White House Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, annoyed that Senator Kyl of Arizona is arguing against the stimulus, wrote a letter to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, lying about what Kyl actually said.
Kyl said he was against the stimulus, not against Arizona getting stimulus money while other states did get it. There's a big difference between those two things, of course: since it's your tax dollars, even if you are against the whole package, you might as well get your fair share of it.
Yet LaHood said in his letter, "If you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Sen. Kyl suggests, please let me know."
Of course, Kyl suggested no such thing;he wanted an end to all stimulus spending, not just for Arizona. And it's pathetic that an executive official would engage in such dishonest partisan politics.
It basically went like this: Kyl says to cancel all federal stimulus spending. The Obama administration says, "OK, we'll cancel ARIZONA'S spending if you want to. ..." Then Kyl says, "um, what?" And then they say, "ha ha, called your bluff!" This is the level that they're stooping to.
The one bright spot in this is that I get to snicker at FireDogLake cackling like a hyena because Kyl is inconsistent between what he actually said, and what he never said. I am not sure whether "Blue Texan" believed this propaganda from the Obama administration, or if he was just playing along.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at July 16, 2009 01:50 PM | Email ThisAnd that is such a fallacy, if you truly do not believe in the stimulus yet accept the money that flows from the package then you are actively supporting the outcome.
As Mel Gibson said in Braveheart... "slaves are made in such ways!".
Posted by: Difranco on July 16, 2009 03:06 PMSay I want to buy a car, and then the government takes the money I would spend on a car, and so I can't buy it myself.
The government says, OK, we'll buy you a car. If you say no, fine, but we'll just use the money for someone else's car.
Do you take the car? It is YOUR MONEY.
You were against the government doing it, and you will fight to overturn it, but in the meantime, it is YOUR MONEY we're talking about here.
William F. Buckley opposed public funding for TV. But his TV show was publicly funded. The people decided to do it, even though he disagreed with it, and he was paying for it; there's little sense in denying yourself what is rightfully yours.
Your back.....
and why????? LOL
So how was the VA hospital?
it's not about character, it's about hypocrisy. and wtf does smearing coburn (meh, coburn's smeared a lot of people himself, kharma works that way) have to do with kyl not wanting to take stimulus money, then turning aroudn and contradicting himself when his state is hundreds of millions of dollars in the red?
There are no such issues. There are issues with some of the people who have lived there. So?
Largent himself being involved with he "counseling" of Ensign
You say that like it's a bad thing. Please explain how counseling someone who needed counseling is a bad thing.
he now stands to be tarnished by those he associated with
Only if you are going to engage in blatant guilt-by-association fallacy. Which you are doing.
I understand the "accountability" motives and privacy concerns, but at some point public interests are just as important.
You say that like Largent was trying to keep this a secret. Please present your evidence of this.
It is one thing to privately go to a Brother, but the Bible also has a follow-on if the Brother doesn't listen to the private counseling. Ensign should have been exposed by the brotherhood of C Street themselves.
And they were in the process of encouraging him to come clean. So you have no complaint.
Instead they swept it under the table for political reasons.
You're a liar. As usual. Sigh. Will you never learn? There's not a single shred of evidence for this, yet you state it as fact. You're slandering people who by all indications not only did nothing wrong, but were actively trying to help people. You're a lout.
I am not going to bother reading or responding to your second comment. You're not worth my time.
No.
it's not about character
Yes it is.
coburn's smeared a lot of people himself
Please do not lie.
and wtf does smearing coburn ... have to do with ...
Can you not read? KDS said it is about politicians. I said, it's about politicians having character. I gave an example. He gave an example.
kyl not wanting to take stimulus money, then turning aroudn and contradicting himself
Either you cannot read, or you a liar. Which is it? Those things never happened. He never said he didn't want his state to take stimulus money: he said he didn't want the federal government to SPEND ANY stimulus money.
There was never any implication -- and no honest and intelligent person can draw the inference -- that he would not want Arizona to get its fair share if the federal government DID spend that money. He simply said he didn't want that money spent.
If you repeat your lie without evidence to back it up, I will be displeased.
Damn, you people are such sheep. A few people who lived there did something wrong and someone starts a meme that tries to tie it all together to this house, and you go nuts, jumping around like golden retrievers, your tongue lolling out of your mouth, spittle flying everywhere.
I am not trying to smear Largent one bit. I also believe the purpose of the house is admirable (i.e., to have a Christian fellowship and place to live for congressmen and senators while away from their families and to hold each other accountable). My problem is not with the initial counseling that Colburn and others provided, nor with any secrecy associated with the counseling. Us (men) should all have people that can hold us accountable and feel comfortable enough to confront us. My issue is what happened after the counseling, which is: (1) Ensign ignored it, and (2) the "brothers" knew that he ignored it for many months prior to the affair coming to light recently. This is where they potentially can be tarnished. Ensign, who doesn't take his own advice about resigning, basically "spat" on his fellow brothers of C Street and abused their privacy. Yet, none of the involved parties will now publicly hold him accountable. Colburn and others should tell Ensign that he should resign and get his own house in order (at least "kick" him out of the house). Forgiveness and compassion can only go so far. Ensign needs "tough love" from his fellow brotherhood in order to shape up.
