CUTTING THROUGH THE MANURE

Since I prefer polite language, I altered the title of Cutting Through the Manure slightly. Even though the author is supposedly a medical doctor, he seems to enjoy a bit of vulgarity. Why? Well, we generally use such language at someone else’s expense.

When the author of Cutting Through the Manure linked to my website from here, I got curious and investigated. What the author appears to be doing is defending his own politics by ridiculing the opposition. Therefore, You Doctors! ridicules what was apparently a poorly done study. Since too many statistical studies are politically motivated, I don’t necessarily object to that. What bothers me is that the defenders of Obamacare will not debate the ethics of Obamacare. Instead, they jump straight to poorly done statistical studies. They use such studies to advocate socialized medicine, and many won’t even admit that is the end goal.

Consider what happened when I commented on another post at Cutting Through the Manure, Waiting…. The subject was this cartoon.

Supposedly, that Republican/Tea Party elephant (Note the teabags hanging from his hat.) wants to pull the plug on granny. Yet oddly enough, it is the Democratic Party that promotes euthanasia. Remember this video.

Listen carefully to the video. What Obama said almost sounded reasonable. Keep in mind, however, that Obama wants a fundamental transformation. Instead of regulating healthcare decisions made in the marketplace, Obama wants government to make our healthcare decisions. If Obama gets the single-payer system the economics of the ACA suggests, then by definition government will choose for us.

Does Obama want a single-payer healthcare system? It is a pretty good bet.

Here is what he said in 2003.

Even PoliFact.org admits Obama statements on single-payer have changed a bit. In fact, ACA itself stands as confirmation that Obama wants socialized medicine.

Since I remember that first video and the implications, I posted this comment on Waiting…

Citizen Tom said…

I suppose I should thank you for the link to http://citizentom.com/2010/03/19/code-red-rally-to-kill-the-bill-returns-to-dc-saturday/. However, if you are really concerned about lying, this post might be more useful. http://citizentom.com/2008/12/01/the-moral-choice-between-capitalism-and-socialism-part-1/

Socialism is essentially a lie. That’s why you have cartoons like this one. While it leaves the impression that government can and will save the uninsured, the poor, the old, and the whoever, it can’t. Because government has none of its own, politicians promise to take the wealth from of the “rich” to fund their supposedly wonderful programs. There aren’t enough rich.
Because socialism is about stealing, we are going broke. Robbers don’t care about their victims, but never fear. When we become their slaves — their property — the people robbing us will begin to show more concern for our health. At least they will care as long as we are useful to them.

Have you noticed who supports euthanasia? Have you never wondered why? If government gains full control our healthcare, what kind of treatment do you think Obama will give that old lady in your cartoon? Pull the plug and let her die? Of course not! He will require that the treating physician adhere to government certified best practices. First put her to sleep — painlessly, of course.

July 14, 2012 7:43 PM

The author, Sid Schwab, promptly replied.

 Sid Schwab said…

Interesting — if a little paranoid — take on the ACA which, as I’ve said, is about as far from socialism as Sarah Palin is from intellect. The thing is, not many political Ds — certainly not Barack Obama — are advocating socializing the US health care system.

Maybe you’re talking about Medicare and Social Security which, I agree, are like socialism, and which indeed have impending cash problems. But, as you exemplify, attempts to control medical costs by Democrats are immediately demagogued by the right-wing as killing grandma.

We could save money, all right, by killing grandma. But it’s only Rs that keep bringing it up. Projection, maybe? It is, after all, their plans — or lack thereof — that will lead to unnecessary (but desired by them?) medical deaths.

July 15, 2012 4:10 PM

Schwab will not admit that the so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA) creates a socialist program. Instead, for no particular reason he attacks Sarah Palin. Yet when Congress wrote the ACA, it wrote a bill too long for any congressman to read (before voting on it), and that bill will result in tens of thousands of regulations and the hiring of tens of thousands of new bureaucrats to administer the program.

Ironically, Schwab’s medical deaths is one the usual statistical distortions designed to frighten us.  Check out The ‘Real’ Uninsured. Its not from a Conservative group.

Are the The ‘Real’ Uninsured numbers a little dated? Perhaps. Since the Great Recession started, we probably have more uninsured. The best insurance is a good job. Then we can afford health insurance, but Obamacare will not help the economy. Neither will Obamacare improve our health care. Obamacare will just force us to borrow more money from the Red Chinese.

About these ads

About Citizen Tom

I am just an average citizen interested in promoting informed participation in the political process.
This entry was posted in Health Care Nationalization, US Blogs and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to CUTTING THROUGH THE MANURE

  1. To further back your post, have your readers simply google the lies of Obama and the broken promises of Obama. Carter used to have the rap for being our worst president but Obama does a slam dunk on that nefarious honor replacing Carter

    • Citizen Tom says:

      Afraid so. By comparison to Obama, Carter was at least honest.

