President Obama says "death panels" were not in the legislation. Senators now say they have been removed.
But it is reported that the same provision remains in the three bills in the House.
Senate committee scraps healthcare provision that gave rise to 'death panel' claims -- latimes.com:
Reporting from Washington - A Senate panel has decided to scrap the part of its healthcare bill that in recent days has given rise to fears of government "death panels," with one lawmaker suggesting the proposal was just too confusing."Voluntary" as in at every decision point every medical person who sees you reminds you that you have the death option. Posted by Ron Hebron at August 15, 2009 01:45 PM | Email ThisThe Senate Finance Committee is taking the idea of advance care planning consultations with doctors off the table as it works to craft its version of healthcare legislation, a Democratic committee aide said Thursday.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the committee, said the panel dropped the idea because it could be "misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly."
For Democrats, the decision was an apparent acknowledgment that the provision had become a lightning rod for critics of a proposed overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system. Democratic lawmakers and President Obama are trying to extend health insurance to more people, rein in health costs and make other changes.
Recently, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin speculated that Obama and other Democrats wanted to set up "death panels" to decide who gets medical services and who does not.
In reality, the provision was designed to allow Medicare to pay doctors who counsel patients about planning for end-of-life decisions. The consultations would be voluntary and would provide information about living wills, healthcare proxies, pain medication and hospice.
All hail the lyin' king.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 15, 2009 01:56 PMNot exactly a shining moment in compassionate conservatism.
Posted by: scottd on August 15, 2009 02:14 PMThe culture of death pushed and propped up by the democrat party will have them rapidly retreating into the political wilderness where they belong.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 15, 2009 03:11 PMFor example, I would say that we have the right to exclude smokers. Since this country has numerous laws and warnings about smoking, and the link of smoking and cancer is so strong, why should we taxpayers fund the smokers.
What about drug users? I don't want to pay for drug users. If you want public health insurance, then no using drugs.
And so on...
i don't want traitorous clowns that shout false talking points and ignore facts and reason to be able to vote, but that doesn't mean republicans won't get to vote.
Posted by: mike on August 15, 2009 04:09 PMIn other words, you don't want predident obama to vote...
Posted by: Rick D. on August 15, 2009 04:25 PMhttp://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html
After Sean Hannity put on one member of the European parliament from the UK conservative party, who said the conservatives in the UK want to do away with National Health Service, David Cameron lept out into the media to say no how no way no no no no no the Conservatives are hte party of NHS and they intend to put more money into NHS!
Hmmm. The party of MAggie Thatcher is the party of NHS.
Glad some conservatives are reasonable.
I hear they also favor having a nationalized communistic program to have roads, and nationalized communistic intrusive regulations into your personal freedom requiring you to drive on the left side of the roads, too, so maybe the conservatives over there are just closet commies on every damn thing!
What I think she is saying is that while section 1233 does not contain the term 'death panel,' it does contain the seeds for such a program. As she says, the context of cost-cutting is crucial here.
Posted by: travis t on August 15, 2009 05:57 PMContrast that to reporting on stimulus spending. A lot of us thought that the 'stimulus' package was just garden variety pork. Nonetheless, the media embraced the 'stimulus' nomenclature without reservation.
Here , for example, the Seattle Times reports with a straight face that $500,000 in 'stimulus' money is coming to the Seattle area. No disclaimer, caveat, or question as to whether the spending would really stimulate anything other than the bank accounts of the tax-funded arts groups.
That kind of stuff should not be in any Congressional bill. First, it isn't their business, and second, it's ripe for abuse.
I mean look... as hard as some people are having agreeing what the language means, imagine some pinhead in DC deciding what it means. Hell, they can't even understand the Constitution.
No, thanks.
"According to Democratic Congressman Leonard Boswell, Barack Obama vows that he will continue to push for government medicine and an energy tax even if it means that he will be a one-term President:
Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) claims that President Obama told him "he's willing to be a one-term president if that's what it takes to get health care and energy reform," reports Radio Iowa.
Said Boswell: "The president (said), 'I'm not going to kick the can down the road.' And he said that and I said, 'Well, that's something I'm kind of used to from southern Iowa, you know. I know about kicking the can down the road.' And he said, 'No, if it makes me a one-term president, I'm going to, we're going to take it on because the country is in need of us taking this on.'"
When Hillarycare crashed and burned and the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, Bill Clinton gave it up. Rather than be a one-term President, he backed off and governed in a more centrist fashion. It's now pretty clear that Obama's plans for government medicine and slow (or no) economic growth fly in the face of the American people's values and preferences. If he, unlike Clinton, persists in trying to force the country far to the Left, he may well make good on his pledge."
Rather disturbing - In order to preserve our country's greatness and avoid a socialist utopia, Obama must fail !!
#17: I would also be willing to see Obama be a one-term president. He makes Hillary look desirable as president (and that, my friends, is pretty dang hard to do).
You mean like that democrat from Obama's "Organizing for America" group who showed up at a Town Hall meeting pretending to be a doctor "speaking for" doctors on Obamacare? She was outed to be a total fraud and not any kind of doctor.
