Reply With Quote
you are a dumbass.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/2...ukakis-moment/
Barack Obama got ABC to move their news division into the White House in order to make the big pitch for his egalitarian, everyone-gets-treated-equally ObamaCare push. Instead, Obama fumbled into a Michael Dukakis moment that exposed him as a hypocrite. ABC itself leads with Obama’s response that he wouldn’t stay within his own plan for his family:
President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people — like the president himself — wouldn’t face.
The probing questions came from two skeptical neurologists during ABC News’ special on health care reform, “Questions for the President: Prescription for America,” anchored from the White House by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson.
Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it’s not provided by insurance.
Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn’t seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he’s proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if “it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.["]
Oopsie! So ObamaCare for thee, but not for me? Hope and change, baby!
In 1988, Michael Dukakis blew a question about the death penalty when asked about whether he’d want it if his wife Kitty had been raped and murdered. Dukakis said no, but addressed it clinical legalese rather than absorbing the opportunity to address the emotional impact of violent crime, and his candidacy cratered. In this case, Obama did a reverse Dukakis. He went with the emotional argument, and effectively rebutted his own proposal and its egalitarian purpose. It’s a moment of sheer hypocrisy, caught in the modern amber of video.
If ObamaCare isn’t good enough for Sasha, Malia, or Mic e, then it’s not good enough for America. Instead of fighting that impulse, Obama should be working to boost the private sector to encourage more care providers, less red tape and expense, and better care for everyone.
you are a dumbass.
At least try to mix in comments about the issues. No need for ad hominem right off the bat.
The ABC *infomercial* included adversarial questioning that caught the President out? This isn't the supine propagandizing you led us to expect.
I think you owe this board an apology for your earlier post, Darrin. You jumped to conclusions about the ABC News report before it aired. Now that it makes Obama look bad, you're a champion of it. A thin reed bends with the wind.
(Guess: Darrin will try to have it both ways by arguing that preemptive criticism forced ABC to be tough. In other words, he'll probably take credit himself for the scoop.)
excuse me dear sir, but this is the forum where we cut our ad hominem teeth.
Agreed. Except for the apology part. That's a bit weird.
Charles Gibson didn't pose the question -- a doctor did.
I don't really expect an apology. An acknowledgment of error would be nice though.
Whose decision was it to include the doctor, or not to leave his question on the editing room floor?
It was a town hall... that's what happens in a town hall...
first of all, who wouldn't seek a medical solution for a loved one that exceeds their primary policy?
Was this question posed during the 1st hour-long special? Or, was it posed during the 2nd hour-long Nightline special?
how is the question any different than what occurs with everybody's current medical plan?
The question is analogous to asking Al Gore if he will drive a Toyota Prius. Sorry if it was lost on you.
thanks for yet another stupid analogy.
If Obama doesn't believe people are going to get high quality health care with his plan, then why do it?
people need to look at their current plan to realize it works exactly the same way.
i'm just saying don't put this on obama when insurers have been doing exactly what darrins is ing about. they've been doing it for decades.
I thought it was apt. It appears you've allowed your antipathy to get the better of you, clambake.
Nothing, however, the fear is that after the government option has become the choice for the vast number of Americans, and we have a defacto single-payor system - that system will, as similar ones around the world have done, ration care and limit procedures/tests more dramatically than most insurance policies do today; meaning what IS covered now, or the equivalent in a few years, will not be covered. Obama has frankly hinted at this when discussing how we need to have a nationwide discussion about "end of life" procedures and decisions. What a beuracrat defines as an "end of life" decision might very well be heroic measures trying to save the life of a beloved spouse to the actual concerned party. Certainly insurance companies do have that power, to an extent, now. But insurance companies can be sued - and they know it; the government cannot.
you said it....right there..."the fear".
so.....i guess obama should be forced to drive a prius because of this apt analogy?
Based on available evidence, including Obama's response, it is well-founded.
the available evidence is being prematurely criticized.
why don't we wait for some fine print?
Why is half the thread people bashing on Darrin for his thoughts before and after the Ministry of Minsinformation's health care special?
The point should be about Obama's hypocrisy WRT his magic solution of health care for all.
There's also his hypocrisy in the fact that Obama says it's government's place to tell a woman that she can't kill the child growing inside her because she just doesn't want the child, but it IS the government's place to tell the 80 year old woman that she can't have a hip replacement because she's too old.
But that's not surprising, it's do as I say, not as a I do, when it comes to anything coming out of the Messiah's mouth.
Short circuited. Analogy form runs thus -- A:B :: C:d.
The terms can't be switched around. It does not follow from *A is to B as C is to D* that *A is to D as C is to B*
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-25-2009 at 12:42 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
