« Moonbats Scream for the Trees | Main | Rep Tom Perriello Gets an Earful on Comrade Obama's Czars »

is this the "after" picture for Obama's education speech??

off topic my spell checker still does not recognize "Obama" as a correctly spelled word.

my choices:
Obadiah
Obadias
Bamko
Alambama

I'm confused - why hasn't Obama appointed a spell checker Czar???

An American challenges his congressman to tell Obama there are no czars in America:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/05/video-constituent-lectures-congressman-on-executive-power/

Well, I don't recognize that "obama" group of letters as a properly spelled word either, but all I come back with is ERROR.

blue, be careful, the Great One may appoint a czar to check up on YOU.

Pass the fruit salad.

If you think your body belongs to you, you have another thing coming. Once Obamacare, or Kennedycare, or Commiecare, or whatever name they give it comes into play, the next logical step is removing your organs without permission.

Once again, the left desires a utopia which has already been satirized by Monty Python.

"blue, be careful, the Great One may appoint a czar to check up on YOU.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 5, 2009 12:29 PM"

Blue lives in Southern California surrounded by fruits, nuts, & flakes.
I have already been informed on.

Lyle:

It is no exaggeration to say that the legal framework for what you fear is in place, and has been for 80 years, courtesy of the Supreme Court.

In Buck v Bell, this was the ruling:- "We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence."

The 'lesser case' was sterilisation, but could just as easily apply to involuntary blood donation, surrender of one kidney, or an eye. Clearly it all depends on those who sap the strength of the state - who does that? The elderly?

Protester to Mark Warner: Which part of the Constitution says you get to take over health care?

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/04/protester-to-mark-warner-which-part-of-the-constitution-says-you-get-to-take-over-health-care/

China's national flag to go up in White House on Sept 20

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-07/13/content_8422505.htm

The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy

Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.

here

The mindless followers of the PIED PIPPER OF DC(OBAMA) the SON OF SATAN

Beware Obamacare

Yes It Can

Another low for the left: Left starts rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl.

Meh and Goatse must be so proud of their fellow travelers.

Off topic, but letterman is dying of cancer.

Sorry about the last post...not true. Didnt get my facts straight, sorry.

V the Kitten, no, not my style. Looking at that site, it appears it is going for a far fetched conspiracy as Beck does. Beck and the creator fail to recognize, some things are not joking or conspiracy material.

so ghost, you see moral equivalence between a TV personality engaging in inflammatory rhetoric, and starting an organized campaign to slander someone as a rapist and murderer.

Why won't Glenn Beck address the accusations that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990?

If Glenn Beck didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990, then shouldn't he take the time to address why he, Glenn Beck, didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990?

The MSM won't even report on this -- and I've even seen a document(!!) -- and we need a grass root movement to call for answers as to whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. Why is he dodging the issue?!?

Further, this news first broke on a website pushing it's own ideological agenda. So why isn't Glenn Beck addressing whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990?!?!?

I want to know if Goatse or Anonydumbass can cite a single instance in which Glenn Beck asserted something as fact that was not back up by evidence.

I am also curious whether Van Jones is considered a fringe extremist, or if his views are consistent with the progressive mainstream.

BTW, rumor has it Van Jones is resigning. Beck wins.

Have fun with your childish smear website.

This isn't a smear website.

This was a rumor created by a credible ideological website -- therefore it must be addressed by the target of the attack.

Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990? I want to hear it from the horse's mouth.

If Van Jones is a 9/11 truther, then Van Jones is an extremist.

If Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990, then he is a felon. So the question remains: Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990?

AP has breaking news Van Jones has resigned.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jjHS8S3jIndU2oI6WHB_KqB-pvwAD9AHJBMG1

One down, several more Obama types to go ;)

Radical Ecoterrorist Group Topples Two Radio Towers Near Seattle
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9AGKD0O0&show_article=1

Yet another reason I practice my 2nd Amendment rights.

And Idiomous @ September 5, 2009 9:32 PM

Comparing historical fact to liberal wet dream fantasy is EXACTLY why you are a MOONBAT and cannot be taken seriously or taken as remotely sane. My GOD - you need to get very serious psychological help.

-I saw on a website that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

-Glenn Beck has never, ever, denied raping and murdering the girl in 1990.

-Now rumors are swirling on a parallel ideologue site that Glenn Beck actually joked about raping and murdering the little girl since he after he raped and murdered her.

-Why is he being silent???

-Why is the MSM not covering this???

-We need answers!!!

All I want is a police report saying that Glenn Beck did not rape and murder a girl in 1990. Until that document is produced, I will take his silence as admission.

"Breaking News" Van Jones resigns post........

Got a question for my favorite Moonbats:

Jones is now fighting for his own private spot in the crowded space under the O-bus. My question is how will this affect O's overall polling. Would you say:

1. It will not affect his numbers either way because it is just more of the same tragic comedy. Everyone is already decided.

2. It will piss off his Left yet again and he will lose more approval from his nutroots.

3. It will placate some independents and he will gain approval from them (his intended goal).

4. It will damage O, providing additional validation of conservative assertions about him. His numbers will dip across the board.

Affirmative Action, Anal Cavities, and Van Jones

The whole notion of affirmative action is both racist and discriminatory. Giving preference to any individuals on the basis of the color of their skin rather than on the content of their character is patently un-American.

Now, where have we heard that before?

When affirmative action is applied by the White House to reward cronies with a plum job it becomes patently ridiculous, as in the case of “green czar,” Van Jones. His appointment had to have been an instance of AA. There’s no way he actually earned even a spot as liaison to the White House shoeshine boy.

Jones is a hack of the highest order, a racial agitator and a Vanny-come-lately to the green world. He latched onto the conservationist platform as a way to ingratiate himself to a wider audience and then was anointed by President Obama to be Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.

That grand mouthful of a title doesn’t come close to matching the mouthful of radical, racist invective and conspiratorial ravings that have been spewed by Mr. Jones over the years, culminating in his recent attack on Republicans as a**holes.

An obvious over-achiever, Jones has a history of vicious racial stupidity. That history must have caught Obama’s eye and convinced him that Jones would fit very comfortably in an administration jam packed with other turkeys, from Joe Biden to Janet Napolitano to John Holdren.

Much is now being made of Jones’ involvement in the “truther movement.” In 2004, as one of 100 “prominent Americans,” he signed a petition on behalf of that movement.

The petition called for a congressional investigation, an ”immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur,” according to the group’s website which also cited various “incriminating evidence,” http://tinyurl.com/3jg4x.

All of it is poppycock, long dismissed by rational people but dear to the hearts of rabid Bush-haters who still haven’t given up on the inane, insane charge that, “Bush knew!”

Jones may have signed the petition but now denies he ever agreed with its position and that “it certainly does not reflect my views, now or ever.” After all, he said, that was years ago.

Yeah, 5 years is ancient history.

So, here we have an Obama czar so detached from reality that he signs radical petitions with which he doesn’t agree, then dismisses the matter as occurring “years ago.”

How stupid is this guy to believe he can get away with that asinine defense? Does he think we’re all a**holes?

Well, actually he does. You can catch Jones’ reference to the anal cavity here: http://tinyurl.com/ks65bl. Incidentally, the crowd in Berkeley just loved it although his vulgarity was a non-sequitur which he threw out in lieu of an intelligent response to a question.

He followed it up with an equally senseless comment: . . .

(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)

wilzyk at September 5, 2009 10:18 PM

I'm sure that's the official story - that he resigned. But anyone with a brain will know the liberal's little brown gawd threw him under the bus.

What's the score now? The ObamaBus 77, Obama mentors, friends, and backers ZERO?

In talking with an incurable Dem friend last night, she is seeing rumors that Hillary could make a go in 2012.

My friend is very active online, and centrist Dems privately fear a single term at this point if things continue. Everyone agrees that Pelosi and Reid will definitely be out next year, with a Blue Dog resurgence to follow.

She emphasized that the '12 Dem primaries are shaping up to be an internal bloodbath such as never seen before. Look how the Hillary voters were treated by the Obots, and look at the results the Obots have to show for it.

Did you read Jones's pathetic resignation letter? It's not his fault. It's not even about him, apparently. He's resigning because of the "vicious smear campaign" using "lies and distortions to distract and divide". I guess he was just randomly targeted by that evil vast right-wing conspiracy.

By the way, the great thing about the Van Jones outcome is that it demonstrates how we don't need the mainstream media's reporting anymore to get things accomplished. They are rapidly becoming irrelevant. Hurrah to that.

It also demonstrates why we cannot under any circumstances give the Whitehouse the power to shut down the Internet!

van Jones is just red herring. They always knew he was whack. Obama knew hed drive us crazy. distracting us, keeping us busy and focused on Van Jones instead of the larger issues of legitimacy and treasury.

Indeed, if you just take the two facts:

1. All of the major media held a complete, 100 % blackout on the Van Jones story, except for one AP article which didn't even appear in most of those media

2. He lost his job within 2-3 days of all this breaking.

We can conclude:
- the true and real power of alternative media, specifically right-wing radio and right wing blogs. Not only to transmit ideas and information, but to SHAPE public opinion. let's remember that, going forward

- the strength and endurance Glen Beck has when he gets his game face on and takes the battle to the enemy.

Jack Webb Schools the Obamassiah on Health Care!

Posted by: wilzyk at September 5, 2009 10:52 PM

No, I don't think so. Obama is simply arrogant and thinks he can get away with anything. The Van Jones thing doesn't distract people from anything, as proved by your post - we can all chew gum and walk at the same time.

@ Van Jones.......................

DON'T LET THE WHITE HOUSE SCREEN DOOR HIT YOU ON THE ASS, ON YOUR WAY TO THE BUS.............

P.S. Van Jones - Bug and Tar remover works well in getting those bus tire track off of your sorry ass...........

Everyone thank Glenn Beck, Michelle Maulkin, Van and everyone else in the Blogosphere who risks everything to practice a Constitutional Freedom Of Speech!

FUCK YOU VAN JONES!

One more question - since this is open thread.

Is Race Whore (Race Baiter who makes money like a crack whore) a term.

Van Jones is a Race Whore!

Yeah - throw in Jessy and the rest of the Black Congressional Cacaus for good measure.

FUCK YOU VAN JONES!

Living in the current socialist hell that is N CA, I've see what you have done to FUCK your own people.

This article from, no less. the NYT, is a better written (though not fully balanced) account of Van Jones' failure then I've seen tonight.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/us/politics/06vanjones.html?_r=1

P.S. - FUCK YOU VAN JONES.

