We'll see what more gets watered down from here. Basically the whores of the GOP seem to be pro-individual and states rights when those rights are in the best interests of themselves and that of their pimping special interests.
Never give a Republican politician the benefit of the doubt. They've proven over the last decade they're only out to serve the interests and not the public.
They're tremendously more corrupt and slightly more morally bankrupt than the blue dog Democrats.
Last I checked the Democrats have been in charge of Congress since 2006 (how's that working out for ya America?). They have the numbers to push through anything they want in the House.
If you are a Democrat and are not happy with this Democratic bill, blame the spineless Democrats.
If women will not get stuck with double the cost for insurance under this bill, I see that as a big win. Is that less important than access to abortion?
It's the idea that abortion is still in the mix that kills me. You know women don't just get up one day and decide they think it's a nice day to have an abortion.........there are reasons, good reasons. And, everyone of those reasons are related to health whether it be physical or mental.
Democrats had a majority under Bush but also under the suffocating weight of nationalism brought about by 9/11 and the following scare tactics used by the Bush regime.
"It's the idea that abortion is still in the mix that kills me."
Kills you?
i wonder if people were feeling queasy about medicare in the final analysis? i can't believe we can't just do this thing -- something is better than nothing...maybe not a lot better, but better.
y'know, Denis, it does kill me.
abortion isn't always about birthcontrol. sometimes it has to happen for medical reasons, and when things have come to that pass it's usually a profoundly sad and painful thing. the government shouldn't be sticking it's sanctimonious nose into someone's private medical situations.
women will die if abortions aren't included as healthcare. is viagra (and it's ilk) included? I'll bet it is.
@Nemo -- you're still an idiot. buy a clue -- i'll bet there's a billy mays commercial in reruns somewhere that sells them...
Contrary to popular opinion, most abortions are not for "birth control" but even if they were - who are the people using it as birth control? When you look at that specifically you find that many (not all) are people who should not be having or raising kids anyways - like ADDICTS. I find it strange that Cons are soooo concerned about the "preborn" but once they're here it seems like they could care less what happens to that person. Why do I see it that way - because they do not generally support programs that help pay for children with special needs, in poverty, born addicted, living with lousy parents - then all they do is complain about how high their taxes are because of "social" programs. Where exactly do you think these unwanted or unhealthy children go after they are born? How do you think their needs are met? It is met through Medicaid, food stamps, judicial system, special education, and a myriad of other social and educational programs - sometimes until the day that person dies. So if you do not want abortions legal, then pony up the funds to pay for these kids and also become an adoptive or foster parent. In other words put up or shut up!
Or better yet, work to educate young people on the use of birth control because obviously they are still having sex despite admonishments about abstinence. It would also help if adolescents learned about how to know when you are ready to be a parent and how to be a good parent. And I mean the practicality of it - like being consistent and appropriate rules based on cognitive age and appropriate limit setting and discipline. The reason there are poor parents raising misbehaving children is more often than not because they were raised by poor parents. Give them the tools they need to make different choices and watch the number of abortions and child abuse/neglect cases go down.
I couldn't agree with you more Ann. I've never understood why those people so strongly opposed to abortion don't direct their energies towards helping children who are unwanted, abused & underprivileged instead?
Excellent comments Ann and Sandra.
Denis, if you don't have a house full of unwanted children you really do need to shut up.
OK, I am mistaken. Abortion is always a good thing under all circumstances and I will hereafter celebrate every life terminated.
Kay, I don't have a house full of unwanted children and I didn't realize that that was a prerequisite for commenting on abortion politics. Since you are commenting, that must mean that you have a house full of unwanted children.
Wow leave it to Denis to resort to the absurd by making an extreme absolutist statement that has no real relevance to the issue at hand and expresses a sentiment that as far I know has never been expressed by anyone anywhere.
