Another Spoof on the MoveOn/Will Ferrell Health Care Vid
by Big Hollywood
It’s gotta suck to be Will Ferrell and Adam McKay right now … when something called the CatholicVoteAction.org is funnier that you…?
Burn.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
82 Comments
Excellent concept and delivery!
Catholic Vote Action.org? Who the heck is that? I want to send them a check!
not just burn, but also "Face!!" and "Moted!"
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tom Meitner. Tom Meitner said: FUNNY: Another Spoof on the MoveOn/Will Ferrell Health Care Vid http://ow.ly/spFB [...]
That was fantastic.
Not sure who they are. Think the video has crashed their server. They show up on google, but can't get through.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! This is great and along with Chicago losing the bid for the Olympic, I cannot stop laughing. I must be a racist.
Ugh… can't see the video… I'm at work… So I will post this comment so I will remember that I want to see the video AND then comment on it when I get home…
That was brutal. Hope it goes viral.
I'M CATHOLIC!!! WAY TO GO!!!!! HIGH-FIVES!!!!
The silver medal goes to……….
The silver medal goes to……….I love it.
I would like to point out that the Catholic position is a bias toward helping the poor and marginalized. No matter how you dress it up, private insurance does not serve the poor and marginalized as well as a government plan would.
While every good free-thinking Catholic is entitled to discern God's will on their own, this view is not indicative of a Catholic philosophy of helping the poor.
Yes, our website was down for awhile. But it was because Rackspace was having system-wide problems.
Thankfully those have been resolved and http://www.catholicvoteaction.org is up and running!
I have a Baptist philosophy of helping the poor. It's called free advice:
Finish High School, stay off of drugs and alcohol, keep your knees together and/or your dick in your pants, get a job, work at whatever you do with honesty and integrity, and don't buy anything on credit. If you can't find a decent job join the military.
That simple advice, if faithfully followed, could wipe out poverty in a single generation.
Sound harsh and unchristian? Sorry, but nobody has the right to reach into my back pocket because they can't control their own appetites. Nobody in America has to be poor.
I have a Baptist philosophy of helping the poor. It's called free advice:
Finish High School, stay off of drugs and alcohol, keep your knees together and/or your dick in your pants. Get a job, work at whatever you do with honesty and integrity, and don't buy anything on credit. If you can't find a decent job join the military.
That simple advice, if faithfully followed, could wipe out poverty in a single generation.
Sound harsh and unchristian? Sorry, but nobody has the right to reach into my back pocket because they can't control their own appetites. Nobody in America has to be poor.
I have a Baptist philosophy of helping the poor. It's called free advice:
Finish high school, stay off of drugs and alcohol, keep your knees together and/or your dick in your pants. Get a job, work at whatever you do with honesty and integrity, and don't buy anything on credit. If you can't find a decent job join the military.
That simple advice, if faithfully followed, could wipe out poverty in a single generation.
Sound harsh and unchristian? Sorry, but nobody has the right to reach into my back pocket because they can't control their own appetites. Nobody in America has to be poor.
No matter how you dress it up the public option would cost all of us too much making some of us who are struggling now poor and marginalized; plus, poor and marginalized people with government insurance in other countries are often under the Dick Grayson version of healthcare – die quickly because if you don't, you'll suffer a long, long time on that waiting list for a treatment that was cutting edge over a decade ago.
Personally, I don't think that helps anyone poor, marginalized or otherwise.
No matter how you dress it up the public option would cost all of us too much making some of us who are struggling now poor and marginalized; plus, poor and marginalized people with government insurance in other countries are often under the Grayson version of healthcare – die quickly because if you don't, you'll suffer a long, long time on that waiting list for a treatment that was cutting edge over a decade ago.
Personally, I don't think that helps anyone poor, marginalized or otherwise.
As a Catholic I agree that we are bound by our morals to help the poor. The point of this video is that socialized health care doesn't help the poor, but actually hurts everyone by making health care treatment less accessible to the general public. We already have health insurance for the poor – medicade. In my personal experience, the poor are served much better and with much less bureaucracy through charities within the private sector than through government programs which are all too often complicated and slow. So far, the left has been very good at pushing the falsehood that if you are against socialized health care, then you are against helping the poor. The latest example of that is the congressman with the signs saying Republicans want you to die quickly.
That was great. Even better than the first response.
