August 09, 2009
Read the bill; you can't read H.R. 3200

How can we take Congress seriously? They are building a Rube Goldberg in three bills that no one knows what contains at any point in time. And then it changes in the middle of the night.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tis week brags "what use is it reading the bill if it's 1,000 pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you've read it?" He just admitted that he makes people vote on bills whose contents they don't know.

Even the establishment Washington Post is aghast. You literally can't read this bill. You have to have a host of laws memorized to even attempt to make sense of it. Being so cobbled together it can't possibly be consistent. But Congressmen like that because it causes people to come running to them asking for the "favor" of clarifying it.

Like Sausage-Making, Reforming Health Care Is a Messy Business - washingtonpost.com:

... In recent months, there has been much GOP criticism of Democrats for passing legislation that some lawmakers have not read. But the bills are not exactly beach reading. They are legal documents crammed with legislative coding, sentence fragments and assorted gibberish that modifies laws already on the books somewhere. To really understand what a bill says, you'd need to have the existing laws memorized.

Here's a fairly typical passage from H.R. 3200:

Section 1834(a)(7)(A)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(a)(7)(A)(iii)) is amended

(1) in the heading, by inserting 'CERTAIN COMPLEX REHABILITATIVE' after 'OPTION FOR'; and

(2) by striking 'power-driven wheelchair' and inserting 'complex rehabilitative power-driven wheelchair recognized by the Secretary as classified within group 3 or higher.'

And that goes on for a thousand pages. [There are 3 bills.]

The frenetic nature of the Capitol this week was the result of a strategic decision by the Obama administration to let lawmakers do most of the heavy lifting on health-care reform. Obama did not want a repeat of "Hillarycare," the ill-fated proposal during the first term of President Clinton. Then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton put together that plan and presented it to Congress for essentially an up-or-down vote.

"I've never seen anything like this. Hillarycare, we got one very long and impressive lecture by Hillary," said Rep. Peter A. Defazio (D-Ore.).

Before either chamber can vote on a bill, the committee chairmen, along with congressional leaders, will have to merge the disparate versions into a single bill to bring to the floor. Whatever is passed by the two chambers must then be reconciled again in "conference."

The conference committee would then produce a final bill that would have to be voted on by each chamber. If passed, the bill would go to the president. If he found it acceptable, he would sign it.

Nancy Pelosi might appear to compromise with the less-liberal "Blue Dog" Democrats, but don't let her fool you. The only real bill will be the "conference report" that is supposed to be the combination of the versions the House and the Senate pass. But strong-arm leaders like Pelosi won't allow it to contain anything they don't want, so she will put in a complete rewrite. That's when her compromises with the foolish industry groups and Blue Dog Democrats will mysteriously disappear. And then they will be in a big hurry to vote today: "No time to read it."

Via Virginia Postrel, the Dynamist.

Cross-posted at Economic Freedom.

Posted by Ron Hebron at August 09, 2009 07:27 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Brian Baird's office says he has read and understands the bill.

They are lying.

Posted by: Andy on August 9, 2009 08:02 AM
2. This outrageous piece of legislation needs and deserves to roundly criticized. Agreed with #1 about whoever states that they understand this bill is a liar. People need to rise up, being respectful and ask questions and let the Congress know that this bill is incoherent nonsense written by a conglomeration of lobbyists.

It is important to press on so that the voices of reason can prevail and that there will be modest and sensible reforms when this process is all said and done.

Posted by: KDS on August 9, 2009 08:35 AM
3. OK here is the site where you can read the bill as it is now....bills always change, until passed, and then change during the conference between the House and Senate, took one google to find, hmmmm,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111GrgHme:e1212:

Posted by: Jay Brand on August 9, 2009 09:09 AM
4. #3 - At a mark-up session this week it took 32 boxes to hold all the proposed amendments. (In the original article - page one.) Have you read them?

The cap and trade bill had 300 pages of amendments that were dropped at 3 am the day of the vote. Did you read them before the vote?

"Section 1834(a)(7)(A)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(a)(7)(A)(iii)) is amended..."
Quick! What is that section of the Social Security Act?

Posted by: ron Hebron on August 9, 2009 10:10 AM
5. @4 ron Hebron on August 9, 2009 10:10 AM

Section 1834 of the Social Security Act is
SPECIAL PAYMENT RULES FOR PARTICULAR ITEMS AND SERVICES
which is the top google return when one cuts and pastes your "Section 1834(a)(7)(A)(iii) of the Social Security Act" in.

What is so hard about that???

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 9, 2009 10:38 AM
6. Wait a minute - so I'm supposed to support a bill that will keep "changing and changing because that's how the system works"? Because Obama-God said so?

Posted by: Crusader on August 9, 2009 01:11 PM
7. We would not need the bill if Hitler had never taken charge of Germany!!

As Paul Harvey would have said - ...Hitler started WWII which caused the Baby Boomers to be here which is causing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to go bottoms up...

"and that is the rest of the story!"

(I think that Paul Harvey was the person that had that type of broaddcast...)

Posted by: Tim on August 9, 2009 01:41 PM
8. I have been scouring the net trying to find senior citizen blogs where this bill is being discussed. Not much luck. Anyone got any suggestions?

Posted by: Jack on August 9, 2009 02:10 PM
9. I have been scouring the net trying to find senior citizen blogs where this bill is being discussed. Not much luck. Anyone got any suggestions? Posted by Jack at August 9, 2009 02:10 PM


Yes. Be realistic: how many senior citizens do you actually think blog, let alone HAVE blogs???

I know of many that don't even 'do email' because they don't 'do' computers.

You viewing the world through YOUR lens, Jack.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 9, 2009 03:07 PM
10. I'd just like to know which private insurance plans qualify for the new "Health Insurance Exchanges", or even what the rules are to qualify...

Say, any of you anti-free-choice liberals around here, can you tell me which private insurance plans will survive ObamaCare?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 9, 2009 03:13 PM
11. OpenCongress is a joke, lousy site. Can you help me find a site where I can print the bill one section at a time? 1000+ pages at one time would kill my aging printer and I would have to euthanize it.

Posted by: WHAM on August 9, 2009 03:48 PM
12. #4 You can't look the Social Security Law up on the fly. In order to read the bill you have to have it memorized. That's what the Washington Post says - other laws as well. Start now.

#8 and #9: This isn't a senior citizen blog, but I would be collecting Social Security if I weren't working. I have worked with computers every day since 1968.

Posted by: Ron Hebron on August 9, 2009 04:00 PM
13. So, our legislation process is complex and requires multiple drafts from different committees in both houses -- and then a further process to combine and reconcile bills passed by each house before a final vote. And bills are often long, triple-spaced text, filled with techincal jargon and complex legalese with multiple references to other laws that are modified or replaced.

Is this news to you, Ron? How many other bills have you read and comprehended in their entirety? Did you read the entire bill that resulted in Bush's tax cuts before deciding it was a good thing? How about No Child Left Behind? How about the various defense appropriations and special appropriations for funding the Iraq War?

There's nothing unusual about the process by which this legislation is being crafted. It's the process we've followed for over two hundred years. Arguing that folks shouldn't support health care reform unless they can read and follow every single amendment as the legislation is still being drafted is like arguing one should avoid prescription drugs unless one can understand and explain the complex biochemistry of their action. It's a stupid argument.

Posted by: scottd on August 9, 2009 05:32 PM
14. #11,WHAM, here is an adobe pdf version for you. Just highlight link and copy, then paste to your browser. I checked it and it still works.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf

I really think this is another Bill that will have hundreds of pages amended on the day it is voted without any debate, similar to the TARP and Cap & Trade bills. I believe that no one should be exempt from this bill, including Congress and anyone else in government. If it is so good, they should be the first to enroll as an example to follow.

Posted by: JW Aiken, Jr. on August 9, 2009 05:36 PM
15. This bill will be interpreted on a need-to-know basis by those ever present medical assistants... the Social Worker. Yes, the happy little social worker will thread though all those thousand or more pages and tell you and your physician what to do.

Posted by: teapartygrandma on August 9, 2009 05:52 PM
16. Ron you've done it now. I bet the local liberal-bots monitoring this site have now sent your name and information to falg@whitehouse.gov.

Posted by: pbj on August 9, 2009 06:18 PM
17. PBJ - I already sent them an email stating I do not like the Bills - guess that makes me 'fishy' :-)

Posted by: Tim on August 9, 2009 07:34 PM
18. 15 - It is flag@whitehouse.gov. BTW - There is discussion in legal circles about the illegality of setting up a snitch-line for the WH. That email address may not be around much longer if the existing law is properly applied.

As for those who want to make excuses for the White House - your Obotomy is masking reality for you.

Posted by: KDS on August 9, 2009 07:59 PM
19. Here is a great example of "interpreting" laws. Because some nursing home patients got caught in the side rails on their beds, legislation was changed in the State of Washington to require nursing homes and elderly care facilities to not use side rails in their current configuration. As a result, beds in nursing homes are now open at the sides, posing a grave danger for the elderly, especially those suffering from dementia, because the nursing homes, rather than have the bed rails reconfigured (expensive}, decided to do away with them. They now have pillows on the floor, two feet down, and if that is not acceptable, they place the mattress on the floor! It's a wonderful sight to see a parent who needs skilled care sleeping on the floor! And yet, when questioned about this, your representative in Olympia will tell you that many nursing homes still do use bed rails, which is a lie. I've been to them all in Tacoma and Puyallup, or called and asked them, and they do not. That's what happens when legislation is vague and left to interpretation of bureaucrats. Now imagine what will happen to the general quality of health care with this behemoth of a bill when it needs to be practically applied. If the bill in its present form is incomprehensible, just imagine what it will be like after all the amendments and frills are added on in the dead of night!!