Posted by: Michele on August 16, 2009 12:42 AMAhh, well. Have fun with the "debate". I haven't read anything here but ranting, dishonest conservative crap for days now, and it's not worth my time to try to disturb your collective psychotic implosion.
Posted by: demo kid on August 16, 2009 12:49 AM"...not worth my time to try to disturb your collective psychotic implosion."
-
So... why are you here?
Obama and the Democrats are falling in the polls. It is because Obama and his cronies overplayed their hand. They also foolishly believed liberals are a majority in America.
Why should we trust anything that comes out of the mouths of Democrats? As to "death panels"--why would anyone think that would not be possible from the same people who happily kill unborn children? It's hardly a stretch, it seems to me.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 16, 2009 09:08 AMI think this whole thing may fall apart before long.
When these dems start hearing from seniors more and more... look out, Nancy!
If they would actually reform the elements that need reforming rather than using the current situation as an excuse for a major power grab and a major shift to the left, people would actually jump on board. They could:
(1) Do medical malpractice/tort reform;
(2) do more to tie insurance to the individual rather than to their employment (increased portability);
(3) promote the sales of insurance against becoming uninsurable to handle the problem of trying to switch insurers once you have a medical condition (pre-existing condition);
(4) equalize the tax situation between those insured through their employer vs those who buy their insurance as individuals;
(5) promote and expand HSA's combined with high deductible/catastrophic health insurance to start to bring market discipline to the health care market.
These are all things that could be done to actually improve the health care and health insurance market. However, they are just using the current opportunity for their own ends. People are seeing through them now, which is good.
Posted by: Bill on August 16, 2009 09:34 AMA majority of Americans believe that our current system has major problems, and understand that access and cost need to be dealt with more appropriately. While a majority of people do not advocate for a "government-run" system, the entire thrust of this healthcare reform initiative is not to create a government-run healthcare system, it is to provide public healthcare options. There is NO socialization of medicine being proposed here, and if you assume that you're "losing this country" because there is this perceived need to take care of one another... well... you have a sad, pathetic, and self-serving image of what this country is all about.
But why debate about any of this when wild hyperbole works just as well, right?
From what I can see here, the posters on (un)Sound Politics have the wondrous and short-sighted belief that because their own coverage plans (self-provided or otherwise) work for them, that there are absolutely no problems with medical care in this country. I would be interested, though, in seeing how this attitude would change if these plans of yours are cancelled in the midst of long-term care for chronic conditions. Would you be so quick to sacrifice yourself to a "death panel" run by market forces if you drew the short end of the economic stick? Would you throw senior citizens and the disabled off Medicare because it's "socialized medicine"?
Posted by: demo kid on August 16, 2009 09:39 AMMaybe you answer a question of mine re: HR3200. Americans will have to pay a special tax if they are un-insured, right? Mandatory coverage, because after all, the use emergency medical care, etc and should pay for it. Fine. I understand the reason, though I am still against that part.
How will the people in the country illegally pay the special tax? How does HR3200 deal with that,
since after all, they also use emergency medical services, etc?
Thanks.
I would be interested, though, in seeing how this attitude would change if these plans of yours are cancelled in the midst of long-term care for chronic conditions.
Today, I have recourse; I can find another plan (and, because of HIPAA, I would have pre-existing condition restrictions eliminated).
Under HR 3200 I would have no recourse, since as a private individual I have no choice but to buy in to the "public option". If that drops coverage, I would be legally prohibited from purchasing any other insurance.
Seems to me that HR 3200 will restrict choice and eliminate my options. Why do you want to eliminate choice and options, SPFA?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 16, 2009 09:54 AM
Remain vigilant.
I don't know if the liberals are gonna pass something without a public option...
Apparently, thousands of normal people showing up at various rallies this weekend aren't all well-dressed Nazis! Ha!
Posted by: Gary on August 16, 2009 10:12 AM"Today, I have recourse; I can find another plan (and, because of HIPAA, I would have pre-existing condition restrictions eliminated)"
No, you don't. HIPAA's elimination of pre-existing condition restrictions only applies to employer provided and group plans. If you lose your employer provided, tax payer subsidized health insurance and need to acquire health insurance on your own, HIPAA protects your ability to acquire coverage in very limited ways.
"Seems to me that HR 3200 will restrict choice and eliminate my options"
Would love to read what options you have now (either as a covered employee, or private purchaser) that HR 3200 takes away. Will you tell us???
No, you don't.
Yes, I do.
HIPAA's elimination of pre-existing condition restrictions only applies to employer provided and group plans.
My plan is essentially a "group of 1", that's how it's set up. I can move to a new plan and gain full HIPAA benefits. Didn't know that a group could have 1 person, did you Mike? All my contracting/consulting acquaintances also structure their own insurance this way.
Would love to read what options you have now (either as a covered employee, or private purchaser) that HR 3200 takes away.
Currently, I can buy from literally dozens of private health insurance plans. Can you tell me which ones qualify under HR 3200? Just one, please.
