Posted by Tina
Ask any lefty you know and he will swear up and down that Obamacare does not have death panels. But it depends on how you perceive what will happen as this law is administered over the years. Experience tells me that as bureaucrats attempt to control costs, procedures and available therapies will be cut from the plan’s payment schedule and deaths will result. Turns out one of the bigest leftist economic mouthpieces agrees:
“Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.” – Paul Krugman, ABC’s “This Week”
Whoa…big government solutions are about power and control. Life and death decisions belong in the hands of individuals and their care givers…this is a warning. Time to be rid of big government politicians. Time to send their mouthpieces packing too!
Seems to me that when you take a hard look at the numbers….the number of baby boomers retiring, the moneys projected to come in and well as out, the national debt, etc., death panels in one form or another are inevitable no matter what kind of health care system we end up with. Don’t ya think?
Tina: “Ask any lefty you know and he will swear up and down that Obamacare does not have death panels. But it depends on how you perceive…”
No, it really doesn’t. A charge as serious as “death panels” is either factually true or it isn’t. This is not a matter of perception, and to claim otherwise is a cop-out.
I’ve responded to your Paul Krugman quote before. I think his statement was idiotic and irresponsible, and quite possibly proves him as the leftist quack conservatives make him out to be.
However, it is important to note that he immediately walked back those comments and claimed that he wasn’t speaking of literal death panels, but simply mocking the right’s terminology.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/death-panels-and-sales-taxes/
“I said something deliberately provocative on This Week, so I think Id better clarify what I meant (which I did on the show, but it cant hurt to say it again.)
So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on death panels and sales taxes. What I meant is that
(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what theyre willing to pay for not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much were willing to spend for extreme care”
He’s also dismissed the term “death panels” as a lie many times.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003300019
Say what you will, if Paul Krugman said “death panel” out loud … he is no slouch.
Cause if you think Aetna doesn’t have them, you are too foolish to continue living.
Joe decisions about insurance coverage and my treatment options should be made by individuals and their doctors. When government gets overly involved those decisions are made more often by government. We have seen this happen in Medicade and Medicare. Often the decisions are stupid. They won’t pay for a fairly expensive but very effective ointment because of the cost and the patient ends up needing major surgery that costs a lot more.
We would all be better off if government got out of healthcare altogether. (But it probably won’t happen unless it begins to collapse…and it will)
Tina: “Joe decisions about insurance coverage and my treatment options should be made by individuals and their doctors.”
Yes, in an ideal world. But the fact is that individuals often don’t have any choice at all in regards to insurance coverage. The ACA expands the ability to choose for millions of Americans by forbidding insurance companies from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions. I’ll say it again: this EXPANDS CHOICE for millions of Americans who otherwise might not even be able to get insurance.
“They won’t pay for a fairly expensive but very effective ointment because of the cost and the patient ends up needing major surgery that costs a lot more.”
Are you under the impression that insurance companies currently don’t do this?
Also, what’s stopping that individual from pulling himself up by his bootstraps, getting the money together, and paying for the treatment himself instead of freeloading off the taxpayer’s dime? (Actually, I know that in many cases there’s a lot of factors stopping people from doing this; I’m just curious to see if you’ll ever bring yourself to acknowledge them.)
I’m also curious, Tina, whether or not you so vocally opposed a government healthcare plan featuring the individual mandate when it was first proposed by Republicans in the 1990s, or when Mitt Romney implemented it in Massachusetts (a decent and effective move, which he is now disowning for the sake of political popularity). Did you fret about death panels then? Of course, people are allowed to change their minds. But it’s dishonest of Republicans to now claim that the new healthcare law represents a form of leftist, socialist totalitarianism the likes of which true Americans would never stand for, when the whole idea actually originated on the right. Forgive me if that makes me think that the extreme rhetoric directed toward this bill is a bit disingenuous, as if you’ve all either forgotten the recent past or are simply trying to rewrite it.
Chris the problem with Krugmans walk back and explanation is that it assumes the ONLY solution to health care problems is the progressive big government solution. It is not only not the only solution it is the worst possible solution and it will result in deaths to individuals due to restrictions and regulation, doctor shortages and delays in scheduling that will inevitably occur. You don’t like the desriptive term “death panels”…fine…I don’t care what you call it, the result will be the same.
“…in an ideal world. But the fact is that individuals often don’t have any choice at all in regards to insurance coverage.”
The solution isn’t to create a plan that increases costs (and this plan will) and limits alternatives and innovations. There are better ways to make healthcare available and affordable for most everyone.
“…by forbidding insurance companies from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions.”
California and other states have already done this…once again a big bureaucratic federal government plan like this was not necessary to solve this problem.
“Are you under the impression that insurance companies currently don’t do this?”
I am absolutely certain that most insurance companies don’t do this to the degree that Medicade, which Obamacare expands without paying for, does. What Obamacare has done for all of those millions you bsay didn’t have a choice before is relegate them to Medicade..a government plan that doesn’t pay its bills, gives poor service and has been dropped by docs because they don’t get paid.
“Also, what’s stopping that individual from pulling himself up by his bootstraps, getting the money together, and paying for the treatment himself instead of freeloading off the taxpayer’s dime? (Actually, I know that in many cases there’s a lot of factors stopping people from doing this; I’m just curious to see if you’ll ever bring yourself to acknowledge them.)”
Chris I’m not wealthy. I haven’t been able to afford everything I ever needed or wanted. My mother and father came from meager circumstances…my mom was an orphan without a home during her teen years. They pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. They sacrificed and saved and invested to work themselves into the middle class. My friend that came from Cambodia started with just the clothing she had on her back and accomplished the same. This notion that unless government intervenes people can’t survive is liberal bunk!!!
Having said that the poor could better afford insurance and treatment if government got the heck out of it. That is the truth. Also there are other solution for making care possible and affordable thatr would be better. Progressives aren’t interested in them because the goal (for your leaders) is control of that portion of the economy.
“Tina, whether or not you so vocally opposed a government healthcare plan featuring the individual mandate when it was first proposed by Republicans in the 1990s, or when Mitt Romney implemented it in Massachusetts”
The individual mandate that was proposed in the nineties was structured a lot differently (on an incentive basis as a tax credit) and did not include fines for noncompliance. It also applied only to working individuals not all individuals. There were a lot of proposals being discussed at the time. I don’t recall what my position was on this issue. Overall I was still weary of government involvement. It’s tough to pass legislatiion that would eliminate it all at once, however.
I prefer that these “experimental” solutions were made at the state level. At least the entire country is not subjected to them if they bare bad and citizens can more easily dump a program that isn’t working at a local level. Romneycare has proven to be a bad idea.
I don’t know the particulars of the Romney plan since I am not subjected to it. What is true is that if I lived in Massachusetts and didn’t like it I could move to another state. We can’t do that with Obamacare.
“it’s dishonest of Republicans to now claim that the new healthcare law represents a form of leftist, socialist totalitarianism the likes of which true Americans would never stand for, when the whole idea actually originated on the right”
It’s absurd to say the idea originated on the right. Medicare (the first push) was first conceived in the thirties and then pushed through by democrats. There are always compromising politicians from the right but the push for big government programs do come from the left. Efforts by the right have been to scale back programs or reform them so they have free market principles.
We could use a lot more honesty from the left side of the aisle as well.
Just discovered that the left championed the concept of premium support that is at the heart of Ryan’s Medicair reform for citizens under 55:
http://cfif.org/v/freedom_line_blog/10110/medichoice-not-premium-support/
It seems to me that anything our legislators could do now to reduce government intervention and bureaucracy and afford the people healthcare choices should be welcomed. We have seen that government intervention only creates unsustainable schemes.
Also in my reading I was reminded that Obamacare transfers over $500 billion from Medicair to pay for Obamacare…it will exacerbate the unsustanable condition of medicair. Why is this not considered disasterous for our retired seniors by clever lefties who portray seniors being shoved off the cliff? and do we really believe that taking those dollars and transferring them to another sector will not result in less care, cuts in care, for many of our seniors?