Note: I have not for one moment mentioned Sanford's involvement with C Street. His case, I believe, is different than Ensign's.
Posted by: tc on July 17, 2009 08:19 AMBetter to be part of the party of "no, we can't afford that" than "Yes, we can!!...spend our country into unforseeable generational debt. At least we're doing something". That is asinine thinking at best. I'm still amazed we have Obama sychophants declaring "the stimulus is just ramping up" WHAT?! The CBO said this boondoggle of incompetency would be harmful in the long haul way back in February, but the morons in the party of "yes" without reading the bill for christsakes just said "we have to move this now".
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/
It never ceases to amaze me how completely naive some people are in this country are, starting with the guy in the white house.Fortunately by the declining poll numbers and eroding support for his proposed spending programs, Americans are finally waking the hell up. Better late than never I suppose.
Does not reflect negatively on Larsen in any way whatsoever. It reflects POSITIVELY on him.
I am not trying to smear Largent one bit.
You're a liar. People spoke positively of Largent -- and you did too -- and then you offered, as evidence that you implied detracts from those positive notions, the fact that he "counseled" Ensign.
... the "brothers" knew that he ignored it for many months prior to the affair coming to light recently.
You're a liar. You say you appreciate secrecy, and then you attack them for continuing to work on him to come clean.
This is where they potentially can be tarnished.
By liars, yes: people who pretend they appreciate something they clearly do not.
Yet, none of the involved parties will now publicly hold him accountable.
You're a liar. Coburn explicitly did hold him accountable in public.
Colburn and others should tell Ensign that he should resign
That's idiotic. That is not their responsibility.
I do discount that anything I've seen or read gives us any rational reason to tie some of the misdeeds of some of the people at this house to some larger narrative. It's nonsensical partisan hackery and you're falling for it.
If something is bad, you should oppose it: that is your JOB as an elected representative.
And when you are in the minority, there's little point in coming up with your own plan which has no chance of passage, especially given the fact that your opponent will use that plan to create a false dichotomy with the public: "it's either their plan or our plan!," they will lie. No point in giving them that chance to lie.
It's just another example of people (in this case, liberals) resorting to fallacy when they are losing the argument.
coburn smeared the freakin VA:
If you look at VA even though VA is improving, it's still not up to the level of health care in the rest of the country.
which is a blatant lie. tens of millions of americans don't have any access to health care. the level of health care on average in this coutry is pathetic. the VA goes above and beyond what normal hospitals have to deal with. also, if he wants to talk about the issues with the V.A. he should at least be honest about his assisting the Bush administration in not providing adequate funds during a time of increasing aging vets AND a flipping war! ftw!
I was counseling him as a physician and as an ordained deacon. ... That is privileged communication that I will never reveal to anybody. Not to the Ethics Committee, not to a court of law, not to anybody
so now, coburn also thinks that somehow he's entitled to the same rights as a priest or minister, even though he's a deacon (not given the same rights - you think a senator would know this). furthermore, coburn's an ob/gyn - so unless ensign's a lady, doctor-patient privileges don't even apply. and if they did, it would only be to treatment/diagnosis issues. maybe ensign's having his fallopian tubes removed? besides, to claim privilege, there would need to be a medical file, which i'm pretty sure doesn't exist.
well, then it is about character. being hypocritical leads to bad character, score one for pudge-inator.
Posted by: mike on July 17, 2009 08:50 AMfalse. if something is bad, you should make it better. saying no just reinforces the status quo, which is usually not a good thing. the GOP could be a positive party if they did something other than just saying, "no! it's bad! t-t-t-taxes!"
we don't elect people to oppose legislation.
Posted by: mike on July 17, 2009 08:55 AMShrug. If it was not your motive to lie, then that's even more pathetic.
I won't comment on your response until you apologize for calling me a liar.
AWESOME. Thanks!
mike: false. if something is bad, you should make it better.
By "bad" I meant "something you cannot in conscience support."
You obviously agree with this. Take a bill that would remove all federal restrictions on employment discrimination. I assume you'd be against this. Would you oppose it or try to "make it better"? Unless "making it better" to you would mean "keeping in place those restrictions," you would oppose it. If you could "make it better"so that it only removed restrictions on gender discrimination, you would still oppose it.
saying no just reinforces the status quo
That is a lie. It's the lie the Democrats are telling often, but saying it often doesn't make it less of a lie. Every Republican in Congress wants change from the status quo in health care. But they oppose what the Democrats are doing. So they oppose this bill.
This is -- logically -- more the Democrats' fault than the Republicans', if you're going to be assigning blame. If they want broader support, they need to remove those roadblocks that make it objectionable. And don't think they don't know what those things are: the Republicans are making it very clear. It is utterly irrational to put up a plan you know that some people would never support, and then attack them for not "doing something" by opposing that plan.
we don't elect people to oppose legislation.
Actually, yes, we do.
mike: man, oh man, pudge. again with the false accusations.
I know! You'd think tc would stop lying.
coburn smeared the freakin VA
No, in fact, he did not. He criticized the VA, and did so reasonably.
which is a blatant lie
No, in fact, it's not.
tens of millions of americans don't have any access to health care.
