently referred to itself as the "polar opposite" of Communism, as a way of assuaging public concerns that it was demagogic, all while it crushed the individual. It is an effective headfake.

Kind of like Frank's faux "offense" and "takedown" of the questioner. "How dare you question my patriotism?" can be used as the perfect retort of a traitor.

Kill the dialog, before it spreads.

Regardless of superficial differences between the effed-up ideology of socialists and fascists, wouldn't you rather live your life with minimal intervention from the State?

The last thing I need is another agency built on the model of the D.O.T. or the cradle-robbing Social Security. You don't need it either.

said Don't Swayze Bro on August 19, 2009 3:16 PM.

If you bring a defaced picture of the President to a meeting with a Democratic congressman and then call people Nazi's, you aren't interested in dialog.

said E on August 19, 2009 3:27 PM.

Honestly, dialog is exactly what would "win" this argument, instead of responding to fallacy with fallacy.

All Frank really had to do was explain how his position clearly differentiated from centralized, totalitarian health care. Emphasize individual choice, sound economics, deficit reduction.

Of course, he couldn't do it, but just knew a nazi-baiter would let him off the hook. "See? My opponent is crazy! That makes me right!"

First person to properly identify the fallacy wins JW's pet monkey.

said Don't Swayze Bro on August 19, 2009 4:46 PM.

The lack of thought and susceptibility to fear-mongering by a lot of these protestors is pretty sad. The equating Obama to Hitler is absurd on hits face and betrays just how little independent thought is put into those sorts of defacements. I'm glad Frank finally told it like it is.

You can shout, you can bring your guns to these meetings or to presidential appearances if you want to, whatever - first amendment right to free speech, and everybody's right to bear arms (though I prefer human arms), I understand your rights, fine.

Just please try to think and actually read up on the issues before opening the pie hole. Simple request.

said ShinyHappy on August 19, 2009 4:50 PM.

So - as regular readers know, I'm a Brit now living in America, who spent the first 30 years of his life getting excellent healthcare from doctors whenever I needed it from the National Health Service. Multiple stays in hospital (sometimes for weeks at a time) for which I never even thought about paying, cheap prescriptions, access to specialists whenever I wanted it, etc. All free.

Followed by 15 years in this country paying up $1500 a month for healthcare coverage for my family, still getting bills for ER visits, and every time we had a baby, or an emergency, and spending the entire time terrified of getting sick because of the burden that will place on my family.

In other words, I've lived both sides, in a fairly average way.

Given that, can someone explain to me, in idiot's terms (because I really don't understand all this opposition) why I stand to be worse off under a social healthcare system? Because I really can't see how things COULD be worse.

Thanks, appreciate it.

said Scaramouch on August 19, 2009 5:24 PM.

@ Don't Swayze Bro
Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dinning room table....I think I've heard that before...

I suggest you re-read my comment and make an effort to understand it. After that, spend time educating yourself - try:


FYI, Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.

Also, you're using the word 'anathema' wrong.

said Alan on August 19, 2009 5:49 PM.

I think the system we have sucks badly. Here's some of what I've seen/heard about:

I'm covered via work. I went to the Dr. for a physical a few years back and the mofo's wouldn't pay.
"We don't cover that." They said.
"It was a physical. You claim to cover it." I said.
"It was coded as an administrative physical. That's different."
"If I have them resubmit the claim as just a regular physical, which is what it was, would you cover that?"
So I call the Dr. and tell them to do that. They said cool. Insurance company still won't pay. They said they got the form and it was still coded incorrectly.

So after all this I ended up paying out of pocket ~300 $ for something that was supposedly covered.

One of the guys I work with had a similar situation where his kid had surgery on his intestines and through some bafflement the insurance didn't cover it though they supposedly should have and the Dr's office ended up eating the cost to the tune of 45k.

Another one of the guys I work with had to declare bankruptcy a few years back when his wife went into premature labor/had a miscarriage and was in the hospital for a week. At the time he was a temp employee of some company and thus not eligible for coverage there.