      Sorry I did not notice your comment in the spam queue. Not sure why it went there. Have you been commenting on Liberal websites? If so, you may wish to use a different email address.

  2. walthe311 says:

    Does any other country enforce euthanasia if it has a single payer system or similar? Why would the US and the US only do so? You get worked up about a false choice, between liberty and keeping our society composed of healthy people.

    • Citizen Tom says:

      We abort millions of babies every year, and the Democratic Party insists abortion is a right, that is, the taxpayers must pay. When we create a system based upon the false notion that government gives us our rights, the government decides whether we will live, restricts our liberty to suit its purposes for us, and takes our property to give us our “rights.”

    • Citizen Tom says:

      The following is from an article that reviews the status of euthanasia law in several nations in Eurpope.

      The Dutch trailblazed societal acceptance of euthanasia beginning in 1973, when a judge ruled that, if doctors followed certain guidelines when committing euthanasia, such as repeated death requests and acting lethally only when there is no other way to control suffering, they should not be punished. This led to an ever-expanding category of people receiving doctor-administered death, even before formal legalization by the Dutch parliament in 2001. (from http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/281303/euthanasia-spreads-europe-wesley-j-smith)

      From there it gets worse.

  3. joesix says:

    Who cares what statistics, and doctors, and patrons of universal healthcare say? That plan from Republicans in the 90s and a Republican governor from Massachusetts is obviously socialism.

    • It makes no difference if socialized medicine was rubberstamped by a D or an R, anymore than it makes a difference if it is funded by “mandates”, “penalites” or “taxes”. Universal, aka socialized medicine, is wrong for America and Americans who do not want or need government making decisions about every aspect of their lives, most especially their healthcare. As you have pointed out there are Big Government fools on both sides of the aisle.
      The choice in November is perfectly clear, though. If you want to do not want the government controlling your health and wasting money we do not have for another bloated program, then you had best vote for Romeny and vote against every D running for Senate and the House.

      • joesix says:

        Amen, brother. Though it is a little suspicious that people didn’t start wearing tea bags on their hats and screaming “socialism” until that black guy brought up the mandate idea.

  4. Tom: Senate is voting on the Disclose Act today.
    ALERT: Harry Reid, who can’t seem to muster the courage to put through anything of merit from the House is today holding a vote on the Disclose Act. Republicans are threatening filibuster. Call your senators NOW and tell them to VOTE NO. More at:

    http://freedombytheway.com/2012/07/16/does-government-have-a-right-to-know-if-you-donate-to-a-political-campaign-senate-votes-today-on-disclose-act/

  5. Sid Schwab says:

    I’d have been happy, of course, to engage you on my site as well, but you seem to have slunk away. As is the case with most political “arguments” nowadays, we’re talking across each other. I say apples and you say asparagus.

    Nevertheless, I’ll try anyway. Of course I won’t agree the ACA creates a socialist program. To the extent that our health care is socialized, it already exists, in the form of Medicare and medicaid. The ACA “creates” no such thing; in fact, it does the opposite, by reinforcing the failed system of private health insurers, who drain countless billions from monies that should be going to health care. They do so, as you must know, in the form of profits, enormous salaries of their executives, and of the also-countless numbers of workers at both ends (providers and insurers) paid to handle the immeasurable amounts of needless paperwork.

    It does, however, try to rein in the costs of Medicare, which Rs (and you) have, predictably, demagogued as “killing grandma.” There was a time, before the black guy got behind it, that Rs thought addressing costs was a good idea.

    Me, I’d love a single-payer system. As a physician, I found it much easier to deal with Medicare, and their rules more sensible, than any of the private insurers, profit or non-profit. And, through the political system, I had at least a theoretical chance of affecting their behavior. Not so with insurers, whose only goal was to keep from spending money on needed care.

    But even that is not the point. My point in posting a fairly silly cartoon, which is hardly much on which to have based your entire screed, was the point of the cartoon: that Obama has provided a framework for improving healthcare for millions of people and the Rs only want to repeal it, while providing no alternative to the situation as it existed: millions dying for lack of health care. Or going bankrupt. Losing their homes. And the people who don’t want to pay the increased costs of the ACA are already paying, invisibly, for the enormously inflated costs of caring for the uninsured via emergency rooms, and because they’ve put off care until they’re needlessly sicker, and more expensive. Ironic, huh?

    Your response is to bring up abortion (a problem made worse by R abstinence only education and opposition to birth control) which, although important, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Likewise, as per the usual right-wing screaming, you imagine that fixing American health care is a mere step away from unfettered euthanasia.