Chickies vs. Babies

I’d like to say that I’m bemused at stories of animal cruelty but such stories are abhorrent to me and so bemusement is not an option.

Nevertheless, I’m always entertained by the writers and producers of animal cruelty tales and videos and by groups such as PETA who get livid over videos like this on chicken farmers who apparently routinely grind up millions of live male chicks because they are useless: http://tinyurl.com/nzu9oj.

It’s a pretty ugly sight whether one is an animal lover or not. Causing such excruciating pain to any living creature has to warp the minds of the perpetrators who tell themselves it is instant euthanasia.

No doubt many women’s libbers delight in the poetic justice of any male being chopped and diced but I think it’s nothing short of disgustingly brutal even if male chicks are not economically viable: They can’t lay eggs and don’t fatten up fast enough.

We usually think of pictures like these when we think chicken:

There’s more to a chicken than meets the eye or the palate.

On the other hand, we don’t consume human babies–yet–but we have the more popular practice of abortion.

In some ways, aborted, pre-born babies have it worse than post-born male chickens. PETA and other animal lovers have no empathy for the human animal since there are so-called valid reasons for abortion–just as there are valid reasons for grinding male chicks into pulp.

Various parallels can be drawn between chick-grinding and baby murder:. . .

(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)

Fuck YOU VAN JONES!

This what you have to fear Van Jones........

They (us) out nubmer you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVz6d24Q52c

You get nothing! You lose! Good day sir!

So, Goatse, this is what your proud progressive movement is reduced to? Phony rape/murder accusations and juvenile internet street theater?

We know from the way you guys rallied around Bill Maher and David Letterman that your side thinks rape jokes are hilarious and rape accusations are just "part of the game."

Guess you progressives don't respect women nearly as much as you claim to, or your side wouldn't think rape was such a joke.

Beck won. LOL!

Re: Posted by: mega at September 5, 2009 11:01 PM

The key thing mega, is the right-wing media succeeds, and will continue to succeed, as long as it has the truth on its side.

The truth is that Van Jones is a far left radical.

The truth is that America is broadly a center-right country. Our media organs are left/far left (funny how the "corporate media" ignored the Van Jones story, n'est-ce pas?) They think they create the truth with their reporting.

Glenn Beck won this round because the truth was on his side.

That is unless you progressives want to deny Van Jones is a radical. Want to deny the videotapes of him espousing the view that "gray capitalism" must be destroyed. Want to deny the existence of the rap album that declares the US a terrorist state.

Don't worry about VJ, though. I am sure he'll get a hosting gig on MSDNC or NPR.

Air2Air....interesting question.

I'd say this event is a net slightly negative for Obama, but just a smidge. Not enough to make a difference in polling. Might impact who gets selected for the next 50 czar positions. Has slightly raised the czar issue in general in the public consciousness. Has given Beck fans some confidence that he's got the staying power for a real fight, and that all of his take-it-to-their-doorstep type stuff actually works, and he himself is willing to do it. The whole event continues the slow grind of the American people seeing what a disaster this whole Obama thing is. But in the end, the lack of real media coverage will mostly keep this pinned down to a side-show issue. Really, isn't it Rev Wright part 2?

Hey Ghost of Wellstone, I guess that makes Van Jones a "quitter," eh?

Glenn Beck, this morning.

Keith Olbermann, this morning.

Wow VK, the hypocrisy here is astounding.

"So, Goatse, this is what your proud progressive movement is reduced to? Phony rape/murder accusations and juvenile internet street theater?"

Phony accusations? Yet you strongly endorse this very thread that encourage a lie with the rhetoric "you've lived a long, long time Grandma. Maybe TOO long". And yes, that fear mongering is a proven lie.

It is you lunatics that support the lies that someone somehow planted a smuggled black African infant into the U.S. in order to grow up to recruit our children into Nazi camps with an agenda of killing the elderly as well as children with Down Syndrome.

So why shouldn't dishonesty, fabricated rumors, and out right lies be fair game for everyone?

Wow, Jones certainly thinks highly of himself. Van, it wasn't about you, even though you think it was. You're an incompetent, racist, communist, anarchist, ex-con schlub. You were found out, because the citizens vetted you and published your own words and actions.
Anonydouche, the police don't do reports on non-suspects. They can't list every single person in the US as a non-suspect, moron. So, go ahead, smear away, you saw this on a web site, so it has to be true? You're even more delusional and warped than most people thought you were

Forgot to post this link, the woman in the video takes another dem to school over health care, and he's left babbling to his few supporters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IYLqtYEYeI

andy90210, I don't know that anyone but a few loose nuts is promoting anything like the Nazi-clone-African baby thing (though some of us would like to see the college records Obama has spent half a million to keep hidden), but I do know that if anybody is promoting that idiocy, he's not in a position of leadership. Such as, adviser to the president.

I can't even get any of you progressives to answer the simple question: Is Van Jones a fringe loon or a mainstream progressive? I think he's both, but you guys won't commit one way or the other.

Anyway, Beck won. You guys lost. I love rubbing that in.

well, what makes this doubly satisfying is not only that Glen Beck took down a major official in the US government, but also that it took place in the context of the supposed Beck boycott.

Needless to say, Beck's ratings are going to go through the f'ing ROOF. Since he was within easy striking distance of having the most watched show on cable, it is obvious that he will now have the # 1 show by a landslide margin.

I would love to see Fox send a letter to all the advertisers who pulled their ads: "We are offering a 24 hour grace period for companies to recommit to advertising during Glen Beck's hour. After that 24 hour period, you will not be permitted to advertise during Beck ever again."

Mega - noticed that Walmart continues to push adds on FNC.

Go walmart - stick it right up the ass of organized labor.

I know the execrable POS resigned overnight, but I still think this deserves mentioning:

Van Jones cut Nasty, hate filled album with Cop Killer Mumia-Abu_Jamal:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/unreal-van-jones-even-released-war.html

I think Obambi needs to be hammered for not firing this POS.

Here's a nice, reasonable, nuanced left-wing response from comments at the Washington Post:

It is a shame that the Obama Administration is allowing this bullying by the GOP (AKA) American Taliban. Bush was responsible for 9/11. The Gop (AKA) American Taliban is also responsible for the Oklahoma bombing. This isn't "Breaking News" however the GOP (AKA) American Taliban continue to bully their way into an attempted control of our government. Remember, money is the GOP (AKA) American Taliban's almighty idol and they will do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING no matter the cost to attain 100% control of it.

Here we see the state of mind of the progressive left, but it's people who want to see Obama's college records that are nuts.

New 'truth' for Van Jones: find a new job

I guess his White House 'Community Organizing' days are over......

VAN JONES is what is WRONG with the LEFT.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/new_truth_for_van_jones_find_new_6TduRJnk1jjkg0iwqxO8mJ

"I would love to see Fox send a letter..."

That would be cool, mega.

conversation between Rev. Wright and Van Jones.....

Wright says "I guess you chickens have come home to roost!"

Van Jones responds: "I only eat steak and lobster at the White House, that is, until my chickens came home to roost."

VAN JONES - putting the 'black' back into the term 'black listed'.

Whiny liberals totally losing it over this Beck/Van Jones thing. One almost gets the feeling they can't differentiate between the antics of a TV commentator and the fact that a major official in the US government believes the government perpetrated 9/11. Anyway, it's good to see the frustrated rage amongst the left. Especially pleasurable to see that frustration with them in charge of both houses of Congress and the executive branch. This all goes nicely with a side-dish of Obama's approval rating tanking down to -11 again

Let's look at the scorecard.

Partisan Personal Attacks and Smears: Glenn Beck plays video of Van Jones calling Republicans "a-holes" and calling the destruction of capitalism.

Fair and Open Debate: The left makes jokes about Sarah Palin's daughters being raped and/or sluts, about Sarah herself being gang-raped (Sandra Bernhardt), wanting her son aborted, dozens of frivolous ethics complaints - (all dismissed), sets her church on fire, claims she faked her pregnancy...

So apparently, Obama decided this'd be a great time to bust some heads in Israel to create a distraction aka "middle east peace plan moving forward...", but unfortunately for the Jackass In Chief, Netanyahu's not playing ball, and now Obama is inches if not millimeters from a big confrontation/mess with the Tribe, 3 days before his salvage-something-from-the-mess-of-Obamacare speech.

Nice going, Mr. "no experience but really great judgment" guy.

It's additionally hypocritical of you VK to expect an honest answer to YOUR questions when you run like hell from constructive questions from the left---or, answer with diversions or rhetoric.

But what the hell, is Van Jones a fringe loon or a mainstream progressive? I think Van Jones leans more mainstream progressive although I can appreciate some of the issues against him. I find his truther involvement disturbing but he never actually advocated the "Bush bombed the WTC" nonsense. He signed onto demands for answers to certain questions but stayed clear of accusations. It seems he did the exact thing that you and the GOP are doing with the birther issue. You admit VK, that you don't by into it but you want answers. But that's not really what you, the GOP, anti-Obama, or promoters of Obama for failure really want. You want to keep the question from and center in order to remind folks that Obama has Kenyan descent, that he's from an interracial family, that his middle name is Hussein, that he's black, and that he just ain't like us. So I'm wondering if Van Jones, who has denied buying into the truthers, was using the same stratagem to keep the nonsense alive.

It's interesting that Rep Mike Pence of IN made the statement of Van Jones; "His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this Administration or the public debate". But just a few days earlier at a town hall in Anderson, his response to a woman that compared Obama to Hitler was "thank you".

So to answer, I don't think Jones thought process was of lunacy, I just think it was as sleazy as you guys.

So VK, you buy into death panels or not?

I think Van Jones leans more mainstream progressive

So, you admit wanting to destroy "gray capitalism" on the road to socialist utopia, the belief that white people deliberately poison colored people, and the belief that the US is a terrorist state are in the progressive mainstream. I suspected as much.

"Death Panels," is a fairly accurate, if exaggerated, description of the Health Choice Commission and the End of Life counseling provisions in the ObamaCare bill. The reason these provisions are in the bill is to reduce costs by discouraging life extending care. That is exactly the way the NICE works in Britain, and that's what these provisions were modeled after.

"Death Panels" is an evocative euphemism, but it's a bit closer to the truth than the left referring to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques as "torture." So, you guys have no real reason to bitch, now do you? Unless you're flaming hypocrites. Oh, wait.. you are.

