« Beck and Limbaugh on Radio Censorship Czar Mark Lloyd | Main | Global Warming Computer Spews Tons of CO2 »

Well it is good to hear honesty from a politician

As long as the demacrooks are running everything we wont have any tort reform becuase the donkey the vulture and the shark are partners in crime

What arrogance for that scum to demand an ID card from someone who wants to ask a question! He apparently doesn't understand who works for whom. I hope his constituents set him straight.

Just yesterday Howlin' Mad Howie tried to sell me some used needles. He said it was 'social justice'.

Ah, yes - good old Howie 'the Lying Dumbass' Dean - who just yesterday proclaimed it was conservative Winston Churchill who fathered British socialized medicine, when it was actually Clement Attlee, of the socialist Labour party.

Of course - none of the stupid liberals in the audience were smart enough to know they had been lied to.

All absolute proof - liberals are idiots.

Good one Jimbo - shout out to ya.

BYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

I love these asshat politicians at the townhall meetings that demand ID from their constituents when they could give a rat's ass about showing ID at the polls. I can't be bothered to check but it's probably a lock that Moran is against providing ID to cast a vote as he can always be counted on to toe the party line.

They're gonna' buy us off in California, then they're gonna' buy us off New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, and then all the way to the White House, YEAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!

a doctor taking a dump on lawyers...no good can come of this...

These politicians have such contempt for the the people. We seem to be approaching "Let them eat cake" proportions of alienation.

That is only a HALF truth (did you really expect the whole truth from a Democrat!). The Dems ARE the lawyers, that is why they won't even consider talking about tort reform! Why would they want to regulate their favorite scam!!

For that SOB to ask for an ID is an outrage! They go hysterical at the thought of ID to vote or ask for an ID to see if someone is legally in the country. VOTERS remember this next year!!! That arrogant bastard!

Well, he was semi-honest.

I'm pretty sure most Congressmen and Senators are lawyers - as well as the President and Vice-President. Maybe it's just a heavy plurality, but I'm pretty sure it's a majority, and they aren't going to pass something that limits their ability to chase ambulances.

I mean, what if the peasants get uppity and vote them out of office? They will need to do something to put food on the table, right?

What is an ambulance chaser?

In one of Edwards' silver-tongued arguments to the jury on behalf of a girl born with cerebral palsy, he claimed he was channeling the unborn baby girl, Jennifer Campbell, who was speaking to the jurors through him: "She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing OK.' Five, she said, 'I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, 'I need out.'" She's saying, "My lawyer needs a new Jaguar ... " "She speaks to you through me and I have to tell you right now – I didn't plan to talk about this – right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

Now I realize that another side of the tort issue isn't welcomed here as you've found a niche in your hate search. I well understand that is the objective here.

It's common sense that HR3200's biggest opposition is corporate lobbyist. It's also common sense that choosing battles in getting it passed is crucial. Tort reform is an insignificant driver in the cost of health care. Texas is proof that it doesn't lower the cost. The University of Alabama at Birmingham surveyed 27 states that have limits and found no savings for health care consumers.

There seems to be a denial here that there are serious problems with our health insurance availability. Why would Democrats want to pick a fight with another lobbyist group when already facing an uphill battle and that fight adds no advantages to heath care reform?

LOL, the same "corporate opposition" that's spending $150,000,000 advertising for passage?

Yeah, OB-GYN's are paying $200,000 per year for malpractice insurance because of junk-science lawsuits brought by ambulance chasers like John "Baby Daddy" Edwards... but surely this has no impact on the cost of health care. Certainly, doctors leaving the field or never entering the medical field because of the risks of the lawsuits have no impact on the cost of health care. Surely, the unnecessary tests ordered as a prophylactic against litigation have no impact on the cost of medical care.

Cheese Louise.

Medical tort reform in Texas has been a huge success. Doctors are flocking to Texas because the state enacted caps on medical malpractice.

Meanwhile, in West Virgnia, a.k.a. "tort hell", there is a severe doctor shortage driven primarily by the greed of the plaintiff's bar.

The Ohio Valley-which includes Wheeling-is now without neurosurgeons; they've all gone away, fed up.... "If your child falls off the bleachers [in the Valley], you better hope the ambulance has a lot of gas in it, because you'll have to go to Pittsburgh or Morgantown." This is dramatic language, but the doctors feel it's necessary to sound the alarm. In the Beckley area-rural and poor-pregnant women are in a bind: The obstetricians have had to quit, because their liability insurance has become unaffordable

There seems to be a denial here that there are serious problems with our health insurance availability. Why would Democrats want to pick a fight with another lobbyist group when already facing an uphill battle and that fight adds no advantages to heath care reform?

Ok, so health insurance isn't available FREE OF COST... but access to healthcare is definite. Therefore, the premise of this "deathcare reform" is founded on falsities. They're saying that people can't get healthcare which is a blatant lie. Some People can't get insurance because it's too expensive but that DOES NOT mean that healthcare is inaccessible.

I do find it funny that he brings up what happened in Texas... without actually knowing WHAT RESULTED FROM WHAT HAPPENED IN TEXAS.

For yourself, please plug back into reality... we'll even say hello on the other side.

ATTC, in reality, it's you that's spewing a blatant lie that health care is available to everyone. Or in a more civil tone, you are either ignorant or not looking at the whole picture. Granted, a woman in labor or a mechanic with a screwdriver stuck in his head will get prompt attention and most likely the best possible care that the facility can provide--with or without insurance. However, people with various cancers, in need of organ transplants, or need prolonged care are sent home to die if they can't provide a means of payment. And if you'd stray from FOX News and the Hannity/Beck extremist, you'll see report after report of this that has been brought up in this debate. And even those with insurance are at the mercy of Big Insurance to not drop them at will when expensive care is needed.

VK, yay for the doctors! If you've noticed in my writings however, I'm not a big advocate of the wealthy. Here's a geographic question for you and ATTC. Where's the most expensive health care market in the country? The answer is Miami FL. How about 2nd place? The answer is McAllen Texas. So while tort has been a "huge success" for some, there's been no savings to those picking up the tab. It has not made insurance affordable and has not lowered the cost. Accordingly, tort reform has no value to HR3200 and including it in the bill would only draw more opposition.

Tort reform is an insignificant driver in the cost of health care.
(AndyJackass August 28, 2009 7:31 AM)


...just when you thought these liberal shills couldn't get any dumber.


However in the interest of fact:

* The cost of the U.S. tort system for 2003 was $246 billion, or $845 per citizen or $3,380 for a family of four.

