Re: The U.S. Is Now "Declinestan" Writes Mark Steyn. Here's How It Happened. The Nation's Sad Condition Is Terminal
climber
> And this is what Obama and the Democrats are presiding over now. Bush and
> the Republicans were not much better. Even Reagan's "Morning in America" was
> transitory as the seeds of America's decline were sown long ago
> with the birth of the progressive movement of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow
> Wilson. There was a hiatus in the presidencies of Harding and Coolidge.
> Reagan was not able to right the ship as he was almost always hobbled by a
> Democratic congress and imperviously entrenched socialist entitlements from
> Hoover, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford Carter
> presidencies. But in the end one has to blame the people who simply became
> to liberal and socialist with the massive urbanization of America.
>
> It is now the twilight of the gods for the U.S. Americans can only expect
> that the country will decline further both economically and socially in the
> future. The Golden Age of U.S. is over as happened long ago to Rome and
> late nineteenth-century Britain.
>
> Mark Steyn can describe the situation much better than I. Read his essay
> below.
>
> http://article.nationalreview.com/428996/tattered-liberty/mark-steyn
>
> --
> By the test of serious intellectual
> persuasiveness, Marx was hardly a
> a 'great thinker", though he often appears
> as such in low-level academic curricula.
> ---Robert Conquest "Reflections on a
> Ravaged Century".
Terminal
climber
tooly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ok, I'll make this arguement one more time.
Whatever progressivism existed in this country, all was managable and
in control until the Hart-Cellar Immigration Act of 1965, which was an
extention of Civil Rights legislation.
What that did was open the floodgates for immigration from disparate
spanish speaking countries to the south, especially in recent time,
Mexico. By the late 70's, a new political reality was already
showing up, where conservativism and the respondent responsible
oversight of our culture, was being FORCED to move 'left' to remain
electable. This was due the influx of hispanic peoples into this
society, most of which found a natural alliance to 'socialistic
liberal progressivism' found in the Democrat party.
Some even argue that the Hart-Cellar Act was strategy by that Democrat
party to 'pad the vote' in this land in their favor. This became
especially clear by Reagan's administration.
It was that 'shift' in the political spectrum of the land that being
pushed constantly LEFTWARD, until now, with Obama's election, radical
socialism, once a very fringe element, has taken center stage, at
least as a political power to 'force' change [most American's remain
center right and find such 'change' abhorrent and Anti-American].
I haven't checked that latest demographics, but in 2003, for every
additional caucasion, there was a growth rate of 3 blacks and 7
hispanics in this land, ensuring in time that the founding prodgeny
would become a minority in it's own land, and of course, politically
expunged far sooner [no expected as early as 2008 however, LOL].
I keep arguing this...and I realize, most of us have been so
brainwashed...so enculturated, that the very mention causes red flags
to spark off in our brains like pavlov dogs being called dinner, that
I understand the difficulty.
But..RACE MATTERS and is the central problem of what is taking place
in this culture.
Understand, that when Antonio Gramsci called for a NEW PROLETARIAT to
bring down the west [after communism failed to catch fire worldwide],
the idea of a new PROLETARIAT was to find any segment of any society
that had vested reason for DISCONTENT. That was what marxists played
upon in Russia's October revolution...the ready made frustration and
anger of a peasant class just waiting for it's 'ANGER and HATRED' to
be 'unleashed'. That's what marxists do you see...they look for that
waiting avalanche, that silent energy of cocked mob action waiting to
be 'moved'...toward their goals of overthrowing traditional FREE
PEOPLE so they can install socialism.
So...Gramsci called for a NEW PROLETARIAT, this time comprised of
WOMEN, MINORITIES, CRIMINALS, and outcasts...anyone with a vested
interest to 'revolt' against the establishment.
And so, yes RACE matters...because for over five decades, if anyone
has been observing, and seething hatred has been planted in all these
elements...an anger focusing like a battering ram to some day
'politically' overthrow the establishment of the free world. Only
this time around, an oppressed peasant class is not the vehicle of
change...but a minority that has historically, worldwide, been left in
the dust of historical social evolution, who have, like the peasantry
of 1917 Russia, a vested interest ready made for 'anger, jealousy, and
hatred' that can be used like that battering ram once again.
No Tsar's this time around, no antiquated feudal system of marked
social caste. All the marxists had this time was 'the oil and water'
natural seperations of RACE...for which, they have played their hand
very well, creating, over time, that seething hatred between otherwise
peaceable peoples, designed to strike at the heart of the
establishment. And who is that establishment? White European
males.
And so, as GRAMSCI called for, the even more powerful and seething
energy behind this new battering ram [being used by the instigators]
is GENDER. At no other time in human history has such an UNHOLY
alliance been created as that between the white woman and the african
descended man; now a political alliance most powerful designed to
bring down WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
Crazy? I realize most who might read this will think I"m looney
tunes. But I HONESTLY believe, if one keeps uncovering the layers
upon layers of political struggle, it all comes down to this dynamic
that is taking place right before our eyes.
And like the peasantry of old Russia, women and blacks will find
themselves DUPED as well in time, once the establishment is
'overturned' and all this 'hope and change' is uncovered to be what it
is...Marxist subtrafuge unraveling human social construction to
install A NEW INTELLECTUAL TOTALITARIAN oversight of the human
species...worldwide.
I'm not sure what could be done at this late date either. That Hart-
Cellar Immigration Act pretty much signed the fate of America and
anything traditional. The system is already broken. Republicans and
conservatives are dead men walking...as that 7-1 influx of hispanic
immigraton continues on, and most assuredly, Obama will no give
amnesty to the 13 million illegals here [again mostly hispanic]. Even
in the best conservative election years, hispanics only vote about 38%
for conservative candidates. They too have a vested NATURAL interest
in overthrowing what is subliminally in everyone's mind...WHITE
MALES. And thusly, the european heritage of the founding of America
is doomed.
The system is broken...the Progressive agenda pretty much assured
[only a matter of time]...and world socialism a likely thing now [not
tomorrow of course...but in time]. It makes Karl Marx look like the
sage of all times, his predictions coming true [just his time table a
bit off; but then material dialectism was an open ended proposition
anyway].
So, the only HOPE I see is something REACTIONARY. People have to wake
up however. We've existed in a peaceful world for many years in
America and have grown soft [the european male especially]. I doubt
there's much fight left in us...and things will probably continue to
just capitulate as we are seeing...leading to more and more
socialism...and someday...well...
That is why I keep coming back to FASCISM and it's essential 'last
layer' of human cognizant explanation to social struggle. Social
struggle began with the accumulation of wealth by the bigger apes [I
am logically assuming], for which 'specialization' and all social
constructs since, have resulted from other apes having to perform [for
dinner and sex]. Evil is upon on us anyway...so perhaps the people
have a choice in the face of evil they must exist under...and what
vested interest should rule the roost? If we go collective, I have
this suspicion we will have an AFro-centrist egoism take the world
over [in time...in time].
My hope is the absolute repulsion most other people might have to
this...and realize the time to act is NOW...not later when the TSAR is
ousted and the marxist once again control's the capitol building. By
acting now, I mean to politically chase all progressivism out of town
on a rail. There remains the tiniest of windows left I suppose...
Few will see the truth in any of this of course [partially due to my
inability to articulate it all very well; like I said, there are
layers and layers...one has to dig deep]. Race matters though and is
at the crux of what is going down under Obama now. That's what that
health care was really about...and his 'redistribution of
wealth'...what it really means. Can he consolodate his power by 2012
election? If he passes amnesty for illegals...yea...that will pretty
much do it I think. But remember, this is a culmination of over 50
years of effort...ever since HART-CELLAR and civil rights
legislation.
tooly
>
> - Show quoted text -
If anyone thinks I'm using these arguments to somehow advocate 'hatred
or racism' or ANYTHING except the dignity and honor of all
people...they are sadly mistaken. I don't have any disregard for any
OTHER race or people or creed. We are, in the end, all brothers in
this world.
But I recognize that a 'seething hatred' is indeed being installed to
divide us all. I'm honest. I'm quite on record that the black
fucking the white woman has 'destroyed' me inside. To any black man
out there, you cannot know how that has literally KILLED me inside.
Judge me however you will...but nothing will change that fact. I am
devastated to the nth degree...my life essentially ruined as an
individual. It destroyed my faith, my ideal, everything.
It is meant as COMMUNICATION...it hurts; it is painful you see; please
stop doing it...that kind of thing. And as well, I am congnizant to
anything I might do that might be as hurtful to someone else. There
IS a better way...open, respectful dialogue; honesty. A common spirit
can save us...for Muslims, Christians, Blacks, Whites, Asians, all of
us......but not the pretensions we now exist under in all this
cultural marxist political correctness. The world is presently
walking upon the back of America...and I don't mean from support. We
just bury resentment and stymi any hope of REAL closeness among men.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>
>But I recognize that a 'seething hatred' is indeed being installed to
>divide us all. I'm honest. I'm quite on record that the black
>fucking the white woman has 'destroyed' me inside.
One of my main lady friends is black. We sleep together on a semi
regular basis. She is Conservative.
Does that twist your panties in a wad also?
Gunner
"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost
pyotr filipivich
<rd...@bellsouth.net> reported Elvis on Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:07:04
-0700 (PDT) in misc.survivalism:
>
>But I recognize that a 'seething hatred' is indeed being installed to
>divide us all. I'm honest. I'm quite on record that the black
>fucking the white woman has 'destroyed' me inside. To any black man
>out there, you cannot know how that has literally KILLED me inside.
I know they have the Reputation and all, but from what I've also
heard - relax, enjoy. You'll enjoy it more too.
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Bret Cahill
economists all cut 'n run like cockroaches from The Question
Gunner Asch
Not surprising that Leftards think the country is doing great and things
are going to swing just around the corner.
From 2008......
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we've seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate
(stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
The most significant accomplishment by the Democratic controlled
Congress
in 2007:
THEY VOTED TO INCREASE THEIR PAY!
Jim_Higgins
And the Party of No is as pure as the driven snow. "Mission Accomplished".
--
Service Guarantees Citizenship
Deadrat
news:9mgkq59nira9csbkd...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:15:34 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
> <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>>Not too surprising when you figger that outspoken Repugliar "market"
>>economists all cut 'n run like cockroaches from The Question
>>
>>www.bretcahill.com
>>
>
>
> Not surprising that Leftards think the country is doing great and
> things are going to swing just around the corner.
>
> From 2008......
>
> A little over one year ago:
> 1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
> 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
> 3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
>
>
> Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we've seen:
> 1) Consumer confidence plummet;
> 2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3 a gallon;
The political makeup of Congress and the White House has little to do
with gas prices. Average gas prices broke $3 a gallon twice between 2001
and 2006. If you didn't complain about it then, you don't get to
complain about it now. In 2008, the avergage gas price was down to $1.60
a gallon. If you didn't credit the Democrats them, you don't get to
blame them now.
> 3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
> 4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value
evaporate
> (stock and mutual fund losses);
> 5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
> 6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
The housing, financial market, and stock market collapses happened on the
watch of the WPE. If you didn't blame him then, you don't get to
complain about unemployment now.
> America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
>
> The most significant accomplishment by the Democratic controlled
> Congress
> in 2007:
> THEY VOTED TO INCREASE THEIR PAY!
Actually they didn't vote to turn down the authomatic pay increase. As
they did every year that the Republicans controlled Congress under the
WPE. If you didn't complain about it then, you don't get to complain
about it now.
And the next auto increase is scheduled for rejection.
<snip/>
Lisa Lisa
>
>
>
>
>
> > And this is what Obama and the Democrats are presiding over now. Bush and
> > the Republicans were not much better. Even Reagan's "Morning in America" was
> > transitory as the seeds of America's decline were sown long ago
> > with the birth of the progressive movement of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow
> > Wilson. There was a hiatus in the presidencies of Harding and Coolidge.
> > Reagan was not able to right the ship as he was almost always hobbled by a
> > Democratic congress and imperviously entrenched socialist entitlements from
> > Hoover, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford Carter
> > presidencies. But in the end one has to blame the people who simply became
> > to liberal and socialist with the massive urbanization of America.
>
> > It is now the twilight of the gods for the U.S. Americans can only expect
> > that the country will decline further both economically and socially in the
> > future. The Golden Age of U.S. is over as happened long ago to Rome and
> > late nineteenth-century Britain.
>
> > Mark Steyn can describe the situation much better than I. Read his essay
> > below.
>
> >http://article.nationalreview.com/428996/tattered-liberty/mark-steyn
Of course this country is in a decline. Europe rebuilt, Asia is
catching up with the West...What did want?
Lisa
pyotr filipivich
<gunne...@gmail.com> reported Elvis on Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:53:31
-0700 in misc.survivalism:
>On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:15:34 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
><BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>>Not too surprising when you figger that outspoken Repugliar "market"
>>economists all cut 'n run like cockroaches from The Question
>
>are going to swing just around the corner.
>
>From 2008......
>
>A little over one year ago:
>1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
>2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
>3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
>
>
>Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we've seen:
>1) Consumer confidence plummet;
>2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3 a gallon;
>3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
>4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate
>(stock and mutual fund losses);
>5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
>6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
That's the price of commodities been doing the last three years?
Gold? Oil? Silver, copper? Wheat?
And while we are at it, what's the M2 these days, as opposed to a
year ago?
>
>America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
>
>The most significant accomplishment by the Democratic controlled
>Congress
>in 2007:
>THEY VOTED TO INCREASE THEIR PAY!
>
The scary part are the polls which indicant that seven in ten
expect the US economy to implode, and with it the country.
As Toynbee said, Great civilizations don't die of murder, but from
suicide.
William Boyd
--
BILL P.
&
DOG
I Have been to places and done
things that the average man has
only dreamed of.
Posted by HOPPIE, 30 Years Active Duty ,11 Campaigns Vietnam
Life Member; Am.Lgn,DAV,VFW,AFSA,VVA. 100%DAV
pyotr filipivich
<gordi...@hotmail.com> reported Elvis on Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:56:56
-0400 in misc.survivalism:
>> "First Law of Leftist Debate
>> The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
>> that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
>> more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
>> losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
>> homophobe approaches infinity.
>>
>> This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
>> race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
>> the subject." Grey Ghost
>
>And the Party of No is as pure as the driven snow. "Mission Accomplished".
I take it then, that if you have children, when they want to eat
the Drano, you will, of course, accommodate them, rather than be
considered a old meany and a parent of "no"?
-
pyotr filipivich
Any entity big enough to meet your needs,
is big enough to decide what those needs should be.
Deadrat
news:g97lq5h3hutkdp5h8...@4ax.com:
> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Jim_Higgins
> <gordi...@hotmail.com> reported Elvis on Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:56:56
> -0400 in misc.survivalism:
>>> "First Law of Leftist Debate
>>> The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
>>> that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
>>> more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
>>> losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
>>> homophobe approaches infinity.
>>>
>>> This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
>>> race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
>>> the subject." Grey Ghost
>>
>>And the Party of No is as pure as the driven snow. "Mission
>>Accomplished".
>
> I take it then, that if you have children, when they want to eat
> the Drano, you will, of course, accommodate them, rather than be
> considered a old meany and a parent of "no"?
Of course not. Don't be disingenuous. When people say that the Republican
Party is the Party of No, they're thinking of a party whose members in
lockstep refuse to negotiate on legislation, lose according to the rules by
a majority vote (3/5 in the Senate), claim that majority rule is unfair
(though it was fine with them when they were in power), call their
opponents names, and then block Senate business by invoking an arcane rule
that committee hearings can't begin after 2PM.
> -
> pyotr filipivich
<snip/>
Nickname unavailable
patriotic law abiding americans are asking the republican party to
get your conservative thugs terrorists and brown shirts under
control:threats:he may be a dead man:death threats against members or
their families:implied threats to children
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20100324/pl_politico/34907
The backlash: Reform turns personal
Jake Sherman, Marin Cogan – Wed Mar 24, 5:51 am ET
Reps. Louise Slaughter and Bart Stupak have received death threats.
A tea party participant published what he thought was Rep. Thomas
Perriello’s home address and urged disgruntled voters to “drop by” for
a “good face-to-face chat.”
Vandals broke windows at Slaughter’s office in New York and Rep.
Gabrielle Giffords’s office in Arizona.
And angry voters are planning to protest this weekend at the home of
Steve Driehaus — who’s already seen a photograph of his children used
in a newspaper ad published by reform opponents.
The vitriolic health care debate has become personal — too personal,
say House Democrats who voted for the bill and now find not just
themselves but their families in the cross hairs of opponents.
Slaughter, a Democrat who chairs the House Rules Committee, said a
caller to her office last week vowed to send snipers to “kill the
children of the members who voted yes.” Her office reported the call
to police, who were dispatched to provide protection for Slaughter’s
grandchildren. She has also been in touch with the FBI and U.S. Postal
Service inspectors, who intercepted a letter en route to her home in
upstate New York.
Stupak, the Michigan Democrat whose last-minute compromise on abortion
guaranteed passage of the bill Sunday, said callers have left messages
for him saying, “You’re dead; we know where you live; we’ll get you.”
“My wife still can’t answer the phone,” Stupak told POLITICO on
Tuesday. The messages are “full of obscenities if she leaves it
plugged in. In my office, we can’t get a phone out. It’s just
bombarded.”
Stupak, a former police officer, said he’s not fazed by the threats or
by the prospect of protests at his district office this weekend. “I’ve
looked down barrels of guns,” he said. “I’ve talked my way out of it.”
But Democrats said their political opponents go too far when they
bring members’ families into the fray.
Driehaus, a Democrat from Ohio, was outraged last week when a group
called the Committee to Rethink Reform used a photo of him and his two
young daughters in a newspaper ad urging him to vote against any
health care reform bill that included federal funding for abortion.
Both the group and the newspaper — the Cincinnati Enquirer —
apologized for including Driehaus’s daughters in the ad.
“I’m very protective of my family, like most of us,” Driehaus said
Tuesday. “There is no reason for my wife and kids to be brought into
any of this. If people want to talk to me, if people want to approach
me about an issue, I’m more than happy to talk about the issue,
regardless of what side they’re on. But I do believe when you bring in
a member’s family, that you’ve gone way too far.”
Driehaus faults Republicans for providing encouragement to the most
extreme opponents of reform. Last week, House Minority Leader John
Boehner (R-Ohio) warned that anti-abortion Democrats would suffer
politically if they voted for the health care bill; he singled out
Driehaus, saying he “may be a dead man” and “can’t go home to the west
side of Cincinnati” because “the Catholics will run him out of town.”
“Mr. Boehner made comments about me and my predicament when I go home
which I felt were wildly out of bounds for his position and very
irresponsible, quite frankly. He’s from next door. That’s not helpful.
That’s irresponsible,” Driehaus said.
Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said, “The leader does not condone
violence, and his remark was obviously not meant to be taken
literally. He is urging Americans to take the anger they’re feeling
and focus it on building a new majority that will listen to the
people.”
No one condones death threats against members or their families, but
not everyone is apologetic about taking complaints about health care
reform straight to the homes of members.
Mike Troxel, an organizer for the Lynchburg Tea Party, posted what he
believed to be Perriello’s home address on his blog this week,
sarcastically urging other tea partiers to stop by and “say hi and
express their thanks regarding his vote for health care.”
The address turned out to be the home of Perriello’s brother — who has
four children — but Troxel told POLITICO he didn’t intend to remove it
from his blog. “If they would like to provide me with the address of
Tom, then I’d be more than happy to take it down,” he said. “I have no
reason to believe it’s not his house.”
A fellow tea party blogger said he thought it was fine for Troxel to
post Perriello’s home address. “They have our home addresses,” said
Kurt Feigel, who complained that protesters had little choice but to
go to Perriello’s home because Perriello’s office doesn’t “respond to
e-mail; they don’t respond to letters; they don’t respond to us
showing up at his office. So what am I going to do?”
Perriello said his family doesn’t want him to be afraid. But when
asked if he was scared anyway, the Virginia Democrat replied:
“Whatever.”
“I’ve lived in Sierra Leone for two years, where the life expectancy
is 34 years old. If the worst thing that happens is that special-
interest groups spend millions of dollars against me and my most
ardent opponents organize against me, it’s hardly a ‘cry me a river’
moment — as long as people act civil and within the law.”
Others are less sanguine.
C.J. Karamargin, a spokesman for Giffords, said staffers in the
Democrat’s district office were “a little bit shaken” Monday when they
arrived at work to find the glass front door shattered and covered in
plywood.
Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) said he had to change his personal cell
phone number after a Republican gave it out to health care opponents.
And Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a Blue Dog Democrat from California, said
he’s gotten physical threats over health care reform.
“There are some folks that identified themselves as being members of
the tea party [who] called, [and] my staff has gotten to know their
names over time, and they have been very loud and very ugly,” Cardoza
said.
With the House vote behind them, Democrats hope to show voters that
health care reform won’t wreak the devastation opponents predict — and
that tempers will cool as a result.
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) said he’s already getting 95 percent
fewer calls since Sunday’s vote.
“The real problem is the people who
are calling and talking about a revolution and overthrowing
government,” he said. “They can be angry. We’re all for that. But when
they talk about taking over the government, the leadership has to do
its part to stop that.”
Andy Barr contributed to this report.
Read More Stories from POLITICO
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Mar 24, 2:24 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:07:04 -0700 (PDT), tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> But I recognize that a 'seething hatred' is indeed being installed to
>>> divide us all. I'm honest. I'm quite on record that the black
>>> fucking the white woman has 'destroyed' me inside.
>>
>> One of my main lady friends is black. We sleep together on a semi
>> regular basis. She is Conservative.
>>
>> Does that twist your panties in a wad also?
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>> "First Law of Leftist Debate
>> The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
>> that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
>> more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
>> losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
>> homophobe approaches infinity.
>>
>> This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
>> race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
>> the subject." Grey Ghost
>
> patriotic law abiding americans are asking the republican party to
> get your conservative thugs terrorists and brown shirts under
> control:threats:he may be a dead man:death threats against members or
> their families:implied threats to children
You mean like the ones that Democrat Chicago Politicians are famous for
delivering.... The veiled threats of violence?
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Tsk tsk tsk...not even a rebuttal of the above content? Pity that you
try so desperately to bypass the Lefts part in the current Great
Depression Part Deux, and shift the blame to George Bush, and use a
wrongfuly attributed quote as some sort of booby trap.
When your nads finally descend and you grow a little hair on your
ass..come on back and try it again, boychick.
Gunner
Bret Cahill
> >>> divide us all. I'm honest. I'm quite on record that the black
> >>> fucking the white woman has 'destroyed' me inside.
>
> >> One of my main lady friends is black. We sleep together on a semi
> >> regular basis. She is Conservative.
>
> >> Does that twist your panties in a wad also?
>
> >> Gunner
>
> >> "First Law of Leftist Debate
> >> The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
> >> that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
> >> more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
> >> losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
> >> homophobe approaches infinity.
>
> >> This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
> >> race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
> >> the subject." Grey Ghost
>
> > patriotic law abiding americans are asking the republican party to
> > get your conservative thugs terrorists and brown shirts under
> > control:threats:he may be a dead man:death threats against members or
> > their families:implied threats to children
>
> You mean like the ones that Democrat Chicago Politicians are famous for
> delivering.... The veiled threats of violence?
Try not to spree but if you must spree, try to spree local. Very
local. Just shoot up your double wide.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> >divide us all. I'm honest. I'm quite on record that the black
> >fucking the white woman has 'destroyed' me inside.
>
> One of my main lady friends is black. We sleep together on a semi
> regular basis. She is Conservative.
Nutters ought to just give up trying to mainstream themselves with
pink pistols and other nonsense.
Bret Cahill
Deadrat
news:vollq5l1f0qbh45qm...@4ax.com:
> Jim_Higgins <gordi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>And the Party of No is as pure as the driven snow. "Mission
>>Accomplished".
>
> That's an interesting phrase. Do you know that Ronald Reagan used it
> first - as applied it to the obstructionist Democrats.
>
> It was used before him in other forms and pretty consistently used
> since then by the "in" party to demean the "out" party.
>
> I'm glad to see the present crop of BamaLovers is keeping up the
> derivative BS. You guys are happily reinventing the past and too
> badly educated to realize what you are doing.
>
> __
<snip/>
Face it, rightard. Two lost wars and a depression -- all on the watch of
your boy, the WPE.
Gunner Asch
Patriotic law abiding Americans are going to be hunting down and killing
off the Leftwingers in the US in less than 2 yrs.
Shrug. Thats hardly a threat, but an observation.
Me..Ill be sitting on the front porch, playing happy riffs on the banjo
as the rising body count is reported over the radio.
Seems to me, that the Leftwing will be the victims of the backlash that
has been forming for over 40 yrs.
Its going to be a very unhappy time to be a Far Leftwing Extremist
Fringe Kook.
Shrug
>fewer calls since Sunday’s vote. ?“The real problem is the people who
>are calling and talking about a revolution and overthrowing
>government,” he said. “They can be angry. We’re all for that. But when
>they talk about taking over the government, the leadership has to do
>its part to stop that.”
>Andy Barr contributed to this report.
>Read More Stories from POLITICO
Gunner Asch
ayup. exactly.
Gunner Asch
Huh?
This means what?
Gunner Asch
WW1 and WW2 and t he Great Depression were the results of Republicans???