If "Death Panels" wasn't, roughly speaking, on-the-mark, it would've been ignored by Obama, the media, and the left. It is precisely because it veers close to the truth that it has caused such angst. I agree with VtK entirely - the phrase is a bit exaggerate or inflammatory, but ultimately, an accurate depiction of a planned system in which old and infirm people will be gently encouraged to decline life extending care in order for the govt to save money on them. There's no getting around that, and that is why the left is so tangled up in this one, 4 or 6 weeks after the Facebook posting.

In talking with an incurable Dem friend last night, she is seeing rumors that Hillary could make a go in 2012.

I've long assumed that this was her plan. Why else give up a safe Senate seat to become SecState? This way she can wait for an opportune issue, resign on some matter of principle, and run against the Messiah for the 2012 nomination. Her decision to accept SecState cheered me up immensely, because it meant that someone who knew Obama at first hand obviously figured he would crash and burn.

PS: Props to Beck for acquiring a Red scalp. Well done, Glen! One down, lots more to go...

Beck 1, Reds zip.

another side benefit of this whole escapade is the total crash and burn of LGF. That blog is now finished. Johnson went from defending Jones, to claiming Jones didn't know his name was on the truther list (which Jones admitted knowing), to bringing up that some random Tea Party guy was also a truther or something - LGF is now in total meltdown mode. I myself managed to lose an ID over there in the last 2 days. I highly recommend people check out the group of threads he had about Van Jones. And the beat-down that Ace put on him. And the amusing commentary about it at littlegreenfootballs2. It's magical.

with all due respect, Jay, I beg to differ on Hillary. I think Obama played her for a fool. He appealed to her insatiable narcissistic ego to sucker her into that Secstate job, then sent her to Congo or Pilau or wherever to make speeches on women's rights. She's been defanged, declawed, and made to look foolish and ineffectual. If anything, the Obama people were the ones who had their eye on 2012. IMHO Hillary is done, defeated by her own ego. After she resigns as SecState in a year or at the next congressional elections, that will be the end of her for national politics.

VAN JONES = Poster child for race baiting failed White House and OMinistration!

Van Jones...........
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA!

CLOCK OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!

V The K and mega, absolute nonsense and I know that both of you have the intellect to know that, or, you've both fooled me well. The 'death panels" are a product of fear mongering and are not "roughly speaking, on-the-mark" based on VK's theory that Obama would have ignored them otherwise. Lessons were learned from swift boating, and birthers. Were they not? Most argue that "killing grandma" is bogus because nowhere does HR3200 state it. HR3200 specifically lays out the functions of the Health Care Advisory Board which is to determine the minimum coverage requirements of providers and different plans in order to protect the public from being ripped off. Euthanasia ain't there nor is it part of their role. You're agreement seems to be based on that because it doesn't say the can, somehow the HCAB will acquire superpowers that will allow them to make medical decisions. That defies logic and it's been relieved time and time again. But you keep promoting it and planting implications that it's "roughly speaking, on-the-mark", yet you have no credible offerings to support it. It's simply continuing a lie and as long as you can pick up a few believers here and there, that's simply a feather in your agenda promoting hat.

And that validates my statement of: Posted by: andy42302 at September 6, 2009 7:36 AM-- "So why shouldn't dishonesty, fabricated rumors, and out right lies be fair game for everyone?"

your agruement seems to be based on,,,not "agreement"

andy - just my casual observation.... you are working way too hard to make an ass out of yourself.

Dem rep: Public option is path to single payer

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/06/dem-rep-public-option-is-path-to-single-payer/

Oiao= rodeo clown to create a distraction in order for VK and mega to exist stage left. That's just my casual observation based on past practices here.

mega, you may be right. I wobble on this one. It's just hard to imagine why Hillary would give up a Senate seat to be SecState if she didn't figure there was something in it for her. She's not a stupid woman, and she's married to one of the shrewdest politicians in the country.

It's true Obama is trying to marginalize her by sending her off to women's conferences in Jabongieland, no doubt to keep out of the limelight, but this could work to her advantage because she'll also be out of the limelight when the shit hits the fan in DC.

She can then wait until the time is right, pick a fight over some stupid Obama foreign policy issue, submit her resignation on a matter of principle, and run against him.

But you may be right. At this point this is like speculating on which of two scorpions in a bottle will win.

In the interests of conserving bandwidth, I suggest our leftist commentators make their points by referring to numbers:

1 = racist

2 = moron

3 = sexist

4 = fear mongering

5 = hate mongering

6 = homophobic

7 = far right

8 = out of the mainstream

9 = Cheney

10 = it's for the children

11 = vicious

12 = smear

13 = slaves

14 = incurious

15 = Halliburton

16 = faggots

17 = distortions

18 = right-wing

19 = oppressed

20 = oppressor

21 = Nazi

22 = imperialist

23 = lies

24 = masters

25 = knuckle-dragging

26 = progressive

27 = KKK

28 = forces

29 = uneducated

30 = corporate

31 = hypocritical

32 = mainstream

33 = truther

34 = inbred

35 = minority

36 = Palin, and, of course,

666 = Bush

Let's see how this works on the Van Jones fiasco. Instead of laboriously typing out "You racist, sexist, inbred, knuckle-dragging far-right KKK morons forced a mainstream progressive oppressed minority from office with your hate-mongering lies and fear-mongering distortions, just to serve your corporate masters who want to make minority slaves again, just like Cheney and Bush wanted," the Reds need only type " 1 3 34 25 7 27 2 32 26 19 35 5 23 4 17 30 24 35 13 9 666."

Think of all the time and thought you guys'll save.

RE: Posted by: Jay Guevara at September 6, 2009 1:23 PM

HAAAA!!!

Tell 'em to use a smaller font, too - it'll save memory!!

andy - just my casual observation.... you are working way too hard to make an ass out of yourself.

Yeah, it's not like it takes that much effort.

Anyway, andy has to pretend we never saw Barack Obama on tape talking about "just taking the pill" or reducing the 80% of health care costs in the last year of life. He has to pretend we didn't read that article written by his chief health care advisoer, Ezekial Emanuel, advocating that health care be denied to the very young and the old on the basis that society has not invested in the former and is through with the latter. He also has to pretend that government panels have never, ever, in the history of bureaucracy, grown beyond their original mandate to vastly and deeply interfere in individual lives.

Aside from those few inconvenient truths, his argument is merely lame.

Oh, and we also have to pretend the Obama admin *wasn't* distributing to wounded veterans a pamphlet whose basic message was, "Don't be a burden on your family. Just die."

VK, Ezekial Emanuel nor words taken out of context give powers to boards that have none. Opinions of a few or lunatic interpretations cannot change congressional legisltion. This is where you come up short. Accordingly, your response is lame by any stretch as a realistic rebuttal and is only a fear mongering fantasy. But still you spew and support what you've admitted is fake. Or at best, you run and hide from the truth of it.

You may oppose HR3200 for many reasons and those reasons may have merit. Hiding your head in the bowels of lunacy doesn't give you credibility. You are more of a coward than I realized. It's understandable that you're more interested in being part of the throw-a-rock-and-run bloggers than you are in engaging in reasonable discussion.

Andy,
They wait for you here.
And they know where you read your cut-and-paste arguments.
And they are aware that you haven't got the faintest idea of how to apply them.
And they are hip to your technique of screaming hypocrisy in place of the fatuous racist jibe.

You are sport for them and totally out of your weight division. Wise up, I am beginning to feel sorry for you.

Hey Jay, great post. Great way to compress their posts. And for reponses from rational, thinking humans, to them:
1. Go Pound Sand!
2. F**k You!
3. See #1.
Reading Andrea 42302's post, I can see that the dkos, DU words of the day, in their talking points were "fear-mongering fantasy".
Meanwhile, back in lefty land, Andrea desperately seeks something, anything to counter what appeared, in print, in the VA pamphlet.

You may oppose HR3200 for many reasons and those reasons may have merit.

I mainly oppose it because I think it's reckless to spend a trillion dollars on something we don't need when we're already staring at $10 Trillion in deficits. I also don't see how you can add 30,000,000 patients to the health care system while adding 0 doctors without compromising the quality and availability of care.

But to the degree that 'Death Panels' are understood to be government panels intended to limit the availability of health care and that helps defeat the Abomination that is ObamaCare, fine. Sure, it's overheated rhetoric, but who are those who screamed "Bush Torture Regime" to cast stones?

Jim and UpNorth equate to Moonbattery rodeo clowns.

We prefer the term 'Jester' just as you perfer the term 'Jack Ass'.

Jim and UpNorth equate to Moonbattery rodeo clowns.

What a thoughtful and persuasive rebuttal.

A Teachable Moment or an Alinsky Seduction?

On the surface, there’s nothing really inappropriate for the president of the United States to address America’s children on their first day of school, Tuesday, September 8th. After all, he is the president, a role demanding leadership of all citizens, including kids.

Education Secretary Duncan Arne Duncan in his letter to the principals of every school in the country writes that the speech represents an ”historic moment” and that its primary purpose “is to challenge students to set goals, work hard and stay in school. This isn’t a policy speech:” http://bit.ly/YPFH2

All well and good, so far, but here the problems start.

First Problem: The text of the 15-20 minute address won’t be released until Monday, September 7th, which just happens to be Labor Day, a national holiday.

That release date smacks of the tactics near and dear to the hearts of this “transparent” administration, allowing minimal or no time to peruse and examine the contents of what Obama plans to say to America’s children in this non-policy, (and non-political?) multi-page speech.

That ploy worked with equally-historic bills passed by our Democratic congress and would have been used last month for Obamacare if not for the national uproar. So, the White House must figure, Hey! That underhanded trick worked for Cap and Trade. Let’s trot it out again for the kidlet address!

Unfortunately for the Obamians, Obama’s education speech has encountered a similar uproar as hundreds of thousands of parents nationwide have voiced their unstinting support for education and vociferous opposition to what they fear will be socialistic indoctrination.

That great old song from The King and I, “Getting to Know You,” springs to mind. Mr. President, more and more Americans are getting to know you, know all about you but they’re not getting to like you and don’t give a damn whether you like them.

Second Problem: Though the speech text won’t be made public until Labor Day, Secretary Duncan made certain to make public a very detailed “lesson plan” to the nation’s 14,000 school districts and 100,000 private and public school principals a week and a half ago.

One would think that at least a draft of the address . . .

(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at September 5, 2009 8:36 PM

This from a murderer of an unborn child who believes that Boooosh and the Jooos were behind the 9/11 attacks.

