Home Red Dirt Reporter

As woman slaps man at town hall debate, concerns are growing nationwide.

RDR: Clash at health-care town hall meeting in Mo. highlights Dem/union thuggery

By - August 7, 2009 11:34 AM

By Andrew W. Griffin

Red Dirt Report, editor

Posted: August 7, 2009

reddirtreporter@gmail.com

COMMENTARY

OKLAHOMA CITY – Checking the St. Louis Post-Dispatch website as I do every day, the headline on the homepage, “Police arrest 6, including P-D reporter, at town hall meeting,” definitely caught my attention.

And knowing one of the reporters, Jake Wagman, who is a friend of my father (we all had dinner together last year), I wondered if it was Wagman who was arrested.

Sure enough, it was. According to the Post-Dispatch story, Wagman and five other folks were at a forum on aging in south St. Louis County called by U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis. Wagman, it was reported was released later on his own recognizance. The others were arrested on misdemeanor charges.

Word spread among conservative Tea Party Coalition members that Carnahan was speaking, so they arrived, as did a large contingent of Democrats and purple-shirted SEIU union types. The protesters began shouting back and forth, leading to a “carnival-like atmosphere.”

In fact, all comers were supposed to be allowed into the Carnahan event but many were not, while the SEIU types – union goons – were allowed in, no problem.

The clash resulted in a black conservative, who was handing out Gadsden flags featuring the “Don’t Tread On Me” slogan, to be injured by another black man who “used a racial slur against him before the attack.”

Truly outrageous!

Another arrested Tea Party protester, Brian Matthews, told the Post-Dispatch that the cops hit him and others like “a bull rush.” Matthews’ 51-year-old female friend was maced and arrested. She vomited several times.

Clearly, with all the angry Americans out there, fed up with an out-of-control federal government and arrogant members of Congress, things are reaching a breaking point. And having experienced arrogant state officials in Missouri myself, what happened in St. Louis County is not surprising. My experience involved my discovery in April 2008 that the new Missouri license plates did not have a hyphen in "Show-Me State," something required by state law. Red Dirt Report talked to David Griffith, with the state's transportation department and when told of the mistake, he basically did not care. Their arrogance was shocking. My story was shared in the Post-Dispatch, The Joplin Globe and other Missouri news outlets and blog sites.

Said Post-Dispatch editor Arnie Robbins: “In arresting our reporter, we think the police overreacted and were over-zealous. While we understand that police have difficult jobs and were in a volatile situation, we hope they understand that reporters, too, have difficult jobs and were in a volatile situation.”

Bloggers in the St. Louis area, like Missourah and Gateway Pundit had some solid coverage, complete with video footage, to offer interested readers and activists.

The incredibly arrogant Carnahan commented that he wants to know who is sending these real Americans (SHOCK!) to come out and disrupt discussions about health care reform. Carnahan says these concerned Americans are really part of a corporate cabal – “they have mobilized with special interests in Washington who have lined their pockets by overcharging Americans for a broken health care system.”

Carnahan is beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist, eh?

Talking to a family member in St. Louis, she told me Rush Limbaugh was talking about the clash in St. Louis and she seemed amazed at how things seem to be getting out of hand.

On The Alex Jones Show, the host was discussing the story as well, noting that with Obama coming out of Chicago and having been part of the Daley machine, with its thuggery and criminality, that these incidents are likely to increase before they subside.

“The cops are reduced to Chicago thuggery,” said Alex Jones, noting that the Daley machine tentacles reach into Missouri.

And just as The Joker in 'The Dark Knight' had goons, so does the new "Joker" who recently moved into the White House.

Recall last year Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt was appalled at then-Sen. Obama's plans to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten, intimidate and arrest his critics. And then this spring we had the infamous MIAC report out of Jefferson City, targeting mainstream conservatives and pro-liberty folks. A lot of anti-freedom activity brewing amongst the authorities in Missouri. This is middle America, folks. The Heartland. What is happening?

It should be noted that while there have been no clashes at town halls in Oklahoma - Dan Boren, where are you? - professional far-left agitators will be attending a "community organizing event" at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic Church here in Oklahoma City all day tomorrow, as reported here.