* U.S. tort costs increased 35.4 percent from 2000 to 2003.

* The Growth of U.S. tort costs have exceeded the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2-3 percentage points in the past 50 years.

* The U.S. tort system is inefficient; it returns less than 50 cents on the dollar and less than 22 cents for actual economic loss to claimants.

Tillinghast-Towers Perrin. U.S. Tort Costs: 2004 Update, (New York, New York, 2005)


The tort system is a huge industry long out of control providing a looting bank for many liberal democrats through "shakedown" lawsuits brought primarily against suppliers, pharmaceutical companies hospitals and individual doctors where liberal judges set down astonishingly excessive verdicts.

Moreover, if one were to start drilling down into the costs to the economy of innovations that aren't brought to the market due to fear of torts during development of those innovations, the extrapolated costs to both the present and future generations would in the trillions.

But hey, counselor....don't let facts or integrity get in the way of your tort cases. You've always got a Useful Jackass to defend you.

Health care is available to anyone... anyone willing to pay for it.

As anyone who is economically literate knows, supply and demand tell us if something costs too much, it's because demand is outpacing supply. Therefore, more doctors, more nurses, more hospitals, more clinics, and more insurance options would reduce costs.

The high costs of malpractice insurance discourage doctors from entering the field and forces practicing doctors to quit. That limits the supply of health care, That drives up costs.

Tort liability also limits the ability of charity hospitals to care for the poor you claim to care about.

Or maybe you share Dear Leader's belief that doctors are motivated by sheer greed to perform unnecessary tonsillectomies and amputations. But the fear of lawsuit doesn't drive them to perform unnecessary tests or Caesarian sections.

And while there's no room for tort reform in KennedyCare, they did find room for a $10 Billion kickback to the UAW.

Here's an unintended consequence of tort:
Consider that you need brain surgery. (and this should be taken seriously by liberals)
The neurologist needs to know his procedure well enough to have every cut documented by an attorney. This is of course needed to defend against later lawsuits by a grateful patient.

The time and costs of this aside, consider the deliberation that the neurologist now undertakes if during the procedure it becomes necessary to deviate from the surgical plan.
How much deliberation do you as a patient really want? And do you want this deliberation to be a function of the fear of an accusation of malpractice?
No. And good neurosurgeons will not deliberate if it is necessary to deviate from a initial surgical plan.

But keep it up. And sooner or later neurosurgeons and everyone else in medicine will become less and less willing to forgo their attorney-sanctified plans during an unexpected contingency, and patients will suffer the consequences.

Not true? Its already happening.

and more insurance options would reduce costs.

Expanding on VtK's poing... Government regulations have LEAD to reduced competition (no interstate insurance options).

So, thanks to government intervention, competition is reduced in the first place... but they're using this manufactured "non-competition" as a means to inject MORE government intervention. "Never waste a crisis [especially if it's you who caused it]."

Also, by not allowing adjustable and customizable options in insurance plans (once again, regulated by government mandates), they're forcing generic plans to cover more... which leads to, dur, HIGHER COSTS. So, until you realize that your precious government has manufactured the problem, you can keep believing that they will offer relief. You really are a victim of your own ineptitude.

Andy does not understand supply v demand which, by all accounts, is a really really really simple concept.

Take for instance, energy. As an industrial nation, the energy needs are rising (demand). Now, instead of seeking rational energy that will greatly increase accessibility (nuclear power, nat gas... increased supply)... they intend to force a reduction in use by means of making the current supply cost more (without adding any more resources to the supply).

Liberals are, at best, barely capable of finding their way out of a wet, paper bag.

"scuttled away in search of a safe crevice." LOLLLLLLLLLLLL! Perfect in every way.

Speaking of supply and demand, KennedyCare proposes to add millions of people to the health care rolls while adding zero doctors.

How will this not lead to higher costs and rationing?

Not only that Vtk... but doctors will leave the profession and there will be no encouragement for others to become doctors.

So not only will they be adding zero doctors... but they'll PUSH AWAY current doctors. Net result, we're f***ed.

Did Howie Dean have an uncontrollable moment of clarity? If I was standing in Hell right now would I be feeling a slight chill coming on?

However, people with various cancers, in need of organ transplants, or need prolonged care are sent home to die if they can't provide a means of payment.

And you would like to replace this system where an unelected and unaccountable government board
sends people with various cancers, in need of organ transplants, or need prolonged care home to die because they don't have enough "productive" years left to justify the cost?

Let's see how a typical scenario plays out under the present system vs. the system you desire.

Present System:

My wife and I have had a PPO private insurance plan that costs us somewhere in the ballpark of 5K-6K a year for 3 years. There are cheaper plans (that offer less coverage), and I'm sure there are more expensive plans that offer better coverage, but we like the one we have. Now let's say that in 15 years (when we are approaching 60 years old) I am diagnosed with something that will cost a bundle health care-wise, and the insurance company says they won't cover it. As I am not a liberal with an huge sense of entitlement, I understand that there is no injustice here: We paid a premium (a cumulative 108K over 18 years) to cover a certain amount of coverage (in the last 3 years, we've combined for 3 surgeries and a baby), and this expense exceeds it. Of course, I can appeal this decision in a timely manner, and since the insurance company has market factors such as public perception and competition, if I can make my case well enough, I've got a shot. If this fails, the fact that we can't get the expensive health care treatment may suck for me, but if it is anyone's "fault", it is my own: could we have found a plan that would cover such an expense?

Obamacare:

So, according to Obamacare, health care is a "right" for everyone regardless of cost. Obama and his supporters claim that I will be able to keep my coverage under his plan, though he and they fail to mention that a combination of a public option and a government-regulated exchange that sets coverage requirements (higher than currently available) and premiums (lower than currently available) for all new private coverage will unavoidably either a) drive the premium on grandfathered-in plans such as mine sky-high (without an increase in payouts), making it financially unfeasible for me to stay in it, or b) drive the insurance company out of business. So I'll be left with either the public option or a government-regulated new private option, both of whom answer to an unelected government board in their payout decisions (read the damn bill, it's all in there).

Let's say I go with a new private option, which gives me a bit more coverage in exchange for a premium of, oh, let's say $3K a year. Of course this is already on top of what I pay in taxes to help fund Obamacare. Again, if you read the damn bill, you will see that Obamacare will require $544 billion in new taxes. Last year, Lynda and I (a CPA and software engineer) had a gross income of about $185K, and paid $32K in taxes (we live in Texas, so there's no state income tax). There is no way on earth that Obama, with $544 billion in new taxes - plus the taxes that will be required for all his other lavish spending - will be able to keep his promise that those making less than $250K will not have their taxes raised. Given our joint income, we're due for a tax increase; though it will almost certainly be higher, for this scenario, let's say that our taxes increase to $39K, of which (given the portion of our taxes that had been allotted for Medicare and Medicaid but would now go to Obamacare due to the $500 billion in cuts to those programs - again, it's in the damn bill), let's guess, $8K goes to fund Obamacare.

