Wash. Times invokes Nazism, publishes Hitler photo while criticizing health-care provisions in stimulus
SUMMARY: A Washington Times editorial -- also published on the paper's website alongside a photo of Adolf Hitler -- compared the "spirit of the partisans of efficiency" who support a provision in the economic recovery bill that would attempt to improve "efficiency" of health-care delivery by providing for electronic medical records to the "Nazi version of efficiency" in which "elderly people with incurable diseases, young children who were critically disabled, and others who were deemed non-productive, were euthanized."
A February 11 Washington Times editorial -- also published on the paper's website alongside a photo of Adolf Hitler -- compared the "spirit of the partisans of efficiency" who support a provision in the economic recovery bill that would attempt to improve "efficiency" of health-care delivery by providing for electronic medical records to the "Nazi version of efficiency" in which "elderly people with incurable diseases, young children who were critically disabled, and others who were deemed non-productive, were euthanized." The Times' comparison was based on a false interpretation of the health-care provisions in the recovery bill, claiming that it provided for the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology to "monitor[] the health care being provided to every American" and that it the bill "appears to institutionalize ... a body free of political influence to make the hard choices regarding how these efficiencies will be realized -- what care will be limited, and who will be denied what services."
In fact, the provision in the House bill regarding the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology does not mandate that the federal government monitor, control, or interfere with doctors' treatment decisions. Instead, the provision addresses establishing "a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information" in order to create "an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014," thereby reducing "health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information" and providing "appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care." The provision also establishes two committees, neither of which is tasked to "make the hard choices" regarding "what care will be limited, and who will be denied what services." Instead, the provision establishes an "HIT Policy Committee" to "make policy recommendations to the National Coordinator relating to the implementation of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure" and an "HIT Standards Committee" to "recommend to the National Coordinator standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for the electronic exchange and use of health information."
A provision in the bill regarding a Comparative Effectiveness Research program similarly does not involve a government body determining "what care will be limited, and who will be denied what services." The House Discussion Draft says of the provision: "By knowing what works best and presenting this information more broadly to patients and healthcare professionals, those items, procedures, and interventions that are most effective to prevent, control, and treat health conditions will be utilized, while those that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed." Similarly, the corresponding section of the bill as passed by the House does not provide that the government can intervene in doctors' treatment decisions.
Media Matters for America has repeatedly rebutted similar false media assertions about the health IT provision based on a distortion of the economic recovery bill that originated in a February 9 Bloomberg "commentary" by former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey, as well as similar misrepresentations regarding the Comparative Effectiveness Research program.
The Times suggested that the "efficiencies" embodied in the bill's provisions are comparable to the "Nazi version of efficiency." The Times asserted that a quote it attributed to "a program instituted in Hitler's Germany called Aktion T-4" is "fully in the spirit of the partisans of efficiency." The quote as the Times provided it read: "It must be made clear to anyone suffering from an incurable disease that the useless dissipation of costly medications drawn from the public store cannot be justified." The Times then explained that, under Aktion T-4, "elderly people with incurable diseases, young children who were critically disabled, and others who were deemed non-productive, were euthanized."
Adjacent to the editorial on its website, the Times posted an "Undated File Photo of Adolf Hitler." From the website as of 3:30 p.m. ET February 12:
The Washington Times' February 11 editorial "Health 'efficiency' can be deadly":
Secreted in the House version of the stimulus bill the President is trying to rush through Congress is the germ of a major overhaul of the American health care system. One provision causing increasing concern is the future role of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, who will be in charge of collecting and monitoring the health care being provided to every American.
Think of it, a centralized, federal database tracking your every visit to a health care provider -- where you went, who you saw, what was diagnosed and what care was provided. Chilling. The immediate concern is privacy -- traditionally these matters are between a doctor and patient, but now the federal bureaucracy will interpose itself into that relationship. The bill contains some boilerplate, assuring everyone that the records will be held in strictest confidence, but given the weakness of database security these days, that can be considered more a hope than a guarantee.
The purpose of the database is to help increase health care "quality, safety and efficiency." The first two goals are commendable, but what does efficiency mean?
The word is omnipresent in that section of the bill, but not defined. For guidance one can consult tax-impaired former HHS nominee Tom Daschle's 2008 book "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis," which seems to have inspired that section of the legislation.
In it he discusses various approaches to reducing the costs of health care, including restricting the types of expensive treatments available to seniors and people with severe maladies. According to Daschle, Americans consume too much expensive health care. Thus one way to drive down costs is to limit the availability of or access to certain costly services. To many this sounds like denying care. But therein lie the efficiencies, making sure that providing health care is tied to a return on investment for society. If it costs too much to treat you, and you are nearing the end of your life anyway, you may have to do with less, or with nothing. You just aren't worth the cost.
Daschle's book recommends, and the bill appears to institutionalize, a body free of political influence to make the hard choices regarding how these efficiencies will be realized -- what care will be limited, and who will be denied what services. Naturally politicians would prefer to stay clear of these critical decisions, but do the American people really want questions this important to be free of oversight?
One would think that the hard questions are the ones most in need of transparency and accountability, and not be buried in bureaucratic secrecy. It brings to mind Hannah Arendt's observation about the banality of evil. What nondescript GS-11 will be cutting care from Aunt Sophie after her sudden relapse before he or she heads to the food court for some stir fry?
There is no telling what metrics will be used to define the efficiencies, but it is clear who will bear the brunt of these decisions. Those suffering the infirmities of age, surely, and also the physically and mentally disabled, whose health costs are great and whose ability to work productively in the future are low. And how will premature babies fare under the utilitarian gaze of Washington's health efficiency experts? Will our severely wounded warriors be forced to forgo treatments and therapies based on their inability to be as productive as they once might have been? And will the love between a parent and child have a column on the health bureaucrats' spreadsheets?
Consider the following statement: "It must be made clear to anyone suffering from an incurable disease that the useless dissipation of costly medications drawn from the public store cannot be justified."
This notion is fully in the spirit of the partisans of efficiency but came from a program instituted in Hitler's Germany called Aktion T-4. Under this program, elderly people with incurable diseases, young children who were critically disabled, and others who were deemed non-productive, were euthanized. This was the Nazi version of efficiency, a pitiless expulsion of the "unproductive" members of society in the most expeditious way possible.
The program was publicly denounced in 1941 by Clemens Galen, the Catholic Bishop of Muenster, who said in a sermon, "Here we are dealing with human beings, with our neighbors, brothers and sisters, the poor and invalids ... unproductive -- perhaps! But have they, therefore, lost the right to live?"
The efficiency-based approach to health care reform is a betrayal of the compact between those who are most capable of work and those who are least capable of defending themselves. And we have come a long way from what was supposed to be a "targeted, timely and temporary" stimulus bill.
Moonies calling Democrats Nazis.
' What does efficiecny mean?' We don't know so let's invoke Hitler!! Holy Ha-zues, if I could crumple up a website and throw it away, the Washing Times would be recylclable.
Seems like the wing-nuts love to reference hitler, irony of ironies....it's just so like them to want another springtime for Hitler.
Here is the Times editorial staff on retreat, figuring out their next column:
Don't be dummy, be a smarty!
Come and join republican party!
i was born in dusseldorf and that is why they call me rolf.
knock, knock.
who's there?
Adolf.
Adolf who?
Adolf ball hit me on the head and thats why I talk this way.
snoops, it's actually
don't be stupid, be a smarty.
That MSM backing the Democrats again. DUH!!! That picture looks like ROVE
This is mild compared to what's coming; the Trogs are just getting warmed up. Wait until a Healthcare bill actually starts to take shape.
OMG!
nerzog,
I'm just now starting a 10 page essay for school on single payer healthcare that we so desperately need in this country... using the corporate owned media's take on it will make for an interesting contrast to the facts/truth about the issue.
As for the WaTimes... isn't this the so-called 'newspaper' that is owned by that wacky Reverend Moon? Or is that the WaPo?