Hardly.
I strongly suggest you take a History 101 course again, and this time,
dont go out to the parking lot to smoke a splib quite so often.
Gunner
tooly
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:07:04 -0700 (PDT), tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >But I recognize that a 'seething hatred' is indeed being installed to
> >divide us all. I'm honest. I'm quite on record that the black
> >fucking the white woman has 'destroyed' me inside.
>
> One of my main lady friends is black. We sleep together on a semi
> regular basis. She is Conservative.
>
> Does that twist your panties in a wad also?
>
> Gunner
>
'Twist my panties in a wad'? Hmm...Colorful I must say.
Question though. Who do you think those 33 million uninsured people
are that Obama is now going to confiscate from the rest of society to
redistribute to [as health care]? I think LBJ's Great Society was
actually more honest; I mean, he did not try and hide his intention of
a welfare state...and all economist writings from that time center on
such welfare affecting only one segment (by and large)...'the black
community'. That community has been a drag on society since it's
beginnings. But welfare actually mades things much worse, working to
disinegrate the black nuclear family.
About your lady friend...there is the micro cosm, for which, all
people should be treated as individuals first and foremost [by his
character as MLK said...perhaps the one sound byte he spoke that
guaranteed his spot in history]. But...as much as we might recognize
the trees, there remains the argument at the macrocosm level, when we
speak of the forest itself. By that, I mean the 'culture' as a whole
of course. It is on that cultural level that a war has been going on
for some time now...being fought and won by progressives in our
institutions...our universities, newspapers, internet, television, and
hollywood. Gradually, through a continual 'critical theory' strategem
onslaught of messaging [in our media, classrooms, movies...you name
it], our champions have been brought down and remade into villians,
while rasiing the question of 'social justice' as the inflaming
catchphrase of an entire new generation to spur any sense of
'discontent' into a rising hatred of traditional American culture.
Anything 'traditional' now [of the establishment] is almost
automatically marked for ridicule and rejection by our youth. A prime
example may have been on Ottawa Univ. campus just this week when Ann
Coulter was forced to cancel her appearance there by a 'radicalized'
dissenting crowd of rabble rousers...who of course, the media now
shows as 'representitive' of the student body [of any university
perhaps]. Is it representitive of the whole? Or just a highly
activated enraged mob core that has been taught this 'hatred' of
western existence now [and anyone who tries to speak up for defense of
it, like Coulter].
Deadrat
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:46:19 -0500, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in
>>news:vollq5l1f0qbh45qm...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Jim_Higgins <gordi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>And the Party of No is as pure as the driven snow. "Mission
>>>>Accomplished".
>>>
>>> That's an interesting phrase. Do you know that Ronald Reagan used
>>> it first - as applied it to the obstructionist Democrats.
>>>
>>> It was used before him in other forms and pretty consistently used
>>> since then by the "in" party to demean the "out" party.
>>>
>>> I'm glad to see the present crop of BamaLovers is keeping up the
>>> derivative BS. You guys are happily reinventing the past and too
>>> badly educated to realize what you are doing.
>>>
>>> __
>><snip/>
>>
>>Face it, rightard. Two lost wars and a depression -- all on the watch
>>of your boy, the WPE.
>
>
> WW1 and WW2 and t he Great Depression were the results of
> Republicans???
Not world wars, rightard. Iraq and Afghanistan. Not the Great
Depression, rightard. A depression.
>
> Hardly.
>
> I strongly suggest you take a History 101 course again, and this time,
> dont go out to the parking lot to smoke a splib quite so often.
Heh, heh. That's a knee-slapper, rightard.
>
> Gunner
<snip/>
Deadrat
5571b5...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 24, 3:24�am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:07:04 -0700 (PDT), tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >But I recognize that a 'seething hatred' is indeed being installed to
>> >divide us all. �I'm honest. �I'm quite on record that the black
>> >fucking the white woman has 'destroyed' me inside.
>>
>> One of my main lady friends is black. �We sleep together on a semi
>> regular basis. She is Conservative.
>>
>> Does that twist your panties in a wad also?
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>
> 'Twist my panties in a wad'? Hmm...Colorful I must say.
> Question though. Who do you think those 33 million uninsured people
> are that Obama is now going to confiscate from the rest of society to
> redistribute to [as health care]? I think LBJ's Great Society was
> actually more honest; I mean, he did not try and hide his intention of
> a welfare state...and all economist writings from that time center on
> such welfare affecting only one segment (by and large)...'the black
> community'. That community has been a drag on society since it's
> beginnings. But welfare actually mades things much worse, working to
> disinegrate the black nuclear family.
You think that 90% of the black population is uninsured?
<snip/>
> Anything 'traditional' now [of the establishment] is almost
> automatically marked for ridicule and rejection by our youth. A prime
> example may have been on Ottawa Univ. campus just this week when Ann
> Coulter was forced to cancel her appearance there by a 'radicalized'
> dissenting crowd of rabble rousers...
Ann Coulter is a traditional part of US culture in that she is an
ignorant, hateful clown, trying to shock people into noticing her. We've
always had those people for some reason. In Canada, not so much, which
is why there were protests. But of course, that's the *Canadian*
"establishment." And Coulter wasn't "forced" to cancel her appearance.
She cut and ran like a scared rabbit when it was clear she wouldn't have
a totally adoring crowd.
> who of course, the media now
> shows as 'representitive' of the student body [of any university
> perhaps]. Is it representitive of the whole? Or just a highly
> activated enraged mob core that has been taught this 'hatred' of
> western existence now [and anyone who tries to speak up for defense of
> it, like Coulter].
There wasn't an "enraged" mob. It's hard to even imagine an enraged mob
of Canadians. There was a group of people exercising their freedom of
speech to oppose hateful talk as entertainment. To despise Ann Coulter
is to despise anti-intellectual ignorance, religious fundamentalism, and
rudeness for entertainment's sake. This is an ingrained part of
*American* culture, but not of "western existence."
Gunner Asch
>
>There wasn't an "enraged" mob. It's hard to even imagine an enraged mob
>of Canadians. There was a group of people exercising their freedom of
>speech to oppose hateful talk as entertainment. To despise Ann Coulter
>is to despise anti-intellectual ignorance, religious fundamentalism, and
>rudeness for entertainment's sake. This is an ingrained part of
>*American* culture, but not of "western existence."
Wow! Fascinating how a Leftwinger can spew out such hate and blither
and feel good about oneself.
Deadrat
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:37:27 -0500, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>There wasn't an "enraged" mob. It's hard to even imagine an enraged mob
>>of Canadians. There was a group of people exercising their freedom of
>>speech to oppose hateful talk as entertainment. To despise Ann Coulter
>>is to despise anti-intellectual ignorance, religious fundamentalism, and
>>rudeness for entertainment's sake. This is an ingrained part of
>>*American* culture, but not of "western existence."
>
> Wow! Fascinating how a Leftwinger can spew out such hate and blither
> and feel good about oneself.
Please quit telling me how I feel. You have no evidence one way or
another.
Ann Coulter's ignorance is on display in her writings about evolution, her
fundamentalism is clear in her statement about killing our enemies' leaders
and converting their populations to Christianity, and her combative style
is what gets her on talk shows and lecture circuits.
Saying these things isn't "hateful." They're evident facts that Coulter
not only takes no effort to conceal but is positively gleeful about
touting.
>
> Gunner
<snip/>
Michael Coburn
> On Mar 24, 3:24 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:07:04 -0700 (PDT), tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >But I recognize that a 'seething hatred' is indeed being installed to
>> >divide us all. I'm honest. I'm quite on record that the black
>> >fucking the white woman has 'destroyed' me inside.
>>
>> One of my main lady friends is black. We sleep together on a semi
>> regular basis. She is Conservative.
>>
>> Does that twist your panties in a wad also?
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>>
> 'Twist my panties in a wad'? Hmm...Colorful I must say. Question
> though. Who do you think those 33 million uninsured people are that
> Obama is now going to confiscate from the rest of society to
> redistribute to [as health care]?
Those 33 million are people that work and earn a living and are currently
unable to afford health insurance. That is the simple and truthful
answer to your question. And the subsidies they will receive are taken
from those with incomes in excess of $250k per year. Prior to this
subsidy, the middle class had to eat all the "FREE CARE" through cost
shifting. Why do you love the rich and hate the middle class????
> I think LBJ's Great Society was
> actually more honest; I mean, he did not try and hide his intention of a
> welfare state...and all economist writings from that time center on such
> welfare affecting only one segment (by and large)...'the black
> community'.
Yet that was then and this is now. And the "welfare state" is not some
sort of BOOGERMAN. LBJ robbed the middle class to help the poor. HCR
redistributes a minimal amount of economic rent and producer surplus to
provide assistance to the MIDDLE CLASS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producer_surplus
> That community has been a drag on society since it's
> beginnings. But welfare actually mades things much worse, working to
> disinegrate the black nuclear family.
And the martians will be invading tomorrow and eating our children. You
make unsubstantiated pig shit claims.
> About your lady friend...there is the micro cosm, for which, all people
> should be treated as individuals first and foremost [by his character as
> MLK said...perhaps the one sound byte he spoke that guaranteed his spot
> in history]. But...as much as we might recognize the trees, there
> remains the argument at the macrocosm level, when we speak of the forest
> itself. By that, I mean the 'culture' as a whole of course. It is on
> that cultural level that a war has been going on for some time
> now...being fought and won by progressives in our institutions...our
> universities, newspapers, internet, television, and hollywood.
That is, of course, a LIE. For the last 30 years conservatives have been
poisoning the educational system. In bright red Texas they are removing
Jefferson from the books and placing creationism on a par with science.
And economics has been recast as nothing more than finance.
> Gradually, through a continual 'critical theory' strategem onslaught of
> messaging [in our media, classrooms, movies...you name it], our
> champions have been brought down and remade into villians, while rasiing
> the question of 'social justice' as the inflaming catchphrase of an
> entire new generation to spur any sense of 'discontent' into a rising
> hatred of traditional American culture.
All of those things a are true but for the fact that it is rightardedness
that has been visited upon the institutions and the people in general.
Liberals had more respect for the intelligence of the people than to
think they could be mislead in this fashion. But the rightards have been
very successful.
Traditional American culture has its good points and its bad. Slavery
was not so good, nor was segregation. And medical segregation that treats
only the wealthy is along the same lines. "We hold these truths to be
self evident": That all men are created equal. LIFE itself is one of
those "equal" things. No person _WANTS_ to be ill, and no person
endeavors to be ill.
> Anything 'traditional' now [of the establishment] is almost
> automatically marked for ridicule and rejection by our youth. A prime
> example may have been on Ottawa Univ. campus just this week when Ann
> Coulter was forced to cancel her appearance there by a 'radicalized'
> dissenting crowd of rabble rousers...who of course, the media now shows
> as 'representitive' of the student body [of any university perhaps]. Is
> it representitive of the whole? Or just a highly activated enraged mob
> core that has been taught this 'hatred' of western existence now [and
> anyone who tries to speak up for defense of it, like Coulter].
Sounds like a reaction to T-Baggers and their astroturf pig crap.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
pyotr filipivich
<a...@b.com> reported Elvis on Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:29:51 -0500 in
misc.survivalism:
So in other words, if you had kids, and they wanted you to give
them the keys to the car, your credit cards, and pick up the case of
whiskey at the liquor store, you'd just go along with them. After
all, there 're are more of them than you, and what the heck, - in the
interest in bipartisanship, you'll agree to having your kneecaps
broken, as a compromise on having your leg cut off.
BTW, what sort of Bribe did your Congressional representative get
for their vote?
Deadrat
OK, so let's get this analogy straight. I am the country (or am I the
Republicans in Congress?), the kids are the Congressional majority, and
health-insurance reform is the purchase of liquor and driving drunk by
under-age kids?
Even for a rightard this is remarkably incoherent.
Did you miss civics class the day they covered how a bill becomes a law?
The majority followed the rules, and they passed the bill. This time
around not a single member of the Party of No voted aye. And that's OK;
that's not why they're the party of No. They got that reputation for
refusing to come up with viable alternatives, for refusing to negotiate
in good faith to modify the bill, for lying about the contents of the
bill, and for engaging in useless, dilatory parliamentary procedures as
part of throwing a tantrum because they lost.
> BTW, what sort of Bribe did your Congressional representative get
> for their vote?
My representative is a brain-dead, rightard Republican -- but I repeat
myself. He, like the rest of his party, wouldn't play with the other
kids, so he got nothing special for his district. Money may have changed
hands for all I know, but the only reported quid pro quo left in the bill
was the so-called "Lousisiana Purchase," money that goes to *Medicaid
recipients* in Louisiana, money that reportedly secured the vote of one
of Lousisian's Senators, Mary Landrieu. As I'm not living in Louisiana,
none of my Congress Critters got anything for anybody.
> -
> pyotr filipivich.
<snip/>
Gunner Asch
>
>That is, of course, a LIE. For the last 30 years conservatives have been
>poisoning the educational system. In bright red Texas they are removing
>Jefferson from the books and placing creationism on a par with science.
>And economics has been recast as nothing more than finance.
Mr Coburn is an outright liar and has proven this statement by his above
paragraph.
Sucks to be him.
Bret Cahill
> >poisoning the educational system. In bright red Texas they are removing
> >Jefferson from the books and placing creationism on a par with science.
> >And economics has been recast as nothing more than finance.
Worst of all is the farce called "government" in public schools.
> Mr Coburn is an outright liar and has proven this statement by his above
> paragraph.
Try not to spree but if you must spree, try to spree local. Very
local. Just shoot yourself.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
>
> first - as applied it to the obstructionist Democrats.
Obama has described himself as the Democratic answer to Reagan.
The Democratic answer to Reagan isn't good enough IMO.
The Gipper got GOP control of Congress for only 12 years.
Before that the Dems had control for half a century.
> It was used before him in other forms and pretty consistently copied
> since then by the "in" party to demean the "out" party.
>
> I'm glad to see the present crop of BamaLovers is keeping up the
> derivative BS. You guys are happily reinventing the past and too
> badly educated to realize what you are doing.
>
> __
> WS in a.s and m.s
> Two parties, not a dimes worth of difference.
The Gipper never said that.
Bret Cahill
Deadrat
news:c1aoq5lntpi2rlkua...@4ax.com:
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> wrote
>>> Jim_Higgins <gordi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>And the Party of No is as pure as the driven snow. "Mission
>>>>Accomplished".
>>>
>>> That's an interesting phrase. Do you know that Ronald Reagan used
>>> it first - as applied it to the obstructionist Democrats.
>>>
>>> It was used before him in other forms and pretty consistently used
>>> since then by the "in" party to demean the "out" party.
>>>
>>> I'm glad to see the present crop of BamaLovers is keeping up the
>>> derivative BS. You guys are happily reinventing the past and too
>>> badly educated to realize what you are doing.
>>>
>>> __
>><snip/>
>>
>>Face it, rightard. Two lost wars and a depression -- all on the watch
>>of your boy, the WPE.
>
> "MY boy" ???? You clearly have never googled what I posted at the
> time.
Please favor us with a rendition, no pun intended.
>
> By the way, why is 0bama continuing those losing wars?
We're not getting out of Iraq fast enough for you? Have you sent your
ideas on withdrawal to the Joint Chiefs? I'm sure they'll be fascinated.
How'd it work out last time when we left the Taliban in charge of
Afghanistan? But if you've got a winning strategy, please tell the
military.
Deadrat
news:q3eoq5ds51u8fdj4d...@4ax.com:
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>> This time around not a single member of the Party of No voted aye.
>
> That's an interesting phrase.
I assuming you're talking about the phrase "The Party of No." And here's
what you snipped:
<quote>
*And that's OK;*
that's not why they're the party of No. They got that reputation for
refusing to come up with viable alternatives, for refusing to negotiate
in good faith to modify the bill, for lying about the contents of the
bill, and for engaging in useless, dilatory parliamentary procedures as
part of throwing a tantrum because they lost.
</quote>
I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, rightard. This time, I
even put emphasis marks in for you. It's not lining up to vote against
policies that you think are wrong. It's refusing to help govern when you
lose the votes.
> Do you know that Ronald Reagan used it
> first - as applied it to the obstructionist Democrats.
Sure thing. Those "obstructionist Democrats" passed Reagan's tax cuts in
1981. They were in the majority in the House at the time.
>
> It was used before him in other forms and pretty consistently copied
> since then by the "in" party to demean the "out" party.
>
> I'm glad to see the present crop of BamaLovers is keeping up the
> derivative BS. You guys are happily reinventing the past and too
> badly educated to realize what you are doing.
So no comments on what I actually had to say, then?
OK. No surprise there.
Deadrat
news:ddhoq51304v90gdkf...@4ax.com:
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> wrote
>>> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This time around not a single member of the Party of No voted aye.
>>>
>>> That's an interesting phrase.
>>
>>I assuming you're talking about the phrase "The Party of No." And
>>here's what you snipped:
>>
>><quote>
>>*And that's OK;*
>>that's not why they're the party of No. They got that reputation for
>>refusing to come up with viable alternatives, for refusing to
>>negotiate in good faith to modify the bill, for lying about the
>>contents of the bill, and for engaging in useless, dilatory
>>parliamentary procedures as part of throwing a tantrum because they
>>lost. </quote>
>
> Your assumption was correct as to what I was commenting on - that the
> "party of no" is a cheap rhetorical phrase used by both parties.
It's not. Reagan got his tax cuts out of a Democratic Congress; the WPE's
father went to war with Democratic votes; the WPE himself got his tax cuts
through reconciliation without Democrats pulling hissy fits about it.
> The rest of what you choose to repeat can be read just as well taking
> "they got that reputation ..." as referring to Reagan's democrats.
Nonsense. That's because they passed the President's bills. You can look
it up. In fact, there were enough Democrats enamored of Ronald Reagan that
they coined the term "Reagan Democrats" to refer to them. Not, as you
suggest, to refer to "obstructionist" Democrats who oppposed him.
> My point, which you wish to ignore, is that this is mindless rhetoric
> used by whatever party is "in" at the moment to discredit whichever
> party is "out" at the moment.
This is simply untrue. Republicans pulled their usual hypocritical crap,
demanding up or down votes on judicial nominees that Democrats were
blocking during the WPE's administration, but no Democrat every put a hold
on every Presidential nominee en masse.
>>I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, rightard.
>
> Why do you assume any attack on 0bama's policies must come from the
> far right?
Lucky guess?
> You are flat out wrong. Read the body of my recent posts; then go
> read what I posted when Bush was in office. Then the BushBots were
> calling me names and saying I was a leftist out to destroy the
> country. They made the same mistake you do - assuming any criticism
> must come from the far fringe of what partisan loyalists consider "the
> enemy".
I'll read anything you care to quote. Please don't make me dig up your
deathless prose.
> A great many people - liberal, moderate, and conservative - are
> disturbed at the childish games of both parties. But you simply
> choose to view your politics as "us" vs "them" as a substitute for
> football teams.
I'm not the one making this "us" vs "them." That would be Jim DeMint and
the Republican Party. Do you need a reference?
> Read my body of posts and it's clear I take a very dim view of the
> shenanigans of BOTH parties.
I'll be glad to. Post the text or a link.
>
> The rest of your continuing insistence of seeing everything as "us" vs
> "them" snipped.
What you've snipped are called in common parlance, "facts." For instance,
the Democrats were in control of the House in 1981. Reagan still got his
tax cuts. You can head for the fainting couch all you want, pronouncing a
pox on both their houses. But there really is no equivalence here.
Unless, of course, you can point to Democrats who refused to let Senate
committee meetings proceed past 2PM.
<snip/>
Strabo
>>>
>>>> This time around not a single member of the Party of No voted aye.
>>> That's an interesting phrase.
>> I assuming you're talking about the phrase "The Party of No." And here's
>> what you snipped:
>>
>> <quote>
>> *And that's OK;*
>> that's not why they're the party of No. They got that reputation for
>> refusing to come up with viable alternatives, for refusing to negotiate
>> in good faith to modify the bill, for lying about the contents of the
>> bill, and for engaging in useless, dilatory parliamentary procedures as
>> part of throwing a tantrum because they lost.
>> </quote>
>
> "party of no" is a cheap rhetorical phrase used by both parties.
>
> "they got that reputation ..." as referring to Reagan's democrats.
>
> used by whatever party is "in" at the moment to discredit whichever
> party is "out" at the moment.
>
>
> far right?
>
> read what I posted when Bush was in office. Then the BushBots were
> calling me names and saying I was a leftist out to destroy the
> country. They made the same mistake you do - assuming any criticism
> must come from the far fringe of what partisan loyalists consider "the
> enemy".
>
> disturbed at the childish games of both parties. But you simply
> choose to view your politics as "us" vs "them" as a substitute for
> football teams.
>
> shenanigans of BOTH parties.
>
> "them" snipped.
>
It's seems obvious that he/she/it is reading from a script.
Gunner Asch
>They got that reputation for
>refusing to come up with viable alternatives, for refusing to negotiate
>in good faith to modify the bill, for lying about the contents of the
>bill, and for engaging in useless, dilatory parliamentary procedures as
>part of throwing a tantrum because they lost.
></quote>
45 amendments to the Bill by Republicans were tossed out yesterday
Seems Democrats want no input from Republicans whatsoever.
So when the Great Cull comes..few Republicans will be killed.
Most Leftwingers will be, however.
Gunner Asch
>> Your assumption was correct as to what I was commenting on - that the
>> "party of no" is a cheap rhetorical phrase used by both parties.
>
>It's not. Reagan got his tax cuts out of a Democratic Congress; the WPE's
>father went to war with Democratic votes; the WPE himself got his tax cuts
>through reconciliation without Democrats pulling hissy fits about it.
Well...only partially true.
Democrats promised to cut $2 of spending for every $1 dollar in increase
and they made that promise to Reagan.
And they promptly broke their promise.
Quite true. Google it.
Gunner
mg
> On Mar 23, 5:37 pm, "Lance" <er...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > And this is what Obama and the Democrats are presiding over now. Bush and
> > the Republicans were not much better. Even Reagan's "Morning in America" was
> > transitory as the seeds of America's decline were sown long ago
> > with the birth of the progressive movement of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow
> > Wilson. There was a hiatus in the presidencies of Harding and Coolidge.
> > Reagan was not able to right the ship as he was almost always hobbled by a
> > Democratic congress and imperviously entrenched socialist entitlements from
> > Hoover, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford Carter
> > presidencies. But in the end one has to blame the people who simply became
> > to liberal and socialist with the massive urbanization of America.
>
> > It is now the twilight of the gods for the U.S. Americans can only expect
> > that the country will decline further both economically and socially in the
> > future. The Golden Age of U.S. is over as happened long ago to Rome and
> > late nineteenth-century Britain.
>
> > Mark Steyn can describe the situation much better than I. Read his essay
> > below.
>
> >http://article.nationalreview.com/428996/tattered-liberty/mark-steyn
>
> > --
> > By the test of serious intellectual
> > persuasiveness, Marx was hardly a
> > a 'great thinker", though he often appears
> > as such in low-level academic curricula.
> > ---Robert Conquest "Reflections on a
> > Ravaged Century".
>
> Terminal
>
> climber
If the U.S. is on a terminal decline, which country(s) would you say
are on the rise? Would you say China is on the rise, for example?
From the point of view of your own family, would you say you have done
better than your father? Do you think your children will do better
than you have?
jim
China has a couple big problems to overcome and the prospects are not
good. They are ramping up their social services for health care,
subsidies to educated/unemployed young people, money to expand primary/
secondary education, and other programs in response to real pressure
from growing expectations. But, they have a population bomb coming of
low numbers of younger people to care for growing number of elders.
Same problem we have of too few young people to care for older.
And they have discovered credit - credit cards, mortgage debt,
business debt, auto loans and all the rest so personal savings is at
growing risk for younger people. Go into Shanghai and any small town
around the area and people are going nuts for the expensive crap that
says they made it. Young people think nothing of buying all the crap
you see in the glossy magazines. Cartier, Bowmore , Gucci,
Christian Dior, XO, Partida Elegante, Gran Patron, BMW, and whatever
else says I am rich. Brands most of us never heard of in many
cases.
They have big problems in their banking as well and who knows how
corruption will impact things. Google problems in Chinese banking and
finance.
> From the point of view of your own family, would you say you have done
> better than your father?
Of course
Do you think your children will do better
> than you have?
Of course.
mg
In determining whether America is in decline, perhaps one of the best
ways of looking at it is just in looking at the situation with one's
parents and children. If one can say they did better than their father
and their children are doing better than they did, then that would be
one indication that we are not in decline. I suppose, though, when one
starts looking at current trends and then tries to predict the future
in regards to your great, great, great grandchildren, for instance,
that's where the argument comes in.
When a country, like China, starts out at a low base, like a GDP of
only US$190 per capita in 1978 to about $4000 now, it's fairly easy to
make those kinds of gains. It's when you start approaching the higher
end of the scale that things always get harder and that's probably
true of most anything, like playing tennis, for instance, or seeing
who can catch the most fish.
I have always asked myself, though, if this is a zero-sum game. If
China gets richer then does the rest of the world have to get poorer?
Some countries, like Norway, have a very high standard of living and
GDP per capita, but they also have a small population and a lot of
natural resources. So it looks to me like they are simply living on
what they can pull out of the ground.