What I really wanted to express before seeing Denis' amazing distortion is cudos to Debra and Ann and that women aren't the only one's hurt by the way the current "system" "works". My health insurance premiums are substantially higher than my coworker's even though we have families with similar ages, because (I believe) I have daughters and he has sons and of course daughters can get pregnant and those costs would fall on us and not the father's family.
As for Nemo's par-for-the-course statement regarding the working of congress, I'm torn between giving him credit for being smart but dishonest or credit for being honest but stupid.
I mean obviously the dems have not had the power to pass anything they want since 2006, any casual and honest observer with half a brain would understand that. And he seems to infer then that we should prefer a return to the corrupt, incredibly damaging and dangerous policies of the GOPticon that got us into this mess in the first place. That'd be like switching from beer to whiskey because the beer is making you drunk!
Are there any possible explanations other than stupidity or dishonesty for someone making such a silly statement? Certainly smart and honest is off the table as an explanation. Oh I know Nemo just might be dishonest enough to make the statement AND stupid enough to think anyone would fail to see it for the BS that it is.
So let's see if I understand Denis' "logic" and "values". Kay, who is willing to pay taxes to help disadvantaged children and believes that women should be the ones who decide if they should carry a pregnancy to term and bring a child into the world should also have to adopt children herself.
But Denis shouldn't have to pay taxes to help disadvantaged children, wants to impose his will, forcing women to bring all pregnancies to term and bring more children into the world AND he shouldn't have to adopt any of these children.
My how conveniently that "logic" works out for Scottfree, I mean Denis. It is of course an apt expression of the core con "value": Every man for himselfishness.
sean, we are talking about HR 3200. A bill crafted solely by Democrats. Republicans were not allowed in meetings creating the bill or allowed to amend it. It is purely a Democratic formulation. Any attempt to blame the GOP for elements of HR 3200 shows either a fundamental lack of understanding or the extreme weakness of your position.
As long as Charlie Rangel is chairing Ways and Means your corrupt policy switching analogy fails. A more accurate one would be switching from crack to whiskey.
Nemo, clearly I was refering to this false statement of yours; "Last I checked the Democrats have been in charge of Congress since 2006 (how's that working out for ya America?). They have the numbers to push through anything they want in the House."
And now to your next statement "Republicans were not allowed in meetings creating the bill or allowed to amend it."
Addressing this statement of yours, which of course was also false, was very quick and easy AND comes from a Republican website http://republicans.energycommerc...spx?
NewsID=7325 listing 15 amendments added to HR 3200 by Republicans.
Your information sucks dude, because your sources seek to deceive. Yet you keep going back to those dealers in lies and bringing their fodder here with the same results every time. You lose hands down. You might want to try getting a hand dealt by an honest dealer for a change. But I bet you double down instead.
Republicans input? Hello, out there! Town hall meetings set up BEFORE there was a final bill so they could organize the tea baggers to stage big Potemkin Village type illusions.
And, didn't Ryan himself say he added to the discourse in the house?
And, there was the original committee which included republicans.
And, of course, as Sean points out, there were republican amendments as well as the one by a Democrat designed to appease conservatives by separately addressing abortion. Which turns out to be pretty much aimed at just women who don't already have private insurance since private insurance does pay for abortions in most cases and is now going to be subsidized.......what a slick slight of hand IMHO
I stand corrected on the Republican Amendments.
sean, what is false about the statement, "Last I checked the Democrats have been in charge of Congress since 2006 (how's that working out for ya America?). They have the numbers to push through anything they want in the House."?
I guess technically it's correct, but incongruous. It implies that since 2006 when the dems took control of congress they have had the numbers to get what they want done to work out for America.
If you meant something else I'm all ears. Please tell me.
But after all (as I'm sure you know) until something gets passed in the House and gets passed in the senate with the filibuster which the republicans have used to an unprecedented extent, get reconciled between the two houses, passed by both houses and then gets signed by the president who (as I'm sure you know) until ten months ago was GWB.
