Pajamas Media

370 Comments

1. Fnord:

“President Barack Obama fights for soft European socialism. Governor Sarah Palin fights for free-market American individualism.”

Fair enough. But somehow, you refrain from commenting on the fact that her “death-panels” are outright lies.

Aug 12, 2009 - 12:11 am 2. german visitor:

Hi,
in germany we have a sort of public option, if you make less than 5.000€ per month you’re publicly insured and pay as you earn, if you make more you pay the fixed premium of a private insurance. According to the type of contract you might pay less.

There is no safety in what you get, if you’re publicly insured. You just pay and in case you’re sick you see what they have for you.

Latest example is the possible vaccination against swine flu:

The public insurers want to raise the premiums because a vaccination is sort of a “unplanned risk”. The private ones cover those risks.

Good luck with you’re reforms
Thomas

Aug 12, 2009 - 12:30 am 3. David Thomson:

Sarah Palin clearly understands that good intentions are not enough. No sane person believes that Barack Obama consciously wishes to get rid of their sick grandma. Initially, nothing like that will occur. It is only later when the financial problems swamp the medical health care system that the killings will begin. Enforced euthanasia will then become standard operating procedure. Everyone should make an effort to locate a copy of Steven M. Gillon’s “That’s Not What We Meant To Do”: Reform And Its Unintended Consequences In Twentieth-Century America. He cites a number of examples like the Immigration Act of 1965 and The Community Mental Health Act of 1963, which turned out disastrously. Many politicians who pushed these programs through Congress were eventually stunned by their awful unintended consequences. We can also take for granted the same thing will occur if this present day attempt to revolutionize health care in the United States is signed into law. It cannot be allowed to happen.

Aug 12, 2009 - 12:52 am 4. turfmann:

fnord, I’m curious. Did you even bother to read Dr. Clouthier’s post before making your comment? For that matter, did you read Palin’s?

Such is the depth of the debate on the Democratic (socialist) side of this argument. They are not honest brokers of their ideas. They speak of a utopia of universal health care, yet dismiss legitimate questions of how we are to pay for it and how the scarce resources are to be allocated. This is simple economics. If resources are finite then where and to whom are those resources denied?

Add to that question the plain fact that our economy is nowhere near healthy – gargantuan deficits, gargantuan debt, huge run up in money supply, high unemployment, high foreclosure rates, high bankruptcy rates, etc. – one has to bring into this question the ramifications of a long term recession/depression/collapse into the equation. If we set up a public plan that competes with private insurance, one that has a gravitational pull as people lose jobs, lose insurance, have plans ‘unqualified’ by government, etc., what would be the effect of an overwhelming demand for the government’s plan? Who would get care and who would not if inflation ramps up and revenues decline? All too plausible, friends, and too much power in the hands of faceless bureaucrats in Washington will inevitably lead to decisions that will ration care in the exact manner that Ezekiel Emmanuel has laid out in his scholarly works. Put into words that Mr. and Mrs. America can immediately grasp, there will be ‘death panels’ in the form of Medical Review Boards that will be setting standards for who gets what under what circumstances. If Grandma has advanced breast cancer at 74 under Obamacare, she’s going to be getting the scarce in the scarce resources.

Good for Sarah, she is defining the battlefield.

And if you have not been to her facebook page, I highly recommend it for insight into how she arrived at her conclusions. Contrary to what Perky Katie Couric would have you believe, she cites in detail many articles on the subject that back up her claims. Clearly, she has taken a great deal of time to research before drawing her conclusion. Given the reaction by the White House and other outposts of the Democratic (socialist) party, she hit the bulls eye.

Aug 12, 2009 - 1:05 am 5. Rachel Peepers:

While Sarah Palin may define the health care debate in language everybody can understand, let me describe Sarah Palin in words everybody can understand.

Winner.

Aug 12, 2009 - 1:15 am 6. Thomas G:

Loved this commentary, except this phrase: “…believe that health care is a right like clean air and water.” Can’t find these rights in the Constitution.

Aug 12, 2009 - 1:23 am 7. Anonymous:

David Thompson – (3)

“No sane person believes that Barack Obama consciously wishes to get rid of their sick grandma”

Right, and if they had grandma in a program right now, today, and you were speaking out against some other program they were pushing, how long do you think it would be before gradma was declared to have that Nazi medical discovery, “a life not worth living”? I believe Obama wants to do one hell of a lot of things that others might find unbelievable. Why? Because I know people like Ayers and his crowd and I know that they wouldn’t nurture Obama as they did unless they thought he was totally ruthless.

You’re living in an illusion if you think the current crowd in DC is just a more radical version of the usual political types we’ve always had. They’re not; they’re dedicated to the destruction of the US. What they have left after they tear everything down doesn’t even matter to them, just as long as they destroy what now exists they’ll be happy.

Regards

Aug 12, 2009 - 1:55 am 8. Anonymous:

“Interestingly, the majority of Americans agree with Sarah Palin, not President Obama.”

How can you say that?

Wikipedia: “A June 2009 New York Times/CBS News poll found that Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers. They said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.

The poll found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan — something like Medicare for those under 65 — that would compete for customers with private insurers.

Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Nearly 60% of respondents said that they would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance; 40% were willing to pay as much as $500 more per year. However, the poll also found “considerable unease about the impact of heightened government involvement, on both the economy and the quality of the respondents’ own medical care.”

While 85% supported fundamental restructuring of the health care system, 77% reported that they were very or somewhat satisfied with their own care.”

6. Thomas G:

” “…believe that health care is a right like clean air and water.” Can’t find these rights in the Constitution.”

Our life does not depend on the Constitution. That would be totally laughable. We have rights as human beings, not political entities.

Aug 12, 2009 - 2:27 am 9. LeighB:

Our Precedent just can’t hear little ol’ Americans and never even gets close to one, unless it is a staged event.

Sarah Palin has a big megaphone and is willing to speak on behalf of herself and ordinary Americans. Can’t imagine why people are so crazy about Sarah.

Aug 12, 2009 - 2:38 am 10. Pragmatist:

‘libtards’ like Fnord do not come to the debate with knowledge and logic they come with blind worship and ignorance. Which is why they act and talk as they do and why of course they are scared stiff of Palin she is everything they are not.

Aug 12, 2009 - 2:54 am 11. patmanshardt.blogspot.com:

There are no solutions in life. Only trade-offs.

Aug 12, 2009 - 3:00 am 12. tommy gunn:

Sir:

Sara Palin actually understates the case against Obama care. Look at any single payer system in the world and in particular at the UK. Sometimes the life and death decision comes down to one doctor who might mis-diagnos the problem or a panel who feels they don’t have the budget. What do you call a panel that says an 85 year old has to wait two years for care? Whatever this system is “it is not benign and innocuous”, it is even “evil” by certain standards. Not delivering care at the time it is needed sounds like some form of early death decision made by someone other than the patient. What is this called? Not murder but something else that is bad.

One big point that most people miss in this debate is that a central objective of this system is US government control and the build up of a huge medical infrastructure that becomes “guess what” a voting block. This brought to you by the “community organizer” in Chief. These guys know how to run elections and pay to play. A UK expert suggested that the reason their system resists reform and the reason it will NEVER GO AWAY is that this group is the largest employer in the UK and the biggest voting block. Once in place it is there forever.

If the leftists socialists OBAMA bots get their hands on this it will be the end of a two party system and the beginning of a soft tyrany that will become harder over time. Imagine who will be on the committees, who will be the czars, who will be the fat cats? They will all be well placed and perfectly vetted democrat liberal socialists.

We will be doomed if we let this happen and I am not understating this!!!

I think many American are waking up to how to this!! Thank God.

Tommy Gunn

Aug 12, 2009 - 3:33 am 13. bob:

Excellent reply to #1, turfmann. You’ve got it exactly right.

My outlook on the whole subject is we’d be better off pouring money into creating more medical schools, and creating more doctors and nurses. Though this is a complex and hard thing to do, at least it is doable.

Palin/? 2012

Aug 12, 2009 - 3:35 am 14. Ed Wallis:

Let me respond to Thomas’ #2 post.

In Germany there are still about 240 private health insurance companies which offer policies in the “the State health insurance” (gesetzliche Krankenversicherung). While the federal government in Germany requires joining the “State” program, the government (together with drug companies, doctors and the health insurers) only sets overall guidelines and price caps, but otherwise stays out of the way.

THE OBJECTIVE IS TO KEEP COSTS TO THE INDIVIDUAL DOWN. Sorta works, sorta doesn’t. If you’re self-employed, you can’t really join for the most part…and then health insurance gets costly…it may cover 100% of costs (including dental, hearing and optical, etc), but it ain’t cheap.

In comparison, SOBama proposes (through congressional minions) nothing less than – as is no surprise to freedom-aware Americans – power, control and elimination of competition…in this case, via “health care options”.

PHOOEY on what rhetoric he uses, THAT’S what’s in store.

Aug 12, 2009 - 3:42 am 15. Allston:

Fnord, a brief search of the news will reveal numerous articles about people who have been denied treatment as they have been considered “cost-ineffective.” For people with life-threatening illnesses, this is a defacto death sentence. Palin isn’t lying, she’s accurately framed the issue.

Aug 12, 2009 - 3:45 am 16. Formwiz:

“Death panels” may not be what the bureaucrats’ function will be specifically, but that will be their effect. When Barbara Wagner tried to learn her options under Oregon’s public health program for treatment of her cancer, she was sent a pamphlet for assisted suicide. At 64, she was outside Ezekiel Emanuel’s curve. In effext, they will be death panels.

PS Mrs. Palin, if this vignette is any indication, far from fading into oblivion, may turn out to be the Lefties’ worst nightmare.

Aug 12, 2009 - 3:52 am 17. Bob:

President Obama’s so-called Town Hall meeting on health care was full of lies. First, he said that AARP supports the current health care bill. LIE. AARP does not endorse any specific candidates or legislation. Then he compares the U.S. Postal Service competing with UPS and Fed Ex to “Public Option” health insurance competing with private insurance. The only reasons the USPS remains in business are (1) they have a legally enforceable monopoly on the delivery of first class mail and (2) they receive massive federal subsidies. If private carriers were allowed to really compete on a level playing field with USPS, the government delivery of mail would be gone pronto. The Public Option insurance plan will drive out private carriers is because private companies won’t be getting billions of taxpayer dollars to prop up their operations. And, if history is any guide, it is likely that the government will eventually outlaw private insurance, just like private first class mail service is outlawed. The President can only sell this load of health care crap by shamelessly lying to the American people, and that seems to be his strategy so far.

Aug 12, 2009 - 4:01 am 18. healme:

The States pays between 50-100% more per capita for health care than countries like Canada, France and the UK, but with the same or not much better outcomes but also with a huge number of people uninsured or uninsurable who die or go bust in the current system.

Why? The doctors, hospitals, pharma companies and insurers are milking the system for everything they can get. Not surprisingly they are squealing that their personal gravytrains may be coming to an end. But if they stopped ripping off Joe Public we could all have better care for less money. Other countries do public healthcare with private top-ups without restricting provision. Why not the US?

Aug 12, 2009 - 4:20 am 19. Brian:

Don’t bother looking any further Thomas… The government tossed out the Constitution years ago.

Aug 12, 2009 - 4:26 am 20. adam:

You’ve got yourself some real troll bait here. And you’re also absolutely right. We are not obliged to play according to the Democrats’ rules and restrict our discussion to the most literal sense of what is actually in the bill. We are quite free to explore the philosophical presuppositions of its authors and supporters and to examine the inexorable logic of putting in place one type of system as opposed to the other. The kinds of agencies established and empowered by a particular law is always far more important than the specific things that law explicitly authorizes them to do–once in power, they will find many other things to do. And once a system is in place, it will generate crises that its advocates will then call upon us to address by reforming the system–no one will then be able to say, “but you originally promised you wouldn’t do that…” The Left wants to get away with banal rationales like “cost cotting,” which are not only false but miss the basic point. The winning strategy for conservatives is always to turn these battles into battles of ideas rather than quibbling over the fine points of page 536 of the bill. The Left will look increasingly ridiculous for calling us “liars” because we don’t consent to their interpretation of this or that clause.

The only thing to keep in mind is that the philosophical cause we defend would ultimately lead us to support reforms that would get our champions shouted down in town hall meetings as well, like ultimately doing away with untenable entitlements like Medicare. That’s no reason not to oppose Obamacare with all the vigor at our disposal, but it is a reason to be sober about the responsibilities we will need to take on if we wish to govern.

Aug 12, 2009 - 4:28 am 21. ashton:

I’m a democrat. It’s my first time to hit this site to get … oops… answers.

I’m beginning to think that philosophically, Sarah Palin wins this debate over my favorite Barack Obama.

Palin touches a painful subject that my own family had experienced in the last 2 years. She’s right on this one. There will always be a death panel whenever your terminally-illed loved ones had to go due UNSUSTAINABLE COSTS.

Even if you hit the right decision, you’ll still be loser. GUILT and PAIN OF ACCEPTING THAT YOU COULD NEVER PROLONG YOU LOVED ONE’S LIFE EVEN BY SECOND.

I was flabbergasted by my Obama’s remark: TAKE THAT PILL? That’s uncalled for, unstatesman, and un-Christian, and … fairly enough…. INHUMAN, IMHO.
He should have not said those words. I voted for him as President coz I believed in his “better health care” for all. Now, I am willing to give a shot to Sarah Palin.

At least, Palin and my family have become both “outcasts” in the parties that we respectively served in the last election.

I’m crying while I’m writing this comment.

Aug 12, 2009 - 4:47 am 22. Uriel:

[6] Thomas

They are in the penumbra of rights derived from the confluence of the governments enumerated powers and the 9th amendment. You know like abortion, privacy, and gay marriage.

Of course the right to “Keep and Bear Arms” which is expressly spelled out in the 2nd Amendment does not apply to all the states. The right to not be deprived of life or property without due process of law which is clearly spelled out in the 4th amendment only applies to property until someone with better political ties and more money desires it (Kelo). Also if you exercise your right to free speech, peaceful assembly, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances as spelled out in the 1st amendment, You are a paid insurance company flack, a political terrorist, a threat to the democratic process, and/or an angry mob, possibly with nazis sympathies (various and sundry lefty political leaders).

Just trying to keep it all in perspective.

Aug 12, 2009 - 4:49 am 23. Kerry:

From a President who once argued, and, I believe, twice voted to let surviving ‘undifferentiated tissue masses’ die in hospital closets, why the (feigned?) moral(sic.?) outrage at the two words, “death panel”?

Aug 12, 2009 - 4:59 am 24. Paul -Indiana:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/15/obama-jonathan-morris-health-care-father/
In this article, Fr. Jonathon Morris debunks the idea of a ‘right’ to socialized medicine.
BTW, are you still proud that you voted for Obama? Really?????

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:07 am 25. Consrvativ_KDH:

“No sane person believes that Barack Obama consciously wishes to get rid of their sick grandma.”

David Thompson, are you orbital? Obama has named Mr. Eugenics himself, John Holdren, as “Science Czar”…

If you think these people are not evil, you are in for a real shock when the other shoe drops.

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:19 am 26. BC:

Yep, take a complicated proposal by an opponent that’s meant to deal with a complex situation, ignore all the core problems that it’s trying to address and instead come up with an idiotic catch phrase like “Death Panels!” and watch the rubes go wild.

That’s not “philosophy” — it’s being willfully dense and playing to the gullible and poorly informed.

Ironically, the failings of the US health care system as it is now really shows when it comes to the elderly — I can’t even think of another country where the elderly are so poorly treated medically, both by doping them with grossly excessive medications and forcing their children to be their advocates if they don’t want to fall through the gaping cracks in the system.

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:23 am 27. Anonymous:

The same lies repeated a thousand times are no closer to the truth.

Peace.

DS

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:29 am 28. RAH:

What is scary is the statement that doctors adhere to the Hippocratic oath too closely by Emmanuel the doctor that Palin referred to.

Not looking the quote now but essentially the argument by the Chicago set that is advising the philosophy of Obama is utilitarianism. If a person is not that productive then he/she does not get the health care.

That is a quality of less developed nations not wealthy nations that can afford to support the unproductive. Like Down syndrome.

Our civilization prided itself that we do not put defectives out in the woods to let the wolves eat them as stories told back in Roman times.

That actually flows from the idea that there is limited wealth and it is better to spread the wealth. If you agree that wealth is static, then there are only so much that can be spent on health care then it must be rationed to those who are the most productive.

Considering the elderly spend the most of health care in their last years then the idea that this disposition of resources should be rethought according to Obama. Hear Obama and that theme does run through his speeches.

However economics show that when the government controls a monopoly there is scarcity. For example I recall when MRI was developed in the early 1980’s. It was paid for and control by the state. There were only 3 in the state of Maryland and very expensive. Once that diagnostic equipment was open to the free market. Every hospital and many other places have MRI and the cost has dropped.

Now the use of MRI has provided better health care since we can see inside the skull rather than cutting it open. That is an improvement. The cost of the procedure has dropped and provided better care since supply increased to meet demand.

Government provided care-restricted availability and had high costs. Under private hands cost reduced and availability expanded.

Obama and company doesn’t understand that capitalism creates wealth and that wealth is not static in capitalistic economies. But it is static under communist countries.
Obama and company prefers communist system through the sloppy thinking of communists. So the concept of utilitarianism is rational if you believe that wealth and health care is static.

This philosophy has real risks to the elderly and the disabled.

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:34 am 29. collateral damage:

here is a easy way of looking at it.

DO YOU WANT THE PEOPLE RUNNING FREDDY MAC AND FANNY MAE RUNNING HEALTH CARE. (some of the top advisors of Obama before and after the election were the top people of freddy mac and fanny mae)FREDDY MAC AND FANNY MAE WERE THE MAIN IF NOT ONLY REASON FOR THE GLOBAL MELTDOWN IN THE MARKETS. capatilism never works when governments pick winners and losers.

DO YOU WANT BARNEY FRANK WATCHING YOUR BACK (now that is a danger of teabagging)

of all the ways health care can be made more affordable ..this shouldn’t even be on the list.

this will (there is nothing the government does that is cost effective and it will not start now) increase the price of care so high that there will not be any care to provide.

I am seeing more parallels between Obama and Robert Mugabe and Hugo Chavez then any of the people you see on money.

BUT THIS SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISING SINCE THEY ARE ALL READING FROM THE SAME PLAYBOOK. …it is marxism and they are marxists.

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:39 am 30. Kazooskibum:

The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise. Pass it on.

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:47 am 31. Max Power:

trolls are up early …and lots of them. this will cost Soros.

….if Soros really wanted to help [people he could pick up the insurance tab for the un-insured. he has probably spent that much money just trying to put lipstick on this pig. (see link below)

http://www.pbase.com/opinion/image/115685917

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:57 am 32. brian:

Obama is a creep, ashton.
I’m noticing more and more democrats realizing that.

Palin’s move to resign was brilliant.
I didn’t think that at first but I’ve realized that now.
She is giving the dems fits.

I hope more people see the democrats for the phonies and a-holes they are.

I’m not saying republicans are alot better, but holy cow, the democratic party is stupid.

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:59 am 33. RJ:

How many lawyers sat down and wrote this health care bill?

Lawyers use words as cover and as weapons, do they not?

This bill runs more than 1000 pages, right? So many words, so many vague meanings, so many t’s to cross, i’s to dot…ever wonder why? Convoluted you say!

Does it have a preamble like our Declaration of Independence? It’s a big forest they are planting…and for what possible reasons could that be?

Achieving the best heath and medical systems on this planet, the American way, is not such a bad goal, it’s a great goal!

But who comes forward and seeks this? Not our politicians, not one voice speaking this way have we heard.

Vote the bastards out of office! Before they take that “true” right out of our lives!

Aug 12, 2009 - 6:02 am 34. Paul in MI:

Sarah Palin’s statement was a lie. Not a misunderstanding or an error or a misinterpretation. There is no way a person smart enough to operate a word processor let alone govern a state could have read that bill and come away with “death panel”. It was a statement intended to deceive made by a person who knew that it was false when she said it.

The way you can tell it was a lie is because she posted it to her facebook page and then went about her business like nothing had happened. If she truly believed that the US government was on the verge of enacting legislation that would lead to euthanasia of the elderly and disabled then you wouldn’t be able to shut her up. If that was really going to happen then she’d try to get the word out to everyone possible that the time had come to overthrow the government by force. She’d march on Washington with a militia and I’d be there with her if I thought there was the slightest chance that this could happen. But she doesn’t believe it, it just sounded good and it got the base excited. I’m done with Sarah Palin, if she gets nominated for president I’ll vote Democrat.

Aug 12, 2009 - 6:12 am 35. scott:

I’d be interested to hear explanations of just how we on the Right might get back to lawful free-market capitalism under a well organized republic such as we once had …. when our monetary system has been raped and pillaged, burnt to the water line and the GOP is a bunch of spineless nancy-boys taking payoffs from the pirates.

Aug 12, 2009 - 6:21 am 36. scott:

The worst possible scenario as it pertains to end of life decisions is to have a government bureaucracy involved in any manner shape or form. These burdens must be shouldered by families.

That being said, we are on the horns of a dilemma. Advanced medical procedures being tremendously expensive as they can be it forces one to weigh the options. None of us get out of this alive. Seems to me an awful lot of folks live long long after their time. If you can call that living. Would that more folks believed Paul’s statement, “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.”

Aug 12, 2009 - 6:34 am 37. Robert V:

Sarah Palin made the comment about Obama’s “death panels” because she honestly believed that there were “death panels” in the current bill being discussed. It’s that simple.

If some conservatives are successful in getting Palin on the Presidential ticket in the future, it looks like I will have to vote 3rd party yet again.

Aug 12, 2009 - 6:41 am 38. biblio44:

“…government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost.”

As opposed to insurance companies, which NEVER refuse (unless, of course, your treatment is more expensive than a band-aid or a couple of aspirins).

Aug 12, 2009 - 6:51 am 39. Norris Hall:

I wonder if the way Americans are trying to solve the health care crisis..through loud and angry shouting , accusations of socialism and comparisons with Germany’s Nazis underscores the unwillingness and inability of Americans to face their problems and find solutions for them.
Perhaps this is why Communist China is forging full steam ahead on its quest to become the number one major economic and political power in the next 20 years.
With a government dedicated to a single purpose….propelling China ahead…very little vocal opposition…and with an economic policy based on saving instead of spending, manufacturing instead of service and exports instead of imports…it is well on its way to “out capitalizing” the US
Not bad from a third world country that less than 30 years ago was a economic dwarf.
Are we watching the “Decline and Fall of the American Empire”. It appears so.

Aug 12, 2009 - 6:55 am 40. Ed Wallis:

Dear Ashton #21,

I hope you’re feeling better soon.
You are experiencing what some of us here did earlier…that sort of “lightbulb” moment when
ideology hits the fan of reality.
Talk about “free care for all” sounds nice (letting a kid roam “all-you-can-eat loose” in a candy shop), but the consequences end up being something quite different – as you now recognize – in the real world.

Remember that this is but the tip of the iceberg for Democrats.
May I please recommend to you:

http://www.americanthinker.com/robin_of_berkeley/

Aug 12, 2009 - 6:56 am 41. Deep Brain Diarist:

Sarah Palin understands her audience. They have a knee jerk hatred of Obama and are more than willing to believe any lie told that will put him in a bad light. So, she brews up a whopper about “Death Panels.” And her bleating sheep would rather believe that Obama would kill their gramma and l’il Trig and the truth…

So, yeah. She frames her arguments in words that her audience understands. Stupidity!

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:01 am 42. AThinkingPerson:

Why is it not okay for Sarah Palin, as an AMERICAN CITIZEN, to question the bill and how she feels it would affect her family directly but it’s okay for Rep. JOHN DINGELL (DEMOCRAT) to send in a plant carrying a pic of Obama with a Hitler mustache to disrupt a townhall meeting?

The hypocrisy of the liberal left is getting predictable and tragic.

http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/08/busted-obama-as-hitler-poster-was.html

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:02 am 43. Anonymous:

16 Formwiz . . .

Here’s #1 . . . Shelly Andrews-Buta was scheduled to undergo treatment for breast cancer that had spread to her brain, threatening her life. The experience has been emotionally devastating. “I have two beautiful children, you know, I’m a single mom, they need me to be around,” Andrews-Buta told CBS 5 Investigates. But instead of having doctors working to remove her brain tumors on the day the surgery was scheduled, she sat in a San Francisco hotel room. Why? Because at the last minute, her insurance company, Blue Shield, decided it wasn’t going to pay for the treatment her doctors at UCSF Medical Center had recommended.

Here’s #2 . . . In a lawsuit, Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica group that monitors insurance practices, is asking a judge to order the Department of Managed Health Care to enforce the law and require insurers to provide their autistic members with the services their physicians have ordered.

Here’s #3 . . . Alice DiCroce, 43, a San Francisco Police officer and Pacifica resident, became disabled two years ago and was ultimately diagnosed with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). She’s been forced to wait in pain while one insurance company after another has denied her an experimental stem cell treatment at Northwestern University. The stem cell treatment is the only treatment she knows that may put her condition into remission.

And on and on and on and on and on and on and on . . . how many you got? And why do you pay attention to ANYTHING O’Reilly says?

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:05 am 44. jeff:

Clearly, this Sara Palin is nuts!

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:08 am 45. The Shadow:

Another on target comment from a conservative Alaskan Senator

“Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) condemned former Gov. Sarah Palin’s claims that health care reform would lead to “death panels,” saying “It does us no good to incite fear in people … I’m so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn’t (in the bill). There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill.” She added, “There are things that are in this bill that are bad enough that we don’t need to be making things up.”

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:16 am 46. Moho:

Anonymous. The fact that these idiots have to be informed that insurance companies already pick and choose who and what they’ll cover–often without even informing the patient–is beyond ludicrous. You are literally having this conversation with people who don’t know anything about American health care or insurance.

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:18 am 47. Raymond in DC:

The health care debate appears at times to be an attempt to square the circle, to reconcile the irreconcilable if you will. Programs are budgeted based on fantasy “savings” before a single dollar has been saved. At times it appears they’re trying to defy the laws of economics, even human nature. True believers assume “this will work”, when there’s no evidence of that, even on a small scale, because it’s not been tested.

I wonder sometimes if we haven’t gotten it all wrong. Perhaps we need to start with a distinction between “public health” and “private health”. The former deals with issues that involve “protecting the public” against disease and its spread on a macro level. That means clean water, sanitation and sewage, immunization, and so on. It also includes funding medical research. Most don’t have a problem with that.

The problem comes on the “private health” side which, once upon a time, was a private responsibility. The individual and family were responsible for their children’s health care, and that of their parents. Decisions were private; supply and demand drove physician fees, the availability and cost of procedures, and so on. Risk sharing (insurance) introduces its own complications (especially “what’s covered”) but remains a free market option.

Now we’re in a brave new world where “society” is deemed responsible. Now it becomes an entitlement where basic economics are wished away, as if gravity could be annulled if only one dreamed it. Econ 101 makes clear that if something is subsidized, demand and cost rise. There’s *always* a new procedure or medication that might – just might – be of value, so the demand and cost inexorably rises.Demand is potentially infinite, while resources are not. Eventually the system fractures under its own weight.

These 1,000+ page “health plans” are, in essence, attempts to square the circle, to work around human nature and the laws of economics. It provides for everything, with someone else assumed to bear the cost, usually “the rich”. Those plans, of course, need to be fleshed out – think thousands of pages of rules and regulations. One wonders if the bill’s authors are familiar with a different law – that of “unintended consequences”.

Going back to first principles, talking about “public health” vs. “private health” would be more than useful. It won’t happen, of course, because most are afraid of where it might lead. They prefer to be thought compassionate, rather than heartless. But compassion is free; health care isn’t.

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:19 am 48. The Shadow:

RP – Perhaps you might also add “quitter” to Sarah’s attributes

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:19 am 49. Max Power:

the democratic party is a criminal enterprise

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:26 am 50. mike:

to Paul and Robert V,
Have you read what she wrote? Have you read the parts of the bill that correspond to what she said? Have you read what some of Pres Obama’s advisors have said about end of life care? And about doctors taking the Hippocratic oath too literally? Have you checked out how the Amish don’t need any government money? They probably have the most dignity when it comes to passing onto the next world. their whole FAMILY is RESPONSIBLE! Have you checked out what happens in Oregon? Do some research before you speak, I am sure the former governor did some!

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:28 am 51. blotto:

DS/aka anonymous: Wiki is your reference site for stats on the popularity of Obama’s health care reform. You are kidding, again, right?

And you use of ready made instances of “problems” with our present health care are just too handy. They come from CAP or Kos and perhaps Dem Underground. Whichever, it exposes you as a tool for the left.

As for brain and biblio: The sheer inanity of your posts prevents a rational response.

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:32 am 52. adam:

I see I was wrong–the trolls are not biting as much as I thought. Their Pavlovian response to attack Palin is apparently outweighed by the implicit demand of the post that one present a political philosophy, rather than a loaded indictment. Progessivists have spent a lot of years inventing ways of hiding their real thinking from Americans–it would be tough to smoke them out now, but it’s definitely worth trying.

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:33 am 53. Moho:

Now wait just a minute. Talk about conflating the debate or, more likely, being willfully obtuse. Sarah Palin rightfully notes at the end that a government involved with health care issues will be involved in life and death decisions.

This is funny. Conflation involves confusing two sets of facts. Palin didn’t even provide one. She has not said what in the bill would provide the death panels; and nothing in the bill NOTHING mandates a single payer system.

My favorite part of this whole death panel bs, was the Investor Business Daily editorial that claimed that if Stephen Hawking had been born in Britain, he would have been deemed unworthy of life by their death panels. Oh my god! This person could be your intellectual leader, if Palin hadn’t already taken the job.

Hawking responded:

“I wouldn’t be alive today if it weren’t for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high quality treatment without which I would not have survived.”

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:34 am 54. Bruce:

Anonymous wrote:
“Our life does not depend on the Constitution. That would be totally laughable. We have rights as human beings, not political entities.”

Fair enough. But to the extent the government of the United States has the right under our Constitution to take over the dispensing and allocating of rights, this debate should be a non-starter. If we were a people of integrity, we would be having a debate over a constitutional amendment first.
Furthermore, the bland verbose legalese of the house bill clearly contains within it the room for an administration to interpret the right to put “death panels” into play. And considering who The One has surrounded himself with, he is aware of all the implications of this sort in the bill. And considering his Messiah Complex, I don’t think he would have a problem letting it happen, as long as the blood was on somebody else’s hands.

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:35 am 55. Now and Then:

42 athinking person . . .

Why? Because Heather Blish, who identified herself as “just a mom from a few blocks away” and “not affiliated with any political party” blathered on in protest at Rep. Steve Kagen’s town hall. When interviewed by the local NBC affiliate, Blish insisted she was not a member of the Republican Party. But her LinkedIn page shows something different. She was the vice chair of the Republican Party of Kewaunee County until last year. She worked on the John Gard campaign, who ran unsuccessfully against Kagen last year. And it says she’s a part of the Republican Party for Kagen’s district, as well as the Republican Party of Wisconsin, and the Republican National Committee.

Go wash your hands, will ya, then pull that log out of your eye.

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:36 am 56. Kelly:

Freedom requires a free market approach. The government has it’s place in regulating the free market to avoid price gouging. The government has not done this job and will not do this job with a new system in place any better.

Copying other countries bad models is NOT the American way and is NOT the intelligent way. Just because it’s different does not make it better.

We should be addressing immigration first because that would lessen the burden on social welfare and our medical welfare sustantially. To put it second in line is a grave mistake. Many European countries have been learning this the hard way and even those that have a public option have seen prices increase sustantially to the point of no sustainability. Their systems are in trouble. We don’t need to copy a troubled system, we need to create a BETTER one.

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:38 am 57. The:

Paul Indiana

I guess that Fr Morris doesn’t read his bible very often “Whatever you do not do for the least of these you do not do for me” Let’s see are ther any exlusions in that command? Oops except illegals, or those who do not have insurance. Af course hte good father forgot that if anyone uses the emergency room rather than a physician the cost will be 10 times what it would cost to be treated in adoctor’s office.

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:40 am 58. The Shadow:

DopeyPerson

Dingle does not have to send in a plant, there are plenty of morons out there who are going to make fools of themsleves with the Hitler signs

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:43 am 59. biblio44:

#51: “I see I was wrong–the trolls are not biting as much as I thought. Their Pavlovian response to attack Palin is apparently outweighed by the implicit demand of the post that one present a political philosophy, rather than a loaded indictment.”

Why should we attack Palin? She’s God’s gift to the Democratic Party. And, btw Adam, better a troll than an a-hole.

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:43 am 60. dinobotprime:

Mr Anon in post 43

1) For Mrs Shelly Andrews-Buta’s situation, the doctors @ UCSF as well as the hospital could have negotiated with Blue Cross and describe the treatment in detail in order for Blue Cross to get them reimbursed for their work or the doctors and the hospital could just had said to Blue Cross, screw this, Mrs Andrews-Buta , you will have your scheduled surgery and we will take care of the billing. I’ll bet you,the insurance weenie who rejected the surgery will be fired after that. Here is a dirty little secret, if the patient and especially the doctors are persistent enough and thorough enough, the insurance company will agree to the treatment .
2)Department of Managed Care, gee, government insurance regulatory board. The regulatory board that interprets the law every so often that everybody gets a damn headache in trying to follow the law.
3)Alice DiCroce’s situation is similar to number 1. Experimental treatments will often be rejected if the doctors are vague about the results and the outcome and let’s be honest here , experimental treatments are often not covered in private health insurance plans because of not only of the expense , but also the unknown outcome or success of the treatment that will be used . Insurance companies will cover them if the doctors are able to persuade the company that the damn thing will cure the patient. Hee-hawing does not work with the private bean counters

And if you think that private insurance are the only ones that reject expensive experimental treatments. See how European and Canadian health care system do the same thing to their patients . the UK’s NHS comes into mind .

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:45 am 61. Arroyo2:

Mitt Romney is looking better and better. What horrible choices we had for POTUS in 2008 — “approaching the hill”, and “over the hill”.

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:51 am 62. oldguy:

Quit using the term euthanasia. No one will be forced to drink hemloc, you will just not receive any treatment past a certain age. Suicide is the word you are looking for.

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:59 am 63. dinobotprime:

The

Maybe next time read the bible especially the Gospels with an open mind . The verse you are quoting implies a voluntary action or response . It does not give anyone the right to force anybody to do something that they are not willing to do. Everything in the Gospels that Jesus spoke of and commanded are voluntary in nature and demands the use of one’s free will .

And oh btw, the ER will cost ten times the cost of a doctor’s office because you are using a hospital unit designed to be used for all things that need medical care right away and or possible admission to hospital due to medical condition. In case you have not noticed , a lot of hospitals especially medical centers are creating Immediate Care facilities that sees people who have minor injuries and illness and treating them without any need to go to the ER or doctor’s office and many of them are open 365 days a year and is much cheaper than going to the ER .