Will you tell us???
Yes, Mike, please tell me which private insurance plans are available for individual purchase under HR 3200. Please name one, just one.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 16, 2009 10:44 AMOf the 47 million uninsured...how many don't pay the $200 a month to Blue Cross because they'd rather spend their money on lattes, a new bicycle or recreational drugs?
Insurance, contrary to Obama, is actually cheap.
It can also be gotten cheap from any number of professional organizations.
It can also be gotten cheap from any number of state assistance programs.
Posted by: Tony Tiger on August 16, 2009 10:48 AMThe first plan came up at $130 a month!!
What is the problem people? Health insurance is cheap cheap cheap!!
http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/Quote.fs
GroupHealth:
http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/Quote.fs?mcei.html.screen%2B%2B.IFPOverview.row:0.x=1
Here's one for $106 dollars!!
http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/Quote.fs?mcei.html.screen%2B%2B.IFPOverview.row:7.x=1
Posted by: Tony Tiger on August 16, 2009 10:51 AMThugs, liars, and thieves.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 16, 2009 10:55 AMhttps://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/Quote.fs?mcei.html.screen%2B%2B.IFPOverview.row:1.x=1
$117 a month!
To service the 47 million uninsured for 12 months that a mere $63 billion. Way, way below any of the other estimates.
And that's individual plans...not counting savings per person with family plans.
Is it the best? Probably not.
But beggars can't be choosers.
The McCain plan would have given people a $5000 tax credit to choose their insurer.
How many people simply don't want to pony up the $117 a month for health care and spend it on cigarettes instead?
Posted by: Tony Tiger on August 16, 2009 10:55 AMThat's why they are trying to push the discussion out until January- so they will have time to make it quietly go away.
This is equivalent to having a truck full of toxic waste dumped into your campaign.
Posted by: Andy on August 16, 2009 11:00 AMNow the Senate (which has 60 votes) is gonna pull the 'public option' out.
Some commenter elsewhere said it best when he said some hard-core liberals are gonna be in need of 'end-of-life' counseling now that Obama has betrayed them on the public option. I wonder if insurance covers liberal heads exploding!
Posted by: Gary on August 16, 2009 11:07 AMTo service the 47 million uninsured for 12 months that a mere $63 billion. Way, way below any of the other estimates.
One of the biggest lies about this package is that it only "costs" $100 billion a year. It's purely a paper game.
It's a $1 trillion expenditure, and HR 3200 supporters claim it is spent over 10 years. The reality is that 90% of the expenditures are in the last 5 years when the plan gets rolling.
It is, in fact, a $200 billion/year plan, with $100 billion in startup costs.
As you point out, we could cut the cost by a factor of 3 and simply buy private insurance for everyone. Eliminate the illegal immigrants, those who have the economic means to not buy insurance (the super-rich), those who qualify for S-CHIP and Medicaid and choose to ignore it, and you're left with about 15 million people.
We could insure all 15 million who are without insurance sometime during the year (remember, it's not people permanently without insurance) for under $21 billion a year.
But then, how would Washington gain the rights to access all your information (as HR 3200 allows)? How could they control the profit-and-loss of 17% of the GDP? No control - they're not interested!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 16, 2009 11:07 AM"Didn't know that a group could have 1 person, did you Mike?" Yes, I do. And, of course, you know that the pricing of your group plan is entirely dependent upon the profit motivation of your provider. i.e. If, God forbid, you (in your group of one) develop a costly condition your provider is not going to carry that loss forward as their expense. While single individual group insurance can be bought and therefore falls under HIPAA - but you've left yourself wide open to assuming the catastrophic risk for all but the term of your current contract.
"Can you tell me which ones qualify under HR 3200? Just one, please" Probably. But you'll need to tell me what you are trying to qualify for.
@38 Gary on August 16, 2009 10:46 AM,
"Do you provide health insurance for your folks?" Yes.
"Would HR3200 prompt you to alter the benefit in any way?" Probably yes. If the legislation reduces the cost escalation to within the rate of inflation, the benefit package would remain stable. Currently to achieve this cost objective insurance providers reduce and/or restrict coverage each year.
Yes, I do.
Good. So then you agree I am covered by HIPAA.
And, of course, you know that the pricing of your group plan is entirely dependent upon the profit motivation of your provider.
And how would HR 3200 change that situation? Right now, insurance prices are regulated by the State; HR 3200 would add the Feds as well regulating the costs.
And since I would be mandated to buy insurance (whether I wanted it or not), I have no choice but to buy at whatever rate the Federal Government decides is acceptable.
Probably. But you'll need to tell me what you are trying to qualify
OK, how about WiseChoices 20. Good luck!
Once you fail at that, how about ANY private health insurance plan - your choice!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 16, 2009 11:25 AMThat is the next one we have to kill.
"And how would HR 3200 change that [your group plan is entirely dependent upon the profit motivation of your provider]situation?"
