Conservative media preemptively attack Obama's bipartisan health care summit
Numerous conservative media outlets have criticized President Obama's plan to hold a bipartisan health care summit "to go through systematically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward," by attacking the summit as a "dog and pony" show or a "PR stunt" before the event has even occurred. Additionally, some have urged Republicans not to participate.
Right-wing media criticize Obama's invitation to GOP to discuss health care reform
WSJ: Summit is staged "pseudo-event." A February 9
Wall Street Journal editorial asserted
that the Obama administration's statement that health care reform efforts are "not
starting over" means the summit "is intended to be a pseudo-event
staged to rehabilitate a political agenda that is opposed by well over half the
public." The editorial further stated, "Unless the White House gives
up its most destructive health-care ambitions, the ObamaCare summit will be
pointless and the political choice will be between ObamaCare and nothing."
Fox & Friends'
Carlson: "[T]his is a brilliant PR stunt." From the February 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
CARLSON: This reminds me of when the president invited all those doctors to the White House lawn. Remember they all had on the white jackets, but they were all in favor of his health care reform plan. He did not invite any doctors -- a tremendous majority of the doctors in the U.S. -- who were against the health care reform. So in a way, this is a brilliant PR stunt, as Steve has mentioned.
Fox Nation: "Dog & Pony? Obama Announces Health Care C-SPAN Meeting." From Fox Nation on February 9:
Limbaugh: "[T]his is nothing more than a trap. During the February 8 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbauh stated that "the Republicans have to be very, very careful here because this is nothing more than a trap." Asserting that "[t]his is no time for bipartisanship," Limbaugh added, "This is a setup because Obama wants to be able to blame this on the Republicans when in fact it is his own party that's been saying 'no' to itself."
Fox Nation: "Is Obama's Health Care Meeting a Trap?" On February 9, Fox Nation linked to Limbaugh's commentary:
Malkin: "Obama's Kabuki summit invitation: Just say no." In a
February 8 blog post titled,
"Obama's Kabuki summit invitation: Just say no," Michelle Malkin
wrote, "Unlike the question-time session
with Republicans, the White House political machine will be in full control of
the staging. Republicans should feel zero
obligation to participate in yet another White House health care dog-and-pony
show." Malkin added, "If Obama really wants to learn about GOP health
care reform plans, he can look them up online, where they have been for
months."
Erickson: Summit is "invitation to use a gaggle of
Republicans to rehabilitate our socialist President." RedState
blogger Erick Erickson wrote on February 8 that "[i]f Barack
Obama cannot be genuine and interested in Republican ideas when the cameras are
turned off, there is absolutely no way he can be genuine and sincere with the
cameras turned on." He added, "Unless Barack Obama says they should
scrap the present plans and start over, the GOP should not entertain his
invitation to use a gaggle of Republicans to rehabilitate our socialist
President."
What has happened is that the sleazy tricks of 'scare tactics' did NOT work to STOP HCR to pass by working Politicians (DEMOCRATS), and now those non-working Politicians (Obstructionists i.e. Republicans) need to find some kind of way to be a part of it. Wink, wink. LOL.
Tort reform, for example. And opening insurance trade across state lines. Or creating a high-risk pool for uninsured people, which was John McCain's idea which Obama supported.
There's no denying that Obama has reached out to Republicans. He wants them involved. He wants their ideas in the bill. He wants health care reform to be a bipartisan issue. He's been shot down many, many times.
My breakdown to you: You work numerous hours and months on a project to help the company you work for overall. Your co-workers laugh and smear your efforts as a way to stop your work on the Project. About a year later the project is 95% complete, and you get major kudos from ALOT of employees and outside competitors. Your co-workers hear about your praises and want to work with you, but ONLY if you start ALL over on the Project with their ideas. The CEO calls you and schedule a time for you to present your Project. What, oh what will you do? Now apply this to HCR, LOL.
It is time to start over and approach it on a bi-partisan basis from the start rather than window dress a dem plan with a few of the opposition's ideas as "experiments" as the dem plans calls tort reform.
Because while you technically need 60 senators to pass anything, no 60 people are going to ever agree on everything. So realistically you need, I dunno, 65-70? 65-70 senators to get anything done.
This is government now.
There doesn't need to be a new start to the HC, republicans just need to decide to be a part of the working force in Washington. We had 6 of their 8 years and look where we are. We didn't get here this year. Wake up. The republicans are not going to give this president anything. They are acting like children.
The problem with your analogy is that the majority of the country is not giving "major kudos" or even minor kudos to your project. The majority disagree with the concept. The "co-workers" (Republicans) correctly read the bill(s) as massive government overkill disguised as health care reform.
