|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 6, 2009 23:11:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Aug 7, 2009 10:04:52 GMT -8
The Obama Admin, with it's "Never let a good crisis go to waste" mentality has shown themselves to be ideologues first, second and third. They give the middle finger to the average joe and care only for their favorite little constituencies. The Stimulus bill (loaded with targeted pork as the unemployment rate went from under 8% to near 10% since its passing) has exposed all to this reality and it is right that the MAJORITY is skeptical of his motives, ability to correctly plan, ability to avoid deficits, ability to execute in general on healthcare reform.
He had the same "it must pass right away" approach on the Stimulus bill and that mantra is now correctly a red flag and, as we have seen, the more the bills are understood, the less they are liked. He says the plan will not raise the deficit, which is a lie according to the CBO and that inconsistency rightly demands our concern, especially when the deficits have roared with his spending on other government programs in general. He says it will not cause unemployment, which is a lie too given the current configuration of HR 3200 relating to small business, let alone the new tax burdens slowing the economy.
His, Harry's and Nancy's plans will destroy the economy for the sake of the few million people this program will pick up. Again - ideologues catering to a small constituency. To think there isn't a much better way that does not intertwine government, its deficits and tax burden to the extent required under this reform is either completely naive or intellectually dishonest.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 7, 2009 10:32:45 GMT -8
One of my most serious complaints about the Democrats is that they characterize virtually every problem as a "crisis." Keep in mind how we react differently to a crisis as opposed to normal behavior. Usually, we go the front door of a house and knock if we want to speak with the occupants. However, if the house is on fire, the occupants are disabled or otherwise can't get out on their own, and the door is locked, we go to a window and break it in order to effect a rescue. For the Dems, it's always time to break the window. There is never a time when a serious problem deserves careful, step-by-step action based on sober, non-panicky consideration. Why is that so? I feel that such is the Democrats' MO because, in large measure, they feel that their solutions may not be adopted if the public has time to give the matter thoughtful consideration. Well, this country is just stupid, right? (Didn't Bill Maher tells us that just recently?) What's the point in wasting time while the rubes scratch their heads? We know best, so let's ram the sucker through. You know, never waste a crisis, even if we have to gin up the crisis ourselves! I guess those of us who are just too thick to understand the big problems should be grateful that there is this brainy elite thoughtful enough to do the thinking for us!  AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 7, 2009 12:39:05 GMT -8
Oh BTW, Dave. At least one Congressman has received death threats over health care a Missouri Republican made jokes about Democrats facing "lynch mobs" in town hall meetings and Limbaugh is comparing the Administration's symbol for health care to the Swastika: www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080609/content/01125106.guest.htmlBlow this off all you'd like with pathetic jokes typical of your generation about blow jobs (I'm rather surprised you've not yet called me a faggot), but the simple fact is this - the right wing is raising the anger level like a bat outta Hell. Of course, you wouldn't know that, because you don't read their websites. How convenient for your denials of what's going on in this country. =Bob The Matthews comment I made above was intended to be scatological, not sexual. We were talking about "$#!+" offered on cable TV. Nevertheless here is some video you won't watch of your wonderful, utopian party in action: sweetness-light.com/archive/seiu-thugs-beat-up-town-hall-protester |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 7, 2009 12:58:00 GMT -8
OBTW, =Perfesser, you said Volokh was "right-wing" but reasonable. What do you find reasonable about "right-wing"? He's libertarian (small L). He is (rightly, I think) suspicious of big government, but he supports "left-wing" positions such as homosexual marriage. Does this mean I'd be okay calling him "left-wing" but reasonable? As for the Limbaugh site, I went there as you invited. I don't get the implied similarity of the symbols, so don't expect me to try to explain it. About the only thing I could think is that control of the health care industry by state bureaucrats is in fact Nazi-like. But then, so is state control of other industry like banking and manufacturing. I said early on that this guy resembles Mussolini, and so far he's not disappointing me. The dismissal of charges against the thugs at the polling place, the beating of the man in St. Louis by union thugs, and the snitch line at the White House for reporting opposition to the health care power grab would make Mussolini proud. The snitch site may be against the law, but they don't care: www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000552---a000-.html Oh, another "by the way" for you, =Perfesser, wrt to NAZI conflations. How soon we are willing to forget... www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4750077  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2009 13:59:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 7, 2009 15:19:14 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 7, 2009 16:52:15 GMT -8
[quote author=afan board=np thread=41 post=393 [/quote]
YAWN. Nothing more than the usual far right talking points.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 7, 2009 17:20:09 GMT -8
Sigh. Dave, while you seem to be too dense to figure out is that we have the first Black President who also happens to have an Islamic name, I don't believe you are, and while there are more than a few fools out there who seem to believe that he is somehow "un-American", I don't believe you do. But how would you respond to this: tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/americans-for-prosperity-compares-health-care-reform-to-holocaust-tells-protesters-to-put-fear-of-go.phpThis is what the right-wing, health care industry spokesman are spreading among the idiots who are disrupting town halls all over the country. It's a rather simple question, Dave. Do you believe that any of the health care bills will lead to old people being offed? But more to the point, as health care insurance is projected to go up by 3 percent a year above inflation (8-12 percent this year in my retirement association heath care plans), do you really believe that it's just all about "tort reform" and liberal bull$#!+ while you give the insurance companies a total pass? And even more to the point, given that you're retired military and have taken advantage of a retirement system that allowed you to retire sometime in your early 50s, why should I listen to anything you have to say given that you've had socialized health care from the day you enlisted to the day you die, but want to deny it to everyone else? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 7, 2009 18:24:58 GMT -8
To deny that serious health care rationing, controlled by the government, will not happen if Obamacare becomes law is simply pig-headedness.
