Olbermann: To Neal Boortz on U.S. Health Care Deaths - 'Remind Me Again, Who Are The Terrorists?'

[Hissyspit]

Run time: 01:26 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7pzTHO7Uv8   Posted on YouTube: January 06, 2010 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 06, 2010 By DU Member: Hissyspit Views on DU: 15839

 
MSNBC Countdown w/ KEITH OLBERMANN - 5 January 2009: Olbermann Quick Comment says Neal Boortz Compares 'ObamaCare' To Terrorist Attacks.

OLBERMANN: "Each day it seems the lunatic fringe finds a new way to permit its adherents to view the rest of us as a little less than human - we don't count as much as they do, ordinary Americans don't matter. Newest example, hate-radio-host Neal Boortz yesterday: 'Obamacare will do more damage' he said, ' than a successful terrorist bombing of an airliner and kill more people as well.'

So, rather than count how many things are wrong with that statement, or how many times Neal Boortz must have been abused for him to wind up so dehumanized for him to say such a thing, let us answer it on his terms.

What would you do, sir, if terrorists were killing 45,000 people each year in this country? Well, the current heatlh care system, the insurance companies and those who support them, are doing just that.

Let's frame this in language even conservatives can understand. Those fighting health care reform, not those debating its shape or its nuance, people who demand the status quo. They are killing 45,000 Americans a year.

If they were killed all at once, or even a hundred at a time, Neal Boortz would be demanding martial law and government by the generals.

Instead, because they die individually of disease and not disaster, Neal Boortz, and those who ape him, in office and out, approve their deaths.

All 45,000 of them.

A year.

In America.

Remind me again, who are the terrorists?"

[aquart]

1. Well, Keith, we're in agreement again.

[ljm2002]

2. Nice commentary, Keith!

I like the shorter format for his commentary -- I love his passion, but when he waxes he tends to become a bit florid.

This way it's short and sweet, right to the point.

[ellenfl]

12. i agree. eom

[sam sarrha]

3. l love that man....

[ScottLand]

4. Boortz doesn't believe the **** he says.

He's all about getting attention. He feels like a second banana to Hannity and Clark Howard.

[Vermontgrown]

5. So,

Obermann is a first rate speaker. Hannity is uneducated and a liar. If repukes wanna to listen to lies let em. In the end the truth will win out.

[bobbolink]

16. How many deaths before the "truth wins out"?

[Hoyt]

6. Right -- "Ordinary Americans" didn't write speeches for racist governors.

Who cares what Boortz says/writes. He got his start writing racist speeches for Georgia's last openly supremacist governor. But, he's a good reminder of what most Tea Baggers, Republicans, Libertarians, etc., are all about.

Glad Olbermann is taking him on -- should be a cakewalk.

[wilt the stilt]

7. Boortz has always been a racist

It started way back. He is a bitter old man. I used to sell dictation equipment and called on him. He was a two bit lawyer. Don't let anyone fool you and tell you he was successful.. His office was a pig sty. He came back to radio because he sucked as a lawyer.

[robo50]

8. Thankfully I didn't even know there was a Boortz

I lived my life all these years and never knew that guy existed.

He must have given all those Faux boys their lessons in selfishness.

[defendandprotect]

9. Love Keith's comment . . .

Meanwhile, Jon Stewart was back last night ---

[demi moore]

10. and these terroists have sleeper cells in congress

i wish john john stewart had a 24/7 news channel. like fox.

he could have a segment like fox and friends. "john and friends". who else is good enough to counter glenns propaganda? i think he is the man for the job. anyway, i wish he would get a longer show

[swilton]

11. Thanks Hissyspit!

[gorfle]

13. Love Olberman, but have to disagree.

I love Olberman, and I am for single-payer health care.

But I do not think it is fair to say that people who are against paying for other people's health care are responsible for the deaths of people who currently cannot afford their own health care.

Again, I believe we all collectively should pay for each others' health care, instead of leaving everyone to fend for themselves.

But I don't think it's fair to say that people who believe that people should fend for their own health care are responsible for the deaths of people unable to do so.