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:00 am 64. Mr Lucky:

Will DNA screening become mandatory in the future as a cost cutting mechanism? And, one may have the right to health insurance, but not the right to treatment…

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:00 am 65. vb:

BC says that he can’t think of any other country that treats its seniors so cruelly. I would love to know how deeply he has studied health care systems in other countries. Please tell us what it is like on geriatric wards and in nursing homes. How do they compensate their doctors and nurses? Are they having trouble finding enough medical personnel? How do they afford treatments that we can’t? How do they do when a heat wave hits and the doctors are on vacation?

You can’t simply answer these questions with blanket words like government or rights. Medical care is expensive, and finding the best solutions to problems won’t come through generalizations and platitudes. Promising the moon in order to win votes is not honest.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:01 am 66. Rusty:

For the trolls on the board, I know that you are really fascinated by the “death panel” comments, but you should really read the article before you make comments. The bigger point that you can’t refute are the costs of a federal plan – they will not be cheaper. Try saying that Palin is a liar when she says that.

For Anon #43 – I agree, insurance companies also have their own death panels. But you must admit that if there is a problem then you can always go to the insurance commission of your state or take the insurance company to court. What would you do under a government system? Scary to think about.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:01 am 67. TerryO:

tommy gunn said:
“If the leftists socialists OBAMA bots get their hands on this it will be the end of a two party system and the beginning of a soft tyrany that will become harder over time.”

I disagree, tommy. The two party system ended years ago. We’re trying to stop from falling over the cliff into totalitarianism.

Beyond this very minor quibble with tommy gunn, I agree completely with his main point and that is the creation of a more powerful voting block. Tommy, you could’ve made a union comparison, too.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:01 am 68. adam:

59. biblio44:

“#51: “I see I was wrong–the trolls are not biting as much as I thought. Their Pavlovian response to attack Palin is apparently outweighed by the implicit demand of the post that one present a political philosophy, rather than a loaded indictment.”

Why should we attack Palin? She’s God’s gift to the Democratic Party. And, btw Adam, better a troll than an a-hole.”

This is as close as we’re going to get to philosophy from Leftists. And by philosophy, I don’t mean a treatise–just some first principles on the relation between citizen and government. Conservatives have no problem here, because we’re mostly pretty firmly grounded in the philosophy of the American founding and reiterated by Lincoln: government exists to protect our God-given rights, and has no business interfering with private agreements entered into voluntarily. As some on the Left know, and others probably don’t, the Progressives (Wilson, Dewey, Croly, etc) rejected that view of government in favor of rule by experts. That’s the battle still raging today–listen carefully to the Leftist trolls and decide whether they’re not taking for granted that the “smarter” people (experts) should boss everyone else around. But they can never explicitly say that (except in the occasional “gaffe”).

And I am greatly looking forward to seeing who, exactly, Palin ends up helping out over next few years.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:05 am 69. TOhio:

Right on Rachel Peepers! You’ve got it absolutely right. This is why people like me love Sarah Palin. She tells it like it is.

Anyone who doesn’t think that these government people will not be death panels are simply deluding themselves. They will make the decision about who gets treatment and who doesn’t. As a result, people will die. Plain and simple.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:06 am 70. Samizdat:

To BC at # 26,

I have been reading your postings on various topics for some time now. I know that you and I have many philosophical differences. I am certain that an opinion piece such as this one on Sarah Palin’s statements about the negative consequences of government involvement in life and death decisions offends your sensibilities. You passionately support more government involvement in health care and Palin doesn’t.

That being said, it is difficult to take you seriously when your instant reaction to anyone who differs in opinion from you is to declare them to be a “rube”. In the past you have declared such people to be idiots or to be stupid. There is a continuity in your reactions which is purely emotional and doesn’t lend much to the topic. I have tried to point this out to you and others like you, but you continue in your childlike ad hominem tantrums.

My time to read is limited and you are wasting my time. It is obvious that you come here to promote your agenda, rant, and personally attack people, soley because their opinions differ from yours

I have had enough of your emotional diatribes and vacuous prose. I have decided to ignore your postings from now forward. They just don’t lend anything to the discussion. Like a lousy newspaper, I choose not to read you. I am expecting that I will not be alone.

I might choose to check in from time to time to see if you can actually put some mature thoughts together. I am sure you can but, currently it isn’t happening enough to sustain my interest in what you have to say.

To others reading Pajamas opinion pieces and contributing to the discussion both pro and con I look forward to your information and opinions. In my opinion, it’s time to exercise control over the reading list and ignore those who think the rest of us are fools because we don’t agree with them.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:06 am 71. David W. Lincoln:

Respect is deserved by those who accurately describe the situation, without talking over people’s heads. Daniel Hannan does this, and so does Sarah Palin. All the others are left in the dust.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:08 am 72. Lynn:

I think that what Sarah Palin wrote was provocative and political. She could have written her concerns, which I’m sure are the concerns of many, without a blanket statement implying that those who want to reform health care or provide some form of insurance for the uninsured in this country, are out to bring the movie ‘Soylent Green’ to fruition.

I had a recent experience with Social Security where a relative was unfortunately diagnosed with incurable cancer. With a minor child to take care of his case was handled expeditiously and one of his worries was alleviated by a ‘government’ run program.

Sometimes the government can step in and do a good job (not perfect) when the private sector either fails or does not find it profitable to enter into. As many people found who lived on the coast during the ‘year of the hurricanes’ private insurance companies were dropping their clients left and right. Citizens were having their policies canceled after paying decades of premiums without putting a claim in. The government stepped in and initiated a government run insurance program which many took advantage of because without it, their homes and possessions would not have been protected.

No one seems to get up in arms when the government provides flood insurance because private companies will not cover those who live in flood prone areas, or even places not considered a flood zone. No one seems to complain when government social security kicks in providing many people the ability to retire even before the age of 65, and even with our advancing long-levity, they end up receiving more than they contributed. No one complains when they receive Medicare for Medicaid and many people would attack the post man if he came without their government check.

No one complains when the federal government provides funds to education, the arts, infrastructure, and on and on.

I don’t see what the harm is in the government taking a look at the explosive cost of health care and medication and the horrific dilemma of United States citizens becoming ill or injured having to refuse medications or care because they can’t afford it.

There must be ways they can step in as they do in so many cases and perhaps find a solution that will work to the best of their ability, and with limited loopholes for corruption and greed.

I don’t understand why the Obama administration is in such a hurry and is pushing for this before the public can absorb it and comment on their concerns. I agree with David Thomson that we should insist our elected official should protect the taxpayers from the ‘unintended consequences’ that could arise with blindly passing something in a rush that creates more problems than it solves.

I don’t like the idea of a socialist country, but I realize that this country is not exclusively capitalistic either, and the government on the federal, state and local level is involved in and spends money on many social programs. I just think that we try to find a balance and try to do it with checks and balances.

I think the liberal media are a bunch of a-holes when they mock the conservatives and others for legitimate concerns and suspicions that the government could possibly make things worse rather than better. I think their prejudice is becoming more dangerous than their fake accusations are about Republicans. The Democrats don’t even need to campaign anymore, they have the press tucked nicely and neatly into their pockets. Idiots.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:09 am 73. Brian:

I still like Sarah Palin despite the left wing critics.While it may be over the top with the whole death panel thing,you never know with govt bureacracies.Im sure many supporters of Hitler said the same thing in the 1930s.Now now dont spreading this in comparison to THAT regime.Here in Canada health care in a province(state) issue not a federal one.Transfers are provided by our federal govt,but they stay out of day to day operations of it.
Heres the link to the HR3200-http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3200
Read it ,understand it then debate it instead of getting half truths off the blogsphere or partisan media.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:10 am 74. rachel peepers:

THE

The good Fr. Morris might also mention the fifth commandment, thou shalt not kill.

Then someone like me might inquire as to whether or not you’re pro abortion.

Then at Judgment Day a higher authority might ask much the same question, ” do you support the killing of the unborn?”

Anyway, that’s the way the story goes. Certainly, I’m not here to judge you. I’m just lil’ ole’ blue eyed blond haired Rachel.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:14 am 75. karlinsync:

How can any Health Care Plan start out with the Congress imposing on Americans this insane mandate and exclude themselves from participating? Of course, the majority of the US is up in arms. This is a very simple reason that preaching at Town Halls by Congress leaders upset the people. US began it’s history by seperating from Royality!

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:17 am 76. Jim Baker:

BC,
Willfully dense? Is that like me deciding not to understand something that you want to propose because I understand something else that I would rather propose? Who is the willful and dense party here? Please explain ‘willfully dense’ to me if if I have not understood. But please be explicit, I could be both willful and dense.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:17 am 77. Anonymous:

#27, you have finally written a post that I agree with completely. I never thought this day would come. I am glad that you have become a conservative at last.

Peace indeed.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:20 am 78. Samizdat:

Palin is attacking the inevitability of rationing and its life terminating consequences after the Feds take over health care and then are charged with controling cost. Here’s another point.

Please take the time to read a few pages of HR3200. Can you understand it? I can’t. Many of the sections are incomprehensible. Then read Article One of the US Constitution. Which one is more clearly thought out and drafted?

Why should anyone vote for something they can’t understand? It’s clear that Congressional advocates and the President don’t really know what’s in this legislation, yet they support it.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:21 am 79. submandave:

“But somehow, you refrain from commenting on the fact that her ‘death-panels’ are outright lies.”

And somehow, you refrain from commenting on the fact that saying Sarah Palin claimed Obamacare would engage in euthenasia is an outright lie.

Fnord, one use of the quotation mark is to indicate the exact words written or said by another. Another equally legitimate (though often overused) use is to indicate an essential idea of concept related to the topic. It seems clear to me that Gov. Palin’s use of quotation marks in referring to “death-panels” employs the latter. I am generous enough to assume that you can see the same just as well as I do.

Beyond the gramatical parsing, though, lies the core issue: health care decissions frequently do involve essentially life-and-death choices. Some argue that these decissions are currently made by the insurrance companies, but I, for one, feel no comfort in exporting this role to the federal government. The big difference between any private company and the government is that the government, having a legal monopoly on the use of force and violence against the citizens, can compel whatever it wants, and failure to comply can result in the forceful seizing of your property, denial of your liberty or the denial of your person and fortunes from your family.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:27 am 80. 10ksnooker:

It’s obvious, even if the congressional clunkers read the bill, they have problems with reading comprehension.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:31 am 81. tanstaafl:

When you consider the “thinking” of one of Obama’s point men on healthcare, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm’s charming brother), “death panel” might not seem like much of a stretch.

DEADLY DOCTORS

Ezekiel Emanuel: Deny Coverage to Elderly and Disabled for the Greater Good

And why the hell are such healthcare theoreticians/government wonk doctors even in this discussion in the first place ?

How skewed up is this mess ?

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:35 am 82. Michael:

It is interesting to me that so many liberals demonize doctors, hospitals and insurance companies yet glorify the idea of government control of health care.

If insurance companies were unleashed from single state restrictions and allow personal polices that belong to the ensured then relatively minor changes in regulations would “fix” the problems of our health care. The government could then pay insurance companies the premiums for the 10 or 15 million people who truly want and can’t afford insurance.

If the government becomes the final arbiter for Health care the will be in no way different from a private company monopoly. When the prices get too high then some mid level bureaucrat will be tasked with lowering costs. Once doctors and hospitals are being paid less than the cost of operation the next step is prioritizing care. What are the priorities to be? How about car for those who will pay taxes if they get better and what ever is left can go to non contributors of society.

The final nail in the government health care system? You won’t be able to sue. No recourse. After all, they are from the government and they are here to help. Now take that pill.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:38 am 83. Samizdat:

Norris Hall at # 39,

I get your point and agree we may be in a temporary decline. I don’t agree it is because we are arguing with each other.

I submit it is because our leaders, both Democrat and Republican have lost their way in how to govern and do right for the productive people in our country. It is becoming harder and harder to accept risk. Our fiscal situation is dismal because of gross over promising and over spending by the Feds for little result. LBJ’s Great Society has created a permanent underclass, not what he intended, but what happened.

The monetary crisis is also having a negative effect, cheap dollar and coming high inflation.

Most people I know understand this. Congress and the President act consistently as if they don’t. That’s the real problem.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:40 am 84. tanstaafl:

And then there’s Tommy Daschle who has heavily influenced the Leftoid worldview on “healthcare”.

He barely missed being HHS sec’y, some nasty little tax issues…

But he’s very influential over this President as to what “healthcare” should and should not be & how it should work, or not work, as the case may be.

Obama Will Ration Your Health Care

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:43 am 85. goy:

@78. Samizdat: – Please take the time to read a few pages of HR3200. Can you understand it? I can’t. Many of the sections are incomprehensible. Then read Article One of the US Constitution. Which one is more clearly thought out and drafted?

Exactly. And more importantly, in its enumeration of Congress’ powers and responsibilities, NOWHERE is it given the authority to seize control over the health care of the People.

Few people seem to realize it, but that is the END the health care “debate”: neither Congress nor the President has the authority to legislate in this area. This is a lesson FDR learned the hard way with respect to most of the so-called “New Deal”, which was struck down as unconstitutional through judicial review. We need the same legal oversight applied to BHO’s and the Democrat Congress’ socially suicidal policies now.

And before some useful idiot starts tossing red herrings about “the general welfare”, go read what the Founders had to say about it.

Jefferson:

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.“

Madison:

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. … With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.“

QED

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:47 am 86. AThinkingPerson:

Oh dear… Yet another plant at the Obama town hall meeting yesterday. I guess sending in purple-shirted union thugs to rough up constituents wasn’t “hitting back hard” enough so now they have to use their kids. Anything for Dear Leader must be the new liberal mantra.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/11/little-girl-at-obama-town-hall-has-not-so-random-political-connections/

Funny how the libtards still wants Sarah Palin to shut up but yet casually overlook what the Democrats are currently attempting to do. Hypocrisy? You betcha.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:47 am 87. Moho:

If insurance companies were unleashed from single state restrictions and allow personal polices that belong to the ensured then relatively minor changes in regulations would “fix” the problems of our health care.

This idea is as asinine today as it was the day I heard it come out of John McCain’s piehole. Are you aware that today, there are state boards that regulate disputes between customers and insurance companies?

http://www.state.me.us/pfr/insurance/consumer/resolving_disputes.htm

A total of more than 35,000 health care insurance complaints will be made to state insurance departments in 1998, according to the projections of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).

Faced with strong public demand for assistance in dealing with HMOs and health care insurers, state insurance departments routinely go to considerable lengths when intervening on behalf of consumers who plead for help in dealing with health care claim denials, disputed claims, slow payments by health insurers, and premium-related matters.
THE SCOPE OF STATE INSURANCE REGULATION

You are either talking about creating a national health insurance bureau that will take care of hundreds of thousands of inter-state disputes and run afoul of hundreds of clashing regulations, or you are talking about a completely deregulated insurance industry. Its not only present insurance companies that would be enticed into unfair business practices in such a model–with the awareness that an overwhelmed or non-existent national oversight system would be literally powerless to advocate for consumers. Just wait until the internet only insurance companies start popping up in the state with the weakest fraud protection laws.

Really, who are you going to call when the fly-by-night insurance company from Pennsylvania tells you its not going to cover your catastrophic insurance claim? This entire movement is defined by the absence of forethought.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:48 am 88. AThinkingPerson:

Sarah Palin must be on to something when even the liberals over at The Daily Beast noticed Obama’s euthanasia clause in the bill. Could Sarah be right? Oh my!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-11/obamas-euthanasia-mistake/?cid=hp:mostpopular2

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:51 am 89. johnt:

Less coverage, fewer tests, targeted treatments, managed demographics & by government administration, lead to two things, at best restricted care for most, minimal care or none for some.
The hysteria over Palin’s referral to “death panels” is caused by the raw nerve she touches, the unavoidable truth that treatment becomes something to be rationed. Death panels? While we are looking for euphemisms or laughing at poor stupid Palin [ were she only so wise as Joe Biden or Al Franken ] remember, the essence of that unhappy phrase is built into the essence of universal government coverage and the initial structure of proposals.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:52 am 90. AThinkingPerson:

Re 81. tanstaafl: How dare you make sense when we all know Obama assured us with much laughing and guffawing and knee slapping at the townhall/indoctrination yesterday that his plan was all sunshine and unicorns and a chicken in every pot. So what if someone close to him wants to withhold care from the elderly right? I mean really, Obama sat in Rev. Wrights church for 20 years and didn’t listen to him once so why would he listen to someone else about killing the elderly because they aren’t useful to society anymore?
/sarcasm/

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:59 am 91. Matt:

The “death panel” would be a natural outgrowth of the digital medical records provisions of the Stimulus bill that allows bureaucrats to review proposed medical treatments for cost and appropriateness. So while it is technically correct to say that “death panels” are not part of the current reform bill — this obfuscates the fact that they are already provided for in the stimulus bill. Certainly fits this administration’s M.O.

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:00 am 92. Paul in MI:

#50 Mike
“Have you read what she wrote?”
Yes

“Have you read the parts of the bill that correspond to what she said?”
Yes, would you care to show me the part about euthanasia, death panels or rationing of medical care to the elderly and disabled?

“Have you read what some of Pres Obama’s advisors have said about end of life care?”
No, it’s not in the bill. I’m concerned with what the law will be, not what random people wish it said.

“And about doctors taking the Hippocratic oath too literally?”
Again, not in the bill.

“Have you checked out how the Amish don’t need any government money?”
See above.

I’m not saying it’s a good bill, it’s a terrible bill. It will be a terrible law if it passes but there’s nothing in it about anything that could be construed as a “death panel”. The closest bit is on page 425 which provides coverage under Medicare for people to have a consultation with their doctor about end of life care. As with any other medicare coverage, if you don’t want it, you don’t have to have it. There are any number of arguments against this bill but Sarah Palin decided to go with Nazi style “death panels” because she apparently thinks we’re stupid and that the truth is optional.

I changed my mind about voting Democrat though. I don’t think I can do that, I’ll just sit out the election.

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:02 am 93. Robert V:

“When you consider the “thinking” of one of Obama’s point men on healthcare, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm’s charming brother), “death panel” might not seem like much of a stretch.”

But see, it is a stretch. It’s a stretch because it is not in writing. Neither Emanuel, his brother, or Obama for that matter, wrote any versino of any health bill currently being debated. That makes this death panel idiocy invalid. Physic revelations from the future are not valid arguements, and should never be considered such.

And not that it matters, but yeah I am against the health care bill in its current form because of the massive cost it creates, the additional federal involvement it would mandate, and the fact that it will not do much to lower costs. But saying idiotic things like “oh noes federal death panels!”, is not even close to being helpful in bringing down the bill.

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:03 am 94. Moho:

You’re sure you want to bring the author of that piece, Siegel in as defender of Palin’s mendacity?

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36947.html

Lee Siegel, who had been writing a culture blog for The New Republic, had started using the pseudonym “sprezzatura” on the blog’s forums to praise himself and savage his critics. In response to readers who had criticized Siegel’s negative comments about TV talk show host Jon Stewart, “sprezzatura” wrote, “Siegel is brave, brilliant, and wittier than Stewart will ever be. Take that, you bunch of immature, abusive sheep.”

After a reader expressed suspicion that “sprezzatura” was Siegel himself, he fired back, “I’m not Lee Siegel, you imbecile.”

…Lee Siegel’s online identity was “Lee Siegel” since he was blogging under that name. For him to create a pseudonym and use it as he did would not be acceptable practice on any Internet forum, and shouldn’t be acceptable practice in journalism. Siegel invented a patently fake identity for his sock puppet, pretending to be “an editor at a magazine in NYC” who had published Siegel. His attacks targeted not only anonymous posters but journalists writing under their own names, such as The American Prospect’s Ezra Klein.

…his behavior has been a depressing combination of dishonesty, narcissism, and stupidity.

Nice work. Any other very trustworthy sources of journalism you’d like to reference?

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:04 am 95. Mr Lucky:

48. The Shadow: “RP – Perhaps you might also add “quitter” to Sarah’s attributes.”

Shadow – Have ever quit anything in your lifetime? Maybe it’s a matter of personal perspective. Something like choice. Was the position Palin held more important than any you’ve held in your life?

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:12 am 96. tanstaafl:

Ultimately, ta da, this entire healthcare brouhaha is one and the same with government bailouts of banks, car companies/private industry, porkulus et al. and etc.

It’s a power grab, pure & simple.

The battle is about liberty, as this government attempts, once again, to decimate the founding principles mentioned by goy in #85.

Yesterday, on the topic of the potential demise of “competition” under the government plan, this President tried to reassure the proles in New Hampshire by saying…well, FedEx & UPS* are prospering and the federally run Post Office is shooting craps.

(Gee, Barack, maybe the feds aren’t too good at running stuff, ya think ? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot…)

*FedEx and UPS are, in fact,barred by law from “competing” with the post office in delivering everyday mail, so the President’s point is moot to begin with.

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:15 am 97. Moho:

Oh what a wonderful world it would be if Fed Ex and UPS were allowed to compete delivering everyday mail. First they would drop the price on postage, rates and delivery times until the put the Post Office out of business. Then they would raise postage rates as high as the market allows. Oh, only in the perfect world of Wingnutta.

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:19 am 98. AThinkingPerson:

Here’s a bit more about the good Dr. Ezekial Emanuel who has already been appointed health-policy adviser by Obama and who it seems doesn’t like the aged or the infirm very much. I guess if you aren’t healthy enough for purple shirt duty, you aren’t valuable to society anymore.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:21 am 99. Michael:

#87, read the rest of the post – “then relatively minor changes in regulations”. I have no doubt those reservations can be addressed. It sounds better than government regulation with no recourse. Try suing the Federal government if a bureaucrat rules against you.

It’s only assinine if you have predetermined that the government is the solution to all possible problems. That is where we part ways. I and many others see government as the last resort because it is always the worst choice. Before any ad hominem attacks, let me also say that sometimes the worst choice is the only choice. This however is not one of those times.

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:24 am 100. tanstaafl:

So what if someone close to him wants to withhold care from the elderly right?

I linked it the other day, Barack recently on video telling a woman in the audience that her 99 YO mommy who had received a pacemaker for arrhythmia might have been better off just getting a pain pill.

A very preachy guy, who doesn’t even know that irregular heartbeat isn’t exactly (or even remotely) a pain issue.

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:27 am 101. Calvin Ball:

Problem for the proponents is the legislative uncertainty principle, to wit: if a bill hasn’t been read, you don’t know what’s in it. A corollary of that is: <if you don't know what's in it, you don't know what isn't in it. From that, the final corollary: if you haven’t read it, anything can be in it.

Until everybody reads these things, they have no business saying what isn’t in them.

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:30 am 102. Moho:

You’re on a roll today. The author of the NYPost piece you cite is Betsy McCaughey. McCaughey is notably the inventor of the “euthenasia” rumor about the health care legislation. Quite contrary to what Clothier now contends about Sarah Palin–that its the rest of the world that has misunderstood Palin, and that she didn’t mean the ‘end of life’ counseling portion of the bill, McCaughey was very specific:

Republicans are now using this language as a wedge between senior citizens and Democrats. Boehner and Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) issued a statement last week saying it “may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia” — even though the concept behind the provision has been embodied in federal law since 1990 and has been promoted by Republicans and Democrats for years.

…“Can you imagine the response of the American people when they find this out?” Thompson said of the provision during an interview July 16 with Betsy McCaughey, a former New York lieutenant governor and conservative health expert who first wrote about it. She is also behind some of the most scathing — and irresponsible, critics say — assessments of the health reform efforts of President Barack Obama and President Bill Clinton and then-first lady Hillary Clinton in 1993-94.

On Thompson’s radio show, as well as in a New York Post op-ed and other interviews during the past week, McCaughey has said the provision requires senior citizens to submit to end-of-life consultations. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity touted the New York Post article on their shows. “Congress would make it mandatory, absolutely require, that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner,” McCaughey said to Thompson.

“The bill expressly says if you get sick somewhere in that five-year period, you have to go through that session again — all to do what is in society’s best interest or your family’s best interest and cut your life short. These are such sacred issues of life and death. Government should have nothing to do with it.”

You guys can’t get your stories straight. Is it the “end of life” counseling, or is it some other imaginary part of the bill that will set up the death panels? Both are false, but a little consistency would go a long way to prove that you are all just stupid, and not cowardly liars.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25486.html

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:35 am 103. Mr Lucky:

97. Moho “Then they would raise postage rates as high as the market allows.”

Doesn’t Fed Ex and UPS do just that with their delivery services now?

Are the prices the Post Office charge subsidized by tax dollars, therefore actually higher than the cost at transaction?

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:39 am 104. Moho:

It’s only assinine if you have predetermined that the government is the solution to all possible problems.

Hey dude, its your plan not mine. I noted some very obvious problems with it–my position has nothing to do with whether I like regulation or not, and everything to do with the fact that state–not federal–regulators now control state based insurance companies. You are asking states to relinquish that authority, so you must have an answer to what happens to consumers when that occurs, even if your answer is some kind of free market rationalization. If you have no counter-arguments to those criticisms then you lost the argument. End of story.

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:41 am 105. Sounds like a death panel:

Obama told Diane Sawyer in June that government should “study and figure out what works and what doesn’t. And let’s encourage doctors and patients to get what works. Let’s discourage what doesn’t.”

Sawyer then asked him: “Will it just be encouragement? Or will there be a board making Solomonic decisions?”

Obama replied, “What I’ve suggested is—is that we have a—a commission that helps—made up of doctors, made up of experts, that helps set best—best practices.”

When Sawyer pressed him to say whether those practices would be enforced by law, he evaded the question.

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:42 am 106. tanstaafl:

Actually, Mo-Ho, besides administrative problems, the post office is shooting craps because email has supplanted letter writing (kind of sad, the declining art of letter writing) and so many are paying bills online and so forth.

Anyway, whether the PO does or does not “compete” with FedEx & UPS was not the thrust of my point.

The decline in personal freedom is the real point of what we’re seeing relentlessly pouring out of Washington DC these days in the way of proposals to re-make the human experience.

All these measures are also illegal, according to the principles underlying our founding documents. (the Obama admin. isn’t the first to choke such measures down our gullets, only the most radical)

Sarah Palin will not be stopped on this topic of the travesty of the growth in government, in all its permutations.

Go Sarah !

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:47 am 107. Ms. Attitude:

Remember the useful idiots in the Soviet Union? We now have them here with the liberals who are not smart enough to see what is going on with Obama and his Chicago crowd. Weren’t the useful idiots the first to “go”?

I’m sure after they take away our rights they will have no more use for BC, Fnord, DS and all their little troll friends. Most Conservatives contribute to society, the ones that would be denied care by the panels of doctors and experts will be the elderly, disabled, and the suckers off of society…

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:52 am 108. Moho:

Mr. Lucky, it depends on your definition of subsidy.

http://www.ktonline.com/local/local_story_252224439.html

FedEx gets abatement, Delphi next

Council gives green light to distribution hub.
By SCOTT SMITH
Tribune staff writer

Kokomo Common Council Monday gave final approval to a 10-year tax abatement expected to bring a new FedEx Ground distribution hub to Kokomo.

Subsidies in the form of tax breaks already occur on a massive local and state-level scale. You are most likely already subsidizing Fed Ex–the difference is that, while the subsidy that runs the USPS benefits you on a daily basis, the subsidy that you give Fed Ex rarely does. Nice work, Sherlock.

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:54 am 109. BC:

To Jim Baker: it’s easy to be willfully dense — you preemptively make up your mind that you don’t like an idea or proposal because you consider the proponents of it rivals or enemies. And to find justification for this belief, you visit the usual suspect right wing web sites and/or gold ol’ reliably “We Lie, You Get Duped” Fox News where you are guaranteed to be fed all sorts of nonsensical BS. You are then so primed to attack anything and everything associate with the idea that even the most idiotic and clueless statement, like Palin’s “death panel,” gets you all riled up and fuming at that durn, foreign born, Hawaiian, evil, bleeding heart, socialist, totalitarian, wimpy, thuggish President trying to ruin this country by, umm, trying to put an end to soaring health care costs….

Aug 12, 2009 - 10:01 am 110. tanstaafl:

BC ? Mo-Ho ?

Can’t you guys…

Go back under the bridge ?

You’re giving me mal à la tête. I’ll have to seek some government “healthcare” to recover.

(over & out)

Aug 12, 2009 - 10:08 am 111. adam:

I see that the debate has now begun to turn on our assessment of the Post Office. That’s sure to help the Democrats, right?

In truth, there might a role for government in filling in gaps that, for various reasons, private companies don’t fill, or haven’t yet filled. But that’s obviously not the way Obama and the democrats see things.

Aug 12, 2009 - 10:09 am 112. Now and Then:

Check this out:

http://www.squarestate.net/diary/8449/teabaggers-vandalize-car-at-perlmutter-event

Someone said they say The First Dude slinking away from the site of the vandalism.

Aug 12, 2009 - 10:12 am 113. SallyW:

“Death panels”

For those of you who don’t believe there will be death panels, all you have to do is open your eyes to who this president surrounds himself with for councel:

Start with his science czar, accountable to no one but the president, John Holdren, http://tinyurl.com/create.php

And then his health care advisors,
Ezekiel Emanuel and Dr. David Blumenthal.
http://tinyurl.com/mbq3rc

Sarah Palin didn’t just make this up to see if you’d believe her, these are our president’s counsel. This is real life folks. Quit trying to be so right all the time and looking for everyone else to be the problem. Wake up, open your eyes and read what’s being done right out loud.

Aug 12, 2009 - 10:19 am 114. goy:

@111. adam: – I see that the debate has now begun to turn on our assessment of the Post Office.

Not really.

This line of discussion is just an irrelevant thesis distraction generated by another in a long line of stuttering, unscripted, off-the-cuff screw-ups by the Divider/Orator/Prevaricator/Loser-In-Chief. The guy can’t clear his throat coherently without a teleprompter.

Aug 12, 2009 - 10:24 am 115. jharp:

adam:

“In truth, there might a role for government in filling in gaps that, for various reasons, private companies don’t fill, or haven’t yet filled. But that’s obviously not the way Obama and the democrats see things.”

There is no question there is a role for government to “fill in gaps”. They do it now. Medicare, Medicaid, the VA.

And that is obviously exactly how Obama sees things. And it is exactly what the public plan is going to do. Make affordable insurance available for those who cannot get coverage.

And if you don’t want to enroll in the public plan, don’t. Keep what you have.

It’s just that simple.

Aug 12, 2009 - 10:27 am 116. Paul:

It’s funny we hear Republicans say that they do not want “faceless bureaucrats” making medical decisions but they have no problem with “private sector” “faceless bureaucrats” daily declining medical coverage and financially ruining good hard working people (honestly where can they go with a pre-condition). And who says that the “private sector” is always right, do we forget failures like Long-Term Capital, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, Tyco, AIG and Lehman Brothers. Of course the federal government will destroy heathcare by getting involved, Oh but wait, Medicare and Medicaid and our military men and women and the Senate and Congress get the best heathcare in the world, and oh, that’s right, its run by our federal government. I can understand why some may think that the federal government will fail, if you look at the past eight years as a current history, with failures like the financial meltdown and Katrina but the facts is they can and if we support them they will succeed.

How does shouting down to stop the conversation of the healthcare debate at town hall meetings, endears them to anyone. Especially when the organizations that are telling them where to go and what to do and say are Republicans political operatives, not real grassroots. How does shouting someone down or chasing them out like a “lynch mob” advanced the debate, it does not. So I think the American people will see through all of this and know, like the teabagger, the birthers, these lynch mobs types AKA “screamers” are just the same, people who have to resort to these tactics because they have no leadership to articulate what they real want. It’s easy to pickup a bus load of people who hate, and that’s all I been seeing, they hate and can’t debate. Too bad.

Aug 12, 2009 - 10:31 am 117. goy:

@115. jharp: – It’s just that simple.

LOL!! Right. Which is why over 1000 pages of legalese – which references several thousand other previously passed pages of legalese – is required to define this “simple” proposition.

Exactly whom, other than yourself, do you think you’re kidding with that nonsense?

Aug 12, 2009 - 10:32 am 118. billslayer:

JHARP–I’ve never come across a troll or obamabot as robotic as you…it’s truly spooky.

Aug 12, 2009 - 10:35 am 119. Moho:

I know Taanstafl–cited information and substantiated arguments are like garlic and holy-water to you people.

Aug 12, 2009 - 10:44 am 120. BC:

To tanstaafl: in other words, you don’t have any real comeback, eh? This actually brings up, however accidentally, a bigger point: what really is the purpose of sites like Pajamas Media, Hot Air, The Free Republic, Ace of Spades, and so on: to engage in lively discussions of current events; to be honest alternatives to that darn lying, liberal MSM; to rant and rave over mostly imagined outrages; to make cruel jokes and utterly nonsensical charges regarding liberal politicians, news people and entertainers; to shut “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!” when presented with hard evidence you don’t like; or just as place to socialize with the equally confused, misguidedly bitter and/or misinformed?

Aug 12, 2009 - 10:48 am 121. The Shadow:

Here is a rational discussion of the issues:
Behold, a National and Rational Conversation on Health Care

TOOLBOX
Resize Print E-mail Yahoo! Buzz

COMMENT
0 Comments
BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT
Your washingtonpost.com User ID, roberthurley, will be displayed with your comment.

Discussion PolicyYour browser’s settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem.
Discussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain “signatures” by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Who’s Blogging» Links to this article
By Steven Pearlstein
Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Republican strategists and their media rabble-rousers cleverly thought they could dispatch their shock troops this month and kill health reform once and for all.

This Story
Obama Faces ‘Scare Tactics’ Head-On
The Take: What They’re Really Arguing About
Going to the Mat On Health-Care Bill
McCaskill: ‘I Don’t Understand This Rudeness’
Protesters Disrupt Cardin Town Hall on Health Care
The Great Health Care Debate
Q&A, Transcript: Post Politics: Health-Care Special Edition
Behold, a National and Rational Conversation on Health Care
Transcript: President Obama Delivers Remarks on Health Care at N.H. Town Hall Meeting
Specter Faces Raucous Crowd at Town Hall Meeting
Raw Video: Specter Faces Angry Town Hall
Full Coverage: Health-Care Reform
View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story
Instead, they’re on the verge of generating what they’ve been desperate to avoid — an urgent, national, rational conversation on how to make the health-care system fairer and more affordable.

To be sure, many details of health reform are still to be ironed out. But in the end, what is likely to emerge from this conversation is a health system that looks more like what President Obama has in mind than what Republicans have been peddling these past 15 years without any visible signs of success.

At his town hall meeting Tuesday in Portsmouth, N.H., Obama reminded us of the deft political touch and mastery of policy details that won him the presidency. He and the good citizens of southern New Hampshire have set the standard against which other politicians and citizens will be judged.

Here at The Post, we have our own ongoing town hall meeting on the health reform issue — online and in print — that also demonstrates how it is possible to disagree about health reform without being disagreeable. In that spirit, I’d like to call attention to three columns by friends and colleagues that appeared over the past week.

