Topic: Health Care
started by: Leisher
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 29 2009,06:25
Ok, so I started a thread before I got crazy busy over the last few weeks and never got back to it. Anyway, I simply had a few questions about it:Is there anyone here who thinks a government run health care system is a good idea?
How exactly is this national health care supposed to save us trillions?
If a citizen is forced to either get government coverage or pay higher taxes, don't the Christian Scientists have an instant lawsuit against the U.S. government?
Why is this Obama's biggest priority all of a sudden? Why is this being treated like the only issue that matters anymore? Why the rush? And why is this such a big deal when every poll I've seen show a majority of Americans don't want it. Are these cock suckers on Capital Hill even pretending to represent us anymore?
Instead of forcing everyone onto a single government run health care system, why doesn't the government simply contact an insurance company and get the 16% of people in this country (as of June 2009) without health care onto a single insurance plan? (Minus the illegals, of course.)
Also, is everyone in Congress just going to pretend like these tea parties didn't happen? That their numbers didn't increase ten-fold from the first event to the second?
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 29 2009,07:43
(Leisher @ Jul. 29 2009,08:25)
QUOTE
Are these cock suckers on Capital Hill even pretending to represent us anymore?
No.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 29 2009,08:29
(Leisher @ Jul. 29 2009,08:25)
QUOTE
Also, is everyone in Congress just going to pretend like these tea parties didn't happen? That their numbers didn't increase ten-fold from the first event to the second?
Yes & yes. Have all the civil disobedience you want. I hope it carries thru to election time, else it don't matter.
Posted by unkbill on Jul. 29 2009,16:22
(Malcolm @ Jul. 29 2009,08:29)
QUOTE
(Leisher @ Jul. 29 2009,08:25)
QUOTE
Also, is everyone in Congress just going to pretend like these tea parties didn't happen? That their numbers didn't increase ten-fold from the first event to the second?
Yes & yes. Have all the civil disobedience you want. I hope it carries thru to election time, else it don't matter.
Starting to put protesters on trail in Iraq. Starting to wonder what the difference is here. If a mass demanstration broke out here what would happen. Of course my dad said things got quit after they shot that kid at Kent State here in Ohio. Got to get down to it. Soldiers or putting us down. Should have been done a long time ago. 4 dead in OHIO.....
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 02 2009,05:22
Random thoughts:1. For the sake of brevity let's just skip over the whole discussion of whether there's a right to health care. Of course there isn't, and really the discussion should stop there, but humor me. Why do we have to put EVERYBODY into a government insurance program? We have poor people who can't afford food, so we give THEM assistance; we don't make EVERYBODY eat government cheese. We have poor people who can't afford houses, so we give THEM assistance; we don't make EVERYBODY live in a housing project. Why is "health care" special? Note that we DO try to make everybody go to a government school, and hardly anybody likes the result of that.
2. Supposedly we're spending too much on health care; how you could decide this, I have no idea. Are we spending too much on DVDs or toilet paper? Who the hell knows? There's no right answer. But anyway: let's stipulate we're spending too much on health care. So the solution to that is to make spending on health care a government monopoly? These are the people who pay $300 for a hammer and $2k for a toilet seat. In every other field of human endeavor, when asked how to bring prices down, the answer is "competition." And don't forget < this >. Why is health care different?
3. We just spent the last 8 years hearing how the federal government was run by the minions of Satan (actually, maybe Satan was THEIR minion; I'm not quite clear on this point). Now we're going to let the federal government run health care. What do you think is going to happen when Satan is back in charge? Is he going to let you have free abortions and birth control pills? Have you really thought this through? What about when they start combing the health records for "terrorists?"
4. I don't like the whole shorthand of "health care." What are we really talking about? Everybody wants to "reform health care." It might sound as if our doctors, hospitals, and drugs are substandard. Is that really the case? No; what people want to "reform" is really the way that consumers PAY for doctor visits, hospital stays, drugs, etc. That's technically "PAYMENT for health care reform," not "health care reform." And that's actually the problem: nobody wants to actually PAY for their own health care out of their own pocket.
5. Note that what is typically called health care "insurance" is nothing of the kind. Insurance is something that pays you when an unlikely event happens. If you have some instrument that pays you to go to the doctor every year for a checkup, or pays for you diabetes treatments, that instrument is NOT, by definition, insurance.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 02 2009,07:19
(thibodeaux @ Aug. 02 2009,08:22)
QUOTE
Random thoughts:
1. For the sake of brevity let's just skip over the whole discussion of whether there's a right to health care. Of course there isn't, and really the discussion should stop there...
1. For the sake of brevity let's just skip over the whole discussion of whether there's a right to health care. Of course there isn't, and really the discussion should stop there...
Usually when I bring up this fact, I get variations of the same argument. I ask to be shown the document that states health care is a right. I am usually answered with some variation of "well we have plenty of money going to the military." No joke. I state, "The military is one of the few things actually authorized in the constitution." Then I am told, "You know, times change and the constitution is a living document." I answer, "Well then let me know when the constitution authorizes free health care." At which point the other person says my opinion doesn't matter because I am just another fascist gun-loving loon.
Which is why more and more I avoid discussing politics in public.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 02 2009,08:48
1. Your examples are not far-fetched, and may come to pass.2. When the government pays for it you don't have to, therefor it's cheaper. Duh.
3. This is a good point I hadn't considered. It doesn't matter much what is done now, in four or eight years the whole thing might be completely repealed anyway.
4. "payment for health care reform" still sounds in my head like still health care reform, just with the consideration of who will pay for that reform. How about "health care payment reform"?
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 02 2009,18:11
2. For most people, things do get cheaper if the government pays for it, especially if it's paid for by "Taxes on the rich."TPR - 3. Has anything ever been significantly scaled back from government? Ever?
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 02 2009,21:26
(TheCatt @ Aug. 02 2009,20:11)
QUOTE
2. For most people, things do get cheaper if the government pays for it, especially if it's paid for by "Taxes on the rich."
Yeah, damn those rich bastards for ... funding our investments, building our factories, & buying all that shit which keeps the rest of us employed. Those fuckers.
Granted, some of them might've just lucked on their millions, but I'm sure more than a few fucking earned it.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 03 2009,10:19
(TheCatt @ Aug. 02 2009,20:11)
QUOTE
TPR - 3. Has anything ever been significantly scaled back from government? Ever?
No, but one can't dream, right? Besides this is unprecedently large, and may finally spur some of the Republicans to get back to their small government roots.
Unlikely, I know.
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 03 2009,10:49
< Soylent Green! >
Posted by Mommy Dearest on Aug. 03 2009,22:48
Out of curiosity I went and read the proposal, and one of the first things I read was that if you were happy with your health care, nothing would change.Discuss
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 04 2009,04:29
Did you read the actual bill said, or just what somebody else said it said?Because according to a high-ranking Congressman, there's no point in reading it unless you have 2 lawyers with you to tell you what it means.
Posted by Troy on Aug. 04 2009,06:07
(thibodeaux @ Aug. 04 2009,04:29)
QUOTE
Because according to a high-ranking Congressman, there's no point in reading it unless you have 2 lawyers with you to tell you what it means.
Applies to every health care packet I've ever gotten.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 04 2009,06:50
(Mommy Dearest @ Aug. 04 2009,00:48)
QUOTE
Out of curiosity I went and read the proposal, and one of the first things I read was that if you were happy with your health care, nothing would change.
I don't want to read it. This is possibly true. But is not the problem.
The problem is paying for this monsterously large expense. How can trillions of additional dollars be spent without either increasing the deficit or destroying the taxpaying citizenry?
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 04 2009,09:37
(TPRJones @ Aug. 04 2009,08:50)
QUOTE
How can trillions of additional dollars be spent without either increasing the deficit or destroying the taxpaying citizenry?
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 04 2009,09:46
< White House takes page from Chavez's playbook >.QUOTE
Briefing reporters Tuesday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs suggested that the opposition is being organized by a small group seeking to create "manufactured anger."
"I hope people will take a jaundiced eye to what is clearly the AstroTurf nature of so-called grass-roots lobbying," Mr. Gibbs said.
In recent days, administration officials and Democratic members of Congress have been shouted down by angry protesters at town halls in Pennsylvania and Texas, an uproar that could grow when lawmakers return to their districts for the August recess.
"I hope people will take a jaundiced eye to what is clearly the AstroTurf nature of so-called grass-roots lobbying," Mr. Gibbs said.
In recent days, administration officials and Democratic members of Congress have been shouted down by angry protesters at town halls in Pennsylvania and Texas, an uproar that could grow when lawmakers return to their districts for the August recess.
So, there you go. It's a small fringe of lunatic nuts that must be slasher movie villains. They have the ability to appear, disappear, & teleport vast distances at will.
Posted by Mommy Dearest on Aug. 04 2009,10:03
(TPRJones @ Aug. 04 2009,09:50)
QUOTE
(Mommy Dearest @ Aug. 04 2009,00:48)
QUOTE
Out of curiosity I went and read the proposal, and one of the first things I read was that if you were happy with your health care, nothing would change.
I don't want to read it. This is possibly true. But is not the problem.
The problem is paying for this monsterously large expense. How can trillions of additional dollars be spent without either increasing the deficit or destroying the taxpaying citizenry?
How can you inteligently discuss a bill if you are not interested in what it really is. Have you researched the trillions that you say it will cost or are you taking some high ranking congressman's word for it?
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 04 2009,10:28
(Mommy Dearest @ Aug. 04 2009,12:03)
QUOTE
(TPRJones @ Aug. 04 2009,09:50)
QUOTE
(Mommy Dearest @ Aug. 04 2009,00:48)
QUOTE
Out of curiosity I went and read the proposal, and one of the first things I read was that if you were happy with your health care, nothing would change.
I don't want to read it. This is possibly true. But is not the problem.
The problem is paying for this monsterously large expense. How can trillions of additional dollars be spent without either increasing the deficit or destroying the taxpaying citizenry?
How can you inteligently discuss a bill if you are not interested in what it really is. Have you researched the trillions that you say it will cost or are you taking some high ranking congressman's word for it?
I'll say this again. I've lived & worked in a country w\ nationalized health care.
Population : ~61.6 million
# of employees working for NHS (British health care) : ~1.3 million
cost : 94 billion pounds -> 1.6904 pounds per $ -> $158.8976 billion dollars
Let's be brainlessly conservative & assume that cost increases linearly w\ population...
population of U.S. : ~307 million
307/61.6 =~ 5 => U.S. to British pop. ratio
158.8976 * 5 = 794.488 billion dollars ... again assuming similar expenditures & linear growth w\ population. & that was the cost to keep it going for ONE YEAR. We've already hit 800 billion & we haven't even talked about how expensive shit gets whenever gov't expands. Cos the installation fees for this thing are gonna be a bitch & a half.
