Enraged Defenders of the Status Quo

Amy, this is a surpassing silly post. The people aren’t defending the status quo, so much as attacking what the change might be. It’s one thing to have a bad system (although most people aren’t all that upset about their own healthcare, which is why Obama feels the need to tell us we can keep what we have, without of course, knowing whether the changed landscape will take things away from us, something which seems quite likely); quite another to have an awful system to replace it. And protesters think the replacement will be truly awful. And the protesters may also think that their healthcare, personally, ain’t so bad, so they’re not sayng to keep your hands of their “crappy healthcare”.
.
And can’t this “you’re defending the status quo” argument be put to any protest? When we were going to invade Iraq, the protests were furious. Couldn’t the argument be made that they were defending the status quo?

I think the closest thing to this is the “hardhat rallies” that occurred in reaction to the Vietnam War protests under Nixon.
_
Those were probably the original “astroturf” rallies — designed to look like a spontaneous expressions of support for the war, but orchestrated from the White House.
_
You should go to the rally, and ask the people there if they think that the government should get out of health care entirely — start with Medicaid, then ask about Medicare, and onto Veterans…

“to protest Barak Obama’s socialized medicine proposal”
.
Does there need to be a “[sic]” in there? Or was the mistake yours.

Amy, tell me this is snark and you really do get that this is exactly what it looks like — the pent up frustration of those who resent that we have had a successful civil rights, women’s rights, and increasingly a gay rights movement that have produced a country that could vote in a Barack Obama.

Thanks, Amy, more stuff to ponder. At least I appreciate it. Alas, the LOOK of rage is real, but some of it is brought to you by Freedomworks, Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, and other corporate sponsors. Remember this blog post?

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/04/how-come-cbs-journalists-cant-recognize-paid-lobbyists-when-they-see-them/

…do these protesters – many wanting government off their backs – catch the irony of asking the govt. to keep their hands off Medicare? But I digress. Now this is levity.

Guys, remember ANSWER, Code Pink etc., these people have nothing on those lunatics.

the only people who are happy with their health care are people on Medicare and have no fear of losing it, people whose premiums are so expensive, that the insurance companies would never cancel them and the millions of people who have health insurance and are one illness away of finding out what health insurance industry in this country is really all about.

And for those whose rage IS real, a lot of the rage is stoked by outright lies and misinformation by said lobbyists, corporate sponsors, and even our own elected officials. ‘Death Panels’, anyone?

Sadly, it works, because our Democrats are weak. The ‘End of Life Counseling’ provision in the Senate bill was excised, because, as Sen. Grassley noted, it was too controversial (not noting the irony of saying so the day after he told his own constituents they SHOULD be afraid of ‘death panels’.

You know the fun thing about people like Code Pink? They, for the most part, at least self-identify, rather than passing themselves off as spur-of-the-moment, grassroots citizen uprising.

I’m thinking New Coke.

Seriously, these folks are seriously agitated and seriously afraid, but their fear is based wholly on lies perpetrated by the few who benefit from the status quo, sanctioned by Republicans and repeated as “balanced reporting” by the MSM.

If there’s any public interest left in journalism it demands that the liars – the special interests and their congressional stooges – be called out, identified and confronted with the truth, then made to explain why they choose to practice domestic political terrorism. It’s too late for tepid “explanations” of reality to satisfy news media responsibilities; you’ve let the lies get way too far out of hand.

Sucks to lose an election, doesn’t it? Get used to it.

Wow. The Democrat party has gone from parading phony “soldiers” to promote its anti-military agenda (see John Kerry’s phony-@ss “Winter Soldiers” and the dozens of frauds claiming to be Iraq war “veterans”) to fabricating phony “documents” (see Rather, Dan “Kenneth”) to now inventing phony doctors to advance Obama’s socialized medicine scheme. http://patterico.com/2009/08/12/roxana-mayer-im-not-a-doctor-but-i-play-one-at-town-hall-meetings/

Sucks to lose an election, doesn’t it? Get used to it.
.
All things being equal, it’s better to have a society where elections aren’t that big of a deal, i.e., where people’s lives aren’t changed by elections?

Arkansas 1957……

80% of the teabagger protesters are on Medicare. They are perfectly happy with what they have and don’t want the rest of us horning in on their quality service.
The other 20% of teabaggers are racists and militia movement types who just want to attack non-whites and their allies in the Democratic party.
I can’t believe you haven’t been able to piece this stuff together.

1.2 was misposted–apologies
.
Dee, there are laws about coverage and dropping people.

And the companies don’t care, or the laws are toothless to begin with.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105680875

…also Amy, thanks for mentioning color-coded protesters. Had you followed the Anchorage Non-Discrimination Ordinance protests? The opposing sides literally painted themselves red vs. blue. Shannyn Moore and mudflats followed this closely.

http://www.themudflats.net/2009/06/17/anchorage-non-discrimination-ordinance-photos/

http://shannynmoore.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/honk-if-youre-straight-civil-rights-ordinance-video/
(please see shannyn’s video. I’ll bet you’ll want to write a poignant post after watching it)

How ’bout anytime a conservative is nominated for SCOTUS? The response to Roberts was waaaaaaaaaaay over the top.

Check out this thorough b!tch slap of the clueless socialist by the American College of Surgeons:

“The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.
Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

“Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what’s right for the patient.

“We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President’s remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.

“We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care.”

ANSWER and Code Pink can go over the top, no doubt about it.

But neither one is corporate funded, and I’ve never seen any of them carrying firearms.

“Check out this thorough b!tch slap of the clueless socialist by the American College of Surgeons:”

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

spob — either you are incredibly naive, which is possible; dangerously misinformed, which is understandable, woefully undereducated, which is likely or more likely a compbination of all three, which is proof of your stunning ineligibility to participate in this debate.

