Genocide? Really?

[AZhitman]

N***a pleeze.

C'mon, Jesse. Genocide? Wait - no... CREEPING genocide.

Fearmongering is SO 2001.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHUWOIJs ... r_embedded[/youtube]

Did Jesse have a stroke recently? Because nothing he says makes sense. Hell, even Sharpton has brief flashes of insightfulness - I think Jesse's been huffing paint stripper.

p.s. Ed's a useless wacko too, but this is about Teh Revrun'.

[heliochrome85]

talk about someone who's relevance faded faster than the macarena fad.

[IBCoupe]

What'd he say? Some of your post is blocked.

[IBCoupe]

I found the context by seeing Stebo's post, but I haven't actually been able to find a transcript or a summation of what he said... everybody's posting the same video.

[audtatious]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40132174/ns ... e_ed_show/

^^^ Transcript.

[Cold_Zero]

I really wish people would stop throwing around the word genocide so frivolously. Repealing the Health Insurance Reform bill is not where near real genocide like the Armenian genocide. Which to this day is illegal to talk about (as genocide) in Turkey. Bastards.

[stebo0728]

Well I just wonder, does Jesse intend to say that America was already engaging in genocide before ObamaCare was passed?

[IBCoupe]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40132174/ns ... e_ed_show/

^^^ Transcript.

Thanks!

So it looks like he was going for the "What did he just say?" factor with that opening remark. And then he went onto ramble, and I see the point he's making, but he kinda took the scenic route to getting there.

This, I think, was his point: wealthy people who have proper healthcare aren't really worried about getting it for the people who don't, which means that poor people are becoming sick poor people, too. And that's going to mean that they're going to die, as a class, a lot sooner than the wealthy. This is nothing new, it's just that he seemed to hope that the new healthcare law would help move us away from that reality and into one where you didn't need money to stay in good health.

Is it genocide? Hardly. Was it hyperbole? Absolutely. Is he wrong? Not entirely.

[AZhitman]

What'd he say? Some of your post is blocked.

Get yourself a damn smartphone.

[IBCoupe]

Get yourself a damn smartphone.

I have one. It has a camera. I can't bring it to work.

[stebo0728]

This, I think, was his point: wealthy people who have proper healthcare aren't really worried about getting it for the people who don't

Why should they be? Let them figure it out for themselves.

[AZhitman]

This, I think, was his point: wealthy people who have proper healthcare aren't really worried about getting it for the people who don't

Why should they be? Let them figure it out for themselves.

I suppose next, it'll be my responsibility to worry about how to get everyone a 2-story house and a Corvette?

Last I checked, there wasn't anyone wealthier than me worrying about why my healthcare premiums have gone up 25% in the past 18 months.

Ergo, Jesse is irrelevant and undeserving of press.

[audtatious]

No, it's a 2-story house and a Volt (gotta bump up GM)

[IBCoupe]

Why should they be? Let them figure it out for themselves.

That's like telling people in wheelchairs to figure out for themselves how to get upstairs. On the theory that a person needs a sharp mind to think of paths to success and a healthy body to walk down them, Stebo, you're suggesting that they go ahead and figure out how to make themselves healthy/successful when the major impediment to their ability to do so is that they're neither.

If that handicapped guy gripes about all the things on the second floor, would you tell him that he's only got his own inability to think of an alternate means to the top to blame?

[IBCoupe]

Last I checked, there wasn't anyone wealthier than me worrying about why my healthcare premiums have gone up 25% in the past 18 months.

That's sort of his point, Greg.

[stebo0728]

Why should they be? Let them figure it out for themselves.

That's like telling people in wheelchairs to figure out for themselves how to get upstairs. On the theory that a person needs a sharp mind to think of paths to success and a healthy body to walk down them, Stebo, you're suggesting that they go ahead and figure out how to make themselves healthy/successful when the major impediment to their ability to do so is that they're neither.

If that handicapped guy gripes about all the things on the second floor, would you tell him that he's only got his own inability to think of an alternate means to the top to blame?

Analogy FAIL

[IBCoupe]

Analogy FAIL

Dude, explain or GTFO. Where's the fail? The theory of Jesse Jackson's comment is that one needs to be healthy in order to be successful and one must also be successful in order to be healthy. You telling them to "figure it out" is telling them to do something that, under Jackson's theory, is impossible.