Charles Krauthammer weighed in with a two-point plan for health reform that was certainly refreshing in its brevity and simplicity. Charles is not a man to be trifled with on any issue, but particularly on health care, inasmuch as he was trained as a doctor before turning to the higher calling of journalism. His diagnosis of what ails the U.S. health-care system, however, seems stubbornly incomplete.

Yes, the fear of malpractice suits causes many doctors to practice defensive medicine, but its impact on the cost of care is greatly exaggerated. Krauthammer, like many malpractice critics, relies on an article in the New England Journal of Medicine that is based primarily on a survey of doctors in Massachusetts. Subsequent studies, along with the experience of states that have capped punitive damage awards, suggest that the impact of malpractice awards on overall health spending is nowhere near the 25 percent that doctors like to claim.

That said, there are good political as well as policy reasons why malpractice reform should be part of health reform. But Charles loses me when he proposes that instead of relying on judges and juries, decisions about whether an error was made and whether a doctor should be sanctioned should be made by other doctors. These are the same professionals whose record in refusing to discipline their own is virtually unblemished.

Krauthammer’s other observation is that most problems with the health-care system would be solved if people bought their health insurance on the open market rather than getting it at work, where it is subsidized by employers and federal tax breaks. It is certainly true that if we were starting from scratch, nobody today would suggest an employer-based system. But now that we have it, there is precious little evidence that either employers or workers are eager to scrap it. Nor does experience suggest that a largely unregulated market for individual insurance would provide greater choice or affordability. In fact, the evidence suggests just the opposite.

Also weighing in this week was Robert Samuelson, who takes a back seat to no American when it comes to worrying about big government and big deficits. Unlike Krauthammer, “Sam” correctly identifies fee-for-service medicine as the big culprit in the driving up health-care costs. And, like Obama, he sees the solution in bundled payments to hospitals and coordinated care networks of doctors that would take responsibility for all their patients’ medical needs in return for fixed annual payments.

Samuelson’s beef with Obama is that the president prefers to introduce these reforms over time, through pilot projects and open competition, instead of immediately restructuring the Medicare and Medicaid systems to incorporate these ideas. Where Sam senses the lack of courage, however, others might see the astute political judgment of a president who sees the folly of using grandma as the cutting edge of a bold national experiment aimed at redefining the doctor-patient relationship and dramatically altering the way health care is delivered.

What I liked about Gene Robinson’s most recent column was its candor in reminding us that there’s no way to cut the growth of medical spending without cutting the growth of medical services. But Gene too easily makes the leap from there to saying that the only way to cut back on unnecessary care is to force such decisions on doctors and their patients.

In fact, there is now a growing body of evidence that when doctors and patients are presented with solid evidence by other health professionals about what works and what doesn’t, they tend to make the right medical decisions without having to be cajoled or threatened. The problem today is that, too often, the reliable evidence doesn’t exist, the doctor doesn’t know about it, or it isn’t presented to patients in a way they can understand and digest.

What that means is that there are huge savings — literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year — that can be realized before we reach the point at which we have to make those gut-wrenching decisions about when to pull the plug on Aunt Sylvia or how to ration care in ways that most Americans would find unacceptable. The evidence from other countries is that, with U.S. health spending running at more than $2 trillion every year, we can buy all the health care we really need and still have some left over.

Steven Pearlstein can be reached at pearlsteins@washpost.com.

Aug 12, 2009 - 10:56 am 122. The Shadow:

MrLucky – You are not really saying that leaders whould quit when the MSM is mean to them are you? I have never quit anything jsut because it was tough. Just suppose she were Presdient and the MSM was mean to her, how would you feel if she quit?

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:02 am 123. Dave:

She could have used a better term than “death panel”. She could have simply said “government bureaucrat”. But that is where my difference with her ends.

With a single payer system – and that is exactly what President Obama and his extreme leftist allies are trying to create – care will be rationed first based on politics (well connected families get their needs met first), second based on cost, and third based on what ever person happens to be your medical case worker. There will be no more incentive to innovate. People will have one chance at finding care and should that government union employee not like you, or have some prejudice or bias against you, or maybe just be having a bad day, too bad. They will be the only game in town. Any appeal will just drag out your misery. The regulator and the provider will all be part of the same group of cronies and the corruption will be rampant.

All the Presidents greenhouse meetings (greenhouse as in full of plants), distortions and evasions do not change this. We need to burn down this single payer Trojan Horse before we let it in the gate.

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:04 am 124. Samizdat:

Jharp,

The problem is that HR3200 makes it very difficult to keep what you have. If you change employers you have to go to the public option you can’t transfer from private carrier to private carrier. A goal I think conservatives and liberals could agree on is true portability. This bill doesn’t achieve that.

Read parts of the bill and tell me if you understand it. I have, and I don’t.

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:08 am 125. Aureliano:

The Shadow,

There are copyright issues when you post something verbatim on Pajamas Media.

Cease and desist. That sort of thing is grounds for banning.

It also is bad netiquette, to say nothing of the fact that no one will read so long a missive in a comments section.

You’re really not very good at this ‘activist’ thing, are you?

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:08 am 126. Sherab Zangpo:

It is so funny to watch the trolls facing grass root dissent and getting so angry about it !
Suddenly, they are no longer the “power to the people” side (of course we knew that already, but to SEE it is so much much funnier !).

I have the text of the bill, it is 1,000 pages and I carefully check every quotation made by the talk radio hosts and they are always right spot on. It’s an horror NOT in disguise. A nazi-stalinistic law.

Don’t ya worry, trolls, the country is all yours for a little while.
Do what you want and then get ready for the consequences.

Because, you know, little trolls, there are CONSEQUENCES to your actions.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:12 am 127. goy:

@121. The Shadow: – Here is a rational discussion of the issues … “… there’s no way to cut the growth of medical spending without cutting the growth of medical services.”

Wrong.

And anyone who falls for that objectively nonsensical statement is hardly being “rational”.

The best way to cut the growth of medical spending is to stop misusing insurance to pay for health care.

Pearlstein and 99% of ALL of those pretending to discuss this issue “rationally” ignore the fact that insurance is a tool for managing financial risk, not something to be used to cover routine costs of living. They willfully overlook the fact that comprehensive health care insurance is nothing more than socialized medicine run by a proxy monopoly of corporations – notably, regulated by the federal government – who control the price of AND access to health care.

Our current system does economic damage on two fronts. It redistributes wealth (in reverse) by distributing the cost of health care for SOME individuals over a larger group. It also encourages health care costs to rise at rates greater than inflation because costs increase to a level affordable by ALL members of a plan when only SOME members are actually using much of it. There is literally nothing acting to keep the costs down.

Any intellectually honest reform of health care insurance will start by eliminating comprehensive health care insurance and encouraging a move BACK to direct-pay for routine services. Consumer economics will bring the costs back into line with other commodities naturally. As it stands, costs continue to rise – forever – because “insurance will cover it” and all the insurance companies need to do to keep making that happen is… raise their premiums.

Want a solution? Here it is: stop abusing insurance to pay for a routine cost of living. Go BACK to direct-pay for routine and non-catastrophic health care. Use high-deductible insurance to manage the (real) risk of catastrophic injury or illness. Allow commodity price control mechanisms to control health care costs in THE SAME WAY all other commodity costs are kept affordable.

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:16 am 128. rachel peepers:

Sarah Palin.

Not surprisinly, she’s extremely disappointed in the direction President Barack Obama has taken this country.

Of course, deep discontent with Obama doesn’t stop there.

She’s disappointed in the growing sense that Obama has a deep and abiding fear and lack of faith regular, every day, hard working black and white Americans.

So Barack makes sure his people pack his town hall HealthCare meetings with like minded white (divide and conquer) psychofants, who just ask the questions written for them beforehand.

This is unsettling, especially to someone who can relate to regular people like Sarah Palin can.

For she is one of them. A homespun girl who knows that truth is the most powerful weapon to have on your side.

More valuable than money, it’s the belief that promises made are promises kept. And it’s ironic the extent to which Obama hasn’t been keeping his promises. But more about that later.

Not only does Sarah Palin think like real people, she lives it. With kids. Sorrow. Happiness. Pain. Gladness. Joy. Family. sharing.

And, anybody that knows her, knows she’s a bear when it comes to motherhood.

When, for instance, David Letterman joked how at a Yankee game Sarah’s 14 year old daughter was impregnated by Alex Rodriguez, first Sarah felt terrible embarrassment for her daughter.

Then anger; she lashed out at Letterman, and Letterman didn’t know what hit him as he made a mad dash to get on TV and apologize.

Letterman and Jon Stewart, in my humble opinion, by the way, are prime candidates for the witless protection program.

They used to be funny, but now they say they can’t think of anything funny to say, especially about their leader, Barack Obama. I personally think he’s a joke. But that’s me.

Getting back to regular American people, though. The kind of person Sarah Palin grew up with and as. The kinds of people Sarah Palin spends her life with.

Regular American people, both black and white, though susceptible to a clever turn of phrase during a primary election, naturally tend to be more thoughtful and questioning when the rubber of reality meets the road.

When, for example, your child needs money for a school science trip and that same money is needed to put food on the table, and the family doesn’t have enough to go around, then what do you do?

A second job?

There’s not a lazy bone in 99% of parent’s bodies, but because Obama has squandered trillions on fat cat supporters with cash handouts for bigger houses and swimming pools, and not incentivized a car company, for example, to build a new plant in your home town, there’s no second job.

McDonald’s is fine as a stopgap measure, but I thought Obama said people deserve a choice. A chance to try something different. The man promised change.

Unfortunately, what he’s delivered to most working families isn’t piles and piles of cash, (like he’s stuffed in the pockets of the political fat cats), but rather the kind of change that’s preceded by the word, “chump.”

Stimulus I was trillions. And somehow Obama forgot his millions of followers that found out the end of the election road led to another empty hole. No change. Just the same old empty-pocketed disappointments.

Becoming no more than a characterature of himself, petrified of meeting those random red blooded Americans in town hall meetings because they’re wont to heartily and vociferously convey their viewpoints about not just ObamaCare but a whole slew of issues, Obama seems tongue tied, not knowing what to say.

Of course, because of what he does; the damage he’s doing to America, ObamaCare has to be front and center on people’s minds.

While reform is one thing, the more we know Obama, the more people are realizing that he’s out to destroy private health care as we know it.

And when regular random town hall attendees frame their ObamaCare questions in real honest to goodness people talk, Barack and his minions have no answer. They become mute as that button on your TV remote control.

Regular American citizens want to know why he’s bankrupting the country with Stimulus Plans galore.

Why he’s throwing billions down a bottomless stimulus well that seem to disappear only in the hands of rich Obama supporters.

Katrina victims surely haven’t seen any of it.

Poor people in the Bronx, NY on Sedgwick Avenue haven’t gotten better schools because of it.

The poverty pockets of Kansas City are still forgotten sump holes of depression and degradation.

Barack finds himself between a rock and hardplace.

People are realizing Obama’s rich friends in high places are getting richer as he’s redistributing Stimulus I billions to the millionaires, not to the struggling people living in East St. Louis, south Chicago, north Milwaukee. He’s being found out to be the snake oil King of the 21st century.

Obama goes on luxury Hawaiian vacations with his family and staff and lives in the lap of luxury while a poverty stricken Rochester NY family sweltering in non-air conditioned sweat boxes live out their summer like pigs.

This is about much more than Barack’s insensitivity to real America in relation to healthcare.

Barack in the past eight months has demonstrated a great insensitivity to the whites and African Americans who voted for him. Are they better or worse off since he took office? People all over are realizing Barack was all talk.

You may have really believed in him, but he never really believed in you.

Barack wants ObamaCare because it’ll put 17% of the nation’s GNP under his thumb.

Do you have any idea how much power and money that gives him? Enough to pay back every single rich as rain supporter who ever was there when the Democratic Party stuck out there grubby hands.

I guess greasing palms the old Chicago way had to be expected. That’s what corrupt Chicago politicians who hang out with domestic terrorists do.

But there’s another dynamic to the strange case of Barack Obama.

Maybe you could call it an irony which I earlier said I’d get back to.

Know the biggest irony that makes Barack want to avoid, random, unscripted real faces?

The majority of folks who voted for Barack expected real change, not millions for big wig bankers, lawyers, and stockbrokers who’ve been living high off the hog for decades.

The majority of folks didn’t want to see fat political cats get billions in reward money. Something which Barack never mentioned he planned to do.

The majority of Obama voters wanted real change.

In their lives, it meant opportunities they never had before. For newer, better affordable housing.

Better schools for their children.

Safer neighborhoods.

The ability if they desire, to move to the suburbs where streets are tree lined, not drug infested.

Where kids can play in backyards without having to watch their backs.

And Sarah Palin has said it till she’s blue in the face.

These Obama voters who wanted these items of decency didn’t want handouts.

They wanted jobs. Were and are willing to work for them.

Not just flipping burgers at McDonalds, but the kinds of jobs wealthy people provide.

Instead, Barack has declared war on entrepreneurs, asked his supporters to join the battle, and in a fiendish trick, has his lawyers carry out a divide and conquer strategy.

The more talk like Crowley was stupid for arresting Gates. The more Jeremiah Wright pewing he did for twenty years, the more he points out that “I don’t look like the people on their money”. The more racial divide Barack ferments, the less he has to worry how his voter base, African Americans, who now along with everyday white folks are left out of the mix.

Barack knows how to get folks mad at each other, rather than at Barack. He’s made a career of it.

Maybe it’s not a crime, but it should be.

Barack Obama supporters voted for real change and all they got was chump change, compliments of Barack.

This past election changed Sarah Palin’s life.
And, in spite of everything it put her and her family though, she’s asking Obama and non Obama voters alike, to consider helping her now.

Together, Palin is convinced, we can reignite a commitment to the ideals of freedom, free enterprise and equal opportunity for all (a second job if you want it, and a better first one too).

With your help, she promises to send the fat cats home with their tails between their legs.

To bring about a new America that’s not afraid to say the Pledge of allegiance, and not reluctant to stand up for what is right and good.

Sarah Palin doesn’t just know how to define the health care debate.

She knows that the days, weeks and years before us are likely to go down in the history books as the defining moments of America.

My bad for not having voted for her. America, it won’t happen again.

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:19 am 129. The Shadow:

RP – I am not sure what abortion has to do with this healthcare bill. For those who want it covered, it will not be covered by taxpayer’s money. It will have to be paid for out of the premiums for those who elect that coverage. Just for the record, I am against abortion.

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:19 am 130. Laura Hurst:

In OREGON we do have Oregon Health Plan for those who have no insurance and meet the guide-lines. Yet we have CHOICES and some of us have private dcotors and carry our own insurance. Some of our doctors bill by a sliding scale and a visit may only cost you $15.00. Others like me have Kiaser and I love my doctors and reasonable prices.

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:24 am 131. jharp:

Jharp,

“The problem is that HR3200 makes it very difficult to keep what you have.”

Nonsense. And you act as if it’s easy to keep what you have today. The bill makes it much easier to keep what you have. And offers additional choices.

“If you change employers you have to go to the public option you can’t transfer from private carrier to private carrier.”

Nonsense. Just plain false.

“A goal I think conservatives and liberals could agree on is true portability. This bill doesn’t achieve that.”

That is exactly what the bill achieves.

“Read parts of the bill and tell me if you understand it.”

I’ve read it and understand it. You obviously don’t.

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:26 am 132. goy:

Cheers for Rachel P.

Oh, and you’ve coined a new term, which is perfectly applicable to BHO’s mindless minions – like the entrenched, Fifth Column media, for instance:

psychofants – the (crazy) elephant(s) in the room.

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:27 am 133. Jim Baker:

109 BC,
So willfully dense is like willfully resistant? What has resistance got to do with dense? You are correct that you will be resisted simply because of the ideas you support, but opposition to your ideas is not dense, by definition. Or are you dense? By the way, why do you come onto this “usual suspect right wing web site”? If denizens of this blog are dense, as you say as often and as creatively as you can, why do you try to impart your enlightenment upon them? I might be dense, but it seems to me that it would be a complete waste of your time.

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:28 am 134. homero:

126. Sherab Zangpo:

It is so funny to watch the trolls facing grass root dissent and getting so angry about it !
Suddenly, they are no longer the “power to the people” side (of course we knew that already, but to SEE it is so much much funnier !).

I have the text of the bill, it is 1,000 pages and I carefully check every quotation made by the talk radio hosts and they are always right spot on. It’s an horror NOT in disguise. A nazi-stalinistic law.

Don’t ya worry, trolls, the country is all yours for a little while.
Do what you want and then get ready for the consequences.

Because, you know, little trolls, there are CONSEQUENCES to your actions.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

GREAT POST ….that is why they wanted to pass it fast and unread.

if no one read it WHO THE F@#K wrote it …pardon the french

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:36 am 135. John:

Anonymous:
“Interestingly, the majority of Americans agree with Sarah Palin, not President Obama.”
How can you say that? Wikipedia: “A June 2009 New York Times/CBS News poll found BWAHAHAHAHAHA first look at the MSM poll you are pulling from. Try and independent nationwide poll

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:41 am 136. Bryan:

A SIMPLE REQUEST:

Please email your representatives in congress the following:
~~~
~~~
I am requesting that you sponsor the following amendment to the health care bill.

If you cannot support the below amendment then you cannot in good conscious vote to approve this bill.

1) UPON THE PASSAGE OF NATIONAL HEALTH CARE BILL IT IS RESOLVED THAT ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE REQUIRED TO BE SOLELY COVERED BY THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDED HEALTH CARE PLAN.

2) CONGRESS AND THEIR FAMILIES MAY NOT HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INSURANCE PLAN OR PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM APPLIED TO THEM EVEN IF THEY PAY FOR IT TH
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This health care plan does not look so good when YOU and YOUR FAMILY are forced to live by the same rules you are planning to force on the rest of us.

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:44 am 137. goy:

@123. Dave: – She could have used a better term than “death panel”.

I don’t know Dave. I thought it was a truly inspired comment. SarahBaracuda has already mastered the art of pushing the left’s buttons at will, as this demonstrates.

Sarah apparently understands that the best way to get the left to reveal their own moral adolescence is to get them to go apoplectic attacking her. All that does is generate more sympathy toward her and antipathy toward the unhinged, vitriolic, angry – ugly – left. She’s crazy like a fox.

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:48 am 138. Mr Lucky:

108. Moho A qualified “most likely already subsidizing Fed Ex” becomes an absolute “the subsidy that you give Fed Ex…”

I applied for an abatement on the property taxes on my residence this year. Will I be subsidized by the government if my taxes are reduced?

I would agree that “corporate welfare” is not a good thing. Neither are tax rates which inhibit growth. General propositions, but I would like to see less of both.

122. The Shadow. “Just suppose she were President and the MSM was mean to her, how would you feel if she quit?”

Big deal. Personal choice on her part. The President is not the most important person in my life.

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:49 am 139. jharp:

Bryan:

“This health care plan does not look so good when YOU and YOUR FAMILY are forced to live by the same rules you are planning to force on the rest of us.”

No one is forcing anyone onto anything.

You can keep the insurance you have now, you fool.

Or are you a liar? Which is it?

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:49 am 140. blotto:

BC: So why are you here? You and jharp for the most part are only tools. You think you are on the right side since you believe in progressivism. However, your arguments are specious and covered by a patina of pure mendacity that it actually makes you look foolish to the rest of us.

Sure it is fun to argue with you two, but in the end, I think you both are simply tools. Even with the ready help from CAP or Kos, the ferocity of your arguments demonstrates how far you have to go to make yourselves believe your own lies.

You are both contrived; this is all to easy to spot, especially you jharp, when you post your ready-made quotes to support(?) your positions.

And deliberately confused(ing), or they pay you both really well to act this way in order to get us off topic.

Anyway, keep up the work. Your handlers are proud of you. Disinformation is important and crucial work for the left and somebody has to do it.

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:53 am 141. Moho:

Bryan: Another simple request. If you have any integrity at all, you’ll send it forthwith…

Please email your representatives in congress the following:
~~~
~~~
I am requesting that you sponsor the following amendment to the health care bill.

1) UPON THE FAILURE OF THIS BILL IT IS RESOLVED THAT MEDICARE AND MEDICAID HAS BEEN RESOLVED. YAY WE HAVE HEARD THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE–MEANING THE SMALL PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS WITH NOTHING TO DO ON A SUMMER NIGHT–THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT AND CANNOT RUN ANY KIND OF HEALTH INSURANCE SCHEME. SUCH SCHEMES ARE A DEATHLY HAZARD TO EVERYONE.

2) FORTHWITH, MEDICARE, MEDICAID AND THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION WILL BE SCRAPPED. FINALLY, WITH ALL OF OUR CITIZENS ON AN UNRESTRICTED HEALTH CARE MARKET, INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL BE FREE TO PASS ALONG THE SAVINGS TO THEIR CUSTOMERS.

This absurd anti-government lemming-inspired discourse does not look so good when YOU and YOUR FAMILY are forced to live by a consistent application of the rules that you champion.

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:55 am 142. Dinobotprime:

jharp
I can keep my insurance now, that’s true. The question is this, can I have the same options in regards to my health insurance when Obama’s health care reform comes to effect in 2013? You are presenting false choices here, what I have now is irrelevant , what I and many others will have in the future is the onus of all the complaints .

Aug 12, 2009 - 12:02 pm 143. collateral damage:

126. Sherab Zangpo:

It is so funny to watch the trolls facing grass root dissent and getting so angry about it !
Suddenly, they are no longer the “power to the people” side (of course we knew that already, but to SEE it is so much much funnier !).

I have the text of the bill, it is 1,000 pages and I carefully check every quotation made by the talk radio hosts and they are always right spot on. It’s an horror NOT in disguise. A nazi-stalinistic law.

Don’t ya worry, trolls, the country is all yours for a little while.
Do what you want and then get ready for the consequences.

Because, you know, little trolls, there are CONSEQUENCES to your actions.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

in a way it is like the liberals are getting some of their own type of medicine. but in truth the conservative types are not vindictive or mean spirited about their disent.

Aug 12, 2009 - 12:03 pm 144. Bryan:

If the government health care plan passes MANY people strongly believe that private insurance policies paid for by employers will be defunct.

I know for a FACT that MY employer has said that if this plan passes it is going to do away with the insurance that I am currently provided by the company.

Why? To save money of course…
If the government is going to offer “free” health care then why should they pay for it?

This is FACT…
I know those pesky things bother you but there it is…

My question stands:
If congress and their famlies are forced to live under the same healthcare plan as the rest of us will be then fine.
But ya wanna bet they are going to do that?

As to your name calling…
How grown up of you…
Res ipsa loquitur
I will not sink to your level.

Aug 12, 2009 - 12:07 pm 145. blotto:

Bryan: Bingo! It should include all state and federal employees and union workers as well! (reprint from companion commentary)

jharp: Geez. I get tired of this. But here goes:
This summary is provided by Fortune Magazine a subsidiary of CNN–not known to favor the GOP or conservatives.

http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/107408/5-freedoms-you-would-lose-in-health-care-reform.html?mod=insurance-health

4. Freedom to keep your existing plan

“This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It’s worth diving into the weeds — the territory where most pundits and politicians don’t seem to have ventured.

The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don’t have real insurance. Those are the GEs and Time Warners and most other big companies.

The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are “grandfathered.” Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want — they’re exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.

But read on.

The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the “qualified” policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we’ve already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, “keeping your own plan” has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you’ll get dumped into the exchange. As we’ll see, it could happen a lot earlier.

The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren’t under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only “qualified” plans to new customers, via the exchanges.

The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there’s a catch. If the plan changes in any way — by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug — the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it’s likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.”

Aug 12, 2009 - 12:13 pm 146. myth buster:

jharp, how is a private company supposed to be able to compete with the government? Price? NO, the government can subsidize its plan with taxpayer money, operating at a loss, while the insurance company has to turn a profit to survive. Quality of service? NO, the government can kneecap the private companies with crippling regulations, even to the point where they are required to charge less than what it costs for them to operate. The private companies would be out of business within five years.

Aug 12, 2009 - 12:17 pm 147. Ed Wallis:

“myth buster” #146,

Don’t bother engaging “jharp” in discussion. Diverting, distracting and deflecting are the tools of the trade of an agitation propaganda troll.

“jharp” is simply a troll to be ignored. Agitation propaganda, whether paid for by the government or not, is an unfortunate nuisance here at PJM.

The House bill – which “jharp” clearly has either not read or is unwilling to accept – has limitations/constraints on current private providers such that, within roughly 5 years or so, they will be unable to compete with the so-called “public option” (yeah…right…just like “taking a shower” was an “option” in the death camps…).

To repeat: “jharp,” among too many other cretins who take up space among the more sincere and intelligent posters here at PJM, is an agit-prop troll to be ignored.

Aug 12, 2009 - 12:24 pm 148. Moho:

Bryan–this sounds like a very pro-business approach. Since health care is not your right, why should your employer be shouldering the burden of providing that for you? The only reason that your employer gives you insurance is because its a write-off, which means that the rest of us are making up that short-fall in tax revenue. I’m frankly tired of subsidizing the insurance of lazy, government-teat sucking free-loaders like you. The sooner that the government can get employers to shove you people out into the open market and fend for yourselves, the better off the rest of us tax payers will be. If that’s what the Obama plan does–giving you the option of paying for your own health care with your own un-tax-subsidized dollars or using the government plan–then I’m all for it. Remember, the constitution doesn’t say health care is a right.

Aug 12, 2009 - 12:24 pm 149. AThinkingPerson:

For all of the liberal trolls that claim to have read Obama/Pelosi’s health care tragedy, I only wish one of them would scurry back to the DNC cave and tell PRESIDENT OBAMA to read it too. http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/21/morning-bell-obama-admits-hes-not-familiar-with-house-bill/?CFID=72769676&CFTOKEN=60798921

Dear Leader seems to have a problem with commenting on things before he actually knows all the facts (sort of like Professor/Policeman travesty). I guess being informed is too much to ask.

Aug 12, 2009 - 12:38 pm 150. Bryan:

To Blotto:

Yes, I have already read that article.
That is why I discussed this with my employer.
As I have said they responded that they would no longer supply health insurance should the bill passes.
For those of you who say the bill is not written I provide the following:

I have read A LOT of the health care (H.R3200) bill as shown here:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

SIGH…
Was NOT FUN!
This bill is full of more special provisions for special interests than has even been brought up!

Search for the word “community” to get a flavor of this.

line 24 of page 756
“Consult” and “Community Based”
The Secretary of Health and Human Services is to consult with community-based health care networks serving low income beneficiaries…

Line 14 of page 843
“establish appropriate linkages
and referrals to other community resources
and supports”

p 848
and links to community services.

On and On with the “community based” stuff….

I don’t know about you but my health care is exactly that MINE.
And it is Medical in nature.

Not community based or having links to non medical resources and services….

Very undefined wording that is open to a Pile’o Graft…
Get the drift?

Aug 12, 2009 - 12:45 pm 151. Notan Idjit:

healme:
“Other countries do public healthcare with private top-ups without restricting provision”

Bullshit.
There is a debate in Canada right now because it is *illegal* to have an insurance option that remotely competes with anything the government provides.

I am now 51 and one year ago I was diagnosed with emphysema.
Know what the “approved” treatment is?
Make me comfortable and watch me die.
Puffers to help me breathe now, oxygen later, and around two weeks from death *maybe* be put on a waiting list for a lung transplant.

If I had a *legal* private insurance option, don’t you think I would goto the US for better treatment?

Right now I have pneumonia.
Had to wait seven days for a doctor appointment, then was sent for x-rays and tests before being prescribed anything, making it at least two weeks from first calling the doctor until treatment gets started.

Still think single-payer is so great?

Aug 12, 2009 - 12:45 pm 152. Anonymous:

…can you imagine one of these trolls having a job dispensing medical care at an obama clinic near you !

Aug 12, 2009 - 12:46 pm 153. Dinobotprime:

Moho

In other words, you disagree with the fact that Mr Bryan in addition to his pay , his employer also provides him with health care benefits voluntarily . Mr Bryan have the right to refuse it and shoulder his own plan if he desires and his company won’t penalized him for it . In fact, I carry my own health insurance as well as the health insurance my hospital offered to me. I have a choice to drop one or the other or keep both and I kept both . I pay for my own health insurance straight out of my checking account . So any more questions ?? I Talk the talk and walk the walk . How about you , Moho?? Are you just talk ??

Aug 12, 2009 - 12:48 pm 154. goy:

Hmmm… looks like the People are starting to see (a) Red.

Aug 12, 2009 - 12:50 pm 155. Bryan:

Moho:

My employer is paying for my health insurance because I EARN this benefit by selling the minutes in my finite life span here on earth to them.

They do this also to make sure that my labor will be more available to the company if I need health care.

Also they do get a tax write off but that write off does not nearly justify the cost. (Accounting 101)

They provide this benefit with no altruistic intent.
Simply capitalism in action.

Now….
If ALL companies were REQUIRED to provide health care to their employees then the cost of the health insurance to my company would be much less.

Why?
Well think of the multi-billion dollar companies like McDonalds and Wal-Mart…
These companies do not pay for health insurance for their employees so if their employees need helth care then they free load off of the emergency room.

But as you should know nothing is free in America…
(I tell my wife this all the time as she is from the Ukraine)
So who pays for indigent care???
My company does!!!!

Now follow the money here…

The hospital passes on the costs of indigent care to the the bill that my health insurance company must pay…

The health insurance company increases the cost of the premiums of my health care policy…

And my company pays these increased premiums.

So my company has to pay for the uninsured Bugger King and Walmart employees…
Not so fair but it is the way it is…

My company pays for all the uninsured.
Under Paid non insured employees, Illegals, Unemployed, you name it that are currently getting health care at the hospital as indigent care those costs are passed on the them.

And this plan will cause it to stop paying and the government to take over…
I think that will not be as efficient as the current system…

BUT~~~
A SUGGESTION
Middle of the road kinda idea…

Improve the system and get more people on health insurance and to get more companies to pay their fair share is simple.

Two items
>>>
A. Pass a bill that makes it REQUIRED that a company provide health care to all its employees.

B. Require unemployment insurance to include unemployment health insurance.
<<<

This does many things…

Part A reduces the number of people using indigent care at the hospital by getting insurance to the under paid non insured employees (McDonalds employee who needs treatment will now be covered) Currently these workers are free loading on my companies policy.

Part B gets the unemployed onto insurance while they look for a job.

This will reduce the cost to my company because less people will get indigent care and have to be paid for by my policy so my company will pass on the savings in the market place.

But McDonalds and WalMart will now be paying their fair share and have to increase their prices to cover their employees health care.

~~~
So there is MY plan…
It does not fix everyone but it does improve the situation.
And it does it without the government taking over health care.
~~~

Aug 12, 2009 - 1:08 pm 156. Michael:

Moho, that is exactly what we want with a few small (relative to the current bloated congressional plan) adjustments for private free enterprise insurance. NO GOVERNMENT OPTION. We want CHOICE not a government nudge to correct (in their bureaucratic view) thought.

I know change is your mantra but for conservatives our mantra is freedom and choice. I will take freedom and choice over nebulous change any day.

Aug 12, 2009 - 1:09 pm 157. AThinkingPerson:

Re #151 (Liked the moniker btw), personally I feel that stories like yours are what makes fighting Obama and Pelosi and the rest of our Democratic Congress worth while. The idea of my parents, my kids, my spouse or myself going through what you have is frightening and WRONG!

Unfortunately for the US, the uneducated decided to pick this moment in history to rise up and elect a socialist President who is intent on taking us on a path to a single-payer system and the wishes of the populus be damned.

We can talk and argue until we’re blue in the face but will Obama listen to the majority of Americans now against it? Only time will tell. I have a sinking feeling though, that we will be forming lines for health care sooner than we think.

Aug 12, 2009 - 1:11 pm 158. bobby bb:

It would be nice to be able to have a civil conversation about the health care system we have.or don’t have. Instead, we have the conservative sites which mostly trash the liberals, call the few libs who do write in ” trolls” or worse, then you go to the liberals sites which mostly trash the conservatives, call the few conservatives who write in “trolls” or worse…a vicious circle and we never listen to the other side, or truly hear their perspective. It is maddening and sad. I see some good things in this bill, and some concerns as well. Killing off grandma is not one of them. Paying for it is, and what will happen to the private insurers? Will it force them out of business and we all have to go to a gov’t plan? Of course, I would not mind if some of them went out of business..with their 400% profits and obscene bonuses. Both sides seem way to beholden to corporate interests. Anyone know of a legitimate site that people can talk out differences without resorting to namecalling, and outright lies and distortions?

Aug 12, 2009 - 1:21 pm 159. jharp:

myth buster:

“jharp, how is a private company supposed to be able to compete with the government?”

Don’t you have that backwards? Isn’t it how can the government compete with a private company?

Private retirements accounts have done pretty well right along social security. I know my folks and their friends are enjoying both.

Especially social security for one of my dads friends as he lost $1 million in his IRA. (National City stock)

Aug 12, 2009 - 1:22 pm 160. Mr Lucky:

148. Moho. “I’m frankly tired of subsidizing the insurance of lazy, government-teat sucking free-loaders like you. The sooner that the government can get employers to shove you people out into the open market and fend for yourselves, the better off the rest of us tax payers will be.”

Does “lazy government-teat sucking free-loaders” and “you people” include any of the 40 million uninsured? What other kind of shoving is the government capable of?

Aug 12, 2009 - 1:24 pm 161. jharp:

“A. Pass a bill that makes it REQUIRED that a company provide health care to all its employees.”

Study the bill. In a roundabout way that’s pretty much what the bill does.

And it expands insurance for those who no one wants to insure. Just like Medicare is insurance for our elderly. i.e. Adds a public plan.

Aug 12, 2009 - 1:26 pm 162. Paul in MI:

#151 Notan Idjit

I’m sorry to hear about your illness and I’m not trying to make light of your situation but what treatment do you think would be available to you in the US? I’m no expert but my understanding of emphysema is that it’s chronic and irreversible. Lung transplants are the only “cure” and every medical protocol in the western world reserves transplantation as a last resort. Is there a treatment other than lung transplant that’s available?

Aug 12, 2009 - 1:27 pm 163. Michael:

Face it guys. Every one of the libs questions have been answered. They obfuscate or redirect but that doesn’t change anything. They are here to disrupt. They are here to make regular posters tired or disgusted enough to leave. Give the libs a smiley face and lets continue on with our buisness.

Aug 12, 2009 - 1:42 pm 164. BC:

To blotto: Hmmm….cuz I like a good argument? Seriously, you can’t really debate people who agree with you. Plus the amount of disinfo and strawman arguments that gets churned up here demands some kind of “Whoa, settle down there partner — that’s what we call a windmill and it’s not at all a dragon.”

Way too much of the “debate” that’s going on about health care is just WTF! nonsense. There is a genuine looming crisis with health care — it’s already caused all sorts of turmoil with job benefits — and addressing it is way overdue. Obama has a plan that might work. If you don’t like it, then where’s at least a *reasonably feasible” alternative plan? So far all that Republicans and conservatives in general have is a collection of worthless, dishonest and generally stupid talking points. So the net debate so far is:

Obama & Supporters: Here’s a plan to fix soaring health care costs, and bring in the uninsured as well.