As a Catholic I disagree as we believe in helping the poor and marginalized YES but do we believe in paying for Abortion or maybe rationing of care. or cutting out whole sectors of the population based on status. When the Government is in charge of Health care they will decide who is receives what type and how much treatment. Government is the antithesis of Charity.
Duder, yes it is the Catholic's responsibility to help the poor. But the government should not be the way the Catholic helps. How about Catholic charities or finding individuals who need help and just helping them? The government wastes so much money and has been doing a lousy job of allocating it. Government is not the solution to every problem. Repeat that last sentence until you get it.
Again, there are about 15 million people who can't afford healthcare, even though they are probably covered by Medicaid. The argument by the mean Catholics and evil right-wingers is why destroy the health insurance options for the other 285 million of us? This whole thing is about control and government take over of the health care industry. If it weren't why are the liberal/socialist/facists of the Democrat party wanting the government option so badly? They've already stated they do want a single-payer (even Obama) health care system. So help that number of people without bankrupting our country. It is a very doable thing, but as Tom Harkin said today, they're not interested in Republican input.
aaahahahahhahahahhaa Ha! That was really clever … and well done!
They have some of the greatest (and funny) pro-life commercials ever made. You have got to check them out. They are a division of Fidelis, which acts as a counter to the ACLU – brilliant
Don't they have to be some how connected to the Church in order to use the word Catholic?
I know, I'm dumb, as Catholic you'd think I would know this. I don't.
Will you accept a high-five from a Protestant? Because "count me in!"
It's sad that we've come to the point where people, like Duder, expect the default answer to be something government related. Sad, sad days in American history. The founders are rolling over in their graves.
Duder the Church does far more to actually help the poor than the government. Government policies actually ensure that the poor will always be so. Worse yet the government programs in the future will make the poor so much worse that they will be reduced to "the po" (unable to afford the o and r).
Bwahaha! The inflatable alligator slayed me.
Pants.
Duder,
*I* will decide when *I* want to help someone less fortunate than me and not when the government picks my pocket to force me to do it.. What part of that very simple statement is lost on you?
sheeee't i gotta get back to my catholicism! that rocks!
[...] (Hat tip: Big Hollywood.) [...]
Hilarious.
Actually we in America pay more as a percentage of GDP than any other industrialized country. And we are not as healthy. If we just used some smart policies to drive costs down, we can free up more money to help the poor and marginalized.
Using the government as a way to do that has proven to be effective in all countries who use it. It even works well in our country with Medicare and as many point out Medicaid.
I pray every night that people will see that creating more competition will lead to better care for the poor and marginalized. I will pray for everyone one this board.
My friend and fellow good intentioned Catholic. I am delighted that you also take Christ's call seriously to keep the poor and marginalized at the center of our moral decisions. I can see your passion and it is a great thing to see.
I also agree with you about bureacracies being a problem. There is no worse example of red tape than in insurance companies. It is sad that we live in the richest country in the world and we make our poor and marginalized waste time filling out paper work in times of stress. I often pray for people to have calm in these trying times. I do not see where at all a government system would make you have more red tape.
I wish more people shared your spirit about private charity. However, that is not reality so we cannot act like it is. People are very well intentioned, but there is just flat out not enough money to take care of ALL problems through private charity.
I pray on and see the love in the positions of people you consider "left." Jesus was a leftist too. I will pray for you too.
My friend, I am happy to hear about your respect for life. However, there is absolutely no abortion funding in the bill. If you are reading news sources that tell you that it is in there, please respectully broaden your view.
Right now, we do have rationed health care. Only some people qualify for certain treatments based on pre-existing conditions, wealth, and whether or not you have a job. I pray that the world will see the world as Christ did and not treat other people differently than others.
My friend, I do not share your fear of the government. I will pray that you will have better interactions with the government in the future.
My friend, the government is not now nor ever will be the solution to every problem. Even if the government ends up funding something, it is still up to the good people to see the action through. In my humble opinion, there is no difference between a private person paying for a doctor to visit a poor mother than the government paying for it. In the end, the woman still gets care.
I am with you on wishing people would help each other more. However, we can only do that ourselves, urge others, and pray. The fact is, we do not live in a world where that happens. So the government is a way to get it done.
I am very sorry that you have learned to not trust the government. I will pray for you to have better experiences with the government.
Very funny!
I can see that you care about society and want to see what is best. However, I urge you to research South American countries and see what happened to them when they implemented Milton Friedman's ideals.
