PDA

View Full Version : Gov Palin on Osamacare



Bob Gutermuth
08-08-2009, 09:49 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/07/palin-says-obamas-plan-overhaul-health-care-evil/

I wish the GOP had won the election.

Roger Perry
08-08-2009, 10:51 AM
Who cares what citizen Palin has to say. She is an idiot. Go back and watch her interview with Katy Curic.

Bob Gutermuth
08-08-2009, 11:12 AM
IF she gets the nomination she will beat Osama and Clueless Joe like a drum in 2012.

Uncle Bill
08-08-2009, 11:19 AM
Who cares what citizen Palin has to say. She is an idiot. Go back and watch her interview with Katy Curic.

Well,well,well...a perfect illustration of the pot calling the pan black. Anyone that calls Palin an 'idiot', while lauding the pathetic Katy Curic as his ideal, deserves all this administration is foisting on this nation. Fortunately there are many of us that are fighting to save your sorry ass, despite your best efforts to destroy ours.

You and the rest of the socialistic yahoos that voted in this current CF had better decide real soon which side of the aisle to hide on, because when the SHTF, you will be astounded at what you have awakened.

UB

Hoosier
08-08-2009, 11:23 AM
Who cares what citizen Palin has to say. She is an idiot. Go back and watch her interview with Katy Curic.

And Biden is what? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud4n6h7oQdA

Roger Perry
08-08-2009, 11:46 AM
Well,well,well...a perfect illustration of the pot calling the pan black. Anyone that calls Palin an 'idiot', while lauding the pathetic Katy Curic as his ideal, deserves all this administration is foisting on this nation. UB

I was not lauding Katy Curic at all. How about Palin's answer when Charlie Gibson asked her about her credentials on National security she did not even answer his question but went rambling on about oil.

GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

Or when asked if she had ever met a head of state she waltzed around that question also until she was asked a second time.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.
PALIN: Right.
GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.
PALIN: Right, right.
GIBSON: I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
PALIN: I have not

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5782924&page=1

Roger Perry
08-08-2009, 12:11 PM
IF she gets the nomination she will beat Osama and Clueless Joe like a drum in 2012.

If the Republicans are so stupid to have Palin as their candidate in 2012, they will not see the inside of the white house until at least 2016.

Bob Gutermuth
08-08-2009, 01:01 PM
In 2012, the country will be so sick of osama that it won't matter who the GOP nominates. The mantra will be "Anybody but Osama".

dnf777
08-08-2009, 05:15 PM
Well,well,well...a perfect illustration of the pot calling the pan black. Anyone that calls Palin an 'idiot', while lauding the pathetic Katy Curic as his ideal, deserves all this administration is foisting on this nation. Fortunately there are many of us that are fighting to save your sorry ass, despite your best efforts to destroy ours.

You and the rest of the socialistic yahoos that voted in this current CF had better decide real soon which side of the aisle to hide on, because when the SHTF, you will be astounded at what you have awakened.

UB

I'll call them BOTH idiots, and wish they go on a hunting trip with Cheney, far, far away! You Betchya!

Henry V
08-08-2009, 11:17 PM
Palin Bachmann 2012 is alive - Sarah posted Bachmann's utube "speech" on health care on her facebook page. Great stuff.

Buzz
08-08-2009, 11:22 PM
You and the rest of the socialistic yahoos that voted in this current CF had better decide real soon which side of the aisle to hide on, because when the SHTF, you will be astounded at what you have awakened.

UB

That reads an awful lot like a threat of violence to me.

Uncle Bill
08-09-2009, 07:31 PM
That reads an awful lot like a threat of violence to me.


I suspect it would to you, in your current state of mind. But you missed the salient point meant especially for you:

"Fortunately there are many of us that are fighting to save your sorry ass, despite your best efforts to destroy ours."

As you continue to become older and hopefully wiser, Buzz, you'll look back on your liberal/Democrat years as I did..."How could I not see that party moving away from me?" I sincerely hope it won't require this crowd to remove your gun rights before that happens, but at some juncture along the line of more and more of your freedoms becoming legislated away, you will come to that conclusion.

There are very few Sodakers I've met that are into the SFN way of thinking. So I have faith you too will recognize you are being sheared along with the many other sheeple following this disaster in the making. Don't become one of the "frogs-in-the-pot-of hot-water". Get out now, before you are cooked without realizing it.

UB

TXduckdog
08-10-2009, 02:36 PM
I was not lauding Katy Curic at all. How about Palin's answer when Charlie Gibson asked her about her credentials on National security she did not even answer his question but went rambling on about oil.

GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

Or when asked if she had ever met a head of state she waltzed around that question also until she was asked a second time.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.
PALIN: Right.
GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.
PALIN: Right, right.
GIBSON: I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
PALIN: I have not

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5782924&page=1


I am not aware of any governorship that negotiates on the behest of the US for anything. Entertain trade delegations, yes....negotiate, no.

And what pray-tell kind of National Security experience did fricking Obama have? Other than maybe actually being investigated as a hazard.

Henry V
08-10-2009, 03:25 PM
I am not aware of any governorship that negotiates on the behest of the US for anything. Entertain trade delegations, yes....negotiate, no.

And what pray-tell kind of National Security experience did fricking Obama have? Other than maybe actually being investigated as a hazard.
Great answer. Much better than her response.

K G
08-10-2009, 03:49 PM
While I understand the point of Bob's thread, I think Sarah Palin has about as much chance being nominated to the 2012 ticket as John McCain. Her ship has sailed...let's move on.

Anyone who is spending ANY time waxing poetic about the ills of the prior administration and the 2nd place ticket in the last Presidential election had better do some SERIOUS thinking about the future. If BHO's health care bill and his Cap & Trade tax pass, we can kiss this trying-to-recover economy goodbye.

Priorities, folks....priorities....live in the now, not the past....

kg

Gun_Dog2002
08-10-2009, 03:58 PM
And Biden is what? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud4n6h7oQdA

I like this one better.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2zH6YNJs-w


/Paul

road kill
08-10-2009, 04:00 PM
That reads an awful lot like a threat of violence to me.


You better report this to the "FISHY" website right away, Comrade!!

Bob Gutermuth
08-10-2009, 05:54 PM
Thanks a bunch to those who voted for a POTUS who brings out the Thought Police! BIG BROTHER

Buzz
08-10-2009, 10:22 PM
You better report this to the "FISHY" website right away, Comrade!!

Strikes me as strange that anyone who disagrees with you guys is a commie.

road kill
08-11-2009, 06:22 AM
Strikes me as strange that anyone who disagrees with you guys is a commie.

Boy, that went right over your head.
See, the Whitehouse (formerly a symbol of FREEDOM) has established a web-site so that people can report any kind of "FISHY" comments or behavior.
To some that are learned, that is reminescent of totalatarian types of activities such as communist Govt's have done in the past, COMRADE!!

just trying to help!

Buzz
08-11-2009, 09:13 AM
No, I think I went right over your head. I'm not your comrade.

Bob Gutermuth
08-11-2009, 10:15 AM
and Comrade Osama doesn't speak for me.

ducknwork
08-11-2009, 10:52 AM
Who cares what citizen Palin has to say. She is an idiot. Go back and watch her interview with Katy Curic.

I find it humorous that you are calling someone an idiot, yet you can't spell Katie Couric correctly.


Just sayin...
________
Land Cruiser Prado (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_Land_Cruiser_Prado)

Roger Perry
08-12-2009, 08:53 AM
I find it humorous that you are calling someone an idiot, yet you can't spell Katie Couric correctly.


Just sayin...

I never claimed I ever won a spelling bee. Then again I do not watch Katie Couric on the news. I admit, I do not have Palin's foreign policy experience. I have only been to Italy, Greece, Spain, Turkey and Malta. After all she could see Russia from the Alaska shore.

zeus3925
08-12-2009, 11:23 AM
IF she gets the nomination she will beat Osama and Clueless Joe like a drum in 2012.

I see you capitalized that "IF".

dnf777
08-12-2009, 11:34 AM
II have only been to Italy, Greece, Spain, Turkey and Malta. After all she could see Russia from the Alaska shore. [/SIZE]

Yeah Roger, but I see you're from Florida. If Fidel Castro ever invades US airspace, where's he gonna be? Right over top of you, you Betchya! ;-)That qualifies you as a foreign policy expert. I'll bet you can even see Cuba from your back door, huh? Say it ain't so!

Roger Perry
08-12-2009, 02:19 PM
Yeah Roger, but I see you're from Florida. If Fidel Castro ever invades US airspace, where's he gonna be? Right over top of you, you Betchya! ;-)That qualifies you as a foreign policy expert. I'll bet you can even see Cuba from your back door, huh? Say it ain't so!

Actually, I have stepped foot in Cuba. Our ship broke down just off the coast of Havana, we actually saw the lights from Havana when we were dead in the water. Before the Cuban Navy got us, we were towed to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where we were allowed off the ship until it was repaired.

road kill
08-12-2009, 03:24 PM
No, I think I went right over your head. I'm not your comrade.
I know you are not My comrade, you are "the Obama's" comrade!!:D

dnf777
08-12-2009, 09:40 PM
Actually, I have stepped foot in Cuba. Our ship broke down just off the coast of Havana, we actually saw the lights from Havana when we were dead in the water. Before the Cuban Navy got us, we were towed to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where we were allowed off the ship until it was repaired.