Jay: a very fine post indeed. I got a good laugh.

andy32402, once activist judges and meddling armies of bureaucrats get their hands on whatever health care legislation eventually passes (and it will), you can be beyond certain that there will be rationing and misery. We hardly need to go through the charade of pretending that things that are vague in HR3200 won't be jammed through the courts to get to the desired outcome of a transfer of healthcare resources from old to poor/union/black/illegal. That is obviously where this will end up going via the courts, and even democrats like yourselves know that damn well. So why should we endure this lie in discussion board dialog. Obama has his reasons to mislead, but online chatters have no reason to. Let's just call a spade a spade. 80 % are pretty happy with their healthcare. The only reason to mess with it is to transfer some of that 80%'s healthcare to the other 20 %. It's a redistribution of wealth, like every other thing Obama does or has ever done since he popped out of the womb, or will ever do.

So let's update our list:

37 = coward

38 = taken out of context

39 = credibility

40 = lunatic

41 = reasonable

42 = fantasy

43 = fake

44 = lame

45 = spew

46 = run and hide, and almost forgot

47 = teabagger

So we have,

VK, 38 40 44 4 42 45 43 46 37 40 41.

Now isn't that better?

VK, and your rebuttal? Did the clowns allow you to duck under the fence to safety? Is that your excuse?

mega, your logic follows the same mindset that says Obama and Democrats can simply trash the constitution at will and that they can freely change legislation to suit whatever they like at whatever time. This is of course as long as they have control. Is that what you are saying or is that your justification for selling death panels?

I'll translate into liberal Esperanto:

17 12 4 23 44 36 28 14.

Now I have two things that crack me up whenever I hear them: Van Jones and ...you know....

Bwahahahah!

Maybe the liberals will put them together, and have Van Jones on...you know. (sniggers)

Andy, my view is, basically, that in the broader sweep of history, there are pendula swings from left to right, combined with a longer-term linear increase in the dominance of statism from around 1880 through today. This statism is occasionally codified in legislation, but has been propelled mainly through activist courts and bureaucracies. Those who promote statist solutions, such as Obamacare, understand full well that a "starter kit" consisting of legislation combined with no more than tepid public disapproval is enough to get the ball rolling. Once the ball is rolling, it is nearly impossible to stop and even slowing it down requires enormous political will. This is why people such as myself view it as so urgent to cut off statist meddling at the roots, but also why we almost always fail. A savvy group of people such as Obama's team knows all this and more, of course, which is why they are trying to get anything - anything at all - passed. They have done the smartest possible thing, that is, get conservatives blowing off steam and burning up emotional cycles over a "death panel" while the really significant thing - health care reform at all - quietly makes its way into the public consciousness as a "given". That there is even any fight remaining to be had about that demonstrates how poorly Obama's team has played it, but even still, I think not poorly enough to fail, unfortunately.

To deny that Democrats' game plan is to get a wedge going in Congress so the real battle can be fought in nameless, faceless bureaucracies and courtrooms, where they fully expect to win and to implement what they really want, is ridiculously naive and uninformed.

So mega, any legislation in the Obama admin needs to be stopped for fear of slipping statism orienting takeovers form occurring?

Where you go off the lunacy cliff is in suggesting that Obama masterly conned Sarah et al into promoting deth panels while they slipped healthcare under the rug. My god?

So your solution is to stall government until your side wins?

Sk, when did I ever claim any 9/11 theory other than I think there issues to be addressed. That would require further investigation. Further, this obsession with many of you about my "unborn" child is a bit twisted. I know honesty is tough to find around here when making a point, but you are getting carried away. Ya know the same could be said for many of you who endorsed war, which likely included the deaths of thousands of pregnant women, talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Or how about the mothers you guilted into carrying the child and both died?

You are hypocrites! It is one set of standards, and that is it! Fuck the idea that we live in a free country that has laws in place isn't it? No wonder you want to go back to the old west. You cry so much about God and "how you want your country back" From what? Barack Obama has been President for 8 months, and "In God We Trust" was not popular until the 50's. That "indoctrination" works if it's conservatism I suppose?

No, Andy, I don't think anyone conned Sarah. I think Sarah was being Sarah, the Obama team saw a great opportunity, and pinned down the debate to an, ultimately, fruitless argument over "killing grandma" that soaked up conservatives' energy while the slow-grind of public acceptance that "some kind of reform has to happen" took hold. Is that really so complex or strange to you?

My solution is not to stall government until my side wins. My solution is to stall and hobble government forever, regardless of which side wins. To me, centralization of power is a priori bad. Dispersed, decentralized power is a priori good. when statists are in power, I am particularly against each and every thing they attempt to do. I view their failures as society's successes, as it fends off the meddlers and tries to maintain a semblance of individual freedom. I am less antagonistic to Republicans, because they are (generally) less statist. But when Republicans go all statist, such as Bush's bailout, I am just as against it. I hate government control and meddling, regardless of party.

Here's the liberal Esperanto simulcast:

22 16 34 54 27 18 2 4 15 1 55.

Van Jones...Air America...BWAHAHAHAHA!

Almost forgot to update the liberal Esperanto lexicon:

0 = fuck

So the simulcast should have read "0 22 0 16 0 34 0 54 0 27 0 18 0 2 0 4 0 15 0 1 0 55 0 America.

mega, shouldn't government get the hell out of police and fire protection and turn that over to free markets? Where do you draw the line? Is medication a commodity or necessity?

Face it so-stoned you screwed up when you posted how empowering it was to take you woman to kill your unborn baby. Don't the facts suck?

Handy - That is a tired and extremely stupid rebuttal. Police and fire are local. Not federal. How many times to liberals have to told the difference?

Cripes.

no, Andy, there are obviously some "public goods" - defense, public safety, etc. And just as obviously, the debate is over where to draw the line, with only psychopaths arguing either that there should be no government or nothing but government. We are, most of us, arguing whether the line should be at 46 or 54, with very few of us arguing it should be 11 or 82. We are all pretty much comfortable with arguing over that 10 point range. The problem with Obama is that he's at 62 or 71 and those of us on the sub-50 side don't like it, and will continue to fight it. That doesn't make us anarchists or stupid.

Police - yes
Firemen - yes
Army - yes
H1N1 flu vaccine & distribution - yes
Child toy safety laws - yes
Kiddie porn prosecution - yes
Free heathcare for everyone on the backs of people who worked and saved their entire lives - no.

C'mon, Jimbo. Government (Federal, state, local) controls some things, therefore it should control all things.

Try to keep up.

To mega's point, notice how the last differs from the preceding. No one chooses to consume services in the first six cases; only the last involves a service that people can choose whether or not to consume. Guess which one they'll choose when the cost to them doesn't depend on their decision?

Put it this way: suppose all the patrons of a fancy restaurant split the aggregate bill evenly between them. Care to guess how many would order filet mignon and lobster?

That's the problem.

Sorry, Jay. I'm just not stupid enough to stay that far behind!

But I know what you mean and I know what liberals want. Liberals want the schools in Llano, TX to be run exactly like the schools in Detroit - right down to 1st grade prop-homo curriculum.

Liberals want homosexual bath-houses in Midland, TX, just like they have in San Francisco - just in case a horny homo drives through some night on its way to New Orleans.

Liberals want the same anti-gun laws in Amarillo as they have in Chicago. A Chicagoan may drive through someday and get scared and pee it its pants if it sees a rifle in a rifle rack in a pickup on a freeway.

Liberals want everyone to think exactly the same, from the corn belt to the porn belt. They want socialist mind control from sea to shining sea - absolutely no exceptions.

Liberals can kiss my ass.

Liberals want more government control when they're in charge, and less government control when they're not. They like Obama's czars, and they hated Bush's Patriot Act.

Conservatives always want less government control. They hated Bush's bailout, and they hate Obama's bailout.

That is why it is so odd trying to argue with libs as they spew about one's lack of consistency or logic. How can you be more consistent or logical than this: centralized power leads to waste, abuse, fraud, and moral hazard; therefore, it should be avoided as much and as often as humanly possible.

"Jim and UpNorth equate to Moonbattery rodeo clowns". Owww, stop it! Geez, Andrea, you're really taxing your brain, coming up with all of your witty repartee.
Face it, your Dear Leader tried to slide the health care mess through Congress before the recess, so the reps and Senators could take the heat for him, but it would be a done deal. Didn't happen, so now he's going to write the bill himself? I'd love to see that, I'm sure there will be so many hidden agendas, and hidden incentives for his buds in the unions, probably another $5B for ACORN, too. Even though he's a "constitutional scholar", I guess he doesn't know that presidents can't write bills, or introduce them?

I hear you, mega. Liberals are not able - probably at the molecular level - to let people be people.

That's why they are best described as having a mental disorder.

If a San Francisco homo wants to be a San Francisco homo - fine. Just don't come to Llano or Midland or Amarillo and demand we cater to your sick fetishes. It's NOT going to happen.

My grandson will be taught to hunt, fish, grow crops and be self sufficient. He will be taught there is only one living God; to take care of nature so nature can take care of him; not to waste ammo; and that if he kicks a dog he deserves to be bitten. He will be taught to be absolutely respectful to everyone - regardless of color or "sexual orientation". But he will also be taught the difference in good and evil, and there is no gray area - and right and wrong are NOT up to popular opinion, but The Eternal Word.

Its the things I will teach my grandson that drive liberals to foam at the mouth. They want control over his thoughts and when they consider I will not give them that control, they FREAK OUT. The thought of conservatives teaching our ways to following generations is too much for them to handle.

Britain finally shows some backbone towards Obama White House over Lockerbie bomber release blame

President Obama and the US Secretary of State fuelled a fierce American backlash against Britain, claiming Abdelbaset Al Megrahi should have been forced to serve out his jail sentence in Scotland – but a senior Whitehall aide said their reaction was ‘disingenuous’.

British officials claim Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton were kept informed at all stages of discussions concerning Megrahi’s return.

The officials say the Americans spoke out because they were taken aback by the row over Megrahi’s release, not because they did not know it was about to happen.

“It’s kind of scary! They have learned all of the tricks,”

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/84656/

Eco terrorists topple two radio towers over long-debunked fears of radio waves

NAACP that wouldn't defend Kenenth Gladley because he didn't submit forms to them leaps to defend Van Jones

Olbermann explodes over Van Jones' resignation, demands dirt dug up on Glenn Beck, Stu Burguiere, and Roger Ailes

UN officially declares Castro a hero

Posted by: Goatse O'Wellstoned McMonkeyshines at September 6, 2009 5:38 PM- "You are hypocrites! It is one set of standards, and that is it!"