Posted by: katomar on August 9, 2009 08:10 PM
20. Our government is simply out of control. If this ObamaCare passes the House, it will be nothing short of marxism. Our government already owns the banks, auto manufactures, you know that wonderful deal of "reversed morgage" where the govmnt loans you money...how many seniors have fallen into that trap already? This country is heading towards a total collapse. As for the person looking for info for seniors? Some rather upsetting info...once you get 65 years old, you will be required to be counseled every 5 years on euthanasia. I didn't vote for our current leader, I wonder how so many could be blinded by evil. We all better pray to our Higher Power, that this bill doesn't pass!

Posted by: sarah on August 9, 2009 08:16 PM
21. 1. Funny, you guys worry Pelosi can "strong arm" something out of conference committee, liberals worry she can't. Guess what. She can't.
She has little power over the blue dog democrats. What's she going to do, bump in front of them in the line waiting for navy bean soup in the Capitol cafeteria?

2. News flash: big things take lots of paper. When GE acquires a company, the head of GE doesn't read the entire acquisition paperwork, either. It would be about three feet high, by the way!

If you all knew what legislation is like, you wouldn't be so surprised to learn the basic facts of the legislative process.

And take comfort, if it was easy to change in one fell swoop, quickly, there might be changes you don't like!

Such as this:

1. The United States of America hereby shall be liable for every medical or health related cost in the nation, including those incurred for or on behalf of any American, and including those incurred prior to this measure and those that are currently in a bankruptcy court.

2. The Treasury is authorized to bump all income tax rates pro rata sufficiently to pay for the provisions of section 1 above without debt.

3. All private health insurance companies are hereby banned. It shall be a felony to offer or sell private health insurance. The United States hereby nationalizes all property or assets owned by same, and as per the relevant constitutional clauses shall pay the owners thereof fair market value, to be funded via section 2 above.

4. The United States shall guarantee a minimum standard of health of every citizen including protection from catastrophic events. The detailes of the scope of coverage each year shall be presribed by regulation by the dept of HHS.

5. All persons in the United States except for the military shall be in the same health payment system established by this law. Nothing in this law changes the health care and funding thereof provided to military personnel.

6. Any health care expense covered by provisions of this law shall not be a subject of claim in any lawsuit, other than to enforce rights under this law. Any person may sue in any federal court to enforce his or her rights to health care funding under this law and its regulations and upon a finding of governmental liability shall be entitled to repayment of the covered expense as well as reasonable attorneys fees and costs of litigation. Apart from that, there shall be no lawsuits to recover health care costs.

There!~ A nice, short and clear and simple law.


Or, we could just add another right to the bill of rights to cover health care payments; the courts would work out the details, just like they have done with due process and similar broad standards that require line drawing by judges, no matter how unactivist they may wish to be.

That would be a really, really really short provision. "Health care is a right of any US citizen and citizens may sue under this provision to enforce such right against the United States."

There, is THAT short enough now?

Posted by: Torture Lawyer on August 9, 2009 11:10 PM
22. Since preventative practices will be an emphasis of this new healthcare system, how long do you think it will take liberals in congress to begin attacking the consumption of meat?

Just a thought I had over the weekend.

Posted by: johnny on August 10, 2009 06:21 AM
23. 21.

Yeah, coming for a lawyer. That's a laugh!

Anyone notice. NO tort reform.
Have to make sure Obama's best friends get well paid.

Posted by: Medic/Vet on August 10, 2009 06:30 AM
24. #21 "Such as this..."

No, that won't do. It's simple and straight-forward. The voters would understand it.

It doesn't contain favors for their big donors, which is what the 300 pages of the cap and trade bill dropped at 3 in the morning were.

It needs more fuzzy sections that cause people to come running asking for favors - with more donations. It doesn't give special privileges to the unions.

Don't you understand how our full-time Congress works?
If the bills are simple they can't hire each other's kids as well paid staffers.

Posted by: Ron Hebron on August 10, 2009 06:37 AM
25. I so agree. HR 3200 is absolutely riduculous in its length and scope. It trys to tackle too much in a single bill and will get even more convoluted as amendments are attached. Is this what we are paying our congressmen and women to produce?

Posted by: Ron on August 10, 2009 07:11 AM
26. As opposed to the US Constitution which is simple enough that anyone can read it and comprehend its meaning.

Between the Constitution Ménage HR3200 It's easy to see which document is pro-freedom and which document is pro-tyranny.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 10, 2009 07:34 AM
27. Ragnar,

I didn't post here to start trouble, simply to get better informed on what the senior community is doing. You should know that I am 65 years old. I have had a strong interest in computers since the late 60s read keypunch, sorters, collators, etc. I am a Network Administrator for a social services organization. Part of my duties is to provide user support within my organization, and I can tell you from experience that the level of computer knowledge among young people is often abysmal. There are quite a few senior blogs out there, but I haven't found a lot of chatter about this proposed health care nightmare. Thanks for your input.

Posted by: Jack on August 10, 2009 07:38 AM
28. This bill is an insurance reform bill, meaning that the United States federal government will be empowered to determine which insurance companies are permitted into the Exchange, meaning the government decides how an insurance company must conform. The federal government is also empowered to determine how an insurance company spend its money.

So, you and I will be restricted in our choice of companies, private business will be enticed into dropping their private plans. You will *not* be permitted to enroll as a new customer in non-approved companies.

There will be no limiting of choice for Our Betters in Congress however.

That's what you need to take away from this bill.

And, if you're a senior, the government will be creating a series of incentives to make it easier for you to just die and go away and save money for the rest of us.

And yet there will people right here on this board claiming that this isn't "government run" health care.


Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 07:51 AM
29. @10 Dan. If it's anything like how Obama handled closing auto dealerships, the Insurance companies that survive will be the ones with heavy Democrat donors at their helms.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 10, 2009 07:52 AM
30. Gary: The remark about govt creating incentives to make it easier for seniors to just die demonstrates your complete lack of credibility on this topic.

Jack: Maybe the reason seniors aren't chattering much is because the proposed reform is not a "health care nightmare". Seniors already have reasonably priced government sponsored health insurance that is portable, can't be denied due to pre-existing conditions, and can't be rescinded when they need it most. They already known that this government sponsored insurance doesn't ration healthcare and doesn't encourage them to just die when they become sick. They know that government sponsorship hasn't killed private insurance options because they can purchase Medicare supplements to provide additional coverage if they can afford it and if they desire.

Overall, seniors are happy with Medicare because it works. Their main concern regarding healthcare is that Republicans will somehow mess up a program that is working for them. Many of us who aren't seniors wouldn't mind having similar confidence in our own health coverage.

Posted by: scottd on August 10, 2009 08:12 AM
31. #30. "Gary: The remark about govt creating incentives to make it easier for seniors to just die demonstrates your complete lack of credibility on this topic. "

-

No, it doesn't. Didn't you hear what Senator Kennedy said? Didn't you hear what Congressman Ellison said? Didn't you hear what President Obama said? Are you paying attention?

Explain to me why what I said show a lack of credibility. I just listen to what the legislators say.

Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 08:20 AM
32. How many congressmembers read "the Patriot Act".

You only complain about the Congressmembers "not reading the Bill" when you don't want the bill passed.


This is the plain truth.


We are going to have socialized medicine.

If Obama doesn't give it to us Romney will.


SO, all the rest is just partisan wrangling.

So, we really don't need to get so upset. Does it really make that much difference if it happens now under Obama or in the near future under Romney?

Let us not forget how the first bailout was done under Bush. And if you want to go back further Nixon passed Affirmative Action. So Republicans have been pretty successful getting socialist programs passed.

SO, if they do succeed in stopping Obama, I have no doubt that Obama's program will survive. It will be Romneycare, not Obamacare but for the most part be identical.

So, in the end this is all about hating Obama and not wanting him to get the credit.

Sorry, hate isn't enough for me to want to stop a plan that will get passed if not now then four to eight years from now.

Posted by: Sean on August 10, 2009 08:36 AM
33. Gary: Instead of listening (and misinterpreting) what people say, you should be reading what shows up in draft legislation -- because that's where laws come from.

There's nothing in the legislation about creating incentives to make it easier for seniors to just die instead of seeking effective treatment. As long as you keep making stuff like that up, you have no credibility.

Posted by: scottd on August 10, 2009 08:38 AM
34. If this wasn't "Just about Hating Obama and the Democrats" then you would hear about Romney being chased around being booed as well.

So this has nothing to do with the actual contents of the bill because it is pretty much what Romney wants to do.

Yet for Romney we are supposed to cheer.

So, yeah, this is just about hating Obama and the Democrats and getting Republicans elected.

Posted by: Jill on August 10, 2009 08:42 AM
35. #32. Sean, I don't want this plan under Obama or Romney, or Clinton, or Bush, or anybody. And I suspect you are well aware that many of us *opposed* the Bush bailouts also.

Why is this so hard to understand?

So you are for HR3200?


Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 08:43 AM
36. #34. So you want HR3200 passed, and increase out debt even more? In July, revenue was down 17% while spending increased 21%. You support HR3200?


Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 08:47 AM
37. I am against ALL SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.

I am against the Democrats.