The protesters aren’t corporate funded–come on.
.
And Code Pink, those guys can sure do a number on a recruiting station.

And I was just about to ask Amy whether her email came with the expected propaganda bomb to rally the mob.

Sucks to lose an election …

Ahhh….media coverage, war (think Iraq), fake outrage. How about William Randolph Hearst and the Spanish-American War? His famous quote “You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war” may be more myth than fact but his papers did publish lots of fuel for the war fire. FOX and Judith Miller were mere amateurs compared to this past media empire.

http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/remember.html
mythical quote? http://academic2.american.edu/~wjc/wjc3/notlikely.htm

So are you and the college of surgeons, which is nothing more that their lobbying organization, saying that we don’t bust doctors including surgeons for conducting unnecessary surgeries like c-sections and hysterectomies for money. Are you saying that all of the fines and jail time passed out to medical professionals for defrauding Medicare happened not out of greed but because these were just good well-meaning people who used the wrong forms. Please doctors can do things for money just like any other profession. Are all doctors that way probably not or at least i hope not. But to say that this was completely untue that no surgeon would make a decision based on financial gain is ludicrous.

“propaganda bomb” / 14.2 …that reminds me of the early “MASH” episode where an unexploded bomb lands on the 4077th. Then they find out, (one of my fave lines from that show) “The CIA has their own bomb?” It explodes, sort of, spraying propaganda flyers all over the camp.

I guess I was wrong about you, spob.
.
You really are a troll.

Bruce Bartlett:

… In my opinion, conservative activists, who seem to believe that the louder they shout the more correct their beliefs must be, are less angry about Obama’s policies than they are about having lost the White House in 2008. They are primarily Republican Party hacks trying to overturn the election results, not representatives of a true grassroots revolt against liberal policies. If that were the case they would have been out demonstrating against the Medicare drug benefit, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, and all the pork-barrel spending that Bush refused to veto.

Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. They can start building some by admitting to themselves that Bush caused many of the problems they are protesting.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-12/the-gops-misplaced-rage/full/

Actually, Roberts has turned out to be much more radical than Scalia. That is saying something.
.
Scalia is a right winger, but with personal quirks where he actually deviates from the reservation every now and again.
.
Roberts is a steadfast ideologue. The reaction to Roberts turns out to be understated. I am paraphrasing a Senator who said that Roberts always sides with the powerful against the powerless, always votes for more executive power.
.
Why am I bothering to explain this to spob btw? I might as well drool or something so we could bond.

The defense of liberals for remaking 16% of our economy is always reduced to name calling and intellect bashing.
Amy’s premise for her blog is silly on its face. People are not raging against this bill to keep the status quo but against the House bill. Or the silly premise about wanting to keep the crappy health care they have. If the health care is so crappy, I would expect Congress and all MSM to hop onto the new private planes and receive their health care in Canada or Great Britain.
Nor does Amy consider how the health care insurance is crappy. Much of it has to deal with regulation that the same federal government has foisted on it before such as business can deduct HC premiums but individuals can’t the concept of Usual and Customary Reimbursements.
Liberals have their knickers in a twist over the yelling, violence and Nazi signage at the town halls. Somehow the media and these same liberal ideologues seemed to have missed the last 8 years under Bush. And when they were questioned about their screeds they screamed how it was their right to object. What has changed? Code Pink, Animal Rights Activists, War Protesters and Unions have and still are far more violent than any room full of medicare recipients.
And yes they do want the government to keep hands off their Medicare. Both Medicare and Medicaid will force huge tax increases on all Americans. If you think there is irony in that ask Dan Rostenkowski (see link http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1123-11.htmhttp://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1123-11.htm)
It is not the first time they raised “pitchforks” over these arrogant fools in Washington over Medicare

Maybe instead of name calling just answer this question: Every estimate by the CBO and other reliable economic sources say the current bill adds to the deficit . President Obama tells us any bill will not add to the deficit. The only other options are raising taxes across the board or rationing care. Which is it?

I can tell you this spob if this was code pink, a large black or hispanic crowd these same people doing this now would have a hugh problem with those groups, the police tactics would be completely different and so would the media coverage.

“But neither one is corporate funded, and I’ve never seen any of them carrying firearms.”

Really? If you look at the protesters outside any meeting. The liberals have printed, custom signs. The Astroturf, arranged gangs have hand written signs.

Who really is the organized mob and who is really exercising their constitutional right of dissent.

And is it possible they are armed to protect themselves against the union thugs like the ones that beat of the black conservative?

…………And can’t this “you’re defending the status quo” argument be put to any protest?

Martin Luther King Jr was trying to keep the status quo?

Washington, Jefferson, Franklin et.al. were attempting to keep the status quo?

OT, but totally awesome:
.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/business-owner-fires-on-4-robbers-killing-2-police-say/?hp

“If you look at the protesters outside any meeting. The liberals have printed, custom signs.”
.
Plus, we can spell.
.
If these authoritarian-following ignoramuses had the slightest idea what they were protesting they wouldn’t sound like complete morons every time they open their mouths. They’re pissed-off at whatever Rush tells them to be pissed-off about, which is why they always sound like the lying, radio clown they blindly follow.

You should really hope that Obama and the Democrats get this reform measure done soon so you can get the serious psychiatric therapy you so desperately need.

It’s morally wrong to leave 100 million Americans un or underinsured, 1 illness away from financial ruin. And it’s wrong to burden small business with the outrageous insurance costs also — found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

That’s right shepherdwong, I need help because I think it’s great that someone exercises his right to self-defense.
.
And there are two robbers that don’t get to prey on anyone–and for the cost of some shotgun shells. Gotta love it.

shepherdwong

Just as always no substance straight to name-calling. No wonder studies have shown liberals are more unhappy than conservatives. They think they are smarter than everybody else and then reality hits and they become severely depressed.