False. Everyone has access to health care. You mean most people do not have INSURANCE. And what Coburn meant was that VA care is below what most people get who have insurance. And it's true.
the VA goes above and beyond what normal hospitals have to deal with.
It depends on what vets you ask. I know plenty who say, well, sometimes yes, sometimes no. For lost limbs and such, yes, the VA support rules. For a lot of other stuff, especially PTSD ... not so much.
also, if he wants to talk about the issues with the V.A. he should at least be honest about his assisting the Bush administration in not providing adequate funds ...
Again with the tu quoque fallacy. Do you people ever tire of it? As it is a fallacy and therefore irrelevant, I won't respond.
(not given the same rights - you think a senator would know this).
You are misrepresenting him. He never said he had a legal right, that I have seen, to not tell people what was said. He simply said he wouldn't say, and he gave his reasons why. Nothing wrong with this. If a court rules he has to say or be held in contempt, then he has the choice to not do so.
I hope you similarly criticize all journalists who refuse to testify when they are legally obligated to do so ... it's the same basic thing, where there's no legal protection, yet people involved will still refuse to report what was said for their own ethical reasons.
furthermore, coburn's an ob/gyn
And? He never implied Ensign was his patient, just that he is a doctor, and that he takes such secrecy seriously. Same thing with the deacon thing.
besides, to claim privilege ...
Again, he is not claiming LEGAL privilege.
well, then it is about character
Yes, it is.
being hypocritical
You offered no evidence of anyone being a hypocrite.
It is utterly irrational to put up a plan you know that some people would never support, and then attack them for not "doing something" by opposing that plan.
unless the plan was tax cuts for all, republicans would oppose it. let's be honest, here pudge. they're sad and pissed about being handed their a**es and not being able to do anything in this moment in history. they'll either come out winners if the bill is defeated and the economy doesn't turn around by the end of next year, or will be decimated for generations.
i'd whine a lot, too.
Posted by: mike on July 17, 2009 09:36 AMShould I assume you are being dishonest or ignorant?
let's be honest, here pudge. they're sad ...
You be honest, instead of resorting to fallacy, and address the arguments.
It's not polite to project.
So please, I'm not resorting to fallacy, I'm addressing the arguments.
Republicans got pwn'd. if they want to work with the democrats to write legislation that is acceptable, they should stop saying "no!" and provide alternatives that the dems would be willing to sign up for. Elections have consequences. Or do they only have consequences when republicans have the majority?
Oh, that and various & sundry mental disorders...;'}
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 17, 2009 10:25 AMThis is a completely false statement, and I hope you stop saying it.
If you're poor, you don't have access to an iPod. Speculating that one could earn enough money to buy that iPod -- at three times market rate -- is not the same as saying someone has access to an iPod. (Why three times market rate? Ever tried paying for anything health related out of pocket? It is not at cost. It is not what insurance companies pay.)
The other angle of this dishonest statement is that we do provide emergency treatment to all without health insurance. But emergency health care is a small subset of health care. It is like saying a poor person has access to an iPod because Apple gives free 4GB chunks of flash memory. That memory is but a mere component of an iPod Touch. Emergency health care is just one component of health care.
If you have a persistent cough, and you don't have insurance nor the means to pay for an appointment, you will not get health care until that cough turns very serious.
As with every other nation in the modern world, health care treatment is nearly synonymous with health care insurance. The costs of serious health care treatments are so great that the only way to make it accessible to 99% of the population is to risk pool with insurance.
To say that health care is provided to the population of 39 million American citizens without coverage is blatantly dishonest and understates the serious circumstances that these folks live under. Yes, if they get seriously ill or insured, they will not be denied treatment -- but the bills will be far too expensive for them to handle. And much of what we consider to be seriously ill is easily preventable with the non-emergency aspects of our health care system that is out of reach for many of these folks.
Just because the free market determined that they do not need non-emergency health care does not change the fact that all humans do.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 17, 2009 10:42 AMSo when you said "the Republicans" "just say no," and don't offer a plan, you were lying.
When you say that this plan is "centered" around tax cuts, when that is one part of the plan, and a minor one, you are lying. In fact, the plan is centered around cutting costs, and the tax cuts would not affect the rest of the plan.
Further, originally you said the plan WOULD BE "tax cuts for all," rather than tax cuts merely being a portion of the plan. That, too, was a lie.
So please, I'm not resorting to fallacy, I'm addressing the arguments.
False. When you attacked motives -- like you do again in this comment -- you resorted to fallacy. And of course, your many lies are fallacies.
if they want to work with the democrats to write legislation that is acceptable
Again, this up to the Democrats. They have, in fact, shut the Republicans out of the process. The Democrats know why the Republicans won't vote for their bill; they can change their bill, or invite those changes.
they should stop saying "no!" and provide alternatives that the dems would be willing to sign up for
Wow, and now you are so BLATANTLY dishonest it's just astonishing. You are literally saying that the Republicans are the problem by not coming up with a plan the Democrats would sign up for (committing the "changing the goalposts" fallacy along the way, since before you just said they needed to come up with a plan), while blaming the Republicans for not working to change the DEMOCRATS plan ... which the Republicans won't sign up for.
