Heinz-Kerry Calls Opposition of Health Care "Idiots&quo

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-09-09 06:34pm

http://www.nbc10.com/politics/3717093/detail.html

NBC10.com
Heinz Kerry: Opponents Of Health Care Plan Are 'Idiots'
Candidate's Wife Doesn't Mince Words
Teresa Heinz Kerry says "only an idiot" would fail to support her husband's health care plan.

But Heinz Kerry, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, told the (Lancaster) Intelligencer Journal that "of course, there are idiots."

Just In: Bush Heckled In Pa. Speech On Thursday
President Bush was heckled by AIDS protesters at the start of his speech in suburban Philadelphia. Left: one activist is apparently pulled by her hair out of the room.

Kerry's proposal includes health care subsidies for children, the unemployed, small companies and more; and government assistance to insurers and employers that keep premiums for workers down.

If Kerry is elected, Heinz Kerry predicts that opponents of his health care plan will be voted out of office. She says, "Only an idiot wouldn't like this."

Heinz Kerry stumped in Lancaster, Harrisburg and York on Wednesday, the third day of a four-day campaign swing through Pennsylvania.

On Thursday, she holds a roundtable discussion health care at a hotel in King of Prussia.

So, if you don't support socialized healthcare, then you're an idiot!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-09 06:41pm

The truth hurts, doesn't it.

PS. To be fair, not all fans of the present system in its current form are idiots. Some of them are just insured and utterly heartless regarding the plight of the uninsured, while others are blinded by doctrine.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-09-09 06:45pm

Actually I agree with his sentiment.

He's asking for a system that doesn't favor one group and to oppose is being a bit of a heartless moron.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-09-09 07:03pm

Ghost Rider wrote:Actually I agree with his sentiment.

He's asking for a system that doesn't favor one group and to oppose is being a bit of a heartless moron.

To be fair there are three possible reasons to object to the very concept of healthcare for all, particularly the poor (who are the least equipped to have insurance and the most in need of it):-

1. You're an idiot blinded by rhetoric and therefore in need of a good logical kick in the arse to get you thinking.
2. You're a well off heartless piece of shit who wouldnt care about a child suffering for lack of healthcare. Or a family driven into destitution to pay for some vital surgery. In which case you need a sense of morality.
3. You're a heartless idiot who is also blinded by rhetoric/A Libertarian. You therefore require a swift kick in the arse, a sense of morality and an industrial strength clue.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-09-09 07:08pm

Darth Wong wrote:The truth hurts, doesn't it.

PS. To be fair, not all fans of the present system in its current form are idiots. Some of them are just insured and utterly heartless regarding the plight of the uninsured, while others are blinded by doctrine.

Or maybe it's just that I don't think that the government shouldn't engage in socialist programs such as national health insurance. There are other ways to cut insurance costs than to start a government run insurance program for everyone, which, as the history of government programs shows, will inevitably ballon to an unsustainable level (take our current Social Security program for instance, or the state of Tennessee's misbegoten "TennCare" insurance program). Forgive me if I try to learn from the government's past screwups instead of compounding them.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-09-09 07:22pm

Govermemts arent perfect! We should entrust healthcare to people with a profit motive! That will help make things affordable for those with greatest need!

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-09 07:28pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:3. You're a heartless idiot who is also blinded by rhetoric/A Libertarian. You therefore require a swift kick in the arse, a sense of morality and an industrial strength clue.

Hey, if you don't like your healthcare provider, then you should just open up your own HMO and do it better. Then the free market will obviously drive everyone to your better healthcare company. Duuuuuh.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-09-09 07:29pm

Of course, one could also apply that thinking to another large scale endevour that protects everyone . . . . like say national defense?

The current American system actually costs more, it just doesn't all come in the form of taxes.