So, in 15 years (when we are approaching 60 years old) I am diagnosed with something that will cost a bundle health care-wise, and the government-regulated board (that my private company answers to) rules - based on my age and number of "productive" years I have left - to deny the payout (if I were 10 years younger, they would have approved the payout). This IS an injustice:

**Instead of me paying $90K for 15 years to a private company who denied my coverage based on cost vs. my premium, I will, for 15 years, have paid $585K to a government that regulates health care payout decisions, of which $180K went toward health care costs, $120K of which went to help fund a public option under which the 40%-50% of Americans (~70 million people) that don't pay any taxes at all were able to receive health care, to be told that Americans under 50 that either paid nothing toward health care, or paid less than I did, were able to get the treatment that I was denied.

**Instead of me paying into a system that pays out according to how much I put into it, I pay into a system that pays out according to whether an unelected government board decides that I am "deserving" of treatment based on how many productive years I have ahead of me.

**The above point highlights another injustice of the whole system: for each passing year, taxpayers pay into the system, and therefore the money they've contributed to the system increases; however, for each passing year, they're also less likely to receive benefits from that system.

And liberals wonder why we taxpayers don't like Obamacare: it's 'Animal Farm' and we're Boxer.

Correction:

"...of which $180K went toward health care costs, $120K of which went to help fund a public option..."

should read

..."of which $165K went toward health care costs, $120K of which went to help fund a public option..."

My kingdom for a proofreader.

Blasphemy Geronimo...

How dare you use realistic situations, substantiated facts, bound by reality.

Liberals will not tolerate such a thing.

/sarc off

Geromimo...... says

"And you would like to replace this system where an unelected and unaccountable government board
sends people with various cancers, in need of organ transplants, or need prolonged care home to die because they don't have enough "productive" years left to justify the cost?"

That statement represents either an insistence on continuing a lie or an absolute ignorance HR3200. That statement alone disqualifies you of any credibility. There's no need to even read the rest of your diatribe. But I decide, what the hell, I'll read it anyways. It only confirmed my premonition.

Seriously, just because Sean Hannity says it, doesn't mean it's etched in stone.

Andy,just because obooboo says it,doesn't make it so either. You may also want to consider asking MIT for your money back.

Yes Farmer, I understand that what Obama says needs to stand up to scrutiny and accordingly, isn't so simply because he said it.
Your post indicates a nod to Geronimo's fear mongering death panel gibberish that has no credibility in any serious health care reform discussion.
People of reasonable intellect understand this. People that understand this yet are determined to see HR3200 fail or perhaps see the Obama Administration fail will silently let the ignorance prevail. People who continue to promote this debunked hype either have no problem promoting a lie or have overindulged in their far right and extreme kool aid.
Regardless of what category you fall in, Geronimo's argument is not only nowhere in the bill, but has failed to stand up to scrutiny time and time again. Regardless of how many times you say it, it just ain't so.

Andy:

I said nothing whatsoever about death panels.

I could point out to you that just because either Keith Olbermann or the little boy who hosts the show after his says something doesn't mean it's written in stone. However, I won't make the mistake of assuming that you are spoon-fed your opinions like you lazily did in regards to myself and Mr. Hannity (I get my news from various internet sources; TV is for movies, sports, and Entourage).

Please provide the evidence refuting anything I said about how the proposed federal insurance exchange will mandate the coverage and premiums offered by new private health coverage plans. You cannot.

As far as the proposed Health Benefits Advisory Committee overseeing private coverage payout decisions, the bill as it is now does not mandate that. Perhaps I should have made that more clear. However, in your rush to call me a liar, you failed to distinguish between the "stated purpose" of a proposed course of action - which you believe in with all your Obama-loving heart - with the "logical effect or outcome" of a proposed course of action - which, if you had any background in systematic thought, you would be better able to discern. So while you are correct in stating that the bill as written does not give the proposed Health Benefits Advisory Committee power to deny claims, only to "recommend" coverage decisions, what possible course will this federal bureaucracy pursue when limited resources meet metastasizing demands? And precisely what is the purpose of the proposed comparative-effectiveness review process? And are you going to continue to pretend that the "public option" was not explicitly designed by the Left as a stealthy path to single-payer, even as liberals continue to talk and write about its ultimate purpose openly? And once we have single-payer, who will be deciding who gets payouts and how much they are?

So, fine, Andy, clutch HR3200 to your bosom and glory in the wise and benevolent government's newly christened power to mandate private coverage levels and premiums, and in the 'stated purpose' of a Health Benefits Advisory Committee to provide "oversight" and "recommendations" as to private policy servicing. However, for you to continue to deny....

a) that a public option and federal insurance exchange to regulate private plans that are mandated in the bill will bring gradually bring about the extinction of private coverage

b) that a government board mandated today to "oversee" and "make recommendations" as to coverage and payout policy, as well as to "review" the "comparative effectiveness" of payout options will (like all govt. bureaucracies) only grow and gain more power tomorrow

c) that in any health care system, SOMEONE will have to make payout decisions based on SOME CRITERIA, and

d) once the leftist nirvana of single-payer - which this mammoth bill clearly lays the groundwork for - is achieved, the only logical 'criteria' left after you've jettisoned "the ability of the individual to pay" is the criteria of "cost vs. benefit of the individual to the government"

...makes you either a goddamned fool if you cannot understand it, or a goddamned liar if you do.

Either way, I have no more time for you.

Posted by: GeronimoRumplestiltskin at August 28, 2009 4:17 PM

Leave Candy Andy alone, you will just confuse him with the facts.

He can't handle the facts due lack of reality and capacity.

Geronimo, it's an interesting, phenomenal, and humorous pattern that so many here will end their rebuttal with comments like "either way, I have no more time for you".

You clearly asked me if I'd prefer a "system where an unelected and unaccountable government board sends people with various cancers, in need of organ transplants, or need prolonged care home to die because they don't have enough "productive" years left to justify the cost?"

Yet from your own admission, you acknowledge that I'm "correct in stating that the bill as written does not give the proposed Health Benefits Advisory Committee power to deny claims".