I hope you got to grab some cigars!

road kill
08-13-2009, 06:23 AM
I hope you got to grab some cigars!

"Rocky Patel's" here...you??

dnf777
08-13-2009, 10:29 AM
"Rocky Patel's" here...you??

Fuentes Hemingway.

I've had a few exceptional Cubans, and a handful of ones I would happily trade for a Swisher! I'm not good enough to avoid counterfits, which are rampant, I'm sure.

road kill
08-13-2009, 10:55 AM
Fuentes Hemingway.

I've had a few exceptional Cubans, and a handful of ones I would happily trade for a Swisher! I'm not good enough to avoid counterfits, which are rampant, I'm sure.

Last time I went to Mexico I got a box of Monte Cristo #2's.
The absolute finest cigars I ever smoked.

If you want to try something that is always a very good smoke, moderately priced ($5--$12 a stck) try the Rocky Patel line.

Missle, Edge, Battalion and the Nording line.
EXCELLENT smokes.

It would be my pleasure to share one with you at a HT or FT some day!!

stan b

dnf777
08-13-2009, 02:46 PM
Last time I went to Mexico I got a box of Monte Cristo #2's.
The absolute finest cigars I ever smoked.

If you want to try something that is always a very good smoke, moderately priced ($5--$12 a stck) try the Rocky Patel line.

Missle, Edge, Battalion and the Nording line.
EXCELLENT smokes.

It would be my pleasure to share one with you at a HT or FT some day!!

stan b

I will definitely take you up on that, so long as I can bring some of my homemade Irish Stout to share!

Roger Perry
08-15-2009, 09:59 AM
Republicans back away from 'end of life' issue


Looks like Sarah Palin stuck her foot in her mouth once again.

Until last week, Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson was among the most enthusiastic backers of end-of-life counseling in government health care programs like Medicare.
That was before conservatives called it a step toward euthanasia and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin likened the idea to a bureaucratic "death panel" that would decide whether sick people get to live. And even though those claims have been widely discredited, the issue remains a political weapon in the increasingly bitter health care debate.

K G
08-15-2009, 10:11 AM
Can I see a show of hands of how many conservatives of ANY strain give a crap WHAT Sarah Palin says? I mean seriously....:rolleyes:

At least you have a post up that doesn't mention Bush 43 regards,

kg

luvalab
08-15-2009, 10:18 AM
Can I see a show of hands of how many conservatives of ANY strain give a crap WHAT Sarah Palin says? I mean seriously....:rolleyes:

...

kg

Huh. I'd actually be really curious about this.

Uncle Bill
08-15-2009, 10:26 AM
Can I see a show of hands of how many conservatives of ANY strain give a crap WHAT Sarah Palin says? I mean seriously....:rolleyes:

At least you have a post up that doesn't mention Bush 43 regards,

kg


I've got both hands in the air, KG. Unlike you and Franco that don't think we conservatives don't need said what Rush and Sarah Palin are saying, I am in full support of them saying it daily.

The main reason Sarah Palin continues to be bashed by the left is because she HAS the conservative message, and not only expresses it, but lives it, unlike the wishy-washy RINOs that are so adored by the MOR types.

UB

shootncast
08-15-2009, 10:29 AM
Limbaugh/Palin in 2012..(Easy Repubs..your going to stain your undies)

Bob Gutermuth
08-15-2009, 10:48 AM
Rush and Sarah in 12 is OK with me. I would vote for donald duck and howdy doody over Osama and Clueless Joe.

Roger Perry
08-15-2009, 10:56 AM
Rush and Sarah in 12 is OK with me. I would vote for donald duck and howdy doody over Osama and Clueless Joe.

You already did in the last 3 elections. :lol:

Roger Perry
08-15-2009, 10:58 AM
Can I see a show of hands of how many conservatives of ANY strain give a crap WHAT Sarah Palin says? I mean seriously....:rolleyes:

At least you have a post up that doesn't mention Bush 43 regards,

kg

Keith, what were you saying about the captive in Iran?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32425707/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

LOS ANGELES - A graduate student who was imprisoned for a month in Iran and barred from leaving the country for nearly a year has returned to Los Angeles.

dnf777
08-15-2009, 11:51 AM
You already did in the last 3 elections. :lol:

Zzzzzzzzziiiiiinnnggggg! ::monkey:

Bob Gutermuth
08-15-2009, 12:54 PM
SO? Howdie and Donald are more qualifeid to be POTUS than the one in office now.