Oh yeah, employees ... 1.3 million * 5 = 6.5 million
The 2008 HHS Dept. budget says they got $707.7 billion & around 64K employees. How the fuck are you going to go from tens of thousands of employees to MILLIONS of employees & keep costs down? Again, 800 billion is our target budget for one year once all this shit's in place.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 04 2009,16:22
(Mommy Dearest @ Aug. 04 2009,12:03)
QUOTE
Have you researched the trillions that you say it will cost or are you taking some high ranking congressman's word for it?
No, that number comes from the OMB (a.k.a. Whitehouse). Unless you think Obama is lying about the cost in order to make himself look bad?
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 05 2009,19:48
< "End of the year." >QUOTE
And during his blow-by-blow recap of his administration's plans to help the economy, Obama spoke confidently about health care. Congress will attempt to pass and reconcile competing plans to overhaul the health care system this fall. A big political fight remains.
"I promise you," Obama said, "we will pass reform by the end of this year."
"I promise you," Obama said, "we will pass reform by the end of this year."
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 06 2009,18:46
I don't have the words to express how angry it makes me when I hear the pro-government health care mongers refer to those people who are against it as "paid political astroturfers." Since no sane, private citizens could be against it, right?
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 06 2009,19:18
(GORDON @ Aug. 06 2009,21:46)
QUOTE
I don't have the words to express how angry it makes me when I hear the pro-government health care mongers refer to those people who are against it as "paid political astroturfers." Since no sane, private citizens could be against it, right?
This isn't even the "chilling silencing of dissent." This is outright dismissal, on a wide scale, of anyone with an opposing view.
The media got him elected, will they get government health care rammed down our throats?
< http://ace.mu.nu/archives/290611.php >
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 06 2009,19:22
Union thugs will be on hand at these town-hall meetings to make sure the evil conservatives know their place, or are intimidated, or something.< http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009....20.html >
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 06 2009,21:15
QUOTE
This is outright dismissal, on a wide scale, of anyone with an opposing view.
This is an old standard for the Democratic party and very much in vogue. Republicans did it a lot in the 60's, but not so much these days outside of church.
Freedom of speech is only for the good right-thinking citizens, you see.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 06 2009,21:20
This has been a standard since the days of electing leaders in prehistory.
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 07 2009,06:02
Another random thought: don't people understand that government money is like the GPL? You accept even the tiniest bit, and suddenly THEY OWN YOU. Just think about the recent bailouts: You took our money, so now we can fire your CEO! Even if you didn't WANT the money!Public funding of health care is ALREADY the excuse behind a host of freedom-limiting laws, such as mandatory helmet and seatbelt laws, anti-smoking regulations, New York's crusade against fat, etc.
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 07 2009,13:28
< A new option. >Seems to me this announcement is more about saving face for Obama and the DNC.
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 07 2009,14:22
Is freedom an option? No, I suppose not.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 08 2009,08:42
QUOTE
In the Bloomberg TV interview, DeParle said a public plan would "level" the playing field...
Yeah, in the same way that hacking the legs off everyone in the Boston marathon makes it an even playing field for the one paraplegic that signed up.
QUOTE
Nonetheless, DeParle said the president may be interested in cooperatives -- if they are designed to achieve his objectives.
Well, thank Jeebus daddy Obama's here to make our decisions for us. King George was interested in the colonies, so long as as they kept their mouths shut & just kept on paying.
QUOTE
"The president is open to a bill that increases choice and competition," he said.
Every single fucking thing he's done since he's been in office has been about taking away choice & avoiding the consequences of competition. Every. Single. Fucking. Thing.
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 08 2009,17:45
< http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_pre....tus-Quo >QUOTE
We will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms, colonoscopies, or eye and foot exams for diabetics, so we can avoid chronic illnesses that cost too many lives and too much money.
We will stop insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history...under these reforms, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage because of a previous illness or injury.
We will stop insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history...under these reforms, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage because of a previous illness or injury.
Those things, by definition, are not insurable.
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 09 2009,05:18
It's gettin' ugly:< http://hotair.com/archive....th-care >
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 09 2009,09:30
Gettin'?
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 09 2009,13:14
Not sure if it is that same one, but read about a town hall meeting where a constituent was being critical on the health care plan, the senator told the group that the special interests are "obviously" being represented at the meeting, and the guy was like, "No one sent me, you son of a bitch" and there were a few cheers.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 09 2009,16:29
Obviously they only cheered because the insurance companies paid them to.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 10 2009,08:32
Edit : Oh yeah ... from < here >.QUOTE
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, insisting at the start of a long and politically heated summer congressional recess that healthcare reform can be achieved this fall, today are calling the disruption of town-hall meetings by vocal protesters "simply un-American."
"We believe it is healthy for such a historic effort to be subject to so much scrutiny and debate," Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Hoyer (D-Md.) wrote in a USA Today opinion piece published today.
"However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue," the two leaders wrote. "These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views -- but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."
"We believe it is healthy for such a historic effort to be subject to so much scrutiny and debate," Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Hoyer (D-Md.) wrote in a USA Today opinion piece published today.
"However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue," the two leaders wrote. "These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views -- but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."
I hope the founding fathers rise from the grave specifically to kick your ass. Shit, not cooperating w\ the HUAC used to be un-American.
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 10 2009,08:57
QUOTE
"Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."
So we're supposed to forgot how they acted during the Bush years?
I guess what's good for the goose ISN'T good for the gander.
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 10 2009,12:13
(Mommy Dearest @ Aug. 04 2009,01:48)
QUOTE
Out of curiosity I went and read the proposal, and one of the first things I read was that if you were happy with your health care, nothing would change.
< http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1914973,00.html >
QUOTE
So the system is an unsustainable disaster, but you can keep your piece of it if you want. And the Democrats wonder why selling health-care reform to the public has been so hard?
I can't believe Time published that.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 10 2009,13:12
QUOTE
Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.
How many of those hypocrits were at one of these events below and considered their loud and often violent protests to be patriotic?
(etc, see most of the late-60s and early-70s)
And of course anyone attempting to discuss the so-called science behind Global Warming is shouted down and labeled as a kook.
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 10 2009,16:32
My rep. is on a cable TV show right now. The show says "call in, August 10," but when you call the number it says there is no live show taking calls.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 10 2009,16:43
(thibodeaux @ Aug. 10 2009,19:32)
QUOTE
My rep. is on a cable TV show right now. The show says "call in, August 10," but when you call the number it says there is no live show taking calls.
Price?
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 10 2009,16:49
Ask the special interest groups, they could probably tell you.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 10 2009,18:41
(TPRJones @ Aug. 10 2009,19:49)
QUOTE
Ask the special interest groups, they could probably tell you.
LOL
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 11 2009,04:33
(TheCatt @ Aug. 10 2009,19:43)
QUOTE
(thibodeaux @ Aug. 10 2009,19:32)
QUOTE
My rep. is on a cable TV show right now. The show says "call in, August 10," but when you call the number it says there is no live show taking calls.
Price?
Yes. Fargin' Chapel Hippy.
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 11 2009,06:12
< Obama to hold a health care town hall meeting in New Hampshire. >I love how the article plays up New Hampshire as a big activist center and how dangerous it'll be for Obama. It's fucking New Hampshire!
Does anyone honestly think that crowd won't be filled with plants?
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 11 2009,07:09
To the rafters.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 11 2009,12:03
(Leisher @ Aug. 11 2009,09:12)
QUOTE
Does anyone honestly think that crowd won't be filled with plants?
A nine year old is called upon right off the jump. She wants to know about these mean signs she sees about Obama.
Nah, no plants, here.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 11 2009,12:05
QUOTE
"I don't want people to think I'm calling on nothing but plants here" (chuckle from crowd)
You know he thinks we're all idiots, right?
Or, even worse, he figured the people who voted for him are idiots, and the people opposing him are slightly less idiotic, and that makes them dangerous.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 11 2009,12:08
Remember this quote, repeated several times by Obama:“I won’t sign a bill that adds to the national debt or the deficit.”
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 11 2009,19:22
O NOEZ! TEH RIGHT WING MOB!!! Apparently some right-of-center people think the angry folks at the town halls are "frightening people."< http://www.velociworld.com/Velociblog/Oldvelocity/003457.html >
QUOTE
It doesn't matter if people are frightened by angry "mobs" screaming at congressmen at town halls. Those people aren't voting on healthcare reform. What matters is if congressmen are frightened by angry "mobs" screaming at congressmen at town halls. People aren't the fucking dependent variable here. The assholes voting for the bill are. And scaring the living shit out of them is the only hope we have of defeating this colossus of a buttfucking called Obamacare.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 11 2009,20:35
(GORDON @ Aug. 11 2009,15:03)
QUOTE
(Leisher @ Aug. 11 2009,09:12)
QUOTE
Does anyone honestly think that crowd won't be filled with plants?
A nine year old is called upon right off the jump. She wants to know about these mean signs she sees about Obama.
Nah, no plants, here.
< Plant. >
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 12 2009,06:46
If that press conference weren't loaded w\ talking heads, I'd be a bit disappointed.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 12 2009,06:56
If it was something the people wanted, it wouldn't need to be filled with talking heads.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 12 2009,06:57
Boston Globe confirms she was a plant.< http://michellemalkin.com/2009....ections >
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 12 2009,08:01
I wonder if his staffers cringed when he said that comment about plants. Or, if they just take an "ends justify the means" approach to life.I'm willing to believe Obama didn't know they were plants. But I would never believe that his staffers didn't know and arrange things.
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 12 2009,08:02
Someone really needs to explain to the politicians and their cronies that shit like plants in a town hall meeting doesn't work anymore.Someone on one of the links Gordon posted makes an excellent point: "Even if she wasn't a plant, who the fuck gives a shit what a little kid thinks about health care reform?" She's not a voter or a tax payer. She doesn't have the slightest idea what health care reform is except what her very-much-up-Obama's-ass mother tells her.
Also, should I assume that the town hall meeting did not go as planned? I saw Yahoo's front page all last night and today and there hasn't been a single story, and they're one of the more biased outlets going.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 12 2009,08:09
(TheCatt @ Aug. 12 2009,10:01)
QUOTE
I'm willing to believe Obama didn't know they were plants.
No way. You go to the trouble of setting up the theatre, you definitely make sure everyone knows their parts. If they work from scripts, everyone's got to know.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 12 2009,08:11
(Malcolm @ Aug. 12 2009,11:09)
QUOTE
(TheCatt @ Aug. 12 2009,10:01)
QUOTE
I'm willing to believe Obama didn't know they were plants.
No way. You go to the trouble of setting up the theatre, you definitely make sure everyone knows their parts. If they work from scripts, everyone's got to know.
But Obama doesn't setup the theatre. He just says "I want a theatre" and someone runs with it.
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 12 2009,08:30
QUOTE
But Obama doesn't setup the theatre. He just says "I want a theatre" and someone runs with it.
But he still knows it's theater.
So he's just as guilty as the guy who sets up the stage or writes the play.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 12 2009,08:32
And someone says, "Make sure you call on the little girl in section B."
