Beck Illustrates The Problem With Conservatives

Glenn Beck opened his show today with a rant against health care as a right. He said that it's nowhere in the Constitution, which is why Roosevelt proposed it when he advocated for a second bill of rights.

Which begs the question: what the hell's wrong with these conservative nuts?

I hate writing about this almost as much as I hate answering the insane disconnected comments of the Snowys of the world, but I'm going to do it because I would have thought that the events of this past year had finally convinced conservatives to understand that it's the height of immorality to deny people cures simply because they cannot afford them. I mean, isn't that the opposite of what the Dems are proposing with their death panel approach?

Now I'll admit that there may be a huge unforeseen obstacle in the implementation of proper care for all, but one would expect conservatives, especially those who profess their love of God, to not just understand the moral dilemma of refusing care based on economics, they should be in the forefront in pushing for it. Isn't that what God would want? It's the Devil that's in the details.

Besides, who is Beck talking to? Are you watching him rail against universal care and agreeing that you and your family shouldn't get care if you can't afford it? Are you going to admit to your cancer-struck child that he has to die because you're a failure? I mean, you can't expect your child to earn enough for his own care, right?

Getting back to Beck's opening, he says that health care isn't in the constitution or Bill of Rights. That's a matter of -opinion-.  Lot's of things have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to be "in the Constitution," no doubt a number of which would horrify the Founding Fathers. But if we believe that, then isn't it possible that some of the Court's interpretations would have also pleased the founders as they realized they'd overlooked something obvious?

If we take Beck literally, the Declaration of Independence isn't in the Constitution – the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet we hold them sacrosanct. Or do we?

If the right to life doesn't include the right to procedures and treatments that preserve that life, then perhaps Jefferson should have said something less definitive like "the right to live unimpeded by other entities?"

I'd say "shame on Beck," if it weren't so much bigger. Because once again, an insensitive conservative obstructionist is proposing – nothing. He'd be happy with the status quo, and why not? He can afford anything and go anywhere to get it. You can't. Fourteen years ago, I demanded that conservatives DO SOMETHING… and they did.. they called me every name in the book. You might at least propose taking everything liberals have to pay for healthcare for conservatives?

Obamacare is our ultimate ruin and we're likely to get some version of it. Then it will be the Republican rally cry to reverse it – back to the mess we have now? That's good enough for you? Where you play Russian Roulette with your life, hoping that you don't get struck by the catastrophic disease bullet where you'll either die because you can't afford treatment or you'll face economic ruin for the rest of your life?

It's too late for conservatives to propose anything now. We're at the mercy of fools and thugs, and it's all because doing nothing was perfectly OK with many of you for so many years. Now, instead of starting with a blank slate and enacting meaningful reforms, we have to reverse the damage (which may not be possible). If we succeed, then what? You'll thank your lucky stars for the opportunity to die broke?

God will be so proud.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Advertisements

About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Beck Illustrates The Problem With Conservatives

  1. I think that you are nit picking with Beck, I viewed his show today. I agree with Beck's interpratation. There is nothing in our constiution that allows the government to use force against Peter to pay Paul for these "so called" second Bill of Rights [sic]. I'd like to send congress to Gitmo and then throw away the keys.

  2. TedWest says:

    I agree with Beck about that too. that wasn't muy point. and fanciful suggestions like that serve no purpose.