BUT, I AM ALSO AGAINST THE REPUBLICANS.

I hope that this legislation fails.

But I fear it will only to be revived when a Republican (probably Romney) takes office.

And then I just wonder how many here will be going on about how bad it is. Perhaps you Gary, but you will be one of the few.

I am just sick of the games, Gary. I am sick of the "Darcy Burnering" of Sound Politics. Yeah Darcy was bad, but look at what we got. In the end it would have been better for us all if she would have won.

If we are going to have socialized medicine, yeah, then I rather that history shows it happened under Obama. It is really bad that history has to show that it was BUSH who "killed capitalism to save it", so if we are so destined to have socialized medicine I say let it be Obama.

Posted by: Sean on August 10, 2009 08:50 AM
38. So, Sean... my opposition to H.R. 3200 is only about "hating Obama", or may I honestly not like the bill? You don't like it, and yet, you haven't called yourself a hater, have you?

Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 08:57 AM
39. ScottD at #30,

It's not about what seniors have now, but about what seniors will or will not have if this bill passes. The way I read it is that Medicare is in the red and that government intends to cut Medicare funding by $500 billion to fund universal healthcare. The government claims that there are 45 - 50 million uninsured folks in this country. Where are the new medical personnel going to come from to handle this new influx of patients, and what will happen to seniors in the shuffle? It sounds to me like rationing and denial of healthcare services. In addition, you have certain individuals in this administration who believe that denying healthcare to individuals who the government does not deem socially acceptable is good policy. H.R. 3200, page 16, lines 10 through 16 sure sounds like government intent to destroy the private health insurance industry. Please tell me I am wrong. This is not about Republicans and Democrats, but Democrats are in power so let's give credit where credit is due. The fact that Democrats are trying to ram this bill through without any debate, and are threatening to cut Republicans out of the loop is extremely fishy.

Posted by: Jack on August 10, 2009 09:02 AM
40. Gary at #36.

Socialized medicine will be passed.

It's all a question of who gets to take credit (or looking at it from another perspective who takes blame) for it.

Yeah, I want Obama to have all the credit (blame) for it.

Now might be the best time to pass Socialized Medicine. The economy is going to hell. This is going to push it there faster. If we passed socialized medicine at a time with a strong economic the strong economy might give it some time to grow before it starts harming the economy. Now the effect might be quicker and therefore we might be able to turn away from it.

Do this at a time where there's otherwise strong growth and it might not show it's failings so quickly.

SO, no now is the PERFECT time to have socialized medicine. And when it fails it won't be a failing of capitalism as the press would blame it on if it was put in by a Republican but the blame will be placed on Obama and socialism.

Let us never forget that it was Bush that gave us the first bailout. He set the stage for all that followed. It reminds me of the saying "it took Nixon to go to China". Not saying that he was wrong to go to China but I am saying that it just might take us a "capitalist" like Romney to give us socialized medicine.

That is if Obama doesn't give it to us first but I believe if Obama gives it to us at this time of our history it might not succeed in becoming embedded within our society before it's failings start revealing itself.

Yeah, if we are going to have it anyway, let history give the "credit" to Obama. Not the Republicans. The Republicans are already responsible for destroying capitalism (to save it).

Posted by: Jill on August 10, 2009 09:02 AM
41. Guys... get a look at this foolish waste of OUR money. Now tell me, if they can pull this stunt. What do you think they will do with our health care.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Diving and snorkeling at Australia's Great Barrier Reef, watching New Year's fireworks in New Zealand, and sleeping in a luxury Hawaiian hotel is the vacation of a lifetime -- unless you're a member of Congress. Then it's a fact-finding mission to study climate change.


Ten lawmakers -- six Democrats and four Republicans -- spent 11 days on an international junket in some of the most breathtaking spots on Earth. Then they stuck taxpayers with the $500,000-plus bill.


According to the Wall Street Journal, six spouses also made the journey at the end of 2007, and their expenses for lodging and travel also came out of taxpayers' pockets.

"The trip we made was more valuable than 100 hearings," Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., told the Journal. "Are there members of Congress who take trips somewhat recreationally? Perhaps. Is this what this trip was about? Absolutely not."

Posted by: Medic/Vet on August 10, 2009 09:03 AM
42. #40, you said "So, yeah, this is just about hating Obama..."

In your case it's just about "hating Obama", or is that just me who hates Obama, just... cuz?

Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 09:07 AM
43. "So, Sean... my opposition to H.R. 3200 is only about 'hating Obama'".

Yeah, that seems to sum it up.

Otherwise you would hate the Republicans just as much.

A lot of this plan is just stuff that Obama got from Romney. In fact Romney should sue him for plagiarism.

I am so sick of something being bad because it being pushed by the Democrats but the same thing is good if it is pushed by the Republicans.

Yeah, we are going to have socialized medicine anyway. I agree with Jill, let Obama take the credit for this. We are already to be blamed for the bailout!

Posted by: Sean on August 10, 2009 09:07 AM
44. Sean, what the hell is so hard about this? I oppose Romneycare and Obamacare, and from that, you deduce that I'm just a hater of Obama.

Oookay...

Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 09:10 AM
45. Jeff @ 29: you nailed it... Donate enough to the "right" politicians? Your plan's in!

Jill @ 34: I guess you really didn't pay too much attention last year. The number ONE knock against Romney was RomneyCare. Yes, he's supposed to be a financial wizard, but then again he implemented RomneyCare. He was lambasted and attacked from the conservatives because of his worthless health insurance plan.

Sean @ 43: Romney didn't win the nomination, did he? He was roundly criticized by conservatives because of RomneyCare, and he LOST. He was NOT nominated by the GOP. Seems to me the GOP is consistent in rejecting Government run health insurance; rejecting Romney and opposing Obama.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 10, 2009 09:12 AM
46. Are you glad Darcy lost last year Gary?

Or would it had been better if she had won and now we could be united in finding a candidate to run against here.


I hate Socialized Medicine.

You Gary, just hate Obama.

Posted by: Sean on August 10, 2009 09:15 AM
47. Romney WILL BE the Republican candidate in 2012.

And then all the crap on this board is going to be about how we HAVE TO GET ROMNEY elected.

So, why should I get excited about this if it is all going to lead to socialized medicine under Romney.

I rather not have socialized medicine, but since we are anyway I say let Obama have it.

Posted by: Sean on August 10, 2009 09:18 AM
48. The Massachussets healthcare reform has been a disaster financially.

It is one of the main reasons Romney wasn't the republicans nominee.

Why would anyone use Romneycare in an argument in support of this healthcare bill?

Posted by: johnny on August 10, 2009 09:20 AM
49. Romneycare IS Obamacare.

Why can't we at least admit the truth about that?

Gary, you just hate Obama.

Posted by: Jill on August 10, 2009 09:21 AM
50. Sean, so, I love Socialized Medicine and just hate Obama.

That is really twisted. We can not discuss this rationally.

Am I glad Darcy lost? Yes, but it must be because I'm an Obama hater!


Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 09:22 AM
51. Jill, what is the matter with you and Sean? I do not like Romneycare. How must I make this any more clear to you people?

Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 09:26 AM
52. Romney is going to be the next Republican President.

SO, by getting Obamacare passed now we are saving us another repeat of the "Bush Bailouts" where the Bush adminstration destroyed capitalism but since Bush was a Republican it was seen as capitalism as failing (instead of what it was which was Bush's failure to employ capitalism).

If we are to have socialized medicine I want it when it fails, and indeed it will, to be quite clear where the blame lies!.

And if we pass it now in a bad economy perhaps it will fail quick enough before it becomes too hard to root out from our society. If it was put in when the economy was stronger it might have more time to grow before it is revealed for the monster it is.

Posted by: Jill on August 10, 2009 09:28 AM
53. You are glad Darcy lost?

See, this is just partisan to you.

You would love this bill it it was being pushed by a Repug.

Well, it took Nixon to go to China so you might just be successful in getting this defeated under Obama only to get it passed under the Republicans.

Whatever. I am not going to get so excited. I would rather see Obama pass this than what I guess will happen which is the Republicans will pass it in 2013 or so.

You don't hate this Bill. You hate Obama.

Posted by: Sean on August 10, 2009 09:32 AM
54. So, Jill... you want this to pass under Obama, and not Romney, so that Obama can get the blame... and yet you say *I'm* just an Obama hater?

I'm afraid continuing this conversation is going to result in my IQ going down.

This is no longer rational.

Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 09:33 AM
55. Jill-
That is the totally twisted logic.

Romney lost - against McCAIN yet - why would you ever believe that he's going to be the next republican President?

The fact is that Romneycare keeps getting worse for Massachussetts.

Program costs have gone up incredibly and faces huge deficits despite the tax increased. Their costs are rising much faster than the national average. There is much less consumer choice. There's a shortage of providers and increasing demand.

Those are the simple facts of it. Romneycare is Obamacare. Why would this possibly be good for our country when it hasn't been good for Massachussetts?

Posted by: johnny on August 10, 2009 09:34 AM
56. You hate this bill because the Republicans tell you to hate this bill.

If the Republicans told you to love this bill (or better yet if the Republicans told you that the Democrats hated this bill) you would be all for it.


You hate this bill not for what it does, but because Obama is pushing it.

Posted by: Jill on August 10, 2009 09:37 AM
57. Johnny, you just aren't paying attention.

Romney has the money.


He has the early lead.

He is going to use the same bully tactics we saw McCain used in 2008 to stop opposition within the Republicans.

And he will get nominated.

