Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Facebook Ad Tells Palin's Readers That the Bloggacuda Is Spreading Lies About Healthcare Reform

Sarah Palin has become a blogger of late, using Facebook as her platform. Hence, I have decided to call her the "Bloggacuda."

Palin used her Facebook page to launch the deceptive claim that paying for the expense of end-of-life treatment means that the government will create "death panels" for seniors. A liberal union-affiliated political group is tired of Palin's deceit and is running an ad on her Facebook page that informs readers that the Bloggacuda is spreading lies.

Greg Sargent of the Washington Post blog "Plum Line" has the scoop: New Ad Targets Palin’s Facebook Supporters, Tells Them She’s A Liar. See also: Group Runs Facebook Ad Asking Palin to "Stop Lying."


Stray Yellar Dawg? said...

I hope they aren't paying much to run that ad. As most Palin supporters already consider "Facistbook" to be downright eeevvvviiiillll.

My guess is that, at best, the Palin haters are singing to their own choir on this one.

At worst they may actually be encouraging Palin supporters to harden their stances.

Just sayin'


Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

The article considered that point. But hey, it's not bad to try. I suspect some people actually wonder onto the cite who are not Palinatics. I don't hate Palin; I hate what she has done in the healthcare debates.

Stray Yellar Dawg? said...

Palin is the new Queen of the one liners. It worked for Reagan, and I dare say it will work for her.

These health care "debates" have unfortunately become a farce. To think.... health care was the MAIN issue upon which I, and my professional organization, (the ANA) supported Hillary... breaks my heart.

Knowing what could have been makes me want to cry.

Neither Obama, or Palin have the vaguest clue....


gcotharn said...

A better look at what happened at the Tampa townhall meeting you blogged about. This video shows the two minutes immediately preceding the video outburst shown in your blogpost video, then shows the opening 10 or 20 seconds of the video outburst shown in your blogpost video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts5siyBYddM&feature=player_embedded

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Please stay on topic.

gcotharn said...

I dropped that video in w/o comment, as I assumed you would be interested in a fuller video picture of the crowd you once blogged about.

You want "on topic"? Low class uneducated simpleton Sarah Palin is outmaneuvering Dems and Repubs and hoity-toitys on healthcare, and she's using freakin FACEBOOK to do it. I'm so glad resigning her governorship made her a powerless nonentity.

"Death Panels" is euphemism - to the point that Palin even put it in quotations in her original Facebook post. Jon Stewart discusses "Overseas Contingency Operations", "Man-Caused Disasters", and "Legacy Assets": http://www.unitedliberty.org/videos/jon-stewart-explains-obamas-euphemisms. Obama and Dems brand in a way designed to help them. It is silly (and is an attempt at branding) to accuse Palin of lying. Here's what she did: she out-branded them. "Death Panels" brilliantly cuts to the heart of this intuition:

Healthcare policy will unavoidably be dictated by government; unaccountable government has no place in a rationing equation. A consumer has a better chance, and better choices, inside a free market rationing equation.

There are problems with Obama et al calmly laying out their strategy. They haven't completed their strategy, and can only make vague promises that we must trust them to complete the job, i.e. we must trust both their goodwill and their wise understanding of human nature, of human history, and of sound economics. Not good enough.

Conservatives, by definition, believe man has evil or low-down nature, and believe free men must be protected from other men. Conservatives, by definition, do not trust promises of goodwill from anyone.

Second, Obama/Dems are blithely laying out a strategy in a vacuum; are blithely laying out a strategy which ignores human nature, human history, and sound economics. Obamacare opponents instinctively understand government will unavoidable dictate healthcare policy; instinctively understand government will unavoidably dictate rationing.

Many Obamacare opponents do not have pretty words with which to explain this, yet they understand it at an intuitive level. They communicate it as best they are able. If you want pretty words, Megan McArdle, writing in The Atlantic, makes use of her economics degree (quote in the following comment).

gcotharn said...

