Cheetoville Chases a Squirrel

Markos henchman Hunter:

Sarah Palin tries valiantly to answer a health care question

Look, television networks, we really need to come to an understanding here. Just because someone has written a book—or more accurately, caused a book to be written in their name—does not mean that you are constitutionally obliged to put them on your television shows. Yes, professional famous person Sarah Palin has written a 10-years-too-late book grumbling about a supposed War on Christmas. No, this does not mean she will be any better at answering your questions about what the hell Sarah Palin stands for than she was during the last hundred appearances. She does not know.

So when Matt Lauer badgers Sarah Palin in a vain and pointless televised attempt to tease out whether or not Sarah Palin and her “tea party” have any suggestions for health care reform that do not revolve around the obsessive need to hurt Barack Obama, it should be no surprise that Sarah Palin launches into the usual word salad:

“The plan is to allow those things that had been proposed over many years to reform a health care system in America that certainly does need more help so that there’s more competition, there’s less tort reform threat, there’s less trajectory of the cost increases? And those plans have been proposed over and over again. And what thwarts those plans? It’s the far left. It’s President Obama and his supporters who will not allow the Republicans to usher in free market, patient-centered, doctor-patient relationship links to reform health care!”

All right, first off I think if we’re going to do this we need to first start with a whole show devoted to attempting to find out what Sarah Palin thinks the word “tort” means. The rest of that nonsense was lifted directly from a placemat.

But very well, let’s bite: So the “tea party” answer to Obamacare, according to its muse and Princess of the Roaming Bus Sarah Palin, is a mysterious plan that has been apparently been proposed before and therefore needs no further explanation, but revolves around “tort reform” and something-something to untrajectorify the increasificated costs because free market. Yes, thank you for that. I can see now why this person is considered one of the leading lights of far-right conservatism. Such genius. Such clear insight. Such a masterful ability to repeat words like tort because some backroom stiff at the Foundation for Screw You wrote it on one of his Powerpoint slides four decades ago and the word is still haunting conservative cupboards like an old holiday fruitcake.

In Sarah Palin’s defense, and merely writing that phrase will require a good mental scrubbing afterwards, this is not necessarily just the usual demonstration of Ex. Gov. Half-term’s legendary brickheadedness. The entire conservative movement, from Mitt Romney to Congress to local yahoos to top strategizing strategerists, has been unable to elucidate any plan any more detailed than Sarah Palin’s reference to a generic free market yada-yada with tort reform that magically reduces costs because the magical insurance fairies will then be set free to pass the savings on to you. She’s just reading the script she’s been given, she can’t help it if the writing sucks.

I’m not going to defend Sarah Palin because she doesn’t need my help. Yeah, she mangled an answer, but she was there to promote her new book, not announce a new health care reform plan. Last time I checked Sarah Palin was a private citizen. She holds no public office nor is she a candidate for one.

Meanwhile, Obamacare is an epic clusterfuck of historic proportion.

So what is the point of this diary?

It’s a big fat squirrel. “HA-HA! Republicans are stoopid! They don’t have a better plan anyway!

I noticed it yesterday when Matt Lauer asked Sarah what the Tea Party alternative to Obamacare was. He asked her twice, even though he knows that the Tea Party is a grassroots movement rather than an organized group with a specific agenda or platform.

Where does it say you have to propose a specific alternative to Obamacare before you can criticize it? What’s wrong with “Repeal it now, start working on a new plan later?”

Obamacare is b-a-d bad. Tear it down and start over. And next time let’s do it right. Hold hearings on C-Span like Obama promised. Start with a discussion on exactly what the problems are that need fixing. Then start talking about solutions.


About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, Sarah Palin and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Cheetoville Chases a Squirrel

  1. The Klown says:

    Greg Sargent:

    House Democratic leaders are privately warning rank and file Dems that a vote for this bill – and other anti-Obamacare legislation – could alienate leading Democratic donors heading into 2014, a source familiar with internal discussions tells me. “Votes against the Affordable Care Act are going to turn off a lot of these top national progressive donors,” the source said in characterizing the arguments.

    “Follow the money” used to mean something different.

  2. helenk3 says:

    the stenos in the msm have to do something to make people look away from this obamacare mess and backtrack
    looking for lifeboats as the titanic sinks

    his numbers are going down down down

  3. DandyTIger says:

    They look so small doing this because they are small.

