They don't feel -- or care about -- your pain
February 26, 2010 3:42 pm ET by John V. Santore
At yesterday's health care summit, Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY-28) related this story from one of her constituents:
I even have one constituent -- you will not believe this, and I know you won't, it's true. Her sister died, this poor woman had no dentures. She wore her dead sister's teeth, which of course were uncomfortable and did not fit. Do you believe that in America that that's where we would be?
What was the reaction from leading members of the conservative media?
- On Twitter, Michelle Malkin wrote: "We need trillion-$ Demcare cuz someone had to wear their sister's dentures! O: "Terrific conversation""
- On his radio program, Glenn Beck stated, "I've read the Constitution ... I didn't see that you had a right to teeth."
- Author and radio host Laura Ingraham told Bill O'Reilly that Slaughter's tale was "ridiculous" and a "sob story."
- Fox Nation, the website maintained by the Fox News Channel, labeled Slaughter's comments "Summit Insanity."

- Tara Lynn Thompson, a commentator for the conservative website, Rightpundits.com, suggested that if Americans had fewer teeth, they would eat less, and hence would meet Michelle Obama's anti-obesity goals:
What Michelle Obama has overlooked, thus far, is the potential of poorly fitted teeth. Children, as well as adults, could benefit greatly by a few extra teeth pulled, fillings that fall out, or dentures from the dead.
- Rush Limbaugh went out of his way to mock the story. "If you don't have any teeth, so what?" he said. "What's applesauce for?" Like Ingraham, he also referred to it as the "sob story of the day."
When criticized for such comments, media conservatives always claim they were joking and chastise their detractors for lacking a sense of humor. But they aren't kidding. Leading conservatives, especially those in the media, don't believe that the United States faces a health care crisis. And in one sense, they are right: their America doesn't.
Conservative media leaders have made fortunes peddling such blatant callousness. Consider the fact that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck have all vehemently denied the urgent need for health care reform. Unsurprisingly, all three are inordinately rich and can afford the best health care money can buy.
And so, when Rush had a heart scare in Hawaii, he simply paid his emergency room bills out-of-pocket. As to the cost, he wasn't phased, describing it casually as less than half the "average SUV" of the "average American family."
He then shuts his eyes to the uninsured and under-insured Americans driven to bankruptcy by illness and injury. And he closes his ears to the estimated 45,000 Americans who die needlessly each year because they can't afford access to reliable care. After all, this is not the America that people like Limbaugh, Ingraham, Beck, and Fox News CEO Roger Ailes live in. Limbaugh makes an estimated $50 million per year. Beck made $23 million in 2009.
Politics aside, the real question is this: Why do ordinary Americans continue to listen to conservatives who don't even pretend to care about the senseless indignities and horrors experienced by countless citizens of this country?

















This lie keeps getting pushed. The majority of these 45k deaths came at the end of the patients natural life and NOTHING could be done about it whether they had a cadillac plan or no health care. As far as how that statistic compares to other countries, the old there may not even go to a hospital so their numbers never get reported.
More smoke and mirrors from the liars in charge.
I am sure you have heard the term RINO, which means Republican in Name Only. There is indeed a big riff within the GOP based on precisely the misconception you have. A big part of the dispute is how much the GOP should increase the size of the government and its involvement in our lives. Bush was criticized by many conservatives for going too far in big state direction. Mike Huckabee was doomed in large part for the same trait.
Ah, more scolding about "intellectual honesty" from another semi-literate. You trolls provide so much unintended laughter.
You do know that capital gains rates are so low that Warren Buffett is ashamed his tax rate is lower than his secretary's?
His lifestyle has nothing to do with working hard, theselflobby. He works 15 hrs a week, usually not every week, and has been completely supported by Roger Ailes for around 20 years now. Does he have broadcasting talent? Yes, but they say Hitler had amazing speaking abilities too.
Huh?
And the rest of this piece is nothing more than liberal penis envy about those that obtain more success than themselves...classic.
Yes, you are obviously so right. If you aren't born rich, or don't work hard enough to be successful enough that you can afford to pay cash for false teeth, or just dental care, you deserve to be toothless.
I mean really. Didn't George Washington get by with wooden teeth?
Come on people. If you can't afford to go to the dentist, must carve yourself some new teeth.
As Santore says, "They don't feel -- or care about -- your pain".