Then what are you going to do? Remember if you don't support Romney then Obama will get re-elected.

And we all hate Obama so we can't have that can we!

So it's socialized medicine under Obama or socialized medicine under Romney. I say let's skip "going to china" this time around like we did with the Bush Bailouts and let's ensure that the blame is placed where it should be placed.

Posted by: Jill on August 10, 2009 09:44 AM
58. Romneycare IS Obamacare.Why can't we at least admit the truth about that?Gary, you just hate Obama. ~ Jill @ 49

Romneycare was a failure for Massachussetts, so why would we support taking Romneycare nationally? You yourself said it was the same thing. It's not about hating Obama, it's about hating a bill that is failed from the jump. You look both silly and ignorant when you throw out the "hate obama" charges with little or no proof to back it up.

By the way, I am a Romney supporter. He was the only qualified person for the Presidency in 2008 and will probably be the only qualified person in 2012.

Posted by: Rick D. on August 10, 2009 10:26 AM
59. See what I mean.

It is just partisanshipism with you guys on Sound Politics.

Socialized Medicine will pass.

AND, YOU BASTARDS WILL BE CHEERING WHEN IT DOES.

You are nothing but low life Republican SCUM.

LOW LIFE Republican SOCIALIST SCUM who will in the end no doubt "kill healthcare to save it".

I hate the Democrats, but at least they are honest about who they are.

The only thing you really hate about this bill is that it's Obama's Bill. This is ALL about Hating Obama.

Posted by: Sean on August 10, 2009 10:42 AM
60. Rick just proved it.

He loves Romney.

SO, obviously the only reason he hates this bill is that he feels Romney should be the one to pass it.

There are valid reasons to hate this bill. But the people here just hate Obama!

Posted by: Jill on August 10, 2009 10:45 AM
61. Seeing it pass now is just going to save me the heartache of seeing the Republicans pass it later.

And if it is started during this recession perhaps it's failings will become obvious early. If it is passed during a good economy it might take some time for the cracks to appear.

So, yeah, Let's pass it now. Let a Socialist Democrat pass it instead of a "Capitalist"(in Name only but that's how they spun the Bush Bailout) Republican.


Obamacare IS Romneycare. The only thing for us to decide now is who will get the blame!

Posted by: Jill on August 10, 2009 10:55 AM
62. Good grief! Why can't you people use your look-back glasses and admit that many commenters here did not like the Massachusetts plan at the time? Much was said about it, even scoffing and predicting it would bankrupt Mass. The fact is, if Romney were elected and tried to push a Masschusettes-like plan on the nation, there would be equal outcry against it from conservatives. Once again, and I'll speak slowly for you, it's the PLAN that is being protested, not necessarily the person or people proposing it.

Posted by: katomar on August 10, 2009 11:23 AM
63. Here's more Leftwing astroturf: Michelle Malkin reports that people are seeing ads in Craigslist in different parts of the country seeking to hire people to work for the Obama health care side. "Help pass Obama's health care reform! Earn $325-550 per week!" "Build public support for Obama's plan & earn $9-14 an hour!"

The patriots are out there because they WANT to be. Nobody has to pay them to show up, Nancy Pelosi. But look at your democrat party--this is what they are having to do. How embarrassing for Pelosi to accuse real patriots of astroturf when the real astroturf is coming from her democrat party.

Posted by: Michele on August 10, 2009 11:47 AM
64. Joseph Smith, Jr. was just a 19th century David Koresh.

The truth about the Mormons.

Dumb, de dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

And this heathcare scheme came from a Mormon.


Both Republicans and Democrats support it. It's just the Democrats don't want the Republicans to take credit for it and the Republicans don't want the Democrats to take credit for it.

So the Republicans Hate it when they call it Obamacare.

But Obamacare IS RomneyCare.

So if we don't get it now, we will get it if we have another so called "repugiblican revolution".

So, this fight here is pretty silly. We are just fighting over whether we are going to have it now and call it Obamacare, or have it four to eight years from now and call it Romneycare.

For all you who are putting so much effort in trying to stop it now you remind me of the followers of Joseph Smith.

And when you find out that this whole thing has passed under Republicans you are sure going to feel dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

It would be funny if they have "Romney" do a "guest appearance" on South Park. Maybe do some kind of Rocky type satire that ends up with him boxing Obama in a street fight (you know like Rocky Five) angry that Obama stole his health care plan.

Romney, Romney, Romney. It is ROMNEYCARE!

Posted by: Gus on August 10, 2009 12:06 PM
65. I suppose these people were astro-turfing too...

Posted by: Rick D. on August 10, 2009 12:07 PM
66. Ron,
Not sure how it happened but Post @25 should be by me not "Ron." Sorry for the mistake.

Posted by: tc on August 10, 2009 12:21 PM
67. Jill;
Your comments @ 56 show your true colors. You think that because the Democrats act that way, you know when they tell YOU to love something YOU get all warm and fuzzy and start loving it, or YOU'RE told to hate someone, e.g. W, YOU hate them with a fervor, that anyone to the right of YOU loonytoons must operate the same way. What a DEMOCRAT YOU are. How dare YOU try and influence debate with YOUR lies. Guess what, many of us were extremely against McCain, even after he won the R nomination. Some of us held our noses and voted for him, some of us voted 3rd party, some of us, heaven help us voted for Obama, and some of us didn't vote for anyone. You can try and stereotype people on this blog if you want, but don't try and sell yourself as some disgruntled Republican.

Posted by: REBEL on August 10, 2009 12:28 PM
68. One correction to the Jill/Sean/Gary, et al discussion. Ron's post was on HR 3200. This is the "House" plan. While it meets many of the objectives laid out by Obama, it doesn't match all the objectives. The competing Senate plans are different, still. For a good comparison (excluding, MA plan under Romney, which was state focused, not national focused), you can go to the following link:

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

I do agree with Ron (see @25, which had wrong name entered in the post). HR 3200 is long and convoluted, add a mixture of additional House floor admendments, then saute with the two Senate bills, and you have a very bad Hungarian goulash. What we should be telling the congressmen and woman and the senators is to start over, with specific bills (separate bills) addressing the guidelines laid out on the debate (see February guidelines by Obama). Then, the discussion can be about each point and specific bills that may or may not reach a goal. It seems to me that they threw a bunch of ideas in the mixer without prioritizing and addressing the most urgent needs first.

After skimming (for one doesn't have the time to read the entire bill in depth) HR 3200, I don't understand why anyone is happy with the product. We pay the congressmen and women for this shoddy product?

Posted by: tc on August 10, 2009 12:36 PM
69. Stan: Obamacare sucks!

Cartman: Obamacare is so gay!

Crowd: Get him Romney!

(Eye of the Tiger starts playing).

Romney: That's my idea you stole (punches him in the left eye)

Crowd: Romney, Romney, Romney...

This just in, it seems that Romney and Obama are on the streets of South Park fighting. Here's the live camera...

Romney: Limiting end of life care - my idea (Jabs him again).

Romney knocks out Obama.

Crowd: Yeah!

Stan: Romneycare is cool!

Cartman: Romneycare is so NOT gay!

Kyle: But guys, guys, Obamacare and Romneycare are the same thing.

Stan: You just don't get it.

Cartman: Romney isn't seen as a socialist so when you hear the plan from him it doesn't seem so socialistic.

Kyle: But it is socialistic. It is just like Obamacare, just by calling it Romneycare it doesn't make it any different.

Stan: Yes it does.

Cartman: Kyle will never understand, Stan. Lets go they are throwing a party for Romney.

(The crowd has now lifted Romney up and are carrying him in around in celebration, but in the background you see ala "Star Wars" Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (Charlton Heston).

Brigham: The force is strong with this one Joseph.

Joseph: my underwear itches.

It's the eye of the tiger, it's the cream of the fight


OBAMACARE SUCKS!

Risin' up to the challenge of our rival

ROMNEYCARE RULES!

And the last known survivor stalks his prey in the night
And he's watchin' us all in the eye of the tiger

the eye of the tiger

the eye of the tiger

Posted by: Gus on August 10, 2009 12:40 PM
70. #68, tc, why do you suppose the President hasn't submitted his own plan, if this is supposed to be his great goal?

Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 12:47 PM
71. I love it.

Yeah, the Republican "Revolution". I remember that.

And now we are all teabagging.

In the words of John Rambo - Do we get to win this time?

We may be able to stop Obamacare. But in the end what's the point? It's just coming back in a few years in the form of Romneycare.

And the people here they really just hate Obama. Not the plan, just Obama.

To them it is just about "the eye of the tiger". This is the Demoncats plan so they HAVE TO be against it. Because the Demoncats are the rival. When it becomes the Repugibican plan they will be for it.

So, yeah, they hate Obama, not the plan.

Posted by: Sean on August 10, 2009 12:48 PM
72. #71 "And now we are all teabagging."

Ah.

You are just what I suspected you of being. You and Jill both, with your (capitalized) "Socialized Medicine"


Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 12:53 PM
73. Darcy Burner is bad, don't cha know.

Bad ole Darcy Burner.

She is well, well, just bad.

It's the eye of the tiger, it's the cream of the fight

Risin' up to the challenge of our rival...

Posted by: Gus on August 10, 2009 12:56 PM
74. Gary,
The answer to your question is simple. Instead of operating like Bush/Cheney, Obama (probably since he came from the Senate) wants Congress to actually do their job, which is make laws. The President is the Executive Branch. He can provide vision and leadership, twist some arms, but in the end, it is Congress's job to write the laws, not the President. Do you really want him to do their job also? I think Obama has enough on his plate as is.