What an inspired setup!

said E on August 19, 2009 5:57 PM.


You failed to respond to my critiques of your flawed differentials. You must have a pretty smart dining room table.

My point isn't that the Lyndon LaRouche lady isn't crazy, it is that Barney Frank welcomes her as cover for his own dodge. I expect crazy from the crazy lady, but you would think such a stalwart and "plain spoken" politician as Frank might actually have a substantial defense for his socialized medicine,
which he does not.

I invite you to bring relevant critiques or counterarguments to any of my other points.

And check your dictionary. I meant anathema in the common sense: it's curse or bane. You really shouldn't try to argue word meanings with people, unless you've doublechecked Webster's.

Finally, you aren't arguing with Wikipedia, but with William Shirer. Ever read him? Might brush up there, too.

You won't win this one Alan, not even if you try. Which I hope you haven't yet.

Godwin's Law only works on the Internet. At Town Hall's you need a bit more than a lunatic plant in the audience and righteous indignation.

said Don't Swayze Bro on August 19, 2009 6:48 PM.

"I expect crazy from the crazy lady, but you would think such a stalwart and "plain spoken" politician as Frank might actually have a substantial defense for his socialized medicine, which he does not. "

He didn't present a defense of his proposal when responding to that chic. That doesn't mean he doesn't have one and that it wasn't presented at some point in the meeting.

My assumption is that he felt she was not someone who was open minded to his point of view and rather than bang his head against a wall, so to speak, he made fun of her. Not exactly enlightening the debate, I concede.

said E on August 19, 2009 7:01 PM.


"Why are you supporting this Nazi Policy?" - in the clip this is what the crazy lady asks while waving the picture of a Hitler Obama. This is the question that you would require Frank to answer with a cogent, reasoned response and defense for his "socialized medicine".

But let's be honest here - The Crazy Lady question is an inflammatory one - "Nazi Policy" (combined with a picture of Obama defaced as Hitler) - and it clearly wasn't asked to initiate a debate with Frank; it was obviously really a statement, a complaint, and meant to invoke fear that Obama is essentially another Hitler (who, despite his Nazi "socialist" party is obviously more popularly known and associated with the death, misery and destruction he caused millions than for any subtleties about "socialism" and Facsism, so let's stop with the "actually Nazis were socialists" angle - it's beside the point ultimately ).

The Crazy Lady is being, well, Crazy - calling the Pres and his policies, "Nazi" and waving an image of Obama marked up to be Hitler. This is not the way one starts a reasoned debate. This is not a lady looking to engage Frank in a reasoned discussion. This is. A. Crazy. Lady.

Is it any wonder that Frank called her on her games and shut the Crazy Lady down and then tried to move on to maybe some other questions that might be a little bit more straightforward, not inflammatory and Nazi-laden? Is he really to be criticized for not engaging a crazy person in any sort of reasoned debate?

If the question by the crazy lady was simply something like "I am concerned that you are advocating and supporting a system of socialized medicine that will bankrupt our country and lead to actually worse care for us and will actually not be a more comprehensive health care system and I'd like you to explain that to me." Something like this - anything from her mouth that isn't so clearly calculated to really only raise emotions and anger just by the symbolism of her words and her cute picture - would have then put Frank in a position where he'd have to actually respond with reason. But she did not do this.

To fault Frank for not attempting to engage in a reasoned debate with a person you yourself concede is fairly full of lunacy, well that's really not being fair to Frank.

PS - you mention a "lunatic plant" - do you mean to imply that the crazy lady was really in cahoots with Frank and it was all just a show? That can't be what you mean. Tell me you're not starting with a conspiracy angle on the whole thing. That would just be . . . . well, sad.

said ShinyHappy on August 19, 2009 7:20 PM.

I'm still waiting for an Obama/Lenin Comparison. It's a little closer to the truth don't you think? Didn't turn out too well for the Russians though.....

said Sheriff Pablo on August 19, 2009 7:35 PM.