So pardon me for being persnickety, but until a bill goes through all of that, get enacted and starts working it doesn't mean anything and it can't "work out for America". So what you've implied to be the case is in fact a falsehood (again).
But please, as I've said, if I've misinterpreted your intent than give the appropriate interpretation of your meaning.
I meant by writing that "They have the numbers to push through anything they want in the House." to imply that "They have the numbers to push through anything they want in the House." And nothing more. The post was about HR 3200 and it's problems. My post addressed the culpability of the Dems for those problems. You called it false. And now you guess it's technically correct, but incongruous. How is it incongruous to point out responsibility of the Dems for legislation that comes out of the House?
Also, I really like your use of the word "persnickety". A very good and underused adjective in my book. Bravo!
House majority and pushing......well, that is one big difference between dems and repubs. We don't like to ramrod things though anywhere.
It's probably going to be our downfall. All this crappy trying to work together unity bull crap is killing us.
Yeah Persnickety is a good word, thanks Nemo.
Another good word is nitpicky and at the risk of going there you'll have to pardon my skepticism that you were only addressing HR 3200. HR 3200 was only introduced this summer and obvioulsy hasn't been enacted yet. IF your focus was soley on that you would not have harkened back to the dems taking over the house in 2006 which predates HR 3200 by almost three years. Neither would you have asked "How's that working for America" since HR 3200 has obviously not had an opportunity to do anything yet for America.
Still another good word is context, you know that stuff that GOPundits often leave out of their stories because it's inconvenient with regard to their goal to misinform and mislead. The specific context here is that you Nemo on several occaissions have cited the 2006 dem takeover and then tried to make spurious connections to things like the housing bubble pop and the wall street meltdown. So basically your recent comment is par for the course for you tactically and I'm just not buying your ascertion that your focus was more narrow and therefore somewhat more accurate and honest.
As for blaming the democrats for the bill they passed, that is EXACTLY what we were doing since obviously it was democrats that inserted the amendment regarding abortions and all democrats that voted for it (save one lone Republican). There's no need for us to walk in lock step down the party planks on this side of the aisle.
But what I'm really interested in is what you'll do now that you know you've been lied to by one or more of your information sources. Someone (El Snortbo is my bet) obviously misled you about Republicans being excluded from the healthcare reform process. And Mr. Tate at the American Thinker, he really tried to pull one over on you with that Medicare killing 92,000 people a year through medical mistakes nonsense.
So will go back to these guys for "information"? And if you do will you will consider their agenda and track record and innoculate yourself with strong dose of critical skepticism?
The misinformation I received about the amendments was from a colleague. I think she confused the shenanigans that went on during the crafting of HR 3200 with the amendments. Again, sorry for the mistake.
I view Mr Tate's numbers with the same level of deference as the Harvard study. The bottom line is I have little confidence in the Harvard numbers due to their methodology and bias, the same reasons you disagree with Mr Tate's findings. That really has nothing to do with this thread though, so I'd rather save any debate on that for a more relevant post.
As for my mention of Dems being in charge of Congress since 2006 all I asked (in a very small side bar) was "how was that working out for ya America?". Past performance sometimes does provide an insight into future results. Or disasters.
Context, while good to keep in mind, does not come close to Persnickety's coolness. That's just my opinion. If you agree, great. If not, meh. (The only word I can think of that comes close is "murdelize" as in,"Tampa Bay really murdelized the Pack in the 4th Quarter last Sunday, *sigh*".)
Nemo, first of all pardon my profound persnickitasciouness (not really, this isn't splitting hairs at all) but Mr. Tate is a bald faced liar, there are no two ways about it. There is nothing true about his deliberate misinterpretation of a study done by others to falsely claim that 92,000 deaths being caused by medicare. The study doen't say that at all. That is not at all equivalent to your suspicion of the accuracy of Harvard Study unless and until it is shown that estimates are not only grossly inaccurate, but also deliberately so. Good luck on that and dream on bro.