Either way.... only scum sucking pigs like the clown that wrote this editorial can project what they must want for America!
... and I was listening to a Wagner piece as well. Bad timing, bad timing!
I did hear about that version of the healthcare provisions. The person who told me was a dittohead, so I took it at face value. I figured it was a distortion where they were trying to conflate life threatening conditions with non-life threatening conditions. Someone who has a broken fingernail shouldn't have the same priority as someone who is having a heart attack.
Although that wasn't as bad as the next door neighbor who was washing his car with Bill O'Reilly on the radio claiming that people in foreign countries were anti-American because The O'Reilly Factor/The O'Reilly Radio Factor wasn't aired there.
My heart goes out to all those pitiful souls in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, France, and nearly every other democratic industrialized nation in the world...
It's a shame Obama doesn't speak some German. If that were the case, we wouldn't have to worry about Republican obstructionism since half of them would have imploded from the shock.
He could at least don the lederhosen ;)
Too bad he didn't take the oath of office with his hand on a koran.
It was really a Koran. The same one that 'Abu' Lincoln used.
Shows how much history you people know. Obama didn't use a Bible when he was officially sworn in. But, you liberals who are so 'up' on facts already knew that, huh? Too bad you can't even keep facts straight when they concern your new president.
Did you see anyone here post that Obama took the oath of office with his hand on a bible? No, you didn't. But we're not surprised - you're well known for hearing things that were never said.
philib, remember your words here about Obama...SWORN IN...Here is a fact we can all agree on----Obama is the President of the United States of America. Get the F used to it.
Ooooo I'm scared I have no problem with Obama. I hope he does a good job. Lord knows we need a good president right now. I hope Obama's him. Either way, you trolls will still be around whining about something.
ok i got one for you too.......during the official swearing in john roberts screwed up the oath.
Uhhh, during the "official" swearing in, there was no screw up. It happened during the first one, on inauguation day. The "official" oath was administered the next day. Recheck your history and this time put the bong down.
So who was President between noon on January 20th and the second reciting of the oath the next day? WPE Bush? Nope, his term ended at noon on the 20th by Constitutional requirement. Were we without a President? Nope, that's not allowed by the Constitution.
What about the Presidents in the past who didn't recite the oath "as written" (still waiting for the law you claimed required that) and never performed a redo? Are you claiming they never took an "official" oath of office? Were they never actually President?
There is no legal basis for the nonsense you've been spewing all weekend.
there is a concerted effort by some media outlets to scare american citizens and convince them we are a socialist country. I think it is time to shut down these clowns by not buying the paper or any items they peddle.
My wife lived in Germany for 15 years, from 1979-1994. Your gonna tell me It's not socialist? Go ahead, make my day.
What the heck are you talking about ?
They should've put something about preventing abuse in there. That might satisfy the Reps. Except the ones trying to obtain perscriptions illegally. Or who don't want anyone to know about their 16 baby sitters abortion. Or the gerbil.
"Ist Verdammit Kublevagon!
Ist Round!
Uund Svwell Pizza!"*
FST*
Does Godwin's Law apply here?
eugenics actually began in the u.s.
Good god man, don't give them actual facts. It gets in the way of the kum-baya moment!
I apologize. You are right. No need to let the light of truth shine in. It only spoils the moment.
lets get on board with euthenasia for righties. I think I can get a great deal on blindfolds and ropes in large quantities. Retroactive birth control is too far off in the future.
Nice. A good lynching is right up your alley, yours and that liberal stalwart and friend to all democrats, Sen. Byrd. Gonna get your hood and cape pressed for the weekend? Extra starch will keep it from comin' off during the ceremony. I wonder how brother Obama would feel about your post? I guess your hatred is justified.
I think we have our first volunteer for euthanasia.
right wingers have no sense of humor. I do not take right wingers seriously at all yet when I am OBVIOUSLY kidding around a rightie thinks I am serious. On second thought, euthenasia is probably the only answer for progress. I will start looking into those quantity discounts.
I've got a great sense of humor but you must realize that lynching references tend to cross the line just a tad, kidding or not. I realize you were probably joking but I get reamed all the time around here if I make an off-color remark.
Yeah, but they also gave us all of that nice assembly line corporatism stuff.
To attack Obama's New Deal, Beck invokes Henry Ford -- the Nazis' friend
http://crooksandliars.com/node/25950
You must be a history major. I always thought the Moor's invasion of Europe was before the Anglo's "genocide" of native Americans. Besides, you've got Tbone covering your backside.
eugenics actually began in the u.s. - fmbanker87
From the information I've seen, the principles of eugenics dates back as far as Plato and the practice of it goes at least back to ancient Rome. It likely was practiced in more primitive societies where there simply aren't records of it.
I guess you're wrong. Again.
God forbid that we have health care for everyone!?!? I mean, really? Seriously? This is a Nazi thing? That we want to care for ALL of our people? This is freakin' ridiculous. But then again, it's almost 10PM EST, and I've been drinking since 5PM.
And here I thought I had the record...
How are ya doing? Hope you don't let the state of affairs get you down.
i've been drinking since last october when the dow dropped a thousand and some of my portfolios dropped 80%. no reason to stop now.
alcohol is a great spot remover. it will also remove the other 20% of your portfolio, your furniture, home accessories, cars, houses, wives, kids and your ability to think and breathe. VOTE LIBERTARIAN. Oops, That is from another poster. Smoke pot instead.
Wall streets reaction to G.W.'s departure!
And they say brain cells die when exposed to alcohol. Do you know David Crosby? He could show you and all of your liberal friends how to cut in line for that liver you'll need instead of giving it to that 9 year old that was exposed to hepatitis c during a routine government sponsored checkup. Ah, the Hillarycare in action. Won't it be great. No more worrying about getting to age 60 anymore. Social security will be saved after all. Can you imagine, that kid next door you said wouldn't amount to anything will attend D.C. University Medical school for 6 months to become janitor/M.D. Granada will become the new center for graduate studies with state of the art facilities not far away in Cuba. I'll be able to send my grandkids to medical school for practically nothing. Thank you Obama. Thank you Nancy. Thank you "Nancy".
what are you talking about
He's just trolling, I mean looking for a fight.
Sigtek, another day. You'll have plenty of time to bitch about National Health Care all the way up to the day it is passed and everyday after that. But for now, keep thinking about this Stimulus bill which was passed around 10:35pm. That should keep your mind filled with glee for a while. Rush wants it and everything associated with it to fail so he can be right. I don't blame him for wanting to be right about something. He is always wrong or switching sides.
HealthCare Moaning 101 will commence in 10 days. Until then Happy Stimulus Day. And if you or your place or business or state is offered any of the money, be first in line to say "Hell no, don't want your dough" as alway good Repugs should.
Trolling? It looks to me like he is the ONLY one talking about the topic. Which is obviously a real concern, because mmfa is denying it's possibility. Everyone knows how mmfa lies and distorts truth to meet the needs of it's legion of lemmings.
Why won't someone address this statement by mmfa: "By knowing what works best and presenting this information more broadly to patients and healthcare professionals, those items, procedures, and interventions that are most effective to prevent, control, and treat health conditions will be utilized, while those that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed."
Someone, anyone... explain why "more expensive" treatments "will no longer be prescribed"? What happened to your arguements that the individual still will have the choice of treatments? Oh, wait, they still have the choice: yes/no. Only the choice will be the doctor's choice, not the patient's choice. And you people support a program like that?
You are on the money my friend. My wife an I have done an informal survey and have found that indeed everyone knows that mmfa lies and distorts the truth, so that settles that question.
What really aggravates good Americans like you and I is that mmfa has the audacity to print verbatim what people actually say and then take it a step further by putting it in context. I mean, what kind of unAmerican crap is that!?
Anyway have you read Mein Kampf? There is a wonderful chapter on health care, complete with schematics and pictures.