As currently written in all 3 mark-ups of HR 3200, you as an employer purchasing group insurance for your group of one, would have the ability to
(a) shop for plans via the Health Insurance Exchange
(b) the ability to purchase a plan from the government provider - which is not a for profit enterprise.
"..please tell me which private insurance plans LifeWise Wise Choice 2009 plans are available for individual purchase under HR 3200."
None, as the link you provided shows these policy offerings available in 2009, and we both know these plans shall differ if and when offered post January 2009.
Interestingly and more apropos of this 'death panel' post, I found this wonderful statement on page 4 of
supplemental information about LifeWise plans:
"Services that are not "medically necessary" are not covered. Medically necessary services are those services,drugs, and supplies which we determine to meet all of the following requirements."
"effective treatment for the medical
condition as demonstrated by:
- sufficient evidence exists to
draw conclusions about the effect
of the health intervention on
health outcomes
- the evidence demonstrates that
the health intervention can be
expected to produce its intended
effects on health outcomes
the least costly available level of
service, supply, or setting which can
be safely and appropriately provided
for the member"
And you whine about the ambiguity of HR 3200. :-p
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 16, 2009 12:01 PM"The fact that services were furnished, prescribed or approved by a physician or other qualified provider does not in itself mean that services were
medically necessary."
So, if your qualified, certified doctor of medicine determines a service is medically necessary, some damn bureaucrat can determine otherwise.
That's a problem with HR 3200, but not with the as-is system today. YOU BETCHA!!!
Sends little starbursts doesn't it? ;-)
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 16, 2009 12:22 PMI cannot wait.
Sure, Gary. The newspapers are full of stories of "people" working these problems out with their insurance companies everyday!
"These problems, as you point out, are for the people to work out, not the federal government."
pssst, don't tell anyone, but,We the People of the United States work it out through federal government.
So have you found a plan that qualifies for HR 3200? Any plan? Any plan at all? I see you telling me a lot about what you perceive to be problems with my current plan, but I see even fewer under HR 3200.
Please, just name ONE private insurance plan that would exist under HR 3200. Just one.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 16, 2009 12:59 PMThis love of central government is one I will never understand.
Also, can we work out your business through the federal government? I think you charge too much.
Don't be silly. No defined plans are yet offered for the bill which is not law, so asking anyone to identify one from a set which = zero is just asinine. But don't worry, if HR 3200 passes LifeWise will be there for you.
Gary, sorry to have somehow caused you to tilt by bringing up the constitutional democratic form of our government. Of course, my business operates under federal regulation, even price controls. Neither myself nor my competitors are contemplating re-locating to Somalia where we would not have that burden. :-D
So, British healthcare costs less than American healthcare, and Britain has better health outcomes. As you Americans like to say "Go figure".
Posted by: Someone from Britain on August 16, 2009 01:29 PMAll because Palin pointed out a provisioin the liars on left claimed didn't exist...and then took out.
They are freaking out as the country finally finds out who they are.
The left suddenly finds itself demonizing average Americans who are turning on the TV and saying to themselves, "wait a minute, we aren't racists, we aren't thugs, we aren't a mob, we aren't nazis". Lots of these folks are independents who voted for Obama. Now they are realizing what the far left is, and what kind of meanies they are and they don't like it at all. The polls are showing it glaringly.
Because there is no Republican alternative (other than HR 3400, which no-body here but me has ever discussed), the choices to fix the problem are: (i) Do nothing (ii) Accept HR 3200 as written by the Democrats (iii) Get HR 3200 modified to make it better.
All this crap about 'death panels', unconstitutional socialism, being thrown about predicting the end of the world is nonsense. If you don't realize that, you're but a brief bloom on the crazy tree.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 16, 2009 01:49 PMOtherwise I just might be suspicious that you are just another lying leftist.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 16, 2009 01:54 PMThe issue is that it is no big secret that leftists, including Obama, actually want a single payer bill. It is also patently obvious that leftists are serial liars. There is no reason to believe anything the say about this issue, which they wanted rushed through without public examination. Thirdly everything the left touches results in out of control government spending. One only has to rationally look at Social Security, Medicare, and my personal favorite, public education. All three are in constant need of increased funding. When Obama says nationalized healthcare will "control costs" he is simply lying. Leftists care nothing about the truth. The care about their agenda.
Everything the left touches results in disaster and increased costs for those "little people" they pretend to champion. Perhaps that explains why PCC is the most expensive grocery store in the area.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 16, 2009 02:24 PMYes there are multiple bills and multiple mark-ups. And the devil is always in the details and not the propaganda of either side.
"Perhaps that explains why PCC is the most expensive grocery store in the area."
Or perhaps self government explains why PCC Natural Markets (despite higher prices on some items and a membership fee) is the largest natural foods cooperative in the country for 56 years with its fastest and largest expansion occurring while competing with all the old standards plus WalMart & Costco.
Nah, PCC's longevity of success is best explained by an ACORN conspiracy and the reanimation of Leon Trotsky in the Peoples Republic of Freemont. :-D
Don't be silly. No defined plans are yet offered for the bill which is not law, so asking anyone to identify one from a set which = zero is just asinine.