I don't know what shenanigans you're refering to. Since there have now been a couple months of open debate in committees in both houses including amendments offered AND ADOPTED by Republicans I can only conclude that your collegue was an unwitting victim of the coordinated misinformation campaign on healthcare reform and due to your receptiveness she passed this highly transmissible condition to you. In looking this up I found that the source was likely among the ussual list of GOPropagandists, Focksnews (Hannity in particular), Lou Dobbs, Washington Times (The right Rev Moon's rag).
The bottom line is that rank and file conservatives just have bad information because the leaders of the Republican Party; Limphnode, Peck, Insannity and the rest of the inFoxicators have a deliberate policy of misleading their followers through lies. It's pervasive, well documented and most Americans now understand that, which is why only 20% will cop to the GOP label.
Your con movement (which is not without merit when it avoids the radical fringe) will continue to suffer unless and until policies and positions can be reasonably and truthfully promoted on their merits instead of f fancifully fearful faux fox fantasies.
I had to be somewhere and was thankfully spared witnessing the second half of the Packer game last Sunday. The way things ahve been going I think I'll find something to do this Sunday too, since I hate the Cowboys more than even the Bears and Vikings and being in Burlington one has to put up with the Tony Romo crap. Why ruin a perfectly nice fall Sunday afternoon?
So medicare advantage is not being cut by billions of dollars?
That's news.
Oh look another mis/underinformed con! but then that's not news is it? Here's some real Ferd.
From the Washington Post: http://
voices.washingtonpost.com...ntage_scam.html
Medicare Advantage gets paid 114 percent what Medicare gets paid to care for a patient. That leads to some fun perks, like free gym memberships and complimentary aspirin and band-aids, which in turn leads seniors to defend the program because they like their perks. But it also means a lot of unnecessary expense for taxpayers.
Here's some more real news, but be careful at first, it's kinda like drinking a bunch of water all at once when you've been suffering from thirst, you can hurt yourself with the good thing that you've really been needing all along: http://theincidentaleconomist.co...e-with-feeling/
So, do higher MA payments produce little value to beneficiaries, as Obama claims, or are the benefits they fund important to maintain, as Republicans would have us believe? The balance of the evidence is on Obama’s side. In fact, it is a landslide: for each dollar spent, 14% of the value reaches beneficiaries and 86% of it goes elsewhere (profit or cost).
Cuts to MA should be a no brainer.
Misinformed? I think Fred has it right.
Enjoy...
http://online.wsj.com/
article_em...NTExNDUyWj.html
Best quote, "The core problem with government-run health care is that it doesn't make decisions in the best interests of patients, but in the best interests of government."
Couldn't agree more.
Nemo: The Rationing Corporations,
Meet the unelected body that is dictating current medical decisions:
UnitedHealth Group
WellPoint
Aetna
Humana
Cigna
Health Net
Coventry Health Care
Amerigroup
Universal American
Centene
Hey but thanks for the fearmongering from the Murdoch Misinformation Corp. Medicare can't grow faster that inflation or the GDP plus 1%, gosh! You mean we're going to try to live within our means and control costs? BE afraid, BE VERY AFRAID!
Unfortunately you're off topic as Fred was refering to the Medicare
Advantage Program which was not the subject of the piece you linked and was only mentioned in one sentance.
Fred was correct that the Medicare Advantage Program will be cut. He was misinformed in thinking that that's a bad thing, since it pays 14% more for things than medicare does and is a waste of tax money paid by the American citizenry. But maybe you don't care about wasting tax money as long as it's going to line corporate pockets rather than helping "those people".
You cons kill me though, you don't know what side of your faces to talk out of anymore. You and Fred no doubt hate the government and hold to that demonstably wrong pillar of blind faith of the con dogma that everything government touches gets screwed up. Yet here there are proposed cuts to a government program (a wastefull one at that) and you guys are getting your grundies all in a bundle over it. Oh my God! And THAT'S FLIPPING HILARIOUS!
