Mr Taylor asked:

why the fuck is someone who’s had seven spinal surgeries in eight years, and is likely uninsurable should her current coverage ever lapse, pushing for the same private system we have now?

Perhaps it’s because she opposes increasing governmental control of our health care system as a matter of principle, rather than looking at it strictly in a “what’s in it for me?” vein.

If it is discussed at all, it will be the same basic answer that was given when we tried to point to the Bush Administration in response to the tired “tax and spend Democrats” meme - which was, “since we all know Democrats spend more and believe in big government, imagine how much worse it would have been with Democrats in charge.”

The answer won’t be that she is a good example of what should change, but that under any revised healthcare plan, the death panels would have singled her out, broken into her home, and taken her to the nearest glacier, stripped off her clothes, and left her to die of exposure. At least under the current plan she has a walker.

Hold on…

I said “excuse me” THREE times and she looked at me and said, “You can sit over there where the other handicaps are sitting.” (Mind you this was in the hot sun on metal folding chairs and we had brought my own chair. That area was for handicapped and elderly constituents of Mr. Schiff’s ...) I told her “I need my chair NOW!” as my arm was giving out and I was about to fall. My husband finally screamed “MOVE!” She and her coven screamed, “NO! WE DON’T HAVE TO MOVE ANYWHERE!” I had no choice but to shove her aside with my walker as I was about to fall and SHE STOMPED MY FOOT!

So when she says she was assaulted, actually she means she assaulted someone else, who then retaliated.

Perhaps it’s because she opposes increasing governmental control of our health care system as a matter of principle, rather than looking at it strictly in a “what’s in it for me?” vein.

The problem is, her opposition is stupid and self-destructive - not just for her, but for everyone in her position.  Principle is nice, but when your principle is rooted half in lies and half in a belief that actions are only evil when the government participates in them but an acceptable function of the market when a private actor does so. 

Stupidity is not selflessness, no matter how many people you fuck over with it.

As John Stuart Mill observed, “stupid people tend to be conservative.”

Perhaps it’s because she opposes increasing governmental control of our health care system as a matter of principle, rather than looking at it strictly in a “what’s in it for me?” vein.

That’s quite interesting that she’d be willing to screw over the lives of everyone else with similar medical conditions. I’m all for “going down with the ship” as a matter of principle, but don’t drag everyone else down with you. I support her right to refuse a public option and use some kind of crappy private health insurance if she so chooses.

Is this really the sort of person you want to lend your support to, Dana?

Why do I get the feeling that the actual chain of events was more like:

Woman with walker: “Move to the back!”
Other pepole: “No, we were here first.”
Woman with walker: “SCREAM SCREAM SCREAM” (hits random person with walker)
Other people: “Jesus, crazy lady!” (accidentally steps on foot, as often happens in areas of tight seating and narrow rows)
Woman with walker: “WORSE THAN TEH HOLOCAUST!” (puts on neckbrace)

Scott, that’s VICTIM BLAMING and I thought FEMINISTS were against that.

I might also add that people such as Dana are basically evangelizing for a doctrine that demands that those who are currently uninsurable and those that would currently benefit from health care reform actively harm themselves and actively support policies that would work against their interests in order to satisfy Dana’s preferred agenda. Is this really the sort of gutter ideology we want to support? The one which demands that people voluntarily give up access to health coverage in order to sacrifice themselves to the god of the free market?

This is all a far cry from the late 80s/early 90s where Democrats could be excused for believing that Republicans and conservatives might have valid ideas that were worth listening to and compromising on for the sake of the greater good. Crazy people like Sen. Grassley handing out copies of Glenn Beck’s book and claiming that Obama is going to euthanize our parents and Dana saying that it’s best for the chronically sick to oppose their own access to health care for “on principle” has convinced me that this is an ideology that is not to be compromised or cooperated with until they learn the errors of their ways.

Keep in mind that Dana was also a strong supporter of an administration that spent 8 years doing nothing about health care reform, and now he somehow believes that Republicans have some kind of valid beliefs on the matter. I think it’s pretty clear that Republican opponents are just nihilistic obstructors who are dead-ender supporters of a failed system.

It’s not victim-blaming—it’s Post-Gladney Disbelieving-Republicans-Who-Claim-Assault-for-What-Is-Likely-Not-Assault Disorder! I’m the victim here! I’M THE VICTIM! (puts on neckbrace)

If I had had all those surgeries and was due for another one this week, I would sure as hell not be out at a protest rally, no matter how concerned I was about the cause.

Also note that she didn’t sit in the handicapped area because that was for the congressman’s constituents.

Perhaps it’s because she opposes increasing governmental control of our health care system as a matter of principle, rather than looking at it strictly in a “what’s in it for me?” vein.

That’s possible, I suppose, in the same way that it’s possible I could win the lottery this week. What’s more likely is that she’s been fed a line of shit for so long that it looks like fertilizer to her, and she’s afraid to try anything other than what she has.

Perhaps it’s because she opposes increasing governmental control of our health care system as a matter of principle, rather than looking at it strictly in a “what’s in it for me?” vein.

I.e. she is opposing something that is in her self-interest in favor of maintaining an economic system based on “rational self interest” ... alrighty then ...

Perhaps it’s because she opposes increasing governmental control of our health care system as a matter of principle, rather than looking at it strictly in a “what’s in it for me?” vein.

I oppose on principle allowing a private, for-profit insurance industry maintain control of what I consider a basic human right that should be provided (or at least assured by) a government in its social contract with its citizens.

And why someone with 7 back surgeries would be out there protesting? I think it’s part of the right wing Calvinistic-lottery mindset: she has received this health care because she deserves it.  Health care reform would surely allow some of the undeserving [insert your choice of “other”: poor, minority, fake American] people to obtain care, and somehow diminish the status of the current chosen ones.

Stockholm Syndrome. Of course she’s going to be for the current system.

Of course, as others have pointed out, she could simply, um, not see the big picture.

For all we know she could believe that if we move to a National Health System, they would have denied her treatment and death panels would have left her to die.  After all, had Stephen Hawking lived in the UK with their NHS and waiting times ... oh, wait a minute ...

