dagblog - Comments for "Who Has a Choice on Health Care?"

Oh, I'm an idiot. Look, a

Larry Jankens — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:39:50 +0000

In reply to You were clear. I was

Oh, I'm an idiot. Look, a cartoon!

You were clear. I was

Orlando — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:24:06 +0000

In reply to Sorry, I should have been

You were clear. I was kidding.

Sorry, I should have been

Larry Jankens — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:19:00 +0000

In reply to Frank Luntz called insurance

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Everything after the colons are my own take on his assault on the English language and Americans' intelligence.

Frank Luntz called insurance

Orlando — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:14:00 +0000

In reply to We all know and love (to

Frank Luntz called insurance industry executives "money hungry corporate monkeys?"

Maybe I misjudged him.

We all know and love (to

Larry Jankens — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:17:00 +0000

In reply to Who Has a Choice on Health Care?

We all know and love (to dislike) Frank Luntz, the rightwing republican wordsmith who has a few things to say. Well, not things to say, but ways to say things, rather. Below are his top 3 rhetorical tools to defeat single-payer healthcare

1) Rationing: Republicans are using this term to suggest that government controlled healthcare will result in the rationing of healthcare - ooh, scary

2) A bureaucrat between you and health care: as opposed to a money-hungry corporate monkey?

3) One size does not fit all: implying that the single-payer option will treat a newborn exactly the same as an 80 yo - looks like the newborn will have to get used to prescription strength Ben-Gay, sorry baby.

You can read his full list here.

And just when you ask yourself if people are stupid enough to buy this rhetorical cow-pie, remember, we reelected Bush in 2004. Oh, and the new Transformers movie is #1.

I'd like to give Mitt a

quinn esq — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:36:03 +0000

In reply to Who Has a Choice on Health Care?

I'd like to give Mitt a shovel upside the head.

Really. All my life, people have told me, "Blah blah violence... blah blah no way to resolve disputes...." To which I have always responded, "Oh yeah?"

And lately, well, I'm feeling as justified as the ancients of mu mu. I'd like just one piece of evidence that says, "Debating Mitt Romney is better than smacking the prick upside his do avec shovel."

And meanwhile, we've just wasted so much time. Time we could have used discussing precisely which form of violent shovel-wielding assault would pay the biggest dividends. Is it just one giant roundhouse swing and SmackMitt, down he goes, over and out? Or maybe better to pepper him with sugar-coated shovel-smacks cross the snout?

These are the questions that keep great minds awake at night. (At least, until I get my milk.)