Every other western country has national health care and NONE of them have chosen to abandon it. Have you considered that there might be a good reason for that? That the U. S. might be behind the curve on this one?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-09 07:34pm

Nathan F wrote:Or maybe it's just that I don't think that the government shouldn't engage in socialist programs such as national health insurance. There are other ways to cut insurance costs than to start a government run insurance program for everyone, which, as the history of government programs shows, will inevitably ballon to an unsustainable level (take our current Social Security program for instance, or the state of Tennessee's misbegoten "TennCare" insurance program). Forgive me if I try to learn from the government's past screwups instead of compounding them.

Wow, what a perfect recitation of dogma! Tell me, does that come in a Chick tract?

Let's see; in your first paragraph, you use "socialist" as an insult, thus presumably destroying its credibility in the minds of your fellow believers. Then, you rant about the "history" of socialized health care based on certain precedents which have failed while totally ignoring the many precedents which have succeeded, and studiously ignoring the fact that the current system is already a failure by virtue of leaving 40 million people uninsured. And finally, you finish up with a repetition of your basic (false) premise, that socialized health care is invariably a failure whenever it is tried: a premise which is either dishonest or hopelessly ignorant, yet it is mindlessly repeated as fact by its believers.

Perhaps you should start a Church of Anti-Social HealthCare. All the hallmarks of a religion seem to be in place already.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-09-09 07:38pm

Kerry wasn't kidding when he said his wife says what she thinks and doesn't mince words.

<admiring>Wow.</admiring>

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-09-09 07:41pm

Yes, a woman who is tough and brainy is vastly superior to a Stepford Wife.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-09-09 07:44pm

Imperial Overlord wrote:Every other western country has national health care and NONE of them have chosen to abandon it. Have you considered that there might be a good reason for that? That the U. S. might be behind the curve on this one?

It's just that in the US being poor is your own fault, since everybody can become a millionaire if he only works hard enough; poor people are obviously lazy, so why should the hard-working people pay for their insurance.
Additionally, helping poor people always means redistributing wealth, which is socialism, which is communism, and we all know where that leads to: dictatorship. Suppoerters of the health care plan are enemies of freedom.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-09-09 07:51pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote:It's just that in the US being poor is your own fault, since everybody can become a millionaire if he only works hard enough; poor people are obviously lazy, so why should the hard-working people pay for their insurance.
Additionally, helping poor people always means redistributing wealth, which is socialism, which is communism, and we all know where that leads to: dictatorship. Suppoerters of the health care plan are enemies of freedom.

See reason 3.

When asked to comment on the notion of socialized healthcare, leading Libertarian spokesperson E. Scrooge had this to say. "Are there no vets? No butchers willing to make a few dollars on the side? I say those that arent willing to earn their place in this life should hurry up and die to make room for those that are willing to work for their share!"

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-09-09 08:32pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote:It's just that in the US being poor is your own fault, since everybody can become a millionaire if he only works hard enough; poor people are obviously lazy, so why should the hard-working people pay for their insurance.
Additionally, helping poor people always means redistributing wealth, which is socialism, which is communism, and we all know where that leads to: dictatorship. Suppoerters of the health care plan are enemies of freedom.

I just have to ask was your post a not so subtle parody of the bullshit habitually spewed by opponents of national healthcare or do you really believe that “ Suppoerters of the health care plan are enemies of freedom”?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-09-09 08:35pm

Plekhanov wrote:
GySgt. Hartman wrote:It's just that in the US being poor is your own fault, since everybody can become a millionaire if he only works hard enough; poor people are obviously lazy, so why should the hard-working people pay for their insurance.
Additionally, helping poor people always means redistributing wealth, which is socialism, which is communism, and we all know where that leads to: dictatorship. Suppoerters of the health care plan are enemies of freedom.
I just have to ask was your post a not so subtle parody of the bullshit habitually spewed by opponents of national healthcare or do you really believe that “ Suppoerters of the health care plan are enemies of freedom”?

You have a hard time with the sarcasm detector, don't you? First my parodied history of France, and now this.