Hitler Mustaches are easier to draw Pablo. Furthermore, the Russians gave us Maria Sharapova, which proves they were doing something right.

said E on August 19, 2009 7:50 PM.

Yeah, maybe Lenin would be better. Problem with that guy, is his image is so less shocking and inflammatory than good ol' Adolph H.

Lenin, with the fashionable goatee, nowadays just looks like some Internet Urban hipster you might find in a coffee shop peering into his computer, nursing a Latte, dressed all in black. Offensive image, maybe (those people are sooooo pretentious), but not as scary as Mr. Nazi, not anymore.

said ShinyHappy on August 19, 2009 8:55 PM.

For Scara in idiot-speak:

Uninformed people who haven't studied the issue think the plan includes
1- more government control
2- higher taxes
3- socialism
4- lower quality doctors
5- longer waits

You can't have my guns, and you can't choose my doctor for me. You can't pay for this plan without raising my taxes and they're high enough. Socialism = communism and I'm pretty sure that's bad. If doctors all get paid the same by the government, then there isn't competition and there isn't incentive to be good at your job. Because the government will pay less for doctors than regular people will, there will be fewer doctors because it's less lucrative, which means there will be longer lines, and I already spend more than enough time in waiting rooms.

This isn't what I think - it's what I think they think. And I think I've seen enough videos of people yelling "His middle name's HOO-SAYN - He's a Muslim terrorist!!!" to know what I'm talking about.

said Pauly Sparerib on August 19, 2009 9:01 PM.

Ah, Pauly - look what you've done! You've given their grunts, yelling and inflammatory symbols and slogans a gloss of articulation, something that they apparently have not been able to do so eloquently, at least not at these town meeting thingies.

I, like you, don't hold the views you articulate, but I'd at least respect someone more if they actually laid out their concerns like you just did, even if I didn't agree with their concerns or take on the facts. At least then we can start to try to get to the truth of the matter because then we'd be discussing specific concerns and assumptions about the plan. But the Town Hall level debate seems to get stuck in the name calling and Nazi/Hitler/Commie/Born-in-Kenya shouting, and nothing gets really truly discussed, it seems.

If Crazy Lady had just said what you say, just said those five points/concerns you list, then Frank could reasonably have been expected to give her a reply to her points. But, again, Crazy Lady was . . . Crazy - "Why are you supporting this Nazi Policy??" and waving the Nazi Obama picture, probably also ready to challenge Obama's birth and call him a Muslim terrorist (I'm guessing here - maybe she wasn't gonna go all Birther and Muslim Terrorist on us, but, well, you know, it was going in that direction).

Frank was right to shut her down and call her on her Nazi/Hitler inflammatoria.

said ShinyHappy on August 19, 2009 9:35 PM.

Not to beat this issue to death but here's an article with, from what I gather, is the offending pitcher:


said E on August 19, 2009 11:41 PM.

Scara, just to play Devils advocate...
"Followed by 15 years in this country paying up $1500 a month for healthcare coverage "

What if your taxes were increased by that amount and you were covered by the gov? Would that be better? This still needs to be paid for, no? Also, here, at least in theory, you can change companies (in practice, uh, it's debatable I suppose). So in this system, you have choices, which fuel competition which fuels innovation. Furthermore all the good drugs are invented here cause we're capitalists.

Like I said. Just Devil's advocacy. In my experience, and I'm no spring chicken, markets aren't entirely competitive and government employees aren't, except for perhaps the DMV, worse than what I see in the private sector. This is totally subjective btw. But I trust my analysis and I have yet to hear anything that persuade me that we can't do better.

said E on August 19, 2009 11:57 PM.


I think you guys are all missing the point. Britain healthcare may work for them but they are 1/5 the size of the US without 20 million+ illegals who are not paying any taxes for healthcare at all. Trying to provide healthcare for all and running it through the government would give more power to an already too bloated government. It would provide more government jobs but it would kill free markets and innovation. I for one dont want the government to slowly absorb all the free markets and stifle innovation and productivity. I want myself and my children to have an opportunity to pursue their dreams and not work a bureaucratic desk job. As great as Universal healthcare sounds, the government can not be the answer for it.