  4. helenk3 says:

    do not forget November 13 and November 14 government electrical power grid tests

  5. abc says:

    Where does it say you have to propose a specific alternative to Obamacare before you can criticize it? What’s wrong with “Repeal it now, start working on a new plan later?”

    Well, because I don’t think that’s possible now. They’ve already effed it up so badly that there is no repeal. We cannot go back.

    That ship has sailed
    That canary has already died.
    The toothpaste is out of the tube.

    and all the other analogies.

  6. underwhelmed says:

    What should happen is that a bunch of smart and committed folk from both sides of the aisle should sit down in a room and design a health care system from scratch, taking into account current demographics, stats etc — with no other yardstick save the delivery of a comprehensive, graduated system balanced between state and federal bureaus that provides basic health CARE to all citizens, plus the provision of value added extras and more services to be paid for either by private insurance or out of pocket expenses. The profit motive should be stripped entirely from the equation, insurance companies should have zero input, doctors on the coal face of hospitals, clinics and ERs should be the most referenced resource, and anyone who tries to politicise the process should be booted, named and shamed out of public life.

    Yeah. I know. But … until you wipe the board clean and start again, you’re never going to fix this.

    • elliesmom says:

      I used to believe that, too, but now I think the federal government should get out the health care business all together, including Medicare. Most of the countries who have government run health care are smaller than California. While there are some economies of scale, they are outweighed by the problems that come with “one size fits all”. Doesn’t work for pantyhose, and it doesn’t work for healthcare. States with large urban populations have different issues with delivering quality healthcare than states that are largely rural, for example.

      • underwhelmed says:

        I totally agree that for a country of your size, the balance should tip towards state control, not federal. But I also think there needs to be federal oversight to make sure there aren’t inequities. In some things, there should be equality across the board regardless of postcode. I know there are some conservatives who like to argue that health care isn’t a human right. I find them repugnant in the extreme. No person should die because of inadequate health care. The point of civilisation is to make sure that as fas as humanly possible, people have their basic needs met. After that, you’re on your own. But children suffering from malnutrition, poverty, preventable illness and neglect in a nation with abundant wealth is an obscenity. That’s the point of the tax base. To provide a humane standard of living for all. To provide access to basic services. But everywhere you look, that ideal has been perverted by the very so called progressives who claim to be doing it For The Children.

        Of course, that attitude is why I’d never be called a conservative in your country.

        • elliesmom says:

          I’m not a conservative either, but I grew up in a house where if you didn’t work, you didn’t eat. My dad was a yellow dog Democrat, but there was no free lunch under his roof. “A humane standard of living for all” has long been met in the United States. Unless “basic needs” includes cell phones and wide screen TVs. Oh, wait, we already provide those, too.

        • The point of civilisation is to make sure that as fas as humanly possible, people have their basic needs met. After that, you’re on your own. But children suffering from malnutrition, poverty, preventable illness and neglect in a nation with abundant wealth is an obscenity.

          We already have programs to cover that in America. There is Medicaid for the poor, WIC for small children, TANF cash payments for the poor and subsidized housing, as well as food stamps. There’s also free parenting classes, and mandated special resources for parents caught offending against their children. There is even FREE education for any poor person who wants out, all the way through the end of a BA or BS.

          They don’t want it. If they did, there wouldn’t be child hunger, basic neglect, abuse, or medical neglect. We’ve had all those programs for 50+ years, and the problems are greater now than when those programs started. None of it will stop until you stop poor people breeding at will. That’s the bottom line.

        • Constance says:

          “there are some conservatives who like to argue that health care isn’t a human right. I find them repugnant in the extreme.”

          That is a really disgusting manipulative statement. Conservatives believe that the government should do the smallest number of things possible because the government is corrupt and wasteful. Conservatives do not believe poor children should suffer. Conservatives give far more to charity than Democrats. So look self righteous liberals, if you want to give money give money, if you want to create a program for the poor do it, but don’t tax people to fund your dreams and don’t use the government to administer your charity.

          • The Klown says:

            “there are some conservatives who like to argue that health care isn’t a human right. I find them repugnant in the extreme.”

            I don’t think there are any conservatives who would deny that healthcare is a right just like freedom of speech. Some might deny that it is an entitlement, particularly in regard to non-emergency care. The difference is whether we collectively thru our government have an obligation to pay for other people’s healthcare.