And if health care rationing does happen, it will be in the context of deciding who should get what care. Obviously, any rationing of care, extra long waits, denial of certain drugs on the grounds that they are not "cost effective" in certain cases, etc., will hit older people especially hard. Any such decrease in the quality of or access to health care will, without question, lead to the deaths of many seniors.
No, we won't have Obama death squads going around knocking off oldsters as they sit on park benches. But senior citizens will die needlessly just the same. There is another aspect to this that has not gotten the press that it deserves. A thoracic surgeon (which means he operates on heart patients) was interviewed on the radio recently. He pointed out that general practitioners are simply not as good as specialists when it comes to making diagnoses. Yet, the Obama administration has made a point of complaining that there are too many specialists. They want more GPs. Why? I suspect that they see specialists as costing too much. On the other hand, how much is a correct diagnosis worth if the patient is you or a member of your family?
Obama wants to put into the system about 40 million people who currently do not have health insurance. But I have not heard him say a word about how the current staff of health care professionals is going to be able to care for 40 million more people without a decline in the quality of health care for everyone. How can that result not be inevitable? Would anyone care to explain where my reasoning is incorrect?
Perhaps the most blame worthy aspect of the Obama health care offensive is that he goes around deamonizing his opponents while at the same time offering very little in the way of specifics regarding health care reform. That's not surprising, I guess, since he basically has nothing to do with the crafting of the legislation.
Obama is saying, in essence, "Please just support this plan, and, by the way, don't ask any questions about it since I really don't know what the hell the legislation is going to look like. Just trust me, okay!"
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 8, 2009 8:36:47 GMT -8
To deny that serious health care rationing, controlled by the government, will not happen if Obamacare becomes law is simply pig-headedness. And if health care rationing does happen, it will be in the context of deciding who should get what care. Obviously, any rationing of care, extra long waits, denial of certain drugs on the grounds that they are not "cost effective" in certain cases, etc., will hit older people especially hard. Any such decrease in the quality of or access to health care will, without question, lead to the deaths of many seniors. AzWm Is there that sort of rationing now under Medicare? Why would it change? But your argument does not justify the nonsense that's being spread. I give you the latest from Palin: blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/palin-paints-picture-of-obama-death-panel-giving-thumbs-down-to-trig.htmlAnd as the blogger points out, she had demanded the press stay away from her family, but I guess she gets to bring them up whenever she wants to get press coverage. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 8, 2009 8:41:50 GMT -8
No, we won't have Obama death squads going around knocking off oldsters as they sit on park benches. But senior citizens will die needlessly just the same. There is another aspect to this that has not gotten the press that it deserves. A thoracic surgeon (which means he operates on heart patients) was interviewed on the radio recently. He pointed out that general practitioners are simply not as good as specialists when it comes to making diagnoses. Yet, the Obama administration has made a point of complaining that there are too many specialists. They want more GPs. Why? I suspect that they see specialists as costing too much. AzWm Actually, there is a shortage of GPs in this country and it's getting worse: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31507763/ns/health-health_care/Try doing some research before you "suspect" something. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Aug 8, 2009 8:47:16 GMT -8
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson I think we know what side of liberty those who dare speak out against Obamacare are on and I think we know what side of tyranny the Chicago mob that wants to silence the so called "organized, right wing mini-mobs" are on. www.associatedcontent.com/article/2030790/flagwhitehousegov_a_snitch_line.html |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 8, 2009 10:02:56 GMT -8