There are better ways to bring down the cost of healthcare and make it more available and affordable for everyone. I want solutions that do that!
Tina: “What Obamacare has done for all of those millions you bsay didn’t have a choice before is relegate them to Medicade”
That isn’t at all true. Many of those who didn’t have a choice before had pre-existing conditions that private health insurance companies wouldn’t take. Those people are now able to enroll with those companies.
“The individual mandate that was proposed in the nineties was structured a lot differently (on an incentive basis as a tax credit)” and did not include fines for noncompliance.”
Like you said, there were a lot of plans proposed and you may be correct about some of them. Right now I’m looking at a plan proposed by the Heritage Foundation in 1992. Yes, there are tax credits (just like there are in the ACA) but the plan is a MANDATE which requires individuals to be insured. I can’t find reference to a fine in the text, but it’s strongly implied in the terms “mandate” and “requirement.” There must be some way of ensuring people comply with the mandate, otherwise what is the point?
“It also applied only to working individuals not all individuals.”
The Heritage plan tasked the head of household with obtaining the insurance for his or her entire family. So while it’s the working individual’s responsibility to obtain the insurance, everyone must still be insured. Even those who could not afford it would be eligible for tax credits which would help them get insurance, just like in the ACA.
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/1989/pdf/hl218.pdf
Here is how Heritage described the mandate:
“This mandate is based on two important principles. First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses…Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection…
A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself.”
Such language was not uncommon in Republican proposals for the individual mandate. At the time, Republicans seemed to view such a mandate as an expression of personal responsibility. When all individuals are required to obtain health insurance, society ends up paying less. This truth has not changed, but the attitude of Republicans has. What was once considered a free market alternative and a form of personal responsibility is now considered socialism and a violation of the constitution. This shift is purely political and not based on any consistent principles.
“Romneycare has proven to be a bad idea.”
Romneycare is working just fine. Republicans are abandoning it out of political conveniance, just as they did with cap and trade. There was a time, I’m sure you remember, when Republicans were not afraid to acknowledge truths such as man-made global warming and the sorry state of our nation’s healthcare. Then, our two parties agreed that these were problems but simply differed on how to adress them. Now, it is practically gospel on the right that these problems don’t exist. How many times did we hear right-wing pundits claim that the U.S. has the best healthcare in the world during the healthcare debate, and that there isn’t a healthcare crisis at all?
Romney himself vigorously defended his plan as recently as one year ago:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2010/03/07/171280/romney-massachusetts-abortion/
“Mitt Romney continued to praise Massachusetts health care reforms this Sunday, telling Fox News Sundays Chris Wallace, I think our plan is working well. And perhaps the best thing I can say about it, its saving lives. It is the ultimate pro-life effort, Romney said, people who otherwise could have lost their lives are now able to get the kind of care they deserve:
ROMNEY: One of the members of my administration told me two days ago, after she left our administration, she was diagnosed with brain cancer. And that had she not been in Massachusetts, she would not have been able to receive the insurance that she needed and the specialist care that has now saved her life. That is the biggest reason for helping people get insurance.
Romney also highlighted his support for the individual health insurance mandate and described the Massachusetts reform as the ultimate conservative plan. We said people have to take responsibility for getting insurance if they can afford it or paying their own way. No more free riders.”
“The ultimate pro-life effort!” “The ultimate conservative plan!” Such statements seem to echo Heritage’s emphasis on conservative ethics such as personal responsibility.
Romney’s previous defense of his plan was principled and correct…his newfound sense of remorse is feigned, calculated, and done only at the force of political gunpoint.
“I don’t know the particulars of the Romney plan since I am not subjected to it.”
FactCheck has a good summary, including similarities and differences between “Romneycare” and “Obamacare.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/
“It’s absurd to say the idea originated on the right.”
Unless you can show that liberals proposed an individual mandate prior to conservatives, than I stand by my statement. Remember, Obama originally said he did not favor an individual mandate; he included it only after the many compromised he made with the right wing made it economically impossible not to include one.
“Joe decisions about insurance coverage and my treatment options should be made by individuals and their doctors.”
If you can afford to pay for what your doctor recommends. But nobody can, without insurance. Ask those Medicare recipients from whom they get the better deal: the government or Aetna?
Libby: “If you can afford to pay for what your doctor recommends. But nobody can, without insurance.”
Before the government enterred the picture people did it all the time. Healthcare was affordable and people had health insurance for the big things. Now people just want somebody else to pay as much as possible for their services.
The cost of healthcare will only go up with government directing every aspect of it.
“Ask those Medicare recipients from whom they get the better deal: the government or Aetna?”
How about we ask the doctors and hospitals instead. Not only does “Aetna” pay better than Medicare they are less complicated and demanding. Aetna also isn’t promising the moon while piling up debt for future generations.
Individuals making decisions based on what they can afford is what helps keep healthcare costs down. When you put third parties in the middle people aren’t good shoppers, healthcare services run open loop, and costs go up.
Chris how about I just acknowledge that both republicans and democrats have been considering healthcare reform for a couple of decades? Many proposals were made, some good some not so good. What is also true is that many conservatives have expressed concern about the unsustanability and unworkability of the social programs we already have (Medicare and SS) Both of which I think could be considered mandates since we all are forced to pay in if we work.
As far as I know Romney is still defending his healthcare plan.
The point I continue to make is that there are better ways to solve all of the problems you bring up (pre-existing conditions) without all of the crap (for wont of a better word) that is also included in Obamacare. I appreciate that you defend those things…what bothers me is that in your enthusiasm you ignore the things that are so wrong about it. It bothers me that you will not consider the expense that will befall your generation in twenty to thirty years or the damage that will surely befall our amazing health care industry because of it.
It is wise to consider the lessons of history. Medicare was an idea with promise but it has caused healthcare costs to go up, it is boirrowing against your future, it has become burdensome for doctors and hospitals because it doesn’t pay sufficiently for services and it;s about to experience the biggest jump in recipients ever which will put it on overload. Makes me shudder to think about it.
How in Gods sweet name can you possibly think that this plan filled with directives, fines, and complex legaleze won’t erode our healthcare system and make it more expensive?
At the very least criticisms and alternatives should have gotten some debate time in Congress before this was passed. You can’t be happy with the sloppy underhanded way it was written and passed.
Tina: “Before the government enterred the picture people did it all the time. Healthcare was affordable and people had health insurance for the big things.”
I don’t have the history available, but this statement doesn’t pass the smell test. Are you really going to say that Americans were better able to afford the healthcare they needed seventy years ago than they are now?
“How about we ask the doctors and hospitals instead.”
We should ask doctors instead of their patients? Oy vey…
“Individuals making decisions based on what they can afford is what helps keep healthcare costs down.”
And when they can’t afford it and have to get it anyway, costs go up. For everyone. That’s why everyone is now mandated to get health insurance. Like Republicans said in the nineties, it’s a matter of both personal responsibility and an obligation to society.
“Chris how about I just acknowledge that both republicans and democrats have been considering healthcare reform for a couple of decades? Many proposals were made, some good some not so good.”
I’ll tell you why this isn’t good enough for me: You and countless others on the right have not just been saying that the individual mandate is a bad proposal over the last three years. You’ve been saying it’s unconstitutional, socialist, and a leftist power grab that will inevitably lead to death panels.
So to shrug this history off by essentially saying, “Well, they can’t all be winners” when confronted with the fact that the individual mandate was a conservative idea, not a Marxist one, really feels like a cop-out. The fact is that constitutional concerns were not raised over the individual mandate during the nineties. That Republicans are so concerned over the constitutionality of the mandate now–while never mentioning their own complicity in creating the mandate–strikes me as hypocritical and politically convenient.