  7. SHV says:

    “The profit motive should be stripped entirely from the equation,”
    That sound good but try explaining that to my great niece and her husband who, combined, finished college and medical school >$600,000 in debt. They both went to “low cost” state universities.

    • abc says:

      Forgive the loans…..

    • underwhelmed says:

      There’s another obscenity. There are some things that should be profit driven. And there are some things that should be about the general advancement of humanity. Medicine and Education for me land in the latter category. Not that they shouldn’t be self supporting. But that they should be used to gouge profits or deny equality of opportunity with anyone who needs that service.

      • underwhelmed says:

        should not. Stupid fingers.

      • 1539days says:

        So doctors are slaves of the state.

      • wmcb says:

        Sounds good in theory, but the problem is, medicine is hard. And stressful. And it takes a particular type of VERY driven person to do it well. You know who the very best doctors are? The ones for whom medicine is their whole damn life. The ones who work 60 and 70 hour weeks, 51 weeks of the year. The ones who thrive on challenge and achievement, as measured in monetary success.

        Want a majority of so-so docs? Let the State decide their salaries, turn them into clock-punchers and tickers of ticky-boxes. Oh, you’ll have a lot of adequate ones, a few good ones, and a shitload of crappy ones.

        You can have great medicine, or you can have cheap, fair medicine. What you cannot have is both, if you are insuring everyone and everything under the sun. Doctors do not compete with each other over price – they compete for big insurance contracts, or compete for a bigger slice of the govt Medicare pie. The patient is not even part of that calculation. And it is driving prices sky high.

        Frankly, the CHEAPEST healthcare this country has ever seen was before either government OR insurance got overly involved. There was a day when you paid out of pocket for basic office visit stuff, you had Medicaid or charity if you were dirt-poor, and insurance was actual insurance – solely for catastrophic claims. It is insurance itself, whether via govt or via private, that has utterly skewed realistic pricing of healthcare. My mother paid for every doctor visit we ever had as kids. We were insured, but insurance was for big stuff. As a result, our family doc did almost zero paperwork and “compliance” bullshit, so still made a profit. And my mother didn’t run us to a doctor every time we had a runny nose, or call and demand antibiotics every time we had a cough. Ya know why? Because she was paying for it.

        In order to have real market pricing, you need a buyer and a seller. Once you get ANY kind of third party middleman involved, the signals that drive price get skewed, more and more. You know which medical services and procedures have gotten CHEAPER, not more expensive? The ones that are cash-only. Lasix, plastic surgeries, Botox, etc. Because docs compete, and there’s no govt or insurance involvement.

        I’m not opposed to taxpayer-paid subsidies to help the poor with medical costs. Not at all. But it needs to be done in a very hands-off way, basically giving THE PATIENTS the healthcare dollars, to be spent how they choose. People get very picky about bargain-shopping when it’s perceived as THEIR money. Heck, they might call around to 10 doctors, see who has the cheapest office visit. Insurance? Well, why bother – they are paying 40 bucks no matter where they go. And how much the doc gets paid has jack-all to do with the patient. It has to do with cutting a sweet deal with a major insurer.

        • underwhelmed says:

          I am in total agreement with you. I’ve seen up close and personal the cost of working in the public health system, and I live in a country with combo public/private health care on offer that for the most part succeeds in meeting people’s needs. But it’s not perfect and the financial strain is enormous and we have a tiny fraction of your population. That’s why for your scale I think it needs to be mainly a local process. I’m not a fan of nanny state federalism. I’m not a fan of nanny state anything. I am a fan of social safety nets … with the caveat that there must be checks and balances and when you’re on the public teat then you’re accountable to the taxpayers and so you get put under severe scrutiny. That’s where the car’s in the ditch I think, for you and for us. There’s no accountability or scrutiny for the ‘free stuff’ and if you ask for it, you’re destroyed as being cruel and a hater. Which is crap. If my taxes are paying for you, sunshine, I want to make sure my money isn’t being pissed away. That part of the equation seems to be ignored, most of the time. And that’s why the costs are out of control. Because the politicians know that once you’ve got the folks hooked on the free stuff, they won’t ever vote to have it taken away, or monitored.

  8. elliesmom says:

    Imagine what would happen to innovation in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries w/o a profit motive.