Thank you both for the day's entertainment.
sean, cutting 500 billion of "waste" and then frittering the savings away (plus hundreds of billions more) on a boondoggle is what bugs me, and bankrupts us all.
Again:
"The core problem with government-run health care is that it doesn't make decisions in the best interests of patients, but in the best interests of government."
Thank you Rupert.
Wait a minute. "The core problem with government-run health care is that it doesn't make decisions in the best interests of patients, but in the best interests of government."
Not that I accept the premise of the above statement but are you suggesting we should:
A) Get rid of Medicare because it is in fact government run healthcare and therefore can't possibly be working in the interests of patients even though it's very popular.
Or
B) We should be afraid, be very afraid that the government isn't going to keep it's hands off your (gov't run) Medicare, which is what the piece you linked implied.
Which side of your face are talking out of now Nemo?
As a logical and sane person, I would have to say A. With it's 42 Trillion dollar liability, rampant fraud, and pending bankruptcy, Medicare is doomed. It just proves that socialism is great, 'till you run out of other people's money.
I have to agree with you in that we seem to have come far from the root post and comment. I'm sure we'll spar again on Medicare in a more relevant post, but this one should be returned to Kay's original premise.
nemo -- medicare is either socialized medicine and therefor bad and should be axed OR it is a sacred committment to the elderly and must be protected at all costs.
the cons can't decided so they spout both ideas at once.
so which is it, really?
Nemo, you do know you posted a link to an opinion piece, not an actual article written with journalistic demands, right?
It states no real facts that can be cited--or linked to-- as hard proof.
Sean's links included articles covered by journalistic standards such as citing resources and not the least of which was research done, and accepted, for the:
Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Health Care Financing & Economics,
VA Boston Health Care System,
Boston University, Boston, MA,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
by respected economists. Respected in their fields by both sides of the debate.
shoe, hi!
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but burning money in an epic government fail is not a good thing. I also don't short gold or buy old, losing lottery tickets.
That is not to say that we don't have a moral responsibility to those poor souls that have been herded into this failed government program. We need to pursue a solution that gets them off the government junk and on the clean living free market.
Kay, didn't you like my link? I liked it best when Prominent health economist Alain Enthoven likened a global budget [on Medicare] to "bombing from 35,000 feet, where you don't see the faces of the people you kill."
But again, I think we have come far afield from the post and my obviously correct comment concerning blame for any legislation that comes out of the house.
Nemo -- Medicare is hardly a failed government program.
You really are an idiot -- or else seriously poisoned by the right wing kool-aid concession
the free market doesn't serve the greater good -- you guys may be the last to get the telegram about that...but it's true. take a look around the big world...learn something...if you can.
I've got a quote backed up by actual facts that's way better than either of the baseless quips mouthed by Murdoch's media misinformation minions and spittled here by you Nemo:
"Letting tens of thousands of your fellow citizens die every year from lack of health insurance is like watching an enemy carpet bomb your countrymen from 35,000 feet and not using our ability to stop it." - Sean (CreaminNemo) Cranley, November 18, 2009.
Please elaborate how getting our seniors on to the "clean living free market" is going to help them afford healthcare and why the Republicans won't touch Medicare with a ten foot pole. You can't. It won't. You're an idiot for suggesting it would. Because seniors would put the Republica Party permanently out of business.
There I did it for you because you're amazingly consistent in not addressing points that blow holes in the pathetic rambling that you consider to be arguments in support of your "values".
Hate to be Persnickety (well, no, I really love it), but people don't die from lack of health care insurance. They can die from cancer, heart disease, accidents and the like. No? Show me one, just one, autopsy report that lists cause of death as "lack of health care insurance".
As for misinformation, I think this says it all, enjoy...
http://www.duggback.com/politics...rk_is_Fox_News/
But again, I think we have come far afield from the post and my increasingly obviously correct comment concerning blame for any legislation that comes out of the democratic house (Democrats, large and in charge since 2006, how's that working out for ya America?).
