Once again, Legal Insurrection hits it out of the park.

A terrific encapsulation:

"In Israel the clear majority of Americans see a democratic nation surrounded by implacable enemies who also are our enemies, doing what it takes to survive and thrive. In so many historical, religious and political ways Israel is our kindred spirit, more than just one among many nations."

An absolutely apposite reminder and emphasis:

"I think the reaction to Obama's treatment of Bibi Netanyahu hits home because it was so personal in nature, and because it epitomized how the American people have been treated by Obama and the Democrats, with arrogance and disdain."

And a continuation of same:

We have seen this attitude since the Inauguration, when Obama and the crowd treated George W. Bush with disrespect, in the smears by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other leading Democrats against health care protesters, in the daily attacks by the left-wing blogs and mainstream media against the Tea Party members, in the treatment of Sarah Palin and Trig Palin, in the bribes and budgetary chicanery used to pass a health care bill opposed by a significant majority of the population, and in the disgusting use of the race card to stifle legitimate political dissent.

Barack Obama, leader of the free world ...

I just don't see the linkage between health care and Israel.

It's kind of nuts actually that this polarity has arisen and also the false equivalence.

Beyond that, personally I do not understand the anti-health care lobby. To me it is axiomatic that a civilized culture will provide for the health of its citizens. We are alone among advanced nations and quite a few we wouldn't otherwise envy, such as Egypt, in not considering basic health care a right along with life, liberty, etc. Pooling resources in order to ensure that people won't be kicked off their plan as soon as they get sick is merciful, civilized and in the long run will help ensure a healthier society.

For example there are several countries which outstrip the US both in longevity and in lower rates of infant mortality. We shouldn't hold workers hostage care to their health insurance plans. Small businesses and entrepreneurs are often unable to afford insurance at all. People with pre-existing conditions can't get insurance period, even children.

Then what?

OK end of health care speech.

Regardless of how you feel about health care, mixing up Obama's apparent feelings toward Israel with the tea-partiers and their antipathy to the rest of us having health care is truly confusing issues. The tea partiers in fact are the ones who attacked the rest of us, not the other way around.

This has driven splinters through the Right in fact so I am hardly the only person who feels this way.

As far as Israel is concerned though - and this overlaps with issues regarding Jews in general - ie the security of the global diaspora - I admit that for a lot of Democrats we found ourselves on the horns of a dilemma.

We were impressed with Obama but very concerned about the Rev. Wright business and were hoping that Obama's many Jewish backers, his visit to Israel and his speech to AIPAC about Jerusalem were the "true" Obama whereas the Rev. Wright and his church reflected big city realpolitik.

Basically churches like Rev. Wright's reflect a powerful consituency which Democratic politicians can't really ignore. They are community centers, fund raising centers, focal points for sanity in what are often poor communities that are all too often plagued by violence.

However, I think antisemitism and certainly anti-Israel sentiments aren't uncommon and Rev. Wright certainly scared me and he scared my friends too.

We were then faced with a choice: abandon health care, environmental issues, green energy, conservation and other causes which most Democrats think are vital, or let Rev. Wright decide the election.

I wish it hadn't come down to this kind of choice. As I say we were hoping Rev. Wright wasn't for real at least insofar as he affect Obama's thinking process. Truthfully Obama seems way too intelligent and well-educated to have fallen for that stuff.

Meanwhile, I don't think being furious with Bibi as the NYT puts it (approvingly) isn't going to fix the so-called Peace Process either.

It's much more likely to work if people are persuaded, not bullied imo.

But, who listens to me.

No "linkage" was made thus there is no "false equivalence," Sophia, at least not conceptually or policy-wise - the only comparison was attitudinal, i.e. the facile displays of contempt, etc. This "attitude" seemingly reflects an overriding aspect of his praxis, the demagoguery, the cult of personality.

He was not otherwise drawing a comparison between health care and Israel or any of the other topics he mentioned.

Btw, the U.S. does provide health care for its citizens, no one is not admitted to emergency rooms, for example, even for

The issue is over health insurance, for citizens (and non-citizens), via private vs. governmental controls and coercion, etc. At bottom, a large aspect of the debate concerns a well founded conception of individual liberty, an optimization thereof vs. increasing the size and power of govt.

No one is refused health care per se. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other governmental outlets provide safety nets.

