To most people, it's obvious that the White House line -- that people should like the health insurance bill because it has something in it that they like -- is idiotic.
It's entirely intuitive that just because you like one thing, doesn't mean you'll like something else that happens to include it. I've drawn the analogy that just because a bill that kills cute puppies cuts taxes, doesn't mean people who like low taxes will also like the puppy-killing bill.
George Will, on Sunday, used the analogy that he likes sauerkraut and ice cream, but doesn't like sauerkraut ice cream. I think that analogy isn't bad, but the point would be made better if he didn't like sauerkraut (as I don't): it's not that we like individual mandates and tort reform, but just not together; it's that we don't like individual mandates at all, and they end up ruining anything they're mixed with.
Will's analogy prompted a friend to quote: "It's got raisins in it. You like raisins." If you don't know what that refers to, watch this clip.
Mr. President, we see your health insurance plan as a big pile of green goo that comes alive after you've given it to us, and no amount of raisins is going to make us like it. The more we look at your plan, the less well we feel, and we'd really like to be excused.
This serves as both a perfect analogy to the White House line on their health insurance reform bill, and a chance to encourage people to see Better Off Dead again, or for the first time.
Oh and while I am talking about movies and the health insurance bill, recently, pundit Torie Clark compared the film Ishtar to the health insurance bill, saying "they spent millions and millions and millions of dollars on it you heard so much about it and when people actually started seeing it they said that this is terrible."
But it's not true. People who actually saw Ishtar -- except for people in "the business," including professional critics -- pretty much liked it. If you haven't seen it, you should. It's quite funny, though harder to find than Better Off Dead.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at March 17, 2010 05:44 PM | Email ThisSuch a bill would prompt the Heritage Foundation to note that cutting taxes is always good, even if it requires canine sacrifice. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page would rail against bleeding-heart puppy-lovers, those soft liberals who put the interests of mere animals over that of humans. Rush Limbaugh would bellow that dogs are un-American, like anyone who cares about them. The Weekly Standard would host a forum, from the right, ("Do Puppies Matter More Than Freedom?") to the far right, ("Europeans' Socialistic Love of Animals Leads to Population Decline and Global Jihad"). Michael Medved would mutter darkly about the motives of anyone (in Seattle) who owns a dog. (Anyone caught walking two would be branded a traitor.) Sound Politics would cite NRO's dumbed-down version of all this as proof that Seattle's liberals are degenerate and corrupt, because Seattle's households, overall, have more domestic animals than children. (If you were feeling really ambitious, you'd distort a Scientific American study, to "prove" that all dogs are carriers of disease and should be killed.)
Remember, tax cuts solve everything, and we cannot let those sad puppy eyes divert us from the path of truth.
Posted by: tensor on March 17, 2010 08:10 PMRemember that when socialist lickspittle try to tell you the messiah, president teleprompter, knows what he is doing.
To borrow from MikeyBS (the park restroom boy scout): what a maroon!
Posted by: Attila on March 17, 2010 08:26 PM#1 - A red herring about tax cuts that is irrelevant.
You have nothing to offer to the debate, so you obfuscate and write jibberish. Stupid is as stupid does.
The analogy is off. You are not affected by the individual mandate while at the same time being covered by health insurance. That is, you get your "green goo" (mandate) or you get your raisins (health insurance). Of course the goo isn't tasty; that's why people will buy raisins.
I don't think most folks have a major problem with the individual mandate as long as it comes along with some things like tax credits and an end to pre-existing conditions. Not everyone pisses on the Constitution by using it as a backstop for every political discussion; that is something you are unique for, pudge.
Also, before you say it: you're the liar!!!!
Posted by: "Steve" Jensen on March 17, 2010 08:48 PMIt's ok. You can and should come out of the closet. Fantasizing about sex in public restrooms never leads to anything good.
Many self loathing closeted 'conservative' homosexuals like yourself come out sooner or later.
Quite the opposite: Individual mandates are key to enabling people with preexisting conditions to get insurance. The reasons for this have been stated clearly and repeatedly for decades. Sure, it is possible to achieve the other goals without indidvidual mandates, but that would be less efficient and pose other problems.
The healthcare bill does have a lot of features that could be considered separately, but you've picked the one example of a provision that is central to many other reforms.
I know you put your interpretation of individual liberty ahead of helping people get healthcare, and you have a right to your opinion. But it's ironic that you'd choose, as an example of mixing ingredients that shouldn't be mixed, the baking powder that needs to be in the mix to make the cake rise.