If this woman is as disabled as she says she is (and I have no reason to doubt it), unless her husband has the world’s best insurance or she got a really big accident settlement, she’s on Medi-Cal and/or Social Security disability.  In other words, she doesn’t have a principled opposition to the government paying for healthcare.  She’s opposed to anyone but herself getting government money for healthcare.  Because, you know, she deserves it, unlike all of those Cadillac-driving welfare queens.

That’s the problem here, Dana:  she thinks she’s the only one who deserves government money for her healthcare, so she’s going to make sure no one else gets it.  If she’s so “principled,” why is she accepting government money herself?  She should be hauling herself up by her bootstraps and paying her own way instead of letting the taxpayers support her.

Of course, then you have people like the sword-juggler who walked away from a $60,000 hospital bill and is out demonstrating against health insurance reform.  Because if we reformed the health insurance system, he might be expected to pay his fair share instead of getting to leech off the rest of us without paying in himself. 

The conservative mindset in a nutshell:  everyone else should pay for the things I want to have.  A conservative will bitch and moan about taxes being too high, but then whine when the streets are full of potholes because the city doesn’t have enough money to fill them.  Because, of course, it’s someone else’s responsibility to pay for those.

Everytime I see a rightwing mouthbreathing troglodyte uttering phrases like “ACORN pro-Obama thugs”, I find myself chuckling, because it’s generally conservatives who rail the most against the cumbersome nature of so-called “politically correct” language.

Let’s cut to the chase, you racist trash… your keyboards and your mouths produce the words “ACORN pro-Obama thugs”, which is wingnut code for “stupid uppity negroes”.  Quit being chickenshits and just type what’s going through your minds… “ACORN pro-Obama thugs” is seven syllables long, “niggers” is only two.  Try as hard as you might to keep those white pointy hoods of yours a secret, you aren’t fooling anybody - certainly not each other, and definitely not anyone with an IQ over balsa wood, either.  Just say what you really think and quit hiding behind the pretense, because it is fooling nobody.

Regarding Mr. Gladney and his ever changing story… turns out the man isn’t “laid off” but is actually just unemployed, and contrary to initial claims that he is uninsured, he does in fact have insurance through his wife, but still went ahead and requested donations for his “injuries” anyway…

http://washingtonindependent.com/54511/gladneys-lawyer-hes-unemployed-insured-and-making-money-from-the-alleged-attack

Also, who conveniently brings their “lawyer” with them to a political townhall event, on the zillion-to-one off chance that some incident will occur that will lead to a likely meritless lawsuit?

Able bodied privilege much, people? You know what, you don’t move out of my way when I’m about to fall, I might hit you with my cane. But I’m sure you’re perfectly entitled to feel upset that I didn’t take 20 minutes to explain to you calmly that I’m about to topple over.

I don’t have to agree with this woman’s politics to identify with the fact that there usually isn’t time to gently discuss all of your needs with the people around you.  The woman was in a walker, she was trying to voice her needs, I kinda have to agree that the able bodied person was being an asshole.

Now, I don’t think there’s any reason to mention ACORN other than smearing the whole group, but if she’s showing up at townhall meetings lobbying against healthcare reform, she’s probably got a few agendas to push. Like trying to make sure other disabled people don’t have her opportunities.  Like I said, I don’t share her politics.

Sorry, here’s context for my previous comment regarding wingnuts crying “ACORN” at every opportunity…

Ms. King, the disabled woman in the story began her rant by saying:

As we all know things are getting nasty at these town halls and once it happens to you personally it shakes you to the core and the culprits are NOT the crazy right wing mob ... IT’S ACORN/PRO-OBAMA bused in THUGS DOING IT!! ....

But I’m sure you’re perfectly entitled to feel upset that I didn’t take 20 minutes to explain to you calmly that I’m about to topple over.

I understand your sentiment, but I cannot fathom any scenario in which it would take someone 20 minutes to say the words, “Watch out, I’m about to fall over.”

I do have to admit that it’s sort of funny how an angry old person who wouldn’t be able to get insurance under the current system hitting young activists with her walker for being “uppity” is basically feeding into every stereotype of right-wing behavior during this time.

Godless Heathen - it’s not so much able-bodied bias as not-lying bias.

Reading over her story, the way it seems like it actually happened was this: she raised a stink because she wanted to sit somewhere, started screaming, shoved with her walker and had her foot stepped on.  From her telling of the story, I can see your point, I just happen to think she’s lying her blessed head off.  My gues is that she’s using her disability to mask the fact that she’s an asshole.

Maybe I’m missing something, perhaps due to inexperience with this kind of medical condition.  If she was about to fall, why would she push people away, thereby creating more space for a rougher fall?  And screaming out “MOVE!” isn’t really all that useful or appropriate when the point is actually “I’M GOING TO FALL!”, a sentiment I don’t think anyone would have any trouble with hearing screamed.

Also, don’t forget that part of the instructions for how to disrupt a town hall was to find a way to get to the front of the room.  I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what the other people thought she was trying to do, or what she may have actually been doing.

Just what “principle” would Dana be suggesting the woman with seven spinal surgeries be promoting when she opposes universal coverage?

Generally, it’s the principle of “I deserve what I have, and I don’t want anyone who I don’t believe also ‘deserves’ it to be treated well.” In other words, if others have access to health coverage, it takes away from the esteem she herself feels by having access to it. It’s similar in concept to the opposition to gay marriage: they believe that their marriages are “worth less” if the “undeserving” can get married, too.

That’s quite interesting that she’d be willing to screw over the lives of everyone else with similar medical conditions. I’m all for “going down with the ship” as a matter of principle, but don’t drag everyone else down with you.

It’s the exact kind of selflessness wingnuts want their followers to have, the kind where you’re willing to sacrifice your own happiness and self-interest to screw over as many of your fellow citizens as possible. Making sure other people get screwed over should be more important to a responsible person than securing something good for yourself. Once you make sure everyone else has been screwed over, though, you can go ahead and take the benefits for yourself anyway. Win-win.

Yeah, she’s against this because she’s really really racist.  That’s what “ACORN pro-Obama thugs” means.

My only takeaway from this is that I don’t think the republican/libtards (none of them are really conservative in any real sense of the word) aren’t bringing up Schiavo enough.