Just wow.
Your hypocrisy and dishonesty are truly remarkable.
Elections have consequences.
None of which are relevant to anything I have said or implied or talked about in any way.
Or do they only have consequences when republicans have the majority?
Yet again, the tu quoque fallacy. Yet again, it is not only used (which is bad enough), but it is dishonestly used against me, as though I have ever said the opposite when the GOP was in control.
Posted by: pudge on July 17, 2009 10:56 AMEveryone has access to health care.
Here, I'll say it again...
Everyone has access to health care.
Anything else wanders from delusion to complete falsehood (rizzo, why did everybody suddenly turn to look at you?!)
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 17, 2009 10:59 AMYou sir, are a liar. Everyone has access to health care; no one is turned away from an emergency room. Everyone does NOT have health insurance.
Guess what - you can get health insurance for under $100 per month. The FACT that you choose to remain ignorant says a lot about you...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 17, 2009 11:01 AMSo, Rizzuh, you agree with Pudge's statement, but disagree at the same time. Glad we could clear that up.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 17, 2009 11:02 AMWow, Jensen. You're pathetic.
mike said, "tens of millions of americans don't have any access to health care." (emphasis added)
I said this is false, noting, "Everyone has access to health care." I did not use the word "any" because there was no logical or linguistic need, given the context: he said they do not have access to ANY, so I was pointing out the fact that the DO. As I did not provide a quantity, some inspecific amount above "zero" is necessarily implied. mike said NO access, I said SOME access.
You explicitly agreed with what I actually said, noting, "we do provide emergency treatment to all without health insurance."
That is all I said: everyone has access to some health care. This is true, and you agree it is true.
I did not in any way imply anyone can buy it if they have the means, nor did I imply they have some large, or even sufficient, amount of health care. I just said -- and meant -- they have access to health care.
To say that health care is provided to the population of 39 million American citizens without [insurance] coverage is ...
... obviously true, as you explicitly stated.
... understates the serious circumstances that these folks live under.
No, in fact, it understates nothing. It simply states a fact.
... if they get seriously ill or insured, they will not be denied treatment -- but the bills will be far too expensive for them to handle.
Utterly irrelevant to my point, which is simply that they get care, which you agree is true.
And much of what we consider to be seriously ill is easily preventable with the non-emergency aspects of our health care system that is out of reach for many of these folks.
Also completely irrelevant to my point.
Just because the free market determined that they do not need non-emergency health care does not change the fact that all humans do.
A lie, and irrelevant to my point.
Emergency health care is one small segment of health care. To say they are equivalent isn't just laughable, it is lunacy.
Let's look at some of the biggest killers in the country: high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer, or diabetes. You cannot get emergency treatment for these illnesses, you can only get emergency treatment for the result of these problems. That is not health care.
Simply repeating the opposite does not make it true.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 17, 2009 11:10 AM5. It was not a tu quoque, and wasn't dishonestly used against you. It was simply a question. If you can't answer that question, that's not my fault.
1. You are the definition of a liar.
2. You have already stated "GOP is the party of no"
3. You are the projecting trolling liar.
4. No the public option will mean companies will dump their health plans and everyone will be in single-payer.
5. You apparently look to be the unemployed on - more projection.
6. The Dems are in power - but not for long.
OBTW, don't quote the State of Washington's plan, since the legislature implemented quota's on it. It is effectively closed to new enrollee's.
Posted by: tc on July 17, 2009 11:20 AM@ 40- This is a completely false statement, and I hope you stop saying it.- John Jensen
-two paragraphs later, JJ contradicts himself-
The other angle of this dishonest statement is that we do provide emergency treatment to all without health insurance. But emergency health care is a small subset of health care.- John Jensen
You'd make a good politician, John. Just take both sides of the same argument and claim victory.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 17, 2009 11:24 AMI don't care what mike wrote. You wrote: Everyone has access to health care.
Where's the word "some"? It's not there. It wasn't your point. You're changing your argument. Everyone has access to "some" health care, sure. Everyone has access to the most expensive and the least efficient form of health care in the world: emergency care.
They get some care. Not cancer treatment. Not prescriptions. Not insulin. Not preventative treatments. Some care. A very limited subset of our health care system is provided to the uninsured.
That's why one of the biggest goals should be to get everyone insured so that they can have access to the preventative care that presents expensive and inefficient emergency care. You want to ignore this debate by claiming they have the same access as everyone else and changing your argument upon my inspection. False, through and thought.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 17, 2009 11:24 AMYour dancing (well, more like a drunken stagger) betwixt and between the various verbal raindrops belie your motives which are that you want something for nothing, and you demand that everyone around you conform to your dementia. Well, not exactly nothing since someone is going to have to pick up the tab for your extravagance.
Guess what rizzo - I'm not interested! (oh, and the latest Rasmussen has the voter opposition over 50% now)
Everything else that you bring up is simply strawman.
The left is not interested in true healthcare reform - they are interested in the acquisition and consolidation of power. You don't care because, in your limited frame of reference, you do not see your particular ox being gored. I will make no apologies for your limited cognitive abilities or your obdurate nature.
Just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it isn't coming, and when it hits, it's intensity will shock you out of your shoes.