Like telling a guy in a wheelchair to find his own way upstairs.

[stebo0728]

FAIL because people without insurance (generally) arent handicapped or disabled, they just make poor life choices, and can make different choices and figure their lives out themselves.

[heliochrome85]

generalizations much? you really have no idea how lucky you are to be born normally. there are literally millions of different conditions that you could have been born with, which could have left you severely disabled. so much for poor life choices.

[AppleBonker]

Am I not supposed to be laughing at that comment? Am I biased because I know people who work in health care and actually see first-hand (not just some assumption on life choices) how hard people work to actually afford medical care when they don't have insurance? Is there something that makes more sense to me because I have friends who are successful in what they do that don't have health insurance (not every employer offers this as an option, and don't most people suggest you work at what you enjoy)? How is it possible to be so obtuse? While I agree that it is dumb to compare this to genocide, it's even dumber to claim that these people can just work it out themselves and they're only struggling because of "poor life choices". Congrats, you made Jesse Jackson actually sound more intelligent.

[AZhitman]

First off, you guys have somehow, in less than one page, twisted Jesse's nonsense into something resembling rational thought - The problem is, you're working from IB's interpretation (which is FAR more intellectual and clearly-composed than Jesse's idiotic drivel).

Second, you've taken IB's REVISIONIST version of Jesse's blather and (somehow) made handicapped people the topic and subject of discussion - where the hell did that come from?

Now, THIS part of IB's interpretation:

...he seemed to hope that the new healthcare law would help move us away from that reality and into one where you didn't need money to stay in good health...

...makes total sense, especially coming from a dips*** like Jesse. However, even THAT statement (if that's what JJ meant) is severely flawed. It assumes that the wealthy are somehow "affliction-proof" and that the poor are all out there fending for themselves. While there's definitely data that correlates income with good health, there's NO causal relationship between the two... the fact that they share a common frequency of occurrence doesn't mean cause and effect. They're simply concomitant conditions, loose affiliations.

America isn't unique in any of this. The poor in ALL countries are worse off, physically, than the wealthy. Perhaps Jesse should redirect his efforts to Haiti or Somalia or Ethiopia.

They probably don't want him either.

[stebo0728]

Even though I did generalize in saying "poor life choices" I do believe that people with real disabilities may require assistance, but this assistance should come ONLY after family and private charity assistance. So of the 40 million uninsured, how many of these fall into this disables category? Many of that 40 million dont even want healthcare, they would rather pay the yearly penalty than get insurance cause its cheaper, and they dont consider themselves in need of health coverage. But then what about the people who are a product of "poor life choices"? If you were a young adult faced with a choice of doing nothing cause the government will support you, or busting your a** while the government takes it all away for the people who chose the first option, which would you choose? Its all about personal responsibility. People want private property, but dont want personal responsibility, you cant have one without the other. We either maintain our capitalist roots and keep both, or convert to socialist and give up both. When people with genuine unavoidable need require assistance, then by all means render assistance. No one rational is going to say otherwise, but this whole stingy rich perception has become so strong because the wealth have become stingy, and for good reason. They see their tax dollars redistributed to just anyone who isnt SO lazy they cant go to the welfare office. Better than half the people on welfare programs, if you just cut them off, eventually they would get the point and make their own way.

Now, we are talking about health insurance here, NOT healthcare. Try and find a meaningful amount of stories where someone was denied healthcare or trauma care. Sure maybe people with terminal illnesses may face denial of coverage, but anyone in need of emergency care gets it. But newsflash, only recently (last few decades) have we really advanced enough to handle alot of the terminal illnesses out there, and those treatments are still experimental, and pricey, and of limited supply. Not everyone is gonna be eligible for them.

[stebo0728]

generalizations much?

Yes quite often, I dont have time to list 6.5 million people and their insurance/disability status

[IBCoupe]

Now, we are talking about health insurance here, NOT healthcare. Try and find a meaningful amount of stories where someone was denied healthcare or trauma care. Sure maybe people with terminal illnesses may face denial of coverage, but anyone in need of emergency care gets it. But newsflash, only recently (last few decades) have we really advanced enough to handle alot of the terminal illnesses out there, and those treatments are still experimental, and pricey, and of limited supply. Not everyone is gonna be eligible for them.