The sad part is, this isn’t about “the people” working through an issue.  “The people” already have an overwhelming consensus on this issue.  The issue is whether or not a paid-for congress will bend to the will of their patrons or their constituents.  Yes, it’s sad that the president is not more of a leader on this issue.  Yes, there are some small groups of very vocal people (read:assholes mostly) who oppose any kind of “socialized medicine” but more people (that’s all citizens) think we desperately need some serious progressive changes to our health care system.

This isn’t a debate, it’s kabuki.  I’m tired of arguing about which kabuki player I sympathize with and why.

Perhaps it’s because she opposes increasing governmental control of our health care system as a matter of principle, rather than looking at it strictly in a “what’s in it for me?” vein.

Dana seems scared off, but seriously?  What principle can she possibly be upholding?  Health care in America is currently under the control of profit-minded, soulless motherfuckers who will use rescission at the drop of a <strike>hat</strike> medical claim.

We have the largest income disparity in the history of our nation, and it’s b/c we have deregulated everything and allowed monopolization and oligarchies to control the markets. 

Are you suggesting that she’s willing to sacrifice her self-interest in order to insure the richest 1% can continue to absorb more and more of the capital of the country?  To the detriment of the other 99%‘s general welfare?

Or just that she’s too damn scared to change anything?

Or is it the typical Republican “I’ve got mine, fuck all y’all”?  B/c, as above, if she’s elderly and disabled, she already has socialized government health care and she’s just opposed to sharing her benefits with anyone else, socialized as it may be.

I’m the trouble starter, socialist agitator
I’m the ACORN marcher, a screaming cripple pusher

I’m a demonizer, liberal demonizer
You’re the demonizer, liberal demonizer
I’m a demonizer, liberal demonizer

I’m the Obama voter, filthy Commie-voter - yeeeaaaah
I’m the terrorist-enabler, America-hater.

I’m a demonizer, liberal demonizer
You’re the demonizer, liberal demonizer

I’m the social propagator, LSD taker - yeah
I’m the sexual pervert, abortion provider.

I’m a demonizer, liberal demonizer
You’re the demonizer, liberal demonizer
I’m a demonizer, liberal demonizer

Able bodied privilege much, people? You know what, you don’t move out of my way when I’m about to fall, I might hit you with my cane. But I’m sure you’re perfectly entitled to feel upset that I didn’t take 20 minutes to explain to you calmly that I’m about to topple over.

I don’t have to agree with this woman’s politics to identify with the fact that there usually isn’t time to gently discuss all of your needs with the people around you.  The woman was in a walker, she was trying to voice her needs, I kinda have to agree that the able bodied person was being an asshole.

Indeed. If there’s a vacant chair nearer the front and this woman wants to sit in it, but is blocked by political opponents who tell her to sit with all the other cripples, then she’s the victim of discrimination. If she then tries to jostle her way through the thick crowd, and someone deliberately stomps on her foot for daring to be so uppity, that’s assault.

I can’t help but think of Ashley Todd, though: “Liberal assaults disabled opponent of healthcare reform!” It would be kind of comforting of video of the incident were to surface and remove all doubt.

It’s shelved next to the “whitey” tape.

Friday, after having endured a barrage of emails from a distant cousin about how awful the Obama’s administration health care proposals would be, plus having endured similar occasional sniping from my brother, father-in-law and brother-in-law on this subject, I fired back.

I started slowly, pointing out the fundamental contradiction in trying to hammer the square peg of medicine, which is governed by the ethic of provision of care, into the round hole of private health insurance, which is governed by the ethic of profit-making.

Then I cited the 24 specific examples of families, who are on the rocks financially because of health problems, that my church has helped the past 8 years by nearly $300K. I mentioned how the vast majority have private insurance, but have faced the voice-menu, claims-denying Hell of that system.

I finished off by saying this subject is deeply personal. My son, who is going to school fulltime and works parttime, has no health insurance… but he does get kidney stones. And one morning, I got a pleading phone call from him, begging me to come to his place with cranberry juice and plenty of ibuprofen. I walked in to find him writhing on his bed in pain. I wanted to take him to the ER, but he declined, because he knew he’d be in big debt in a big hurry. So, I watched his face turn purple and contort in pain for the next couple of hours until finally he was able to keep down the ibuprofen and get his kidney flushed.

I sent this to every member of my family for whom I have an email addy. So far, silence. I followed Jesse’s earlier advice that when they bring a knife, you bring a gun.

if she’s elderly and disabled, she already has socialized government health care and she’s just opposed to sharing her benefits with anyone else, socialized as it may be.

Simpler than that.  She’s opposed to sharing her benefits with black people, poor people, and illegal immigrants.  That’s what bothers these people.  When they talk about socialism or liberty, what they mean is “the government taking my money to help dark-skinned lazy people” and “my right to see the dark-skinned lazy people be made to suffer.”  At least 95% of the anecdotes about these town hall interactions have the cranky old person saying that they have worked hard for what they have and thus they deserve the government’s help, but other people are cheating or slackers and hence _don’t_ deserve it.  It’s the cardinal precept of modern conservatism.

Well to be fair to this woman it sounds like the other person was sitting in a chair that was hers. Not even hers as in she was there first before going to the restroom, but the chair was actually physically her property that she’d brought there with her. And she tried to shove the other person out of her chair so that she could sit down before she fell down. But she didn’t explain that she owned the chair and she didn’t say that she was about to fall down, so this story amounts to: two assholes meet and being assholes they are bad at communication and resort to assault.

And why someone with 7 back surgeries would be out there protesting?

It’s called “the right to risk.” She should be allowed, without facing questions about her motivation, to participate in events that might otherwise exacerbate her disability or even endanger her life. That’s her call. It might be dumb and ill-advised, but it’s not anyone else’s business.

She accepts that there are natural and perhaps even inevitable dangers associated with a particular activity, but believes the benefits of participation outweigh any potential pitfalls.

Being pressed and jostled by a politically charged crowd, and perhaps facing further injury as a result - there’s a risk she is prepared to take. But assault - an illegal act - falls outside the scope of what she should be expected to tolerate under those (or any) conditions.