Is that the book by Clinton? 'My Life' ... 'Mein Kampf' ?
Very interesting coralation. The egos were identical. Hitler's for domination of the free world and Clinton's for domination of "free" women.
That would be "correlation" and what's the problem; sounds like perhaps an envy issue but please, let's not get descriptive.
Anyway my theory is that Clinton is responsible for everything. You with me here?
I love the spellcheckers. Did you notice the punctuation errors in your response to philib? My wife speaks fluent German as well as 6 other languages. While the literal meaning is struggle, in context as well as casual Deutch, it means "life".
Hey Sparky, I know what you mean. I love vapid conversation as much as you love spellcheckers.
But I think I must apologize for being literal; it's something I regret.
PS - my great uncle on my fathers side speaks Manderin Chinese and 14 other languages and evena little sign language - kind of an interesting coralashun don't you think?
Thanks for keeping it in context with the German language. Duh! I need to re-read all of these posts to see which one was referencing Mandarin Chinese. Oh wait, they weren't, you were just f#rting in the wind. Care to talk about wax paper or the proper spark gap on a '62 Buick?
Yes a good fart in the wind is cathartic if not a little smelly. Listen, I'm clearly out-gunned by by your erudite logic and grasp of complex ideas. I simply can't match you wit for wit and therefore I yield to your overpowering intellect. Your fascinating and brilliant "context" argument opened my eyes to something I had not considered. Conservatives, I mean smart conservatives such as yourself are really hard to find.
This "conversation" has been nothing short of scintilating. Thank you and good luck.
PS - I don't like to re-read either. Makes me a tad irritable if you know what I mean.
I'm not envious of Hitler. And the other guy, Clinton, is only responsible for his own rather questionable morals. I'm wit ya!
Only you would know how in God's name you managed to bring Clinton into this but just between us...Mein Kampf=My Struggle in English (but that may be the problem).
Anyway, I'm with you here as well. How in the name of everything American can we (the "real Americans) stand eight horrible years of peace and prosperity?
China is peaceful and prosperous. Is that the system you want America to use?
Trolling is the liberal term for " a contrary opinion". It's like using the N word when referring to an African-American. Cut 'em off at the knees and avoid any meaningful dialogue.
You seem to be confused. Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
The liberal term. I thought you might have seen that word I inserted between the and term so I emboldened it this time, Mr. Magoo.
I posted the link to the liberal term. Are you having problems with the link? I'll post it again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
If you're using wikipedia as a source, God help ya. You do know that wikipedia is a dynamic document that can be flagged, diminished, augmented or altered at any time by anyone accessing it so why would I be surprised to see a specific term coined by liberals on wikipedia? BTW, I did not link to it. I've got better sources. If you've got faith in wikipedia, type in mammary sex @ wikipedia and then tell me it's a reputable source. Remember, turn the volume up loud when you do!
I provided you the liberal definition of a troll, what's the conservative definition?
I live in Vegas and Obama recently told Americans "not to go to Vegas"! Our Mayor, Oscar Goodman demanded a retraction but got none and our spineless senator, Nancy Reid, backed Obama! Sen. Reid's politics come before the state he represents. Vegas depends on tourists for conventions and gaming. Shame on Obama for urging Americans to avoid this town. Is this his idea of stimulus?
You are misquoting what was said.Obama said that companies taking bail out money should not be sponsoring corporate junkets to Las Vegas.The issue was how these companies used taxpayer money..The mayor of Las Vegas overreacted.It would have been beter(politically safer) to not use a specific destination in the criticism ..although Vegas is where they had planned to go and spend your tax dollars!!!!
A corporate junket includes beneficial conventions that can improve a company's bottom line. Just because a corporate junket is planned in Vegas does not automatically mean it is frivilous, as Obama indicated. It was very irresponsible to single out Vegas and Mayor Goodman reacted in a way to protect this community. Had dopey Obama said, "bailout money should not be used for expensive, non-business related junkets", no one would have had a problem with that. Obama is irresponsible with his language!
Just because a corporate junket is planned in Vegas does not automatically mean it is frivilous
Not like there's gambling and strippers all over the place in Vegas.
Ah, the dufus mentality that all of Las Vegas is one big casino and strip bar! We have no schools or churches. No housing communities or concerned citizenry. One big neon jungle with nothing but boobs 'n booze. Gotta go, my neighbor is gonna give me a lap dance while my other neighbor makes me a cocktail. Watta place.
Yes, people fly to Vegas to go to church.
As a matter of fact they do, brab. I'm glad you brought it up 'cuz it looks like you know as much about Vegas as foghorn. Vegas has the largest non-denominational church in the country at which many people from all over the world come to worship, including our friends from Orange County Chopper.
I thought we were talking about business trips.
Nobody was claiming that Vegas is only casinos and strip clubs. The point would seem to be that if people are going purely for business, they can go to any major city. Also bear in mind that since people have given so much money to these businesses, the very appearance of their actions is something that they should be considering very carefully.
There are several good reasons Vegas is a business/convention mecca and gambling/ entertainment is lower on the list. Vegas has an international airport, tens of thousands of rooms available 24/7, millions of sqare feet for conventions of all types, thousands of restaraunts and basically a community that supports that environment. Few major cities in America boast those accomodations.
Again, I'm familiar with the city. Isn't a junket different from a convention, though? This isn't anything on the same scale. Wells Fargo was going to send people to the Wynn. Come on, now. That's luxury where any number of other less expensive hotels would do. It certainly doesn't come off as acting responsibility with taxpayer bailout money.
Dumbama singled out Vegas as a place where taxpayer money, provided as bailout, should not be spent. In the same week, he went to Elkhart Indiana to show his support for the unemployed, specifically those laid off from a recreational vehicle and motorhome industry! Dumbama lends presidential support for an industry that caters to the wealthy and gas guzzling vehicles that destroy our environment. What would Al Gore say? Ooops, nevermind, Al owns many environment destroyers. I keep forgetting.
And then they pray for triple sevens, 36 black, a few 21's, and an affordable "date".
36 black would be a bad bet (it's red). It's a sucker game anyway, by and large.
But yes, the idea that businesses are taking trips to Vegas because of some church they have is pretty hard to believe.
And what do you tell your wife when you go to Vegas; "honey I'm going to Vegas to watch the 8oo8's and gamble"? I don't think that would work too well. In other words, one excuse is as good as another to go to Vegas. I'm sure your excuse is just as unbelievable.
Since I met my wife I've been there once, and it was with her. I don't like to gamble much anyway, my experience on the house side of the table has been quite influential that way.
"House side"? I take it you've heard all the exuses. Why is a 'church meeting' less believable than any other excuse you've heard?
I'm not sure what you think you're driving at. The point is that businesses aren't choosing to take junkets to Vegas because they have a big church.
Thanks for ignoring the question.
I was gonna suggest you and foghorn visit Vegas but Barack Dumbama might find out and then you'd lose all standing in the liberal community 'cuz liberals hate stuff like totally nude strip clubs, late night clubs with the finest entertainment, brothels a hop-skip-and-a-jump away in Pahrump, some of the finest restaraunts in the world and world class gambling. :)
I got my live-table blackjack training at the Monte Carlo. I'm familiar with the city.
Ding, conversation ender!!!!!
Have these businesses ever heard of conference rooms? I suggest that everyone go to Vegas just not on my dime. Do I get an award from the Mayor of Vegas?
You don't get an award 'cuz you didn't do anything to get one but you might get a free buffet.
And they say brain cells die when exposed to alcohol.
Yes, that's explains why dubyah was a complete and utter failure....he was brain dead for the last 8 years.
Thanks for your input, harley. I'ts always refreshing to hear from you. Your dislike for dubyah reminds me of mine for Obama. And so soon after his inaguration.
Bush earned his emnity. Obama merely had to have a "D" after his name to spark your hatred.
some of that might be because of pigmentation. The hate on the right is for the same reason Hitler hated Jews and Russians.