Copyright 2009 West Marie Media

Comments:

Please, leave a comment

Only one comment allowed per visit

The Comment and Security Code are required.
Name (optional):
Comment (required):
Enter the code as shown in the image (required): Can't read code?
Why do you need the code?

Posted by: Fred W on Aug 7, 2009 @ 2:14 PM
I'm against all forms of thuggery. What I want to say here, though, since this seems to be a site that opposes the Democrat health care plan, is that I would like to understand more what the opposition to it sees as the main problems. Let me say at first that the plan I support is "single payer", where government taxes would pay all medical bills, similar to what the Canadians have. So I don't really support the Democrats plan as it stands. But I want to understand other people's opposition to it, which seems to be coming from a different direction than mine. As I understand it, the Democrat plan would leave things alone for people who now have insurance plans through their jobs, as long as their plans meet some standards for good health care. People affected by the plan would be those without current plans or those that the government called substandard. Those people would have to get some insurance or better insurance. They might have to pay more than they do now, for example, if they don't have insurance now, they would have to get it. And they would have to pay for it. But they would be subsidized by the gov't. if the cost exceeded a certain amount. So what is it people object to? Government standards for health care? People having to pay (kind of like mandatory car accident insurance most states have)? Or what? The idea of a "public plan"? If the "public plan" is the rub, why? Because you care about the poor insurance companies maybe not making enough profit, or you just don't like the idea of the government providing a service? So I'm going to bookmark this page and come back to it, because I'd really like to understand what the people going to the town hall meetings are objecting to. As I said at the beginning, I might want to object myself, but it would be because I want the government to pay for all health care and get rid of the private insurance companies, but that doesn't seem to be exactly what the protesters want.
Posted by: bosunj on Aug 7, 2009 @ 2:24 PM
Union thugs? SEIU? We're not talking Longshoremen here! I'll forgive your right to starve stance as I agree that Duhmerica is getting close to exploding. For all the wrong reasons. Needs to happen though. Sooner the better!
Posted by: Mike Adkison on Aug 7, 2009 @ 3:05 PM
Your right. People are fed up and they've had it. These shill politicians and media suck ups are fussing that their toes are getting damp, when they don't realize that with their deciet, lies, and thievery, the American people are waking up and they are about to be hit by a tsunumi.
Posted by: anonymous on Aug 7, 2009 @ 3:13 PM
I support single payer also: treat healthcare like other basic infrastructure like public roads, but I don't support the Obama bill because its a fascist policy. The presumption is that we live in a world of Malthusian scarcity, an in order to "fix" the bankrupt economy, we must cut health care costs. The Obama bill proposes an unaccountable advisory board (ala Medipac or England's NICE system or The Federal Reserve Board) that decides what treatments are NOT ALLOWED based on discredited "comparative effectiveness" research and something called the "Quality adjusted life year." Or QALY. Base the value of a life on age and answers to a quality of life assessment. Restrict treatments accordingly. Kill the useless eaters. It is NAZI medicine. The opposition to this is operating around various confused factions. The Tea Party folks are one group, and they believe that the "free market" should be applied to medicine. The Birthers (those who want proof of Obama's citizenship-count me among them) sometimes co-mingle with the first, and others have other objections including not wanting more layers of refusal of treatment added to a system that is already set up for the purpose of "milking the sick" to the tune of $700billion per year. But this mass unrest is primarily the result of the economic implosion underway, and I recommend this source to understand it best(4 hrs long) http://larouchepac.com/webcasts/20090801.html Put very briefly: http://larouchepac.com/node/11279 I support single payer, and the public option if it survives, will only serve as a dumping ground for sick patients the insurance industry refuses to cover, and it will be a failure, and "prove" that the government can't run an efficient system. Under Orszag and Zeke Emanual, I don't want single payer either. Unless the death of the monetary system is fixed, we will see more and more unrest, and face the real risk of a dictatorship of some form. So raise Hell folks, but keep it non-violent!
Posted by: harry canary on Aug 7, 2009 @ 3:46 PM