Republicans & Conservatives: Nah, nah, socialist cuckaface, we hate you and your plan is poopy. My cousin says there’s nothing wrong with anything, liar.

Aug 12, 2009 - 1:43 pm 165. vivo:

8. Anonymous: should read ‘vivo’

PJM has discontinued remembering Name & Email data.

This cumbersome practice will lead to a lot of Anonymous.

Aug 12, 2009 - 1:52 pm 166. LIBERAL:

SARAH PALIN IS AN IDIOT AND SO ARE MANY OF YOU WHO BELIEVE HER,READ FOR YOURSELVES THINK, OR THAT IS TOO HARD TO DO YOU BUNCH OF NITWITS

Aug 12, 2009 - 1:53 pm 167. homero:

164. BC:

YOU ARE DISHONEST. the Obama plan will fix nothing.

just another step toward socialism MARXIST style.

one lie on top of another .. you and your other troll friends are DISHONEST

Aug 12, 2009 - 1:53 pm 168. goy:

@164. BC: Hmmm….cuz I like a good argument?

Your litany of straw man fallacies notwithstanding.

Aug 12, 2009 - 1:55 pm 169. B. Johnson:

Bear in mind that the main problem with big federal government is not misguided “leaders” like Obama. The main problem is that US citizens have evidently not been teaching the Constitution and its history to their children for many generations, particularly the Founder’s division of federal and state government powers. As a consequence of widespread constitutional ignorance, citizens are not able to stop constitutionally unauthorized Obamacare in its tracks by pointing out the following.

Given that the federal Constitution is silent about public healthcare, the 10th A. automatically reserves government power to regulate and lay taxes for healthcare to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress.

In fact, Chief Justice Marshall had established the following case precedent, now wrongly ignored, which appropriately limits the power of the feds to lay taxes.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” –Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN (1824) http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html

So not only are misguided Obama’s Stimulus Package and proposed healthcare constitutionally unauthorized, but based on Justice Marshall’s official words, the feds never had the power to lay taxes to fund such programs in the first place.

And what the people are overlooking concerning healthcare is the following. When state lawmakers and federal senators get their acts together and start doing their jobs to protect sovereignty by protecting citizens from illegal federal taxes, we could possibly have the following situation.

We could see up to 50 independent, state-run healthcare programs. And some states are going to do a good job of managing healthcare while other states may struggle with healthcare. But the beauty of this situation is that there’s no law that says that the states that are good at running healthcare can’t give some good advice to other states to help them improve their programs.

Also, when two states have similar healthcare programs, spotting corrupt in one state’s program could be as simple as comparing the books for the two states.

Finally, the following link is an analysis as to how state sovereignty-ignorant voters have shot their feet off with big, corrupt federal government.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=199792

Aug 12, 2009 - 1:57 pm 170. Moho:

Dinobot:

Its well known that employers short-change their employees wages by giving them the equivalent in benefits which are tax deductible. In essence, the tax payer subsidizes the insurance of workers who receive health benefits from their employer. Frankly, I don’t care what you pay for, nor did I ask you.

Aug 12, 2009 - 2:03 pm 171. vivo:

54. Bruce:

“Furthermore, the bland verbose legalese of the house bill clearly contains within it the room for an administration to interpret the right to put “death panels” into play.”

You tell your legislators how you want it worded. Make them earn their salaries and benefits . . .

135. John:

” first look at the MSM poll you are pulling from. Try and independent nationwide poll”

I forgot to check ‘unfair & unbalanced’ Fox . . .

Aug 12, 2009 - 2:04 pm 172. Sgt Shultz:

Death panel? Thats just nuts. That would be like calling Auschwitz a death camp. It was a National Socialist relocation and healthcare center.

Aug 12, 2009 - 2:08 pm 173. Mr Lucky:

170. Moho. “Its well known that employers short-change their employees wages by giving them the equivalent in benefits which are tax deductible.”

Moho – Which tax deductions should be eliminated and which should be kept? Flat tax, maybe? Well known short changing…?

Aug 12, 2009 - 2:16 pm 174. Tom Nally:

Fnord said:

Fair enough. But somehow, you refrain from commenting on the fact that her “death-panels” are outright lies.

What you are saying is that argument is no longer allowed to contain implied metaphors.

Metaphors are now “lies”.

—Tom Nally

Aug 12, 2009 - 2:36 pm 175. Now and Then:

A new CNN Poll shows that Palin’s favorability rating has fallen seven percentage points since May, from 46 percent to 39 percent.

Keep framing, Sarah.

Aug 12, 2009 - 2:41 pm 176. dinobotprime:

Moho
Wrong, the taxpayer have nothing to do with it,what the government did was as you have pointed out gave the companies like my own a tax break for them to be supposedly competitive. Consider this, if the taxpayers subsidize my company’s employees’ insurance and the company and the employees of that company pay their taxes, isn’t it more truthful to say that the government subsidies is more wasteful and inefficient because the money that could have been used efficiently by the company and employees to get their own health insurance was taxed in order to subsidize their own insurance . Isn’t that a stupid way to use our hard earned money ??

I offered that example because I want to show you that everything are possible under this system, eitherr you can have multiple health insurance , an employee health insurance only or none at all . It’s the individual’s call, not yours and certainly not some government flunky .

Aug 12, 2009 - 2:43 pm 177. Jim Baker:

BC, are you there? See your #109 and #133 and explain again why you bother with PJM.

Aug 12, 2009 - 2:48 pm 178. goy:

@175. Now and Then: – A new CNN Poll shows that Palin’s favorability rating …

Wow, Cool!! CommieNetworkNews is running “favorability” polls on private citizens now??

I wonder if they’ll do one for me.

Aug 12, 2009 - 2:51 pm 179. Mr Lucky:

75. Now and Then. Where’s Obama these days? Has his polling fallen as well? Does Bill Clinton poll higher than Obama?

Aug 12, 2009 - 2:53 pm 180. goy:

@179. Mr Lucky: Where’s Obama these days?

I’m guessing s/he prefers not to discuss the matter.

I guess now we know what happens when the POTUS and the Peter Principle collide.

Aug 12, 2009 - 3:01 pm 181. Now and Then:

Evil indeed . . .

State programs intended to help disabled and elderly Alaskans with daily life — taking a bath, eating dinner, getting to the bathroom — are so poorly managed, the state cannot assure the health and well-being of the people they are supposed to serve, a new federal review found.

The situation is so bad the federal government has forbidden the state to sign up new people until the state makes necessary improvements. No other state in the nation is under such a moratorium, according to a spokeswoman for the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

In the meantime, frail and vulnerable Alaskans who desperately need the help are struggling. One elderly woman is stuck in a nursing home, for lack of care at home. Another woman, suffering from chronic pain and fatigue, said she’s so weak, she often can’t even pop dinner into the microwave.

This is the GOP’s alternative to a public or universal option. Sarah wants to talk about evil socialist plans that will kill people, but I betcha she doesn’t want to talk about the hundreds of Alaskans who died waiting for these services.

A particularly alarming finding concerns deaths of adults in the programs. In one 2 1/2 year stretch, 227 adults already getting services died while waiting for a nurse to reassess their needs. Another 27 died waiting for their initial assessment, to see if they qualified for help. (C&L)

Aug 12, 2009 - 3:05 pm 182. Now and Then:

178. goy:
She’s not private until she gives back the $180,000 in clothes we paid for.

Aug 12, 2009 - 3:06 pm 183. Gina:

BACKTRACK:

NOVEMBER 2008: OBAMA’S GRANDMOTHER DIED.
APRIL 2009: AN INTERVIEW. OBAMA USED HIS GRANDMOTHER TO PROMOTE HIS HEALTHCARE PLAN. WHAT DID HE SAY ABOUT HIS LOGIC: HE DIDN’T WANT HER GRANDMOTHER TO SUFFER FROM HIP “WHATEVER” SURGERY. HE LET HER GO – DIED.
WHAT IS THAT PHILOSOPHY? THE THEORY OF DOCTOR EZEKIEL.

RETURN TO PRESENT:
HR 3200 PROPOSES A MAJOR COMMISSION PLUS SEVERAL LEVELS OF DOCTORS AND EXPERTS (LIKE EZEKIEL?) APPOINTED BY OBAMA TO RECOMMEND TO OBAMA’S APPOINTED SECRETARY ON WHICH TYPES OF ILLNESS SHALL BE COVERED.

…. LIZA MURKOWSKI, YOU’RE CORRECT. NO PANEL. IT’S MUCH MUCH BIGGER AND MORE POWERFUL THAN A PANEL. A COMMISSION + MINIONS FOR THE COLLECTIVE.

THE PRIORITIES SET BY THE APPOINTEES ABOVE (RATIONING POLICY OF HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE) WILL BE FOLLOWED BY MEDICAID AND MEDICARE – STILL THE SAME ANIMAL WITH A BIGGER NETWORK AND MONEY MACHINE. … OBAMACARE

WHAT POLICY WILL OBAMA’S SECRETARY PURSUE: OBAMA’S. WHAT’S OBAMA’S POLICY TOWARDS ELDERS?

DON’T TRUST HIS WORDS. KNOW WHAT HE ACTUALLY DID.

WITH SUBSIDIZATION AND LEVELING EFFECT OF THE OBAMACARE, PRIVATE COMPANIES CANNOT COMPETE WITH A MONOPOLY. – ECONOMICS 101.

IN SHORT. “DEATH PANELS” + RATIONING AGAINST ELDERS.

THE ISSUE IS THIS:
COLLECTIVIST’S SOCIAL JUSTICE MEANS EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL.

1. IF ONE LIVES … ALL LIVE (GOOD ECONOMY, MORE MONEY IN THE COFFER SCENARIO). OKEY.

BUT:

2. IF ONE HAS TO DIE … SHOULD THE REST DIE WITH HIM? THIS IS VERY TRUE TO THE ELDER PEOPLE (THE BULK OF THE COST) ESPECIALLY IF THE GOVERNMENT BECOMES BANKRUPT IN THE LONG RUN?

WHO WILL BE THE FIRST? WHO WILL BE THE LAST?

SARAH DIDN’T START THE ISSUE. SHE JUST COINED THE PHRASE. OBAMA STARTED THE RHETORIC WITH HIS OWN GRANDMOTHER WHEN HE CONTEMPLATED THE HER DEATH TO THE EXISTING UNINSURED WAY BACK APRIL 2009.

MY TAKE: GOVERNMENT! DON’T TOUCH MY FAMILY.

ON SARAH VS OBAMA: AMERICANS RIDICULED SARAH WHEN SHE QUESTIONS ON ISSUES LIKE “DEATH PANEL” FOR RATIONING, ELDERLY, DISABLED LIKE TRIG, ETC.. AMERICANS CRIED AND GRIEVED WITH OBAMA WHEN HE DENIED HER GRANDMOTHER THE HIP REHABILITATION BECAUSE IT WOULD BE PAINFUL TO HER AND HE WAS CONTEMPLATING FOR THE INSURED AMERICANS (ACCDG TO HIM).

ONE THING FOR SURE: THE SARA’S FACEBOOK MEMO DID NOT STATE:

1. DEATH PANEL IS WRITTEN IN THE BILL.
2. TRIG AND ELDERS WILL BE KILLED.
3. EUTHANASIA.

LIES! LIES! LIES! OLBERMANN/MURKOWSKI/ISAKSON/GIBBS/…OBAMA/MSM ARE LYING!!!!

OBAMA AN HIS MINIONS (DEMS, RINOS AND MSM) LIED AGAINST PALIN BY MAKING FALSE INTERPRETATION OF HER NOTE.

I DON’T JUDGE OBAMA ON HIS VIEWPOINT. IT IS HIS PERSONAL CONVICTION. I JUST WANT TO HIM TO BE HONEST ONCE AND FOR ALL.

IF AMERICA, UPON FULL UNDERSTANDING THE BILL AND ITS INTENTIONS AND FULL CONSEQUENCES, STILL WANT IT TO BE PASSED. THEN LET THE CONGRESS AND OBAMA DO WHAT THEY SEE FIT.

BUT LET THEM BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT THEY WILL BE CREATING.

OBAMA DOESN’T SHOW ANY VIRTUE OF HONESTY IN THIS REGARD!

Aug 12, 2009 - 3:10 pm 184. ??:

Hi, I live in the UK and I think it’s fair to say most people are genuinely quite baffled at the response to this suggestion – the lack of free healthcare being percieved as one of the greatest failings of your government. Please could you explain to me why so many people are opposed to it? (I cannot take Sarah Palin’s concerns seriously as after nearly 50 years of the nhs we are yet to start murdering pensioners or forcing abortions upon people).

Aug 12, 2009 - 3:11 pm 185. Now and Then:

180. goy:
“I guess now we know what happens when the POTUS and the Peter Principle collide.”

We all learned what that was like long before now.

Aug 12, 2009 - 3:17 pm 186. goy:

@181. Now and Then: – Evil indeed . . . State programs intended to help disabled and elderly…

Thanks for the additional evidence that government has no business meddling in and should butt OUT of health care.

Don’t think anyone here really had any doubts about that though.

Aug 12, 2009 - 3:23 pm 187. goy:

oh and BTW – since N&T was afraid to actually cite the excerpt s/he plagiarized, the original is here for those who want to read the whole story.

I notice the following was conveniently left out…

Davis, the attorney who has brought many of the suits, said he doesn’t believe people are dying because of poor quality care or abuse. While the state doesn’t allow as many hours of care as people need, he said, the care itself is good. The multitude of private contractors makes the field competitive, and clients can switch providers if they aren’t satisfied, he said.

Gee – so they have a choice? Huh.

Aug 12, 2009 - 3:31 pm 188. rbell:

41 Deep Brain Diarist: What a misnomer. You are just a mud slinging leftist with a very small cranium. Calling Palin stupid. Is that the best you can do? In one sentence she wiped out Obamacare. Melissa’s article is right on. If you lefties have nothing but name calling left then why not stick to the Huffington website where you can talk to like minded hatemongers.

You are adding nothing to the debate. I work in health care. And I deal with the finances of physicians and hospitals. Obamacare is not going to pay for the cost of health care. It is going to limit care and reimbursement. Eventually all of our doctors will speak a foreign language because they will come from a foreign country and you will have to bring you own bed sheets to the hospital, if you want something to sleep on. You have to do that in Russia where they have socialized medicine.

Aug 12, 2009 - 3:49 pm 189. Michael:

BC, change is not necesarily good.

Obama & Supporters: Here’s a plan that’s full of government control that has ALWAYS been expensive and worse than what should have been.

Republicans & Conservatives: Nah, nah, socialist love of Govenment control and total faith in all things government. We don’t buy it that shacky faith.

A second thing to thing about. The Republicans will be in office again. (No, Democrats will not always be in power forever more) Now Democrats, do you want Republicans in total control of your health care? They are the devil right? Indeed the personification of evil. Guess what, we will be back.

Aug 12, 2009 - 3:59 pm 190. Kevin Carrigan:

Death Panels to decide who gets what treatment will be the answer to the Social Security mess. If you elminate most of the population before or shortly after retirement, the Social Security problem is no longer a problem.

Aug 12, 2009 - 4:05 pm 191. David W. Lincoln:

Two things to check. This online, courtesy of Daniel Hannan: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100006356/interrupting-my-holiday-with-some-thoughts-on-the-nhs/

And this in print: “Code Blue” by Dr. David Gratzer.

Both are examples of what the Obama-Pelosi-Reid crowd threw overboard when considering what change to the public health care system, and the private health care system, are to be effected.

Aug 12, 2009 - 4:08 pm 192. nahummer:

Interestingly, once again I thought it was just the left wing media making Palin look crazy. Comforting to see that it’s far more widespread.

Aug 12, 2009 - 4:17 pm 193. JohnK:

If we want to increase medical coverage, how about we increase employment. If we want to pay for some kind of reform, how about we reignite our leadership in manufacturing and technology. This country must once again begin to rebuild itself economically through greater production; greater industrial production; greater technological production; greater agricultural production; and greater energy production. We must live within our means, but that doesn’t mean we can’t expand those means. The great American Spirit is not dead. It’s only been made sick by our putrid and un-American leaders.

Aug 12, 2009 - 4:19 pm 194. David W. Lincoln:

Liberal, in point #166, why should you do the thinking of people who arrive at conclusions that are horrible in your sight. Or is it that you let others do the thinking for you?

Aug 12, 2009 - 4:23 pm 195. goy:

@182. Now and Then: – She’s not private until she gives back the $180,000 in clothes we paid for.

Your ill-informed opinion – one not shared by anyone who actually matters.

@185. Now and Then: – We all learned what that was like long before now.

You’re right. It’s August. BHO had already reached his level of incompetence by January 20th.

@184. ??: – most people are genuinely quite baffled at the response to this suggestion – the lack of free healthcare being percieved as one of the greatest failings of your government.

You don’t have “free” health care either. See your tax rates. And just to backfill the rest of your ignorance, our Constitution doesn’t give our federal government the authority to provide “free” health care.

- …after nearly 50 years of the nhs we are yet to start murdering pensioners…

So far.

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:02 pm 196. polkabout:

8. Anonymous:

Wikipedia:

You use Wikipedia as the basis of your statement. You use something that can be altered on the fly by anyone. That eliminates any wonder one would have as to why you have no true grasp of reality.

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:04 pm 197. ncgma:

Acually, Sarah Palin was correct in talking about “panels”. If you look on page 30 of HR 3200, it states that a “panel” of medical and other experts will recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plan.

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:07 pm 198. Gracie:

Sarah Palin is great. We follow her and will consider voting for anyone she backs.

the more people in the news condemn her , the stronger we support her.

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:14 pm 199. AThinkingPerson:

Odd how you’d like Sarah Palin to give money back for clothing that the RNC gave her. Who knew liberals were supporting Palin too?

I WOULD like you to ask Michelle Obama to apologize to ALL of us for her choice of dress on election night. How embarrassing for all Americans to have her broadcast worldwide wearing a dress that looked like she had just gutted a zebra with her bare hands.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3388432/Michelle-Obamas-election-night-dress-upsets-Americas-fashion-crowd.html

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:22 pm 200. Mr Lucky:

181. Now and Then:

“Evil indeed . . .”

“A particularly alarming finding concerns deaths of adults in the programs. In one 2 1/2 year stretch, 227 adults already getting services died while waiting for a nurse to reassess their needs. Another 27 died waiting for their initial assessment, to see if they qualified for help. (C&L)”

Was Palin really that powerful?

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:28 pm 201. goy:

@199. AThinkingPerson: – I WOULD like you to ask Michelle Obama to apologize to ALL …

Actually, in these tough times when we must all tighten our belts, if she manages to cut her personal staff’s annual payroll down to $180,000, that’d be a start. Not likely though. She apparently figures that if her husband can get away with quadrupling the federal deficit from the one created by the Democrat Congress and signed off by GWB, that she’s justified in tripling her staff’s payroll over that paid to Laura Bush’s. It’s only fair – especially since we’re in the middle of a recession and MO has no official duties whatsoever.

Royalty has its perks.

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:33 pm 202. Now and Then:

186 goy . . . It’s not government you need to worry about, it’s idiots. Like Palin.

Here’s something else for you to consider and miss its point:

This is the only video of what actually happened at the event this afternoon. The news only showed the woman being escorted away by the police. What happened was the women walked in with signs, the crowd booed and yelled at the women. The women rolled up their posters and put them down. A photographer/reporter approached the woman on the end and wanted to see what the poster was. As the woman went to show the photographer/reporter what the poster was, a man from the bleachers stood up and snatched the poster from the woman and photographer/reporter. As the woman went to retrieve her poster the police stepped in and escorted the woman and the man from the building.

The poster was not of Obama, it was not pro health care, the poster that was taken from the woman and wrinkled up into a ball was of Rosa Parks. (C&L)

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:38 pm 203. ??:

RE:195. Ok then, being billed for healthcare is percieved as one of the greatest failings of your government. I’m confident you knew what I meant. My point is, I live in a country where we know we can go to hospital and will be treated regardless of our background and will not face the added worry of medical bills and having grown up with this system in place many find it hard to understand your objections. You mention taxes, but as the majority are paid by the highest earning sector it is hardly crippling. As for the link you posted, the bill was proposed by an independent group, there was a discussion and the bill was rejected as it did not have governmental support. No big political party would consider openly endorsing such a proposal as they would be destroyed by the press.
In response to my own ignorance, what is it about a system of national healthcare that is unconstitutional? Does your constitution ever get ammended? (Just so we’re clear, I’m not suggesting it should be. I know it is hard to gauge someone’s tone on boards like this, and I’m not here to wind you up, I’m just curious).

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:47 pm 204. samizdat:

Jharp @ 131,

Your answer to my previous assertions about the Obamacare plan was fundamentally inaccurate and dishonest. You said you read the bill, your comprehension leaves alot to be desired.

Re keeping your old insurance coverage under HB3200.
If your coverage does not meet the Obamacare guidelines your employer coverage will be taxed and the recipient will be taxed. Because of the requirement that insurance meet the government mandated terms 88 million currently insured persons will lose their current coverage and will be forced into the government exchange mandated by the bill. Because of my employers size and the tax I will be forced to give up the current coverage I have. Your analysis is incorrect and indicates to me you don’t comprehend what is in the legislation.

Re portability
If I can’t keep my current excellent policy, it is obviously not portable. You once again did not comprehend what the bill says. The only portability from employer to employer is via the government mandated exchange program and the public option. I will not be able to keep what I have if I change employers.

Your comprehension of the bill’s requirements is poor and I suspect you have not actually read the legislation because your command of the facts is non existent on the topics I raised.

Which leads to my final point, the legislation is difficult to understand.
Your miscomprehension prooves my point Jharp; you clearly don’t have an understanding of what you say you read.

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:51 pm 205. Edward A:

Sarah Palin’s words are those of a terrorist.
She should be ashamed of herself.
The Republican party should stay far away her.

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:53 pm 206. jharp:

Tough day in Teabagland.

Can’t see the racist cracker getting arrested for ripping the Rosa Parks poster away from the pro Obamacare African American lady turning out in your favor.

Oh well. If you sleep with dogs, you get fleas.

That’s a shame.

Aug 12, 2009 - 5:55 pm 207. Dave:

Dear 184: In both the UK and the US; all men have prostates and all women have breasts.

In both the UK and the US significant numbers of men come down with prostate cancer and significant numbers of women with breast cancer.

In the UK with free health care 57% of the men with prostate cancer die from it. In the US, the greatest failing of our government sees to it that 19% of the men die from it.

In the UK with free health care, 46% of the women with breast cancer die from it. In the US the greatest failing of our government sees to it that 25% of the women with breast cancer die from it.

Same sort of statistics apply to other maladies as well. Since we prefer to get well rather than die we are going to keep the greatest failing of our government alive and well, thank you very much.

Now when are you blokes across the pond going to stop wearing red coats and marching in a straight line?

Aug 12, 2009 - 6:17 pm 208. ??:

RE:199
Don’t worry, I think she’s been forgiven for that as she has been pretty much impeccably dressed ever since!

I apologise for going off on a bit of a tangent here, but please could you tell me your opinions on your first family – putting politics aside obviously? They have certainly been good for improving your image internationally, is that in anyway a consolation? I appreciate that Obama is going to be making decisions over the next few years that could have lasting impacts upon your lives, but are there any positives you can take from the situation?
As a “for example”, I don’t like Brown, but compared to what went before – and what is likely to follow – I have come to see him as a relatively competent leader.

As I said in an earlier post, I’m not here looking to antagonise anyone, I’m just curious as US politics had disappeared from the media in recent months.

Aug 12, 2009 - 6:22 pm 209. jharp:

204. samizdat:

The entirety of your post is an interesting excursion into teabaggery. I really have no idea of what you are talking about.

But I did notice this.

“I will not be able to keep what I have if I change employers.”

Do you really not realize that this is true today? You can’t be that ill informed. It can’t be.

And Obamacare actually changes things where you can keep what you have if you change employers.

Good God. You fools don’t even know what the debate is about.

Aug 12, 2009 - 6:55 pm 210. goy:

202. Now and Then: – It’s not government you need to worry about, it’s idiots. Like Palin.

Happily, your neither your opinion nor your name-calling, appeal to ridicule fallacies amount to any consequence whatsoever where Palin is concerned.

- Here’s something else…

Did you forget – again – to provide a cite, attribution or link to whatever it is you’re lamely plagiarizing there? You betcha.

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:12 pm 211. goy:

@203. ??: – Ok then, being billed for healthcare is percieved as one of the greatest failings of your government.

Changing your story now? That’s probably wise. The first one was lame. This one’s lame too. Perceived by whom, you? Pardon me will I care less. And you are billed for health care. It’s called taxes. The fact that a small minority of your citizens is shouldering the majority of the burden doesn’t make your health care “free”, it just means that the burden for paying for it is unfairly distributed. But that’s between you and your Parliament. Judging another country on that basis is an exercise in false analogy fallacy.

- I live in a country where we know we can go to hospital and will be treated regardless of our background … blah, blah, blah…

Same here. Again, your ignorance precedes you. Look up EMTALA and come on back when you’ve grown a clue.

- …what is it about a system of national healthcare that is unconstitutional?

Again – since you missed it the first time – the U.S. Constitution does NOT give the federal government the authority to provide “free” health care, even if such a thing actually existed.

- Does your constitution ever get ammended?

Sure. When the BHO and his corporatist/fascist ilk can pass a Constitutional Amendment that gives Congress the authority to hand out “free” health care, let’s talk. Until then, managing a socialized medicine system isn’t in the federal government’s job description.

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:25 pm 212. Moho:

A little knowledge and all that…you’ve completely misunderstood these numbers as an indictment on the UK health system, and of course, that’s probably because you most desperately want it to be. But its a false assumption, because a) the numbers didn’t begin to diverge until 2000 and, b) no one is sure why the numbers diverged. As is argued below, it could have something to do with the way cause of death is determined in men who have prostate cancer is determined. The results are inconclusive as this article notes. Again, until 2000 the rates were relatively the same, proving the opposite of your assertion–the UK’s single payer system is at least as effective as the US one.

http://www.wellsphere.com/cancer-article/impact-of-early-detection-of-prostate-cancer-us-vs-uk-nbsp-data/376020

Collin and his colleagues have shown that in the UK and the USA, mortality rates were at their highest in the early 1990s and were at almost the same rate. The divergence in mortality rates occurs more recently, when the decrease in the US mortality rate (at 4.17 percent per annum) accelerated to be four times the decrease in the mortality rate in the UK (1.17 percent per annum). Apparently patients aged 75 or older in the USA exhibited the largest and longest lasting decline in mortality rates. By comparison, UK mortality rates had stopped declining in this group by the year 2000.

The USA and the UK have very different treatment and screening policies with respect to prostate cancer, and this could be key to these recent results. In the USA, there is much more use of LHRH agonist treatment in older men, and men with locally advanced and asymptomatic prostate cancer discovered through initial PSA testing tended to receive more aggressive treatment. The authors also note that differences in the way the two countries identify the cause of death in patients with prostate cancer could also be impacting their results.

As far as the breast cancer number, I suspect you pulled that one out of your butt. But in case you want some real numbers…

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/breast/mortality/

Between 1989 and 2007 the breast cancer mortality rate fell by 41% in women aged 40-49 years; by 41% in women aged 50-64; by 38% in women aged 65-69; by 35% in women aged 15-39; and by 20% in women over 70…The reduction in breast cancer mortality rates is likely to have several different causes including screening, increasing specialisation of care and the widespread adoption of tamoxifen treatment since 1992.

So, really your point seems to be the usual combination of factors associated with teabagging–ignorance, vulnerability to suggestion, a less than rigorous reasoning process.

By the way, I just had to share this link with you all. I was by turns, embarrassed and shocked by the level of ignorance that this woman, who stood up to denounce our slip into socialism on national television the other day. It really has to be seen to be believed. Normal people might find it embarrassing to be kin to a movement populated by such proudly low-information adherents. But I suppose most of you will find a sort of nobility in her lazy ignorance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzCoPh8DZ7M

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:27 pm 213. ??:

RE: 204
Wow, my choice of words has really been winding people up today – I apologise, that was not my intention. I think I am failing to explain adequately why this debate is so alien to me. Healthcare is simply something I have always expected the government to provide, the nhs is so established we simply accept that some of our taxes fund it. At no point did I intend to offend you, I just have never considered it not being there, and always found it strange the US didn’t have a similar system.

Certainly, the nhs has its flaws, but many of the other facts reported about the state of the UK health system were not so accurate, and some were just inexplicable. However, the cancer facts are true, and there is still some debate as to why this is. Despite some of the things that have been reported the nhs has spent a lot of money on cancer drugs and treatment, and so the treatment should be available. There is currently a campaign to encourage people to get themselves checked that is using figures such as those.

Your assertion that you “prefer to get well rather than die” suggests maybe you should adopt an nhs style service as currently life expectancy is longer over here than in the US.
(I am aware of how tiny that difference is, so please take that remark as it was intended, slightly tongue-in-cheek).

So… Back to my original question. Why are people so opposed to this change? Do you fear a drop in standards? Someone mentioned earlier something about it being unconstitutional – could anyone elaborate on that for me?

Aug 12, 2009 - 7:37 pm 214. Hans Moleman:

The AP recently reported that “Palin called President Barack Obama’s health plan ‘downright evil’ Friday.”

The AP guesses that she must be concerned about the “end-of-life counseling sessions” provided in the plan. Or, as they later figure out, she may be ”claiming ”that the reform plans will lead to rationing, or the government determining which medical procedures a patient can have.”

The AP reporters dismiss this concern by reverting immediately to the appropriate Dems’ talking point. “However, millions of Americans already face rationing, as insurance companies rule on procedures they will cover.”

Several things need to be said about this exchange.

First, Palin needs to clarify her standing. It is true that Democrats and their media have savaged her since they first learned her name, in one of the ugliest campaigns of sexist stereotyping and personal calumny ever. But that does not remove her responsibility to clarify her intended status. Candidate, commentator, combatant?

Second, Palin needs to clarify and explain her objections to the plan, if she intends to wade this deeply into the debate. She should not have given the AP such an opportunity to guess at her concerns. A public figure and/or commentator needs to be very clear, especially when calling a political measure “downright evil”. If she believes that and says so in public, she shoulders an extremely heavy burden of proof. She needs to explain herself much more fully if she wants to be taken seriously. (And Facebook is not the place to do so. Get a proper blog, Sarah. I’ll lend you a spot on mine any time you want it.)

Third, Palin is clearly referring to the rationing issue, and it is a legitimate concern. Government rationing is at least foreshadowed in many of Obama’s comments (in trying to explain how anything in the plan would actually save money.) MedPAC, the (unfortunately-named) Medicare review panel, has never had the power to decide which medical procedures should be available to which patients. If MedPAC is given that power for cost-cutting purposes (as appears to be part of the plan), then rationing becomes a very distinct possibility. (So far, MedPAC’s cost-cutting efforts have been focused on family-practice doctors, cutting their Medicare reimbursement to about 60% of the doctors’ real costs.)

And talking points notwithstanding, when “insurance companies rule on procedures they will cover”, they can only rule out experimental treatments, or insist upon second opinions. They generally cannot restrict procedures simply to save money (which is what rationing means). The reason they don’t is that state and federal government won’t let them. But who will stop the government from doing so?

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:09 pm 215. goy:

@213. ??: – Why are people so opposed to this change? Do you fear a drop in standards? Someone mentioned earlier something about it being unconstitutional – could anyone elaborate on that for me?

??, you’re briskly trotting into troll territory here, so don’t be surprised if you get less-than-cordial replies. There is a mountain of information available on various sites explaining the opposition to handing out “free” health care in the U.S.

And I’ve already explained – twice – why Congress can’t hand out so-called “free” health care. The reason is not complicated and there is no extended explanation necessary for someone willing to simply read the controlling document. Our Constitution (Article I) specifically enumerates the very limited powers granted to the federal government. Handing out “free” health care is not one of them. Therefore, since that authority is not in the Constitution, any federal plan to hand out so-called “free” health care would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. QED.

As an excellent example from history, FDR found this kind of thing out the hard way back in the ’30s as he was busy unnecessarily prolonging the Great Depression by meddling in the economy the was the Democrats are doing. A significant chunk of his so-called “New Deal” was repealed when judicial review determined that his National Recovery Act, etc., was unconstitutional.

FDR’s response to this was to attempt to pack the Supreme Court with additional judges sympathetic to his socialist ideology – not unlike the way BHO nominated a known activist justice recently. FDR ultimately failed, but his failure has been effectively airbrushed from American history books by the socialists who have a lock on academia. This is the legacy of socialism and the left in the U.S.: when you can’t get your way legally, cheat; when you cheat and still lose, try to hide the relevant facts.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:12 pm 216. Jerry:

This is how you control medical costs!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090811143725.htm

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:50 pm 217. Moho:

ThinkingracismpersonHow embarrassing for all Americans to have her broadcast worldwide wearing a dress that looked like she had just gutted a zebra with her bare hands.

The only embarrassment I feel is that you’re a citizen of my country.

Aug 12, 2009 - 8:59 pm 218. goy:

@214. Hans Moleman: – First, Palin needs to clarify her standing. It is true that Democrats and their media have savaged her since they first learned her name, in one of the ugliest campaigns of sexist stereotyping and personal calumny ever.

Hans, this is a considerable understatement. The entrenched, Fifth Column media – which ignored BHO’s fraudulent campaign fund system, ignored his unprecedented lack of any experience qualifying him to run for POTUS, ignored his wife’s outright lie about his mother’s marital status when he was born, ignored his complete failure in the one and only executive position he ever held and which completely ignored or downplayed his past professional associations and alliances with domestic terrorists, vocal marxists and radical, America-damning, racist windbags… the very people who ignored ALL of that – tried to DESTROY Sarah Palin, and her entire family, using every means they could wield. That’s not simply “sexist stereotyping” or “personal calumny”, that’s something we have never witnessed in this country before. It doesn’t even have a name.

- But that does not remove her responsibility to clarify her intended status. Candidate, commentator, combatant?
Excuse me? How is it that she bears any responsibility whatsoever to do this? Why should she tip off those who tried to destroy her and her family by broadcasting her intentions, whatever they may be, just so they can attack her gender, age, children, spouse, clothing, religion, speech patterns, education, physical beauty – again – in any and all ways they believe will thwart whatever plans she may actually have? Sorry, IMHO you’re wrong here.

- Second, Palin needs to clarify and explain her objections to the plan, …
Again, why? It’s the entrenched, Fifth Column media that follows her every statement, hangs on her every word, looking for a phrase or out-of-context utterance that can be twisted to attack her. How is it that she needs to explain herself or her personal opinions to anyone? Why should she provide more raw material for the left’s ad hominem attack machine? The past is already proof of what will happen, so why bother? She is not an official of any party. She is not in control or even strongly influencing any political party platform. She bears no responsibility whatsoever to explain her visceral reaction to socialist ideology. Neither does any other private citizen.