They proposed a range of options early on but were not invited to participate. The Democratically controlled congress had only to agree among itself and the bill would have passed. Until Scott Brown was elected the Republicans simple had no way at all to stop the bill. If you want to blame someone for failure to pass the legislation look at the Democrats.
And now that it is clear that the process may be dead, NOW the President wants "bi-partisanship", but has made it clear that he wants only to tweak the current legislation that the country has rejected. No, smarshall, it's time to pull to plug and hit the reset button. If Republicans go bi-partison just to give you warm fuzzies, the country would never forgive them.
Why, there is a recent example where the repup co-sponsors of the bipartisan spending commission bill walked away and said NO to their own bill !!
You seem to be confusing bipartisanship with whatever the Republicans want. Elections have consequences. Win a few election cycles and you can go back to making decisions that cripple our economy and ruin our good name around the world. Until then, the adults in this country are going to continue trying to clean up your mess.
Conger said:
That is pure hogwash,many of the things the Republicans wanted are in the Senate bill.
Commonman says:
Every proposal the Republicans made was voted down either in committee or on the floor. The abortion provision was introduced in the house by Stupak, a democrat. Did you see any Republicans invited into the nontransparent negotiations? (you know...the ones President Obama said we would have on CSPAN?)
No? Me neither.
Conger said:
The fact of the matter is that republicans don't want to reform healthcare insurance
Commonman says:
Well, certainly not the way the Democrats are trying to do it. It was like trying to shoot a mosquito with an elephant gun. The majority of the country
saw it that way too.
Conger said:
just look at the proposals by Ryan,Bachmann,Blackburn and others. They want to give Wall St. SS now to play with(what a disasster that would be)by pushing private accounts(talk about something the people are against)and they exposed their hand by proposing to privitize medicare by placing it on the voucher system which ultimately would led to rationing(hyprocrites)as healthcare premium increases outstrip the voucher payments not even taking into account those with pre-existing conditions.
Commonman says:
I didn't see any of that in the Helath Reform bill(s)
Did the Democrats actually let any of those through?
Nah! They wouldn't anyway. So quit your whinin'.
(Oh, and its spelled "privatize".)
Conger said:
So don't give me this bull about republicans being shut-out.
Commonman said:
Show me which republican proposals are in the current moribund legislation languishing in Capitol Hill limbo.
Conger said:
Their whole purpose was to destroy as their present proposals for reform for America show. Privitize Social Security,drop the departments of Energy amd education by privitization along with Medicare.
Commonman says:
Their whole purpose was to do what the majority of Americans expressly wanted. Kill the bill.
Conger said:
Your BS was called out by Obama at your retreat where he kicked your butts on your own turf without writing on his hands or teleprompter and the repulicanism
Commonman says:
Oh right...and I can see that he got such a big lasting bounce in the polls from it. Kind of a blip on the radar screen for two days after the SOTU, and then...whoops gone again.
Conger said:
obstructionism will be exposed again on the 25th because the parts the republicans harp on tort reform
Commonman says:
To quote from http://overlawyered.com/2009/12/tort-reform-section-of-reid-health-bill/
"The “tort reform” section of Senator Reid’s substitute amendment is not merely meaningless, but is actually a significant giveaway to the trial lawyers. It is essentially a 5-year, 50-million dollar grant program to encourage states to develop more plaintiff-friendly alternatives to the current medical liability system."
Conger said:
buying across state lines (is in the Senate Bill)
Commonmans says:
If so, why did Lamar Alexander make this statement on DEC. 24, 2009 two days prior to passage of the Senate bill?
"December 24 2009
-
SRC ChairmanWASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, today issued the following statement on Senate passage of the Reid health care bill:
“The Senate health bill will prove to be an historic mistake if this or anything like it is ultimately signed by the president. Congress set out to reduce health care costs to Americans and Democrats have managed to do the exact opposite. Their written-in-secret bill will increase health insurance premiums, raise taxes, cut Medicare and dump millions of Americans into Medicaid. For Tennessee, Medicaid’s expansion and the bill’s ‘sweetheart deals’ would cost our state more than $750 million over five years when fully implemented, forcing tax increases or damaging higher education—or both.
“Instead, we should start over and move step-by-step to reduce health care costs using the steps that Republicans have repeatedly proposed: let small businesses pool resources for health insurance; ALLOW PURCHASING OF HEALTH INSURANCE ACROSS STATE LINES; end junk lawsuits against doctors; eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse; expand health savings accounts; and promote wellness and prevention.”
Conger said:
no public option (in Senate Version)
Commonman says:
http://gawker.com/5433679/senate-passes-healthcare-reform-bill
"Set up healthcare exchanges — a kind of marketplace for insurance shoppers which feature tax credits — that are the last remnants of a PUBLIC OPTION."
If it walks like and Duck and quacks like a Duck...its probably a Duck.