“As far as I know Romney is still defending his healthcare plan.”
You appear to be right about this one, and I apologize for the error. Many pundits and politicians, however, see RomneyCare as a potential liability in his campaign.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/0512/Mitt-Romney-tackles-ObamaCare-but-what-about-RomneyCare
What I would tell him to do is distance himself from RomneyCare, says Matt Kibbe, president and CEO of FreedomWorks, which advises tea party groups.
Mr. Kibbe says he knows Romney wont do this, but he wishes Romney would say, The biggest regret I have is imposing an individual mandate, because its completely inconsistent with the tenets of our party and [its] philosophy.
As already shown, the individual mandate was seen as perfectly consistent with the tenets and philosophy of the Republican party as recently as twenty years ago by no less conservative an institution as the Heritage Foundation. RomneyCare also was not met with much opposition from Republicans at first. Don’t you find that curious?
“Before the government enterred the picture people did it all the time.”
Yeah, people who could afford to. People without means suffered and died an early death. This is why we, the people, empowered the government to take up the funding of public health care.
“Medicare was an idea with promise but it has caused healthcare costs to go up, ….”
If you’re saying people are more likely to seek services that are paid for, this applies to the privately insured as well, is very well documented, and there is some good stuff in the Health Care Bill intended to deal with it: encouraging private providers to drop the fee-for-service model, and requiring that Medicare does.
We’re making progress. You just refuse to see it.
Chris: “this statement doesn’t pass the smell test.”
Salon’s smell test?
“Are you really going to say that Americans were better able to afford the healthcare they needed seventy years ago than they are now?”
YES! And when they didn’t have insurance they worked out a payment plan with doctors and hospitals.
“We should ask doctors instead of their patients? Oy vey…”
Yeah smart a**! It was asserted that medicare offers better coverage than Aetna. My point, Medicare doesn’t pay adequately for the services and Aetna and others have to pay the difference? Docs and hospitals know; many have quit acitcepting medicare. It will get worse as funds are redistributed to Obamacare.
“And when they can’t afford it and have to get it anyway, costs go up.”
They’ve gone up since government got involved. They didn’t go up before government got involved. We had county hospitals to help the very poor. We also have learning hospitals now where those less able to pay can get excellent help. There are charitable health centers that help kids for free, like St Judes for cancer and the Masons for orthopedic disabilities and disorders. There are others and if government got out of the business I imagine others would spring up.
“You’ve been saying it’s unconstitutional, socialist, and a leftist power grab that will inevitably lead to death panels.”
We have a right to our opinion! It may well be unconstitutional on the points being argued in court!
The way this legislation was written, coupled with statements made by leftists like costs will be kept down by panels that decide the level” of a persons “productivity in society to determine how many dollars of care they deserve help make it a socialists dream.
And it is a “power grab” when government takes this much control over an industry that was once privately held and directed!!!
“…the individual mandate was a conservative idea, not a Marxist one”
Republicans are not all sane. This mandate as written states you will buy insurance or we will make you pay a fine. This is jackboot language; very different from other ideas that were being considered.
I doubt if we have a prayer of turning our health care back to the private sector but I know that if we don’t at least write legislatiion that has free market principles written into it our health care industry will become an inferior product.
“feels like a cop-out.”
In a way it was. I was tired and I am tired of attempting to pursuade you that this law isn’t the panacea you think it is but will be ruinous to your future and the future of the health care industry.
“…constitutional concerns were not raised over the individual mandate during the nineties”
Healthcare was not passed in the nineties. Also this particular language, where the government is compelling individuals to purchase a product, was not part of any bill I can recall…not even Hillarycare. Language in the law makes all kinds of difference. There is a clause that was left out of Obamacare that may make the entire bill unconsttutional IF this portion is deemed unconstitutional.
“The biggest regret I have is imposing an individual mandate, because its completely inconsistent with the tenets of our party and [its] philosophy.
I agree with this statement. Romney lost my support over this but more importantly his environmental position.
“As already shown, the individual mandate was seen as perfectly consistent with the tenets and philosophy of the Republican party as recently as twenty years ago by no less conservative an institution as the Heritage Foundation.”
The HF is a think tank. It is their job to propose ideas. Something similar may have been included in their proposal but the language was not the same. Not all Republicans would agree with the proposal.
“RomneyCare also was not met with much opposition from Republicans at first. Don’t you find that curious?”
The reputation that liberals have given Republicans always precedes our thoughts, ideas, and positions. We aren’t as unreasonable as liberals claim. We actually care about solving problems. We are willing to consider many ideas and proposals. We would like a real discussion of ideas to take place. Finding a workable solution is we want. As I said, Romney was introducing his plan at the state level. The states are wonderful places to experiment with ideas. We could to look at that plan to see what works and what doesn’t IF the goal was to find what works. That is NOT the liberal goal. The liberal goal is central planning…big federal government power and control. So no, I don’t find it curious.
Tell me Chris, what is more important to you, nailing Republicans or having a health care system that works and is sustainable?
Libby: “People without means suffered and died an early death. This is why we, the people, empowered the government to take up the funding of public health care. ”
People without means were given care. I agree we might have looked for a better way to get them better care, however, creating a big government program wasn’t it! The big government program made healthcare more expensive for everyone. Now it’s runningout of money to sustain future seniors and we’ve added another BIG progrsam.
Incentives to become needy built in to other social programs have caused the numbers of needy to steadily increase. We should have had policies that encouraged independence and upward mobility in the poor. Also education has done a piss poor job of improving the fortunes of poor children. The hippie dippy revolution (sex drugs and rock and roll) only exacerbated the problem. Now our schools teach environmental garbage and social engineering instead of prepairing students to be self sufficient contributing citizens.
We the people BLEW IT!
“We’re making progress. You just refuse to see it.”
The progressive model takes 20 steps toward the socialist state while tossing we the people a bone to placate…not good enough Libby…not good enough.
Obamacare will destroy healthcare, become unsustanable, and take a big bite out of Chris paychecks before it does…YOU refuse to even consider that…liberals NEVER consider cost or consequence. “If it feels good do it” is the quitintessential slogan of liberalism…a context of adolescent exuberance lacking in responsible thought.
The scary part that democrats refuse to accept is, if the problem isn’t fixed the whole system is in danger of collapse. There is no doubt collapse is inevitable. So here we’re trying to save the plan and they are in denial and fighting us all the way.
“YES! And when they didn’t have insurance they worked out a payment plan with doctors and hospitals.”
Good lord. Yet again, I am provoked to ask, “what planet do you live on?” Not this one, that’s for sure. A payment plan for a $500k medical bill? You run up one of those and you lose your house, suffer, and die an early death.
And that’s not even a really big bill. Ms. Gifford has run up one of those: something between two and three million, I would guess. Thank god she’s got us all to pick up the tab. And you know what? I am perfectly happy to pitch in my $0.015 cents.
“Salon’s smell test?”
It’s called common sense…your love for idealizing the past often gets in the way of this, as it is now.
“It will get worse as funds are redistributed to Obamacare.”
What does this sentence mean? “Obamacare” is not a single program that funds can be redistributed to, like Medicare.
“We have a right to our opinion!”
Yes, and I have the right to show why this opinion does not seem principled or consistent, but based on shifting political winds.
“It may well be unconstitutional on the points being argued in court!”
We shall see. It’s worth keeping in mind that the first individual mandate was proposed by the founding fathers themselves:
“The way this legislation was written, coupled with statements made by leftists like costs will be kept down by panels that decide the level” of a persons “productivity in society”
You are taking that phrase completely out of context and I suspect you know it. This was never a recommendation by anyone who had anything to do with healthcare reform.
“Republicans are not all sane.”
Hee. Was this a typo, or a Freudian slip? 😉
“This mandate as written states you will buy insurance or we will make you pay a fine. This is jackboot language; very different from other ideas that were being considered.”
