Hate, Incorporated

It is truly breathtaking, the depths to which Teabaggers will manufacture hatred (video link)

A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it. Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?” asked host Wolf Blitzer.

Paul, a medical doctor, first responded by saying American society is primed to believe government would pay for it.

“Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him,’ he said.

When pressed on the question, Paul responded: “That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks,” to applause from many tea party backers in the audience.

“But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” asked Blitzer, to which several voices in the audience cried out, “Yes!”

To his credit, Ron Paul himself said no, but his own answer is a bit unsettling in its own right, and reveals a terrible knowledge of American history.

“No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals,” said Paul to additional applause. “And we’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea, that’s the reason the cost is so high. The cost is so high because they dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy,” he added.

Congressman, we tried that for the first 150 years of America, and we ended up with people who were starving in Applachia and dying in our streets. Old people were living in the most extreme forms of poverty until the New Deal, and I note that your own experience with treating the indigent began in the 1960s, well after the New Deal’s fabulous implementation of safety nets.

Indeed, most Americans never even had health insurance until after World War II, when FDR’s mandatory disability insurances were expanded to cover illnesses and injuries off-site. A government program YOUR HOSPITAL BENEFITTED FROM to treat the indigent. Idjit!

Lest you think those in the audience who actually shouted “Yes!” were some form of liberal plant, I give you this:

Paul, an unapologetic isolationist, defended his views, and said that Santorum’s contention that the country was attacked by Al Qaeda because the terrorist organization resented America’s position in the world was wrong.

”œThis idea that whole Muslim world is attacking us because we’re free and prosperous, that is just not true,” Paul said.

Many in the crowd began to boo and hiss, drowning out Paul as he attempted to explain Muslim sympathies for the plight of the Palestinians.

Clearly, a position more in keeping with liberal doctrine, that American hegemonic ambitions had more to do with the terror attacks of 1983 and 2001 than our “freedoms” or prosperity.

It saddens me to see this much hatred on public view. If its not booing a legitimate rationale for a belief, or cheering the death of a poor soul who, like millions of his peers, thinks he is immortal against the better judgement of God and man (or for that matter, cheering a muderous bastard,) then it’s a bloodthirsty war chant against Ben Bernanke.

I mean, when Dick Cheney says you’ve gotten too bloodyminded, you might want to reconsider your words.

These folks aren’t Americans. I really wish they would stop identifying as such. They are brownshirts, goons hired to thug up American life and American politics.

Look, when liberals protested the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or protested the G-8 conferences, we were called “commies,” “fascists” (clearly, no one studies history anymore,) “terrorists” and worse.

When are these folks going to be called out on their extremism? How many people have to get blown up in a building before we start hunting these folks down and carting them off to a time-out in the pokey?

When do we get America back from them? Is it going to be before or after they’ve raped the shit out of her?

The saddest part is, this is not hatred that comes from a place that one can comprehend. This is not hatred that comes from having watched someone die because of the actions or inactions of another. This is not hatred that comes from injustice or misjustice. This is not hatred that grows from the pain of existence in a society that is cruel and unfair.

This hatred has been manufactured and marketed to these people. This is not a grass-roots hatred but one that has been delivered by Fedex and the Internet after testing in front of focus groups.

It is the hatred by the privileged against those who have not attained that status. It is hatred that grows from boredom and the gnawing feelign that somehow, one’s life was a failure, and someone must be to blame for it, and finally focusing on someone or someones conveniently presented as “them.”

A man dies (hypothetically, but it’s all too real a scenario,) and a crowd yells for more. An innocent man dies, and its left to God to sort it all out.

I’m not sure God aprpeciates the extra work, guys.

A nation dies, not with a bang, not with a whimper, but to the sound of thunderous applause.

They ought to be ashamed.

About author View all posts

Actor 212

22 CommentsLeave a comment

  • “A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it. Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?”