Those folks attending these aren’t doing so at Rush’s urging but even if they are so what? The White House is offering $15/hr to volunteers (Only liberals can come up with the concept of paid volunteers). I guess that is Obama’s stimulus plan to get dead beat liberals a job.

Only a Republican could get happy over people getting killed.

Thinking that guns kill people is like thinking a fork make Rosie O’Donnell fat

ohiolib

Republicans are happy when justice is carried out. It seems its the libs rejoice at dead bodies like in abortion or US soldiers in war

Apparently it’s warranted. “Studies have shown” that “conservatives” say they’re happier than liberals say they are happy. Being “conservatives” they could simply be lying or you can go with the fat, dumb and happy theory, if you prefer.
.
And I didn’t say that the brownshirts were going to town halls at Limbaugh’s urging (though only a moron would assume that some of them aren’t) I said they know everything they think they know about what they’re protesting, which runs the gamut from mere bottomless ignorance to batsh!t insanity, from Rush and his fellow right-wing liars and propagandists.
.
One more thing, liberal know that they’re smarter than everyone else (that, and a deep skepticism of authority, is what makes them liberal in the first place) and that’s what allows them to know how incredibly deluded and stupid “conservatives” are. That’s the depressing part.

I am happy that two guys who drew guns and pistol-whipped an 80 year old man are no longer a threat to, or drain on, society. I am also glad that a man exercised his right to defend himself.
.
It is unfortunate that two of them survived. We have to pay for their care, which is also unfortunate.

We know why these retirees are showing up at these meetings and ranting — they have adequate coverage paid for someone else and won’t be around for the devastation 10 years from now.

What gets me is that middle-aged employees, with good benefit packages don’t think they have a dog in this show. They seem to be supremely oblivious to the fact that no matter what Congress does, the coverage they have 5 years from now will not be as good as what they have now and that a significant number of companies aren’t confident. that they will be able to offer any coverage in a decade

And government employees at all levels are all a bunch of ostriches. Do they really think that taxpayers, who will be spending 40+% of their disposable income on healthcare will cough up the money to keep up benefits for government employees.

The administration and Congressional Democrats have gone about this in all the wrong way. Congressmen should have been out having these town halls from November 4 on to listen to doctors, nurses and patients and the administration should have focused on the employers. The August recess should have been the final listening phase with constituents, not the beginning. They could then have gone back and composed some sort of meaningful health care policy, i.e. actual reform. Instead, they went off to talk to each other and their cronies in the various health industries, constructed a sham bill and are now trying to sell it the voters. If they had done their jobs, there wouldn’t be anything to sell to anyone.

All this coverage of the process and players has completely missed the point: we need affordable health care available to everyone that does not bankrupt individuals, companies, and governments. We aren’t goint to get any of that.

Again right to the name callling and no substance. But how does it feel to have the WH, Congress and Senate and be smarter than anyone else and yet be outsmarted by a big fat clown?

That is why liberalism is a mental disorder- they are never as smart as they think they are only more arrogant!

Amen!

spob

Maybe you can devise a new weapon. ohiolib rhetoric in a can . Then you could bore criminals to death

“But how does it feel to have the WH, Congress and Senate and be smarter than anyone else and yet be outsmarted by a big fat clown?”
.
You tell me. That fat, lying, millionaire clown has been getting morons like you to vote against your own economic interests and for the interests of other fat, lying millionaires for decades.

Exactly how does taking more money out of my pocket under the guise of “socail justice” help my interests?

One lesson in the car for clunkers fiasco is that people will respond positively when the government returns their money to them.

It seems you are the moron

“I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.”

Thomas Jefferson

Maybe instead of name calling just answer this question: Every estimate by the CBO and other reliable economic sources say the current bill adds to the deficit . President Obama tells us any bill will not add to the deficit. The only other options are raising taxes across the board or rationing care. Which is it?

Why don’t you put your poser intelligence to use and answer the above ex-name calling. I am sure it will be a short answer

Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves.

Thomas Jefferson

The reason the White House was rushing to have bills passed in the House and Senate before the break was so the month of August could be about selling the plan to the American people.

Now that there isn’t a plan (thanks Chuck!), congress critters are stumbling in the dark, and walking into packed town halls filled with misinformed people afraid that the government is going to take away their medicare and institute socialized medicine (ahem! queue clip from Maher’s “new rule” about stupid people).

I agree that a Health Reform bill will be passed by the end of the year. All this teabagging performance art, also known as town hall meetings, will be a distant memory, and we will wonder what the fuss was all about.

Just keep your head down and watch out for all the flying dung between now and then.

The uniformed one is Obama. He floated that we pay more than $6000 more per person than anyone else. The widest gap is around $3800 with Denmark which does ration health care.

Recently it was $30,000 a Doctor receives to cut off a foot of a diabetic. Doctors receive Usual and Customary Reimbursement (UCR) of $700-1700.

Now he wants drug companies to give up drug data exclusivity so that cheaper generics will be available sooner. I am sure he is convinced drug companies will continue to take the capital risk and legal risk to develop new drugs without any drop-off from current levels. That is the same economic brilliance that gave us the porkulus plan and the cash for clunkers.

The White House web site should be chock full of fishy stories all of which are provided by the President.

Maher’s “new rule” should be that short balding mediocre comedians are the truly stupid.

“All this teabagging performance art, also known as town hall meetings, will be a distant memory, and we will wonder what the fuss was all about.”
.
Say it ain’t so. I’m nearly giddy with the notion that we’ll all be remembering this episode, as part of the Republican Party’s entire maniacal slide into political irrelevance, for a very long time.

shepherdwong

You can have Chrisnbama to help

Every estimate by the CBO and other reliable economic sources say the current bill adds to the deficit . President Obama tells us any bill will not add to the deficit. The only other options are raising taxes across the board or rationing care. Which is it?