If there’s a vacant chair nearer the front and this woman wants to sit in it, but is blocked by political opponents who tell her to sit with all the other cripples, then she’s the victim of discrimination. If she then tries to jostle her way through the thick crowd, and someone deliberately stomps on her foot for daring to be so uppity, that’s assault.

As long as they’re not, you know, lying. I realize you can’t just pick up a neck brace and walker from any old Walgreen’s, but personally, I’m going to need to see video of the event and a notarized report from her doctor before I believe word one from these carnies.

As long as they’re not, you know, lying. I realize you can’t just pick up a neck brace and walker from any old Walgreen’s, but personally, I’m going to need to see video of the event and a notarized report from her doctor before I believe word one from these carnies.

Hence my comment about Ashley Todd - but I would settle merely for the statements of other witnesses, like the police officer she mentioned. A “notarized report from her doctor” is asking way too much.

I don’t think it flatters us to belittle this woman’s story. It sounds true. There aren’t really any extenuating circumstances in which it’s not mean to refuse a chair to a person who’s weak and in pain. Maybe we can restrain ourselves from pointing out every minute thing that’s questionable in her story and stick to “It’s sad that people were acting less than neighborly at this meeting.”

What’s more likely is that she’s been fed a line of shit for so long that it looks like fertilizer to her, and she’s afraid to try anything other than what she has.

Yes, and she sounds like an utter horse’s ass to boot.

That said, she’s not going with some line she’s been fed—she’s going with the only line she’s been fed. It may be idiotic, but it’s got a backbeat: We won’t laugh at you and your values—like those filthy Liberals do.

Note that she thought this rally was too important to miss—who told her that? This is a woman who probably doesn’t go to the movies or eat out, or get out much at all, except maybe to church. Who or what convinced her and her husband that the terrific inconvenience of shlepping out to this rally was worthwhile?

And she’s really pissed-off too—abusive, actually. Maybe this is her normal state, but someone managed to channel that anger to get her and the hubby off their couch.

Did that someone make it fun for them? Exhilarating? Maybe provided a bus with like-minded people, cheerleading all the way? Paid some attention to them (probably for the first time in a while), or at least gave the illusion (as Rush and Glenn do)?

Mainly, is it a lost cause to try to get to people like the Kings?

She’s a conservative.  She’s lying.  There is no video.  End of story.

I don’t think it flatters us to belittle this woman’s story. It sounds true. There aren’t really any extenuating circumstances in which it’s not mean to refuse a chair to a person who’s weak and in pain.

I would agree, except this is precisely the sort of story that makes the rounds and turns into a cause célèbre for the anti-healthcare nuts.

Before they can adopt her as their patron saint of suffering, however, it falls on the wingnuts to prove a) that this woman actually exists, b) that she was at the rally, and c) that her accusations are at least probably true.

In this case, the attitude and actions of the woman with the walker don’t matter. Whether she acted like an angel or a shithead, the fact is, a woman who has miraculously managed to not go bankrupt after a series of very expensive recurrent medical treatments, and who is faced with a lifetime of treatments, is on the side of those who want most of the people in her situation to pay for it out of pocket, or, if they’re lucky, spend their days battling insurance companies whose goal is to screw you out of as much coverage as they can.

How the fuck do her politics relate in any way to the question of whether she was discriminated against and assaulted?

Yeah, she protests against her own interests, and the interests of other people in like circumstances. That makes her the equivalent of a log cabin republican who snuggles up to a party full of people who would see him either “converted” or killed.

And if some douchbag smacked an LCR in the face for being gay, it would still be assault. Jesus Tap-dancing Christ.

Or is it the typical Republican “I’ve got mine, fuck all y’all”?  B/c, as above, if she’s elderly and disabled, she already has socialized government health care and she’s just opposed to sharing her benefits with anyone else, socialized as it may be.

She isn’t elderly.  Appeared to be in her mid-to-late 30s, if you watch the video in the link to the wingnut’s blog.

Not that it changes the overall ridiculousness of her whining.  Just pointing out that she isn’t elderly, as some here erroneously seem to think.

Before they can adopt her as their patron saint of suffering, however, it falls on the wingnuts to prove a) that this woman actually exists, b) that she was at the rally, and c) that her accusations are at least probably true.

A)  She does exist, as can be seen in this YouTube video.  She appears to be a 30-something woman with her husband, she’s wearing a neckbrace, and is in a wheelchair.

B) I’ve seen no tangible proof, other than her word.

C) Same as “B”.

Sorry, she wasn’t in a wheelchair, but she did have a walker.  And again, she was a fairly YOUNG woman, not an elderly person as many seem to believe.

I realize you can’t just pick up a neck brace and walker from any old Walgreen’s

True, but you can pickup those things from any old medical supply store, without a prescription… or from grandma’s closet.

I don’t think it flatters us to belittle this woman’s story. It sounds true.

The part about falling at an event sounds true.  A lot of the rest does not.

There aren’t really any extenuating circumstances in which it’s not mean to refuse a chair to a person who’s weak and in pain.

Did she say “I need to sit down because I’m weak and in pain,” or did she say this:

I told her “I need my chair NOW!” as my arm was giving out and I was about to fall. My husband finally screamed “MOVE!”

She says she said “NOW!” (the part about her arm giving out is not in quotes, and probably would be if she had said anything like it) and her husband said “MOVE!” in the middle of a confrontation that the people in front of her probably read as a cranky shouty person spoiling for a fight. 

Imagine it from the pro-reform people’s perspective.  You take up a spot that seems empty, you’re waving your sign, and then a person comes up behind you and tells you to move.  Well, from your standpoint, you were there.  She’s not explaining herself, she’s shouting, and then she hits you with a walker. 

I guess I’m a dick, because given the circumstances, I can easily imagine not moving.  I believe that she got stepped on.  She may have gotten “stomped,” but I have a hard time believing it.  I’d feel bad when she fell, too, and wish she had said clearly what she wanted, or shared either of the key pieces of information: that she was there first, or that the police had escorted her to the spot.

And the part about being laughed at and called names… um… not buying that.