How is that different from the Heritage plan from the nineties? It didn’t mention a fine in the text I cited, but it did describe a mandate, and that means there must be some sort of legal way to enforce that mandate.
“I doubt if we have a prayer of turning our health care back to the private sector but I know that if we don’t at least write legislatiion that has free market principles written into it our health care industry will become an inferior product.”
The ACA does have free market principles.
“Healthcare was not passed in the nineties. Also this particular language, where the government is compelling individuals to purchase a product, was not part of any bill I can recall…”
Yet it was advocated by the Heritage Foundation, a bastion of conservatism, and they were not alone. It’s in RomneyCare, albeit at the state level rather than the federal.
“I agree with this statement. Romney lost my support over this but more importantly his environmental position.”
Exactly what I was talking about earlier. Believing the science on global warming and supporting an individual mandate used to be acceptable positions for Republicans to hold. The shift to the far right since then has been astounding.
“As I said, Romney was introducing his plan at the state level. The states are wonderful places to experiment with ideas.”
This may be true, but if you believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional at the federal level than you must believe it’s unconstitutional at the state level as well.
“Tell me Chris, what is more important to you, nailing Republicans or having a health care system that works and is sustainable?”
The latter. Thankfully, though, you make it really easy to do both at the same time.
Whoops, forgot to post the links about the individual mandates put forward by the founders:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/the-founding-fathers-indi_b_523001.html
http://bakka111.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/the-individual-mandate/
Tina: “liberals NEVER consider cost or consequence.”
Three things wrong with this statement:
1) It’s not true.
2) You proved it wasn’t true yourself last week, when you showed me how the ACA sets up a board responsible for making recommendations on how to keep costs down. Of course, you only did this so that you could falsely claim that the board was a “death panel” that would ration care, even though the board is explicitly forbidden from ever doing that, so maybe you were a bit distracted.
3) It’s completely at odds with your accusation that liberals want to ration healthcare. (Hello, Tea Party Cognitive Dissonance; it’s nice to see you again.) You can’t say that we want to ration healthcare out one side of your mouth and then say we don’t consider cost out the other. Why would the government ration care if not to keep costs down? For Stalinist funsies?
It’s one thing for a party to shift their positions after a few years. It’s quite another for a person to make two completely opposing arguments within a couple of weeks and not realize that they’ve already disproven one of them.
Chris is it possible to both raise the cost of health and ration healthcare? This is a big question that can only be answered by an open mind. And the next part is please name some things that government does very efficiently, with limited waste, fraud and abuse and at a lower cost than could be done by the private sector. Are government run VA hospitals known for having better patient care than privately run hospitals?
Libby: “A payment plan for a $500k medical bill? You run up one of those and you lose your house, suffer, and die an early death.”
Full brakes!!!!
If that were true we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Supposedly we have to have this federal plan to control all of us because of those who can’t or won’t pay their bills.
Once again…I am not saying there aren’t problems to solve…never have. I am saying this plan is a badly written law that will be a disaster. It was about power and control not health care.
“Thank god she’s got us all to pick up the tab. And you know what? I am perfectly happy to pitch in my $0.015 cents.”
Guess what? We were already paying that tab…we didn’t need Obamacare to make it happen. And if you think $.15 will be enough in the future you haven’t looked at that medicare deduction on your paystub lately. Compare to what they thought it would be in 1965.
We had a handfull of problems that could have been been solved with simple, easy to implement laws that wouldn’t have completely transformed our entire HC system.
Chris if common sense were important to you, you would not have supported this legislation.
Chris: “What does this sentence mean? “Obamacare” is not a single program that funds can be redistributed to, like Medicare. Obamacare” is not a single program…”
Why does it have a big price tag? Why are so many people being added to Medicaid and how will that be paid for?
The law cut $500 Billion from Medicare…here’s the nutty explanation for how that money was accounted for:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/04/hhs-secretary-sebelius-admits-to-double-counting-in-obamacare-budget/
This was never a recommendation by anyone who had anything to do with healthcare reform.
They have admitted to admiring the gentleman and were impressed enough to include his ideas in this legislation. You can pretend that costs will not cause big changes in treatment down the road, and that the government will not be dictating those changes but you will ultimately be proved wrong.
Hee. Was this a typo,
Yes. Happy to provide the comic relief.
How is that different from the Heritage plan from the nineties? It didn’t mention a fine in the text I cited, but it did describe a mandate, and that means there must be some sort of legal way to enforce that mandate.
I dont know. We are talking about an idea, not a law written in stone. As I understand it Heritage later reconsidered its position. That is what happens when ideas are discussed. Too bad we didnt get to join the discussion that took place behind Pelosi/Reid closed doors when this bill was discussed.
The ACA does have free market principles.
It has liberal ideas of free marketlike you have to buy insurance or you will pay a fine. There are similar liberal free market threats leveled at doctors. You can keep your doctor but the rules and regs are so burdensome that many of them will quit the businessooops sorry. You can keep your insurance but your employer will drop it because we made sure its cheaper for him to toss you into the federal pool. The liberal notion of free market always has controls in place that encourage the behaviors they need to make us more dependent on government. OMGyou are so nave.
Believing the science on global warming and supporting an individual mandate used to be acceptable positions for Republicans to hold
So your all puffed up because republicans can be reasonable and are willing to consider ideas or situations? Is it possible to consider an idea has merit and then discover down the road it doesnt? Or are you just bothered because we are not all walking in lockstep as you liberals all seem to do? Lets both pretend that liberals only support good ideas and end this stupid discussion.
The shift to the far right since then has been astounding.
Oh horse hockey! Discovering the myth that is global warming is a shift to sanity. Being confronted by insane cap and trade tax schemes, rather than smart conservation ideas, has a way of eroding support for the global warming scarethis is a shift to normal thinking. Seeing how an idea works in practice can also cause a sane change of position. It has nothing to do with the so-called far right, a designation designed to malign totally lacking in meaning from overuse.
if you believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional at the federal level than you must believe it’s unconstitutional at the state level as well
Yes. And if its found unconstitutional at the federal level it will also mean the state law must be changed.
you make it really easy to do both at the same time.
You believe you are winning. Thats okay by me. I wont be here if you sustain that win. You will be and the bill, the long lines, the inferior care will all land in your lap.
“You can’t say that we want to ration healthcare out one side of your mouth and then say we don’t consider cost out the other”
I can, and I did. Both will happen. The consequences I speak of have to do with things like:
Actual costs: (they are always MUCH higher than projected). There is a history of costs for social programs being MUCH higher. Liberals ignore the history because they don’t care that costs will be higher. POWER is the goal. (And you are young enough to think they do it because they caresilly you)
Behaviors of individuals: Business has indicated it will drop it’s HC coverage because it’s cheaper to send employees over to the government option and pay the fine.(individuals won’t be able to keep their insurance after all). Doctors have said they will retire rather than deal with the new regs. (creating a doctor shortage and people can’t keep their docs as promised). Some doctors are reporting they will abandon their private practice to join big clinic or hospital staffs because they don’t want to be burdened with the expense and hastle of new regs. (HC looks more and more like the DMV or the post office) There are insurers that have dropped coverage for children; more burden shifts to Medicade…states are going to have a heck of a time funding it)
When costs are higher quality or quantity goes down. Insurance companies decide what they will cover and what they will not cover. They create a contract with individuals to that effect. The contract is renewed on a yearly basis. You agree to the terms of the contract before you pay. The government has no such obligation to individuals. When costs skyrocket…and they will…some services will be eliminated, there will be long wait times…and the overall quality of service will go down.
Taxes that have been place on prosthetic devices will result in “unintended” consequences. People of all ages that live in wheel chairs, seniors on fixed incomes that use various devices, and all of the injured vets using special devices will see the cost of those vital products rise. It will be reflected in premium increases or out of pocket expenses for uncovered items. (They are already expensive)
There are probably many more.