Hey where were you when bushjunior and cheney were herding people into so called "free" speech zones? This was people who were not yelling and trying to shut down discussion. Where your when the so called "patriot" act was passed? You and the so called "real americans" and "patriots" rolled over on that one too, didn't you? Where you when we were bullshitted into a war against a country which had nothing to do with 9-11 and did not have WMDs? In other words when the president lied to you. You just holler, scream, bitch and whine about democrats but not a word about republican sliminess. Oh yeah it's an American Value to torture people and it's holy because it is in the Bible. After all Jesus was tortured. You guys are just partisan monkeys and part of the problem. As dishonest as the banksters and bushjunior and almost as dishonest as the Evil One who has taken the form of dick cheney.
Posted by: Fred W on Aug 7, 2009 @ 4:05 PM
I agree with you, anonymous, about fascism, the on-going and no doubt worsening crash, and a lot of why we should dislike this government. I think the Fed Reserve is a scam and the country is being run for the bankers. (I don't care about O's birth -- my particular conspiracy bent is about 9/11.) It sounds like what you mostly dislike about the Dem healthcare plan is that it would tend to ration care, maybe make things like chiropractic, abortions, herbal remedies maybe not exactly illegal, but hard to get because they don't fit into the "approved" plans and the people with other plans or provisions would end up marginalized more than they are now under the present insurance systems. But if you really want single payer, is it really in the best interest of it to turn out with the people who don't want it just on the grounds that it's the government? (I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just asking.) As a long time socialist turned into more of a left-anarchist, I'm still leary of just being against "government" for the sake of being against government heavy-handedness. Shouldn't you go to those meetings and hold up a "single payer" sign, for example. And I'm going to watch, at least the short version, of the LaRouche links. Also, I'd like to hear from a "Tea Party" person to get their ideas.
Posted by: Mac on Aug 7, 2009 @ 4:12 PM
To Fred W Answering your request for info: "As I understand it, the Democrat plan would leave things alone for people who now have insurance plans through their jobs, as long as their plans meet some standards for good health care." This is true only until a change --- any change, even a change in premiums --- forces the forfeiture of that plan and the move to the government plan. The result is that none of us get to keep our current plan inside of 5 years. We will all be on government plans by then. "People affected by the plan would be those without current plans or those that the government called substandard. Those people would have to get some insurance or better insurance." All are affected by the plan. First, to pay for something this big we all have to pay much higher taxes --- and those of us wanting to keep our plan have to pay those on top of our premiums. Second, as stated above, the bill provides for the not-so-gradual phase out of all existing plans. This means all are affected. Third, in this country we have Medicaid, which helps people who have trouble affording care. In some states, like Louisiana, the government already has state run hospitals that take all those who don't have insurance. Therefore, in those states, everyone has access to health care. As a caveat, the government run hospitals have much worse service than the private hospitals. Consider that. Also, if there is a single payer plan there is no insurance. "Because you care about the poor insurance companies maybe not making enough profit, or you just don't like the idea of the government providing a service? " I don't want the government providing this service. Consider that the Post Office, funded and run by the government, is going bankrupt. It is $6 billion in the hole. Yet the Congress will not let the Postmaster General make the changes he wants to make to save money. This is a service that is much less complex than a health care system and that the government has had over 200 years to get right and they still can't. And people don't die when the Post Office screws up. I cannot think of a single enterprise the government has entered that it runs with more efficiency and success than what private industry can do. When a CEO screws up he is fired and often sued by his shareholders. It is much harder to fire a member of Congress and they are immune from suit. Why do you want a single payer option? If what you are concerned about is the uninsured why not just find a way to subsidize the premiums for the uninsured rather than have the government take over the entire system? Wouldn't that be a cheaper and more efficient solution? Why not just solve the problem for those who have it than force everyone into the same boat? How much do you know about single payer systems? Check out this article: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/07/government_medicine_should_horrify_americans_97810.html
Posted by: anonymous on Aug 7, 2009 @ 5:33 PM