  3. Snowy says:

    Well said. We're on the same page. Sorry, and all…

  4. Lexann says:

    Which begs the question: what the hell's wrong with these conservative nuts?
    What's wrong with you? I don't get into it with you mostly, but this whole post is preposterous! To claim that the conservatives didn't "do anything" when they had the chance, so now we should just give in to Obamacare is ridiculous! Our current healthcare system is not a perfect system, so let's make it worse? That's your contention? How about let's throw out ObamaCare IN ITS ENTIRITY and pursue a free-market solution? The only problem with healthcare as it is, is that it is not a free market. People can't shop around, they have to take what their employer offers. Employers can't choose from a wide selection of providers, they have to stay in state. People can't choose health insurance a la carte. For example, if you are of child bearing age (as I am), you HAVE to have maternity coverage, whether you want it or not. And healthcare is expensive because hospitals and doctors have to have SO much liablity insurance, it's ridiculous. It doesn't cost a hospital $10 a pill to give you Tylenol, but that's what's on your hospital bill. They have to cover their costs and still make a profit. So, your insurance pays a percentage of the cost based on it's calculation tables and whether or not your "in plan" or not, and you never actually see the expense, or feel the pinch. That's not free market. It's over regulation, and law suits gone crazy that have caused this. ObamaCare will make things worse, not better, and it will not cover any more people that need it than our current system, in fact, it will probably make those that need care the most less likely to receive it.

    Now I'll admit that there may be a huge unforeseen obstacle in the implementation of proper care for all, but one would expect conservatives, especially those who profess their love of God, to not just understand the moral dilemma of refusing care based on economics, they should be in the forefront in pushing for it. Isn't that what God would want?
    First of all, no consevative is suggesting refusing care based on inability to pay — that's the Democrats. They are the ones who think that if Grandpa gets too old, and his Medicare is going to cost the government "too much" — as defined by their panel — then pull the plug! But that is an aside. The real truth is that God NEVER proposed stealing from one person to care for another. If we would deregulate the insurance and medical industries, costs would come down, making it more affordable for everyone, and those who still truly cannot afford care can still do what they do now…they get emergency care (hospitals BY LAW cannot turn away an emergency patient regardless of their ability to pay), or they go to a free clinic, or they go to a non-profit hospital. Most of which, I will add, are OVERWHELMINGLY funded by Christians and Christian groups.

    Getting back to Beck's opening, he says that health care isn't in the constitution or Bill of Rights. That's a matter of -opinion-. Lot's of things have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to be "in the Constitution," no doubt a number of which would horrify the Founding Fathers. But if we believe that, then isn't it possible that some of the Court's interpretations would have also pleased the founders as they realized they'd overlooked something obvious?
    And what if some legislator decides that food is a fundamental "right"? I mean, what kind of hard hearted SOB would rob children of their supper just because they don't have the means to pay for it? And what if the courts uphold that food is a "right". Now the government is to take more from more people to give it to those they deem worthy? We stay within the confines of the constitution because we were formed as a republic. We stand on the law, regardless of person. Government interference is to be RESTRAINTED….always…no matter the good intentions of some elected official, court justice or appointed bureaucrat! Our founding fathers knew that individual free will, not force of government, is what makes our country better. We as a free people will overcome all our obsticles, including health care coverage, if we are allowed to do so without government interference. But it looks as though that will never happen.

    Because once again, an insensitive conservative obstructionist is proposing – nothing. He'd be happy with the status quo…
    That is a lie. The conservatives/Republicans have been called obstructionist because we oppose OBAMACARE. And I say that is a good thing. But we HAVE made proposals. We HAVE suggested solutions. No one is listening. They won't discuss it. The MSM, Democrats and other lefties won't even hear it! If we are the party of "no" for saying "no" to more government, and government take over, then "yay" for us!

  5. Snowy says:

    Merry Christmas, Ted.

  6. TedWest says:

    And Merry Christmas to you too!.
    But did you pick this thread to express that sentiment in light of the above? Because I'll have an answer shorty. Now don't get smug because I'd planned to comment on your first reply, I just haven't gotten to it because I've been preoccupied.

  7. Snowy says:

    But did you pick this thread to express that sentiment in light of the above? Nah, I Iike to forget about the world's crap for at least one day of the year. This just happened to be the latest post, and I was on my third red. So far as the U.S. health system is concerned, I'll leave you guys to duke it out. My only reason for commenting in the first place was that I agreed with you, and that had to be a first. Enjoy your Christmas, Ted. Peace on Earth, goodwill to all, etc. This always does it for me.

