Meet Kenneth Gladney, 38, of St. Louis. He recently disrupted a town hall meeting to complain about health care reform, got in a fight with some union members, and, in the process, got hurt. Now Mr. Gladney is looking for donations to cover the cost of treating his injuries.

Why?

Because he has no health insurance.

Via Slog tipper Matt.

Eli Sanders was The Stranger's associate editor. His book, "While the City Slept," was a finalist for the Washington State Book Award and the Dayton Literary Peace Prize. He once did this and once won...

35 replies on “Suffer, Teabagger”

  2. @1 that sword cuts both ways. The democrats, in the last few years, have won over the *very* high earners whose direct interests ostensibly include the lower taxes that the republicans likely would have implemented.

    you can make noise about how said high earners see value in a more equitable society in spite of their personal losses; but that’s a personal political judgment just like this nut’s idea that his freedom to not have health insurance is more important than his health.

  4. @1 I’d say their greastest accomplishment was to get the Democratic party to move further to the right. Either way, their accomplishments have very little to do with policies that improve the lives of the Americans they claim to represent.

  6. Irony is a bitch, isn’t it, Mr. Gladney? The sad thing is, this moron is still probably incapable of making the connection.

  10. @2, It’s one thing to vote against a personal interest and another o actively protest against it. If I vote dem even though I’m rich because I like all their other stances then I’m voting against my financial interests. But this guy went out to protest a program designed to help him. That’s not as simple, that’s just stupid.

  12. @2 devilsmoke

    That attitude is shortsighted.

    The phrase “a personal political judgment” is a trifle vague – but I take it to mean that whether you think that the upper classes have a stake in the lives of the lower is one of aesthetics.

    This is demonstrably false, and one of the (many) points along which Libertarian philosophy breaks down. If you don’t want to spend your time in subsistence farming, you need to be part of a functioning society.

  13. The rich benefit from low crime rates that result from reduction of poverty. The rich benefit from the servant classes having healthcare. The rich benefit from infrastructure.

    Smart rich people know that investing in civil society is in their long-term best interests. As in if the rich keep everything, and give nothing, the mob will rip them and their children to shreds. Stupid rich people vote Republican, and pursue their own short sighted intrests to the point where they sabotage themselves. See the current banking crisis, and the Great Depression for examples.

  16. @12 – I mean to say that in both cases, the wealthy democrat or the uninsured republican, the actor sees greater good in advocating the position that puts them at a initial disadvantage. This judgment is what I mean by ‘personal political judgment.’

    This guy was protesting based on his (misguided) belief that not having government-backed health insurance is a boon for society, and asking him and his similar constituency to vote based on their personal interests won’t necessarily work. I see it the same as asking the wealthy democrat to vote his personal interests – it won’t work because they’re both convinced that they’re voting for the greater good.

    Thus to convince him, the proper argument would be that universal health care serves both his immediate interests (medical bills) and the greater good (healthier citizens) on his terms.

  17. @2,

    There are plenty of rich people who care about women’s rights, gay rights, and civil rights; sometimes because they belong to those groups, sometimes because they have friends in those groups. And many of them care more about their friends’ welfare than they care about saving a few grand in taxes every year.

  20. Sheesh, did anyone click through to the KC Star article? The way it’s framed is crazy. Start with the headline: “Protesters demand justice for man injured at health care town hall.”

    The meat of the article: “… Gladney’s attorney, David Brown, received cheers from the crowd of about 200 people when he read a statement written by his client.
    “’A few nights ago there was an assault on my liberty, and on yours, too.’ Brown read. ‘This should never happen in this country.’”

    He’s talking about the fact that Gladney was injured in the fight that he initiated. The part about him not having health insurance barely gets a mention.

    Of course, the comments are even crazier. (I won’t dignify them here.)

    What the hell is wrong with Kansas?

  26. @19,

    No, actually I’m not rehashing your argument. You’re assuming that rich people only care about their money and voting for tax cuts is the only thing that serves their interests. Rich women, rich gays, and rich racial minorities are voting their self interest by voting for Democrats, full stop.

  27. Wait a minute, don’t go blaming this guy on Kansas – he’s from Missouri, nad it happened in Missouri.

    Kansas has enough problems of it’s own without taking a hit for this moron.

  29. if he believes he is voting in his self-interest, is that good? or is that just selfish?

    he likely is selfish and does believe he is voting in his own self-interest (he thinks socialism will equal worse care, and mean the government between him and his doctor, as well as fewer medical advances).

    that would just make him selfish.

    but what if he truly believes (as many do) that a “socialist” system is worse for all? in that case, he is acting in both self-interest and in the interest of all americans, trying to promote the best care.

    so, the entire argument about getting rebubs to not vote for their self-interest is weird to me. i’m not sure it’s a valid argument, or if so, that it’s a good argument.

  31. @29: Well, right, but you (and devilsmoke) are coming at this from the fundamentally flawed assumption (that so many others make as well) that because there are two different opinions about something, it is impossible for human beings to be the arbiters of that difference except by direct democracy.

    In fact, while the rich person who believes in social services and the working class person who opposes gubmint may both be voting for what they believe benefits society as a whole, the latter is wrong. The kinds of policies that Kansas conservatives have been hoodwinked into enabling have been disastrous for everyone, including them.

  32. The Kansas City paper reflects mostly Missourians, as the bulk of Kansas City’s population is on the Missouri side. Thanks to that little book, though, people use “what’s the matter with Kansas” as inaccurate cliche.

  33. 24
    Matt, I hate to burst your bubble but more that one person posts unregistered on slog.
    And, saddest of all, registration does not negate your LOSER status…

  35. @26 I know this thread is probably dead at this point, but I’d at least like to make myself clear.

    I was pointing out that there is a difference between direct and indirect interest. It’s funny to say ‘haha, idiot protesting against his own interests’, but that doesn’t take into consideration the fact that this guy actually believes that his freedom will be indirectly curtailed by the implementation of universal health care.

    Thus convincing him otherwise is not a matter of putting some candy (your medical bills will be paid for!) in front of him and watching his eyes grow wide – he’s not interested, clearly.

    Like the wealthy man who has been convinced that giving up more of his personal wealth for the betterment of his society is on the whole beneficial, these people must be convinced that involving the government in a single-payer system is a tiny, tiny price to pay to ensure all Americans have the safety net of health care.

    I swear, we’re on the same side.

Comments are closed.