Posted by: tc on August 10, 2009 12:57 PM
75.
The President is too busy to submit bills?

Too much TV?

Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 01:06 PM
76. Oh, yeah, right.

I am a democrat. Sure, right.

But in reality I am sure I am not much different from lots of your friends (if you have any).

I was in the so called Republican Revolution. And in the end the Republicans we sent were worse than the Democrats.

And of course then to top it off Bush killed Capitalism with the bailout. I voted for that BASTARD. So in a way I helped kill capitalism.

And now without an even an attempt at an apology (in fact since the election it has been the exact opposite of an apology) you want me to just go around trusting Repugs?

Well I don't like those Demoncats but you Repugs haven't shown you are much better.

So, now I am supposed to get all excited and join a Tea Party movement? Do you even know what happened in Boston? Not even all the people we think of as Patriots even supported that act. In fact few of the big names did. And in fact if we ever started acting like the Sons of Liberty did you would probably support our arrest so for all your talk, the substance of your words are hollow.

If I was ever to start a "tea party" I certainly wouldn't on the behalf of the Republican party. You wouldn't have my back. In fact you would stab me in the back.

So, yeah, I would ask any one before they get excited about any of this, Health Care, Cap and Trade, any of it, I would have them ask the Republicans who are encouraging it "are we allowed to win this time?"

Posted by: Sean on August 10, 2009 01:12 PM
77. #76

"Oh, yeah, right.

I am a democrat. Sure, right."

-

I know.

Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 01:17 PM
78. Gary @75
No, he is too busy with Beer summits.

Seriously, the executive branch submits budget proposals, and my guess is they can and do sometimes submit legislation for consideration via a house member or senator, but I believe officially, only members of the House or Senate can actually introduce legislation. I am sure Pudge or someone else here knows that actually rules on this.

What is interesting in this debate is how personality focused it is. This is true even with regards to the senators and representatives involved. For example, the "left" complains that Bacus (Senate, sp?) is holding Heath Reform hostage in his committee. Kennedy is often tossed out, even though he has been sick and out of commission pretty much this whole session. On the House side, it is Pelosi oriented, not Dingall, whose committee authored HR 3200, is to blaim. I think it is time to start shining the light on the real people writing these bills and ask where do they receive their war chests, who do they hold private meetings with, etc. This debate was supposed to be in the open, yet I feel it still is lacking. Just as we should know who the lobbyist groups and their backers are that fighting the legislation, we should also know who is driving it. It isn't Obama, himself. You joked about TV, seriously. I think the economy, two wars, Korea, Iran, etc., are taking up a lot of time. In fact, wasn't it Republicans that complained that Obama had too much on his plate, that he couldn't do all of it. Now you want him to do Congress's job also?

Posted by: tc on August 10, 2009 01:18 PM
79. Of course you are a democrat Sean because that is how these people think.

It's the eye of the tiger. You are either part of them or you are the rival. There's nothing apart from that.

And if the Republicans are for it then you are for it. And if the Democrats are for it then you are against it.

Obamacare bad. Romneycare good.

Darcy bad. Reichert good.

Posted by: Gus on August 10, 2009 01:24 PM
80. I am not a Democrat.

I am a member of the disenfranchised. We will not be bullied into voting anymore.

I put my trust into Newt and he gave me Congress that spend at a rate higher than that of the Democrats who controlled the House of Representives for forty years before that.

I put my trust into Bush and he put a stake into capitalism.

It takes Nixon to go to China, perhaps. And perhaps that is what makes Repugs. more dangerous than the Demons. We might be able to stop Obamacare here but we won't be able to stop it when Romney passes it.

So why get excited. We will have socialized medicine, if not by Obama's hand than by Romney's. And since that is the case let it be by Obama's hand then.

Posted by: Sean on August 10, 2009 01:32 PM
81. #80 "We will not be bullied into voting anymore."

Thank you.

Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 01:34 PM
82. tc, I actually prefer that he not submit a bill. I also don't want one submitted/written by anybody in Congress to tell the truth.

Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 01:40 PM
83. You really think you can win with a dampened conservative base don't you?

You tried last year and failed.

And you will fail with Romney as well.

We conservatives won't come out.

A recent poll was done where 40 percent of the people who identified a political ideology called themselves conservative. Yet the Republican party is only around 20 percent. That's a lot of "free agents" out there. Lots of people out there who see themselves as conservatives but see Republicans as part of the problem.

Posted by: Sean on August 10, 2009 01:41 PM
84. scottd, There's nothing unusual about the process by which this legislation is being crafted. It's the process we've followed for over two hundred years. Arguing that folks shouldn't support health care reform unless they can read and follow every single amendment as the legislation is still being drafted is like arguing one should avoid prescription drugs unless one can understand and explain the complex biochemistry of their action. It's a stupid argument.

You are completely correct.

To argue, as Ron does, that bills should effectively be disallowed from modifying existing law is stupid. It shows that Ron simply does not follow the legislative process.

Who the hell would read this: In recent months, there has been much GOP criticism of Democrats for passing legislation that some lawmakers have not read. But the bills are not exactly beach reading. They are legal documents crammed with legislative coding, sentence fragments and assorted gibberish that modifies laws already on the books somewhere. To really understand what a bill says, you'd need to have the existing laws memorized. and determine that the real problem is that Congress doesn't "read the bill"?

No, the problem here is the populist concern that every Congress person must read the legislative text of every bill presented before him. Those who present these arguments have never tried to read a bill. What matters is that Congress knows what the bill does -- which is entirely possible without seeing the exact effects on US Code. Policy makes bills, not the other way around.

Posted by: John Jensen on August 10, 2009 01:58 PM
85. Jeez Sean, lucy or whatever you call yourself.

Drop the ruse on the Romney thing. Even if he were to get into the whitehouse, he couldn't make socialised medicine happen without his own party being behind it. They wouldn't be.

Posted by: johnny on August 10, 2009 02:00 PM
86. #84 "What matters is that Congress knows what the bill does "

Really? Dingell claims that it will not provide for tax payer funded abortions, and yet it does. So, you're telling me he knows what it does? Same goes goes for Durbin.

If they both know what it does, why do they not know about the abortion funding?

Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 02:07 PM
87. Bad, bad ole Darcy Burner.

By the way Joseph Smith was called a prophet. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb. He started the Mormon Religion, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.

Anyone who would believe in that would certainly believe in Socialized Medicine.

Do we really want someone who believes that crap to be our President. That would be Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.

Posted by: Gus on August 10, 2009 02:13 PM
88. #87 "Socialized Medicine."

Again with the caps...

Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 02:15 PM
89. Mitt Romney was a Mormon.

Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.

He had a plan for socialized medicine.

Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.

Mitt: One night I had a dream that this healthcare plan was hidden behind a tree in the woods and the next day I went to look, and there it was.

Stupid GOP Crowd: Wow!

Mitt: And there was an angel there who said that it needs to have in it $25 abortion, and...

Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.

One Barrak Obama came to town.

Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb


And stole ole Mitt Romney's Healthcare Plan.

Smart, smart, smart, smart, smart...

Townsperson: You can't do that it's Romneycare.

Obama, no, it's Obamacare.

Townsperson: Well that's different then. You must be of the devil sir. Away with you. Away with you and your accursed Obamacare.

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

Posted by: Gus on August 10, 2009 02:26 PM
90. Gary,
On your "taxpayer funding for abortions" issue, this is not clear cut as you make it sounds. The way the current bill (HR 3200) reads (I am not sure about the Senate side), it is neutral regarding the language concerning abortions. The "left" (e.g., Dingall, et al), state that this is how the past laws have read. The problem the "right" see is the fact that it doesn't contain language specifically prohibiting government funding of abortions. Therefore, the "right" claims it may allow such funding. I believe that is the two camps arguments.

Posted by: tc on August 10, 2009 02:31 PM
91. Johnny Romney's healthcare plan has nothing to do with socialism.

Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.

And it is nothing like Obama's plan.

Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.

And we have to support out President.

Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.

Remember it took someone with the anti-communist streetcreds of Nixon to go to China. Perhaps it will take a "capitalist" like Romney to bring us socialized medicine.

RINO, RINO, RINO.

Posted by: Gus on August 10, 2009 02:33 PM
92. tc, the Capps amendment, which passed, specifically permits it.

Senate side certainly does. AP:

"Staff aides confirmed that the public plan -- and private insurance offered in the exchange -- would be allowed to cover abortion, without funding restrictions."

Did Dingell not read the Capps amendment, like he doesn't read anything else?

Why do *I* know this, but not him, tc?

Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 02:37 PM
93. Yeah, I remember that all "we have to Support OUR President" crap all through the Bush Adminstration.

And at the end he took a stake at the heart of capitalism and just plugged it deeply in.

Posted by: Sean on August 10, 2009 02:40 PM
94. Gary,
Here is FactCheck.org's write-up on the issue (at least one of them).

I believe (from the FactCheck) that you are thinking of the Mikulski admendment on the Senate side. The Capps amendment (per the FactCheck) would leave it to private insurers to decide whether or not to cover abortion, and in the case of the federal plan, leave it up to HHS, but it would not be part of the "essential benefits package" defined by the government.

Posted by: tc on August 10, 2009 02:42 PM
95. tc, AP:

http://www.newser.com/article/d99t1h9o0/health-care-bill-before-congress-would-allow-government-sponsored-plan-to-cover-abortions.html

factcheck is no good. Not for me anyway.

Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 02:48 PM
96. Gary,
I read your linked article. For the most part, it doesn't disagree with what FactCheck.org wrote up. I am not sure where your getting the idea that FactCheck's writeup is wrong.

The only question mark in the article, where it actually is poor/unclear wording, whereas FactCheck is more correct, is the section on the Capp's amendment. The article states:
"A compromise approved by a House committee last week attempted to balance questions of federal funding, personal choice and conscience rights of clinicians. It would allw the public plan to cover abortion but without using federal funds, only dollars from beneficiary premiums. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure."

The Factcheck wording is what I quoted.

Here is a copy of the amendment. I believe the section in question is added subsection (d) to section 122. This section does exclude federal funding, except in section 122(d)(4)(b), which relates to where federal funding is allowed (e.g., exception for rape, incest, or life of mother).

This matches with FactCheck's write-up on the Capps Amendment.

Posted by: tc on August 10, 2009 03:07 PM
97. I kind of think of G.W. destruction of capitalism as a old country song.

Oh, were you there when G.W. put Ole capitalism down. It was such a sad day when ole capitalism had to be put down. Even grown men cried when they heard the sound. The day that GW put ole capitalism down.

..and as the foam came down ole capitalism's lips G.W. turned his face towards mine. I swore I saw a tear in his eye, and G.W. was not one to cry. He said I have never really appreciated this mutt, although he has been faithful and true, I am afraid ole capitalism has rabies, to save him I must do what I must do.

He said, I must kill ole capitalism it's isn't like I don't regret it. But to save old capitalism I am going have to kill it. So, please turn away son, don't look him in the eye. Ole capitalism's days are through -- he is going to have to die.

Oh, were you there when G.W. put Ole capitalism down. It was such a sad day when ole capitalism had to be put down. Even grown men cried when they heard the sound. The day that GW put ole capitalism down.

Posted by: Gus on August 10, 2009 03:15 PM
98. tc, I don't trust factcheck. They've been wrong before, and always (I'm sure it's just a coincidence) in a way that favorable to liberals.

Just cuz they call themselves "factcheck" doesn't make it so.


Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 03:15 PM
99. But Gary, if you call Obamacare Romneycare it's no longer socialist.

It is magic. You change something's name and it turns into something different.

Posted by: Gus on August 10, 2009 03:20 PM
100. Cartman: This is the story of bad, bad, ole Darcy Burner.

Kyle: Why was she so bad?

Cartman: Shut up Kyle I am telling the story here. Bad, bad ole Darcy Burner supported Cap and Trade.


Kyle: But didn't John McCain and even Dave Reichert support...


Cartman: SHUT UP KYLE.

Stan: Yeah, why do you always have to ruin stories by getting all factual and stuff.

Posted by: Gus on August 10, 2009 03:33 PM
101. #99 "But Gary, if you call Obamacare Romneycare it's no longer socialist. "

Jill, I'm sorry, I mean, Sean... Oops! Sorry, Gus. Yes it is.

Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 03:34 PM
102. Gary,
Just curious. Do you know the specific instances where FactCheck.org has been wrong?

You do know that with each article, Factcheck provides all the references so that one can check/verify the write-up themselves. Do the sites you prefer do the same?

As far as favor liberals, I believe this is more opinion based on which facts they address and who they debunk. It may seem like they "hit" Republican talking points more, but you are ignoring when they hit Democrat's mistatements, including the President. For example, if you go back to the debate coverage from last year, they didn't just FactCheck McCain's debate points, they also FactChecked Obama's. Also, if you read their letters section, where people write back to them, they do appear to accept any and all feedback, and update their FactChecks when there is additional data (and so note it in the Factcheck). Do your sources do the same?

Posted by: tc on August 10, 2009 03:34 PM
103. Repeat after me.

Romneycare GOOD!

Obamacare Bad.

Dave Reichert GOOD!

Darcy Burner Bad.

Posted by: Gus on August 10, 2009 03:37 PM
104. Please tc so called "factcheck" is just another crap liberal organization like the Municipal League.

It's more like factcheckered (as in checkered past).

Posted by: Gus on August 10, 2009 03:41 PM
105. I looked your name up Tc on myfactischeckbetter.com and it says that you are just another socialist leftist loser.

With a name like that for a web page it must be correct.

But at least you are honest about being a socialist leftist loser. Romney on the other hand is one but pretends to be a conservative.

Stop trying to kill my Grandma!

Posted by: Gus on August 10, 2009 03:45 PM
106. I also put up, I mean found on wikipedia that you beat your mother, tc.

With credible sources like that who could disagree.

So, stop beating your mom TC.

Oh, look, myfactcheckisbetter.com also says you beat your Mother and she still let's you live in her basement.

Posted by: Gus on August 10, 2009 03:54 PM
107. Gary,
Interesting results when I googled "FactCheck.org" wrong. The top hit was from MediaMatters, which is a organization on the left. There were a few hits from the right, but when its people like Michelle Malkin, I disregard. Malkin is infamous for putting her foot in her mouth before she has all the facts. There was a "wrong" hit from the Economic Policy Institute, which has on its board such stand out "conservatives" like Union Heads, and Robert Reich (who I like, but know that he is coming from the left, and therefore, know his bias).

So, I guess I have to retract my "not wrong" belief, since organizations (not just individuals--like Malkin) like Media Matters and EPI can't be wrong :-) (Note: I was trying to be sarcastic there--I will trust FactCheck over someone with a political interest, like Media Matters and EPI). Like I stated before, Factcheck does correct their entries when additional information is pointed out to them, and they provide the resources for their write-ups.

Posted by: tc on August 10, 2009 03:54 PM
108. TC,

Good summary of one error of FactCheck. And here's another one. And yet another one.

They get it wrong; that's not the problem, nobody's perfect. But FactCheck.org refuses to acknowledge their errors. That's either because of pride or partisanship. Or both.

By the way, you never answered a question on health insurance I asked you in another thread:

Why should I have my insurance options limited? What is the benefit by restricting choice?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 10, 2009 03:55 PM
109. myfactcheckisbetter.com also has no political interest either.

It is just happenstance that it says whatever I want it to say.

Surely it has nothing to do with me funding and writing for it.

It's the gospel truth. Heck better than the gospel truth.

And it says that you are masturbating right now TC. Stop it. If you go blind I don't know if RodObamacare covers it.

Posted by: Gus on August 10, 2009 04:00 PM
110. Nope, TC, I looked it up on myfactcheckisbetter.com and Romobamacare doesn't include coverage for going blind due to your favorite pastime.

Sorry,

Maybe you can get your Democratic Senators to pass an Amendment. Barney Frank should be sympathetic to your cause.

Posted by: Gus on August 10, 2009 04:12 PM
111. tc, I remember during the campaign I (and many others) had an issue with how factcheck.org dealt with some gun control issue. I don't remember the details, but I remember they didn't correct their mistake. Don't know if they yet have.

Posted by: Gary on August 10, 2009 04:16 PM
112. factcheck.org is just another looney leftist web site.

The fact that tc would even bring it up shows what a rabid leftist he is. It is almost as good as if he would have said he read it in Al Jazeera.

And of course we know the only totally credible and unbiased source on the web is myfactcheckisbetter.com . It's even better than wikapedia.

Posted by: Gus on August 10, 2009 04:20 PM
113. Gus, you are a crude mean person.

Lay off of TC.

And, lay off of Obama.

No, Obamacare is not Romneycare but something much more progressive.

It will solve the number one problem with the health care system today.

And that is of course, OLD PEOPLE.

I mean what's with them anyway? They are like guests who have worn out their welcome.

I mean, hello, check out time, but no they linger, and linger. Come-on how selfish.

It's not like they haven't lived a good life. They got to see (or at least hear about Woodstock). They all got to enjoy their thrill of us pretending to go to the moon. I mean by and large things have been good. But it's time to move on now. Make way for the new and all of that.

It's nature. That's the way nature has designed things. But no, they are taking up far more resources than the population as a whole and guess what, IN THE END THEY DIE ANYWAY!

You aren't going to live forever so GET OVER IT!

Now Obama, when he had this problem with his Granny he knew what to do. He went to Hawai'i and she died. He probably said Times Up White Gram and got a pillow. Did you see how quickly he cremated her? Now that's the way to deal with people who are no longer of use any more.

So, yeah, it may be harsh it it's life. Old people die. Spend thousands and thousands of dollars on them and still they will die.

So, yeah if Obamacare can minimize so called 'end of life' care through humane of course but terminal options it will save revenue that can be redirected towards solving childhood diseases, AIDS and stuff like that.

And, all of you who are against Obamacare. Well you, you are just a bunch of Nazis!

Posted by: Heidi on August 10, 2009 04:51 PM
114. Yeah Heidi.

We here are the Nazis.

And nothing is wrong with this


Posted by: Sean on August 10, 2009 05:05 PM
115. Actually it was probably more like this.

White gram: Barry.

Obama: Yes, white Gram.

White gram: Barry, my Negro baby, White Gram ain't long for this world.

Obama: Don't say that White Gram.

White Gram: it's true but I can't go meet my white maker with this lie hanging over me.

Obama: What lie white gram.

White Gram: Barry my baby negro monkey boy, you know what lie. You mamma had you in Africa. I have to tell the world. I can't go to see my white Jesus and look him in the eye knowing that I have withheld this lie from my country. I was wrong to have let it go this far.

Obama: Well if you feel you have to. Here let me get you a pillow.

