Saturday, September 29, 2012

Tommy Thompson wants the "State Government" to make Health Care Decisions.

What is it about, "My opponent is ranked as the number one liberal"...blah, blah, blah that makes so much sense to Republicans?

In a debate that stunningly passed over Thompson's comments to a group of tea party voters about "doing away with Medicare and Medicaid," Tommy clearly advocated the state get in between a persons medical decisions and their doctor.
Thompson: "I want you the individual, and the state government, to be able to determine who is going to able to be the arbitrators and the referees of health care. Huge difference. You want the federal government to make the determination of who your doctor and hospital is, or do you want the state and the individual? I'm with the state and individual, my opponent wants the federal government." 

First, the false premise: Of course the federal government would only be the insurer, like in Medicare, and not the one who decides who you'll see in the medical community.

But did the news coverage miss Thompson's push to get state government involved in a persons medical decisions? Thompson never even mentioned "doctors." State or federal, what's the difference Tommy? Wow. Big mistake.

A few comments about the debate: Tammy never once referred to any previous comments made by Thompson, which most of us see as a treasure trove of blunders. Every answer could have started with reminding voters what Tommy said about the issue. It was frustrating to say the least.

The pipeline was a big miss for Tammy. Just after the state experienced a ruptured pipeline in Adams County, she made no mention of that or the more corrosive nature of what is called "dirty crude." Just as big, Tommy's call for blindly going ahead with the pipeline would increase gas prices at the pump in Wisconsin, because it diverts oil away from Midwest refiners and sends it to exporters in the Gulf. Check out this Charles Osgood Report.

A note to Tammy; Remember, you were in the minority for all those years the Republicans were spending "like drunken sailors." The huge deficits Thompson said you created, were the fault of the Republicans. How hard was it to correct that statement?

Lastly, the panel of reporters stunk up the place. Boring and tedious, no one brought up recent comments by the candidates or their record. They asked generic talking point questions.

Not even a rebuttal. This was the worst debate format and list of questions I've ever seen. The stuffy introduction to the debate was enough for me to want to turn it off immediately. This was an embarrassing moment for the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association.

1 comment:

  1. Oh You! There you go again, pointing out the insipid vapidity of the Wisconsin nuze corps. Reporting in Wisconsin essentially sucks. The worst, of course, is Wisconsin Public Radio/Television which exemplifies the drivel produced so often by weak, ineffective, effete elites (e.g. University of Wisconsin personnel). Masquerading as unbiased information, WPT and WPR together create a fluffy miasma of feel-good bullshit and non-confrontational self-talk in which the public can hide their heads and ignore the tough realities of resource wars and cultural confrontations.

    However, one can argue over which is worse, the false balance of WPR/WPT or the overt manipulation and lies of the mainstream media? At least Faux Nuze is clear in their bias and the big three networks are losing their audience which offers some hope.

    The debate simply revealed - again - how laughable the hacks in Wisconsin media have become. I have a feeling that the debate would have been much better had they included Dylan Brogan on the media panel. He's a bright spot in an otherwise very dismal media outlook.