No amount of name calling or demonizing of protesters will eliminate the above question. They know you are either avoiding it (libs have trouble with truth in their actions) or just hiding under your tin foil hats thinking the Messiah won’t let it happen to you

As I suspected- without the name calling and demonizing liberals are left with being mentally exhausted and morally bankrupt

http://edlabor.house.gov/newsroom/2009/07/cbo-scores-confirms-deficit-ne.shtml
.
Which simply proves that you are either a liar, or simply pig-ignorant.
.
July 20, 2009
.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released estimates this evening confirming for the first time that H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is deficit neutral over the 10-year budget window – and even produces a $6 billion surplus. CBO estimated more than $550 billion in gross Medicare and Medicaid savings. More importantly, the bill includes a comprehensive array of delivery reforms to set the stage for lowering the future growth in health care costs.

July 20, 2009

http://edlabor.house.gov/newsroom/2009/07/cbo-scores-confirms-deficit-ne.shtml
.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released estimates this evening confirming for the first time that H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is deficit neutral over the 10-year budget window – and even produces a $6 billion surplus. CBO estimated more than $550 billion in gross Medicare and Medicaid savings. More importantly, the bill includes a comprehensive array of delivery reforms to set the stage for lowering the future growth in health care costs.
.
You see, reality really does have a liberal bias.

short balding mediocre comedians are the truly stupid.
.
How did you know that spob was bald? Or are you reminiscing about your time pandering to Dick Cheney’s perverted needs?

Be careful, Amy. You’ll have these mobs outside Time HQ and your own home if you keep this up…

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Just off her enraged, hysterical, uncontrolled outburst in the Congo, the vile Hillary Clinton has continued Barack Obama’s “America Sucks” world tours. While polluting Liberia with her presence, Clinton denounced the United States with one of her patented, whack job, leftist conspiracy theories: “”You know we had some problems in some of our presidential elections. As you may remember, in 2000 our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of one of the men running for president was governor of the state. So we have our problems too.” Clinton just alleged, before a foreign audience, that Jeb Bush cooked up a conspiracy to steal votes in Florida during the 2000 election! Bet your last penny that no useful idiot in the Washington press corps will ever ask Clinton to provide any evidence to support her latest nut job conspiracy theory.

Let’s be clear about a few things. Much of the criticism leveled at Mr. Obama and at health-care reform plans is nothing short of pure derisive insanity. The Birthers, for example, are blissfully unaware of Certification of Birth, ID No 151 1961 – 010641. The “Death Panel” crowd is drawing extraordinary conclusions from some of the more radical socialized medicine systems in which there are ‘productivity to society’ elements to coverage amounts, an analogy so utterly incomparable to the US system that this borders on willful manipulation. The “Secret Arab/Muslim” conspiracy. Well, if it’s true, I won’t complain, we could use a cultured Middle East presence in the White House. However, based on current WH policy on the ME, I’d say that theory has been thoroughly debunked. I don’t know, maybe he’s a self-hating Muslim?
~
Anyway, there’s that. Now on to the other side of the coin. Let it be said that if comprehensive health-reform can be attained, ensuring access to health-care for all without overburdening an already financially strained populace, I am 100% behind it. But let us dispense with the ‘natural human right’ to health-care nonsense. Fundamental human rights do not materialize out of thin air with the advent of technological advances. In other words, where was the inalienable right to free health-care 200 years ago when most people never visited a doctor in their entire lives? Simply because we have made great advances in life saving technology and disease prevention is not to say that a new, modern ‘fundamental human right’ has manifested itself. Does society have a moral obligation to assist and care for those without the means of caring for themselves? Yes. Is everyone endowed with a ‘fundamental right’ to government administered health-care? No. Could such a plan be achieved in a wholly beneficial manner? Yes. Will it? Unlikely given the current proposals. Keep working at it, though.

very shrill, textee. It would be more interesting if you had some facts, or if you were American. But neither is the case.

Exiled, if we adopt the standards of 200 years ago, we shall have to deny women the vote, re-institutionalize slavery, and radically reduce both the army and navy, not to mention abolishing the air force completely. You do realize that we can’t judge fundamental human rights by an alien yardstick, and that you are effectively suggesting that we do so?
.
Not to mention a more important point: providing access to healthcare for all citizens will benefit the economy in the long term, reduce social inequalities, thus producing a more stable society, and, overall, better equip us to face the challenge of new diseases. As matters stand, we have a large pool of disease incubators and carriers, often poorly nourished – in other words, an excellent breeding ground for a real pandemic. So far, we’ve been lucky with swine flu (well, except for spob and textee, but trolls are just more susceptible), but it is tempting fate for us to leave so much of the population vulnerable.
.
On the financial front – we could provide universal coverage, and do so better and more cheaply, if so much of the money we allocate, as a society, to healthcare, did not vanish into the pockets of health insurance providers for administrative costs. I am going to take you at your word, and assume you don’t want to follow a GOP line here. Do you really think it is better for society to pay for health insurance administrators, or to pay for actual medical care, doctors, nurses and hospitals? I have heard arguments from conservatives that government bureaucrats should not intervene between patient and doctor – do you think we should have health insurance bureaucrats doing so?