As to who is fomenting the discord, here's some stats that form the backdrop:

"As others have noted, Medicare passed with the support of 13 Republican Senators and 70 Republican Congressmen. Social Security passed with the support of 14 Senate Republicans and 77 House Republicans.

"But this metric understates the degree of bipartisanship underlying these bills. In percentage terms, 56% of Republican Senators and 75% of Republican Congressmen voted for Social Security, while 41% of GOP Congressmen and 50% of GOP Senators voted for Medicare. In a caucus of today's size, that would translate to 23 Republican Senators and 134 Representatives in support of the health care bill had it been crafted to garner as much bipartisan support as Social Security, while 17 Republican Senators and 89 Representatives would have favored a bill with as much bipartisan support as Medicare."

link

By contrast, not a single Republican signed onto the current legislation in either house. Iow, it isn't the Repubs who can be faulted for the divisiveness, certainly not this time around.

So, again, it's not about some manichean conception of the meanies vs. the benevolent ones; an array of other concerns and priorities informs the debate, some of them absolutely fundamental to the government, the culture in the near and longer term, etc.

As to this:

"... personally I do not understand the anti-health care lobby. To me it is axiomatic that a civilized culture will provide for the health of its citizens."

this:

Personally I do not understand the lobby that would massively increase the size of government together with its coercive controls over the individual. To me it is axiomatic that a civilized culture will respect the individual/personal liberty of its citizens.

Michael B, do you think I am a demogogue?

Seriously?

And, do you think Medicare for example controls your life?

How old are you?

Most people who have it are extremly grateful for Medicare.

In fact one of the funniest things about the health care debate is the fact that anti-health-care advocates were jumping up and down declaring that Gov'mint Should Stay the Heck Out of Medicare.

Meanwhile, alas, you don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid unless you're old, disabled or already broke.

Do you think people should lose everything they've got in the meantime?

What do you think should happen to people who get dropped because they get sick or who have pre-existing conditions or whose kids are sick?

Should they have to live in the streets so they can qualify for Medicaid? Or what?

Meanwhile, people complain about "death panels" but the fact is we already have them.

Do you think it's worse to have "gov'mint" up in your personal business or some company who's making a profit from your illness or your lack thereof? And whose bottom line depends on risk management, ie denying you care if you become sick or breaking you financially by charging premiums that cost more than your house?

OH PS: It isn't true that emergency rooms have to treat you. Theoretically maybe that's true - but - people have died in the streets outside emergency rooms. Some states have incredibly stringent budget controls and if you can't pay you have to beg.

My sister lives in such a state. During an economic downturn she was injured. Her hand was broken. Basic ER care cost $800 and they didn't have it. They were turned away from the emergency room.

She went without care until it because unbearable. Finally I found a charity which treated her.

You have no idea how she suffered in the meantime.

Also, imagine if it had been leukemia. Do you really think, lacking insurance, you're going to get top of the line care? Or do you think maybe your days are numbered because you can't afford to live? Do you think diseases like leukemia are something people deserve? They get it maybe because they are bad or eat the wrong stuff? Or what?

Now answer that carefully because my mother died, age 50, of leukemia and my best friend has it now. Did they deserve to get it?

What if my friend's insurance co decides she isn't worth treating with a t-cell transplant?

And, imagine how my sister felt. She was hurt, she was broke, she felt like a monumental failure. She didn't want to have to beg. So I begged for her.

And you know what? It sucked. Unless you've been there you have no idea.

So - do you think people don't die for lack of care? And do you think people don't lose all they have just trying to pay for basic medical care?

Guess again.

Now how do you think that feels.

We're not talking about bums here. Economic misfortune can strike anybody at any time.

Right now we have an actual unemployment rate well over the quoted number because long term unemployed people or under-employed people just fall off the charts.

We've lost manufacturing and other jobs to such a huge degree that many, many Americans are unemployable, period, in today's market and that' even if the recovery continues.

And, the US has become so polarized we're unable to pull together and work for what's important to the majority of us.

People are using scare tactics to divide us. This serves NONE of us except the usual suspects: people so rich and powerful they feast off chaos and division and creating mutual fear and hostility between people.

Meanwhile because of the phony linkage between health care and Israel I have actually read crap like, "AIPAC is voting against health care."

That's how awful this has gotten. It's a blood libel too like the Petraeus business, which he didn't even say but which nevertheless got all over the damn planet.