  8. TedWest says:

    Well now that I have your permission, I'm sure I will!
    That was a good and worthwhile link.
    As for agreeing with me, I hope you realize that was almost reason enough to delete your post? I knew it would do me no good, I just didn't expect a blast from the past as a result. I mean, I hate to be ruining someone else's Christmas… but I'm about to try!

  9. TedWest says:

    You could have been one of my forum "buddies" of years gone by but not forgotten, all that's missing is the four-letter words.
    As for your opening comment, I'd like to quote from Ann Coulter's latest column because your "conclusion" is worthy of someone at MSNBC… to wit:

    "To claim that the conservatives didn't "do anything" when they had the chance, so now we should just give in to Obamacare is ridiculous!"
    To which Ann indicates you've employed…

    …the MSNBC motto, "In Other Words," which provides the formula for 90 percent of the political commentary on that network. The MSNBC host quotes a Republican, then says "in other words," translates the statement into something that would be stupid to say, and spends the next 10 minutes ridiculing the translated version. Which no one said. Except the host.
    What a great imitation you did! I told my wife that what really bugs me is that I have to read the rest of it lest I sound like you.
    So let me demonstrate why you "don't get into it" with me. In case you haven't noticed, I don't take crap from either side because one's as bad as the other, and while you are far from the worst of those I've encountered on the right, you're certainly part of the problem
    First, you didn't grasp a single thing I said. If you had, you've wouldn't have opened with such a stupid conclusion of your own there. And I'm sure not going to rephrase things in a futile attempt to help you understand my points because that would indeed be preposterous on my part.
    What I will say is that Republicans had more than a decade to reform health care – which is a disaster in waiting for you as it stands. Or haven't you heard? And because you and yours did nothing (don't give me this nonsense about them trying now), we get this ruinous monstrocity. You almost have to admire Democrats… they have guts… Repoublicans don't.
    Also, don't tell me that "no conservative is suggesting refusing care based on inability to pay." First, they don't have to, because it's implicit, but more importantly, I've had conservatives tell me just that, and here's the quote I'll never forget from my former friend, Tom Drewski…
    Me: Tom, don't you believe that if someone is sick and there's a treatment available, they should get it?
    Tom: Sure… if they can afford it.
    Bye bye, Tom
    Maybe you just don't get around much? Stop listening to O'Reilly and listen to Rush. Or just spend some time in a conservative forum and get back to me…

  10. Politics is the problem not the solution.

  11. Snowy says:

    Interesting National Geographic comparison of health costs v life expectancy by country.

  12. TedWest says:

    I can't get the link to work, but I doubt it would matter because it's probably not a comparison of life expectancies. More likely, it's a comparison of apples and oranges.
    In order to save myself another "preposterous" back and forth, please allow me to elaborate, and in the end, I'll ask your advice on something else as your reward for reading…
    Unless two countries have exactly the same population breakdown, the same physical conditions, the same economic conditions, the same geographical and climate makeup, the same social and governmental conditions. the same involvement in world affairs, and the methods for calculating life expectancies are exactly the same in each, then any such comparison is of no value whatsoever other than as a substitute for tabloid reading.
    You don't even have the same life expectancy as someone living in another area of Australia, and probably not even the same as your neighbor.
    And our life expectancies in America have take a big hit since Christmas eve.
    Now please answer this… if you ordered a monitor from a company on the other side of Australia who's ad said it was 24 inches, but upon delivery, you found it to be 23.6 inches, and in revisiting the ad, you noticed that the technical description did indeed say it was 23.6 inches, even though the title prominently said 24 inches, would you demand the company take it back despite the fact that you'd already unpacked it before you realized that the side panel on the box also listed the diagonal size as 23.6 inches, or would you spend the rest of your days trying to calculate what 23.6 inches is in centimeters?