The responsibility for ALL of these things actually lies with our President. HE is the one who needs to square a few circles. HE is the one who needs to explain his intent, when his past statements are completely contradictory. HE is the one who needs to explain how he could campaign against an inflated deficit, only to turn around and QUADRUPLE it within the first six months of his administration. HE is the one who needs to explain how he can lie about an AARP endorsement – complete with supporting reasoning manufactured out of whole cloth – and then have some flunky claim he “misspoke” when the truth of his lie is revealed. You’re demanding accountability from the wrong person Hans.

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:05 pm 219. kdell:

fnord – actually ALL the lies come from your boy. bojangles

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:22 pm 220. Jerry:

“Soon” discussions about the control of medical care costs will be a moot point. The time-line will vary by disease entity, but the only thing left after researchers get through with their business will be what to do with the excess medical care infrastructure. We are in an interim period of a few years to a few decades before most diseases are nasty history, like Polio.

In support of the previous statement, I would like to point to the research that is being done by one company – Inovio, Inc. I truly believe its “naked DNA” + electroporation methodology will make short work of H1N1(Swine), H5N1(Avian), influenza, HIV, Dengue fever, and Hepatitis B and C – all within a year or two! (And that is only a start!)

What will doctors, nurses, PAs, and hospital administrators do with their free time? Whole charity organizations will have to change their reasons for being. What will the world do with so many new centenarian? As Cramer(CNBC) preaches, “We know nothing, nothing!” But we WILL know a lot very very soon!

Aug 12, 2009 - 9:27 pm 221. pulseless:

Whenever I’ve traveled to other countries in Europe and Asia, I’ve been impressed with the fact that people appear so much healthier. Health care costs are significantly reduced when people choose healthier lifestyles. Unfortunately, we in the U.S. are gluttons. The result is that we suffer from much higher rates of chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, pulmonary diseases, etc.

Guess what?

If you are obese because you don’t exercise or eat right, you don’t get to complain about the costs of health care.
If you smoke, you don’t get to complain about the costs of health care.
If you don’t have regular checkups, or heed your doctors advice, you don’t get to complain about the costs of health care.
If you have a child with Down’s Syndrome because you choose to get pregnant after age 40, knowing the risks, you don’t get to complain about the costs of health care.

This discussion would be a lot more productive if people stand up and start taking some personal responsibility for their health. Remember that the Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industries have a vested interest in keeping us ill, and in need of their services.

Aug 12, 2009 - 10:20 pm 222. Brian Richard Allen:

PALIN/PETRAEUS/2012!

Brian Richard Allen
Lost Angels – Califobambicated 90028
And the far Abroad

Aug 12, 2009 - 10:54 pm 223. Redball6:

Hi Folks!; Henry Louis, H. L. Mencken observed, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” I so wish we had him now, oh wait, I believe Mrs. Pailin, may sign up for that role. She is after all connected to and by behaviors, rights, obligations and gosh golly conceptualization. If Mrs. Palin will stay engaged and in the fight as the “Pointed yet thoughtful Maverick”she is, well than there is another reason to count down the “Clock” to Nov 2, 2010.
The Democrat Party has made a HUGE mistake, No not just their stand on healthcare, or Cap & Tax no friends, – they have exposed themselves for exactly who they are, arrogant, self serving intellectual bigots. I, you me and us, we are just the “peons’ for them to play with.
I believe I, you, we and us have determined that recess-a.k.a. playtime is winding down for them. You democrat, congressperson, or staff member who regularly peruse pages such as these, take the message back you days a numbered in 3 figures and counting. You democrat you above all check 6

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:03 pm 224. Tina:

@221: AS IF OBAMA AND HIS MINIONS AND LOBBYISTS IN THE WHITE HOUSE DON’T HAVE VESTED INTERESTS ON THIS BILL.

Common. Your early statement is just rubbish. Did you do analytical research to back you up? Or you’re just like those Hollywood stars loving France and Britain, and visiting rich places in developing countries in Asia?

if you really travelled THOSE AREAS, then YOU ARE RICH.

YOUR ELITISM IS SHOWING. YOU DON’T SPEAK FOR THOSE PEOPLE. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN REASONS.

MIND YOUR OWN LIFE AND DON’T ENFORCE YOUR SELF-IMPOSED BELIEFS ONTO OTHERS.

Aug 12, 2009 - 11:46 pm 225. TomF:

I guess this means that Sarah Palin is at the top of the “fishy” list.

Aug 13, 2009 - 12:33 am 226. turfmann:

In case you have missed it, here is Sarah’s reply to her critics.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434

Gee, they keep telling me that this woman is stupid…

Aug 13, 2009 - 1:40 am 227. Ed Wallis:

I don’t know if this piece by Palin has been linked to above, so here goes:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434

Aug 13, 2009 - 1:43 am 228. Ed Wallis:

…and a bit more fuel for the fire…

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/connect_the_dots_on_obamacare.html

Aug 13, 2009 - 2:19 am 229. Marc Malone:

#214 Hans – Governor Palin has already defined her role – Private citizen (albeit, a celebrity). How did that slip by you? She didn’t hold a news conference to make her statement about the healthcare plan. She posted it on her Facebook page. If the media doesn’t like it, then gosh, they should IGNORE HER! But they can’t. They can’t help themselves. It’s hilarious!

It’s so funny, because their obsession with destroying her is giving her so much power. She posts this itty-bitty thing, and because they report it, they give her the power to destroy ObamaCare in one shot. Bang! It’s dead. She defined it and won the debate, just like that!

The Russians call her Okhotnitsa (The Huntress). That was some serious Big Game hunting! She gets to mount ObamaCare onto her wall.

Aug 13, 2009 - 3:03 am 230. pulseless:

@224: Well, I hadn’t really considered myself to be rich, but I’m sure that I do pay significantly more in taxes, including Medicare, than most people do. I just regret that we are all paying more into the system to pay health care costs for people who make poor choices. Since when is it a bad thing to suggest that we should all take some personal responsibility, rather than expecting someone else to bail us out?

By the way, I didn’t perform any “analytical research”, but I work in the health field. So I see the costs incurred by chronic conditions every day. I don’t think many informed people will disagree that we could significantly reduce health care costs by taking stock of our own behaviors, and making healthier choices. If we’re not willing to do that, then we have no right to complain.

Aug 13, 2009 - 3:11 am 231. Class Clown:

Hmmm, I’m really not a Sarah Palin fan, but here’s the deal as I see it.

One of the major events that turned me from a Democrat to an independent was the Terri Shiavo affair. The entire Democratic establishment went into the fray to support her “right to die”. What bothered me about that was that her “wish” to not be kept on life support was based solely on the word of her husband… the same husband who used his guardianship to prevent any further testing on her.

In other words, the case wasn’t really about the “right to die”, it was about the right of third parties to decide that her life was no longer worth living. And seemingly the entire Democratic Party supported it.

Add to that the fact that the Left has thoroughly mainstreamed the “ethicist” Peter Singer. He places a very low value on human life, and his concept of “euthanasia” can only be called so as euphemism.

And yet mainstream liberal Newsweek published yet another essay from Singer just a couple months ago.

I think I’ll side with Palin on this one. I don’t want these people having any say over end of life care for me, or anyone else.

Aug 13, 2009 - 3:18 am 232. ??:

I came here and asked politely if you could explain the reasons this topic has angered so many people, and admitted to the gaps in my knowledge. I tried searching for the answers through google news, but found all the relevant articles seemed more interested Palin bashing than actually reporting the situation. I have noticed a number of people on this site who have made juvenile barbs about Palin/Republicans in general and not attempted to add anything constructive. Personally I find this behaviour ridiculous and tried my best to word my questions so as not to be overly inflamatory as I had a genuine interest in knowing your views. In response I have recieved a series of snide responses but no reply – abusing me for not knowing the details of your constitution hardly counts. I really pity some of you, life is too short to be this angry.

Aug 13, 2009 - 3:29 am 233. BC:

To goy @ 215: there are a number of things that people in the U.S. assume to be a right, even when it’s not in the Constitution, like the so called “Right to Privacy” — there is no such thing, although many have interpreted “liberty” has having an implied right to privacy. In any case, does the Constitution allow for it? Sure, because it doesn’t forbid it.

As far as health care goes, there is already an implied right to it. Picture a homeless person being found in the morning lying on the sidewalk with an obvious head injury — what happens next, even if there is no ID but evidence of heavy drinking and that person is indeed homeless and with probably no insurance nor even money? Will he or she just be left there? No, because it would be barbaric — as humans progressed, however erratically, so has our conscience, especially in regards to things and people outside of our immediate concerns. We don’t let homeless people die in the streets, and we don’t let children become abused or malnourished.

And in terms of the health care debate so far — and I have to say that the arguments and discussions here have been far, far more substantial than the short, snarky comments nonsense that goes on at places like Hot Air or The Free Republic — it’s important to realize and admit to that the current status quo is untenable with the way costs have been so relentlessly ramping up. Even when nothing else is going up in price, health care does, and not just by a little. Free market forces have only made things worse, if not being the primary cause of the situation, when hospitals transitioned from non-profit institutions to these massive consolidated health care “systems” run more and more by people who seem better suited at moving money around at an investment bank.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I’m not really down with the approach Obama and his people took: presenting a big beast of a proposal without really going into and explaining the reasoning behind it in detail beforehand. I think it would have been better to research and detail the hard numbers and hidden processes behind the health care cost escalation. But as I also mentioned, I nevertheless can understand why they chose to do it this way.

The bottom line, though, is that there is a serious problem, and it’s only going to get worse if nothing is done. Obama has a proposal on the table that looks like it might work *if* it doesn’t get transformed into useless rubbish by lobbyists and a clueless senators and congressmen before it is ready to be signed. If Republicans don’t like it, fine, but they have to come up with something other than just more dopey and utterly dishonest rabble rousing talking points attacking it. As the not so old saying goes, if you’re not part of the solution….

Aug 13, 2009 - 4:33 am 234. Anonymous:

Anyone else enjoying our new majority status in the USA? Who knew it would only take a few short months for the liberals to be marginalized?

God Bless America!

Aug 13, 2009 - 6:27 am 235. AThinkingPerson:

Oh gee…now I’m a “racist” for commenting on the First Lady’s lack of style. Why is pointing out that the dress she wore on election night looked like she had singlehandedly gutted a zebra racist? Do expound. I’m anxious to hear your hand-wringing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3388432/Michelle-Obamas-election-night-dress-upsets-Americas-fashion-crowd.html

Liberals have no sense of humor (or fashion sense). Not surprising.

PS… I stand by my comment. What a horrible dress (unfortunately only one of many I’ve seen her in). No accounting for taste I guess.

Aug 13, 2009 - 6:32 am 236. Mr Lucky:

232. ?? This may help. Wikipedia’s not perfect, but it will get you started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

Aug 13, 2009 - 6:50 am 237. Gracie:

We like Palin and stand with her. We hope she continues to speak out.

Republicans are having NO say in what does into the medical plan bill Obama is trying to pass. they keep trying, and keep being beaten down and ignored. So, who will the Dems blame if this whole thing turns out to be what people are saying?

Everyone needs health care of some sort. However, there are mnay that take advantage of the system and want everything free. Well, there is no free….someone somewhere has to pay for it.
The people that pay the highest price are the middle class working American. We are the ones that pay for the “free” that the others get.

Aug 13, 2009 - 7:10 am 238. Parker L.:

http://www.adn.com/life/health/story/864670.html

“State programs intended to help disabled and elderly Alaskans with daily life — taking a bath, eating dinner, getting to the bathroom — are so poorly managed, the state cannot assure the health and well-being of the people they are supposed to serve, a new federal review found.

The situation is so bad the federal government has forbidden the state to sign up new people until the state makes necessary improvements.

No other state in the nation is under such a moratorium, according to a spokeswoman for the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

In the meantime, frail and vulnerable Alaskans who desperately need the help are struggling. One elderly woman is stuck in a nursing home, for lack of care at home. Another woman, suffering from chronic pain and fatigue, said she’s so weak, she often can’t even pop dinner into the microwave.

The moratorium is expected to last four or five months. State officials estimate about 1,000 Alaskans will be affected.

A particularly alarming finding concerns deaths of adults in the programs. In one 2 1/2 year stretch, 227 adults already getting services died while waiting for a nurse to reassess their needs. Another 27 died waiting for their initial assessment, to see if they qualified for help.

So apparently after all her bull**** about death panels, it appears that Sarah Failin governed a state with a health care system that was so terrible that the federal government had to step in, for the first time ever, and forbid the state from accepting new enrollees.

Gee, it’s really great that she quit her job before sorting out this mess. I’m sure all the Alaskans who are dying for lack of care are very proud of her courageous move to abandon them.

Aug 13, 2009 - 7:22 am 239. AThinkingPerson:

The Obama must HATE it when little ole Sarah Palin refuses to be bullied and hits back WITH FACTS. I’m sure Obama himself thought if he strongarmed her she would demurely shut up and slink away. Obama was WRONG AGAIN!

Go get’em Sarah! The liberals can’t hide from the facts. Funny that they even try to.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434

Aug 13, 2009 - 7:42 am 240. usafirst:

Sarah Palin? You really must be joking. She can’t even put a coherent thought together. Did you get a load of that resignation speech? Come on guys, I hope you can do better than that in 2012.

Death panels???? I find it hard to fathom that some people are stupid enough to really believe that. As an ICU nurse, we ask ALL patients whether or not they have a living will, healthcare power of attorney, etc. etc. It’s a GOOD IDEA!!! You would be amazed at how many problems occur when patients haven’t addressed these issues and their estranged families show up and can’t agree on anything. That is all the provision states. Its already done now.

Really people, use your brains once in awhile.

There are plenty of legitimate issues in this bill to be concerned about without getting into a tizzy about non-issues that only paranoid delusionist conspiratory theorists would believe. There are also plenty of informed activists out there to listen to without suffering liars and fools (Palin, Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, etc.)

PS> I fully expect to be trashed and called names by you troll bloggers on this site who just can’t bear to hear from someone who might disagree with you. Some people just can’t comprehend that there are more than one side to an equation.

Aug 13, 2009 - 7:45 am 241. Class Clown:

232: ??

There are few basic reasons that some of us oppose this healthcare plan

1. overall cost. It’s big, and it will only get bigger.

2. avoidance of other, less sweeping reforms that could make a real difference, such as controlling the costs of malpractice insurance for doctors. Unfortunately, the Democrats won’t touch that one, because trial lawyers and a key constituency.

3. general frustration with an unresponsive and condescending U.S. government.

4. deep skepticism about quality of care, based on the poor service we get from typical bureaucratic government agencies right now.

5. The deceptive nature of the current sales job. Obama and others have repeatedly advocated (in the past) for a single-payer system. Yet now, when it is politically expedient, they claim this proposal will not lead to such. The arguments that it is a Trojan horse for a single payer system are very convincing.

6. We just plain don’t want to become wards of the state, dependent on government to take care of us. To much government turns citizens into dependent children. Contrary to creating a compassionate society, it creates one in which people feel relieved of all mutual concern, because caring is now the “government’s job”.

I read a very good article related to that last point, at: http://www.aei.org/article/29531.

Cheers

Aug 13, 2009 - 8:09 am 242. AThinkingPerson:

usafirst: Why expect to be “trashed and called names”? If you read through the comments, it’s always the liberal faction that comes out with the “teabaggers, wingnuts, neo-cons, etc.”.

In regards to YOUR comment about “use your brains once in awhile”, I might suggest you do the same and instead of taking Obama’s word on what Sarah said, read the bill for what she actually found. Hopefully since you are a nurse, you don’t let someone’s viewpoint sway you in your day job. Aren’t you expected to go on facts as a nurse and not what someone “tells” you?

You make a lot of blanket assumptions. It would be wonderful to see you do a bit of fact checking to go along with all of that.

Aug 13, 2009 - 8:16 am 243. Middleman:

Its so funny to me to hear all these people champion Palin as some defender of freedom when the state she govern reaps some of the BIGGEST rewards of federal money. Getting money from oil companies and doling it out in equal shares to state residents????? Sounds socialist to me!

Aug 13, 2009 - 8:25 am 244. AThinkingPerson:

If it sounds socialist to a liberal, then it’s surely a good thing right?

Liberals LOVE socialist regimes. Free Speech and health care choices are for sissy Conservatives.

Aug 13, 2009 - 8:32 am 245. usafirst:

AThinkingPerson: I expect to be trashed and called names because: look up at all of the posts. Anytime someone doesn’t tote the party line they are trashed. Its not the sole domain of the left or right, but it is what it is.

I have read the bill. I just didn’t read into the bill what wasn’t there and make assumptions to the negative because I want to find negative things just so badly, as apparantly Palin has.

Don’t even try to tell me how to do my job. You have no idea what you are talking about, so don’t even go there. I don’t know what you do for a living, but I’ll assume you know more about it than me. You should make the same assumption.

You should do some fact checking yourself. Like I said, there are PLENTY of things in the bill to get upset about. “Death Panels” are not in the bill. How’s that for a fact? End of life issues SHOULD be in there, so they are.

PS: If the Republicans have such a hard time swallowing this bill, why didn’t they address it when they were in control? They didn’t. The ONLY reason they are even talking about now is because Obama did. The problem existed then, and should had been addressed, as it should now. At least Obama is trying to do SOMETHING about it. It may very well be the wrong thing, only time will tell. One thing is certain, the Republicans did NOTHING about it when they had the chance. Get pissed at them too.

Aug 13, 2009 - 8:32 am 246. AThinkingPerson:

usafirst: There you go again with your blanket assumptions. We here are NOT all Republicans who “tote the party line”. If you did read through the comments you will find Republicans AND Independents AND Moderate Democrats AND Disenchanted Liberals.

You are right about one thing though, there ARE plenty of things in the bill to get upset about, only one of which is the call for “end-of-life counseling”. Who’s to say we weren’t “pissed” at the Republicans who did nothing about health care? The problem is that RIGHT NOW we’re faced with a trojan horse. Should we throw up our hands and say, “Well, the Republicans did nothing so I guess we should just bend over and take this.”? NO. It doesn’t work that way.

This bill is ATROCIOUS. As you said yourself, there are “PLENTY” of things to get upset about. Why then, are you here to defend it then? Why then, not try and FIX what’s wrong with it before rushing to pass it? Why not let Sarah Palin have her say too? Why not hear ALL voices concerned with the bill? Why silence ANYONE?

Yes, Obama is trying to do something about it. The problem is that he is not fixing the problem, he’s ADDING TO THE PROBLEM. Quit listening to him read canned speeches and answer pre-arranged questions. You’re only hearing what he wants you to hear.

Aug 13, 2009 - 8:46 am 247. Now and Then:

210. goy:
“Did you forget – again – to provide a cite, attribution or link to whatever it is you’re lamely plagiarizing there? You betcha.”

I did . . . it’s the very last part of my post . . . (C&L). Miss that did you? READ THE BILL! READ THE BILL! READ THE BILL!

I’ll take your bet and raise ya.

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:01 am 248. Moho:

thinkingperson–>choose your poison. You’re either an idiot for not realizing that “looked like she had just gutted a zebra with her bare hands” evokes an inexcusably racist image when applied to an African American. Or you’re a racist. Though you are dumb enough not to know the difference, I’d guess that the area of racist images and terms is the only one you’re knowledgeable in.

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:04 am 249. Moho:

I applied for an abatement on the property taxes on my residence this year. Will I be subsidized by the government if my taxes are reduced?

Yes, of course. Why should your neighbors make up the shortfall? It may be perfectly legal, but so is welfare and food stamps and you people never stop carping about how you’re subsidizing that. Expand you’re thinking–if someone in your community is constantly looking for a way out of their tax obligations, it means that either things aren’t being paid for or your community will end up making up the shortfall in increased taxation during the next legislative period. You live in a country full of neighbors friend, as does Fed Ex. Whenever you circumvent your tax obligations, you’re putting the burden elsewhere, and yes, getting a subsidy from the government.

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:07 am 250. goy:

@230. BC: – there are a number of things that people in the U.S. assume to be a right, even when it’s not in the Constitution, …

You know what they say about ASS-U-ME, don’t you? You betcha.

Send these folks over and we’ll be happy to disabuse them of their illusions. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are clear and concise regarding the limited powers of the federal government and the recognized rights of the People – far moreso than the millions of pages of legalese generated by Congress since the Constitution was officially ratified.

- … like the so called “Right to Privacy” — there is no such thing, …
LOL!! Perhaps in whatever country you live in, but in the U.S.A. the right to privacy is quite well established as legal and moral precedent, beginning with Article VI (Amendment IV) of the Constitution and every legal opinion ever written on the matter – including Roe v. Wade. Tripping on the same sophistry that pretends the Constitution is a “living” document, you’ve stumbled over an essentially etymological fallacy here. Assuming there’s no right to privacy simply because you don’t see the actual words “Right to Privacy” in the Bill of Rights is specious nonsense.

- In any case, does the Constitution allow for it? Sure, because it doesn’t forbid it.
You think the right to privacy exists because the Constitution doesn’t forbid it?? That’s just sad. This silly statement makes clear that you don’t understand how the Constitution defines federal powers or how it enumerates recognized rights. Don’t blame yourself. Blame whoever educated you.

- As far as health care goes, there is already an implied right to it.
Heh. “Implied” rights are not legally recognized rights. Until they’re actually enshrined in the Constitution via the Amendment process, “implied” rights are nothing more than wishes or promises. They have no legal bearing on government or the governed, despite the left’s incessant attempts to make it so through Appeal to the Majority, Appeal to Emotion or other attractive-sounding – but logically fallacious – “arguments”. I know you’d like to pretend that privacy is an “implied” right protected by our legal system and that, therefore, you can dream up any other implied right and have it protected as well, but it doesn’t work that way. That’s the same sort of nonsense used by the clueless dolts who insist that health care falls under federal authority because of the “general Welfare” clause – despite the fact that every opinion expressed by the Framers says otherwise.

… the arguments and discussions here have been far, far more substantial than the short, snarky comments nonsense that goes on at places like Hot Air or The Free Republic …
Those sites have a larger readership and, thus, a much higher number of people with a low tolerance for trolls like you, jharp, David S. and N&T, so this doesn’t surprise me.

— it’s important to realize and admit to that the current status quo is untenable with the way costs have been so relentlessly ramping up. Even when nothing else is going up in price, health care does, and not just by a little.
It’s vital for the future of our Republic. I agree. And I’ve been stressing this very point for years. So have many conservatives – especially when they see the problem publicly misrepresented (and I’m being kind) by those whose “solution” only puts a greater burden on the taxpayer (read: those who actually pay any taxes), gives more unconstitutional authority to the federal government and, in the meantime, doesn’t actually resolve the issue but instead makes it worse. Think: “affordable mortgages”.

- Free market forces have only made things worse, if not being the primary cause of the situation, …
Nonsense. If that’s what you’ve been told, then you need to take a few economics courses because you don’t understand the difference between a free market and an overly regulated one. You also don’t recognize the proxy monopoly currently held by the comprehensive health care insurance companies which control not only the price of, but access to health care. Handing that monopoly to the government won’t fix the problem, it’ll only make it worse. The current health care market – like the financial market recently absorbed by the federal government – is as far from a free market as one might imagine in a capitalist setting. Regulating a market to the point of dysfunction and then blaming the market for the adverse result is the height of intellectual dishonesty – the hallmark of the left.

- … when hospitals transitioned from non-profit institutions to these massive consolidated health care “systems” run more and more by people who seem better suited at moving money around at an investment bank.
The facts disagree with you, which you’ll discover if you look into the history of how and why Blue Cross & Blue Shield were formed. Look into who supported it (e.g., the AMA), and why (e.g., to stave off the price and wage controls that will inevitably result from government-run health care), and how it evolved. There was a reason that corporations started gobbling up health care institutions – and continue to do so today. That reason is that comprehensive health care insurance made health care itself highly profitable. It did the same thing to durable health care goods and pharmaceuticals as well. While corporate influence over health care has been far from “all bad” – having contributed greatly to technological innovation, provided jobs, etc. – its unique history has culminated in a pseudo-”crisis” that the left is now exploiting to further its own agenda – just like the pseudo-”crisis” of global warming.

During my lifetime, the health care market has gone from a commodity market – where routine health care goods and services were purchased directly from the provider – to a brokered market, where comprehensive health care insurance companies inserted themselves between the consumer and the provider. That interposition did three significant things. First, it utterly neutralized the commodity economics that had previously kept routine health care costs in line with all other cost-of-living commodities. Second, it implemented socialized-medicine-by-corporation, encouraging costs to increase beyond the individual’s ability to afford them. Third, it added its own business costs, profit and other financial burdens to the cost of health care.

To understand how this created such a serious problem, you need to understand the real purpose of insurance, which almost no one does when it comes to health care. In fact, we have come to conflate health care and health care insurance so blindly that we no longer conceive of getting health care without having insurance for it. That fantastical misconception is the biggest part of the health care problem, and it derails almost every substantive discussion of the topic into an irrelevant thesis that is completely separate from the real subject, that is, everyone’s arguing over the costs, availability and economic facets of “coverage” when the goal is to actually have access to health care. We’ve taped ourselves inside a tiny box on this point and are now collectively almost incapable of thinking outside it – all because we don’t understand the purpose of insurance.

Insurance is a tool for mitigating financial risk – such as the risk represented by the cost of catastrophic illness or injury. But when it comes to routine health care, we abuse insurance. Instead of using it to mitigate financial risk, we use it to redistribute wealth – in reverse – by distributing the costs incurred by some members in a plan over the financial resources of a plan’s entire population. Not only is this nothing short of corporate-run socialized medicine, but it’s the primary factor that encourages health care costs to increase. Insurance abuse is responsible for two of the three unsavory results mentioned above.

How? Simple.

First, it erases the consumer feedback that tends to keep costs affordable. Through the consumer’s subjective assessment of value, limited financial resources and the ability to shop the competition, all other commodities outside health care are kept relatively affordable – increasing only to the level the market will bear based on these factors. This is because the economic model is one where the consumer has a direct relationship to the provider. And please note that even with this mechanism in place, enormous technological advances – leading in many cases to cost reductions, not increases – have occurred in markets where commodity costs are kept affordable. But that model is broken when the comprehensive health care insurance company interposes itself as a broker between the two, and relies on its own best interests, which are quite different from the consumers’, to “control” health care costs.

Second, commodity prices are like a gas, i.e., they will expand to fit the space they’re in. This is one of the fundamental facets of a truly free market. The problem caused by group comprehensive health care insurance is this: it distorts the “space” within which prices exist by making it appear much larger than it is.

Let’s say, on average, a person can afford $X dollars per year in routine health care. Given that reality, the cost of routine health care can’t exceed that level without other factors coming into play (like borrowing, government subsidy, etc.). That limit essentially defines the space available for prices to expand into. For all commodities other than routine health care – even with the abuse of credit card debt, “tax credit” welfare, abuse of SSDI and other factors that allow prices to increase artificially by increasing the consumers’ financial resources artificially – this mechanism does a pretty good job of keeping commodity costs affordable.

But what happens when groups pool their resources to purchase commodities? In the case of health care, which is not uniformly consumed, some folks use it a lot and some use it hardly at all. Actuaries are paid lots of money to ensure that this ratio remains beneficial to insurance companies so that they remain profitable. Unfortunately, this also has the undesirable side-effect of allowing the price for the goods and services purchased by – let’s call it small-n, a subset of the group – to increase to a level supportable by the entire group N’s financial resources. In effect, the price of the services used by some is allowed to expand into the space defined by the financial resources of the entire group (N). The price is thus encouraged to increase beyond the ability of any one person in the group to afford it.

We have seen the result of this price-distorting mechanism: skyrocketing health care costs that have increased at rates well beyond inflation for decades. But people have become almost irredeemably addicted to the seemingly “free” health care they receive as a result of this broken system. The only actual cash that leaves their wallet is their co-pay, which has absolutely no relationship whatsoever to the actual cost of the care they receive. For most, all the other costs – such as employee benefits or payroll deductions for employee contributions – are effectively hidden. The consumer never sees them. Thus, the consumer is completely disassociated from the cost of his or her own health care and rendered incapable of affecting that cost in any way whatsoever.

There are other factors – outside those attributable to advances in technology, limited human resources, etc. – that encourage health care costs to rise, such as the fact that health care cost increases ONLY work to the benefit of comp. health care insurers. They simply raise rates to cover the increased cost. But, far more significantly, when health care costs increase, their level of cash flow is increased as well. In business, increasing cash flow is a holy grail second only to increasing bottom-line profit. It increases the value of their company, increases its holdings, increases its profitability, etc. Insurance companies thus have a marked conflict of interest when it comes to the cost of health care. The industry as a whole absolves itself of any guilt by falsely convincing itself that it’s providing a valuable “service” to those who need health care – again, conflating health care and health care insurance in a completely erroneous manner. I’ve worked in this industry and I’m quite familiar with this specious rationale – as well as the ungodly level of inefficiency, corporate politics, wasteful “turf wars”, affirmative action expenses, customer animosity, workplace opulence, HIPAA violations, inertial bureaucracy and general, Peter-Principle-style incompetence that exist there.

Adding insult to injury, the cost of insurance itself has increased with no real limit as well. Why? Because of the vicious cycle inherent in this broken system described above. Health care costs constantly increase because no one in the consumer chain ever “just says no” to a price increase. Instead, everyone works on the basis that “insurance will cover it”. And it does. But it does this by constantly raising rates. At best you might see a renegotiation of covered expenses, but as anyone can plainly see by looking at an EOB, the wink-and-a-nod arrangements between insurance companies and providers is doing nothing to control costs. Not when you have a cardiologist unabashedly billing $480 for a 15 minute patient consultation, or $3,000 for a 20-minute surgical procedure (note: that’s just the surgeon’s fee), for which the insurance company pays between 40 and 60% (YMMV). That kind of raw profitability, e.g., the ability to garner rates of $1000/hr and beyond, is what has drawn the attention of the corporate world into the health care industry.

This broken system has encouraged health care costs to increase at rates multiple times that of inflation for decades – to a point, now, where a statistically significant segment of the population can no longer afford health care without distributing some of the burden onto others. THAT is not a “free” market – where costs only rise to the level of the consumer’s ability to pay – it’s a broken one.

- As I mentioned elsewhere, I’m not really down with the approach Obama and his people took … I nevertheless can understand why they chose to do it this way.
Translation: the end justifies the means. Sorry, no.

- The bottom line, though, is that there is a serious problem, and it’s only going to get worse if nothing is done. Obama has a proposal on the table that looks like it might work …
The bottom line is that the left’s “solution” to the health care pseudo-”crisis” will not resolve anything. It only “looks like it might work” if you don’t understand the problem in the first place, and you’ve demonstrated that you obviously don’t.

The only way to stop health care costs from inexorably rising is to eliminate comprehensive health care insurance and let a truly free health care market drive the costs back down to the affordable level of other routine, cost-of-living commodities. Employers should be taken completely out of the loop with respect to paying for (or insuring against the cost of catastrophic) health care. Removing the administrative burden of managing health care benefits from employers will not only improve the economy by improving productivity, but it will also remove an avenue of manipulation the federal government uses to exercise unconstitutional powers over the People through legislation regulating their employers.

Low-premium, high-deductible insurance policies – like the ones used by most folks when routine health care was still largely affordable – will cover any real risk posed by catastrophic health care costs. Municipalities are far better positioned to administer group policies of this type: they can take advantage of enormous actuarial group sizes (far larger than any company), people change residence far less frequently than they change jobs, and municipalities already have the necessary mechanisms in place to collect and pay out fees. The happy side benefit would be that local politics would get even closer scrutiny than it already does.

Legislate away direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs, which artificially inflates the demand (and the cost) of those drugs far beyond the actual medical need. This will greatly reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals, supporting reduced prices. There is no reason to be advertising to consumers products which only a doctor can prescribe, when the result is artificially and excessively high health care costs. Not enough justification? Then use the same justification used to legislate away direct-to-consumer cigarette ads: largely untested pharmaceuticals – the ones most frequently featured in direct-to-consumer ads – are dangerous and destructive of the nation’s health in a manner hardly different from smoking. Few if any of these drugs have been subjected to longitudinal testing and no doctor or scientist can predict what their effects will be 20 or 30 years – or two or three generations – from now. Our experiences with drugs like DES and the like are historical proof of this. This approach also has the attractive feature-not-a-bug aspect of reducing the entrenched, Fifth Coumn media’s advertising income by enormous sums, which can only improve the function of our Republic’s democratic institutions.

All that, and encouraging people – through tax incentives – to go back to saving money for a “rainy day”, instead of spending every dime they can earn, beg, steal and/or borrow, will help to mitigate the erroneously perceived “risk” of affording routine health care. People should be getting tax credits equivalent to the interest earned on savings accounts, not being taxed against those earnings. A truly enlightened government, of and by the People – instead of what we have: a government of the political elite, by the political elite, solely for the benefit of the political elite – would recognize things like this.

There is no health care crisis. It’s just another ruse being thrown up – by all sides (uh – heard of Mitt Romney?) – as an excuse to hand more power to an increasingly socialist federal government. There are only two very negative aspects of health care right now (outside things like inefficiency, slackers, etc., that exist in ALL industries): costs keep rising and an increasing segment of the People can’t afford it. Government neither can nor will ever resolve either of these. Only a free market, where prices are appropriately controlled, and a growing economy, where the maximum number of people have good jobs, will resolve them. Government – irrespective of political stripe – has perennially proven itself utterly incapable of legislating society free of these kinds of problems. The simple reason for this is obvious: it’s not in their job description. The best approach is to convince the government to get itself as far away from the issue as possible and let the People and the Market handle it – just as the U.S. Constitution “implies”.

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:14 am 251. AThinkingPerson:

Moho… Yeah. Right. Any comment ANYONE says about the Obama’s and it’s immediately taken as “racist”. Sorry not buying that. Go shill your wares elsewhere.

You do realize that when you swing that word around so mindlessly it loses it’s meaning right? I’m guessing you’d want to save it for something more important besides a comment about her horrendous choice of dresses, but that’s just me “thinking” again.

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:17 am 252. Moho:

Freedom and choice? Sometimes I wonder if people who put this argument in that context are aware that those are exactly the arguments that were posited by corporations and employers when grassroots worker activists first proposed a 40 hour week and nascent safety regulations. When Sinclair first wrote “The Jungle”, the very same food companies that were sickening people and even killing them with food-borne illnesses also argued that freedom and choice were more important than the safety of the public. Even slavery was defended as the freedom and choice of slave-holding states to choose their economic structure. That meme holds no water with anyone even remotely familiar with the history of this country–its a history of rampant corruption that has names like the “gilded age”, the era in which companies enriched themselves and children and adults died in the jaws of factory mills. That is no leftist propaganda–open any history book and you’ll find these terms and this narrative.

The current period for the health insurance industry is a similar situation of lack of controls and regulation. This argument has two sides, one has never experienced the injustices predicated by the health insurance industry and the health insurance industry, the other has either experienced them or has contact with people they have. In short, one knows about the problem, the other one is shouting down anyone trying to tell them about the problems. Finally, even if the system worked perfectly, its conventional wisdom that health care costs cannot continue to rise at their current rate without triggering a collapse of the health system. Like the legislation or not, Republicans have been cooking marshmallows on that fire until it turned into a raging inferno, doing nothing about it and stopping anyone with the intent to solve the problem.