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 12 2009,08:48
< Whole Foods Hippy CEO Health Care Plan >
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 12 2009,08:49
(GORDON @ Aug. 12 2009,09:57)
QUOTE
Boston Globe confirms she was a plant.
< http://michellemalkin.com/2009....ections >
< http://michellemalkin.com/2009....ections >
But remember: it's the ANTI-Obama protests that are astro-turf events sponsored by Fox News and Big Business.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 12 2009,10:25
When non-Democrats do it, it is called astroturfing, paid advocation, and un-American.When Democrats do it, it is called grass roots activism, and community organization.
I call it 100% horse shit.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 12 2009,11:31
(thibodeaux @ Aug. 12 2009,10:48)
QUOTE
< Whole Foods Hippy CEO Health Care Plan >
I wouldn't call it "hippy" at all. In fact it's the most libertarian set of suggestions I've heard on thsi topic in a while. Mos to fit centers around minimizing government regulation that's causing things to be so expensive.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 12 2009,13:21
I'm not aware John Mackey is any kind of hippie.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 12 2009,13:34
By the way, this entire thread was too see who had un-American thoughts, and you have been turned into the White House for further action.< http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ >
QUOTE
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
Heil Obama.
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 12 2009,13:43
(TheCatt @ Aug. 12 2009,16:21)
QUOTE
I'm not aware John Mackey is any kind of hippie.
I was being sarcastic. Sorta. Whole Foods definitely has a hippie vibe, though.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 12 2009,13:48
(GORDON @ Aug. 12 2009,16:34)
QUOTE
By the way, this entire thread was too see who had un-American thoughts, and you have been turned into the White House for further action.
< http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ >
Heil Obama.
< http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ >
QUOTE
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [EMAIL=flag@whitehouse.gov.]flag@whitehouse.gov.[/EMAIL]
Heil Obama.
I'm soooo reporting everything he's put out.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 12 2009,14:02
I remember when it was predicted Bush the Fascist would start dong things like this "Report your neighbors" thing.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 12 2009,14:04
(thibodeaux @ Aug. 12 2009,15:43)
QUOTE
(TheCatt @ Aug. 12 2009,16:21)
QUOTE
I'm not aware John Mackey is any kind of hippie.
I was being sarcastic. Sorta. Whole Foods definitely has a hippie vibe, though.
Their CEO is a drastically different individual. He's not quite as hippie as you'd expect the owner of an organic market chain. He's in the biz because other hippies, yippies, & yuppies pay premium prices for that shyte.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 12 2009,14:09
(GORDON @ Aug. 12 2009,15:34)
QUOTE
By the way, this entire thread was too see who had un-American thoughts, and you have been turned into the White House for further action.
< http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ >
Heil Obama.
< http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ >
QUOTE
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [EMAIL=flag@whitehouse.gov.]flag@whitehouse.gov.[/EMAIL]
Heil Obama.
You've GOT to be shitting me. The disinformation is being spread by YOUR cabinet, you twat. You've descended to rumour-mongering & a chain e-mail alert line. Holy fucking shit.
Anyone else want to start guessing when they'll break down to censoring newspaper & web articles? Or TV broadcasts & other media? Just in case the Thought Police 1.0 don't catch you first. You plan on bugging the watercoolers?
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 12 2009,15:19
< Quote of the day for the article's title >. I swear to Christ, the Onion wrote that article. They had to.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 12 2009,18:57
Must be the new party line. "Facts" was on that whitehouse.gov page, too. Look for the "democrats = facts" meme tomorrow.
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 12 2009,19:16
< OMG does anybody REALLY believe this? >QUOTE
"I think it is very hard because [Democrats] don't have the message machine the Republicans do," said George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley linguistics professor who has advised some Democrats on how to sharpen their message. "The Democrats still believe in Enlightenment reason: If you just tell people the truth, they will come to the right conclusion."
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 12 2009,19:54
He's from Berkeley. They're essentially all brain-damaged there anyhow.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 12 2009,20:12
It was leaked a couple years ago that there was a secret "here are our talking points to push" club among the lefties, when one of the members got fed up with the crap. I just wish an insurance company would actually pay me to complain.
Lefties bus in professional "supporters..." how does one get in on that?
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 12 2009,21:32
(GORDON @ Aug. 12 2009,22:12)
QUOTE
Lefties bus in professional "supporters..." how does one get in on that?
Years of dishonest, bullshit political maneuvering. & the other party's dishonest, bullshit political maneuvering hasn't quite panned out as well. Apparently, the media is the indefensible, one-shot, magic bullet that kills every Republican. & apparently they're all die-hard Democrats. Let's assume that's true, too. That sort of arrangement didn't pop up overnight.
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 13 2009,07:55
< Obama delegate pretends to be a doctor. >
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 13 2009,08:28
White House is going viral! Wow, that's awesome!< http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x....id=4793 >
QUOTE
Feeling victimized by misinformation spread virally through the Internet, the White House Thursday is launching its own "viral e-mail" for supporters to spread.
With the subject line: "Something worth forwarding," the e-mail — from senior White House adviser David Axelrod — seeks to combat "the viral e-mails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions" and invites Americans to "start a chain e-mail of our own."
With the subject line: "Something worth forwarding," the e-mail — from senior White House adviser David Axelrod — seeks to combat "the viral e-mails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions" and invites Americans to "start a chain e-mail of our own."
I've already said it several times.... but it is amateur hour in the white house.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 13 2009,10:22
All things being equal, starting your own chain e-mail isn't that bad of a tactic.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 13 2009,10:26
Yeah, in junior high. We're supposed to be dealing with adults.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 13 2009,10:36
(GORDON @ Aug. 13 2009,12:26)
QUOTE
Yeah, in junior high. We're supposed to be dealing with adults.
Chain e-mails are started by fifteen year olds? They've got a system of mass communication available to them that's essentially free to use & they know a shitload of their target markets uses it.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 13 2009,10:51
(Malcolm @ Aug. 13 2009,13:36)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Aug. 13 2009,12:26)
QUOTE
Yeah, in junior high. We're supposed to be dealing with adults.
Chain e-mails are started by fifteen year olds? They've got a system of mass communication available to them that's essentially free to use & they know a shitload of their target markets uses it.
Aren't they? I thought adults were able to be reasonable with logic and facts and stuff, and not resort to stacking town hall meetings with fake doctors and telling lies about your opponents being paid advocatres. Chain emails are for IF YOU DONT FORWARD THIS TO 15 PEOPLE YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 12 HOURS. You know, the kind of shit started by 14 year old kids.
There is zero dignity in this white house, and possibly as much competence. The man has the white house and a super majority in congress, and he is still foundering? What an idiot. Bush got more done with a congress who openly mocked him and was split down the middle.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 13 2009,12:31
(GORDON @ Aug. 13 2009,12:51)
QUOTE
..the kind of shit started by 14 year old kids.
I dont' get those from kids, I get them from all the old people who have my email address. That's why most of my family keeps getting tagged as spammers by Yahoo.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 13 2009,13:13
Fourteen year olds have better things to do besides e-mail people annoying letters. Drugs & getting laid spring immediately to mind. Which do you think they'll gravitate towards?
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 13 2009,13:17
(GORDON @ Aug. 13 2009,12:51)
QUOTE
(*)There is zero dignity in this white house, and possibly as much competence. (**)The man has the white house and a super majority in congress, and he is still foundering? What an idiot. (***)Bush got more done with a congress who openly mocked him and was split down the middle.
(*) There hasn't been either of those in a long, LONG, LONG time.
(**) Just because there's a lot of people that think alike doesn't mean they make progress. There's less opposition in the Chinese gov't. I don't expect them to do much of anything.
(***) Friction breeds competition breeds evolution breeds better results. If there's no one around to keep you honest, the vast majority of humans start to slack off.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 13 2009,13:20
(Malcolm @ Aug. 13 2009,16:13)
QUOTE
Fourteen year olds have better things to do besides e-mail people annoying letters. Drugs & getting laid spring immediately to mind. Which do you think they'll gravitate towards?
Are you serious? You must not know any teenagers. I have a 13 year old niece friended on my myspace account.... you should see the inane shit they pass around to each other on myspace. That is 99% of my exposure to chain emails.
On the other hand, I haven't gotten a chain letter from an old person in.... a while.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 13 2009,14:24
Dude, you went to myspace, where people go to talk to each other about any & every thing.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 13 2009,16:56
(GORDON @ Aug. 13 2009,15:20)
QUOTE
...my myspace account....
I think I found yer problem.
Posted by Mommy Dearest on Aug. 13 2009,19:21
(GORDON @ Aug. 13 2009,16:20)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Aug. 13 2009,16:13)
QUOTE
Fourteen year olds have better things to do besides e-mail people annoying letters. Drugs & getting laid spring immediately to mind. Which do you think they'll gravitate towards?
Are you serious? You must not know any teenagers. I have a 13 year old niece friended on my myspace account.... you should see the inane shit they pass around to each other on myspace. That is 99% of my exposure to chain emails.
On the other hand, I haven't gotten a chain letter from an old person in.... a while.
You need to check your wife's account (no offense) it is rampant out there with adults also. I choose not to answer but if it makes some peeps happy, why not. And kids have done this sort of thing forever. It is what kids do, they just have the internet to further it now.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 13 2009,20:08
(Mommy Dearest @ Aug. 13 2009,22:21)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Aug. 13 2009,16:20)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Aug. 13 2009,16:13)
QUOTE
Fourteen year olds have better things to do besides e-mail people annoying letters. Drugs & getting laid spring immediately to mind. Which do you think they'll gravitate towards?
Are you serious? You must not know any teenagers. I have a 13 year old niece friended on my myspace account.... you should see the inane shit they pass around to each other on myspace. That is 99% of my exposure to chain emails.
On the other hand, I haven't gotten a chain letter from an old person in.... a while.
You need to check your wife's account (no offense) it is rampant out there with adults also. I choose not to answer but if it makes some peeps happy, why not. And kids have done this sort of thing forever. It is what kids do, they just have the internet to further it now.
I wasn't criticizing kids for doing it, I was criticizing the white house for such immaturity.
Which gets me reported to the white house thought crimes department, I know.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 14 2009,12:32
Immature? Would it be better if they sent it out in snail mail w\ envelopes & stamps? Should they've called a press conference to hand out the URL? They're using one of the largest, cheapest communication networks in existence. If it works to sell herbal Viagra or to refinance your mortgage or any of the other junk e-mail shyte out there, then why not use that model?
