A pretty desperate attempt at a misleading headline! Looks like Drew is hoping people just skim the title and think Tim Phillips was defending the heckling of this man.

Drew, just come out and say tell everyone that you are shill for the healthcare bill and move on! Stop trying to pin a few idiots on everyone else that realizes this legislation is a disaster!

Chris Matthews sure does despise the “white man” that is “dressed for success”!

Matthews still trying to play 60′s politics. If Matthews were really relevant in todays world, he would have better ratings, more people would pay attention to what he says. However, neither is the truth.

You know, I question whether this event was staged in some way. I guess there are some rare crass people out there that would verbally harass a disabled person. It just appears to be unbelievable to me.

I watched this segment on Hardball and this gentlemen DID NOT defend these people. He was appalled as anyone else and he says that in the video!

Yet another utterly misleading headline!

BTW- I’ve never seen a late-stage Parkinson’s sufferer who wasn’t on Social Security disability insurance already. If this man is unable to walk I’m POSITIVE that it is the case that he is on Medicare.

The woman’s name is Shona Holmes. Surprise, surprise – there are a few twists and misfires. See:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/dying-on-a-wait-list/

taxed and silkworm: more people are interested in fantasy than they are in truth.

Cappi: This is not the first such incident during these anti-HC protests. During the Town Hall meetings, several people who had lost a family member because their insurance was dropped, or who themselves had lost their insurance or never could afford it and had a serious illness, were heckeled and booed unmercifully when they tried to ask questions or make comments.

Cecelia, I think you may have some misconceptions about Parkinson’s. Not all late-stage victims are old.

tnlib, you can be a baby and be on Medicare disability.

Cecelia,

Are you serious? Conservatives fought tooth and nail against the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

FACTS:

“Oct 19 2007
The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was enacted in 1997 by a Republican Congress and Democratic President. It sunset on 30 September 2007. The program is designed to provide access to health insurance for families that make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid but too little to be able to afford private insurance.

Legislative history follows.

On 16 February 2007, this bill passed (360-45-28) in the House of Representatives under a rules suspension that limited debate; it required a two-thirds majority. All voting no were Republicans.

On 2 August 2007, this bill (retitled) passed in the Senate (68-31-1) with a sufficient vote to override a Presidential veto. All voting no were Republicans; in the main, they represented the deep south and the west (but not the Pacific coast). And 11 of the 17 Senators running for re-election voted “no.”

No Votes on Children’s Health Insurance
CO – Allard, Wayne * (R)
WY – Barrasso, John * (R)
UT – Bennett, Robert (R)
KS – Brownback, Samuel (R)
KY – Bunning, Jim (R)
NC – Burr, Richard (R)
GA – Chambliss, S. * (R)
OK – Coburn, Thomas (R)
MS – Cochran, Thad * (R)
TX – Cornyn, John * (R)
ID – Craig, Larry (R)
ID – Crapo, Michael (R)
SC – DeMint, Jim (R)
NC – Dole, Elizabeth * (R)
NV – Ensign, John (R)
WY – Enzi, Michael * (R)
SC – Graham, Lindsey * (R)
NH – Gregg, Judd (R)
NE – Hagel, Charles (R)
OK – Inhofe, James * (R)
GA – Isakson, John (R)
AZ – Kyl, Jon (R)
MS – Lott, Trent (R)
FL – Martinez, Mel (R)
AZ – McCain, John (R)
KY – McConnell, Mitch * (R)
AL – Sessions, Jefferson * (R)
AL – Shelby, Richard (R)
SD – Thune, John (R)
LA – Vitter, David (R)
OH – Voinovich, George (R)

And when President Obama finally signed the SCHIP extention into Law, in one of his first acts a on February 4, 2009, it represented a dramatic change, something you seem to take for granted in you comments here.

President Obama:

“We are not a nation that leaves struggling families to fend for themselves. No child in America should be receiving her primary care in the emergency room in the middle of the night. No child should be falling behind at school because he can’t hear the teacher or see the blackboard. I refuse to accept that millions of our kids fail to reach their full potential because we fail to meet their basic needs. In a decent society, there are certain obligations that are not subject to tradeoffs or negotiation – health care for our children is one of those obligations. ”

Children’s Health Insurance Coverage had to be FOUGHT FOR, Cecelia. Just like Civil Rights had to be FOUGHT FOR. Just like Women’s Suffrage had to be FOUGHT FOR. Just like abolition had to be FOUGHT FOR.
I do find it very, very interesting, that the group fighting these basic changes usually tends to be the SAME.

Why do you think that is, Cecelia?

–Cobra

Cobra,

I understand that you read the buzzword “baby” that I mentioned above, and automatically pulled out some file post of yours (rather than actually seeing the context).

However, I was responding to a post that said I failed to take into consideration that there are young Parkinson’s sufferers.

I was speaking to disability insurance– SSI, where there is no age limit.

As for SCHIP, there was a lot balking at raising the help to families with income level of $60,000 (and 80,000 was discussed) as seen at the time as a method of sliding us into a nationalized system.

That you are for such a system, we all know. That you are able to recognize, understand, or articulate your opponent’s arguments against it, is something that you can not do and wouldn’t entertain in the first place. That’s too bad. I can certainly articular yours, i.e. YOU JUST WANT PEOPLE TO DIE.

That’s an easy tactic.. A sort of flat-planing of discourse of the type that puts every subtlety down to the lowest common denominator.

Example– are you for school vouchers– just say opponents aren’t because they merely want to keep kids failing in bad schools. Keep insisting that this is the end result of their wishes, no matter what factor they bring to the debate.

Your non sequitur equating govt entitlement programs with basic human rights carries the usual ham-fisted insinuation of the usual suspects that not only defies a more complex history, but is straight out of the Cliff Notes for Blogboard Debaters.

Well, we’ll have to and we can live with that. What is new. However, you’re not bothering to read posts within their context is a different matter. Start doing that and you’ll save a lot rehashing by your opponents and your buzzword inspired file arguments can get a rest.