Today we are facing a crossroads in the history of this nation. One day our children and our children’s children may turn to us and ask, 'Which side were you on?' In the aftermath of this vote, members of the House will have to look their constituents, their friends, their family and even their children in the eyes and tell them the painful truth.This is a good example of the problem I was discussing below, where politics is more aggressive than ethics at dividing people. Lewis, whose skull was broken at Selma, is a man devoted to a particular politics in which the proper role of the Federal government is to do good things for people -- especially poor people and, as a remedy for historical unfairness, minority groups. He reads this bill as an attack on the poor and the sick.
The House Republican bill, H.R. 1628, does not rescue health care. It is an attack on the poor, the sick, the elderly and the disabled. It punishes hard-working women and men, and it uses their resources collected in the federal Treasury as a pipeline to line the pockets of big business and the wealthiest people in the world.
Never ever in my years in the U.S. House of Representatives have I seen such a betrayal of the public trust. Never have I seen legislative action that reveals such clear disdain for the human dignity of the most vulnerable among us. Never have I ever seen such a willingness to disregard what is right in favor of what is so wrong.
People from all around the country begged their elected representatives to vote against this despicable bill. Instead, my colleagues chose to serve themselves and their rich friends and leave the rest of us to fend for ourselves. H.R. 1628 proves this White House ushered in a government of the rich, by the rich, for big business, and people will pay with their lives for it.
If this bill becomes law, at least 24 million Americans who can see their doctors today will be turned away tomorrow. Those who are sick will suffer, and some of them will die. People with pre-existing conditions will have premiums so high most will not be able to afford care, and any state can deny healthcare to their citizens at any time.
This is a shame and a disgrace. May God have mercy on us all.
It is possible to untangle opposition to this model of the proper role of the Federal government from opposition to the poor living good lives, or opposing respect for the poor and the sick in general. But there isn't any political advantage to making that leap; in fact it derails several very useful rhetorical tools. And it's emotionally attractive, too, to view your opponents as wicked and evil rather than as simply having different views.
Can we have a debate about the various ways in which Federal money chasing health care services actually raises the cost for everyone, just as increased demand always raises costs given a steady supply? Theoretically, sure. But practically, once you've equated morality with using government to provide goods, opponents to the provision of goods are immoral. Of course it's proper to treat the immoral with disdain. Isn't it?
22 comments:
This is well said, Grim, but I stopped believing Mr. Lewis was operating in good faith quite a while ago.
The model is not the only problem. Lewis—and Congressional Democrats generally, apparently—oppose any relief for the victims of Obamacare.
If the model were the problem, Lewis would apply that model and be anxious for the federal government to rescue those victims—repair the holes blown in their budgets by the premiums, allow them to see doctors who aren't the very cheapest the insurance companies could find, do something to help with the cost of medical care they can't afford any more given the enormous premiums. Here, he simply ignores their existence and trumpets the regulations that have victimized them.
This isn't how we expect someone would behave who simply believes the Federal government's role is to do good things for people. The idea would make more sense when discussing, let's say, a welfare program. (Did Lewis speak in similar terms about Clinton's welfare reform?)
Lewis, whose skull was broken at Selma, is a man devoted to a particular politics in which the proper role of the Federal government is to do good things for people -- especially poor people....
That Lewis was a hero of Selma is wholly irrelevant to today, as his own behavior has made plain. His view of the proper role of government is not at all (if it ever was) to do good things for people. His policies, shared with his fellow Progressive-Democrats, are destructive of economic and political mobility, destructive of the general prosperity, destructive of morality: his policies seek to create honest men and women as dependents on his Government. Lewis remains an enormously intelligent, and well-educated man. He knows full well the outcome of his policies--he has 50 years of their failure before him--and he pushes those policies anyway.
His hysteria is of a piece with Pelosi's in the same sham debate, and just as false.
If the model were the problem, Lewis would apply that model and be anxious for the federal government to rescue those victims....