On occasions, such as must inevitably befall in a young Republick, when the vile, insinuative arts of the demagogue shall seek to corrupt the honest intentions of the citizenry, and to subvert the exercise of their sovereign power, and to pervert honest discourse on matters of publick import, we should applaud those who apply an immediate and expeditious punishment thereto.
.
Thomas Jefferson

First of all, when speaking about ‘fundamental human rights’ the fact that a given society suppressed these does not mean they did not exist. The fundamental rights of equality and suffrage were denied by the US government, and many societies past, to particular groups. Yet, their basic human rights were still entitled to them. Government/society presented an immoral barrier to these rights. The fundamental right to life, for example, does not cease to exist because many people’s lives are cut entirely too short. So, what I am saying is that basic human rights existed from the beginning of mankind, what we are inherently entitled to. They do not waver, they do not morph, they do not expand. They are, simply, periodically rejected and denied. So, I was not adopting standards of 200 years ago, I was pointing out that the alleged ‘basic human right’ to free health-care simply did not exist, as it does not exist today.
~
With that said, this is not to say that free-health care should not be pursued. But it is a privilege bestowed upon people by a benevolent society, it is not an inherent right. To answer your question, certainly, if a workable reform can be implemented, one that allows patient choice, one that does not seek to interfere with patient/doctor relationships, and one that does not overly burden society, then it is to be pursued. And of course I do not prefer either bureaucrat over another, government or insurer, neither is entitled to interfere. Would I rather society pay equally into medical costs rather than insurance representatives? Absolutely. But can that be the case? If so, I’m all in. However, herein lies a problem: currently I pay zero, nada, niente in terms of health-care costs. I have no insurance and I do not visit the doctor unless absolutely warranted. So my question is, will free-health care really be free or will people in my situation end up with sudden costs that did not previously exist?

themaverickfor

.
You see, reality really does have a liberal bias.

Yes and its retarded. That is what happpens when youlink to another dimwit loiberal politician like George Miller

Here is the link directly from CBO’s letter to tax cheat Rangel. The deficit is $239 billion over 10 years

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf

Ah another brilliant response from the 3 brain celled liberal front.

Exiled, your whole argument presented above suggests that actually universal health care might be a right which has been withheld by the government – your immoral barrier. If it was true for the other cases 200 hundred years ago, why should it not be true for universal health care now? Also, why simply assume it is not a right? Why doesn’t it fit in with say…life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Can one pursue happiness without one’s health?
.
Also, what is the distinction you make between “people” and “society”? Can you really separate the two?
.
Finally, may you long enjoy good health, but supposing that you have an underlying condition that is going undetected, and which will only be clearly manifest when it fully develops – as matters stand, you may not be able to get coverage or treatment. If reform is enacted successfully, and you get access to a public plan, or are entitled to enroll in an existing private one, without exclusion for pre-existing conditions – surely you will be better off. Again, I wish you good health, it is hardly likely that you will not experience a serious condition as you get older. Sooner or later you will need medical care, if only as the various parts of you age and run down. More to the point, as matters stand, surely you pay something when you visit the doctor. It might be that under healthcare reform, you actually end up saving some money, as well as having greater security.

Sorry exiled the dim witted libs think that rights are only given by government dictate. Health care is not a right any more than a drivers license.

Any assumption that money taken away from insurance companies and goes to doctors without a haircut to government pockets is believed by the tin foiled hat crowd. The take for the new governement bureaucracy will dwarf insurance company profits. Do you think the Dumos stopped Republicans from sending out the planned heath care chart was to save money? Check out reality

http://westernfrontamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/healthcare-chart.jpg

themaverickfor:

Just like the rest of your clown liberal frends you are long on name calling but short with any answers. Gather another 9 libs so you hit double digit IQs and answer this

Every estimate by the CBO and other reliable economic sources say the current bill adds to the deficit . President Obama tells us any bill will not add to the deficit. The only other options are raising taxes across the board or rationing care. Which is it?

Otherwise go back to your basement put on your tin-foiled hat put on your Peter, Paul and Mary cassettes and take your anti-depressants

Health care is not a right any more than a drivers license.

So how ’bout we defund the CDC and let the all those influenza mutations fend for themselves. It’s not like we’re all in this together or anything.

themaverickfor

Hey dimbulb that was written for politicians that would subvert the will of the people which in this case are the people.

So I guess you support punishing the pols that are forcing their will over the citizentry

That is an idiot argument. Whether you defund the CDC, FAA or the FCC no basic rights or liberties are gained or lost.

That is the problem when no one bothers to read the constitution but we have empathy put into legal decisions

Freeinpa, you really don’t know your Jefferson, do you? But then, you don’t understand the Constitution or the Bill of Rights either. As they say: READ THE BILL!

Two brains cells ahead of you, kiddo.

themaverickfor

Still no runs no hits only errors and name calling. Momma must be proud! Now go clean your room before she comes home

Basil
~
I disagree that my argument above could be extended to the ‘right’ of health-care. Government was not the barrier to health-care for its citizens historically. The technology we currently have did not exist. There was no prevention or barrier to health-care, it was merely a matter of an a complete lack of modern medicine. Government was not involved in any way. My point, then, was that the advent of more efficient methods of treating disease, illness and injury does not constitute the emergence of a sudden fundamental right to access said medical advancement.
~
The distinction between ‘people’ and ‘society’ is quite clear, in my perspective. With a free health-care system the total costs/pay-outs by society as a whole may remain static or even decrease. Yet, it requires a different means of payment. Rather than individuals who choose (can afford) to have an insurance policy or visit a doctor bearing the costs, now every individual is obliged to carry a portion of the financial burden, likely through tax-increases, although a possibility is also a personal mandate to buy into a government policy (or any policy) while others retain their private pre-existing policies. This causes individuals who currently do not have the means to pay for health-care in any form to suddenly be forced to bear additional financial costs to cover their government implemented ‘right’ to health-care. My point is not to discredit the public option, single-payer, or universal health-care options currently being discussed. Like I have said, I think the basic premise of seeking to provide access to all as admirable and desirable. However, what I am critical of is this notion that everyone will be better off, inherently. This is fallacious. The family that is on the verge of losing its home, struggling to keep the electricity connected and food on the table cannot withstand a substantial tax-increase nor a forced mandate to but into a policy, even a cheaper version. This I am sure you can understand. Find a way around such calamitous situations as this and I stand behind you without reservation.