Yet you have no problem with telling everyone not to worry, their plans will be included and you'll have all the coverage you want.
So if it's undefined, how can you be so sure about what will be included?
But don't worry, if HR 3200 passes LifeWise will be there for you.
And you can say that because of? It's undefined, by your own words. As of now - by your own words - not a single plan is included. So your statement is either one of hubris or CYA.
Bottom line: no one knows what plans will be included, or even what coverage will be the minimum level, because HR 3200 leaves those decisions to the Health Commissioner, a person who's not even identified at this time.
Tell you what, Mike: will you sign and date a blank piece of paper for me? Then we can get your signature notarized. Trust me to fill in the page after that, it'll be OK for you. Trust me, really!
Because there is no Republican alternative (other than HR 3400, which no-body here but me has ever discussed)
I'm all for discussing HR 3400. Do you think Pelosi will let it out of committee, though? Do you think Obama's "call for bipartisanship" will be answered by Pelosi and her lackeys in the House?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 16, 2009 02:54 PMWhat would happen if the FAA decided to deny all applications for new aircraft certification?
You're asking silly questions.
Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/foodwine/2003102934_supermarkets05.html
PCC is a "success" because the area is full of silly politically correct liberals.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 16, 2009 03:11 PMRegarding "sign and date a blank piece of paper", assuming you are signed up under LifeWise, you already did that (see my posts #50 & 51).
To your point of predicting the outcome of passed legislation and Gary's (@66 August 16, 2009 02:42 PM) crazy hypothetical, it requires climbing down from the crazy tree and thinking rationally.
Who exactly sits on that board of folks at LifeWise who get to determine (and I love that they put this term in quotes!) if a service is "medically necessary"?
You complain that HR 3200 does not yet name which department of our government will supervise the proposed program, but you ignore that a similar program already exists, Medicare.
Medicare has a publicly available and politically accountable Board of Trustees. Where is the policy holder accountability at LifeWise? And while far from perfect, Medicare has the support of an overwhelming majority of the American people.
Also, something to remember doom, gloom and death critics... There was a boat load of crap predicting the end of the world when Medicare was being crafted, and when RR was president of these United States he didn't lift a finger to repeal the scary SOCIALIST! program of Medicare.... did he?
Battery dying and I gotta grill. bye-bye.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 16, 2009 03:20 PMWhat would happen if the FAA decided to deny all applications for new aircraft certification?
The aircraft manufacturer can sue the FAA for failure to certify; there are written standards and requirements that the manufacturer can use to support why their plane should be certified.
As of now - and for up to 1 year after the bill is passed - there are no standards or requirements at all about certification or requirements of health insurance.
You're asking silly questions.
Seems to me to be perfectly relevant. Because you don't like the question is no reason to call it silly. The requirements for inclusion in the exchanges is undefined, and the person who makes the decision is also not in place now or even identified, meaning that person - who wields sole power to decide such important guidelines - cannot be examined to have an idea about what they may or may not include.
So how about you, too, Scottd? Will you sign and date a blank page of paper, get it notarized, then turn it over to me to fill out in a way beneficial to you? Trust me to do so?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 16, 2009 03:25 PMWere those written standards part of the bill when Congress passed legislation giving the FAA authority to regulate airworthiness? If not, when were those standards written and by whom? Have they ever been updated? Who does that?
Dan, you are either ignorant of how legislation and regulations are crafted, or you are being willfully deceitful. In either case, there is no point in arguing with you.
Posted by: scottd on August 16, 2009 03:30 PMRegarding "sign and date a blank piece of paper", assuming you are signed up under LifeWise, you already did that (see my posts #50 & 51).
No, I could talk to them ahead of time, as the rules and regulations already exist. And I have many other companies to choose from if I don't like what the options are.
What will be the options under HR 3200, Mike?
And you never answered the question (like Leftists ever answer anything): are you willing to sign and date a blank piece of paper and hand it to me? That's what you're doing with the administration.
You complain that HR 3200 does not yet name which department of our government will supervise the proposed program, but you ignore that a similar program already exists, Medicare.
No, that wasn't my complaint. There is a SINGLE PERSON who exercises that - and greater - power. There is not board of trustees, nor defined rules or regulations.
Blank piece of paper, Mike.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 16, 2009 03:32 PMWhen the FAA was set up, the aircraft industry was in its infancy. It wasn't 17% of our GDP, and it didn't affect every single person in the US.
Now, the FAA has a board of . It does not have a single person with sole authority, appointed by the President, to decide each and every year what the requirements, regulations, and rules will be.
The FAA does not set the profitability of Boeing and Airbus and Cessna.
The FAA does not require a manufacturer to turn over any and all information about the non-manufacturing businesses of the manufacturer; HR 3200 allows the Health Commissioner to compel every single person in the US to provide any personal information the commissioner deems relevant, and give that information to whomever the commissioner believes should have it.
Seems your example is pretty poor, overall...
So tell me, will you sign that blank sheet for me?