Its not about socialist or fascist. The scary thing about Hitler is that he was such a great speaker and leader (as obama is) that he could convince everyone to trust in him and believe in him blindly. Its not about left or right, the problem is they only give us limited choices. They have a agenda they are working towards and they will get to it one way or the other. Just listen to some of the things Henry Kissenger says and you will understand.

I rather not have the government decide anything for me. Government's nature is to try to get larger, bring in more revenue for them to spend as they please. That is why though, we have laws to stop that from happening. The more revenue they bring in the more they can syphon off and do with it as they please. We are spoiled in this country. We havent had to deal with injustice the way people of old have had to. Yes, we have had slavery and the likes, but the majority of the world was enslaved up till a few hundred years ago. The people's greatest enemy throughout history has always been government. Whether it be monarchs, or lords or fuedals. There has always been a great divide between high society and everyone else. It is still that way today just not as clearly defined.

View free markets as a poker game in a large casino. In a poker game the casino takes a portion for each had as a "tax" for regulating and providing a game platform for the players. If the take is minimal of say, 1 percent, then the players dont mind and continue to play. As the tax increases and reaches 50 percent, the game becomes meaningless to play. the players will leave the table because the best you could do is make out even if you were playing heads ups against someone. We cant have government destroying our desire to pursue our own interests and hopefully make a buck or two while doing it.

Thats how i view government, the higher taxes are the less less one will work hard to make money. They will eventuall end up just freeloading off the government. Government wants us to rely on them. They want to take care of us. That way, we have to do what they want us to. This is where it gets scary because when we rely on the government, then they can do whatever they want because we have no say.

said forteology on August 20, 2009 5:01 AM.

Oh and Kafka's "The Trial" is a perfect example of exactly what the government is doing with these 2000 page health plan bills. The point of the nonsensical wording is exactly that reason. To make you feel the govt is surperior and make you rely on/trust them.

said forteology on August 20, 2009 5:05 AM.

We are closer to Neo Corpatism than anything else. The only problem with that is that our Capital (corporations) are larger and and have more influence than us or even the government does. Thank god for lobbyist

said forteology on August 20, 2009 5:19 AM.

E - I'd willingl pay the 1500 a month in taxes if it meant a healthcare guarantee. That's how it works in England - you get National Insurance deducted at source, about 11% as I remember, which covers healthcare, social security, etc.

Forteology - honestly I want my children to grow up in a world where everyone has an equal right to healthcare, regardless of their status, and we have some basic humanity about our fellow man. I don't want my kids to think it's acceptable to live within a caste system, where - when it comes to basic healthcare needs - some are better than others. No-one wants to stop people pursuing their ambitions, but all I hear about lately is people talking about what the think they're personally entitled to, without any regard for the concept of social responsibility. Seems to me that's what separates us from the animals, no?

said Scaramouch on August 20, 2009 7:00 AM.

I figure that China is gona own this country in a few short years so all this crap is gona be moot. I hope they have a fix for this mess.

said phatlard on August 20, 2009 8:19 AM.

If you took the insane profits out of the insurance business, the costs for all health care would come down to a manageable level, like in most developed countries with universal health care. Like if Medicare were expanded to cover all Americans -and there was a great big fight to get Medicare passed in the first place because it was a communist idea. Now a lot of the gnashing and wailing of teeth comes from Medicare recipients who are afraid of losing their special status.

said Miss Cellania on August 20, 2009 8:56 AM.

Of course, "wailing of teeth" would be covered under the new plan.

said Miss Cellania on August 20, 2009 8:57 AM.

In a recent poll 39% of Americans believe the Government should stay out of Medicare.

And that just goes to show why health care reform is proving to be a tough sell.

said Baierman on August 20, 2009 10:15 AM.