Without the false equivalence and the polarization on these issues, believe me we'd be able to confront the government more directly. But the people are busy fighting with each other instead of working together.

So, we're f**ked.

And Jews above all are f**ked.

Have you taken some time to read comment threads on MSM blogs lately?

The Nazis are out en masse. They're making statements about how Jews cost "us" a fortune to "clean up their messes" and of course repetition of the phony Petraeus statements have become commonplace.

Some asshat on Politico I think linked what he claims is a page from Harry Truman's diary complaining about Jews and how they're always complaining about being "dp's." For all I know it isn't what Truman said but that's the kind of bullshit that out's there now.

I really, really think it's time to move on past the phony divisions. We are all Americans and we have a lot more in common with each other than not, even if some of us are poor and some are middle class.

I'd exclude the very wealthy because I don't think their concerns are the same at all. They are insulated to a large degree from factors that affect the rest of us. They're a very small minority however.

Regardless - most Democrats and Republicans aren't separate species after all. We're Americans, first and foremost.

But, we're being played (divide and conquer writ large) and it's going to harm us deeply.

PS: Obama practically begged the Republicans to join the effort. The package that was passed was very similar to Romney's plan.

Myself, I'd have held out for the public option.

I did not say nor imply that you were a demagogue, Sophia. Likewise I never said or so much as intimated that Medicare was controlling my life. Indeed I favor a duly reformed Medicare and Medicaid. Good grief.

Regardless as to how old you are, you are uncomprehending in the extreme.

Forget it.

In retrospect, a few other items for emphasis and to further serve to underscore your incomprehensions and arrogations, Sophia. I'll three or four more examples, though am tempted to deconcoct and deconstruct the entirety.

Who are these "anti-health-care advocates," Sophia? Nice piece of rhetorical indulgence and an arrogation, but who exactly are these folks? The meanies, who disagree with Obama and you?

"Do you think people should lose everything they've got in the meantime?"

No, virtually everyone favors reforms to help deal with this type of issue and to help deal with other fundamental issues as well. Why would you even ask such a silly question? Do you get your news and information from Katie Couric? The debate has been going on now for twelve to eighteen months, and you're still asking this type of jejune and juvenile b.s.?

In terms of your rank dismissiveness (e.g., "gov'mint") applied to my concern with personal/individual liberty, choice, etc., yea, "gov'mint" pretty much sums up your "reasoning" on the subject. (It's revealing to note when the left and liberals care about "choice" vs. when they are utterly contemptuous of it, e.g., applied to educational choice, applied to health insurance and health care choice, etc.)

In terms of your anecdote, there will be plenty of anecdotes in the future if we're not able to turn this massive takeover around, much as there are in fact anecdotes that can be taken from Canada and Europe. I'm sorry about your mother or anyone's mother dieing, certainly, but in terms of this discussion per se, what am I suppose to do with such an emotionally based appeal?

The "emotionally based appeal" is simply a statement of reality.

What you are supposed to do with this is look at the situation, understand the stakes for real human beings, real human lives, which is exactly what the anti-reform group or groups refuse to do.

People actually do die from lack of health care in this country.

And even if today, one feels he is completely secure and none of these things could happen to him, that's an illusion unless you are so wealthy you're effectively insulated from the vagaries of life. Otherwise - we're all pretty vulnerable.

So - this isn't an "emotionally based appeal," it's reality. It's a fact that people go bankrupt from medical expenses, and being on Medicaid isn't exactly a good option when states are going broke.

It's a lousy option to have to choose between food and medicine, medicine and rent, or medicine and no medicine because the treatment is just too expensive to contemplate so you might as well just dig a hole.

And, as Obama tried to point out, you have to already be broke to get Medicaid in the first place. I don't think it's such a great idea to be in the street so I can get Medicaid do you? Do you think the destruction of the middle class is a good idea?

I don't. I think a good stable middle class is important for America's health and we should be trying to support it and making health care affordable so people can stay middle class and not lose everything because of illness is a big part of that.

Yet, you claim my appeal is "too emotional."

Well what isn't emotional about poverty, illness, dying young, being unable to afford insurance for your kids?

This is an especially serious problem now that decades-long jobs with good benefits are getting scarcer and scarcer and in any case, that completely leaves small business and entrepreneurs out of the equation!