Better yet, will you voluntarily give any and all details asked of you - health, financial, social - to anyone here? Why would you trust it to the Health Commissioner who can then send that information to whomever they choose, without your approval required?
Did you trust President Bush? If not, then why do you want to give the Executive branch this kind of power? How will you feel when the Presidency is held by someone you don't trust - do you want all your information in their hands, and that administration to be able to compel you to share any information from you they deem "necessary"?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 16, 2009 03:57 PMDo you know?
And if the Sec. of HHS denied my company's request to be the Exchange, would I still be able to keep them because the President said I could?
These are not sill questions, scottd. Your side is obligated to answer them since it is your bill you're trying to get passed.
And illegal immigrants? Nobody on your side has answered how HR3200 will make them carry mandatory insurance, like it will for Americans.
Thanks.
You don't really believe that. Of course they want single payer nationalized healthcare. Whether they get there by being honest about it or disguising it in incomprehensible legislation is irrelevant.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 16, 2009 04:10 PMReally? Do you even know when the FAA was set up?
Now, the FAA has a board of . It does not have a single person with sole authority, appointed by the President, to decide each and every year what the requirements, regulations, and rules will be.
You don't seem to know much about how the FAA operates, either. Tell me, who runs the FAA and who appointed him? What is this board you refer to? Was it something Congress specified in its initial legislation, or did it simply authorize the FAA to regulate air safety with details to come later (what you would call a blank sheet of paper)?
Again, I don't see much point in debating with you until you can demonstrate at least some understanding of the subject matter (both FAA and regulation in general). So far, all I see is ignorance...
I guess what he wants (single-payer) and what he can actually do at this point may be two different things.
But like I said before, we must remain vigilant for just what you say.
I want *no* bill at all. We just have to keep chipping away at it.
Posted by: Gary on August 16, 2009 04:35 PMThe big lesson most of us already know is that the left is made up of people who cannot be trusted. The rest of America is figuring it out now, too.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 16, 2009 04:58 PMThe mentality of these people is incredible. And that's exactly (and the honest ones have said so) what they want him him to do for single-payer... double cross all of us if HR3200 passes.
Posted by: Gary on August 16, 2009 05:02 PM"We are implementing measures to make subscribing to e-mails clearer, including preventing advocacy organizations from signing people up to our lists without their permission when they deliver petition signatures and other messages on individual's behalf," spokesman Nick Shapiro said in a statement Sunday night.
-
Gee, I wonder if they'll treat our medical records with the same care?
I keep saying it. The modern left is a collection of 1960's radicals and their ideological heirs. The left is where unhappy, angry, maladjusted, dishonest people end up. The lovely people that enjoy telling other people how to live their lives. The same social engineering nitwits that deliberately build an entire light rail system without parking at the terminals.
And they will lie without apparent shame. Witness post #61 in this very thread by "Someone from Britain". These people will lie. It's the kind of people they are.
I never run into conservatives that act the way liberals do.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 16, 2009 05:35 PMThe press could have had a field day with that, but they're just upset that she got caught... and by bloggers.
Finally, I couldn't have ever in a thousand years dreamt that any US government administration would ever setup an email address for one American to snitch on another.
Democrats constantly lie. On the campaign trail they always "just met someone today" who is suffering some sort of problem only big Democrat government can solve. They use that one over and over. Obama did it, Hillary did it, Edwards did it. You could sit and watch their speeches and just wait for it. It was always there. They were lying and it didn't bother these horrid people a bit.
We're talking here about basically rotten people. They love the Palestinians, Fidel Castro, and idolize Che Guevarra as if he was some kind of rock star. They wage war against Christianity unrelentingly. Every year they try to ruin the Christmas Season for people.
Are the American people finally realizing who these creeps are? I think so.
No, there is no death "option". We all will die. The question is how.
And both "at every decision point" and "every medical person who sees you" are pure paranoid inventions and/or cynical lies.
Posted by: Bruce on August 16, 2009 06:08 PMThe same exact people who screamed about "Bush's illegal wiretapping" and accused the Bush Administration was crushing dissent when it never did is now doing what leftists always do when they have power.
It's the left that always stomps on free speech.
They are the bad guys.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 16, 2009 06:12 PMDid the current appointee set all the rules and regulations? No. Do you know how those rules and regulations are set? Do you?
That's the issue - this current bill specifies they are set by ONE PERSON ONLY - the Health Commissioner. He can ignore the recommendations of any group nominated to make them. It's him, and him alone.
Apparently that doesn't bother you. Well, it does bother me, and a lot of other people. And what we get is ridicule and scorn for speaking up. How "bipartisan" of you!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 16, 2009 06:19 PMWhat is wrong with you leftists? No need to answer that. I already know.
Fearmongering is what the Obama Administration has been doing since day one. Scaring people into passing a huge stimulus package, and now trying to scare people into passing socialized medicine.
