Bellicose Bumpkin

Here’s a fun post. Me and my buddy Mike going at it over the Brown/Coakely election.

We always have a great debate that is liberally sprinkled with insults and derision – all in good fun. Mike is a very bright guy who challenges my positions – which makes me hone my thoughts and provides never-ending satisfaction since I’m always right.

Mike: News Flash: Dems maintain control of the Senate.
Mike: Nice response to my comment on FB btw… I got a huge laugh out of that
Mark: which one?
Mike: For all the doom-and-gloom out there from the dems, and all the gloating by the reps, not much really changed except that the dems don’t have as large a majority as they did. It should also be a wake up call to them… if a dem can’t win here, there’s some serious discontentment with what they’ve been doing over the last year.
Mike: The one about me being evil and uncaring… and oh by the way we need to get together for dinner
Mike: The country does not like the health care bill(s) that the dems have been pushing. Something needs to be done, it just ain’t that.
Mike: As I say in a blog post that I’m editing right now, let’s be honest. The goal of the dems has been to socialize medicine. There are those that agree with this (you), and there are those that disagree (me), but that’s clearly been the goal. They’ve been trying to figure out a way to dress it up so that the public would swallow it, and they failed.
Mike: Here’s a guy that captured how I really feel: http://kuoi.com/~kamikaze/read.php?id=257
Mark: Brown is a horrible candidate. I think his victory has a large racist component. Many votes were against a healthcare bill that hasn’t been finalized – not for a candidate that has anything to offer. His positions on the environment for instance can be summed up as “let’s do nothing and see how that goes”
Mike: I don’t entirely disagree (except that I think race had absolutely NOTHING to do with it). It was a vote against the dem machine and the approach that they’d been taking in the health care bill(s). it’s clear to me, and I think anyone that reads all the stuff that’s been thrown into that bill (including the kitchen sink) that the real goal was to make private health care untenable and drive people to government run health care.
Mark: He’s a homophobe with no ideas to offer: “I believe that all Americans deserve health care coverage, but I am opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration”. No suggestion on an alternative. I’m in favor of anti-gravity cars that run on a perpetual motion field generator – but we don’t have those.
Mike: 1. Have a public option that covers everyone for basic (and I mean BASIC) and emergency care paid for by a payroll tax like SS and medicare
Mark: Mike – the public option was throwing people into a tizzy. How do you figure that would fly?
Mike: 4. Take away company sponsored health care and make companies give the money from that benefit back to the employees. People get to choose #3 that best fits them.
Mark: “I am a free enterprise advocate who believes that lower taxes can encourage economic growth”. That’s original. That ought to play nicely with our current deficit problems. Not.
Mike: 6. Put a cap on how much doctor’s are liable in malpractice suits and disallow frivolous suits
Mark: I missed 2, 3, and 5
Mike: 2. Allow people to purchase supplemental insurance that meets their particular needs with no regulations on what has to exist in those policies.
Mike: 3. Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines
Mike: 5. Allow prescription plans from #3 to buy medicine from out of the country so they can’t rape us with the cost
Mark: How do we pay for #1?
Mike: If you give me the money back that my company currently pays (i.e. increase my salary) that’d cover that and I’d still have enough left over for supplemental insurance.
Mark: You’re talking about a heavy handed sea-change socialized medicine policy – which I like – but given the mood in the country, I don’t see anything like it ever happening.
Mark: I think I’m missing posts. was there anything after “if you give me the money…”?
Mike: Kinda sorta. The thing is, we already pay for that right now…. hospitals are required by law to administer care to people whether they can pay for it or not. So they end up going to the ER for stupid shit which drives cost WAY up. I’m just talking about using that money to have people go to a doctor’s office instead of the ER.
Mike: I’m not saying I’d really like that idea either…. I’m saying that I could accept something like that. And I think that most reasonable people could too… the problem is 2 things: the left wing of the dems, and the right wing of the reps. The left wing wants nothing less that 100% socialized medicine, and the right wing wants nothing less than 100% market driven private insurance. They’re both wrong.
Mark: Mike you’re crazy. They might want it but it’s not the plan of record.
Mike: But it’s WHY we got the crap that we got.
Mark: Reality check: Republicans want to kill the only deal on the table and have no alternative plan. That’s where we are.
Mike: They kept fighting anything less than that.
Mark: What is on the table is WAY less than that and WAY less than the plan you just floated.
Mike: Reality check… if the dems could work together in any reasonable way with the presidency, the house and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, they could’ve passed something long ago.
Mark: Perhaps but irrelevant to the health care discussion.
Mike: But the left wing wouldn’t accept anything less than what they wanted, and as the middle-of-the-roaders made concessions to the the reps to try and get them on board, they lost the left wing.
Mark: Lost how? A plan passed both the house and senate?
Mike: but nothing passed either of those that would pass in the other.
Mark: That remains to be seen.
Mike: That was the whole problem… they’re talking about that right now. They’ve been saying “Will the house just pass the Senate bill to avoid having to deal with Brown” and the resounding response from the left wing in the house has been “no way… it doesn’t go nearly far enough to get our vote.”
Mark: And you think a plan like the one you floated is more palatable to republicans and likely to pass if it was proposed?
Mike: Probably not…. I did say “reasonable people”.
Mike: But the Senate bill, and House bill, are both crap.
Mike: How about we just start small and deal with things piece-meal.
Mike: 1. Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines
Mike: 2. tort reform: stop the stupid malpractice suits…
Mark: Easier said than done. First you have to define “stupid”
Mike: 3. Get rid of mandatory minimum coverage in health care plans (my mom has a plan that requires coverage for Viagra? really? my mom? with no boyfriend even??? really?)
Mike: I think doing it in steps like this its far more likely to get done than one “big bang”.
Mark: Don’t see how that helps. If you Mom has a mandatory benefit that she’s not using, there’s no cost to recoup.
Mike: Huh? That makes HER cost more than it should be… people should be able to get coverage that works for them. That keeps down their cost. That’s the real crisis, btw… out of control cost for the people.
Mark: By that logic, I shouldn’t be charged to cover home care for the disabled or extraordinary costs for conditions I don’t/won’t have. That makes the cost for people with severe conditions prohibitively high.
Mark: You seem to be missing the fundamental machinations of insurance. Many pay into the pool to cover the few.. Most people’s houses will never burn down but they pay insurance just in case and there payments go to the people whose houses do.
Mike: Perhaps… but there’s gotta be a happy medium… I’d love to continue this, but I gotta go work out and shower… helps keep my health care costs down. BTW… one last parting shot. I talked to one of my doctor’s a couple of weeks ago and she said that if the current bills passed, she’d stop taking new medicare patients… with the reduction that she’d get for medicare patients she’d lose money on them. She’d keep her current ones, but wouldn’t take any new ones.
Mike: And one last thing in response to your comment above: you’re completely right… people get fire insurance for their house in case their house burns down. If you don’t buy fire insurance and it does, you’re hosed. So, if I buy insurance to cover home care, that goes into the pool with others that buy home care insurance, and it gets paid out to them if they need it. If you need home care, and you didn’t buy that coverage, you’re hosed.
Mike: Like auto insurance… if you don’t get enough coverage to pay for your car if you get in a wreck, or to cover medical expenses if you’re hurt (or the person in the other car is hurt), you’re hosed. It’s not MY responsibility to make those decisions for YOU and make sure that you don’t get hosed. That’s your responsibility. Now I really gotta go
Mike: Taken from a comment to the editorial from the Globe’s token conservative voice Jeff Jacoby: “I can’t believe I agree with Jeff Jacoby, but he’s absolutely correct. I’m a supporter of the President and I voted for Coakley, but I don’t like how the health care bill has turned out, and it’s certainly cost the President a lot of political capital with the American people. So while I’m not a fan of Scott Brown, the timing and results of this election could very well be a blessing in disguise for the Democrats and a chance to get their act together and chart a more effective course.”
Mike: I couldn’t agree more with this person (except I voted for Brown).
Mark: If that makes you feel better about voting for a misogynist, racist, homophobe, I’m glad for you.
Mike: whatever.
Mark: With “whatever” being defined as the last post by a person who voted for a misogynist, racist, homophobe.