White Gram: What are you doing with the pillow Barry. Please you are hurting white gram. No Barry, No!

Obama: Just go to sleep white gram. It will all be over soon.

Posted by: tc on August 10, 2009 05:35 PM
116. Heidi no doubt feels this way about her own parents as well. Too bad they didn't give her a better education. They might have saved their own lives. My guess is that Heidi will squeel like a pig when her turn comes for Last Day.

Posted by: Jack on August 10, 2009 06:14 PM
117. Gosh, the racism is within you TC.

You like to call others racist but in the end you really need to have a long look in the mirror.


Leftists ARE what they accuse others of being. Don't ever forget that.

Posted by: Jill on August 10, 2009 06:17 PM
118. Hi TC,

I could see MadTV doing that sketch, if they were still on the air, with Keegan-Michael Fay as Obama, and Nicole Parker as Grams...

Others, if you can't see that TC was making a joke and a poke at the birthers, then you need to lighten up...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 10, 2009 06:32 PM
119. Jack, I have some news for you.

I know it's going to be a shock for you so if you are standing up, please sit down.

Well, here it is.

You are going to die.

Someday, some time in the future you are going to die.

And no matter how much money you spend, you can't change the fact that some day you are going to die.

I am sorry if I sound so cruel by bringing up the fact that well, Old People are the people most likely to die. Well they are. Most of the people who die in hospitals are by a vast majority OLD PEOPLE.

And yeah you can spend thousands, hell you can spend millions of dollars and still old people are going to die.

So, either you can be selfish and grab hold draining every resource in an ultimately futile attempt to hold to the last grains of life or you die gracefully.

This proves something I have believed about you so called religious people. Deep down you don't believe. Not deep down where it counts. For you should be more for this than an atheist like I am. I mean for you it's going to a "better place".


Why grab hold of the last little graduals of life when you can be with baby Jesus all that quicker?


To you it should be Yeah Doctor Hook me up I have a date with my maker.

But you don't really believe do you. Not really.

Posted by: Heidi on August 10, 2009 06:42 PM
120. You are all a bunch of frauds.

You don't believe this crap about an afterlife. Not one bit.

If you did you wouldn't hang on so tightly to the last shreds of life.

Posted by: Heidi on August 10, 2009 06:47 PM
121. Shanghai Dan, it's another case of "Do what I say".

A conservative makes such a joke and he or she would be up on hate crime violations.

No, this was racism. And it's something one just can't "make up" but comes from the heart.

I have always known that it's the Left whose hearts are full of thoughts of racism. That is why they talk about it so much. They are trying to deny what's really in those hearts of theirs.

Posted by: Jill on August 10, 2009 07:01 PM
122. So, you have social workers talk to you about the process.

You get your affairs in order.

You get your love ones around you.

You have the nurse turn on some music. The liquid feels slightly warm and you slowly just slip away.

It is quite beautiful in fact.

Isn't that much better than the indignities of death old people must suffer today. The gasping the weazing, the painful struggle that makes you call out PLEASE GOD TAKE ME yet there's no response so you ilk out every last ounce of life spending resources that could better be spend on other things, on what a few misable years of suffering where when you finally do go people are saying good I am glad that is over.

We need to treat death more humanely. Yes. I believe we should perform humane terminal care. And by doing so we can open up resources to people whose lives could really benefit from the care. People whose years can be expanded not just a few agonizing years but perhaps decades of productive living.

It is the best thing for everyone.

Posted by: Heidi on August 10, 2009 07:14 PM
123. Aha! Heidi has finally given us a huge clue when she mentions "productive living". I guess that means we should just get rid of our developmentally disabled, physically handicapped, blind, deaf, anyone who is not perfect (or maybe conservative) and cannot produce to Heidi's standards. Now we see the real progressive approach to "Utopia". Solyent green anyone?

Posted by: katomar on August 10, 2009 08:05 PM
124. No thanks, Heidi. Why don't you move to Canada so you won't be disappointed..

Posted by: KDS on August 10, 2009 10:00 PM
125. Dear Politician: Concerning the medical bill:

If you haven't read the bill, don't vote.

If you hire advisors to read the bills for you, let them vote. Then they run for your office in the next election.

By the way, where do you get the money to hire these advisors?

Posted by: teapartygrandma on August 10, 2009 10:14 PM
126. Ron,
The post @115 is not from me. Someone else copied my information down. Would you please remove.

Thanks,
TC

Posted by: tc on August 11, 2009 07:21 AM
127. Obama says preventive care reduces costs. I asked several weeks if that might be false. Meaning, that if 1,000 people get an exam for a particular malady, and only one person is discovered to have it, is that really less expensive than if the other 999 didn't get the exam at all?

Turns out the CBO said this preventive care thing will actually result in increased costs for that exact reason.

Another one down...

So, these Congress people, as opposed to what John suggests, do not really "know what the bill will do". Besides them telling us flat out that the bill will not find abortions, when even tc understands that this issue is ambiguous at best, and not as black and white as they claim.

They know *one* thing it will do, but only the honest few have actually said what that is.

Posted by: Gary on August 11, 2009 07:37 AM
128. Dan @108
Your first link doesn't debunk FactCheck.org one bit. It doesn't debunk the facts about Atta. It doesn't show that Obama has a "plan" as the ad states. All it does is requote what Obama stated in a debate, which FactCheck also covered, and then go on to state that it somehow debunks the FactCheck.org write-up. Give me a break. If you are going to debunk something, you need to provide arguments and evidence why the piece is wrong. An opinion that it is wrong doesn't prove anything.

For example, the EPI claims that Factcheck.org was wrong explained why they thought they were wrong by attacking the analysis.

Your second link is a joke. Betsy McCaughey has been shown to be a partisan "hack" on numerous occasions over the last 15 or so years (dating back to the first Health Care debate). Her piece that FactCheck.org analyzed was full of mistake, the most serious being taking bits and pieces from theoretical reseach writing on bioethics out of context and saying they mean something totally different than the point of the author. McCaughey is not a peer reviewer for bioethics. To comment on research papers, that are very complex, is meant for only one purpose, which is to spread fear and propaganda to defeat Health care.

It is interesting you bring this up, since McCaughey piece is basically the origin of this whole euthanasia myth, and the basis for Palin's outlandish and dangerous Facebook post last Friday about Obama "Death Squads." McCaughey's piece is a loaded weapon. It is toxic, untrue, and deserve serious "slamming" by everyone. If you believe what she writes, then you are guilty also of any violence that will most likely occur as the Palins, Limbaughs, and Becks of the world stir up the toxic brew. It loads the gun for another Tiller like incident, but this time it will be a public official.

I got a 404 error (not found) on your last link.

Posted by: tc on August 11, 2009 07:40 AM
129. #128 "It is interesting you bring this up, since McCaughey piece is basically the origin of this whole euthanasia myth,"

-

Would you say that what the State of Oregon wants to do to that woman with cancer is euthanasia?

Posted by: Gary on August 11, 2009 07:48 AM
130. Gary,
Read the end of this factcheck. It addresses the Oregon AARP town hall event and what Obama actually said.

Posted by: tc on August 11, 2009 08:46 AM
131. Arlen Specter wants to keep "single-payer on the table" and says that single-payer is high in the polls for the American people.

"I know the public opinion polls are high in favor of single-payer".

He does? What else does he know?

Posted by: Gary on August 11, 2009 08:48 AM
132. Gary,
My mistake @130, I got the meetings mixed up. The Factcheck I linked to @130 is about a NC meeting. Here is the one addressing the pacemaker/drugs issue.

Posted by: tc on August 11, 2009 08:49 AM
133. This sounds like euthanasia to me:

"This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."

-

Do you know who said this?

Posted by: Gary on August 11, 2009 08:53 AM
134. Gary @131
I think he is referring to the new Rassmussen poll, but Specter gets his facts wrong. Here is the poll. I will let it to others to interpret.

Posted by: tc on August 11, 2009 08:55 AM
135. tc, I have no idea what Arlen's source was, but he is 100% wrong. And yet people think Congress *knows* what this bill will do???

He was quite roundly booed when he made that assertion.

Posted by: Gary on August 11, 2009 08:58 AM
136. Gary @133,
I can guess based on the way you phrased the question. My question back to you is do you know what is actually being talked about in the quote? It is not talking about all health care services that society applies. It is talking about determination of what is essential as it relates to universal (bottom-line) standard. Just because it isn't essential doesn't mean the service shouldn't be performed. It only means it isn't required to be covered by all health plans (e.g., base standard for health coverage). The "guarantee" talked about relates to health insurance coverage, not coverage of services.

You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth here. A few days ago (maybe it was yesterday) you were bringing up that the plan covers Abortions, which an amendment takes care of, yet now you are complaining it isn't going to cover services. This is what the quote is talking about, not euthanasia. Do you understand what euthanasia actually is? It is doctor assisted suicide. It is not discussion of living wills and health options. I pointed you to an article a couple days ago in the Boston Globe that discusses the findings that doctor's discussing end-of-life planning (e.g., living wills, whether someone wants to be on a respirator or not, etc.) ends up costing the family less than not having the discussion and the patient receives better treatment. Did you read the article?

Further, this whole brouhaha about the specific section in the bill is quite laughable, since it was a Republican Congressman from Georgia that added that section to the bill.

Posted by: tc on August 11, 2009 09:40 AM
137. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the chief health-care policy adviser to President Obama wrote that. Why is any of this the business of the President of the United States anyway?

