OT What's your take? OT
Steve B
I hope and pray reason will prevail. But I thought McCain would win.
Go figger.
Steve
Larry Jaques
<desert...@fishymail.net> scrawled the following:
>Do you think this fiasco will pass Sunday?
Those fools just might do it.
>I hope and pray reason will prevail.
In WASHINGTON, D.C.? What were you thinking?
-------------------
If it passes, I'll bet you can count the seconds before a
2nd American Revolution starts thundering through our country.
I think I'll stock up on groceries and get more water today, JIC.
--
Adults are obsolete children. --Dr. Seuss (Theodore Geisel, 1904-1991)
--
cavelamb
There is so much money involved, I doubt they can keep their hands off.
--
Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/
Steve Be
In one thread, you've got a bunch of people all clamoring for a police
state, then this one decrying government intervention.
The power to require ID is the same power to require health care.
"Go figger." Indeed.
Ignoramus4239
would have access to some level of medical care.
i
Gunner Asch
<lja...@diversify.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:49:44 -0700, the infamous "Steve B"
><desert...@fishymail.net> scrawled the following:
>
>>Do you think this fiasco will pass Sunday?
>
>Those fools just might do it.
>
>
>>I hope and pray reason will prevail.
>
>In WASHINGTON, D.C.? What were you thinking?
>-------------------
>
>If it passes, I'll bet you can count the seconds before a
>2nd American Revolution starts thundering through our country.
>
>I think I'll stock up on groceries and get more water today, JIC.
And some extra ammo......
>
>--
>Adults are obsolete children. --Dr. Seuss (Theodore Geisel, 1904-1991)
"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
Hawke
Not so hard really. You just don't understand the issue you're talking
about. That explains why you were wrong about McCain as you were about
Bush and Obama. You just have lousy judgment. You prove it once again
with this point of view. The current system is in the process of
failing. Nothing is going to stop that, so the wise thing to do is
change it before it collapses. That is what the Democrats are in the
process of doing. The ignorant people are so afraid of changing they are
shitting their pants. The rest of us welcome the change from a corrupt,
inefficient, and unfair system to a much more rational one. The problem
is that you can't see that. And you listen to way too much republican
propaganda. If you could you'd not have your usual off target
prediction. I predict the bill passes. Want to bet who's right?
Hawke
Hawke
>>> Do you think this fiasco will pass Sunday?
>>
>> Those fools just might do it.
>>
>>
>>> I hope and pray reason will prevail.
>>
>> In WASHINGTON, D.C.? What were you thinking?
>> -------------------
>>
>> If it passes, I'll bet you can count the seconds before a
>> 2nd American Revolution starts thundering through our country.
>>
>> I think I'll stock up on groceries and get more water today, JIC.
>
> And some extra ammo......
I don't know why. You have nothing anybody would want to take. That
means you have nothing to protect or fear. The last thing you'll ever
need is more ammo. Food, yeah.
Hawke
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
news:2g48q5lqla3glmvbq...@4ax.com:
> And some extra ammo......
Look what Harry Reid Hid deep in the Health Care Bill
Unbelievable - Harry Reid Hidden deep in the Health Care Bill this
passage.
They never stop, they will keep trying to shove this down our throats
until they get it through...pass this on to everyone...
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the
maxim that darkness hates the light.
Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is
Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future
Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous
legislation!
Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ".
it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to
consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would
repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law,
no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section
3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in
Congress wish otherwise!!
Note that the subsection at issue here concerns the regulatory power of
the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB) to "reduce the per capita
rate of growth in Medicare spending."
That is precisely the kind of open-ended grant of regulatory power that
effectively establishes the IMAB as the ultimate arbiter of the cost,
quality and quantity of health care to be made available to the American
people. And Reid wants the decisions of this group of unelected federal
bureaucrats to be untouchable for all time.
No wonder the majority leader tossed aside assurances that senators and
the public would have at least 72 hours to study the text of the final
Senate version of Obamacare before the critical vote on cloture. And no
wonder Reid was so desperate to rush his amendment through the Senate,
even scheduling the key tally on it at 1 a.m., while America slept.
True to form, Reid wanted to keep his Section 3403 poison pill secret
for as long as possible, just as he negotiated his bribes for the votes
of Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bernie
Sanders of Vermont behind closed doors.