Mike: whatever.
Mark: Have you been taking debating lessons from a 14 year old girl?
Mike: I do have 2 teenage daughters
Mike: And, just for the record, he’s none of the above.
Mark: What’s the proper term for a person who supports a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage?
Mike: I’m sure he has different political positions than you, but that doesn’t make him any of the things you said, contrary to what your friend on MSNBC said.
Mike: Except, that’s not what his position was during the debates, or were you not watching?
Mike: He actually defined his position as “exactly the same as President Obama’s”… so if he’s homophobic, so’s Obama.
Mark: Brown opposes same-sex marriage, and one of his big political missteps occurred eight years ago, when he said it was “just not normal” for his Democratic predecessor in the state Senate, a lesbian, to have a baby with her partner. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/19/AR2010011904877.html
Mark: I doubt that’s Obama’s position
Mike: And as far as misogynist… his position on the morning-after pill was that PRIVATE hospitals should not be forced to administer something that goes against their religious convictions… which I agree with (although I’m totally in favor of women having access to said procedures and medications).
Mike: And I guess, because Martha Coakley said there’s no longer terrorists or the Taliban in Afghanistan, that’s really what she believes.
Mark: Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm
Mark: Brown was one of only three members of the heavily Democratic State Senate to vote against a repeal of a state law that barred out-of-state gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts. Later, he would vote for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage – for which he earned the endorsement of the group The Coalition for Marriage — and he opposed the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/15/scott-brown-engaged-in-cu_n_425385.html
Mike: Yep. I’m not debating his votes. I just said he’s not a homophobe.
Mark: If someone doesn’t want to give treatments that clash with their religious beliefs, they have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS being a health care provider.
Mike: I’m sorry, but that’s just a stupid statement.
Mark: OK – what is the proper term for him? Anti-gay rights? Pro-family? Either way, in my book, he wants to discriminate against people based on their sexual preference – a position that is untenable for me.
Mike: A person who is anti-abortion and finds it to be morally abhorrent should not be forced to do such a procedure. That’s like saying that someone that’s against the death penalty but works in the justice system should be forced to pull the lever. It’s stupid on its face.
Mike: Well… Obama opposes “gay marriage” but supports civil unions. Is he anti-gay?
Mike: That was his position during the entire campaign. You can’t have it both ways.
Mike: Me personally? I think we should get rid of marriage completely from civil law and make everyone have civil unions. Marriage is a religious concept that has no place in our laws.
Mark: He supports civil unions and is taking a weak position for political reality. Brown is anti-gay and trying to soft sell it.
Mike: Brown supports civil unions also.
Mike: Dress it up however you want. Both play to their parties and have to deal with political realities.
Mark: These stances set him apart even from his fellow state Republicans. In heavily Democratic Massachusetts they earned him derision and awkward headlines. In February 2007, Brown visited his daughter’s high school for a discussion on his stance on gay marriage. At some point during the event, however, he lashed out against the crowd for its poor reception of his position. Brown read aloud the names of certain students and the comments they had posted about him on a Facebook page dedicated to a pro-gay rights history teacher at the school — profanities and all. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/15/scott-brown-engaged-in-cu_n_425385.html
Mark: “lashing out” at high school kids. Add anger issues and child abuse to his list of attributes.
Mike: And, BTW, I didn’t vote FOR Brown… I voted for more balance in the Senate and the House. The dems still have the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. They just don’t have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate now… just a smidge of balance.
Mark: heading to work – berate you later
Mike: lol. OK.
Mike: me too.