Yes, from her standpoint she’s a disabled woman who got displaced from her seat, wasn’t treated considerately, got stepped on, and then fell as a result of all of that.  But the way she recounts the story is set up to make the other people maximally unsympathetic—and it’s effective—but there’s a lot between the lines, IMHO, including a desire to make what could have been regrettable mutual incomprehension into “ASSAULT BY ACORN THUGS.”

And if some douchbag smacked an LCR in the face for being gay, it would still be assault.

That’s not analogous, though.  It would be a Log Cabin Republican smacking a Democrat, maybe getting shoved back, going down, and then becoming proof that Democrats hate gay people.  There’s an exchange of blows in the story, the first being thrown by the woman with the walker.

True, but you can pickup those things from any old medical supply store, without a prescription… or from grandma’s closet.

I actually think you can get them from any old Walgreen’s as well. Maybe I’m being a bigot, but I’ve been burned too many times by people like this to just take their word for it. I don’t put it past this type of wingnut to have the capacity to 1) fake a medical condition, then either 2a) provoke an incident, or more likely 2b) make up a story about an incident, complete with stereotypical belligerent “acorn volunteer” villains and 3) still be able to muster tears and righteous indignation over how they were victimized.

Oh, god. I have a cousin who was born with a birth defect that causes her back to be deformed and painful and requires she use oxygen.

And she is sitting in front of me telling me how socialized medicine is bad and Obama is going to ruin it for all of us.

And I tell her this: “Your husband works for Big Pharm and you get insurance through him. If he dies tomorrow or divorces you, what are you going to do? If you apply for disability, Medicare will not take you for two years, and that is socialized medicine anyway. If you are denied disability (and she is someone where it could go either way) no insurance company on the planet will take you. And you will not only have to pay for your medical bills out of pocket, but you will have trouble even finding doctors outside of the ER who will be willing to see you.”

And she doesn’t believe me, yet she can’t tell me what she thinks would happen if her husband’s insurance disappears. Or if he loses his job, or if the coverage gets so costly that they lose benefits. She just denies that anything could be worse than Obamacare.

It is an interesting form of denial that some people can convince their brains of. It is a paralysis in the status quo that sometimes seems unique to the conservative brain. Have psychologists studied this phenomenon? Fascinating.

It’s very easy to get your toes stepped on, especially when you’re already in a crowded area, and especially when you’re wearing flip-flops. I’m loathe to believe that her toes were stepped on on purpose, since that’s something that’s done by accident 99% of the time. It’s not like she was kicked or kneed or anything like that, which is almost always intentional.

Besides, this all happened at someone else’s representative’s town hall. She says, “I said ‘excuse me’ THREE times and she looked at me and said, ‘You can sit over there where the other handicaps are sitting.’ (Mind you this was in the hot sun on metal folding chairs and we had brought my own chair. That area was for handicapped and elderly constituents of Mr. Schiff’s ...). She had no business being there. She was there to cause a disruption and screw with the Representative’s view of what his constituents want. If she wants to protest, she can do so at her own representative’s town hall meeting.

Town halls all around the country have been crashed by people from outside districts. They’re either not signing in, not putting down their address, or putting down an address that isn’t in the district. I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t know who their representative is.

That’s not analogous, though.  It would be a Log Cabin Republican smacking a Democrat, maybe getting shoved back, going down, and then becoming proof that Democrats hate gay people.  There’s an exchange of blows in the story, the first being thrown by the woman with the walker.

That’s not what I read. I read she tried to push her way through an uncooperative crowd to claim a chair that belonged to her. It wasn’t merely vacant (if vacant at all); she was the actual owner of this item.

She asked these people to move. She TOLD them to move. She got fed up and tried to cut a path through them. Unless she was elbowing people on her way past, and deliberately rolling over feet, what she did was no different than what anyone else would do in swimming up-stream towards the bathrooms or the open mic at a crowded political event.

Had she been squeezing through a press of people for any other reason, and without first having asked them to make a way for her, no one would have noticed - that’s how common her behavior is among large crowds.

But because she told these people of her need, and then pushed her way through the press of them after the denied her access to another area, she somehow “threw the first blow” and is just as guilty as the miscreant who then allegedly stomped on her foot - not some random foot, accidentally, but a specific foot, intentionally.

And as for the taunts she claims to have received, that’s the part of the story I’m most inclined to believe - not because pro-Obama protesters are evil, but because people of all stripes, when among angry supporters, are pretty much guaranteed to talk smack.

If she’d been overweight, they’d have picked on her weight. If she’d been black, they’d have called her a traitor or some other nonsense. She had a walker so they called her a cripple - or a phony.

Davil’s, I realize that this is your “shtick,” but, seriously, when there’s lots of jostling and and angry demand to push your way throuhg, getting you foot stepped on is more likely to be a daily consequence of jsotling in close quarters rather than some kind of vicious, hateful assault. She pretty clearly said that she shove people aside with her walker. I suppose she should be thankful that she has an advocate to take up her argument in her absence, but you’re really just stubbornly pushing her case beyond which a reasonable person could consider it valid.

And let’s not say that this woman is making up the story. It probably didn’t happen exactly like she said it did, since people don’t tend to have the best memory for these things, and we didn’t hear the other side of the story. She has little credibility based on her own words. She said herself that she wasn’t protesting at her own represntative’s town hall, so she shouldn’t have been there in the first place. She was only there to cause problems, and she did. She just caused problems for herself.

Davil’s, I realize that this is your “shtick,” but, seriously, when there’s lots of jostling and and angry demand to push your way throuhg, getting you foot stepped on is more likely to be a daily consequence of jsotling in close quarters rather than some kind of vicious, hateful assault. She pretty clearly said that she shove people aside with her walker. I suppose she should be thankful that she has an advocate to take up her argument in her absence, but you’re really just stubbornly pushing her case beyond which a reasonable person could consider it valid.

I disagree, if only because all the facts aren’t clear. If, for example, her foot stomper showed some other sign of malice just before or after the incident, then his intent was pretty clear.

Sometimes accidental injuries can occur that are way worse than anything most people would deliberately inflict - e.g., she trips on one of those rubber wire covering mats, falls, and is mushed on her way to the ground by a surging crowd. The result is some injury far worse than a bruised toe.