All I can say for sure, is that I get my health care from a Hospital that is completely run and funded by the government. The VA. The care is decent, but not great, It takes forever to get anything done, they are understaffed and overworked there, and if i have so much as a case of the sniffles i better be prepared to sit there all day in order to get treated. If i need a physical or something like that, i have to schedule it 3 months out.

If this model gets used for the new health plan, then i feel sorry for the general population of America.

said Sheriff Pablo on August 20, 2009 11:51 AM.

Maybe it'll cure our rampant nationwide hypochondria, our necessity to drug ourselves up rather than just suffer it through a little, and our need to give ever yquirk an official "syndrome" name to make it sound like it needs specialist attention. Swine Flu, anyone?

said Scaramouch on August 20, 2009 12:00 PM.

To second what Mouche said...

We live in a system where we pay a small fortune to be insured only to find out that when you need it most, the insurance company drops you because you didn't disclose that you once had a zit in High School.

So, yes, I'd HAPPILY pay the government what I currently pay Cigna. HAPPILY!

We're so wrapped up in what 1% of people might do that we're ignoring the benefit to the other 99% of people out there.

Sarah Palin's "Death Panels"? What do you call it when your PRIVATE insurer decides whether or not to cover your serious illness? Who are the private insurer's death panels beholden too?

I spent a year living and working in Liverpool. While I was there, my tonsils became infected as happens often for me. The NHS gave me better care as a resident alien than any doctor I had seen here in the states did, and for free. I made an appointment and was in the next day. Here, I call a doc and get an appointment two weeks away at best.

From a pure ideology standpoint, I reject universal healthcare. There's the old saying, "The person who haws the ability to feed you also has the ability to starve you." I don't need the government coming in and saying "Sorry, you can't have a Big Mac, smoke, or have sex with strippers, the cost to our healthcare system is too high."

However, having lived under the US system, the Canadian system, and the Limey system, I think the American health care system is something every American should be embarrassed about. We can start two wars in the Middle East, we can pay for a ginormous bank bailout... Not a peep from the wingnuts. Now they're complaining about how much health care is going to cost? It's like daddy having enough money for Coke and Hookers, but the kids scream bloody murder when daddy wants to spend money to feed the family.

We're too greedy to allow some poor MoFo to get his diabetes treated, but we're greedy enough to make sure the banks don't fail, and greedy enough to "spread democracy" so long as we get to steal some other country's oil in the process. I sure am glad all of these fine and noble Americans are wiling to show up and protect their doctors summer home and the private islands belonging to their insurer's CEO.

As far as the national interest goes... Having a healthy society is essential to a countries prosperity. Poor children who receive medical treatment today will join our military in 20 years as healthier adults. Companies looking at the states as a place to do business will have a healthy workforce to recruit.

Socialism... What system do you think you currently live in? I'm guessing you're also against school lunch, minimum wage, a 40 hour work week.... I truly doubt anyone who is trumpeting the charge against socialism would want to go back and work at the mills in 1880's USA.

said Jason on August 20, 2009 12:13 PM.

turns out the wacko chick is a LaRouche democrat anyway, surprise surprise...

said Sheriff Pablo on August 20, 2009 7:02 PM.

Social consciousness, not socialism.

As one of the countries uninsured, I would happily wait 24 hours in a waiting room if it guaranteed treatment. I would wait the 3 months for a physical. I would pay the higher taxes if it meant the quality of life would improve for millions.

said Paul on August 20, 2009 9:05 PM.

This lady and her big ball of crazy has inspired me.

It is clear to me now that the Government must get out of the health care business.
$0 money. $0 subsidies. 0 mandates. It must all stop. As soon as possible.

Why does our federal, state and local governments spend as much on health care per American as Canadian federal and provincial governments spend per Canadian?
Canada legally has to. We don't.
And with each dollar our governments dangle to the insurance industry, there's a new regulation or mandate insurers must follow.
Maybe mandates are an excuse to raise costs.