Between the farce of Obamacare and it's idiot twin sister of Cap & Tax you people are erecting a house of cards that is unsustainable. Some of your slightly more pragmatic fellow-travelers are beginning to wise up and that is why support is draining away. I imagine that is also why the more rabid amongst you are becoming so shrill about this.
IT is in the nature of dhimmicrats to over-reach. And y'all are doing so at an unprecedented rate. That frightens normal people.
Be ready for the blowback - it'll be glorious!
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 17, 2009 11:33 AMIt is an uncomfortable truth that 48 million people in this country lack access to our "world-class" health care. Yes, if the cancer puts them in a coma, or if the heart disease gives them a heart attack, or if the diabetes gives them a seizure, surely one will be rushed in a costly ambulance to a costly hospital where you'll receive costly emergency care.
But because of this we can simply ignore the lack of access to cancer treatment, heart disease treatment, and diabetes treatment? No, it is un-ignorable and it is a disgrace. And the fact that conservative after conservative is assailing me on this fact is distressing. You justify the continual denial of these life-saving services, but avoid discussing them because it is truly an uncomfortable topic.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 17, 2009 11:48 AMAnd for you to imply anyone DID say that is a LIE.
Yes pudge, they get some health care.
Which is ALL I SAID. So please retract your claims of me being wrong and dishonest.
I don't care what mike wrote.
Because you don't care about being honest, because the context matters.
Where's the word "some"? It's not there.
It is necessarily implied, logically and linguistically, by the context.
If I say, "John, you can't do ANY math," and you say, "yes, I can do math," this obviously and necessarily implies only that you can do SOME math. Nothing more and nothing less.
It wasn't your point. You're changing your argument.
You're a liar. It WAS my point and I changed nothing.
I will remove further comments from you on this or any other discussion of mine for awhile. A longer while this time, since you obviously did not learn your lesson last time.
mike: 1. learn what the definition of a lie is.
Done!
2. where did I say "republicans just say no and don't offer a plan"?
Oops, that was tc. Sorry, you both say such idiotic things, it's easy to get confused.
3. Stop projecting.
Impossible, since I cannot stop doing what I don't do.
4. the plan is centered around keeping insurance companies gainfully employed - not cutting costs.
Fine, then the Democratic plan is centered around controlling society, not helping people. There, I can play your fallacious motive-questioning game too!
5. Get a job - you obviously have way too much time on your hands
Ad hominem fallacy.
6. I'm saying the dems are in power, if the repubs want to play, they can either come to the table with understanding they won't get everything they want. Alternatively, they can sulk like the dems did when the republicans were in power and shut them out of the process.
It is not about "not getting everything they want." It's about opposing what you could not in good conscience ever vote for.
When the GOP was in power, when they needed Democratic votes, they had to make compromises to get those votes. Same thing now that the Democrats are in power: they will either make concessions to get Republican votes, or they won't. If they don't, then how can you fault Republicans for opposing something that they, in fact, oppose?
THAT IS THEIR JOB. It's the job of EVERY legislator.
Maybe you think they should try to improve the bill even if they are going to vote against it. For example, I could not vote for any bill with a public option, but if it is going to pass anyway, maybe I could try to improve it even though I'll vote against it.
But not only does that undercut the argument against the bill, but hacks like you would just use that as evidence that they are only opposing it because it is a Democratic bill: "he got his amendments accepted and he still voted against it!"
Sticking their fingers in their ears and whining 'no fair' isn't pragmatic for either side.
Once again the left tries to tell the right what is best for THEM. It's unconvincing and sad.
It was not a tu quoque ...
In fact, it was. When you attack a claim of wrongdoing by saying "well someone else did it too," that is the to quoque fallacy. That is what you did.
... and wasn't dishonestly used against you. It was simply a question.
No one believes you. The framing of the question was obviously meant to imply that I was being hypocritical. We're not that dumb.
http://www.americanissuesproject.org/blogs/columns/archive/2009/06/09/nationalized-health-care-and-breast-cancer-are-a-deadly-mix.aspx
"Currently the United States leads the world in treating breast cancer. Women with breast cancer have a 14 percent higher survival rate in the United States than in Europe. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Breast cancer mortality is also 9 percent higher in Canada than in the US. Less than 25 percent of U.S. women die from breast cancer. In Britain, it's 46 percent; France, 35 percent; Germany, 31 percent; Canada, 28 percent; Australia, 28 percent, and New Zealand, 46 percent."The European Network of Cancer Registries reported: "Breast cancer is also the most common cancer in females in Europe. It is estimated that in the year 2000 there were 350,000 new breast cancer cases in Europe, while the number of deaths from breast cancer was estimated at 130,000. Breast cancer is responsible for 26.5 percent of all new cancer cases among women in Europe, and 17.5 percent of cancer deaths."
Yeah, John. Women (and men) should instead be knocking down doors to get that "WORLD CLASS" nationalized healthcare so they can have just as shoddy treatment as they do in Europe, right? No thanks.
Upon the advice of counsel, i'm exerting my Fifth Amendment rights.
Posted by: mike on July 17, 2009 12:14 PMWhere can you get health insurance for a family of four for under $100? What does it cover, what doesn't it cover?