After the Great Depression and all of the crashed of the last 15 years, I find it hard to believe that free markets alone are what can bring about the most good. It looks nice on paper, but it relies too much on greed. When people are trying to maximize profit, they sometimes forget the poor. They do not think through the consequences of their actions.
We will still have private land and many outlets in the private market. We will still have private health insurance. We would just have a way to increase competition to save us all money.
My friend, President Obama is doing a lot to get Republicans to help me. I don't know what else you want him to do.
And I agree that we should do something to make sure that the 285 million of us who have care keep it and give the other 15 million care. The only plan that does it is the one with the public option.
My friend, Social Security, Medicare, etc has been the backbone of social progress. Are we better off now or before we had those programs?
I will pray that you do not fear government.
Also, the founders did set up the post office and had an army. They thought that government could be used effectively to produce results.
My friend, I am sorry that you feel like the government is robbing you in some way. Perhaps you can appreciate the schools, police, fire department, army, or anything else is being spent well.
No matter where you send your money, it is always at risk of being used in a way that is not fully with your intention. I will pray that the money you give out it used in a proper way.
private insurance does not serve the poor and marginalized as well as a government plan would.
This an incorrect statement. Free Markets cause the maximum amount of a good to be produced at the lowest overall cost.
A great real world example is China, where it was decided that private ownership of land does not serve the poor and marginalized as well as a government plan would. Mao oversaw the conversion of private farming into state planned communal farms. By the 1970's China was unable to feed its population. Then they met Milton Friedman.
I wonder how many conservatives would be shouting "commie" if the government was passing out free beer?
You're using the post office as an effective result? I suppose you'll tell me amtrak, medicare, medicaid, social security are effective results too? Being that each one of them are going bankrupt. Are you serious?
Why are you in the mindset that the government IS supposed to help you? You are part of the problem if that is your mindset. You are the reason we're putting up such high deficits. The government isn't your nanny. Get your mind right and quit digging into my wallet. Get off YOUR butt and do something. You are stealing from me if that is the way you think.
Quit calling us your friend. You are the problem. What social progress? Keeping people in poverty?
You're a joke. In your previous posts, you're talking about government being the solution. Now you're talking that you want to decide when and where you want to help some one. Make up your mind man.
Those are essential services. Quit using the same old, fire department, police department, etc. argument. Again, you don't sound very informed on…Anything. You spout the same we need big government or people will die. Bull.
Duder's dim. It's a waste of time to even argue with this imbicile.
Oh, I love CatholicVote – their video last year just brought me to tears. Now I am so glad that they've split off into another organization that move into politics. Awesome. If this organization has half the savvy as the old one, than good times are ahead. I can hardly wait.
And dang, is it REALLY true about that alligator? Unfricking believable!
"What social progress?"
Funny, all I hear are crickets.
"DMV-style health care"
I am gonna use that.
Wow, they even included it in the Constitution. Now, where is that bit about controlling the entire health care industry… oh wait, it's not there.
Too bad.
(Really getting sick of the "the government does x so it's okay to do y" style of argument. You guys are just phoning it in.)
My friend, President Obama is doing a lot to get Republicans to help me. I don't know what else you want him to do.
Stop helping because it's making things worse.
I have goiters funnier than Will Ferrel- he should get down on his knees every day for George Bush, or he wouldn't have had a career.
This is a man for whom comedy is a foreign language and he has no Rosetta Stone- I mean, have you seen ELF??????? Have you?
AS MR. T WOULD SAY, "I PITY THE FOOL."
The consensus is that government programs during the great depression and stifling the free market kept it going until WWII. Reading the misinformation that you're citing makes me weep, knowing there are others out there like you. And I hate to break the news to you "Duder" but many EEEEVIL corporations spend billions on charities and supporting charities. And people like you, with your head in the sand, keep making them out to be these uncaring entities. Again, quit reciting liberal talking points and do some research. Because what information you're getting is competely tainted and biased.
SS and Medicare might have worked if the people in government hadn't stolen the money for these peograms- now they are insolvent, as are we, the nation- we have no money for this makeover, and while the medical system needs to be tweaked, it does not need an overhaul. And with government interference, it will all crumble totally.
It's a waste of time to even argue with this imbicile. It's like arguing with a little kid.
[...] the subject matter has to be reconciled with so many other provisions of existing commercial law. Another Spoof on the MoveOn/Will Ferrell Health Care Vid – bighollywood.breitbart.com 10/02/2009 [There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. [...]