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 14 2009,12:37
Because he has been on TV 4 times about it, and he apparently still hasn't convinced everyone? More peeps own TVs than have email, and he still fails.IF YOU DONT FORWARD THIS EMAIL ABOUT OBAMACARE TO 5 OTHER PEOPLE THEN U WILL DIE WITHIN 12 HOURS PLUS BILL GATES WILL SEND U A FREE COPY OF WINDOWS
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 14 2009,12:53
QUOTE
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [EMAIL=flag@whitehouse.gov.]flag@whitehouse.gov.[/EMAIL]
!=
QUOTE
IF YOU DONT FORWARD THIS EMAIL ABOUT OBAMACARE TO 5 OTHER PEOPLE THEN U WILL DIE WITHIN 12 HOURS PLUS BILL GATES WILL SEND U A FREE COPY OF WINDOWS
So, JFK & Nixon were tools for appearing on TV, the "vast wasteland" & "idiot box?" FDR was immature for having fireside chats? How about the first prez to get his portrait taken by camera instead of painted? I can't blame a politician for using the media at their disposal to flood their message into the world. That's their fucking job description.
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 14 2009,12:57
< Front page article on Yahoo about "false 'Death Panel'" rumors. >There's obviously going to be fact distortion on BOTH sides of an issue this large, but this article needs to be pointed out as it contradicts itself. That's a nice way of saying that the writer is intentionally lying.
This article says the claims of a "death panel" in Obama's plan are false, but check out this small bit:
QUOTE
On Thursday, Mr. Grassley said in a statement that he and others in the small group of senators that was trying to negotiate a health care plan had dropped any “end of life” proposals from consideration.
Uhm...that means they have, at the very least, considered it. Shouldn't THAT be the headline?
And what is stopping them from being able to add such a panel later? I mean, does anyone really believe that this plan is so fiscally perfect that cutting costs will never be a concern?
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 14 2009,13:01
No, the "end of life" proposals were not related to "death panels."So no, they were not considered, no, they were never in the healthcare plan. Yes, Sarah Palin is a retard.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 14 2009,15:16
Never mind, chain emails are the correct way to sell a government takeover of the health care industry. You win.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 14 2009,15:17
(TheCatt @ Aug. 14 2009,16:01)
QUOTE
No, the "end of life" proposals were not related to "death panels."
So... what is a panel called that decides when a person is no longer worth spending money on to prolong life?
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 14 2009,15:18
Yeah, there's absolutely no indication in it of a "panel", it would just be one person.EDIT: Seriously, though, that's not what the "end of life" stuff was about. It's counseling on things like setting up a living will, or doing stuff like that. Not that there won't be someone who's job it will be to tell you when you've spent too much and it's time to die, there has to be someone like that. But that's true of all health insurance.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 14 2009,15:29
And we want that person to be the government?Besides, Obama talked about it before Palin ever did:
< http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main....or.html >
QUOTE
THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.
And personally, I believe that once the government is paying for health care, they aren't going to limit care to just old-people-on-death-beds. People with brain damage who 3 doctors will say will never wake up, because of course they never wake up. Lets save a few bucks for the taxpayer, and besides, they aren't voting if they're in a coma, amirite? People born with dibiliating diseased like Down's Syndrome.... because hey... it's not like they will ever be successful and put any tax money into the system, so let's just save a few bucks for the taxpayer. And hell... let;s just kill off everyone who doesn't have blue eyes and blonde hair. All of these decisions are arbitrary anyway, so let's just do it.
Anyway, end of hyperbole.
I just don't want this or any government being the first and last decider for deciding who gets what health care, because bureaucracies do not have empathy or sympathy, but they do have budgetary limitations. "Due to the slowing economy, no hysterectomies in 2013. Sorry ladies!"
Perhaps I should put out a persuasive chain email sharing my views.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 14 2009,15:33
QUOTE
And we want that person to be the government?
Might as well, I don't consider that to be any worse than a private bureaucrat making that decision. It's not like if you don't like what your insurance company says you can then shop around for another one; whatever the problem is it would be a pre-existing condition and most likely no insurance company would have you. In this particular instance, government would give the same results as our current setup.
Not that I'm saying government run health-care is a good idea, it's certainly not. But not for this reason; this is not a logical argument against it. It's just something to make the old people afraid.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 14 2009,15:41
I, and old people, just see t as one piece of a much larger pie. of several pies, in fact.When the government pays for health care, they decide what health care you get.
The decide who is no longer worth keeping alive... there will be a monetary threshold that we will have no control over.
They will decide what is healthy for us... no more smoking, drinking, junk food. Fat people will cost us more. Anything bad will be deemed not good, and therefore illegal, probably justified by the interstate commerce clause, somehow. Out of shape people will go to special camps where they can learn about healthy lifestyle and concentrate on being a healthier... and therefore less expensive... American. We can call these places Concentration Camps.
To ensure only healthy food is being sold on American grocery store shelves, the government will take over all food production/service in this country by expanding the USDA. A burger from Ruby Tuesday's will now be 90% vegetable matter, and cost 3 times as much, and subsidized by tax dollars because the government will have to pay people to eat that shit.
And now the government has that much more of a grip on our freedoms.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 14 2009,15:43
(GORDON @ Aug. 14 2009,18:17)
QUOTE
(TheCatt @ Aug. 14 2009,16:01)
QUOTE
No, the "end of life" proposals were not related to "death panels."
So... what is a panel called that decides when a person is no longer worth spending money on to prolong life?
Who cares, that's not what was in the bill.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 14 2009,15:45
(TheCatt @ Aug. 14 2009,18:43)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Aug. 14 2009,18:17)
QUOTE
(TheCatt @ Aug. 14 2009,16:01)
QUOTE
No, the "end of life" proposals were not related to "death panels."
So... what is a panel called that decides when a person is no longer worth spending money on to prolong life?
Who cares, that's not what was in the bill.
You read it? You're obviously not in congress.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 14 2009,16:01
I have some lawyer friends who helped me.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 14 2009,16:46
Let's even say the gov't makes all that "bad" shyte illegal. Sugar, soda, dead animals, tobacco, booze, whatever.How much illegal shit can people still get their hands on? Marijuana, cocaine, crack, opiates, meth, barbs, hallucinogens -- all are available at the right street corner or suburban basement.
Fuck, people might actually be paying $5 for a few rocks of real sugar before too long. Hello black market, hello creativity & innovation that comes from it. Also hello to the violence & expense involved in fighting the War on Sugar.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 14 2009,17:14
That's not freedom.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 14 2009,18:01
(thibodeaux @ Aug. 12 2009,11:48)
QUOTE
< Whole Foods Hippy CEO Health Care Plan >
< Customers mad that CEO doesn't toe the hippie line >
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 14 2009,18:12
Bah, they'll be back. Every other store out there is more despicable to their silly ideals.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 14 2009,18:12
(GORDON @ Aug. 14 2009,19:14)
QUOTE
That's not freedom.
No. But if open freedom isn't going to be an option, closeted freedom is the best there is.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 14 2009,19:17
(GORDON @ Aug. 12 2009,16:34)
QUOTE
By the way, this entire thread was too see who had un-American thoughts, and you have been turned into the White House for further action.
< http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ >
Heil Obama.
< http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ >
QUOTE
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [EMAIL=flag@whitehouse.gov.]flag@whitehouse.gov.[/EMAIL]
Heil Obama.
Ha, I read that peeps are auto-forwarding their spam to that email account.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 14 2009,19:18
(Malcolm @ Aug. 14 2009,21:12)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Aug. 14 2009,19:14)
QUOTE
That's not freedom.
No. But if open freedom isn't going to be an option, closeted freedom is the best there is.
If freedom is no longer an option, perhaps it is time to look at new options.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 16 2009,17:39
Spammers have been put in jail already, right?< http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/16/white-house-e-mail/ >
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 16 2009,19:03
QUOTE
The White House previously would not answer questions on how the e-mails landed unsolicited in so many inboxes. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Thursday said he couldn't give an answer until he saw who received the e-mails because he doesn't have "omnipotent clarity."
I didn't realize it took divine power to sort out who sent a fucking e-mail.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 17 2009,10:58
(GORDON @ Aug. 14 2009,22:17)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Aug. 12 2009,16:34)
QUOTE
By the way, this entire thread was too see who had un-American thoughts, and you have been turned into the White House for further action.
< http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ >
Heil Obama.
< http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ >
QUOTE
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [EMAIL=flag@whitehouse.gov.]flag@whitehouse.gov.[/EMAIL]
Heil Obama.
Ha, I read that peeps are auto-forwarding their spam to that email account.
Pedal, backwards, faster!
You probably heard all about this on the evening news already, but just to reiterate:
QUOTE
... flag@whitehouse.gov address is now non-funcitonal. Emails bounce from there, and you get this message:
The email address you just sent a message to is no longer in service.We are now accepting your feedback about health insurance reform via:http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck
The email address you just sent a message to is no longer in service.We are now accepting your feedback about health insurance reform via:http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck
"Reality check." How hip and cool. I really feel the white house is going all out to relate to me and my generation.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 17 2009,12:15
See? Don't get worried about the gov't using worthless e-mails. This thing became moot quicker than MS's bug report inbox. The private sector techies can still run circles around the general, non-techie ideas the D.C. politicians have. As time goes on & more of them get tech savvy, then that'll be unpleasant.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 17 2009,12:37
You know, if you wanted to immediately drop medical expenses by a not insignificant percentage, there's a one-step solution. Just make it so that no medical expenses - all of them, from prceedures to supplies to devices to any tacked on fees and whatnot - can be charged at more than the lowest rate that the doctor/institution/company would accept from an insurance company. So if they have made a deal with an insurance company to accept only $70 for something that on paper they are in theory charging $200 for (I see that all the time), then all billings to all patients for that same proceedure/item/treatment must be no more than $70.That would balance out some of the cost inflation right there. Individuals without insurance would get the same good prices that the insurance companies get (which I think increases the odds of them actually paying for it instead of defaulting). Of course most doctors would probably renegotiate their deals and raise those prices very slightly to compensate for reduced revenue from those few people that previously did pay but didn't have insurance. But that increase would be tiny overall.
On paper medical expenses in the US are huge. But I have to wonder how much of that is due to those hyper-inflated invoices that never get paid by insurance companies because they're being billed much more than they'll actually pay according to the deal they have with the doctor/institution/company?
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 17 2009,12:52
(TPRJones @ Aug. 17 2009,15:37)
QUOTE
Just make it so that no medical expenses - all of them, from prceedures to supplies to devices to any tacked on fees and whatnot - can be charged at more than the lowest rate that the doctor/institution/company would accept from an insurance company.
Unless I am mistaken, the AMA sets rates across the board, which is why there are no "bargain basement" doctors in this country. This is part of the reason why the AMA monopoly on medicine is such a bad thing. The AMA will not be going away under ObamaCare.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 17 2009,13:02
Yeah, that whole situation has always seemed f****ed to me. Lab work is the same way. Labcorp billed me $300+ for some tests, insurance paid $42.WTF?