    • underwhelmed says:

      I count them as separate entities. I’m talking the provision of health services, medicine. I agree that pharma and similar corollary entities are in a different boat.

      OTOH, I also think that people on the public purse need to be held accountable for their lifestyle choices that lead to proven poor outcomes. If you choose to smoke, for eg, you are choosing the almost certain likelihood of disease. Now, if you can afford to pay privately for what it costs to fix the consequences, great. If you can’t, if you just assume that you get a free ride regardless of what choices you make, well … I think you need to be prioritised behind people who either didn’t make those choices or who have catastrophic needs beyond their control.

      That’s the trouble with socialised medicine. Everyone gets less so everyone gets something. But everyone can’t get everything, because there’s not enough money in the world.

  9. helenk3 says:

    on sale now until 1/20/2017

  10. DeniseVB says:

    Sounds like the Kos plagarized one of his own posters, well, from the list of Don’t Miss stories in my dk email today ….

    I took out the http:// hopefully it’s no longer a hot link. Hate sending them hits, which is the point of Sarah titled posts.

  11. The Klown says:
  12. The Klown says:

    From my SIL’s FB page:

    “So I get home from work and sit down with my daughter to talk about her day. Apparently she tried to kiss the tv today because she has a boyfriend on the bubble guppies. WTF!? thought I had like 4 years before we talked about this I asked her what boyfriend means and she said “it’s your friend forever”! Love seeing her grow up but I think I sprouted a few gray hairs tonight!”

    My Awesome Granddaughter takes after her mama.

  13. helenk3 says:

    oh yeah the dems are running scared

    dianne feinstein joins push to keep health plans

    over 1million in California lose healthcare plans

    • helenk3 says:

      in 2008 when a lot of democrats who had worked for the party for years were told they were no longer wanted or needed, I think they got a favor. Why would anyone with 1/2 a brain want to be associated with the new dem party now

      • Constance says:

        So true…I was never a Dem but I was an independent who voted Dem 90% of the time and I feel like Dems gave me the boot too. I am glad to not be associated with the Progs who took over the party. But I sure miss the old Dems who I used to support.

  14. votermom says:

  15. Ouch! RCP average showing a 12 point drop in support for Obama in just 17 days.

    Quinnipac & Gallup showing negative 14 & 15 respectively in just a week.

  16. 1539days says:

    What makes me laugh my ass off is the idea that Democrats are so disgusted that the Republicans are suggesting the free market drive health care. Excuse me, but what the hell did Obama and Harry Reid do in 2010? I’m pretty sure they ensured customers to one of the largest business sectors in the country!

    I understand people who think health care is a right, (it isn’t) but that kind of thinking makes it so expensive. People may go bankrupt paying for care, but they often get better and they don’t go to debtor’s prison. All in all, it’s a better deal than the poor sap who went bankrupt and lost their house because their mortgage was too high.

    No one has figured out the goal here. Do we want lots of health care or cheap health care? Are we willing to work 70% of our lives to pay for top notch medicine? Are we willing to tell an 80 year old they need to cash in their 401K if they need treatment because they are just taking money from a younger patient?

    This is not Cocoon. Obama can’t tell people “We won’t get sick, we won’t get any older and we won’t ever die” and make it true.

    • wmcb says:

      We need to ensure that almost everyone can get a BASIC of minimal care. That’s doable. Not unlimited, not every bell and whistle but “you are not going to die of pneumonia in an alley” care.

      And if you want more than that, you pay. Yes, some people will have MUCH better care than others, because they can pay for it. But pretty much no one dies. Life isn’t fair. That’s the best we can do. Suck it up.

      • 1539days says:

        Many years ago, I suggested we use all that federal Homeland Security money and put it into ERs. Make them Emergency response centers. Stock them with Cipro and treatments for terrorist attacks, but keep them open as Emergency rooms. Essentially, we use ERs as loss leaders in preparedness and take the burden off hospitals keeping them open.

  17. helenk3 says:

    a little bit of history that many young people know nothing about.

    stop and think about how in today’s America people are being targeted by the government. IRS and conservatives, the tea party vilified any one who speaks out about backtrack

  18. abc says:

    Seriously. Shut that top of the post tweet down. If I see Markos face one more time I’m going to have to slap my monitor. And I really like my monitor.


  19. underwhelmed says:

    What this guys says, with bells on.

Comments are closed.