I can get it for $93 per month for a 41 year old non-smoker male. A family of 4 would start around $300 per month. Please see Lifewise Health for plan options.
How is it cost-effective to spend 5 times that amount for a Federal plan? How come we need to completely change out the health system of the US because some people don't want to drop $1.65 per day on their own health insurance?
When will people take responsibility for their own health care? When will people stop looking for a hand out? Probably never, as long as they're promised something for nothing.
Centrifuge John,
We all agree that they have access to some health care, so we should say it. And the next step is realizing that this simply isn't enough: heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and many other medical problems are not addressed in the ER until it's too late. That is the outrage that mike and I are focusing on.
Yet those are the VERY THINGS best treated with economic forces making people live healthier lives! With the mandated insurance plans that you and your ilk support, bad lifestyle choices (high fat diets, obesity, smoking, no exercise) will be ignored, as you'll pay the same insurance rates as that vegetarian triathlete.
Again, you want to ignore the consequences of life choices and try to protect people from hurting themselves. You want to enable bad behavior. Make it more expensive to be a smoker, or obese, or live with high blood pressure and people will change their behavior. Ignore those sources, and you ensure they will expand.
But explain to me how that will solve our greatly growing budget nightmare. We can't just slow down the rate of increase of health care, we have to REVERSE it. The current plans will add hundreds of billions in additional spending, and will force higher expenditures in the future because of greatly expanded Government rolls of consumers.
Explain how dollars - absolute dollars - are saved by covering more people.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 17, 2009 12:20 PMPosted by: John Jensen on July 17, 2009 12:18 PM
You do try to push the idea that we are heartless, when all we are trying to do is figure out an equitable and logical solution to the problem. OTOH, your side is engaging int he demonizing tactics. Look at Obama with his "Republicans have to buck up" rhetoric. Talk about not even giving lip service to an open, honest debate. Just wants to ram it through like Stimulus, Cap'n'Trade and gosh knows what the hell else he wants to foist on us.
Posted by: Crusader on July 17, 2009 12:23 PMThere's that HOPE AND CHANGE for ya!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 17, 2009 01:08 PMSchumer said he is working on a mechanism to prevent insurers from passing on to consumers as much as $100 billion in fees that he’s proposing to help offset the costs of health- care legislation.
Schumer's fees are for 10 years - that's $10 billion per year.
Now consider that the big dogs in insurance have about a 5% profit margin, and that's about $10 billion per year Schumer will add fees and taxes to eliminate all their profits. Essentially making them run at - ideally - zero profit, but most likely at losses.
Essentially, Schumer wants to make it functionally illegal to make a profit in insurance, thus driving the private industry out of business.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 17, 2009 01:27 PMWhy is both Congress & Senate excempt from this bill?
Posted by: Medic/Vet on July 17, 2009 01:29 PMOnly the Democrats you support,John. Are you saying you don't support Waxman's and by extension Obama's plan to nationalize healthcare? The CBO weighed in on the issue before a senate committee yesterday:
Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071602242.html
Must be difficult always moving those goalposts...much like your number of uninsured (voluntarily or otherwise) jumping from 39 million to 48 million in the matter of a few posts on the same thread.
The CBO expects that by 2019 only ten million Americans will join the public plan in the House bill.
Great. So we'll spend $1 TRILLION for coverage of 10 million people over 10 years. That's $10,000 per person, per year. Yeah, that's a REAL cost efficient plan the Government has - and that's your own precious CBO making the statement!
Who here has health insurance that runs $800 per person, per month? A family of four paying $3200 per month? If you don't, you know you can join the up-coming Government plan and get palladium-plated solid-gold coverage at $800 per month per person!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 17, 2009 02:13 PMYou guys keep trying to avoid the obvious, which is that by doing this and taxing the insurance companies and wealthiest people (who invest in our businesses so that we might continue to grow them) you create amazing incentive for existing businesses to STOP providing private insurance.
It's like if the City said "Well, from now on we'll be putting a sidewalk in front of every home in Seattle and we'll tax developers to pay for the effort, but we fully expect that developers will provide sidewalks for each new home they build anyway."
Elminating the potential for profit from private insurance companies assures that private insurance will dry up. Then those of us that produce and have been responsible will have to join the millions of irresponsible and the illegal immigrants that haven't been.
(Please libbies, quit hiding behind "can't insure pre-existing conditions" lines. If this healthcare bill was ONLY about that, it would be much and require much less in dollars.
I've been a diabetic my whole life and I've managed to keep myself insured since I was 19.
Yes, I pay more, but I COST the insurance companies more. Farmers Insurance didn't give birth to me. It's not their fault I wasn't born with a defective pancreas.)
Posted by: johnny on July 17, 2009 02:30 PMYou guys keep trying to avoid the obvious, which is that by doing this and taxing the insurance companies and wealthiest people (who invest in our businesses so that we might continue to grow them) you create amazing incentive for existing businesses to STOP providing private insurance.
It's like if the City said "Well, from now on we'll be putting a sidewalk in front of every home in Seattle and we'll tax developers to pay for the effort, but we fully expect that developers will provide sidewalks for each new home they build anyway."
