Republican Orrin Hatch ADMITS Healthcare Reform would be Wildly Popular !!
Doug Bashford
Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah doesn't want
Democrats to pass a successful healthcare bill
because then people might think Democrats do helpful stuff.
Then people would vote for Democrats, which would render
the Republican Party obsolete. "*Would* render..."????
That's what most Richbuttlickins seemingly think,
so that explains why the hysterical lies and so forth.
Well...of course that also assumes their widly publicized
"Party before America" philosophy.
If people might think Democrats do helpful stuff;
Then...TEH SOCIALISMZ!!:
EEEK RUN AND HIDE!!!! (...into the comfy arms of Repubs!)
But Democrats want to America a better place.
Democrats want America to be Number One, not 27th.
"That's their goal," Hatch said. "That's what
keeps Democrats in power."
quoting:
The healthcare reform proposals before Congress threaten the
existence of the two-party system, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
alleged Monday morning.
Hatch asserted that the health bills, which he believes
represent a "step-by-step approach to socialized medicine," will
lead to Americans' dependence on Democrats for their health and
other issues.
"And if they get there, of course, you're going to have a
very rough time having a two-party system in this country,
because almost everybody's going to say, 'All we ever were, all
we ever are, all we ever hope to be depends on the Democratic
Party,' " Hatch said during an interview with the conservative
CNSNews.com.
"That's their goal," Hatch added. "That's what keeps
Democrats in power."
That claim led Hatch to suggest that some Democrats are
"diabolical" in their pursuit of health reform.
-------end quoting
Fie on thee, O nefarious Democrats!
I would take perspective much more seriously--at least as an
internally consistent world view--if Hatch actually gave a damn
about the American people.
Hatch is just afraid that if Democrats make things work
better...then people will elect Democrats.
Stupid democracy.
An entirely rational fear on Hatch's part. For the last three
decades his party has been running on a platform of "government
doesn't work" and trying to prove that thesis whenever they are
in power. Having no recent examples of government actually
working is a necessary condition for that strategy to work.
Repubs are counting on the fact that their Doublethinking (see
Orwell) dittoheads don't notice that now they are arguing that
government is actually working so well that any competition from
it will bankrupt private HMOs.
By the late 1970s memories of successful government programs
from the 1930s to 1950s were fading, so Reagan's apocryphal and
made up stories of the Cadillac-driving welfare mother were able
to gain traction. But if health care reform passes and works,
people will realize that the "government doesn't work" line is
BS.
======
Doublethink - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Doublethink is a word described in the fictional language of
Newspeak and the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two
mutually contradictory beliefs. It is related to, but distinct
from, hypocrisy and neutrality.
Doublethink is an integral concept of George Orwell's dystopian
novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.
======= According to the novel, doublethink is:
�The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind
simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate
lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that
has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is
needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the
while to take account of the reality which one denies � all this
is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it
is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one
admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of
doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely,
with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.[1]...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink -
Like: "We support the troops, send more off to die!"
Like: "We hate the elite limosine wine-sippers, cut their taxes!"
Like: "We hate Big Government, give them more guns and powers!"
Like: "We believe in inalienable Rights! Legalize torture!"
The list is endless.
What's YOUR favorite?
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist.
KK
apparatchiks? *That*'s what the fuck he's talking about. Democrats
would *love* for people to feel dependent on them.
tenjets
> You want a country where your access to health care depends on bureaucrat
> apparatchiks? *That*'s what the fuck he's talking about. Democrats
> would *love* for people to feel dependent on them.
>
>
health care today.
>
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:54:31 +0000, Doug Bashford wrote:
> > Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah doesn't want Democrats to pass a
> > successful healthcare bill because then people might think Democrats do
> > helpful stuff. Then people would vote for Democrats, which would render
>
> - Show quoted text -
KK
> The insurance companies are the bureaucrats controlling access to
> health care today.
Yes, and the issues with it (though the large majority of Americans are
insured *and* happy with their insurance) are the result of the
disconnect between consumer and provider, and of the lack of competition
between insurers resulting in unresponsiveness.
Those things can be easily remedied without the horrific cut-off-the-arm-
to-fix-the-hangnail proposals on the table, and those are both things
that will be *worse* under those current ridiculous proposals.
Doug Bashford
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:19:20 GMT, KK said about:
Re: Republican Orrin Hatch ADMITS Healthcare Reform would be
Wildly Popular !!
> You want a country where your access to health care depends on bureaucrat
> apparatchiks? *That*'s what the fuck he's talking about.