But you want to imply that you're correct because this somehow opens a door that allows said "unelected and unaccountable government board" to send people home to die. Your implication seems to be that the HBAC will gain some super powers down the road "when limited resources meet metastasizing demands". This is utter nonsense because the HBAC does NOT have any role in determining what treatments individuals are entitled to; its primary role is simply to recommend the minimum benefit package insurers must offer under the bill, to protect consumers.

But again, all of your fear mongering talking points have been debunked over and over and over again. It's strictly a fear mongering tactic that more GOPs are picking up on because they are wanting to defeat anything positive that the Dems might accomplish. AND they're looking at building their war chest with Big Insurance funding. So your soundbites, innuendos, talking points, and outright lies have merit because they serve a purpose that suits the GOP's agenda, much like the continued claim that Saddam attacked us on 9/11 or that Obama isn't a U.S citizen. These arguments have no merit but support the claim that as long as you continue a lie, the more the ignorant will believe it.

NO CO-OP'S! A Little History Lesson

Young People. America needs your help.

More than two thirds of the American people want a single payer health care system. And if they cant have a single payer system 77% of all Americans want a strong government-run public option on day one (86% of democrats, 75% of independents, and 72% of republicans). Basically everyone.

According to a new AARP POLL: 86 percent of seniors want universal healthcare security for All, including 93% of Democrats, 87% of Independents, and 78% of Republicans. And 79% of seniors support creating a new strong Government-run public option plan, available immediately. Including 89% of Democrats, 80% of Independents, and 61% of Republicans, STUNNING!! Senator Max Baucus, You better come out of committee with a strong government-run public option available on day one.

The History:

Our last great economic catastrophe was called the Great Depression. Then as now it was caused by a reckless, and corrupt Republican administration and republican congress. FDR a Democrat, was then elected to save the nation and the American people from the unbridled GREED and profiteering, of the unregulated predatory self-interest of the banking industry and Wallstreet. Just like now.

FDR proposed a Government-run health insurance plan to go with Social Security. To assure all Americans high quality, easily accessible, affordable, National Healthcare security. Regardless of where you lived, worked, or your ability to pay. But the AMA riled against it. Using all manor of scare tactics, like Calling it SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!! :-0

So FDR established thousands of co-op's around the country in rural America. And all of them failed. The biggest of these co-op organizations would become the grandfather of the predatory monster that all of you know today as the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance industry. And the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare industry.

This former co-op would grow so powerful that it would corrupt every aspect of healthcare delivery in America. Even corrupting the Government of the United States.

This former co-op's name is BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD.

Do you see now why even the suggestion of co-op's is ridiculous. It makes me so ANGRY! Co-op's are not a substitute for a government-run public option.

They are trying to pull the wool over our eye's again. Senators, if you don't have the votes now, GET THEM! Or turn them over to us. WE WILL! DEAL WITH THEM. Why do you think we gave your party Control of the House, Control of the Senate, Control of the Whitehouse. The only option on the table that has any chance of fixing our healthcare crisis is a STRONG GOVERNMENT-RUN PUBLIC OPTION.

An insurance mandate and subsidies without a strong government-run public option choice available on day one, would be worse than the healthcare catastrophe we have now. The insurance, and healthcare industry have been very successful at exploiting the good hearts of the American people. But Congress and the president must not let that happen this time. House Progressives and members of the Tri-caucus must continue to hold firm on their demand for a strong Government-run public option.

A healthcare reform bill with mandates and subsidies but without a STRONG government-run public option choice on day one, would be much worse than NO healthcare reform at all. So you must be strong and KILL IT! if you have too. And let the chips fall where they may. You can do insurance reform without mandates, subsidies, or taxpayer expense.

Actually, no tax payer funds should be use to subsidize any private for profit insurance plans. So, NO TAX PAYER SUBSIDIES TO PRIVATE FOR PROFIT PLANS. Tax payer funds should only be used to subsidize the public plans. Healthcare reform should be 100% for the American people. Not another taxpayer bailout of the private for profit insurance industry, disguised as healthcare reform for the people.

God Bless You

Jacksmith — Working Class

Twitter search #welovetheNHS #NHS Check it out

(http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/)

Senator Bernie Sanders on healthcare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSM8t_cLZgk&feature=player_embedded)

American HEROES!! :-) Click replay to play http://bit.ly/j31oU

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbWw23XwO5o) CYBER WARRIORS!! - TAKE THIS VIRAL

Then as now it was caused by a reckless, and corrupt Republican administration and republican congress.

Yeah, I just stopped reading there. I see where this is going and can rationally assume it is bullshit. Democrats took over in 2006 (jumped in in 2007) and wow, that's when shit started hitting the fan. In short, I'm not gonna bother reading the rest.

Anonymous, your response to jack reminds me of the Rogers and Hammerstein's classic where Cinderella sings "in my own little corner in my own little chair..........."

Andy,
Do yourself a favor and stay away from Geronimo. It's embarrassing to watch to say the least. It's like watching a 100 pound drunk punk bad-mouthing Mike Tyson in a bar.

BTW Andy,
You will do better to write your own stuff. your little line "soundbites, innuendos, talking points, and outright lies" turned up 25000 hits on Google. I didnt have time to read more than a few, but guess what? Those I read are in your camp!

Posted by: Jim at August 28, 2009 8:20 PM

Just like the liberals and their apparent homoerotic use of the term 'teabagger'.

Jim,

I take it that in your analogy re: Andy vs. myself that Andy is the drunk and I am Mike Tyson. I appreciate the support. Andy is rather pitiful in that either he doesn't see that ObamaCare will logically and inevitably lead to single-payer (which my scenarios described), or he does see it but chooses to deny it. I have no time for fools or liars.

However, if I were to be compared to heavyweight champ, I would prefer it be Joe Frazier or James Braddock. Braddock was courage embodied, and Frazier would systematically carve you to pieces with his body work.

Take care.

Geronimo, I base my argument on facts- what I actually read on black and white that's being debated and possibly enacted into law. You seem to base yours on theory- or taking legislative language out of context and twisting into rhetoric and fear mongering in order to support your obvious distrust of our elected leaders. Your points have no merit in any rational health care debates. You don't see serious pundits, News Anchors, editorial columnists, or credible editorials supporting your stance. It's simply a product of the far right extremist drowning in their own kool aid.

in order to support your obvious distrust of our elected leaders

Give me a reason to trust these "elected" leaders. They have proven time and time again that they deserve no trust.

Your points have no merit in any rational health care debates. You don't see serious pundits, News Anchors, editorial columnists, or credible editorials supporting your stance.