-- When Brooks compared his findings to IRS data on the percentage of household income given away, he found that "red" states in the 2004 election were more charitable than "blue" states. Brooks found that 24 of the 25 states that were above average in family charitable giving voted for Bush in 2004, and 17 of the 25 states below average in giving voted for Kerry. Brooks concluded, "The electoral map and the charity map are remarkably similar."
The book is just more typical right wing reality bending. Same as usual, same as any of the people we talk about on here everyday. Total garbage. No wonder Wesley offered it as some sort of proof. Typical.
Sounds as if "Dr." Brooks may need a little brushing up on research methods...
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/product-reviews/0465008232/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar
..."--no PhD has his name attached to it in the
Dissertation abstracts database. I told him this, and he said he got his PhD from the "RAND graduate school" in Los Angeles. He expressed no curosity about that database or the absence of any mention of his in it. (NOTE: a library worker at the university library I use told me that that database probably has omissions. The absence of a Ph.D record for someone in it does not necessarily mean they don't have a Ph.D she said). "
..."--When I told Brooks about the amazon reviews that complained about his
measuring caring by monetary giving of total income,
rather than of disposable income, I was really disappointed by his response. I explained to him that this definition creates a bias favoring rural conservatives with low rent, growing their own food
etc, and against liberals concentrated around
universities and urban areas. His response was to prattle on and on about his not paying attention to such reviews and to other things in the "popular press", without ever addressing the content of the complaint"...
Oh man, Wingnut fantasy world sure does look great.
Penis envy in Freudian psychoanalysis refers to the theorized reaction of a girl during her psychosexual development to the realization that she does not have a penis...
In contemporary culture, the term is sometimes used symbolically or metaphorically to refer to the idea that women wish they had a penis, or to refer to anxieties between men about the size of their genitals.
Clear enough?
You are still incorrect. These people are successful . . . they have money and fame. That's not success. In my opinion, they are all losers. They've lost touch with their humanity. They are very, very sad, miserable people.
What I suggest is that you apply your definition of success broadly and not just toward those you don't like.
Are you that politically motivated that you can't condemn these comments?
I have a friend who has Lupus right now along with skyrocketing medical bills. Is she also ripe for ridicule? I guess she shouldn't have 'chosen' Lupus, then, huh?
If it were YOUR friend or YOUR mother/father...would these callous comments from the talking heads be fine and dandy? Does it even matter what side of the aisle they represent?
The thing is..these stories ARE someone's mother/father/friend...
Politics should NEVER trump humanity.
I do think Conservative rhetoric does a disservice to their cause, as this article and the comments show how people react. They often are callous, and arguably empty, and I am not a huge fan of Rush for that reason.
However, politics is arguably about "humanity". It seeks to determine how best do we maximize EVERYONE's humanity, not just a given group. Politics is about how to define society, and you cannot take "humanity" out of that.
It becomes how to allocate resources best to get to the best solution. A policy that you think is "inhumane" may be a very valid policy. The simple truth is that we have limited resources, and sometimes tough decisions are made.
I love this. The sociopathic, objectivist right summarized in one sentence.
So, if politics is about defining society, our politics suck.
So, if politics is about defining society, our politics suck.
By which you mean, Heartless CONservative, give all the resources to the rich and maybe they'll throw pennies at the poor. Heard this garbage before--stated better, in fact. Now go back and salaam to your Ayn Rand action figure a few more hours, Con...
Can I ask about George Soros? Or perhaps about any other rich liberal?
Can you accept that neither side is perfect?
Personally, I think such "joking" is not beneficial to the discussion because of the reaction you gave here. However, it is short sighted to call out the Conservatives for it without looking to Liberals who do the same.
Don't believe me that Liberals do it? Ever watch Keith Olberman or any other Liberal commentator? How about Start Smalley before going to DC? Bill Maher? Even Chris Matthews gets some jabs in.
I am not suggesting that because everyone does it is OK. I am suggesting two different ideas: it is hypocritical to call out only one side and such attacks are not useful to anyone.
Furthermore, these are comments from obscure, anonymous posters on a blog---and they are made in response to hateful, anti-progressive remarks from national media figures.
Sure he is--and my name's Alexander Ovechkin...
Interesting, that's all.
It is not just about mocking someone for conditions beyond their control, it is the venom behind the comments that I am focused on.
I have even been mocked for trying to say that this problem goes both ways. Do you wish to tell me that the left does not have their pointless venom?
If you can't see the difference between the two, then you are either intentional blind or unintentionally simple.
They willingly miss the point entirely and once you peel away the layers of their "compassionate" conservatism, they are nothing but a bunch of callous, cynical and mean-spirited people who have absolutely no regard for the suffering and misery of other people.