Skip to main content

Fox News: "Obamacare is worse than Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War!"

Fox News anchor and blonde woman #47 on the channel - Martha MacCallum - recently said the following about Obamacare:

"What I keep coming back to in all of this is unlike other issues - Katrina or the Iraq war-this is something that touches so many people's lives across the country and you don't know whether the president is going to be able to successfully dodge it."

Really? A healthcare plan touches many people's lives across this country, but war and natural disasters don't? How many soldiers died in Iraq? How long were some of them overseas? How were they when the came back home? How were their families? How many lives were impacted by Hurricane Katrina? How many were killed? How many lost their homes? How long will it take for New Orleans to fully rebound? Will it ever fully recover? What were the damage costs in both Iraq and Louisiana?

What Fox News talking heads and other conservative commentators are failing to realize with their asinine comparisons between Obamacare and Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War is the fact that, whether they want to believe it or not, the intent of the Affordable Care Act is a positive one. The intent is to provide more people with health coverage, require a higher standard of coverage, and lower costs. Will there be unfortunate scenarios when surgeries aren't successful and people die as a result? Yes, but that's the way it's always been. The Affordable Care Act's intent is to help save lives and money. It will undoubtedly touch people's lives, but the intent and likely end result is and will be a positive one. That's not the case with sending soldiers off to war under false pretenses or reacting slowly to a natural disaster. The intent of the former was awful and the intent of the latter was seemingly one of indifference. Putting soldiers in harm's way based on a lie and taking a great deal of time to provide proper aid to New Orleans after a devastating hurricane is drastically different than trying to improve this nation's health, and with that, our lives, through healthcare reform.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/25/fox-news-obamacare-katrina-iraq-war-martha-maccallum_n_4339143.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"