I wonder if Obama will comment on who acted stupidly in this case.
Posted by: anonymous on Aug 7, 2009 @ 5:59 PM
Hi Fred W, this is annonymous the first(sp?) I haven't been protesting these Health Care Rally's, I haven't even heard of one close enough for me to attend. I'm concerned about the health care bill, but I'm much more concerned about the economic crash. This fascist Health Care bill wouldn't be as bad as it is outside the context of the crash. Now before everybody freaks out about the LaRouche links, I'm fully aware of the contraversies surrounding his organization, but I've also done my due diligance and researched it all too. He's not a kook. I'm not sure I'd attend a health care town hall because the issues have been so muddied, I doub't anyone would understand my sign: "Repeal the HMO Act, Return to Hill-Burton." I can't say "Single Payer NOW" because I've read Zeke Emanual's article in The Lancet: http://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60137-9/abstract I don't trust the Obama administration to implement single payer. I'm more concerned about repealing the bailouts! So when I say "Raise Hell", I mean you should let your representatives know you know nothing has been done about the economy. Nothing good. This is a looting operation. Peacefully. Don't threaten anybody with anything but the loss of their next election.
Posted by: Bob on Aug 7, 2009 @ 6:06 PM
I oppose both the Democrat plan and Single Payer for one simple reason: there is absolutely NO Constitutional authorization for the federal government to involve itself in providing healthcare at all. Washington is usurping power not delegated to it, period. Any other reasons for opposition are superfluous and irrelevant.
Posted by: anonymous on Aug 7, 2009 @ 6:37 PM
A couple more things that are more personal: I had health insurance through my employer, and I got sick. Because of my illness, my employer had to assign someone else to finish up a few projects I was working on before I got sick. He resented that, and cancelled my health insurance policy without my permission, and without notifying me he was cancelling it. The insurance company for their part, are holding up payment of their part of my medical bills with the excuse that they are doing a "pre-existing condition investigation." I truthfully reported to them what my pre-existing conditions were, but they are refusing to pay because my current doctors haven't returned documentation that they've never seen me before. And now, I have untreated preexisting conditions! I wasn't informed about my loss on insurance until after my window to get new insurance had expired! But what I care more about regarding this health care is my older relatives. Under Obama-care, my grandmother would not have gotten her hip replaced because she is old and entering dimentia. My mother would not have gotten her hip replaced either, and my dad would be refused his cancer treatments. Under his current insurance! Under Malthusian scarcity which the Obama Administration believes in, these things are "scarce medical treatments." This is genocidal. Now, don't get me wrong. Single-payer shouldn't pay for liposuction or botox. But we should treat healthcare as basic infrastructure like public roads. It's good for business. With single payer, businesses don't have to administer a health plan, and they have a healthy work force pool to hire from. Insurance companies are supposed to spread risk. Not everyone gets in a car accident. Everybody gets sick and eventually dies. To BOB: The constitution doesn't authorize the interstate highway system. Or NASA(might be hurting my own argument here). It does have a clause about "promoting the general welfare..." And the HMO system was an act of congress. At least repeal that. We all know it doesn't work! I understand the "Austrian School" of economics' principles, but the "free market" is a fantasy. Most of the economy is run by cartels. But I appreciate your sentiments, and I agree with you in principle. States shouldn't be prihibited from providing some form of single payer at the very least. Anon 1
Posted by: Fred W on Aug 7, 2009 @ 6:44 PM
Mac: I went to that link you gave, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/07/government_medicine_should_horrify_american s_97810.html, and it's worth reading. It has nine bulleted points, 5 about English health care and 4 about Canadian. The English points said that there was more breast cancer deaths, more prostate cancer deaths, and more heart attack fatality. He cites a web page, so I went and looked at it. It takes a while to find the statistics, but I finally found and downloaded an Excel spreadsheet, http://www.irdes.fr/EcoSante/DownLoad/OECDHealthData_FrequentlyRequestedData.xls . I couldn't find the exact figures cited, but it looks like there is higher heart attack deaths in England than US, 30.6 vs 27.7 per 100.000; and there are more cancer deaths in England also, 173.3 vs 157.9 per 100,000. On the other hand, the same spreadsheet shows life expectancy at birth at 79.1 years for England and 77.8 for the US. By the