Deadrat
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:12:59 -0500, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>They got that reputation for
>>refusing to come up with viable alternatives, for refusing to negotiate
>>in good faith to modify the bill, for lying about the contents of the
>>bill, and for engaging in useless, dilatory parliamentary procedures as
>>part of throwing a tantrum because they lost.
>></quote>
>
>
> 45 amendments to the Bill by Republicans were tossed out yesterday
This is true.
> Seems Democrats want no input from Republicans whatsoever.
This is a lie. I say that rather than simply call it false because I
expect that you know it's false. Yesterday, accepting substantive
amendments would have the effect of sending the bill back to the House,
which would have required re-opening debate. Both the proposing and
defeating of amendments yesterday was simply procedural maneuvering to
get the final bill passed. This can easily be seen by looking at some of
the amendments: one of them proposed putting every member of Congress
and the Vice President on Medicaid.
Republicans have had about a year to engage with Democrats in shaping the
the health insurance reform. The refused at every turn. When Obama held
a health care "summit," they sat there for eight hours, agreed that a lot
of things in the then current proposal were good, and then demanded that
the proposal be scrapped and that everybody should start from scratch.
When Olympia Snowe demanded that the removal of the public option, the
Democrats agreed. She still voted against the bill.
For Republicans, this was never about health care. Jim DeMint (R-SC)
said on July 20, 2009, "If we're able to stop Obama on this it will be
his Waterloo. It will break him."
So stop pretending that those mean Democrats just wouldn't consult with
those fair-minded Republicans.
>
> So when the Great Cull comes..few Republicans will be killed.
>
> Most Leftwingers will be, however.
>
More rightard world destruction fantasies. Not only is the "Great Cull"
not coming here because of health care, history shows that other "Great
Culls" kill people indiscriminately, killing people whose last pathetic
words were "But I'm on your side."
>
<snip/>
Deadrat
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 01:37:47 -0500, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>> Your assumption was correct as to what I was commenting on - that
>>> the "party of no" is a cheap rhetorical phrase used by both parties.
>>
>>It's not. Reagan got his tax cuts out of a Democratic Congress; the
>>WPE's father went to war with Democratic votes; the WPE himself got
>>his tax cuts through reconciliation without Democrats pulling hissy
>>fits about it.
>
>
> Well...only partially true.
>
> Democrats promised to cut $2 of spending for every $1 dollar in
> increase and they made that promise to Reagan.
>
> And they promptly broke their promise.
>
> Quite true. Google it.
This is your claim, Sparky. You provide the evidence. That's how it
works.
But this particular discussion isn't about whether some politicians kept
their word. It's about whether some politicians cooperated with the other
party or whether they stonewalled them.
Try to keep up.
>
>
> Gunner
>
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:qvrqq5lt695cl2f91...@4ax.com:
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> wrote
>
>>> You are flat out wrong. Read the body of my recent posts; then go
>>> read what I posted when Bush was in office. Then the BushBots were
>>> calling me names and saying I was a leftist out to destroy the
>>> country. They made the same mistake you do - assuming any criticism
>>> must come from the far fringe of what partisan loyalists consider "the
>>> enemy".
>>
>>I'll read anything you care to quote. Please don't make me dig up your
>>deathless prose.
>
> Your ignorance to date is obvious. Apparently it's also to be
> perpetual.
Ah, it's *my* fault you can't or won't back up your claims of
evenhandedness.
I don't read alt.politics.economics, so maybe all you posted all the
evidence there. I'm still not going to dig it up.
s'okay by you?
pyotr filipivich
You grasp the analogy.
>Even for a rightard this is remarkably incoherent.
And fail to understand. What seems to be far beyond the
comprehension of progressives is that behind all the goodies, are a
lot of really bad things. Like the small minor fact that your medical
coverage is now going to be regulated by the IRS. Or that it is going
to destroy private insurance companies.
Not to mention that the history of this sort of universal medical
coverage tends to follow a similar path. Lots of enthusiasm, maybe
even some increase in medical services - but then comes the day, the
bills have to be paid for. And not all of the expectations can be
met, so someone is going to get left out. But hey, don't worry, it
isn't like the wealthy and connected are going to get moved to the
head of the line (ignore that which has just come out about the
Chicago school system).
It's okay, it does seem incoherent to progressives how voting
against their Brilliant Idea might be actually be based on experience.
Nope, for you, the real problem is that it wasn't tried by the proper
Right Thinking People.
>Did you miss civics class the day they covered how a bill becomes a law?
>The majority followed the rules, and they passed the bill. This time
>around not a single member of the Party of No voted aye. And that's OK;
>that's not why they're the party of No. They got that reputation for
>refusing to come up with viable alternatives, for refusing to negotiate
>in good faith to modify the bill, for lying about the contents of the
>bill,
LOL - so you knew what was in that bill before it was voted on? It
is to laugh.
>and for engaging in useless, dilatory parliamentary procedures as
>part of throwing a tantrum because they lost.
Once again, you want the Adults to allow you to mix Benzedrine and
Milton in your rum & cokes before you drive to the school dance, and
can only assume that they are meanies for not letting you do that.
Ah, but then again, the dominate media has been fully on board
with the President and the Democrat party, so you've been lied to (by
omission as much as anything), so I can understand your confusion. As
Obama discovered with his "bipartisan outreach to the Republicans"
media circus, not only did the Republicans have alternatives, but
those had been rejected by his party's leadership in the Congress.
And Obama's insistence that process is not important shows just how
little he understands what is going on.
So, Deadrat, what sort of pig in a poke would you buy, because the
nice man on the TV said it would increase your stamina, pay your
bills, raise your intelligence, and get you laid regularly?
>
>> BTW, what sort of Bribe did your Congressional representative get
>> for their vote?
>
>My representative is a brain-dead, rightard Republican -- but I repeat
>myself. He, like the rest of his party, wouldn't play with the other
>kids, so he got nothing special for his district. Money may have changed
>hands for all I know, but the only reported quid pro quo left in the bill
>was the so-called "Lousisiana Purchase," money that goes to *Medicaid
>recipients* in Louisiana, money that reportedly secured the vote of one
>of Lousisian's Senators, Mary Landrieu. As I'm not living in Louisiana,
>none of my Congress Critters got anything for anybody.
Aw, there's your problem, you didn't get your payment, and it
makes you feel left out. Too bad. Maybe you can move to someplace
with a more Progressive, where you can be assured that there will be
nobody to stop you from doing things because they think they are bad
for you.
Deadrat
<snip/>
>>> So in other words, if you had kids, and they wanted you to give
>>> them the keys to the car, your credit cards, and pick up the case of
>>> whiskey at the liquor store, you'd just go along with them. After
>>> all, there 're are more of them than you, and what the heck, - in
>>> the interest in bipartisanship, you'll agree to having your kneecaps
>>> broken, as a compromise on having your leg cut off.
>>
>>OK, so let's get this analogy straight. I am the country (or am I the
>>Republicans in Congress?), the kids are the Congressional majority,
>>and health-insurance reform is the purchase of liquor and driving
>>drunk by under-age kids?
>
> You grasp the analogy.
>
>>Even for a rightard this is remarkably incoherent.
>
> And fail to understand.
Sparky, I'm guessin' you didn't do too well on the analogies section of
that standardized test we all took in the 8th grade.
A family isn't a democracy. Kids generally don't get to vote. THe US,
on the other hand, is a representative democracy. (Did you sleep through
civics class the day they covered that?) Congress is authorized to use
the public credit card by the Constitution, although a majority has to
agree on the spending. And if we don't like the results, we can vote the
bastards out. Family members don't generally have the power to throw
other members out of the family. At least that's the way it worked in my
family.
> What seems to be far beyond the
> comprehension of progressives is that behind all the goodies, are a
> lot of really bad things.
It's certainly possible that health insurance reform is bad public
policy. Change this large cannot have effects that one can predict with
certainty. I'm open to listen to any sensible reservations you can
articulate.
> Like the small minor fact that your medical
> coverage is now going to be regulated by the IRS.
But, of course, this isn't a minor fact because it isn't a fact at all.
The government will certainly regulate the insurance industry -- and you
need to pay attention to the next bit -- *just* *like* *they* *do* *now*.
Well, not quite like they do now. Going forward, insurance companies
can't turn you down for pre-existing conditions, can't have life-time or
annual caps on benefits, have to cover your kids on your dime until the
kids are 26, and must have externally-moderated appeals procedures.
What, exactly, do you find objectionable about this?
Oh, yeah. The IRS will have absolutely nothing to do with your medical
coverage besides require that you have some.
> Or that it is going to destroy private insurance companies.
Not according to the insurance companies, whose stocks are on the rise.
The individual mandate will open up a huge, captive market for them,
while relieving them of the expense of fighting legitiimate claims.
> Not to mention that the history of this sort of universal medical
> coverage tends to follow a similar path. Lots of enthusiasm, maybe
> even some increase in medical services - but then comes the day, the
> bills have to be paid for.
I'd be willing to be convinced by evidence. What history? Be specific:
where, when, and how much?
> And not all of the expectations can be
> met, so someone is going to get left out.
35 million people are left out now. What's your point?
> But hey, don't worry, it
> isn't like the wealthy and connected are going to get moved to the
> head of the line (ignore that which has just come out about the
> Chicago school system).
The wealthy and connected have always moved to the head of the line, and
I don't expect that to change. How is that different from what we have
now, where they wealthy have insurance and the unemployed don't?
>
> It's okay, it does seem incoherent to progressives how voting
> against their Brilliant Idea might be actually be based on experience.
> Nope, for you, the real problem is that it wasn't tried by the proper
> Right Thinking People.
But you haven't quoted any "experience." Tell me what you think will go
wrong.
>>Did you miss civics class the day they covered how a bill becomes a
>>law? The majority followed the rules, and they passed the bill. This
>>time around not a single member of the Party of No voted aye. And
>>that's OK; that's not why they're the party of No. They got that
>>reputation for refusing to come up with viable alternatives, for
>>refusing to negotiate in good faith to modify the bill, for lying
>>about the contents of the bill,
>
> LOL - so you knew what was in that bill before it was voted on?
> It is to laugh.
Let's see. I knew there was to be an individual mandate, but no public
option, and I knew the changes that would be required of the insurance
industry. I knew that those who had insurance could keep their plans if
they chose. I knew this wouldn't affect veterans' health care or
medicare recipients (except that the Part D doughnut hole would go away).
I knew that small businesses would get tax credits for providing employer
insurance, and that those who couldn't afford the premiums would get tax
rebates.
But how does what I knew make any difference to the points I made about
the Party of No?
>>and for engaging in useless, dilatory parliamentary procedures as
>>part of throwing a tantrum because they lost.
>
> Once again, you want the Adults to allow you to mix Benzedrine
> and
> Milton in your rum & cokes before you drive to the school dance, and
> can only assume that they are meanies for not letting you do that.
It's not the minority's place to determine what's a Benzedrine mixture
and what's not. They argue, they vote, and if they lose, they don't
obstruct government business. The minority has given its warning and
it's been disregarded. It's over on health insurance reform, and
"Adults" do not shut down committee meetings because it's after 2PM.
> Ah, but then again, the dominate media has been fully on board
> with the President and the Democrat party, so you've been lied to (by
> omission as much as anything), so I can understand your confusion. As
> Obama discovered with his "bipartisan outreach to the Republicans"
> media circus, not only did the Republicans have alternatives, but
> those had been rejected by his party's leadership in the Congress.
> And Obama's insistence that process is not important shows just how
> little he understands what is going on.
It's "dominant," and the media have been reporting since January 19 that
health insurance reform was dead in the water.
The Republicans have no alternatives, and you can't name anything they
stood for. At least in the last year. Back in the '90s Orrin Hatch and
Olympia Snowe proposed an individual mandate. Now, of course, they think
it's unconstitutional.
The "bipartisan summit," including its telecast, was something
Republicans were for, at least until Obama agreed to it. Then it became
"just a media circus," at which the Republicans said nothing but "scrap
the whole thing and start over." That's fine; that's their right. But
they don't get to whine about how they weren't consulted.
I'm sorry, I don't know what "process" you think Obama has rejected. He
followed the rules in the Constitution and the rules of both Houses of
Congress. I'll be glad to explain any of them to you.
> So, Deadrat, what sort of pig in a poke would you buy, because
> the
> nice man on the TV said it would increase your stamina, pay your
> bills, raise your intelligence, and get you laid regularly?
If you're serious, then you should be able to describe the defects in the
pig. Instead you simply accuse me of being in favor of the reforms
because someone told me to be in favor. Yet you're the one who mouths
such howlers as the IRS regulating health insurance. Who told you that?
>>
>>> BTW, what sort of Bribe did your Congressional representative
>>> get for their vote?
>>
>>My representative is a brain-dead, rightard Republican -- but I repeat
>>myself. He, like the rest of his party, wouldn't play with the other
>>kids, so he got nothing special for his district. Money may have
>>changed hands for all I know, but the only reported quid pro quo left
>>in the bill was the so-called "Lousisiana Purchase," money that goes
>>to *Medicaid recipients* in Louisiana, money that reportedly secured
>>the vote of one of Lousisian's Senators, Mary Landrieu. As I'm not
>>living in Louisiana, none of my Congress Critters got anything for
>>anybody.
>
> Aw, there's your problem, you didn't get your payment, and it
> makes you feel left out. Too bad. Maybe you can move to someplace
> with a more Progressive, where you can be assured that there will be
> nobody to stop you from doing things because they think they are bad
> for you.
I'm not expecting a payment. In fact, I don't expect to see much in the
way of savings, certainly not before 2014.
If you're so big on people stopping you from hurting yourself, then you
should be glad that the majority has decided to stop something that's bad
for you, namely the meltdown of the current health system.
Why not stop trying to be clever? Trust me, you're not up to it. Try
some evidence combined with logic.
> -
> pyotr filipivich.
> Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
> you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Sure. Like the TVA.
pyotr filipivich
misc.survivalism:
>pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in
>news:du1tq55rjn4gonb9m...@4ax.com:
>
><snip/>
>
>>>> So in other words, if you had kids, and they wanted you to give
>>>> them the keys to the car, your credit cards, and pick up the case of
>>>> whiskey at the liquor store, you'd just go along with them. After
>>>> all, there 're are more of them than you, and what the heck, - in
>>>> the interest in bipartisanship, you'll agree to having your kneecaps
>>>> broken, as a compromise on having your leg cut off.
>>>
>>>OK, so let's get this analogy straight. I am the country (or am I the
>>>Republicans in Congress?), the kids are the Congressional majority,
>>>and health-insurance reform is the purchase of liquor and driving
>>>drunk by under-age kids?
>>
>> You grasp the analogy.
>>
>>>Even for a rightard this is remarkably incoherent.
>>
>> And fail to understand.
>
>Sparky, I'm guessin' you didn't do too well on the analogies section of
>that standardized test we all took in the 8th grade.
Neither did you. Because the analogy is not about a "family" - it
is about the calumny that the GOP is the party of NO. The Reality is
that the Democrat Progressives in Congress, the White House and the
Press all have a very bad idea they want to make law. the Democrats,
in case it has missed your notice, have had a majority in both the
House and Senate since the elections of 2006! Nancy Pelosi was
elected Speaker of the house in 2007 - that's BEFORE Obama was elected
President. (2006, that was when Obama was elected as Senator - his
first Federal Job, too) In the 2008 elections the Teleprompter Kid
was elected to be President, and the Democrats got an absolute
majority in both houses of Congress. They could pass any bill they
wanted to on a straight party vote. Interesting, is it not, that took
Pelosi and Reid over a year to get enough Democrats to vote for this
putrid corpse, but hey, it must be the Republicans' fault. You have
to ignore the small minor detail that they were in the minority (that
is to say, there were fewer republicans than democrats in the House,
the Speaker of the House was still Nancy Pelosi), but hey, lets not
look too closely at this.
What Pelosi and Reid cooked up for a Medical Industry Takeover is
such a bad idea, that there is no way you can dress it up and make
rational people consider this corpse anything other than what it is: a
stinking mess.
So, maybe it is time for a new analogy.
I have a proposal for you. Universal Automobile coverage. After
all,it is everybody's right,particularly as an American, to be
relieved of the burden of the expenses involved in maintaining a
vehicle. So here is what we are going to do. For a low monthly fee,
we're going to give you a discount on gasoline, pay for your oil
changes, a free set of tires every year, and complete replacement in
case an accident totally destroys it. And every Wednesday, we'll be
coming guy and throwing a brick through your window and one a month
there will be someone form the Office Of Automotive Compliance who
will come around and play Wipe out on your knee caps with a small
silver mallet.
Now, remember, while you consider this, that if you turn it down,
you are going to be recognized as someone who hates children and wants
them to die from wrecks caused by bald tires.
Because that is what Obamacare is going to do - in exchange for a
promise to pick up the tab for everybody's medical expenses (which is
an unsustainable promise.) it is going to so completely control your
life - directly and indirectly - as to be funny. Were it not that
while all the progressives get more government control of their lives
than they every thought they needed, the rest of use are stuck with it
too.
And because progressives are so in love with the idea of Free
Government Money to Pay for Medical Coverage For Everybody, you don't
care, or know, that it doesn't work.
So kindly get in the line, we held a vote and you've been chosen
to make a contribution to society.
-
pyotr filipivich
Any entity big enough to meet your needs,
is big enough to decide what those needs should be.
Deadrat
> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Deadrat
> <a...@b.com> reported Elvis on Sat, 27 Mar 2010 20:50:06 -0500 in
> misc.survivalism:
>>pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>news:du1tq55rjn4gonb9m...@4ax.com:
>>
>><snip/>
>>
>>>>> So in other words, if you had kids, and they wanted you to
>>>>> give
>>>>> them the keys to the car, your credit cards, and pick up the case
>>>>> of whiskey at the liquor store, you'd just go along with them.
>>>>> After all, there 're are more of them than you, and what the heck,
>>>>> - in the interest in bipartisanship, you'll agree to having your
>>>>> kneecaps broken, as a compromise on having your leg cut off.
>>>>
>>>>OK, so let's get this analogy straight. I am the country (or am I
>>>>the Republicans in Congress?), the kids are the Congressional
>>>>majority, and health-insurance reform is the purchase of liquor and
>>>>driving drunk by under-age kids?
>>>
>>> You grasp the analogy.
>>>
>>>>Even for a rightard this is remarkably incoherent.
>>>
>>> And fail to understand.
>>
>>Sparky, I'm guessin' you didn't do too well on the analogies section
>>of that standardized test we all took in the 8th grade.
>
> Neither did you. Because the analogy is not about a "family" - it
> is about the calumny that the GOP is the party of NO.
It's *your* analogy, and it posits that the Congress and the population
it represents (or maybe it's the majority in Congress and the minority)
are akin to parents who should say no to unruly children. This fails on
every level.
But let me explain again, and believe me, I'm typing as slowly as I can.
The Republican Party isn't the Party of No because they lined up
against legislation they thought was bad for the country. I don't
believe that's the reason they voted the way they did. Jim DeMint
wasn't shy about their reasoning: if they could defeat health insurance
reform, then they could defeat Obama. Do you think that Senators
Grassley and Snowe really think that the individual mandate that they
voted against is, as they say now, a terrible idea and unconstitutional
to boot? They both proposed exactly the same thing back in 1993 during
the Clinton health care fight. Do you think that Mitt Romney really
thinks health care reform is bad? He signed almost the same thing into
law in Massachusetts.
But let's stipulate that the Republicans stuck together because they
believed that the reform bill was a bad one. I'm not saying that makes
them the Party of No.
This bears repeating: Voting en masse against the health insurance
reform bill does *not* make the Republicans the Party of No.
Here's what does:
- Refusing to come up with a viable alternative. For instance, you
can't simply be in favor of forcing the insurance companies to insure
those with pre-existing conditions without a plan for making sure that
doesn't drive insurance companies out of business.
- Refusing to negotiate in good faith. If the majority has the votes,
then it's your duty to insure that the bill is as good as possible.
- Proposing a televised summit with the President to work out issues,
and then declaring the thing is a media stunt when he agrees. And then
showing up and demanding that the majority start all over with a clean
slate.
- Complain that the majority won't meet with you when you turned down
their offer of a meeting in the first place.
- Placing a hold on every Presidential nominee before the Senate. (This
has since been lifted.)
- Invoking an arcane and rarely enforced rule that forbids committee
work after 2PM, even if that means that military officers who traveled
half-way around the world to testify have to cool their heels.
- Trying to filibuster a military appropriations bill that you actually
favor just to delay things.
- Holding up nominees for executive positions (i.e., the President's and
his cabinet's direct reports) just because. There are 58 of those. At
this point in the WPE's first term, there were 5. (Well, there were 58
until Obama used his recess appointment powers.)
- Shouting "You lie!" at the President during the State of the Union
address; shouting "baby killer" at a colleague on the House floor
because he's not anti-abortion enough for you; accusing your opponents
of shooting at your office when you didn't take the trouble to find out
that the police had determined that it was some unknown idiot firing
randomly into the air.
- Pretending that the health insurance reform bill contains death panels
that decide who lives or dies.
Is this clear yet?
> The Reality is
> that the Democrat Progressives in Congress, the White House and the
> Press all have a very bad idea they want to make law.
I assume you're talking about health insurance reform. They not only
wanted to make it law; they did. It's possible that this is "a very bad
idea." You can't actually seem to articulate any arguments against it.
Please tell what's bad. Specifically.
> the Democrats,
> in case it has missed your notice, have had a majority in both the
> House and Senate since the elections of 2006! Nancy Pelosi was
> elected Speaker of the house in 2007 - that's BEFORE Obama was elected
> President.
OK.
> (2006, that was when Obama was elected as Senator - his first Federal
> Job, too)
The WPE was elected in 2000. That was his first federal job. So what?
> In the 2008 elections the Teleprompter Kid was elected to be President,
Every politician uses teleprompters to give speeches. Why is this
important to you?
> and the Democrats got an absolute
> majority in both houses of Congress. They could pass any bill they
> wanted to on a straight party vote. Interesting, is it not, that took
> Pelosi and Reid over a year to get enough Democrats to vote for this
> putrid corpse, but hey, it must be the Republicans' fault.
I'm not sure what your point is. The Democrats had 60 votes in the
Senate, but these 60 votes cover a lot of ideological ground. They had
to come up with a bill that both Ben Nelson and John Kerry could
support. The Democrats also spent futile months trying to negotiate
with Republicans. And the Republicans put up every obstacle they could
in the Senate. So it took a year to get the most consequential domestic
program in fifty years approved. Why do you think that's important?
> You have
> to ignore the small minor detail that they were in the minority (that
> is to say, there were fewer republicans than democrats in the House,
> the Speaker of the House was still Nancy Pelosi), but hey, lets not
> look too closely at this.
When Nancy Pelosi became speaker, the WPE was still President. She
didn't have a veto-proof majority. What's your point here?
> What Pelosi and Reid cooked up for a Medical Industry Takeover
Let's be clear about what the law does: it changes the regulations for
the health insurance industry. It does not nationalize either the
insurance industry or health care providers.
> is
> such a bad idea, that there is no way you can dress it up and make
> rational people consider this corpse anything other than what it is: a
> stinking mess.
This may be true. But you can't seem to actually come up with any
substantive arguments. If the law is bad, then it's bad independently
of whether Nancy Pelosi was Speaker in 2006 or not, or whether it took a
year of maneuvering in the Senate or not.
> So, maybe it is time for a new analogy.
>
> I have a proposal for you. Universal Automobile coverage. After
> all,it is everybody's right,particularly as an American, to be
> relieved of the burden of the expenses involved in maintaining a
> vehicle. So here is what we are going to do. For a low monthly fee,
> we're going to give you a discount on gasoline, pay for your oil
> changes, a free set of tires every year, and complete replacement in
> case an accident totally destroys it. And every Wednesday, we'll be
> coming guy and throwing a brick through your window and one a month
> there will be someone form the Office Of Automotive Compliance who
> will come around and play Wipe out on your knee caps with a small
> silver mallet.
Let's make this into a real analogy, OK? Universal Automobile Coverage.
For a fee, you're covered for routine maintenance and repairs for both
malfunction and accident. This wouldn't cover gasoline, because that
would be like health insurance covering your grocery bill. This
wouldn't cover a free set of tires every year because most people don't
need new tires or a new hip replacement every year. I have no idea what
the guy throwing a brick through your window means, so let's ignore that.
There is no Office of Automotive Compliance in this analogy, because the
IRS has specifically been denied the authority to fine you or place liens
on your property for noncompliance.
Now, why don't we have UAC, and why won't we have it? Let's consider
this:
- The people who are least able to afford automobile maintenance
fortunately don't drive cars -- minors, many of the disabled, and the
enfeebled elderly.
- Besides these, there is a significant number of people who don't need
UAC: those who don't own cars and rely on public transportation, those
who can fix their own cars, and so on.
- Automobile repairs are rarely life threatening and almost never cause
bankruptcy.
- Automobile repair expenses are low. WikiAnswers says the average car
repair costs are $1200-$4000 per year. The average health insurance
bill for a family in 2009 was $13,500 per year. It actually costs less
for annual repairs today than it did in 1960 in spite of the increase in
the CPI.