Conger Said:
reduces the deficit
Commonman says:
You're kidding right? REDUCES THE DEFICIT???!!
Conger said:
no provisions for undocumented workers,
Commonman says: Put there by Democrats to get Blue Dog votes, (You see how that's going for Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln).
Conger said:
no funds for abortion
Commonman says:
ditto the undocumented worker comment.
Conger said:
etc., etc. already in the Senate bill.
Commonman says:
Don't try to pad your comments with "etcs". Give me specific other examples or stop.
Conger said:
I'll conclude by saying that people are upset with the healthcare reform not because it is going to far but that it doesn't go far enough because it doesn't contain a public option,it doesn't protect womens right to choose and it doesn't have provisions for everyone to buy into the system.
Commonman says:
The latest CNN Poll on health reform says that 58% of those surveyed think the current health reform is a bad idea, vs. 38% who like it.
Only 30% of those polled think that congress should pass a bill similar to those currently in the house and Senate. 48% think we should start work on a new bill and 21% think we should stop working on Health care reform altogether. So 69% think that the current Democratic bills are unacceptable.
You can't generalize from such figures that "people are upset" because health care reform "doesn't go far enough" toward the liberal side.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDY3ZjZjNDU1ZTcwNzRhNWFhN2JhZmFkYTI2MWY0OGQ=
"The larger public, I think, is not so tied to either direction, but is opposed to doing anything huge. That’s a big part of what the Democrats have done wrong this year: They have proposed too much. Whichever side is smart enough to propose some modest and sensible incremental steps in its preferred direction will have far better luck with the public. Conservatives would be wise to do so in a serious and concerted way before liberals realize that it’s time to employ some different means toward their same misguided end."
I hope they pay you a lot of money to both sell your soul and act like an ignorant jackass the way you do.
Commonman says:
Every proposal the Republicans made was voted down either in committee or on the floor. The abortion provision was introduced in the house by Stupak, a democrat. Did you see any Republicans invited into the nontransparent negotiations? (you know...the ones President Obama said we would have on CSPAN?)
No? Me neither.
Well you admit that the republicans did have a chance to present their bills. So in effect they weren't shut-out of the process they were just voted down. You see elections do have have consquences. As I understand it Republicans are against abortion,whether it was presented by a democrat or republican a provision was put in the bill that catered to Republicans and went against the wishes of many democrats...a compromise with the republicans but even when something was placed in the bill that republicans agree with they still voted against it. I don't know what you call it but I call it politicking and obstructionism, highlighting my assertion that republicans never intended to negotiate only derail and destroy.
As far as your point about the process not being on C-SPAN, you take a element of the truth and try and expand it to again score a political point. Not surprising but again reflective of the republicans true intent on destroying HCR. Let me try and explain this to you. Over the course of the year the heatlhcare reform process went through many congressional committee hearings of which both parties were present and involved in. You remember the part where you said republican proposals were voted down,well that happened in the committee process and it was open and above board for all to see,where you have a point is in the process after the committee hearings and debate in trying to put the whole bill togehter. It presented a logistics problem because you had a series of meetings going on in both the house and the senate and across the capitol. It presented a difficulty in trying to organize that in one place for all to see,but Obama took responsibility for that and conceded that point, and the HCR summit will be televised on Feb.25th. OK? Hardly the blackout you are alleging. I was more upset that Single payer(not government takeover) or those advocating were never allowed in the discussion, it wasn't even placed on the table to be debated and without question would reduce cost. Let me remind you that this whole HCR process was kicked off by President Obama with a meeting with the Republican leadership in both the house and the senate,you conviently left that out.
Commonman said:
Show me which republican proposals are in the current moribund legislation languishing in Capitol Hill limbo.
Well I have already shown you one by Sen. Stupak(no funds for abortion). Again let me reiterate that bipartisanship is not you accept everything I demand or else . What world do you live in that says the losers dictate what goes down? You lost the last two elections,losing your majority or ability to bully things through. Choice is an integral part of the democratic party platform yet they included a provision that disallowed this choice a concession to republicans yet the republicans wouldn't even agree with that.
I found this odd and contradictory in your post commonman(do you even bother to analyze the comments you paste from?):
Commonman quotes Lamar Alexander:
: let small businesses pool resources for health insurance; ALLOW PURCHASING OF HEALTH INSURANCE ACROSS STATE LINES; end junk lawsuits against doctors; eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse; expand health savings accounts; and promote wellness and prevention.â€
In the above quote Lamar Alexander is calling for letting small businesses pool resources for health insurance. Yet you provide another link arguing with Lamar Alexander calling it a step toward the public option.
Commonman says:
http://gawker.com/5433679/senate-passes-healthcare-reform-bill
"Set up healthcare exchanges — a kind of marketplace for insurance shoppers which feature tax credits — that are the last remnants of a PUBLIC OPTION."