But you didn’t both to read the documents in question. The one you cite is a preliminary assessment. Mine is dated later and is the product of more detailed analysis. So, yet again, you fail, kiddo. But keep trying. And trying. And trying.

But you didn’t both to read the documents in question. The one you cite is a preliminary assessment. Mine is dated later and is the product of more detailed analysis. So, yet again, you fail, kiddo. But keep trying. And trying. And trying. You can’t even write English, can you?

Which part of the Costitution is bothering you? The part where the Congress writes the legislation. Or the part were the the president signs it into law.
Or perhaps the Interstate Commerce clause has you down……

*buy into

Hmm the only documents on the CBO website is the attachement I put previously with a letter dated July 17 to tax cheat Rangel. And yet you and George Miller have a more detailed analysis by July 20 at 10am.

Missed your dose again. Mom won’t be happy

Hmm the only documents on the CBO website is the attachement I put previously with a letter dated July 17 to tax cheat Rangel. And yet you and George Miller have a more detailed analysis by July 20 at 10am. If it were true the Dumos and MSM media would be printing it front page everyday

Missed your dose again. Mom won’t be happy

themaverickfor

‘CBO Scores Confirms Deficit Neutrality of Health Reform Bill’ [Veronique de Rugy]

Says who? Democratic chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, George Miller, that’s who.

Here is the chairman’s press release, issued this morning at 10 a.m., about CBO’s projection about health-care reform:

Washington, D.C. — The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released estimates this evening confirming for the first time that H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is deficit neutral over the 10-year budget window – and even produces a $6 billion surplus. CBO estimated more than $550 billion in gross Medicare and Medicaid savings. More importantly, the bill includes a comprehensive array of delivery reforms to set the stage for lowering the future growth in health care costs.

How does his press release compare to the actual CBO’s projections? Here, there is no mention of the revenue neutrality of the bill. In fact, it shows the bill adding to the deficit.

According to CBO’s and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period. That estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill’s insurance coverage provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions that JCT estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those 10 years.

And you libs complain about Limbaugh! Liberalism is a mental disorder stay on your meds

But Exiled, you aren’t actually showing that such a right doesn’t exist, isn’t inherent, or could not develop over time. After all, Civil Rights would be a good example, as would women’s suffrage, of rights that were once considered null, or even risible, but which now are taken for granted and generally agreed to have benefited the community. What I don’t see from you is any reason why the same could not apply to health care. And you are actually wrong when you argue that government is not the cause of non-universal access. It is precisely the way in which government has acted, or not acted, to enable and maintain the current health care market system that is the reason for our current situation. If it were not so, we would hardly be having the current debate. Similarly, it was government that held back Civil Rights, and government that maintained the absence of female suffrage.
.
You also presented rights as bestowed by society on the people. I remain unclear on what the distinction here would be. If society and people are separate, who or what is society?
.
You invoke the idea that families will suddenly assume these extra burdens. But again, you neglect the fact that families are carrying excessive and swollen burdens with the health care system we have. if we introduce a competitive public option, break the monopoly held by the health insurance cartels, and drive down premiums and pricing, this would actually lift a good part of that burden. Equally, the reforms that are advocated are not designed to pile a burden on the uninsured and jobless. They aim to provide affordable healthcare – which people need and would have to pay for anyway. There is no way that 48 million people are going to make it through without health issues – issues which damage their quality of life, lose them time from work, and in general impose an economic burden on them anyway. This is where I think your argument falls badly short of reality – you don’t recognize the burdens these people carry now, and so, in the name of a hypothetical future burden you suggest we should do nothing. No-one is proposing to pay by taxing the poor families you invoke, or by imposing such burdens on them via a mandate. If you doubt this, look at how the Ways And Means Committee proposes to pay for this:
.
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/pfr3200.pdf
.
No tax increases on the poor or those earning less than 280,000 dollars per year as individuals. Moreover, 96% of small businesses would also see no tax increases. They find the rest of the money through savings, efficiencies and curbing overpayments. Where in any of this do you find these alleged extra burdens on the poor?

Paul Dirks, are you trying to explain things like the Constitution to Freepie? I salute your heroism, but you’d have more chance if the troll actually knew what the Constitution was. He certainly doesn’t know who the Founding Fathers were!

The only dose I got was from your Mom, Freepie. But do keep trying to deny the facts.

The part that contains the actaul bill of rights. Obviously your copy has more than I see.

If you want to provide health care under legislation then do it but let;s not blow smoke up everyone’s keister and say it a right or as Obboma is now desparately calling it a civil right for health care

Thats why the bill is in trouble, the pols won’t fess upto what it is and what it will really do

Funny you should mention facts dim bulb provide a link to any offical CBO document that claims neutrality. not one from another liberal idiot like Miller

You provide snarky responses with nothing behind. A professional gasbag

Mav your right I still can’t fin the words abortion, entitlements and other “rights” that libs seem to find. But somehow th eRight to bear arms never appears in their copy

July 20, 2009 10:02 AM
Washington, D.C. — The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released estimates this evening confirming for the first time that H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is deficit neutral over the 10-year budget window – and even produces a $6 billion surplus. CBO estimated more than $550 billion in gross Medicare and Medicaid savings. More importantly, the bill includes a comprehensive array of delivery reforms to set the stage for lowering the future growth in health care costs.

The estimates also cover important reinvestments in Medicare and Medicaid, including phasing in the closing of the “donut” hole in the Medicare drug benefit. The bill’s long-term reform of Medicare’s physician fee schedule to eliminate the potential 21 percent cut in fees, and put payments on a sustainable basis for the future, will cost about $245 billion. Those costs, however, are not included in the net calculations above, as they will be absorbed under the upcoming statutory “pay go” legislation that is pending in the House.
.
But hey, why not believe in Freepie’s fantasies? He’s deliberately using an outdated estimate and peddling more lies from the party of euthanasia and death panels. What else would you expect?