The final Orwellian touch in this subversion of democratic procedure is
found in the ruling of the Reid-controlled Senate Parliamentarian that
the anti-repeal provision is not a change in Senate rules, but rather of
Senate "procedures." Why is that significant? Because for 200 years,
changes in the Senate's standing rules have required approval by two-
thirds of those voting, or 67 votes rather than the 60 Reid's amendment
received.
Reid has flouted two centuries of standing Senate rules to pass a
measure in the dead of night that no senator has read, and part of which
can never be changed. If this is not tyranny, then what is?
LLoyd
anorton
news:Xns9D40D18DF3337ll...@216.168.3.70...
> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> fired this volley in
> news:2g48q5lqla3glmvbq...@4ax.com:
>
>> And some extra ammo......
>
> Look what Harry Reid Hid deep in the Health Care Bill
>
> Unbelievable - Harry Reid Hidden deep in the Health Care Bill this
> passage.
>
> They never stop, they will keep trying to shove this down our throats
> until they get it through...pass this on to everyone...
>
>
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the
> maxim that darkness hates the light.
>
> Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is
> Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future
> Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous
> legislation!
>
What scholars (not!) are you cutting and pasting this from? This has been
in the bill for months and it does not mean that no future congress can
repeal this section. see here for the facts
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/medicare-board-unrepealable/
Ned Simmons
<lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote:
>
> In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law,
>no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section
>3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in
>Congress wish otherwise!!
>
As far as I know, an act of Congress cannot limit the actions of a
future Congress.
--
Ned Simmons
Ed Huntress
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D40D18DF3337ll...@216.168.3.70...
> Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> fired this volley in
> news:2g48q5lqla3glmvbq...@4ax.com:
>
>> And some extra ammo......
>
> Look what Harry Reid Hid deep in the Health Care Bill
>
> Unbelievable - Harry Reid Hidden deep in the Health Care Bill this
> passage.
>
> They never stop, they will keep trying to shove this down our throats
> until they get it through...pass this on to everyone...
>
>
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the
> maxim that darkness hates the light.
>
> Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is
> Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future
> Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous
> legislation!
>
> Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ".
> it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to
> consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would
> repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
>
> In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law,
> no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section
> 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in
> Congress wish otherwise!!
<snip>
This is not true, Lloyd. It's an amateurish misreading of the text by
RedState, which was in turn picked up by Sarah ("Death Panel") Palin, our
Idiot-in-Chief. Then the Washington Times and the right-wing blogosphere
revved up their engines and drove over the cliff.
Here's the real story. This kind of *rules* limitation has been done several
times in the past. It is not a *legislation* limitation. Congress can
overturn the whole thing any time they want to, with a regular vote:
http://www.neutralsource.org/content/blog/detail/1452/
It is not Constitutional for Congress to pass a law that says future
congresses can't overturn it. It wouldn't stand up if they tried.
--
Ed Huntress
Ignoramus4239
passing, here's an interesting page:
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/trading/t_index.jsp?selConID=709242
Intrade is a prediction market, and participants, who are betting with
real money, currently estimate the chance of it passing as 84%.
i
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
news:4ba4233f$0$31268$607e...@cv.net:
> It is not Constitutional for Congress to pass a law that says future
> congresses can't overturn it. It wouldn't stand up if they tried.
>
>
I already knew that. This is a regularly-circulated chain letter from
the abjectly right-ish folks who can't actually figure out how to go
vote.
I do. I will.
November 2012... the end of an error.
<G>
LLoyd
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> fired this volley in
> news:4ba4233f$0$31268$607e...@cv.net:
>
>> It is not Constitutional for Congress to pass a law that says future
>> congresses can't overturn it. It wouldn't stand up if they tried.
>>
>>
>
> I already knew that. This is a regularly-circulated chain letter from
> the abjectly right-ish folks who can't actually figure out how to go
> vote.
Ah, it would have helped if you'd added a smiley or something. I thought you
actually believed that stuff.
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
wrote:
So does Intrade have any predictions on the 2010 elections? Is Reid
likely to be reelected?
Dan
dca...@krl.org
> "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote in messagenews:Xns9D40D18DF3337ll...@216.168.3.70...