Remember, Goatse- "all minorities". ALL minorities.

White House blog uploads (possibly edited) photo venerating the Obamessiah

Obama supporter Aubrey O'Day calls Castro and Hitler brilliant men; no complaints over her praise of Castro

Liberals act as if there hasn't been a movement afoot to take end of life decision-making out of the hands of individuals and put it in the hands of "professionals" (or "death panels," if you have a flair for propaganda).

In Wesley J. Smith's book on the topic of euthanasia, "Forced Exit," 1997, he covers this topic in depth in Chapter 6 "Euthanasia's Betrayal of Medicine." Bottom line, when you hand over end of life decision-making to someone else (i.e., an "expert panel), they will impose THEIR values. So if they see Grandma's value only in terms of what she is likely to contribute in the future, and Grandma is not likely to contribute much in the future (to hell with the fact she contributed for a lifetime up to that point) Grandma is toast. The panel will simply deem her feeding and hydration "futile care" and remove it, and the end is predictable from that point.

Ya know the same could be said for many of you who endorsed war

Goatse, you're an idiot. And I mean that as analysis, not insult. Those of us who supported the war recognized the need to eliminate a grave threat to our lives, our security, our national survival. That's quite a bit different than killing an unborn child to avoid a temporary inconvenience to one's lifestyle.

Liberals want more government control when they're in charge, and less government control when they're not. They like Obama's czars, and they hated Bush's Patriot Act.

Conservatives always want less government control. They hated Bush's bailout, and they hate Obama's bailout.

It bears constant repeating, ad nauseam:

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

~Robert A. Heinlein

If you truly want to understand the leftist mindset and and engage one in debate, the above is your premise, always. Expect said leftist to flip-flop at the drop of a hat, on any issue. Don't scratch your head and wonder how such stupidity can function in society. Don't believe you're having a discussion with someone who may be missing key parts of their brain (although that could easily be the case). Understand that on any issue, regardless of the leftist's argument, regardless of their professed desires or beliefs, the above quote succinctly describes their driving motivation and underlying base principle: control. Always.

Obama Administration: What's really important is to have new regulations for vending machines. Here's 189 pages of them

Maybe it was the vending machine "change" Obama was referring to in his campaign? It's the voters' fault for not asking for specifics.

Judith M, imposed value of life already exist but it isn't the government. It's the insurance companies that you're advocating for. No one here wants to address the fact that they are dropping expensive claims at will or raising their rates to where they can't afford them, ultimately send them home to die. One very important goal of health care reform is to put a stop to this.

Mega---"Free heathcare for everyone on the backs of people who worked and saved their entire lives - no". Why should fire protection be given to others on the backs of those that worked and saved? Where's you logic in dispensing H1N1 flu vaccine to others on the backs of those who worked and saved while sending cancer victims home to die because they didn't "work and save"? You want it both ways. What about medicare? Why won't your non-communist Reps demand its demise?

Because fire departments and flu vaccine aren't going to cost trillions of dollars and bankrupt the country, dipshit. Except Medicare, which already is bankrupt and will require a massive tax increase to sustain. And, BTW, has $70 to $100 Billion years in fraud.

Yeah, what a model program to champion as a shining example of the success of the welfare state.

If you're such an absolutist, andy (if you oppose ObamaCare you must oppose all forms of government assistance), then why don't you apply that yourself. You think corporations are greedy and government can do everything better. OK, swear off your corporate-provided computers and internet, then.

And what about food, andy? Since food is vital to life and since government does everything better than private industry, then why don't we shut down those greedy supermarket chains and greedy food companies and give everybody standardized, government cafeteria meals?

I'm not advocating for the insurance companies, Andy, I'm advocating for individual rights. You know I keep hearing about these people who are dropped from their insurance, but I would think most of them would be picked up by Medicaid or some other program if they truly are unable to pay their medical bills due to serious illness. If that's not the case, we need to revisit the rules for eligibility for Medicaid, because wouldn't it be better to just deal with those cases that are slipping through the cracks than to screw up everyone else's health care coverage?

Oh, and Andy, I'm afraid that under socialized medicine, people won't be sent home to die, they'll die waiting for a diagnosis. That's somethng to ponder, don't you think?

Throw-a-rock-and-run-VK, implying that I'm anti free market is evading the issue. There seems to be an agreement that government intervention is needed to some extent and in some circumstances. You seem to define the need by the price tag. If the cost of the program is the problem with you, why not actually debate that issue instead of sideline endorsements of fear mongering and such.
Here's one solution to cost. Letting Bush's $1.8 trillion tax break to the top 1% over 10 years expire oughta do it. That gift has already proven not to provide that "robust economy". Oh, I forgot, it was Obama that destroyed Bush's economy wasn't it?
But if medicare is needed yet too expensive, why don't you chicken shits do the right thing and tea party medicare/caid and VA coverage? Why not demand our leaders to "take our country back" because it's too expensive and just kill all those grandma/pas because they didn't provide for themselves. Screw em!
Yet, Etna, Cigna, BCBS, et al are raking in untold profits, own the government, and sending people home to die at will. And we that oppose that are socialist communist? You're a hypocrit and a coward VK.

There seems to be an agreement that government intervention is needed to some extent and in some circumstances. You seem to define the need by the price tag. If the cost of the program is the problem with you, why not actually debate that issue instead of sideline endorsements of fear mongering and such.
Posted by: andy42302 at September 7, 2009 12:16 PM

The purpose of government in a free country is to protect individual rights. This is why the United States was founded as a federalist system of constitutional and limited government. It's purpose is to protect individual rights and the framework of the constitution was meant to ensure that the federal government be of a limited nature so as to make it as difficult as possible for unsavory types to use the government to prevent tyranny or create any type of aristocracies.

Though federal government has a right and a duty to intervene against criminality so as to preserve free civil society, as a limited government it has no right to use it's monopoly of coercive power to force the population to any political schemes.

The troll above either pretends that this is simply a pragmatic issue of cost or doesn't understand what is really the issue. The purpose of government in a free country is limited and the more that the foundation of our country is undermined and the more the government is used to force people to do what others think is right then the more freedom is lost. And since civilization itself is built on free civil society, the more we erode the foundation of freedom the more we undermine the very foundation of civilization.

And troll, don't use this stupid idiotic "throw a rock and run" ploy. I won't be here for the rest of the day. I have to go to work today.

Andy, I don't think Medicare IS needed by all people over 65, and yet we find ourselves providing subsidized health care for the richest of the rich because it's a "universal" program. This means that people who are struggling to make ends meet are subsidizing people who could buy and sell them 1000 times over. Can you explain how this just?

And although I never want to see a veteran suffer from a lack of medical coverage because they are destitute, surely there are some veterans who are more than capable of paying for their own care because they are doing quite well financially.

And Andy, Bush's tax cuts resulted in a large increase in tax receipts after they were passed. Our current economic problems stem from the mortgage crisis, which was a time bomb set by the Democrats and facilitated by cheap money, compliments of the Federal Reserve, and further extended by cover-ups on the part of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the actions of some unethical securities brokers who misrepresented stinky mortgage derivatives as top notch securities. If you don't understand the underlying causes, you are going to make some serious mistakes coming up with solutions.

Keven R---"And troll, don't use this stupid idiotic "throw a rock and run" ploy. I won't be here for the rest of the day. I have to go to work today."

For starters, understand the definition of the word "troll". Secondly, it's audacious of you to dictate how I may or may not refer to how VK tosses out nonsense and then hides while the true trolls (or as I prefer, rodeo clowns) defend him.

I seriously doubt V the K is afraid to debate you, Andy, unless by "afraid" you mean he's afraid it would be a wasted effort. I've seen him engage in multi-response discussions on numerous occasions, and that's not the behavior of someone who engages in hit-and-run rhetorical assaults.

How's life in Owensboro, Andy?

Not bad SK.

Judith; "Oh, and Andy, I'm afraid that under socialized medicine, people won't be sent home to die, they'll die waiting for a diagnosis. That's somethng to ponder, don't you think?"

It would be something to ponder if it was indeed part of the legislation. It isn't.

Oh, and how can you not be an advocate for Big Insurance when you seem to want tax payers to pick up the tab when they renege on a claim?

'Big Insurance'
'Big Oil'
'Big Corporations'

baaaaaaad

'Big Government'

gooooooood!!!

Silly liberals.

Andy, do you think it was Canada's intention to create ridiculous waits for care when they implemented socialized medicine? Of course not, and yet that is precisely what has happened there, as well as in Great Britain, and every other place socialized medicine has been in force for any length of time.

Did you see the video posted here about the Canadian man with brain tumor symptoms who was told it would take four months to have an MRI under the Canadian system? He had to flee to our country to have the MRI done in a timely fashion and when he returned to Canada with evidence of a golf ball sized tumor, they told him it would be a four month wait for surgery. Again, he had to flee to our country to have the surgery done, which revealed the tumor was cancerous, but still treatable. When he went to the government for reimbursement, he was told he couldn't be reimbursed, because he didn't go through the appeals process (which takes on average 8 months).

If we are foolish enough to walk into this tar pit in spite of all the warning signs, not only will it hurt us, it will hurt those who have been crossing our Northern border to get timely health care. There will be no escape for anyone.

Judith, you offer no rational rebuttal to the language of HR3200 nor has anyone here. You are determined to maintain your fear mongering of assigning failure not because you have credible rational, but because you don't trust Obama and/or the Dems. And from what I've seen, you're not about to agree with anything coming from this administration. So you just live in fear.

Andy, did you watch the video posted here about the man from Canada with a brain tumor? He was having seizures and headaches, and the best Canadian health care could do for him was to tell him it would be a four month wait for an MRI and four month wait for surgery if it turned out there was growth in his brain. Do you think the Canadians wrote it into their health care legislation that they intended to create absurd waits for critical care? Obama and his posse would love you to be a literalist when it comes to interpreting their legislation, but those of us who have witnessed out legislation actually plays out in practice know that unintended consequences (and I use that term lightly, since rationing should be fully anticipated given the history of socialized medicine) are the undoing of most great liberal schemes.

1244 5 23 46 7 18 28 34.

Oh, and 0 America.

Sorry about the repetitive post. I thought I lost the first one.