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:19 am 253. goy:

@247. Now and Then: – it’s the very last part of my post . . . (C&L). Miss that did you?

No. It was quite apparent. And meaningless. Like pretty much all the rest of your plagiarized blather.

Maybe you should try providing some of your own thoughts instead of endlessly copying and pasting others’. Here – I’ll give you an opportunity: just exactly what significance do you think that episode had – other than the fact that one person actively prevented another person from arrogantly violating a rule that was obviously well-understood (based on the yelling in the background) by the rest of the crowd? Do you think the fact that an image of “Rosa Parks” was involved gives it any special significance?

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:20 am 254. AThinkingPerson:

Re #252 Moho…. You’re making the problem much harder than it has to be.

Two things: Tort Reform & Legislation to end “pre-existing” conditions clauses.

Funny that the Obama Administration is considering neither. Oh damn, does that make me a racist again?

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:27 am 255. Mike Summers:

I think Sarah Palin is going to lead America in the right direction and ruin any plans of having a “United States of Obama”. She has everything right and yet those that oppose her thinks she’s an “idiot”. They are so blind and so absorbed in “Obamamania” that they will never get a clue. Yet, those who did vote for him and now regret have a great chance to make their voices heard and vote for Sarah in 2012!!! She’s keeping up the fight even though she’s not the governor anymore. She’s the “Governor of the American People”. Look out, Liberals, your days are indeed numbered. And your socialized health care plans are going to crumble sooner than you thinks.

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:36 am 256. The shadow:

Dopeyperson:

The one study of tort reform indicates it will save one half of one percent. Preexisting conditions willbe in the bill.

One of the problems the wingnuts have is that they do not believe in science or logic.

”

Get Breaking News Alerts

“A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is alienating scientists to a startling degree.

Only six percent of America’s scientists identify themselves as Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats. By comparison, 23 percent of the overall public considers itself Republican, while 35 percent say they’re Democrats.

The ideological discrepancies were similar. Nine percent of scientists said they were “conservative” while 52 percent described themselves as “liberal,” and 14 percent “very liberal.” The corresponding figures for the general public were 37, 20 and 5 percent.

Among the general public, moderates and independents ranked higher than any party or ideology. But among scientists, there were considerably more Democrats (55%) than independents (32%) and Republicans (6%) put together. There were also more liberals (52%) than moderates (35%) and conservatives (9%) combined.

The wide ideological and partisan gap among scientists may have been exacerbated by the Bush administration, which often disputed broad scientific consensus on topics such as evolution and climate change.

The results could merely be a reflection of how scientists see the world, rather than of partisan loyalties. In a series of questions posed, the study found that the answers of scientists were consistently more in line with liberal viewpoints than those of the general public.

“The Republican Party has a number of leaders within it who have challenged the accuracy of scientific findings on issues such as climate change, evolution and stem cell research,” Keeter told the Huffington Post.

“It suggests that scientists who are Republicans might feel some dissonance from the party’s position on some things that are important to them. And while there are Republicans in the scientist sample, there are really not that many,” he said.

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:41 am 257. Middleman:

“I think Sarah Palin is going to lead America in the right direction and ruin any plans of having a “United States of Obama”.”
Oh, swell. I wonder if she is going to CC: her husband in email exchanges she makes to foreign leaders.

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:44 am 258. SarahsBiggestFan:

Sarah Palin is the most annoying b**ch known to man.

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:55 am 259. Hans Moleman:

To “goy” (#218): As I wrote earlier (#214 above), “Palin needs to clarify and explain her objections to the plan…”

“Goy” responded: “Why? It’s the entrenched, Fifth Column media that follows her every statement, hangs on her every word, looking for a phrase or out-of-context utterance that can be twisted to attack her. How is it that she needs to explain herself or her personal opinions to anyone? Why should she provide more raw material for the left’s ad hominem attack machine? The past is already proof of what will happen, so why bother? She is not an official of any party. She is not in control or even strongly influencing any political party platform. She bears no responsibility whatsoever to explain her visceral reaction to socialist ideology.”

Nonetheless, Palin 3 days later realized her need to be clearer, and responded in the detailed non-visceral way she should have originally. And, in fact, she was not referring to MedPAC as I surmised, but to the end-of-life counseling as others had guessed. (I think both are legiimate concerns and due more debate.) But we shouldn’t have had to guess.

To “Marc Malone” (#229): Palin has a powerful voice and public standing. If she chooses to wade into a public debate, she has an obligation to make herself as clear as possible. Fortunately, with her recent clarification, she has done so. (I haven’t seen the AP write a story on her later, clearer post, and I’m not holding my breath.)

But she belongs in the public debate, not in the registration-required teenage backwater of Facebook.
I, Mister Moleman, along with my friends, have offered her a place on our site (www.mistermoleman.com”). Hopefully it will expose her to a wider audience.

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:56 am 260. calibama:

I don’t want the government running my health care. I also don’t want my tax money paying for insurance for the lazy bum down the street who sits at home collecting welfare and too lazy to get a job. when you work two jobs to support your two kids and have to keep a count on what you put in to your grocery cart so you won’t go over $50 and at the same time watch people come in and buy steaks, crab, lobster, top of the line groceries and pull out their EBT card something inside of you snaps. This is America!!! Don’t sit back and expect the government to do everything for you, you’ll have to lower your standards!!! it’s time everyone started taking care of themselves and stop waiting for a handout. Nothing is free…..

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:58 am 261. Now and Then:

253. goy:
First you say “Did you forget – again – to provide a cite, attribution or link to whatever it is you’re lamely plagiarizing there? ”

When I point out the attribution you say, ” It was quite apparent.”

This is why most Americans have no respect for conservatives, their corporate sponsors, or their media handlers. You have no principles. You are completely arbitrary. You are consistent only in your dissembling. It’s like listening to a bunch of middle-schoolers whining in a hot bus on a field trip to Lincoln’s Tomb. “Johnny hit me in my head! . . . Sally ate my baloney samwich . . . Chuck farted again . . . Did not . . . Did too . . . Did not!”

Keep it up. You have a lot more room to spiral down before you reach 2012.

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:59 am 262. Tom:

This all reminds me of the movie “Being There” where very thoughtful and intelligent comments are attributed to an idiot speaking about gardening. Palin says incredibly stupid and incendiary things and otherwise intelligent individuals extrapolate an intelligent thought from them that wasn’t there and not intended. Amazing.

Aug 13, 2009 - 10:06 am 263. Sharon:

If any healthcare plan passes, a special committee would be formed to create rules and regulations (and so forth). How they will interpret the plan will involve personal preferences and viewpoints, along with political influences – especially if the plan’s contents are vague and not exact. This administration has proven to provide political smokescreens to deny us full access to facts. Plus just about everyone in Congress has not read the plan – so how could most of them promote anything not read in full or which needs lawyers to decipher? Who signs for a house without reading the paperwork and making sure the address is correct and all blank spots are filled in?

Aug 13, 2009 - 10:08 am 264. mykidsmom:

I understand the need for change and don’t debate that fact. I agree with the writer’s comment that the suggested change is worse than the problem. It feels like we’ll be taking steps backwards, where citizens – in their quest for once-guaranteed health care – will now turn to alley-medicine and risk their lives to get the medicines and care they once had without question. In this day and age of research and development, of trying to find cures for age-old as well as old-age diseases, is a Federally appointed committee going to be: bipartisan enough, wise enough, smart enough and trained enough – to make decisions about My personal healthcare and that of my children? I cringe at the thought of my mother being subjected to end-of-life counselling by my doctor – to whom we’ve gone for years – knowing, full well, that he will turn in to the government a voucher for payment because he “did his job”.

As far as the bill goes, when elected representatives say they won’t read the actual bill (NJ rep) because it’s too long and he’d need a bevy of lawyers to decifer it, that leads me to believe they are no more informed (maybe even less informed) than those of us who are not elected officials. When an elected offical attends a Town Hall Meeting with a slide show of the actual bill (not propaganda) and walks thru it, page by page, and takes questions until everyone is satisfied with the answers – which will show me they, too, understand it – then I feel it’ll be time to vote: IF everyone agrees. But when 31 people decide, because there are too many non-supporters, we’ll just vote for it – that’s socialistic in a country that is founded on Democracy.

Aug 13, 2009 - 10:13 am 265. Kyle:

I am a nurse in Tennessee and take care of many patients who have “state insurance” Tenncare. The providers are told how much they will receive for each diagnosis. For instance, where I work in Maternity and Neonatal Care, no matter how many times patient’s come in complaining of back pain, nausea and other things, before their delivery, all we get paid for is the basic payment for delivery. The people receiving the care have no idea that real people are WORKING and paying for this care. They will tell you “the state” pays for it. That is one of the things I know about “government insurance” and it will drive down pay for nurses and doctors. Then people who really care about quality of care, will find they cannot afford to work for nothing.

I recently tried to read the health care bill proposed and I am a fairly intelligent, educated person. You could not possible read and understand the bill with the politicalese in which it is written. I never could find out what kind of benefits it would provide, even after scanning it for 2 hours. There is more about regulations of hospitals and how it will be funded with taxes than there is about CARE. Why can it not read like my group health insurance, which is maybe a 20 page book? Because then people would understand how poorly they will be covered.

Yes, not everyone is covered for health care, but in my hospital, it is required that insurance or not they will be treated equally. Sure, they have to sign a promissory note that they will pay for the care eventually. The people with Tenncare or Medicare are not billed at all. It is against the law to try to get money from them, even if they are abusing the system, by being treated in the emergency room. Now, make everyone have entitlement insurance and the small hospitals will go bust and the large ones will become like VA hospitals!!!! Go visit one, then decide if you want to be going there for your healthcare.

Good luck, I just want them to slow down. : <

Aug 13, 2009 - 10:25 am 266. dave:

Hi all, those who don’t agree with Sarah Palin on the death of old people and handicap have not read the bill. It is in there and of course not the direct words but says they have the right to. This whole thing is not about care it is about control of one sixth of the economy and control of peopls lives,Liberal don’t care about health, they wnat POWER. Don’t be fooled this is a communist governement were giving our freedom away if we do this.

Aug 13, 2009 - 10:26 am 267. Anonymous:

“In the last week, opponents of government-run health care have been compared to Nazis by the speaker of the House.”

I’m curious to know exactly what comparison Nancy Pelosi drew between Nazis and opponents to the public option. She, and many concerned Americans who value human decency, respect and dignity, have openly criticized individuals – namely Rush Limbaugh and many present at the town hall meetings – for making such dangerous and hateful associations.

Her exact quote was: “They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.” And they are! Where is the comparison? Anyone can see that Pelosi is not drawing a link between the Nazis and healthcare plan opponents. Instead, she’s doing the exact opposite – criticizing such behavior as bogus and distracting.

This rhetoric has gone from spin to downright lies. Extracting the truth from such important debate, and substituting it with notions of hate and fear are only serving to make your lack of insight and substance more transparent. Please do all Americans a favor and leave the debate to people who have constructive truths to offer.

Aug 13, 2009 - 10:36 am 268. Sharon:

Tom, I just read your comment and have to relate to you some common truths. When you cover one eye, you won’t see everything. When you watch only one show, you cannot claim to know details from other shows. When you only look up, you won’t see what is going on around you. And tunnel vision should be left to those with ailments. Another truth is what Sarah Palin has actually achieved, especially when compared to bloated campaign promises without results from way too many other politicians.

Aug 13, 2009 - 10:40 am 269. Moho:

Racistthinkerperson–>I think Claire Mccaskill did an excellent job of demonstrating to your howling base that tort reform will have very little impact on the insurance industry, which is the significant driver of upward health costs. Paraphrasing:

“We passed good tort reform legislation in this state which significantly reduced medically related suits…”

Teabaggers: Applause

“How many of you saw your health insurance rates go down?”

Teabaggers: Silence.

They started howling again a few minutes later, the same way you do every time I shoot down one of your dumb and unfounded points. Its the way of your movement–one based on ignorance and a vague, rage probably attached more to a lack of living your lives with any sort of integrity.

Aug 13, 2009 - 10:42 am 270. The Shadow:

Poor Dave:

He deal in fanasy where facts do not matter- He is just like the peole who were sure Bush knew abut the twin tower attacks before they happen. He even admits he make things up “Hi all, those who don’t agree with Sarah Palin on the death of old people and handicap have not read the bill. It is in there and of course not the direct words.” He is great that he put his ignorance out there for everyone to see. Way to go Dave!

I bet you are a birther too

Aug 13, 2009 - 11:07 am 271. cydonius:

Miss Melissa has missed the point of Sarah Palin’s argument. The provision of the bill that she is speaking of is that the doctors are REQUIRED to offer EUTHANASIA OPTION EVERY 5 YEARS while under critical care! The point is that the health care system should be prolonging life not deciding who lives and dies.

Aug 13, 2009 - 11:13 am 272. Gracie:

Palin makes good points. She is not going to say anything on her sites that she cannot back up or explain her view. She knows the critics are looking for any distractions for Obama..

There are some of you that claim you have read the medical/insurance plan that Obama wants passed. If So, you are far ahead of our elected officials and the fact that you claim to understand the legalese of the words, you must be a freakin genius, OR you have your talking points given to you each day. Frankly I have read a lot of your posts and you are against anything that goes on these sites. You’re here all day long trying to put your nastiness into words and calling names. Uncalled for

Plus we have to consider the fact that the people who are going to vote on it are not able/willing to discuss it with the “poor dumb
Americans” that “don’t get it”.

re:Barbara Wagner, Oregon
Is this a type of “death panel” we are referring to? “words just words”??

She was given a choice of “help dieing” or NO help at all when there were meds that would save her life…Is this what we have to look forward to?

Aug 13, 2009 - 11:17 am 273. tanstaafl:

A translation of HR3200, in English !

The whole plan sounds like a death panel. It’s all about what can, cannot, will & will not happen to the sick & the old (aka “users” of healthcare) under Obamacare.

Gall and chutzpah.

Shouldn’t these Washington goons be attending to their very limited duties under the Constitution instead of this baldfaced power grab ?

Aug 13, 2009 - 11:28 am 274. BC:

To Goy: I can’t do an extensive rebuttal right now, but two points:

1) No, the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to privacy — see:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

As I said, it’s been *interpreted* as such, but it isn’t actually a no ifs or buts right.

2) Nope, free markets don’t and *can’t* work for health care because needed medical treatment generally has an inelastic price, and mobility between suppliers is very limited — that is, people generally don’t and can’t shop around for the best price for something like removing a malignant tumor. Go back to basic economics and the “Price Elasticity of Demand” — the price for bushels of regular corn may be near perfect elastic in an open competitive market, but medical care is just the opposite: if you have an infection or such and need immediate medical treatment, the price is almost perfectly inelastic, that is you’d be willing to pay whatever you can afford or borrow to get it done if that’s what you have to do.

People forget that medicine is an ancient art and doctors still to this day recite the Hippocratic Oath, something that goes back over 2400 yrs. Being a doctor is/was considered a benign profession of service, not as a way to gouge money from the sick and desperate. But corporations are inherently reptilian and such quaint notions are not compatible with their mission statements of maximizing profit and market share. You mix the two and….

Aug 13, 2009 - 11:37 am 275. Bea Jacobs:

With the single-payer system controlled by the government, who has never run anything successfully, except maybe the IRS, who would any longer want to be a doctor or go into medicine? Without them we have no problem, right?

Aug 13, 2009 - 11:40 am 276. Mr Lucky:

249. Moho “…but so is welfare and food stamps and you people never stop carping about how you’re subsidizing that.” Never mentioned this, this is your bias.

Then any tax reduction is taking from others? Where does it end? When 100% of your recourses go to the government? Then there would be no carping? What would a fair percentage be?

“You live in a country full of neighbors friend…” Most of the neighbors are in on this, all that I’ve talked to are, liberal and conservative, etc. A tax professional held a free workshop in his house, and word is spreading. The question is, is with the drop in valuation, why are property taxes going up? Less revenue for the government? Can the government cut back as well, or is their level of funding set to either remain at current levels or increase into perpetuity? I certainly am prepared to live with fewer services, as much as you might want to increase my services.

People just don’t think it’s fair, that’s all. And I disagree with your characterization that those who would exercise their lawful rights in this matter are somehow morally flawed.

Aug 13, 2009 - 12:01 pm 277. goy:

@261. Now and Then: – When I point out the attribution you say, ” It was quite apparent.”

And, you conveniently left out, meaningless.

Do you think the text “(C&L)” has any significance outside your twenty-six alcohol-soaked brain cells? If that’s what you consider an “attribution”, then it’s no wonder you keep pasting other people’s material instead of actually producing any of your own.

So – I give up – what does “(C&L)” mean, and how on earth does your tiny brain translate it into a reference to a source? Now that you claim it’s an “attribution”, I’m curious.

Aug 13, 2009 - 12:16 pm 278. tanstaafl:

Barack Obama had a young girl ask him a long, friendly question in Tuesday’s Townhall.

Only the little girl (reading the question) was the daughter of a big supporter and dedicated Obamatron.

And then you’ve got…

Stuff like this going on…

Aug 13, 2009 - 12:16 pm 279. anyone:

There’s too many comments to respond reasonable to, but in regards to the authors argument.
There is a big difference between a government controlled beauracracy and private enterprises – one will make medical decisions based on the how much cost is involved and attempts to decrease that cost minimally and the other makes it’s decisions based on how much profit is involved in the transaction. At the end of the day I don’t want either system. They both lead to egregious errors in medical treatments.
I don’t want government to control the course of my life and to determine how to treat my medical conditions, but I equally don’t want an insurance company to view my medical maladies as a source of income for themselves. There are other more amenable ways to make a profit.
The question is not about who makes medical decisions – everyone can agree that it should be the doctors and patients involved. Those decisions should be based on the best outcome for the patient – not increasing profits or decreasing costs associated with certain medical procedures.
I would also like to note that the best run, most efficient, least costly system that produces the most exemplar medical outcomes is run by government institutions – the VA, Medicare, and Military Health System.

Aug 13, 2009 - 12:39 pm 280. goy:

@274. BC: – the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to privacy.

Well, since that straw man is not what I wrote, you don’t have much of a point. Here’s what I wrote, since you willfully missed it: “…in the U.S.A. the right to privacy is quite well established as legal and moral precedent, beginning with Article VI (Amendment IV) of the Constitution and every legal opinion ever written on the matter – including Roe v. Wade.”

The reason privacy is established and defended as a bona fide right is because there is copious text in the Bill of Rights to support it as such – unlike any other so-called “implied” rights you may wish to invent. Maybe instead of scouring the internetz for “evidence” to back up this stupid idea, perhaps you should just go read the Constitution.

… free markets don’t and *can’t* work for health care …

This is purely your opinion, which is not supported by past history. Apparently that history occurred before you were old enough to be consciously aware of it. In any case, today there is no way to know because today the health care market is not a “free market” in any conceivable sense of the definition.

- …because needed medical treatment generally has an inelastic price, …

This is unsupportable nonsense. All manner of health practitioners and institutions employ sliding scale for all manner of services nationwide. In fact, most medical treatment has almost infinitely elastic price, because most of the cost is comprised of compensation for highly-paid medical professionals (who can choose to accept less whenever the mood suits them), astronomically-overpriced pharmaceuticals (whose purveyors quite commonly adjust prices for those unable to afford the full cost), and health care institutions who receive subsidies in the form of tax breaks and other benefits used to offset the “expenses” (read: lowered profit) incurred by making exceptions for those with reduced financial resources. Any “inelasticity” in price today is caused by the broken system, e.g., pricing schedules agreed upon by insurers and providers, when insurers should have absolutely no part in the price negotiation at all.

- … mobility between suppliers is very limited — that is, people generally don’t and can’t shop around for the best price for something like removing a malignant tumor.

You’re confusing cause and effect by citing a very uncommon problem caused by the broken system and pretending it’s a cause of the broken system. Also, this excursion ignores what I wrote, which was a discussion of how the costs of routine health care – the vast majority of health care – have been encouraged to increase through the misuse of insurance to pay for it. Unless you’re really wealthy, cancer surgery falls into the category of catastrophic injury or illness.

- But corporations are inherently reptilian and such quaint notions are not compatible with their mission statements of maximizing profit and market share.

Right. Now go back and read what I wrote on this and leave your straw man reinterpretations out of it. You’ll get it. Eventually. Maybe.

Aug 13, 2009 - 12:48 pm 281. tanstaafl:

…doctors still to this day recite the Hippocratic Oath, something that goes back over 2400 yrs..

Medical schools today use different versions of the Oath.

The language is quite different. For example, no doctor today forswears giving a woman “abortive remedies” as was in the original Hippocratic Oath.

For the record, Roe v. Wade was a privacy decision, a decision made not about a “right” to abortion but on the basis of an inherent right to privacy existing in the Constitution.

Aug 13, 2009 - 1:07 pm 282. BC:

To Goy: now you’re just being goofy — I was right the first time when I wrote there were was no such thing as a right to privacy in the Constitution “although many have interpreted ‘liberty’ has having an implied right to privacy.” And that academic article not only backs that point up, but also that “The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the ‘liberty’ guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.”

Note especially the “termination of medical treatment” bit — that certainly implies at least that this sort of interpretation of “liberty” extends to physical quality of life, which leaves open further interpretation down the road that might extend to everyone being entitled to proper medical care.

You’re the one who set up the straw man business by mischaracterizing that earlier post of mine to make a point on your part that was, well umm…pointless.

And as far as elastic versus inelastic goes in terms of medical treatment costs, just think back at all the times you or people you know needed some sort of medical treatment beyond cough drops and Band-aids: do you really see many scenarios where the doctor or hospital could double the price for the treatment and *not* have it met? If you ran a corporation and had a similar “service” where you can pretty much charge whatever you want, what would you do? Unless there was some way to make it easy and simple for patients to easily move from one health care system to another for the sake of better pricing and service — which would need some sort of means to have that kind of information easily available, a competitive market, and which would likely mean abandoning their doctors — then free markets in a for-profit environment would be worse than useless.

Aug 13, 2009 - 1:21 pm 283. The Shadow:

cydonius:

I can’t decide if you are a dope or a moron. You make such stupid statements that you cannot back up. Show us exactly where the bill says that doctors are required to offer euthanasia every five years. Your arguments agains teh bill are so weak that you are forced to make thing up. Oh it forces everone to take a trip to Alaska every five years! What a dope!

Aug 13, 2009 - 1:33 pm 284. polkabout:

248. Moho:

She is not African-American. If she is, how many generations are needed for this not to be so. If I go back enough generations, I’m also African-American. This false title is a reprehensible plea for special consideration.

Aug 13, 2009 - 2:38 pm 285. toker53:

Anonymous
8:
You can’t possibly use Wikipedia as a source of information. Your post should have been rejected on those grounds. If you had recent numbers like from maybe 3 hours ago you would know that 53% oppose the plan outright and 42% approve. The other 5% are undecided. Rasmussen Poll of 13 Aug 09.
These numbers are a long way from the numbers you used. The numbers I put here are from 2:00 PM on 13 Aug, 2009. That’s a long way from June.

I was against this reform from the outset because I knew it couldn’t be done the way it was being sold to the public.
How did I know?
The longest running arm of the Federal Government is the US Postal Service. They actually predate the Declaration of Independence by a year, and they still can’t get my mail delivered.
Bear in mind that I have been at ny address for 43 years so it’s not like I’ve been moving around like a gypsy. If I can’t rely on a simple mail delivery, I am quite certain I can’t rely on quality health care. I’ll keep my HMO Thank You very much.
They lost colse to 3 billion dollars after increasing the price of 1st Class Postage.

Aug 13, 2009 - 2:49 pm 286. Marc Malone:

Goy – Nice posts. Really enjoyed reading them. You should write articles for this site. Keep up the good work. This is why I read the comments, because so often, some few commenters are really more cogent and knowledgable than the authors.

Aug 13, 2009 - 2:52 pm 287. AThinkingPerson:

It’s become quite obvious that the liberals are desperately trying to defend a bill they haven’t even read. If Obama looked into his trusty teleprompter (I know Moho….saying that makes me a racist right?), and said “this healthcare bill will make sure every household gets a humpback whale” the liberals would come here and regurgitate that verbatim and swear it was true. How did they get so gullible?

Have any of you ever considered reading the damned thing or are you all avoiding it because Obama hasn’t read it either? Here it is http://patientsunitednow.com/?q=node/233

Now, instead of doing your usual liberal BS of spewing nonsense without facts, just READ IT FOR YOURSELF. Isn’t that a novel idea? Facts first and then opening your fat liberal mouths.

I know, I said fat liberal…I’m definitely a racist now.

Aug 13, 2009 - 2:58 pm 288. AThinkingPerson:

Nothing like the smell of sweet VINDICATION for Sarah Palin!

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/13/breaking-finance-committee-drops-death-panel-provisions-from-senate-bill/

Sorry liberals, you were wrong on this (too).

Aug 13, 2009 - 3:07 pm 289. goy:

@282. BC: – now you’re just being goofy

Right. Here’s a tip: name-calling isn’t going to advance your position much. Neither is simply restating your previous, erroneous premise in an effort to ultimately wind your way to an “implied” right that doesn’t exist outside a “living” Constitution.

- …do you really see many scenarios where the doctor or hospital could double the price for the treatment and *not* have it met?

Over time, no. And that is precisely the point I made up above while explaining how we got into the predicament we’re in.

But your speculative nonsense here has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand – or hard reality, for that matter. It’s just another red herring intended to deflect away from the facts. I’ve already explained to you how and why prices DO tend to rise because of comprehensive health care insurance. You either didn’t read what I wrote or you failed to comprehend it, because my entire thesis was based on the premise that commodity prices DO tend to increase. What you’re willfully ignoring is what keeps them affordable in every market except for health care. The health care market is different from other commodity markets – today, as opposed to 40 years ago – in only one way: the mechanism used to pay for its goods and services is economically… hmmm, how to put this so you can understand it… goofy.

Aug 13, 2009 - 3:22 pm 290. goy:

Marc – thank you very much for the kind words. To your suggestion, I’ve been asked and am working on getting a couple of things published (not here). If that happens I’ll ping you, if interested.

Aug 13, 2009 - 3:25 pm 291. Tomas Webbster:

I’m from the ObamaHospicePanel and I’m here to help you.

Aug 13, 2009 - 3:57 pm 292. Abi:

We like Palin.

the more BS you guys dish about her, the more we support her. Sooo, carry on.

Aug 13, 2009 - 4:21 pm 293. Barbara DeVanna:

Thank God thee is a voice of reason in this insanity. I heard the gal, Katy Abram, being vilified last evening on msnbc, she was openly weeping this morning as she read a letter she wrote at 4AM, recalling being called a racist by an anonymous cell phone call – how would one get her #?, and her father’s office being barraged with hate – all because she spoke up for her rights as an American citizen. It appears she has fallen with everyone else who has voiced an opposing opinion to this administration; it seems like a movie and the Chicago thugs are coming!!

Thank you, Sarah Palin, for having the courage and presence of mind to keep yours when all others about you are losing theirs.

We all have a stake in this and good will prevail over insanity and bullying.

Aug 13, 2009 - 4:36 pm 294. stan fuller:

thank you Mrs. Palin for speaking what is in my heart for me. i am so proud and happy that we have people like you as our spokespersons. i really wish you were sitting in the white house. your common sense is so refreshing . your loyalty to America and not a political party is exactly what we need in these times.

Aug 13, 2009 - 4:48 pm 295. BC:

To goy: now, now — if you’re going to try applying terms like “specious nonsense” to me, expect a paddling. I said the “right to privacy” is an interpreted right, and not an actual one, and I was right — so why argue? Also if the Constitution doesn’t forbid something (or if it’s not interpreted as forbidding), it’s good. And “implied” rights abound, especially in terms of interpretations of what exactly is meant by “liberty”.

Now as far as your hypothesis of why health care cost have shot up, well, while it seems reasonably well thought out at first glance, there’s a slight problem with it: none of the historical data corresponds with it, especially in regards to comprehensive health care. Blue Cross and Blue Shield dates back to 1932, and health care insurance spread far and wide throughout the 40’s and 50’s. Overall health care costs, though, remained in line with other costs until about 1960, when it very slowly started diverging. It wasn’t until the 1980’s, though, during the years of “The Great Deregulator,” Ronald Reagan, that health care costs really started their skyrocketing curve.

So was there anything special that happened during Reagan’s term to account for this? Yep, he deregulated like crazy, tried implementing free market strategies, slashed funding that ended up closing neighborhood clinics and putting the mentally ill on the streets, and so on. It ended up being an end to end friggin disaster that not only royally screwed up the health care system in this country, but also ended setting health care costs really soaring.

But, if nothing else, it does make for a dandy example of why free markets *don’t* work in that environment!

Are we kind of clear now finally? You and anybody else needs enlightenment or a spanking?

Aug 13, 2009 - 5:29 pm 296. Now and Then:

Who supported the government role in the Terry Schiavo case? And why?

Aug 13, 2009 - 6:07 pm 297. Moho:

Palin, For Death Panels Before She Was Agin em…

Just so you all know what suckers these people you worship as leaders constantly play you for. I’m sure you all know, but you proudly trade away everything for the chance to hate SOMETHING, anything…:

Healthcare Decisions Day

WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions. WHEREAS, in Alaska, Alaska Statute 13.52 provides the specifics of the advance directives law and offers a model form for patient use.

WHEREAS, it is estimated that only about 20 percent of people in Alaska have executed an advance directive. Moreover, it is estimated that less than 50 percent of severely or terminally ill patients have an advance directive.

WHEREAS, it is likely that a significant reason for these low percentages is that there is both a lack of knowledge and considerable confusion in the public about Advance Directives. [OMFG! The incredible ironies]

WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaska’s citizens with advance directives.

WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives.

WHEREAS, as a result of April 16, 2008, being recognized as Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, more citizens will have conversations about their healthcare decisions; more citizens will execute advance directives to make their wishes known; and fewer families and healthcare providers will have to struggle with making difficult healthcare decisions in the absence of guidance from the patient.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the state of Alaska, do hereby proclaim April 16, 2008, as:

Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:_qjXL_3J08EJ:www.eeo.state.ak.us/archive-50122.html+%22HEALTHCARE+DECISIONS+DAY%22+palin&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Read it and weep you bozos.

Aug 13, 2009 - 6:27 pm 298. Moho:

Barbara Devanna,

Look my heart goes out for this woman, she got in way over her head and she doesn’t have the sense God gave rubber mallets. But she wanted to get her message out and she had the perfect opportunity on Hardball last night. Really, watch this and tell me you feel anything but embarrassment having your objectives advocated by someone so completely disengaged from reality. Among other things, Abrams:

–doesn’t know if her family makes more than 250,000 dollars a year or not

–didn’t think there was anything especially important about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because “war has become commonplace”

–doesn’t know whether or not Medicare is government subsidized

–really has no clue about anything

Watch it if you dare. Hopefully, it will shock some sense into you. Look, the reality that people are seeing is that you people don’t know anything, and you’re at the one place where you could learn things and instead of listening your shouting at other people so you don’t have to hear them. Come on. Its an insult to the rest of us who bother to keep up on events and get the headaches trying to understand what’s going on in the world. Pull your weight and get informed and stop letting all of these idiots pull you around by the nose. Abram is exactly what you people look like to the rest of us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzCoPh8DZ7M

Aug 13, 2009 - 6:54 pm 299. ER White:

http://www.bloggybayou.com/2009/08/end-of-life-counseling-intensifies.html

My Story on Dying….

Aug 13, 2009 - 7:23 pm 300. narciso:

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China. Seems very voluntary by my lights, no government interference

Aug 13, 2009 - 7:47 pm 301. tanstaafl:

Long, tedious cuts and pastes to prove some obscure thing about Sarah Palin?: $1000

Mo-Ho bashing Sarah Palin’s intelligence?: Priceless

Aug 13, 2009 - 8:02 pm 302. Jerry:

Palin is correct. The Federal Government should not be a major provider for medical care – not Medicare and not Medicaid, either.

Simplest reason: There is no independent review of governmental decisions. Where can anyone go for adjudication of a dispute if the Federal Government is the final arbiter of all issues?

Less simple reason: Medicare and Medicaid are losing money, as is the Post Office (USPS) because there is no reason to streamline operations if there is profit motive.

Aug 13, 2009 - 8:07 pm 303. tanstaafl:

I read your story, bloggy bayou.

We don’t need bureacrats to help us die.

Very true. Especially bubble gum poppers who wouldn’t know what the hell they were counseling about in the first place.

Speaking of counseling, our President recently told a woman in his audience that her aged mother might have taken a pain pill for arrhythmia instead of getting a pacemaker.

Day before yesterday, Obama said he wants counseling for diabetics so they’ll be good, follow health guidelines and learn how to avoid getting a foot amputated, where some (greedy) surgeon would get $50,000 or so for the procedure. (Barack didn’t know that the surgeon gets around $1000 for performing such a procedure, even less under Medicare.) The rest of the huge sums for surgery these days goes to all the ancillary care, hospital, etc.

If the President of the United States is so brain dead about these matters, can you imagine the bubble gum popper ?

Aug 13, 2009 - 8:19 pm 304. Moho:

Long and tedious? She wrote it you idiot, not me. You people only reached voting age by the grace of g-d.

Aug 13, 2009 - 8:39 pm 305. Now and Then:

301. tanstaafl:
Dat river in Egypt again.

Aug 13, 2009 - 8:52 pm 306. Moho:

Taanstafl: “Mo-Ho bashing Sarah Palin’s intelligence?: Priceless”

Um…I was bashing yours.

Just so you all know what suckers these people you worship as leaders constantly play you for. I’m sure you all know, but you proudly trade away everything for the chance to hate SOMETHING, anything…:

She’s probably of average intelligence, I’d say, but an Einstein compared to you people. And she’s playing you like bass fiddles.

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:17 pm 307. goy:

@295. BC: – if you’re going to try applying terms like “specious nonsense” to me, expect a paddling.

Hmmm… nothing that fits that description in this post – especially with respect to so-called “implied” rights. I guess we wait…

- Blue Cross and Blue Shield dates back to 1932, and health care insurance spread far and wide throughout the 40’s and 50’s.

Yes – in the form of “major medical” insurance – notably NOT comprehensive, everything-including-your-vitamins-and-suppositories-as-long-as-you-have-a-doctor’s-letter insurance. Extensive coverage of every detail of health care crept in over an extended period, hitting its stride particularly hard right around 1980. Funny, that, looking at your chart. Thanks for that, BTW.

- Overall health care costs, though, remained in line with other costs until about 1960, when it very slowly started diverging.
You obviously didn’t read my post above because this is precisely the sequence of events and general timeline I described there. Thanks – again – for helping to validate my thesis.