Well I think you express good solid values in your objection.
But I don't get your reasoning. Perhaps you could expand?
Right now we have a country where your access to health care
depends on bureaucrats who get bonuses according to how many
people the can deny coverage to. ...after all, their objective
is NOT to provide health care, but to maximize profit. Nobody
denies this objective. Perhaps you think their actions run
contrary to this objective? If so, why on earth would anybody
do that!?
If your insurance company decided the pill you need is
too expensive, guess what? Your doctor aint even gunna
tell you it exists. But having used that system, you
already know this, right? Right? ??????????
> Democrats
> would *love* for people to feel dependent on them.
So do you say that as a "Republicanna before America,"
Republican, or do you have the intellectual honesty to
also feel a similar revulsion over the fact that you
are NOW dependent on corporate bureaucracies
out to skin you rather than cure you?
So KK, perhaps you can explain why you feel that way?
I know there was a feeling in feudal times that it
was OK for the very rich, the lords and nobles to
buttfuck the common people. It was called
droit de seigneur or ius primae noctis, French for
the lord's right, or jus primae noctis in latin.
Droit de seigneur is often interpreted today as a
synonym for ius primae noctis, although it originally referred to
a number of other rights as well, including hunting, taxation,
and farming.
Is that it, KK? Perhaps at a subconscience DNA level?
Is that really why you are Richbuttlickins?
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:54:31 +0000, Doug Bashford wrote:
>
> > Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah doesn't want Democrats to pass a
> > successful healthcare bill because then people might think Democrats do
> > helpful stuff. Then people would vote for Democrats, which would render
> > the Republican Party obsolete. "*Would* render..."????
- What's the difference between Socialism & Fascism?
- Socialism: The government/people own the corporations.
- Fascism: The corporations own the government/people.
Whose side are YOU on?
The Mighty T.B.
(drivel snipped)
> Is that really why you are Richbuttlickins?
You know, if you could have the maturity to refrain from childish partisan
name calling, maybe someone would bother taking you seriously.
T.B.
Phlip
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:18:40 -0800, tenjets wrote:
>
>> The insurance companies are the bureaucrats controlling access to
>> health care today.
>
> Yes, and the issues with it (though the large majority of Americans are
> insured *and* happy with their insurance)
I know better than to ask for a citation for that last assertion.
Phlip
Further, even if 99.9% of us were delirious about our health insurance, then if
the HMOs were still recisioning, denying treatment, and forcing bankruptcy &
death, then we would still have a holocaust. Claiming that's okay because only
"some" people get screwed is just Tyranny of the Masses.
KK
Then why bring it up?
85 percent (the low end of the various claims) of people are insured; 77
percent of those are satisfied with their insurance.
The 85 percent insured figure is from the Department of Labor; the
percentage of those satisfied is from a USA Today/Kaiser poll. That's
satisfaction with ability to get non-emergency care; the figure for
satisfaction with health care overall among the insured is even higher:
93 percent.
The majority of Americans are satisfied with their current health care
coverage. There are certainly ways to improve the industry without
fucking it up for the people who are already happy with it.
KK
> Phlip wrote:
>> KK wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:18:40 -0800, tenjets wrote:
>>>
>>>> The insurance companies are the bureaucrats controlling access to
>>>> health care today.
>>>
>>> Yes, and the issues with it (though the large majority of Americans
>>> are insured *and* happy with their insurance)
>>
>> I know better than to ask for a citation for that last assertion.
>
> Further, even if 99.9% of us were delirious about our health insurance,
> then if the HMOs were still recisioning, denying treatment, and forcing
> bankruptcy & death, then we would still have a holocaust.
Save the fucking histrionics - .1% of people "unsatisfied" with their
insurance is not a "holocaust".
What the government proposes to implement would absolutely leave more
people unsatisfied than the status quo - and so, by your "logic", would
be a far worse "holocaust".
> Claiming
> that's okay because only "some" people get screwed is just Tyranny of
> the Masses.
So's overtaxing the wealthy. Glad to see you're on board.
wy
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:18:00 -0800, Phlip wrote:
> > Phlip wrote:
> >> KK wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:18:40 -0800, tenjets wrote:
>
> >>>> The insurance companies are the bureaucrats controlling access to
> >>>> health care today.
>
> >>> Yes, and the issues with it (though the large majority of Americans
> >>> are insured *and* happy with their insurance)
>
> >> I know better than to ask for a citation for that last assertion.
>
> > Further, even if 99.9% of us were delirious about our health insurance,
> > then if the HMOs were still recisioning, denying treatment, and forcing
> > bankruptcy & death, then we would still have a holocaust.