- If I'm reading the Department of Labor's table correctly, they weight
health-related costs at over 6 times the burden of auto repair. It's
said that health care costs consume 16% of the GDP and are growing at a
fast rate. I can't even find the percentage of GDP for car repair.
- Employers are not currently saddled with UAC costs as benefits, which
puts them at a competitive disadvantage.
- If your car breaks down, it's unlikely to affect me. Having 35
million uninsured means a strain on emergency medical care facilities
that I may want to use, not to mention having a large reservoir of
unmonitored people in an age of almost instant pandemics.
In short, car repair costs are simply not a societal problem in the way
that health care is.
But we do have an analogy that works with automobile liability
insurance. Most states require that you carry it, because uninsured
motorists are a societal problem.
> Now, remember, while you consider this, that if you turn it down,
> you are going to be recognized as someone who hates children and wants
> them to die from wrecks caused by bald tires.
I don't adopt or avoid political positions because I'm afraid of what
people might think about me. Do you?
> Because that is what Obamacare is going to do - in exchange for a
> promise to pick up the tab for everybody's medical expenses (which is
> an unsustainable promise.)
The new insurance reform doesn't pick up the tab for everybody's medical
expenses. I'm still going to be paying for my health insurance, and my
health insurance company may pay for some of my medical expenses. It's
true that I'll probably be subsidizing poorer people's health insurance,
but the same will be true for those people: their insurance companies
will pay for their health expenses. Do you really not understand what
it means to socialize risk? It's not the same thing as socializing
medicine or even socializing insurance, neither of which is happening
under the new law.
> it is going to so completely control your
> life - directly and indirectly - as to be funny.
And yet you can't tell me how this will happen. Will I have to give up
my medical insurance? Will I have to change doctors? Will this have
anything at all to do with things in my life that don't involve health
insurance?
What control will I give up? Please be specific.
> Were it not that
> while all the progressives get more government control of their lives
> than they every thought they needed, the rest of use are stuck with it
> too.
Well, yes. It's called representative democracy. If you don't like it,
perhaps you'd be more comfortable in say, Saudi Arabia.
> And because progressives are so in love with the idea of Free
> Government Money to Pay for Medical Coverage For Everybody, you don't
> care, or know, that it doesn't work.
I don't expect this to be free. In fact, I expect to keep paying for my
health insurance. Perhaps the new system won't work. You can't seem to
tell me why. The current system is unsustainable anyway. Did you read
about the California insurance company that raised rates 36% to keep
even with claims? How long do you think they can keep doing that?
> So kindly get in the line, we held a vote and you've been chosen
> to make a contribution to society.
That's the price of democracy. Sometimes I don't like it. They held a
vote and the WPE got to throw away hundreds of billions of dollars in
Iraq. I pay taxes for that too. Some people paid with their lives.
I'd rather help pay for insuring 35 million uninsured people.
YMMV.
Gunner Asch
>Here's what does:
>
>- Refusing to come up with a viable alternative. For instance, you
>can't simply be in favor of forcing the insurance companies to insure
>those with pre-existing conditions without a plan for making sure that
>doesn't drive insurance companies out of business.
Sorry slomo...the Republicans have fronted (15) Fifteen seperate
attempts at a viable alternative to the Clusterfuk that the Democrats
just voted into law.
Each and every one were turned down by the Democrat Majority.
I strongly suggest you get off your fat ass and simply use google and
determine for yourself that either A..you are ignorant, B..you are
stupid, or C...you are a Clueless Useful Idiot for the Leftwingers.
Help yourself
Gunner
Naughtius
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 03:27:56 -0500, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >Here's what does:
>
> >- Refusing to come up with a viable alternative. For instance, you
> >can't simply be in favor of forcing the insurance companies to insure
> >those with pre-existing conditions without a plan for making sure that
> >doesn't drive insurance companies out of business.
>
> Sorry slomo...
"slomo"?? What's "slomo"? Is there a Simple Typo In Evidence here?
Or Are You *supid*?
Enquiring Minds Want To Know... Shiksagruber...
>the Republicans have fronted (15) Fifteen seperate
> attempts at a viable alternative to the Clusterfuk that the Democrats
> just voted into law.
!! (15) seperate(sic) attempts You Say! GOSH... that's a Lotta
seperate(sic) attempts... *I* don't recall Republicans offering Even
ONE "viable alternative" during The Pendancy of their Attempted Re-
Enactment of "Waterloo"...
PERHAPS YOU could List Here ALL (15) "viable aternative(s)"? The
Better For Enquiring Minds to Quickly Confirm... OR Expose... Your
Assertion As a [Yet Another] RighTard Ad Hoc DELUSION Of [Fleeting]
Convenience...
I... And frankly, I Think I Speak for All Of Us here, Who Are NOT
of the RighTard "Make Up Whatever Specious Delusional Lie-Of-
Convenience Might Work" Persuasion, am/are Happy To Wait for Your "15
Specific Reasons Democrats Are Fulla Shit, Which MYSTERIOUSLY
Disappeared From My Original Posting" Posting...
[CUE] Final Jeopardy theme...
> Each and every one were turned down by the Democrat Majority.
Ok... So YOU Say... I... WE're Waiting for You To Show Us Where We
Went WRONG...
> I strongly suggest you get off your fat ass and simply use google and
> determine for yourself that either A..you are ignorant, B..you are
> stupid, or C...you are a Clueless Useful Idiot for the Leftwingers.
Well, when *I* Google "fat ass/ignorant/stupid/Clueless Useful
Idiot/Leftwingers" I keep coming up with "Did you mean: Gunner Asch
misc.survivalism, misc.legal?"
Go Figger...
> Help yourself
>
> Gunner
>
> "First Law of Leftist Debate
> The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
> that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
> more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
> losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
> homophobe approaches infinity.
>
> This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
> race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
> the subject." Grey Ghost
Yyyeeahh... Isn't "Grey Ghost" that Self-Important, Self-Deluding
DIMWIT who thought himself clever [and *Telling*] by pointing out that
[Famo... sorry... INfamous DEAD GUY] Bull Connor's Party Affiliation
*WAS* "[Solid-South] Democrat" An Affiliation that IS, [And ONLY]
Below The Mason-Dixon Line, Spelled "D-I-X-I-E-C-R-A-T" and -
CURIOUSLY - IS Pronounced "Soon-To-Be-Republican"?
I Wonder Why he doesn't Spout That DELUSIONAL, Self-Serving
Sophistry anymore...
Naughtius "If You Wrong Us, Shall... We...?" Maximus
Deadrat
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 03:27:56 -0500, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>Here's what does:
>>
>>- Refusing to come up with a viable alternative. For instance, you
>>can't simply be in favor of forcing the insurance companies to insure
>>those with pre-existing conditions without a plan for making sure that
>>doesn't drive insurance companies out of business.
>
>
> Sorry slomo...the Republicans have fronted (15) Fifteen seperate
> attempts at a viable alternative to the Clusterfuk that the Democrats
> just voted into law.
Nice try, Sparky. Let's have a cite to some of those fifteen. Or Didja
just make up the number?
> Each and every one were turned down by the Democrat Majority.
So you claim. Let's have a cite to the text of a bill. Or two. Or
seven. Or 15!
By the way, we're not counting the 48 amendments the Republicans tried to
derail reconciliation with. One of those was to put all members of
Congress and the Vice President on Medicaid. Think that was a serious
legislative effort?
> I strongly suggest you get off your fat ass and simply use google and
> determine for yourself that either A..you are ignorant, B..you are
> stupid, or C...you are a Clueless Useful Idiot for the Leftwingers.
That's what you've got? Calling me names? Is that one of the 15?
This is your claim, Sparky. That means showing the evidence is your
burden. That's how it works.
Sorry.
Strabo
> pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> news:shftq5903b9drgfu9...@4ax.com:
>
> That's the price of democracy. Sometimes I don't like it. They held a
> vote and the WPE got to throw away hundreds of billions of dollars in
> Iraq. I pay taxes for that too. Some people paid with their lives.
>
> I'd rather help pay for insuring 35 million uninsured people.
>
> YMMV.
>
The best is yet to come - a constitutional convention convened
by the states to revoke the constitution and return the union
of states to the Articles of Confederation.
Whatever mischief manipulators of men what to wreak will
half to be done elsewhere.
I recommend that you move to Cuba or France with your desperate
need for government to "help" people.
Deadrat
@newsfe01.iad:
> Deadrat wrote:
>> pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in
>> news:shftq5903b9drgfu9...@4ax.com:
>>
> <snipped>
>> That's the price of democracy. Sometimes I don't like it. They held a
>> vote and the WPE got to throw away hundreds of billions of dollars in
>> Iraq. I pay taxes for that too. Some people paid with their lives.
>>
>> I'd rather help pay for insuring 35 million uninsured people.
>>
>> YMMV.
>>
>
> The best is yet to come - a constitutional convention convened
> by the states to revoke the constitution and return the union
> of states to the Articles of Confederation.
>
> Whatever mischief manipulators of men what to wreak will
> half to be done elsewhere.
No half measures for you, eh?
> I recommend that you move to Cuba or France with your desperate
> need for government to "help" people.
Don't look now, Sparky, but the government has been helping people for
decades -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the GI Bill, the civil
rights acts, the student loan program, and so on. I recommend that you
move to Saudi Arabia with your desperate need to disparage representational
democracy. You'll be right at home.
Sounds like a win-win to me.
pyotr filipivich
misc.survivalism:
>Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:s0euq5tgjujb63a6r...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 03:27:56 -0500, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Here's what does:
>>>
>>>- Refusing to come up with a viable alternative. For instance, you
>>>can't simply be in favor of forcing the insurance companies to insure
>>>those with pre-existing conditions without a plan for making sure that
>>>doesn't drive insurance companies out of business.
>>
>>
>> Sorry slomo...the Republicans have fronted (15) Fifteen seperate
>> attempts at a viable alternative to the Clusterfuk that the Democrats
>> just voted into law.
>
>Nice try, Sparky. Let's have a cite to some of those fifteen. Or Didja
>just make up the number?
Deadrat - poster of No.
pyotr filipivich
misc.survivalism:
>
>- Pretending that the health insurance reform bill contains death panels
>that decide who lives or dies.
>
>Is this clear yet?
ROFLMAO- of course it's clear. You have no idea what the history
of Government programs have been.
I take it then, you have no idea what the Groningen protocols are
all about? Or how they developed from simple ethical guidelines to
mandatory requirements - and the patients and family have no say about
it?
And of course they will not be called "Death Panels". But a "End
of life transition counselor" does sound so much more better, does it
not? Shiest, even the Nazis knew better than to call their program to
kill off the "defectives" that. If referred to at all, it was with a
euphemism such as Operation T-4 (based on the address of the
administrations office). Oh, and for what it worth, the German
Government was merely implementing some progressive ideas about what
to do with those who had useless lives in a time of scarce resources,
ideas which German academics had gotten from the American Eugenics
movement, headed by such luminaries as Margaret Sanger.
So, no, you';re not going to find a mention of Death Panels in the
legislation. "End of life transition counselors", maybe, who will be
making "Quality of life evaluations" for those who are deemed to not
be able to "give back to the community".
>
>> The Reality is
>> that the Democrat Progressives in Congress, the White House and the
>> Press all have a very bad idea they want to make law.
>
>I assume you're talking about health insurance reform. They not only
>wanted to make it law; they did. It's possible that this is "a very bad
>idea." You can't actually seem to articulate any arguments against it.
>Please tell what's bad. Specifically.
Here's twenty.
20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms
By David Hogberg
Sun., March 21, '10 3:24 PM ET
Tags: Health Care - ObamaCare - Freedom
With House Democrats poised to pass the Senate health care bill with
some reconciliation changes later today, it is worthwhile to take a
comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.
Of course, the overhaul is supposed to provide us with security. But
it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving
the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care.
We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to
trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will
lose both.”
The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by
the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules
Committee.
1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up
a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that
is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually
for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)
2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that
reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that
cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day,
drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s
because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on
the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).
3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with
lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no
longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers
prefer. (Section 2711).
4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover
preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health
insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover
preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s
what the customer wants. (Section 2712).
5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that
doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy
until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).
6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services,
emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care,
mental health and substance use disorder services, including
behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and
habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and
wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services,
including oral and vision care.
You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover
pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough,
your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough,
your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own
violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).
7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums?
Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that
provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full
actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything
lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))
8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d
like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for
individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).
9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and
you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you
will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under
the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that
money? Tough. (Section 1513).
10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending
arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from
their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).
11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking
over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services
is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that
measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of
care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by
other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational
purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene
in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))
12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you
must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1,
2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t
have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))
13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital?
Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a
country where, over the last five years, population growth has been
150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And
then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001
(i) (3) (C)).
14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet
costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review
and can be denied. (Section 1003)
15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from
the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what
you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs
you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So,
if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will
be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under
reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in
2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before
settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a
pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for
research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).
16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from
medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will
pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if
you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be
10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical
device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough.
(Section 9009 (b)).
The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for
medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how
to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough.
(Section 1405).
17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from
insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends
on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs.
So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of
the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the
reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3
billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018
(Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to
better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)
18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is
worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section
9014).
19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar
you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you
file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the
money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).
That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will
also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you
know how to spend the money you earned better than the government?
Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).
20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax
on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money
you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).
Deadrat
> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Deadrat
> <a...@b.com> reported Elvis on Sun, 28 Mar 2010 12:35:29 -0500 in
> misc.survivalism:
>>Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:s0euq5tgjujb63a6r...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 03:27:56 -0500, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Here's what does:
>>>>
>>>>- Refusing to come up with a viable alternative. For instance, you
>>>>can't simply be in favor of forcing the insurance companies to insure
>>>>those with pre-existing conditions without a plan for making sure that
>>>>doesn't drive insurance companies out of business.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry slomo...the Republicans have fronted (15) Fifteen seperate
>>> attempts at a viable alternative to the Clusterfuk that the Democrats
>>> just voted into law.
>>
>>Nice try, Sparky. Let's have a cite to some of those fifteen. Or Didja
>>just make up the number?
>
> Deadrat - poster of No.
Here's the way things work: you make a claim; you provide the evidence.
I'm willing to read those proposals that the "the Republicans have
fronted." Supposedly there are 15 of them. Where are they?
> -
> pyotr filipivich.
> Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
> you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Yeah, like the GI Bill.
Naughtius
> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Deadrat
> <a...@b.com> reported Elvis on Sun, 28 Mar 2010 03:27:56 -0500 in
> misc.survivalism:
>
>
>
> >- Pretending that the health insurance reform bill contains death panels
> >that decide who lives or dies.
>
> >Is this clear yet?
>
> ROFLMAO- of course it's clear. You have no idea what the history
> of Government programs have been.
I Bet $100 Right Now that Dee-uh-DRAT knows - INCALCULABLY - "what
the history of Government programs have been"... AND Conversely, that
YOU - INCALCULABLY - DO NOT, as is Demonstrated Below...
> I take it then, you have no idea what the Groningen protocols are
> all about?
ANOTHER $100 on this; That Dee-uh-DRAT Knows Full Well "what the
Groningen protocols are all about" AND That YOU DO NOT...
You mean the "Groningen protocols" Known As: "The protocol was
created by a committee of physicians and others at the University
Medical Center Groningen, in consultation with the Groningen district
attorney, and has been ratified by the ->>Dutch National Association
of Pediatricians<<-"? AND which Have ABSOLUTELY NO Effect/Relevence/
Meaning/Association/Impact on NON-Dutch [INcludes American] Law/
Policies/Activities/Practices/Customs, Ad Nauseam? OR are You
Referencing the SECRET "Groningen protocols" Which Only RightTARDs
Know *The True Meaning* and Location of? Much Like "The Protocols of
The Elders of Zion"...
> Or how they developed from simple ethical guidelines to
> mandatory requirements - and the patients and family have no say about
> it?
They DON'T?? That's Funny... Wikipedia says:
"The protocol, made up after extensive consultation between
physicians, lawyers, parents and the Prosecution Office, offers
procedures and guidelines how to achieve the correct the decision and
performance. The final decision about "active ending of life on
infants" is not in the hands of the physicians but with the parents,
with physicians and social workers agreeing to it. Criteria are
amongst others "unbearable suffering" and "expected quality of life".
Only the parents can start the procedure. The procedure is reported to
be working well.[4]"
Admittedly, *I* Don't See Anything in The Wikipedia Description
that Indicates this is the *SECRET* Groningen protocols which, As YOU
Say, "patients and family have no say about...", So... can YOU show
usThe Text of The [REAL] SECRET Protocols which Mandate "no say" WRT
*American* Medical Standards/Practices/Health Care Legislation? Or is
that protocol Available To AND Viewable ONLY by RighTARDs Who Know
*The SEEEEE-CRET HAAAAANNNDSHAAAAAKE*?
Oh... *I* Would Be Remiss - And I Don't Wanna Be Remiss - if I
Didn't Include here The Link To *MY* NON-Secret, NO Secret Handshake
Required Groningen protocols Reference Source... Thus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_Protocol
>
> And of course they will not be called "Death Panels".
And of course they will not be called "Death Panels" More From The
Fact that They Do NOT Now and NEVER WILL Exist, than that they would
need a More Socially Acceptable Name to "Execute" a NON-Existent
SECRET Protocol of Dutch Origin which ONLY RighTARD Lunatics [Ummm...
Redundancy?] can see...
> But a "End
> of life transition counselor" does sound so much more better, does it
> not?
Yeah... it does... Ummmm... HOW Do You Say It... In *Dutch*? In
*Duetsch*?
I Only wanna know in case Those Whacky Dutch and German
Conspirators some day Pop Up at The life transition Clinic...
> Shiest, even the Nazis knew better than to call their program to
> kill off the "defectives"
Are you talking about The Nazis who Survived the Utter Destruction
of their European Homeland; their Subsequent Suicides; Subsequent
Hangings and Complete Disavowment/Discrediting by FREE-THINKING,
Freedom Loving Peoples World-Wide better than 60 Years ago?
We here IN America Don't Care Very Much about *THOSE* Ancestral
RighTARDs...
> that. If referred to at all, it was with a
> euphemism such as Operation T-4 (based on the address of the
> administrations office). Oh, and for what it worth, the German
> Government was merely implementing some progressive ideas about what
> to do with those who had useless lives in a time of scarce resources,
> ideas which German academics had gotten from the American Eugenics
> movement, headed by such luminaries as Margaret Sanger.
GASP... [The LONG DEAD] Margaret Sanger???
The Same Margaret Sanger whom No Modern Thinker/Policy Maker pays
the slightest attention to? OR is there a SECRET 3rd-Generation Sanger
CLONE? Soon arriving from Brazil?
HOW Do You Pronounce "End of life transition counselor" in
Portugese?
>
> So, no, you';re not going to find a mention of Death Panels in the
> legislation. "End of life transition counselors", maybe, who will be
> making "Quality of life evaluations" for those who are deemed to not
> be able to "give back to the community".
MORE To The Point, YOU Rightards are NOT going to find mention of
Death Panels... By Any Other Name... in the legislation...
WE Make NO Representations as to what The RighTARD SECRET
Legislation has to say WRT "Death Panels" or "End Of Life Counselors"
or "Tin Foil Comfort Hats with Special SECRET Fold-Down X-Ray
Goggles"...
> >> The Reality is
> >> that the Democrat Progressives in Congress, the White House and the
> >> Press all have a very bad idea they want to make law.
Well... "a very bad idea" it may be... BUT IF it gets the likes of
Rush Limbaugh - AND his Ilk - into Costa Rica - AS he PROMISED, it's
Well Worth The Effort...
> >I assume you're talking about health insurance reform. They not only
> >wanted to make it law; they did. It's possible that this is "a very bad
> >idea." You can't actually seem to articulate any arguments against it.
> >Please tell what's bad. Specifically.
>
> Here's twenty.
Actually, *I* was Waiting on some 15 "viable alternatives" which
Republ... RighTARDs are rumored to have Proposed By Way of Improving
The Soon-To-Be-Enacted Health Care Reform...
The One that Republi... RighTARDs... IF *THEY* could sink, would be
Obama's "Waterloo"...
>
> 20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms
> By David Hogberg
> Sun., March 21, '10 3:24 PM ET
> Tags: Health Care - ObamaCare - Freedom
Yeah... have Hopberg FAX it To Me from Costa Rica...
Naughtius "How Did These Dutch Guys Get In Here?" Maximus
Deadrat
> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Deadrat
> <a...@b.com> reported Elvis on Sun, 28 Mar 2010 03:27:56 -0500 in
> misc.survivalism:
>>
>>- Pretending that the health insurance reform bill contains death panels
>>that decide who lives or dies.
>>
>>Is this clear yet?
>
> ROFLMAO- of course it's clear. You have no idea what the history
> of Government programs have been.
> I take it then, you have no idea what the Groningen protocols are
> all about? Or how they developed from simple ethical guidelines to
> mandatory requirements - and the patients and family have no say about
> it?
In spite of Naughtius' confidence in me, I had not heard of the Groningen
protocols, so I looked them up. Naughtius beat me to it, but you do
realize that you're talking about Dutch law, right? Nothing to do with the
law just passed in the US, right? And what's the first thing the
guidelines demand? Family consent.
>
> And of course they will not be called "Death Panels". But a "End
> of life transition counselor" does sound so much more better, does it
> not? Shiest, even the Nazis knew better than to call their program to
> kill off the "defectives" that. If referred to at all, it was with a
> euphemism such as Operation T-4 (based on the address of the
> administrations office). Oh, and for what it worth, the German
> Government was merely implementing some progressive ideas about what
> to do with those who had useless lives in a time of scarce resources,
> ideas which German academics had gotten from the American Eugenics
> movement, headed by such luminaries as Margaret Sanger.
Oh, dear. Margaret Sanger. Did she vote for the bill?
Of course not. She's been dead for over 40 years. What's she got to do
with this? Margaret Sanger was a proponent of birth control, which she
hoped would reduce abortions because -- get this -- she was what today we
call "pro-life." She did believe in eugenics, which extended to
immigration paranoia and forced sterilization, but she was opposed to
euthanasia.
> So, no, you';re not going to find a mention of Death Panels in the
> legislation. "End of life transition counselors", maybe, who will be
> making "Quality of life evaluations" for those who are deemed to not
> be able to "give back to the community".
You're reduced here to finding that no mention of Death Panels is evidence
of their existence.
This is actually something I know a little bit about first hand because I'm
in a volunteer program for local nursing homes, a program sponsored by the
county. All volunteers are required to take training, which covers the
state law on advanced directives. The law allows anyone who's legally
competent to consult with a physician, sign a set of instructions on what's
to be done during a medical emergency, and assign someone else to make
decisions based on those instructions when and only when the signatory is
unable to make these decisions. This someone else is known as the
signatory's attorney for health care and is said to hold the signatory's
power of attorney for health care. I happen to have created my own Health
Care Power of Attorney. No one can force you to do this, of course.
And here's the thing. You get to specify exactly what steps you want
taken. DNR? Fine. Heroic measures at all costs? Fine. Something
inbetween. Fine, too. The nursing home I go to makes this paperwork the
top item in each resident's chart. There are no death panels that
determine what's in the power: that's up to the individual. There are no
death panels that decide whether or how to follow the instructions if the
time comes: that's up to the attorney.
The grantor of the power can change it at any time to any thing for any
reason. You can do this in writing; you can do this orally; you can do
this by striking a line through the paperwork. You can even do this if
you're not legally competent any more.
There are no death panels.
>>> The Reality is
>>> that the Democrat Progressives in Congress, the White House and the
>>> Press all have a very bad idea they want to make law.
>>
>>I assume you're talking about health insurance reform. They not only
>>wanted to make it law; they did. It's possible that this is "a very
>>bad idea." You can't actually seem to articulate any arguments against
>>it. Please tell what's bad. Specifically.
>
> Here's twenty.
> 20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms
> By David Hogberg
> Sun., March 21, '10 3:24 PM ET
> Tags: Health Care - ObamaCare - Freedom
I'm going to restrain the snark here, because I want to encourage this kind
of behavior. You actually went out and found something that backs your
point of view. This is a huge improvement over your previous ranting.
Your next step is to actually verify the information, which you failed to
do. This is only marginally better than ranting because you still believe
only what you've been told. But it's still better.
Let's take #18, which seems to say that insurance companies no longer have
the freedom to pay their CEOs more than $500K per year. Now I think it
passing strange that people like you, who don't and will never make a small
fraction of that salary, rush to defend these people's freedom to pick your
pocket. But that's as may be. In fact, section 9014 doesn't cap insurance
company CEO salaries. It just eliminates the corporation's deduction for
salaries in excess of $500K. The corporation is still free to set its
salary scale. But the taxpayers aren't bound to subsidize salaries over
the limit.
Let's go to #20, the 5% tax on elective cosmetic surgery. The law is
really a little more flexible than your reporter has told you. Your
surgeon may choose to pay the tax for you, a sop to the free market no
doubt. But let's say that the good cutters don't have to offer that
incentive, and you really wouldn't want a surgeon who offers a tax-holiday
special on your nose job. This is a tax on a service. Now it may be good
or bad, depending on just how ugly you are, but this ship sailed when they
still used sails. Luxury taxes simply aren't an evil that springs new-born
from health insurance reform.