So our government is too generous with health care dollars and insurers are too willing to say "Yes" and take the government handout.

This has been going on for decades and it's time we realized it is a big reason costs have continued to go up and up and up.

The real solution is to end our governments financial backing of health care.

Fuck Medicare, Medicaid and whatever else the Government created and funds. End those programs.
Fuck the insurance companies. Let them survive without Government money.
Fuck the health plan our politicians have and the millions of Government workers have too. Why are they special?
Fuck people who go to the ER and seek care without insurance. Hospitals will be more profitable if they are NOT required by law to treat the uninsured.
And fuck those who get more care than their current plans allow. Limits must be set somewhere.

Sure this is harsh but look on the bright side, without Government subsidies and help, hundreds of millions of Americans won't be able to be covered. Insurers will loose millions of participants. And millions of dollars!
If they raise their rates to compensate, more businesses will have to terminate employee plans. That's not good for Oxford, Atena and Blue Cross. It'll down right strangle the Aflak duck.
Without the help of the Government, insurance companies only have 2 choices. Go out of business. Or figure out a way to lower costs and provide decent care that people can actually afford.

Whatever happens, it's pretty clear to me the Government is the bad guy in the health care debate. Remove Government from the equation, take out every dollar they waste on health care, and it no longer will be.

Boy, crazy is really fun!

said Baierman on August 20, 2009 11:28 PM.

Pablo, I think the LaRouche crowd is different from the usual Democrats.

As far as waiting. I've had to wait several weeks for physicals too. Don't know about emergency or serious care. (Knock on wood).

I will say, my dental insurance has been pretty spiffy.

said E on August 21, 2009 12:16 AM.

Also .... I don't know if anyone has gone to the Eye Dr at Walmart. I have. As far as I can tell it's the same thing as the independant outfits. The guy's got a diploma. Same tests. Costed me like 40 bucks or something and it was easy to get in.

said E on August 21, 2009 12:20 AM.

That the spectre of McCarthy still haunts every political debate in the US even after over half a century is a testament to the power of propaganda.

Only in the US could the concept of free healthcare for all regardless of the ability to pay be considered a subversive concept.

The groups that would lose out the most are the medical insurance companies and the pharmecutical companies. These companie pay huge amounts of money to governers, senators and political parties and in return these polititions bring out the emotive language of the cold war to frighten the people into thinking that free heathcare for all is a certain and irrevocable descision that will definately lead to the US turning into a communist state.

In the UK you have the choice; free healthcare (of at least a minumum stadard) for those that can't afford and a private sytem if you can and you don't want to wait so long.

Through taxes we all pay into the system based on how much we earn to support those that can't. I just don't understand why anybody would consider this unfair and dangerous. We have all have a moral responsability to protect those less fortunate, those who are weak and most in need - its what separates us from the beasts.

Put this another way; for all the conservative christians out there. When Jesus was healing the sick, the lame, do you think he was doing it on the basis of who could afford to buy his services?

Do you think He would approve of a human society that left some behind because the rich were not willing to help the needy? If you do; go back and re read your bible - I'd start with the sermon on the mount.

said Cause on August 21, 2009 5:16 AM.
pop culture
blog on the
maybe not.

rss feed Breakfast Links Feed

Recent Comments

What we can learn from Donna "Treasure Bombshell" Simpson?
Dear Treasure Bombshell If you don’t’ love yourself think of your daughter. W

What we can learn from Donna "Treasure Bombshell" Simpson?
Dear Treasure Bombshell If you don’t’ love yourself think of your daughter. W

Where the Streets have Sexual Names
Lets not leave out Climax, Saskatchewan :)

Where are they now? Serial Killers
another true fact on Jeffry Dahlmer, sick puppy he is ..one book at library sai

Where Are They Now - The Griswold Kids
dana hill passed away now

Where Are They Now - The Griswold Kids
dana hill passed away now

Comments Feed

Special Features

Archives by Writer

New to YesButNoButYes?