>
> Save the fucking histrionics - .1% of people "unsatisfied" with their
> insurance is not a "holocaust".
1% of the U.S. population is 3 million. How many Jews died in the
Holocaust, 6 million? Okay, so 1% is only half a Holocaust.
>
> What the government proposes to implement would absolutely leave more
> people unsatisfied than the status quo - and so, by your "logic", would
> be a far worse "holocaust".
How would you know? It hasn't even been implemented. By your
"logic," nothing should ever be implemented because of some baseless
fear that more people would be unsatisfied by it. Progress should
come to a total standstill, let's all stay in the Stone Age. Fuck,
you're dumb.
KK
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:19:20 GMT, KK said about:
> Re: Republican Orrin Hatch ADMITS Healthcare Reform would be
> Wildly Popular !!
>
>
>> You want a country where your access to health care depends on
>> bureaucrat apparatchiks? *That*'s what the fuck he's talking about.
>
> Well I think you express good solid values in your objection. But I
> don't get your reasoning. Perhaps you could expand? Right now we have a
> country where your access to health care depends on bureaucrats who get
> bonuses according to how many people the can deny coverage to. ...after
> all, their objective is NOT to provide health care, but to maximize
> profit.
The objective of all business is to maximize profit - that includes
doctors who charge for their labor, drug companies who charge for their
product, and MRI manufacturers who sell their hardware. And, yes,
insurance companies (of all kinds) whose business model depends on 2
things: selling policies, and preventing fraud or abuse of their
coverage.
Insurance companies lose in two ways when they unfairly deny coverage:
their ability to sell more policies is damaged, and they face crippling
lawsuits which can cost more than the care they refused in the first
place.
Government has no such disincentive.
> Nobody denies this objective. Perhaps you think their actions
> run contrary to this objective? If so, why on earth would anybody do
> that!?
For the same reason it wouldn't pay a grocer to buy a bushel of wormy
apples cheap, then refuse to let people return them: because nobody
would buy apples from them anymore.
Your question is childish and naive. Why should an auto company sell
cars which will last for 100,000 years? Once the sucker's out the door,
it doesn't matter, right? And for that matter, why should they honor
their warranties?
> If your insurance company decided the pill you need is too expensive,
> guess what? Your doctor aint even gunna tell you it exists.
Now that's just stupid.
> But having
> used that system, you already know this, right? Right? ??????????
>
>
>> Democrats
>> would *love* for people to feel dependent on them.
>
> So do you say that as a "Republicanna before America," Republican, or do
> you have the intellectual honesty to also feel a similar revulsion over
> the fact that you are NOW dependent on corporate bureaucracies out to
> skin you rather than cure you?
I'm not a "Republican". My insurance is great, though - my company self-
insures.
> So KK, perhaps you can explain why you feel that way?
>
> I know there was a feeling in feudal times that it was OK for the very
> rich, the lords and nobles to buttfuck the common people. It was called
> droit de seigneur or ius primae noctis, French for the lord's right, or
> jus primae noctis in latin.
> Droit de seigneur is often interpreted today as a
> synonym for ius primae noctis, although it originally referred to a
> number of other rights as well, including hunting, taxation, and
> farming.
> Is that it, KK? Perhaps at a subconscience DNA level? Is that really
> why you are Richbuttlickins?
Again, I'm not. And I've felt exactly this way - and been saying what
should be done to improve healthcare - since I was making minimum wage in
the late '80s.
wy
Yeah, it got to be so bad that California had to pass a law to make
sure HMOs covered all meds.
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=27494
Who's the stupid one now? Fuck, you're dumb.
>
> > But having
> > used that system, you already know this, right? Right? ??????????
>
> >> Democrats
> >> would *love* for people to feel dependent on them.
>
> > So do you say that as a "Republicanna before America," Republican, or do
> > you have the intellectual honesty to also feel a similar revulsion over
> > the fact that you are NOW dependent on corporate bureaucracies out to
> > skin you rather than cure you?
>
> I'm not a "Republican". My insurance is great, though - my company self-
> insures.
You're a Republican, you're too dumb to be anything else. And your
company's insurance is only as good for as long as your company lasts,
or you last on the job - and that certainly won't be till the day you
die. After that, what? Into the uninsured pool you go.
>
> > So KK, perhaps you can explain why you feel that way?
>
> > I know there was a feeling in feudal times that it was OK for the very
> > rich, the lords and nobles to buttfuck the common people. It was called
> > droit de seigneur or ius primae noctis, French for the lord's right, or
> > jus primae noctis in latin.