That in itself - stifling free enterprise in the form of small business etc - is hurting America's creativity and our prosperity.

Pelosi spoke of something many Americans have experienced - she used the term "job lock" and it's a bad thing. I've been there.

Essentially it means people stay in jobs that don't really suit them or use their full abilities solely for the health care benefits.

I know a guy who's working past retirement age because his wife has no health care of her own - it's TOO EXPENSIVE - and guess what - she's just come down with a catastrophic illness so you know, he's stuck.

We're worried that he's going to drop dead in the process. He's 66 now.

And she is 4 years short of 65 when she'd be eligible for Medicare.

And even Medicare covers only 80% - but's it is vastly better than nothing - it's the difference between life and death - and insurance that you can lose the minute you get sick isn't insurance. It's just a rip-off.

Now - even though everybody knows about things like this, about kids not being covered, people being thrown out of their health care plans - about denial of coverage and services - not one Republican came forward and offered real alternatives or good suggestions to Obama and the Democrats.

The best they could come up with are these high risk pools that would essentially punish the sick and disproportionately punish people who are less well-to-do, as if sickness were something people get because they're "bad" (like that cartoon about auto insurance posted here earlier was suggesting in re good vs bad drivers.)

That's really a rotten analogy.

Good driving is a choice. Good health often really isn't.

Yes - you can control your diet, you can eschew drugs and alcohol, work out, watch your weight and you can still get a catastrophic illness.

A baby, completely innocent, can be born with health problems, a child can get sick, a woman can suffer injury in childbirth.

Are those choices? Do people CHOOSE to get cancer?

Health and driving just aren't the same things.

Maybe there's something about this whole debate that makes people uncomfortable precisely because it exposes the fact that we not completely in control of our lives. We can work hard, do all the right things - and bad things can happen to us.

We'd like to maintain the illusion that if we do x,y and z we'll be fine. We'll have steady work, good health, our kids will flourish - but in fact - hell can break lose at any minute. It can come in the form of a tornado or it can come in the form of an accident or an illness - a job loss - along with the loss of benefits - and all of a sudden we're s.o.l. That's precisely why we have safety nets - because we ARE a caring society, a civilized society and we aren't in Pollyannaland. We realize that shit happens and we try to take care of each other.

Right?

Meanwhile I haven't heard ONE GOOD ARGUMENT as to why American people should not have access to affordable health insurance - not one.

We Democrats reached out, Obama reached out many times and we were stiffed.

We tried to put forward the facts on this matter and get some constructive feedback and some creative ideas that didn't completely rig the deck in favor of big business and we were completely stiffed.

Essentially, this is the same response I am getting here.

Well it's too bad.

This shouldn't have been an argument based on party lines or on the needs of big business but rather on the needs of the people, most of whom are NOT well to do and most of whom aren't really very secure - and the system as it is just doesn't work.

So - it makes people uncomfortable to hear about people who die, who go broke trying to afford care, that is too emotional right?

Well it should make you uncomfortable.

If the thought that your fellow Americans are suffering doesn't make you uncomfortable there's something wrong.

But don't shoot the messenger, ie attack me or Obama or the Democratic Party for trying to do something about it.

If you have a better idea, put it forth. Laws can be amended or changed.

But the polarization of America - that's scaring me and I don't get it.

PS - it's kind of ironic - one of the things the anti-Israel crowd is using to bludgeon the Israelis: their excellent, public, national health care system. The anti-Zionists (right and left) are claiming that the US is paying for it and they are jealous. Meanwhile I read that one Israeli spoke out about their excellent nationalized health care at a town hall meeting in Arizona, I believe, and people yelled antisemitic comments at him.

GO FIGURE.

We Americans really need to back down a bit from our respective party lines and realize that we're all in this together, that in the case of health care at least nobody is trying to hurt you or take away your rights - people really are suffering and we really do need help.

This isn't the right fight, it's lose-lose. Second Amendment, whatever, yeah - battle on - but health is a basic right and the whole country is only as strong as its weakest member.

A flim-flamming mish-mash of periphrasis, presumption and incoherence, not a little indulgence in moralizations and preaching as well. From beginning to end; you didn't so much as evidence a solid apprehension of what the linked blog post represented. The only thing I can make of this, Sophia, is that you do indeed feel strongly about it all ...