>
>
>
If that is the case, why did they bother to put the words in the bill?
Dan
Larry Jaques
<ignora...@NOSPAM.4239.invalid> scrawled the following:
>I hope (but do not pray) that reason will prevail and that everyone
>would have access to some level of medical care.
And you trust CONgresscritters to accomplish that? GET REAL, Ig.
--
Adults are obsolete children. --Dr. Seuss (Theodore Geisel, 1904-1991)
--
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:f18a66dd-c166-48d1...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
It's all procedural. There are several explanations around the Web, but if
you've followed federal legislation over the past few years, you'll see
several similar uses of that phrasing.
It keeps certain provisions in the bill from being nibbled away by gerbils.
It does NOT keep it from being overturned at the drop of a hat, should
Congress so desire.
--
Ed Huntress
Ignoramus4239
> On Mar 19, 9:25?pm, Ignoramus4239 <ignoramus4...@NOSPAM.4239.invalid>
I have not looked. Check it out and let us know. I am sure that there
are some contracts regarding 2010 elections.
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/trading/t_index.jsp
For example, nomination of Palin is priced as a 23% chance. 2010
recession as 18%. Euro dropped in 2010 at 12%. A lot of interesting
predictions are traded at intrade.
i
Gunner Asch
Because those on the extreme left are both sneaky..notice its
location..and stupid. Utterly stupid.
Shrug...but they will be dead before long from all
observations..so..shrug.
Gunner
Ed Huntress
"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:brg8q5l5t87ce8tjb...@4ax.com...
That's a stupid thing to say, which you would not have engaged in if you
actually read federal legislation over the past two decades. It's been used
at least since 1990.
This is a 2,000-page monster that you certainly haven't read. You don't know
the appropriateness of the location of that provision, nor its context, nor
even what it refers too. As usual, you're talking through your hat.
> ...and stupid. Utterly stupid.
See above. You have no way of knowing, because you talk first, and look
things up later to see what you said.
cavelamb
>
> If that is the case, why did they bother to put the words in the bill?
>
> Dan
The language to which opponents refer, and which the Washington Examiner
explicitly cited, changes the rules of each House to limit Congress' ability to
change the recommendations of the Board.
(3) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of
Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, or amendment, pursuant to this
subsection or conference report thereon, that fails to satisfy the requirements
of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).
`(B) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER LEGISLATION- It
shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider
any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report (other than pursuant to
this section) that would repeal or otherwise change the recommendations of the
Board if that change would fail to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs
(A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).
`(C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION- It shall not be in order in the
Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution,
amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this
subsection.
`(D) WAIVER- This paragraph may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the
affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
`(E) APPEALS- An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate,
duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this paragraph.
Congress can overturn this rule with a 3/5ths majority vote, in which case
nothing would stand in the way of Congress changing the recommendations of the
Board and voting on the changed version.
Section 3403 also includes language saying that the Secretary of Health and
Human Services must not implement the recommendations of the Board if Congress
acts to discontinue it using certain specified procedures. Nothing in the text
says, nor could it constitutionally say, that Congress cannot enact new law
terminating the Board, or for that matter, repealing any or all of the bill. The
text does not restrict Congress's ability to terminate the Board; it creates a
mechanism whereby Congress could terminate the Board more easily.
rangerssuck
To whom or what are you praying, and do you think that entity values
your tax dollar more than the health and lives of those who can't
afford the current bullshit we call "health insurance?"
rangerssuck
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:08:16 -0700, Larry Jaques
>
>
>
>
>
> <ljaq...@diversify.invalid> wrote:
> >On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:49:44 -0700, the infamous "Steve B"
>
> >>Do you think this fiasco will pass Sunday?
>
> >Those fools just might do it.
>
> >>I hope and pray reason will prevail.
>
> >In WASHINGTON, D.C.? What were you thinking?
> >-------------------
>
> >If it passes, I'll bet you can count the seconds before a
> >2nd American Revolution starts thundering through our country.
>
> >I think I'll stock up on groceries and get more water today, JIC.
>
> And some extra ammo......
>
expect an "end of the world" over this legislation, which replaces,
formalizes and funds some of the charity care which has kept you alive
the past few years? Seriously?
Maybe you should consider stocking up on tin foil.