K G
08-15-2009, 08:57 PM
I've got both hands in the air, KG. Unlike you and Franco that don't think we conservatives don't need said what Rush and Sarah Palin are saying, I am in full support of them saying it daily.

The main reason Sarah Palin continues to be bashed by the left is because she HAS the conservative message, and not only expresses it, but lives it, unlike the wishy-washy RINOs that are so adored by the MOR types.

UB

She quit her job, Bill. She's got the foreign policy knowledge of a rhesus monkey. She wasn't the best VP choice for McCain by any stretch of the imagination. If she wants to keep yammering, that's fine....just as long as she's not trying to pose as a legitimate candidate for office.

And pairing me with Franco from a philosophical standpoint is a stretch as well, unless you think EVERYONE that doesn't swing from the hard right is not a conservative...if that's the case, he and I don't fit the mold.

kg

K G
08-15-2009, 09:02 PM
Keith, what were you saying about the captive in Iran?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32425707/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

LOS ANGELES - A graduate student who was imprisoned for a month in Iran and barred from leaving the country for nearly a year has returned to Los Angeles.

THIS is what I was talking about, Roger....quite a difference....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090801/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_missing_americans

Sure haven't heard much about efforts to secure THEIR release, have we...:rolleyes:

kg

dnf777
08-15-2009, 09:32 PM
And pairing me with Franco from a philosophical standpoint is a stretch as well, unless you think EVERYONE that doesn't swing from the hard right is not a conservative...if that's the case, he and I don't fit the mold.

kg

That's the reason the republican party is imploding upon itself. It has let the extremes take over, slowly excluding everyone but the Hannitys and Rushes and Coulters. The Dems, although it makes them look disorganized, welcome a far more diverse group under it's banner.

K G
08-15-2009, 09:46 PM
That's the reason the republican party is imploding upon itself. It has let the extremes take over, slowly excluding everyone but the Hannitys and Rushes and Coulters. The Dems, although it makes them look disorganized, welcome a far more diverse group under it's banner.

If you call a "diverse group" the folks who voted AGAINST the Republican ticket rather than FOR BHO because they wanted "change" (which we are ALL getting an INSANELY "liberal" dose of), then I truly hope the Democrats rely on that "disorganized" group from here on out to keep the majority of Congress. By the time 2012 rolls around, the need for "CHANGE" will be obvious to everyone except those with their hands out.

CHANGE starts in 2010 regards, ;-)

kg

dnf777
08-15-2009, 09:53 PM
If you call a "diverse group" the folks who voted AGAINST the Republican ticket rather than FOR BHO because they wanted "change" (which we are ALL getting an INSANELY "liberal" dose of), then I truly hope the Democrats rely on that "disorganized" group from here on out to keep the majority of Congress. By the time 2012 rolls around, the need for "CHANGE" will be obvious to everyone except those with their hands out.

CHANGE starts in 2010 regards, ;-)

kg

Sure they're disorganized. Got the whitehouse and supermajorities in both houses of congress, and still can't pass legislation?? That's a definition of disorganized, if you ask me. And it wasn't just dems who elected Obama, don't forget that. It was 64% of Americans who were sick of seeing failed policies crammed down our throats by circumventing Consititutional process. Signing statements, recess appointments, convenient interpretations of laws, defying the will of Congress....enough is enough. Unfortunately, looks like we're in for more of the same.

I bet you're right....dems will likely lose supermajority in 2010. Doubt it will make any difference though.

Not blindly following Messiah regards,
Dave

Hew
08-16-2009, 05:17 AM
Looks like Sarah Palin stuck her foot in her mouth once again.

Until last week, Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson was among the most enthusiastic backers of end-of-life counseling in government health care programs like Medicare.
That was before conservatives called it a step toward euthanasia and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin likened the idea to a bureaucratic "death panel" that would decide whether sick people get to live. And even though those claims have been widely discredited, the issue remains a political weapon in the increasingly bitter health care debate.
Put her foot in her mouth???

She was a one woman gang who eviscerated a creepy, Orwellian aspect of ObamaCare to the extent that the Senate struck it from their version. Hopefully she'll "put her foot in her mouth" on other aspects of this liberal-concocted power grab.

FYI....1-800-CoastGuard is the number you're supposed to call when you find bales washed up on shore.

road kill
08-16-2009, 08:11 AM
Put her foot in her mouth???

She was a one woman gang who eviscerated a creepy, Orwellian aspect of ObamaCare to the extent that the Senate struck it from their version. Hopefully she'll "put her foot in her mouth" on other aspects of this liberal-concocted power grab.