Elminating the potential for profit from private insurance companies assures that private insurance will dry up. Then those of us that produce and have been responsible will have to join the millions of irresponsible and the illegal immigrants that haven't been.
(Please libbies, quit hiding behind "can't insure pre-existing conditions" lines. If this healthcare bill was ONLY about that, it would be much and require much less in dollars.
I've been a diabetic my whole life and I've managed to keep myself insured since I was 19.
Yes, I pay more, but I COST the insurance companies more. Farmers Insurance didn't give birth to me. It's not their fault I was born with a defective pancreas.)
Posted by: johnny on July 17, 2009 02:31 PMIt is not really very 'pathetic' that one politician would call out another politician on what he says. And it is hard to see how LaHood is losing any argument. If the argument is regarding whether or not there should be a stimulus, that's over.
If Kyl believes he has a winnable argument to stop the stimulus, he could at least introduce the legislation.
Otherwise Kyl is not really proposing anything as a legislator, and shouldn't be surprised that LaHood or any other politician who disagrees with his grandstanding grandstands back.
Right. And? He obviously wasn't proposing to violate contracts.
It is not really very 'pathetic' that one politician would call out another politician on what he says.
I didn't say it was. I said it was pathetic for a cabinet secretary to lie about what a politician said. Which is what LaHood did. LaHood claimed that Kyl wanted to cut off stimulus spending in Arizona, specifically. Kyl never did that. LaHood lied.
Um. Right. Opposing the Senator in what? That's the point! Read the quote! "If you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Sen. Kyl suggests, please let me know."
SENATOR KYL SUGGESTED NO SUCH THING.
RAY LAHOOD LIED.
THIS IS NOT COMPLICATED.
If the Governor says they want the money the Congress is giving out from the stimulus bill, this does not oppose Senator Kyl in any way.
Posted by: pudge on July 17, 2009 03:34 PMThe White House strikes back - By JONATHAN MARTIN | 7/16/09 4:52 AM EDT
"The coordinated assault against Kyl came after weeks of frustration in watching GOP members of Congress trash the stimulus as ineffective while their own states and districts received millions in funding thanks to the act. In some cases, congressional Republicans have even sought to claim credit for the money in a bill they opposed. ...
So after seeing Kyl and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) again paint the legislation as a failure on Sunday talk shows, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel directed that the letters from the Cabinet secretaries be sent to Brewer, according to two administration officials.
And then the DNC made sure other Republicans saw the message being delivered to Arizona by touting the letters."
Attack. Counter attack.
Is Kyl claiming the White house lied?
Obviously not. My analysis makes my point. That analysis makes a completely different point. Please do not presume to tell me what point I am making, especially when you're so obviously wrong.
Attack. Counter attack.
That is irrelevant to the point I am making, which is that they are lies. Calling them a "counter attack" neither justifies them, nor changes the fact that they are lies.
Is Kyl claiming the White house lied?
Why do you care? I certainly don't.
Your single-payer plan is based on pure anti-economic principles of self destructive economics.
The fact that none of the current proposals expand Medicaid, that they will directly interfere with and damage the individual free market mechanism combined with the fact that the government plan will displace all currently held plans in very short order are reasons to vote against them.
Everyone in America is able to get health insurance and no one is prevented from obtaining the very best health care in the world. Why would anyone buy into an idiotic system that has as its primary goal to grab power away from people and seize their property to give it to others?
They won't and that is why your program will fail.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 17, 2009 04:08 PMok
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 17, 2009 04:10 PMOf course that would only happen in a linear world that doesn't exist, John. Employees will have no say in whether their employer's will continue to provide their current healthcare coverage given that a new publicly financed alternative has been made available to them. It is naive to think that those without insurance will benefit long term without an exponentially larger group being adversely affected by this proposed legislation.
Also, care to answer Medic/Vet's question @ 69?
Posted by: Rick D. on July 17, 2009 04:13 PMYou appear to think that whether Kyl says they are lying has any bearing on whether they are actually lying; you are obviously wrong.
The facts clearly demonstrate LaHood is lying, as I showed. For it to be the question-begging fallacy, I would have to argue from assertion rather than a demonstration of the facts.
Stop making a fool of yourself.
"Employees will have no say in whether their employer's will continue to provide their current healthcare coverage ..."
But non-union employees don't have a say now. So, are you saying the terrible difference is that in the future employees will continue to have no say but be punished with the assurance of insurance with the play or pay proposals???
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 17, 2009 04:24 PMSure they do. No one is holding a gun to their head to stay with an employer that provides substandard health coverage. However, the plan you're providing is a "take it or leave it" approach and,as has been explained to you by others, will crowd out any and all private competition leaving it the sole provider. Then what options are we left with, mike?
Answer: None
Posted by: Rick D. on July 17, 2009 04:31 PMYou told MikeBS to "Stop making a fool of yourself."
Why ruin the fun for us?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 17, 2009 04:31 PMWhat in the play or pay proposals would prevent an employee from quitting his job and moving to work for an employer which offers the insurance coverage to his liking?
Is there a play or pay proposal on the table which would 'hold a gun to employees heads to stay with an employer that provides substandard publicly administered health coverage'? Citation?