And he would be anxious to release his--not "those"--victims from his carefully constructed and tightly locked welfare cage, in which he keeps the poor and helpless in order to harvest their votes for his gain and the gain of his fellow Progressive-Democrats.
It's time, perhaps, for the Senate to eliminate the virtual filibuster on all matters relating to budgeting, revenue, and spending, and thereby require actual filibusters--for however long can a man speak without yielding the floor. If the Progressive-Democratic Party refuses to be serious in these matters, perhaps it's time the rest simply moved on without them.
Eric Hines
Trusting in G has worked out so well for humanity. Obviously more free speech is needed for Lewis, Soros, and Leftists, because that's how America has always been...
That Lewis was a hero of Selma is wholly irrelevant to today...
No more than that McCain was a hero in his handling of POW status in Vietnam, I think. Such actions carry a residual glory that continues to merit respect, even in light of subsequent actions that are far less praiseworthy.
In a way, that's even a partial answer to the problem I'm raising about treating each other as despicable. To remember always what someone did at his or her best inflects your opinion of them during periods of disagreement over moral issues. It's not an antidote, but it is a sort of counterweight.
You're right about McCain, and he's rendered himself as irrelevant today with his current behavior as has Lewis. Neither has lived up to their past. That past, their past heroism, in fact makes their current behavior all the more disappointing.
And Lewis' past in no way legitimizes his current dishonesty. McCain has called those who disagreed with him whacko birds, but he's remained fundamentally honest. He has not slurred anyone with despicable, false charges of racism.
Eric Hines
To remember always what someone did at his or her best inflects your opinion of them during periods of disagreement over moral issues.
You want to know what I call people who expect me to forgive the Leftist allaince and Demoncrat trafficking in kids, but keep bringing up Sherman the burner of Atlanta all the time for kicks and giggles amongst their "people", Grim? Probably not. Then again, one might call the Burning of Atlanta, Sherman's highlight moment in time. Too bad him and Lincoln decided to spare the Confeds. Sparring Lee and Forrest made sense. Sparing the slave lords that refused to fight in the war they started... not as good a decision.
I recall Lewis was the guy who testified all the time that Tea Party spit on him. In effect, that false testimony was his way of spitting on you Americans, and getting away with it. The Black Caucus and DC Elites Are Your Rulers. And the more FreeDom of Speech and power you give them, the thicker your chains become.
Sure, Lucifer likes free will. Why not. He wouldn't stand a chance without it, if the angels were bound directly to the will of Jehovah.
If I remember correctly, Lewis did not actually claim that.
But he didn't deny it either when others retailed the false story. His office refused to comment on it. So not exactly a liar, but not precisely a truth-teller in this matter either.
You want to know what I call people who...?
I suppose you call me "Grim," since you do it every time you come by. But don't confuse my commitment to courtesy with concern for what you think.
It's not often that Congress manages to pass a law that hurts me badly, but they managed it with the ACA. That gave me a chance to gauge just how worried the typical progressive is upon learning that a law has bitterly and unfairly wounded me, which is to say, not worried at all. That armors me against Lewis's style of hyperventilating. Now I'm ready to go back to a rational discussion, if one can be had, about how best to make affordable healthcare as broadly available as possible, and how to plug any holes with charity in the case of people who will never, under any system, be able to pay for their own, any more than they can contrive to pay for their own food or shelter.
...how best to make affordable healthcare as broadly available as possible, and how to plug any holes with charity in the case of people who will never, under any system, be able to pay for their own....
Well, my view is that this is somewhat backwards, even if I am being Quixotic. How best to make healthcare affordable is with free markets in both health care and health insurance (which are separate industries), with government plugging any holes after charity, church, etc.
And it's also a necessarily slow process, not to be done all at once, but with steps taken in an order, with empirical observation of the successes and failures of each step adjusted for while taking the next step.
But that takes more patience and a longer-term view than the public often has and more courage than most politicians have.