FYI....1-800-CoastGuard is the number you're supposed to call when you find bales washed up on shore.

You know, you are the first to mention this.
The 4th branch of the Govt. (mainstream media) tore her to peices for her exposing the "death panels" for the elderly.

All the lefty's laughed, made fun of how foolish she was and how she made it all up etc. etc. etc.

2 days later the Senate removed that portion of their bill.

Now, maybe the bloviating pontificater could take about 5 paragraphs and a couple charts to explain to me how the Senate can remove the part of the bill that Palin MADE UP!! :shock:

just asking??

cotts135
08-16-2009, 09:01 AM
You know, you are the first to mention this.
The 4th branch of the Govt. (mainstream media) tore her to peices for her exposing the "death panels" for the elderly.

All the lefty's laughed, made fun of how foolish she was and how she made it all up etc. etc. etc.

2 days later the Senate removed that portion of their bill.

Now, maybe the bloviating pontificater could take about 5 paragraphs and a couple charts to explain to me how the Senate can remove the part of the bill that Palin MADE UP!! :shock:

just asking??

Wow, speaking of making things up................ where should I begin. Let's start with the time frame issue first. Palin made her quote I believe last Sunday, The Senate left Washington the previous Friday. Now if you could explain to me how "they" removed an item from proposed legislation when they weren't in session, then I certainly would like to hear it. (I am also interested in knowing what section of the Senate bill you are speaking of if there is even one. See next) Second , and I am not even really sure how to interpret this, You have Grassley saying he took something out of the Bill and then on the other hand you have Macaskill saying there isn't any bill at all. I am sure there is some political double talk from one of them that I am missing just not sure which one right now
Finally if your of the belief that end of life counseling is in some way a death panel then frankly your grip on reality is slipping.

road kill
08-16-2009, 10:38 AM
Wow, speaking of making things up................ where should I begin. Let's start with the time frame issue first. Palin made her quote I believe last Sunday, The Senate left Washington the previous Friday. Now if you could explain to me how "they" removed an item from proposed legislation when they weren't in session, then I certainly would like to hear it. (I am also interested in knowing what section of the Senate bill you are speaking of if there is even one. See next) Second , and I am not even really sure how to interpret this, You have Grassley saying he took something out of the Bill and then on the other hand you have Macaskill saying there isn't any bill at all. I am sure there is some political double talk from one of them that I am missing just not sure which one right now

Finally if your of the belief that end of life counseling is in some way a death panel then frankly your grip on reality is slipping.

I will find the article and you can read it, then change your spin.

Sounds like no one on your side knows what the other one is doing.
Including you..

Start reading up, there is much to be learned, I just didn't realize it was on me to teach you!!??!!??

It will be my plaesure.


Oh, and maybe I could go before you "end of life counseling" (death panel) because YOU think my grip on reality is slipping.

My defense is at least I HAD one!!:D
Now, I have to search the article out, I didn't save it.

cotts135
08-16-2009, 01:55 PM
[QUOTE]I will find the article and you can read it, then change your spin.

not sure which point you are trying to prove but I will read any of your references.



Start reading up, there is much to be learned, I just didn't realize it was on me to teach you!!??!!??
I agree, I am just trying to figure out the bs from the facts. I
have an open mind if you think you can teach me anything then go ahead however please don't waste my time with info that is demonstrably falsei and would have been discovered with a little fact checking or some critical thinking.




Oh, and maybe I could go before you "end of life counseling" (death panel) because YOU think my grip on reality is slipping.

feel free to tell me why you think end of life counseling is a death panel.


My defense is at least I HAD one!!

What are you talking about............... you provided no defense for anything you said. Just show me some facts.

Henry V
08-16-2009, 08:52 PM
You know, you are the first to mention this.
The 4th branch of the Govt. (mainstream media) tore her to peices for her exposing the "death panels" for the elderly.



She was a one woman gang who eviscerated a creepy, Orwellian aspect of ObamaCare to the extent that the Senate struck it from their version. Hopefully she'll "put her foot in her mouth" on other aspects of this liberal-concocted power grab.

And the outright falsehoods continue. Could one of you point to the provisions of the house bill that outline "DEATH PANELS"? It is complete nonsense and fear mongering. There was a provision in the bill to authorize payments for end of life counseling. Something that makes great sense and should be encouraged. How this got stretched to a death panel is beyond belief. Unfortunately, the fear mongering is working, for now.............

luvalab
08-16-2009, 11:23 PM
And the outright falsehoods continue. Could one of you point to the provisions of the house bill that outline "DEATH PANELS"? It is complete nonsense and fear mongering. There was a provision in the bill to authorize payments for end of life counseling. Something that makes great sense and should be encouraged. How this got stretched to a death panel is beyond belief. Unfortunately, the fear mongering is working, for now.............