News anchors? Rofl. They have since lost all journalistic integrity/credibility and refuse to report actual news... just opinion that has no basis in reality (say hello to reality). Credible editorials? Sorry, but you, sir, are the last person that any of us would give the task of defining credibility when it is clear you will believe whatever liberal talking point you are given. I also find it funny that all the liberals have done in terms of healthcare bill concerns is deny the conservative thoughts. They have yet to refute their claims by explaining the language of the bill... Literally, all they do is say "No, they're aren't death panels and no there won't be rationing." It's all mindless rhetoric with no substance.

There* instead of They're....

Go go typo.

BTW Jim, if you google "soundbites, innuendos, and talking points", it will pull up thousands upon thousands of sites that contain those words somewhere on that site. However, if you go to "advance search" and type
"soundbites, innuendos, and talking points",(with or without quotations and/or with or without the "and") in the "exact phrase" box, the search comes up void.

So your accusation of plagiarism, like most gibberish on this hate site, is completely fabricated and has no merit.

But hat tip for following the playbook of tossing something out there to discredit and distract the conversation while putting the other side on a pointless offense. I think by definition, you are a troll.

ATTC, I have no idea where you acquire your information.
Maybe the reason all Liberals do is say ""No, there aren't death panels and no there won't be rationing" is because there's nothing in the bill that supports your claim. If you want to read the book "The Three Little Pigs" and interpret that the government will eventually mandate that we all have to have our homes bricked and inspected regularly for cracks, what can I do to prove you wrong? I can read the book to you. But it ain't there. And from admissions over and over again, even from Palin and Sen Grassley and Newt Gingrich that have helped fuel this nonsense, they will tell you the bill doesn't say it. The sections and pages have been broken down and discussed over and over and death panels are just not there.
But this is nothing new. It's the same strategy that the GOP used to promote their war on fear. Anyone of reasonable intelligence new and understood that Saddam did not attack us on 9/11. But as long as the GOP along with the then Bush mouth piece FOX News could continue their soundbites and scare tactics, they could keep that mindset alive with many people to promote their agenda. Killing grandma is the exact same tactic.

Did you hear of the jerk who sued McDonalds and Burger King blaming them for his obesity his lawsuit was thrown out

Poor Andy,

You just don't know when to stop. While I feel a bit like George Foreman in his early '90's scourge of various tomato cans, here goes another round....

I base my argument on facts- what I actually read on [sic] black and white that's being debated and possibly enacted into law.

You do none of these. You base your argument on either ignorance or dishonesty.

HR32000 sets up a government-run public option and a government exchange that will have full and final authority in approving any new private health insurance plan. This is indisputable. It further sets up a Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits for all private essential, enhanced, and premium insurance plans (not just the "minimum benefit package insurers must offer under the bill" as you mistakenly or dishonestly claimed). This is all "black and white" in the bill. Furthermore, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee's powers include a "comparative-effectiveness review process" to monitor, research, and determine the most cost-effective treatments for which health care dollars (both private and public) should be spent. This Committee and this "process" should look awfully familiar to anyone who has worked in the health care industry, as every health insurance company in existence has such a board (with the same type of make-up of the HBAC) that performs this same process. The bill states that HBAC will "advise" and "make recommendations" to private insurance companies, and says nothing about the HBAC making decisions as regards to payouts. This is not in dispute.

"Yay! I win!" shouts Andy. "The HBAC will only advise and make recommendations! The bill doesn't say in black and white that the end-game of all these proposals is a single-payer system! There's nothing to debate! Because I say so!"

When challenged, you begin your routine....

**You listen to congressmen supporting the bill claim that the premiums for private plans authorized by the new federal exchange will be lower than they are now for plans with similar benefits, and that no one who applies (regardless of pre-existing condition, age, etc.) for these new plans can be turned away....and then ridicule those who point out that such a mandate placed on private insurance companies places a severe financial strain on those companies, who can neither (via HR3200) adjust premiums or restrict benefits on these new plans.

**You then put your fingers in your ears and shout "Teabagger! I'm fact-based! You're a fear-monger!" when it is further pointed out that, under this financial strain (there's a reason insurance companies turn away those with pre-existing conditions or who are seen as high-risk - having more than a few of them in your benefits pool will bankrupt the company) the only recourse is to a) raise the premiums on the grandfathered-in plans, b) cut benefits on the grandfathered-in plans, or c) cut back on payouts across the board. Do a) or b) and you gradually strangle to death customer incentive to stay with your best source of revenue, the grandfathered-in plans, furthering your financial strain; do c) for any length of time and your company will get its behind kicked in the courtroom, the stock exchange, and in the marketplace. HR3200 may warm your liberal heart, but for private insurers, it's an incredibly shitty business plan. You respond by unplugging your ears long enough to shout "Liar! Liar!".

**You're still shouting your mantra when it is further pointed out to you that over time, the inevitable effect of the above point is that private insurance companies will be driven out of business or (even worse) have to seek government subsidies. As anyone with an ounce of common sense knows, with financial support comes the right of the supporter to tell the supportee what to do; ergo, with government subsidies comes government control (ask American farmers how the subsidy thing worked out for them in the late '70's and early '80's). Either way, Viola! You've got a single payer health care system. Spittle flies from you mouth as you scream "The bill doesn't say in black and white that the government will eventually be the only insurance provider left standing! So there's no way it can happen! You have an obvious distrust of our elected leaders!" Actually on this point, I'm taking them at their word: numerous congressmen who support the bill have expressed in writing or have spoken on camera that their ultimate goal is a single-payer system.

**You begin to sing a hymn to our wise and benevolent elected leaders (only those with a 'D' after their name, of course) and to the proposed Health Benefits Advisory Committee. Meanwhile, you are asked if it is at all reasonable that a committee to be headed by the Surgeon General himself and made up of a broad range of highly credentialed medical experts, including minimum of 9 and as many as 17 Presidential appointees, will, as HR3200 sets forth, be long limited to making "recommendations", especially if those "recommendations" are ignored? And whether it is reasonable that, as private insurance companies are struggling to provide quality benefits under the shitty business plan that is HR3200, that liberals in government and in all kinds of "advocacy groups" will not call for such a Committee - whose makeup so closely resembles that of a private health insurance company's decision-making board in the first place - to be enabled with further powers, particularly when there are no limitations to the expansion of their powers written into HR3200? In response, you include in your hymn the lyrics "Your points have no merit in any rational health care debates" (The melody sounds familiar, though...oh, right, it's the screeching sound my 4 month-old makes when she can't find her stuffed bunny).