And I’m afraid more specious, unsourced and unsupported post hoc nonsense attempting to “blame” Reagan didn’t help make your case. Just the opposite, in fact. Health care suffered in the ’80s because the Great Society overplayed the government’s authority, earning the “tax-and-spend” moniker for the Democrats and pouring millions into programs the government had no authority to fund. Much of that was rightly rolled back during Reagan’s administrations. Sorry it was painful. Any correction from a situation where people have become inappropriately dependent upon government will be painful. Johnson shouldn’t have written checks subsequent administrations couldn’t cash.

And hey – “blame” deregulation all you like. It’s just another example of “How BC just doesn’t get it”. I’ll add that tidbit to the thesis because I’m already happily on record on this point with the following statement that you obviously never read: “Government – irrespective of political stripe – has perennially proven itself utterly incapable of legislating society free of these kinds of problems.” Reagan believed – just as I do – that government has no place micromanaging or directly funding programs that it has no authority to fund. Although, had he known that comprehensive health care insurance would cause the problems it has, he would most likely have chosen to focus some regulatory attention there. Reagan was our best President of the 20th century, but even he wasn’t perfect.

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:33 pm 308. Marc Malone:

#297 Moho – Thanks for posting that. That was a fine example of how it should be handled: Educate the public about the need for advance decisions.

This is simply asking people to volunteer their time to help people be more prepared ahead of time. It is not some bureaucratic panel trying to convince you to unburden society by your now-worthless presence.

Ridicule Palin all you want. That was a perfect example of pragmatic, effective leadership. The government should have a limited role. She stayed within that limited role, while working to educate people in order to ameliorate some problems. It is a very light government footprint. Once again, we see how effective a Governor she was.

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:34 pm 309. Marc Malone:

Imagine if Bush (or Palin) had said the things Obama has said about the unscrupulous, heartless, callous doctors recklessly cutting tonsils from kids, or amputating rather than treating, because there’s more money in it? You’d hear the hounds baying around the world!

What if Bush had some eugenics proponent as a key advisor on his staff? You’d hear comparisons to Hitler and Dr. Mengele.

The sheer shamelessness of the Leftist media for remaining silent on this boggles the mind.

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:55 pm 310. Moho:

Malone, you’re an idiot. There is literally and absolutely no difference between the two versions of this idea, except the health plan would give even more encouragement to doctors by paying them for their time during those consultations. The government would pay doctors to have those end of life consultations IF THEY CHOSE TO HAVE THEM AND IF THE PATIENT AGREED TO HAVE THEM. THEY ARE NOT MANDATED, YOU IDIOTS!

Aug 13, 2009 - 10:17 pm 311. tanstaafl:

It’s not only Sarah Palin who has a problem with Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.”

But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.

Undue InfluenceThe House Bill Skews End-of-Life Counsel

Aug 13, 2009 - 10:19 pm 312. Jim UND59:

This is my introduction to PAJAMASmedia and I extend my gratitude for same.

It seems unexpected that among people of faith in this and other groups, no one has brought up one simple fact.

The debate on end-of-life choices has long been resolved.

We know from scripture and the teaching of the Church that Jesus Christ and his Divine Father have reserved to themselves the right to chose the time and place of our birth and our “end-of-life” passage. Spread the word.

Period. End of discussion. Case closed.

Aug 14, 2009 - 12:54 am 313. Dennis J. Loput Sr.:

Welcome to the revolution Moron Of the Highest Order, or as your fellow elitists refer to you “MoHo”. So you took a class, read a book, passed a multiple choice exam, lived off Mom and Dad, and now think you are smarter and more informed than the rest of us American idiots. Thank you for your lemming like observations. I don’t know what I would do without your direction in my life. It’s nice to have you here with the majority anyway. I suppose the KOS and the Huffington Post are just a little too intellectual for your level of acuity so you’ll come hang out with us dummies. Their readership is shrinking anyway – so you would’ve ended up here eventually. Nice to have you on board! Maybe you’ll actually learn something – and BTW – you won’t have to worry about any multiple choice exams here. You’re safe. Ya see, we don’t have to prove to anyone we are smart – we rely on our own common sense.

Aug 14, 2009 - 3:47 am 314. Mark:

Here in the UK we are watching this debate with increasing incredulity and amusement. The blatant lies told by some reform opponents about our healthcare system are amazing. Stephen Hawking was very surprised to find that IF he was British he would have been murdered by death panels long ago, lol, and my neighbour was also surprised to find that heart bypasses are BANNED for those over 59 as he is much older than that and had one last year. In fact the AVERAGE age for a heart bypass is 66, you couldn’t make it up… oh.. wait, yes you could!!

You can criticise our system by all means, but the fact that the vested interest media and right-wing politicians have to resort to out and out lies is revealing I think when it comes to the strength of their arguments.

Aug 14, 2009 - 6:25 am 315. Moho:

Mark, what’s most amazing about these people is that after each lie and ignorant rumor is debunked, they just move on to the next one, which they accept without the slightest hesitation. It really must be an amazing thing to watch–the sheer stupidity and ignorance of this portion of the American public. From Britain, I might even find it amusing. What I find galling is that our electoral process gives these bozos as much, and in many cases much more, power to affect the electoral process. I read, I research, I investigate–I view every issue I vote for with extreme solemn responsibility to be as informed as possible. These bozos seem to find that to be anathema–Dennis Loput, above, explained–they don’t value information or learning. Apparently, such people were born with an internal system of judgment that requires no information to proceed and works best, as the people here claim, when given the least amount of information.

Aug 14, 2009 - 7:29 am 316. goy:

@314: Mark – …the AVERAGE age for a heart bypass is 66…

Well, since the average waiting time is probably quite a few years, this isn’t particularly compelling “evidence”.

NHS failings aside, the two issues most ignored by both sides in this so-called “debate” are these:

1. the argument is over “coverage” when what we really want is what we used to have: affordable routine health care.

2. unlike UK’s Parliament, the U.S. federal government has no Constitutional authority to implement a “free” health care system.

Aug 14, 2009 - 7:35 am 317. Moho:

Mark: “Well, since the average waiting time is probably quite a few years, this isn’t particularly compelling “evidence”.”

Is it probably? As with most things, probably, you don’t know or care to. The bottom line is that Britain has private health insurance, so that if anyone wants to opt out, they’re welcome to. The reality is that most people don’t. Its a pretty good system, one that most people appreciate along with the faults. I know several people living in Britain, including an American friend, and she has no complaints. That’s all anecdotal information, of course, so it shouldn’t by itself convince you. But when compared to the fact that you actually DON’T KNOW anything about it yourself, you should see it as better than nothing.

Aug 14, 2009 - 7:50 am 318. goy:

BTW, here’s what’s most revealing about the hair-pulling-gnashing-of-teeth hysteria over the Stephen Hawking faux pas…

The source of the comment was an unattributed IBD Editorial, presumably written by its Editor. It has since been corrected for the single error it contained (and the online version proclaims as much).

In that article, the most scathing elements criticizing the UK Orwellian system – aptly carrying the doublespeak moniker, “NICE” – were never acknowledged, much less denied, by those who are still guffawing uncontrollably over the erroneous Hawking reference.

Clearly these hysterical folks believe that Appeal to Ridicule is a sufficient response to what turned out to one error in an otherwise accurate article. For people like Mofo (and Mark, his sockpuppet), jharp, N&T, BC, et al., they’re absolutely correct – fallacy is sufficient. But for those who actually, you know, “view every issue with extreme solemn responsibility to be as informed as possible” this doesn’t fly.

Here’s the rest of the story, which everyone has since ignored as the hysterical laughter is dying down…

The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof are legendary. The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror movie script.

The U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) basically figures out who deserves treatment by using a cost-utility analysis based on the “quality adjusted life year.”

One year in perfect health gets you one point. Deductions are taken for blindness, for being in a wheelchair and so on.

The more points you have, the more your life is considered worth saving, and the likelier you are to get care.

The British are praised for spending half as much per capita on medical care. How they do it is another matter. The NICE people say that Britain cannot afford to spend $20,000 to extend a life by six months. So if care will cost $1 more, you get to curl up in a corner and die.

In March, NICE ruled against the use of two drugs, Lapatinib and Sutent, that prolong the life of those with certain forms of breast and stomach cancer.

The British have succeeded in putting a price tag on human life, as we are about to.

Can’t happen here, you say? “One troubling provision of the House bill,” writes Betsy McCaughey in the New York Post, “compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, Pages 425-430).”

I haven’t found anyone denying that the IBD erred in describing the UK system (or the House Bill, for that matter), despite the fact that this information is ultimately more vital and far more relevant to the health care “debate” than details of Hawking’s astronomically unique circumstances. If it’s accurate, then there was really only one error in the original article – phrasing.

Instead of reading as it did, IBD could have made a much clearer and far more compelling point with the following, paraphrased from the original:

“People who suffer from debilitating diseases like Lou Gehrig’s wouldn’t have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would declare the life of the victim – due to the associated physical handicaps – essentially worthless. Clearly, exceptions are made within the UK system, but one must possess the god-like brilliance and global celebrity of a Stephen Hawking in order to beat the ‘NICE’ triage system.”

Journalism. It’s obviously not just for adults anymore.

Aug 14, 2009 - 8:15 am 319. goy:

@317. Moho: – Is it probably?

Yes, based on the information publicly available concerning the failing NHS – especially observations by those who live under it – the most accurate term one could use without a direct cite is “probably“.

- …you don’t know or care to.

Clearly, you’re not nearly as psychic as you think you are. What I know and/or care to know is obviously far beyond your troll-level comprehension, son.

Now go crawl back under your slimy bridge before the big Billy Goat Gruff gets there.

Aug 14, 2009 - 8:49 am 320. goy:

p.s. – correction on the IBD’s correction:

The line above – “I haven’t found anyone denying that the IBD erred…” – should (obviously) read “I haven’t found anyone claiming that the IBD erred…”.

Let’s avoid yet another pointless excursion down Irrelevant Thesis Lane, shan’t we?

Aug 14, 2009 - 8:52 am 321. Mark Barrowcliffe:

Interesting to watch the healthcare debate in the US from this side of the pond.

All I can say is that the portrayals of the British healthcare system by some on the US right have nothing to do with reality whatsoever.

My mother broke her hand in a fall here two days ago. An ambulance picked her up within 10 minutes, she was taken to hospital, treated, given pain killers, X rays and a great deal of sympathy and was dispatched home in a cast within two hours.

The next day she was in more pain, went to the doctors without an appointment, waited 10 minutes and was prescribed more painkillers. All for free.

The NHS is, in general, wonderful. And here’s the thing – it provides basic care but, if you’d like a little more, then you can always pay for it. My dad will be seen for his chronically bad knee within 4 weeks. If he wants seeing tomorrow, he can just pay or use his health insurance, exactly as you would in the US. There seems to be this idea that it’s socialised medicine or nothing over here. Not so.

I use the NHS for the majority of my care but when I want non essential stuff – cosmetic dentistry, physiotherapy, I pay for it. When my son had meningitis he was into hospital, on a lumbar puncture and antibiotics within 20 minutes of the doctor noticing his temperature. We stayed for 2 and a half weeks in a hospital private room complete with TV, telephone and spectacular view. Our son was on three times daily doses of antibiotics, in addition to having all his food and nappy changes paid for. It cost us nothing. Not one penny – even the coffee was free.

That was a great level of care and, more than that, a great level of humanity. All I had to worry about was his health, not paying the bills.

I’d advise any American to leap at the chance to put healthcare like this into their country and avoid the disgrace of your old people having to scrimp and save for basic drugs.

Aug 14, 2009 - 10:06 am 322. Lucia:

goy… you are so accurate and to the point. The end result is rationing for the purpose of saving (ie: valuing) money, not life! It is very arrogant of us to put a price on someone’s life!

Aug 14, 2009 - 10:19 am 323. Moho:

Goy…I don’t need to be psychic. I’ve already watched you pull nonsense out and present it as proof of whatever it was that you baselessly claimed in the first place. I suppose you didn’t read past the headline in the article:

The NHS performs worse on this measure of “mortality amenable to healthcare” than Spain, France, the Netherlands and Germany. If it had achieved the average of those four, 17,157 fewer deaths would have occurred in 2004, the most recent year for which the data is available, says the alliance.

All of these countries have nationalized healthcare you idiot. But the most amazing thing is that the US makes the UK number look really reasonable:

U.S. Ranks Last

>The researchers estimated the number of lives that could have been saved in 2002 if the U.S. had achieved either the average of all countries analyzed (except the U.S.) or the average of the three top-performing countries. Using this formula, the authors estimated that approximately 75,000 to 101,00 preventable deaths could be averted in the U.S. “[E]ven the more conservative estimate of 75,000 deaths is almost twice the Institute of Medicine’s (lower) estimate of the number of deaths attributable to medical errors in the United States each year,” the authors say.

Indeed, the NHS may be even a piss-poor system when compared to other European single payer systems, but compared to the US, its cadillac health insurance. Again, I don’t have to be psychic to know that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Aug 14, 2009 - 10:47 am 324. Marc Malone:

#310 Moho – I really get tired of people like you calling me an idiot. Are my words misspelled? Is my grammar faulty? Is my writing jumbled? Are my thoughts hard to follow? Do I use only childish words, or rather, do I actually use some adult words and concepts? Do I use (ahem) ad hominem attacks? Just because I hold a different view from you, doesn’t make me an idiot. My IQ is around 200. An idiot has an IQ of 50. Please, quit calling people here idiots because they disagree with you.

As to your position, there is a big difference. Palin’s idea was to have government encourage the community at large to volunteer to spread the message, to assist people to make plans way ahead of time, when they’re not sick and suffering and thus, not thinking straight.

The healthcare plan allowed for payment for such consultation, ’tis true. Every five years is the proposal as written, more often, as often as every year, if a board considers it appropriate. I know Obama SAID it wasn’t mandated, but he admits to not having read the bill. You seem to have believed him, anyway. He has no credibility with me, as he is a demonstrated habitual liar.

In my view, the actual bill did mandate it. It doesn’t matter whether I’m right or wrong on this, because others, too, would come to this conclusion. The mindset of bureaucrats would certainly, therefore, treat it as a mandate, at least for CYA purposes.

Fortunately, I understand that Palin’s “death panels” label caused them to remove this nonsense from the bill. All she did was post something on her Facebook page, and she nailed them and got results. Call her stupid if you want. She is devastatingly effective. Hate her all you like. Underestimate her at your own peril.

Aug 14, 2009 - 11:17 am 325. goy:

@322. Lucia: – goy… you are so accurate and to the point. The end result is rationing for the purpose of saving (ie: valuing) money, not life! It is very arrogant of us to put a price on someone’s life!

Thanks Lucia (love that name – gave it to my daughter as a middle), but I didn’t do the work of analyzing the ‘NICE’ triage system, I only cite IBD’s analysis – which is apparently accurate as far as anyone seems to think (including folks at NHS, based on the thundering silence).

The problem you’ll encounter, however, with the issue of putting a price on life is that our current – broken – system in the U.S. essentially does this right now. That’s going to happen ANY time you have bureaucrats making decisions that ultimately determine life-and-death. It doesn’t matter whether the bureaucrat works for Kaiser, the Canadian Health Care System, our clown-posse federal government or NHS.

Our current system isn’t so openly methodical and unabashedly callous about putting a price on life (er… a point system??!!11! gimme a break!), but it’s part of what needs to be fixed. Consumers need to be able to make those kinds of decisions for themselves. In any case, this isn’t a “crisis” that needs the immediate federal (and, ultimately, fatal) surgery prescribed by O-care.

It doesn’t matter whether either system is better or worse. The reality is that one is better in some areas and the other is better in others. Depending on whom you ask under either system, you’ll find those who love it, those who hate it, and likely a huge group in between who are ambivalent. But claiming we should adopt methods, or not, based on ANY of these opinions misses the underlying reality: we’re two different cultures resolving a social issue based on two very different legal frameworks. The UK is quickly falling into the socialist abyss of the EUSSR. America, well, not so much – yet.

Thus, while it’s intellectually dishonest to ignore how the ‘NICE’ system ostensibly discriminates against those with Hawkings’ affliction (but who lack his stellar intellect), arguing about NHS vs. U.S. health care is a red herring. We don’t live in the UK and we don’t live under the UK’s legal system. So anyone pretending we can solve our problems using the UK’s methods is lying to themselves, or you, or both.

We have no health care crisis in America that requires ramming fast-track-style bills through Congress before anyone’s read them. The vast majority of insured Americans (84%) are perfectly satisfied with their health care and how it’s paid for. They don’t want the system changed. This is the main reason why the left goes apoplectic exaggerating the number of uninsured Americans, which is actually less than 3% of the American citizenry, not the 47-50 million so often erroneously cited by the left.

We have two problems we need to address in the area of health care: rising costs AND the fact that an increasing percentage of our citizenry can’t afford routine care without distributing part of the burden onto someone else. Government will never fix these problems, as it has already demonstrated 100 times over. They need to get as far away from the issue as possible and let the States, the People and the Market deal with the problem.

Remove the proxy monopoly of comprehensive health care insurance companies – who control both the price of AND access to health care – and implement policies that lead to strong economic growth – to maximize employment – and the problem will fix itself, just as it does in all other commodity markets where goods and services remain affordable.

@323. Moho: I don’t need to be psychic.

Then you need to work on your people skills and quit pretending you know what others care to know. Clearly, you don’t.

That should have become clear to YOU when you found yourself having to change the subject in an attempt to avoid further embarrassment.

Too late.

The question wasn’t whether one system is better than the other – a red herring I’ve already dispatched, above. The question was whether or not it is probable that there are extended waiting times for health care under the NHS. Clearly, if you bother to read the publicly available information in the copious collection of links I provided for you, it is in fact not only highly probable, but well-documented.

You now have my permission to crawl back under your bridge, troll.

Aug 14, 2009 - 11:24 am 326. Moho:

I really get tired of people like you calling me an idiot…Call her stupid if you want.

No, I called you and everyone else who fell for her political theater, stupid. I observed here and elsewhere that she’s at least of average intelligence, and in addition has very smart people such as William Kristol managing her efforts. People like you are easily led around by her precisely because you refuse to think for yourself.

Well, I don’t trust Sarah Palin, but in any case, I research her comments to see if she’s right or wrong. She, of course, is almost always wrong. The reason for that is not because she’s ignorant. Its because you, her base, are ignorant.

The issues on which the health care proposal is assailable are too difficult to get across in a Facebook entry. If she really went into what’s wrong with the bill [and in my opinion, there's plenty there for both the left and right to mull over] she’d have you asleep in five minutes. Why bother? Its already been proven that people of this political stripe require very little evidence to get stirred up–she just has to say “death panels” or “secret muslim” and point you at a group of people you don’t like [I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that that's the political party of the President and not his ethnic identity]. And off you go like little toy soldiers.

I don’t really believe you when you say that you’re tired of being called an idiot. It may be annoying, but it doesn’t seem to outweigh the invitation to public unfocused rage that those like Palin offer you in return.

Aug 14, 2009 - 11:30 am 327. goy:

@321. Mark Barrowcliffe: – I’d advise any American to … avoid the disgrace of your old people having to scrimp and save for basic drugs.

Thanks, but that’s not very sound advice, if this is all you’ve got.

First, we don’t have the same issues with pride that you seem to, “Mark”. We define “disgrace” as, say, letting government control every facet of your life – all under the watchful eye of Big Brother. Kinda like how things are in the UK and other “happy worker” socialist regimes.

Second, “basic drugs” are available at Wal-Mart here for $4/mo., or $10/90 days. No “scrimping” required.

p.s. nice touch, giving the sockpuppet a ‘last name’. Transparent, but still, nice.

Aug 14, 2009 - 11:36 am 328. goy:

@326. Moho: – The issues on which the health care proposal is assailable are too difficult to get across in a Facebook entry. If she really went into what’s wrong with the bill [and in my opinion, there's plenty there for both the left and right to mull over] she’d have you asleep in five minutes. Why bother?

You just unwittingly made Palin’s case, troll.

And the indisputable success of her strategy – which you’ve endorsed – is now historical fact and valuable precedent.

I’d let go of this one if I were you, Mofo. The Dems folded like a cheap tent on this issue. Admit it – they were out-foxed by a barracuda who beat them with a simple Facebook post, and WITHOUT the slobbering, 24/7 adulation of BHO’s entrenched, Fifth Column media shills or the global reach of Lyin’ Bobby Gibbs’ private softball court.

If she can do that with ten minutes and a Facebook page, you’d better hope and PRAY she doesn’t decide to run for President.

Aug 14, 2009 - 11:47 am 329. Moho:

Goy–>hmmm…again and gently, according to your own citation, the UK lags behind the other nationalized health care systems of Europe. But its leaps and bounds ahead of the US in that regard. You mentioned the waiting times as a reason why the system is ineffective and actually generates deaths. I demonstrated that in this regard, the US is actually worse than that of Britain. Its not changing the subject to point out that your entire premise is flawed, and that the attendant assumptions are baseless. That’s like telling someone who responds to your claim that there’s monsters at the end of the flat earth that they’ve changed the subject because they pointed out that the earth isn’t flat. Logic–not your strong suit, my friend.

Aug 14, 2009 - 11:48 am 330. Moho:

If her case is that the health bill is flawed, well she’d find a lot of people on the left to agree with her. I don’t support the bill. I also don’t support this method of ginning up hostility against it, it creates too many hateful precedents and is frankly offensive for its utter disregard for intelligence. If her point is that the bill will cause the deaths of seniors, then she’s wrong and demonstrably so. Her strategy didn’t work because she’s smarter than us, it worked because you’re dumber than her!.

Aug 14, 2009 - 11:53 am 331. goy:

@329. Moho: – You mentioned the waiting times as a reason why the system is ineffective and actually generates deaths.

BZZZZZZZZZT!!!!

Sorry Mofo, that isn’t even close to the truth.

And doubling down on your pathetic lie only makes you look that much more unhinged and desperate. Just like a certain lying President and his lying Minister of Propaganda.

Here’s the sum total of what I wrote, as anyone can plainly check by scrolling up:

Well, since the average waiting time is probably quite a few years, this isn’t particularly compelling “evidence”.

That simple observation was neither expressed nor even implied as a “reason why the system is ineffective”. It’s also not presented as a reason why the NHS “actually generates deaths”. So you’re lying on not just one, but TWO (count ‘em, folks) counts.

And again – as you’ve been instructed over and over – arguing the relative merits and failings of NHS vs. U.S. health care as a justification for O-Care is a flopping red herring.

Then again, that does explain why you keep beating it to death.

I guess troll school has lost its edge just like the rest of American Academia. That’s REALLY sad.

Aug 14, 2009 - 12:06 pm 332. goy:

@330. Moho: – If her point is that the bill will cause the deaths of seniors, then she’s wrong and demonstrably so. Her strategy didn’t work because she’s smarter than us, it worked because you’re dumber than her!

Sorry Mofo, but that ship sailed on Aug 14, 2009 at 11:30 am, when you posted your comments validating her brilliant strategery.

Her strategy worked, simply, because it drew PRECISELY the attention to the bill that BHO’s slobbering media shills have refused to focus on it.

Was it sensationalist? Absolutely! Did it work? Uhm… yeah.

Anyway, I don’t see you whining about the left’s lies regarding “50 million uninsured” in the U.S. (maybe you have whined – to be honest I hardly read any of your crap unless it’s addressed to me), or complaining that they tried to push the thing through before anyone got a chance to really understand its impact, or wondering why the President lied about his secret deals with pharmaceutical companies.

Is that how you hold up your troll bridge? Double standards?

Aug 14, 2009 - 12:15 pm 333. BC:

To Goy: sorry, but you keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole — again your contentions don’t match up with historical data. For instance you claim that “Extensive coverage of every detail of health care crept in over an extended period, hitting its stride particularly hard right around 1980.” That’s utter BS — full coverage Blue Cross & Blue Shield type coverage was not only long established well before then, but started going into eclipse as early as the early 70’s when Nixon signed the the “HMO Act”.

Your pet theories don’t exactly fly very far, do they, in the light at actual evidence?

Actually I didn’t really appreciate the extent to which Reagan screwed up health care until I research that prior post of mine: I knew that a lot of neighborhood clinics and mental institutions ended up closing down, but I didn’t realize how many county and community hospitals did as well, resulting in funneling people towards the larger hospitals, and in turn jamming their emergency rooms. If that wasn’t enough, Reagan really screwed things up back as early as 1981 when he decided to fold funding for Emergency Medical Services into block grants paid directly to the states, no strings attached. Which meant that the states ended up spending the money on other things.

The result was fewer emergency departments and the overcrowding of the remaining ones, which started sporadically becoming an issue in the early 80’s but quickly became common by the late 80’s. All during Reagan’s term. And this from a President who implemented all this free market BS that’s been bandied about by the clueless as an alternative to Obama’s plan.

Aug 14, 2009 - 12:26 pm 334. Moho:

Goy–validating her brilliant strategery.

Again, I said that she was of average intelligence. And that you were stupid. And that very little has to go into a strategy when your base is a low-information angry mob looking for a group to demonize. Historically, you nobs have fallen for the most asinine excuses for wars and tax cuts, while your country has slid deeper and deeper into debt and conflict.

You keep proving how dumb you are, by whooping and huzzahing every time they take you for fools. Its manifestly obvious and I’m done with you.

Aug 14, 2009 - 12:31 pm 335. donita:

In health care, if you can’t code it, you can’t get paid for it.

In our public schools, every child that complies with state regulations, means extra dollars.

I expect the amount of presure put one the public to comply for the sake of federal dollars, in puplic schools, will be small compared to the manipulation of medical records to fit standardized codes of a nationalized health care system.

Temptation to bump a code up or add an extra code for more dollars is real for a struggling institution.

A government, where one hand never knows what the other hand is doing, must rely on informants to police itself. In the end the rights of the informants are always protected above the rights of the accused. That is how things are now.

Putting the government in charge will only magnify these exact problem further.

Aug 14, 2009 - 1:20 pm 336. goy:

@333. BC: – full coverage Blue Cross & Blue Shield type coverage was not only long established…

Apparently, you missed the memo, but there’s actually a pretty big difference between “long established” and “widely used”. And furthermore, actual goods and services covered from that time until 1980+ changed quite gradually. It was a bit like kick-starting an old tractor, BC (or, put into terms more familiar to you, like crawling out of bed in the middle of the day).

It took a while to get prices increasing to the point where truly comprehensive insurance could be marketed as something that made sense to the population at large, from a private or business standpoint. Your chart demonstrates quite nicely how that progressed, i.e., there was no economic case to be made for purchasing insurance to cover a cost of living that was – until around 1980+ keeping pretty close pace with inflation. Did I thank for that link? I hope I did.

- when Nixon signed the the “HMO Act”.

Yes! I’d completely forgotten about that! Geez, BC, you are making my point for me today. Nixon turned out to be almost as big an appeaser as GWB when it came to fiscally stupid and socially suicidal programs (EPA, CRA, TARP, etc.). Anyway, that’s another factor that bolsters my observations. Perhaps you’re laboring under the illusion that an HMO is something functionally different from a comprehensive insurance company. Just in case you are – it’s not. Prepaid health care is precisely the sort of mechanism which – by violating the Law of Unintended Consequences – results in a resource pooling behavior that encourages costs to increase beyond the an individual plan member’s ability to afford them.

And by the way – you really should READ The Rise and Fall of HMO’s instead of just blindly copying and pasting the excerpts you think support O-Care. It is, throughout, a note-for-note validation of my issues with the AMA, and the manner in which it has manipulated the health care market to maintain control over it – leaving us with the broken market we have today. We need to fix the broken market, not turn it over to a broken government.

- … in the light at [sic] actual evidence?

Well, produce some actual conflicting evidence and I guess we can discuss it. So far, everything you’ve chosen to post has supported my thesis, not contradicted it.

- …the states ended up spending the money on other things.

Yeah. Imagine that. States deciding how to spend their own taxpayers’ federal tax dollars. What a bleeding crime, huh.

Thanks for your help, BC. But I hasten to add – you’re just not very good at this trolling thing. I understand Mofo’s got nothing to do now. Maybe he’ll offer you lessons.

@334. Moho: – I said that she was of average intelligence.

Which, if true, would of course make her demonstrably brilliant strategy all the more remarkable. Sorry Mofo – there’s no escaping it. This issue is a loser for you.

… I’m done with you.

Heh. Heheheh. Quitter. Oops… I meant… Good troll!

Like I told you – back under your bridge, now. There’s a good troll.

Aug 14, 2009 - 1:22 pm 337. Moho:

Just one last shot to help you understand; I know its difficult. The strategy didn’t need to be brilliant, because Palin understands that her base are not very bright. You insist on proving the point, over and over again. I’ll let you do it amongst your friends, who will probably partake in the pleasure of being lumbering troglodytes with you with gusto.

Aug 14, 2009 - 1:49 pm 338. goy:

@337. Moho: – Just one last shot…

Oops – above, you wrote “…I’m done with you.”

Looks like you lied.

Again.

Don’t worry though. You have ‘plausible deniability’ in that you didn’t actually address your comment to anyone. So you’re safe: saved by semantics.

But you’re still pretending to be psychic. Pretty sure there’s a classification in the DSM-IV for that sort of fantasy behavior. Especially when you use a computer and the internetz to involve others in your fantasies. Ask your doctor to look into it for you. And if you’re hearing voices (or seeing big, gruff-looking billy goats that others can’t), be sure to mention it. Paxil® may be advisable.

Aug 14, 2009 - 2:54 pm 339. Now and Then:

338 goy

“Plausible deniability” . . . I remember when that term was coined. Do you?

Aug 14, 2009 - 3:54 pm 340. goy:

@339. Now and Then: – I remember when that term was coined.

Really? You worked for the CIA? Cool!

If not, then maybe you’re actually referring to hearing about how it was used by the CIA (originally: plausible denial) when the term finally emerged in the context of federal hearings around 1974 or 75.

- Do you?
Serious question? Answer: no. The term was actually coined in secret, so I wouldn’t have been aware of it. And I only remember the timeframe of when it was later revealed because it was while I was working here, for NSA (via ASA) and the whole thing was a pretty big deal in the community.

Trivia note: I was one of some untold number of dopes who actually climbed to the top of that orange radio antenna tower.

Aug 14, 2009 - 5:07 pm 341. Marc Malone:

So, when are the mods gonna start blocking Moho? I’ve politely asked him to not refer to us as idiots. He switches to stupid, instead. His posts get through. This is tiresome. The arrogant condescension is intolerable. It ruins the dialogue. Either boot him and others like him, or I just stop coming to this site. I bet others feel the same way. You posted your rules but you don’t enforce them.

I’m also tired of typing in my info every time.

Aug 15, 2009 - 12:18 am 342. donttreadonme:

Let’s see…A universal health care insurance scheme…an elderly citizen with a terminal condition yet with years to go before death if treated properly…a massive budget deficit…tax receipts plummeting…many younger participants with critical diseases needing expensive treatment…limited funding…elderly citizen told that her treatment is not available due to her age…elderly citizen dies…hence “death panel”…family of deceased double checks Health Care Reform Act of 2009…no “death panel” mentioned anywhere….curious how water always takes the path of least resistance………

Aug 15, 2009 - 8:06 am 343. goy:

Hey Marc – just ignore the rage-blind cuss, who’s already demonstrated the classic bully tactic of running and hiding (”…I’m done with you.”) when someone takes the time to point out her lies and logical fallacies. If you don’t read the drivel you don’t have to expend the energy necessary to tolerate it. More advanced sites have a user-settable Ignore feature, which is now sorely needed here, I’m afraid. But that requires registration/login or pretty advanced cookie management.

Don’t know which mods read this, but I have to agree with Marc on the recent (minor) changes. At least my browser remembers the field data, and I’ve gotten used to scrolling through the items in each one (from other sites), so it’s not that big a deal. But it’s still an unnecessary annoyance, as one can see by the “Anonymous” comments here and there, followed by a double-posting with an author added.

<rant subject=”Whittle” to=”PJM Management”>

Before getting to the mundane features, I’d like to point out one unforgivable disservice PJM has done this community – not to mention America – which has been to render Bill Whittle’s legendary collection of essays inaccessible. A galaxy of internet hyperlinks to those essays has been corrupted by this, even though URL forwarding with mod_rewrite is anything but “new” and far from rocket science.

Absorbing Eject! Eject! Eject! into the PJM collective was fine I suppose. But having to scroll through the 50+ (!) entries in the “Choose an Archive” drop-down and THEN hunt through a list of posts to find masterworks like Tribes and Courage pretty much guarantees that unless they own Silent America (highly recommended), NO ONE is ever going to read what are now quite vital elements of American literature – which have now been apparently and inexplicably nuked. Even once they’re restored, I shouldn’t have to go Googling for these and then puzzle over search results like this (uh… where’s the Beef!??).

I understand that Bill’s focus is on new material and Afterburner now, and there’s no question that his recent stuff has been stellar. Nuking the past essays may have been Bill’s call, but… dammit, Jim! … er… BILL! – those essays have changed people’s lives! I dare anyone to read through the comment threads on some of them – which have for some reason survived where the essays themselves have not – and try to convince me they haven’t. Bill’s masterworks should be featured prominently on PJM, not hidden away waiting for a summer intern to figure out how to make them accessible again. IMHO, it’s unconscionable that PJM has allowed this to happen. It really needs to be fixed – and I’ll happily volunteer my time to do the work.

</rant>

Ahem.

Anyway, WordPress has plenty of advanced functions available for community sites – and PJM has definitely developed into a robust community. Ignoring the jharp/BC/Mofo/et al. nonsense, there’s at least as much valuable and timely info contributed by PJM commenters as there is in any of the articles (actually, I probably shouldn’t include BC, who I must once again thank for single-handedly helping to make a significant portion of my case for eliminating comprehensive health care insurance). I’m guessing all the PJM author/contributors would agree. So maybe it’s time to throw the readership a bone here. I’m happy to chip in $$$ for that, as I’m betting others would be as well.

Not sure what the deal is here, but it seems long past time to implement a registration / login function (like the PJTV site where, surprisingly, it’s used for little more than access control), comment Preview (geez – even my little WP site has that!) or better yet, a WYSIWYG comment editor (like Ace o’ Spades HQ), comment flagging (forget about ‘ratings’ though – those are part of what make LGF and DKos such adolescent echo chambers) and a ‘remember my info’ checkbox (for Marc). All of these functions are available as WP plug-ins, I believe.

I’ve admin’d boards with and without registration, and the combination of a registration/login function, over time, changes the moderator job. It shifts the work away from examining every comment post to managing the user database, i.e., supporting the community, which (IMHO) should be the priority at a community site. Providing the readership with vital information – as PJM does – is only half the job here. The other half is providing a mechanism for the readership to communicate effectively, and they can largely self-moderate through comment flagging when necessary. It can be a bumpy transition, but ultimately I think it works better and requires less wasted administration time than whatever army of comment thread moderators is required to filter all these threads. Seems to me I read somewhere that the articles’ authors have to act as moderators here, which is a little bit nuts IMHO. I mean, of course they’ll want to read the responses, but outside that, they should be spending their time researching and writing, not spanking self-righteous, curmudgeonly asshat/trolls like Mofo.

Actually, I’m only half serious about that last bit. Spanking trolls can be fun. In moderation.