Reality check:
.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/07/tri-committee-health-care-bill-deficit.html

You still haven’t provided anything from the CBO Only other liberal gasbags.

You are right death panels won’t be in the bill. The Senate announced tonight they are removing any language around this. HArd to remove what doen’t exist

Because you don’t agree doesn’t make them lies. Feel free to send me the CBO link that confirms the libs wet dreams of a balanced HC bill

You know, I think I see Freepie’s problem. it’s obvious now – he can’t read the Constitution because it’s written in English! We have asked too much of the poor creature. Freepie, I am sorry. We’ll help you get a visa to come to this country, get you some remedial classes and some basic civics instruction, and that nasty little problem you have will clear up as well!

.Dirks: I see reading is not a strong point. Press releases from pols are as good as Charmin Feel free to send me the CBO link

Hey maverdick

I don’t need a visa need to learn English I just need to vote Dumocrat and all will be taken care of

Dirks, do you think we can arrange for an English speaker to read these documents to Freepie? He doesn’t seem to grasp what they mean.

Reality is different in a liberals mental disorder

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf

Here is the real deal from the CBO. The only document on HR 3200. Its 17 pages so get a 5th grader to help you read it

Freepie, translate into English and try again. Pay attention to constructing sentences, and, if possible, learn how to use punctuation. You’ll find it helps when trying to communicate with native English speakers.

Indeed.
-

The first thing of note is that while these numbers are perfectly accurate in that if you score the impact of HR3200 and some accompaning legislation related to Pay-Go to be voted on soon you will get the $6 billion surplus, but under the cautious methods used by CBO this is somewhat to put the cart before the horse. Because the latest message from the CBO Director’s Blog, released early Saturday morning still puts the matter as follows:

[snip] According to CBO’s and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period. [snip]

In the matter of what the CBO has pronounced, who would you trust more? The non-partisan CBO who actually did the scorekeeping, or George Miller?

maverdick you and dirk need to reading something based in fact. Repeating soemthing over and over and clicking your heels won’t get you to Kansas.

Still waiting for facts not a press release

Ah, so you do accept the CBO’s estimate of budget neutrality and savings? After all, that’s what Miller was quoting. I am glad you agree with the sane side of the debate.

yosiattack

and you can bet that PAYGO will receive a waiver

yo maverdick for all the moaning about english and reading you seem to have trouble reading the CBO report and Yosiattacks post.

Have fun at the Special Olympics this year

My father passed away in 1989 at age of 62. He might not have, but a comittee at the privately owned Hospital where he received his care determined that at his age, a lung transplant would not be an efficient use of a limited resource.
.
My mother passed in 2005 at the age of 76. She had a living will properly drawn out, and cleary spelled out DNR orders. Both died in their own homes.
.
Anyone who speaks cavalierly about how health care isn’t rationed yet but will be under Obamacare or how there’s something wrong witrh providing sensible counseling to people facing serious illnesses is not only hopelessly ignorant but probably heartless as well.

Could you please read the quote from Mr. Webb’s analysis again? The CBO still thinks we will have a deficit.
-
By the way, my post was a little ill-timed, so I appear to be in agreement with freeinpa’s rhetoric. I don’t necessarily disagree with your position, FIP. But the petty internet point-scoring is tiresome.

and you can bet that PAYGO will receive a waiver

Odd how many arguments against the reform effort don’t address what’s actually happening but rely entirely on what ‘every knows’ will happen.

ANd evey patient should have counseling betwenn the doctor and patient. It is no business of the federal government.

And since 70-80% of medical costs are in the last years of life anyone who thinks that rationing by a govenment panel will be better may not be hearltess but brain dead. Obama in his own words talked about a blue pill which would make one comfortable to die. It was cheaper than the red one which was more expensive and was to treat the disease.

Tax increases across the board and rationing are the only answers in this bill. To ignore is catastrophic to think otherwise is foolish

But Paul, when great sages like Freepie make predictions, they must be true – even the one about how the Flying Spaghetti Monster will descend on the Potomac and provide free cigars for the faithful.

In a rational world it is called thinking ahead. Since Obama has said time and time again it has to be budget neutral (and its not). Taxes are the only solution. Raise taxes in an economic downturn is exceeded in stupidity only by the maverickfor. So it waive PAYGO or OBama goes

Freepie, you really need do make the distinction between movies and real life. The Matrix is not true.

I am sure the Flying Spaghetti Monster appreciates being part of your forward planning, Freepie. And you clearly don’t know how to read a budget plan, or to conduct a financial analysis.

maverdick

Again snarky responses no facts or reason.

Basil
~
Sorry, lack of clarity on my part. I think you misinterpreted my stance.
~
Government was not involved in any way.
Here I was referring to the historical lack of medical access. The advances did not exist, so it was not a matter of government obstruction. Contemporary matters is another issue altogether.
~
But it is a privilege bestowed upon people by a benevolent society, it is not an inherent right.
Here, privilege, not right. The difference between society and the people is simply a matter of collective resources versus the individual. Society, in my opinion, should foster the advancement of the disenfranchised by caring for those unable to care for themselves, basic humanity. Yet, that is not to say that each person is entitled to a government right to be taken care of without cost.
~
The family that is on the verge of losing its home, struggling to keep the electricity connected and food on the table cannot withstand a substantial tax-increase nor a forced mandate to but into a policy, even a cheaper version. I am not referring to those families who currently have a health-insurance policy or those who frequent the doctor, so your assertion of them already having a financial health related burden is based upon a misreading of my comment. I refer to those (and I think you underestimate the size of this group) who do not have insurance and very rarely, if ever, see a physician. Colds, fevered, sprains, essentially all self-recovering ailments are considered unworthy of a doctors visit. This constitutes a huge portion of the uninsured. They do not merely have no coverage, they do not even visit doctors barring emergencies. So, these families are not incurring vast health-care costs.
~
I’ll have to look more into the Ways and Means Committee proposal, for the HELP Committee plan included a detrimental personal mandate complete with fines for non-enrollment. I cannot condone such callous schemes veiled as helping the poor. But, I’ll examine this new one.

maverdick

Wuth your experitse I am surprised AIDS Cancer Poverty and World wide debt isn’t solved.