That's really grasping. Projection? Could be I'm an African-American myself! Obama's pigmentation has nothing to do with my dislike for his policies. He's a liberal.
This is the most dishonest way to warn people about "socialized medicine" I've ever seen.
Dishonost? What's the average lifspan for a Cuban, what with "free" medical care and everything? They solved the problem of social security in Cuba. There is none!
Cubans/Americans. Apples/Oranges. Try again.
Pay attention foghorn. The Cuban socialist government is your hero's (Michael Moore) idea of how a government oughta be run and how Dopebama wants to lead this country.
What about other countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland?They have social democratic governments (combination of welfare state and capiatlism), and their average lifespan is just fine.
We have the same thing. Cuba and Venezuela have socialist governments. Chavez, as we speak, has a referendum to allow him to be president for life. The Castros have been dictating for over 50 years. Now, what's the average lifespan of your typical Cuban or Venezuelan?
You were drawing a correlation between a countrie's average life expectancy and the type of healthcare system they have. I was countering the point by showing that there are other nations besides Cuba and Venezuala who have socialized medicine but have comparatively high life expectancy. According to the CIA world factbook (2008 estimates), Demark is ranked just below the U.S. while every other country I listed, including others like Canada and France, are above the U.S.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
Do You people really think Governmnet socialized heath care is the way to go? You have been saying that Government got us into this mess. Well, I'll give you that part upto 50%. The otther 50% belongs to the Greed of The People.
You blame Government for everything gone4 wrong, yet your willing to faithfully let Government provide your health care???
What will happen to the jobs of those that sell health care policies? Do you really think the quality of your health care will improve? You allready know Government can't do anything right and your ready and willing to let them keep you healthy? This will turn into price controlls on medical professionals pay and medication, thus diminishing ambition in all sectors of the medical field. Not to mention the long lines at the facilities created by the hypochondriacs for stupid stuff.
I once scratched my right eye and went to the doctor, I had to pay (no big deal) as I can't get insurance, He spent 30 miinutes looking into my left eye and determined that nothing was wrong and wanted to do another procedure. I asked him to look into my right eye, The one that was causing me problems. And low and behold he found the scratch on the surface, prescribed me some eye drops and sent me on my way.
My point with the above is: I don't trust the private sector doctors now, and definitely wont when Government takes over. I watched my great grand father in Canada suffer with parkisons disease. He had to travel to the US to get good medical care. Note: He served 4 yrs in US Army WW II, worked in US long enough to receive SSI and also worked in Canada long enough to recieve their version of SSI. Health Care was extreamly better in the US.
So when you want to talk Universal health care, I've seen it in so called action. IT is not as good as you think it is.
Instead of whinning, 1) Join the Miltary, serve this Nation, be proud and retire with benifits. 2) Marry someone whom is active or has retired from the Military or a Government job that has benifits. 3) Quit your job and get on the welfare rolls and enjoy or 4) Obtain employment at a place that provides health care.
"Do you really think the quality of your health care will improve?"
Considering I have no health care coverage now, yes. Considering my wife has a pre-existing condition and can't get privately insured because of it, absolutely. Meanwhile, people who are privately insured can keep their insurance.
You let a doctor look at the wrong eye for 30 minutes, instead of telling him to look at the other eye right away? I know you're exaggerating, but it sounds like the problem wasn't entirely on his end.
"Instead of whinning, 1) Join the Miltary, serve this Nation, be proud and retire with benifits. 2) Marry someone whom is active or has retired from the Military or a Government job that has benifits. 3) Quit your job and get on the welfare rolls and enjoy or 4) Obtain employment at a place that provides health care."
1)What if you're too old to join? More obviously, what if you can't join because you have...wait for it...a medical condition? 2)There are some family values for you. Don't worry about whether you really love someone or not, just marry them because they're insured. Happy Valentine's Day! 3)The same person who talks about how the government can't do anything right thinks that people should go into poverty so the government can help them out. 4)With the amount of jobs being cut, outsourced and split into part-time work, how easy do you think it is to get a job with health care?
"Shows how much history you people know. Obama didn't use a Bible when he was officially sworn in. But, you liberals who are so 'up' on facts already knew that, huh? Too bad you can't even keep facts straight when they concern your new president."
That's not actually true. He used the Lincoln Bible when he was officially sworn in. The second time was merely a safety measure so people like you can't claim he's not really the President.
But you're the same person who said Obama messed up instead of Roberts, so this sort of spin is to be expected from the likes of you.
Ahhh, but it is true. The "official" swearing in was the next day. The one on inauguation day is merely for 'show'. Otherwise, it would not have been done again. Actually, it's a safety net so people like you won't complain if Bush had done the same thing.
BTW. Obama DID mess up. So did Roberts. But, I like to blame Obama. Sorry, my facts are factual...which ones are you using, today?
Roberts had one job to do that day, and he screwed it up. That's a fact. President Obama tried to help out the miserable Roberts' mistake. Fact. Don't let reality stand in the way of your stupidity.
We all saw Uh..uh..Obama step on Robert's line first, harley, throwing the whole oath overboard. Duh!
"Someone, anyone... explain why "more expensive" treatments "will no longer be prescribed"? What happened to your arguements that the individual still will have the choice of treatments? Oh, wait, they still have the choice: yes/no. Only the choice will be the doctor's choice, not the patient's choice. And you people support a program like that?"
Why don't you read what you yourself quoted? It talks about effectiveness. Why would a doctor recommend a less effective treatment?
That's right...'why would the doctor prescribe an expensive/less effective treatment'? Maybe because the patient wants to live? If the doctor doesn't feel the person fits the criteria to continue living then the doctor will determin no treatment is warranted. I wonder how many hiv/aids positive people will be getting future treatments under Obama's plan? After all, it's very expensive and very ineffective. How would you feel if Obama's plan stops future treatments for people with aids/hiv? There still is no cure, right? The drugs ARE very expensive, right? That makes treating aids/hiv very questionable under Obama's plan.... unless the person wants to pay for it themselves.
"Maybe because the patient wants to live?"
So if a patient wants to live, we should give them a treatment that is less effective than others?
You've read the program, by now, what do you think it is saying? I think it is saying that when a person becomes old and retires (living off the system) and there are young workers (paying taxes) and some from each group need a limited supply of replacement parts they will give priority to the younger worker when making the availability decisions providing life extending measures.
Do you want grandma to not live any longer because her 'quota' was used up on younger/more productive worker needing the same liver? Are you going to be the one to tell her that she can't get a liver because of Obama's health care stimulus plan?
Why is a decision of this type even IN a "stimulus" package?
Like I said before, you have a perverse way of interpreting things. Post the section of bill where it says to deny anyone care.
Now you're asking questions based on your perverted interpretation.
Anyhow, if my grandmother knew there was limited amount of livers available and a young person needed one, she would gladly give it to them. If you were an older person who needed a liver and you knew a young kid needed it too, wouldn't you give it to the young kid?
"If you were an older person who needed a liver and you knew a young kid needed it too, wouldn't you give it to the young kid?"
Which would explain you lack of concern over this bill. I don't believe your grandma would make that decision. However, if you are her 'power of attorney' YOU will certainly make that decision for her. But, to answer your question...not necessarily. If I feel I have more good time left I would want it. If I knew the younger person, I may let them have it. The POINT is the choice is MY decision, not the government's or yours or some panel of expert's.
All you have done so far is to pull stuff out of your ass. Post the section of the bill where it states that care will be denied to anyone.
Ahhh, so when faced with a question that hits close to home you run away and hide ... NOT answering the question. Typical liberal ... run away while calling the person you run from names. I've posted everything that needs to be posted. All of it from mmfa, if you're to dumb to understand it, then I can't help you and don't want to help you. Let's just hope you're not older than me when we need organs.
Post the section of the bill where it states that care will be denied to anyone.
It's posted in this mmfa article. Read it yourself.
Then it should be easy for you to post it.