Stormin Mormon
trying until they do enact it. Note, I didn't say "pass" the
socialized medicine. I wrote "enact" it. They might deem it
to been passed, or executive order, or some other trickery.
But, they will keep trying until we lose the freedom to
manage our own health care.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Steve B" <desert...@fishymail.net> wrote in message
news:oq1b77-...@news.infowest.com...
Wes
So what is their accuracy of past predictions?
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Wes
But Ed, they are trying to pass this on a one vote margin in the Senate and according to
an earlier link:
The Examiner takes issue with this language:
###
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Dec 24 2009: LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS
SUBSECTION – It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to
consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or
otherwise change this subsection.
But that does not mean that "no future Senate or House will be able to change a single
word" of the section, as The Examiner says. The paragraph is followed directly by this
one:
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Dec 24 2009: WAIVER – This paragraph may
be waived or suspended in the senate only by the affirmative votes of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
he intent is to make this cost-saving mechanism difficult to repeal, but not impossible.
"If they want to repeal this provision they need a supermajority," said Bill Dauster,
deputy staff director and general counsel of the Senate Finance Committee. The bill’s
Democratic drafters fear that Congress can’t be trusted to make necessary Medicare cost
reductions on its own. "The reasoning is that the Senate is not going to make the cuts
that are necessary otherwise."
###
So as they are maneuvering, they want to pass on 51 and require 60 to revoke it?
Can I assume that the 60 number to revoke is meaningless? As in another senate with a
willing house can take it down with a simple majority vote?
Wes
Larry Jaques
<ignora...@NOSPAM.4239.invalid> scrawled the following:
>For those interested in estimating chances of Obamacare legislation
Happily, it's down 1.9 points today.
--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler
Ed Huntress
"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:2I3pn.134707$Vq1....@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com...
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns9D40DA203283Fll...@216.168.3.70...
>>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> fired this volley in
>>> news:4ba4233f$0$31268$607e...@cv.net:
>>>
>>>> It is not Constitutional for Congress to pass a law that says future
>>>> congresses can't overturn it. It wouldn't stand up if they tried.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I already knew that. This is a regularly-circulated chain letter from
>>> the abjectly right-ish folks who can't actually figure out how to go
>>> vote.
>>
>>Ah, it would have helped if you'd added a smiley or something. I thought
>>you
>>actually believed that stuff.
>
> But Ed, they are trying to pass this on a one vote margin in the Senate
> and according to
> an earlier link:
>
> The Examiner takes issue with this language:
>
> ###
> Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Dec 24 2009: LIMITATION ON
> CHANGES TO THIS
> consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would
> repeal or
> otherwise change this subsection.
>
> But that does not mean that "no future Senate or House will be able to
> change a single
> word" of the section, as The Examiner says. The paragraph is followed
> directly by this
> one:
>
> be waived or suspended in the senate only by the affirmative votes of
> three-fifths of the
> Members, duly chosen and sworn.
>
> he intent is to make this cost-saving mechanism difficult to repeal, but
> not impossible.
> "If they want to repeal this provision they need a supermajority," said
> Bill Dauster,
> deputy staff director and general counsel of the Senate Finance Committee.
> The bill's
> Democratic drafters fear that Congress can't be trusted to make necessary
> Medicare cost
> reductions on its own. "The reasoning is that the Senate is not going to
> make the cuts
> that are necessary otherwise."
> ###
>
> So as they are maneuvering, they want to pass on 51 and require 60 to
> revoke it?
Nope. It still requires only 51 (in the Senate) to overturn the entire bill.
>
> Can I assume that the 60 number to revoke is meaningless? As in another
> senate with a
> willing house can take it down with a simple majority vote?
It has the status of House rules, but nothing in the House rules can preempt
Congress's ability to overturn any legislation. They can change a rule at
any time, and they can overturn a bill at any time.
Again, it's procedural, and amounts to a House rule. It cannot preclude
future congresses from overturning it by a simple majority vote. But they'd
have to overturn the rule as well as the legislation.
It really isn't worth getting worked up about. It's an attempt to keep
underhanded amendments from defeating the function of the legislation by the
back door. It's been done before.