Let's drop back to #19, the .5% tax on compensation over $250K, filing
jointly. In 2007, a joint filer who reported $400,096 AGI passed into the
top 1%, territory you can only dream about. Assuming that it was all
salary (which is hardly realistic), we're gonna dun him for an extra $800.
And you're ready to mount the barricades for these folks for this amount.
Folks who for that kind of pocket change, wouldn't pay the maid extra to go
to the barricades in their place.
OK, #5. If you're an employer and you don't want to offer coverage for
dependent children, then don't offer it. If you do offer it, then you do
have to keep the slackers on until they're 26.
#11: "If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking
> over your shoulder? Tough." Well, not so tough. The section quoted
modifes the Physician Feedback Program, which collects Medicare data. And
all this section does is provide aggregate information to doctors on how
other doctors are treating patients. Your rapporteur hints darkly that
this means that the gov will intervene in doctors' practices, but there's
nothing in the law that allows for this. And this is nothing new that
comes with this law.
Most of the other complaints fall into two categories:
1. The law sets standards for insurance products that I must accept. If I
want something less, which should cost less money, I can't have it.
2. The poor insurance companies have to abide by the standards, and thus
can't offer lesser policies if they wanted to.
In regard to the first point, this lost freedom is entirely theoretical.
In practice now, insurance companies don't offer less for cheaper. Their
premiums rose last year more than either the CPI or average salary
increases. For the second point, the insurance companies don't have a
choice, but they've been well-paid for their loss of freedom to pick your
pocket at will.
I'm not denying that we've given up some freedom. That's what happens when
you socialize risk. Everyone pays for the fire department -- no choice
there -- even those who never have a fire. But all of these things add up
to paying taxes and living with regulated insurance policies. This is a
far cry from your claim on Saturday that the gov was "going to so
completely control your life."
You may actually want the freedom to have less health insurance (at least
until you get sick). That's fine. I'm not deriding that. But in
defending your opinion, you ought not cite things that aren't so (like
death panels that are actually in Holland). To achieve that modest goal,
it would help if you checked your sources.
Like the student loan program.
pyotr filipivich
misc.survivalism:
>pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in
>news:djsvq597vgf7sirv1...@4ax.com:
>
>> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Deadrat
>> <a...@b.com> reported Elvis on Sun, 28 Mar 2010 03:27:56 -0500 in
>> misc.survivalism:
>>>
>>>- Pretending that the health insurance reform bill contains death panels
>>>that decide who lives or dies.
>>>
>>>Is this clear yet?
>>
>> ROFLMAO- of course it's clear. You have no idea what the history
>> of Government programs have been.
>> I take it then, you have no idea what the Groningen protocols are
>> all about? Or how they developed from simple ethical guidelines to
>> mandatory requirements - and the patients and family have no say about
>> it?
>
>In spite of Naughtius' confidence in me, I had not heard of the Groningen
>protocols, so I looked them up. Naughtius beat me to it, but you do
>realize that you're talking about Dutch law, right? Nothing to do with the
>law just passed in the US, right?
Whoosh, right over your head. It is the progressives who are
always claiming that we (the USofA) A) need to look to foreign laws
for inspiration and guidance, and B) need to have a healthcare system
just like that in Europe.
And I'll point out, that which started out as a guideline has
become a requirement.
>And what's the first thing the
>guidelines demand? Family consent.
Hahhhahahah - okay, I suppose you know better than the bio
ethicist at Rice University.
>> And of course they will not be called "Death Panels". But a "End
>> of life transition counselor" does sound so much more better, does it
>> not? Shiest, even the Nazis knew better than to call their program to
>> kill off the "defectives" that. If referred to at all, it was with a
>> euphemism such as Operation T-4 (based on the address of the
>> administrations office). Oh, and for what it worth, the German
>> Government was merely implementing some progressive ideas about what
>> to do with those who had useless lives in a time of scarce resources,
>> ideas which German academics had gotten from the American Eugenics
>> movement, headed by such luminaries as Margaret Sanger.
>
>Oh, dear. Margaret Sanger. Did she vote for the bill?
>
>Of course not. She's been dead for over 40 years. What's she got to do
>with this? Margaret Sanger was a proponent of birth control, which she
>hoped would reduce abortions because -- get this -- she was what today we
>call "pro-life." She did believe in eugenics, which extended to
>immigration paranoia and forced sterilization, but she was opposed to
>euthanasia.
>
>> So, no, you';re not going to find a mention of Death Panels in the
>> legislation. "End of life transition counselors", maybe, who will be
>> making "Quality of life evaluations" for those who are deemed to not
>> be able to "give back to the community".
>
>You're reduced here to finding that no mention of Death Panels is evidence
>of their existence.
No, I'm pointing out that there are going to be decisions made by
no medically qualified personal which are going to result in [people
dieing for lack of treatment. They are going to be "death panels"
even if you call it "The Puppies and Kittens Wellness Office for
Making You Better."
I realize this will come as a shock to you, but I don't have a
problem with people making money. I do have a problem with a
Government employee deciding how much someone in a non-government job
can be paid, even if initially it is just the Evil Rich. And I
realize that you seem to be unaware of how the Income tax was sold
originally as a way of soaking the Rich, yet in a few short decades,
was now concerning itself with the tips of waitresses. But don't
worry, the Government will never be telling your employer how much
money you'll be allowed to make.
> In fact, section 9014 doesn't cap insurance
>company CEO salaries. It just eliminates the corporation's deduction for
>salaries in excess of $500K. The corporation is still free to set its
>salary scale. But the taxpayers aren't bound to subsidize salaries over
>the limit.
Of course, Can you explain to me why their should be a cap on the
deduct ability of employee pay?
>
>Let's go to #20, the 5% tax on elective cosmetic surgery. The law is
>really a little more flexible than your reporter has told you. Your
>surgeon may choose to pay the tax for you, a sop to the free market no
>doubt. But let's say that the good cutters don't have to offer that
>incentive, and you really wouldn't want a surgeon who offers a tax-holiday
>special on your nose job. This is a tax on a service. Now it may be good
>or bad, depending on just how ugly you are, but this ship sailed when they
>still used sails. Luxury taxes simply aren't an evil that springs new-born
>from health insurance reform.
Too true. Luxury taxes do, however, tend to drive business
elsewhere. Witness the brilliant attempt to add a 10% tax on high end
automobiles, aircraft and boats. If memory serves that brought in a
negative twenty seven million dollars (once the claims for
unemployment were counted, and the other lost tax revenues). Several
boat yards in the Puget sound area went out of business, ending a
number of 30,000 dollar a year jobs. (And no doubt some lower income
too.)
So, yeah, a luxury tax on a specific set of medical procedures is
a good idea. So, who is going to determine which procedures are
luxuries, and which are not? And on what basis? Cost? The number of
Celebrities getting them? The fact that "only the rich" get them?
>
>Let's drop back to #19, the .5% tax on compensation over $250K, filing
>jointly. In 2007, a joint filer who reported $400,096 AGI passed into the
>top 1%, territory you can only dream about. Assuming that it was all
>salary (which is hardly realistic), we're gonna dun him for an extra $800.
>And you're ready to mount the barricades for these folks for this amount.
>Folks who for that kind of pocket change, wouldn't pay the maid extra to go
>to the barricades in their place.
>
>OK, #5. If you're an employer and you don't want to offer coverage for
>dependent children, then don't offer it. If you do offer it, then you do
>have to keep the slackers on until they're 26.
>
>#11: "If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking
>> over your shoulder? Tough." Well, not so tough. The section quoted
>modifes the Physician Feedback Program, which collects Medicare data. And
>all this section does is provide aggregate information to doctors on how
>other doctors are treating patients. Your rapporteur hints darkly that
>this means that the gov will intervene in doctors' practices, but there's
>nothing in the law that allows for this. And this is nothing new that
>comes with this law.
Hahaha. Okay. Fine, sure, whatever. There is no possible way
that Doctors are going to be performing their professions with only
the best possible outcome for the patient in mind. I mean, it isn't
like they aren't doing that now
>
>Most of the other complaints fall into two categories:
>
>1. The law sets standards for insurance products that I must accept. If I
>want something less, which should cost less money, I can't have it.
Which apparently bothers you not at all. As long as those evil
rich bastards aren't getting their way, it doesn't matter to you.
>
>2. The poor insurance companies have to abide by the standards, and thus
>can't offer lesser policies if they wanted to.
Your assumption is, of course, that the insurance companies can
stay in business when they have to spend more money than they make. It
is a common fallacy to the Progressives, particularly this bunch, who
seemed have no idea how businesses function.
pyotr filipivich
misc.survivalism:
>pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in
>news:pgsvq5hcf7ds20bc7...@4ax.com:
>
>> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Deadrat
>> <a...@b.com> reported Elvis on Sun, 28 Mar 2010 12:35:29 -0500 in
>> misc.survivalism:
>>>Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:s0euq5tgjujb63a6r...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 03:27:56 -0500, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Here's what does:
>>>>>
>>>>>- Refusing to come up with a viable alternative. For instance, you
>>>>>can't simply be in favor of forcing the insurance companies to insure
>>>>>those with pre-existing conditions without a plan for making sure that
>>>>>doesn't drive insurance companies out of business.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry slomo...the Republicans have fronted (15) Fifteen seperate
>>>> attempts at a viable alternative to the Clusterfuk that the Democrats
>>>> just voted into law.
>>>
>>>Nice try, Sparky. Let's have a cite to some of those fifteen. Or Didja
>>>just make up the number?
>>
>> Deadrat - poster of No.
>
>Here's the way things work: you make a claim; you provide the evidence.
>I'm willing to read those proposals that the "the Republicans have
>fronted." Supposedly there are 15 of them. Where are they?
You are a poster of no. That's all that is necessary for anyone
to know.
Remember how this all got started? The claim is repeatedly made
by those enthralled to the Obama, that the Republicans are the party
of No. The analogy was then made that if you had children, and they
came asking for booze and the keys to the car, if you were to deny
them, then you would be a Parent of No. But then you got confused
by the illustration, and wanted to know what were the drugs, and what
was the car suppose to represent, and what color was it, and then
objected that children don't get a "vote" in the running of a family
(how old fashioned and unprogressive can one be?), completely missing
the point that what the Republicans were objecting to was the very
concept of "supplying teenagers with alcohol and car keys" in the
first place.
And now you want the fifteen bills the GOP proposed, but that the
Democrat Party Majority ignored, with the support of the Democrat
press agents in at CNN, NYT, etalia Too bad for you but the media
is only now deigning to inform you what was known about this bill:
that it will ration medical care, it will raise the costs, it will
increase the deficit, and will require higher taxes to pay for it. The
financing for this is unsustainable. And that diversion of revenues
to pay for government medical services will also increase
unemployment, decrease innovation, and, at best, lead us into an era
of stagnation, if not outright collapse.
But hey, at least you can feel warm and fuzzy knowing that you're
entitled to someone else's labor when it comes to medical care.
Deadrat
You simply cannot bootstrap Dutch law into United States death panels.
Whether progressives claim that we need to look to foreign laws for
inspiration or not -- and I'm guessing you can't name a single person who
claims that -- Dutch law simply has no force here. We do need to have a
healthcare system that looks more like Europe, Switzerland, for instance.
Europeans pay half what we do for healthcare and get better results in
many areas. But no matter progressives' opinions about European
healthcare, there simply are no death panels.
> And I'll point out, that which started out as a guideline has
> become a requirement.
I'm not an expert in Dutch law, but Wikipedia contradicts you.
>>And what's the first thing the guidelines demand? Family consent.
>
> Hahhhahahah - okay, I suppose you know better than the bio
> ethicist at Rice University.
I don't know whether I do or not. I'm not an expert on Dutch law and can
only go on what I read about it. Wikipedia contradicts your account.
Now Wikipedia isn't a first-hand source, and if your ethicist has better
information, then tell us. Who is this ethicist and what does he have to
say and what are his sources? If he can point to a section of the HR
3590 that mandates death panels, then I'll go read it.
<snipped: I guess we're done with Margaret Sanger/>
>>You're reduced here to finding that no mention of Death Panels is
>>evidence of their existence.
>
> No, I'm pointing out that there are going to be decisions made by
> no medically qualified personal which are going to result in [people
> dieing for lack of treatment. They are going to be "death panels"
> even if you call it "The Puppies and Kittens Wellness Office for
> Making You Better."
I'm sorry, but where did you point that out? You pointed out that Dutch
law permits euthanasia.
But if you've changed your claim, then let's examine the evidence. Where
does the law specify that medically unqualified personnel (note the
spelling) will make medical decisions? Please quote a section number.
Do you realize that we have that now? These "death panels" work for the
insurance companies. They decide, for instance, to cancel policies when
people come down with chronic illnesses. There are no appeals procedues
outside the insurance company.
>>This is actually something I know a little bit about first hand
>>because I'm in a volunteer program for local nursing homes, a program
>>sponsored by the county. All volunteers are required to take
>>training, which covers the state law on advanced directives. The law
>>allows anyone who's legally competent to consult with a physician,
>>sign a set of instructions on what's to be done during a medical
>>emergency, and assign someone else to make decisions based on those
>>instructions when and only when the signatory is unable to make these
>>decisions. This someone else is known as the signatory's attorney for
>>health care and is said to hold the signatory's power of attorney for
>>health care. I happen to have created my own Health Care Power of
>>Attorney. No one can force you to do this, of course.
>>
>>And here's the thing. You get to specify exactly what steps you want
>>taken. DNR? Fine. Heroic measures at all costs? Fine. Something
>>inbetween. Fine, too. The nursing home I go to makes this paperwork
>>the top item in each resident's chart. There are no death panels that
>>determine what's in the power: that's up to the individual. There
>>are no death panels that decide whether or how to follow the
>>instructions if the time comes: that's up to the attorney.
>>
>>The grantor of the power can change it at any time to any thing for
>>any reason. You can do this in writing; you can do this orally; you
>>can do this by striking a line through the paperwork. You can even do
>>this if you're not legally competent any more.
>>
>>There are no death panels.
I was going to snip the section above, since you didn't comment on it.
But perhaps you just missed it. Nothing to say?
<snip/>
>>Let's take #18, which seems to say that insurance companies no longer
>>have the freedom to pay their CEOs more than $500K per year. Now I
>>think it passing strange that people like you, who don't and will
>>never make a small fraction of that salary, rush to defend these
>>people's freedom to pick your pocket. But that's as may be.
>
> I realize this will come as a shock to you, but I don't have a
> problem with people making money. I do have a problem with a
> Government employee deciding how much someone in a non-government job
> can be paid, even if initially it is just the Evil Rich. And I
> realize that you seem to be unaware of how the Income tax was sold
> originally as a way of soaking the Rich, yet in a few short decades,
> was now concerning itself with the tips of waitresses. But don't
> worry, the Government will never be telling your employer how much
> money you'll be allowed to make.
No, I'm not shocked. Just amused, as you rush to defend the rich, a
class of people you'll never join and who are picking your pocket.
But you've got your facts wrong. The health insurance law does not
mandate how much someone in a non-government job can make. It merely
limits the deduction for salaries above a certain limit. Now, it's OK to
object to that, but it's not OK to pretend that the government sets
private salaries. Because the former is a position based on reality, and
the latter is not.
If you're worried about the gov "telling ... [my] employer how much
money ... [I'll] be allowed to make," that's fine. Your warning has been
noted. But it does not obtain now or in this law.
>> In fact, section 9014 doesn't cap insurance
>>company CEO salaries. It just eliminates the corporation's deduction
>>for salaries in excess of $500K. The corporation is still free to set
>>its salary scale. But the taxpayers aren't bound to subsidize
>>salaries over the limit.
>
> Of course, Can you explain to me why their should be a cap on
> the deduct ability of employee pay?
Because our representatives decided that the money would be better used
elsewhere. If you think it's better used to subsidize insurance company
CEOs, that fine. Register your disagreement at the polls. But your
claim that the health care law sets private salaries is wrong.
>>Let's go to #20, the 5% tax on elective cosmetic surgery. The law is
>>really a little more flexible than your reporter has told you. Your
>>surgeon may choose to pay the tax for you, a sop to the free market no
>>doubt. But let's say that the good cutters don't have to offer that
>>incentive, and you really wouldn't want a surgeon who offers a
>>tax-holiday special on your nose job. This is a tax on a service.
>>Now it may be good or bad, depending on just how ugly you are, but
>>this ship sailed when they still used sails. Luxury taxes simply
>>aren't an evil that springs new-born from health insurance reform.
>
> Too true. Luxury taxes do, however, tend to drive business
> elsewhere. Witness the brilliant attempt to add a 10% tax on high end
> automobiles, aircraft and boats. If memory serves that brought in a
> negative twenty seven million dollars (once the claims for
> unemployment were counted, and the other lost tax revenues). Several
> boat yards in the Puget sound area went out of business, ending a
> number of 30,000 dollar a year jobs. (And no doubt some lower income
> too.)
The tax may be a bad idea and have the unintended consequences of the
last luxury tax. But such taxes are not new to the healthcare law, and
this one is surely a miniscule part of the package.
> So, yeah, a luxury tax on a specific set of medical procedures is
> a good idea. So, who is going to determine which procedures are
> luxuries, and which are not? And on what basis? Cost? The number of
> Celebrities getting them? The fact that "only the rich" get them?
Based on the fact that such procedures divert medical resources from the
sick. Now, perhaps this provision will have no effect or a bad effect,
but stop pretending that this provision of the law is going to take away
all my freedoms.
>>Let's drop back to #19, the .5% tax on compensation over $250K, filing
>>jointly. In 2007, a joint filer who reported $400,096 AGI passed into
>>the top 1%, territory you can only dream about. Assuming that it was
>>all salary (which is hardly realistic), we're gonna dun him for an
>>extra $800. And you're ready to mount the barricades for these folks
>>for this amount. Folks who for that kind of pocket change, wouldn't
>>pay the maid extra to go to the barricades in their place.
>>
>>OK, #5. If you're an employer and you don't want to offer coverage
>>for dependent children, then don't offer it. If you do offer it, then
>>you do have to keep the slackers on until they're 26.
So have your fears about #5 and #19 been allayed now that you've found
out that the claims were silly?
>>#11: "If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking
>>> over your shoulder? Tough." Well, not so tough. The section quoted
>>modifes the Physician Feedback Program, which collects Medicare data.
>>And all this section does is provide aggregate information to doctors
>>on how other doctors are treating patients. Your rapporteur hints
>>darkly that this means that the gov will intervene in doctors'
>>practices, but there's nothing in the law that allows for this. And
>>this is nothing new that comes with this law.
>
> Hahaha. Okay. Fine, sure, whatever. There is no possible way
> that Doctors are going to be performing their professions with only
> the best possible outcome for the patient in mind. I mean, it isn't
> like they aren't doing that now
I'm sorry, but I don't follow this. Do you think that doctors don't need
the information about treatment? Do you think doctors need the
information but won't heed it? What's your complaint about the PFP?
>>Most of the other complaints fall into two categories:
>>
>>1. The law sets standards for insurance products that I must accept.
>>If I want something less, which should cost less money, I can't have
>>it.
>
> Which apparently bothers you not at all. As long as those evil
> rich bastards aren't getting their way, it doesn't matter to you.
I try not to snip your posts in ways that misrepresent you. I'd
appreciate it if you'd return the favor. Here's part of what you
snipped:
<restore>
In regard to the first point, this lost freedom is entirely theoretical.
In practice now, insurance companies don't offer less for cheaper.
</restore>
In other words, this possibility doesn't bother me at all, not because I
hate "evil rich bastards," (and who doesn't?) but because this
possibility doesn't obtain. In the real world, insurance policies that
cover less and less become more and more expensive.
>>2. The poor insurance companies have to abide by the standards, and
>>thus can't offer lesser policies if they wanted to.
>
> Your assumption is, of course, that the insurance companies can
> stay in business when they have to spend more money than they make,
In fact, my assumption is just the opposite. This is what's happening
now. As health costs rise, insurance premiums rise. As insurance
premiums rise, fewer people can afford them, and the healthy become
tempted to go without. This is especially true in times of high
unemployment, when people lose the group coverage they had at their jobs
and can buy only more expensive individual coverage. The insurance
companies find they're insuring a smaller and smaller group of sicker and
sicker people. This drives their costs up, and they raise premiums.
It's called a death spiral.
> It
> is a common fallacy to the Progressives, particularly this bunch, who
> seemed have no idea how businesses function.
The tradeoff to the insurance companies is access to a captive pool of
new customers. Everybody must have health insurance, so the risk is
spread around, interrupting the death spiral. The insurance companies
wrote some of these provisions for themselves. It's how they got bought
off for not opposing the law. Insurance company stocks are up. Do you
suppose they know something you don't?
This is what you're objecting to:
1. Potential problems. Maybe Dutch law will replace US law. Or maybe
we'll drive cosmetic surgeons out of business.
2. Things that aren't true. E.g., death panels in the law or mandated
caps on CEO salaries.
3. Misunderstandings. Particularly about how the insurance business will
remake itself.
Let's stop for a reality check. How far do you think you've come in
defending your original proposition that the healthcare law will control
my life? Do you think that any of your points are based on incorrect
assertions?
> pyotr filipivich.
> Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
> you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Like the Clean Air Act.
Deadrat
That's all apparently that is necessary for *you* to know. I posted ten
actions that Republicans had taken that I claimed were simply
obstructionist and which made them the Party of No. Did you dispute any
of those?
>
> Remember how this all got started? The claim is repeatedly made
> by those enthralled to the Obama, that the Republicans are the party
> of No. The analogy was then made that if you had children, and they
> came asking for booze and the keys to the car, if you were to deny
> them, then you would be a Parent of No. But then you got confused
> by the illustration, and wanted to know what were the drugs, and what
> was the car suppose to represent, and what color was it, and then
> objected that children don't get a "vote" in the running of a family
> (how old fashioned and unprogressive can one be?), completely missing
> the point that what the Republicans were objecting to was the very
> concept of "supplying teenagers with alcohol and car keys" in the
> first place.
Apparently, "supplying teenagers with alcohol and car keys" is supposed
to be passing the health care bill. Although this analogy doesn't make
sense, and you have failed to defend it, I actually stipulated that
opposing the law does not -- get that? does *not* -- make the
Republicans the Party of No. I have listed ten actions unconnected with
voting against the bill that do. How about commenting on those?
> And now you want the fifteen bills the GOP proposed, but that the
> Democrat Party Majority ignored, with the support of the Democrat
> press agents in at CNN, NYT, etalia
It's two words, "et" and "alia." Usually abbreviated "et al." And yes,
I do. It was GA's claim. I called bullshit. Now if the Republicans had
15 proposals, then it should be easy to find them. What were they?
> Too bad for you but the media
> is only now deigning to inform you what was known about this bill:
This isn't about the bill (actually, it's now the law. Sucks to be you,
doesn't it?). It's about 15 Republican proposals. What were they? If
the media won't report them, then the Republicans should be able to.
> that it will ration medical care,
Please explain how it will do this? Note that we have rationing by
insurance companies now.
> it will raise the costs,
The CBO disagrees. Please explain how it will raise costs higher than
what we see now.
> it will increase the deficit,
The CBO disagrees. Please explain how it will do this. Use actual
numbers.
> and will require higher taxes to pay for it.
Please explain how this burden will fall. The law contains numerous tax
credits and deductions.
> The financing for this is unsustainable.
Please explain why this is. Note that the current financing for health
care is also unsustainable.
> And that diversion of revenues
> to pay for government medical services will also increase
> unemployment,
The law does not pay for government medical services. Medicare,
Medicaid, and Veterans and military health benefits are government
medical services. But not those to be provided under this law. Those
will continue to be private.
> decrease innovation,
Like in stem cell research? Please explain how this will happen.
> and, at best, lead us into an era of stagnation, if not outright
> collapse.
> But hey, at least you can feel warm and fuzzy knowing that you're
> entitled to someone else's labor when it comes to medical care.
How do you figure that? I pay for my own health insurance, and I will
continue to do so.
Everything you say (except the part about government medical services)
may come to pass. If the economy doesn't ever recover, then it will
surely come to pass. Is that what you believe?
Nobody actually knows the complete effects of a change this big. But
other countries go even farther than we have, and none of your fears came
true for them. And many of your fears for the future are actually
happening now under the current system.
Can you back up any of your opinions with facts? All of these things are
just guesses, probably based on what somebody told you.
And none of them is relevant to the request for the 15 Republican
proposals.
> -
> pyotr filipivich.
> Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
> you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Like Rural Electrification.
pyotr filipivich
misc.survivalism:
>
>> But hey, at least you can feel warm and fuzzy knowing that you're
>> entitled to someone else's labor when it comes to medical care.
>
>How do you figure that? I pay for my own health insurance, and I will
>continue to do so.
Until your insurance company closes up,because it can't afford the
benefits this universal health care program mandates. But hey don't
worry, it's only going to happen to other people.
>
>Everything you say (except the part about government medical services)
>may come to pass. If the economy doesn't ever recover, then it will
>surely come to pass. Is that what you believe?
History does tend to make me think that such is out come. But
you're the one who seems to know that the bill was all Butterflies and
unicorns.
>
>Nobody actually knows the complete effects of a change this big. But
>other countries go even farther than we have, and none of your fears came
>true for them. And many of your fears for the future are actually
>happening now under the current system.