As for a Republican adding some section to the bill, I don't care about that. I don't want the bill at all.


Posted by: Gary on August 11, 2009 09:52 AM
138. Gary,
I don't follow your second sentence @137. Whether one agrees or not with Ezekiel Emanuel, his is one of the nations top scholars on bioethics (as determined by his peers and doctors, not some partisan hack that likes to write columns bashing research they know nothing about). Therefore, are you stating that bioethics should not be a concern of the President? We are talking health care. Ezekiel Emanuel isn't an adviser regarding the economy.

OBTW, where McCaughey blatantly distored Ezekiel Emanuel's work is equating it to euthanasia. To refer to a re-knowned bioethics scholar, a Jew, who has fought against euthanasia for years/decades, as supporting it is an outright lie. McCaughey, if she would have cared to do proper research on the subject, would have realized that her piece was a total hack-job and 180 degrees from the truth about Ezekiel Emanuel and his life's work.

Posted by: tc on August 11, 2009 10:03 AM
139. McCaughey? I haven't anything by this person.

"Therefore, are you stating that bioethics should not be a concern of the President?"

Yes.

Posted by: Gary on August 11, 2009 10:09 AM
140. Gary,
Here is an editorial by Ezekiel Emmanuel regarding doctor assisted suicide in the Netherlands. In it, his conclusion (opinion) is that legalisation is a diversion from improving care for the dying.

Here is published research by Emmanuel studying the subject throughout history. Again, there is no statement where Emmanuel promotes the idea for euthenasia. Like most "scholarly" research it simple states the findings, and each side of the debate. His conclusion is that the arguments (for/against) today match those in history's past.

I disagree with you on Bioethics should not be a concern. It is a valid issue. Oregon and WA have passed doctor assisted suicide laws. The issue of abortions includes bioethics issues. The issue of what constitutes "essential" health care (basic human value) is a bioethics issue. The issue of stem cell research includes bioethics related issues. In fact, most medical research and pharmaceutical research involves bioethics related issues. How can you say the President should not be advised on Bioethics?

Posted by: tc on August 11, 2009 10:25 AM
141. Here is Ezekiel Emanuel's original write (full context) that Gary referenced @133. Gary's quote is a section of the second to last paragraph (p 13-14 of the excerpt).

Posted by: tc on August 11, 2009 10:38 AM
142. Here's another one:

"Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects.... Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments.... It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does."

-

Posted by: Gary on August 11, 2009 10:41 AM
143. #140

"Oregon and WA have passed doctor assisted suicide laws."

And...

"How can you say the President should not be advised on Bioethics? "

See above. Oregon and Washington have the Constitutional basis for this kind of thing, because it is not prohibited by the Constitution.

The Executive Branch does not. This entire thing should not be a federal issue to begin with. We have states for a reason.

Posted by: Gary on August 11, 2009 10:56 AM
144. TC: NO ONE, not even Ezekiel, has the right to put a value on anyone's life. Period. That's what we are mainly bothered about, the possibility of a panel of bureaucrats deciding who is more valuable, who gets treatment, who gets to live. And if they decide someone doesn't have enough value to live, how will that decision be implemented? Progressives have already decided that unborn children do not have enough value to be protected, so who's next?

Posted by: katomar on August 11, 2009 11:06 AM
145. Exactly katomar. It's why Obama suggests that maybe, for a 100 year-old person, painkillers are better than pacemakers. Because, as the brother of his Chief of Staff suggests, your value is greatly dependent on your age, and we need to decide how to use scarce resources.

Who the hell is the President to make that judgment?

Oregon is suggesting assisted suicide for the elderly woman with cancer instead of treatment, because she's old. They would not advice assisted suicide for a 40 year-old with the same cancer.

I think the people are figuring all of this out.


Posted by: Gary on August 11, 2009 11:16 AM
146. Here is an interview with Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) who is responsible for the section of health care reform relating to end-of-life discussions.

Posted by: tc on August 11, 2009 11:16 AM
147. tc, we are on different planets. Why is there a bill that talks about end-of-life decisions, ever?

Not their business.

Posted by: Gary on August 11, 2009 11:18 AM
148. Katomar @144 and Gary @145
1. The only people talking about putting a value on a person's life and "death panels" is the lunatic right. Yes, I include Palin in this characterization regarding this subject. This is a complete bogus rumor that keeps getting perpetuated by the Limbaughs and Becks of the world that has no basis in fact. It all stems back to the McCaughey article I mentioned previously.
2. No where is Ezekiel Emmanuel suggesting such. Did you actually read the links I posted? You will see this. You are making the same fallacy that McCaughey makes, which is not reading the context of what is written. Emmanuel's article where the infamous misquote is taken from by McCaughey, is a discussion on why it is hard to have Health Care reform. When he is discussing the public panels, you need to read the previous paragraph and the beginning of the paragraph that is prior to the quote. He is talking about if we are to have a discussion regarding Health Care and what it covers, then one has to have public discussions on what is essential (as it relates to a base standard) and what isn't. You both are missing this fact. You are disingenious in your responses. On the one hand you state you don't want anyone else deciding your own health care, which means you do decide what is important to you individually. How can you have a discussion about health care as a public policy then and not bring the public into the equation and discuss what is important as a public?
3. The decisions Emmanuel addresses are already being made, but it is by insurance companies and corporations. For example, I am sure both of you don't want public funds to cover abortions, yet private insurers cover it and corporations negotiate it into their contracts. You both, I assume would consider it as not being an essential medical practice. Therefore, you are having a public discussion about what services are essential and what are not. Therefore, you are demonstrating Emmanuel observation (not opinion). Emmanuel was stating an analysis of the situation. It is not meant as a persuasion piece. To know the difference, compare the article in question with his editorial against doctor-assisted suicide (another link I posted).

Posted by: tc on August 11, 2009 11:31 AM
149. Gary @147
The bill talks about Medicare covering such conversations as a reimbursable expense. The conversations may or may not happen today. Typically, where they do happen, the doctor eats the cost.

Remember, we are not talking about ending a life. The bill addresses doctors discussing what the patient's preference is regarding end-of-life decisions (e.g., living wills). Read the Boston Globe article I linked to. You will see that this practice actually saves money and the patients receive better care and care they desire, instead of care they don't want.

What you are arguing by supporting the opposite side is in direct contradiction to your statement of wanting to decide your own care. The purpose of living wills (medical directives) are to provide directions to providers of what your preferences are and not letting the decision up to others. Therefore, by stating you don't want medical directives, you are arguing for doctors to potentially go against your will. For example, I may not want to be recessitated (sp?). Without a medical directive, there is no way for the doctor to know this and there standard practice would be to recessitate.

Therefore, you are saying that I shouldn't be allowed to direct providers on what care I want if I am unable to speak for myself. Talk about intervention in people's life. You sir are doing exactly what you are accusing the other side of.

Posted by: tc on August 11, 2009 11:43 AM
150. For you Ezekiel Emmanual fans:

Zeke Emmanuel-

"This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason."

Zeke again-

"Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

This guy is a monster.

Posted by: Jack on August 11, 2009 12:21 PM
151. tc, someone once said that "Some ideas are so preposterous, only an intellectual would believe them."

You write:

"The decisions Emmanuel addresses are already being made, but it is by insurance companies and corporations."

tc, the 10th Amendment states that those things not given to the government are left to the states and the people. If the decisions are "already being made", then let the people continue to make them please.

Why do you want the *one* federal government making these decisions? That removes all freedom over this issue. What do you do, where do you go, when an issue is taken over by the feds?

Besides Obama's health advisor, Emmanuel, his Science Czar, Holdren, says that babies have the "potential" to become human, but only after proper socializing.

tc, this is sick stuff, and we do not trust these people with our health care.

You give them too much power, tc.


Posted by: Gary on August 11, 2009 12:38 PM
152. So, bascially... the President's health adviser judges the importance of people based on their value to society. The sick, the very young, and the elderly are disposable.

Posted by: Gary on August 11, 2009 01:22 PM
153. "Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason."

So no, it's not just the sick, the very young, and the elderly who are disposable. It is also the developmentally disabled, and profoundly physically handicapped for whom "services" would not be guaranteed. Such a deal. Whoever they deem is not a participating citizen, according to their understanding of participation. This is sick.

Posted by: Katomar on August 11, 2009 03:14 PM
154. TC,

You might have thought you only meant it as a joke, but that one post that you posted (and then after getting justified heat over it denied you posted) shows you are a racist.

Not only a racist but a vile racist.

Posted by: Sean on August 11, 2009 03:54 PM
155. And TC: By the way, nobody here gives a fly's arse whether a person is a R or D. When they're wrong, they're wrong.

Posted by: katomar on August 11, 2009 05:28 PM
156. I just read rons piece and on Fox news heard that infamous remark by John Conyers. It was chilling to say the least. Not only that on fox news there was a petition going around that asked polititicains to who were commited to reading the bill to sign it. there were a small number who signed it at the time.Ps I'm conervative,and i am not racist. my son has a friend, that is both mexican AND black, and i treat him just as nice as any other friend he has.

Posted by: Lauire on August 12, 2009 08:38 AM
157. so who finds it funny, that congressmen and senators, make a bill, that they can't even read!!? i think that those dipsticks that can't read a bill, should i dont know...MAKE IT READABLE?

Posted by: andrew on August 12, 2009 08:45 AM
158. OOps! I misspelled my name on Post#156.

Posted by: Laurie on August 12, 2009 08:49 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?