But it’s no one’s fault. It’s an accident.

But whatever happened in the crowd that day convinced her that one particular individual had targeted her, and stepped on her foot with the intent to at least cause discomfort - and that, for a woman in a walker.

And, if she’s telling the truth, he did this because she was trying to make her way through a crowd to her own seat instead of sitting in a section reserved for people with disabilities - likely located, as these things tend to be, at the back.

But because she told these people of her need, and then pushed her way through the press of them after the denied her access to another area, she somehow “threw the first blow”

I don’t know what account you read.  I read the one Jesse links to, and this is the key excerpt, which I’m re-pasting from DaveL upstream:

I said “excuse me” THREE times and she looked at me and said, “You can sit over there where the other handicaps are sitting.” (Mind you this was in the hot sun on metal folding chairs and we had brought my own chair. That area was for handicapped and elderly constituents of Mr. Schiff’s ...) I told her “I need my chair NOW!” as my arm was giving out and I was about to fall. My husband finally screamed “MOVE!” She and her coven screamed, “NO! WE DON’T HAVE TO MOVE ANYWHERE!” I had no choice but to shove her aside with my walker as I was about to fall and SHE STOMPED MY FOOT!

In that one, she does not “tell people of her need,” she gets pissed (I would too if I had a seat and it got taken; that’s totally defensible) and starts yelling, but doesn’t say either “we were here first” OR “the police said this was my spot” OR “someone stole my chair.”  She says “I had no choice but to shove her aside with my walker as I was about to fall,” which, frankly, seems like something you’d say after the fact to justify hitting someone with a walker, and doesn’t seem like something you’d do if the point was to avoid falling—wouldn’t you be trying to grip onto the walker for dear life?  That’s when the “stomp” happens.  So even in her own words, she bonks the other person first, then gets stepped on:  she just tells it so that her shove is in self-preservation, but her foot getting stepped on is clearly malicious.

Maybe you’ve read something different.  This version has overtones of a little kid saying, “I didn’t do anything!  All I was doing was…”  “I did NOT throw the cat!  I was picking him up to give him a hug, and somehow at the same time he jumped, I guess something frightened him, and so it _looked_ like I threw him…”  “I did NOT hit that person with my walker!  I was only gently moving her out of the way because I was about to fall and I didn’t want to fall onto her…”

If she’d been overweight, they’d have picked on her weight. If she’d been black, they’d have called her a traitor or some other nonsense. She had a walker so they called her a cripple - or a phony.

Oh, bullshit. I don’t know any liberal that behaves this way, even in a heated environment. This sounds more like a Republican caricature of “ghetto” behavior. It also sounds like you’re assuming the liberals are black- hence the traitor business. I think your true colors are showing a bit.

Yes, Devil’s Advocate, if we assume that everything she says is true, then it would be true.  However, having spent years seeing everything from the “liberal keyed my car with my car keys while it was parked in my garage” to “some random Negro scratched a backwards B on my face” to “al Qaeda launched a DOS attack on my website” to “Barack Obama is breeding a generation of step-dancing black gestapo youth”, there is one common thread among conservatives alleging liberal violence against them. 

THEY LIE.  They lie repeatedly, they lie forcefully, and when called on it, they figure out something else to lie about.

Waitaminnit—she herself is not one of the rep’s constituents but she just knows that her opponents are “bused-in . . . thugs?”  Projection much?

Demonizer
Demon-Demonizer
You’re a demonizer
Oh Demonizer
Oh You’re a Demonizer Baby
You, You You Are
You, You You Are
Demonizer, Demonizer, Demonizer

... I think I just gave myself herpes typing that. But it had to be done.

Tyro wrote:

Keep in mind that Dana was also a strong supporter of an administration that spent 8 years doing nothing about health care reform, and now he somehow believes that Republicans have some kind of valid beliefs on the matter.

Ahhh, would that the Bush Administration had done nothing, but that isn’t the case.  President Bush pushed through Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit.  No one is quite sure what that will cost the taxpayers, but I have seen estimates as high as $1.2 trillion.

Your statement assumes that I want some form of health care reform, and that the Bush Administration failed to provide it.  The truth is that I do not want health care reform in any way which gets the government more involved in health care.

  The truth is that I do not want health care reform in any way which gets the government more involved in health care.

If right-wingers would just be up front about that, we’d be able to have an honest conversation, because the public knows that this is a failing strategy. Republican failure to reform the health care system screwed over the public, and part of that public discontent is why the public repudiated the Republican party. In short, you represent and extremist fringe minority viewpoint that has a track record of failure. Why on earth does your opinion matter? It represents the foolish and harmful ideas that are the reason that Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are minority figures.

I didn’t know that Ashlee what’s her backward’s b was out already and suffered so horribly in prison.

Disability permits you to claim certain accommodation ... it does not PRIVILEGE you to act like a jerk, assault people with mobility stuff, etc. and it does not PRIVILEGE you to get front row seats to a all-comer’s event that isn’t even where you should be.

If she couldn’t deal with using a walker for the lengths of time that navigating in a crowd requires, then why wasn’t she in a wheelchair?

perhaps i missed your response on where the CIA statistics for Cuba’s infant mortality rates might be found.

Here you go.  It’s quite a handy website, actually.  Cuba’s rate is 5.82 infant deaths per 100; the US’s rate is 6.26 deaths per 100.  That means that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba in that a higher percentage of our infants die every year.  Not just a higher number that you can shrug off as being based on population—they die at a higher rate.  If you compare 100 American infants and 100 Cuban infants, the American infant is more likely to die than the Cuban one.

But, hey, we’re ahead of Belarus, which has a rate of 6.43 per 100 instead of 6.26 per 100.  USA! USA!

My cousin told me he gets $800 per patient for the proceedure and follow up.

What does the hospital get paid?  That includes the charge for the nurses, the anesthesiologist, the drugs, etc.  I’m guessing the hospital gets a bit more than $800 for the whole surgery, even if it is outpatient.  If the orthopedist has his own operating center and can charge all of those charges himself?  I seriously doubt he’s only charging $800 per patient for his services and those of the nurses, the anesthesiologist and the drugs.