If it walks like and Duck and quacks like a Duck...its probably a Duck.--Commonidiot
You contradict Lamar Alexander and at the same time affirm that the healthcare reform bill does contain a republican idea,pooling resources for small businesses to buy health insurance. Theres 2 republican ideas I've pointed out,this is getting fun,lets proceed.
Congero: I'll take Lamar Aexander on HCR for $100 Alex please.
answer: ALLOW PURCHASING OF HEALTH INSURANCE ACROSS STATE LINES;
Congero: proposal by Rep. Sen. Alexander offered as a means for HCR included in the bill.
3. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR – POLICIES ACROSS STATE LINES: “Interstate competition allowing people to buy insurance across state lines.” [Sen. John Thune (R-SD), 9/8/2009]
HOUSE BILL – POLICIES ACROSS STATE LINES: Allows for the creation of State Health Insurance Compacts – permits states to enter into agreements to allow for the sale of insurance across state lines.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/10/29/top-10-reasons-why-republicans-should-support-the-house-health-bill/
Congero:Eric Cantor on HCR for $500 please Alex.
Asnwer: “Do the American people believe that this almost 2,000 page bill won’t add to the deficit?” [Rep. Eric Cantor, 10/29/2009]
Congero: comment by republican congressman Eric Cantor in demanding that the HCR bill would not increase the deficit.
Truth:The Congressional Budget Office has released its initial estimate of the House GOP’s health care alternative, centered on the near-total deregulation of the health insurance industry.
The good news is that the House GOP bill does reduce the deficit. CBO says adopting their plan would reduce the deficit by $68 billion over ten years relative to current law. The number for the Democratic bill, however, is $104 billion. So in exchange for that lesser deficit reduction, the Republicans must cover more people right? Well, of course not. Instead, under the Boehner Plan the number of people without health insurance will stay steady at 17 percent. The Democratic plan will see that sliced to just four percent.
The CBO also says that for most people the GOP plan won’t lower premiums: “In the large group market, which represents nearly 80 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by zero to 3 percent compared with amounts under current law.” And insofar as their plan does reduce premiums, it’s by making your coverage worse:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/11/cbo-trashes-gop-health-plan-%e2%80%94-less-coverage-expansion-less-deficit-reduction.php
The rest of the answer to what republican ideas have been included in the bill I'll let you read here:
Top 10 Reasons Why Republicans Should Support The House Health Bill
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/10/29/top-10-reasons-why-republicans-should-support-the-house-health-bill/
Sorry folks I didn't intend this to be so lenghty but commomman has to be responded to but I'll draw this to a close.
Commonman says:
I didn't see any of that in the Helath Reform bill(s)
Did the Democrats actually let any of those through?
Nah! They wouldn't anyway. So quit your whinin'.
(Oh, and its spelled "privatize".)
First all before you start correcting my spelling maybe you need to correct your own, "Helath "? I think you mean "health." People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I'am sorry you couldn't see the contradiction in saying you want to reform HCR and the present proposals by the republicans for privitizing and rationing Social Security and Medicare. For those who are not blinded by the right the connection is obvious. You don't really want to reform you want to do away with,thats why in the proposals by Blackburn,Bachmann and Ryan they call for just that. How that flew over your head is beyond me,probably you though it would be a nice opportunity to call me a whiner. Pffffff! Weak. As is the rest of your post. Just mumbo jumbo republican BS talking points.
Commonman says:
The latest CNN Poll on health reform says that 58% of those surveyed think the current health reform is a bad idea, vs. 38% who like it.
Only 30% of those polled think that congress should pass a bill similar to those currently in the house and Senate. 48% think we should start work on a new bill and 21% think we should stop working on Health care reform altogether. So 69% think that the current Democratic bills are unacceptable.
Congero says;
How any of those figures refute what I said about people frustrated and wanting the bills to contain more is beyond me,but newsflash they only confirm what said.
GOVERNMENT HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN LIKE MEDICARE
Now 9/2009 8/2009 7/2009 6/2009
Favor 62% 65% 60% 66% 72%
Oppose 31% 26% 34% 27% 20%
"...In August, 55 percent told the CNN/Opinion Research poll they favored "a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies..."
"...While each pollster asks the question slightly differently, levels of support are now similar. A ABC News/Washington Post poll released today found 57 percent supported the government creating "a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans." That's up from 55 percent in their previous poll last month..."