Megan McArdle, writing in The Atlantic:

"And yet, most of us realize that there are huge differences between price rationing and government rationing, and that the latter is usually much worse for everyone. This is one of the things that most puzzles me about the health care debate: statements that would strike almost anyone as stupid in the context of any other good suddenly become dazzling insights when they're applied to hip replacements and otitis media.

The rationing is, first of all, simply worse on a practical level: goods rationed by fiat rather than price have a tendency to disappear, decline in quality, etc. Government tends to prefer queues to prices. This makes most people worse off, since their time is worth much more than the price they would pay for the good. Providers of fiat-rationed goods have little incentive to innovate, or even produce adequate supplies. If other sectors are not controlled, the highest quality providers have a tendency to exit. If other sectors are controlled, well, you're a socialist, and I just agreed not to call you a socialist, because you're not a socialist.

But there is also a real difference between having something rationed by a process and having it rationed by a person. That is, in fact, why progressives are so fond of rules. They don't want to tell grandma to take morphine instead of getting a pacemaker. It's much nicer if you create a mathematical formula that makes some doctor tell grandma to take morphine instead of getting a pacemaker. Then the doctor can disclaim responsibility too, because after all, no one really has any agency here--we're all just in the grips of an impersonal force.

But this won't do. If you design a formula to deny granny a pacemaker, knowing that this is the intent of the formula, then you've killed granny just as surely as if you'd ordered the doctor to do it directly. That's the intuition behind the conservative resistance to switching from price rationing to fiat rationing. Using the government's coercive power to decide the price of something, or who ought to get it, is qualitatively different from the same outcome arising out of voluntary actions in the marketplace. Even if you don't share the value judgement, it's not irrational, except in the sense that all human decisions have an element of intuition and emotion baked into them."

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Gcotharn: Apparently, Americans consider ignorance and deceit attractive.

Second, and this is the only thing I'll respond to, the notion of "market" health insurance in this country is a farce. Only 5 percent of individuals purchase insurance on their own. 60 percent get it from employer plans that are highly subsidized by the government and that are pretty much "take it or leave it" policies. People simply do not "negotiate" coverage under these plans. The rest are in public plans already.

The funniest thing is hearing conservatives scream about the government regulating healthcare for seniors, when Medicare is already regulated by the government. Also, the public want Congress to force insurers to cover "pre-existing" conditions and not to drop individuals because they become sick -- but this is GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION and market interference.

Conservatives are screaming at fever pitch over a LIE that the government would cover abortion services, but of course, this means they want the government to interefere with the doctor-patient relationship. Finally, The Bloggacuda herself wants the feds to cap damages in private litigation. The conservative "private market" arguments are riddled with hypocrisy, which completely discredits them.

gcotharn said...

Sarah Palin: ignorant and deceitful. Riiight. Let's examine her Facebook statement and your analysis of it. One of the two of you is ignorant and/or deceitful (or deceived by Glenn Greenwald, et al). It's not her. Here's the link: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434 Here's the relevant text:

"The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

Is Palin so ignorant that she believes Obamacare provides for an actual, physical panel of bureaucrats who vote thumbs up or down on a case by case basis? Doubtful.

Is Palin so deceitful that she is trying to mislead Amercans into believing in an actual, physical panel of beaurocrats which votes thumbs up or down on a case by case basis? No, she is not that deceitful. Your claim is ludicrous.

Sowell ... rationing ... who suffers from rationing? ...
answer: the sick, elderly, disabled ... "stand in front of the 'death panel'" rhetoric/euphemism, which OBVIOUSLY refers to bureaucrats who will set parameters for the rationing of healthcare. READ THE PARAGRAPH. The context is obvious.

Do you deny Palin the use of rhetorical devices? Have you ever, before now, actually read the paragraph? Or, have you relied upon Glenn Greenwald et al's spin about it? If you relied upon their spin, they misled you. The context of the actual paragraph is obvious. Palin's Facebook note was attacked as part of a loose, uncoordinated, yet enthusiastic political attack strategy. It's to your discredit that you have repeatedly misrepresented Sarah Palin's point - which is also Thomas Sowell's point, Michelle Bachman's point, conservative America's point, Megan McArdle's point, and my point: bureaucratic rationing is a horrible thing.