> > Droit de seigneur is often interpreted today as a
> > synonym for ius primae noctis, although it originally referred to a
> > number of other rights as well, including hunting, taxation, and
> > farming.
> > Is that it, KK? Perhaps at a subconscience DNA level? Is that really
> > why you are Richbuttlickins?
>
> Again, I'm not. And I've felt exactly this way - and been saying what
> should be done to improve healthcare - since I was making minimum wage in
> the late '80s.
Yeah, we were all there in each and every one of those discussions
over the last 20 years. Guess your ideas went nowhere.
Doug Bashford
The Mighty T.B. said about:
Wildly Popular !!
Oh I don't really care about preaching to the choir.
That's why I use arguments Republickins have been
proven to value.
USA Today/Gallup poll - LIMBAUGH is the REPUBLICAN'S LEADER!
Who speaks for the Republican party?
LIMBAUGH...In every catigory: Both Republicans, Dems agree.
Dick Cheney is number two.
That's right, Limbaugh & Cheney.
- Political Economics:
- Socialism: The government/people own the corporations.
- Fascism: The corporations/government own the people.
- Republicans: think the very rich are the backbone of America.
- Democrats: think the middle class are the backbone of America.
- Republicans: think Americans deserve 27th in health care.
- Democrats: think Americans deserve better.
- Republicans: think health care is mostly about defending profits.
- Democrats: think health care is mostly about defending health.
- Republicans: must lie to get people to do right.
- Democrats: must be honest to get people to do right.
- Republicans: fear government but not corporations.
- Democrats: fear both.
The Mighty T.B.
>>
>> (drivel snipped)
>>
>> > Is that really why you are Richbuttlickins?
>>
>> You know, if you could have the maturity to refrain from childish
>> partisan
>> name calling, maybe someone would bother taking you seriously.
>> T.B.
>
> Oh I don't really care about preaching to the choir.
> That's why I use arguments Republickins have been
> proven to value.
And that is why you come off as a psychotic, ranting lunatic.
There you have it and there you go!
T.B.
Rick Saunders
Afraid to discover that it's true?
----
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123149/cost-is-foremost-healthcare-issue-for-americans.aspx
Americans are broadly satisfied with the quality of their own
medical care and healthcare costs, but of the two, satisfaction
with costs lags. Overall, 80% are satisfied with the quality of
medical care available to them, including 39% who are very
satisfied. Sixty-one percent are satisfied with the cost of their
medical care, including 20% who are very satisfied.
----
Doug Bashford
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
On 05 Nov, Phlip said about:
Wildly Popular !!
> Toby wrote:
> > "Dacato" wrote...
> >> Please explain how this bill is unconstitutional.
> > Exactly, I can't wait to hear this one.
> The only socialist institution the Constitution explicitly authorizes is the
> Post Office. (Oh, and the armed forces, etc.)
So? What does that have to do with the question?
> So even if we have a constitutional right to federally managed public parks, to
> show off our scenic wonders, we have no constitutional right to health care. See?
Nope. Where is your argument?
Clue: What are your unarticulated assumptions?
Are you claiming for example, that Americans
only deserve the enumerated rights? <grin>
Read one of these:
google:
#
Argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful
declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises
along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or
"proposition") known as the conclusion. A deductive argument
asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence
of the premises. ...
An argument is valid if and only if the truth of the conclusion
is a logical consequence of the premises and (consequently) its
corresponding conditional is a necessary truth. A sound argument
is a valid argument with true premises. ...
Informal arguments are sometimes implicit. That is, the logical
... ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument -
#
Constructing a Logical Argument
Other sorts of mathematical logic, such as fuzzy logic, obey
different rules. When people talk of logical arguments, though,
they generally mean the type ...
www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html -
#
Logical Arguments
Oct 27, 2001 ... We'll be studying the structural features of
logical arguments in much greater detail as we proceed, and
you'll soon find it easy to spot ...
www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htm -
#
English Composition 1: Logical Argument
Therefore, here we will examine the simple basics of logical
argument, some of the types of argument, and finally some of the
mistakes we are likely to see ...
http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/comp1/logic.htm -
#
Logic in Argumentative Writing - The OWL at Purdue
Sep 16, 2009 ... This handout is designed to help writers develop
and use logical arguments in writing. Through an introduction in
some of the basic terms ...
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/01/ -
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=logical+argument&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
KK
> Are you claiming for example, that Americans only deserve the enumerated
> rights? <
They're certainly entitled to them.