These figures weretaken from:
Support for Public Options Remains Strong, Polls Show
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/20/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5401123.shtml
In conclusion your killing a mosquito with an elephant gun says it all. You republicans don't see this as a major problem. 50 million ininsured,another 18-20 million under insured,45,000 dying each year(more than the soldiers killed in Afghanistan,both Iraq wars,Grenada,and Panama combined, only outstripped by Viet Nam),personal bankruptcies on the rise with the main reason being medical cost and the majority of that being people who have insurance. Premiums on the rise will exacerbate the problem,and businesses will either pass on the cost to their employees or drop coverage altogehter. HCR is tantamount to speeding up recovery shoring up our economic system,and providing some stability in our citizens lives. Sorry for the long rant.
Ezra Klein: All four "planks" of GOP health care plan are in the Senate bill
Klein: "I don't think it's well understood how many of the GOP's central health-care policy ideas" are in Senate bill. In a February 8 blog post, Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein wrote that the "four planks" on health care laid out on the House Republican Conference's website are all included in the Senate bill, specifically the website's call to "Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines," "Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do," "Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs" and "End junk lawsuits." Klein also wrote that the excise tax included in the Senate bill "does virtually the same thing" as President Bush's 2007 proposal to cap the tax break for employer-sponsored insurance, and that the bill is "a private-market plan" that does not include the public option.
Previous Senate bills included numerous GOP amendments, reflected bipartisan meetings
Senate bills had numerous GOP amendments and reflected bipartisan meetings. According to a HELP Committee document about bipartisan aspects of the health reform bill the committee passed July 15, the final bill included "161 Republican amendments," including "several amendments from Senators [Mike] Enzi [R-WY], [Tom] Coburn [R-OK], [Pat] Roberts [R-KS] and others [that] make certain that nothing in the legislation will allow for rationing of care," and reflected the efforts of "six bipartisan working groups" that "met a combined 72 times" in 2009 as well as "30 bipartisan hearings on health care reform" since 2007, half of which were held in 2009 [HELP Committee document, 7/09]. And according to the Senate Finance Committee's document detailing the amendments to the Chairman's Mark considered, at least 13 amendments sponsored by one or more Republican senators were included in the bill.
The above was taken from a MMFA article on this site.
And, who said that "real" Americans who believed a person who saw Russia from their house had great foreign skills to be VP of the USA were easy targets wrapped in RTPs would be so easy to talk to? Certainly, this is NOT you. LOL.
Your text to link here...
... and they're getting rich on the back of those who listen (effing retards*).
*NOTE: satire
If you're wealthy enough to pay lots in taxes, you have a million times more wealth than Jesus ever imagined having!!! If you and Jesus even had a passing relationship, you wouldn't say anything so stupid.
"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
- Matthew 19:23-24
So, no, Jesus wouldn't whine about a small part of his income being used to care for the poor and underpriviledged.
...And Jesus lived under Roman rule. Jesus paid WAY more of his income to taxes than you ever will. He mentions paying taxes as well. Specifically. Want me to give those verses to you as well?
Here we come Tommy, to take all your hard-earned money and redistribute it to the lazy people and create our socialist paradise.
BWHAAA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!
But if you can't help your fellow man without the government coming in and demanding your generosity, I feel sorry for you. I don't. Most of us don't. We did not need the government to take the money we so generously sent to Haiti, I didn't wait for them to tax it out of me. I gave without their help.
I am sorry you don't feel the same moral obligation.
I stand by what I said, I guess we disagree.
Conservatives, Neo-Conservatives, Libertarians, Right-wingers, and Republicans ALWAYS believe that the side of Government (local and Federal) that's Democrat and Independent is ALWAYS wrong because that party is NOT Republican, or Libertarian. And, this is NOT stupid, LOL.
The government DOES need to step in and help out. We had way too many elderly people living in poverty and near starvation, and so we implemented Social Security retirement benefits. We had too many families left in the lurch by the death or disability of the breadwinner, so the gov't implemented SSI. We needed the rural areas to get electricity, so we started the TVA.
And our nation has agreed with this path to help others. If you're too selfish to help people for whatever reason, go live someplace else. THIS NATION, the richest nation in the world, helps those who need help.
Since you're willing - I could use some insurance coverage, since my employer no longer offers it... where should I have the bill sent?
Silly me, next time I will make that clear in my comments.
For the record - not looking for you to support me, just to help out with insurance, since it's no longer available to me or my dependents...
I am curious - this willingness to help, without government intervention - that's true, but just in theory then?
However, when I see that 45,000 people a year die in my country because they lack insurance and don't have access to affordable care, I think something has to change. And if the change needs to occur on a policy level (which I think it does in this case), then I support it.
Government involvement is not always the answer, in fact it rarely is these days.
I don't want government to be bigger as much as I want government to work better. I can see how that seems naive. But I am young and idealistic.