Thanks for ignoring the 'Why is it in the stimulus package' question. Does this program stimulate the economy in any way? I thought Obama promised 'no pork' in his presidency. So much for truth from this administration.
Setting up the database will create jobs.
Jobs for computers, not humans. Get a grip on reality. I think that's why half the nation is wary of liberals being in control...because they have an inability of basic thinking.
Who will set up the system? The computer can't do it itself.
Have you taken a look at the approval ratings for Obama, the Democrats in Congress and the republicans? Americans don't like republicans/conservatives.
Please use your liberal thinking process to explain how comparing Obama's first 3 weeks in office as an indicator America loves him? Bush's approval rating after 3 weeks was the same. Let's see if Obama makes it to 93% like Bush's did.
As far as looking at approval ratings; gallup has Americans perseption of our economic outlook as getting worse-78% and getting better-16%. Then shows Americans are dissastified with the 'state of the nation' by 81-15%. Which part are they pleased with democrats/liberals? And the last congress approval rating I could find at gallup.com was Jan 6 when congress was at 74% dissaproval of their work (19% approval). I guess the new congress has no where to go but up. But, I notice (as a typical liberal) you provide your opinion on something but don't bring any evidence to back it up factually. Wheres the numbers you insinuate are so high? In fact American's perception of the "state of the nation" is at 81% dissatisfied (as of Feb 15).
I found numbers that show democrats and republicans are getting the worst numbers they've gotten in years. In fact gallup has "overall tone and level of civility" between dems/repubs as 21% improved and 23% gotten worse. Where's your proof of America NOT liking republicans/conservatives? Don't have any? Typical inability of basic thinking by another liberal!!
http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx
What are the approval ratings for Obama, the Democrats in Congress and the republicans in congress?
Post his approval ratings.
"The "official" swearing in was the next day. The one on inauguation day is merely for 'show'. Otherwise, it would not have been done again. Actually, it's a safety net so people like you won't complain if Bush had done the same thing."
No, the first one wasn't for show. That would mean it was standard practice to have one for show and one as "official". That is not the case. Your last sentence doesn't even make sense. So people won't complain if Bush had done the same thing?
"BTW. Obama DID mess up. So did Roberts. But, I like to blame Obama. Sorry, my facts are factual...which ones are you using, today?"
Right, because Obama somehow made Roberts say the wrong words. Must be his magical mind control abilities.
The first one wasn't for show? Why did they have the second one? Obviously, the second one was the "official" one. To argue anything else would be simply idiotic .... Oh, never mind
Some idiots on the right (Fox News and others) made a big brouhaha out of it so he did it over.
Here, factless wonder, let me help you out...
Our 44th President takes the oath of office. There was a trivial, momentary slip when Chief Justice John Roberts asked Obama to recite the first line of the oath in the incorrect order. Roberts said “execute the office of President to the United States faithfully,” rather than “faithfully execute.” The oath reads: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Obama paused and allowed Roberts to correct himself.
full fact based article here: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/20/obama-oath/
and also on retaking the oath, courtesy of C&L:
This is good. He's anticipating the wingnut line of attack and cutting them off at the pass:
UPDATE: Spoke too soon! Screaming Drudge headline: 'No bible used at Obama re-swear'. FYI, Matt - the Constitution doesn't require one.
There ya go phil, some facually facty facts just brimming with facts for you.
"That's right...'why would the doctor prescribe an expensive/less effective treatment'? Maybe because the patient wants to live? If the doctor doesn't feel the person fits the criteria to continue living then the doctor will determin no treatment is warranted. I wonder how many hiv/aids positive people will be getting future treatments under Obama's plan? After all, it's very expensive and very ineffective. How would you feel if Obama's plan stops future treatments for people with aids/hiv? There still is no cure, right? The drugs ARE very expensive, right? That makes treating aids/hiv very questionable under Obama's plan.... unless the person wants to pay for it themselves."
More effective means more effective. Meaning that's what you would do if you "want to live". No treatment would not be "more expensive".
We're talking about alternatives here, not controlling what does and what does not get treated at all. If there's a more effective and less expensive way of treating AIDS, then that should be the path followed. You seem highly confused.
"If there's a more effective and less expensive way of treating AIDS, then that should be the path followed."
The confusion is on your part: the plan says "while those that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed.".
Let me ask you a couple questions concerning expensive and effective treatments. (I know you'll ignore these questions, but I'll ask anyway just to watch you ignore them). How expensive is treating hiv/aids? How effective is treating hiv/aids? How many current cases are there and how many have been cured of that disease in all of history?
If you choose to answer any of those questions (doubtful), how will hiv/aids treatment fit into Obama's plan to cut out ineffective/expensive treatments?
Why don't you ask Magic Johnson? He's been living with AIDS for about 15 years.
Excellant example. Got another one? Let's see, that's (how many) millions infected...one cured. Maybe a couple more if you can find them. So the odds of recovery are 1:millions. Good odds to keep the expense going, huh? How is that expense/effectiveness theory going to work in Obama's plan with this disease?
In the immortal words of Brabatino...
You seem highly confused.
I take it that means; NO, you don't have another example.
So, would you consider the 'success rate' to 'expense' ratio to be high or low?
We seem to have lost the responses of barbs and fog. Have they slinked back to their nether-regions after being shown facts and truth win over lies and distortions?
Your point was already addressed. You didn't respond to this post (link).
"Your point was already addressed."
That's right...it has been. And I thank you for helping me prove my point.
How did I help you do that, exactly?
He's a psycho.
By failing to provide proof of any other human surviving aids/hiv, except one. That will make aids/hiv treatments unacceptable under Obama's stimulus plan because it is neither effective nor inexpensive.
That's is according to your bizzare mind. If you think that's what the provision does, make sure you have money to pay for the treatment yourself.
"Bizzare" should be "bizarre".
Effectiveness has two components: one being cost and the other being quality adjusted life years (QALY) added. OBVIOUSLY, if a treatment is dominated (cheaper and more QALY) it will not be used. The question of effectiveness ties into how much is one QALY worth. If one treatment may give you 5 years but costs $1,000,000, while another treatment costs $10,000 but only gives 1 extra year, the second treatment is more effective and would be probably chosen by a central controller (the government). But if you were a terminally ill patient, which treatment would you want?
So an extra $950,000 should be spent because a patient wants one treatment instead of five? What is this an argument for?
I never said anything about 5 treatments, so I don't know where you are getting that from. What I'm saying is that the most effective treatment is not always the one that gives the best possible outcome. The treatment that costs a lot more ($1,000,000 vs. $10,000) will give 5x as many years of quality life, but it is considered less effective because it costs a lot more per quality life year added.
And it's not any argument for anything. It just shows that effectiveness is not the only metric that should be used when deciding between different medical treatments.
You don't know where I'm getting "five treatments" from?
"...will give 5x as many years of quality life..."
So you would need five administrations of the other treatment to equal the time provided by the million dollar one.
What I'm not seeing in your scenario is a difference in the effect on the patient. If both treatments are the same as far as that goes, then you have to weigh the best possible outcome ("5x as many years") against the difference of cost. I'd say $950,000 severely outweighs the difference in time. So if I was a terminally ill patient, I would choose the 10K treatment.
Sorry about that: I misunderstood your statement and didn't explain myself completely. Here's an example that explains it better (I think): a patient has terminal lung cancer. Treatment one costs $1,000,000 and will give them 5 more years to live. Treatment 2 costs $10,000, but only gives the patient 1 more year to live. Treatment 2 is much more effective ($10,000 per year vs. $200,000 per year) but takes away 4 years that the patient could have lived. That's why effectiveness is not the only way to approach medicine and why effectiveness' use in medicine scares me to a certain point.
Currently, other countries with nationalized medicine use from $30,000 to close to $100,000 per year of quality life added to determine if a treatment is effective enough to use.
There is a way around this. You can up the $1,000,000 yourself.