Alternatively, the issue could be forced: a stand-alone one-sentence bill that repeals outright Obamacare and all related regulations and rules. Then let the pressure build to replace it.
Eric Hines
Not sure what's backwards?--I agree completely. The affordable health care comes from a healthy market and minimal governmental mucking about. Ditto the rational health insurance industry. Given those, some people still won't be able to take care of themselves, and that's where charity comes in: first private, then (if necessary) a governmental intervention.
...that's where charity comes in: first private, then (if necessary) a governmental intervention.
That's where I misunderstood you. You'd earlier said that charity should plug holes. There aren't any holes until after the free market and charity have done their trick. And: government intervention, necessary as it may be as a last resort, isn't charity; it's welfare based on forced transfers of government mandated amounts to government selected targets. That's about as far from charity as it gets.
Eric Hines
The problem is that there will always be some ridiculous sob story (Perhaps not to the person(s) it is happening to, but ridiculous all the same), in any set of possible circumstances.
So this idea that Congress or any human entity or organization can craft a law or program that will give the best outcome 100% of the time, and be 'affordable' is pretty much insanity.
Exactly: the market does its job, and only if there are holes left does charity need to step in. I'm willing to entertain the notion of government subsidies to genuinely needy/helpless people who, for whatever reason, have not been helped by charity. But essentially I'd try everything else first. That's actually my approach to all government, to establish that private institutions can't or won't solve a problem that must be solved, like national defense or epidemics.
And part of that discussion is understanding what problems actually must be solved, and understanding what other problems must be dealt with suboptimally, from that problem's perspective, in order to optimize the overall system.
Unfortunately, not enough politicians are trained in systems engineering.
Eric Hines
But don't confuse my commitment to courtesy with concern for what you think.
I'm ahead of you on that, self proclaimed Christian. Notice I never told you to forgive what Sherman did to Atlanta. Also notice I said you wouldn't care what I thought, which you supported me with that line later.
I'm internally consistent. You are not. The things I state were true, are true, and will be true. It's good you've figured out that you need not have concern for what I think. It's the 1+ million other Ymars in the world that have been created because you've ignored the truth of what I've stated in the wilderness, that you won't be able to ignore. It is happening as I said it would in the years of Hussein where you kept trying to out debate me by asking me about the Leftist alliance's hierarchy and everything else that was an obvious dot and connection, but was not so obvious to other people.
If the world would not change, if I stopped talking about it, maybe I would stop talking about it. But as with Atlanta's highway section burning, the world will Burn. That's not something I can change by talking or not talking about it, in writing or not. Thus there's no reason to be concerned about what I write. What you should have always been concerned about was the Power that my words attested to, and it is this Power you cannot withstand as a mortal. Iraq has already proven that speaking only good things about it, didn't achieve victory. After 2006, both Demoncrats and Republicans were talking about Petraeus as turning it around. That didn't last for very long after Hussein got involved. People had hope for this hope and change. That didn't change things for the better either.
Btw, Grim, welcome to Ymar's World. Specifically the time period where I didn't care what anybody said. It's a kind of progress, you are mimicking, Grim, except what you are mimicking is becoming a Ymar. Look over your previous 4 years of posts, their progressive tone dropping into paranoia and darkness, accusing me of all people of being a hidden agent of the Leftist evil, and compare it to Ymar's writings in 2008-2010 that you thought were funny and crazy. Not that you are capable of remembering records that far. I wonder if that is a good or bad thing. Perhaps if you can forget the past, it would be easier to cut your ties to it that will drag you into darkness. Then again, Southerners still keep posting about Sherman, so that's perhaps not very likely.
As for N healthcare, the LEftist alliance is not interested in allowing a solution. Especially since their Congress already knows what works, since they have it as their own insurance.
Specifically the time period where I didn't care what anybody said. It's a kind of progress...