    Seriously. I don’t think it’s me who’s not addressing the issue forthrightly.

    How about re-posting your retort on my site, too, and I’ll repost this. I don’t think you can upload photos and video in the comments over there; at least I’ve never figured out how. But I’m sure my readers would benefit from the discussion, too.

    • Sid Schwab says:

      Should have said you can’t upload the pics/videos, but if you know HTML you can hotlink to them, or just type in the URLs and if people want to bad enough, they can copy and paste ‘em.

  6. Sid Schwab says:

    P.S: I don’t think “crap” is all that bad a word; especially since the most accurate word for today’s politics is even worse.

  7. Citizen Tom says:

    Sid Schwab-

    Slinking Away
    You may have noticed that I did not approve your comment before it appeared. I don’t screen comments. I just expect people obey the rules posted here: http://citizentom.com/blogging-code-of-conduct/.

    Obamacare
    When you said the following, I did this. :roll:

    Maybe you’re talking about Medicare and Social Security which, I agree, are like socialism, and which indeed have impending cash problems. But, as you exemplify, attempts to control medical costs by Democrats are immediately demagogued by the right-wing as killing grandma.

    You think Medicare and Social Security are like Socialism, and Obamacare is not? :roll:

    Look at the history of spending on government social programs. What they all have in common is an attempt to redistribute the wealth. Redistributing the wealth is the core mission of Socialism, and because it stealing, redistributing the wealth is wrong. Nonetheless, every time one of their Socialists programs fails, what do the Socialists want? They want a bigger government program to fix the problem, and that has never worked.

    You are doctor, right? Do I have to explain the definition of insanity?

    Obamacare is just another unconstitutional masquerade. Instead of regulating commerce, it puts the Federal Government in the role of telling us what we must buy and telling businesses what to sell and how to sell their products. Such a system gives politicians too much power and is too easy to abuse. The excessive power required to redistribute the wealth leads to Crony Capitalism which really is not Capitalism; it’s Cronyism, a form of Socialism and corrupt. When it reeks with a fully matured stench, such corruption kills people by the millions. That’s what makes programs such as Obamacare insane.

    What Obama is doing with Obamacare is trying to buy votes — power — with what belongs to other people. He is doing the same thing with: the food stamp program, executive orders related to the welfare programs, “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, and so forth. That means voting for Obama is insane.

    You think an open marketplace too inconvenient? You like the ease of Medicare, a program you admit is going bankrupt? I would not be surprised if for a time lots of people in the medical industry find Obamacare easy, but I suspect most of us will find a bankrupt nation too inconvenient and a tyrannical government too high a price to pay for that convenience.

    Abortion
    The subject of the cartoon is concern for human life. At some point, the conjugation of a sperm and an egg form a human being. When? I honestly don’t know. I just think it reckless to presume to know too much about such a thing.

    On the subject of abortion, Republicans have not been reckless. Republicans have not demanded that other people pay for their abortions, and they are not trying to coerce doctors into performing abortions. Such reckless people belong to the Democratic Party.

    Posting on Cutting Through The Manure
    What you put on your website is up to you. Don’t worry. This post is getting plenty of hits. I suspect your comments are being read by plenty of people whose eyes are doing this. :roll:

    Your Bad Word
    What about your “bad word”? I think it more childish than bad. If you are retired, then you should be past the toilet humor stage. Anyway, if you want to associate yourself with such a word, it is up to you.

    • Sid Schwab says:

      Well, it’s still apples and asparagus, isn’t it?

      Sure, every single government program is a redistribution of wealth. The biggest — and most devastating to our country — was the Bush tax cuts, which redistributed wealth upwards to his buddies. Wealth redistribution is a meaningless term, in and of itself. The question is whether a program is needed or not. And — not that Bush ever worried about it — if it is, how to pay for it. Bush did his wars off the books, his Medicare drug plan was unpaid for. Obamacare addresses a need that’s undeniable to all but the most cold-hearted: our health care system is too expensive, gets too uneven results, and leaves too many people uncovered. The problem with the ACA — admit it — is that in addition to trying to come up with solutions (something Rs have never done), it tries to pay for itself, too. This runs against the fundamental tenet of Reaganbushonomics: cut taxes and you can still pay for everything.

      Your comments about the ACA are opinion, to which you’re entitled. But it doesn’t make them accurate. Calling it socialism doesn’t make it so, and you’ve provided no specifics other than a specious claim of wealth redistribution to support the characterization. Change the tax code in any way, you’re redistributing wealth. Pay for education or a highway, you’re redistributing wealth. Same with calling it unconstitutional: your opinion, despite the ruling of the body that gets to decide the question for real.