That is helpful clarification, thank you. I didn't realize it was a one-time only sort of deal.
Honestly, that standard you cite from other countries doesn't sound particularly unreasonable to me. I know we hate to think about "what a life is worth", but I don't think you can spend extraordinary sums of money to extend the life of someone who is terminally ill. I think private insurers would agree. And for all the people who don't have insurance as it is, it's difficult to complain about such a situation.
But I agree that every situation should be evaluated based on its own factors, which might involve more than one metric.
Agree 100%.
I probably wouldn't get any treatment because I don't think my private insurer is going to cover the cost of $10,000 worth of treatment, let alone $1,000,000.
"The first one wasn't for show? Why did they have the second one? Obviously, the second one was the "official" one. To argue anything else would be simply idiotic .... Oh, never mind"
Because partisan jackasses would otherwise claim that Obama wasn't a legitimate President.
To say that the first one was "for show" is to say that it was never intended to actually mean anything. Good luck with that argument.
And to say the second one wasn't the "official" one is simply living in denial. Good luck with that arguement, too.
How is that anything other than your personal opinion?
If Obama had not done the second oath of office he would still be President. Period. The swearing in he did at noon on January 20th would be official. Whether he did or didn't repeat the oath would be entirely irrelevant.
Exactly. It's as if there was some miswording during a wedding ceremony. Everyone participating is acting in good faith, therefore it's still an official ceremony. Doing it again at City Hall as a precaution doesn't make the first time illegitimate or anything.
I'm still waiting for an explanation of "Actually, it's a safety net so people like you won't complain if Bush had done the same thing." Lack of medication would seem to be the most likely cause.
Unfortunately, you're both wrong. There is a law that says they must say the oath 'as written'. That's why it was done again.
What law says "as written"? More importantly, how would that make the first taking of the oath "for show"?
I'm with Brabantio. I don't believe you can show us a law stating that it must be recited as written. The words Obama recited at the inauguration were a promise to do everything required of him by the Constitution. There was nothing unofficial about it.
Actually, the new president is officially seated in office at 12:01 p.m. on January 20th. Oath or no oath - doesn't matter (except to philib).
There's a good article at wikipedia on that. You may not be totally correct either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States
The 'term of office' started then, but not the actual presidency.
When it happened there were lots of news about it. But, you can find it here: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pioaths.html and here: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/bdsdcc:@field(DOCID+@lit(bdsdccc0801))
If the second one doesn't work, just go to the Constitution, Article II section 1
Article II section 1 does not say "as written".
??? Well, then I'll direct you to the same wiki article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States
Does that change Article II section 1? I don't see anything that asserts an inconsequential mistake invalidates the oath. In fact, if you read your own link, you'll see that there were previous errors which were completely ignored, and yet the validity of those Presidents is not questioned.
"and yet the validity of those Presidents is not questioned."
Well, perhaps they are law breakers just like the sexual predator who was in office 10 years ago. His presidency isn't questioned either.
You're saying that the oath is a qualifying factor. If they broke the law, then they were never president to begin with. Where is this controversy raging on?
"Where is this controversy raging on?"
Apparently, in your mind. I don't think it's controversial. I am fully confident that Obama said the oath as prescribed by law. You're the one questioning facts and telling me they aren't facts.
If it's not controversial, then the oath doesn't have to be read as written. It doesn't have to be done over if there's a minor error. Therefore the original taking of the oath was official.
Right?
You know...I find you think like a liberal.... Let's go through this slowly. You say there is a controversy, not me. You say it's a minor error, not me. The constitution says what needs to be done, not you.
I didn't say there was controversy. I know there isn't, that's the point. There is no controversy over those former presidents because everyone understands that minor errors are not consequential.
"There is a law that says they must say the oath 'as written'. That's why it was done again."
As Bill said, let's see some support for this contention, or admit you were mistaken.
If you can't back up your claim, why don't you just admit it? Why try to cover it with bluff and links that don't actually support you? None of your links to foghornleghorn or me make any mention of any law requiring the oath be recited as written. In fact, if you look at your wikipedia link, it points out that several presidents haven't even recited they oath. They just affirmed it.
The fact is, if Obama had not redone the oath he would still be president and there isn't a legal body in the country that would question that fact. That was the official oath of office.
Oh, I see you guys don't agree with the constitution. That's ok, though. I suspect you'll be in full agreement with the constitution as soon as something happens where you need it. What I hear from you is that the constitution is wrong here, but right in other aspects of law. Hypocrits
It does not say "as written" in the Constitution.
I never said it did. I didn't use quotation marks, I used apostrophe's to show the 'importance' of the word. If you can't read, then there really isn't much more I can do. I've provided the proof, everyone can google their own links, but they all say the same thing....he HAD to do it over. That makes the first one simply ornamental for the occasion.
"There is a law that says they must say the oath 'as written'."
You don't put apostrophes around words to show importance. What you provided was a quote. In what country do they practice what you're talking about?
Besides your bearing of false witness, your own wiki link does not support your contention. Why were errors not corrected for previous presidents? According to you, they had to do it, yet they didn't, and nobody seems to care.
And finally, even if he actually had to do it over, that doesn't change the nature of the first oath. The only way it would be "ornamental" is if it was never intended to be official in the first place, and that is an impossible contention for you to support.
"And finally, even if he actually had to do it over, that doesn't change the nature of the first oath. "
Notice the quotation marks to indicate a 'direct quote'? Thanks for admitting I'm right. I agree that it doesn't change the "nature of the first oath". Notice the quotations used (again) for direct quotes?
Ever notice that apostrophes are also "single quotes", when used as you did? You're not fooling anyone. You don't put "apostrophes" around words, ever. That's not the purpose of an apostrophe. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, you can use italics, bold, capital letters, or underscores/dashes before and after. More obviously, when you say "it says", there has to be something that says it. There's a law which says the oath must be read as written. Even without "apostrophes", it's just plain not true. And why did you not say "I didn't say that" instead of posting a wiki link?
How can you agree it doesn't change the nature of the first oath? You keep saying it was for show because it had to be done over. But if it didn't have to be done over, then it would be "official". That makes zero sense. If the flub changes that, then it's changing the nature of the event.
Did you even read the constitution? Is this what it says?
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Now, explain to me what part of "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following oath" are you ignoring? (I used bold/italics just for you). I probably should have capitalized it for you, also. I posted the wiki link because it proves me right. I posted the link to the constitution because it proves me right. Why are you still argueing over something that is in the constitution?
"How can you agree it doesn't change the nature of the first oath? You keep saying it was for show because it had to be done over."
When it had to be done over, the first one became for show. The constitution explicitely says how the oath must be said. So, when the first one was incorrect, then another (official) one had to be done. If the first one had been correct, there would be no need for a second one. BUT IT WASN'T!! SO THERE WAS A NEED!!
The point, if anything is capable of penetrating your marble cranium, is that it doesn't have to be as written. Minor errors are overlooked if it's clear the participants are acting in good faith. That was the case for Taft, Hoover and LBJ as your wiki link demonstrates. The wording of the Constitution does not support your point. Yes, they have to recite or affirm the oath, but the legitimacy of the office does not rely on absolute precision. Therefore it does not have to be done over.
"So, when the first one was incorrect, then another (official) one had to be done."
Then the nature of the event changed. It was official up until the point at which there was a mistake, and then all of a sudden it was ornamental. That's a change in the nature of the event. Make up your mind.
" Minor errors are overlooked if it's clear the participants are acting in good faith."
Which explains why the constitution says before being president you must say the oath. Then shows how the oath is to be performed. In you opinion mistakes can be made without concern. However, in REALITY the oath had to be done again.
"Then the nature of the event changed."
No, the nature of the event did not change. It was all pomp and circumstance for the entire function. The only 'official' part is the recital of the oath, which was messed up and had to be done again. My mind is made up, but you cannot follow logic and fact and evidence. So, you might want to go watch the Daytona 500, because you aren't very good at argueing for a position where all the evidence points against your OPINION.