way, it also shows per capita total expenditure on health care at $7290 in the US vs $2992 in England. The fourth item in the article links to an article in the UK "Telegraph" entitled, "Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections", showing how the English government run health care was trying to cut down on expenses at the expense of good health care. The title says it all, except that it turns out that in the end the doctor-bureaucrat who made the decision was later voted out of his post by other doctors, partly because of their own views and partly because of the public outcry. It's worth reading the whole article at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-agony- after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html , especially for the comments in the blog at the end where readers say, mostly, that, there may be some shortcomings in the system, but they are much happier with it than with a private system like the "Yanks" have. (Go read the article.) Moving on to Canada. The first item is a Doctor Grazer, testifying to the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee, that there are 1/3 fewer doctors in Canada than in the US. I tried to Google that, and just found Dr. Grazer, over and over. So I went to a statistics cite, http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/hea -health to try to find out more. "Physicians per 1,000": Cuba, 5.91; France, 3.37; US, 2.3; UK, 2.2; Canada, 2.1; Mexico, 1.5; to list a few. While I was there, I checked "Life expectancy at birth" and found, Canada, 81.16; France, 80.87; UK, 78.85; US, 78.14; Cuba, 77.27; and Mexico, 75.84. The other articles talk about how long one has to wait in Canada for certain kinds of care. I got tired of researching by then, but, again, the overall health statistics for different countries tell the general story: health care is better in the countries where health care is freely available to all. I know this is a really long response, but I want to answer one more point. You say, "Why do you want a single payer option? If what you are concerned about is the uninsured why not just find a way to subsidize the premiums for the uninsured rather than have the government take over the entire system?" Single- payer, as I understand it, means that the government pays the bill, only that. It doesn't mean government hospitals and doctors, so it's not like the Post Office. It's like Medicare: you go to the doctor or clinic you want, and the bill is paid by the government, from our taxes. Cheaper, simpler, no one left out. If there's some things the government wouldn't pay for that you want, you make your own arrangements.
Posted by: redscout on Aug 7, 2009 @ 8:20 PM
Looks like you brought some people out of the woodwork. I wonder if obomabenaroma has people on the payroll{like a comment czar} that comments with the party line to anything that goes against the one payor plan. Let's talk about this for one year and then come up with a program that lets the people aquire their own insurance.
Posted by: anonymous on Aug 7, 2009 @ 9:10 PM
I don't understand what you are saying, Redscout. Are you saying the HMO system works good, provided no sick people are allowed insurance? It does work good that way. For insurance companies. $700 billion worth per year. I'd be happy to sell you hail insurance on your car. Provided you are excluded if hail hits your car. Anon1 By the way, I don't want Obamacare. Or single payer. Nicht under die fascis So who is "the flushed out?"
Posted by: Fred W on Aug 7, 2009 @ 9:26 PM
anon 1: I don't know much about the "ObamaCare" bill, and I'm not sure very many people do. As I said, single-payer is what I'd like, like Medicare for everyone. But how do you know that it wouldn't cover the types of care you listed? My impression is that it would probably be somewhat better in coverage than most present insurance systems, most importantly because it would make "pre-existing condition" restrictions illegal, and because the sort of thing that happened between you and your employer would not be possible. Isn't that the case? And, again, why do you think certain types of care would be harder to get than with present plans?
Posted by: Marcus E on Aug 8, 2009 @ 6:14 PM
I attended the meeting at Our Lady's Church today. In fact there were many in opposition to the groups ideas. But after all was said and done, they left with little concern about the Oklahoma City Sponsoring Committee's training session. In fact one reporter who was at first was clearly in opposition took pictures and recorded the conversation. After the meeting he said that he found nothing that concerned him. Red Dirt has once again made itself a laughing stock in the eyes of thinking people.
Posted by: lee on Aug 13, 2009 @ 4:25 PM
make sure these events are videoed by non biased people and that law enforcement is keeping union thugs from harassing citizens.we know the msm will only report what makes citizens look bad.as a nam vet these citizens appear as old as me and cant fight with thugs.then again they shouldnt have to to express their opinion.