And you think this is a good argument?
I know. You think any for profit company simply gouges without limit and without remorse.
It's interesting though that the issue about health care is not about the increase in insurance rates but about the increase in the cost of care. Do you think that insurance companies actually set the cost of care? The funny thing is, if insurance companies COULD lower the cost of care, it would make them tons more money! So why don't they simply force the COST OF CARE back to 1994?
Really. If insurance companies lowered premiums back to 1994 levels without commensurate reduction in medical costs, they would all be out of business and virtually everyone would be without health insurance.
Do Democrats even have a brain?
Posted by: Eyago on March 17, 2010 09:17 PMActually, the irony is in your choice of analogy, Bruce. The government running anything efficiently is a classic oxymoron, yet you along with the empty suit with the tin ear residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave believe that is the best solution to healthcare reform. Democrats are going to have some serious blowback in 2010 and 2012 and they're just too stubbornly ignorant to even recognize that the American people are saying "hell no!" to upending their current standard of care and putting a bungling bureaucracy in charge of their healthcare decisons.
Buyers remorse is an understatement, but don't blame me, I voted for McCain. Amateur hour continues at the white house.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 17, 2010 09:45 PMWhy should I be paying for someones pre-existing conditions? Why should a healthy person not be able to make their own "choice" about their body? Choice and freedom. Do you believe in that? Do you and Pelosi and Obambam know better? If so, let's just kill folks and get things under control. Worked for Stalin.
Also, why do I have to pay to be a citizen of the US? You don't even want folks to have to have ID to vote because it's a poll tax!
Posted by: Dengle on March 17, 2010 09:50 PM
Bruce: Individual mandates are key to enabling people with preexisting conditions to get insurance
False. That is only true if you think the only way to get those people insurance is to take money from other people who don't NEED insurance. But that isn't true.
Further, no one who actually cares first and foremost about health CARE thinks that everyone needs health INSURANCE to get it.
The reasons for this have been stated clearly and repeatedly for decades.
Yes, and they've been wrong for that long, too.
Sure, it is possible to achieve the other goals without indidvidual mandates, but that would be less efficient and pose other problems.
None of those "other problems" justifies ignoring the Constitution or basic liberties.
The healthcare bill does have a lot of features that could be considered separately, but you've picked the one example of a provision that is central to many other reforms.
Yes, because it shows so clearly and obviously why Republicans will not support the bill, no matter how many raisins are in it. You believe it's central to improving health care (even though it obviously is not); we not only disagree, but we also find the very idea to be utterly unacceptable.
I know you put your interpretation of individual liberty ahead of helping people get healthcare
You're a liar. Nothing I've ever said implies any such thing.
Further, our founding document says, unequivocally, THE REASON that government exists is to secure individual liberty. If you put ANYTHING in government above the securing of individual liberty, then you're denying not just what America is, but what humanity is.
Of course, this is probably where you, like most liberals, will pretend that "health insurance" is essential to liberty. But that's an insipid argument, and you only make yourself look stupid if you go there, so I'd advise against it.
(You might think I just admitted that I put "individual liberty ahead of helping people get healthcare," but you'd be wrong. I wonder, however, if you can see why you're wrong.)
But it's ironic that you'd choose, as an example of mixing ingredients that shouldn't be mixed, the baking powder that needs to be in the mix to make the cake rise.
Yes, if you pretend it's necessary, then it's easy to win your argument. Unfortunately, we know for a fact that it is not necessary. We know that if we lower the COST of health care, then no one NEEDS insurance, for example.
Jensen: you say, There's no single-payer, there's no public option, and liberals aren't very thrilled about the thing.
So what? There's unconstitutional individual mandates, a liberty-destroying "exchange," and other terrible features to the bill. It's green goo.
It's most similar to the Massachusetts plan signed into law by Mitt Romney and a GOP plan introduced in 1994.
No, it's not, but even if it were, so what? I lived 20 years in Massachusetts, I was an elected delegate to the convention where Romney was nominated for governor, and I was absolutely against "his" plan (though it wasn't passed until after I'd left).
The analogy is off.
False.
You are not affected by the individual mandate while at the same time being covered by health insurance.
First, that's not true. Even Obama admitted (in the summit) the obvious fact that the individual mandate does affect people currently covered by health insurance, because it forces "minimum standards" on all plans. People in those "substandard" plans -- plans that are exactly what those people want, but which liberals think don't cost enough -- will be forced to change plans (not right away, but after a few years when the grandfathering runs out).