Henry, you seem to be a reasonable fellow, and you say things very reasonably; I agree with you that it is reasonable that doctors should be able to counsel patients on end of life decisions, and I agree it is reasonable that they should be paid for it.

It seems to me that what alarms folks is not necessarily the verbatim text of the bill, but that government quickly becomes unreasonable when given the power to do just about anything.

Doctors should be paid for consulting with their patients on anything the doctor and patient believe is important to quality of care. Leave the details out of the hands of legislators and out of the pages of legislation.

Hew
08-17-2009, 06:25 AM
And the outright falsehoods continue. Could one of you point to the provisions of the house bill that outline "DEATH PANELS"? It is complete nonsense and fear mongering.
You can find the "Death Panels" section immediately before the "Pull the Plug On Granny" chapter, and immediately after the "Govt. Will Be the Single Payer" section.


Unfortunately, the fear mongering is working, for now.............
<<sniff>> <<sniff>> I smell flop sweat. You may want to beat the rush on Ebay and hawk all those Franklin Mint limited edition "official" Obama Inauguration Coins you "invested" in now before the bottom completely drops out of the market. If you hold 'em much longer you're going to end up like Randolph and Mortimer Duke. :razz:

Hew
08-17-2009, 06:27 AM
It seems to me that what alarms folks is not necessarily the verbatim text of the bill, but that government quickly becomes unreasonable when given the power to do just about anything.
Exactly.....

road kill
08-17-2009, 06:43 AM
UHHHHHH........I posted a thread with the article about the provision (that doesn't exist) being removed from the bill (that doesn't exist) by the senate.
I notice none of you Obama worshipers have commented.

Mass confusion on your side.

YardleyLabs
08-17-2009, 06:48 AM
You can find the "Death Panels" section immediately before the "Pull the Plug On Granny" chapter, and immediately after the "Govt. Will Be the Single Payer" section.

....

Now there are some facts we can agree on since obviously none of those clauses exist in any version of the senate or house bills, any more than those bills include a government takeover of health care or any basis for rationing. It is an unfortunate reality that lies are usually easier to sell than the truth because they never have to be explained, simply replaced with a bigger lie. In the process, desirable features of the plan will die. So far the victims include reimbursement for counseling services related to advanced planning and the possibility ot a government health insurance plan to compete with private ones. The first will probably have little real impact. The second will increase profits for insurance companies while reducing consumer choices.


UHHHHHH........I posted a thread with the article about the provision (that doesn't exist) being removed from the bill (that doesn't exist) by the senate.
I notice none of you Obama worshipers have commented.

Mass confusion on your side.
Actually, the Senate bill never included the provision for advanced planning counseling services.

road kill
08-17-2009, 06:54 AM
Now there are some facts we can agree on since obviously none of those clauses exist in any version of the senate or house bills, any more than those bills include a government takeover of health care or any basis for rationing. It is an unfortunate reality that lies are usually easier to sell than the truth because they never have to be explained, simply replaced with a bigger lie. In the process, desirable features of the plan will die. So far the victims include reimbursement for counseling services related to advanced planning and the possibility ot a government health insurance plan to compete with private ones. The first will probably have little real impact. The second will increase profits for insurance companies while reducing consumer choices.


Actually, the Senate bill never included the provision for advanced planning counseling services.


Then how did the fine Senator remove the provision??
Read the article & his quotes.

Listen Yardley, you may think you are the smartest guy in the world, but I can assure you of 2 things;

#1--You are not
#2--Lot's of people agree with me.

We do not want people like you (who think you know what is best for us) making life and death decisions.
Or any decision for that matter.

We are individuals.
We want to be able to make our own decisions.

BTW--I have received a number of pm's of posters thanking me for stating my point of veiw, which they share.

YOU are not above the rest of us!

YardleyLabs
08-17-2009, 07:30 AM
Then how did the fine Senator remove the provision??
Read the article & his quotes.

Listen Yardley, you may think you are the smartest guy in the world, but I can assure you of 2 things;

#1--You are not
#2--Lot's of people agree with me.

We do not want people like you (who think you know what is best for us) making life and death decisions.
Or any decision for that matter.

We are individuals.
We want to be able to make our own decisions.

BTW--I have received a number of pm's of posters thanking me for stating my point of veiw, which they share.