What rebuttal Andy? I am drawing from experience. There is nothing materially different about Obama's plan versus any other government run health plan. Why would any reasonable person think that his plan is going to work when all the rest have failed? Today, Reuters has an article about France's financial woes over their spiraling health care costs. I remember not that long ago, all the libs were saying, "France is doing it right! France is doing it right!" Oh oh...it seems France is having the same problems ALL countries have that let government take the reigns of health care. There are precious few things that are as predictable as spiraling health care costs following a government "intervention." Asking for me to prove Obama's plan is bad is like asking me to prove that if I drop something it is most likely to fall down rather than up. All you have to do is open your eyes and take an honest look at the countries that have implemented similar programs.

"What about medicare? Why won't your non-communist Reps demand its demise"? They don't have to, Andrea, it's going broke. Hello? Anyone there? The CBO said it was going broke, the R's have been saying the same thing. Now, Dear Leader wants, no, insists, that $500B can be taken from Medicare, with no ill effects? It's obvious he never did take an Econ class in college, or high school. Or, if he did, he failed the class. But we won't know that, because he won't release his grades or transcripts.

So Judith, what's your solution? Heath care in USA just fine the way it is?

Damn, I've got to print out Jay's key and tape it to my file cabinet. What a timesaver!

My solution is to create a business environment that actually encourages competition between insurance companies. States should not be creating mandates as to what must be included in an insurance policy. People should be free to buy insurance that fits their needs regardless of what state they live in and they should be able to purchase from any insurance company in the country. That would put the fear of God into those big, lumbering, semi-monopolistic, insurance thugs.

I would also stop covering rich people with Medicare. If a person can afford their own health care, they should pay for it. I also would make Medicare patients pay a deductible amount so they think about what things cost before they use health care services.

I would work on tort reform, because I think it results in a lot of unnecessary tests that are done for defensive purposes rather than medical purposes.

I would look into changing the way Medicare pays out on a per treatment basis, which has been shown, in multiple instances to result in a lot of unnecessary tests that actually harm patients rather than help them.

I would look into loosening up the monopoly that doctors have on providing certain medical treatments, and encourage nurse practitioners and PAs to do more of the less complicated medical treatments.

Those were just a few things off the top of my head. Why does HR3200 address none of these well known problems?

Judith M., I hope you aren't waiting for a response, rational or irrational, from Andy. He's been confronted with a fact of nationalized health care, that it does, of necessity, require rationing. It's the truth, and to paraphrase, he can't handle the truth.

Speaking of Hillary, (which some of you have). She's shown herself to be a complete incompetent and her gaffs and lies are as bad as Obama's. She is not a smart person and is just as far left as Obama,(new world order, etc.) The only difference is she'll pretend to back off like Bill did when he had a Republican Congress to keep him in line, but don't kid yourself if she had a majority Democrat Congress she'd be pushing the same failed socialist policies he pushes. She's as crooked as Bill and I find it impossible to understand how any woman could support either on of them.

Hr3200 does address some of you concerns, mainly giving people the choice of their provider though a public option. This creates a fair playing field where present providers will have to become competitive. They would still be able to buy insurance that "fits their needs".

I would look into loosening up the monopoly that doctors have on providing certain medical treatments, and encourage nurse practitioners and PAs to do more of the less complicated medical treatments.

So, based on your theory, couldn't that lead into a patient being forced to receive inferior care (nurse practitioners and PAs)? And couldn't this ultimately be for people that say, ain't got much longer anyways? Your objective is to save money right? Your plan doesn't say it but it damn sure don't say you can't or that it couldn't lead into that.
It appears from your text that you're promoting government intervention with decisions between the doctor and patient, something HR3200 avoids.
And do you really honestly believe that the GOP would even consider biting the hand that feeds them by putting the "fear of God into those big, lumbering, semi-monopolistic, insurance thugs"? These thugs are the GOP's owners, the one's that fund their campaign war chest. The GOP are the protectors of these thugs and that's why they and the Blue Dog Democrats are catering to them.
Since you have some magic wan, let's go for making everyday a holiday and for Sunday to come twice a week while you're at it.

Upnorth, you need to understand the difference in the words "truth" and "theory". When you continue to claim something as the "truth" after it's been thoroughly debunked, while failing to provide proof of your accusations, and while admitting that it's more of a gut feeling than reality, your "truth" becomes a lie.

Candy -
Why is "Big Government", run by a bunch of people who are in government because they are too stupid to have real jobs, GOOD.

But Big Business, run (in most cases) by people exhaustively trained to run business, BAD.

Please explain.

Andy, I've been treated by nurse practioners and physicians assistants on many occasions and often the care I've received from them has been better in quality than what I've received from doctors, so no, I don't think it would lead to inferior care unless they were allowed to do things that were beyond their qualification level. Also, if you are familiar with the Mayo model, you know that the initial exams are performed by PAs, not doctors, and the Mayo is one of the finest clinics in the world.

Further, I don't know where you get the idea that I'm suggesting the government get between a patient and his or her caregiver. I want people to have a choice of who they see, which is far more likely under a freemarket than it is under socialized medicine. If you don't believe me, take a gander at the waiting lists to see certain specialists in Taxachusetts. That's what's in store for the whole country, if Obamacare passes.

Also, I think Democrats are every bit as beholden to insurance companies as the GOP, and that's a problem, but the voters should demand that insurance companies be made to compete, and that the playing field not be tilted in favor of the monopolistic companies, because only companies with huge cash reserves can maneuver the obstacle course of state dictates across all 50 states. Now I know this is a states rights issue, so the federal government can't force states not to require stupid and excessive coverage that most people do not want, but states that have some sense should work together and create an a la carte approach to health insurance that could cross state lines of participating states. Let these states working in cooperation to improve competition be "guinea pigs" and after a year or two we should compare their health care costs to say, Massachusetts. I know which states I'd be betting on to come in with lower costs!

Andy, never has the claim that socialized medicine leads to rationing been debunked. Never. In every place socialized medicine has ever been implemented, rationing has always occurred. What's more, it's predictable, because central planners simply are not capable of adjusting to or anticipating demands quickly enough not to prevent shortages and the resulting need to ration.

And, Candy, considering Judith's well thought-out post:

Do you favor Affirmative Action in the case of Doctors, Engineers, Scientists, & Basketball?

And a question I asked you in a prior thread that you probably overlooked or you would have come back with an articulate reply - do you recognize the difference in the respective powers of the Federal Government, State Government, and Local Government? What is the difference? According to the Constitution, who trumps whom?

Have you ever read the Constitution? If so, did you understand it, or do you believe it is antiquated and must be rewritten according to "current progressive ideals"?

Do you believe the First Amendment should be rewritten to shut me (as well as Christians) up? Do you believe anything written or spoken that disagrees with your narrow world-view should be censored?

Come on, Big Chief Little-Mind. What are you, Candy, a man or a mouse? Come on - squeak up!

A last stab to the brain-dead liberal "intellects" Candy, "meh", wellstoned, and other dipsticks who choose to make fools of themselves on this blog: Do you realize you are WAY out of your intellectual league? Do you realize you are making no points, swaying no thought, and are NOT making the world a "liberal utopia" with your attempt at interaction on this blog?

Of course you don't - that's why you are silly liberals.

Judith, you are correct that "never has the claim that socialized medicine leads to rationing been debunked". But again, we're talking about HR3200 or at least I am, not socialized medicine.

Jimbo, I've read and understand the constitution and prefer it stays as is.

andy, I know you addressed several other people in your comments, but I'd like to comment on your arguments.

Judith M, imposed value of life already exist but it isn't the government. It's the insurance companies that you're advocating for. No one here wants to address the fact that they are dropping expensive claims at will or raising their rates to where they can't afford them, ultimately send them home to die. One very important goal of health care reform is to put a stop to this.

You're vague here, presumably purposefully. Send them home to die? How so? Is it part of some insurance contract that the patient and provider signed? And really, did you just imply that insurance companies drop claims literally "at will?" This, the age of compensatory damages? I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. But if you do, you actually just made the argument that because insurance companies presumably "send people home to die," we can entrust our health insurance to the government. Non sequitur, not to mention frightening.

But, regardless of your actual knowledge, how are we to know what on earth is in this bill? Yes, we can read, but apparently when we do we end up totally taking things out of context and we're just being lied to by Rush and Glenn and we're stupid redneck racists anyway. So, at all these townhalls and all these PSAs by our campaigner in chief, why aren't the simple facts presented? If this bill contains true, needed reform, why not just say so? Why waste breath calling people fascist racist obstructionists bent on advocating for the insurance companies when you have logical, necessary reforms in mind? Spell it out for us. Remember to speak slow.

And even beyond that, why not just formulate a real bill? How many versions are floating around right now? Even if you're cornered, you can just always just say, "that's not even in the current bill!" (ask GoW, it's his favorite retort). So far the public option has been the hinge, and then it's largely unimportant, and then it's a definite, and then it's just a good thought. Seriously, hammer something down.

Mega---"Free heathcare for everyone on the backs of people who worked and saved their entire lives - no". Why should fire protection be given to others on the backs of those that worked and saved? Where's you logic in dispensing H1N1 flu vaccine to others on the backs of those who worked and saved while sending cancer victims home to die because they didn't "work and save"? You want it both ways. What about medicare? Why won't your non-communist Reps demand its demise?

It's funny that your instant retort here is something that the individual cannot attain on its own. Fire departments are a logical extension of civilized living, because the individual cannot effectively fight fires. The individual can effectively obtain health care, rather easily.

Then, of course, you point to Medicare, as some sort of trump card. Medicare, something I have to actually pay for, and apparently I should then be demonized if I use it. No, andy, I don't want to use an insolvent system; nor do I want to pay into it any longer. Cry about every pitiful case you can think of; it falls on deaf ears.

Jimbo, I've read and understand the constitution and prefer it stays as is.

Posted by: andy42302 at September 7, 2009 6:41 PM

Liar.

And Candy -
Why won't you address mu other questions?

Why?

cowlove, case after case have been exposed where insurance companies have denied claims based on preconditions. Often, these preconditions were out of the patients control or the patient had no way of knowing. In some cases, they were even assumed preconditions. And yes, it is part of the contract that the patient and provider signed, language that law scholars today can interpret differently.
It is important to keep hammering the FACT that your fear mongering is NOT IN THE BILL.
HR3200 is in black and white, much clearer and laid out than your current insurance provider's. The reason Obama has taken this on the road is because they've learned from past experiences the effectiveness of the right's fear machine. In KY, 51% say that Obama was not or likely not born in this country. It was total nonsense but effective. We saw the War On Fear machine continue to suggest Saddam attacked us (or connected to 9/11) knowing full well it was fabricated with an intended purpose. Had Kerry aggressively took on the swift boaters, he more than likely would have won in 04. At least, it proved that he should have took that issue on. The facts have been presented time and time again yet the GOP (Palin, Grassley, Foxx, Huckabee, et al) continue to make insinuations of death panels and killing grandma, only to backtrack a day or 2 later by saying they really kinda meant something different or acknowledging that it really wasn't a fact. But they burned a concept and that was the intended purpose. That is why these fear mongering tactics need to be confronted.