But The CBO Analysis has a table on page 2 (that II many fingers) that show 239 billion deficit.

Keep the name calling if it gives you wood but it don’t vhange the reality

Hey I’ll take the cigars to smoke while I drive my gas guzzling SUV.

Unless it makes the metrosexuals like maverdick cry

Yosiattack:

Agreed. I also find tiresoem those who use politcal ads for facts and ignore the reality then slide right into namecalling.

maverdick:

seems you run out of witty retorts and still no real facts only more errors than the ’62 Mets.

Sucks for you

Once again, freeinpa demonstrates how out of touch he is with the reality that, if he were to face it, would squash his remaining brain cell. That July 17 letter is out-of-date.

From July 25:

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10480/07-25-IMAC.pdf

Several percent of annual Medicare spending would amount to tens of billions of dollars per year after 2019. By that point, H.R. 3200, as introduced, would already be on track to achieve tens of billions of dollars in Medicare savings each year, primarily as a result of provisions that would reduce payments to Medicare providers relative to those projected in the current-law baseline. (Total federal resources devoted to health care programs would increase under the introduced version of that bill, however, because of the provisions aimed at making health insurance available to more people.) Substantial additional savings from an IMAC-type proposal would probably require significant changes in coverage, benefit design, and payment and delivery systems aimed at reducing the quantity and intensity of services provided. Some of the savings that could be expected from such changes are probably already captured in CBO’s assessment of the long-term savings that would result from provisions of H.R. 3200, but it is difficult to assess the extent of that overlap.

Let me repeat: HR 3200 will “achieve tens of billions of dollars in Medicare savings each year”

Funny how I was able quite easily to locate a CBO document contradicting your conclusion. Apparently, time stopped in your narrow little world on July 17th. Meanwhile, in the real world, HR 3200 has been amended (and re-scored by the CBO based upon those amendments) a couple of times — and it is now scored revenue-neutral.

She was quoting someone else, spob. “Sic” is used to point out that some error or spelling or grammar was made by the person quoted, not by the person doing the quoting. I recently had to respond in writing to someone arguing, also in writing, over what the “theshold [sic] issue” was.” Since he, not I, did the misspelling, I “sic”ced him, as I have also done here.
.
It’s quite clear that Amy is quoting any number of people who have used exactly the phrase she quoted: “socialized medicine.” No one contests the accuracy of the spelling and grammar in the quotation (as opposed to the accuracy of the claim made in the quotation), so there’s no need for a “sic.”
.
Okay, there is such a thing as a sneering “sic,” used to indicate contempt for what is actually said. Like: “Sarah Palin actually used the term ‘death panels’ [sic].” But since “death panels” is a perfectly ordinary locution in English, grammatical and, in this example, correctly spelled, there’s no need to “sic” it. The person doing the “sic”cing in this example is simply expressing a negative view of what the phrase stands for. This is a pointless exercise — anyone capable of writing decent English knows how to express disgust or contempt without resorting to the device. Certainly Amy has no need for it; it adds nothing to what she’s saying.

I hate to intrude a note of reality here, but the per-patient administrative costs of both the VA health system and Medicare are far less than those of the insurers, and of course neither government system extracts profits as the money flows by.
.
The sad and simple truth is that a non-profit single-payer system is the most economical way to administer health care. It may have other vices, but it sure as hell does save money on administration. The increased cost, if any, of the plan that Congress passes and Obama signs will be the result of (1) adding tens of millions of people to the ranks of the insured while (2) failing to reduce the costs of treatment to offset the cost of that insurance. And when I say “reduce the costs of treatment,” I don’t mean talking grandma into suicide, I mean primarily abandoning ineffective tests and treatments. It’s called “best practices,” and such places as the Mayo and Cleveland Clinics show how it works.

But then I’m obviously some pinko [insert L-word here] and cannot be trusted.

Oh, great. I just delivered a wonderful lecture that had nothing to do with the point spob was making — which I now realize is that “Barak” is not the way to spell the president’s first name. Apologies to spob, all other readers, and anyone out there named “Barak.”

Amazing thie letter is dated 7 days after George Millers announcement.

And the Medicare savings means squeezed services to seniors or lower payments to poviders which means future rationing.

No run no hits only errors

I vote for pig ignorant.

The only problem with your argument is that if Health Care Reform fails this time around, we may have to stay with the Status Quo until another Democratic President comes along at the same time the Senate and House of Representatives is majority Democrat.

Why?

Because the Republicans are so deep in the Health Insurance Industry’s pocket that they have to climb out in order to draw a decent breath.

The Republicans have NO incentive to change the Status Quo.

Incidentally, I am Retired – as my Handle suggests – but not old enough for Medicare. Yes, I am VERY dissatisfied with my current Healthcare where simple Wellness items like Glasses aren’t totally covered.

Phony@ss winter soldiers? How old are you?

Everyone knows “Liberals” are more talented in the graphic arts.

Give me a link, Freep I wants me one o dem jobs.

I have lived in Denmark, and I will personally guarantee no Dane is going to come here for his medical needs.My brother had his foot amputated shortly before he died of complication of diabetes, and his bill for that procedure was waaaaaay over your figure, although somewhat less than 30K. Oh, and Drug companies developing drugs?

Has anyone here ever noticed that a lot of the largest most expensive, skyscrapers are owned or occupied by, wait for it…… Large insurance companies. Is this a co-incidence?