Is it the case that it doesn't occur to you, for even a sliver of a moment, that Sarah Palin might be your equal in intellect and/or in wisdom; that she might be your superior? Do you stereotype her education, her accent, her conservative beliefs? Does it occur to you, for even a moment, that raising 5 kids and fishing for a living and being Mayor and Governor might be more difficult and varied and wisdom-inducing than acquiring a law school degree and teaching critical race theory? Are you that shallow, pretentious, condescending, and foolish? You would enjoy, and be well served by, this Victor Davis Hanson article.

You suspect many or all Americans of harboring conscious and/or unconscious prejudice against black people. Does your opinion result from your own psychological projection of your own shallow prejudices? such as the shallow prejudices you harbor against conservatives with undergrad degrees and regional accents? which exactly describes me! I'm starting to suspect some things.

(continued below)

gcotharn said...

(continued from above)

Re: health insurance market

It damn sure is a market. I happen to sell health insurance. Health insurance companies fight tooth and nail to acquire corporate business accounts and small business accounts. Health insurance coverage is a definitive factor in corporations and small businesses acquiring and retaining talent. They don't offer health insurance b/c they are nice guys. They offer it so they can acquire and retain talent. Health insurance is a market.

Re: Medicare

Medicare is FUBAR, as Barack reminds in every speech, when he says Medicare is is a huge financial problem, and is on course to become a completely unmanageable financial problem, and we've got to do something to fix it, and that something is Obamacare.

Further, Medicare shifts costs to the private sector, driving up private insurance costs. Example: Medicare pays somewhere around 80-90% of cost when a person goes into the hospital. That's cost, w/o profit figured in. Therefore, hospitals recoup by charging private insurance, on average 137% of hospital cost. Medicare is not only FUBAR on it's own, but is cost shifting, in this and other areas (such as surgeon fees, anaesthesiologist fees), to the detriment of the entire nation.

Further, b/c Medicare doesn't compensate Dr's at market rates, if a senior needs a new doctor, it's difficult for the senior to find one. The senior is sometimes forced into a kind of clinical mill which runs patients through at a fast rate. Seniors, who have more difficulty understanding verbal instruction, do not thrive in this environment. No one does.

Re: government regulation

It's government regulation which currently prevents insurance competition across state lines. If government would get current regulation out of the way, insurance companies would certainly provide, at suitable risk cost, health insurance which could follow a person from job to job, and which could be kept for a lifetime. Government doesn't have to force insurance companies to do this. Government needs to deregulate and let the market and profitable opportunities encourage these types of policies.

Re: abortion services

Maybe you are correct. I never much follow abortion debate. I have noted discussion of abortion and Obamacare, yet have not delved into it, and have not noticed any "fever pitch" screaming.

Re: tort reform

I am not knowledgeable in this area. Tort reform may be a hypocritical perversion of our freedoms. I don't have an opinion at this time.

However, if you are accusing conservatives of hypocrisy, are you not equally hypocritical for failing to support tort reform? Here's why: you support mucho legislative fixes. Tort reform has reduced healthcare costs in Texas, and has been responsible for tens of thousands of Doctors moving their practices to Texas. It seems logical that tort reform would reduce health care costs on a national level, and would encourage more doctors to practice. Yet you, who support mucho legislative fixes, do not support tort reform. Hypocritical? Does this completely discredit you?

gcotharn said...

Actually, I had this Victor Hanson column in mind for your enjoyment, but didn't remember - when I quickly Googled yesterday - that this was the column I was looking for. Hanson, on July 8, 2009:

In the End, What is Wisdom?

6) Euripides asked that in the Bacchae? So who is the better one to sit down across from Putin? What training is critical to size up a Chavez, or say ‘no thanks, bud’ to Iran?