ROLFMAO, Oh, you are quite the follower of the New York Times,
which doesn't want you to pay any attention to the fake stories coming
out of Canada and Britain, alleging that horrible things are occurring
in the Hospitals there.
>
>Can you back up any of your opinions with facts? All of these things are
>just guesses, probably based on what somebody told you.
>
>And none of them is relevant to the request for the 15 Republican
>proposals.
Which are not relevant to the calumniating by the Democrat Press
that the GOP is the party of No.
So, you still opposed to the Complete Auto Coverage proposal I
made earlier, or do you want children to die because of bald tires?
>> pyotr filipivich.
>> Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
>> you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
>
>Like Rural Electrification.
Is that still going on? Has the war on poverty been won, or lost.
Say, how's the Post Office doing, now that it's cutting back to
weekday only delivery.
Concerend Citizen
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote
> >> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> >>> This time around not a single member of the Party of No voted aye.
>
>
> >I assuming you're talking about the phrase "The Party of No." And here's
> >what you snipped:
>
> ><quote>
> >*And that's OK;*
> >that's not why they're the party of No. They got that reputation for
> >refusing to come up with viable alternatives, for refusing to negotiate
> >in good faith to modify the bill, for lying about the contents of the
> >part of throwing a tantrum because they lost.
>
> Your assumption was correct as to what I was commenting on - that the
> "party of no" is a cheap rhetorical phrase used by both parties.
>
> "they got that reputation ..." as referring to Reagan's democrats.
>
> My point, which you wish to ignore, is that this is mindless rhetoric
> used by whatever party is "in" at the moment to discredit whichever
> party is "out" at the moment.
>
> >I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, rightard.
>
> Why do you assume any attack on 0bama's policies must come from the
> far right?
>
> You are flat out wrong. Read the body of my recent posts; then go
> read what I posted when Bush was in office. Then the BushBots were
> calling me names and saying I was a leftist out to destroy the
> country.
You were making outrageous claims.
> They made the same mistake you do - assuming any criticism
> must come from the far fringe of what partisan loyalists consider "the
> enemy".
>
> A great many people - liberal, moderate, and conservative - are
> disturbed at the childish games of both parties. But you simply
> choose to view your politics as "us" vs "them" as a substitute for
> football teams.
>
> Read my body of posts and it's clear I take a very dim view of the
> shenanigans of BOTH parties.
>
> The rest of your continuing insistence of seeing everything as "us" vs
> "them" snipped.
>
> __
> WS in a.s and m.s
> Two parties, not a dimes worth of difference.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Concerend Citizen
> Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote innews:ddhoq51304v90gdkf...@4ax.com:
> > Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >>Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote
> >>> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> This time around not a single member of the Party of No voted aye.
>
> >>> That's an interesting phrase.
>
> >>I assuming you're talking about the phrase "The Party of No." And
> >>here's what you snipped:
>
> >><quote>
> >>*And that's OK;*
> >>that's not why they're the party of No. They got that reputation for
> >>refusing to come up with viable alternatives, for refusing to
> >>negotiate in good faith to modify the bill, for lying about the
> >>contents of the bill, and for engaging in useless, dilatory
> >>parliamentary procedures as part of throwing a tantrum because they
> >>lost. </quote>
>
> > Your assumption was correct as to what I was commenting on - that the
> > "party of no" is a cheap rhetorical phrase used by both parties.
>
Now that's Leadership!
Deadrat
> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Deadrat
> <a...@b.com> reported Elvis on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:24:19 -0500 in
> misc.survivalism:
>>
>>> But hey, at least you can feel warm and fuzzy knowing that
>>> you're
>>> entitled to someone else's labor when it comes to medical care.
>>
>>How do you figure that? I pay for my own health insurance, and I will
>>continue to do so.
>
> Until your insurance company closes up,because it can't afford
> the benefits this universal health care program mandates. But hey
don't worry, it's only going to happen to other people.
So right now and in the foreseeable future, you'll admit that I'm not
taking anyone else's labor, right?
You keep saying that the my insurance company will have to fold. Please
explain why that will happen with the individual mandate. Financial
figures would help.
>>Everything you say (except the part about government medical services)
>>may come to pass. If the economy doesn't ever recover, then it will
>>surely come to pass. Is that what you believe?
>
> History does tend to make me think that such is out come.
Which is history is that? Please be sure to tell me why that history is
applicable. I can be convinced, but it will take evidence.
> But you're the one who seems to know that the bill was all Butterflies
> and unicorns.
This is a position that you've attributed to me. In fact, I think a
single-payer system would make more sense. There are no guarantees in
life, and that includes the success of the current law. You're the one
who's all Gloom and Doom. Please tell me what evidence you have to
support that position. I can't seem to get you to tell me.
>>Nobody actually knows the complete effects of a change this big. But
>>other countries go even farther than we have, and none of your fears
>>came true for them. And many of your fears for the future are
>>actually happening now under the current system.
>
> ROLFMAO, Oh, you are quite the follower of the New York Times,
> which doesn't want you to pay any attention to the fake stories coming
> out of Canada and Britain, alleging that horrible things are occurring
> in the Hospitals there.
What horrible things are happening in Canada and Britain? I can't
respond to to generalities. Be specific.
>>Can you back up any of your opinions with facts? All of these things
>>are just guesses, probably based on what somebody told you.
>>
>>And none of them is relevant to the request for the 15 Republican
>>proposals.
>
> Which are not relevant to the calumniating by the Democrat Press
> that the GOP is the party of No.
Now it's the "Democrat Press," a paper I'm not familiar with. Before it
was just me. If the Republicans actually had one proposal, let alone 15,
then they couldn't be called the Party of No. So let's hear some of
these proposals. How about a cite?
Do you really not understand that the Republicans are called the Party of
No in part because their position on health insurance reform was nothing
more than voting against the bill that became law?
> So, you still opposed to the Complete Auto Coverage proposal I
> made earlier, or do you want children to die because of bald tires?
I had the courtesy to seriously examine the CAC proposal when you called
it Universal Auto Coverage. I'm not going to repeat myself. Feel free
to comment on that examination.
>>> pyotr filipivich.
>>> Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
>>> you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
>>
>>Like Rural Electrification.
>
> Is that still going on?
You bet. The REA was reorganized into the Rural Utilities Service in
1994.
> Has the war on poverty been won, or lost.
In 1959, the poverty rate was 22.4%; in 2006, 12.3%. This according to
the census bureau.
>
> Say, how's the Post Office doing, now that it's cutting back to
> weekday only delivery.
Who told you that?
>-
> pyotr filipivich.
> Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
> you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Like the eradication of Yellow Fever.
Day Brown
> Of course this country is in a decline. Europe rebuilt, Asia is
> catching up with the West...What did want?
Only fools are not worried. But the dollar has risen against the Euro
because the global market thinks the EU economy is being mishandled even
worse. They have social safety nets that are even less sustainable than
in the US, even considering the recent health bill.
And as for the Asians, if their customers in the White cultures go
broke, so will they. They are sitting on trillions in dollar denominated
securities that'd be worthless, and destroy their own economies.
Both Liberals and Conservatives seem to think that only if the policy
they support is enacted, will things straighten out, when in fact, it is
the opinion of the global market, which holds so much US debt, and
compares that risk to the risk of other systems, that determines what
good policy will be. Its not upta us.
There are steps that could be taken but the power elites lack the
imagination to see them. Neither the Left nor the Right really gets what
has been going on, and that fact is a major risk.
Michael Coburn
> Lisa Lisa wrote:
>> Of course this country is in a decline. Europe rebuilt, Asia is
>> catching up with the West...What did want?
> Only fools are not worried. But the dollar has risen against the Euro
> because the global market thinks the EU economy is being mishandled even
> worse. They have social safety nets that are even less sustainable than
> in the US, even considering the recent health bill.
You really should steer clear of areas where you have no knowledge. The
problem is Greece and maybe Spain. And as to the nets, the Europeans
will not see a problem.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Naughtius
> pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote innews:djsvq597vgf7sirv1...@4ax.com:
>
> > I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Deadrat
> > <a...@b.com> reported Elvis on Sun, 28 Mar 2010 03:27:56 -0500 in
> > misc.survivalism:
>
> >>- Pretending that the health insurance reform bill contains death panels
> >>that decide who lives or dies.
>
> >>Is this clear yet?
>
> > ROFLMAO- of course it's clear. You have no idea what the history
> > of Government programs have been.
> > I take it then, you have no idea what the Groningen protocols are
> > all about? Or how they developed from simple ethical guidelines to
> > mandatory requirements - and the patients and family have no say about
> > it?
>
> In spite of Naughtius' confidence in me, I had not heard of the Groningen
> protocols, so I looked them up.
[eep]
!!!D'OHHH!!!
Naughtius "The Check's In The Mail... TRUST Me" Maximus
Strabo
> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in news:g4Prn.36540$9b5.27155
> @newsfe01.iad:
>
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>> news:shftq5903b9drgfu9...@4ax.com:
>>>
>> <snipped>
>>> That's the price of democracy. Sometimes I don't like it. They held a
>>> vote and the WPE got to throw away hundreds of billions of dollars in
>>> Iraq. I pay taxes for that too. Some people paid with their lives.
>>>
>>> I'd rather help pay for insuring 35 million uninsured people.
>>>
>>> YMMV.
>>>
>> The best is yet to come - a constitutional convention convened
>> by the states to revoke the constitution and return the union
>> of states to the Articles of Confederation.
>>
>> Whatever mischief manipulators of men what to wreak will
>> half to be done elsewhere.
>
> No half measures for you, eh?
>
Nope.
>
>> I recommend that you move to Cuba or France with your desperate
>> need for government to "help" people.
>
> Don't look now, Sparky, but the government has been helping people for
> decades -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the GI Bill, the civil
> rights acts, the student loan program, and so on. I recommend that you
> move to Saudi Arabia with your desperate need to disparage representational
> democracy. You'll be right at home.
>
The US is now and has been since its inception, a Constitutional
Republic. The word 'democracy' is not to be found in the Declaration
or the Constitution whereas each state in the Union is guaranteed a
republican government. A formal Democracy is an institution of failure.
>
> Sounds like a win-win to me.
>
Since 1913 agents within the central government of the US have created
calamitous circumstances after each action these agents rushed forth
with their crafted solutions to resolve their mischief. Generations of
this accumulated manipulation has resulted in social dependency on a
maternalistic government.
It's from this fraudulent podium that you now demand compromise.
Nevertheless, it is not the job of American government to interfere with
the ethos of the society which created it.
American society is capable of providing safety nets by consensus
but it does so with conditions and standards determined to minimize
the need for such charity and support.
You either don't understand this premise or you prefer to ignore
it and continue perverting government to impose your socialistic
pretensions.
History is clear, whether or not the iron hand of authoritarianism is
concealed in velvet, the results are the same.
There is no win-win to be had from prevaricators and deceivers, only
liberty or death.
Deadrat
news:z7Psn.196663$Dv7.1...@newsfe17.iad:
> Deadrat wrote:
>> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in news:g4Prn.36540$9b5.27155
>> @newsfe01.iad:
>>
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>> pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>>> news:shftq5903b9drgfu9...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>> <snipped>
>>>> That's the price of democracy. Sometimes I don't like it. They
>>>> held a vote and the WPE got to throw away hundreds of billions of
>>>> dollars in Iraq. I pay taxes for that too. Some people paid with
>>>> their lives.
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather help pay for insuring 35 million uninsured people.
>>>>
>>>> YMMV.
>>>>
>>> The best is yet to come - a constitutional convention convened
>>> by the states to revoke the constitution and return the union
>>> of states to the Articles of Confederation.
>>>
>>> Whatever mischief manipulators of men what to wreak will
>>> half to be done elsewhere.
>>
>> No half measures for you, eh?
>>
>
> Nope.
It's not as much fun for me if I half to explain the jokes.
>>> I recommend that you move to Cuba or France with your desperate
>>> need for government to "help" people.
>>
>> Don't look now, Sparky, but the government has been helping people
>> for decades -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the GI Bill, the
>> civil rights acts, the student loan program, and so on. I recommend
>> that you move to Saudi Arabia with your desperate need to disparage
>> representational democracy. You'll be right at home.
>>
>
> The US is now and has been since its inception, a Constitutional
> Republic.
And is now and has been since its inception, a representative democracy.
> The word 'democracy' is not to be found in the Declaration
> or the Constitution whereas each state in the Union is guaranteed a
> republican government. A formal Democracy is an institution of
> failure.
By "republican," the founders meant a representative democracy.
>> Sounds like a win-win to me.
> >
>
<snipped: paranoia/>
> It's from this fraudulent podium that you now demand compromise.
There is no "fraudulent podium," and I'm not demanding anything.
> Nevertheless, it is not the job of American government to interfere
> with the ethos of the society which created it.
It's the job of the American government to propose, pass, and execute
laws within the constraints of the Constitution. If you don't like it,
please find another ethos to pollute with your nonsense.
> American society is capable of providing safety nets by consensus
> but it does so with conditions and standards determined to minimize
> the need for such charity and support.
There is no evidence that American society unbidden by law has been able
to do this in its history.
>
> You either don't understand this premise or you prefer to ignore
> it and continue perverting government to impose your socialistic
> pretensions.
If it's too "socialistic" here for you, then may I suggest leaving for
Saudi Arabia immediately?
>
> History is clear, whether or not the iron hand of authoritarianism is
> concealed in velvet, the results are the same.
>
> There is no win-win to be had from prevaricators and deceivers, only
> liberty or death.
Anybody can play Patrick Henry in cyberspace.
But what I meant was that when you and your ilk leave for Saudi Arabia
(or some similarly repressive society), you'll be happier since you're no
longer in a "socialist" state. That's one win. And we'll be happier
because you're gone. That's the second.
Naughtius
> Deadrat wrote:
> > Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in news:g4Prn.36540$9b5.27155
> > @newsfe01.iad:
>
> >> Deadrat wrote:
> >>> pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> >>>news:shftq5903b9drgfu9...@4ax.com:
>
> >> <snipped>
[Snipski]
>
> Since 1913 agents within the central government of the US have created
> calamitous circumstances after each action these agents rushed forth
> with their crafted solutions to resolve their mischief. Generations of
> this accumulated manipulation has resulted in social dependency on a
> maternalistic government.
UhOhhhh... Those Pesky *agents* are Back Under The Beds of Good
Amerikanski... uh... Americans...
Dah... Good Americans... Beds... Creatski Calamitous
Circumstansk... Circumstance... Dah...
[Againski Snipski]
> History is clear, whether or not the iron hand of authoritarianism is
> concealed in velvet, the results are the same.
>
> There is no win-win to be had from prevaricators and deceivers, only
> liberty or death
hahahahaaaaahaaa...
- DEATH - It Is...
Naughtius "But FIRST... A *Little Zambeezi*..." Maximus
Day Brown
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:49:22 -0500, Day Brown wrote:
>
>> Lisa Lisa wrote:
>>> Of course this country is in a decline. Europe rebuilt, Asia is
>>> catching up with the West...What did want?
>> Only fools are not worried. But the dollar has risen against the Euro
>> because the global market thinks the EU economy is being mishandled even
>> worse. They have social safety nets that are even less sustainable than
>> in the US, even considering the recent health bill.
>
> You really should steer clear of areas where you have no knowledge. The
> problem is Greece and maybe Spain. And as to the nets, the Europeans
> will not see a problem.
>
caused largely by entitlements. Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, Portugal, Italy,
and Dubai; also known collectively by the acronym, "STUPID"
Concerend Citizen
> American cites within a few months.
>
> You were calling yourself "Hot Ham & Cheese" and "Almost Cut My Hair"
> at the time and YOU were the one pitching the Bush terror and fear
> campaign.
Wrong again Winston. I've explained my position on Saddam and Iraq
again and again and again.
But you don't listen and you fall back to your DNC tallking points.
One more time.
Saddam continually renegged on his surrender agreements under the UN.
He fired on USA and Allied forces defending the "No Fly Zone" and his
continued attacks on the Iraqi people. For that he had to go. Hell,
Clinton allowed it to go on forever.
I could give a shit that Saddam did or didn't have WMDs, even though
his own people were putting out info that they were working on WMDs.
Does any of this sound familiar to you?
I tell Tool and Cliffie that it doesn't take very much sand to bury a
pinhead. Should I include you in that category?
pyotr filipivich
Why not?
Are you trying to tell me that some how the US is Special, and the
difficult conundrum of affording free healthcare for everybody,
_won't_ lead Hospitals in the US form implementing similar protocols?
Are you of the opinion that in America, those deemed to have no
prospect for a meaningful life will not be starved to death?
>Whether progressives claim that we need to look to foreign laws for
>inspiration or not -- and I'm guessing you can't name a single person who
>claims that -- Dutch law simply has no force here. We do need to have a
>healthcare system that looks more like Europe, Switzerland, for instance.
>Europeans pay half what we do for healthcare and get better results in
>many areas. But no matter progressives' opinions about European
>healthcare, there simply are no death panels.
Right. In Europe, you get better care when you're younger, but
when you get older, well, you have to expect certain diminished
expectations.
>
>> And I'll point out, that which started out as a guideline has
>> become a requirement.
>
>I'm not an expert in Dutch law, but Wikipedia contradicts you.
>
>>>And what's the first thing the guidelines demand? Family consent.
>>
>> Hahhhahahah - okay, I suppose you know better than the bio
>> ethicist at Rice University.
>
>I don't know whether I do or not. I'm not an expert on Dutch law and can
>only go on what I read about it. Wikipedia contradicts your account.
>Now Wikipedia isn't a first-hand source, and if your ethicist has better
>information, then tell us. Who is this ethicist and what does he have to
>say and what are his sources? If he can point to a section of the HR
>3590 that mandates death panels, then I'll go read it.
LOL. You still believe that if there is no section which read "On
the Establishment of Death Panels" then there aren't any death panels.
Don't worry, then, there will never be a "[Insert Locality here] Care
Pathway" modeled on the Liverpool Care Pathway. Nope, they're not
going to sentence you to death. They're just going to make you
'comfortable' during your 'transition'.
>
><snipped: I guess we're done with Margaret Sanger/>
>
>>>You're reduced here to finding that no mention of Death Panels is
>>>evidence of their existence.
>>
>> No, I'm pointing out that there are going to be decisions made by
>> no medically qualified personal which are going to result in [people
>> dieing for lack of treatment. They are going to be "death panels"
>> even if you call it "The Puppies and Kittens Wellness Office for
>> Making You Better."
>
>I'm sorry, but where did you point that out? You pointed out that Dutch
>law permits euthanasia.
>
>But if you've changed your claim, then let's examine the evidence. Where
>does the law specify that medically unqualified personnel (note the
>spelling) will make medical decisions? Please quote a section number.
>Do you realize that we have that now? These "death panels" work for the
>insurance companies. They decide, for instance, to cancel policies when
>people come down with chronic illnesses. There are no appeals procedues
>outside the insurance company.
And yet, you seem to feel that by making these cost/benefit
analysis committees government funded and manned, somehow they will
not decide to minimize the expenses of the Government program, by
limiting treatment to, in the words of the president "a couple pain
pills."?
So, of course, you thus have no difficulty with the concept of the
government deciding how much people should be paid?
You apparently like the idea of letting a committee somewhere
decide which procedures are for your health, and which are merely
"cosmetic".
The small problem is that this bill does nothing about Tort
Reform. That already is padding the medical cost, as doctors practice
Defensive Medicine. They knew when you arrived that you have a simple
situation. But they have to run all the blood test, scans, and
diagnostic test, because if they don't, they can be sued for failing
to rule out other possibilities. Never mind that the saying amongst
doctors is (or was when I spent more time with them) "When you hear
hoof beats, thing horses, not zebras."
It is also a known fact that part of what raises the cost of
making medical parts is the documentation. Like airplane parts, it is
necessary to be able to track a part back from a patient/aircraft
through the manufacturing process, to each operator along the
manufacturing process, all the way back to the original heat of metal
from which it was made. "If the spindle ain't turning, you're not
earning" - meaning that all that paperwork is overhead, and has to be
paid for somehow. Computerizing it doesn't change that detail.
And the same applies to a Physician Feedback Program. More time
taken from patient care to document that you are providing patient
care. Now, the next question is - what will happen with all that
information - patient names, conditions, treatments?
>
>>>Most of the other complaints fall into two categories:
>>>
>>>1. The law sets standards for insurance products that I must accept.
>>>If I want something less, which should cost less money, I can't have
>>>it.
>>
>> Which apparently bothers you not at all. As long as those evil
>> rich bastards aren't getting their way, it doesn't matter to you.
>
>I try not to snip your posts in ways that misrepresent you. I'd
>appreciate it if you'd return the favor. Here's part of what you
>snipped:
>
><restore>
>In regard to the first point, this lost freedom is entirely theoretical.
>In practice now, insurance companies don't offer less for cheaper.
></restore>
>
>In other words, this possibility doesn't bother me at all, not because I
>hate "evil rich bastards," (and who doesn't?) but because this
>possibility doesn't obtain. In the real world, insurance policies that
>cover less and less become more and more expensive.
Could you explain why it cost more to get less coverage? Is this
like how the ore expensive the dress, the small it seems to be?
>
>>>2. The poor insurance companies have to abide by the standards, and
>>>thus can't offer lesser policies if they wanted to.
>>
>> Your assumption is, of course, that the insurance companies can
>> stay in business when they have to spend more money than they make,
>
>In fact, my assumption is just the opposite. This is what's happening
>now. As health costs rise, insurance premiums rise. As insurance
>premiums rise, fewer people can afford them, and the healthy become
>tempted to go without. This is especially true in times of high
>unemployment, when people lose the group coverage they had at their jobs
>and can buy only more expensive individual coverage. The insurance
>companies find they're insuring a smaller and smaller group of sicker and
>sicker people. This drives their costs up, and they raise premiums.
>It's called a death spiral.
And so the solution to this is to restrict the insurance companies
from raising their premiums (which this bill does) as well as
continuing to protect them from competition from out of state
companies?
Why is it, that there are on the close order of 1300 insurance
companies in the country, but only two are permitted to sell insurance
in this state?
>
>> It
>> is a common fallacy to the Progressives, particularly this bunch, who
>> seemed have no idea how businesses function.
>
>The tradeoff to the insurance companies is access to a captive pool of
>new customers. Everybody must have health insurance, so the risk is
>spread around, interrupting the death spiral. The insurance companies
>wrote some of these provisions for themselves. It's how they got bought
>off for not opposing the law. Insurance company stocks are up. Do you
>suppose they know something you don't?
>
>This is what you're objecting to:
>
>1. Potential problems. Maybe Dutch law will replace US law. Or maybe
>we'll drive cosmetic surgeons out of business.
I'm not saying Dutch Law will replace US law. I'm saying this US
Law is following the path that the law and practices of Dutch, German,
British and other progressive countries have followed. This US law
will mirror Dutch Law. Because, despite the belief of the majority of
Democrats in Congress, you can't lower costs by increasing the amount
of money the Government spends.
>
>2. Things that aren't true. E.g., death panels in the law or mandated
>caps on CEO salaries.
Of course there aren't any "death panels". I doubt even the most
out to lunch progressive would call them that. But if the local
Lifeway Care board decides to establish a protocol for certain
conditions which reduces treatment to "a couple pain pills" - it is a
death panel. It is decided that some lives aren't worth living, and
those people should be allowed to die.
>
>3. Misunderstandings. Particularly about how the insurance business will
>remake itself.
>
>Let's stop for a reality check. How far do you think you've come in
>defending your original proposition that the healthcare law will control
>my life? Do you think that any of your points are based on incorrect
>assertions?
LOL. I remember being asked in a group discussion "How many of
you hold incorrect understandings?" and saying "Not that I know of."
Which kind of blew the speakers point away. So, my assertions are,
of course, correct. My presuppositions are, naturally, different than
your. I don't see an ever increasing expansion of government power as
a good thing.
The fact remains, the history of Universal Health Care has been a
decline in medical coverage, particularly for those who are at the
margins of life: The old, the chronically ill, the very young, the un
influential, and those who lack the clout to get better treatment.
>
>> pyotr filipivich.
>> Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
>> you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
>
>Like the Clean Air Act.
Yes, how has that worked? You are aware that the air pollution
was on the declined when that law was passed?
-
Deadrat
Because this is a matter of objective fact: Dutch law has no force in
the United States.
>
> Are you trying to tell me that some how the US is Special,
I'm telling you that Dutch law has no force in the United States, and the
United States has no law that mandates death panels.
> and the difficult conundrum
All conundrums are difficult.
> of affording free healthcare for everybody,
The current law does not provide free healthcare for everybody.
> _won't_ lead Hospitals in the US form implementing similar protocols?
> Are you of the opinion that in America, those deemed to have no
> prospect for a meaningful life will not be starved to death?
That's my opinion. It's based on watching the legal protections
afforded to Terry Schiavo and Karen Ann Quinlan when it came time to
pronounce them dead. It's based on training I've taken in a volunteer
program for nursing homes. It's based on first-hand experience during
the deaths of relatives. It's based on the way Oregon handles legal
assisted suicide.
Your opinion differs. On what do you base your opinion? The threat that
Dutch law will spread here like Dutch Elm disease?
Anything can happen. Few of those things actually obtain. In any case,
why are you not worried about those who right now have no prospect for a
meaningful life because they have no access to meaningful healthcare?