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 17 2009,13:11
If the costs being reported to the studies that track stuff is the $300+ instead of the $42, then maybe the massive costs of health-care in this country isn't anywhere near as massive as we are being led to believe.EDIT: And at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, maybe that's been a part of the plan from the beginning. Simply by cutting out those imaginary overbills, suddenly under Obama-care the cost of healthcare in the US is cuty by two-thirds overnight. It's a miracle, and anyone that says otherwise is just a racist Republican. It could be why he's pushing so hard so fast; to pull it off before anyone notices the trick.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 17 2009,13:52
(TPRJones @ Aug. 17 2009,16:11)
QUOTE
If the costs being reported to the studies that track stuff is the $300+ instead of the $42, then maybe the massive costs of health-care in this country isn't anywhere near as massive as we are being led to believe.
EDIT: And at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, maybe that's been a part of the plan from the beginning. Simply by cutting out those imaginary overbills, suddenly under Obama-care the cost of healthcare in the US is cuty by two-thirds overnight. It's a miracle, and anyone that says otherwise is just a racist Republican. It could be why he's pushing so hard so fast; to pull it off before anyone notices the trick.
EDIT: And at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, maybe that's been a part of the plan from the beginning. Simply by cutting out those imaginary overbills, suddenly under Obama-care the cost of healthcare in the US is cuty by two-thirds overnight. It's a miracle, and anyone that says otherwise is just a racist Republican. It could be why he's pushing so hard so fast; to pull it off before anyone notices the trick.
No, the costs are actual costs.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 17 2009,14:01
(TPRJones @ Aug. 17 2009,14:37)
QUOTE
On paper medical expenses in the US are huge. But I have to wonder how much of that is due to those hyper-inflated invoices that never get paid by insurance companies because they're being billed much more than they'll actually pay according to the deal they have with the doctor/institution/company?
Shitloads go to R&D. You can't just push anything on the market w\o enough papers &\or greasing enough palms. I might actually pay more taxes if I could be assured some of it went to fund semi-important shit, like medical research, instead of corruption.
I'm sure more than a few $$$ of that is just because you can't go to any other legit source for your medical care. But cutting edge technologies & techniques are expensive if you want reasonable certainty that you'll live thru their use.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 17 2009,14:49
(TheCatt @ Aug. 17 2009,15:52)
QUOTE
No, the costs are actual costs.
Yes, but which actual costs? The insurance company's actual cost of $42? Or the lab's cost of $300+? Both are "costs" of a sort. (Well, for the lab they are revenue and unrecoverable accounts receivable respectively, but if someone is compiling a "how much does health care cost" sort of thing I could see them choosing either of those depending on how big they want their final results to look for PR purposes).
Or do you mean actual real raw cost, as in the (just a guess) $39 it cost the lab in time and supplies and overhead to run the test? And if that, who is capturing all that information? I would figure that if the labs were reporting it, they'd report the highest number possible for their costs to anyone doing a study, jus tout of spite for not being paid all they thin kthey should be by the insurance companies.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 17 2009,15:16
(TPRJones @ Aug. 17 2009,17:49)
QUOTE
(TheCatt @ Aug. 17 2009,15:52)
QUOTE
No, the costs are actual costs.
Yes, but which actual costs? The insurance company's actual cost of $42? Or the lab's cost of $300+? Both are "costs" of a sort. (Well, for the lab they are revenue and unrecoverable accounts receivable respectively, but if someone is compiling a "how much does health care cost" sort of thing I could see them choosing either of those depending on how big they want their final results to look for PR purposes).
Or do you mean actual real raw cost, as in the (just a guess) $39 it cost the lab in time and supplies and overhead to run the test? And if that, who is capturing all that information? I would figure that if the labs were reporting it, they'd report the highest number possible for their costs to anyone doing a study, jus tout of spite for not being paid all they thin kthey should be by the insurance companies.
The actual money paid.
I can't remember how these things are calculated, but it's the same issue with parts suppliers (having a unit cost, but then discounts to actual buyers, etc).
I used to know in econ class.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 17 2009,17:12
Well, that debunks a nice little theory.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 18 2009,11:20
< 60k people have cancelled their AARP memberships ince July 1. >QUOTE
(CBS) CBS News has learned that up to 60,000 people have cancelled their AARP memberships since July 1, angered over the group's position on health care.
Elaine Guardiani has been with AARP for 14 years, and said, "I'm extremely disappointed in AARP."
Retired nurse Dale Anderson has 12 years with AARP and said, "I don't wanna be connected with AARP."
Many are switching to the American Seniors Association, a group that calls itself the conservative alternative as CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports.
Watch Extended AARP Interview Here
Last week alone, they added more than 5,000 new members. Our camera was there Friday when the mail came.
Letters were filled with cut-up AARP cards.
Elaine Guardiani has been with AARP for 14 years, and said, "I'm extremely disappointed in AARP."
Retired nurse Dale Anderson has 12 years with AARP and said, "I don't wanna be connected with AARP."
Many are switching to the American Seniors Association, a group that calls itself the conservative alternative as CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports.
Watch Extended AARP Interview Here
Last week alone, they added more than 5,000 new members. Our camera was there Friday when the mail came.
Letters were filled with cut-up AARP cards.
Maybe Obama really is closing the gap between the left and right by driving everyone away from the left?
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 18 2009,12:11
As the article says, 60K of 40 million. I'll be impressed when it gets to 10%.I've got a fair amount of confidence in Diamond Joe Quimby's ability to piss more people off, though.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 18 2009,15:43
(Malcolm @ Aug. 16 2009,21:03)
QUOTE
QUOTE
The White House previously would not answer questions on how the e-mails landed unsolicited in so many inboxes. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Thursday said he couldn't give an answer until he saw who received the e-mails because he doesn't have "omnipotent clarity."
I didn't realize it took divine power to sort out who sent a fucking e-mail.
< "Someone else did it. We swear. Anyone but us. Yeah, martians. The martians did it, too." >
QUOTE
After confirming to FOX News over the weekend that third-party groups could be responsible for official White House e-mails that have been sent to people who never signed up for them, President Obama's new media director took to the official White House blog to "clear up" the confusion.
The director being this dynamic-looking, confidence-inspiring individual ...
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 18 2009,15:44
Flounder?
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 23 2009,10:22
< McCain misses ... Ted Kennedy? >QUOTE
McCain praised Kennedy, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, as a master negotiator who could bring together parties with different points of view and make the right concessions to reach agreement.
Yep, concessions like swimming to shore while other people drown.
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 24 2009,12:50
< http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care >QUOTE
I’m a Democrat, and have long been concerned about America’s lack of a health safety net. But based on my own work experience, I also believe that unless we fix the problems at the foundation of our health system—largely problems of incentives—our reforms won’t do much good, and may do harm. To achieve maximum coverage at acceptable cost with acceptable quality, health care will need to become subject to the same forces that have boosted efficiency and value throughout the economy. We will need to reduce, rather than expand, the role of insurance; focus the government’s role exclusively on things that only government can do (protect the poor, cover us against true catastrophe, enforce safety standards, and ensure provider competition); overcome our addiction to Ponzi-scheme financing, hidden subsidies, manipulated prices, and undisclosed results; and rely more on ourselves, the consumers, as the ultimate guarantors of good service, reasonable prices, and sensible trade-offs between health-care spending and spending on all the other good things money can buy.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 24 2009,13:03
QUOTE
I’m a Democrat ... health care will need to become subject to the same forces that have boosted efficiency and value throughout the economy ...
ERROR! ERROR!
Conflicting Philosophy Error Found. Please redefine Political Party or Economic Principles and recompile.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 24 2009,13:05
That makes me feel like I am years ahead of the curve on this issue.Posting from the blsckberry so typod
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 24 2009,14:10
(thibodeaux @ Aug. 24 2009,15:50)
QUOTE
< http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care >
QUOTE
I’m a Democrat, and have long been concerned about America’s lack of a health safety net. But based on my own work experience, I also believe that unless we fix the problems at the foundation of our health system—largely problems of incentives—our reforms won’t do much good, and may do harm. To achieve maximum coverage at acceptable cost with acceptable quality, health care will need to become subject to the same forces that have boosted efficiency and value throughout the economy. We will need to reduce, rather than expand, the role of insurance; focus the government’s role exclusively on things that only government can do (protect the poor, cover us against true catastrophe, enforce safety standards, and ensure provider competition); overcome our addiction to Ponzi-scheme financing, hidden subsidies, manipulated prices, and undisclosed results; and rely more on ourselves, the consumers, as the ultimate guarantors of good service, reasonable prices, and sensible trade-offs between health-care spending and spending on all the other good things money can buy.
He musta found our thread.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 27 2009,16:59
(GORDON @ Aug. 12 2009,16:34)
QUOTE
By the way, this entire thread was too see who had un-American thoughts, and you have been turned into the White House for further action.
< http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ >
Heil Obama.
< http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ >
QUOTE
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [EMAIL=flag@whitehouse.gov.]flag@whitehouse.gov.[/EMAIL]
Heil Obama.
They are getting sued over it.
< http://www.usnews.com/blogs....st.html >
But probably not, because can't the federal government choose to not get sued?
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 27 2009,17:05
What are they going to do if they win & the gov't doesn't pay? Who the fuck plans to enforce that court order?
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 27 2009,17:09
Just ask the car dealerships.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 27 2009,18:20
(GORDON @ Aug. 27 2009,19:09)
QUOTE
Just ask the car dealerships.
I'd say it's part of some insidiously ingenious plot to sink the faltering manufacturers by tricking them w\ false promises of cash. They'd work themselves into bankruptcy beyond any hope of a bailout then fail & reform.
I'd say that if it were the car makers taking the hit instead of the dealers.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 28 2009,06:09
He's not even buried yet, but Obama's administration trying to < ride the coattails of his death. >
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 28 2009,07:20
Sometimes I ask myself, "What would Teddy do?" and then I do the opposite. Because I'm not an evil, drunken, fat p.o.s.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 28 2009,11:35
QUOTE
"Hopefully, at every step of the way, people will ask themselves: 'What would Teddy do?' and move it forward,"
If by "it" you mean "a bottle or two of scotch..."
Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 02 2009,08:25
< http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009....er.html >Shout down the opposition!
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 02 2009,08:29
(thibodeaux @ Sep. 02 2009,11:25)
QUOTE
< http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009....er.html >
Shout down the opposition!
Shout down the opposition!
Again, it is to promote democracy, when lefties do it. When the right does it, it is a chilling silencing of dissent.
I would totally get the job if I interviewed at a MSM outlet. I know how to speak their language. Problem is, I'm just not capable of that much hate.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 02 2009,08:36
I am capable of that much hate. I just can't stomach the hypocricy.
Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 03 2009,13:11
I've seen this twice on facebook today:QUOTE
No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.
Somebody please help me come up with an appropriate response to this.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 03 2009,13:13
"Save the Planet. Kill a Bum." ??
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 03 2009,13:26
(thibodeaux @ Sep. 03 2009,15:11)
QUOTE
I've seen this twice on facebook today:
Somebody please help me come up with an appropriate response to this.
QUOTE
No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.
Somebody please help me come up with an appropriate response to this.