"In you opinion mistakes can be made without concern. However, in REALITY the oath had to be done again."
Then why wasn't it done again for Taft, Hoover, or LBJ?
"The only 'official' part is the recital of the oath, which was messed up and had to be done again."
The oath is what I'm talking about. You said yourself it "became" for show. It was official, then it became ornamental. That's a change.
you said the nature of the event changed. Now you say the nature of the oath changed. Make up your liberal mind.
We've been talking about the oath the entire time. "Event" obviously refers to "oath".
There is something wrong with him.
Let's see if you can follow along with this analogy; say you are coming up to a 'stop' sign. Does the law say you 'must' stop or just come close to stopping? Now, suppose you decide to 'coast through' the stop sign and no one saw you do it. Is it legal that you ran the stop sign or is it legal because no one saw you?
I don't expect loonz to attempt to consider that one, he/she isn't that into independant thought. But, barbs has some thought patterns present.
I have no idea what this has to do with anything. There is something seriously wrong with you.
You claimed that there was a law that requires the oath be recited as written. You've been unable to produce that law. You fall back on your own personal interpretation of that part of the Constitution. Your interpretation is in conflict with recorded history relative to the oath of office. History indicates you're wrong, but you're emotionally incapable of ever admitting to an error, regardless of the evidence that piles up against your claims.
Accept reality. If Obama had left his oath of office as he gave it at the inauguration, he would be still be President. The handful of people who would challenge it would be regarded by the vst majority as cranks. And rightfully so.
You've got to be kidding, right? Are you as intellectually advanced as barbs and loonz? Neither of them can figure out that "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:" means before he can execute his duties as president, he shall take the following oath. Any simpleton can understand the meaning, I'm surprised a bunch of liberals can't. No, wait, I see why now
As I said, only a few cranks think that Obama wouldn't be President if he hadn't redone the oath. You must be putting in a bid to be their leader.
The words he said at the inauguration had the exact meaning of the Presidential oath of office. No rational person would have challenged it. Not one. Which explains why you might.
Besides which, foghornleghorn was correct, Obama's term of office began at noon, regardless of any oath, by the terms of the 20th Amendment which supercedes prior requirements. WPE Bush's term ended at noon. There is no period during which the US does not have a President. If Obama died at some point today, Biden would immediately become President even if he didn't recite the oath right away. Our country does not have gaps between Presidential terms.
This is getting redundant. THE term of office began at noon that day, Obama wasn't president yet. You must have reading problems along with intelligence problems, the 20th amendment says that the "term of office" begins at noon, not the presidency. At 12:04 pm, when Roberts started the reading of the oath, he addresses Obama as "Senator Obama". Let's try to use simple logic (which I understand is a stretch for liberals), if Obama was president at noon, why was he called Senator Obama after noon??
Oh, and I like the way you are hoping for the demise of Obama: "If Obama died at some point today". Better hope the CIA doesn't see you hoping that happens.
Wow, you're stupid. Do you honestly contend that from noon until Obama recited the oath of office that we were without a President? The form of address is a formality from custom, not an indication of status. Obama became President at noon by Constitutional requirement, embodied in the 20th Amendment.
I suppose you get your "logic" from the same skill in reading comprehension that turned a hypothetical designed to make a point into a hope that Obama dies. No rational person could ever possibly turn the first into the latter. But I should realize that I'm not dealing with a rational person when I'm dealing with you. Nothing in my words stated or even hinted vaguely at a wish for Obama's death. Your statement is idiotic.
I'll repeat it. If Obama were to die today, Biden would immediately become President. His ascension to that office would not wait for him to take the oath of office. There is no gap between Presidencies, no period when we are without a President. Do you challenge these facts?
I invite you to send this post to the Secret Service and the CIA. I'll bet they hear from crackpots like you all the time.
Show us in the constituional where a Bible is required to assume the presidency in the first place. Good luck with that arguement.
I'm not making that arguement. The Bible isn't required (it wasn't used during the second oath). The oath (as written) IS required, which is why it was done again. Check history, it's happened quite a few times.
But, it was nice to see how you tried to change the subject.
The oath (as written) IS required,
No it's not. Use the google.
don't forget the internets
"Let me ask you a couple questions concerning expensive and effective treatments. (I know you'll ignore these questions, but I'll ask anyway just to watch you ignore them). How expensive is treating hiv/aids? How effective is treating hiv/aids? How many current cases are there and how many have been cured of that disease in all of history?...If you choose to answer any of those questions (doubtful), how will hiv/aids treatment fit into Obama's plan to cut out ineffective/expensive treatments?"
Let's go back to what you posted:
"By knowing what works best and presenting this information more broadly to patients and healthcare professionals, those items, procedures, and interventions that are most effective to prevent, control, and treat health conditions will be utilized, while those that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed."
How does the concept of eliminating treatment fit in with the idea of "what works best" and what is "most effective to prevent control and treat health conditions"?
How expensive and effective AIDS treatments are is irrelevant. What you posted says that such treatment should be maximized for efficiency, not eliminated.
I like how you highlight everything except the key words in the statement: will no longer be prescribed
That is where the eliminating treatment concept fits in. So, you argue cost/effectiveness is valid criteria to judge health care treatment....as long as you don't have aids/hiv, then the cost/effectiveness of treatment is irrelevant. Which treatments are you going to consider relevant? Perhaps the super expensive hiv/aids treatment will be relevant. Perhaps the super ineffective treatment for aids/hiv will be relevant. I didn't think you'd attempt to tackle the tough questions. You only ignored the obvious.
The meaning of that section is completely clear. For most maladies there are multiple options. The goal expressed is that the different methods would be compiled and evaluated relative to each other making the best possible available to the doctors and patients.
The part about "more expensive" doesn't say that any option will be disregarded strictly on the point of expense. The entire section is looking at comparing treatments. It's saying that competing treatments will be compared for effectiveness, to make sure the better method is chose. It's also saying that cost will be looked for treatments of approximately equal effectiveness. The entire section is entirely about comparing treatment options.
It doesn't say anywhere that a treatment would be eliminated just because of expense.
BillJ,
Why bother trying to explain reality to philib? The attempt would be like having a tooth pulled without novocain... and a lot less fun!
I don't like responding to philib because it seems like he has a screw loose. He makes ridiculous arguments, comes to asinine conclusions and asks questions based on his perverse interpretation of things. It’s useless trying to speak to him as though he has sense.
Yeah, like where the program calls treatments that are found to be effective... some will no longer be prescribed. The part some are saying doesn't exsist? Perverse interpretation is certainly a good word to use. How about trying to answer the question instead of whining that you don't like me.
Ooops... "less effective".
thank god for Roe v Wade, and the fact abortions don't kill human beings and babies. I have a new job for you: It is the collection agent for "Save that Sperm" program. They are potential humans after all!
"I have a new job for you: It is the collection agent for "Save that Sperm" program."
Thanks, but I already have a job. But, if you're serious about that job offer, there are plenty of that type of 'collector' in major cities all around the nation (you know, the cities that vote blue each election).
"Yeah, like where the program calls treatments that are found to be [less] effective... some will no longer be prescribed."
Because of treatments that are more effective. Nobody's denying that part exists, it just doesn't mean what you say it does.
If it's your goal to save a patient, why would you prescribe a treatment that is less effective than others?
What do you mean? I'm fascinated with the way your mind works. There's no one on this planet that has a mind like yours. You're special.
"And to say the second one wasn't the "official" one is simply living in denial. Good luck with that arguement, too."
The first one was "official" because all parties were acting in good faith. A following measure of safety does not change that.
You prove yourself wrong with that when you made your first statement: "The second time was merely a safety measure so people like you can't claim he's not really the President.". Obviously (not so obviously to you) that means there is something present to decry the swearing in was not official. If it wasn't needed, then it wouldn't have been done.