I would believe that you would be referring to Chile during the period of the mid-70's to mid-80's? You might want to consider the world economic condition during that time. That period would co-incide with high interest rates and high unemployment in a number of developed economies, We called it "Stagflation" back in the day. To blame the economy of a latin american dictatorship on Milton Friedman might suit your purposes better than the example of China.
Let me give you another simpler example. Please explain why Lasik surgery, an elective Medical procedure, has dramatically fallen in cost. Or Liposcution, an elective procedure, has dramatically fallen in cost. Meanwhile Insurance covered procedures consistently rise at greater than the level of inlation? Could it be that the cost has fallen because there is a free market for those procedures? And since the cost has fallen, making the procedures more available to the average person, doesn't that suggest a free market might make more "Health Care" available to everyone more cheaply?
And concerning the poor, I recognize the need for a social net. We live in the most complex society mankind has ever created, there are many people with low IQ's that have little chance to succed in the culture. What I believe though, is that 1. removing government mandates and directives from the market will end the distortions in costs and make more Health care available more cheaply. 2. Tax Credits can be used to give individual poor people buying power in the market. 3. The Democrats are lying to you. They don't give a hoot about getting Health Care to anyone. They merely want to take control of the 2 trillion dollars a year in premiums, throw it into the general fund, buy Treasury bonds with the cash and spend away.
Actually, the government is already spending 46% of all Health care dollars in the US. With 46% of the dollars, they cover 27% of the people. And the forced underpayments doctors are paid from Medicaid are offset by rasing the cost of procedures on private plans. Additionally, Medicaid is underfunded and as an outlying budget it is growing.
Much of the "red tape" of insurance companiy paperwork is mandated by the government, not by the insurance companies.
I have never ever met a Democrat who is trying to control Health care. Who are the ones that you have met who are trying to control it?
What is an example of a country who uses the free market to get better health results?
The free market needs to be a very big part of our society. However, in every single instance in history, having a government mandated health system as part of the solution leads to better results.
As we have deregulated the market, we have spent more money and have not had as good of results as other countries.
I do not think that I am causing any deficits. I have not stolen one thing from you and I am sorry that you have been lead to see the world in such a way.
I imagine that you are a President Clinton supporter and despise the Reagan/Bush ideas of running up deficits and expanding government. I agree that we should have a President like President Clinton who is responsible with our money. While Bush and Reagan were blowing money on things we do not need and increasing government, our debt kept going up. Thankfully also we do not have the tax rates we had under Reagan.
I am sad that the Reagan/Bush policies lead to this deficit. Their policies caused us to have to bail out Wall Street. Their policies are going to cause people to steal from my kids' wallet.
When I read someone wanting or pleading that some government entity needs to help him, I'm almost sad.
I have never ever met a Democrat who is trying to control Health care
Please show me where I make any such a claim. My claim is that the Democrats see 2 trillion dollar a year in Health care premiums. They want to eliminate Insurance Companies and take over that flow of income. They will place it in the general fund, as they do with Social Security and they will be free to spend it in any way they desire.
However, in every single instance in history, having a government mandated health system as part of the solution leads to better results.
You're just making this up.
I've given you examples of MEDICAL PROCEDURES IN THE UNITED STATES THAT HAVE BECOME LESS EXPENSIVE = the ones that are functioning in a free market.
All the Big Social-Democracies in Europe have historically had lower growth than the United States, higher unemployment than the United States, higher debt to GDP levels than the United States, and are all facing looming financial solvency problems worse than the Untied States.
The Clinton administration was opposed to Balancing the Budget prior to losing the 1994 congressional elections. Robert Reich, Sect. of Labor appeared on Meet the Press and flatly said, "Balancing the budget is not a priority of this adminsitration". Newt Gingrich ran on a platform of balancing the budget. The fact that Druder is attempting to credit Clinton with this shows he is not a credible person to argue with.
I'm wondering how old this Duder person is. I know Clinton had no intention on being fiscally responsible. But in 1994, Newt and company took over the house and the senate and Clinton had no choice but change his tune. He signed welfare reform and took credit for it even though all he did was ink it. But I'm hoping the same thing happens here, and there's a good chance, that happened in 1994. The Democrat, this is for you Duder, has pathetic approval ratings. Dick Cheney had higher approval ratings recently than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.