Mike: Yo… I thought of something after you signed off… you’re party only has themselves to blame for Brown even getting a chance to run. If they hadn’t played party politics and tried to make sure that if Kerry won the presidential election Romney wouldn’t get a chance to appoint a republican, there would have been no special election and Patrick would have just appointed a democrat… hoisted on your own petard.
Mark: What are you talking about? The special election was to replace Kennedy who, in case you’re not keeping up on current events…. died.
Mike: Right… and if the law had not been changed back when Kerry was running for president, then a replacement senator for Kennedy would have been APPOINTED BY THE CURRENT GOVERNOR OF THE STATE. The law was only changed when Kennedy was affraid that a republican would take Kerry’s place back then if he’d won and he lobbied the Mass. legislature to change it to be a special election.
Mike: Oooops. Kinda poetic justice if you ask me.
Mark: OK – you’re right.
Mike: When will you learn that I’m ALWAYS right
Mike: I learned you were always right long ago… time for you to catch up
Mark: You sure are ….. far right.
Mike: Uhhhh… I’d say you’re right… but you’re wrong
Mike: And if, as George Will once said, the genius of American Democracy is gridlock (because if somethings gets enough support to break the gridlock, it’s usually a good idea), the results of this election can only support that genius.
Mark: I think we’re seeing a repeat of the Gingrich congress – oppose the democratic president regardless of the issue.
Mike: Right… the inverse of the Pelosi congress… oppose the republican president regardless of the issue.
Mike: The out-of-power party is ALWAYS obstructionist. I’ll give you that it probably started under Gingrich, but both sides are like that now.
Mark: You do remember who the president was, right?
Mike: Uh… that would be Clinton.
Mark: No – when Pelosi took over
Mike: Wasn’t it Bush Jr.?
Mark: Right
Mike: But, the reason that Coakley lost was that the dems were trying to force through a very unpopular health care bill and they pissed people off enough to elect Brown. As George Will said in his editorial today: “The 2008 elections gave liberals the curse of opportunity, and they have used it to reveal themselves ruinously. The protracted health-care debacle has highlighted this fact: Some liberals consider the legislation’s unpopularity a reason to redouble their efforts to inflict it on Americans who, such liberals think, are too benighted to understand that their betters know best. The essence of contemporary liberalism is the illiberal conviction that Americans, in their comprehensive incompetence, need minute supervision by government, which liberals believe exists to spare citizens the torture of thinking and choosing.”
Mike: Mass. citizens chose… they don’t want the health care legislation as proposed by Pelosi, Reid, et. al.
Mark: Which is fine if you’re having a referendum on health care. Not so fine if you’re talking about a Senate election
Mike: So, if the dems had listened to the nation (the healthcare legislation was at about 35% approval), and not tried to “inflict it on Americans who, such liberals think, are too benighted to understand that their betters know best,” it wouldn’t have been a referendum. As it was, it was the only way that people saw that they could get this blinkered congress to listen. Again… it’s their own fault.