>>Whether progressives claim that we need to look to foreign laws for
>>inspiration or not -- and I'm guessing you can't name a single person
>>who claims that -- Dutch law simply has no force here. We do need to
>>have a healthcare system that looks more like Europe, Switzerland, for
>>instance. Europeans pay half what we do for healthcare and get better
>>results in many areas. But no matter progressives' opinions about
>>European healthcare, there simply are no death panels.
>
> Right. In Europe, you get better care when you're younger, but
> when you get older, well, you have to expect certain diminished
> expectations.
That's a bold statement. Could you back it up with some evidence? Do
you suppose that under our current system people with pre-existing
conditions and no insurance have to "expect certain diminished
expectations"?
>>> And I'll point out, that which started out as a guideline has
>>> become a requirement.
>>
>>I'm not an expert in Dutch law, but Wikipedia contradicts you.
>>
>>>>And what's the first thing the guidelines demand? Family consent.
>>>
>>> Hahhhahahah - okay, I suppose you know better than the bio
>>> ethicist at Rice University.
>>
>>I don't know whether I do or not. I'm not an expert on Dutch law and
>>can only go on what I read about it. Wikipedia contradicts your
>>account. Now Wikipedia isn't a first-hand source, and if your
>>ethicist has better information, then tell us. Who is this ethicist
>>and what does he have to say and what are his sources? If he can
>>point to a section of the HR 3590 that mandates death panels, then
>>I'll go read it.
I'll repeat the questions you failed to answer: Who is the bioethicist
at Rich University? What does he have to say? What are his sources?
>
> LOL. You still believe that if there is no section which read
> "On the Establishment of Death Panels" then there aren't any
> death panels.
No, I believe there is no section which operates to set up death panels,
no matter what they're called. Can you point me to a section number of
the bill which will contradict that belief?
> Don't worry, then, there will never be a "[Insert Locality here] Care
> Pathway" modeled on the Liverpool Care Pathway. Nope, they're not
> going to sentence you to death. They're just going to make you
> 'comfortable' during your 'transition'.
Are you objecting to LCP? It's a medical protocol for people who two to
three days from death. If there's something in the law that sets up
procedures similar to LCP but for non-terminal patients, please point me
to it. Otherwise this is just some inchoate fear.
What section of the bill sets up death panels by that name or any other?
>><snipped: I guess we're done with Margaret Sanger/>
>>
>>>>You're reduced here to finding that no mention of Death Panels is
>>>>evidence of their existence.
>>>
>>> No, I'm pointing out that there are going to be decisions made
>>> by
>>> no medically qualified personal which are going to result in [people
>>> dieing for lack of treatment. They are going to be "death panels"
>>> even if you call it "The Puppies and Kittens Wellness Office for
>>> Making You Better."
>>
>>I'm sorry, but where did you point that out? You pointed out that
>>Dutch law permits euthanasia.
>>
>>But if you've changed your claim, then let's examine the evidence.
>>Where does the law specify that medically unqualified personnel (note
>>the spelling) will make medical decisions? Please quote a section
>>number. Do you realize that we have that now? These "death panels"
>>work for the insurance companies. They decide, for instance, to
>>cancel policies when people come down with chronic illnesses. There
>>are no appeals procedues outside the insurance company.
>
> And yet, you seem to feel that by making these cost/benefit
> analysis committees government funded and manned, somehow they will
> not decide to minimize the expenses of the Government program, by
> limiting treatment to, in the words of the president "a couple pain
> pills."?
What committees are you talking about? The government in some sense
funds the system because it levies taxes and provides credits and
rebates. But all the insurance is private except for the public health
care we already have. Perhaps it would be instructive to look at those
examples -- Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans Healthcare. Can you point
out panels of government bureaucrats who do away with the elderly, the
poor, and veterans?
<snip/>
>>But you've got your facts wrong. The health insurance law does not
>>mandate how much someone in a non-government job can make. It merely
>>limits the deduction for salaries above a certain limit. Now, it's OK
>>to object to that, but it's not OK to pretend that the government sets
>>private salaries. Because the former is a position based on reality,
>>and the latter is not.
>>
>>If you're worried about the gov "telling ... [my] employer how much
>>money ... [I'll] be allowed to make," that's fine. Your warning has
>>been noted. But it does not obtain now or in this law.
>>
>>>> In fact, section 9014 doesn't cap insurance
>>>>company CEO salaries. It just eliminates the corporation's
>>>>deduction for salaries in excess of $500K. The corporation is still
>>>>free to set its salary scale. But the taxpayers aren't bound to
>>>>subsidize salaries over the limit.
>>>
>>> Of course, Can you explain to me why their should be a cap on
>>> the deduct ability of employee pay?
>>
>>Because our representatives decided that the money would be better
>>used elsewhere. If you think it's better used to subsidize insurance
>>company CEOs, that fine. Register your disagreement at the polls.
>>But your claim that the health care law sets private salaries is
>>wrong.
>
> So, of course, you thus have no difficulty with the concept of
> the government deciding how much people should be paid?
Whether I have difficulties with this concept or not is beside the point.
You simply have got your facts wrong because you believed a blog written
by someone who got his facts wrong. There is no legal cap on CEO
salaries. Period.
<snip/>
>>
>>Based on the fact that such procedures divert medical resources from
>>the sick. Now, perhaps this provision will have no effect or a bad
>>effect, but stop pretending that this provision of the law is going to
>>take away all my freedoms.
>
> You apparently like the idea of letting a committee somewhere
> decide which procedures are for your health, and which are merely
> "cosmetic".
Do you believe that this a difficult determination? And, in any case,
that's exactly the way things are now. A committee at the insurance
company decides whether or not the rhinoplasty is cosmetic. The only
difference between the new system and the current system is that under
the current system any appeals are handled by the insurance company.
Before we get to tort reform, I'll note that you didn't bother to answer
my questions about the PFP. Does that mean you no longer believe that
the PFP mandates government interference in doctors' practices? Or does
that mean that you don't have any evidence to back up your claims but
won't say as much?
> That already is padding the medical cost, as doctors practice
> Defensive Medicine. They knew when you arrived that you have a simple
> situation. But they have to run all the blood test, scans, and
> diagnostic test, because if they don't, they can be sued for failing
> to rule out other possibilities. Never mind that the saying amongst
> doctors is (or was when I spent more time with them) "When you hear
> hoof beats, thing horses, not zebras."
> It is also a known fact that part of what raises the cost of
> making medical parts is the documentation. Like airplane parts, it is
> necessary to be able to track a part back from a patient/aircraft
> through the manufacturing process, to each operator along the
> manufacturing process, all the way back to the original heat of metal
> from which it was made. "If the spindle ain't turning, you're not
> earning" - meaning that all that paperwork is overhead, and has to be
> paid for somehow. Computerizing it doesn't change that detail.
> And the same applies to a Physician Feedback Program. More time
> taken from patient care to document that you are providing patient
> care.
It's possible that capping awards for pain and suffering (which is what
you've called tort reform) may make some difference. I doubt you can
back that up with evidence. This is just another received opinion.
Kentucky found a large drop in malpractice claims when they passed a law
making a doctor's apology inadmissible as evidence of an admission of
responsibility. Go figure.
Yes, time spent documenting care is overhead. But it's Medicare overhead
that we incur now. The current law doesn't expand the collecting of the
information, just the dissemination. But we need to know the best
protocols so that we can control costs, don't we? Are you really
objecting to that?
> Now, the next question is - what will happen with all that
> information - patient names, conditions, treatments?
The same thing that happens now under HIPAA.
>>>>Most of the other complaints fall into two categories:
>>>>
>>>>1. The law sets standards for insurance products that I must accept.
>>>>If I want something less, which should cost less money, I can't have
>>>>it.
>>>
>>> Which apparently bothers you not at all. As long as those
>>> evil
>>> rich bastards aren't getting their way, it doesn't matter to you.
>>
>>I try not to snip your posts in ways that misrepresent you. I'd
>>appreciate it if you'd return the favor. Here's part of what you
>>snipped:
>>
>><restore>
>>In regard to the first point, this lost freedom is entirely
>>theoretical. In practice now, insurance companies don't offer less
>>for cheaper. </restore>
>>
>>In other words, this possibility doesn't bother me at all, not because
>>I hate "evil rich bastards," (and who doesn't?) but because this
>>possibility doesn't obtain. In the real world, insurance policies
>>that cover less and less become more and more expensive.
>
> Could you explain why it cost more to get less coverage? Is this
> like how the ore expensive the dress, the small it seems to be?
It currently costs more and more to get less and less coverage because
the current depression has thrown a lot of people out of work, thus
depriving these folks of group policies. Individual policies are more
expensive. As more and more people cannot afford health insurance, more
and more healthy people gamble by going without. This leaves the insured
pool sicker, which means that claims are higher, which means that
insurance companies must raise rates to cover their higher costs. Which
in turn means that more people skip insurance, and so on.
I understand your complaint: under the new system, if lower-coverage
policies were offered, then it stands to reason that those would be
cheaper. And such policies are not allowed. But you don't get to bemoan
the loss of such theoretical restrictions. Your actual choice is between
the policies of the death spiral we've got now or the policies mandated
by the new law.
>>>>2. The poor insurance companies have to abide by the standards, and
>>>>thus can't offer lesser policies if they wanted to.
>>>
>>> Your assumption is, of course, that the insurance companies can
>>> stay in business when they have to spend more money than they make,
>>
>>In fact, my assumption is just the opposite. This is what's happening
>>now. As health costs rise, insurance premiums rise. As insurance
>>premiums rise, fewer people can afford them, and the healthy become
>>tempted to go without. This is especially true in times of high
>>unemployment, when people lose the group coverage they had at their
>>jobs and can buy only more expensive individual coverage. The
>>insurance companies find they're insuring a smaller and smaller group
>>of sicker and sicker people. This drives their costs up, and they
>>raise premiums. It's called a death spiral.
>
> And so the solution to this is to restrict the insurance
> companies from raising their premiums (which this bill does)
Where does it do that?
> as well as
> continuing to protect them from competition from out of state
> companies?
In fact, the new law sets up multi-state consortiums.
> Why is it, that there are on the close order of 1300 insurance
> companies in the country, but only two are permitted to sell insurance
> in this state?
I don't know. What state is that? Right now each state regulates
insurance on its own. Some states have more regulations; some have
looser.
>>> It
>>> is a common fallacy to the Progressives, particularly this bunch,
>>> who seemed have no idea how businesses function.
>>
>>The tradeoff to the insurance companies is access to a captive pool of
>>new customers. Everybody must have health insurance, so the risk is
>>spread around, interrupting the death spiral. The insurance companies
>>wrote some of these provisions for themselves. It's how they got
>>bought off for not opposing the law. Insurance company stocks are up.
>> Do you suppose they know something you don't?
>>
>>This is what you're objecting to:
>>
>>1. Potential problems. Maybe Dutch law will replace US law. Or maybe
>>we'll drive cosmetic surgeons out of business.
>
> I'm not saying Dutch Law will replace US law.
OK, you're not saying that Dutch euthanasia law will replace US law.
>I'm saying this US
> Law is following the path that the law and practices of Dutch, German,
> British and other progressive countries have followed.
> This US law will mirror Dutch Law.
Now I'm confused. Now US law will effectively become a copy of Dutch
euthanasia law. Which is it?
> Because, despite the belief of the majority of
> Democrats in Congress, you can't lower costs by increasing the amount
> of money the Government spends.
We spend on average, twice what Europeans spend. There's pleny of room
to lower costs.
>>2. Things that aren't true. E.g., death panels in the law or mandated
>>caps on CEO salaries.
>
> Of course there aren't any "death panels". I doubt even the most
> out to lunch progressive would call them that. But if the local
> Lifeway Care board decides to establish a protocol for certain
> conditions which reduces treatment to "a couple pain pills" - it is a
> death panel. It is decided that some lives aren't worth living, and
> those people should be allowed to die.
You're right. If they set up death panels (but call them Lifeway Care
Boards), then there will be death panels. But you can't assume what
you're required to show. Please show where and how the new law sets up
Lifeway Care Boards. By the way, people with immediately-terminal
conditions are going to die no matter who seeks to allow this or forbid
it. Medical protocols that deal with these situtations are not evil.
Right now, at least in my state, the person who gets to determine whether
his life is worth living is the person who's doing the living. And if
you claim that the new law changed that, please point me to the section
that does this.
>>3. Misunderstandings. Particularly about how the insurance business
>>will remake itself.
>>
>>Let's stop for a reality check. How far do you think you've come in
>>defending your original proposition that the healthcare law will
>>control my life? Do you think that any of your points are based on
>>incorrect assertions?
>
> LOL. I remember being asked in a group discussion "How many of
> you hold incorrect understandings?" and saying "Not that I know of."
> Which kind of blew the speakers point away. So, my assertions are,
> of course, correct. My presuppositions are, naturally, different than
> your. I don't see an ever increasing expansion of government power as
> a good thing.
Thanks for the evasion. Now answer the question. How far do you think
you've come in defending your original proposition that the healthcare
law will control my life? Or have you abandoned that piece of hyperbole
because you've been unable to demonstrate it?
Your assertions are either expressions of general opinion ("Increasing
government power is bad."), general concern about hypotheticals that
don't obtain ("US law will become like Dutch law."), or flat-out
objectively incorrect ("The new law caps healthcare CEO salaries.").
Most of your arguments boil down to "bad things might happen."
Well, yes, and the biggest concern is that we won't find a way to control
medical costs, and then neither this law nor any other will matter much.
But that doesn't relieve you of the responsibility of having evidence to
back up your arguments. If you can't find a provision of the new law
that sets up death panels (by any name), then you probably shouldn't be
claiming that the new law sets up death panels.
If death panels are a big concern to you, then who am I to say that you
shouldn't be concerned? But the concern has nothing to do with the new
law unless you can demonstrate a connection.
> The fact remains, the history of Universal Health Care has been a
> decline in medical coverage, particularly for those who are at the
> margins of life: The old, the chronically ill, the very young, the un
> influential, and those who lack the clout to get better treatment.
Another bold statement. Please provide evidence that this is the case.
>>> pyotr filipivich.
>>> Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
>>> you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
>>
>>Like the Clean Air Act.
>
> Yes, how has that worked? You are aware that the air pollution
> was on the declined when that law was passed?
This is dead wrong. The modern law was passed in 1970, and the declines
in lead, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide (to name just threee) are
coincident with the law's passage and subsequent amendment.
> -
> pyotr filipivich.
> Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
> you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Like the eradication of Yellow Fever.
pyotr filipivich
Oh, so there is no possibility that a Dutch law can't be
translated into English and enacted by Congress? Well, I'm glad to
know that.
>>
>> Are you trying to tell me that some how the US is Special,
>
>I'm telling you that Dutch law has no force in the United States, and the
>United States has no law that mandates death panels.
>
>> and the difficult conundrum
>
>All conundrums are difficult.
>
>> of affording free healthcare for everybody,
>
>The current law does not provide free healthcare for everybody.
Not yet. I take it, you've never heard of the story of the
Camel's nose?
>
>> _won't_ lead Hospitals in the US form implementing similar protocols?
>> Are you of the opinion that in America, those deemed to have no
>> prospect for a meaningful life will not be starved to death?
>
>That's my opinion. It's based on watching the legal protections
>afforded to Terry Schiavo and Karen Ann Quinlan when it came time to
>pronounce them dead.
LOL. Oh yes,. Someone said that Terry said she wouldn't want to
live like that, which was sufficient cause to deny her "extra ordinary
methods" - which now seems to include food and water. (Or Communion.)
Don't worry Deadrat, I'm sure that nobody will ever say they thought
they heard you say you wouldn't want to live like that.
> It's based on training I've taken in a volunteer
>program for nursing homes. It's based on first-hand experience during
>the deaths of relatives. It's based on the way Oregon handles legal
>assisted suicide.
>
>Your opinion differs. On what do you base your opinion? The threat that
>Dutch law will spread here like Dutch Elm disease?
The concern I have is with an issue call "presuppositionlism".
That people, no matter what surface differences they have, who share
the same presuppositions/ axiology - tend to reach similar
conclusions.
And in this post modern age, there is no reason to not treat
medical issues to a purely const/benefit analyst, and mandate the
>
>Anything can happen. Few of those things actually obtain. In any case,
>why are you not worried about those who right now have no prospect for a
>meaningful life because they have no access to meaningful healthcare?
The issue is this: is this bill really going to provide all the
wonderful free medical care that it supporters promise or not? Can it
continue to do so? Is there not a better - less expensive way - to do
so? For what this bill is suppose to cost, it would be possible to
buy each and every Citizen and Permanent Resident an insurance policy
to cover all those expenses.
Why are there so many provisions to fine those who do not
cooperate? Why is there a provision to have the IRS make sure that
the insurance policy you are required to buy meets federal Guidelines?
Why are there taxes on those "Cadillac" plans, with exemptions made
for Union Medical Plans?
Why is there no tort reform? Why is there no insurance
portability between states? Why is there no provision to allow people
to buy their health insurance out of state?
This is a power grab, to transform not only health care but the
whole society.
>> Right. In Europe, you get better care when you're younger, but
>> when you get older, well, you have to expect certain diminished
>> expectations.
>
>That's a bold statement. Could you back it up with some evidence? Do
>you suppose that under our current system people with pre-existing
>conditions and no insurance have to "expect certain diminished
>expectations"?
Do you have a way to make the current system less expensive?
Medical Insurance is not about covering every little bill which comes
along, but about quantifying the risk of an expense. Some call it
legalized gambling, which is a sense it is. Certain things run up the
risk factors, making it more likely that you will need the payment. It
is one of the reasons why single males under twenty five pay so much
for car insurance, while married men over 40 don't.
A pre-existing condition is quantifiable as having a risk of 1 in
1. It is not a good bet.
>>>> And I'll point out, that which started out as a guideline has
>>>> become a requirement.
>>>
>>>I'm not an expert in Dutch law, but Wikipedia contradicts you.
>>>
>>>>>And what's the first thing the guidelines demand? Family consent.
>>>>
>>>> Hahhhahahah - okay, I suppose you know better than the bio
>>>> ethicist at Rice University.
>>>
>>>I don't know whether I do or not. I'm not an expert on Dutch law and
>>>can only go on what I read about it. Wikipedia contradicts your
>>>account. Now Wikipedia isn't a first-hand source, and if your
>>>ethicist has better information, then tell us. Who is this ethicist
>>>and what does he have to say and what are his sources? If he can
>>>point to a section of the HR 3590 that mandates death panels, then
>>>I'll go read it.
>
>I'll repeat the questions you failed to answer: Who is the bioethicist
>at Rich University? What does he have to say? What are his sources?
Dr. H. Tristram Engelehardt, Jr. In short, we live in the ruins
of a post Christian era. Contemporary "compassion" is an echo of the
Christians concepts of self- and the value of the individual. I don't
know if he would say it this way, but I believe he'd agree: the US was
set up with the concept of limited Government in large part because
the founders, being "old fashioned"Christians, did not trust fallen
men with any power more than was absolutely necessary.
Dr Engelehardt had a 'new' book out on the subject when I heard
him speak, but that was a few years ago.
>> LOL. You still believe that if there is no section which read
>> "On the Establishment of Death Panels" then there aren't any
>> death panels.
>
>No, I believe there is no section which operates to set up death panels,
>no matter what they're called. Can you point me to a section number of
>the bill which will contradict that belief?
Not yet.
>
>> Don't worry, then, there will never be a "[Insert Locality here] Care
>> Pathway" modeled on the Liverpool Care Pathway. Nope, they're not
>> going to sentence you to death. They're just going to make you
>> 'comfortable' during your 'transition'.
>
>Are you objecting to LCP? It's a medical protocol for people who two to
>three days from death. If there's something in the law that sets up
>procedures similar to LCP but for non-terminal patients, please point me
>to it. Otherwise this is just some inchoate fear.
You'll have to explain why it is that in Liverpool, people are put
on the LCP who are not really terminal. Just diagnosed as "terminal"
because it really is so much easier to deal with.
===
Bring Out Your Dead! The famous scene from the 1975 film "Monty Python
and the Holy Grail" was as good a depiction as any of how Britain's
National Health Service operates in the early 21st century, as
described by London's Daily Telegraph:
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care
for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly
judged as close to death.
"Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and
medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid
and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until
they pass away.
But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is
improving, the experts warn.
As a result the scheme is causing a "national crisis" in patient
care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care
experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of
Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a
consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke's cancer centre in
Guildford, and four others.
"Forecasting death is an inexact science,"they say. Patients are
being diagnosed as being close to death "without regard to the
fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.
"As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as
family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to
patients."
Oh yeah? Do any of those guys have Nobel Prizes? Former Enron adviser
Paul Krugman does, and he assures us: "In Britain, the government
itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard
scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are
false."
We know we're starting to sound like a broken record, but darn it,
this is important. As long as the British press keeps publishing false
scare stories about the NHS, we are going to keep rebutting them by
repeating the same Krugman quote that settles the debate.
Best of the Web - September 3, 2009
==
The Liverpool Care Pathway and Other False Stories If you ever find
yourself traveling on the Liverpool Care Pathway, you've taken a wrong
turn. London's Daily Telegraph explains:
Rosemary Munkenbeck says her father Eric Troake, who entered
hospital after suffering a stroke, had fluid and drugs withdrawn
and she claims doctors wanted to put him on morphine until he
passed away under a scheme for dying patients called the Liverpool
Care Pathway (LCP).
Mrs Munkenbeck, 56, from Bracknell, said her father, who
previously said he wanted to live until he was 100, has now said
he wants to die after being deprived of fluids for five days. . ..
Last week The Daily Telegraph reported a warning from experts that
some patients with terminal illnesses were being wrongly put on
the NHS scheme and allowed to die prematurely if they ticked "the
right boxes."
London's Daily Mail, meanwhile, reports that the LCP is for very young
patients as well as very old ones:
Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days
too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.
Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just
21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy--almost four months
early.
They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following
national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be
given medical treatment.
And the Sunday Times of London reports on the British medical system's
treatment of adults in the prime of life:
Parents are being threatened with having their children taken into
care [state custody] after questioning doctors' diagnoses or
objecting to their medical care.
John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP, who campaigns to stop
injustices in the family court, said: "Very often care proceedings
are used as retaliation by local authorities against 'uppity'
people who question the system."
Cases are emerging across the UK:
The mother of a 13-year-old girl who became partly paralysed after
being given a cervical cancer vaccination says social workers have
told her the child may be removed if she (the mother) continues to
link her condition with the vaccination.
A couple had all six of their children removed from their care
after they disputed the necessity of an invasive medical test on
their eldest daughter. Doctors, who suspected she might have had
a blood disease, called for social services to obtain an emergency
protection order, although it was subsequently confirmed that she
was not suffering from the condition. The parents were still
considered unstable, and all their children were taken from them.
A single mother whose teenage son is terminally ill and confined
to a wheelchair has been told he is to become the subject of a
care order after she complained that her local authority's failure
to provide bathroom facilities for him has left her struggling to
maintain sanitary standards.
Putting all this in perspective is former Enron adviser Paul Krugman:
"In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the
doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in
practice; these stories are false." Don't worry, be happy as you
meander down the Liverpool Care Pathway.
====
Pathway to Heaven Last week we discussed the "Liverpool Care Pathway,"
Britain's socialized scheme for dying patients. London's Daily Mail
reports an audit of the pathway finds that "more than a quarter of
families are not told when life support is withdrawn from
terminally-ill loved ones":
Peter Millard, emeritus professor of geriatrics at the University
of London, said: "The risk as this is rolled out across the
country is that elderly people with chronic conditions like
Parkinson's or respiratory disorders may be dismissed as dying
when they could still live for some time.
"If patients tell their doctors that they wish to die at home,
that shouldn't be taken as an excuse not to treat them in hospital
if their condition deteriorates but they still might recover with
proper care. . . .
"Discussions about the future of patients are being bypassed; the
supportive nature of hospitals has gone. We are hearing complaints
from all round the country.
"Governments have got rid of respite care and geriatric wards, so
we're left with a crisis. The Government has said let's develop a
service to help people die at home--what they should be doing is
helping them live. Only when death is unavoidable should you start
withdrawing treatment.
"The problem is that there isn't enough discussion between doctors
and patients and their relatives. Nobody is talking to them."
It's OK, though. According to former Enron adviser Paul Krugman: "In
Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the
doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in
practice; these stories are false." Best of the Web - September 15,
2009
===
Great Moments in Socialized Medicine "AN 80-year-old grandmother who
doctors identified as terminally ill and left to starve to death has
recovered after her outraged daughter intervened," reports London's
Times:
Hazel Fenton, from East Sussex, is alive nine months after medics
ruled she had only days to live, withdrew her antibiotics and
denied her artificial feeding. The former school matron had been
placed on a controversial care plan intended to ease the last days
of dying patients.
Doctors say Fenton is an example of patients who have been
condemned to death on the Liverpool care pathway plan. They argue
that while it is suitable for patients who do have only days to
live, it is being used more widely in the NHS, denying treatment
to elderly patients who are not dying.
Fenton's daughter, Christine Ball, who had been looking after her
mother before she was admitted to the Conquest hospital in
Hastings, East Sussex, on January 11, says she had to fight
hospital staff for weeks before her mother was taken off the plan
and given artificial feeding.