No, it simply means that even though rational people understand that he's the President, we have to accept the reality that there are people like you out there who will latch onto anything in order to undermine a Democrat. For evidence, note your "I like to blame Obama" line on this very thread. There is a major difference between something being "for show" and something having a minor flaw which will be dishonesetly exploited by partisan jackasses.
According to the Constitutional, Mr. Obama became the president at noon. But, don't let reality stand in the way of your ignorance.
"I like how you highlight everything except the key words in the statement: will no longer be prescribed...That is where the eliminating treatment concept fits in. So, you argue cost/effectiveness is valid criteria to judge health care treatment....as long as you don't have aids/hiv, then the cost/effectiveness of treatment is irrelevant. Which treatments are you going to consider relevant? Perhaps the super expensive hiv/aids treatment will be relevant. Perhaps the super ineffective treatment for aids/hiv will be relevant. I didn't think you'd attempt to tackle the tough questions. You only ignored the obvious."
"Will no longer be prescribed" is reliant on the highlighted portions. It does not say or imply in any way that any treatments should be eliminated. You are pulling the AIDS argument directly from your nether regions. I addressed your questions by noting their irrelevancy to what you yourself posted.
"I addressed your questions by noting their irrelevancy to what you yourself posted."
You ignored my question because you don't have the intellect to answer it honestly. If you want to allow some ineffective/expensive treatments while not allowing others, just say so. You don't have to be hypocritical in your arguements. Just answer the questions. If you're afraid to announce your opinion, then why are you even here? Trolling??
Nobody's talking about disallowing anything. It's not relevant how much AIDS treatments cost, because nobody's saying there should be no treatments. What does my opinion have to do with the numbers that you can google yourself, if you feel a need to?
"It's not relevant how much AIDS treatments cost, because nobody's saying there should be no treatments."
Have you been a denyer all your life? Mmfa quotes the program as saying it will stop procedures that are less effective and/or more expensive (are you blind too?). How expensive is the aids treatment? How effective is the aids treatment? Will aids be one of the illness's that this program will decide to stop providing the cure for? Is that the decision you want your government to make? Isn't that a private decision... to accept/deny medical procedures depending on potential outcome? Do you want the government to make that decision for you?
No, it says "what works best" and what is "most effective".
Did you read this part of the article: " former HHS nominee Tom Daschle's 2008 book "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis," which seems to have inspired that section of the legislation. In it he discusses various approaches to reducing the costs of health care, including restricting the types of expensive treatments available to seniors and people with severe maladies. According to Daschle, Americans consume too much expensive health care. Thus one way to drive down costs is to limit the availability of or access to certain costly services. To many this sounds like denying care. But therein lie the efficiencies, making sure that providing health care is tied to a return on investment for society. If it costs too much to treat you, and you are nearing the end of your life anyway, you may have to do with less, or with nothing. You just aren't worth the cost. Daschle's book recommends, and the bill appears to institutionalize, a body free of political influence to make the hard choices regarding how these efficiencies will be realized -- what care will be limited, and who will be denied what services."
The problem is that mmfa isn't whining about the story being factual, they're whining because Obama's plan is being compared to nazism.
That is not what your quote is about, though. "Most effective" is simply not compatible with a complete lack of care, period. The part about expensive was sometimes, and didn't say that all treatment would be denied based on that. It's about choosing between multiple options.
Why do you spend your time on him/her? It's pointless because he/she is not all there.
Life is full of challenges. A change of pace is nice now and then.
Yeah loonz, he wants challenging conversation, not the dribble you provide while parroting whatever you are told to recite by mmfa.
Loonz, have you even posted a comment even close to on-topic in the last couple weeks? Troll! No wonder you don't want me posting any more, I question things. Not like you, who does what she/he is told. Too bad your life isn't full of challenges, you only do what you're told to do. Very hum-drum.
Wow! These people must have learned their skills from the history of Nazi Germany! They are so desperate that they are making the world's wildest assertions....HEY, YA'LL LOST! Your lies did not help you before the election and they will not help you NOW! People that keep repeating the same action are deemed INSANE!
He should weigh his words carefully, especially since there's so many folks trying to put food on their families.
Leave it to the news media to divert with this euthanasia nonsense while the effective form of it goes completely without mention.
Autism Speaks has sandbagged healthcare insurance with $50,000 per autistic child therapy--through a state's legislature campaign across the country. The Court of Claims has refused the vaccine injury theory as scientifically untenable.
Nowhere does Autism Speaks investigate the widespread understanding drinking water fluoridation is the prime suspect to the autism pandemic and many other breakdowns in the human body.
So don't give us this bull about hitler, we know the limes rescued him with 7,000 others under assumed identity as prisoners between January to April of 1945 in the Bay of Lubeck, (The Oxford Companion to WWII, Dear and Foot editors, Oxford University Press, 1995; page 262.)
See also: XX--committee and MI-9 same reference.
The British rescue service, MI-9, along with double cross subcommittee XX controlling disinformation wrote them all off as "prisoners put on ships in the Bay of Lubeck (North of Hamburg, Baltic Sea) attacked and sunk by British aircraft" (ibid).
My computer isn't letting me reply, so I'll compress all of Philib's garbage into one post.
"say you are coming up to a 'stop' sign. Does the law say you 'must' stop or just come close to stopping?"
The law says you must stop, because that's a safety risk. There are no dire consequences for, say, reversing a couple of words in an oath. If it's clear that someone intends to follow the spirit of the oath (see your wiki link), then there is no problem.
"Neither of them can figure out that "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:" means before he can execute his duties as president, he shall take the following oath."
Again, nothing says "as written". Tell me why this isn't a controversy for Taft, Hoover or Johnson, who all took flawed oaths and did not retake them. You really need to address that point, especially since it's your own "proof" that brought it up.
"By failing to provide proof of any other human surviving aids/hiv, except one. That will make aids/hiv treatments unacceptable under Obama's stimulus plan because it is neither effective nor inexpensive."
No, because "most effective" and "what is best" are comparative measures. It's a comparison between multiple treatment options. This is basic english, like knowing you don't put apostrophes around words for emphasis.
"Jobs for computers, not humans."
Right, because computers program and enter data into themselves.
"Dumbama singled out Vegas as a place where taxpayer money, provided as bailout, should not be spent."
Because that's where expensive junkets were being planned with bailout money. You are familiar with the prices at the Wynn, aren't you? What great financial return is expected from a luxurious rewards program?
"In the same week, he went to Elkhart Indiana to show his support for the unemployed, specifically those laid off from a recreational vehicle and motorhome industry! Dumbama lends presidential support for an industry that caters to the wealthy and gas guzzling vehicles that destroy our environment. What would Al Gore say? Ooops, nevermind, Al owns many environment destroyers. I keep forgetting."
So you shouldn't show support for the unemployed because they manufactured recreational vehicles? They're still unemployed and in need of help. What the hell is wrong with you?
"What great financial return is expected from a luxurious rewards program?"
Probably more than what is offered in the health care project being defended by you and all other liberals. Why are you supporting one project that doesn't provide stimulus but are against another? Very hypocrital of you! But, that's to be expected considering you are a liberal
"Probably more than what is offered in the health care project being defended by you and all other liberals. Why are you supporting one project that doesn't provide stimulus but are against another? Very hypocrital of you! But, that's to be expected considering you are a liberal"
Yes, I'm sure that alleviating health care costs means nothing to business as compared to giving employees a reward trip to Vegas. Surely those employees will bring in billions of dollars from their renewed motivation.
I'm against junkets on the taxpayer dime because that's not a proper use of taxpayer money. It's great that it might be a drop in the tourism bucket in Vegas, but I think I have my priorities in order.
"Thanks for ignoring the question."
Thanks for ignoring my questions. Do you really think you have a leg to stand on here? If you tell me what your point is, I'll answer, otherwise I have no interest in the relative credibility of various excuses for going to Vegas. It is utterly irrelevant.