  13. Snowy says:

    The link works for me. Maybe it only works for liberals…As regards the monitor, I'd say 0.4 inch (or 1.016 cm) isn't worth stressing about, and then go read "Desiderata".

  14. TedWest says:

    Here's the link:
    http://a7.vox.com/6a00c2251d4c40604a01240b89c607860e-pi
    Here's the message I get:

    We can’t find the page you requested.
    You may not have permission to view this page, it may have been deleted or renamed, or you may have mistyped the URL.
    Please try the following:
    Return to the Vox homepage
    Find links to information that you're looking for.
    Help
    Find answers to your Vox questions.
    Retype the address
    Check the URL you entered to make sure it’s correct.
    Or search Vox
    More on the monitor – the .4 translates to over three quarters of an inch in vertical height compared to my old monitor which, unlike your apples and oranges life expectancy IS a valid and relevant comparison.
    And that .75" in virtical height makes a huge difference in the size of objects and text, and that size matters. So I am not getting a like for like replacement as I expected, I'm getting something inferior, and the fact is, the monitor was misrepresented. They wanted me to think 24, and what's troubling is that the same brand in a true 24 is sold by the company for forty dollars more, which I would gladly pay, but I'm better I get hassled because mine is now "used."'
    And it's not about stressing out, it's about uncovering the nature of this company, Tiger Direct. The proper response would be, "we're very sorry about the misunderstanding, and we're not only happy to correct the error, we're going to send you the other model at no further charge to you."
    To bring this home to you, let's say you were the company senind me the monitor in Australia, and I sent you a payment in Australian dollars, wouuld you accept a $.4 difference in exchange rates? For that matter, would you stand for me preposterously calling it a cheque instead of a check?
    So unfortunately, whether or not I'm prepared to live with this monitor is irrelevant. I'm simply duty bound to find out what sort of company this is.

  15. Snowy says:

    Maybe it's neighbourhood only. I did a search fo rit on the Net but couldn't find it.I'll leave you to sort out your monitor hassles. I'm still in holiday mode.

  16. You hit it on the head, with a ball pin hammer brother….The redundant nature of politics….is like 'bonehead economics', 'bonehead sociology' and 'bonehead civics', point of fact that is what they 'aspire to' and cannot make it…Peace Tony

  17. tom drewski says:

    And you actually took me seriously??
    We were members of the Comedy Central forum – and we both excelled in pushing buttons

  18. TedWest says:

    Tom, first, let me say that I couldn't be happier to see you and have you set me straight, since I also couldn't be happier to be wrong in this instance, even if my offer of a reward to anyone proving me so has long expired.
    Next, I'd love to hear how you came upon this and me after ten years? Maybe it's time to reconstitute the old gang, except that you can still find most of them right where we left them… and far less funny
    Thirdly, if this doesn't encourage people to name names, nothing will. As you know, I could have easily told the story without attaching a name to it, but I try to always mention the person I'm referring to in the faint hope a situation like this will develop.
    Unfortunately, you and I have nothing to really argue about unless you still feel Bush was a great guy?
    And are you still in the same state you were in back then? If so, you've paid a price far greater than any I could exact on you.

  19. TedWest says:

    You're going to give people the wrong idea. my name doesn't change, only the location of the space. My personal favorite though was Phil Ipino.
    I've Googled my name before so I know you can't be a narcissist. Because I did it to see what tracks I was leaving as I was involved ion another comedy endeavor, and it wouldn't do to have people seeing how much I contempt I actually had for my audience.
    Re: Bush, I'm sorry, but it's impossible to say enough bad about him,, and I shall never stop. He made Pigbama possible, so not nearly enough said
    Jury's out on Brown, though he certainly has been much appreciated so far.. Unfortunately, the Republicans as a whole haven't changed a bit.
    Other than that, everything is peachy. Or beans, depending on your State. See you in ten then?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s