This reminds me of that "fight em there so we don't have to fight em here" hype. The Neocon/GOP sold this gibberish and many believed it. It was an absolute lie as the Taliban had no army, navy, or air force. It's lunacy to think that if we weren't in Iraq, they would somehow unite and hop a transatlantic flight in order to fight us in our streets, thus "follow us home". It was as if as long as we supplied them fresh American bodies to satisfy their blood lust, they'd be content and not fight us here. This was total bullshit yet it became the GOP's mantra. But it helped sell enough fear to at least keep their war going in a restless country. Keep enough peasants in fear in order to promote the agenda. This is exactly what's going on with your euthanasia fear mongering.

To steal part of your own quote cowlove, I believe medical care is a logical extension of civilized living, because the individual cannot effectively cure themselves.

Jimbo, you've called me a liar when I told you I read and agree with the Constitution. If we're at a standoff on this, there is seriously no need to try to have a discussion with you.

I seriously doubt V the K is afraid to debate you, Andy, unless by "afraid" you mean he's afraid it would be a wasted effort. I've seen him engage in multi-response discussions on numerous occasions, and that's not the behavior of someone who engages in hit-and-run rhetorical assaults.
Posted by: Judith M. at September 7, 2009 2:00 PM

Actually, it is a waste of time "debating" andy because he engages in the classic tactics of someone solely interested in wasting someone else's time:

1. After his points have been refuted, he simply repeats them again as if they have not been. I'm not going to waste my time running around in circles.

2. He avoids responding to direct questions that show the shallowness of his thinking. He refuses to answer direct questions about the enormous cost and absurd propositions of ObamaCare, but continually brings up idiocy like "If you oppose a multi-trillion dollar government health care plans you must hate fire departments, too."

There's no point in debating someone who can't engage intelligently, and life is too short to waste on people wasting my time.

andy, in all that rambling you didn't address a single point of mine. I asked you to show me how insurance companies "send people home to die," and literally drop people's policies, "at will." Instead, you simply repeated your assertions that it does happen.

When I mentioned the campaigner in chief's numerous prime time specials, and our elected jackals' townhalls, I did so only to point out that they have perfect pulpits to clearly explain themselves from. They can lay out their case, easily, apparently, because HR3200 calls for much needed reform that's in black and white, right? So all of us stupid redneck bitter clinging morons should really be put in our place by the very clear, concise language that's going to greatly help our health care system, right?

No, instead we have our employees (elected officials) calling us racists, Nazis, and obstructionists. We have you here calling us fear-mongers. Where you have the chance to shine light on uncertain areas, you instead resort to schoolyard taunts. Way to pick a winning strategy, oh titan of debate.

Look, you're damn right we're afraid, and I'll tell you why. As it is, for me currently, I can read my agreement between myself and BCBS in roughly 30 minutes. I can call and get specific answers with a hold time of 5 minutes, more or less. My claim forms are easy to understand and the process of finding health care providers is extremely simple. This is not to say it's all one big utopia. I say this only to point out the glaring difference between that (which you demonize) and HR3200.

I'm sure, given a week or so, I could slog through the 800-1200 pages (I'm not sure, it changes on a weekly basis). Maybe I could identify the bureaucratic structure the bill puts in place. Maybe, with some luck, I could figure out what's covered, what's not, where to complain to, where to file claims, etc. etc. And after all that, I get to ponder the fact that the same government at the wheel of this boondoggle is the one that's shown such success with:

-SS
-Medicare
-Medicaid
-FEMA
-USPS
-C4C
-TARP
-TALF
-NCLB
-Welfare

And that's just a quick list.

The point being, as always, government is not the answer. You levy these accusations of inefficiency at insurance companies, and you're certainly correct in some parts. It does not logically follow that the government should take on the role of the insurace companies. If anything, the logical conclusion is that the government should stay as far away from that role as possible.

To steal part of your own quote cowlove, I believe medical care is a logical extension of civilized living, because the individual cannot effectively cure themselves.

This pretty much stains you as being utterly idiotic. I've enjoyed discussing this with you, but you've topped yourself right here. The individual can certainly obtain medical care on his or her own. Being able to perform it on themselves is not the logical requirement. But you probably knew that.

"the individual can certainly obtain medical care on his or her own". Yes, if they have the resources.

VK and cowlove, my main point has been disputing your allegiance to misinformation of lunacy claims that are nowhere in HR3200 nor do they follow rational thinking. You can't dispute the nonsense with any clarity so you inject your own irrelevant argument and then accuse me of not responding to your distraction. Cowlove cries about being attacked as racist and Nazi yet seems to be fine with Hannity and Beck's constant spewing of it as well as the usual content and nature of this blog. The prejudiced, and hypocrite here is amazing.
It reminds me of Congressman Mike Pence of IN slamming Van Jones as an extremist with no place in government. But just a few days before his response to a woman calling Obama a terrorist was "thank you".
Hate, prejudiced, lies, and spin is a bad thing unless you do it to the opposition right?

This reminds me of that "fight em there so we don't have to fight em here" hype. The Neocon/GOP sold this gibberish and many believed it. It was an absolute lie as the Taliban had no army, navy, or air force. It's lunacy to think that if we weren't in Iraq, they would somehow unite and hop a transatlantic flight in order to fight us in our streets, thus "follow us home".

C'mon, Andy, this is disingenuous and simplistic, because it sets up and knocks down the straw man. No one ever thought Taliban tanks would be rumbling down Main Street. Yet I seem to remember a little unpleasantness in September 2001 that was inflicted on us by some folks who had the protection and support of the Taliban.

And that was the Taliban (i.e., Afghanistan), which is/was low-tech. Suppose Saddam had offered Osama a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon. (Saddam definitely had, and had used, the first; he had the capability to generate the second; and everyone – everyone - thought he was developing the capability for the third.) What better, more deniable way to deliver it than to use a stateless organization? In Saddam's shoes, that's exactly what I would have done.

Re-read Bush's speech regarding Iraq. He didn't say Iraq was an imminent threat. He said that 9/11 coupled with the potential of WMD (chemical, biological, and/or nuclear weapons) meant that we can no longer wait until someone poses an imminent threat.

Think about this. A terrorist doesn't need to flatten the entire country. One vial of anthrax spores at the Super Bowl might kill a few dozen people. Big deal, right? Right – because it would change our way of life. After that attack, people would insist that we have airport-type security at every public venue. (Some people have freaked out about global warming and getting cancer from cell phones and electrical transmission lines. Imagine how they'd react to a threat that actually demonstrably exists!) \Sporting events, concerts, movies, schools...the list goes on and on. Think about the damage to our economy, and more importantly, to our culture. Upshot: the terrorists would win.

That's what was at stake. Don't blame Bush because it hasn't happened. Thank him because it hasn't. Yet.

"the individual can certainly obtain medical care on his or her own". Yes, if they have the resources.

Thank you kindly for the concession. Hopefully you'll drop the "fire stations are socialist therefore government health insurance" meme du jour. It certainly was tiresome.

Continuing on, yet again, you ramble incoherently about Hannity and Beck and some random Congressman, apparently because the onus is on me to defend whatever you want to talk about. For the third time now, I will reiterate my point.

Our elected leaders have the bully pulpit, period. You say HR3200 is clearly written in black and white. You also say I'm reading into things that simply aren't there (whereas I, personally, have made no such inference anywhere. Point it out to me if I'm mistaken on this point.) Furthermore, you point out failures in private insurance (still uncited, we're just going on your "I said so.")

So here's crux of the matter. If the reforms found in the bill are so great, outline them, please. Rant all you want about fear-mongering Nazi knuckle-dragging imbeciles on the right. It does nothing for you. Instead, encourage your cause by simply laying out your case. You claim that fighting misinformation is important, and it certainly is, but your best bet is to actually provide information. Out of 800-1200 pages, certainly there are some real gems there that will make us see the light.

See, the problem is that you belittle your opposition by claiming intellectual superiority and asserting that we're just a bunch of mindless drones listening to professional liars. That problem is magnified on issues like the "death panels," because you leap out of the wood work flinging accusations, right before the objectionable language is dropped from the bill. We fear-mongered, right? We lied and shouted and carried guns around and were racists, right? We totally made things up, but someway, somehow, the things we were totally making up and didn't exist were dropped from the bill (whichever number it was back then.)

In short, we were right, and we won. Stop pouting.

Great points, cowlove. Andy, give us three specific measures that are in the bill that you really think are GREAT. Just three. Who knows?Maybe we'll even agree with you!

Cowlove, "In short, we were right, and we won. Stop pouting". For starters, the health care reform isn't over. If you do win, you've done it by fear mongering and misleading the Americans, just as you did with leading us into a war on fear. If you assign winning as profiteering for Big Oil, Haliburtan, and Big Insurance at the expense of the lives of the peasants, I'm truly glad that I'm not on the side of victory.

Judith;"Andy, give us three specific measures that are in the bill that you really think are GREAT"
1) the elimination of an American going bankrupt every 30 seconds due to heath care cost---which the tax payers ultimately picks up the tab.

2) The elimination of not being able to acquire insurance if one loses/changes their job or is not restricted from becoming an entrepreneur for fear of leaving their employment that covers them.

3) Not being canceled or leaving in fear of being canceled or being priced out of coverage.

4) To break the stronghold of a corporate owned America and thus, giving the country back to the people.

Come on, Andy. Give us three specifics from the legislation that you think are great ideas. This vague pandering to the "common good" doesn't cut it. The devil is in the details and contrary to what you seem to believe, most of the people here are not blind to human suffering, so if something prevents suffering rather than adds to it, I'm sure some people here would be willing to support it. But remember,conservatives are not nearly as impressed with intentions as they are with whether a solution is actually likely to work, so if you want to sell them on an idea you have to not just tell them what you hope a law will do, but give some good arguments as to why it will do it.

Jay G, where's your appreciation for Clinton for an equal amount of safe years or for Obama for 9 months of no attacks? Oh, that's right, you guys blamed Clinton for the worst attack in history under Bush's watch. Now if say Bin Ladin were to hit us again next week, I suspect it's fine and dandy that Bush never really wanted him plus he just let him slip away at Tora Bora now ain't it? It would be strictly Obama's doings right?