--
Ed Huntress
Ignoramus28888
> Ignoramus4239 <ignora...@NOSPAM.4239.invalid> wrote:
>
>>For those interested in estimating chances of Obamacare legislation
>>passing, here's an interesting page:
>>
>>http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/trading/t_index.jsp?selConID=709242
>>
>>Intrade is a prediction market, and participants, who are betting with
>>real money, currently estimate the chance of it passing as 84%.
>>
>>i
>
> So what is their accuracy of past predictions?
Some things are inherently unpredictable or have a probability of an
event change because of something. But their estimates have been very
good, in general.
i
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
>
> It really isn't worth getting worked up about. It's an attempt to keep
> underhanded amendments from defeating the function of the legislation
> by the back door. It's been done before.
>
>
You didn't quite word that right, Ed. It's an UNDERHANDED attempt to keep
amendments from the defeating the function...
LLoyd
Hawke
Political election predictions made more than 6 months out are virtually
worthless.
Hawke
Ed Huntress
Nope, I had it right, Lloyd. If you do some checking, you'll see that this
phrasing has been used for similar purposes in the past.
The "amendments" we're talking about are irrelevant, and sneaky, snipes
taken at the legislation by adding an amendment to an unrelated bill. It's
been decades since I studied this stuff in college but I remember one issue
that was related to it. After the Civil Rights Act was passed, some southern
legislators tried to sneak an amendment into a military funding bill that
would have gutted the CRA. Who can vote against a military funding bill in
the middle of a war?
That kind of sneakiness is exactly what these provisions are intended to
prevent. And it's really a moderate, and weak protection. If Congress wants
to be forthright and vote specifically about provisions of this bill at some
time in the future, or even completely overturn it, they can do so.
Of course, people opposed to the bill are going to scream bloody murder.
Some of their bag of tricks have become complicated, because they'd have to
come out in the open with their opposition. Of course, they're probably
among those who have used these procedural methods in the past, on other
issues. They're counting on us not noticing There's a LOT of that going on
with the health care bill.
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
> dcas...@krl.org wrote:
>
> > If that is the case, why did they bother to put the words in the bill?
>
> > Dan
>
> The language to which opponents refer, and which the Washington Examiner
> explicitly cited, changes the rules of each House to limit Congress' ability to
> change the recommendations of the Board.
>
I thought that changing the rules of the House required a super
majority.
Dan
Wes
>I thought that changing the rules of the House required a super
>majority.
IIRC, the current House rules committe has a 2xD+1 to 1xR ratio favoring the majority
party and voting on anything brought to the floor is a simple majority.
Wes
Pinstripe Sniper
>Intrade is a prediction market, and participants, who are betting with
>real money, currently estimate the chance of it passing as 84%.
Oooh! Internet gambling! Yeah! :-)
PsS
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A fictional account of how to drastically reform the financial world...
More at http://PinstripeSniper.blogspot.com and if that gets banned, check
www.PinstripeSniper.com
Steve B
"Ignoramus4239" <ignora...@NOSPAM.4239.invalid> wrote in message
news:Io-dncWsl7hQJT7W...@giganews.com...
>I hope (but do not pray) that reason will prevail and that everyone
> would have access to some level of medical care.
>
We do now.
John Martin
>
> This is not true, Lloyd. It's an amateurish misreading of the text by
> RedState, which was in turn picked up by Sarah ("Death Panel") Palin, our
> Idiot-in-Chief. Then the Washington Times and the right-wing blogosphere
> revved up their engines and drove over the cliff.
>
> Ed Huntress- >
> - Show quoted text -
There you go again, Ed.
You make fun of Sarah Palin for her "Death Panel" statements, just
after you admit that those death panels already exist - "They're
called Medical Directors in the insurance industry."
The federal government wants to be in the health care business and
will be before too long - anyone who thinks the public option has been
forgotten simply isn't paying attention. And when we do get there, we
will have bureaucrats making the same decisions that are made by the
insurance companies' Medical Directors. There will always have to be
someone to say "no", and sometimes that will be to an expensive
procedure that might prolong a life.
So, which is it? Was Sarah on target, or will the taxpayers be
footing the bill for every possible procedure and drug that might even
slightly benefit a patient?
You can't have it both ways.