**Most damning of all, you can look at this 1,000+ page massive expansion of government's role and authority in American health care and insist that the expansion of government's role and authority in health care will stop there when there are no limitations to the expansion of power for the either the federal insurance exchange or the HBAC written into the bill. The framers of the Constitution, a document liberals love in the abstract but in almost every instance ignore in the particular, were wise enough to know that government will expand, in both size and power, unless limitations on its size and power are explicitly set forth. The framers of HR3200, either by ignorance or design, have displayed no such wisdom.

And neither have you.

You don't see serious pundits, News Anchors, editorial columnists, or credible editorials supporting your stance.

I have no idea about news anchors (Why did you capitalize 'news anchors'? Are they some special authority to you?), since I consider TV news to be entertainment and not news. However, as for the other three, you again have no idea what you are talking about. Wesley J. Smith, Jonah Goldberg, Mark Steyn, Rich Lowry, Victor David Hanson, Thomas Sowell, Jeffrey H. Anderson, or Betsy McCaughey - all of whom write for major publications such as the Wall Street Journal, National Review, First Things, Maclains (a Canadian national publication), etc. and/or are nationally or (in the case of Steyn) internationally syndicated, and none of whom, though conservative, can be considered a "far right extremist" by any serious person - all warn that ObamaCare will logically and inevitably lead to a single-payer system (which my scenarios described). This list does not include the roster of pundits, columnists, and public figures (like, say, the American Catholic Bishops) who have written against ObamaCare for an additional laundry list of reasons - jobs to be lost, federal coverage for abortion, etc. Again, you are either displaying profound ignorance of these writers and their positions, or profound dishonesty in denying what these folks have written.

In our exchanges, you have been either purposefully ignorant or willfully dishonest about not only what the logical outcome of the passage of HR3200 will be in regards to private insurance and the expansion of govt. power, but also as to the content of my arguments and responses to you. Likewise, your assurances that government will not further expand its power in health care past what is laid out in HR3200, despite there being no limitations to the expansion of that power written into the bill, are either incredibly foolish or incredibly dishonest.

Oh, well, moving on....Is is college football season yet? Arguing with a fan of my alma mater's opponents (USC, Michigan, BC, take your pick) is more enlightening and thought-provoking than arguing with Andy....

I have evening plans and already running behind but I'll gladly pic up on this tomorrow.

To summarize if I'm not mistaken, you're mainly saying that I'm lying about the powers of the HBAC and I'm saying that you are?

Geromimo, you're an empty suit. You are either blind and partisan or you understand the strategy of continuing a lie in order to keep it front and center. The more people that hear it, the more the lie is burned in people's minds. It happened with selling the war on fear with Iraq (and helped get GBW reelected) and it happened with the birther issue. Regardless of facts, the lies continued. Regardless of how many times each false claim was debunked, people like you will still bring it up, often after acknowledging that there's no credible evidence of your claim.

You claim that:

HR32000 sets up a government-run public option and a government exchange that will have full and final authority in approving any new private health insurance plan. This is indisputable. It further sets up a Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits for all private essential, enhanced, and premium insurance plans (not just the "minimum benefit package insurers must offer under the bill" as you mistakenly or dishonestly claimed). This is all "black and white" in the bill. Furthermore, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee's powers include a "comparative-effectiveness review process" to monitor, research, and determine the most cost-effective treatments for which health care dollars (both private and public) should be spent. This Committee and this "process" should look awfully familiar to anyone who has worked in the health care industry, as every health insurance company in existence has such a board (with the same type of make-up of the HBAC) that performs this same process. The bill states that HBAC will "advise" and "make recommendations" to private insurance companies, and says nothing about the HBAC making decisions as regards to payouts. This is not in dispute.

Maybe HR32000 says that. I don't know as I haven't read HR32000 but I have read HR3200. For starters, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee was originally set up under the Bush Administration and the language you're distorting was created by the very representatives that are also distorting now. Pages 30-32 (which seems to be your issue) establish a Health Benefits Advisory Board, which is a panel of various experts in the field. Their job is to recommend benefits and design the plan levels (essential, enhanced, and premium). This is a good thing--better to have doctors and health professionals doing this than bureaucrats.
I'm not following your problem with this Board setting up "plans" for coverage. They set guidelines that providers must meet in order to sell their policies'
There's a false implication that Pg 30, Sec 123 states that there will be a government committee that decides what treatments you are allowed and what your overall benefits are.
This is untrue. You and your doctor will decide what treatments you receive. The
Health Benefits Advisory Committee will make recommendations that will assure that
all insurers provide meaningful benefit packages within the health insurance exchange.
THIS COMMITTEE HAS NO ROLE IN MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUALS.

The make up of your diatribe seems to be that the HBAC, although they have no power, will be able to gain or take on power to eventually make decisions beyond that. My argument as well as many people is that it isn't in the bill that they can. Your argument seems to be that it isn't in the bill that they can't. This suggestion defies logic and is not a credible point. Let's get back to my "Three Little Pigs" analogy. Your point is like saying that because there's a committee that approves or denies what books are qualified for elementary school reading, this committee can somehow gain powers to force everyone to purchase the TLPs while removing books they deem offensive from every library in the country. Even Sen Grassley and Gov Palin have backtracked on their comments. But they made their point. They said it and many people heard it. They know they are selling snake oil but as long as they get a few buyers, they promote their agenda plus rake in Big Insurance contributions.

such a mandate placed on private insurance companies places a severe financial strain on those companies, who can neither (via HR3200) adjust premiums or restrict benefits on these new plans.

I can agree that the ability to drop coverage on a newly diagnosed cancer victim or to raise their premiums to where they can no longer afford it isn't financially advantageous for Big Insurance. It's much more profitable for them to drop an expensive patient or to out price the coverage than it is to live up to their end of the bargain. It's more profitable to send them home to die?

Wesley J. Smith- attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia calls Gov Palin's fear mongering "amateurish and hyperbolic", admits there's nothing in the bill yet continues to support her and her nonsense.

Mark Steyn, writer of "End Of The World As We Know It" and a Rush Limbaugh regular.

Jonah Goldberg, writer of "Liberal Fascism"

Rich Lowry says his first major book, “Legacy,” evolved as his reaction to 9/11 and that “The policies [contributing to 9/11] had roots in the 1990s.

Thomas Sowell, a former Marxist turned right ring extremist.

Jeffrey H. Anderson, a Bush crony, says President Obama seeks to suppress liberty.

Betsy McCaughey, the same bitch that was exposed as a liar on Clinton's health plan and that Jon Stewart totally shattered every claim she made on HR3200.