Why would the government ration care if not to keep costs down?
Keep puffing yourself up, Chris, you are headed for a huge fall. (Pride goeth before). They wont keep costs downnot even with rationing. They have written a new law that will costs multiple times more than they ever imagined.
It’s one thing for a party to shift their positions after a few years. It’s quite another for a person to make two completely opposing arguments within a couple of weeks and not realize that they’ve already disproven one of them.
And its yet another thing to have your head so far upin the cloudsthat you cant entertain the notion that costs will go up and rationing will happen.
“Guess what? We were already paying that tab…we didn’t need Obamacare to make it happen. And if you think $.15 will be enough in the future you haven’t looked at that medicare deduction on your paystub lately.”
It’s .015 cents … and yes we are picking up the tab, though Ms. Gifford is not on Medicare. What you refuse to see is that the Health Care Bill makes a start … just a start … at addressing the structural deficiencies in Medicare. The thing to do is pursue reform. We are not tossing the baby with the bathwater.
Jack: “Chris is it possible to both raise the cost of health and ration healthcare?”
I suppose it’s possible. But that’s not Tina’s argument. Her argument is that “liberals NEVER consider cost.” This is at odds with the fact that the ACA sets up an advisory board dedicated to considering costs, a fact which Tina brought up herself the last time we debated healthcare. It also remains at odds with her false accusation of rationing, which the board is forbidden from doing, because even if rationing did lead to higher costs, it would still done for the PURPOSE of lowering them.
So even if I were to believe that liberals want to ration care (they do not), and even if I were to believe that rationing can lead to higher costs (it probably can), that would only mean that liberals would be wrong in their ideas on how to keep costs down. But it would not mean that liberals don’t consider costs. Tina would still be wrong, and she would still be contradicting herself.
“And the next part is please name some things that government does very efficiently, with limited waste, fraud and abuse and at a lower cost than could be done by the private sector.”
The post office. Seriously. Say what you will, if we all got our mail through private enterprises the cost would be much higher and there would be a lot more late deliveries and missing mail.
“Are government run VA hospitals known for having better patient care than privately run hospitals?”
Depends who you ask. The Fresno Bee lately has had a lot of letters to the editor voicing contrasting opinions from patients. I don’t know enough about them myself to say.
“They have admitted to admiring the gentleman and were impressed enough to include his ideas in this legislation.”
Yes, and that gentleman, Ezekiel Emanuel, never ADVOCATED judging patients based on their “level of productivity in society.” He was describing a system, not prescribing it, and if you’d read his paper instead of believing Sarah Palin’s out of context selective quoting which won her the presitigous “Lie of the Year,” you’d know that.
“I dont know. We are talking about an idea, not a law written in stone.”
So you don’t know how the current mandate is different from the mandates proposed by Republicans in the nineties. OK, glad we got that settled.
“So your all puffed up because republicans can be reasonable and are willing to consider ideas or situations?”
No, I’m dismayed because Republicans used to seem to be able to do that and now they are not.
“Is it possible to consider an idea has merit and then discover down the road it doesnt?”
Yes. But that’s not what Republicans are doing. Republicans are pretending that they never considered the idea of an individual mandate in the first place, and they’re pretending that President Obama simply pulled this idea out of the grave of Karl Marx or something. Newt Gingrich is fond of Dinesh D’Souza’s racist fantasy that Obama gets his ideas from some kind of “Kenyan anti-colonialism,” whatever the hell that means. They are trying to paint the individual mandate as a completely left-wing, socialist invention. That’s nonsense; as previously shown, the founders themselves implemented mandates for private citizens to purchase weapons. THAT’s why I’m “all puffed up.”
“Oh horse hockey! Discovering the myth that is global warming is a shift to sanity.”
Please. It is not “sanity” to ignore decades of scientific research and consensus.
Chris: “This is at odds with the fact that the ACA sets up an advisory board dedicated to considering costs, a fact which Tina brought up herself…”
Let me clear this up before you further bludgeon me, and possibly Jack, on this point. I erred when I used the word never. The point I meant to convey is that actual costs don’t mean much (taxes can always be raised). The board dedicated to “consider costs” was simply a means to an end…a way to sell the program and get legislation passed. POWER and CONTROL is the goal. Americans dependent (and grateful to democrats) on government for the essentials is the goal.
I could also make the point that their agenda ultimately robs all Americans of freedom and guts the greatest form of government ever devised and they don’t consider that much either.
“The post office. Seriously. Say what you will, if we all got our mail through private enterprises the cost would be much higher and there would be a lot more late deliveries and missing mail.”
The PO lost $3.5 Billion in just one quarter this year:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/08/05/post-office-loses-3-5-billion-as-2011-cash-crunch-looms/
The bottom line doesn’t concern those who run government…its not their money! Their is no incentive to be efficient and workers become complacent with their safe job. The PO, like some school districts, pay people full salaries and benefits NOT to work.
“He was describing a system…”
He was describing a system about patient care…how do you leave people out of that equation?
The point isn’t that it’s not a good idea to be efficient, to cut waste, fraud and abuse, that is a good idea. the point is that when this is tried on a large scale with no alternative you end up with central planning and inferior care for all.
“…if you’d read his paper instead of believing Sarah Palin’s…”
Insult me twice you little dweeb; it won’t change a thing. You don’t have any idea about what I do and do not read or who I follow. I would appreciate it if you would can the accusations. I have read some of his writing and I’mnot impressed with his ideas because he is aligned with the big government solutions that have already proven to be disasterous. More of the same tweeked a little this way and that will not result in a workable end. It will still be very expensive; it will still deliver an inferior product.
“So you don’t know how the current mandate is different from the mandates proposed by Republicans in the nineties. OK, glad we got that settled.”
Republicans don’t speak with one voice. There were many ideas on the table. A “mandate” that requires a deduction from your paycheck like SS or MCARE is different from a mandate that makes every person purchase a policy or pay a fine.
“I’m dismayed because Republicans used to seem to be able to do that and now they are not.”
Take a look in the mirror; your attitude might have something to do with that.
“That’s nonsense; as previously shown, the founders themselves implemented mandates for private citizens to purchase weapons. THAT’s why I’m “all puffed up.”
Calling on the founders in defense of this government expansion into the private sector and its provision to force citizens to buy a product is well over the top…they would be rolling over in their graves.
“It is not “sanity” to ignore decades of scientific research and consensus.”
That would be decades of scientists ignoring their fellow scientists opinions, blocking them from publishing, being in collusion with government officials to further the green agenda (including federal, state, and local governments as well as UN officials). That would be decades of skewing and manipulating data as well.
Also, concensus is not how legitimate science is done. Particularly “concensus” that is made up.
Have you heard about the recent activity of the sun and the scientists that are predicting a strong cooling period? Does the fact that the amount of CO2 that green technology would remove from the air is so miniscule as not to count penetrate that brain at all? You will pay such a price for this power grab Chris. I beg you to do some serious reading.
The latest example of fraud and collusion in the green movement is exposed in an editorial for those interested. find it here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/17/un-climate-propaganda-exposed/print/
Tina, if your idea of “serious reading” includes anything from the editorial board of the Washington Times, then it is no wonder you are so misinformed on issues such as healthcare and climate change. I would just as soon get my news from the Sun.
“Calling on the founders in defense of this government expansion into the private sector and its provision to force citizens to buy a product is well over the top…they would be rolling over in their graves.”
Tina if you want to debate how the mandates for weapons and healthcare set up by the founders were different from the individual mandate today (and there were differences, I admit) then go ahead. But the fact is that the founders did “force citisens to buy a product…” That’s not “over the top,” that’s history.
Other than that I think I’ve said everything I need to say on this issue. I’ll let you have the last word this time.
Chris I know you are having a debate with just Tina, but sitting on the sidelines and watching I have to say, you’re not giving her due credit for what she knows and for what you are yet to learn.