Ball, 42, from Robertsbridge, East Sussex, said: "My mother was
going to be left to starve and dehydrate to death. It really is a
subterfuge for legalised euthanasia of the elderly on the NHS."
Another Times story reports on the case of Matthew Millington, a
31-year-old British army corporal and Iraq veteran, who died after a
lung transplant:
The organs were from a donor who was believed to have smoked 30 to
50 roll-up cigarettes a day. A tumour was found after the
transplant, and its growth was accelerated by the drugs that Mr
Millington took to prevent his body rejecting the organs.
The kicker: "Because he was a cancer patient, he was not allowed
to receive a further pair of lungs, under hospital rules."
According to former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, "In Britain, the
government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've
all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these
stories are false." That will come as a relief to Hazel Fenton--and to
Matthew Millington, if there is life after death.
Best of the Web - October 12, 2009
===
Great Moments in Socialized Medicine Yet another dispatch from the
Liverpool Care Pathway, from London's Daily Mail:
A grandfather who beat cancer was wrongly told the disease had
returned and left to die at a hospice which pioneered a
controversial "death pathway."
Doctors said there was nothing more they could do for 76-year-old
Jack Jones, and his family claim he was denied food, water and
medication except painkillers.
He died within two weeks. But tests after his death found that his
cancer had not come back and he was in fact suffering from
pneumonia brought on by a chest infection.
To his family's horror, they were told he could have recovered if
he'd been given the correct treatment.
Perhaps it will ease the family's horror to hear the reassuring words
of former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winner no less:
"In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the
doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in
practice; these stories are false." Best of the Web - October 13, 2009
===
Liz Hunt of London's Daily Telegraph reports on an even more chilling
euphemism used in a country that long ago instituted "health-care
reform":
"Mrs ------- has breathing difficulties," the night manager told
her. "She needs oxygen. Shall we call an ambulance?"
"What do you mean?" my friend responded. "What's the matter with
her?"
"She needs to go to hospital. Do you want that? Or would you
prefer that we make her comfortable?"
"Make her comfortable." Here's what that meant:
Befuddled by sleep, she didn't immediately grasp what was being
asked of her. Her grandmother is immobilised by a calcified knee
joint, which is why she is in the home. She's a little deaf and
frail, but otherwise perky. She reads a newspaper every day
(without glasses), and is a fan of the darling of daytime
television, David Dickinson. Why wouldn't she get medical
treatment if she needed it?
Then, the chilling implication of the phone call filtered
through--she was being asked whether her grandmother should be
allowed to die.
"Call an ambulance now," my friend demanded.
The person at the other end persisted. "Are you sure that's what
you want? For her to go to hospital."
"Yes, absolutely. Get her to hospital."
Three hours later, her grandmother was sitting up in A&E [the
accident-and-emergency ward], smiling. She had a mild chest
infection, was extremely dehydrated, but was responding to oxygen
treatment.
As Hunt notes, "Withdrawal of fluids (and drugs) is one of the steps
on the controversial palliative care programme known as the Liverpool
Care Pathway, which has been adopted by 900 hospitals, hospices and
care homes in England."
Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman disagrees: "In Britain, the
government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've
all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these
stories are false." But is it possible that Reich is right and Krugman
is wrong? Best of the Web - October 14, 2009
===
Oh, and I'm sure there was no provision for the anything like the
"Liverpool Care Pathway" in the enabling legislation in 1946.
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/nhscoreprinciples.aspx
?The NHS was born out of a long-held ideal that good healthcare should
be available to all, regardless of wealth. At its launch by the then
minister of health, Aneurin Bevan, on July 5, 1948, it had at its
heart three core principles:
* That it meet the needs of everyone
* That it be free at the point of delivery
* That it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay
These three principles have guided the development of the NHS over
more than half a century and remain."
So obviously, the articles about propel being made "comfortable"
are not being done from concern about the costs imposed on the
National Health Services.
Deadrat
> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Deadrat
> <a...@b.com> reported Elvis on Sat, 03 Apr 2010 17:43:59 -0500 in
> misc.survivalism:
>>pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>news:8b7fr5t8c0ss5ng9n...@4ax.com:
>>
<snip/>
>>>>You simply cannot bootstrap Dutch law into United States death
>>>>panels.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>>Because this is a matter of objective fact: Dutch law has no force in
>>the United States.
>
> Oh, so there is no possibility that a Dutch law can't be
> translated into English and enacted by Congress? Well, I'm glad to
> know that.
Of course there's a possibility. Anything is possbile. I'm trying to
understand what your objections are to the new law. We've had Medicare
since 1965. That's actually government run insomuch as the gov is the
single payer, i.e., no private insurance involved. How much Dutch law
has been translated into English and enacted by Congress for Medicare?
I'm not interested in your fears of possibilities. Or are all your
objections hypothetical?
>>> Are you trying to tell me that some how the US is Special,
>>
>>I'm telling you that Dutch law has no force in the United States, and
>>the United States has no law that mandates death panels.
>>
>>> and the difficult conundrum
>>
>>All conundrums are difficult.
>>
>>> of affording free healthcare for everybody,
>>
>>The current law does not provide free healthcare for everybody.
>
> Not yet. I take it, you've never heard of the story of the
> Camel's nose?
Of course. But this is another hypothetical that doesn't obtain under
the new law. Are all your objections hypothetical?
>>> _won't_ lead Hospitals in the US form implementing similar
>>> protocols? Are you of the opinion that in America, those deemed to
>>> have no prospect for a meaningful life will not be starved to death?
>>
>>That's my opinion. It's based on watching the legal protections
>>afforded to Terry Schiavo and Karen Ann Quinlan when it came time to
>>pronounce them dead.
>
> LOL. Oh yes,. Someone said that Terry said she wouldn't want to
> live like that, which was sufficient cause to deny her "extra ordinary
> methods" - which now seems to include food and water. (Or Communion.)
> Don't worry Deadrat, I'm sure that nobody will ever say they thought
> they heard you say you wouldn't want to live like that.
Here are some facts:
1. Terry Schiavo was brain dead: her brain had atrophied to the point
that she had no mental activity beyond basic autonomic responses. She
had no meaningful life and no prospects for regaining one. This was
confirmed by autopsy.
2. Giving solid food to such a person is impossible, and that includes
Communion wafers. Liquids could have been delivered by gastric tube.
Medically this is an invasive procedure if it's a surgical implant; it's
an extraordinary procedure even if the liquid is introduced by esphageal
tube because of aspiration.
3. Schiavo's parents had months of running legal battles with her
husband. The courts intervened to determine who would have the final
say, but no one would have had that say without a medical determination,
vetted by a court.
>
>> It's based on training I've taken in a volunteer
>>program for nursing homes. It's based on first-hand experience during
>>the deaths of relatives. It's based on the way Oregon handles legal
>>assisted suicide.
>>
>>Your opinion differs. On what do you base your opinion? The threat
>>that Dutch law will spread here like Dutch Elm disease?
>
> The concern I have is with an issue call "presuppositionlism".
> That people, no matter what surface differences they have, who share
> the same presuppositions/ axiology - tend to reach similar
> conclusions.
> And in this post modern age, there is no reason to not treat
> medical issues to a purely const/benefit analyst, and mandate the
I don't wish to deride such concern. But they belong on misc.ethics.
I'm interested in the law and in particular the new health insurance law.
A worry about "presuppositionalism" may be valid or not. I doubt there's
any way to tell by examining a law. I doubt there's should be any more
or any less worry about presuppositionalsim because of this law. Are all
your objections hypothetical?
>>Anything can happen. Few of those things actually obtain. In any
>>case, why are you not worried about those who right now have no
>>prospect for a meaningful life because they have no access to
>>meaningful healthcare?
>
> The issue is this: is this bill really going to provide all the
> wonderful free medical care that it supporters promise or not?
I can't predict the future. Perhaps the law will fail. Please tell me
why you think it will. Since this is the first concrete objection you've
had, please use numbers.
> Can it continue to do so?
An excellent question. Please tell me what economic assumptions you're
making and show me the resulting projections that say the new law won't
work.
> Is there not a better - less expensive way - to do so?
I don't know. Do you have a better, cheaper way? Let's hear it. That
would certainly be a concrete objection to the new law.
> For what this bill is suppose to cost, it would be possible to
> buy each and every Citizen and Permanent Resident an insurance policy
> to cover all those expenses.
The CBO says the law will cost $940B over ten years. That's an average
of $94B per year. Health care costs in this country are $8K per year per
person and rising. That's each year, $8K times 300M people. Which is
considerably more than $94B per year.
Let's look at it another way. $94B/year is about $300/year per person.
Do you really think that will buy everyone a health insurance policy?
Why didn't you do this math before making such an erroneous claim?
> Why are there so many provisions to fine those who do not cooperate?
Because the law is predicated on diluting the risk. If the insurance
companies can't count on a large pool of people that includes the
currently healthy, they'll go out of business having to insure only the
sick.
> Why is there a provision to have the IRS make sure that
> the insurance policy you are required to buy meets federal Guidelines?
So the insurance companies actually have to provide usable policies.
> Why are there taxes on those "Cadillac" plans,
The claim is that these plans are expensive because they encourage waste.
> with exemptions made for Union Medical Plans?
Workers covered by collective bargaining have a five-year phase in period
on the tax.
> Why is there no tort reform?
Why doesn't the new law give every child a pony? Tort reform may be a
good idea, but it's not in the law. I'm asking for your objections to
what's in the law.
> Why is there no insurance portability between states?
Because the power to regulate insurance companies within a state is left
to each state.
> Why is there no provision to allow people
> to buy their health insurance out of state?
There is. The law encourages setting up multi-state consortiums. But
the feds can't mandate the insurance regulations of states.
> This is a power grab, to transform not only health care but the
> whole society.
This is just another hypothetical. Please tell me what concrete things
are going to change beyond how some people get health insurance. The
"whole society" is a big list. What's on it? Be specific.
>
>>> Right. In Europe, you get better care when you're younger, but
>>> when you get older, well, you have to expect certain diminished
>>> expectations.
>>
>>That's a bold statement. Could you back it up with some evidence? Do
>>you suppose that under our current system people with pre-existing
>>conditions and no insurance have to "expect certain diminished
>>expectations"?
>
> Do you have a way to make the current system less expensive?
It's *your* objection that the new law is too expensive. You tell me how
to make it cheaper.
> Medical Insurance is not about covering every little bill which comes
> along,
Which, by the way, is the answer to your question "Why the cadillac tax?"
> but about quantifying the risk of an expense. Some call it
> legalized gambling, which is a sense it is. Certain things run up the
> risk factors, making it more likely that you will need the payment. It
> is one of the reasons why single males under twenty five pay so much
> for car insurance, while married men over 40 don't.
> A pre-existing condition is quantifiable as having a risk of 1 in
> 1. It is not a good bet.
This is true, even if your odds aren't. What's your point? The
insurance companies will be paid handsomely for taking those bad bets.
>>>>> And I'll point out, that which started out as a guideline has
>>>>> become a requirement.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not an expert in Dutch law, but Wikipedia contradicts you.
>>>>
>>>>>>And what's the first thing the guidelines demand? Family consent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hahhhahahah - okay, I suppose you know better than the bio
>>>>> ethicist at Rice University.
>>>>
>>>>I don't know whether I do or not. I'm not an expert on Dutch law
>>>>and can only go on what I read about it. Wikipedia contradicts your
>>>>account. Now Wikipedia isn't a first-hand source, and if your
>>>>ethicist has better information, then tell us. Who is this ethicist
>>>>and what does he have to say and what are his sources? If he can
>>>>point to a section of the HR 3590 that mandates death panels, then
>>>>I'll go read it.
>>
>>I'll repeat the questions you failed to answer: Who is the
>>bioethicist at Rich University? What does he have to say? What are
>>his sources?
>
> Dr. H. Tristram Engelehardt, Jr.
It's H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., and I'll have to do some reading before
I reply to some of your points.
> In short, we live in the ruins
> of a post Christian era. Contemporary "compassion" is an echo of the
> Christians concepts of self- and the value of the individual. I don't
> know if he would say it this way, but I believe he'd agree: the US was
> set up with the concept of limited Government in large part because
> the founders, being "old fashioned"Christians, did not trust fallen
> men with any power more than was absolutely necessary.
This is absolute nonsense. The founders weren't "old fashioned
Christians" in the way you think, and they set up a limited government
because they did not trust anyone with more power than necessary, having
had the distasteful experience of dealing with the monarchy George III.
The Constitution doesn't mention God, let alone the "fallen" state of
men. Please don't put foolishness in the mouths of your sources.
Wikipedia describes Engelhardt as a bioethicist, so your version of
American colonial history aside, I'll need to read up on what he says.
> Dr Engelehardt had a 'new' book out on the subject when I heard
> him speak, but that was a few years ago.
>
>>> LOL. You still believe that if there is no section which read
>>> "On the Establishment of Death Panels" then there aren't any
>>> death panels.
>>
>>No, I believe there is no section which operates to set up death
>>panels, no matter what they're called. Can you point me to a section
>>number of the bill which will contradict that belief?
>
> Not yet.
OK, so this isn't an actual objection to the current law. Glad that's
behind us.
>>
>>> Don't worry, then, there will never be a "[Insert Locality here]
>>> Care Pathway" modeled on the Liverpool Care Pathway. Nope, they're
>>> not going to sentence you to death. They're just going to make you
>>> 'comfortable' during your 'transition'.
>>
>>Are you objecting to LCP? It's a medical protocol for people who two
>>to three days from death. If there's something in the law that sets
>>up procedures similar to LCP but for non-terminal patients, please
>>point me to it. Otherwise this is just some inchoate fear.
>
> You'll have to explain why it is that in Liverpool, people are
> put
> on the LCP who are not really terminal. Just diagnosed as "terminal"
> because it really is so much easier to deal with.
No, you'll have to show me evidence that non-terminal patients are
diagnosed as terminal and put on the protocol. Otherwise this is just
one of your fever dreams.
>
> ===
>
> Bring Out Your Dead! The famous scene from the 1975 film "Monty Python
> and the Holy Grail" was as good a depiction as any of how Britain's
> National Health Service operates in the early 21st century, as
> described by London's Daily Telegraph:
But, of course, it's described by a *letter* to the DT. All the
statements, including the one about a "national crisis" are from the
letter. Which basically warns that mindless use of protocols may lead to
bad medical care that kills when recovery is possible. OK. You
understand that these are simply claims in a letter, right?
<snip/>
> Cases are emerging across the UK:
No, they're not. Cases are being reported in the DT by anguished family
members. Do you understand how to use anecdotal evidence?
<snip/>
Asuming that all these are accurately reported, they're medical
malpractice in blindly following protocols without using medical insight
into individual histories. Such things will happen independently of the
new law.
>
> Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman disagrees:
During part of 1999, Paul Krugman was paid $37.5K for serving on a panel
briefing Enron executives on general economic issues. At the time, Enron
was considered one of the best-run companies in the world. It's stock
rose over 50% in 1999 and over 80% in 2000. Its shady accounting
practices were unknown until the company's collapse at the end of 2001.
If you have evidence that Paul Krugman knew about those practices in 1999
or that he advised on implementing thsoe practices in 1999, then you
should present what you know. Otherwise, you should stick to criticizing
Krugman's evidence and logic.
<snip/>
You are obviously concerned about the issue of medical malpractice during
end-of-life care. And that's fine. But it has nothing to do with the
new law. Doctors in the US made these same decisions before and make
them now, and presumably, were wrong in the same percentage of cases as
those in England. And you can present nothing but hysterics to connect
any malpractice to the new law.
>
>
> -
> pyotr filipivich.
> Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
> you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Like air traffic control.
Deadrat
> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Deadrat
> <a...@b.com> reported Elvis on Sat, 03 Apr 2010 17:43:59 -0500 in
> misc.survivalism:
>>pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>news:8b7fr5t8c0ss5ng9n...@4ax.com:
<snip/>
> Why is there no tort reform?
After I sent my reply to your post, I realized that I hadn't given the
right answer to this question. Before I give that answer, I note that
what you actually know is in inverse proportion to your deep faith in
certain principles and your strong emotions about certain issues. Which
means your feeling overwhelms your understanding, leaving you unable to
evalutate the arguments of others. You've pretty much given up trying.
You simply reject or accept something based on the degree that the source
holds to your faith and feeling.
Does the new law cap CEO salaries? Sure, one of your allies posted this
on his blog; it doesn't matter that the law doesn't cap salaries. Could
we just spend the amount budgeted for the new law and buy everyone in the
US a health insurance policy? Of course, arithmetic doesn't matter here.
And tort reform? Someone told you that was an important part of health-
care costs and that the new law is fatally flawed without it. And so you
swallowed it.
Your question reveals a profound ignorance about US law. Can you even
tell me what a tort is? I doubt it.
A tort is a non-contractual obligation that each of us carries toward
others. The rules are complicated and are based on common-law
principles, state court precedent, and state statute. Negligent action
resulting in damage falls under tort law, and medical malpractice falls
into this category. The key word here is "state." How torts are handled
is almost entirely a state issue, and the federal government isn't
allowed to make uniform rules for how states handle it. It would be
unconstitutional for the new law to cap damages for medical malpractice
claims.
The fact is that the new bill includes $50M in grants to states for
programs that set up alternative methods of resolving medical malpractice
suits. This is the best the federal government can do: encourage the
states to reform their systems. I've read that people pushing tort
reform don't much care for this provision because plaintiffs are free to
opt out of the alternative system and still go to court.
One side effect of not understanding things is that you unknowingly adopt
contradictory positions. On the one hand, one of your complaints is that
the new law is a power grab by the federal government; on the other, you
complain about the law's failure to address tort reform. But tort reform
by federal mandate would be a power grab far larger than anything in the
new law.
<snip/>
> pyotr filipivich.
<snip/>
Deadrat
> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Deadrat
> <a...@b.com> reported Elvis on Sat, 03 Apr 2010 17:43:59 -0500 in
> misc.survivalism:
<snip/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hahhhahahah - okay, I suppose you know better than the bio
>>>>> ethicist at Rice University.
>>>>
>>>>I don't know whether I do or not. I'm not an expert on Dutch law
>>>>and can only go on what I read about it. Wikipedia contradicts your
>>>>account. Now Wikipedia isn't a first-hand source, and if your
>>>>ethicist has better information, then tell us. Who is this ethicist
>>>>and what does he have to say and what are his sources? If he can
>>>>point to a section of the HR 3590 that mandates death panels, then
>>>>I'll go read it.
>>
>>I'll repeat the questions you failed to answer: Who is the
>>bioethicist at Rich University? What does he have to say? What are
>>his sources?
>
> Dr. H. Tristram Engelehardt, Jr. In short, we live in the ruins
> of a post Christian era. <snip/>
OK, I read what Dr. Engelhardt has to say about euthanasia and infanticide.
I'm gonna guess that you haven't. First because Engelhardt's style and
level of discourse make him practically unreadable if not incomprehensible
to laymen (both medically and philosophically speaking), but also because
Engelhardt is not, as you implied, a principled and stalwart opponent of
things like the Groningen protocols.
<quote author="H T Engelhardt" source="Euthanasia and the newborn:
conflicts regarding saving lives" editors="R C McMillan, H T Engelhardt, S
F Spicker>
In many of the difficult cases, it is very hard to sustain the position
that parents are obliged to treat in all circumstances.... Which is to say,
the more the personal, psychological, and economic costs escalate, the more
plausible it becomes that parental decisions to refuse treatment should
carry signigicant weight. On *would* think that this postiion *would* be
one consonant with general Christian views. To purseue the goal of saving
particular infants' lives at any costs is to embrace an idolatrous
underatanding of life.... Which is to say, one *would* think that one
*could* frame a strong Christian moral arguemt in favor of passive
infanticide.... One *might* hold that active infanticide would have too
many adverse social costs. Perhaps such costs *could* properly include the
special psychological trauma invovled in actively taking the life of an
infant. The most we *might* wish to support would be the discontinuation
of all treatment and the use of heavy sedation.
</quote>
The emphasis on the subjunctive verbs is mine. So Engelhardt balks at
recommending active killing, but only because of the trauma likely to
strike the killers. But passive euthanasia he seems to endorse, or it
might seem that he could endorse. Of course, he includes "heavy sedation"
in the passive sphere, which makes the distinction between active and
passive one without much difference.
<snip/>
> The concern I have is with an issue call "presuppositionlism".
> That people, no matter what surface differences they have, who share
> the same presuppositions/ axiology - tend to reach similar
> conclusions.
You'll have to find another term. "Presuppositionalism" is the Christian
doctrine that the world cannot be understood without first adopting the
doxology of Christianity, including the truth of the Bible, and that no
arguments should be made to the infidels on the indepdendent plausibility
of Christianity.
Concerend Citizen
> >again and again and again.
>
> libbyloo/compactadolesent (little kid)/ and Lord knows how many other
> people you have in there ....
Leave off Libby Loo and the Compact Adolescent, or you can just keep
lying like your bud Albert Lee Mitchell, alm3...@yahoo.com
> What "outrageous claims" did I make????
>
> (Your wife isn't named "Sybil" by any chance is she?)
Steve, leave the wives out of it.
> >But you don't listen and you fall back to your DNC tallking points.
>
> Are they the same DNC talking points I use to criticize 0bama?
No, the old "BDS" talking points.
Boy
> you ARE a party loyalist, aren't you? Bullshit is bullshit no matter
> which party is spreading it at the moment. With the dynamic duo of
> Bush and 0bama there should be no food shortage.
>
> >One more time.
>
> >Saddam continually renegged on his surrender agreements under the UN.
> >He fired on USA and Allied forces defending the "No Fly Zone" and his
> >continued attacks on the Iraqi people. For that he had to go. Hell,
> >Clinton allowed it to go on forever.
>
> That's the UN's problem.
Unfortunately, WE are the UN's enforcement "agency." WE were in harms
way.
> They specifically did not want us to attack
> Iraq. When did BushBots get to be such lovers of the UN, anyway?
I don't like the UN. Never did.
They put us in harms way, and then expected us to just soak it up.
Just like 0bama expects the military to do. Just like 0bama expects
America to do.
Did you hear about our latest nuclear non-prolif treaty?
> >I could give a shit that Saddam did or didn't have WMDs, even though
> >his own people were putting out info that they were working on WMDs.
>
> And our own intelligence said that was bull. Cheney started the
> "White House Iraq Group" (WHIG), to select and cull stuff that could
> be made to seem damning. He set up a parallel group to cut out the
> traditional intelligence sources because they wouldn't report what he
> wanted.
Too bad for Saddam.
> Bush gave the bogus stuff to his partner in crime, Tony Blair, so Bush
> could claim the Brits were corroborating of our own made up junk.
And the Brits passed us intel.
> This was all widely reported at the time and only the BushBots that
> wanted to believe ever denied it.
I guess you didn't hear me the first 300 times... I could give a shit
about WMDs. Saddam was a threat to UN sanctioned troops in the
region. That was US.
> >Does any of this sound familiar to you?
>
> Sadly, yes. The same old after-the-fact excuse you have run
> repeatedly. Over the PR buildup Bush floated twenty plus reasons as
> the one reason we had to attack. As soon as one got shot down, he
> popped up with another. And you bought every one of them.
So you read the classified message traffic each morning?
> >I tell Tool and Cliffie that it doesn't take very much sand to bury a
> >pinhead. Should I include you in that category?
>
> Calling out bogus propaganda is hardly burying ones head in the sand.
You are still focused on that. And still ignore the threat to our
forces that Saddam posed every day of every year of the Clinton
presidency.
> I also call out 0bama. Does Cliff? Does TMT? Quick say something
> critical of NeoCons.
They spend like drunken sailors.
Now quick say something critical of Clinton.
Gunner Asch
<retro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 18:53:48 -0700 (PDT), Concerend Citizen
><hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> And our own intelligence said that was bull. Cheney started the
>>> "White House Iraq Group" (WHIG), to select and cull stuff that could
>>> be made to seem damning. He set up a parallel group to cut out the
>>> traditional intelligence sources because they wouldn't report what he
>>> wanted.
>>
>>Too bad for Saddam.
>
>
>And the 4,387 Americans who died in Iraq for his lies, and the 2
>trillion in taxes we lost to it.
You mean the Iraq that Obama is continuing..and increasing?
Gunner
"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost
Gunner Asch
<retro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:31:58 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:42:37 -0700, retrogrouch
>><retro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 18:53:48 -0700 (PDT), Concerend Citizen
>>><hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And our own intelligence said that was bull. �Cheney started the
>>>>> "White House Iraq Group" (WHIG), to select and cull stuff that could
>>>>> be made to seem damning. �He set up a parallel group to cut out the
>>>>> traditional intelligence sources because they wouldn't report what he
>>>>> wanted.
>>>>
>>>>Too bad for Saddam.
>>>
>>>
>>>And the 4,387 Americans who died in Iraq for his lies, and the 2
>>>trillion in taxes we lost to it.
>>
>>
>>You mean the Iraq that Obama is continuing..and increasing?
>
>
>Troop levels have declined, liar.
You mean he didnt send in an additional 40,000 troops?
Odd..all the networks say he did. You mean they are no longer Leftwing
and no longer support the Obamassiah?