Are you serious when you say "and none of whom, though conservative, can be considered a "far right extremist" by any serious person" These are partisan hacks who for the most part, promote hatred and the failure of our present government. Is this the best you can come up with? When you look at the drivers of the opposition, you'll find that most come from a trickle down of Big Insurance funding, a hatred or bigotry of our present administration with an admission of hoping for failure, Bush loyalist, or a product of the FOX News or Limbaugh/extreme right talk radio propaganda machine. But you can dissect HR3200 all you like. It ain't there.

design the plan levels (essential, enhanced, and premium).

Ooooh 3 options (which will have to be adhered to by all insurance companies). Sounds like real choice there. Granted, I know the titles you gave those plans were placeholders (there may be 20 levels, who knows) but if the regulations are that stiff and rigid, competition ceases to exist...

First, customizability really goes out the window (bulk packages). Second, competition among providers will be non-existent if they'll essentially have to provide such plans. Sounds much like a government-regulated monopoly. It's essentially disregarding any and all free-market policies and turning over all control to government scrutiny, at the benefit of no one. Third, cost will be regulated and if government doesn't have to turn a profit, their prices will be impossible to compete with. Sounds like your encouraging mass unemployment due to insurance companies going under. There's this thing called consequences which I have a feeling you don't realize exist. It's like removing the right side of your brain (embedded tumor or something) yet ignoring that it renders you left-motor functions non-existent.

You win capitalism. And by win, I mean destroy.

Your argument seems to be that it isn't in the bill that they can't. This suggestion defies logic and is not a credible point.

I think Geronimo has a VERY valid point. If it is not explicitly disallowed in the bill, it can be construed by lawyers and all that the power is limitless. Remember, healthcare "right" isn't listed in the Constitution, yet you are arguing that government should intervene. You're a victim of your own failed logic.

Also, on a point about abortions. To be certain that it would NOT be funded, Republicans proposed an addition to the bill that it would EXPLICITLY not be covered... low and behold, it was party-line voted down. Therefore, you can draw the conclusion that it will be covered (intrinsic in it's "not included anywhere" nature).

Until you understand the way that lawyers and officials can interpret things however they please and that these loopholes are created on purpose, I don't think you'll ever understand congressional legislation or anything involving law.

ATTC, I had no doubt that you'd side with Geronimo. Refer to my Three little Pigs Scenario and explain the difference. Also, explain how and why all was fine and dandy when the GOP adopted this language between 2005-2007 and now you, as well as the folks that wrote it, feel that it promotes euthanasia and/or ultimate government takeover.

HR3200 does not pay for abortions. Period. Any problems with interpreting "does not"?

You should really learn to read as you state that I am "arguing that government should intervene" when in fact I've presented no such argument. The only points I've made here pertained to how tort reform relates to health care cost and the discussions of death panels and HBAC acquiring end of life intervention is the product of fear mongering or ignorance of the context of HR3200. No more, no less,

"Until you understand the way that lawyers and officials can interpret things however they please and that these loopholes are created on purpose, I don't think you'll ever understand congressional legislation or anything involving law."

That's indeed a profound statement. First, don't dismiss my knowledge of legal lingo so fast. But regardless, most folks that absorb the death panel/pays for illegals/pays for abortion/will kill you grandma soundbites are not news analyst. Many have more important things to do like working, raising a family, PTA, off to t-ball practice, off to the golf course, paying their bills, trying to achieve in their careers, and other trivial non-productive things. So aside from my accusation that these soundbites are a stratagem of the far right and Big Insurance, along with the fact that most are not legislative legal scholars, what should they do until they learn this legislative legal jarnigan? It's really like reading The Three Little Pigs but when you have corporate funded manipulative machines, some folks just buy into the fear mongering.

It won't surprise me if Geronimo doesn't return as he/she has conveniently mentioned at the end of each post of better things to do, thus turning it over to the trolls.

HR3200 does not pay for abortions. Period. Any problems with interpreting "does not"?

Still have yet to respond to the voted-down amendment that would have made this clear. Therefore, it WILL be covered. If it wasn't going to be covered, it wouldn't have been rejected.

Until you can explain that, your ramblings will be just that... ramblings.

Sums up our concern with JUST abortion.

A good read that brings a lot of things into light. There certainly is cause for concern.

Although I know you don't like the source, 6 proofs of abortion being covered in Obama's socialized healthcare.

In the previous link, make sure to check out Post #14. And we thought violent crime among/against black Americans was high (which, it is nationwide relative to their population proportion)...

Oh, and Barry discussed his health reform covering "reproductive services" at a Planned Parenthood press conference.

Now, knowing that, go to google.com and search "what constitutes reproductive health services"

Notice the first result... derby der. You lose.

There is no language in the bill requiring funding
for abortion. There is no language that eases the requirement that prohibits federal funding being used for abortion, and no requirement for insurance plans to cover abortion. There is no language in HR3200 giving any permission, expressed or implied that allows the HBAC to supersede the prohibited federal funding's covering abortions. ATTC, in a court of law, where folks do actually understand the "lawyer talk", it doesn't matter how advocates or opponents voted, sponsored, or lobbied against.
Let me remind you and Geronimo that HR3200 won 4 out of 5 U.S. Congress committees and abortion, end of life care, or the HBAC were not significant issues of those debates. CSPAN anyone?

Poor, Silly Andy,

Your response to me was a masterpiece of nonsense.

1st Paragraph: 6 sentences of calling me a liar (despite offering no evidence of such) and ranting about the Iraq War.

2nd paragraph: Quoting me. The only sensible paragraph in your entire response.

3rd Paragraph: First chiding me for accidentally adding a ‘0’ to the bill number one time out of the 7 times I referenced it, followed by a self-contradiction: Health Benefits Advisory Committee was originally set up under the Bush Administration and the language you're distorting was created by the very representatives that are also distorting now. [How am I distorting it? You never say.] Pages 30-32 (which seems to be your issue) establish a Health Benefits Advisory Board, which is a panel of various experts in the field. So which is it? Established under Bush or by HR3200? Perhaps the accurate answer is that it was established under Bush and HR3200 either codifies or re-structures the chairmanship, make-up, or process by which membership on it are achieved, or whatever. In that case, what is your point, other than to try to make it look like I am being careless with the facts by playing word games and missing my point entirely: that the committee make-up as outlined in the bill is comprised of too many highly-credentialed people – up to 17 Presidential appointees – for it to make sense at all for this committee to have, as you say later in your comment, "no power" for very long? And how long before folks like you are calling for it to have more power? Will you even be able to contain yourself for a year?

