Lars Larson: Baird feels he would have been safer in Afghanistan

There’s at least one member of the American Congress who believes he’d be safer in Afghanistan then he would in front of his own constituents.

I’m going to be talking to Washington State Congressman Brian Baird next week. He’s agreed to do a two-hour radio town hall to talk about health care.

You see, he is a Democrat. He hasn’t decided whether to vote for Obamacare yet and I’m hoping to persuade him otherwise.

He hasn’t held any in-person town hall meetings with his constituents because he thinks he’s in too much risk. In fact, he got up in front of one group just this week and said that he’d probably be safer in Afghanistan. He said, “I wish I’d been to the fire base in Afghanistan, which was my choice. But I came home to meet with constituents. I would have been safer there”. It’s foolish and it doesn’t make sense.

I’m proud of Americans for standing up and letting their elected members of Congress know what is on their mind and know what they do and don’t like about Obamacare.

“For more Lars click here”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 07:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 12 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Bob

    You know, Lars ought to spend more time reading before he spouts off inaccurate columns.

    Brian Baird is about to hold a town hall at the Clark County Amphitheater.

    That’s 18,000 seats — plenty for anyone who wants to go, and Lars’ ego.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/bairds_town_hall_will_move_to.html

    • Scottiebill

      Lars got Baird to come on his program for a “Radio Town Hall” a few days before Baird committed to the amphitheater gig at the fairgrounds. I was listening to Lars’ show when they made that agreement. Bob, you ought to follow your own suggestion; i.e., find out the facts before spouting inaccuracies.

  • Stem the tide

    Both Larson and Baird should take joint stage at the Clark County Amphitheater. Lars could expound on what’s Right for U.S. and Brian pose excuses for what’s Left of U.S.

    Meanwhile, Chairman Maobama kazoos on and on like a prepossessing pied piper, playing to U.S. like a PT Barnumized ship load of fools baring “By Guess and By Goddess Pelosi” under the bowsprit.

    BOHICA!

    • Scottiebill

      This is a really good idea. It could be more in the form of a debate, rather than a Town Hall type forum. And it would a more controlled atmosphere. And it wouldn’t have union goon squads roaming around intimidating people and occasionally thumping on them for their views, as they are wont to do.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Well, the AP is reporting now that Obama is ready to compromise on the “public option” ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul ). It’s muddy as hell though because some sort of non profit co-op would be the thing, started with federal money initially.

    Well, sans the initial federal money that sounds like it could be good. Frankly its something I’ve supported as I have never understood why it is made so difficult for small business to band together and buy insurance as a group.

    The bad news is in the details. First of all the initial federal money has the chance of being limitless. We all know how subsidies can have a way of becoming permanent. This is especially so with the focus on these co-ops being non profit.

    The good news is that administration of these co-ops would be less centralized. Any national health care plan would have its framework specified legislatively, its actual operating rules established administratively. This is why the administrations decision to hire really frightening people like Ezekiel Emanuel to be the medical advisor for OMB is so distressing. You really want a man like that writing administrative rules for national health care? Talk about scary.

    Co-ops would solve some of that centralization, so if one got “Ezekiel-ized” people could move to another.

    However the devil is in the details. If its a bunch of co-ops with unfair competition such as heavy government subsidy, that really only serve to drive private insurance out of business forget it. If the co-ops a a legislative remedy to a lot of the nonsense that prevents insurance prices from being lower ( such as allowing business to band together, allowing purchase across state lines, disallowing collusion among insurance companies by lifting the anti trust exemption ) then you really have something.

    The Obama administration needs a pretty big re set button to get anywhere with the American people on this issue. If they handle this forthrightly it could signal a more constructive approach. If we start seeing these co-ops are simply a different form for the same old government run government paid for health care I don’t think they will have moved the ball forward.

    • v person

      I’m “makin stuff up” as Palin likes to say

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Rupert…did you read Dr Emanual’s article in the Atlantic from 1997 in which he explicitly argues against euthanasia? Yes or No? And I’m going to keep bugging you until you provide an answer.

        Yeesh, what is your obsession with the Atlantic article and Palin?

        The answer is yes I have read it. I have also read far more of Emanuel’s writings than you and probably was well aware of the man before you even knew who he was. You, on the other hand, can’t even spell his name correctly.