Anyone who really believed that shit would sell all their earthly belongings & give everything away to the poor. Since money = medicine & other people are all that matter. In fact, this individual should commit suicide, just in case he receives medical care that should've been spent on someone else.
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 03 2009,14:55
(thibodeaux @ Sep. 03 2009,16:11)
QUOTE
I've seen this twice on facebook today:
Somebody please help me come up with an appropriate response to this.
QUOTE
No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.
Somebody please help me come up with an appropriate response to this.
Ugh, 3 times for me today.
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 03 2009,14:57
I just updated mine to "... knows that more government is not the answer"
Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 05 2009,07:30
< There is no place in the constitution >...
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 05 2009,10:38
You know, since 99% of the modern federal government is derived from the Commerce Clause, what would happen if there was an amendment to the constitution to strike the words "and among the several states"? That would cause most of it to suddenly be unconstitutional right there.I think those five words might be the most expensive words ever written.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 09 2009,09:22
< B. Rock speaks "clearly, directly" about health care ... that WILL be passed this year, goddamnit >.QUOTE
"I have tried to maintain a tone, and my White House has tried to maintain a tone, that is open to all comers," the president said. "In spite of all this, there is this unyielding partisanship, and I think in some ways it has gotten worse."
My ass.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 09 2009,09:50
The MSM is really trying to push health care for Obama, but I was reading last night that most Democrats have conceded that a government run plan is not going to happen. The Republicans are against it and too many Democrats are against it.If Obama's Health Care plans do not get passed, I'll maintain hope that Congress still might have a small inkling that they're there representing voters.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 09 2009,10:54
(Leisher @ Sep. 09 2009,12:50)
QUOTE
If Obama's Health Care plans do not get passed, I'll maintain hope that Congress still might have a small inkling that they're there representing voters.
I think everyone about to replace them will know they represent voters, and hopefully some of them will at like it.
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 09 2009,16:05
(thibodeaux @ Sep. 03 2009,16:11)
QUOTE
I've seen this twice on facebook today:
Somebody please help me come up with an appropriate response to this.
QUOTE
No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.
Somebody please help me come up with an appropriate response to this.
Days late, but saw this today:
QUOTE
No one should die because of a zombie attack, but if they get infected, the right thing to do is shoot them in the head. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 09 2009,16:15
Done.
Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 09 2009,17:15
Why do you hate poor people?
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 09 2009,17:24
is he talking yet? anyone watching?we're watching the wiggles
Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 09 2009,18:46
Glee. They just did a Kanye West song. Wow, Kanye's a fargin' genius: he rhymed "ya money" with "ya money."
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 09 2009,19:03
(thibodeaux @ Sep. 09 2009,21:46)
QUOTE
Glee. They just did a Kanye West song. Wow, Kanye's a fargin' genius: he rhymed "ya money" with "ya money."
Ground-breaking since no one else does it?
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 09 2009,19:13
(thibodeaux @ Sep. 09 2009,20:15)
QUOTE
Why do you hate poor people?
Just because.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 09 2009,21:53
< We need more chaos in Congress >.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 10 2009,06:03
Just doing a little random thinking at 9am...I believe the numbers being thrown around say 2/3 of Americans have health insurance, and the rest don't. Wouldn't it be cheaper for all involved if the people with insurance were just directly responsible for paying 50% of the health costs for 1 other specific person, by penalty of death, or something? IIRC, last time I had health insurance through an employer, the monthly cost was roughly double when going from a single person to adding family members. That sounds a hell of a lot less expensive that the hundreds of billions this comprehensive health care thing is reportedly going to cost. Plus then we wont need yet another massive government department.
Just put a gun to peoples' heads and tell them to pay for their neighbor's tonsillectomy. It really sounds cheaper for all involved.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 10 2009,17:40
(Malcolm @ Sep. 10 2009,00:53)
QUOTE
< We need more chaos in Congress >.
They digging for dirt on this guy has begun in a big way.
They've uncovered that Joe Wilson has often used caffeine.
< http://thehill.com/blogs....in-2007 >
QUOTE
Wilson regularly took caffeine pills in 2007
By Jordan Fabian - 09/10/09 06:21 PM ET
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who shouted "you lie!" at President Obama during his Wednesday night address to Congress, admitted to regularly consuming caffeine pills in 2007.
...
A source told The Hill in 2007 that the congressman ingested the tablets “like candy," but Wilson insisted he was not addicted despite the fact that he had been taking them since high school.
Didn't our President admit to smoking pot or snorting coke or something?
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 10 2009,18:20
I think it's only 15% of Americans that do not have health insurance. I think I read 43 million this morning.
Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 10 2009,18:52
Obama said 30m last night, I thought.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 10 2009,19:57
Even better. 10 people can be directly responsible for paying for 1 person. By penalty of death.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 11 2009,08:34
(Malcolm @ Sep. 10 2009,00:53)
QUOTE
< We need more chaos in Congress >.
Still gunning for him:
His "dirty little health care secret."
< http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs....et.aspx >
QUOTE
Cut the man some slack. He's passionate! I know this because he told me, in the sole message that blazes across his campaign Web site: JOE WILSON IS PASSIONATE ABOUT STOPPING GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE!
Except that he's not─at least not when it comes to his, and his family's, government-run health care. As a retired Army National Guard colonel, Wilson gets a lot of benefits (one of which, apparently, was not a full appreciation of the customs, traditions, and courtesies that mandate respect for one's commander in chief). And with four sons in the armed services, the entire Wilson brood has enjoyed multiple generations of free military medical coverage, known as TRICARE.
Except that he's not─at least not when it comes to his, and his family's, government-run health care. As a retired Army National Guard colonel, Wilson gets a lot of benefits (one of which, apparently, was not a full appreciation of the customs, traditions, and courtesies that mandate respect for one's commander in chief). And with four sons in the armed services, the entire Wilson brood has enjoyed multiple generations of free military medical coverage, known as TRICARE.
Yes, he is evil and opposes Obama's plan because he was in the military and gets free health care for life. Somehow. I personally didn't know it worked that way.
edit - I read further, he is a military retiree. Therefor, opposing Obama makes him a criminal hypocrite, I guess. Burn him at the stake.
Also, from what I know so far I could vote for him in 2012.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 11 2009,08:40
I loved the news stories that night about how Joe's shout united the Dems towards passing a health care bill. Yeah, let's pass a bill that will put the country further into debt, punish the middle class for daring to have jobs and pay taxes, reward those who don't have jobs, and destroy the world's best health care system just to spite some guy who dared yell at our lord Obama.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 11 2009,10:10
What's interesting is that if illegal immigrants ARE covered, then Joe Wilson is right and was the only one brave enough to call out Obama and Obama really is a liar, and it was on TV and everyone knows about it.
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 11 2009,14:50
We already pay for illegal immigrants anyway, since they just go to the ER, which can't refuse service, right?
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 11 2009,15:00
Correct, which if it remains true would indeed make Obama a bald-faced liar.Of course the alternative is dead illegals outside ERs. Which isn't pretty and probably not preferable. But why do a brother gots ta lie all the time for?
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 11 2009,15:25
Concerning the abortion issue, and whether Obama's plan would cover them, the Dems, when asked, keep saying "federal money" would not be paying for abortions. Funny thing is, when Republicans tried to get a Bill passed to get that in writing, democrats voted it down.Lotsa liars.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 11 2009,17:57
Just now on O'Reilly:Bill: Is what Joe Wilson did appropriate?
Some republican chick: It was rude, this isn't the House of Commons. Decorum is expected.
British guy right next to her: I take umbrage to that. In the HoC we would not have shouted out, "You lie!" We would have said to President Obama, "The honored gentleman is a bald faced liar."
Then Howard Dean, via video, said, "Unfortunately these people don't seem to care that an attack on the president is an attack on the country itself." He said it like he believed it, and like he didn't remember the Bush administration at all, so it was an example of complete cognitive dissonance. It was breathtaking.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 11 2009,18:15
QUOTE
Decorum is expected.
Sorry, what was that? I couldn't hear it over the sound of all the kickbacks being passed around.
Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 12 2009,04:24
(GORDON @ Sep. 11 2009,20:57)
QUOTE
Then Howard Dean, via video, said, "Unfortunately these people don't seem to care that an attack on the president is an attack on the country itself."
Holy Chutzpah Batman.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 12 2009,13:36
QUOTE
Then Howard Dean, via video, said, "Unfortunately these people don't seem to care that an attack on the president is an attack on the country itself."
It's stuff like this that makes me believe all politicians are simply actors. There is no possible way he believes that. No way can he be so fucking stupid as to not realize what it says about his part and the previous 8 years.
Unless he just thinks we're all too stupid to figure it out...
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 13 2009,13:42
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 13 2009,14:56
I saw someone refer to that sign as celebrating the death of Kennedy/practicing the politics of hate.I don't see it that way.
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 30 2009,10:05
< Congress feels your healthcare pain >I mean, $503/year for all the health you can eat, fixed at that price for 17 years, with no inflation - it's tough.
Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 07 2009,17:33
< http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video....nn.html >Good Grief.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 07 2009,18:17
(thibodeaux @ Oct. 07 2009,20:33)
QUOTE
< http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video....nn.html >
Good Grief.
Good Grief.
You know, I just hate how biased Fox News is.
Posted by Cakedaddy on Oct. 07 2009,19:17
The wierdest thing I see is a group of black kids singing to a Miley Cyrus tune.
Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 08 2009,06:39
(Cakedaddy @ Oct. 07 2009,22:17)
QUOTE
The wierdest thing I see is a group of black kids singing to a Miley Cyrus tune.
I thought that was funny, too.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 08 2009,12:06
I wouldn't recognize a Miley Cyrus tune.Fags.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 08 2009,13:34
< Hmm >.
Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 08 2009,16:42
(GORDON @ Oct. 08 2009,15:06)
QUOTE
I wouldn't recognize a Miley Cyrus tune.
Fags.
Fags.
I swear I only knew because of the caption.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 08 2009,16:56
(thibodeaux @ Oct. 08 2009,18:42)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Oct. 08 2009,15:06)
QUOTE
I wouldn't recognize a Miley Cyrus tune.
Fags.
Fags.
I swear I only knew because of the caption.
If by "caption" you actually mean "my iPod full of Radio Disney music."
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 17 2009,11:26
< Apparently, Obama believes all insurance companies are run by Satan himself >.Well, not exactly.
QUOTE
"They're filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads. They're flooding Capitol Hill with lobbyists and campaign contributions. And they're funding studies designed to mislead the American people," he said.
But damn close.
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 27 2009,22:03
Update on Reid's health care bill: < It's dumpster fire. >The headline there is quite misleading. If you read the whole article, you'll see that passage of Reid's bill is pretty much not going to happen.
From the article:
QUOTE
Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, the only Republican who has sided with Democrats in committee this year, has announced she will not support the bill Reid drafted.