Oh, I care what the rest of the commenters think. You I let hang around here because I get the sense that you really need someone to pay attention to you. You seem very lonely, and that deserves a sort of pity. It must be hard, being that locked up in your own thing.
You seem very lonely, and that deserves a sort of pity.
You contradict yourself. There's only one real you, Grim, and it's not the one you present to the world as the rational, logical, Greek philosopher debate loving version.
The real you comes out when your emotional trigger topics are brushed against, often times even unintentionally. There's no point trying to hide it from me and these Eyes. Your emotional triggers are part and parcel of your "people", your "clan", your traditions, and basically everything you react emotionally to on a hair trigger. There's no rational reason to argue on it, because you either don't argue it or you aren't using reason about these topics. That is in stark contrast to how you treat other topics where you are passionate about such as Arthur, the Norse, or the Greeks. Your "baseline" is fluctuating there. You jump to reckless conclusions whenever certain people mention "darkness" or "Lucifer" as if they are personally insulting you, when in fact they don't even know you are in the conversation to begin with. This is in no way consistent with your tolerance of your Leftist university associates.
The "courtesy" you show is more of a mask, like many people wear, that hides their true self. Because of honor, rules, or basically avoiding behavior that makes them look bad.
To use one example, normal courtesy doesn't require that you call a guest unhinged because he made mention of Lucifer a few times. This isn't Harry Potter and the Voldemort debates, unless your tradition erred on the side of fearing Voldemort at least.
The problem isn't your incompetent attempts at psychoanalysis of my words and personality online, Grim. The problem is how you are going to face up to your worst enemy, and that's not me or even the Left or Lucifer or whoever you have listed as number 1.
You I let hang around here because I get the sense that you really need someone to pay attention to you.
Which is contradicted by your years old demand that I answer your questions. If I had wanted someone to pay attention to me, I would have been more interested in checking for responses and debates from 2006-2010. All the things you complain about now, are a result of a compromise with your previous "request" that I engage and reply to your questions. I was neither interested in your reply to my revelations nor interested in explaining myself, but only because you kept poking at it as if it wasn't your problem. Well, now you see that maybe it was your problem, because America is now your problem as the Leftist alliance is America's homegrown terrorist problem of traitors prospering under our noses.
I say welcome to my world, because Ymar used to say one liners in a funny offensive way like "that deserves a sort of pity" or "it must be hard, being locked up in your own thing". I was better at it though, perhaps because of 5+ years of experience. It became my honest, true self, rather than something people hid and excused in themselves as flaws.
To be honest, Grim, and I'm probably significantly more honest than humanity put together, that's you imitating me, because the darkness is eating at your soul. And this time I don't mean Babylon 5 sci fi darkness, I mean religious darkness and the principle of opposition. And if we are being honest, your specialty isn't understanding what my thing is. After all, you denied that I had any ability to read people's true intent online, because of your personal antithesis to psychological methods. I've already been where you are at, Grim. You can fool yourself and tell yourself you are like the Grim of 2008 or 2010, but you are not. And I assess the change isn't necessarily all for the better.
There's no point pitying me, since it is the darkness eating at your own heart you should have been fighting. As for me, my trial is over, on that note at least. I am your senior in this matter. If you don't pay attention to me, then I can honestly say I at least tried. In the same way you tried to tell me that I needed help with trusting humans or other issues. If I didn't listen to it, the fault was my own. If you don't listen to the truth, it's not because I failed. You have a bad habit of turning the issue back towards me, whenever you can't out argue the topic itself.
The problem with studying evil and facing it upfront, honestly, no self or external deception, is that you begin to emulate the effects from a mirror value perspective. Just as the Alt Right has done. It is an interesting process. I love studying interesting processes, even if nobody else is interested in hearing about it.
The "courtesy" you show is more of a mask, like many people wear, that hides their true self.
That's what "Grim" means, you know, in the Old Norse.
If you want to lecture me on the state of my soul, you should consider the priesthood. I'm careful about from whom I take advice on that score.
Post a Comment