John Martin
Ed Huntress
"John Martin" <jmart...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:87f20c04-4bfd-406c...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 19, 9:22 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> This is not true, Lloyd. It's an amateurish misreading of the text by
> RedState, which was in turn picked up by Sarah ("Death Panel") Palin, our
> Idiot-in-Chief. Then the Washington Times and the right-wing blogosphere
> revved up their engines and drove over the cliff.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress- >
> - Show quoted text -
>There you go again, Ed.
Yup, and at my age, I'm glad still to be going, John.
>
>You make fun of Sarah Palin for her "Death Panel" statements, just
>after you admit that those death panels already exist - "They're
>called Medical Directors in the insurance industry."
Sarah has an inkling that *someone* must be making these life-and-death
decisions, because we're already at the point where some people are dying
because they don't get proper treatment that we all know is available. But
either she didn't know (most likely) or didn't care (another possibility)
that she was aimed in the wrong direction.
It must be socialism, she thinks, because socialism is always evil and
capitalism is always virtuous, in her Alice-through-the-looking-glass,
world. Now government is going to be overt about it: the life-choice
consultations, which have been a function of hospitals and their ethics
boards for decades, suddenly are going to become government-controlled
"death squads" in her wacky imagination. The death squads, as always, are
upper-level staff in private insurance companies. Her hubris, or ignorance,
or the weakness of a mind that allows it to be vicitimized by ideology, led
her to conclude that it was all the fault of the government rather than an
economic necessity of doing business in the topsy-turvey world of medical
"markets."
She has the certainty of the born-again, John. That is to say, she has a
weak mind that obtains absolutist certainty by marrying herself to an
ideology or a religion. So she's taken a nutty interpretation of something
that exists because of the economics of the INSURANCE industry, and
attributed it to GOVERNMENT by, first, a misunderstanding what the new
committees are and do, and, secondly, because she can't believe that the
virtuous insurance industry actually is doing what she fears so much.
She has no idea of what the bill actually says. People are just feeding her
one-liners. And she's a fool.
>
>The federal government wants to be in the health care business and
>will be before too long - anyone who thinks the public option has been
>forgotten simply isn't paying attention. And when we do get there, we
>will have bureaucrats making the same decisions that are made by the
>insurance companies' Medical Directors. There will always have to be
>someone to say "no", and sometimes that will be to an expensive
>procedure that might prolong a life.
At least we can vote them out. The insurance companies own you. Until a few
days ago, they could make those life-and-death decisions any way they
want -- and what they often "want" is to improve profits using any possible
excuse. If you've been reading the news, you know that they just tried to
pull off a trick by which newborn babies are denied coverage for
"pre-existing conditions."
>
>So, which is it? Was Sarah on target, or will the taxpayers be
>footing the bill for every possible procedure and drug that might even
>slightly benefit a patient?
Sarah is full of shit. The bubblehead remains as clueless as ever. As for
footing the bill, you and I foot most of them already. And you apparently
haven't studied the European models of what consumers can get as part of the
program, and what's available to them at their own expense, with something
like health care savings accounts or even private insurance.
>
>You can't have it both ways.
Don't try to tell that to people like Gunner. He's been having it both ways
for years.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
Speaking of Sarah:
Levi Johnston pitches antidote to Sarah Palin Alaska series
Levi's re-loading!
Levi Johnston, Sarah Palin's grandbaby-daddy and the bane of her existence,
is pitching his own docu-series in which HE will introduce viewers to
Alaska.
The news comes just days after Discovery Networks announced that its TLC
network would air "Sarah Palin's Alaska" in which SHE would introduce us to
Alaska.
Yes, TV is about to erupt in warring Palin-clan docu-series. Life could not
get better.
"If I could wave my magic wand I would want it to premiere at the exact same
hour, minute, and second as Sarah Palin's does," Stuart Krasnow, the
executive producer of Levi's series, told The TV Column.
Levi's show, tentatively titled "Levi Johnston's Final Frontier," is "
'Jersey Shore' on ice," Krasnow said.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tvblog/2010/03/levi-johnston-pitches-antidote.html?hpid=artslot
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:o5CdnTxrUNF1qyzW...@giganews.com...
Gee. Fireworks. I *love* fireworks. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
I wonder if we'll learn which has the bigger schwantz?
--
John R. Carroll