    Wouldn’t be a problem with mandatory universal public health insurance.

    Simple answers.

  • well, perhaps we do, but…
    If we decide that everyone – regardless of means – should have something (it doesn’t really matter what), then it makes little sense to have people fund that for themselves since the economic incentive is then not to pay, and to use the social support network instead. Let’s take the hypothetical 30 year old guy for example. If he gets taken care of after the accident without it, is there really any incentive for him to get health insurance?
    I’m not suggesting that we let people die, but rather that market based health care is contrary to universal access to health care.

    In the article and video you linked to Cheney says that Perry’s criticisms of Social Security and Fed Chairman Bernanke are misguided – without any comment on bloodymindedness. If politics weren’t such a game of saying nothing, one could even argue, that by not mentioning it, Cheney is tacitly approving of that type of discourse.

    “The saddest part is, this is not hatred that comes from a place that one can comprehend. …”

    As for the source of the anger (or hatred) it seems pretty transparent: Many people are out of work, or struggling to make ends meet while the government bails out the banks and pays record bonuses. People can’t help but get angry at the inequity and injustice. (You even mention it here.) Emotional reactions are powerful, but not rational. What politicians do is to direct them to one way, or another. A common trick of the mind is that rage is directed at things other than its cause.

  • …uses this as an example. A significant percentage (roughly a quarter at a population level but much higher among those with more complicated death paths) of the total cost of medical care for any given individual is blown through in the last year of life. If one wants to control costs, that’s where to start. Given that the demographics of death are heavily slanted towards death at a much, much older age the morality tale should really be about the senior citizen who doesn’t have care.

    Funny how that would have a different moral loading in the public eye.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • “Clearly, a position more in keeping with liberal doctrine, that American hegemonic ambitions had more to do with the terror attacks of 1983 and 2001 than our “freedoms” or prosperity.”

    I really don’t see it. Paul’s position is not more in keeping with liberal doctrine. It may be more in keeping with some liberals’ views, but that’s about it. It certainly is not in keeping with the Democratic Party’s doctrine, which is what most liberals vote for.

    And if it is, then it’s full of hypocrisy, because liberals have been loving some humanitarian intervention in Libya, which is almost certain to breed a future threat of terrorism. Liberals (like Jimmy Carter) were all for our first – technically second – Afghan adventure that has a lot to do with AQ and terrorism today.

    Liberals loved Yugoslavia, and they were mostly on board with Afghanistan after 9/11 too. Beyond all that, the anti-war protests referenced in the post dried up like birdshit on a car as soon as a “liberal” took over as CinC.

    They sometimes see a connection between US foreign policy and its blowback, but their answer is a more benevolent US hegemon. That’s the only conclusion i can draw since “liberals” are all the time electing people who love them some war and associating with a party that’s all for all war, all the time so long as we can call it “humanitarian intervention.”

    Until i see a “liberal” seriously talk about drawing down the empire … besides Kucinich … i’m going to have to say, “no.” Paul’s on his own and expressing a more traditionally conservative point of view stemming from isolationism.

  • for applauding. They remind me of European conservatives who confess people dying of hunger is okay as long as the market and personal funds are not tinkered with, because a purely capitalist economy takes precedence over everything else.

    If only Democratic leadership weren’t so cowardly we might put up an effective fight knowing they had our backs.

  • …from a nasty foot injury, I was turned away from a Garland, TX hospital ER because I did not have proof of insurance. While this happened back in 1974, I have never forgotten nor forgiven.

  • Couldn’t agree more.

    This is why mandatory universal healthcare should be a God given right of a free people. There is no more important right than the right to live.

    Thanks for posting.

  • Why you believe liberal doctrine is Democratic doctrine?

    I’m given a Hobson’s choice if I want to have any impact on determining the future of this nation. Voting Democrat does not necessarily mean I support them.

    It means I find them less odious than the other guy.

    You’re being pretty unfair to liberals here.