And does your cousin get the same rate from every insurance company he deals with, or is he only giving you the Medicare rate?  You may want to ask him what his Blue Cross or Aetna reimbursement is.

The truth is that I do not want health care reform in any way which gets the government more involved in health care.

In other words, you want no health care reform, because even the mildest reform would require more government regulation, which would get the government more involved in health care.

So you think everything is fine and there’s no problem at all with the fact that 60 percent of the people who declare bankruptcy do so because of medical bills or that the cost of health insurance is increasing by 20 percent a year.

perhaps i missed your response on where the CIA statistics for Cuba’s infant mortality rates might be found.

I’m sorry, but it’s 2009 and you haven’t heard of the CIA World Factbook, which has been online for almost 15 years? And you have no idea how to write coherently using punctuation and paragraph breaks? Where does an illiterate ass like you get off making demands of others?

I’ll give a source when Jess releases his.)

Corwin, you unmatched imbecile. It wasn’t Jesse who brought up Cuba’s infant mortality rate, it was me. And I gave the damned source, not more than two clicks away. But you’re still so stupid that you needed Mnemosyne to navigate one of those clicks for you. We can’t help you any more unless we come over to your house and hold the mouse for you.

A nitpick, Mnemosyne, those rates are per 1000. Not that the difference matters to those whose children are among the dead.

asdf:

Quoting infant mortality rates isn’t always quoting like for like, because in the US some very-early-term deliveries and stillbirths apparently get quoted as infant mortality, whereas in other countries they’re quoted as pregnancy loss. On the other hand, most of those countries (including Cuba) have universal prenatal care, which the US doesn’t. And good prenatal care tends to significantly reduce very-early-term deliveries…

Or, did you see the Pres talking of an Ortho getting $50 K for a BKA ,and that’s why they don’t tell people to lose weight?
I’m disturbed on this for a cpl of reasons. My cousin told me he gets $800 per patient for the proceedure and follow up. SO the Pres is off by a factor of seventy.

I’ll bet Joe Biden can do simple division, though.

Paul, we’re not quoting from two different sources, though. Are we to expect that the CIA does not adjust for such things?

Call me crazy…please…but does anyone else think these kind of stories from the shills might be laying the groundwork for more serious violence from the anti-reform terrorists?  As in, setting it up so that when one of the people who now satisfies themselves with calling in death threats and starting scuffles actually shoots somebody, all of the terrorist sympathizers will say “Well, the ACORN thugs brought it on themselves by bullying the disabled”?

Somebody please tell me I’m being paranoid.  Then tell me why.

Look, anyone who believes that these righties aren’t going there attempting to get a liberal to hit them, doesn’t have any experience with these fuckers.  I have dealth with them for years, out on the streets.  the gathering of eagles and rolling thunder. And what they do is, they bring video recorders, and they leave them turned off while they sidle up to you and tell you that you should be sucking their dick, what kind of underwear are you wearing, what a stupid whore you are, and on and on and on.  If they get the reaction they want, they film it and put in up on their websites with the caption “another liberal gets violent”.

I learned real fast to only go to demonstrations with my ipod on and turned up as far as it woudl go. 

Now the townhalls are different, you can’t do that there, because you are there trying to be heard yourself.

But that is what they do, so be prepared, I recommend going with your own nasty shit already in your mind.  If the person harrassing you is old, lean in real close and tell them that they should be euthanized because they’re useless old fucks who can’t get hard.  Tell them you fucked their wife last night.  You have to turn the table on them early and fast, and then move on and do what you went there to do in the first place. if they hit you, make sure you have someone ready to film it.

Anyone who is petrified of physical confrontation or too fucking dainty to get their own hands dirty by using their own tricks against them, simply cannot face off with the right out on the streets.  Forget it, stay home.

Quoting infant mortality rates isn’t always quoting like for like, because in the US some very-early-term deliveries and stillbirths apparently get quoted as infant mortality, whereas in other countries they’re quoted as pregnancy loss.

Christ, not that factoid again.

Paul, if you’re going to bring up this right-wing-originated excuse again, (i) source it and (ii) show teh size of the effect.  Otherwise I will conclude you’re just spouting something third-hand you didn’t realise was originally excreted from Rush Limbaugh’s remarkably sphincter-like lips.

Call me crazy…please…but does anyone else think these kind of stories from the shills might be laying the groundwork for more serious violence from the anti-reform terrorists?  As in, setting it up so that when one of the people who now satisfies themselves with calling in death threats and starting scuffles actually shoots somebody, all of the terrorist sympathizers will say “Well, the ACORN thugs brought it on themselves by bullying the disabled”?

Somebody please tell me I’m being paranoid.  Then tell me why.

Nope - sounds just like their MO.  They’ve seen the abortion doctor and UU church shootings; they know that some loon is likely to start shooting soon.  They’re laying the groundwork to evade teh blame.

Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if they already have the victim-blaming statements ready to be blasted out so that useful idiots such as Dana can stout parroting them.

Devil’s Advocate (38):

She should be allowed, without facing questions about her motivation, to participate in events that might otherwise exacerbate her disability or even endanger her life. That’s her call. It might be dumb and ill-advised, but it’s not anyone else’s business.

If she takes her uninsured self to the ER for treatment, it is everyone’s business, surely?

Devil’s Advocate (56):

Unless she was elbowing people on her way past, and deliberately rolling over feet, what she did was no different than what anyone else would do in swimming up-stream towards the bathrooms or the open mic at a crowded political event.

And she was jostled, as could happen to anybody at a crowded political event. Regardless of party.

We only have her word that she was attacked. I’m fairly convinced her foot was stepped on; I can also see why it would benefit her to paint this as a deliberate attack.

Mnemosyne (69):

Here you go. It’s quite a handy website, actually.

The CIA is government-run. By Republican logic, then, it does a lousy job and can’t be relied on.

“The CIA is government-run. By Republican logic, then, it does a lousy job and can’t be relied on.”

...unless they are somehow advocating on behalf of the invasion you want so badly, then their facts, figures and analysis are impeccable…

***

And did no one else pick up on the the dog-whistle use of “coven”?  Nothing like snidely accusing your of actually being witches and worshiping Satan.  Classy!...