Judith, "conservatives are not nearly as impressed with intentions as they are with whether a solution is actually likely to work"------ and Reagan did what for health care? GWHB? GWB and his bobbing head House and Senate majority?

I hate to remind you again, Andy, but what I am really interested in is knowing the three top provisions you'd like to see passed in the health care bill. We can talk about Reagan another time. This is my third request. If you don't respond to this request, I'm going to assume you have no idea what's in the bill and you are simply defending it pro forma. It's your choice to defend it without knowing the details of what's in it, but don't expect us to give much weight to your arguments that we are misinterpreting provisions in it if you can't be bothered to read it yourself.

4) To break the stronghold of a corporate owned America and thus, giving the country back to the people.

I think I can safely say that none of us here are persuaded by Populism. Or are you trying to say that, though this (number 4) isn't actually in the language of the Bill it is what will happen? Yet, though you see that as a consequence of the Bill, others that see consequences of the Bill - though these consequences aren't in the language of the Bill - are foolish to extrapolate what will transpire should the Bill become law?

"Corporate owned America," that should be given a number, Jay.

To be honest Judith, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking as it's more of the big picture that I find to be a benefit (those mentioned in 1-4).
However I do support end of life counseling that most of you have distorted. I think most people would be more at eased with an educated option of living wills, power of attorneys, and other options. I also support the HABC that basically keeps the consumer protection. The fact that it isn't socialized medicine, doesn't pay for abortions, and isn't for illegal trespassers is great too.

Okay, at least we've got something to work with, the end of life counseling provision. You do realize that that provision mandated people HAD to be counseled at least every five years once they reached a certain age, right? That sort of paternalism on the part of the government really irks me. People should be free to seek counseling regarding advance directives any time they like, but they should NEVER be forced to do it according to a government schedule. And BTW, this type of counseling is already available in every hospital and nursing home without the government needing to fund it. Personally, I don't see why the government felt the need to stick their nose in this matter unless they thought they might be able to save a few bucks by getting a few people to stop treatment sooner. This is what I suspect is the case, and it's not like it hasn't been done before in history, so don't tell he it's crazy to question it.

Judith, read the bill. And stay away from Hannity for 3 days. Seriously. You seem intelligent enough.

There is no mandate for this sort of counseling. The only mandate is that Medicare must pay for
the consultation between patients and practitioners to discuss plans for end-of-life care AT THE PATIENTS REQUEST. These are
important individual decisions that take time and consideration. Regarding the instructions and
consultations on living wills, etc., these will be consultations between you and your provider, not the government. Creating a living will does not mean you are asking to be euthanized. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will provide planning resources to discuss with your doctor about how you would like to be treated in your final days.

Advance planning consultations are not mandatory; this benefit is completely voluntary.
There is no mandate in the bill to complete an advance care directive or a living will.

By the way, it was the GOP that wrote the language in HR3200 section 1233 pages 425-430 that you're misquoting.

Posted by: andy42302 at September 8, 2009 4:50 PM- "To be honest Judith, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking as it's more of the big picture that I find to be a benefit..."

Dennis Denuto: "It's just... the vibe... of the thing. It's the vibe and - No, that's it. It's the vibe!" (THE CASTLE 1997)

1) the elimination of an American going bankrupt every 30 seconds due to heath care cost---which the tax payers ultimately picks up the tab.

According to the following article, personal bankruptcies totaled 1.01 million in 2008.

Personal bankruptcies soar 33%

According to Andy, personal bankruptcies due to medical hardship total 1.05 million (120 x 24 hours x 365 days).

So, according to Andy, more than 100% of personal bankruptcies are caused by medical hardship.

BULLSHIT, Andy!

If you're going to spout meaningless statistics, you should make up something that is at least within the realm of possibility.

Pretty sad, andy.

Jay, apparently we now need new numbers for:

Haliburtan [sic]
Big Oil
Big Insurance
Breaking corporate stronghold
peasants

And there are some others. I appreciate all that you do; I know compiling the list of leftist buzzwords and appropriately reducing them to a numerical code is tedious, but you do seem to enjoy it.

Andy, give it a rest. You quote specific page ranges as if you have intimate knowledge of a 1000+ page bill, but the only things you can point to as "good" deal with vague leftist ideals like "smashing the corporate grip," and the like.

When I said "we won," I specifically meant the non-existent death panels, that are now truly non-existent because the language has been removed from the bill. I'm sorry that something you supported is no longer in play, but take heart! Those voluntary end of life provisions are already covered by, well, every insurance company you can probably think of. The key difference being, the government has no involvement. None.

And again, there lies the crux of the matter. Our government is inefficient by design. Let's not cram 1000 pages down the public's throat because you want to smash corporate greed with the government's hammer, agreed? Remember, your boys aren't always in charge.

I'm siding with Judith on this one. I will firmly define the goalposts for you. I want you to name a glaring reform that is obviously needed in our current health care system. Then, I want you to point me to the section of HR3200 that deals with this needed reform so I can read it for myself. Just one. Take your pick.

Beyond that, I want you to stop accusing anyone who disagrees with you as being influenced by Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, et al. I don't subscribe to a television service and I listen pretty exclusively to bluegrass on XM. So, when you strut along and pretend to have a monopoly on intelligence, and demonstrate it by acting like an asshole, you come across as just another cookie-cutter leftist drone. If you want a discussion, have at it. If, on the other hand, you just want to be mad because your impotent party controls the legislative and executive branches and still can't get this much-needed, crucial, logical, totally worth it bill to pass, understand fully that I could not care less. Further whining would serve only to encourage me.

That's pretty audacious of you cowlove;

I'm siding with Judith on this one. I will firmly define the goalposts for you. I want you to name a glaring reform that is obviously needed in our current health care system. Then, I want you to point me to the section of HR3200 that deals with this needed reform so I can read it for myself. Just one. Take your pick.

Beyond that, I want you to stop accusing anyone who disagrees with you as being influenced by Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, et al.

Of course you'd side with Judith. I'd expect none other than that. Most here would side with each other (in most cases they're the same person anyways) regardless of how wrong he or she was.

My only point all along was that you folks and your ilk just make up whatever nonsense you want or blindly follow whatever propaganda your party supports. I pointed directly to this thread's theme of "maybe grandma has lived too long" as a total bogus implication. Judith wrongly stated that the

"provision mandated people HAD to be counseled at least every five years once they reached a certain age"

This is an incorrect statement and there never was such language. Now you try to imply that it once was there but has been removed but you too are WRONG. I challenge either of you to find any language that supports your misquotes as facts. It ain't there nor has it ever been.

Now back to your demands of wanting me to this and then wanting to do that and then wanting me to leave Hannity alone. Screw you cowlove. I owe you nothing. I've made a case that contradicts the talking points of this thread's topic. You and Judith have made incorrect statements and now you want to distract that by demanding me to talk about something else.

Why not man up and just say something like "Andy I don't agree with your thinking and you're a (fill in the blanks) and HR3200 sucks and is social and blah, blah blah, but you are right and Judith and I are wrong that there is or ever was mandatory that anyone HAD to have end of life counseling. And you both are wrong and that's fact.

Of course you'd side with Judith. I'd expect none other than that. Most here would side with each other (in most cases they're the same person anyways) regardless of how wrong he or she was.

I echoed her request that you lay out your positive case for HR3200 by simply pointing to something, anything specific, and the way in which it would reform the current system. I even defined the goalposts for you, so you wouldn't have to put up with someone shifting them. After half a dozen requests, you still only have ad hominem to offer.

Now back to your demands of wanting me to this and then wanting to do that and then wanting me to leave Hannity alone. Screw you cowlove. I owe you nothing. I've made a case that contradicts the talking points of this thread's topic.

I don't care about Hannity. Or Beck. Or Limbaugh. I care about you actually making a case. All you do is belittle whoever disagrees with you. This thread has no topic, so there are no talking points to contradict. The "death panels" don't exist; the language has been removed from the bill. Stop raging against non-existent things, andy.

You and Judith have made incorrect statements and now you want to distract that by demanding me to talk about something else.

1. I've requested, politely, that you just name a specific reform to be found in that 800-1200 pages. Convince us, if you're so inclined. If not, well, just keep making an ass of yourself. It wouldn't bother me one bit.
2. Quote the incorrect statements I've made here, please. Thank you.

^ Me, obviously.

Your statement cowlove was that (or a strong indication) that mandatory counseling "are now truly non-existent because the language has been removed from the bill"; hence the word because. You also supported Judith's incorrect statement that "You do realize that that provision mandated people HAD to be counseled at least every five years once they reached a certain age, right?"

Even after Judith acknowledged that this was "something to work with" you seem to be changing her mind and wanting more.

VK says "After his points have been refuted, he simply repeats them again as if they have not been. I'm not going to waste my time running around in circles.
2. He avoids responding to direct questions that show the shallowness of his thinking."

But my point has not been refuted and you cowards demand to change the topic and then accuse me of running from the issue.

How about just saying "Ok Andy, you're right that there was never mandatory counseling and Judiths statement was incorrect but let me ask you......"
instead of running from the facts? Then I'd be glad to answer your questions.

Andy I can't speak for Judith or VK. You can address my points or requests, or not. It really doesn't matter at this point. I gave you every opportunity to build your case, and you absolutely insisted on pure ad hominem mixed with barking moonbat rhetoric about Hannity and Beck and whatever else the talking point of the day was.

I don't know why I hold out hope of honest discussion with you. Time and time again you prove to either be incapable of it or unwilling to engage in it.

But my point has not been refuted and you cowards demand to change the topic and then accuse me of running from the issue.

What point have you had here? If there was one, I would have addressed it. Instead, I had to practically beg you to even present a point, just one. I politely repeated my questions, over and over, only to be met with haughty condescension and outright arrogance.

I can only rest assured that anyone can read the progression of comments here and see how intellectually vapid you appear.

Cowlove I assume that this is an amusing game to you that you sit back and laugh while going uh? what do you mean? uh? I don't get it, what? So be it. Rationale isn't the long suit of Moonbattry.com and it's obviously a place of distorting facts in order to promote your anti-government agenda.

So, you speak for Judith now? You say you don't but if she was content with my answer, why are you butting in? Uh? what did you say? I can't hear you!

And it's funny that Judith cowardly ran as usual here when called out on her dishonesty or ignorance and you step in with your rodeo clown distractions.