YOU are not above the rest of us!
He didn't. No bill has been reported out of committee. The drafts that have been circulated include no advance planning coverage. Grassley, along with many Republicans in the Senate and House, has long supported coverage for advance planning services under Medicare. I would assume his comments reflect a tactical decision to not try to include such language in any Senate bill because of the lies told by Palin and the other "palintologists". It's a shame.

I am happy that you like to make your own decisions. That should be and is your right. I fail to see how anything I have said suggests a desire on my part to make decisions for you or anyone else. I won't ask you for any examples, since references to facts seem to make you very defensive.:rolleyes:

road kill
08-17-2009, 07:47 AM
He didn't. No bill has been reported out of committee. The drafts that have been circulated include no advance planning coverage. Grassley, along with many Republicans in the Senate and House, has long supported coverage for advance planning services under Medicare. I would assume his comments reflect a tactical decision to not try to include such language in any Senate bill because of the lies told by Palin and the other "palintologists". It's a shame.

I am happy that you like to make your own decisions. That should be and is your right. I fail to see how anything I have said suggests a desire on my part to make decisions for you or anyone else. I won't ask you for any examples, since references to facts seem to make you very defensive.:rolleyes:


Since you refuse to read the thread;



Senators exclude end-of-life provision from bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senators exclude end-of-life provision from bill
Thu Aug 13, 1:55 pm ET
WASHINGTON Key senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from health overhaul legislation after language in a House bill caused a furor.

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.

What provision??
What bill??

YardleyLabs
08-17-2009, 07:59 AM
Since you refuse to read the thread;



Senators exclude end-of-life provision from bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senators exclude end-of-life provision from bill
Thu Aug 13, 1:55 pm ET
WASHINGTON Key senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from health overhaul legislation after language in a House bill caused a furor.

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.

What provision??
What bill??
I did read it and replied to it. "No bill has been reported out of committee. The drafts that have been circulated include no advance planning coverage. Grassley, along with many Republicans in the Senate and House, has long supported coverage for advance planning services under Medicare. I would assume his comments reflect a tactical decision to not try to include such language in any Senate bill..."

If you actually read your own quote, it says, "Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly." It was dropped from consideration not from the bill. There is no bill yet in the Senate to drop it from and the drafts that are under consideration do not include it. However, absent the controversy it would almost certainly have been included.

road kill
08-17-2009, 08:05 AM
I did read it and replied to it. "No bill has been reported out of committee. The drafts that have been circulated include no advance planning coverage. Grassley, along with many Republicans in the Senate and House, has long supported coverage for advance planning services under Medicare. I would assume his comments reflect a tactical decision to not try to include such language in any Senate bill..."

If you actually read your own quote, it says, "Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly." It was dropped from consideration not from the bill. There is no bill yet in the Senate to drop it from and the drafts that are under consideration do not include it. However, absent the controversy it would almost certainly have been included.

Your response is twice as long as the post and says nothing.

Just you in your magnificence knowing more than the dirty masses.

What does the headline say??
I didn't write it.

It's mass confusion on your side and WE don't like it!!

YardleyLabs
08-17-2009, 09:38 AM
Your response is twice as long as the post and says nothing.

Just you in your magnificence knowing more than the dirty masses.

What does the headline say??
I didn't write it.

It's mass confusion on your side and WE don't like it!!
Sorry, I thought we were talking about a story, not a headline. The headline is contradicted by the story you posted.

road kill
08-17-2009, 09:51 AM
Sorry, I thought we were talking about a story, not a headline. The headline is contradicted by the story you posted.
The story and headline and quotes are all contradicted by everyone involved.
That's the point oh learned one.

It is a train wreck and does not deserve to go any farther.

My whole point was the irony and contradiction.

3 days later you start "blow-viating" about the irony and contradiction.

I do think I am making some progress here, you did finally get it!!;)

Steve Amrein
08-17-2009, 10:06 AM
OK now that page 431 and 432 have been been discussed how the other thousand shaping up ?

road kill
08-17-2009, 10:07 AM
OK now that page 431 and 432 have been been discussed how the other thousand shaping up ?


What other thousand, Yardley said there is no bill??

"Originally Posted by YardleyLabs
I did read it and replied to it. "No bill has been reported out of committee. The drafts that have been circulated include no advance planning coverage...."

YardleyLabs
08-17-2009, 10:18 AM
What other thousand, Yardley said there is no bill??

"Originally Posted by YardleyLabs
I did read it and replied to it. "No bill has been reported out of committee. The drafts that have been circulated include no advance planning coverage...."
The draft senate bill that was referred to committee was 600 pages long. You can see it at http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf. HR 3200 tends to be cited more because the bill was reported out of committee. However, even there changes have been negotiated with the Blue Dog contingent that have not yet been included in a new draft of the bill. That will probably not be until after the recess.