        The fact remains, Ezekiel Emanuel is a strong proponent of euthanasia as well as eugenics. This is not really arguable. Does he support government paying for it? No, not really. Does he support simply withdrawing care once someone is no longer a participating member of society as he defines it? Yes, his writings confirm this. That’s euthanasia when applied to the old, eugenics when applied early on.

        If you had thought about this a little bit more, and actually read the mans articles you would be aware of this and not keep making the fundamental error of assuming if someone doesn’t support doctor assisted suicide they are against euthanasia. Why you feel a need to defend this man is a little beyond me. I guess because he is member of a Democrat administration and you can’t criticize anyone, ever, who is on your team, no matter how tangentially.

        This kind of reminds me of the Rev. Wright discussion. You were probably the last man in America who couldn’t just be done with it and say the guys a creep and move on. It is pretty much yet another situation of never being able to admit you are wrong. Everyone on your side is pure as the wind driven snow, everyone on the opposition is evil and wrong. It’s silly.

        You want to be taken seriously in an intellectual discussion? Have the ability to say maybe your side made a bad choice at the very least. Have some ability to not just accept every position your party spews out as good and the best solution available. You want to keep being taken as a man who is incapable of party self criticism and really just a reader of Democratic talking points, not someone who really has anything to add to an issue? Keep doing what you are doing.

        I thought I had seen it all when you couldn’t criticize BO’s association with Wright forthrightly. When you can’t say Emanuel is probably not the right man for the job, and the fact that a man like that could wind up in such a position should give all some serious concern over centralized health care, you really confirmed you are simply interested in partisan debate, not the issue at hand.

        >As a side note, one interesting point most don’t realize is that in the 2004 presidential election, Howard Dean had by far the most progressive proposal on the table

        Um, ok, if you don’t think that most people were not aware that Howard Dean was not the most left leaning candidate in general, you are really out to lunch. People were quite aware of his health care ideas as it was a prominent part of his campaign.

        You are seriously under this impression no one knew? Good lord!

        The problem for progressives, Howard Dean being one of them, is that they are historically tied to eugenics and euthanasia. Its real hard for them to get away from that fact of history. Is it possible? Sure, they might be able to overcome past horrors. Planned parenthood did with birth control, maybe progressives in general can on health care. Should the be outraged when people are very suspicious of them regarding medical care? Not if they have any introspection at all. Progressives have a lot of splainin to do, maybe Obama’s re-set button on this issue will work.

        • v person

          The fact remains, Ezekiel Emanuel is a strong proponent of euthanasia as well as eugenics. This is not really arguable.”

          It is not only arguable, it is provable that he is no such thing. He wrote explicitly in a major popular journal that he is against legal euthanasia. He has written explicitly in numerous books and scholarly journals stating the same thing. That is a very strange approach for a strong proponent of the opposite to do. You seem to be trying to convince me and others not to believe our lying eyes.

          As for eugenics, now you are asserting Emanuel wants to breed a better human race? Care to share where you read that?

          “Does he support simply withdrawing care once someone is no longer a participating member of society as he defines it? Yes, his writings confirm this.”

          They confirm no such thing. He has advocated development of a triage system for situations when there is an absolute scarcity, as in not enough organs to go around. He has advocated that people create advanced directives that spell out one’s personal wishes with respect to end of life decisions so that these are not left to the whims of doctors or bureaucrats or Republicans in Congress. He has written about the dificulty of finding ways to expand publicly funded (and thus inherently limited) medical services to people absent any policy on what the extent of these services should be, and on what basis these decisions should be made. He has not advocated withdrawing care from anyone, though he has posited examples to illustrate his larger point about the inherent limits of publicly funded medical care. These examples are what you and others have twisted into him advocating “withdrawing care” from this or that person based on their disablity. This about a doctor with a sister who happens to have cerebral palsy.

          “If you had thought about this a little bit more, and actually read the mans articles you would be aware of this and not keep making the fundamental error of assuming if someone doesn’t support doctor assisted suicide they are against euthanasia.”

          Textbook definition of Euthanasia: “the act of killing someone painlessly ” and variations thereof. Withdrawal of care to a person who has signed a medical directive or living will or otherwise expressed a preference for not continuing life under certain circumstances is sometimes called “passive euthanasia,” and Emanuel is an advocate for that. But so are a large majority of people nation wide. There is nothing whatsoever controversial about that. Support for passive euthanasia is not support for active euthanasia, and there is a big difference between the 2, proven by the fact that Oregon is the only state where the latter is legal (Emanuel has argued against this), yet the former is legal in every state. Giving a liver to person A because they hav a better chance of a higher quality of life instead of person B or C who have a lesser chance is not euthanasia, it is triage.