Remember, you’re the guy who thought the second amendment was really directed at black powder weapons and did not pertain to today’s rifles…lol Don’t be cock sure of yourself and so quick to put down the thoughts of this very bright women of infinitely refined judgment and life experience.
Actually you should be taking a lesson from her, not debating with her. You could do well by having her as a mentor. She’s really been right on target throughout this whole debate and many others, but then that’s just my life experience talking. You’re not entitled to go there until you’ve logged in another 40 plus years! lol
Chris: “if your idea of “serious reading” includes anything from the editorial board of the Washington Times, then it is no wonder you are so misinformed on issues such as healthcare and climate change…”
Oh I see. There are acceptable papers and there are unacceptable papers…there are acceptable views and there are unacceptable views. You’re beginning to sound a lot like the propaganda minister at the Kremlin. Id be interested in what you know about the editorial board of the Washington Times. Id also like to know what makes you such an expert on the Times editorial board.
I do a lot of reading Chrissome of it presents a very different point of view from the lock step liberal MSM and the prescribed reading list in most progressive circles. For many years the progressive publications dominated in our society. Reading alternatives was a breath of fresh air. It caused me to expand my thinking and experience. You might want to try it. This article would be a good place to start:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303714704576383443814815916.html
the mandates for weapons and healthcare set up by the founders were different from the individual mandate today (and there were differences, I admit)the founders did “force citisens to buy a product…” That’s not “over the top,” that’s history.
The differences in those mandates and this one are substantial and go to the heart of the founders love of freedom and respect for the individual. Todays progressive ideas, as well as their justifications, are indeed over the top:
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the governmentlest it come to dominate our lives and interests. – Patrick Henry
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. – Thomas Jefferson
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. – Benjamin Franklin
Democracy (favored by the left over our republic) is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. – Benjamin Franklin
We were given a republic by the founding fathers. This lamb is armed, with experience, and contesting the vote on this law! When it was written some representatives of the people were locked out of the room and denied participation in the process. It was made law through the use of collusion and bribery. It contains language that offends my sense of liberty and justice and I am not alone. One poll shows 59% of the people want the law repealed; less than 20% view it favorably.
The American people deserve better than this law will give us.
Jack I appreciate your kind words of support and respect.
Tell any neo-conned fool you know and they will totally deny that death panels were added to Obama care by the REPUBLICAN senator from Georgia.
Or, just change the subject.
Or hurl insults.
Tell any neo-conned fool you know and they will deny that we already HAVE death panels in the form of denied care! This, as a result of the crony capitalism (corporatism) rampant in BOTH parties. Just ask the family of Nataline Sarkisyan.
The neo-conned among us would have far more credibility if they opposed ALL laws passed with collusion and bribery–instead of JUST the ones signed by a Black man!!
Then what shall be done about it Quentin? What shall be done to this republican that has been so co-opted and corrupted? What shall be done and who shall do it? The assimilation of traditional American culture ended years ago and a new culture has begun. It lacks respect for traditional values, it does not embrace entrepreneurs, it does not encourage success, it uses class envy and prejudice to manipulate the vote and further erode and compromise what once was us. The new culture is more ruthless, less caring and more out for what they can take or be given. Wealth shifting has replaced wealth creation. Rugged individualism is being edged out for state collectivism.
Populism seems unstoppable and so does the change in demographics that is behind it. I think we’re toast, California is being trashed right before our eyes and it’s foretelling of worse things to come for the nation. We’re in decay.
Fortunately, you don’t see Canada having the same problems, their healthcare system is not overwhelmed, they don’t suffer from rampant crime and crowded prisons. Their schools are not failing to teach because they are not flooded with special needs learners, or inner city kids with real bad attitudes, but then they have a secure border don’t they?
One last time, what shall we do Quentin? Where do we start? Because I really don’t have an answer. The damage to the entire system is spreading like a cancer and I don’t think we can stop it, do you?.
Quentin what makes you think we (I) don’t oppose all laws that are passed with collusion and bribery? And what makes you think that the color of a persons skin has anything at all to do with anything?
“Tell any neo-conned fool you know and they will totally deny that death panels were added to Obama care by the REPUBLICAN senator from Georgia.”
Let any Republican dare to discuss or propose an idea and suddenly he becomes the author, ney the inventor, of the final product no matter how it is written? Surely you jest?
It’s quite possible that the left has never had an original idea in its entire existence. it does have a wya of perferting every idea it ever hears. Case in point:
When the Republicans first considered reforming Medicare they proposed an idea to offer a private option and believed that through choice the government plan would eventually be abandoned. Democrats took that proposal dumped it on its head and turned it into a power grab for a government option (Obamacare is the precurser that will usher in a government takeover as the private sector “withers on the vine”). This law has been written so as to discourage the private sector, mandate from the federal level while forcing states to pick up the tab.
Isakson’s (from Georgia) proposal would have given the elderly an option…the law (written exclusively by democrats behind closed doors) imposes a mandate on doctors to produce said documents every five years with specific questions they are required to ask their elderly patients. One proposal seeks to solve a problem while respecting freedom of the individual to choose the other diregards the individual and treats all elderly Americans as subjects. Should we completely dismiss these differences in approach? Does liberty mean something to you or does it not?
Wouldn’t it now be more productive to condemn and protest the final product as written than one Republican with an idea that was never used as proposed?
And since you claim to be such a stickler for liberty why in hell do you not object to Obamacare? Where are the negative comments for the left’s having imposed this complex, costly piece of garbage legislation?
It is quite suspect that you aren’t bothered enough to comment or object to the fact that it passed without benefit of debate by the entire congress, or that in order to pass it bribes were made for votes…yet it does bother you that Republicans object to it!
Your words ring hollow, Quentin. You come across to me as a total phony.
Great questions Jack…nicely done.
I totally and completely, 100% object to Obamacare. I have said so on MANY occasions! YOU need to READ more. Y’see, with your head constantly where the sun does not shine, you make these ignorant statements!
“Quentin what makes you think we (I) don’t oppose all laws that are passed with collusion and bribery?”
I have yet to see you pen a criticism of Medicare Part D.
“Let any Republican dare to discuss or propose an idea and suddenly he becomes the author, ney the inventor, of the final product no matter how it is written? Surely you jest?”
Let any Republican add a rider to a bill and it suddenly becomes a DEMOCRATIC amendment to said bill? Surely, you jest!
“yet it does bother you that Republicans object to it!”
Hmm and it DOESN’T bother you that you Republicans do NOT object object to the fact that Medicare Part D passed without benefit of debate by the entire congress, or that in order to pass it bribes were made for votes.
Your words ring hollow, Tina. You come across to me as a total phony.
And a willfully ignorant, partisan ass.
Quentin how does calling a lady a phony, willfully ignorant, partisan ass, and worse add to your argument or dignity as a gentleman? I am asking you kindly and respectfully to pose your rebuttals without these ad hominem attacks . Make your case without personal insults or do not post. Sarcasm, mocking, being condescending is also not helpful to conveying your message, but it is tolerable and within the bounds of our liberal free speech policy.
Q: “I totally and completely, 100% object to Obamacare. I have said so on MANY occasions!”
If you have said it on this blog I apologize. If not….
“I have yet to see you pen a criticism of Medicare Part D”
That is partially true. I have not penned a criticism specifically against this program. I have said I was unhappy with Bush’s increased spending and the growth of government during his term.
Bush’s plan does move in the direction of privitization.
In a system of checks and balances the drift has been ever leftward toward big government for decades. You may have expectations that more should be done to eliminate social programs. I agree but I also acknowledge the inevitable difficulty in making big changes, however desirable they might be because of our system of checks and balances.
“and it DOESN’T bother you that you Republicans do NOT object object to the fact that Medicare Part D passed without benefit of debate by the entire congress, or that in order to pass it bribes were made for votes.”
I would object if this were true. It is, in fact, an exageration at best.
