Brown vs. Coakley: Ghost of Ted Kennedy Speaks
by Steven CrowderA little distasteful? Possibly. As distasteful as Coakley invoking the spirit of Ted Kennedy in a failed attempt to win an election? No. If liberals want to talk Ted Kennedy… Let’s talk Ted Kennedy. Better yet, I just so happen to have managed an exclusive interview with the pale-faced powerhouse. Anderson Cooper, consider yourself scooped.
Note: No underworld spirits were actually stoned during the making of this video.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
32 Comments
Thanks for the laugh Steven.
Love the red nose on the ghost.
Great way to finish a great week!
What was Ted doing with Robert Byrd's sheet on?
That was great!!
The most hypocritical thing about Coakley is that one week before the election, she wasn't pressing palms with constituents outside of Fenway….. she flew to DC for a 10k a plate lobbying dinner with big Pharma who were drooling that her 60th vote would re-entrench their power for another generation. No such luck. While I disagree with most of you on health care reform (i.e… I'm for single-payer)… I think we can all agree that the death of this health bill is the best political development in a long time.
I think we can solve the energy crisis if we hook an alternator up to Kennedy's spinning corpse about now.
This is great, Steven. When are you going to bring back Olbermann and Maddow? They make such a great team.
I was about to comment that finally, poor Teddy is entering his longest stretch of sobriety in history; until I happened to see the glass in his right hand…………
No, his punishment is he only get's to hold Satan's glass, not drink from it.
.
Way cool. Thanks mucho!
.
[...] reading here: Brown vs. Coakley: Ghost of Ted Kennedy Speaks This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
I loved when the rock came out of nowhere and hit Teddy in the chest. Great comedy timing, and he's still so young. Darned Stephen Crowder, stop hogging all the talent!
LMAO! Great video. Andrew must have hit the floor when he saw that one.
I don't think Steven can do a convincing Maddow – he's too pretty.
Steven's Maddow is hilarious. "Well, I agree with you, Keith. Yoor so smahrt!"
Were I interviewing the ghost of The Swimmer, I'd be wearing a necklace of garlic flowers, holding a crucifix in one hand, and a .45 loaded with silver bullets in the other. At my feet would be a wooden stake and a mallet. Just in case.
Since someone already threw the first stone, can I throw a bottle of Jack Daniels at him?
Oh, awesome then you haven't seen this. It's great:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/scrowder/2009/0...
While you disagree with free market concepts, I would like to thank you for being polite and reasonable on the topic. Usually those who want the government to take over the health care system are shrill, and screaming insults.
If I may ask, why do you think a single payer system will make anything better?
That was a good one.
As long as you drink it first.
He's not worth wasting a full bottle on.
Oooh, I forgot about that one! That was great!
I still think he's too pretty to be convincing.
Oh, Gawd. You mean Teddy hasn't really left the building? Could we get Elvis and Michael to guide Teddy to the netherworld? I bet a really hot time in the old town awaits Teddy. MaryJo is presiding over his judgement and I don't think Teddy is getting the scotch or the 72 virgins he hoped for. Very Funny Steven! I am still LMAO!
The "lion" got sooooo close to five months without a snort.
Cost and efficiency, for starters. Right now, our privatized system runs at about 25% for administrative costs… appallingly inefficient. Single-payer systems are usually at around 3-5 percent. There's a huge cost savings right off the bat. With a Canada-style system, you'll still have private doctors, but the government will act as the single insurance payer.. in other words… it's not actually "socialized medicine," it's socialized insurance payments for medicine. We'll still have the same excellent system of producing the best doctors in the world, except that they will be able to finally exist in a true meritocracy, rather than be subject to the strict rules of private insurance companies. That's an important point. With single-payer, we can go to whoever we like, meaning we can choose doctors based on how good they are, not whether they are in our "network," and the best doctors will then have the most patients and make the most money, which is as it should be. Because everyone would be covered, cradle-to-grave, there would be a greater emphasis on preventative care, which we know is far cheaper in the long run, than having the kind of system where you only go to a doctor if you are sick. Finally, it would mean that we would no longer have 45k citizens die each year because they had no insurance, and the 70 million who are either un or under-insured would have access to healthcare, and we would no longer have 800,000 go bankrupt annually because they couldn't pay their medical bills. As the greatest country in the world, I should think we could manage to treat our citizens with the same kind of respect that the rest of the first world has given theirs for years.
A reasonable, polite response, thank you, and let the debate begin.
While I don't have any proof at hand, I've always questioned that 25% over head on insurance companies. I get the feeling that must be politics. I don't see how any private company can survive with over head eating that much profit. Excluding software companies, most companies (not including commodities like oil who's price fluctuates wildly) operate closer to 7 – 12% over head, and even at that, it's still an awful lot. The easiest way to rectify that is to remove state laws that prevent insurance companies from operating not only across state lines, but every where. The first company that operates at 20% over head moves in, takes their customers, forcing the first to go even lower or else face bankruptcy. Then company number two has to lower their costs, and there's a fight to the most efficient corp. That is your competition in the free market.
I also don't believe for a second single payer systems operate at 3 -5% over heard. I know the government is always saying that, but they also tell us social security is sound and the budget was balanced. No way government operates that efficiently. They don't have to because there is no competition with government. Remember the $500 toilet seats?
The majority of strict rules doctors currently operate under aren't from insurance companies, its from government's Medicare/Medicaid. And there is going to be a huge blow out coming very soon over those programs. Currently government only reimburses hospitals and doctors about 1/3 of the cost of treatments. I see no reason to believe that will get any better, but most likely get worse. The only possible out come is doctors will refuse to treat Medicare/Medicaid patients, and that is already happening. I live in a county with about 160,000 residents, are there are only two dentists who will accept patients on Medicare/Medicaid because the reimbursements are too low, and they have so many people looking for care, its nearly impossible to get an appointment with them.
I also don't accept the figure 45K patients dying from lack of health insurance, and its bogus. I've read exerts from the study and their premise is, who'd dead who didn't have health insurance at some point during the years the study covered. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. That's a damn statistic.
As for patient bankruptcy, it's important to look at the dynamics of the medical profession. 30 Years ago if you had cancer, they gave you a prescription of morphine and sent you home to die. That was cheap. Now there's laser surgery, chemo-therapy, radiation treatments, all kinds of different options. Those are expensive. If people require expensive treatments to live, and they want to live (who doesn't?), then its going to be expensive. The only way to cut those costs is to deny treatment, like they do in Canada, Britain and other socialized countries.
If the space provided I could provide links the literally hundreds if not thousands of links to stories all around the world, where dignity and respect are the last thing socialized medicine provides. If you want to continue debating, I can get them for you. Like the lady in Oregon on the state's plan who was denied an expensive prescription for life saving drugs, but was told they'd be happy to pay for physician assisted suicide. That will happen nation wide. The only way to control costs is to ration.
I thank you again for your polite, reasoned, response. I do disagree with you, but you've given the best response I've heard so far. Most people just look at me weird and ask why I hate sick people and want them to die. I usually reply "that's what I was going to ask you."
"Who said anything about Heaven? I'm a rabbit in Montana."
Sixty minutes of awesome in a three-minute package.
Good catch! I would hate to be guitly of abusing perfectly good alcohol.
Lol "That depends on what your definition of is,..is."
Websites we think you should visit…
[...]although websites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we feel they are actually worth a go through, so have a look[...]……
I just so happen to have managed an exclusive interview with the pale-faced powerhouse. Anderson Cooper, consider yourself scooped.
memory foam mattress topper
You must be logged in to post a comment.