***

And, of course, for those who have forgotten previous Reichwing smears like the hundreds/thousands/millions of Vietnam Vets who were allegedly spit on by the Dirty Fucking Hippies, and, more recently, the thousands of Oreos that were hurtled at some poor Black Republican candidate a few years back, I’m sure we will be treated to reports about how a literal group of Black gangster thugs, joined by scores of former Weathermen hippies, all being given orders by Jane Fonda, mercilessly attacked and beat all of the handicapped people at the rally, who not only numbered in the thousands themselves,  but were all there protesting against healthcare reform because they’re good Americans who want to stop the Illegal Kenyan Usurper from destroying liberty by taking over the healthcare business.

And if we’re really lucky, there’ll be claims that government vans hauled off some unknown number of courageous protesters and put them into the secret internment camps Obama started building (with Jimmy Carter’s help of course) all over the American West…

There is no depth to which the wingnuts will not stoop in the quest to destroy anything even remotely progressive in America…

I’m not following this contoversy at all; I haven’t seen the videos etc.  But I have been crippled enough to need a walker, and I cannot imagine any circumstance in which I was about to fall down, where my situation could have been improved by hitting someone with my walker.  Or in fact, where I could have had the leverage (being off-balance) from which to hit someone with my walker.

TB: Oh, bullshit. I don’t know any liberal that behaves this way, even in a heated environment. This sounds more like a Republican caricature of “ghetto” behavior. It also sounds like you’re assuming the liberals are black- hence the traitor business. I think your true colors are showing a bit.

Crowds do all kinds of things that individuals would never even dream of doing alone. Their politics, liberal or conservative, don’t matter one little bit. Have you never *been* to a political rally?

And as for your trying to slag me as a racist, the only response you deserve - and it’s quite proper, given the slimy nature of your utterly baseless accusation - is as follows: Shut the fuck up when you don’t know what you’re talking about, you slimy little troll.

HO: If she takes her uninsured self to the ER for treatment, it is everyone’s business, surely?

Her hypocrisy is a legitimate topic for discussion, but whatever specific injury results from her exercising the right to risk is not anybody’s business.

We only have her word that she was attacked. I’m fairly convinced her foot was stepped on; I can also see why it would benefit her to paint this as a deliberate attack.

I can too, which is why I mentioned Ashley Todd. But what if she’s actually telling the truth? It’s merely a reflexive response to automatically assume she’s lying.

It’s up to the event organizers to investigate the situation and implement whatever best practices they can for people with mobility impairments to have complete access to all public areas at a political event.

FLIP: I said “excuse me” THREE times and she looked at me and said, “You can sit over there where the other handicaps are sitting.”

Oh, I’m sorry; she didn’t give out detailed personal information about why she wanted to pass a certain way that should be open to the public. She said “excuse me.” And clearly, that just wasn’t informative enough. 

This version has overtones of a little kid saying…

And I think this reading of it - little kid wanting something not hers - is through the lens of able-bodied privilege.

Ms Kate: Disability permits you to claim certain accommodation ... it does not PRIVILEGE you to act like a jerk, assault people with mobility stuff, etc. and it does not PRIVILEGE you to get front row seats to a all-comer’s event that isn’t even where you should be.

If she had reserved a spot near the front, first come first serve, and was making her way back to her chair, then she was going where she “should be.”  She didn’t owe anyone in that crowd an explanation as to why she’d chosen a sat away from the speshul holding pen where all the other cripples were kept.

Have you never *been* to a political rally?

Yes, one or two.

And as for your trying to slag me as a racist, the only response you deserve - and it’s quite proper, given the slimy nature of your utterly baseless accusation - is as follows: Shut the fuck up when you don’t know what you’re talking about, you slimy little troll.

Hey, fuck you. If you don’t want to be mislabeled don’t make arguments straight out of Michelle Malkin. That’s what that ‘traitor’ crap sounds like to me- the only African-Americans I’ve heard of actually using that term are the ones dancing in Malkin’s head.

If she had reserved a spot near the front, first come first serve, and was making her way back to her chair, then she was going where she “should be.”

No. Ms Kate clearly said “an all-comer’s event that isn’t even where you should be.”

It wasn’t her representative’s meeting. That was the sense in which Kimberly King should not have been there at all.

DA, you are now playing the republican “no racism here” game, but in reverse. 

The fact is, disability does not confer privilege.  Period.  She didn’t belong at that town hall.  Period.

If she had a reserved seat, she should have asked for an escort, not committed assault.  If you are driving in front of me, and doing it slower than I would like, I don’t get to shoot you.  Same principle.

If she had reserved a spot near the front, first come first serve, and was making her way back to her chair, then she was going where she “should be.” She didn’t owe anyone in that crowd an explanation as to why she’d chosen a sat away from the speshul holding pen where all the other cripples were kept.

But how are people supposed to know where she “should be” if she doesn’t tell them?  OK, fine, maybe she didn’t “owe” anyone an explanation.  But, you know, if I’m in line at the post office, and the clerks tell me I have to fill out a certain form but when I’m done I can come back up to the window instead of heading to the back of the line, when I do that _I’m very, very polite_, sheepish even, because I know it looks like I’m blatantly cutting in line.

In crowd situations, first-come first-served rules apply by default.  They can be overridden when they are defensible—as in this case they appeared to be.  Nonetheless, if she had a spot up front, she should say, “Excuse me, I had a spot up front.”  She didn’t.  You can tell because even in a version of the story designed to put her in the best light possible, she didn’t say she did.  She didn’t express the reasons why she needed to be accommodated.  Instead, she picked a fight.

I think you need to devil’s-advocate your way into the place of the people who came after this woman, didn’t know they had displaced her, and were faced with escalating outrage whose reasons were not being spoken at all.  Say you’re in line at the deli, you take a number and wait your turn.  The deli guy calls your number and you order half a pound of salami.  Then someone else walks up behind you and says, “what the hell, asshole?”  Maybe he’s a militant vegan.  Maybe he’s on medication.  Maybe he’s on the phone and not even talking to you.  Maybe he had the number before yours and the deli guy messed up and forgot to call it.  If he wants sympathy or justice, he kinda needs to give you more information, don’t you think?