Not even Obama is advocating that government run health care, just that it use its regulatory authority to clamp down on the unbridled profiteering, price-gouging, and customer-cheating currently engaged in by the for-profit insurance industry. It's not at all beyond the pale of government to establish and enforce laws which keep capitalism regulated--in fact, history has shown that capitalism needs to be regulated in order to survive (FDR and teh Great Depression, anybody?), and well-regulated capitalism tends to be not only more stable, but in the long run more profitable--in a way that does not jeopardize the societies in which it operates. So frankly, I'd say that government involvement--in the form of law and regulation that prevent the health-insurance industry from ripping off and impoverishing society--is absolutely necessary to keep the insurance industry from further damaging American society...
I am open to health care reform, the Senate bill is actually not that bad from what I know of it. So I would support that rather than nothing. We will see.
Why are people who chafe at the prosped of losing freedom to the government blithely indifferent to losing freedom to quasi-governemntal entities like major corporations? Which of those entities do they think they have a better prospect for holding accountable?
Clearly, using health insurance as a profit-making endeavor has failed the American people. Just like the company I work for, and every other company that is publicly traded, it becomes only about the bottom line and beating the fiscal period year over year. That is not evil or immoral, it is amoral. It is simply business.
But business as usual has failed us miserably in healthcare. We still don't generally refuse basic treatment, only we do it at the highest cost possible. This makes no sense from a business perspective. Without some government intervention it has become very clear to anyone looking at it without a bias that it will only get worse. We tried the Republicans' way for 15 years and things got worse.
Obama was elected overwhelmingly on a platform to begin fixing healthcare. There are many on the left who think he is not changing enough quickly enough. There are many on the right who think he is changing everything too quickly. I tend to think this probably means he is doing it about right. I say let the man do what we elected him to do.
Imagine a business that runs on other people's money with tenured employees that can hardly ever be fired and has no competition. How efficient do you expect them to be?
Guess what? It didn't work.
Christ told me as a Christian that I am to honor the laws of the land as long as they do not infringe on God's Law. Christ also told me that taxes are part of the world, not God's kingdom. That has nothing to do with commingling church and state. I don't WANT laws based on the Bible. As a Christian, I'm to do what Christ would do. Christ would willingly obey the laws of the land and pay his taxes unless he felt that those laws were counter to the will of God. I've never seen anything in my Bible that prohibits Christians from paying taxes . . . in fact, in Mark, we're told to pay our taxes.
You don't think it's a little hypocritical, not you, but for some, to slam those of faith who happen to be on the right as wanting to inject their religion into affairs of the state intrusively - yet when it comes to some selective issue, like taxes, they haul out faith and religion to bludgeon those about not wanting to pay them?
Nobody I know is against paying taxes, obviously we need them. What I am against is giving government money to waste when they keep coming back for more and more because they have no accountability for spending somebody elses money.
Paying your taxes has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs. It has to do with obeying the law of the land. There is no Biblical restriction against paying taxes . . . in fact, the hypocritical ones are the ones who claim to be Christians and b*tch and moan about paying taxes all the time.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Two entirely different things.
BTW, the Southern Baptist Faith and Message specifically says that religion and state should be kept separate. When they are commingled, both suffer. I don't share Sarah Palin's bizarre cultish beliefs . . . I don't want hers force on me by the government and I don't want her to have to have mine forced on her. Get ten Christians together, and you will have ten different practices of faith.
Come on Bintx, you are confused or something. I am talking about anyone who introduces religion as some backup for government action and then complains about it when the other side does it.
"I am talking about anyone who introduces religion as some backup for government action and then complains about it when the other side does it."
an example of this statement would be helpful. unless you're just making up statements again.
I said nothing contradictory. Christ told us to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. He's talking about Man's law and God's law . . . two different things.
You act as though you believe that conservatives are the only people who pay taxes in this country. The fact is, that it is everyone's money and many of us have no problem with the Government spending some of that money to help those in need.
You must get paid extra if you derail a thread in multiple ways.
Folks, remember that this topic is about how something that hasn't even happened is being attacked.
And the fact that people follow you off-topic doesn't mean I should stop cautioning them to stop following you off-topic. I wish they'd figure it out on their own, and do it faster. I can't make people act that way, but my advice DOES help them figure it out.
At first I thought you were just an egotistical control freak, now I know you are clearly delusional. LOL!!
righton: nobody cares what you say. no one likes you.
Come on, guys. I have this bit memorized. Try on something new for once. Sheesh.
But I'll admit, I do like you better than the hall monitor.
Get over yourself.
Really, you need to chill. Adults have conversations and they don't always follow your narrow view of what they should and shouldn't include.
And you're wrong with your comment below that everyone who disagrees with me is a troll. That doesn't fit my pattern at all, but you go with that if it makes you happy.
Like I said, others figured out that RightON was just trying to derail the thread, and stopped. You didn't.
Feel free to continue to feed the troll if you want to. It's wrong, but you have free will to make mistakes just like everyone else does.