The bill was debated for six months in the full Congress. Votes shifted several times as both sides pressured their members. This is how the system has always worked.
One Republican claimed that he was offered “finacial support” for his sons election bid but later said he was only offered party support, not money. Now you can argue that support for a candidacy constitutes a bribe but in the world of politics you’d be hard pressed to prove that offers of party support are unique to the Republican Party or that they compare with the Pelosi/Reid bribes:
From the Cornhusker Kickback to the Louisiana Purchase to the “union 40% exemption” deals for votes made by Pelosi?Reid represent big cash advantages for select segments of the population.
Your other assumptions and projections have been noted.
Jack: “Chris I know you are having a debate with just Tina, but sitting on the sidelines and watching I have to say, you’re not giving her due credit for what she knows and for what you are yet to learn.
Remember, you’re the guy who thought the second amendment was really directed at black powder weapons and did not pertain to today’s rifles…”
Did I say that? If I recall correctly I just linked to that opinion to show the range of the second amendment debate…my larger point was that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. Everyone agrees that there are certain weapons that ordinary citizens should not have access to, we just disagree on which ones. I definitely don’t agree that the second amendment doesn’t protect any modern rifles, and if I ever did say that, I was wrong.
“lol Don’t be cock sure of yourself and so quick to put down the thoughts of this very bright women of infinitely refined judgment and life experience.”
I have no doubt that Tina could teach me many things, but on this issue she has shown over and over again that she is misinformed. Age and experience are wonderful but they are no substitute for being factually correct. But worse than her mistatements and false rumors is that she seems unwilling to admit to them or to acknowledge corrections. The Zeke Emanuel thing is just one example. We’ve been through that issue before. The last time we debated healthcare I explained to Tina that Emanuel is a vocal opponent of euthanasia, assisted suicide, and rationing, and that he never argued in favor of any of these practices as he is accused of. Yet here we are again, having the same argument, because Tina refuses to acknowledge these facts. This makes me feel like she’s so interested in taking this healthcare bill down that she’s willing to use misinformation to do it.
I was willing to let her have the last word but since she asked some questions directed at me, I feel the need to respond…
“Oh I see. There are acceptable papers and there are unacceptable papers…there are acceptable views and there are unacceptable views.”
Of course! I don’t know why you insist on twisting such a common sense attitude into something sinister. Credibility matters. Some papers have it, some don’t. Certainly you would agree that the National Enquirer isn’t a reliable source of news? The Washington Times is barely a step above them, if that.
“Id be interested in what you know about the editorial board of the Washington Times. Id also like to know what makes you such an expert on the Times editorial board.”
There’s one poster here who was linking to op-eds from the WT every other day or so a while back…at the time I pointed out many lies the paper published. The Washington Times also demonstrates a level of bigotry against gays and other minority groups that even conservative editorialists from other publications shy away from.
“The differences in those mandates and this one are substantial and go to the heart of the founders love of freedom and respect for the individual.”
Can you please be more specific? How were the mandates so substantially different?
Chris: “Zeke Emanuel thing is just one example. We’ve been through that issue before. The last time we debated healthcare I explained to Tina that Emanuel is a vocal opponent of euthanasia, assisted suicide, and rationing, and that he never argued in favor of any of these practices as he is accused of. Yet here we are again, having the same argument, because Tina refuses to acknowledge these facts.”
What a person believes or advocates for or against has little to do with real world cause and effect outcomes. An example off subject that is no less pertineant to my point is the Obama administrations policies to create jobs. I have no doubt that those who advise the President firmly believe that Keynesian economic principles work. Two plus years down the road, the cause and effect reality is that they do not induce jobs or recovery…just the opposite.
In like fashion the positions that Zeke Emanuel holds, despite comments he has made, will not translate the real world as he imagines. A very different, and dire, outcome will result.
We continue to have this discussion because instead of acknowledging we just disagree about what will happen under this law you continue to attempt to nail me as misinformed and a dunce when it comes to facts.
“Some papers have it, some don’t.”
Who died and put you in charge of what is acceptable and what isn’t? As I pointed out once before two major stories were first reported by the Enquirer. In both cases the MSM dismissed them. In both cases the Inquirer was proved accurate. One was the blue dress…the other John Edwards.
The Washington Times has more credibility at this point than does the NYT or the Washington Post but credibility is in the eye of the beholder…apparently you have definitely quit being open to possibilitites.
“The Washington Times also demonstrates a level of bigotry against gays and other minority groups…”
Ahhh…there you have it. I’m not convinced since mere disagreement equals bigotry to you on the left and since charges racism and bigotry have continued to be a political weapon used without substantive evidence.
Eric Holder said it was time for America to have a discussion on race. The left is incapable of having such a discussion. /the left’s own bigotry and propensity to hate and label makes it impossible.
“How were the mandates so substantially different?”
Choice. Freedom. Government control is never a good practice. If I had been involved in discussions about the Republican mandate I would have suggested that it be a voluntary program. I think that is why heritage eventually reversed their position. /the government mandate in Obamacare not only offers no way to t out but also confers fines or jail time for noncompliance.
Once the outcome that we can see coming at us, full government control of healthcare, is completely realized there will be no choice left for Americans and rising costs will result in cuts in services, treatments, and care. Examples of what happens can be seen all over the planet.
America can do better…and we will.
Tina: “What a person believes or advocates for or against has little to do with real world cause and effect outcomes.”
This is just shameless backtracking, Tina. If what Emanuel advocated doesn’t matter, then why did you bring it up in the first place? Do his statements no longer matter only because you’ve been shown they don’t mean what you erroneously thought?
You originally stated that “the way this legislation was written, coupled with statements made by leftists like costs will be kept down by panels that decide the level” of a persons “productivity in society to determine how many dollars of care they deserve help make it a socialists dream.”
As I’ve pointed out, Emenuel never said that “costs will be kept down” through the means you describe. That makes your statement a falsehood. Why can’t you just admit that? I apologized for being wrong about Romney’s current position on his state’s healthcare plan. There’s no shame in that, but there is shame in spreading a falsehood and refusing to own up to it.
“We continue to have this discussion because instead of acknowledging we just disagree about what will happen under this law you continue to attempt to nail me as misinformed and a dunce when it comes to facts.”
Because you keep getting them wrong, and when I point that out to you, you behave as if the true facts are inconsequential. You have a larger point to prove and the details don’t seem to matter all that much to you.
“Who died and put you in charge of what is acceptable and what isn’t?”
God gave me a brain, didn’t he?
“As I pointed out once before two major stories were first reported by the Enquirer. In both cases the MSM dismissed them. In both cases the Inquirer was proved accurate. One was the blue dress…the other John Edwards.”
Oh, please. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Do you believe that these instances make the National Enquirer a trusted source of news, in general?
“The Washington Times has more credibility at this point than does the NYT or the Washington Post”
*scoff* Only to a conservative idealogue.
“Ahhh…there you have it. I’m not convinced since mere disagreement equals bigotry to you on the left and since charges racism and bigotry have continued to be a political weapon used without substantive evidence.”
Tina, I believe one can disagree on issues such as affirmative action and gay marriage without being a bigot. The editorialists at the Washington Times don’t go that route; they choose the ugliest stereotypes possible for their target group and run all the way with them. I’m too busy to look for “substantive proof” right now, but there’s plenty of it out there. Read some of their editorials about repealing DADT and you’ll see a barrage of anti-gay stereotypes and prejudice on display.
“Choice. Freedom. Government control is never a good practice.”
Tina, I asked you to be specific, not to give me buzzwords without backing them up. So far you’ve been so vague I’m not even convinced you read the articles or know anything at all about the mandates set up by the founders.
Again, I’ll ask: How were the mandates different from today’s? What about them gave Americans more choice and freedom than the ACA does?