Go ahead and try to get an annual physical without health insurance. Healthcare is currently rationed on the basis of an ability to pay. Without health insurance, many simply do not have the ability to pay medical bills - that was the point of developing health insurance in the first place. Fine, that's the path we've chosen. That's the path you apparently support. Let's look at the consquences: manual labor is a bunch of relatively low-paying jobs that require relatively little education. The only requirement? That you be physically able to do the work. Right there you have an illustration of how the poor have the deck stacked against them: you need to be wealthy to be able to stay healthy, and you need to be healthy in order to get wealthy. You want to go ahead and pretend that there's no catch-22, fine, but don't try to convince me of your delusions.

The response "They'll get emergency services; they won't be denied" suffers from two problems: first, non-emergency problems can impact ones ability to do their job. Abdominal pain can make you go home early. A burst spleen is what will get you into the emergency room. And there's a lot of time in between, which means we've got a reduced ability to pay. Which means we throw more costs onto the backs of everybody else. Which leads me to the second problem: efficiency. Preventative care is cheaper and less risky than remedial care. If we're so concerned about ability to pay, why wouldn't we want to encourage the more effective service that's easier to pay for? In the event that we're going to be giving away free services, why wouldn't we want to give away the services that will save us money in the long run?

You can argue for whatever alternative system you like, but it's pretty hard to defend the current one - we refuse to give away the cheap, effective service, but we happily share the costs of the less-effective, more expensive, more risky services (which, lo and behold, open up a hospital to greater liability, for you medical malpractice hawks)

[heliochrome85]

generalizations much?

Yes quite often, I dont have time to list 6.5 million people and their insurance/disability status

no, its just offensive since you have seemingly no sympathy for their suffering. last i checked you shouldnt be held responsible for the mental retardation and cardiac abnormalities that would have resulted if your mother was a heavy drinker during her pregnancy. you apparently disagree.

[stebo0728]

Im sorry but I dont know HOW you came to that conclusion about me helio. Ive been very clear that instances where people have no control over their circumstances should be helped. But you brought up generalization, and you were correct that I did. So did I do so incorrectly? Are you saying that generally most deadbeats are so because of things out of their control? If thats your generalization of the demograph, well then I just have to say I disagree.

[heliochrome85]

i work in one of the nastiest areas of New York. Im quite aware of what bad life choices can result in. You are right in that respect. Sad thing is though, those people usually have Medicaid. meaning, they have insurance.

Flip side is that there are alot of people who have actual illnesses because of the lifestyle which they live in. for every 1 medicaid queen, i have 2 people who are self pay who can not afford insurance or are ineligable for medicaid, but also have severe debilitating illnesses. clean Utox (drug screen), and no history of substance abuse, yet they still have these issues. why? because the bronx is a bad place to live, with old buildings iwth lead based paint for example. What bad lifestyle choices have they made other than they werent given the opportunity to grow up the way you and I have? The facts dont lie. If you grow up in these sort of areas, ascending classes is substantially more difficult than if you grow up in suburbia.

believe me, im very sympathetic to the arguement that people need to be cut off from the system. that being said, IB's argument that there are significant costs associated with people being sick due to illnesses that could have been easily prevented is also valid. I cant tell you how many diseases that have been eradicated in the rest of the country, are alive and well here in the south bronx. Easily eradicated here if everyone had access to healthcare.

[heliochrome85]

FAIL because people without insurance (generally) arent handicapped or disabled, they just make poor life choices, and can make different choices and figure their lives out themselves.

where did you make an exception for the people who have no access to these "different choices?" What about the people born into a society where inadequate education, inadequate parenting, and inadequate living conditions are the norm? How about the kids born via substance abusing mothers, crack and alcohol, what hand did they have in their own health?


in an ideal world where everyone was allowed to reach their full potential, your argument would have some merit. but unfortunately we dont live in said world.

[AZhitman]

in an ideal world where everyone was allowed to reach their full potential...

I dunno about this. I know what you're getting at, but who's to say what someone's "full potential" is?

Maybe everyone IS reaching their "full potential", or at least to the limits of their motivation.

We'll never know, and to assume otherwise is to ascribe to oneself a measure of omnipotence (which you may actually have, I haven't checked for a bellybutton ).

I don't think I'd use the word "allowed". That assumes we collectively DISALLOW achievement.

[IBCoupe]

What word would you use to describe a situation where people are dealt a crappy hand and aren't able to do what we expect they should be able to?