Second, unlike you, I am not selfish. The individual mandate will not affect me personally, but I stand up for the liberty of EVERYONE, not just myself. That is the job of every legislator and public official. Sad that you reject it. It is not about ME, it is about THE BILL.
I don't think most folks have a major problem with the individual mandate
Then they are ignorant or immoral. Regardless, I know that almost all Republicans are against them.
Not everyone pisses on the Constitution by using it as a backstop for every political discussion
No. But you piss on it by pretending that it doesn't exist except for when you want it to.
The First Amendment guarantees me freedom of association; an individual mandate says I must associate myself with a private company.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees me security in my papers; an individual mandate says I must reveal whether I've purchased a particular service.
The Tenth Amendment guarantees that most legislation be left to the states; almost the entire bill, including the individual mandate, violates this basic principle.
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right to privacy, including in health matters, recognize by Roe v. Wade; an individual mandate rejects that right to privacy.
I know you are incapable or rebutting these, or the other, arguments against the constitutionality of an individual mandate. So instead you throw out epithets, because, honestly, that is the best you can do.
And Americans know that once it is mandated by the government that all of those people who don't take responsibility for their own health, will get healthcare anyway, there will be even less incentive for people to maintain their own health.
Doctors will leave medicine, and with the increasing costs of the growing population of unhealthy and a smaller supply of providers, prices will rise, straining the government more than the Democrats' Trilion Dollar bailouts are already doing.
Healthcare is not a right, and given the thousands of hours I put in each year taking care of myself, exercising and eating right, I'm not going to pay for those who don't take their health seriously.
Millions of other Americans feel the same way, and this is why Obamacare is failing.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 17, 2010 10:11 PMAre you daft ? The infrastructure is in place for single payer - it will just take longer for it to occur (until the Federal Government has undercut the private insurers). Enough of the wingnut talking points - it will eventually become a single payer system.
It is only vaguely similar to Romneycare, except Romney care has more cost savings than this and Romney care is the most expensive state run health care system in the US.
The GOP stood up and obstructed because of the tyrannical tendencies of the Dems in control in Congress - who refused to use their ideas. This will be tied around the necks of the Democrats for years to come if it gets through. They are trying to rule like this is a monarchy and have proceeded to rape and pilage the majority of Americans who are against this HC Reform by moving to pass it anyway.
Those who try to ram this bill through are arrogant and ignorant and if this passes, it will be challenged in court immediately on a number of counts. The Democrats have signaled that this is all out war on our Constitutional Republic form of government and am not exaggerating. Deal making, bribes and unconstitutional maneuvers have dominated this drive to railroad this legislation through that is way more about Big Government control than anything else, with a little bit of health care embedded. These cowardly a-holes need to be retired in November. The Bush presidency was bad especially because it led to this one.
Your second fallacy is that people are motivated to take care of their health in order to keep their medical bills down. Really, think for a minute. We all know lots of people who don't take care of their health, without regard for how healthy they will feel, what activities they'll be able to do, or how long they will live. There are lots of reasons why people are so irrational. Do you really think fear of medical bills will make any difference to these people?
Posted by: Bruce on March 17, 2010 10:38 PMYou hit upon the number one reason why I oppose Obamacare. Obamacare will be funded by people like me, who take good care of their health, and choose independent high-deductible plans, combined with out of pocket cash payments for lesser needs. Obamacare will force me in to a higher cost plan, and force me to fund people who don't have the integrity I do, to unburden their fellow citizens by paying out of pocket.
I don't disagree with you that some will take their health care for granted no matter what we do. I'm just not constitutionally obligated to pay for others pursuing their happiness in a reckless manner.
Regardless, Obamacare won't succeed, because the majority of Americans don't believe in throwing good money after bad. If as you say, people are going to choose the same bad habits anyway, then why would you expect everyone with integrity to sign on to a wealth redistribution scheme that enables more of that irrational behavior.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 17, 2010 11:19 PMThat wasn't what he said.
Your second fallacy is that people are motivated to take care of their health in order to keep their medical bills down.
That wasn't what he said.
By the way, the Interior Dept just bought two 'yes' votes by allowing the Central Valley in California to have water. Otherwise, they wouldn't have.
We have criminals in Washington.