And I understand that, like many people, when you are wrong, a common reaction to that is to find fault with another person - trying to make yourself into a victim here. That behavior is also wrong, but feel free to indulge yourself if it floats your boat.
But it's not "my narrow view". It's a fact that this discussion is way, way, way off-topic. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. You think it's okay to be way off-topic, and you think it's okay to do that while feeding a troll. I don't. You're entitled to that opinion, just as I am entitled to mine, but you are NOT entitled to claim that the problem here is ME having a too narrow idea of what is on-topic. Discussing what Jesus would have thought about taxes has nothing to do with the topic of this article.
Oh, and I did NOT give you ANY thumbs down before, fool. I have given you a couple now, but none before.
Get this through your thick empty skull. Any discussion that two people, neither of which is you, are having on this website, regardless of content, IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! If you start reading it and you consider it off topic, then just skip right on over it. There is plenty of bandwidth here for as many posts as people can write.
MMfA doesn't need you to monitor anything. My guess would be they think you are as big a joke as the rest of us do.
I got a lecture on un-doing a mistaken thumbs down the other day which I had already done. I'm a grown woman with a pretty decent IQ, I think I can handle myself on the comments section of a blog. I've been doing it for years.
Must be hard looking at yourself in the mirror sometimes, isn't it?
And you're wrong about me having ANY personal animus towards anyone, even a jerk like bintx can be.
But it's clear that YOU do.
You are the troll, DellDolly.
And it's clear that you are the one who calls someone a troll solely because you disagree with that person - that's what you accused ME of, but as we often see, projection rears its ugly head.
I believe in separation of Church and state. The example of paying taxes was to show that Christ's followers must obey both the laws of man, unless they contradict God's law, and the laws of God. Taxation is a law of man and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Christ just used the example when someone came to Him and said, do I pay my taxes. He said yes, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is His. He wasn't advocating or condemning taxes . . . they aren't part of God's law.
I said nothing contradictory. Taxation has nothing to do with Biblical principals . . . Christ just used them as an example of man's law which much be obeyed.
That woman cracks me up.
As for DollySue, she is the self-appointed monitor around here. It makes her feel important, I guess. She deserves the mocking she gets, and she is too simple to realize it. But she entertains and allows me a good laugh.
As you exposed above, it is YOU who calls people trolls solely because you disagree with them.
You need to learn what a troll post is. But you won't. Because that's not part of who you are. Too often you go off half-cocked. You post first, think later on too many occasions.
For example, on that thread that RightON referenced from a few weeks ago. I was saying that you didn't JUST say that something was MERELY one thing - you made a couple of points in your post. He twisted it into me distorting what you said. But I didn't. And when I explained that I hadn't done what he was accusing me of, you didn't read everything, and went off half-cocked, first denying what he was saying, and a short while later agreeing with everything he was saying.
Both of you ended up being wrong then. Him, because of his personal animus. You, because you go off half-cocked. And because you like going off-topic and don't like having it pointed out when you do it.
Too bad, so sad. You get to go off-topic if you want to. I get to tell you it's wrong. You don't like hearing that it's wrong? Too bad, so sad. Don't read it, carp and complain like you do now, or stop following him off-topic. Choose whatever you want. Just like I will choose what I want.
It always baffles me why people like YOU think that YOU should be able to tell ME that you don't like what I post, but I'm not supposed to be able to tell YOU that I don't like what YOU post? Get a clue, doofus.
They don't.
And people like RightON who try to derail topics with off-topic posts are making troll posts. It has nothing to do with me agreeing or disagreeing with their posts. It's dependent ENTIRELY on the fact that they are off-topic and derailing the discussion away from the topic. Like your conversation above did with him.
Figure it out. Think about it. I know you're capable of it, if you can only get your ego out of the way.
How about this, Commonidiot? They vote Democratic because the Democrats tend to want to help them out of poverty instead of giving them a bunch of Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson social darwinist garbage about them being poor because they are sinful and that they should just STFU and go get a job? Now go STFU and kiss Mona Charen's feet for a few hours...
You show me one hospital in America that denies basic health care. Just one. No one is denied anything.
Parents of Five Year Old Sue Insurance Company That Won't Cover Cancer Treatment
Sounds like rationing to me!
http://insurance.blackvoices.com/2010/02/10/parents-five-year-old-sue-insurance-company/?icid=main|htmlws-bv-n|dl6|link4|http%3A%2F%2Finsurance.blackvoices.com%2F2010%2F02%2F10%2Fparents-five-year-old-sue-insurance-company%2F
Then there's this:
“California’s Real Death Panels”–Data Reveals California’s Private Insurers Deny 21% of Claims
AMY GOODMAN: I’m also joined on the telephone by Hilda Sarkisyan. Two years ago, CIGNA denied her seventeen-year-old daughter Nataline’s claim for a liver transplant. Amidst mounting public pressure, CIGNA eventually reversed its position, but by then it was too late and Nataline died. Hilda Sarkisyan joins us now from Los Angeles.