It’s also important to note that the Washington Times has a history of distorting science. A recent editorial claimed that a study showed that sea levels were not rising. But the study they cited actually showed that sea levels were in fact rising, and the author of the study called the Times’ claim “a mischaracterization of our work.”
http://mediamatters.org/research/201103290042
Wish I had seen this sooner!
What shall we do?
EDUCATE the voting population!
TELL THE TRUTH!!!
DUH!
QUIT LYING to your readers so that they can take the proper course of action, Jack!
It’s dick simple, Jack!
As Chris has noted, Tina hasn’t even read the articles! Howz about you have Tina actually LEARN WTF she’s talking about? Maybe, CHECK THE FACTS before she publishes????
Howz about you educate yourself and CHECK THE FACTS before you publish?
Is it so hard??
Don’t you love your country?
Why do you bear false witness against her?
Quentin I’m sorry but I flunked mind reading, you gotta be more specific. What facts and what false witness? Then I’ll try answer if I can, but you do realize this is mostly an opinion area and opinions may not always coincide with published facts, especially when an opinion might be disagreeing with said fact.
However, I do try to be accurate and coincidentally the last time I checked facts on someone it was you and guess what? You were telling us that Mississippi was the great conservative example of a free state. Upon checking of the facts I found it was not so. In fact Miss was not even in the top 20 states as ranked by conservatives for freedom.
Chris: “This is just shameless backtracking, Tina. If what Emanuel advocated doesn’t matter, then why did you bring it up in the first place? Do his statements no longer matter only because you’ve been shown they don’t mean what you erroneously thought?”
Chris the man’s statements matter in that they give us insight into his thinking. The mans statements matter in that they influenced how this legislation was written. The law is thoughts on a page. How it will play out in our lives is something different. I can’t read his mind and heart so I don’t know if he’s unaware, uncaring, an idealogue, or just indifferent. perhaps he’s so ficused on what he does know he fails to consider what he doesn’t. One way or the other…this legislation, a) is an affront to our freedom, and b) will lead to inferior services (and at times early death).
On Emanuel and death panels:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676.html
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/death-panels-sarah-palin-was-right/
I’m too busy myself these days to be as thorough as I would prefer. Perhaps I can come back with more later.
Dr. Emanuel: “In the next decade every country will face very hard choices about how to allocate scarce medical resources.”
What a sad, community organizing view for the future. This represents perfectly the limited thinking of central planners. They are so busy micro-managing that they fail to notice it is their managing that is causing greater expense as well as shortages in resources.
If you want less of something tax and regulate it! Works every time.
“*scoff* Only to a conservative idealogue.”
My exact point to you. Your nasty remarks about my sources have always been about your liberal ideology. I think we can agree we have different views…isn’t that the point of all of this? And of course I don’t consider the Enquirer a major news source…if I did I would use it. It does point to the fact that any source can contain information or ideas worthy of consideration.
“The editorialists at the Washington Times don’t go that route; they choose the ugliest stereotypes possible for their target group and run all the way with them….”
Two things:
I’m not the WT and don’t appreciate your linking me to them or any other publication as if I had some power over what they publish.
Most of the time I don’t select articles to post based on what I think of the paper or writer. My purpose is to have a conversation about events and items in the news. If I find an opinion interesting or informative I will cite it but I don’t consider anything to be the last word.
I read the articles and found them interesting. The founders mandate for health care for the sailors was specific to a group whose performance was vital for the very survival of the people. That special case did not translate (for them) into…gee what a great idea, lets go all the way and force every American to buy health insurance or pay a fine. (There is a very profound and fundamental reason they did not leap in that direction)
My oiginal assessment stands. It depends on how you perceive what will happen as this law is administered over the years.Experience tells me that as bureaucrats attempt to control costs, procedures and available therapies will be cut from the plan’s payment schedule and deaths will result.
You can add a lot of misery to that. You can also add a blunting of innovation and new cures.
Tina: “My exact point to you. Your nasty remarks about my sources have always been about your liberal ideology.”
No, they’ve always been about the actual history of verifiable lies told by your sources.
“I’m not the WT and don’t appreciate your linking me to them or any other publication as if I had some power over what they publish.”
That isn’t at all what I did. Of course you have no power over what they publish. You do, however, have the power to decide whether or not a paper is reputable and worth citing in a debate. When you link to a disreputable source it reflects badly on you; it speaks of gullibility and a desire to believe even the most untrustworthy of people as long as they confirm your ideological point of view.
“The founders mandate for health care for the sailors was specific to a group whose performance was vital for the very survival of the people.”
True, this mandate only applied to one group of Americans, not all. How is that different on a constitutional level, though?
Also, what about the mandate on purchasing weapons?
My point is simply that the individual mandate is not without precident in American history.
I’d like to comment more on Zeke Emanuel, but I might have to get to that later. I’m also still waiting for you to admit that your initial claim about him was a falsehood. You originally accused Emanuel of stating that under the ACA, “costs will be kept down by panels that decide the level” of a persons “productivity in society to determine how many dollars of care they deserve…” Since there’s no evidence of Emanuel ever saying this, will you admit that your accusation was incorrect?
If not, then I’m not sure I see a point in continuing this conversation.
Chris: “You do, however, have the power to decide whether or not a paper is reputable and worth citing in a debate.”
Excuse me Chris but your disagreement does not prove a damn thing. You have not proven to my satisfaction that I have posted anything false so all we have here is you making typical accusations. Instead of arguing on the merits of what is said you attempt to discredit my source. I posted a link to an article and you deride the editorial board. This is a conmplete WASTE OF TIME. 9I notice you had nothing to say on scientists who suggest we are in a period of global cooling)
“When you link to a disreputable source it reflects badly on you…”
Chris you have at times suggested sources that I don’t think are all that reliable or reputable but I don’t assume they represent you. The subject matter, the point of view or opinion is what I find interesting.
As to the facts, I don’t think anyone posting here has the education or expertise to determine whether the facts cited by my source are accurate. If you want to cite another source and opinion, go ahead. Our readers benefit from being exposed to many opinions.
I will say it again. We talk about current events here. We also discuss opinions, attitudes and a lot of other things and they come from many sources.
“it speaks of gullibility and a desire to believe even the most untrustworthy of people as long as they confirm your ideological point of view.”
Do you have any idea how pompous you sound? How dare you!
You have posted nothing to prove my links are untrustworthy or that what was shared was inaccurate. There has been a lot of evidence in the news that the global warming meme is just another extremist political/social hoax made so for personal gain.
“True, this mandate only applied to one group of Americans, not all. How is that different on a constitutional level, though? Also, what about the mandate on purchasing weapons?”
I’ll get back to you on that if I have time…
“My point is simply that the individual mandate is not without precident in American history.”
Obviously true. I think the bone of contention probably involves something more complex than the word mandate suggests. It’s just become the buzz word. I’m not a constitutional scholar…once again I’d have to get back to you…
“I’m also still waiting for you to admit that your initial claim about him was a falsehood. You originally accused Emanuel of stating that under the ACA, “costs will be kept down by panels that decide the level” of a persons “productivity in society to determine how many dollars of care they deserve…” Since there’s no evidence of Emanuel ever saying this, will you admit that your accusation was incorrect?
I’m at work and it’s quitin’ time…back later to answer.
Chris this is my original statement:
A bit of sarcasm but without naming anyone specifically.
However, Emanuels many written remarks fit right in with my admittedly sarcastic portrayal:
Dr. Emanuel, Hastings Center Report, explicitly advocates rationing based on quality of life measurements:
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources.
Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed.
Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.
http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/ezekiel-emanuel-principles-for-allocation-of-scarce-medical-interventions/
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2809%2960137-9/abstract
Tina, you speak with a lot of authority as someone who must deal with a serious illness day in day out. You have a lot at stake when the government starts messing around with your medical insurance. I also believe that costs will eventually dictate exactly what you said, it’s a natural evolution of a government funded program caught up in an already bloated system in constant need of reforms and cost cutting.