Well Bruce I'm sorry to bring you the bad news. The American people are figuring out just who you are.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 16, 2009 06:28 PMOlder voters still thought of the Democrats as the party of JFK, and Scoop Jackson. Poll numbers are showing that voters who list themselves as independents are abandoning the Democrats en-masse. The so-called "blue dog" Democrats apparently are being so flooded with angry voter sentiment that they are afraid of losing in 2010.
I have alway said that if the left goes too far it could spell their doom. It is too early to be certain that is what is happening. But I am liking the trend!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 16, 2009 07:05 PMBringing up the FAA and then making remarks that you can no longer discuss Health Care because the FAA is totally off subject is nonsensical!!!
Posted by: Tim on August 16, 2009 07:19 PMKeystone cops in charge of our health care.
Posted by: Gary on August 16, 2009 07:57 PMHow utterly embarrassing. I actually am starting to feel bad for the man.
It's fascinating to watch, actually. I've never seen an administration spend its political capital so quickly.
I wonder what dumb things they'll do this week? Should be fun to watch the poll numbers.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 17, 2009 07:33 AM"The federal government has only reimbursed auto dealers for 2 percent of the claims they've submitted through the popular "cash for clunkers" program, a Pennsylvania congressman said, calling on the Obama administration to help speed up the process.
Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., called for "immediate action" to address the problem in a statement Sunday, after writing a letter to President Obama Saturday expressing his concerns.
In the letter, Sestak said only 2 percent of claims have been paid and that four of every five applications have been "rejected for minor oversight." "
-
Can't wait for them to handle our health care. I wonder what doctors will do if they don't get paid? Gee, that's a toughie.
The point of pricing mechanisms is to give people the chance to make these decisions themselves. All that we get by attempting to outlaw economics is to create the necessity that someone else do it.
We have exactly all that now, but the bureaucrats who make our life/death decisions are private, and their only allegiance is to greed. They are paid to deny you the care for which you have paid, and by which your payment in the free market, rightfully belongs to you. Were these nameless, faceless, unknown profiteers instead public servants, they would ultimately have to answer to officials we elect.
But hey, keep playing with private citizen Palin's favorite imaginary friend, Death Panel. (That you're taking your cues from a loser makes our future that much more secure.) Just give us liberals a break, would you? We can only cook our organically-grown, fair-trade, zero-carbon-footprint, argula-scented popcorn so fast, and your oh-so-cute antics are making us consume it at far too fast a pace. Have sympathy for your fellow citizens -- we are in the majority, after all.
Posted by: tensor on August 17, 2009 09:44 PMSo pass your bill then... the one that you guys removed the non-existent "Death Panel" from.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122333/Political-Ideology-Conservative-Label-Prevails-South.aspx#2
Posted by: Gary on August 17, 2009 10:18 PMNot for long, it would appear.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 18, 2009 07:06 AMAnd it's thanks to Obama.
2010 is shaping up to be a doozy. If he can't do it now, he's done.
I know that you don't actually believe for a second that Mike BS is a private employer.
He's co-opting the cred of genuine small business owners.
The only small business MikeBS has ever owned involved (his Mom's) baggies filled with green stuff grown by his neighbor.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on August 18, 2009 07:24 AMThere are a ton of what I would call traditional Democrat voters that actually are not liberals. They are now scratching their heads wondering what the heck they voted for.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 18, 2009 08:09 AMSarah Palin expressed an unsolicited opinion about the "Death Panels," and the nitwits jumped on it like flies to shit. Those who call her a liar are mostly just lazy idiots (Kirsten Powers or Geraldo Rivers) who have either forgotten or never actually knew what a "lie" is. The fraudulent projection of their own habitual excess only highlights their corrupt inanity.
A statement of opinion can be based on untruth and it can contain faulty (even dishonest) logic but it cannot be a lie. Self appointed dogmatists (Pudge) use the "Lie" accusation as a tactic of convenience whenever they are losing arguments because they are either too dishonest to admit they are wrong or too lazy to muster a rational response. Liberals use it as a reflexive feature of their ideology . . . liberalism itself is a lie.
An ordinary probable consequence of Section 1233 can aptly be described as employing the use of "Death Panels," and the fact that the drafters immediately removed the section once Palin's comments were aired casts the truth of her assertion. Palin's lines of reasoning concerning "Death Panels" are thoroughly sound and her opinion is both well stated and appropriate. We need a mandatory reminder for our government you that we have a "death option?" What death option is that, and why do we "need" it? Nonsense.
Sarah Palin's characterization of Section 1233 was no lie. Those who cannot or will not follow the dots only make it easier for the rest of us to see their subterfuge.
Thanks Sarah
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on August 18, 2009 08:30 AMThe approximately 60,000 number represents members who specifically cited AARP's stance on the health overhaul debate in canceling their membership between July 1 and mid-August, Nannis said. He said that on average AARP loses some 300,000 members a month, but he couldn't say how many more members had quit for other reasons in that time period.
Too bad so sad. The AARLP (American Association of Retired Liberal Persons) forgot their mission - supporting seniors - and became just another slack-jawed mouthpiece for the dhimmicrat party.