Of course it was a parody!

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-09-09 08:50pm

Rogue 9 wrote:You have a hard time with the sarcasm detector, don't you? First my parodied history of France, and now this. Of course it was a parody!

I do have some difficulty yes, a problem exacerbated by the fact that way more extreme statements than GySgt. Hartman’s are regularly sincerely posted in N&P (say for example all those advocates for genocidal campaigns against Muslims) I don’t know Hartman as a poster so thought I should check.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-09-09 08:56pm

Naturally I think socialized healthcare is a good idea, but I'm not sure if I would trust Kerry to implement it...

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-09-09 09:09pm

Nathan F wrote:Or maybe it's just that I don't think that the government shouldn't engage in socialist programs such as national health insurance. There are other ways to cut insurance costs than to start a government run insurance program for everyone, which, as the history of government programs shows, will inevitably ballon to an unsustainable level (take our current Social Security program for instance, or the state of Tennessee's misbegoten "TennCare" insurance program). Forgive me if I try to learn from the government's past screwups instead of compounding them.

Take a look outside the US for a moment and you’ll notice that most of the EU uses inefficient ‘socialist’ national insurance schemes to provide a very high level of care for their entire populations whilst spending considerably less (both per capita and as a proportion of GNP) than the US. If you’d like some evidence of the efficiency of the US’s private system in comparison to other countries ‘socialist systems take a look at this map taken from a
British Medical Journal article on a recent WHO report on the efficiency of national approaches to healthcare (note the lower the score on the index the lower the efficiency)

Odd isn’t it that all those inefficient socialist government run systems in the EU, Canada and so forth scored so much better than the US’s shining example of efficient private enterprise.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-09-09 09:21pm

The advocates of socialized medicine in America neglect one crucial fact, it would be run by the American government. Regardless of how well other governments manage to run their systems, as well as the impacts on medical R&D and the like ... we are talking about a government which can't even manage to keep its medical programs for the eldery (medicare) and destitute (medicaid) performing on a reasonable budget.

Is it unreasonable to ask that before massively expanding the system you ask those with a proven record of serious incompotence to demonstrate some signs of basic compotency before asking them to run a larger system with more chances to cause more problems? Even if the concept is superior; there is the issue of a proven record of mismanagement, waste, and general incompotence.

I'm not completely opposed to socialized healthcare, but no way in hell do I trust the proven imbeciles in Washington to do anything other than mangle the implimentation to hell and back.

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-09-09 09:24pm

In other words, "It might not work as well as in other countries, so lets not try."?

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2004-09-09 09:37pm

Iceberg wrote:Kerry wasn't kidding when he said his wife says what she thinks and doesn't mince words.

<admiring>Wow.</admiring>

Too bad she isn't the one running for President.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-09-09 09:38pm

Would a gradual introduction of what we have here and in Europe work?

Eg: Start with cheaper medicine, then move on to the more "socialised" stuff.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-09-09 09:47pm

In other words, "It might not work as well as in other countries, so lets not try."?

In other words, you've cocked up smaller programs consistently and egregiously. Before we give you the chance to produce an even bigger cock up why don't you show some compotency and responsibility in the programs you already have first?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-09 09:55pm

tharkûn wrote:

In other words, "It might not work as well as in other countries, so lets not try."?
In other words, you've cocked up smaller programs consistently and egregiously. Before we give you the chance to produce an even bigger cock up why don't you show some compotency and responsibility in the programs you already have first?

It obviously hasn't occurred to you that one of the biggest problems with the cost of health-care in the US is the multiplicity of insurers, which drives up administrative overhead costs to many times what socialized healthcare systems pay, and which impacts Medicare/Medicaid. In short, they are hamstrung by their forced integration with a laissez-faire capitalist healthcare system.

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2004-09-09 09:59pm

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...if everyone else's health care system is so great, why do people come from all around the world for treatment?