<a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-s…” target=”_blank”>http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-s…
The democrats have prevented language that would explicitly excluded abortion from being funded in just this week past.
The first thing Obama did as president was remove the Bush era restriction of US tax dollars going to abortion services and providers in foreigh aid.
<a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pag…” target=”_blank”>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pag…
If the president would specifically change a rule to allow Tax money to be used for abortions overseas, its self-evident that he wouldn't be trying to restrict them here.
Where do you get your information? Mars? Reagan signed budgets presented to him by Tip O'Neill (a Democrat) who said he would give Reagan tax cuts which increased revenues (look it up your facts are WRONG!!!!), and the promise to keep a handle on discretionary spending. Well, Tip O'Neill (a Democrat) lied and the spending he said he would keep a handle on? Went through the roof. Clinton would have ballooned the deficit if not for one thing, a Republican congress that made him keep a lid on spending. He was wanting to spend on healthcare, 1/7th of the US economy. He wasn't fiscally responsible, he was held in check by Newt Gingrich. Bush did add to the deficit, but Obama, in 8 months has beat out Bush's spending by 4x. Obama IS going to bankrupt us. He's projecting $1 trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see. Dwarfing anything ANY president before him has done. ANY!!! Again, you're the kind of person that will aid in bankrupting our country and our children's future with your misinformation.
My friend, you're being hard on my friend. He knows not what he is talking about. He is totally clueless with the "facts" he's listed and sounds nearly incoherent in presenting them. When he said that he was thankful that we didn't have Reagan's tax rates, I knew he was clueless and was being spoonfed (mis)information from some liberal source.
We are much wose off. We are facing a liability of 70 trillion dollars in debt obligation due to these programs. Anyone living on a Social Security check is living in poverty. Social Security returns 2% on the money consfiscated. If each individual had that money * the time value of money our society would be so much better off.
Only a truly evil man would advocate for placing the future generation in poverty. What's that the bible said? Evil will come as a wolf dressed in lamb clothings? Begone Satan.
"Jesus was a leftist too"
this is absolutely not true. Jesus deals with each and every person individually and demands personal responsibility. Jesus was NOT a community Organizer – he was a rabbi/teacher.
I agree with Darki. Jesus taught people the Truth, and then let them decide for themselves. I'm thinking of the rich young man who Jesus said he need to sell his possessions and give them to the poor if he wanted to follow Jesus (chapter and verse are escaping me right now.). When the rich young man walked away, Jesus did not go after Him. He just goes on with His preaching to those who choose to stay. Secondly, Jesus never commissioned forcing people to be charitable, which is exactly what socialism does. Jesus was not leftist because He wasn't political at all. Jesus' separation of Church and state message was, "Give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar and give to God what belongs to God." As a believer in separation of Church and state, I believe that taking care of the poor is the Church's job, not the states'. Not-so-coincidentally, the explosion of government run/taxpayer funded programs very closely coincides with the breakdown of the family and drop off in church going habits of Americans.
Duder wrote, "In my humble opinion, there is no difference between a private person paying for a doctor to visit a poor mother than the government paying for it. In the end, the woman still gets care."
There's a huge difference. In the first scenario the donor chooses to help the poor mother, but in the second scenario tax payers are forced to help the poor mother. If a private person pays, they either give money to the woman or to the doctor directly. Poor mother goes to doctor and gets treated. In this case both parties benefit from a stronger relationship. On the other hand, when tax payers pay (Government doesn't actually pay for anything. They are using the tax payers' money.), poor mother most likely has to go to a government office, stand in a long line, fill out a bunch of forms, wait to see if she qualifies, etc., etc… In this case, her only relationships involved are with government workers who may or may not be kind, courteous, and ultimately loving towards her.
I suppose I'm a little sensitive about this whole government lines thing since I've recently married and moved to another state. I calculated 4 hours of line-waiting just to make my car legal on the road. That was all before I stood in another line at the Social security office to change my name, and then another line at the post office to mail in my passport changes.
I am Catholic but why is everyone afraid of govt public option. We already allow elderly, disabled and some poor to have coverage. Many countries allow both private and public insurance – Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Switzerland, etc and many have large % of their populations with private coverage despite universal coverage by the govt.
And everyone forgets US Bishops and Pope John Paul II wrote on the basic right for workers to have health care??
I don't get it. We are ending up debating sound bites and angry rhetoric – not looking at facts and rational thinking.
You must be logged in to post a comment.