Interesting that her announcement that she'd back a plan was front page news a few weeks ago, yet her refusal to vote for this plan is buried deep in this article.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 28 2009,05:52
If they really wanted to fix healthcare, they would end price discrimination for uninsured people and punish unhealthly people. All they really want to do is put more $ in the hands of more interests (hospitals, health care providers, etc).
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 03 2009,11:16
< Health insurance is basically a tax. >QUOTE
The insurance industry has long pointed to federal data that says about 87 percent of every dollar that people spend on premiums goes toward actual medical care, but Rockefeller's investigators found the average for the top six insurance companies is closer to 82 cents on the dollar for medical care.
That five-point difference represents billions of dollars.
And when investigators broke down the information by insurance type, they found that people who buy individual insurance from those companies rather than being part of a small or large business, get the least bang for their buck.
On average just 74 cents of every premium dollar for individual coverage goes to medical care.
Coventry Health Care had the lowest figure at 66 cents.
That five-point difference represents billions of dollars.
And when investigators broke down the information by insurance type, they found that people who buy individual insurance from those companies rather than being part of a small or large business, get the least bang for their buck.
On average just 74 cents of every premium dollar for individual coverage goes to medical care.
Coventry Health Care had the lowest figure at 66 cents.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 03 2009,11:24
Da hoy.
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 04 2009,13:54
< Hmm >.I'll use their opening line ...
QUOTE
The health care reform bill awaiting debate in the House assumes millions of workers and employers would rather pay $167 billion in fines than purchase or provide adequate coverage, according to a recent analysis ...
The greatest argument against an afterlife is that if the founding fathers knew .00001% shit going on in gov't today, they'd come back & haunt/possess/fuck w\ every single politician in D.C. Well, maybe not Hamilton. But Washington, Adams, & Jefferson would crack some skulls.
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 07 2009,12:24
< The vote's a-comin' >.QUOTE
"It is a bill that is fully paid for and will actually reduce our federal deficit," Mr. Obama said.
He doesn't actually cite HOW that will happen. Maybe he's got a magic wand or some shit.
& here's some scary shit ...
QUOTE
Obama "knows it's a real stretch for some people, but it's an important stretch," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, (D, Calif.), who opposes the Stupak amendment. "Doing the right thing is more important being worried for the moment."
In other words, don't bother thinking; if it feels right, it must be right.
From what I've read, the vote's happening tonight. Feel free to check C-Span if you care.
Posted by Leisher on Dec. 21 2009,07:28
So the MSM is declaring Obama has again parted the red seas because a Senator from Nebraska has decided to vote "yes" giving them their 60 Senators? Why are they ignoring the fact that this clown is stabbing his constituents in the back? 61% of them don't want this bill to pass.
Why are they ignoring the fact that his chances of getting re-elected even before his declaration were seen as slim?
Why are they ignoring the fact that most of the House folks who voted "yes" the first time have said they're going to reject this bill?
Why are they ignoring the 328(!) pages of amendments that were required by this asshole from Nebraska to secure his vote?
Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 21 2009,07:43
< Because they want to get laid >.
Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 21 2009,08:04
(thibodeaux @ Dec. 21 2009,09:43)
QUOTE
< Because they want to get laid >.
What in the fuck?
Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 21 2009,10:30
If pussy is getting political, I'm just going to go ahead and buy a Real Doll.
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 21 2009,10:34
(TPRJones @ Dec. 21 2009,13:30)
QUOTE
If pussy is getting political, I'm just going to go ahead and buy a Real Doll.
As long as college girls are still gullible this can be used to advantage.
If she stops banging the conservative, she'll go to the conservative who claims to be a liberal.
Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 21 2009,12:38
A real man would laugh at her for her silly liberal beliefs, and then bang her anyway.
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 22 2009,13:16
MSNBC actually reports on the bribery that it took to get 60 votes on the health care bill.Good for you, MSNBC. Must be tired of being in last place.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 22 2009,14:02
Fox has been reporting on it for days. NPR mentioned it today, but in the context of "Republicans are questioning..."
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 23 2009,09:28
< Health care bill will raise government deficits. >No shit.
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 26 2009,09:41
No more flex spending under Obamacare.< http://ace.mu.nu/archives/296281.php >
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 26 2009,09:53
I just finished off $68 in my account with contact solution and band-aids. Admittedly, I think it's a bit insane that you can deduct those, but yeah, that means tax hike.
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 26 2009,10:01
Well, health care is health care.We're being promised that our health care costs are going to be lower, though, so at least we have that going for us.
The last couple years my total costs for health care has been about $500. For a couple year's worth of health care. Glad to hear that is going down. I can't afford much more than that without canceling cable TV, or something.
Posted by TheCatt on Jan. 09 2010,10:17
< OMG - ABC reports something. >1) Person who wrote op-eds in favor of Obama's policies is a professor and ALSO paid by the government to help with healthcare reform.
2) Obama flip-flopped on the "cadillac" tax.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 07 2010,10:28
Obamacare waivers going out so that....I really have no idea.
But it doesn't smell very good.
< http://www.nytimes.com/2010....usiness >
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 07 2010,11:15
QUOTE
As Obama administration officials put into place the first major wave of changes under the health care legislation, they have tried to defuse stiffening resistance — from companies like McDonald’s and some insurers — by granting dozens of waivers to maintain even minimal coverage far below the new law’s standards.
The waivers have been issued in the last several weeks as part of a broader strategic effort to stave off threats by some health insurers to abandon markets, drop out of the business altogether or refuse to sell certain policies.
The waivers have been issued in the last several weeks as part of a broader strategic effort to stave off threats by some health insurers to abandon markets, drop out of the business altogether or refuse to sell certain policies.
Uh, they're a get out of jail free card for those folks "on the list?"
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 14 2010,06:05
QUOTE
The Obama administration has announced efforts to encourage health insurance companies to continue to sell child-only insurance policies under the Affordable Care Act that took effect less than a month ago.
Consumer protections built into the act prohibit all employer plans and all new plans in the individual market from denying coverage to children age 18 and younger who have pre-existing conditions, but it can't force insurers to offer policies for children.
Among the options offered to entice insurers were higher premiums.
"Rates to be adjusted for health status as permitted by state law," Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners on Wednesday.
"The Affordable Care Act was designed to ensure that Americans who need health insurance are no longer denied access to the care they need -- and that includes the youngest and most vulnerable Americans," Sebelius said. "We have been working closely with the states in their role as insurance regulators and with insurance companies to find ways to improve access to coverage for America's families."
An unintended consequence of the act designed to increase coverage is that a number of insurance companies have announced plans to suspend child-only insurance policies because of concerns over clarity of the new rules, as well as reservations that the provisions create an "unlevel playing field."
Consumer protections built into the act prohibit all employer plans and all new plans in the individual market from denying coverage to children age 18 and younger who have pre-existing conditions, but it can't force insurers to offer policies for children.
Among the options offered to entice insurers were higher premiums.
"Rates to be adjusted for health status as permitted by state law," Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners on Wednesday.
"The Affordable Care Act was designed to ensure that Americans who need health insurance are no longer denied access to the care they need -- and that includes the youngest and most vulnerable Americans," Sebelius said. "We have been working closely with the states in their role as insurance regulators and with insurance companies to find ways to improve access to coverage for America's families."
An unintended consequence of the act designed to increase coverage is that a number of insurance companies have announced plans to suspend child-only insurance policies because of concerns over clarity of the new rules, as well as reservations that the provisions create an "unlevel playing field."
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 14 2010,07:44
Our company had a health insurance specialist in from San Francisco last week. He's been in the business for 30 plus years and votes Democrat. He plainly said that this new health care plan is a pipe dream and doomed to fail. That wasn't his opinion, but the industry-wide opinion.
He actually sat and broke down numbers for us to show how and where it's going to fail.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 14 2010,08:35
Math is hard.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 18 2010,09:17
(GORDON @ Dec. 26 2009,13:01)
QUOTE
We're being promised that our health care costs are going to be lower, though, so at least we have that going for us.
Like all intelligent people didn't see this coming:
< http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news....74.html >
QUOTE
The state has given Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield the go ahead to raise premiums by as much as 47 percent for some members, and says health care reform is the reason why.
...
The new rates took effect Oct. 1, and include increases from 19 percent all the way to 47 percent depending on the individual, the Hartford Courant reported.
...
The new rates took effect Oct. 1, and include increases from 19 percent all the way to 47 percent depending on the individual, the Hartford Courant reported.
How anyone thought premiums would be reduced when forcing the insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions and children up to the age of 25 and unensurable people in general is beyond my ability to comprehend.
Personally, I'm screwed either way if I am either going to be forced to buy insurance, or pay the penalty for not having it.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 18 2010,09:31
What's cheaper? Health insurance for fifty years or getting your own medical degree?
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 08 2010,16:05
So far, 222 companies have gotten Obamacare waivers, because they have threatened to drop health insurance to their employees completely, as it is cheaper to pay the penalty than cover the employees.< http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-d....waivers >
Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 08 2010,16:21
You know, as long as they keep making "rules" with all these loopholes, whatever.
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 08 2010,16:39
(Malcolm @ Dec. 08 2010,19:21)
QUOTE
You know, as long as they keep making "rules" with all these loopholes, whatever.
It'll still fuck me, though, no matter how many corporate loopholes there are.
Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 08 2010,17:32
(GORDON @ Dec. 08 2010,18:39)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Dec. 08 2010,19:21)
QUOTE
You know, as long as they keep making "rules" with all these loopholes, whatever.
It'll still fuck me, though, no matter how many corporate loopholes there are.
Bah. Just get a corporation.
Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 08 2010,20:49
That's what rich people do.My parents are a corporation of two for that very reason.
Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 08 2010,20:51
QUOTE
"We sought the waiver so that we could continue to provide them with the coverage they need and deserve," Schroder added.
The implication being that the coverage required by the law that was waived is more than they deserve?
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 13 2010,17:17
Obamacare declared unconstitutional in Virginia. Next step is the Supreme Court. Keeping my fingers crossed, but not betting the farm. Some of those justices and I greatly disagree with at times in interpreting the Constitution.< http://online.wsj.com/article....30.html >
QUOTE
RICHMOND, Va.—A federal court ruled Monday that a key part of the health-care overhaul violates the Constitution, dealing the first legal setback to the Obama administration's signature legislative accomplishment.
....
The lawsuit, brought by Virginia Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, is the first court ruling against the law since President Barack Obama signed it in March. More than 20 federal lawsuits have been filed against the overhaul, and judges in two of those cases ruled in favor of the Obama administration. The battle is expected to end up at the Supreme Court, though probably not until the 2011-12 term at the earliest.
....
The lawsuit, brought by Virginia Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, is the first court ruling against the law since President Barack Obama signed it in March. More than 20 federal lawsuits have been filed against the overhaul, and judges in two of those cases ruled in favor of the Obama administration. The battle is expected to end up at the Supreme Court, though probably not until the 2011-12 term at the earliest.