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 18, 2009 08:34 AMAs with the war, when a Dem is president, the libs and the press suddenly lose interest in opposing it.
Posted by: Gary on August 18, 2009 08:46 AMAnybody here still care to tell us that the 'public option' is not a trojan horse for single-payer?
This isn't the right hand not knowing what the left is doing as some think but it is purposeful obfuscation to purposefully confuse the issue in an effort to peel off at least some of the many objectors.
Obama isn't "listening to the people" he's doing a rope-a-dope, reformulating how to slip this crap in through the back door when nobody is looking. The commie left has admitted as much any number of times. Reid, Pelosi and the rest have been blabbing their intent to anybody who will listen. This fight isn't anywhere near over and the pressure needs to applied harder than ever.
Exactly right.
We need our own Town hall meetings to keep up the pressure.
No compromise - kill ObamuCare dead.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on August 18, 2009 11:56 AMDo get your point though. I haven't seen any gloating posts from longtime lib posters such as Ivan lately.
I warned Ivan after a particularly boastful post after Obama won that in the world of politics the wind can shift very suddenly. Sure enough.
What amazes me about this is how Obama and all these allegedy smart people like Rahm Emanuel appear to have deluded themselves into believing most Americans are liberals.
Obama is about to find himself mirroring the hapless British PM in the classic British series "Yes, Prime Minister". "What about my Grand Design?" he keeps asking his advisor. His advisor, who has seen it all before, merely shrugs.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 18, 2009 03:51 PMIsn't that just a perfect example of how liberals play?
What the heck does "public option" mean? Does it mean government run healthcare? Does it mean the "public" gets to choose where it buys their healthcare? How could one possibly know? It's the deliberate vague language the creepy socialist lawyers who largely make up the left invent.
If they were honest decent people they would call it the "government option".
We are not dealing with honest decent people.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 18, 2009 08:51 PMThousands of surgeries may be cut in Metro Vancouver due to government underfunding, leaked paper
Oops. We're running out of Government money, so we'll just cut surgeries and treatments. Too expensive to take care of everyone!
Of course, the US can make it work, given that we have a massive $2 trillion annual deficit, right?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 18, 2009 09:51 PMMeanwhile, Sen. Grassley's lies about Britain's NHS have UK's Conservatives up in arms. You guys just hate the very idea of the US having allies, dont'cha?
My many votes for Dr. McDermott feel better by the day...
Posted by: tensor on August 18, 2009 09:58 PMJust listen to yourself: "Is Death Panel Palin currently in utero near Wasilla? Because private citizen Palin has at least one more teenage mother to raise, right?"
Nasty.
I'll add this since you bring up Sarah Palin. My liberal sister visited with her 9-year old recently. My darling niece announced that "Sarah PALIN,(that's how she said it), shoots wolves". Gosh, I wonder where she got that notion from.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 18, 2009 10:17 PMHa! Love it.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A63DK01&show_article=1
I cannot wait until the government doesn't pay doctors after health care reform. Acid Brain, your doctors' wishes of getting paid less will come true.
Posted by: Gary on August 19, 2009 10:09 AM-
In the old days, this would have enraged liberals as much as conservatives. Not anymore. They are now openly in favor of tyranny.
Posted by: Gary on August 19, 2009 03:37 PMObama: Health care debate is 'heart of who we are'
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/08/68497346/1
"Obama also accused critics of "bearing false witness" about the his proposals, describing claims of federally created "death panels" as an "extraordinary lie.""
Obama has now proven to be a total idiot - he claimed he would have total transparency in his leadership but has proven totally different. He attempted to pass his Health Care Reform before any discussion before the August recess because the health care problems were 'total emergencies' and could not wait for any discussions.
As it turns out - it is not an emergency and yes we need detailed discussions from the Democrat Congress as to each and every problem in detail that needs to be fixed, what are all of the possible solutions, what are all the pro and cons of each solution for each problem, and then what are the recommended solutions for each problem that we can all agree upon...
but Obama, an extreme leftist, is attempting to Socialize our country without any discussion from anyone outside of his small disjointed leadership group.
We need more open discussion of exactly what Obama is trying to change with our country before he and Congress make totally idiotic socialistic laws!!
Have you see Cash for Clunkers? Now tell me, which program do you think is easier to run, Cash for Clunkers, or the nation's health care system?
Cash for Clunkers is a disaster. The Stimulus program is a disaster. We have a $2 trillion deficit *this year* alone. How do you suppose we pay that back?
So, yes. I do freak out when they tell me they're gonna take over my health care.
We.Do.Not.Want.It. How much clearer can we be?
Posted by: Gary on August 19, 2009 08:19 PM"Some New Mexico auto dealers have backed out of the cash-for-clunkers program and more may do so as the federal government takes its time providing cash reimbursements. Dealers across the state are owed more than $3.6 million, according to a dealers' group which says that so far Uncle Sam has only written three checks totaling about $14,000."
My crystal ball says:
"Some doctors are backing out of the government-run health insurance program... this is causing widespread delays, and rationing across much of the nation..."