          “Why you feel a need to defend this man is a little beyond me.”

          What I’m defending is an honest debate about an important issue that affects all of us. Below is a list of Emanuel’s major publications. Tell us which ones you have read and in which ones he advocates either active euthanasia or withdrawal of care that will lead to death against the wishes of the patient. Since you are a student of him, you must have read nost or all of these books and articles. I confess that I have not, and am relying on his popular publications and recent interviews to understand his position.

          Healthcare Guaranteed, 2008
          “What Cannot Be Said on Television about Health Care,” Journal of the American Medical Association, May 16, 2007
          “Depression, Euthanasia, and Improving End-of-Life Care,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Aug. 22, 2005
          “Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Implications for Physicians,” Journal of Clinical Ethics, Sep. 2004
          “Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Review of the Empirical Data from the United States,” Archives of Internal Medicine, Jan. 28, 2002
          “Attending to Psychologic Symptoms and Palliative Care,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2002
          Clinical and Epidemiological Aspects of End-of-Life Decision-Making, 2001
          Cowritten with Diane L. Fairclough and Linda L. Emanuel, “Attitudes and Desires Related to Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide among Terminally Ill Patients and their Caregivers,” Journal of the American Medical Association, Nov. 15, 2000
          Cowritten with Linda L. Emanuel, “The Promise of a Good Death,” The Lancet, May 1998
          “Why Now?,” Regulating How We Die: The Ethical, Medical, and Legal Issues Surrounding Physician-Assisted Suicide, Ed. Linda L. Emanuel, 1998
          “Whose Right to Die?,” The Atlantic, Mar. 1997
          The Ends of Human Life: Medical Ethics in a Liberal Polity, 1991

          Other: Developed the Medical Directive, a comprehensive living will that has been endorsed by Consumer Reports on Health, Harvard Health Letter, New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal

          “You want to be taken seriously in an intellectual discussion? ”

          You keep posing this odd question so I’ll try and answer it. I’m here, a progressive on a conservative blog offering counter arguments to the choir of which I am not and do not care to be a member. I get called names for doing this. I get my posts rejected or mysteriously disappeared. I can’t use my real name because it is banned. Whether you, who prefer to preach to the choir, or any other reader chooses to take me seriously or not is more about you than it is about me. I care about people spreading misinformation in public forums. I want to give the benefit of the doubt that you may have made an honest misinterpretation of Emanuel’s views based on a misreading of a small amount of his writings, or on mischaracterizations that others have made deliberately in order to score political points. I’m handing you actual facts to help you get this right in the very faint hope that you or others here actually care about getting this right, and are not simply interested in character assasination to score political points.

          What you should take seriously Rupert, is the truth. If I happen to be the one who delivers it to you, then yes, you should take me seriously as well, even if you find this prospect to be uncomfortable.

          “The problem for progressives, Howard Dean being one of them, is that they are historically tied to eugenics and euthanasia.”

          and: “Should the be outraged when people are very suspicious of them regarding medical care?”

          Progressives, among other terrible sins, created the Medicare program over the objection of conservatives, allowing many if not most American seniors to continue to get medical care long after they lost their employer based insurance. Progressives also established Medicaid over the objection of conservatives, which allows some but not all poor people access to health care even if their emplyers do not, or if they are unemployed. Now if we progressives really wanted to practice euthanasia on the old and eugenics on the poor, why would we go out on a political limb to establish and defend their rights to health care, including reproductive care? Why would we now want to help expand health care access to others still left out? Is this a plot hatched in the 60s where we would first get them into doctors who would then strap them down to hospital gurneys just so we could have the final satisfaction of pulling the plug and watching then gasp their last pathetic gasps? Wouldn’t it have been easier to just let them die alone in the gutter or inside their unheated slum flats or rural shacks from pnumonia or untreated diabetes or other lack of care in the first place?

          Given that conservatives have opposed every single initiative to expand health care including this one, who is it that has spalnin to do?

  • Max

    I am turning all of you guys in to the white house snitch site.

    • D’oh

      Logan’s Run ‘Carousel’ awaits all Ye who supplicate to the Obamanational paradigm.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)