      I get that lots of today’s voters, especially tea partiers, don’t want to see the government spend money on anyone but themselves, and that’s a political stance they’re free to take. To me, it’s short-sighted and selfish. The Ryan/Romney budget will destroy our ability to pay for what it takes to have a future: educated citizens (which Rs admit they don’t want: have you read the Texas R party platform? It’s a doozy!), an environment that supports life (not a worry to the rapture-ready, I guess), roads and bridges and dams and powerplants, and, yes, health care. But if all a person cares about is their own small world, stuff like that doesn’t matter much. Me, I love my country enough to want it to survive. Which, like freedom, isn’t free.

      I’ve said I’m disappointed in the ACA because it’s, in fact, nothing at all like socialism. What we need — and what we’ll eventually have, if we survive long enough as a nation — is some form of a public option or medicare for all. Being America (if it still exists, with inferior education and no infrastructure, per tea party budgets) there’ll probably be private insurance, too, so you can have better care than those dirty poor folks. The current system, even under Obamacare which still lets the insurers rip us all off, is unsustainable. But the thing about liberals is they’re willing to compromise for the public good. For the good of providing health care access to those who’ve not had it, I’m willing to pay a little something; and as a doctor I’m willing to be reimbursed a little less (but I think we’ve already gotten all the blood from that turnip). You call it wealth redistribution, evidently, if the money goes to the needier than you. When, through the tax code, it goes to bankers and oil men and Bain, you don’t call it that. But it is. It’s just in another direction.

      But you know as well as I do that I won’t convince you any more than you’ll convince me. So I suppose I should let you have the last word. It’s your blog.

  8. Citizen Tom says:

    Sid Schwab

    Letting people keep their money is a government program. :shock: You can say something that dumb with a straight face? And then drag out George W. Bush for further bashing. :roll:

    You poor fellow. When was the last time you looked at the Federal Budget? As a percentage of the GDP, Bush did not spend any more than usual on the military. And his foolish drug benefit (Do you really think I supported that?) trifles in comparison to what Obama is doing.

    I suppose you have had too many bad examples. I guess part of the problem lies with the type of leaders we have these days. They are great communicators, but only a few dare to tell us the truth. Most are extraordinarily good sophists. What a sophist does is use eloquent language to tell lies with a straight face.

    Does every single government program involve a redistribution of wealth? Yes. That is literally true. Because we have to pay someone to do the work, every government program does involve a redistribution of wealth. However, there is a not so subtle difference between paying someone for work that needs to be done, like a policeman, a fireman, or a soldier, and paying someone a welfare check. Hopefully, even a skilled sophist has trouble disguising that difference from you.

    I would imagine that in you know in your heart that my “opinion” of the ACA’s constitutionality is accurate. You have read the Constitution, right? Nonetheless, I suppose you really did not care. After all, when someone does evil, often they are willfully ignorant of the evil that they do. Thus, what defenders of the ACA are for the most part doing is engaging in legalism (Check out http://citizentom.com/2012/07/16/when-harvard-rejected-the-messenger/.). So long as the Supreme Court says what you want it to say, does it matter to you what the Constitution says?

    If that is your attitude, then debating you and expecting anything other than silly sophistry is rather pointless. However, reducing your arguments to shredded lies does serve a purpose. Seeing your lies for what they are may anger at least a few people enough to do something constructive.

    What is selfish? I have to wonder if you still know. You have elected a President and Congress who wastes trillions, putting generations not yet born in debt. You make fun of the House of Representatives (http://www.sidschwab.blogspot.com/2012/07/worst-ever.html), but the Democrat-run Senate has for the last several years — even when we had a Democrat-run House — refused to pass a budget. They refuse to prioritize because they don’t care if they spend too much. Nonetheless, you still have the gall to call others selfish. And, of course, they are. That’s why redistributing the wealth is a sin. It is about selfishness, and you should know that. So why do you persist? Either you have no shame, or you have no brains. Which I do not know.

    What is apparent is that you have no idea how America came to be. Government did not make America. God did. Americans looked to the Bible to build a moral foundation for their nation, a Christian faith in God. Instead of taking from each other — a not so unusual preoccupation amongst men, Christian Americans worked to build their own fortunes. In fact, they often helped each other without the necessity of any Big Government programs.

    STUDY the Declaration of Independence. That’s the nation’s founding document. That document expresses the Founders attitude towards God, and that’s the attitude they implemented in the Constitution.

    Why isn’t God mentioned in the Constitution? The men who established it as the Law of the land did not worship their government. They worshipped their Creator.

  9. Pingback: Obama’s Next Target: Doctors « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL

Comments are closed.