The ONLY thing going to the president for signature is the original Senate bill. The bill the president would sign would NOT have been voted on by the House, only deemed.
All the changes the House has put into this bill would have to be approved by the Senate - sometime - before it would see the light of day.
Until that sometime, the Senate bill would be the law of the land, with all of its cancerous warts.
Until that sometime, there would be no $940 billion spending or 100 billion in deficit reduction.
Hey, just cancel the rest of TARP and you can reduce the deficit by $500 billion - in less than ONE year.
This current bill and process is a farce, only intended to lipstick, rouge, mascara, and eyeliner on a pig.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 18, 2010 08:40 AMBottom-line: these clowns don't care about the destruction they do to our economy or the debt they sow for future generations. It's all about feeling and liberals feel really, really good about themselves if they can spread the costs of stupid behaviors of other democrats onto the rest of the population.
Posted by: Attila on March 18, 2010 10:34 AMBut at least you're on board to kill the bill. That said, your post was mostly a list of links and is obviously spam and I removed it.
Hey, they just posted the suicide bill on the House web site.
Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 3590) entitled ''An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.'', do pass with the following...Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
2 (a) SHORT TITLE.--This Act may be cited as the ''Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act''.
Mar 18, 2010:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
a) SHORT TITLE.--This Act may be cited as the
''Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010''.
2400+ pages in the Senate bill. 2300+ pages in the House bill. 72 hours until a vote. 33 pages a minute...
I hate politicians.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 18, 2010 11:47 AMyou mean 33 pages an hour...
I loathe the Dimocrat leadership in Congress.
Posted by: KDS on March 18, 2010 12:55 PMWhat a great plan.
Posted by: Gary on March 18, 2010 01:09 PMDad is from Louisiana. Can I get credit to qualify for the Louisiana Purchase funds in this bill?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 18, 2010 02:24 PMhttp://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63012
Do you know what the average cost of a family health care policy is now?
The average cost of a family policy offered by employers was $13,375 in 2009.
The article you referenced says health insurance in 2014 will cost families an estimated $12,000 to $12,500 a year. You are mad as hell at a thousand dollar + cost reduction in 2014?
As usual, you can't even get the most basic details right.
Posted by: pudge on March 18, 2010 06:22 PMSorry, I'm not getting you. Where does one find a health insurance plan for a family for nothing?
THAT'S A 3.4% INCREASE YEAR ON YEAR OVER 4 YEARS.
capslock love for pugde 'off' now :-D
From the table here, do you see a lower 4 year period of cost increases? Or is 13.6% increase over 4 years in average cost the lowest?
I don't get what Gary is mad as hell about or why the article he references is something terrible.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 18, 2010 06:39 PMRep. Ryan of Wisconsin has demonstrated that nearly $1 Trillion was left out by 1) Double counting Medicare reduction ($522 Billion) and 2) The doctor's buyout for Medicare ($370 Billion). So instead of $990 Billion, the real cost for 10 years is closer to $1.9 Trillion at the low end.
Posted by: KDS on March 18, 2010 06:57 PMIf you think you are better qualified than the Congressional Budget Office, apply
CBO seeks professional staff with excellent academic backgrounds and experience in macroeconomics, public finance, health economics, demography, labor economics, financial economics, environmental and resource economics, industrial organization, defense economics, and public-policy analysis. Most staff have graduate degrees, many have considerable experience in a relevant field, and all assume major responsibilities--beginning early in their careers at CBO.Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 18, 2010 07:05 PM
No worries.
Paul Ryan: Repealing HCR Will Be The First Goal Of A GOP Congress
On a conference call with with Florida Republicans just now, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) promised that if the GOP gets control of the Congress this fall, repealing a Democratic health care reform bill will be the number one priority.
"Our goal if we take the majority is H.R. 1 and S. 1 are [bills] to repeal this law," he said on the call, which was hosted by Senate candidate Marco Rubio (R).
Who said one does? But if you don't buy one, then you don't pay for one, do you? From the article:
"American families will be *required* by federal law to buy a federally approved health insurance plan that will cost a minimum of $12,000 per year--and, on average, will cost $15,000 per year."
So, MikeBoyScout, if you don't buy insurance now, then your annual cost is $0 per year. $15,000 is more than $0.
Do you get it now?
Posted by: Gary on March 18, 2010 09:33 PMSorry to be late to the thread...but you saying folks don't take care of themselves so we still have to pay for them....well yes and no. The Hospital will work with them to pay...or if they've decided not to have insurance and they go broke...that was their choice. We shouldn't enable them to be asses and thus pay our taxes for theri CHOICE!