No, we won't have Obama death squads going around knocking off oldsters as they sit on park benches. But senior citizens will die needlessly just the same. There is another aspect to this that has not gotten the press that it deserves. A thoracic surgeon (which means he operates on heart patients) was interviewed on the radio recently. He pointed out that general practitioners are simply not as good as specialists when it comes to making diagnoses. Yet, the Obama administration has made a point of complaining that there are too many specialists. They want more GPs. Why? I suspect that they see specialists as costing too much. AzWm Actually, there is a shortage of GPs in this country and it's getting worse: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31507763/ns/health-health_care/Try doing some research before you "suspect" something. =Bob Bob, please reread that I posted and tell me where I suggested that there is not a shortage of GPS? It is quite possible for someone to identify a need (more GPs) and then produce a remedy that makes the overall situation worse (Obamacare). I believe I am correct in saying that the President believes that there should be fewer specialists and more GPs. I offered evidence that, while the latter may be perfectly legitimate, the former likely is not. In any event, where is the plan to produce more physicians of whatever type? Seriously, I may have missed it, but I do no recall hearing or reading anything along those lines. What I do know is that the proposal is to sign up 40 million or so more people for govt. run or backed insurance without providing a single new practitioner (MDs, RNs, etc.). At least in the short term, that will mean an overload on the system, and that will unquestionably lead to rationing. And on a related issues, let me answer the question that many on the Left have asked. Yes, I WOULD rather have the private sector rather than the govt. decide who gets what service if it comes down to that. In almost all cases I would prefer that politicians and bureaucrats not be making the call. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 8, 2009 14:45:10 GMT -8
Sigh. Dave, while you seem to be too dense to figure out is that we have the first Black President who also happens to have an Islamic name, I don't believe you are, and while there are more than a few fools out there who seem to believe that he is somehow "un-American", I don't believe you do. But how would you respond to this: tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/americans-for-prosperity-compares-health-care-reform-to-holocaust-tells-protesters-to-put-fear-of-go.phpThis is what the right-wing, health care industry spokesman are spreading among the idiots who are disrupting town halls all over the country. It's a rather simple question, Dave. Do you believe that any of the health care bills will lead to old people being offed? But more to the point, as health care insurance is projected to go up by 3 percent a year above inflation (8-12 percent this year in my retirement association heath care plans), do you really believe that it's just all about "tort reform" and liberal bull$#!+ while you give the insurance companies a total pass? And even more to the point, given that you're retired military and have taken advantage of a retirement system that allowed you to retire sometime in your early 50s, why should I listen to anything you have to say given that you've had socialized health care from the day you enlisted to the day you die, but want to deny it to everyone else? =Bob I don't care about the color of the President's skin, I care about the color of his politics, and it looks pretty Red to me. As for the link you provided, I looked it over, and all I can say is that if the right is finally learning to use the same kind of hyperbole that the left has gotten away with for decades, that's a good thing. I suspect old people will see less care under any plans approved by this Administration. The President has certainly hinted at that himself. And the kinds of Mengele clones he's been appointing as czar this or that doesn't ease any suspicion: newsrealblog.com/2009/07/14/fox-hannity-profiles-science-czar-john-p-holdren/aconservativeedge.com/2009/07/13/john-p-holdren-global-police-force-for-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-control-you-get-the-picture-a-liberals-dream/www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/cass_sunsteins_despicable_idea.htmlAs for my medical insurance, I have Medicare which I was forced to contribute into for over forty years. As for the military retirement supplement, TRICARE, I have to pay a premium for it every single month. But the real point is, I don't have to use and abide by Medicare or Tricare decisions with regard to treatment. If they deny coverage for a certain procedure, I am free to negotiate for that service, and pay out of pocket. And I have had to do that in the past. Obamacare like Hillarycare will ultimately make that option illegal. That is an invasion of freedom. Oh, another thing. If Obamacare is so good for everyone else, how come those sleazeballs in Congress exempt themselves? If you want to criticize military retirees who serve 20-30 years, where's the outrage about those pieces of s**t in Congress who get special benefits after serving only a very few years? You know, those elite t**rds who don't have to live under the laws they force on everyone else? |
|