We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Hilda.
HILDA SARKISYAN: Thank you. Good morning.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. You’re dealing with your own health crisis right now, is that right? Your back.
HILDA SARKISYAN: Yes, ma’am. Yes, we are.
AMY GOODMAN: What’s happening?
HILDA SARKISYAN: Well, we miss her. We don’t have our beautiful daughter with us anymore. And CIGNA is doing this every day, every day. And that’s why I’m out there to help other families to stop them. It’s not only CIGNA; it’s all the insurance industry, that they are placing profit before patient, and it’s not right. And they are enforcing the care of people, not their—you know, they should not enforce the care of the people to their deep pockets. It’s all about their pocket, all about the CEO, how much he makes. I miss my daughter. I had a beautiful, perfect daughter. I don’t have her anymore. I don’t.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/9/californias_real_death_panels_data_reveals
Then there is the revelation that Wellpoint one of the nations largest health insurers recorded profits of $2.7 billion, yet it's subsidiary in Calli is raising premiums by 39%. how do they make those profits and pay their CEO's? Well if you guessed by denying care you would be correct.
They know their plans lack substance to match their substance-free party.
Am I the only one who thinks insurance is the problem regardless of whether it is private or public? I could see catastrophic insurance being needed if you get Cancer or some really expensive health problem. However, I hate the fact to get decent prices for medical service I have to have insurance. Want a law to help consumers change that, so I can pay what insurance pays.
Is it not great the government helps me so much by forcing me to buy food that is only grown in my home state. I pay so much less for food because of that. Oh, wait did I mean health insurance? I can't remember since I need food insurance to get a decent price on food in the first place.
Oh wait don’t Americans on average only spend 7% of their income on food, which is the lowest or almost lowest % spent on food compared to the rest of the world. Insurance must work at deceasing cost.
What would Jesus do, I guess he first made sure the government was alright with it before he treated, I mean healed all thous sick people. I could of swore when he healed that guy's deformed hand on the Sabbath he got in trouble for disobeying local medical or where they work laws?
That way the American public can clearly see you for the selfish, partisan, party-first obstructionists we all know you to be.
That way the American public (who is on record as opposing the bill in it's current form) can clearly see you for the arrogant, partisan, shove it down the throats of the "ignorant stupid public who don't know what's good for them" elitists that we all know you to be.
Hey Repulicans - when you get what you've been demanding (however redundant), TAKE IT... take the opportunity to put your two cents in and actually do something resembling your job, for Pete's Sake.
Unless your job description says: "Make it impossible, by any ridiculous means possible, to actually accomplish anything until the Republicans are back in majority."
Hey Democrats-We aren't getting what we demanded. We are getting window dressing. Come to terms with the fact that the majority of Americans find the current legislation totally unacceptable.
If you can show me one piece of the current bill that was put there by a Republican then maybe we can have a discussion about bi-partisanship.
The bill is dead. Live with it. If you want a bill, start over. Throw away what the people have said they don't want and have enough humility to actually ask them for what they really want, then do it.
We'll start with tort reform and interstate buying pools. Both Republican ideas. But since Obama likes them, the RepugnantCons immediately about-faced and decided to not support them. Any more bright comments, Commonidiot?...
I'm not so naive as to think that the bill, as it stands, is perfect... I'm also not so naive as to think that Republican amendments haven't been integrated into the bill in the senate... and I'm not so naive as to think that the bill, as it is, can't be worked on and worked out.
As far as "what the people have said", it depends on who's polls you are watching, doesn't it?
All this is, is Erickson trying to provide the Repugs some cover for not attending the summit. The party is still smarting from getting pwned at the Q & A, and are frankly desperate to find some avenue to avoid the summit while not looking to all the world like they are hiding from Obama
Is Obama playing a bit of a trump card from the Q & A? No doubt, but it does put the Repugs in a bad corner: on its face, if they attend they run the risk of getting pwned again by someone they found far more formidable than they had been led to believe by their right-wing-media friends before the Q & A; if they stay away, they look like they've admitted tey can't compete with him and frankly look like craven cowards.
Their solution? It's actually a common legislative maneuver called the "poison pill," in which someone slips a clearly objectional provision into an otherwise laudable bill in order to kill it. In this case, their poison pill is to demand that Obama essentially kill the whole process before they'll attend. Since Fox News and the entire right-wing media apparatus is certain to take their side on this, it's a low-risk way to weasel out of the summit without appearing to be weasels...
Oh, yeah... having their ideas exposed to the light of the day.