Does it require brains to manage a family with five kids, live on a limited budget, get elected to local office, fish, hunt, go to sea, cook your own food, navigate in politics with no money, without an influential dad and powerbroker husband — or is real wisdom finishing prep school, doing B+ work at Yale, and writing a novel, column or short story? (A little of both, you say? That’s why I started this piece off with my suggestion she take her new time to read and digest.)

In all seriousness at last, I’ve found it was harder to calibrate an old spray rig (without getting Parquat ['liquid death' we used to call it] up your nose and Simazine down your pants), with a shot roller pump and worn nozzles. It took some skill to put one pound (and only one pound) of Parquat and Simazine per acre on a two-foot-wide vineyard berm, correcting for tractor speed, wind, leaks, pump idiosyncrasies, soil conditions — knowing that too much preemergent herbicide gives you sick vines, and too little, weeds — than it was to do an apparatus criticus of 200 lines of the Greek text of Aeschylus’s Suppliants — all things, of course, being considered.

Sorry for the ‘either/or’ reductive binary: but I saw more stupid people in graduate school and three decades in academia than I ever did who ran 100 acres without going broke — and more of the latter whom I’d trust not to bankrupt the country and let down our defenses than of the former.
After all, a lot of geniuses are now calling for a “second stimulus” to borrow another trillion or so still, but I don’t think they come from Wasilla.

So I am afraid right now, but not of Sarah Palin.

gcotharn said...

Ron Rosenbaum, who has written for The Village Voice, Esquire, Harper's, High Times, Vanity Fair, New York Times Magazine, and Slate, has been reading my "Death Panel" comments:

"How Sarah Palin Rope A Doped All Too Many Liberals

As a liberal myself, I was amazed by the obtuseness of the liberal reaction to Sarah Palin’s “death panels” quote. They fell into a trap because all too many were blinded by their class-conscious, snobbish disdain for Palin, who, whatever else you think of her, is one cagey operator.
They couldn’t believe that Sarah Palin was capable of something as canny as that deadly “death panels” phrase. They couldn’t see that it was a metaphoric shorthand for something real. Instead they thought she was too dumb, that she meant it literally (to have seen the potential for rationed end-of-life care in the bill), and instead indulged in an orgy of disdain for her “crazy,” “ignorant” “lies” and malicious misrepresentation.

No! “Death panels” was a Lenny Bruce black-humored kind of line and she proved herself far hipper than the terminally square liberals who didn’t get it. And who started an ill-conceived war on the phrase which most of the country, when the facts came out, saw as meretricious or ignorant on the liberals’ part — with good reason.
Because yes, there is a “panel” in the bill that will “evaluate” the cost effectiveness of various expensive, minimally life-extending treatment decisions — decisions that any health-care program, public or private, may have to make. No, individuals won’t have to stand before it, but individuals will be affected — and sometimes suffer — from its decisions.

But liberals and, shamefully, liberal oriented media — most of them — made the mistake they keep making about Sarah Palin: because she didn’t go to Princeton she’s incapable of seeing or cutting to the heart of the matter so shrewdly. They had a chance to respond as Conason did: put her on the spot by asking her exactly what she’d do about existing insurance company “death panels.” Instead, they didn’t believe she was sophisticated enough (like them) to make the point she was making.

And then the facts began to leak out, as even the media began to read the bill and its implications and backtrack on its deeply flawed literal-to-the point of stupidity “fact checks”– and people got legitimately outraged at being treated like Sarah Palin: too dumb to understand. When in fact they — the liberals and the media — were the ones whose knee jerk reactions were ignorant."

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

GC: I have defended Palin and other conservatives several times on this blog. Yes - I also defend conservatives, criticize liberals.
How many times have you (or other rightwingers) criticized conservatives and defended liberals?

I refuse to defend Palin's hypocrisy and deceit. In fact, I refuse to defend ANYONE'S hypocrisy and deceit. On healthcare, she has either been dumb or deceitful. Both are pretty sad traits.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

GC: You're reposting deleted commentary. That's a "no no."

Real Time Analytics