Aug 15, 2009 - 10:20 am 344. Alan:

If the elderly are comdemned to die because of unproductive status, what are we going to do with all of the able-bodied welfare leaches and entitlement minded people who don’t contribute. Seems to me that unproductiveness knows no age limit and said status should be equally distributed. The able-bodied cling-on’s should also have the first shot at the new “death panels”.

Aug 15, 2009 - 10:05 pm 345. vivo:

312. Jim UND59:

“The debate on end-of-life choices has long been resolved.

We know from scripture and the teaching of the Church that Jesus Christ and his Divine Father have reserved to themselves the right to chose the time and place of our birth and our “end-of-life” passage. Spread the word.”

That’s the funniest thing i ever heard . . .

341. Marc Malone:

“I’m also tired of typing in my info every time.”

Now you’re talking!

They probably downsized the poor tech playing admin.

343. goy:

“Seems to me I read somewhere that the articles’ authors have to act as moderators here, which is a little bit nuts IMHO. I mean, of course they’ll want to read the responses, but outside that, they should be spending their time researching and writing, not spanking self-righteous, curmudgeonly asshat/trolls like Mofo.

Actually, I’m only half serious about that last bit. Spanking trolls can be fun. In moderation.”

AHA! Now I know why my truthful statements entered last night wre suspiciously deleted.

Lovely free speech here . . .

Aug 15, 2009 - 11:22 pm 346. CHUCK:

OBAMA IS STILL RUNNING FOR OFFICE WITH THE SAME APPROACH HE USED IN THE ELECTION. EMPTY PROMISES AND FALSE INFORMATION. AN EMPTY TALKING SUIT WILL ALWAYS BE AN EMPTY TALKING SUIT!

Aug 16, 2009 - 8:33 am 347. goy:

@345. vivo: – AHA! Now I know why my truthful statements entered last night wre suspiciously deleted.

Why, because you know you’re a troll? Heheh – your statement is just as revealing as BHO’s clam about how bad the post office is doing.

Sorry to burst you bubble on this one, viv’, but I’m not a moderator – as your statement can be taken to infer.

Heh, either that or you think a PJM conspiracy is responsible for your missing post because you see yourself as a troll.

You pick.

And thanks for the laugh.

Aug 16, 2009 - 9:36 am 348. DEO:

Sarah Palin-Tonya Harding 2012!!!!

Aug 16, 2009 - 12:51 pm 349. usafirst:

The above article states that Palin is defining the healthcare debate. This could not be further from the truth. What Palin has done is misinterpret a small part of the proposed bill and framed it as a good vs. evil fight. Although this may fly for those whose passions run high, it is not constructive.
First she takes the ‘end of life’ issues of the bill, then completely changes the meaning and intent. Insurance companies and hospitals already do this. The provision in the bill just insures that the cost will be covered and you won’t have to dig into your own pockets to pay for it. Yet some idiots argue against it. It never implies ‘death panels’, and she very well knows this (one would at least hope so).
So….. either Palin is…
A. stupid
B. lying
C. all of the above.

Neither one is good.

Is that how she is “defining the healthcare debate”?

As for Palin….

she is a citizen so entitled to her opinion.
Why should we care about that opinion?
she has no credentials or training involving healthcare
she holds no official office that entitles her to vote on the issue
she will NEVER be president. (trust me on this one. I know how dissapointing this may be for such a small, small minority in this country, but the vast majority will never vote for her)

She only ‘defines’ the debate for those whom have already formed their opinion against it. The reality that her ‘facts’ are completely wrong won’t sway the converted. For those of us who know better, regardless of our stance on this particular issue, will only see her as even less credible for her methods. Another ‘brilliant’ political move Sarah! (along with quiting, the for then against the bridge to nowhere, any interview ever given, etc.) Truly pathetic.

Aug 16, 2009 - 1:35 pm 350. goy:

@349. usafirst: *whined*

usa’, all of the facts contradict your whining about Palin. With ten free minutes and a post on a Facebook page, she directed public attention to scrutinize the bill in a way that not one of BHO’s entrenched, lying, Fifth Column media shills even tried to do.

Think what will happen if she ever decides to get serious about politics.

Since then, the Dems not only pulled the offending portion of the bill, but there is ongoing walkback that points to abandonment of the so-called “public option” – a/k/a socialized medicine – entirely.

Your ‘argument’ is the same failed assertion as Mofo’s, i.e., that she appealed to people’s stupidity, based on the false premise that only “stupid” people are suspicious of government. Nothing could be further from the truth. She deftly appealed to a big part of the Democrat base’ skepticism and suspicion of government bureaucracy. It was brilliant, and the results were definitive and decisive. No scare quotes required.

Aug 16, 2009 - 2:01 pm 351. Marc Malone:

#350 goy – It WAS brilliant, wasn’t it? She got out her big game rifle and nailed it dead center. She’ll be mounting that one on her political wall soon. It doesn’t matter that some Pubs are decrying it, saying it was “over the top”. They wish to heck they could have done it, but they simply lack the political power and the stones. They’re green with envy.

#349 usafirst – She was neither stupid nor lying. There are parts of the bill that refer to panels which shall determine standards of care. Combine that with accelerating end-of-life counseling (”Go on, you really want to die, don’t you? Take the Red Pill.”) placed into the cost control portion of the bill (pgs 525-530), and you can make a legitimate argument for “death panels”. The fact that one could make such an argument was enough to make most people say, “Stop!”

You may disagree, but it was neither stupid nor lying. It was, undeniably, brutally effective.

Aug 16, 2009 - 10:56 pm 352. usafirst:

My ‘argument’ had nothing to do with people’s being suspicious about government. It had to do with her incorrect interpretation of ‘death panels’ in regards to clause about advance directives and end of life care. She is WRONG about it. It is just that simple. Whether or not she knows she is wrong determines whether or not she is just stupid or a lying. The ’stupid’ people are those who take her at her word. She is NOT an expert, or for that matter qualified in any way to make her so. Why would anyone bother listening to her? Have you seen her interviews? Have you seen that idiotic resignation speech? Come on, admit it to yourself at least.

Get serious about politics? She was governor, as well as on the ticket for the highest office in the world. That’s about as serious as you can get. All she did was cost McCain votes. She may ‘get serious’ all she wants, but she will never win a primary, much less end up on the ticket. She has gotten all the votes she’ll ever get, and it wasn’t enough.

Who ever heard of a candidate that can’t even answer softball questions and has to hide from any real meaningful interview. All she knows how to do is sling mud and recite whatever dumb talking points she has memorized. Hell, she can’t even do that well. Romney will destroy her. Hell, Huckabee will destroy her and he’s a nice guy. A nasty guy like Guliani would eat her for lunch. And all of them are on her side, wearing kit gloves. Against Obama she’s toast. Like him or hate him the man can speak, as well as think. Two things that she’s NOT good at.

Hold out desperate hope all you won’t, ain’t gonna happen.

Aug 16, 2009 - 11:11 pm 353. usafirst:

MarcMalone:
Your insurance company already decides what care they will pay for. End of life issues are already addressed. The only thing the bill states is that the plan will cover it. Nothing new about these things. They already exist, and will exist with or without the bill.
So therefore she is either stupid or lying. Or both. Which one are you?

Aug 16, 2009 - 11:15 pm 354. goy:

352. usafirst: – It had to do with her incorrect interpretation of ‘death panels’ …
That’s your misread, not hers. Lots of other folks can see what this unconstitutional legislation would have led to, even if you can’t or won’t. Labeling it “death panels” was a way of drawing attention to it – which the lying socialist media refuses to do. Scream “she’s WRONG” all you like. It worked – in spades. No one of consequence is listening to people like you. Quite the opposite, in fact, as recent events have demonstrated. Must suck to get beaten at your own game, eh?

- Why would anyone bother listening to her?
Excellent question. Why do YOU suppose BHO’s entrenched, lying, Fifth Column media shills hang on her every utterance and sift through everything she says and does, looking for a way to destroy her and her family on a daily basis? Here’s a popular theory: because she represents the gravest threat to socialism in the U.S.A. since Reagan. Got a better one?

- Have you seen her interviews?
Have you seen the unedited versions?

- Have you seen that idiotic resignation speech?
“Idiotic”? Is that all you’ve got? Ad hominem? Did you just copy and paste that from the OFA talking point list without actually thinking about it?

- All she did was cost McCain votes.
Heh, right… because she only had about a 90% approval rating among Republicans, which I believe was better than “Maverick” himself, whose stupid policies did two things: it inspired independents to vote for “the cool, young, black dude” because their policies were indistinguishable, and it inspired a huge % of conservatives to just stay home on Election Day because they couldn’t bank on McCain kicking the bucket soon enough, and couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a socialist.

McCain lost the election for three reasons: (1) he was “Democrat-lite” and proposed non-solutions to Dem-manufactured “crises” that sounded more socialist than BHO’s, (2) he and his handlers hung Palin out to dry when the media attacked her and her family, and (3) he never addressed the slobbering, 24/7 adulation of BHO by the media, which gave Hussein a 15 point advantage going in, and without which the Electoral Map would have looked something like THIS on Nov. 5. That was ALL McCain’s choice, and had nothing to do with Sarah Palin, who gave him his only significant bump in the polls and his only fighting chance to win. But neither he nor the lying GOP “leadership” EVER intended to win, obviously.

- Who ever heard of a candidate that can’t even answer softball questions and has to hide from any real meaningful interview.
Ooops! That sounds more like the uh.. uh… uh… uh… President. Did you have someone else in mind?

- All she knows how to do is sling mud and recite whatever dumb talking points she has memorized.
Sounds like the left in general and, well, you.

Aug 17, 2009 - 6:36 am 355. usafirst:

goy:
About the so-called ‘death panels’…
It is called advance directives. Do you know what they are? (heathcare power of attorney, living will, DNRs, hospice care, etc.) Apparantly you, and many others do not, so they MISINTERPRET their use and intent. I know exaclty what they are as I deal with this issue EVERY DAY at work. You really don’t know just how STUPID you guys sound to ANYONE who really understands this issue. All of these things are now currently done by your local hospitals and required under your insurance policy. Why are they only ‘death panels’ in regards to this bill? They aren’t, but it is a good wedge issue to inflame passions of those who just don’t understand. So….either Palin doesn’t understand the issue or just plays upon other’s ignorance. Like I said…. stupid or lying.

Listening to Palin…
It is quite entertaining. No one on the left is ‘afraid’ of her, they (along with most of America) thinks she is a joke. And she never fails to deliver. Reagan???? You don’t really believe that, do you?

90% of Republicans?? 100% will still lose an election. She needs the middle, as well as to syphon off some of the left. Not going to happen, ever.

Resignation speech…. your attack on my verbage doesn’t change reality. The speech is out there in cyberspace. Anyone can and will pull it up anytime they wish. It was truly pathetic. You may like Bailin Palin, but I find it hard to believe that you can honestly think it was a good speech. I guess that’s why you never actually commented on it, but instead just attacked me personnaly.

McCain lost the election for all kinds of reasons. Palin was just one of them. Bush was the main reason. W ran this country into the ground over the previous 8 years, and McCain didn’t indicate that he would or would have done anything different. Add his ‘fudamentals of the economy’ comments and grumpy old man performance at the debates, he never stood a chance. Palin didn’t help him any. Republicans might have liked her, but no one else did.
Your argument that he lost because he didn’t appeal enough to his base is faulty. Neither party’s base will win an election. It always comes down to the middle. McCain didn’t appeal to either.
As far as the media attacking…. seems to me talk radio and Fox pushed pretty hard against Obama. Hell, they still do. He doesn’t cry about it, unlike Palin. No one wants to vote for a ‘victim’.

Interviews….say what you want but Obama is out there. Hell, he even went on O’Reilly. He has been on Meet the Press, Face the Nation, etc. etc. So did McCain, Biden, Guliani, Huckabee, Clinton, etc. Sarah is the only one afraid to get out there. Smart on her part, she knows it will expose her ignorance. But then again, it doesn’t bode well for anyone who wants to be on the top ticket. Sitting on the bench won’t get you in the Hall of Fame.

Sling mud…. your response is to sling mud? Another personnal attack? Can’t someone disagree with you on issues and discuss them without you getting all pissy? We may disagree, but I don’t automatically assume anything about you as a person. It is obvious that I struck a nerve, as it is obvious in your rant that when you can’t or won’t discuss the issues you just launch ad hominem attacks. You won’t get me riled up no matter what you write, I don’t take any of this personnally. I just enjoy a lively discussion on the issues, as I am always curious to understand the opposing viewpoint’s reasoning. I am not trying to change your opinion, just understand it.

Aug 17, 2009 - 9:47 pm 356. goy:

@355. usafirst: – It is called advance directives. …

LOL!!! You just insist on missing the point here, don’t you.

As demonstrated through the decades of obfuscation, misrepresentation, exaggeration and sensationalization that the left’s entrenched, Fifth Column media shills have pursued since Cronkite imperiously claimed Viet Nam “unwinnable” (while standing squarely in the aftermath of the NVA/Viet Cong’s worst defeat of the entire war), IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT IT’S CALLED.

You just don’t like being beaten at your own game. SP focused attention on a potential problem using what YOU consider inflammatory language. Too frakking bad. She won. The left lost. Own it.

- No one on the left is ‘afraid’ of her, …
Clearly you have never, ever studied the psychology of fear. I’d look into it if I were you. The unhinged, hysterical vitriol launched against Palin and her family by the left in an effort to destroy her stink to high heaven of some of the worst fears humans are capable of. That goes for the ridicule as well. People don’t expend that kind of energy trying to destroy someone they consider inconsequential.

- 90% of Republicans?? 100% will still lose an election.
If that’s what you still think, then you haven’t been paying much attention to current events, pal. The worm is turning, and it didn’t take long at all. McCain lost because by any measure he was anything but a conservative. When a real one comes along – uhm, like Sarah Palin – the documented demographic above will become the left’s newest nightmare.

- The speech is out there in cyberspace. Anyone can and will pull it up anytime they wish.
Precisely. And they have. Whereas your deconstruction of her speech and any thoughts you might have explaining how it was “idiotic” are nowhere to be found. Funny, that. You think just labeling it “idiotic” makes it so? You think labeling Palin “stupid” makes her so? Try labeling yourself “rich”. Let me know how that works for you.

- McCain lost the election for all kinds of reasons.
Yes, he did. I listed them. W was an abysmal leader, but as Presidents go he wasn’t particularly notable except for his foreign policy. What ran the country into the ground was the left’s entrenched, Fifth Column media shills who worked 24/7 for eight years straight, lying about the economy, the war, the government, Valerie Plame, the AG, the administration, Katrina and anything else they could find – all in an effort to “avenge” Al Gore’s laughable and revealing inability to carry his own home State, which would have handed him the 2000 Election without Florida. It’d be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. And so destructive of our Republic.

GWB’s policies led to a healthy, growing economy after Clinton tried to kill it with his wag-the-dog foreign policy. Even with the spendthrift Republican Congress, drunk on record federal income, spending and revenue trends had our government on track for a balanced budget by mid-2008.

The Democrats – and their known anti-business policies – torpedoed that trend. The Democrat Congress starting destroying the economy with their unemployment-boosting minimum wage increase. We’re already seeing the long-term effects of that legislation, coupled with other Democrat policies like the credit-market-destroying CRA.

And BHO can never hope to balance the federal budget now that he’s QUADRUPLED THE FEDERAL DEBT – with trillions more in federal spending yet to come.

THAT sort of thing is what’s known as “running the country into the ground”.

- say what you want but Obama is out there.
Hardly.

Obama has never publicly released probative documentation affirming his Article II eligibility to be elected. He’s never had to answer a single probing question about his past, his demonstrably fraudulent online campaign donation system, his close personal association with Kenyan Communist Raila Odinga (or how much U.S. taxpayer money he spent campaigning for him as a U.S. Senator), his political and professional alliances with marxists like Mike Klonsky and Bill Ayers, how he squares his beliefs with 20 years of cheering for a racist, America-hating windbag or any of the outright lies he’s told both before and after he was elected (”I’ll accept public campaign financing”, “AARP has endorsed my proposal”, etc.). Don’t kid yourself.

Aug 18, 2009 - 9:58 am 357. usafirst:

goy:

you need to increase your meds.
according to you, a vast left-wing conspiracy is responsible for everthing that has ever gone wrong in the world
the right, on the other hand, is always correct, and has never done anything but good and just
whenever anyone on the right embarrasses themselves (like Palin), it isn’t their fault, but the media or someone else’s manipulation that just makes them look stupid

Oh yeah, lest I forget, it was Gore’s fault Bush screwed up the whole Katrina thing

but I am the one kidding myself

Aug 18, 2009 - 3:29 pm 358. Anon:

At least a truth repeated 1000 times also remains a truth.

Aug 18, 2009 - 6:37 pm 359. goy:

@357. usafirst: – you need to increase your meds.
You need to realize that ad hominem is a fallacy.

- according to you, a vast left-wing conspiracy is responsible for everthing that has ever gone wrong in the world
No, that’s according to you. That’s your straw man, since it’s not even close to what I wrote. Things go wrong in the world all on their own. The left’s entrenched, lying, Fifth Column media shills just get paid to misrepresent, distort, obfuscate, spin and/or ignore it, depending on how it fits the socialist narrative.

- whenever anyone on the right embarrasses themselves (like Palin), it isn’t their fault, but the media or someone else’s manipulation that just makes them look stupid
Again – your straw man. The media has relentlessly attacked Sarah Palin in an effort to destroy her AND her family since the day she was nominated as candidate for Vice President. She has never “embarrassed herself”, except in the eyes of those who are scared sh!tless she’ll mobilize the majority conservatives in this Republic to take it back from the socialists, fascists and marxists who are actively destroying it. Apparently, that includes you.

- Oh yeah, lest I forget, it was Gore’s fault Bush screwed up the whole Katrina thing
Wrong again. Gore was a useless turd in all this, as usual. Try reviewing the facts, not the media lies. GWB didn’t screw anything up. If not for him, it’s unlikely that N.O. would EVER have been evacuated.

Mayor Ray Nagin waited and waited and waited until 24 hours before the storm hit NO to order a general evacuation, at which point an orderly evacuation wasn’t feasible. So thousands were stranded in the Dome. Nagin never even bothered to call the hurricane center on his own initiative. The Governor had to put through an emergency call while he was busy having dinner to tell him to get off his ass and call an evacuation! And she waited to do that until she received a scathing call from the President.

What’s more, the Governor, out of her own stupidity, haggled over National Guard mobilization until it was basically too late to get NG units near the city until AFTER the storm, at which point they had to be mobilized (usually a two-to-three day process in itself) and THEN cross a swath of destruction the size of Great Britain. Ever try to drive a semi that far with no diesel fuel available along the way? Somehow I doubt it. As it was, the NG was on the ground in NO within 72 hours of the event, which was a record for a mobilization of that size.

Meanwhile, the media was falsely reporting that rescue choppers were being fired upon and all manner of other lies, which either confused or halted rescue operations.

Then, as soon as the media could get video of BLACK people standing outside the Dome in distress, they played the inevitable race card and turned the whole thing into an attack on the black community in New Orleans. The whole sordid thing was perfectly predictable. Conveniently, never once did they mention that some 70% of the New Orleans population is… black.

You’re obviously blissfully clueless about all this, which is why you have the utterly distorted view you have. Thank your lying, Fifth Column media.

- I am the one kidding myself.
I’ll be sure to quote you.

Aug 18, 2009 - 7:49 pm 360. usafirst:

Once again you know nothing. All you are doing is repeating lies you’ve heard from right wing pundits who are as ignorant as you.

Just so you know moron:

I live in New Orleans.
I was here for Katrina.
Most people (who were able) did evacuate.
Not everyone could. (ever have to evacuate? it’s not as easy as it sounds. much less half a million people evacuating at the same time with only three ways out)
I didn’t evacuate because I work in an intensive care unit of a hospital. Which, by the way, makes me much, much, much more familiar with advance directives in specific and healthcare in general than you, and certainly Palin ever will be. Which is why it is abundantly clear you need medication.

So when we were working without any supplies, air conditioning, fresh water, or any news whatsoever from the outside world till THURSDAY after the storm while every member of Bush’s cabinet were on vacation, it was all in my imagination. Third world countries could have done a better job. I’m not giving our idiot mayor or governor (that includes the current one, who despite his faulty memory was nowhere to be found) any passes either. There is plenty of blame to spread around. And yes, it goes all the way to the top. I hope all that brush-clearing was worth it.

Despite all of your revisionist history, Bush’s legacy will always and forever be tarnished for his incompetence during Katrina, as well as about a hundred other things.

So go on with your third-party knowledge inane attacks on my credibility.
You don’t know what you are talking about.

You have been served.

Aug 19, 2009 - 3:46 am 361. goy:

@360. usafirst: – All you are doing is repeating lies you’ve heard from right wing pundits…
Er no, as anyone can plainly see by looking at the cited information – which you lazily chose not to do – that is precisely NOT what I did. I simply paid close attention, and could see exactly what the lying media was going to do before they did it. I could care less what “right wing pundits” have to say on the matter. You’re the one who seems to be fixated on their version of events.

You claimed outright that you had no idea what was happening outside N.O. during the most critical period in question. So ALL YOU KNOW about what happened is what you’ve been told since by the left’s entrenched, lying, Fifth Column media, who spent every hour before and after Katrina attacking GWB and the Republican Party with the same apoplectic vitriol they recently launched at Sarah Palin. Ignore that reality all you like, but it doesn’t change the facts.

- I live in New Orleans.
I highly doubt it, but it doesn’t matter. Either you’re lying, in which case you have no credibility, or you’re stupid enough to live in a city that is situated below sea-level, in a region that is annually pummeled by some of the most violent storms on the planet, in which case you have no credibility. If you think living in New Orleans gives you any points on the ‘intelligence’ or ‘moral authority’ scale, you’re very, very sadly mistaken – not to mention possibly suffering from suicidal ideation.

- Most people (who were able) did evacuate.
Don’t try to change the subject. This is already documented fact, and has no significance whatsoever because anyone with half a brain or more evacuated long before Nagin finally came to the obvious realization – too late – that, gee, it might be a good idea.

The fact is that the LA “leadership” failed New Orleans utterly, not the federal government, which came to its aid in a herculean fashion no one ever had any right to expect, given the circumstances and obstacles Nagin and Blanco put in their path.

Nagin – frightened of the backlash he’d endure if a mass evacuation turned out not to be warranted – sat on his ass like a frightened child until it was virtually too late to prevent what problems did occur.

Blanco vacillated over National Guard mobilization until her actions effectively preclude any timely response.

If you think these facts were invented by “right wing pundits”, it may provide some insight into why you’re stupid enough to reside in a city that’s been living on borrowed time since scientists began studying the hurricane patterns.

- I’m not giving our idiot mayor or governor (that includes the current one, who despite his faulty memory was nowhere to be found) any passes either.
Sure you are. Above, you blamed the entire fiasco on Bush (per Gore) without a thought, and never even mentioned the fact that the majority of avoidable problems were directly caused by Nagin’s utter lack of disaster planning and complete failure to act when it was obvious to everyone else that he should have. If you want to know why you had no communication, ask Nagin – that was his direct area of responsibility, not the President’s.

And your insipid notion that Mother Nature should schedule her outbursts around the vacations of federal officials – which happen at this time every year – and your obvious assumption that because any of these people were on scheduled vacations that they sat back and “did nothing” is pretty revealing. How stupid are you, exactly? Oh wait – you live in New Orleans.

- …Bush’s legacy will always and forever be tarnished for his incompetence during Katrina, …
If so, it will be thanks to the documented lies told by the media – and the willfully blind gullibility of useful idiot lemmings like yourself, who obediently repeat them.

And by the way, until you’ve actually had to manage advanced directives – and be the person responsible for the end-of-life decision-making that comes with health care power of attorney, etc. … for BOTH your parents – you should refrain from bragging about your employment status or arrogantly assuming that it makes you superior with respect to familiarity with the pain and suffering that’s part of that process.

The government has absolutely NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER legislating any aspect of end-of-life issues or dictating the details of one’s relationship with one’s doctor. This was clearly decided in Roe v. Wade. Try looking it up.

Aug 19, 2009 - 10:57 am 362. usafirst:

gay:

your rant speaks for itself

you are indeed off your rocker

you need to get laid, that is if a fat, bald, bitter repressed homosexual such as yourself could find a willing partner (doubtful)

I can clearly see you cannot be reasoned with, as you are absolute in your denial. Everything you don’t agree with is somehow the result of some imaginary ‘Fifth Column Media’. Very, very sad.

I realize in your demented bitter mind the Republican party is just incapable of anything other than sheer greatness, so anything less is a lie or someone else’s fault. Unfortunately, reality is quite different. Everyone makes mistakes, even conservatives and Republicans. Some are good, some are rotten, some brilliant, and some just plain stupid. That includes those that disagree with your small view of the world as well as those that you agree with. It includes Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals, etc. etc. To deny this, which you clearly do, demonstrates just how unhinged you have become.

It is, however, good to see you are pro-choice!

Aug 19, 2009 - 3:45 pm 363. goy:

@362. usafirst: – gay
Ad hominem is still not working for you. It is showing your homophobic side now, however. Ugly, that.

- you are indeed off your rocker
Sticks and stones. What are you – twelve?

- you need to get laid, that is if a fat, bald, bitter repressed homosexual such as yourself could find a willing partner (doubtful)
More homophobia? More ad hominem fallacy? Sorry – none of that is helping your argument (if one can call serial ad hominem an ‘argument’). It’s just making you look more hysterical, since none of it addresses a single thing I’ve taught you today.

- I can clearly see you cannot be reasoned with, …
Well, if you provide something – anything – that is based on reason, or even a single fact, then we can test your theory. Until then, living in a known flood zone is all you have going for you as far as “reason” is concerned.

- It is, however, good to see you are pro-choice!
Sure am. What’s more, if you choose it, you pay for it. You choose to have it, you’ve chosen to support it, without my tax dollars. You choose to kill it, you take a summer job to pay for it. Freedom to choose does NOT mean freedom from responsibility.

Aug 19, 2009 - 6:06 pm 364. usafirst:

you crack me up
I am sure you are thinking this is as funny as I do. At least for your sake I hope you are.

You have taught me, nor anyone else anything. I hope you weren’t trying to.

I am happy for you that you live in Shangri-La, where natural disasters don’t occur and rainbows and butterflies fill the skies. Just shows us all how truly superior you are to the rest of us mortals.

I agree about the paying for your own abortion. I don’t know why you would think otherwise. As a matter of fact, it is even in the Obamacare bill that way. Oh, I forgot, in your world where Sarah Palin is smart and anything she says must be true, it is not.

I just assumed you were a homosexual, but I am sure you get that all the time.

Why are you so bitter?

Aug 19, 2009 - 8:01 pm 365. usafirst:

goy:

I had originally posted a pretty clever responce to your post, but I guess someone on this site figured enough was enough. I always knew if anything was going to be censored on this site, it was never going to be something from the right, no matter how offensive. No matter, I was just pressing your buttons to get you all riled up anyhow. It is quite entertaining.

We could go on and on attacking each other, even though we really know nothing about each other at all. We could go on and on discussing our differences of opinion, but it always seems to turn ugly. I am, of course, just as guilty as you on this point. I am sure you don’t take it any more seriously than I do, or at least I hope you don’t. But if you do, I really don’t care either. It’s always hard to give respect when you don’t get it.

I will admit I don’t really understand where you are coming from most of the time, but I do occasionally agree with you, such as your pro choice rant and personal responsibility. I am not exactly sure why you thought my opinion was otherwise. I am only barely pro choice as it is, and I certainly don’t think tax money should pay for it.

As for me, I stick by my main points. If you disagree, so be it. You are entitled to your opinion, but don’t forget so am I. If you can’t acknowledge that you are not omnipotent and that others have just as much right as you to their beliefs, than I really don’t know what to say. It seems unAmerican to me, but you would probably disagree with that too. Maybe anyhow.

You do seem a little bitter at times, or at least that’s how it comes off. You should relax, life is way too short for all of that negativity. But whatever works for you.

Aug 20, 2009 - 12:24 am 366. goy:

@364. usafirst: – I am happy for you that you live in Shangri-La, …

Look up the term straw man. That appears to be the only type of response you’re capable of – aside from ad hominem. So you may as well go learn what it means, since they obviously never covered it wherever you were allegedly educated.

- I agree about the paying for your own abortion. I don’t know why you would think otherwise.
I don’t think otherwise. I don’t care about your thoughts on the subject at all. And I never inferred that I did. This should be a big hint for you, usa’. Here’s the clue: things aren’t always about you. We’ll discuss this further down.

- I just assumed you were a homosexual, but I am sure you get that all the time.
Your raging homophobia must be a real problem in your job if your first response to someone smarter than you is to call them “gay” and “homosexual”. Morally adolescent college freshman pull that kind of crap. Assuming you actually do have a job, since your smart-assed remarks probably aren’t appreciated by those you work for. Or… are you saying that you only engage in homophobic ad hominem when you post anonymously online. Brad Paisley has your number.

.

@365. usafirst: – I had originally posted a pretty clever responce to your post,…
Apparently you’re not as clever as you think you are. See below.

… but I guess someone on this site figured enough was enough. I always knew if anything was going to be censored on this site, it was never going to be something from the right, no matter how offensive.
So now you’ve graduated to paranoid delusion and subsequent nonsense fantasy.

Gee, who could have seen that coming!?

We could go on and on attacking each other, … We could go on and on discussing our differences of opinion…
Eh… no one’s attacked YOU. You’re the one slinging homophobic ad hominem remarks. Oh wait – you probably think that when someone pops the little fantasy bubble you’ve chosen to live in, that you’re being attacked personally. Sorry to tell you this – that’s just your overactive imagination. Get a grip.

And by they way, you also haven’t expressed any “difference of opinion”. You simply dismiss anything that disagrees with your leftist, gay-bashing world view. So far you have failed – utterly – to address even a single one of the points I raised about Nagin’s and Blanco’s incompetence or the record regarding the National Guard’s unprecedented response to Katrina. Let alone the very clear record on Obama. You seem to think you can dismiss documented facts by labeling them “lies” by “right wing pundits”. You seem to think that by labeling them, you’ve successfully rebutted them. I’m happy to teach you – again – that you’re wrong.

Here’s an experiment I suggested earlier: try labeling yourself “rich”. Let us know what happens.

- … but it always seems to turn ugly.
Yes – your homophobic side is definitely ugly. As I noted above. I run a counseling business and support groups for gay men, so I take this as a personal insult and an attack on my friends and clients. Your ugly comments demonstrate exactly what and who you are. Jon Haidt’s correct – the left is far from “tolerant”.

- I am, of course, just as guilty as you …
Hey – don’t project your guilt onto me. Just because you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about, and must resort to straw man fallacy and homophobic, ad hominem attacks doesn’t make me guilty of anything. Deal with your guilt on your own. Leave others out of it. The world would be a FAR better place if ALL you leftist moral adolescents would stop projecting your guilt onto others, and trying to force US to atone for YOUR imagined sins.

- I will admit I don’t really understand where you are coming from …
Clearly. And that’s no surprise since your grasp of reality and reason is so… what’s the word… nonexistent. Try actually paying attention instead of shutting your eyes, plugging your ears and hiding behind knee-jerk “right-wing pundit” responses. That’d be a start.

- I am not exactly sure why you thought my opinion was otherwise.
You’re projecting. Again. My statement had nothing to do with you at all. Wait – you’re going to tell us you’re female AND ALSO ignorant of the “general” use of the term you in a phrase like “if you choose it, you pay for it.” I have yet to see anyone stoop to that level of desperation, but you have my permission to go for it.

In the meantime, if you’ve had ANY psych training – and possess even a tiny shred of intellectual honesty – you’ll recognize your reaction here as quite narcissistic.

Besides that, you’re assuming you know what I think – and then you have the audacity to question me based on your erroneous assumption.

We’ll call that Narcissistic Straw Man Disorder.

You haven’t a clue what I think. I never gave any indication whatsoever WHAT I thought your opinion was. That’s because I honestly don’t care – because you’ve demonstrated that your opinion is worthless by failing, utterly, to support any of your nonsense with a single fact or one valid assertion.

- As for me, I stick by my main points.
What points? Oh, you mean that Bush caused Katrina to hit New Orleans** and that it was Gore’s fault? Or maybe you’re referring to your fantasy that BHO has ever had to answer a single probing question about his past, and given an honest answer.

- You do seem a little bitter at times, …
That’s just you projecting your own pathetic inability to argue a point.

Aug 20, 2009 - 5:36 am 367. usafirst:

Wow

You really have a problem. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but I see now you are truly mental.

Get help, psycho.

Aug 20, 2009 - 1:54 pm 368. goy:

@367. usafirst:- You really have a problem.

If that’s the best you can do, I’m not the one who has a problem.

Either way – try the label-yourself-’rich’ thing. Keep us posted.

Aug 20, 2009 - 2:52 pm 369. J McAfee:

I fail to see the problem with a public plan. Under my current plan with my company I get to choose the coverage I want. I can spend as much or as little as I want. It will be the same with a public option and insurance companies. If your employer runs to the public plan take the money out of your pocket and buy what insurance coverage above that that you want. In our capitalistic society there will be insurance companies, hospitals and doctors who will GLADLY except your money if you want a more elaborate and expensive plan. THAT is the American way. As for doctors and patients determining what is good for the patient that shipped has sailed. For-profit insurance companies make that decision for everyone. They determine who and what they cover. They determine if Grandma lives or dies by what they will or will not pay for. Geez…I can’t believe this is that hard.

Aug 21, 2009 - 9:51 am 370. goy:

@369. J McAfee: – I fail to see the problem with a public plan.

Can you cite the Constitutional basis for Congress authority to implement this plan? There’s the first problem.

- Under my current plan with my company I get to choose the coverage I want. I can spend as much or as little as I want. It will be the same with a public option and insurance companies.

Who convinced you of this, and where is the actual evidence that this is true – given that no final bill exists yet?

- As for doctors and patients determining what is good for the patient that shipped has sailed. For-profit insurance companies make that decision for everyone. They determine who and what they cover. They determine if Grandma lives or dies by what they will or will not pay for.

Well here’s a thought. It’s outside-the-box thinking, so it might be a tad difficult to grasp at first, but how about just paying for your health care yourself – directly – instead of relying on a group insurance plan (read: other people) to pay for it for you?

Insurance is a tool for managing financial risk, not paying for standard costs of living. The vast majority of routine health care is anything but a “financial risk”, so insurance is the wrong way to pay for it anyway. Doing so is the main reason why health care costs are so high (consumers never see the actual price of what they’re consuming – unlike every other market in existence).

Knee-jerk reactions to problems shouldn’t always be a “government solution”. The federal government was originally defined with very limited powers for a reason. The bankrupt Social Security and Medicare systems are perfect examples of WHY those limitations were imposed. Get government – and comprehensive health insurance companies – OUT of the health care market and let it correct itself. That solves the whole problem without giving government even more control over our lives and our money.

Aug 21, 2009 - 11:09 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: