Ram it through!

The best thing for America is for the left to ram their risky healthcare scheme through as quickly as possible.

The sooner America sees how horrible the leftist policies of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are the sooner we can get them out of power.

The Obama Healthcare putsch is almost the perfect example of an ideologically driven agenda disregarding any sense of reality or practicality in legislation. Every scheme, every bill, seems to get worse than the last. From the specter of IRS enforcement to mandates with draconian fines, every new Democrat bill gets deeper into the quagmire of everything Americans hate about government. Which is why Healthcare keeps dropping in the polls; Americans are expressing their disagreement with what Democrats are bound and determined to pass no matter how much opposition there is.

In fact, rather than addressing the underlying issues leftists like Pelosi think that the public are just too stupid to understand what's good for them. If the people are rejecting 'the public option', then let's just rename it. The public can't possibly be smart enough to know that there's no difference between the plan labeled, "public option," and the same plan labeled, "consumer option."

SUNRISE, Fla. (AP) - A government-sponsored "public option" for health care lives, though it may be more attractive to skeptics if it goes by a different moniker, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday.

In an appearance at a Florida senior center, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as "the consumer option." Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., appeared by Pelosi's side and used the term "competitive option."

Both suggested new terminology might get them past any lingering doubts among the public—or consumers or competitors. ~breitbart.com


Incredible.

I'm actually a little surprised at how tone deaf, partisan, and ideological Democrats have turned out to be with total one party control of the Federal Government. Especially after getting elected by campaigning as moderates and centrists. Which also explains why many moderates are now leaning conservative just as they were back in 1994. (Just keep attacking Fox News guys.)

The Ultimate Purpose of ObamaCare

The purpose of any bill that they eventually come up with is to create the conditions for a public-only option. After listening to two liberal commentators on NPR discuss the evils of Walmart and how they put "mom-and-pop" stores out of business by lowering prices (!$?), I realized that this is the strategy Democrats are trying to implement with Healthcare. The Federal Monopoly comes in with a low-cost public option, heavily subsidized, with a fine on individuals and small businesses if they don't provide the kind of coverage dictated, and thus nearly everyone has no choice but to go with the public option. The out of pocket costs might seem lower, but our entire society will pay, and pay, and pay.

The cost of this ideological white whale will drag down the US economy even more. (Think Obamavilles all across America.) Costs will go up, not down, and in the end we will all have worse healthcare quality with even worse service than we have today. Which, with the low quality of healthcare service today would be saying something. But if anyone can bring the service level down by taking over an entire industry it would be the Federal Government.


Posted by Eric Simonson at October 26, 2009 6:12 PM
Comments
Comment #289800
The Obama Healthcare putsch

Hmmm… something seems wrong about that:

putsch
a plotted revolt or attempt to overthrow a government, esp. one that depends upon suddenness and speed.

So, let’s see, the duly elected Chief Executive and the majority party of the Legislature campaigned successfully on an issue, and then spend over six months in a painstaking, deliberative, constitutional process to come up with an approach on the issue.

Revolt or overthrow? Suddenness or speed? Nope and nope.

Since the word used in no way represents what the author is talking about, why would he choose the word? Oh yeah, probably because the word has an association with Hitler, and any chance to associate the legally elected leader of our country with that murderous bastard should be taken.

Especially if there’s not a bit of truth to the rhetoric.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 26, 2009 7:10 PM
Comment #289803

I’m not defending the Dems here, but when it comes to which party have a low opinion of the American public, you seriously think the Dems are more at fault than the Republicans with their Nazi Muslim Boogyman attacks?

Also don’t start criticizing the use of varying language to get messages accepted by the public. Framing arguments and positions is the hallmark cornerstone of politics. Pro-life vs Pro-choice? Why isn’t it anti-choice?

My point is that your only criticisms in this article are that they’re choosing language you call shady and claiming the Dems are the only ones who think the public at large is undereducated and ill informed.

Instead of presenting facts to support your attacks you simply reiterate “it will fail, you’ll see” rhetoric and shake your finger to “be warned”. As you might say there are “typical leftist” tactics, your message here is certainly a typical rightist attack.

Pot, kettle, black…

Posted by: Mike Falino at October 26, 2009 8:37 PM
Comment #289834

Eric writes: “The best thing for America is for the left to ram their risky healthcare scheme through as quickly as possible.”

Couldn’t agree more, Eric. Then Americans will be able to tell by its real world effects upon their lives whether it was worthy reform or not.

As for your predictions, they ignore a lot, like no more pre-existing condition exclusions, or cancellations due to cost caps imposed by profiteers. There will of course be a guaranteed 20% who will assess the reforms a failure because there are 20% of Americans who self-identify as Republican. It’s the other 80% who will define whether the reforms were worth passing or not.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 27, 2009 9:52 AM
Comment #289837

Eric thinks Walmart putting “mom & pop” businesses out of business is somehow comparable to a public option and major insurance companies, I never heard of a mom & pop insurance company before…
And are you really saying ideologically driven agenda?!! after 8 years of GWB who said he gets his orders from God!
lol! too funny, no post on the right side since Oct. 2nd and this is what gets publshed.
Get some new arguments already..

Posted by: The other Paul at October 27, 2009 10:14 AM
Comment #289838

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

Posted by: The other Paul at October 27, 2009 10:16 AM
Comment #289840

Eric,

While I completely agree with your assessment, I might add a couple of points:

1.Obama, Pelsoi, and Reid have no concern for the Democratic Party; it is simply an immediate push to pass their socialist agenda with no regard to the fact democrats will loose elections. IMHO Obama has no reard for anyone but himself. I believe the underlying agenda of Obama is to completely overthrow our form of government and establish a Chavez style government. The word “putsch” is exactly the correct word that implies a government takeover. Why else would he associate himself with communists? Why else would the democratic leadership have absolutely no fear of a democratic loss in the next year? The current elections and polls show a massive move away from liberal thinking and a movement toward conservative ideology. I am not saying people are becoming republicans, I am saying they are becoming independents, with conservative leanings. The polls also show a fast drop in support for all of Obama’s agenda.

2.It’s about the money. Passing Obamacare would give an immediate influx of cash to be used for redistribution of wealth, which we might add, is his goal. If BHO was concerned about our healthcare, he would implement it immediately upon passing, but that is not his goal. The plan would not be implemented until after his re-election and for two reasons: 1st, he would never be re-elected if it went into effect immediately and 2nd; it would give him tax dollars to be used at his will. There is not one single government financed plan that is successful; all are bankrupt and failing. Why would anyone in their right mind think the government could operate a public healthcare plan, when Medicare and SS are bankrupt? Sarah Palin was ridiculed for talking about “Death Panels” and yet Robert Reich spoke of the same thing in 2007,

http://community.livejournal.com/politicartoons/1626480.html

Democrats will push any form of healthcare that has the possibility of a public health option. Whatever is passed will eventually become a government controlled health system and the result will be the collapse of private insurance.


Posted by: Propitiation at October 27, 2009 10:25 AM
Comment #289842

So I guess what your saying is the “can’t get anything done” Liberal/communist/socialist/Nazi/ President isn’t afraid of the next wave of elections becasuse he will have turned America into a comlete dictatorship with in 3 years.
Wow, this guy is good, totally ineffective on one hand and completely ready to take over the planet on the other.

Posted by: The other Paul at October 27, 2009 10:42 AM
Comment #289844

What will the republicans approval ratings be by 2010? maybe they wont exist anymore. They will have disapproved themselves into oblivion.

Posted by: The other Paul at October 27, 2009 11:03 AM
Comment #289849

Funny stuff. Obama is weak and useless, except when it comes to taking over the country for his Nazi bretheren!

wow…

Who has the lowest opinion of Americans?

Posted by: Mike Falino at October 27, 2009 12:10 PM
Comment #289850

Eric,

It’s been a long time since we agreed, but the thrust of your article captured by the title is that we should pass Health Care Reform, and with a public option. I agree.

Of course, then you go on to dream about how it will crumble the Democratic party and reveal that Republicans who helped to destroy the economy and kill more Americans than Al Aqaeda, for nothing in return from the oil emirates, will then rise to their rightful stature.

The Republicans, unfortunately, are at their rightful stature as a party as disconnected from reality as the part of your post under the title. I was reading one of Kissinger’s books and heard him groan, in that deep throaty way he has, when someone tells him that Sarah Palin is the hope for the party. He’d probably do her, though.

Posted by: gergle at October 27, 2009 12:14 PM
Comment #289869

All we need to know comes with the fact that the Bill that included the robust Public Option proposed by Pelosi’s House actually scored as being a means to reduce the deficit.

The Republicans would rather talk than solve America’s problems.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 27, 2009 4:04 PM
Comment #289911

Real Clear Politics does not commission any polls, they only report about them.

I don’t watch Glenn Beck because I don’t watch any cable TV news. I try to incorporate right wing web sites in my news consumption to make sure I am not wearing rose colored glasses.

Van Jones resigned when his affiliations became known. Bloom quoted Mao, “Political Power comes out of the barrel of a gun” in reference to perversions of the free market where those in power strong-arm their opponents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWbX_vsAGd4&feature=fvsr
As can be seen in the video clip, Anita Dunn was encouraging her audience to not succumb to peer pressure. In an effort to inject irony into her speech, she introduced Mao as someone who apparently was not discouraged by his peers nay-saying when he made tactical decisions to win the Chinese Civil War.

These were not an endorsements of the economic or political regime that Mao instituted. If Beck said or implied that, then I have yet another reason not to start watching cable TV news again. With 24 hours to fill, these stations run out of facts pretty quickly, so they fill the rest of the time with nonsense and lies. This is true of all three networks, especially MSNBC and Fox.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 28, 2009 12:17 AM
Comment #289912

“Have you watched the material Glenn Beck presents”

Oh, do you mean like the walking tour of the Communist murals and paintings around New York?

Or, when Beck says “run-up” to the U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen “could mean the end of U.S. sovereignty”

One of the writers at Slate compared even Beck to Steven Colbert “except for the irony”.

No, really, as a comedy show, Glen Beck gets funnier every time I watch him.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 28, 2009 12:38 AM
Comment #289916

Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, GW Bush, Dick Cheney, and Sarah Palin are to the GOP what the Ice Berg was to the Titanic. All hail these revered spokespersons for the Conservative movement and the GOP. They help insure Republicans will not govern this nation they so crippled in the last 8 years.

Damn shame too! America needs moderate conservativism as a check and balance in our government, but, nearly all the John Warners and Jack Kemps have retired from office or died. Democrats like Ben Nelson and Louisiana’s Landrieu are having to take up the moderate conservative mantle.

Obama has been in office for 10 months, and not a single al-Queda terrorist attack in the U.S. He has GW Bush’s record beat already. And Republicans are afraid of Obama? Bush left a legacy of an 11 trillion dollar national debt and a crippled economy, a crippled war in Afghanistan, a crippled health care system, a crippled educational system, and civil liberties in gross disarray. And Republicans are afraid of Obama? No, they are only afraid of the dark they created for themselves in their isolation from the mainstream public in America. Only 20% of Americans will lay claim to being Republican today. Though about 34% would vote Republican if they could muster the motivation to go to the polls and vote for the Party of Shame and No which the GOP has become.

A new poll shows the largest number of Americans in history believe America needs a third party to come forward into American politics.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 28, 2009 5:33 AM
Comment #289920

Eric
I too agree with your first sentence. The best thing for the country would indeed be for us to ram health care delivery reform through over the the objections of the die hard minions of the vested interest. We should do it even if it involves the so called “nuclear option” to stop the filibuster. The stakes are too high and will be even higher when we finally address energy policy.
As for your expectations,sorry. They will just not pan out. as evidence ,take a look:http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/09/28/support_for_mass_health_insurance_overhaul_drops_but_is_still_strong/

Seems that even a government health care delivery scheme as poorly put together as the one in Mass. once in place becomes very popular. Note the majority of people with complaints want it changed,not eliminated. In other words,once we get it, we’re not going to give it up any more than we are going to give up SS or Medicare.

Posted by: bills at October 28, 2009 7:52 AM
Comment #289922

stephen

“All we need to know comes with the fact that the Bill that included the robust Public Option proposed by Pelosi’s House actually scored as being a means to reduce the deficit.”

HR3200, really stephen? thats not the way i remember it. or are you talking about the senate version which hasn’t been written, and all the CBO scored was some proposed language, and even warned thats all it was? which is it? sorry stephen gotta call BS on this one.

Posted by: dbs at October 28, 2009 8:45 AM
Comment #289924

david

“Obama has been in office for 10 months, and not a single al-Queda terrorist attack in the U.S. He has GW Bush’s record beat already.”

ya but his approval ratings at this point aren’t nearly as high. can you say one term, and out. i can. not to mention he’s completely bungling the war in afghanistan. the comanders asked for another 40k troops, and he can’t make up his mind. i guess it’s better to listen to Lt. kerry than the generals actually running the operation. meanwhile the troops already there aren’t getting the support they need, because the ” MAN CHILD” won’t commit to winning this war. oh wait, i mean the overseas contingency. ya i feel much safer.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/Barack-Obama-Presidential-Job-Approval.aspx

Posted by: dbs at October 28, 2009 9:07 AM
Comment #289927

dbs, it would be impossible for anyone to bungle the war in Afghanistan more than GW Bush did over 7 years. Obama’s been in office almost 10 months. And we won’t even delve into Iraq mismanagement of American lives and treasure. Your comments should try to be at least a little bit rational in the comparisons to avoid blatant partisan prejudice.

His approval ratings are better at this point in his administration than most presidents. Bush’s were dropping much faster prior to 9/11. Our nation is attacked on a President’s watch, and Americans flock to give that president support. Rather counter-intuitive. But, then, Americans are a very fearful lot, ready to cower at a moment’s notice and delegate someone else to assume the risks of alleviating the threat to them, like Dick Cheney, bless his coward’s soul.

How conservatives can berate Kerry for expressing his views after serving in Viet Nam, and exhalt the draft dodger Dick Cheney’s perspectives on let’s your and your kids die in defense of my elitist wealth and power aspirations, is quite beyond me.

By all means, let’s dither extensively over the prospects of protracted losses of life and treasure where imminent threat to our nation does NOT exist. Had we dithered more before electing to invade Iraq, we might well not have. Had we dithered a bit more before passing the Gramm Leach Bliley Act the current economic crunch might well have been averted. Had we dithered more before passing that coward’s Patriot Act, American citizens might not have become subjects of the Orwellian surveillance of the Bush administration, some of which still goes on today.

I am all for dithering where imminent harm is not posed. Question is, why aren’t all Americans for more dithering and less rush to someone else’s judgment?

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 28, 2009 9:30 AM
Comment #289928

beretta9’s comments are not welcome at WatchBlog in light of his violation of several of WB’s rules for participation. Please do not respond to his comments if they appear. All references to his comments have been, and will be, removed.

Posted by: WatchBlog Manager at October 28, 2009 9:32 AM
Comment #289932

david

“Your comments should try to be at least a little bit rational in the comparisons to avoid blatant partisan prejudice.”

pot meet kettle.


“I am all for dithering where imminent harm is not posed. Question is, why aren’t all Americans for more dithering and less rush to someone else’s judgment?”

as i remember obama called afghanistan a war of nessecity. who do you think is more qualified to decide what those needs on the ground are, the generals in charge, or Lt kerry, and obama? it would seem that our enemies are taking advantage of our CICs lack of clarity to kill as many of our people as possible. obama said he would not send anyone into harms way without a clear goal, and adequate support. what about the folks that are already there? if he can’t justify sending the requested reinforcements, how can he justify the continued sacrifice of those dying there daily? he needs to sh#t or get off the pot. he’s costing people thier lives. with all due respect david, now is not the time to dither. either back em up, or bring em home.

Posted by: dbs at October 28, 2009 10:53 AM
Comment #289944

dbs said: “as i remember obama called afghanistan a war of nessecity.” Yeah, and GW Bush campaigned on peace and prosperity. And your point is? President’s have to respond to the conditions facing them in office, not to the campaign aspirations based on conditions which no longer exist.

In March Obama thought he had a central government in Afghanistan that could be worked with. Months later, that is doubtful at best, and we just learned this morning that Karzai’s opium lord brother has been on the CIA Payroll since the Bush administration. Conditions change. Try to keep up, won’t you?

Or, do your prefer a rigor mortis president who rejects any change in circumstances during his presidency and fails to respond to them out of allegiance to his campaign vision? In which case, you surely don’t regard Ronald Reagan very highly, since he too reneged on campaign promises in order to respond to changing circumstances. Remember the Iran Contra scandal?

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 28, 2009 1:17 PM
Comment #289957

dbs-
Your party is at twenty percent. Who will you nominate, a moderate who can appeal broadly, or somebody who satisfies your party’s hardline sentiments, the sentiments that now only appeal to a fifth of the population. Only Obama’s destruction in public opinion will win you back the Presidency, and so that’s all you folks think about, and all you guys say things to do.

Meanwhile, what does your party stand for now that most Americans are willing to stand for? Obama’s doing what Bush should have done with his change in Iraq policy: more thinking, more deliberation of options, rather than reaction to political demands.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 28, 2009 4:56 PM
Comment #289958

David, you’re point about there being no terrorist attacks on US soil within the 10 months Obama has been president struck a chord within me. According to the Republican “logic” 9/11 wasn’t Bush’s fault and didn’t count because he had 7 years of attack free presidency—the wars don’t count because that’s just damn American anyway.

In fact, haven’t there been more foiled terrorist attacks under Obama’s watch?

The Republican fear campaign is absurd and infantile. If you want to oppose his policies, fine, but don’t try and say we’re less safe with him as president when, by their own metrics and by the proof in front of all our eyes, we’re more safe under Obama.

Posted by: Mike Falino at October 28, 2009 5:05 PM
Comment #289961


Do you really think that Rush, Glen and the Republicans don’t have an answer for that?

It is because Obama and Osama are blood brothers.

Posted by: jlw at October 28, 2009 5:28 PM
Comment #289962


Eric, the current healthcare system is almost the perfect example of an ideologically driven agenda disreguarding any sense of reality or practicality.

Posted by: jlw at October 28, 2009 5:37 PM
Comment #289966

Eric, BTW the proper term is Rahm it! You must start reading the talking points more closely.

Posted by: gergle at October 28, 2009 6:52 PM
Comment #289975

The public option is not subsidized once it is up and running. Healthcare insurance cannot be run successfully by for-profit insurance companies - their goal, by definition, is profit, not healthcare. We need a public option and the majority of Americans agree. If this is stopped by a minority coalition of Republicans & Blue Dogs “Democrats” and Lieberman (What is he?), then it’s back to the voting booth to elect true Democrats of the liberal/progressive tradition.

Posted by: Dr. Tom at October 28, 2009 7:55 PM
Comment #289976


Eric, when the American people finally see the liberal agenda of Obama, Pelosi and Reid they will be hard pressed to distinguish it from the conservative agenda especially as it pertains to their lives.

Yes, the liberals are better at the political correctness game, coming up with catchy titles to sell their agenda. Clinton changed GHW Bush’s New World Order into Globalization, that sounds nicer doesn’t it? They both mean the same thing, corporate rule.

Posted by: jlw at October 28, 2009 8:07 PM
Comment #289979

david

once again david, obama is not there, and niether is Lt kerry. notice i said Lt. not general. you were in the army. big difference between the rank of Lt. and gen., wouldn’t you say? which is more qualified IYO to make tactical decisions? obama put these men in charge, and now is completely ignoring thier request for reinforcements. he is more worried about covering his own a$$ than protecting the lives of those already fighting. how many more should die between now and the election because the man child will not back them up? he is as incompetent as they come, and all the personal insults you can throw at me will not change that.

Posted by: dbs at October 28, 2009 9:18 PM
Comment #289980

stephen

ya the republicans this, that, and something else. yada yada yada. time to wake up and see the reality. and that is that your party is circling the drain. how about responding to post #289922.
you know how the public option is going to cut the deficit.

Posted by: dbs at October 28, 2009 9:25 PM
Comment #289985

dbs-
You seem to think you have me in some uncomfortable position. There have been several public options scored. The bad news for you is that the more robust the public option is, the cheaper and more fiscally advantageous it is.

You wrongly assume that because a program is government run, it will by necessity cost more. It doesn’t have to. I know Republicans are making much noise about cutting medicare for seniors, but that’s bull. The money taken is not going to seniors, not going to care, it’s simply going to subsidize companies that are involved in Medicare advantage plans. True government waste. I mean, we could fund the same things, but administer them through the medicare system, and we’d basically save the taxpayers money.

Same thing with the Medicare drug benefit. Part of the money Obama’s using to fund this was a discount he negotiated out of the drugmakers. The Republicans never even did that, in fact made it illegal to bargain to reduce drug costs.

Republicans, for all their talk of cutting spending, seem to find it hard to force contractors and corporate beneficiaries of government policy to give taxpayers a break. Since this is a large bulk of the costs they’ve forced on Americans with their spending, it really goes a long way towards showing the right’s hypocrisy on the matter.

You can try to bluff and bluster me, but you know what I think? I think your party cares more about the shape of what government does, and who it does it for, rather than about real deficit reduction. If it cared about deficit reduction, your party would have told Bush no. The irony is, there seem to be more Democrats willing to stand up to Obama against Bush’s deficits than Republicans who denounced Bush’s deficit when they really had the chance.

If my Party is circling the drain, where’s your party, given the numbers?

As for Afghanistan, the founding fathers put civilians in charge of the Armed Forces of this country, not the armed forces in charge of civilians. The generals must deal with the soldiers and force they lead. The President has to deal with the country groaning under the fiscal weight of two wars unpaid for by raised taxes. He has to deal with a public weary of two interminable wars He has to think of defense in terms that are more complicated than the shameful simple-mindedness embodied in the partisan gripping about abandoned troops.

Obama’s basically waiting and seeing what happens with the Afghan elections. Anybody with a brain would, too, because if we don’t get a central government people can and will back, we’re basically refereeing an Afghan civil war with American lives in the balance.

The Republican hawks don’t think strategically. They think in movie terms, in body counts and inspiring rhetoric. They rarely go deeper into what makes a war successful, especially one as complex as this one. That’s part of why you guy screwed Iraq up, You failed to see that your intended goals could not simply be attained with a greater body count.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 29, 2009 1:07 AM
Comment #289992

I am not able to access this site as often as I would like, but I was ridiculed for believing Obama’s goal is not to just “change America”; but to destroy America. The pure animosity and hatred of the left is empowering and encouraging him to do so. The push to ram a bogus healthcare system down American’s throats is simply the tip of the iceberg. An article (Dismantling America) written by Dr. Thomas Sowell on 10/27/09 indicates the same fears and before you attack Dr. Sowell as a lapdog of the Republican Party, you might want to look at his credentials. He is not only considered an intellect with a grasp of the chaotic direction our country is going, but he is also an African-American who can think outside of the political-correct box in which the Democrats would have all blacks live. His article is very informative and interesting:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/27/dismantling_america_98883.html

What think you?

Posted by: Propitiation at October 29, 2009 7:37 AM
Comment #289994

stephen


“There have been several public options scored. The bad news for you is that the more robust the public option is, the cheaper and more fiscally advantageous it is.”


according to who? hr3200, nope. the only other thing that i know of that was scored was some proposed language in a senate version. the CBO warned that it was not an analysis of the actual text of any bill, because there is none. no bill has actully been written.

“You wrongly assume that because a program is government run, it will by necessity cost more.”

really? can you name on that hasn’t?

“The Republican hawks don’t think strategically. They think in movie terms, in body counts and inspiring rhetoric. They rarely go deeper into what makes a war successful,”

really stephen because the last i checked we had succeeded in iraq. if it had been left up to democrats we would have left before thew job was done. the surge worked. who was it during the middle of the iraq war that was touting body counts, and whipping up the masses with rhetoric?

“If my Party is circling the drain, where’s your party, given the numbers?”

looks like they may make some gains. i think you’re going to be supprised at what happens in the mid terms next year. IMO democrats will lose seats, but then thats JMO. if republicans quit trying to be middle of the road, and go back to being conservative they will win. more people identify themselves as consevative than liberal. and right now the liberals are acting like liberals. this will bite them IMO.

Posted by: dbs at October 29, 2009 8:47 AM
Comment #289995

Got to score one for propiation. Because I don’t think democrats could produce a counter argument to Dr. Sowell from anyone who has a doctorate or is white.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 29, 2009 8:58 AM
Comment #289996

Schwamp,

“Because I don’t think democrats could produce a counter argument to Dr. Sowell from anyone who has a doctorate or is white.”

I don’t know, let me think.

After reading the article I see that it is long on “talking points”, but rather short on facts.

I don’t have a Doctorate, or any degree for that matter, and I would hardly consider myself an intellectual, but even I can come up with some actual facts to refute Dr. Sowell’s claims.

From the article;

“How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president?”

How about Reagan’s “war on drugs”?

“President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.”

How about the U.S. Marshals Service? A service that has been in existence for 220 years.

“Nothing so epitomizes President Obama’s own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year— each bill more than a thousand pages long— too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed.”

Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” was just over 1,200 pages long. I don’t know about anyone else, but I regularly read books of more than several hundred pages every couple of weeks.
Oh, and BTW, it is not my job to do so.

“Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to “change the United States of America,” the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.”

Anyone that is not actively trying to make America a better place, is, through their inaction, making it worse.

“Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao,…”

Just because I have read Mao’s “Little Red Book” doesn’t make me a Communist.

I could go on but I think anyone that does actually “think”, and not just hear and re-act, could understand the point of Dr. Sowell’s article.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 29, 2009 9:57 AM
Comment #290011

It never ceases to amaze me how flippantly those on the left can disregard the superior qualifications of someone on the right. Dr. Sowell’s qualifications, honors, and achievements can be found on this site:

http://www.answers.com/topic/thomas-sowell

In quoting: “Sowell completed high school by attending night classes, then was drafted to serve in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1951. He spent two years at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, where he worked as a photographer. Thanks to the G.I. Bill, he enrolled at Howard University in Washington, D.C., a majority African American institution, while working part-time as a photographer and a civil service clerk for the General Accounting Office. After three semesters, Sowell transferred to Harvard University. There, he wrote his senior thesis on the German political philosopher, Karl Marx. Sowell graduated magna cum laude with a bachelor’s degree in economics in 1958. A Marxist sympathizer as an undergraduate, Sowell gradually became more conservative as he pursued his master’s degree at Columbia University. He continued his education at the University of Chicago, where he studied under economist and Nobel laureate, Milton Friedman, and George Stigler. Sowell obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1968.”

He has and is writing articles that are published in many magazines, newspapers and on the Internet every day. In continuing to quote from answers.com concerning his academic and government employment:

“Sowell began his illustrious professional career as a summer intern in 1960, then as an employee of the U.S. Department of Labor in 1960-61 as an economist. From there, he taught at Rutgers (1962-63) and Howard (1963-64) universities, later taking a post as an economic analyst with AT&T from 1964-65. Sowell taught from 1965-69 as an assistant professor of economics at Cornell and spent the summer of 1968 there as the director of the Summer Intensive Training Program in Economic Theory. After teaching from 1969-70 at Brandeis, Sowell went to the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) as an associate professor of economics, where he was promoted to full professor in 1974. He also served as project director of the Urban Institute from 1972-74. Sowell stayed at UCLA until 1980 and also taught there from 1984-89. In 1980, he was named a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.”

And to this you add the numerous books he has written about economics and politics. You would think anyone as qualified as he is would be able to back up his writing with evidence.

And Rocky Marks said, “I could go on but I think anyone that does actually “think”, and not just hear and re-act, could understand the point of Dr. Sowell’s article.”

IMO, I believe there is a real jealousy on the side of the left. Would this Uncle Tom dare to think for himself and deny that he would be completely dependent upon the government? He is a brilliant man who is well known. Which brings me to this point, how many liberals on Watchblog have ever written anywhere other than this site and their own blogs?

Posted by: Proptiation at October 29, 2009 3:32 PM
Comment #290014

Propitiation-
I believed even people with advanced degrees are capable of being fools. After all, Bush had an MBA from Harvard.

This pernicious right-wing meme about Destroying America is just an excuse to be self-righteous. After all, who could oppose saving the country.

Only thing is, people are actually pretty keen on saving the country on my side of the fence. But your people have built such a corrosive mythology around the malevolence of the left that you can’t get your head around Democrats feeling that what they’re doing is salvaging this country from the trainwreck of policy your people inflicted on it.

You also can’t get your heads around the notion that your policies failed. You surmise, instead, that everybody else and everything else failed to align the stars right for your pure conservative free market orthodoxy to work properly. So your cure is more of the hair from the dog that bit us.

I won’t deny that Sowell is a smart man entitled to his opinion. But when somebody starts throwing around that venomous crap, I’m not to keen to lend them credibility, because I understand myself, my beliefs, and the foundations of my party’s arguments much better than such vitriol indicates he does.

Republican and conservative policies were given as fair an opportunity to work as ever was given. They failed. We should move on.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 29, 2009 4:52 PM
Comment #290017

Eric,

Scaring people and distributing misinformation is not the most productive way to debate the issue of healthcare.

Healthcare Reform Facts v. Fiction

Fiction: The U.S. has a higher survival rate for prostate cancer than the United Kingdom. Some Republicans make this point to argue that health care systems run by governments aren’t as effective as those in a free market.

Fact: The survival rate, usually a measure of patients still living five years after a diagnosis, is not the same as a mortality rate, which measures how many people died from the disease. More American men are screened for prostate cancer, which means more are diagnosed here than in Britain. But many men live with prostate cancer for years without treatment. American men die of prostate cancer at about the same rate as British men.

Fiction: Saying that nearly 46 million Americans lack health insurance overstates the problem because that figure includes people who choose not to buy health insurance as well as illegal immigrants.

Fact: The Census Bureau estimates that 45.7 million Americans went without health insurance at some point in 2007. Twenty percent of the uninsured have family incomes of more than $75,000, and 40 percent are between ages 18 and 34.
But that doesn’t mean they all had ready access to affordable health insurance. Many may not have been offered insurance through their employer and may not have been able to afford buying it themselves on the private insurance market.
But that doesn’t mean they all had ready access to affordable health insurance. Many may not have been offered insurance through their employer and may not have been able to afford buying it themselves on the private insurance market.
Of all applications submitted for health insurance in 2006, 72 percent were eventually approved while the rest were withdrawn, not processed or denied for medical or non-medical reasons, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 21 percent of the uninsured are immigrants, but it’s not known how many are illegal.

Fiction: President Barack Obama says those who are happy with their health insurance won’t have to change it.

Fact: The consumer advocacy group Families USA made this assertion based on an estimated $47.2 billion shift in costs to the privately insured. But a report for the Kaiser Family Foundation research group says only $14.5 billion in uncompensated care is not covered by the government, and only a portion of that is likely to be passed on in higher insurance premiums.
Obama later amended his claim to say the extra $1,000 paid by the insured includes not just higher premiums but also higher taxes and higher health care costs.

Fiction: An ad from the group Conservatives for Patients’ Rights says that if Congress creates a public health insurance plan, private insurers would be driven out of business and 119 million people would be shifted to the public plan.

Fact: The ad is based on an analysis by the Lewin Group, a research and consulting firm, which looked at several types of public insurance options. The ad focused on the most extreme version, which is not what Obama has proposed and doesn’t appear to be lawmakers’ preferred approach. The Lewin Group predicted that the plan that would prompt the fewest changes would cause 10.4 million people to move off their current coverage.
Fiction: A TV ad by the liberal group Health Care for America Now cites $13 billion in insurance company profits as a reason why a public health insurance plan would lower costs.

Fact: The $13 billion in profits among 10 of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies represents 0.6 percent of the $2.2 trillion in national health care expenditures in 2007. Eliminating that $13 billion would amount to very little in total savings.

Fiction: An e-mail circulating to senior citizens equates health care reform legislation with “senior death warrants,” saying people in Britain who are older than 59 can’t get heart surgery. Britain has a “single-payer” system in which one source - in Britain’s case, the government - pays all health care costs.

Fact: Britain’s public health service and a British group that fights age discrimination deny the assertion. The allegation comes from Obama’s critics, who say he wants a single-payer system like the one in Britain. But Obama has said he wants instead to build on the public-private health system already in place in the U.S.

Eric stop wasting your time choosing sides between Dems and Repubs and see our government for what it is. A clusterfuck of incompetent greeedy rich people who don’t give a rats ass about any of us.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 29, 2009 5:25 PM
Comment #290018

Proptiation,

Why do you emphasize the race of Dr. Sowell? When one reads something, the race of the author should not impact the credibility of what is written.

how many liberals on Watchblog have ever written anywhere other than this site and their own blogs?

Have you looked at the author biographies on the “about” tab?

Paul Siegel has apparently written several books.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 29, 2009 5:26 PM
Comment #290023

WR:

Thank you for informing me that Paul Siegel wrote books on Computers, Internet marketing, and Self-Improvement. I failed to realize the depth of intelligent people on this site. I’m sure his experience qualifies to be an expert on something. I believe I saw some of his books advertised on TV, by a man with an English accent, for only $19.95 plus S&H.

I did not realize I had emphasized Dr. Sowell’s race; does his race bother you?

SD:

You sound angry, are you angry? You said:

“Republican and conservative policies were given as fair an opportunity to work as ever was given. They failed. We should move on.”

When Newt Gingrich and the “Contract for America” took control of the congress and the Democrats were sent packing, did you lie down and accept the inevitable, or did you continue to press your point. Or perhaps you were just a kid then, I don’t know. But, isn’t that what you are asking conservatives to do?

Now concerning destruction of the country: I don’t believe all democrats want to destroy the country. I believe it is just the left wing liberals in the democratic party that want to destroy the country. According to the October 2009 Gallop Poll, only 20% of Americans are liberal, 36% are moderate, and 40% are conservative. Now unless you are able to spin this Poll around to read something else, we have to come to the conclusion that liberals are a minority. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are liberals and they are subservient to liberal groups. Honestly, Stephen, can you tell me how long the 20% will be able to tell the other 76% how to live their lives? Not long, I presume. It will start next week with the elections. Unless ACORN is able to steal more elections, I predict a loss for Democrats. Of course, Obama, who threw is own grandmother under the bus, will try to spin this as meaning nothing. In fact, it appears he has already thrown Deeds under the bus. But then again, it is only MO. Who am I? I’m not nearly as intelligent as those who post on Watchblog.

I hope I have not violated any of the rules of Watchblog. If I have, I apologize, and it was done through ignorance.

Posted by: Propitiation at October 29, 2009 6:53 PM
Comment #290028

It bothers me that you are using someone’s race as a justification for believing he is right.

Racism is judging someone by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character, which is what you are doing.


There may be reasons to respect the opinion Dr. Sowell, but these are due to his accomplishments which he earned.

Your sentiment is just like how some people voted for Obama out of racial guilt.

As to whether you emphasized his race, you provided only arguments in favor of his credibility: the fact that he was an intellectual and the fact that he is an African American. You could have stopped with just saying he was in intellectual, but you chose to mention his race as if it had any bearing on the question of Dr. Sowell’s credibility.

Also, as I reread your comment I am also startled by your use of the “Not only…, but” phraseology regarding Dr. Sowell. You seem surprised that an African-American could reach the sort of intellectuality that Dr. Sowell has. I find this somewhat disturbing, the ability to rise to excellence the way Dr. Sowell has is in no way a function of one’s race. If you find it surprising that Dr. Sowell has accomplished everything that he has accomplished then I consider that to be a very prejudicial statement.

Regarding Siegel’s book, I think you might have overpaid if you bought that book that you saw. Siegel’s book sells on Amazon for $17.95

Regarding Dor. Sowell’s article, I fail to see a single original thought there. I have not yet read any of his works other than the article you linked. Looking at his biography, it seems that his other writings are much more intelligently written than this one, which is mostly sensationalist and fails to provide any references to to prove the soundness of its premises. Even the brightest people sometimes write poorly thought out articles.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 29, 2009 8:40 PM
Comment #290032

Propitiation

“IMO, I believe there is a real jealousy on the side of the left. Would this Uncle Tom dare to think for himself and deny that he would be completely dependent upon the government? He is a brilliant man who is well known.”

How dare you sir!

I could give a rat’s ass if this man was from Mars, had an IQ of 235, and his skin was paisley.

Facts are facts.

It doesn’t matter how brilliant anybody thinks Dr. Sowell is if his facts are wrong.

It didn’t take me 15 seconds to google U.S. Marshals. I would hope anyone of this man’s theoretical “stature” would have thought to look up something so simple as that one fact before publishing an article for the world to see.

For months all we have heard from the right is bitching about 1000 page bills that apparently no one, not even those whose job it is to take the time to read such things before they vote yea or nay, have the time to read.
One would hope that the politicians on the right would have actually taken the time to enlighten themselves before rejecting it out of hand.
One would also hope that Mr. Sowell could have also taken the time to read the bill he so roundly criticizes before doing likewise.

Like Warped Reality I saw nothing original in Dr. Sowell’s thoughts.

I can only hope that this man you call “brilliant” would be capable of showing said brilliance.

Sadly in the linked article Dr. Sowell does not.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 29, 2009 9:36 PM
Comment #290033

rocky

“One would also hope that Mr. Sowell could have also taken the time to read the bill he so roundly criticizes before doing likewise.”

the problem is, that there is no bill to read. if there is please post the link.

Posted by: dbs at October 29, 2009 10:30 PM
Comment #290034

Propitiation

so long as you critique the message, and not the messenger you will be fine. keep up the good work.

Posted by: dbs at October 29, 2009 10:34 PM
Comment #290036

dbs,

“the problem is, that there is no bill to read.”

Then why is he using this;

“Nothing so epitomizes President Obama’s own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year— each bill more than a thousand pages long— too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed.”

in his article?

Seems to me all we have heard for months is rants about this “thousand page bill that nobody has read”.

If there is no bill how do we know it’s a “thousand page bill”?

It also seems to me that there has been an awful lot of discussion (that nobody has had the time to have) about a bill that doesn’t exist.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 29, 2009 10:43 PM
Comment #290039

rocky

how many pages was HR3200? the two bills or if you prefer agendas, are IMO cap and trade, and gov’t run healthcare. the reason the healthcare bill doesn’t exist is because it hasn’t actually been written. if it has, where is the text? if it actually exists shouldn’t we be able to read it, and decide for ourselves?

Posted by: dbs at October 29, 2009 10:59 PM
Comment #290041

dbs,

The House passed version HR2454 or cap and trade is available as a pdf if you google it. It is 1428 pages.

Let me ask you this;
Do you want bills passed by Congress that are so incomplete that any second grader could find a loophole?

I have to admit that I haven’t read HR 3200 or HR 2454 in their entirety, because frankly, I don’t have the time (sarcasm intended).
What has been great fun, however, is reading the blogs that are publishing the lines numbers of the “truly scary parts” of the bill, and referencing those pages in the bill itself (which I downloaded about 1.8m (HR 3200) and 2.2m (HR 2454)), for their fear factor.
What I have found is that there has been a great deal of baloney written about HR 3200 that is just outright lies.
The portions of the bill that I have read seem to require maybe a 10th grade reading comprehension to understand, and it seems that those attempting to stir up the most fear about this bill hope that we won’t read it for ourselves.

It ain’t that scary folks.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 30, 2009 12:40 AM
Comment #290045

Propitiation

“IMO, I believe there is a real jealousy on the side of the left. Would this Uncle Tom dare to think for himself and deny that he would be completely dependent upon the government? He is a brilliant man who is well known. Which brings me to this point, how many liberals on Watchblog have ever written anywhere other than this site and their own blogs?”


the scary part for the left is that he’s not the only one. there are many other black americans who are great thinkers. walter williams, and larry elder just to name a couple. the problem is they aren’t recognized because they refuse to perpetuate the victim mentality the left uses to divide and counquer. preaching self reliance doesn’t lend itself well to the support of gov’t run programs, and entitlements. black conservatives, and liberatarians are labeled traitors, and sell outs. look what they tried to do to clarence thomas, and janice rogers brown.


Posted by: dbs at October 30, 2009 8:35 AM
Comment #290046

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/09/politics/09brown.html

Posted by: dbs at October 30, 2009 8:46 AM
Comment #290047

dbs:

I was just in the process of answering WR and RM, concerning this very subject. My point was not racism, but to prove the very thing you just said. I thought maybe I had not been clear, but thank you for understanding what I was talking about. Yes, it is true, the left fears those of any race who have the ability to think for themselves.

Posted by: Propitiation at October 30, 2009 8:50 AM
Comment #290048

To WR and RM:

Your outrage and accusations that I use race is unfounded and a smokescreen. It is the typical liberal use of a “straw man”, rather than deal with the point at hand, simply change the subject.

My statement was, “He is not only considered an intellect with a grasp of the chaotic direction our country is going, but he is also an African-American who can think outside of the political-correct box in which the Democrats would have all blacks live.”

I also said, “IMO, I believe there is a real jealousy on the side of the left. Would this Uncle Tom dare to think for himself and deny that he would be completely dependent upon the government?”

WR said, “It bothers me that you are using someone’s race as a justification for believing he is right. Racism is judging someone by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character, which is what you are doing.”

WR also said, “Also, as I reread your comment I am also startled by your use of the “Not only…, but” phraseology regarding Dr. Sowell. You seem surprised that an African-American could reach the sort of intellectuality that Dr. Sowell has. I find this somewhat disturbing, the ability to rise to excellence the way Dr. Sowell has is in no way a function of one’s race. If you find it surprising that Dr. Sowell has accomplished everything that he has accomplished then I consider that to be a very prejudicial statement.”

I believe the point I was making had nothing to do with the “comparison of intelligence and race” as you are trying to say. I believe my point was to say a black man has the ability to think outside of the box in which liberals would put all blacks. Only liberals are guilty of constantly throwing the race card. If liberals had their way, blacks would live in their own communities, with no skills or education, and be totally dependent upon a government check each month. My point was also to say, Dr. Sowell would surely be able to prove each of the points he makes.

As to RM’s arguments with dbs about the content of Cap and Trade or Healthcare Bills: there are many versions of the bills. The leaders of the Democratic Congress allow some points to be revealed, in order to gauge the response of people. Most of the bills are secret and the multitude of bills, are meant to keep people off balance. I’m sure you understand, many of the hidden things in the TARP or stimulus bill are just now coming out, months after being passed. The point being, it would be years before all the damage created by fast tracked bills would be seen.


Posted by: Propitiation at October 30, 2009 9:05 AM
Comment #290049

dbs:

The proof of our point is the attacks upon every free thinking African-American. History proves not only attacks by liberal Democrats but also by the black establishment (Black Congressional Congress, J. Jackson, AL Sharpton). Dr. Sowell is smeared because he dares to oppose the liberal “PLAN” for blacks. It’s sad and scary, and blacks have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.

Posted by: Propitiation at October 30, 2009 9:13 AM
Comment #290050

dbs, and Propitiation,

I just love these “do you still beat your wife” statements.

The point isn’t Dr Sowell, or Larry Elder, or whoever.

The point is that, in the link you provided, the statements made were wrong, and were easily disproved.
You guys refuse to address that fact.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 30, 2009 9:20 AM
Comment #290051

“Your outrage and accusations that I use race is unfounded and a smokescreen. It is the typical liberal use of a “straw man”, rather than deal with the point at hand, simply change the subject.”

Props speaking of strawmen here is a couple more from your own post.

“The push to ram a bogus healthcare system down American’s throats is simply the tip of the iceberg. An article (Dismantling America) written by Dr. Thomas Sowell on 10/27/09 indicates the same fears and before you attack Dr. Sowell as a lapdog of the Republican Party, you might want to look at his credentials.”

To think that because of his credentials he is not a lapdog for the conservative movement is as much a strawman as I have seen lately. To think that, as you say “ram a bogus healthcare system down America’s throat” is not a strawman is to dent the reality of what is going on, but what the hey, huh, when it is your strawmen.

I find it hard to believe that, after the problems caused by conservative ideology the past 30 years, one can claim that the other side is dismantling America especially since the dismantling has been going on for more than 30 years. After all isn’t that the point of conservative logic, dismantle the federal government at any cost for any reason?

Posted by: j2t2 at October 30, 2009 9:54 AM
Comment #290052

j2t2,

Don’t you see, it’s all a vast “left wing” conspiracy?

Propitiation says such with comments like;

“Most of the bills are secret and the multitude of bills, are meant to keep people off balance.”

We’re all being held down by the Man, man.

Art Bell would be proud.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 30, 2009 10:09 AM
Comment #290053

rocky

“We’re all being held down by the Man, man.”

if by the man you mean the gov’t, yes we are.

as far as the final bill being secret, we’ll see if the text is posted 72 hours before they vote on it, and if the full text is allowed to be scored by the CBO before they actually vote on it. these two things will tell whether they are just ramming it through or not.

Posted by: dbs at October 30, 2009 11:11 AM
Comment #290057

Eric,

Why are both sides, especially the Republicans, using misinformation and fear tactics rather than debate facts with facts?

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 30, 2009 12:18 PM
Comment #290065

Rock Marks, j2t2, Andre M. Hernandez, and I will even throw in Warped Reality: perhaps, in your wisdom, you could tell us how many healthcare bills there are, where they are made public, how much they cost, how they affect private insurance, and who they cover?

Second question, if you were in congress, would you vote for a healthcare plan you had not read?

Posted by: propitiation at October 30, 2009 6:24 PM
Comment #290073

Propitiation-

When Newt Gingrich and the “Contract for America” took control of the congress and the Democrats were sent packing, did you lie down and accept the inevitable, or did you continue to press your point. Or perhaps you were just a kid then, I don’t know. But, isn’t that what you are asking conservatives to do?

My experience is that Clinton compromised with the Republican Congress, and the Democrats never once attempted the level of obstructionism that the Republicans are resorting to now. They did not attempt to impeach Bush when he was in office, though many Democrats would have supported it.

So, my experience is that Democrats were far more mature, and far broader in their perspective, than the Republicans, who in and out of power are blindly, narrowly focused on winning elections, and keeping Republicans in office, even when their actions have brought shame and ridicule to it.

By the way, I think it’s funny that just before the Democrats lost that election, I decided to become one! What makes it far less funny is that I quit the Republican Party on the basis of what I saw as the ultimate direction the party was going to take its policies. I have not been proved wrong. The Party’s steadily become more radicalized, more blindly partisan, more intolerant of mainstream science, and more self-absorbed. And the level and the intensity of the bullying aspect of the party, as I remember it from 1994 onwards seems only to have become worse and more out of control. In the name of beating Democrats, the Republican Party has become morally and practically incapable of responsibly leading the country. It cannot be trusted with policy, so long as it maintains its current dynamic.

I wish we could just get along, but damn it, I can’t let your people pull this crap again. I don’t think if we do things the same way we did last time that America’s going to see a different, or more positive outcome.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 30, 2009 7:53 PM
Comment #290074

Propitiation-
Which should give your people some pause: the folks who you’re trying to beat now remember what a make or break thing healthcare reform was. Democrats will not lie down easily, nor allow their elected officials to lie down on it. You’re not facing a dispirited party on the decline, you’re facing a very well motivated party that’s wanting to see it’s power manifested. Democrats today will not take no for an answer, like those of yesteryear did, and the Republicans of yesteryear were not facing the crisis of confidence in their party at that time that the Republicans are now. Refighting 1994 is going to get Republican’s butts kicked.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 30, 2009 7:57 PM
Comment #290077

Propitiation,

In my wisdom (your words not mine) I have found mention of 5 health care bills floating around as of last month.

I have found details for 4 of them (some more than others;

HR 3200
HR 3400
The Patients Choice act
The Health Care Freedom Plan

They will cost anywhere from $400 billion to $1.5 trillion.

I don’t really are what any of these bills will do to the private health insurance because I think health insurance is a scam.

If I was in Congress I wouldn’t vote for any bill I hadn’t read because that is their job.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 30, 2009 8:13 PM
Comment #290080

rocky

“If I was in Congress I wouldn’t vote for any bill I hadn’t read because that is their job.”

well said. i totally aree. we can disagree on the methods, but agree that transparency is critical.

Posted by: dbs at October 30, 2009 8:53 PM
Comment #290081

Propitiation,

I believe my point was to say a black man has the ability to think outside of the box in which liberals would put all blacks. Only liberals are guilty of constantly throwing the race card. If liberals had their way, blacks would live in their own communities, with no skills or education, and be totally dependent upon a government check each month. My point was also to say, Dr. Sowell would surely be able to prove each of the points he makes.
The insinuation that most liberals “put blacks in a box” is absolutely false. No one on this thread has called Dr. Sowell an “Uncle Tom” or anything related to that. I read your earlier statement to mean that you were surprised to see an African-American rise to the prestige and intellectuality, which I said earlier is a very disturbing statement.

I have no problems with an African-American holding conservative or libertarian beliefs. To me, they are just as misguided as any white libertarian or conservative. The reason I did not directly address Dr. Sowell’s article is because there is nothing to discuss. Nearly half the sentences are in the form of a question. And nearly the entire piece is nothing but rhetoric. The purpose of the article appears not to convince those on the left to adopt the positions of the right, but rather to rile up conservatives. Because I perceived this difference in purpose I did not denounce Dr. Sowell as unqualified to speak nor did I belittle him. Instead I gave him the benefit of the doubt and I assume that the his other writings (books etc) are much better written from the stand point of persuasion rather than inflammation.

Perhaps it will be easier for you to understand my interpretation of Dr. Sowell’s article if I showed you this. What is it? It’s something that was posted on Daily Kos yesterday. It’s main purpose is to deride social conservative’s efforts to maintain inequality with respect to marriage in Maine. It makes many unsubstantiated claims and just bashes this particular right wing movement. I wouldn’t expect it to convince too many social conservatives to vote NO on Maine’s upcoming ballot referendum. This piece is intended to entertain liberals at the expense of conservative activists, not to be a persuasive article by any stretch of the imagination.

Regarding bills,

Ultimately, all bills are posted THOMAS, the library of Congress’s anthology of bills and laws, both current and historical. When a bill is first announced, it is also posted on the committee’s website. There is sometimes a delay of a few days between the posting on the committee website and when the bill appears on THOMAS.

In the House:
If you want to stay informed regarding new health care bills, check the pertinent committee websites on a regular basis. I know that in the House, the Energy & Commerce Committee, the Education & Labor and the Ways & Means Committees are all active in designing health care reform. If you want to see GOP sponsored bills, then you should visit their website at GOP.gov, because the Democratic-controlled Committee websites often hide the minority’s bills under several layers of web pages. There are GOP versions of each of the committee websites too. It also wouldn’t be a bad idea to check the personal pages of the speaker, the majority leader, the minority leader, the two party whips as well as the committee chairmen+ranking members+everyone else. I know this sounds like a lot, and it is. There are hundreds of bills written during every session of Congress and most never see the light of day. Anything that the full Congress votes upon should be featured prominently on the committee website, so realistically that is only three places to check.

Regarding the Senate, there is similar story. Check the committee website to stay informed. I know of two relevant committees,one of which is the HELP committee (HELP=Health, Education, Labor and Pensions). The other is the finance committee. I’d also check the personal page for Senators Rockefeller, Dodd, Harkin and Schumer for liberal plans. Moderate Democratic Senators Conrad and Baucus are also heavily involved in writing the bills.

Off the top of my head, I can recall six bills. Initially last spring there were three different house bills from each committee, then they got merged into a fourth bill in July (this is HR 3200).
In the Senate there is a bill being crafted in the HELP committee and there is Baucus’ Bill in the finance committee (S. 1796). These two bills were merged in, I believe it was September. Several incarnations/variations of thee merged bill have emerged that at are still being debated. This includes tings such as triggers, statewide opt-in/opt-out provisions and variations on funding, for example one proposal funds itself through greater efficiencies in medicare, another proposes a new tax on some types of medical equipment, and another proposes a tax on luxurious health care plans. I think these are all in the form of amendments to either the HELP or Baucus bills. There is also the Wyden-Bennet bill (S. 391), but I doubt any action will be taken on this bill because it lacks a public option.

Coming back to the house, it needs to be mentioned that all the debate since last July has resulted in a revised version of HR3200, which has been reintroduced as HR 3962

I hope I have helped you navigate the sausage making factor that is Washington. I know I omitted links, but all these pages are found very easily through a simple Google search or from the main House and Senate pages. I’ve also found the internal search engine on the House and Senate pages to be useful.

Regarding what I’d do if I were a Congressperson? I’d probably read as much of the bill as I could before it was time to vote. But I’d probably end up delegating a great deal of the bill reading to my staff. I’m a physics student, not a lawyer, so I don’t expect myself to fully comprehend all the legalese that is used to close down loopholes and the like. You have to remember that Congressional Staffers are all hired precisely to do this sort of thing. I imagine that most of them are very loyal to their senator/representative and have a very good sense of their ideologies, in fact I bet the staffers are chosen so that their ideologies match those that the senator or rep trusts most to inform him/her about the content of a bill.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 30, 2009 8:57 PM
Comment #290082

stephen

“My experience is that Clinton compromised with the Republican Congress,”

he had no other choice.

“You’re not facing a dispirited party on the decline, you’re facing a very well motivated party that’s wanting to see it’s power manifested.”

not dispirited ok. on the decline absolutely. we won’t know how much until the midterms. the democrats are controlled by the far left of the party, that is why they’re are having so much trouble with reform. the democrats were able to pick up republican districts with more conservative democrats. they will lose these gains if they don’t tack right. the country in general is center right not liberal. not realizing this will IMO cost the dems dearly.

Posted by: dbs at October 30, 2009 9:05 PM
Comment #290086

SD:

You will find you’re in the lifeboat with only 20% of the population. And 20% don’t make a majority, unless you have adopted that fuzzy math.

Also Stephen, I sense a lot of anger. Let me recommend allowing your anger to flow through your words, it might help.

Rocky:

Thanks for the numbers. So what you’re saying is, if all the bills are combined, which is what Democrats want to do, then the cost will be at least 2 trillion dollars? Now if we use the same formula that was used to finance Medicare, then we can raise that 2 trillion to say, 20 trillion. Can your children afford to pay for this, just because a bunch of spoiled liberals want their way?

Warped Reality;

You misunderstood me, I am not insinuating that liberals have made slaves out of African-Americans: I’m saying they HAVE made slaves out of them. Everything liberal Democrats have done for any minority group has been to enslave them. They have destroyed their desire to better themselves, they have removed any desire to be responsible for their own actions, the have made them dependent on government handouts, they have destroyed their education system, and for proof, all you have to do is look at their cities. What city have democrats not destroyed?

Evidently, you failed to read the post by dbs: Let me re-post it, and then you read it, you can re-think your remarks about liberal’s desires for minorities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/09/politics/09brown.html?_r=1

“I’m a physics student, not a lawyer, so I don’t expect myself to fully comprehend all the legalese that is used to close down loopholes and the like. You have to remember that Congressional Staffers are all hired precisely to do this sort of thing. I imagine that most of them are very loyal to their senator/representative and have a very good sense of their ideologies, in fact I bet the staffers are chosen so that their ideologies match those that the senator or rep trusts most to inform him/her about the content of a bill.”

I’m not sure why you told me you were a “Physics Student”. If it was to impress me, it worked, impressed the crap out of me. I almost feel intimidated, not.

So what your saying is, that only responsible Republicans are trying to read the bill? From your logic, only those who are loyal to liberal ideologies are hired by Democrat Senators/Representatives, therefore, since Democrat Senators/Representatives are loyal to the leadership of the Democratic Party, they will vote whatever the leadership wants, because they have the same ideologies? So why do we send them to congress? Doesn’t the word Representative mean they “REPRESENT”? Now, whom do they represent? Do they represent the president, or the leadership, or God forbid, do they represent their constituents? Which brings us full circle to, what do the American people want? Do they want an unread healthcare bill that will cost trillions, destroy private insurance, create shortages, and allow Government to set up “Death Panels”? Don’t you just love deductive reasoning?

I’m glad your not my representative and IMO, 70% of Americans feel the same way. I think my theories will be proven next Tuesday, you agree?

Posted by: propitiation at October 30, 2009 11:56 PM
Comment #290090

propitiation,

“So what you’re saying is, if all the bills are combined, which is what Democrats want to do, then the cost will be at least 2 trillion dollars?”

I don’t know who told you that, but I would never listen to them again.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 31, 2009 10:50 AM
Comment #290093

“Rock Marks, j2t2, Andre M. Hernandez, and I will even throw in Warped Reality: perhaps, in your wisdom, you could tell us how many healthcare bills there are, where they are made public, how much they cost, how they affect private insurance, and who they cover?”

Props still at it huh, more straw for us. Who cares if at this point there are 100 bills being considered in Congress. The more there are the more there will be a chance the Insurance industry will not be able to screw things up, the more of a chance the conservatives will not be able to delay and throw in perks for themselves and the insurance industry lobbyist and pitfalls for the American people. The more our elected representatives will be able to come up with a plan that actually works to the benefit of the American people. It is the final version of the bill that counts isn’t it? To think that as different committees add to, delete from, and otherwise modify versions of a reform bill that is to be ultimately 1 bill we are to be made aware of each and every discussion would render the task impossible, oh wait now I see why you are on this track…
Using the “we haven’t read it” and the “it’s to big” line of crap is yet another strawman BTW. It is a delay tactic and nothing else. I mean really, Props, would you accept such a lame excuse from your elected representative were it a bill to ban liberal thought in this country?

Why keep throwing out the misinformation? All this prattle about “death panels” and other nonsense just interferes with us getting a good health insurance reform bill as the final version. After the job our current health insurance system has perpetrated upon the people of this country why would anyone still defend them… and their death panels?

Posted by: j2t2 at October 31, 2009 12:38 PM
Comment #290097

And the hits just keep on coming.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 31, 2009 2:54 PM
Comment #290099

Beretta9:

You do realize that this was first proposed by Republicans, right?

Posted by: womanmarine at October 31, 2009 3:27 PM
Comment #290101

propitiation,

You completely misunderstood what I said before; I recommend you reread it before your next comment.

This is how you interpreted my comment:

So what your saying is, that only responsible Republicans are trying to read the bill? From your logic, only those who are loyal to liberal ideologies are hired by Democrat Senators/Representatives, therefore, since Democrat Senators/Representatives are loyal to the leadership of the Democratic Party, they will vote whatever the leadership wants, because they have the same ideologies? So why do we send them to congress? Doesn’t the word Representative mean they “REPRESENT”? Now, whom do they represent? Do they represent the president, or the leadership, or God forbid, do they represent their constituents? Which brings us full circle to, what do the American people want? Do they want an unread healthcare bill that will cost trillions, destroy private insurance, create shortages, and allow Government to set up “Death Panels”? Don’t you just love deductive reasoning?

This is not at all what I said. I said that the Congressional Staffers are loyal to the representatives. This is because they re hired by the representatives. This allows people who aren’t lawyers to be a senator or representative and still participate in the legislative process. Also, it allows a representative and his/her staffers to divide up the work when it comes to reading bills which can be up to a thousand pages long. Reading a one thousand page bill in one week seems daunting, but if you and nine of your closest advisors divide bill up into 100 page chunks, then it doesn’t seem so intimidating. When everyone’s done you come back together and discuss what you each read. The representative makes his/her decision based on the feedback the staffers provide. Perhaps the mistake I’m making is that when you hear “The representative makes his/her decision based on the feedback the staffers provide” you think the staffers say “vote yea because I like the bill”. That’s not what I mean, what I mean is the staffers say, “We’ve read the bill and it does x, y and z; now it’s up to you decide whether you want to support a bill that does x, y, and z. Nevertheless, as hard as I try, I cannot understand how you extracted

only those who are loyal to liberal ideologies are hired by Democrat Senators/Representatives, therefore, since Democrat Senators/Representatives are loyal to the leadership of the Democratic Party, they will vote whatever the leadership wants, because they have the same ideologies?
I never brought up the relationship between party leadership and individual representatives. All I said is that the Congressional Staffers are the most trusted advisors of our Senators and Representatives. Most Congressional staffers have ideologies that reflect the ideology of the senator/representative they work for. So a Republican Senator like Jim Inhofe probably has staffers who are very conservative. Olympia Snowe’s staffers are probably moderately conservative on fiscal issues and left of center on social issues. A Blue Dog Democrat such as Jim Matheson probably has conservatives working as his congressional staffers. A progressive Democrat like my representative (Niki Tsongas) probably has progressive liberals working as her a part of her staff. The use of staffers to help our senators and congressmen is nothing new nor is it peculiar to one side of the aisle or the other. In fact, I’m willing to bet that there isn’t a member of the House or Senate that doesn’t rely on a staffer to help them legislate. If I am shown wrong, I’ll publically apologize. Lastly it may help if you read this job description of a Congressional Staffer. Also, according">according”>http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/profile/joel_s_hirschhorn.html”>according to his biography, Joel S Hirschorn, a 3rd party/independent contributor at watchblog is a former Congressional Staffer, so if he is reading this thread he may be able to enlighten us on the role staffers play in the legislative process. Another">Another”>http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly35.asp”>Another helpful link

I’m not sure why you told me you were a “Physics Student”. If it was to impress me, it worked, impressed the crap out of me. I almost feel intimidated, not.
I wasn’t trying to impress you; In fact I was belittling myself, I’m just a student and I have no formal experience with matters of law. If you propose that representatives personally read each and every bill, with each bill a thousand pages long thousands of bills proposed every session of Congress, then you are proposing that membership in the House of Representatives or Senate is to be reserved for the elite, reserved for those who have a formal understanding of law. The only other alternative is to write short bills in plain language; however, this will only result in laws that are not worth the paper on which they are written because there’d be so many loopholes and ambiguities. It would be up to the courts to resolve the ambiguities so it would result in more “legislating from the bench” that I am sure you deride.

I read the article regarding Janice Rogers Brown; however I could not glean why she claimed liberals support slavery. She has a wonderful biography and I am glad she was able to overcome all the challenges that have been placed in front of her. She’s either a libertarian or a conservative, and that’s her right; I disagree with the dogma of these ideologies, but she was appointed and confirmed when conservatives controlled our government so I have no objections to presence on the bench. It is important to maintain a diversity of Judicial Philosophies in the court, otherwise it just devolves into an echo chamber that is prone to overreach or commit some silly error of some sort.
Because the New York Times did not report why Justice Brown sees slavery in liberalism, I’ll counter the statement you provided:

Everything liberal Democrats have done for any minority group has been to enslave them. They have destroyed their desire to better themselves, they have removed any desire to be responsible for their own actions, the have made them dependent on government handouts, they have destroyed their education system, and for proof, all you have to do is look at their cities. What city have democrats not destroyed?

I’m from Massachusetts and I have an anecdote regarding the city of Boston, which I present as a city that the Democrats have not destroyed.

When I was in high school I spent my time (summers + weekends) working for a nonprofit organization in the inner city area of Boston. I worked to help low-income people (who happened to be mostly minorities) gain a better life by teaching them to grow their own food in urban gardens instead of relying on charity. The organization I worked for provided free training sessions as well as start up materials for gardens. We also provided a weekly farmer’s market in the city so that these people could sell their surplus food, thereby supplementing their income. I had the opportunity to see this “liberal” organization create change in dozens of people’s lives. I started working there in June 2005 and some of the people I met during that first summer were in pretty desperate situations.

I remember a woman who lived with her brother; she used to work as a chef at a restaurant until debilitating arthritis forced her out of work. At the time, the two of them relied on her brother’s income from a minimum wage job in retail in order to live. Unfortunately, this meant there was no money for arthritis medication nor was there enough money for three meals a day. After teaching the two of them how to garden effectively in an empty plot adjacent to their home, they were able to cheaply acquire fresh produce during the growing season. What was amazing is that after they were able to buy medication for the woman’s arthritis, she began to cook the produce and create processed items out of the produce. I tasted a sauce she made from her tomatoes once when we came back to check in, and it was unbelievable. She came to our farmer’s market and sold her products to customers (even I bought some after work), which enabled the two of them to have an even larger income, which allowed them to live through the winter comfortably. As I said, I saw change like this in dozens of people.

Another thing I did with this organization was to help these newly minted urban gardeners deal with the problem of lead contaminated soil. Before the CRA was passed in 1977, many homes were redlined by banks, which meant that the bank was unwilling to provide a loan to buy the bank. Unsurprisingly, these redlined neighborhoods were always ones populated by minorities. Because of this, homeowners were unable to sell their homes because no buyer could afford to buy the home outright, nor were the banks willing to provide a loan. Many homeowners felt the only recourse they had was to burn the house down and collect the insurance money, and that is precisely what many did. This was before the 1978 ban on lead-based paints; thus, when a home was burned, the lead in the paint leached into the soils and contaminated them. Thirty years later, as the organization and I were trying to encourage people to begin gardening, the empty plots where these houses once stood were attractive locations to build gardens; unfortunately these places were also some of the most heavily contaminated. The EPA recommends that soil contain less than 200 ppm of Pb in soil used for agriculture and we tested some garden sites that had upwards of 12000 ppm of Pb. I even remember one plot that had 32000 ppm of Pb in one corner. Through a grant from the EPA, we were able to introduce a variety of mitigation techniques to bring the Pb contamination down to 100 ppm for all of our gardens. We also partnered with a Wellesley environmental geochemistry college professor to study whether different types of vegetables uptake the Pb differently. We discovered that tomato plants like to store all the lead that uptake in their leaves and stem; because these parts are not traditionally eaten, we recommended to our gardeners that they should grow tomatoes and eat just the tomato fruit. We also discovered that cabbage plants like to store lead in their leaves, unfortunately people usually eat the leaves of a cabbage plant, so we discouraged people from growing cabbage plants unless we had tested the soil and OK’d it.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 31, 2009 4:13 PM
Comment #290103

WR:

Thanks for the science lesson and your life experiences.

I did not misunderstand what you were saying, and the answer I gave you is the natural process of poiticians in DC. Employees (staffers) support their bosses (senators/representatives) and senators/representatives support their leadership (Pelosi/Reid/Obama). They don’t read the bills; they don’t care what’s in the bills; they don’t care what the bills cost Americans; and they don’t care about the intrusion these bills will cause in our lives. Because liberals are zombies. There have been several democratic politicians who have even laughed at the prospect of reading the bills. Why are we just now finding out that the latest military spending bill contains billions in pork spending? Why didn’t we catch this before the bill was signed? And Obama has the nerve to suggest “we need to stop this wasteful spending” while he was in the process of signing the bill.

Back to the theme of the post. Ramming it down American’s throats. The reason is to pass it as fast as possible, so nobody will know what is actually happening. Perhaps, in your research, you should find out who actually wrote some of these bills. Was it our representatives? Was it Obama? Or was it left wing radical groups like SEIU?

Beretta9 brings up a good point, why do the bills have to be 1900 pages long, and that doesn’t include the other bills?

Posted by: propitiation at October 31, 2009 6:01 PM
Comment #290106

propitiation,

“why do the bills have to be 1900 pages long, and that doesn’t include the other bills?”

Please share with us the source of your information.

HR3200 is 1,073 pages long.

The 2007 budget bill that Bush signed was over 1,400 pages long.
The stimulus bill passed last February was over 1,000.
Clinton’s health bill was nearly 1,400 pages.

Where was the great hue and cry over the length of these bills?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 31, 2009 8:42 PM
Comment #290107

“HR3200 is 1,073 pages long”

This is incorrect. It should read;

HR3200 is 1,017 pages long.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 31, 2009 8:53 PM
Comment #290109


http://health.burgess.house.gov/UploadedFiles/House_HCR_bill.pdf

Posted by: propitiation at October 31, 2009 11:56 PM
Comment #290111

Rocky
I just looked it’s 1900 pages long.

Posted by: KAP at November 1, 2009 9:39 AM
Comment #290113

KAP so what if it is 3,000 pages long. IS our country so dumbed down that we can only have laws passed that can be what 3 , 5 or 10 pages long? Cannot conservatives figure out that they can team up and work together to read this bill, to determine that their party leaders insist they vote against it no matter what the bill contains? This hogwash of “its to many pages” and “we can’t read it” is silly and makes your side look like a bunch of illiterates and disorganized.

Cowboy up guys, quit your whining and vote against it because you have the cajones to tell the American people the truth, which is we are the party of NO. But please it is such an embarrassment to hear “it’s to big, we can’t read it”. Really.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 1, 2009 9:51 AM
Comment #290114

The Audacity of Unawareness:

Obama, through his spokesman, claimed that he was unaware of the tax day tea parties. Granted, the MSM did a good job in suppressing any sort of coverage ahead of time (and the little coverage they did provide was derisive at best). but how out of touch is the Community Organizer in Chief, really?
This much we know:
He was unaware that he was attending a church (for 20 years) with a racist pastor who hates America .
He was unaware that he was family friends with, and started his political career in the living room of, a domestic terrorist.
He was unaware that he had invested in two speculative companies backed by some of his top donors right after taking office in 2005.
He was unaware that his own aunt was living in the US illegally.
He was unaware that his own brother lives on pennies a day in a hut in Kenya .
He was unaware of the AIG bonuses that he and his administration approved and signed into a bill..
He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Commerce was under investigation in a bribery scandal.
He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services was a tax cheat.
He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of the Treasury was a tax cheat.
He was unaware that the man he nominated to be the U.S. Trade Representative was a tax cheat.
He was unaware that the woman he nominated to be his Chief Performance Officer was a tax cheat.
He was unaware that the man he nominated to be #2 at the Environmental Protection Agency was under investigation for mismanaging $25 million in EPA grants.
PLEASE!!! There are people in comas that are more aware!!!

Posted by: jack at November 1, 2009 9:54 AM
Comment #290116

KAP,

“I just looked it’s 1900 pages long.”

And so we have yet another bill.

I agree with j2t2.
Have our attention spans become so degraded and have we become so addicted to sound bites that we are incapable of sitting down and reading, or listening, for longer than 15, or 20 seconds at a time?
Do we need to go back to books, or bills that are no longer than “See Spot Run”?

j2t2

“I mean really, Props, would you accept such a lame excuse from your elected representative were it a bill to ban liberal thought in this country?”

If such a bill existed it wouldn’t matter if it were 50,000 pages, the right would make the time to read every stinking syllable.

And then they would have Hannity, Rush, and Beck parse it for them so they could understand it.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 1, 2009 11:32 AM
Comment #290117

j2t2
Why does it have to be 1900 pages long? Even your own party people say they haven’t read it. It’s 1900 pages of legal BS that takes a team of lawyers to figure out. Maybe it would be better if congress simplified things so that common people could understand.

Posted by: KAP at November 1, 2009 11:35 AM
Comment #290119

j2t2 & Rocky
How fortunate it is to be as educated as you are to be able to understand every word that is in each bill that comes out of congress unfortunatly everyone in this country isn’t quite as endowed as you are.

Posted by: KAP at November 1, 2009 11:46 AM
Comment #290120

propitiation,

the answer I gave you is the natural process of poiticians in DC. Employees (staffers) support their bosses (senators/representatives) and senators/representatives support their leadership (Pelosi/Reid/Obama).

I don’t know how many times I have to repeat myself here. It does not follow that because staffers submit to the senator/representative that hires them that the senator/representative submit to party leadership. In fact, if you really wanted to carry the analogy further, then you would have to say the senator/representative must submit himself/herself to their constituents. It is a senator/representatives primary responsibility to make certain that the will of the electorate is the only influence on the laws of this country and not the will of outside groups. I interpret your comment to imply that Democratic representatives that support a robust public option are doing so out of loyalty to the party apparatus rather than their constituents. That is flat wrong. I give my representative, Niki Tsongas up as an example.

In 2007 she was involved in a fierce Democratic primary in order to fulfill the seat vacated by Fmr. Rep. Marty Meehan. Because of the nepotism factor (she’s the widow of the late Paul Tsongas), she started off with a substantial lead, but she initially took a few moderate positions. That prompted several of her opponents such to run to the left. Her support started to weaken after voters started to look beyond the names of the candidates to their actual positions. In order to counter this, Tsongas quickly moved further to the left on things such as health care and the environment. She continued this during the general election, even when GOP candidate Jim Ogonowski started polling well. However, Ogonowski’s support fell apart after one of the debates when he refused to pledge support for the revised SCHIP program that was scheduled to be voted upon one week after the special election. You see, if Tsongas did anything but support a plan with a strong public option, I’m sure voters in Massachusetts would revolt, I bet one of the Democratic primary challengers from 2007 would try running to her left again in 2010.

Most of the country wants a public option so I don’t see how the bill is being rammed down people’s throats. Six months is not the fastest time for a bill to gestate in committee and a new version was released this past week; I doubt the final bill will be voted on until January at least. Maybe they’ll squeeze it in December right before the Holiday break, but I don’t think so.

Who writes the bills? The answers are Congressional Staffers as well as thesepeople. Of course the staffers and the offices of legislative council must report to and follow the directions given to them by Congress.

Regarding the length of bills, as I said before, the bills are long so that Congress is able to precisely deliver its intentions. I don’t know how short the bill would have to be in order for you to stop making this complaint, but if the bill was substantially shorter then it would be very vague and open to attack by lawyers able to discover dozens of loopholes on every page. Also, remember that a bill like this has to interact with dozens of laws already in effect. For example, the SCHIP, Medicare and Medicaid programs will all be impacted. Congress needs to specify in great detail how every line of its new healthcare bill will interact with the old legislation. Of course, we could have Congress step aside, but that would mean it would be up to the courts to interpret what the bills, and I know how much the right likes it when the courts interpret laws that goes against their liking (sarcasm).
Bills of this length are nothing new. For example the bill that established Medicare part D five years ago was over 2000 pages long.

Posted by: Warped Reality at November 1, 2009 12:02 PM
Comment #290122

KAP,

“How fortunate it is to be as educated as you are to be able to understand every word that is in each bill that comes out of congress unfortunatly everyone in this country isn’t quite as endowed as you are.”

No offence meant, but does it take a special “endowment” do use a dictionary, or a Thesaurus?
Our members of Congress get paid to read. That’s their job.
Laws by their very nature have to contain the nuance necessary to be upheld, or they are not very good law.
What is the point of writing laws that are struck down as Unconstitutional.

Oh, and BTW, it doesn’t take a Constitutional lawyer of someone with a PHD to understand that all of this “death panel” baloney is just that, baloney.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 1, 2009 12:26 PM
Comment #290124

Warped Reality:

You live up to your name. You said:

“In fact, if you really wanted to carry the analogy further, then you would have to say the senator/representative must submit himself/herself to their constituents. It is a senator/representatives primary responsibility to make certain that the will of the electorate is the only influence on the laws of this country and not the will of outside groups. I interpret your comment to imply that Democratic representatives that support a robust public option are doing so out of loyalty to the party apparatus rather than their constituents.”

Bingo, bingo, and bingo: they are to represent their constituent, they a influenced by outside groups, and they are doing so out of loyalty (or fear of) to party bosses

“Most of the country wants a public option so I don’t see how the bill is being rammed down people’s throats.”

Your poll is flawed because it is part of the MSM, which I might say, has always been in bed with Obama. How else can you explain such different results in polls?

1. 57% of voter believes healthcare reform will costs us more.
2. 53% believe the quality of care will get worse.
3. 45% support the plan.
4. 51% oppose healthcare reform.
5. 23% strongly favor plan.
6. 40% strongly oppose plan.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

“Who writes the bills? The answers are Congressional Staffers as well as thesepeople. Of course the staffers and the offices of legislative council must report to and follow the directions given to them by Congress.”

The main writer of all recent bills; stimulus, cap and trade, and healthcare is an organization by the name of the Apollo Alliance, and you wouldn’t believe who is connected with this group.

http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/alliances-writing-legislation-stimulus-bill-cap-and-trade-bill-healthcare-bill-america-needs-to-know/

Posted by: propitiation at November 1, 2009 2:27 PM
Comment #290125

So tell me propitiation, are these bad things;

The stated goals of the Apollo Alliance are:

1.Promote advanced technology and hybrid electric cars.
2.Invest in more efficient factories.
3.Encourage high-performance building.
4.Increase use of energy efficient appliances.
5.Modernize electrical infrastructure (smart grid).
6.Expand renewable energy development.
7.Improve transportation options.
8.Reinvest in smart urban growth.
9.Plan for a hydrogen future.
10.Preserve regulatory protections.

Or is what you’re telling me is that The Apollo Alliance is bad because it is involved in the writing of legislation, but Project for the New American Century is good for doing the exact same thing?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 1, 2009 2:53 PM
Comment #290129

RM:

The Apollo Alliance is not good for America because it is an anti-capitalist, pro-union, socialists organization bent on the re-distribution of wealth. Sound familiar? These are Obama’s and his czar’s goals. Those involved in this organization are Marxist, Maoist and their goal is to destroy America. But that is beside the point; my post was in response to WR lack of knowledge as to who is responsible for writing these bills. I guess your goal of changing the subject and defending the AA confirms that you already know their involvement.

For anyone who doesn’t know what we are talking about, be sure to read the link showing the involvement of the Apollo Alliance in our government. It is also well to notice ACORN and the SEIU involvement too. There is a lot more going on here than just ideologies disputing politics. Judging from RM’s defense of AA; RM knows the depths of corruption taking place and the goal of liberals to “fundamentally change America” as Obama promised to do. We are not arguing politics; we are talking about the survival of our republic.

Posted by: propitiation at November 1, 2009 4:08 PM
Comment #290131

WR:

You might also want to check out the Gallop Polls, you wind find results similar to Rasmussen:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123989/Americans-Healthcare-Reform-Five-Key-Realities.aspx

Of course you do realize the results of polls are based on the questions? It is for sure, Obama does not have a majority of Americans supporting healthcare reform.

Posted by: propitiation at November 1, 2009 4:21 PM
Comment #290133

propitiation,

So are you gettng all of this from Glen Beck, who BTW, I find to be “blow milk out of your nose” funny, or just from the link you provided.

You have brought up SEIU more than once, and it appears that you are willing to paint the entire union as bad for the actions of a few of it’s members. Do you actually have proof that SEIU is entirely corrupt, or is Glen Beck all you have.

Likewise for ACORN. Do you have actual proof that this organization is involved in corruption on a massive scale or are you just blowing smoke?

So far I have found only 1 claimed Marxist/Maoist in the entire Apollo Alliance roster. That would be Van Jones who made the claim in 1992.

I am far from being an Apollo Alliance supporter, but I actually took the time to find what their goals are, and I don’t need Glen Beck to translate their agenda for me.
The link you provided left out a few of the alliance members such as Google, and PG&E, two of the most sucessful corporations in America.

From Treehugger.com
The Apollo Alliance released in December, 2008 a paper with suggestions for the bill, many of which were incorporated into the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. One important part was the “down-payment” of more than $100 million dollars for green-collar job creation.

Creating green jobs”. Does that sound like the work of an anti-capitalist organization?

Whether or not I support The Apollo Alliance I definately support their stated goals.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 1, 2009 4:50 PM
Comment #290134
You live up to your name. You said:

“In fact, if you really wanted to carry the analogy further, then you would have to say the senator/representative must submit himself/herself to their constituents. It is a senator/representatives primary responsibility to make certain that the will of the electorate is the only influence on the laws of this country and not the will of outside groups. I interpret your comment to imply that Democratic representatives that support a robust public option are doing so out of loyalty to the party apparatus rather than their constituents.”

Bingo, bingo, and bingo: they are to represent their constituent, they a influenced by outside groups, and they are doing so out of loyalty (or fear of) to party bosses

The only people in Congress buckling out of loyalty or fear of the party apparatus and/or outside groups are the GOP members beholden to insurance company financial contributions and because the party wants health-care to be Obama’s Waterloo.

I just want to make sure I have this right. You think that progressive Democrats such as my representative (Niki Tsongas of Massachusetts’ 5th congressional district) support these health-care reform bills primarily because of influence from party leadership and groups from outside the district.
If you think that’s true then you are extremely misguided.

Support for a public option remains overwhelming in Massachusetts. Right now we are preparing for the special election to succeed Ted Kennedy, the leading candidates all support health care reform with some sort of public option. It would be political suicide to campaign against a public option here.

Also, I’d like to remind you that there are dozens of moderate to conservative democrats that are doing just fine opposing the public option. They are swing votes and their constituents are closely divided. The political process is evolving over the course of the last half year and will continue to do so. I am confident that whatever bill passes, it will be supported by at least half the electorate. I don’t see people like Senator Blanche Lincoln or Senator Ben Nelson voting for a public option unless they feel their constituents supported it.

I am uneducated regarding the Apollo Alliance, so I won’t comment on it until I do some research. Unlike you, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Glenn Beck’s claims until I have evidence otherwise. I wish you’d extend the same token to reputable news sources in the mainstream media.
For example, did you know that the media conducts almost zero polling? Nearly all polls referred to as “Fox News Poll”, “NBC/WSJ Poll”, “CBS/NYT poll”, etc are actually conducted by independent outside organizations working under contract to the media organization. I know the firm that currently does Fox News Polls is called “Opinion Dynamics”. In any case, it is best to consider multiple polls at once because each one is only a statistical manifestation of reality. That way, outliers such as the Rasmussen Poll can be identified as such. Also, I think it is unjustified to label a poll as biased unless you can point to a problem with the wording of a published question, or anther error with the methodology. The polls that are released for media consumption always publish details like these in order to remain transparent and trustworthy.

I leave you with this summary of recent polling on the public option.

While previewing this comment I see you have posted a Gallup poll. Unfortunately, I have an exam on Tuesday I need to study for, so I can’t spend in more time right now, but I promise to address your point as as soon as I can. I recognize that parts of what I am posting now may have been invalidated by your source, but I don’t have time to revise my statement another time and do yet more research into polling and health care. Nevertheless, I will soon return to discuss polling and the public option and any other issues such as the Apollo Alliance of which I am currently uneducated except for what Glenn Beck told me.

Posted by: Warped Reality at November 1, 2009 5:04 PM
Comment #290135

” but how out of touch is the Community Organizer in Chief, really?”

You’ll have to “Ask the Moustache” as they say on the Young and the Restless. The moustache being DAxelrod in this case. Some things that BHO was saying sounded oddly familiar, and then one day I saw an old clip of Mayor RMDaley saying the same things, exactly. Also remember that DA was the “just words” connection between Deval Patrick and BHO.

Posted by: ohrealy at November 1, 2009 5:48 PM
Comment #290137

“How fortunate it is to be as educated as you are to be able to understand every word that is in each bill that comes out of congress unfortunatly everyone in this country isn’t quite as endowed as you are.”

KAP the number of pages in the bill is not the point. The point is why are those on the right in such a tizzy over the number of pages in the health insurance reform bill. They have had enough time to make up much misinformation, half truths and outright lies. It is a strawman, nothing more. Where were these far right extremist whiners when the Patriot Act was being written and debated in Congress? These pathetic losers in Congress that are complaining now are the same pathetic losers that didn’t have a problem with the 300+ pages in the Patriot Act nor did they have a problem with not reading it in it’s entirety prior to signing the bill as it was only a matter of 4 days star to finish. Perhaps if we put the word “Patriot” into the name of the health insurance reform bill the problem will cease to exist, what do you think?

Posted by: j2t2 at November 1, 2009 9:16 PM
Comment #290138

What if all the things Genn Beck says, is true? What if there is a move to destroy our country? What if the goal of the healthcare and cap and trade bill is to take control of america’s wealth? Doesn’t that scare anyone besides me?

Posted by: Kathy at November 1, 2009 9:40 PM
Comment #290140

What if Glen Beck’s job is to scare the Beejezus out of everybody?

I mean after all it worked for the last 8 years.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 1, 2009 9:55 PM
Comment #290142

Kathy, you do well to be scared. But don’t look for consolation on this site. Liberals are too drunk with power and the desire to pass any bill that increases their power and accomplishes their socialist goal of dismantling America. They talk the talk of bipartizanship but in reality they despise anyone with differing opinions. You are not the only American fearing the future and that fear will be seen at the polls on Tuesday.

Posted by: propitiation at November 1, 2009 10:33 PM
Comment #290143

“Liberals are too drunk with power and the desire to pass any bill that increases their power and accomplishes their socialist goal of dismantling America.”

What power Props, they can’t even get a single payer plan through the dems let alone both parties, stop swilling the kool aid props and lets have an intelligent debate on the issues not on your strawmen. As someone in the insurance industry you should be able to have reasonable objections to health insurance reform without having to resort to “death panels” “socialist dismantling” yada yada yada ad nauseum.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 1, 2009 11:04 PM
Comment #290153

“You are not the only American fearing the future and that fear will be seen at the polls on Tuesday.”

Exploiting fear is the stock and trade of the modern Republican party.

Posted by: Rich at November 2, 2009 9:26 AM
Comment #290157

Kathy-
Why would anybody believe that their own party was going to do that? Destroy America? Destroy the economy? And do all of this and more, deliberately?

Glenn Beck’s paranoid politics, ironically enough, will lead his listeners towards a politics that is unintentionally just as damaging. This country doesn’t need more foot dragging. It needs reforms. It needs a revitalization of the economy based on something else than the masturbatory economics of speculation on Wall Street.

It does not need more people treating as Gospel the notion that half this country wants to destroy their own livelihoods, kill their grandmothers, enter their children in today’s equivalent of the Hitler Youth, and detain their friends and families in concentration camps. If this didn’t happen back in the day and age when Democrats actually had the power to do it, how in hell do you think it’s going to happen today, when the Democrats have sixty votes and still have trouble getting crap passed through Congress?

Of course, that may be the point, because otherwise, the Republicanw in Congress are doing an unconscionable thing: impeding Congress’s ability to deal with a variety of problems that are crippling our economy, undermining our infrastructure, threatening our security, and overall just making American’s lives miserable.

You may not like that Democrats are the majorities in both houses. You may think it’s utterly horrible that they are making the laws.

Well, now you know how we felt. Only your folks have reacted with much less maturity, much less common sense restraint. They want Congress back, and they want it back NOW!

And so they tell people like you these outrageous lies, and make the Obama Presidency out to be this threat to Democracy and the Nation’s future.

Because otherwise, the biggest threat is the Republican’s shallow partisan cynicism, which puts their party first, and the country’s welfare second.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2009 11:38 AM
Comment #290178

Hey, anyone want to talk about health care reform?

Here’re links from a fairly balanced source (i.e., not a political organization; only the most hardened ideologue would consider the New England Journal of Medicine to have a political slant). You can see what the issues are and how neither side has a lock on all the answers. It’s kind of fun to see what thinking people say.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at November 2, 2009 6:33 PM
Comment #290185

Stephen, I am a democrat and I voted for President Obama. As I said in another column, I am a single mother of 3 and I trusted President Obama to change things, but now I am scared af the things he is doing. I friend of mine, from my support group, got me started watching Glenn Beck on Fox News. He does not support republicans or democrats and he justs asks question of our politicians. He has a phone with a direct line to the whitehouse and when he gives out information, he asks the whitehouse to call him and correct he mistakes and no one calls. He said that the president has people who monitor all news channels and correct themwhen they are wrong. But the whitehouse never calls Glenn Beck. The things Glenn Beck is saying about what all politicians is showing me the have no regard for our constitution or freedoms. If he is correct, what kind of life will my children have? We just keep spending money and President Obama says we need to reign in spending, but he keeps spending. I am not very smart, but I know when things don’t look good. Can you explain what is happening to our country. What should we be doing?

Posted by: Kathy at November 3, 2009 12:27 AM
Comment #290188

Kathy:

That “friend” was no friend. If you really believe the things you posted, I have a bridge I will sell you, cheap.

If I were in the White House I wouldn’t call him either. What he does isn’t news.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 3, 2009 6:41 AM
Comment #290191

Back to the original point of this article, Steny Hoyer was on Bill Press’ show this a.m. and said some really incredible things. Paraphrasing:

This is the most debated bill in history, so we don’t need much debate. I think we will put it up on the web for 72 hours so people can read it then vote on it this weekend.

and

Not sure about the pre-existing conditions coverage starting in 2013 but would have to check.

Wow, the majority leader says there’s no reason to debate this because everyone already knows what’s in there, but then he turns around and says he’s not sure about a KEY component of the legislation.

How does this pre-existing condition provision work anyway? What’s to keep someone from just paying the no coverage fine each year then buying insurance if or when they need to go to the hospital? That’s like placing a field bet after the dice have been rolled.

Posted by: George at November 3, 2009 10:06 AM
Comment #290198

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats unveiled their healthcare reform bill containing 1990 pages.

The legislation uses gimmicks alleging that hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for this bill will come from eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, but they cannot identify it specifically or show that that the federal government has ever been capable of eliminating such waste and fraud. If they could, it would have been done long before now. It is a sham. Seniors know that cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare is deadly serious. The ridiculous gimmick of saying that ten years of taxes will pay for the 5-6 years of the Democrat plan is also most disingenuous.

Page 94—Section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government
Page 110—Section 222(e) requires the use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan—and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions
Page 111—Section 223 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee”) to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase—and would likely require all Americans to subsidize and purchase plans that cover any abortion
Page 211—Section 321 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at the HULewin GroupUH, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage
Page 225—Section 330 permits—but does not require—Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care
Page 255—Section 345 includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the bill—while the bill includes a requirement for applicants to verify their citizenship, it does not include a similar requirement to verify applicants’ identity, thus encouraging identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits
Page 297—Section 501 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health insurance—the tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000, thus breaking a central HUpromiseUH of then-Senator Obama’s presidential campaign
Page 313—Section 512 imposes an 8 percent “tax on jobs” for firms that cannot afford to purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health coverage; according to an HUanalysisUH by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions “at substantial risk of unemployment”—Uwith minority workers losing their jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts
Page 336—Section 551 imposes additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar “surcharge,” more than half of which will hit small businesses; according to a model developed by President Obama’s senior economic advisor, such taxes could cost up to 5.5 million jobs
Page 520—Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions of seniors’ existing coverage
Page 733—Section 1401 establishes a new Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research; the bill includes no provisions preventing the government-run health plan from using such research to deny access to life-saving treatments on cost grounds, similar to Britain’s National Health Service, which denies patient treatments costing more than £35,000
Page 1174—Section 1802(b) includes provisions entitled “TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES” to fund comparative effectiveness research, breaking Speaker Pelosi’s promise that “UWe will not be taxing [health] benefits in any bill that passes the HouseU,” and the President’s promise not to raise taxes on families with incomes under $250,000

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 3, 2009 1:15 PM
Comment #290199

We’ve already been destroyed. The Chinese communists own most of us.

Glenn Beck has a direct line to the White House Restaurant in Arlington Va.

Posted by: ohrealy at November 3, 2009 1:19 PM
Comment #290216

Flush,

“Page 110—Section 222(e) requires the use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan—and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions.”

Here is the entirety of page 110. Please point out to us where it says what you claim in the above sentence.


“110
1 (3) COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSUR
2 ANCE OPTION.—The public health insurance option
3 shall provide coverage for services described
in para
4 graph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be
construed
5 as preventing the public health insurance option
6 from providing for or prohibiting coverage of
7 services described in paragraph (4)(A).
8 (4) ABORTION SERVICES.—
9 (A) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUND
10 ING IS PROHIBITED.—The services described in
11 this subparagraph are abortions for which the
12 expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for
13 the Department of Health and Human Services
14 is not permitted, based on the law as in effect
15 as of the date that is 6 months before the be
16 ginning of the plan year involved.
17 (B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUND
18 ING IS ALLOWED.—The services described in
19 this subparagraph are abortions for which the
20 expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for
21 the Department of Health and Human Services
22 is permitted, based on the law as in effect as
23 of the date that is 6 months before the begin
24 ning of the plan year involved.”

This is taken from the link that propitiation provided in comment #290109

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 3, 2009 9:42 PM
Comment #290217

BTW, the text on page 111 starts with;

“111
1 (f) REPORT REGARDING INCLUSION OF ORAL
2 HEALTH CARE IN ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE.—

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 3, 2009 9:45 PM
Comment #290218

Oh, and for those f you still whining about the number of pages in this bill, it doesn’t help that there are only 25 lines on each page and those lines are double spaced for ease of reading.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 3, 2009 10:18 PM
Comment #290221

Big sweep in Va, democraps wooped in their own state of NJ, and the worst a conservative can do in NY 23rd is run 50/50. Somebody is pissed off at BHO, Pelosi, and Reid and their trying to ram this craps down our throats. So where do the blue dogs go from here? Let the liberal spin begin…

Posted by: dembs at November 3, 2009 11:02 PM
Comment #290246

Rocky…the paragraph in question, as you provided, reads;


(B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUND
18 ING IS ALLOWED.—The services described in
19 this subparagraph are abortions for which the
20 expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for
21 the Department of Health and Human Services
22 is permitted, based on the law as in effect as
23 of the date that is 6 months before the begin
24 ning of the plan year involved.”

Please note what I wrote regarding this…”if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 4, 2009 3:57 PM
Comment #290269

Flush,

I hate to sound naive but nowhere in the language above does it say anything about requiring anything. The word “require” never appears on the page in question, and there is no mention of the Hyde Amendment, except for the phrase;
“based on the law as in effect as
23 of the date that is 6 months before the begin
24 ning of the plan year involved”

and as there is no new law requiring the Federal government to fund abortions waiting in the wings I think this much ado about nothing.
As a point of fact I seriously doubt that abortion, as the political hot potato it is, could be on even the most liberal member’s of Congress agenda.
Now is not the time for that fight and I assume that the Democrats know this.

On another point, I saw the information you posted virtually verbatim on another web site, and I can only assume that this is where you found it.
I perused that site and actually compared it with the bill and saw very little of the language that was claimed to be there, and in fact saw an awful lot of parsing (lying) going on and very little truth.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 4, 2009 9:35 PM
Comment #290290

Rocky, I obtained my information from my congressman. On the abortion issue we both read something different into the language, which by the way, is of great concern to me as well. If we can’t understand and agree on the language how will those who must enforce and apply the language agree? Just another case for the lawyers and courts.

I am most interested in why, of all the issues I included, you only picked one to write about. Are these other concerns in the bill of no interest to you?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2009 12:07 PM
Comment #290334

Flush,

I picked that particular item because it is the most contentious and most parsed issue, and because it has also been the most divisive issue in this country for the last 30 years.
The other issues that have been put forth I see as negotiable, and could/should be worked out. Federal funding for abortion, except for the exemptions outlined in the Hyde amendment is not.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 6, 2009 9:00 AM
Comment #290690

Gee, how embarrassing for Republicans. Their own party’s health insurance for their employees covers abortion since 1991. Now they are going to opt out.

GOP chairman ends abortion insurance for employees

Posted by: womanmarine at November 13, 2009 6:17 AM
Comment #290940

From FactCheck.com :

“Would the House-passed health care bill make a tough economy worse and wipe out more jobs, as claimed in a TV ad from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?

Or would it help small business and encourage economic growth, as claimed in an ad sponsored by a big labor union and other supporters of federal efforts to expand health insurance coverage?

Who’s right? Will jobs be lost as businesses are required to cover their employees? Or will the economy, and jobs picture, brighten as almost all Americans acquire health insurance?

The truth is the House legislation would likely have a “small” effect on jobs, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. A RAND Corp. expert says the job loss would be “quite minimal.” A third estimate puts the job loss at several hundred thousand low-wage jobs, or well under one-half of 1 percent of all jobs. Furthermore, the bill doesn’t kick in until the year 2013, and by then the economy is expected to be much improved, with unemployment down to 5.8 percent according to CBO’s projections.”

GOP talking heads BUSTED again by truth, facts, and objective assessment.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 17, 2009 12:47 PM
Comment #290941

womanmarine, I saw that too in the news yesterday.

Also, that the RNC’s health insurer has been rationing health care all along. Another Oopsie!

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 17, 2009 12:49 PM
Post a comment