On this particular point, Rick, it would appear that it is at worst a wash.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 17, 2009 04:42 PMsorry, I missed your point about the government crowding out all private insurers. I can't buy that unless you can offer a lot of support for it.
The government is in the satellite launch business, but has competition from the private sector (Lockheed, Boeing).
The government is in the parcel delivery business but has competition from the private sector (UPS, FedEX). ...
There is no guarantee the likes of Aetna, Blue Shield, etc... will remain or remain competitive, and there is an economic argument that an industry whose purpose is to provide management over many suppliers is most cost effective as a monopoly, but it is by no means conclusive that private insurers are eliminated by play or pay.
Yes, when you're limited to one choice (i.e. the public plan), common sense dictates that you have a metaphorical "gun to your head" in terms of choosing (that's called options, mike) your health care coverage. Not sure why this is so difficult for you to compute. Perhaps you'll field the question of whether Congress will also agree to be covered under the "public plan"...and no, not the one they're currently provided, but rather the one that supercedes what they're proposing for us. I'd be interested to hear your reasoning why they shouldn't be if that is your position.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 17, 2009 05:26 PM"sorry, I missed your point about the government crowding out all private insurers. I can't buy that unless you can offer a lot of support for it."
Don't buy it, who cares?
The only support necessary is common sense.
Amusingly obtuse.
The government is in the satellite launch business, but has competition from the private sector (Lockheed, Boeing).
Actually, no. The Government contracts out its satellite launches. The only thing it does is Space Shuttles, but all the parts to those were contracted out. Much like fighter aircraft and tanks.
The government is in the parcel delivery business but has competition from the private sector (UPS, FedEX).
Actually, no. The bulk of the USPS income is first class mail from which UPS and Fedex are legally prohibited from carrying.
And overseas delivery of USPS Priority mail is contracted through DHL, Fedex, and UPS.
In fact, when you look at it, the Government contracts out anything it overlaps with the private industry. Those things which it actually does it uses laws to legally prevent competition from private industry.
It appears that's going to be the way that health care will go, too, if Obama/Pelosi/Reid get their way (which is against the wishes of a majority of American voters).
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 17, 2009 05:34 PMYes, I think Congress and Federal employees should fold their coverage in to the public plan option they provide.
So much for "dissent is patriotic" or wanting to listen to alternative ideas or plans!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 17, 2009 05:39 PMI will let this WSJ article explain the particulars to you, but one quick snapshot of the article will help you with a quick and dirty synopsis:
A public program won't compete in a way that any normal business would recognize. As an entitlement, Congress's creation will enjoy potentially unlimited access to the Treasury, without incurring the risks or hedging against losses that private carriers do. As people gravitate to "free" or heavily subsidized care, the inevitably explosive costs will be covered in part with increased outlays to keep premiums artificially low or even offer extra benefits. Lacking such taxpayer cash, private insurance rates will escalate.
This is a boondoggle of a plan and as always, the government is the least qualified entity to run something as vital/personal as healthcare. The CBO also called the spending necessary for this proposal "unsustainable"... Is Obama tone deaf or just obstinate?
I'm familiar with this WSJ opinion piece.
I find its conclusion rather dubious
"Proponents will say we are exaggerating, but the consequences we describe are inevitable when government bulldozes into a market"
No, they are not.
I just heard an interview with Jason Altmire (d)PA who said that he is disgusted with Piglosi's game-changer scheme to siphon off a portion of the proposed Obamacare tax hike for deficit reduction and he says, "As it stands, there are 39 Blue Dog's that aren't going to support it" (meaning the sham bill).
Or was it the scathing report from the dhimmicrats own CBO (Congressional Budget Office) chief that forewarned of massive increases in the cost of healthcare as a result of Obamacare and said that "The Democratic health plan would only make the long-term deficit much worse and send our nation's finances off the fiscal cliff".
Listen...can you hear it? Sounds like cracks in the ice to me!
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 17, 2009 07:15 PMYes, I think Congress and Federal employees should fold their coverage in to the public plan option they provide.
Posted by MikeBoyScout at July 17, 2009 05:37 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WOW, well that's the problem YOU LIB's.(Mike and so many others) They won't (Congress & Senate)
Why I ask. Hell they have YOUR funds to pay for it NO-matter what happens (taxes)
Talk about stupid! They get the $100.000 medical plan and we get the left overs.
Tell me again about "Hope & Change"
Funny how you LIB's won't touch that part.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on July 17, 2009 09:12 PMThen I suppose you are doing nothing to support John Fleming's resolution?
"Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, Federal Government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr111-615
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 18, 2009 09:46 AMWhere meaning has been systematically limited to feeeelings in direct substitution for facts and understanding carefully delimited from history, there should be no surprise that liberals would be willing to give away their freedom for a leader who represents everything that is superficial and specifically excluding morality.
Liberals are so ideologically blinded that they actually believe Obama capable of out-guessing the knowledge of the ages and the careful crafting of a government by true patriots and geniuses simply because they connect with manufactured white liberal guilt about slavery.
Ever the impulsive opportunists, any "manufactured irrational sentiment" (Health Care Crisis) offers a sufficient excuse for them to make new irrational policy.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 20, 2009 09:14 AM