This is like saying people with homes are responsible for those who are homeless because they refuse to buy homes for the homeless.

[av8rdave]

17. People who are against health care reform don't care about the deaths of those with no access

I think that's his point.

And FWIW, we need to be careful about accepting the "paying for other people's health care" meme. We already do that. We also pay for other people's home repairs, auto maintenance, dental care, etc. It's called insurance. It's not some new, deadly "socialist" concept. The right has a way of using half truths, outright falsehoods and clever use of language to distort a lot of things. This is just one of them.

[gorfle]

18. That may be, but that does not make them responsible.

People who are against health care reform don't care about the deaths of those with no access
I think that's his point.

But that's not what he said. What he said is that people who are not for health care reform are responsible for those deaths. Not caring that someone dies is not the same thing as being responsible for them dying.

And FWIW, we need to be careful about accepting the "paying for other people's health care" meme. We already do that. We also pay for other people's home repairs, auto maintenance, dental care, etc. It's called insurance. It's not some new, deadly "socialist" concept.

It's not socialist so long as participation is voluntary.

What we are talking about is socialized health insurance. I don't have a problem with that.

Rather than trying to convince people that it's not socialized (and it is), I'd rather point out instead that there are plenty of other socialized, communal resources that we all take advantage of regardless of how much we pay into the system to support them, such as military protection, police protection, fire protection, Social Security, Medicade, and a host of other services.

Steve

[av8rdave]

19. All good points. Thanks for the reply

I think the best thing to do as you suggest is point out all the socialized services we have and always have had and take for granted that would qualify as "socialized" under their definition.

I still have a hard time with the concept of insurance being labeled as "paying for other people's health care or (fill in the blank). While that may be true in an indirect sense, I think it's important for those who so vehemently oppose health care reform to understand that insurance, as you so well put it, "...is not some new, 'deadly' socialist concept."

[gorfle]

21. What they really balk at.

The thing here is, in an insurance program, even though everyone pays for everyone else's losses, everyone is paying in equally in accordance with the amount of coverage they are asking for and how large a risk they are. That is, if you want more coverage or you are riskier to coverage, you will pay more, but nonetheless, everyone is paying their fair share to get their coverage. Everyone in an insurance plan is there voluntarily and is paying their own fair share.

The thing that annoys "conservatives" is the fact that they will be paying for their own coverage in addition to paying for the coverage of other people who can't afford it. These people see obtaining health care, like obtaining food and shelter, as a personal responsibility and if you can't get it then you have to do without.

I disagree with this for a few reasons. First of all, by eliminating the profit-driven health insurance industry (which isn't going to happen, but anyways), you would immediately see a reduction in cost equal to whatever the current industry profit margin is. That by itself would probably go a long way to covering people who aren't covered.

Second of all, we are already paying for these people's health care when they show up in emergency rooms.

Third of all, it has been demonstrated that as a nation we already pay more than other modern nations with socialized health care for health care that isn't as good.

Fourth of all, if our nation is prosperous enough to bail out car companies, insurance companies, and banks, and engage in endless war along with all the trappings of security theater, then I believe we ought to have enough money to cover health care for everyone as a birthright.

Of course all of this is moot because real health care reform in this country is not going to happen. Our government is not going to destroy a multi-billion, if not multi-trillion dollar health insurance corporation system, firstly because of the devestating economic impact that would have but secondly because too many politicians are on the payroll of said companies. We will never have a government-run health insurance or health care program that competes with private services until and unless the voters push things much farther to the left than they currently are.

[shopgreen]

14. But Keith, it is NOT health care reform but insurance reform and weak at that!!...

...........
Let's frame this in language even conservatives can understand. Those fighting health care reform, not those debating its shape or its nuance, people who demand the status quo. They are killing 45,000 Americans a year.

[kevsters]

15. You Have Not Seen Hypocrisy Until You See This Video!!!

You haven't seen blatant hypocrisy until you see this video of Karen Hanretty discussing counter-terrorism tactics.

http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=3498

[Daydreamer.1961]

20. he

should imitate neal