  • that’s an interesting and accurate observation, Dave. Too many old folks drag down health care systems by sopping up benefits in the last year of their lives. We need to authorize euthanizing Gramps as soon as he starts talking nonsense and Nana should get the big-sleep pill if she breaks her hip.

    If Governor Perry’s aspiration to become the next leader of the free world should fail, he could be placed in charge of a new department to handle resolving the aging problem. His remarkable record as America’s foremost executioner should uniquely qualify him for the task.

  • …one is advocating euthanasia? Way to really encourage reasoned discourse there.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • The ironic part? I was under 21, in school and it turns out I was covered under my mother’s policy. Which is how I got my foot sewn up somewhere else. But the experience of being turned away even though I was a bloody mess, that is something I don’t wish on anyone else. Guess I’d make a lousy right-winger… & did you see this?
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/14/ron-pauls-health-care-campaign-manager-kent-snyder_n_961812.html
    “Ron Paul’s Ex-Campaign Manager’s Death Backdrop For Health Insurance Position”, turns out he was uninsured, too.

  • I neglected to add a sarcasm smilie, assuming the message intent was self-evident. My comment was directed more to noting this Perry guy’s singular efforts at Texan population control than advocating euthanasia – a subject I haven’t(thankfuly) yet had much reason to consider seriously. On Tuesday night Perry chalked up his 235th execution in 11 years as governor. That’s an average of 21 people, give or take, per annum – quite a spectacular body count when compared to global stats.

    Hopefully rational discussion on this or any subject is not unduly thwarted by the occasional cynical thrust from the peanut gallery.

  • …occasional. From where I’m sitting unrelenting might be the more apt descriptor. I mean seriously, where does reasoned discussion about how most of the rhetoric about the morality of the scenario is suspiciously flawed go after “just kill them all”? What’s the “turn it to 11” option? Kill healthy folks and feed them to the sick, then kill them all? Make healthy folks sick and use them to poison the sick folks so they’ll die quicker? Nuke them all from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure?

    As someone who works on the margins of policy and regularly has a seat watching policy folks reach into the pot and grope around for options among the narrow range of alternatives judged “politically viable” I have to say that the biggest problem is that the pols don’t realize how broad a range of options are truly viable if sold effectively. This pattern of discourse killing crapola may entertain you, but it isn’t one bit helpful. Falls rather more into the category of disbursed, crowd-sourced bread and circuses.

    Fiddling while Rome burns isn’t something to aspire to.” ~ me

  • I’m surprised you didn’t.

    I mean, your point is valid, but it hardly seems like you were being trolled. The point was to view your reasoned comment thru the lens of a Teabagger who could applaud the death penalty and cheer the death of an uninsured young man.

  • …that destructive world view is to echo it? Sorry, doesn’t work for me. That satire plays with folks that already agree – folks that are on the fence or disagree, they’re swain by that not at all.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • Tell you what. I utterly reject the idea that rational discussions of available options on this or any subject is only acceptable within the borders of “political viability”. Such limitations are inevitably mercurial, seasonal and, often, purposefully manipulative.

    However, you work on “the margins of policy” whereas I write movies, thus work on the “the margins of bread and circuses”. To your accusation in that regard I gratefully curtsey in reponse – but I’ll also suit up to challenge the socio-political effectiveness of your dataset versus my Act 3 on any high noon.

  • Contrary to your assertion, the point isn’t that discussion occur only within the boundaries of what is politically viable. The point is that effective discussion can greatly expand the boundaries of what is politically viable. Good satire can actually help. Much of the above does not.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • We actually agree on something. Heartily agree, in fact.

    (Except for the strawman part – back atcha – and a gnawing anxiety about your ability to recognize “good” satire or, for that matter, why it should matter if satire is good. There ya go. NOW you have your strawman.)

Leave a Reply

3bb1012ca7881a903f6bb688401857a5453d3be4