4th Paragraph: I'm not following your problem with this Board setting up "plans" for coverage. They set guidelines that providers must meet in order to sell their policies. Unless they are met, the plan will not be approved for sale through the exchange. Therefore, these are not guidelines, they are mandates. Obama and his congressional supporters have already stated that the premiums will lower and the benefits higher on these new plans than what is currently available. If you know anything about keeping a business from going bankrupt, sirens would be going off in your head right now.

From there to the all-caps line: A) Nice straw man – I never claimed that the committee, as written in HR3200, will have a say in individual treatment decisions. B) As for the part about the HBAC’s duties, you put a glowing spin on what I covered in the previous paragraph, but the fact remains that mandating premiums that are lower and benefits that are higher than plans feature now, plus not allowing anyone to be denied coverage regardless of pre-condition...it would hard to think of a better plan to eventually and inevitably drive an insurance company out of business, a point you seem particularly determined to ignore.

Next paragraph: Your "Three Little Pigs" analogy is a particularly pathetic attempt to justify your refusal to engage anyone who argues along the same lines I have: no one is taking a children’s story about a wolf and pigs and conjuring government-mandated (is there a government in the story?) safety regulations. What I am doing is reviewing a document that outlines a massive government expansion of power and authority in American health care, and for someone like me who takes the language and words of what is said and what is not said seriously (the study of systematic theology will do that to a person), am finding reason to be alarmed about the lack of explicit limitations on this government expansion of power and authority. Furthermore, if you would like to continue to plausibly deny that HR3200 is a very large step towards the goal of a single-payer system, perhaps you should advise the bill’s more vocal congressional supporters to refrain from expressing exactly that sentiment in print and on camera.

However, your second analogy actually made my point for me:

Your point is like saying that because there's a committee that approves or denies what books are qualified for elementary school reading, this committee can somehow gain powers to force everyone to purchase the TLPs while removing books they deem offensive from every library in the country.

There is no federal committee that has that power (thank God), but most school districts have such committees that are given power to approve or deny what books are qualified for elementary school reading. While the "force everyone" to buy a particular book part was absurd, there have been numerous cases of such committees expanding their power to remove books they deem offensive from every school library in their district (this was an almost semi-annual controversy growing up in Florida) for exactly the reason I stated in regards to this bill: they were given powers to approve or deny books, and were able to expand those powers to banning books because there was no explicit language in their charter that specified what they could not do or to what extent their powers could not extend. Thank you for (unwittingly) providing a similar scenario to buttress my point.

The rest of your comment was an exercise in lunacy in characterizing the pundits who are sounding much the same alarm as I am as "partisan hacks". Apparently a "partisan hack" to you is anyone who has written something you don’t like, regardless of their standing in the journalism community. As I said, no serious person could call the folks I cited (nor the publications I cited that see fit to run their work on a regular basis) as "right-wing extremists" or "partisan hacks" (To illustrate: Ann Coulter, Keith Olbermann: partisan hacks; Jonah Goldberg, Jonathan Chait: not partisan hacks). But then, you are hardly a serious person - or more precisely, someone who can at all be taken seriously.

I’ve done my best to illustrate the implications of the language and words present – and more importantly, glaring in their absence – in the bill. I see by the number of times you’ve referenced me in responding to others that you’ve got me on the brain – hopefully enough to eventually make you think.

I’ll let liberal writer Ron Russbaum (The Village Voice, Esquire, Harper’s, Vanity Fair, New York Times Magazine, presently bi-weekly at Slate - see any "right-wing extremists" there?) take over for me in chiding you for your ignorant and simple-minded argumentation from here, as he wrote over the weekend:

As a liberal myself, I was amazed by the obtuseness of the liberal reaction to Sarah Palin’s "death panels" quote. They fell into a trap because all too many were blinded by their class-conscious, snobbish disdain for Palin, who, whatever else you think of her, is one cagey operator.

And in doing so they allowed that one brilliantly crafted propaganda phrase to undo the chance for some necessary health care reforms (portability of coverage, no disqualification for previous conditions, eligibility to some plan for all, subsidized coverage for the impoverished uninsured).

They couldn’t believe that Sarah Palin was capable of something as canny as that deadly "death panels" phrase. They couldn’t see that it was a metaphoric shorthand for something real. Instead they thought she was too dumb, that she meant it literally (to have seen the potential for rationed end-of-life care in the bill), and instead indulged in an orgy of disdain for her "crazy", "ignorant" "lies" and malicious misrepresentation.

No! "Death panels" was a Lenny Bruce black-humored kind of line and she proved herself far hipper than the terminally square liberals who didn’t get it. And who started an ill-conceived war on the phrase which most of the country, when the facts came out, saw as meretricious or ignorant on the liberals’ part — with good reason. And caused ordinary citizens to turn against the whole cause of health care — really it should be health insurance — reform.
Liberals should have responded the way my friend Joe Conason (and a few other non-snotty liberals) did, by pointing out that we already have death panels of a sort: the ones manned by the insurance companies who ration and deny coverage for the sake of their profit margins. Would government rationing be better? It might be less greed-motivated, but maybe not. [GR here: Gee. What might the govt. criteria be for determining payouts? Take a guess. Oh, and didn’t I discuss this earlier?] There at least should have been a discussion of the real issue of health care rationing.

Because yes, there is a "panel" in the bill that will "evaluate" the cost effectiveness of various expensive, minimally life-extending treatment decisions — decisions that any health-care program, public or private, may have to make. No, individuals won’t have to stand before it, but individuals will be affected — and sometimes suffer — from its decisions.

But liberals and, shamefully, liberal oriented media — most of them — made the mistake they keep making about Sarah Palin: because she didn’t go to Princeton she’s incapable of seeing or cutting to the heart of the matter so shrewdly. They had a chance to respond as Conason did: put her on the spot by asking her exactly what she’d do about existing insurance company "death panels." Instead, they didn’t believe she was sophisticated enough (like them) to make the point she was making.

And then the facts began to leak out, as even the media began to read the bill and its implications and backtrack on its deeply flawed literal-to-the point of stupidity "fact checks" [GR here: This is Andy’s only tactic besides pitiful attempts at analogy] – and people got legitimately outraged at being treated like Sarah Palin: too dumb to understand. When in fact like — the liberals and the media — were the ones whose knee jerk reactions were ignorant.

BTW, Andy,

Our exchange has been a perfect illustration of the old adage:

"If you want to anger a conservative, lie to him. If you want to anger a liberal, tell him the truth."