You're proCHOICE right Bruce? You believe folks have a choice and thus take the concequences of that choice?
Tell me Bruce. Let me in on your worldview. I want to know if you are as brillant as Cantwell.
Posted by: Dengle on March 18, 2010 09:46 PMWASHINGTON: Two senators Thursday outlined a bipartisan framework for comprehensive immigration reform legislation, drawing immediate praise from
President Barack Obama.
Democratic Senator Charles Schumer and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham's bill would lay the path to legalization for the country's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants, reinforce border controls and create a process to admit temporary workers and produce biometric Social Security cards.
"It thoughtfully addresses the need to shore up our borders, and demands accountability from both workers who are here illegally and employers who game the system," Obama said in a statement.
He called on the senators to translate their plan into legislation, urging Congress to act "at the earliest possible opportunity."
This assclown is trying to unravel 235 years of US history Constitutional freedom in 4 short years. To hell with the people and what they think says King Obama. He has spoken and you will obey. His words are almost as empty as the suit he wears.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 18, 2010 09:59 PMTherefore, we should cut taxes and leave puppy-killing to the private sector.
Posted by: jvon on March 18, 2010 10:16 PMThe point was never the percentage increase, but the fact that people are being required by the government to pay for it out of pocket. I only brought up the actual numbers because you got them so badly wrong.
Woooooooosh. That's the sound of this discussion continuing to go over your head.
MikeBS@49: Paul Ryan: Repealing HCR Will Be The First Goal Of A GOP Congress
If I were you I wouldn't advertise that, unless you WANT people to vote GOP.
Rick D.: enabling 11 million gate crashers path to citizenship
Where? You quoted nothing that implied that. Legalization != citizenship.
Not only do I not believe Obamasurance will be that cheap, I guarantee the quality of care will tank.
Posted by: Matt M on March 18, 2010 11:49 PMWow, that's one of the most brutal takedowns of pudge I've seen in awhile. Yeah, his "killing puppies" analogy is stupid, but to say it has "nothing to offer" is a bit, well, um, uh, accurate.
I concede your point. It is a worthlessly stupid analogy.
...nothing you say bears any relationship to reality, and only helps prove my point.
KDS and I could not possibly agree more about the utter worthlessness of your failed analogy.
Posted by: tensor on March 18, 2010 11:57 PMI never said it did.I used the words "path to citizenship". I'd say that a recognized legal status is a large step towards that end if/should they choose to do so.
Just one.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 19, 2010 07:07 AM• In 1965, it was estimated that by 1990 Medicare Part A would cost the federal government $9.1 billion. In reality, 1990 spending was $67 billion -- seven times greater.
• Created in 1965, Medicare Part B was supposed to be funded through a $3 premium and $500 million in federal revenue. In 2008, Medicare Part B required $146.8 billion in government revenue -- a 4300 percent increase.
You're not fooling anyone.
Yeah, his "killing puppies" analogy is stupid
But accurate.
to say it has "nothing to offer" is a bit, well, um, uh, accurate.
You're not fooling anyone. (Not even yourself, which is the sad part.)
KDS and I could not possibly agree more about the utter worthlessness of your failed analogy.
Even in idiotic jest, this doesn't make any sense as a reply to what I said. Which is expected.
But it is obvious that recognized legal status is NOT a step toward a path to citizenship. It CAN be, but isn't necessarily. The bill could, for example, contain a simple statement that people legalized through this bill have to get to the back of the line, or wait some predefined additional time, before being able to apply for citizenship.
I'm just saying, wait for the actual bill before you criticize it about things you don't know are, or aren't, in it. I am hopeful that Graham learned a lesson from the last time around: that there's no way he'll ever get an immigration reform bill through the Congress if he doesn't address certain concerns from the right.
Of course it is as you're actually being recognized as being on the path rather than wandering in the wilderness as an illegal. That is like saying that graduating from High School having scored well on your SAT's is not a path towards a college degree, Pudge. There is no guarantee that you will actually obtain a degree from a University, but you're in a hell of alot better shape towards that end than the guy or gal that dropped out along the way. Maybe not the best analogy, but I don't see how you can say "it is NOT a step toward a path to citizenship" when it so clearly is as compared to their status now.