I hate to be persnickety Nemo but you're an idiot and obviously people die from lack of treatrment for the maladies you listed because they don't have insurance to cover the costs.
Oh and further proof of your foolhadiness:
S. Robert Lichter is president of the Washington-based Center for Media and Public Affairs and a paid consultant to the Fox News Channel [1]. http://www.sourcewatch.org/
index..._Robert_Lichter
Strange he didn't mention either of those very pertinent facts in his little article. I see he was also a member of the GOPropaganda machine the American Enterprise Institute Sponsors of the attack on Iraq and the lies that sold that debacle to the American People (at least the ones who were'ner paying attention and were misinformed).
Did I mention that you're idiot, it's a wonder that some of your more intelligent and informed conservative brethren don't perform an intervention on you to keep you from continually embarassing yourself and you cause here. Wait, there ARE more intellegent and informed cons than you right? Please tell me there are!
Still waiting on that autopsy report there Quincy.
Also, you might want to check your spelling. Bad spelling can make an otherwise weak post even weaker.
But again (and again), I think we have wandered far afield from the post and my very increasingly obviously correct comment concerning blame for any legislation that comes out of the democratic house (Democrats, large and in charge since 2006, how's that working out for ya America? No really, are things better or worse since 2006?).
Later tater.
Well rsorting to criticzing my typing Nome, that says all that neads saying about the weekness of your ability to present credible coounter argumnts. But it's duly noted, I make typos and it would be better if I took the extra time to proof my posts.
Or perhaps I could better spend my time finding tidbits like this on the funding for the supposedly non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs which the author of the opinion piece from Forbes that you link heads up though he strangely left that very pertinent peice of information out of his oped: http://www.sourcewatch.org/
index..._Public_Affairs
History
The Center for Media and Public Affairs was founded in the mid 1980s by S. Robert Lichter and Linda Lichter.[2] According to Salon.com, "the seed money for [the] center was solicited by the likes of Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson".[3]
[edit]Funding
In its 2005/2006 Annual return to the Internal Revenue Service, CMPA reported that for that year it had total revenue of $520,583 of which $325,000 was in contributions gifts and grants. (CMPA does not provide a breakdown on what percentage is from foundations versus other sources. However, Media Transparency found that data from the foundation's annual reports indicates that in that year CMPA received $100,000 from the Carthage Foundation and $10,000 from the Earhart Foundation]]. The origin of the $215,000 is unclear.)
In addition, CMPA received $117,389 was from "fees for services" which it described as being "revenue from research and media monitoring activities".[4]
CMPA's IRS return reports that the group's revenue for the preceding four years was as follows[5]:
2001/2002 $848,004
2002/2003 $1,455,239
2003/2004 $572,471
2004/2005 $513,188
[edit]Foundation funding
Media Transparency documents that between 1986 and 2005 CMPA received 55 grants totaling $2,960,916 (unadjusted for inflation).[6] The data reveals that the overwhelming proportion of CMPA's funding comes from conservative foundations.
The funding information, covering 1986-2005, lists the following donors (note: all figures are unadjusted for inflation):
Carthage Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $512,000 from 8 donations
the Earhart Foundation contributed $120,000 in six grants between 1999 and 2003;
John M. Olin Foundation - $730,000 from 15 donations between 1986 and 2001;
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation - $250,000 nine grants over the period between 1989 and 1995;
Sarah Scaife Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $760,000 from 9 donations spanning the period between 1991 and 2003; and
Smith Richardson Foundation - $416,916 from 3 donations between 1998 and 2001;
Thus, out of the total of $2,960,916 in foundation grants, nearly all of it ($2,668,916) came from just four sources: the John M. Olin, Scaife, and Smith Richardson foundations. In other words, CMPA received 86% of its foundation funding from those four donors
Commenting by HaloScan