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 06 2011,19:10
CNN says cutting the Obamacare health care spending is going to increase the deficit.< http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/06/health.care/index.html?hpt=T2 >
I just keep hearing Unk say, "Stop pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining."
Posted by thibodeaux on Jan. 07 2011,04:32
The deficit's gonna go up, whether they cut "health care" spending or not.So, in a way, it's true.
Posted by unkbill on Jan. 07 2011,04:59
(thibodeaux @ Jan. 07 2011,04:32)
QUOTE
The deficit's gonna go up, whether they cut "health care" spending or not.
So, in a way, it's true.
So, in a way, it's true.
What ever happened to a balanced budget law or amendment. When politicians were harping about it I actually thought. "Hey that would be a great thing to happen" and actually felt good about something my government was going to do.
How naive of me to think they would do the right thing.
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 07 2011,05:51
Welp, the new Congress was just seated a couple days ago, and they have been making big promises to get spending under control. Let's see what happens.SOMETHING has to be done, hopefully sooner than later. It's too late to say they're ahead of the curve, but it isn't too late for it to be a complete meltdown. But that point is close.
Posted by TheCatt on Jan. 07 2011,07:42
(unkbill @ Jan. 07 2011,07:59)
QUOTE
(thibodeaux @ Jan. 07 2011,04:32)
QUOTE
The deficit's gonna go up, whether they cut "health care" spending or not.
So, in a way, it's true.
So, in a way, it's true.
What ever happened to a balanced budget law or amendment. When politicians were harping about it I actually thought. "Hey that would be a great thing to happen" and actually felt good about something my government was going to do.
How naive of me to think they would do the right thing.
They < did > that < already. >
Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 07 2011,08:03
(GORDON @ Jan. 07 2011,07:51)
QUOTE
Welp, the new Congress was just seated a couple days ago, and they have been making big promises to get spending under control. Let's see what happens.
SOMETHING has to be done, hopefully sooner than later. It's too late to say they're ahead of the curve, but it isn't too late for it to be a complete meltdown. But that point is close.
SOMETHING has to be done, hopefully sooner than later. It's too late to say they're ahead of the curve, but it isn't too late for it to be a complete meltdown. But that point is close.
The country needs invest in something with a proven return ratio.
Cocaine.
Posted by unkbill on Jan. 07 2011,08:47
(GORDON @ Jan. 07 2011,05:51)
QUOTE
Welp, the new Congress was just seated a couple days ago, and they have been making big promises to get spending under control. Let's see what happens.
SOMETHING has to be done, hopefully sooner than later. It's too late to say they're ahead of the curve, but it isn't too late for it to be a complete meltdown. But that point is close.
SOMETHING has to be done, hopefully sooner than later. It's too late to say they're ahead of the curve, but it isn't too late for it to be a complete meltdown. But that point is close.
Thought about it. I'm older why should I give a damn.
Guess the reason it does bother me is that my nieces and nephews(Yourchild) are going to have do pay for the bullshit that was going on as I grew old. Not there damned fault.
Posted by unkbill on Jan. 07 2011,08:49
(TheCatt @ Jan. 07 2011,07:42)
QUOTE
(unkbill @ Jan. 07 2011,07:59)
QUOTE
(thibodeaux @ Jan. 07 2011,04:32)
QUOTE
The deficit's gonna go up, whether they cut "health care" spending or not.
So, in a way, it's true.
So, in a way, it's true.
What ever happened to a balanced budget law or amendment. When politicians were harping about it I actually thought. "Hey that would be a great thing to happen" and actually felt good about something my government was going to do.
How naive of me to think they would do the right thing.
They < did > that < already. >
Guess it was like the under cooked spaghetti noodle. Didn't stick to the wall it was thrown at.
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 31 2011,13:10
Another federal judge struck down Obamacare.< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....-debate >
QUOTE
A U.S. district judge on Monday threw out the nation's health care law, declaring it unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause and surely reviving a feud among competing philosophies about the role of government.
Judge Roger Vinson, in Pensacola, Fla., ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.
Read more: < http://www.foxnews.com/politic....eKpHrn1 >
Judge Roger Vinson, in Pensacola, Fla., ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.
Read more: < http://www.foxnews.com/politic....eKpHrn1 >
Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 31 2011,14:06
The recent record of the Supreme Court doesn't encourage me.
Posted by GORDON on Jan. 31 2011,14:09
Now certainly they would not legislate from the bench. That would violate the fundamental spirit of checks and balances ingrained in our system.
Posted by DoctorChaos on Jan. 31 2011,17:04
(GORDON @ Jan. 31 2011,17:09)
QUOTE
Now certainly they would not legislate from the bench. That would violate the fundamental spirit of checks and balances ingrained in our system.
Dammit, now I have to buy another sarcasm meter!
Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 31 2011,17:20
(GORDON @ Jan. 31 2011,16:09)
QUOTE
Now certainly they would not legislate from the bench. That would violate the fundamental spirit of checks and balances ingrained in our system.
The fundamental spirit's been getting violated like a kid at Michael Jackson's Neverland Day Care Centre for quite some time.
Posted by GORDON on May 17 2011,13:48
Lots of businesses in Nancy Pelosi's district are getting Obamacare waivers so they don't go out of business implementing it. This is significant since she was the 2nd loudest proponent of Obamacare.< http://michellemalkin.com/2011....-pardon >
I heard a good question today regarding companies that CAN'T get waivers. They now are less viable than their competitors that do get waivers.
Posted by TPRJones on May 17 2011,15:04
Interesting to note that if Obamacare forces nursing homes and at-home care companies to provide insurance to their workers, the costs of elderly care will skyrocket so much that many old folks won't be able to afford it. But of course the government will have to provide it, possibly by raising medicare taxes. It's a nice little government-induced inflationary loop.
Posted by TPRJones on May 17 2011,15:07
The basic problem behind all of this is:1) Advanced medical care is expensive and a scare resource
2) Our society states that everyone should have access to all the most advanced medical care because "all human life is sacred"
Regular old-timey medicine is not the problem. It's the space-age stuff. It's going to completely kill our economy if we keep trying to vote that chicken into everyone's pot.
Posted by GORDON on May 18 2011,17:31
CDC: Zombie Preparedness.< http://www.foxnews.com/health....estnews >
I like this guy.
Posted by TPRJones on May 18 2011,19:41
Nice! Glad to see someone at the CDC has a sense of humor. And maybe they'll actually convince a few people to have scram bags.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 18 2011,08:18
They are going to be ending the waiver program for Obamacare.< http://online.wsj.com/article....10.html >
QUOTE
By cutting off applications, the administration will avoid the bursts of attention each time it granted a new batch.
So it isn't about waivers for businesses that can't afford it, it's about politics. From now on, fuck you, small businesses... there's an election to win.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 18 2011,11:11
They appear to be insinuating that having the option for waivers indicats your law is inherently flawed.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 29 2011,13:40
6th Circuit Court of Appeals found the Constitutional clause that said congress could force people to buy health insurance.< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....are-law >
QUOTE
The three-judge 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel delivered a long opinion with disagreement on some issues.
"Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act's larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance," Judge Boyce F. Martin, appointed by former President Jimmy Carter, wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling
"Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act's larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance," Judge Boyce F. Martin, appointed by former President Jimmy Carter, wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 29 2011,16:48
The U.S. gov't agreed with the U.S. gov't? What a fucking shock. Checks and balances left the building long ago.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 12 2011,11:41
11th Circuit Court says individual mandate is unconstitutional.< http://news.yahoo.com/appeals....77.html >
"If the government can force me to buy your health care, can they also force me to pick your cotton?"
And essentially, they are already forcing you to pick their cotton buy forcing you to buy the health care, you're just paying for it with liquid currency instead of forced labor. You're compelled either way.
Posted by Leisher on Aug. 12 2011,12:03
QUOTE
The majority "has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy," Marcus wrote.
No sir. Your side is ignoring the Constitution and its purpose when you make ignorant statements like that one.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 12 2011,15:26
QUOTE
Obama sought to channel the public's anger in order to avoid being sunk by it himself. He urged the public to tell Washington lawmakers they'd had enough with the bickering and stalemates. "You've got to tell them you've had enough of the theatrics, you've had enough of the politics, stop sending out press releases. Start passing some bills that we all know will help the economy right now," he said. "That's what they need to do. They've got to hear from you."
A full ten paragraphs beforehand in the same article...
QUOTE
Obama aired his frustration with the ways of Washington at an event in Michigan before pivoting to his re-election campaign and a pair of big-money fundraisers in New York City. He delivered a condensed version of that message at a fundraiser at the lower Manhattan home of movie producer Harvey Weinstein, where celebrities Gwyneth Paltrow and Jimmy Fallon, were among the approximately 50 guests who paid $35,800 each to attend.
Jimmy Fallon paid 35 grand to hang out with real celebrities?
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 14 2011,15:18
< On the "exponential" commerce clause >:QUOTE
Regarding the dissent in the most recent Obamacare court challenge, am I the only one who read it as sarcasm, as tongue-in-cheek, as a rope-a-dope? The dissenter says the others
…ignored the undeniable fact that Congress’ commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy.
And they did ignore that, didn’t they? And that is an undeniable fact, isn’t it? But the judge, at least from the excerpts I’ve read, is coyly silent on what he thinks about that undeniable fact.
It’s almost as if this dissent was written, knowing it would be the minority, as a challenge to the higher courts who will (inevitably) rule on this issue to stop letting Congress grow their power exponentially. I mean who can seriously buy that a member of the Judicial Branch thinks it’s hunky-dory and fully Constitutional for Congress’s power to ‘grow exponentially’? The statement contains its own rebuke.
Of course, if that was indeed meant as a sincere judicial opinion in favor of a Congressional power – that it’s ok and fully Constitutional for Congress’s power to ‘grow exponentially’ as long as that okayness is ‘generally accepted’ and that the Constitution can thus be stretched to authorize Congress to ‘regulate large areas of our national economy’ – then it is a scandal and such a fascist and lickspittle judge would have no business being on the bench.
…ignored the undeniable fact that Congress’ commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy.
And they did ignore that, didn’t they? And that is an undeniable fact, isn’t it? But the judge, at least from the excerpts I’ve read, is coyly silent on what he thinks about that undeniable fact.
It’s almost as if this dissent was written, knowing it would be the minority, as a challenge to the higher courts who will (inevitably) rule on this issue to stop letting Congress grow their power exponentially. I mean who can seriously buy that a member of the Judicial Branch thinks it’s hunky-dory and fully Constitutional for Congress’s power to ‘grow exponentially’? The statement contains its own rebuke.
Of course, if that was indeed meant as a sincere judicial opinion in favor of a Congressional power – that it’s ok and fully Constitutional for Congress’s power to ‘grow exponentially’ as long as that okayness is ‘generally accepted’ and that the Constitution can thus be stretched to authorize Congress to ‘regulate large areas of our national economy’ – then it is a scandal and such a fascist and lickspittle judge would have no business being on the bench.