As far as criticizing a bill before we see it, we can say that about much of the legislation that comes out of Congress. At times, like now with the healthcare bill, they do their best to hide the contents of it from the American public with hopes they can then pass it into law and be able to say, "Well it's too late to do anything about it now, it is the law. You should have voiced your concerns earlier".
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
By the same logic, one of the most common and popular rightwing plans for dealing with illegal immigration -- making illegals go home to get a visa before continuing on in this country -- is also on the "path to citizenship."
Every viable plan for dealing with illegal immigration potentially puts illegals on the "path to citizenship." Every single one.
As far as criticizing a bill before we see it, we can say that about much of the legislation that comes out of Congress.
Correct.
At times, like now with the healthcare bill, they do their best to hide the contents of it from the American public with hopes they can then pass it into law ...
That's only an applicable concern if they try to rush it through right after posting the text (as they've done time and again with the health insurance bills), and there's no indication that's likely with this bill.
and be able to say, "Well it's too late to do anything about it now, it is the law. You should have voiced your concerns earlier".
I'd love to see them try that, because I can't see how they would have any major portion of this bill that conservatives haven't voiced their concerns about for years.
So Rick, does this mean the government shouldn't run anything?
Let's see, Defense Dept - get rid of it isn't run efficiently.
Local Police and State Patrol - get rid of them because they aren't run efficiently
Meat Inspectors - got to get rid of them. We want tainted meat. A little E Coli hear and there is good for society.
Air Traffic Control - Just let the pilots talk among themselves
Highway departments - Who needs to fix the potholes? Just buy rougher vehicles.
Yea, Rick D, you are onto something here. While we are at it, since there is nothing to run, we don't need the legislators, governors or president either. Let society rule itself. Let us decide who to vote off the island. It will be Lord of the Flies at its finest.
Posted by: tc on March 19, 2010 09:14 AMThat obviously wasn't the implication. The implication was that it should only run what it has to.
The rest of your post is just a straw man fallacy.
tc, what shouldn't the government run?
Maybe you can answer while you're here... how are the states going to pay for the new Medicaid costs that your bill will place on them?
Thanks.
No, you WERE assuming. That's the problem. You (falsely) assumed he meant government shouldn't run anything.
OBTW, the post was satire DUH!
Not the part where you falsely assumed what he meant, no.
"Democrats are planning to introduce legislation later this spring that would permanently repeal annual Medicare cuts to doctors, but are warning lawmakers not to talk about it for fear that it will complicate their push to pass comprehensive health reform. The plans undercut the party's message that reform lowers the deficit, according to a memo obtained by POLITICO."
If this doesn't make me break my no "F word" policy on this board, I have more restraint than I knew.
tc, comment?
Look up uncontroled air space.
By the way TC... how much money has the FAA/ATC thrown out the window on bad computer systems.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 19, 2010 11:47 AMWhat gov dept let a child direct air craft on the ground and in the air. But no danger right.
Yeah it was a FAA gov person.
Now what were you saying about that (oxymoron)
Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 19, 2010 11:55 AMHow do people become so easily led?
The link is to a conservative site, but the site itself is reprinting a detailed analysis put out by FireDogLake, so all you liberals should take a good long look at that and tell us exactly why we should be supporting this bill.
While I disagree with FDL's basic approach to the problem, I do see that they have correctly pointed out the failure of the bill to address the real issues we face - especially noting that costs for insurance will NOT go down and cost to middle Americans WILL go up under this plan.
Most progressives/hardcore liberals are not interested in principles or rules or laws. They have only the way they think things should be at any given moment, and anything that gets in the way of that is bad.
No such person has ever had a problem with forcing people to do things, as long as that person believes the outcome is Right. They are the ultimate in the ends justifying the means.
I honestly don't understand your amazement.
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/03/so-many-lies-so-little-time.html
Posted by: Eyago on March 19, 2010 12:55 PMYet another popular Democrat talking point to try and justify this abortion of a bill. And it's not even a good one. Emergency care accounts for less than 3% of all medical costs.
Whatever charity care we end up paying in the ER is just a portion of that 3%. Even if we paid the entire 3% of that, it's still doesn't come remotely close to justifying this.
Posted by: Palouse on March 19, 2010 01:25 PMFast forward a hundred years and the same type of wild-eyed leftist dirtbags are seeking to solve the worlds problems with the same 19th century failed ideology of socialism. The ends justifies the means is a key tenet of the left. It always has been one and always will be one.
Posted by: Attila on March 19, 2010 04:55 PM