Steve Amrein
08-17-2009, 12:00 PM
The draft senate bill that was referred to committee was 600 pages long. You can see it at http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf. HR 3200 tends to be cited more because the bill was reported out of committee. However, even there changes have been negotiated with the Blue Dog contingent that have not yet been included in a new draft of the bill. That will probably not be until after the recess.


So a real and honest debate can not be made until a "real" bill exists. Arent they complete about a day before the vote.

BTW the democrats should just grow some stones pass the mess and live with the consequences. They are not listening to the angry mob anyway

Buzz
08-17-2009, 02:07 PM
BTW the democrats should just grow some stones pass the mess and live with the consequences.


There is something we can agree on.

YardleyLabs
08-17-2009, 02:19 PM
So a real and honest debate can not be made until a "real" bill exists. Arent they complete about a day before the vote.

BTW the democrats should just grow some stones pass the mess and live with the consequences. They are not listening to the angry mob anyway
Obviously, debate is and should be happening. In the end, I suspect that Democrats will pass whatever bills allow them to get a majority of votes in the House and 60 votes in the Senate regardless of whether or not any of those votes come from Republicans. At this point, the Republicans have staked so much on staging a defeat for Obama that they will declare anything that passes as a defeat for the administration. The Democrats have staked so much on winning that they will declare anything that passes to be a victory. My own view is that anything that passes that includes virtually universal coverage is a major victory and will eventually end up in the right place even if the services covered are limited. By contrast, I believe that anything that passes that falls short of virtually universal coverage will be a major defeat.

I actually see little benefit to prolonging the debate. We have passed the point where those opposing the bills are actually trying to make improvements. Rather, they are simply trying to prevent any action using every delaying technique and argument they can muster. This is evident in the various made up issues such as the entire discussion concerning section 1233 of HR3200, the advance planning provisions being characterized as the basis for death panels. The cynicism behind such claims is setting new lows even by Congressional standards, especially in a context where many of those joining the chorus have previously proposed similar changes to Medicare.

For this reason, I hope both the House and the Senate force votes quickly following the summer recess and then begin focusing on the mid-term elections. The biggest threat to this schedule is not the Republicans, but Nancy Pelosi who could decide to push for a bill that will not pass in the Senate. Between now and then, I hope the administration focuses essentially all of its efforts on Iraq/Afghanistan, the budget, and the economy along with implementation of whatever health bill passes. These are the items that will drive the vote in 2010.

In 2010, it may be less important for the Democrats to retain a super majority in the Senate than it is for the Democrats to strengthen their position in swing-state legislatures. That is where redistricting decisions will be made following the 2010 census.

Bob Gutermuth
08-17-2009, 02:45 PM
Left is bailing on any changes to public option in Osamacare:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/17/left-objects-possible-removal-government-run-health-care-option/

Hew
08-17-2009, 02:56 PM
My own view is that anything that passes that includes virtually universal coverage is a major victory and will eventually end up in the right place even if the services covered are limited.

AND

This is evident in the various made up issues such as the entire discussion concerning section 1233 of HR3200, the advance planning provisions being characterized as the basis for death panels. The cynicism behind such claims is setting new lows even by Congressional standards, especially in a context where many of those joining the chorus have previously proposed similar changes to Medicare.
The "cynicism" that mechanisms of the health plan will eventually morph into single payer, government rationed health care is very well-placed and deserved cycnicism if we take you at your word in the first portion of the above quotes...just pass anything now and we'll eventualy "end up in the right place." Unless I totally missed your point, you're confirming the fears of many....that Obama and liberals in Congress don't really care what devils are in the details now, they just want us to cross a bridge that can't be re-crossed, and eventually, by inertia, the rest of their plans will end up in the "right place" that they envision.

YardleyLabs
08-17-2009, 03:16 PM
The "cynicism" that mechanisms of the health plan will eventually morph into single payer, government rationed health care is very well-placed and deserved cycnicism if we take you at your word in the first portion of the above quotes...just pass anything now and we'll eventualy "end up in the right place." Unless I totally missed your point, you're confirming the fears of many....that Obama and liberals in Congress don't really care what devils are in the details now, they just want us to cross a bridge that can't be re-crossed, and eventually, by inertia, the rest of their plans will end up in the "right place" that they envision.
My point was that any bill adopted now will be modified over time based on experience.

Medicare was originally passed as a single payer system. In fact, private carriers have been administering payments since the day the program was created. There were a variety of provisions concerning what services were covered and which were not. Over time, the number of services covered has been generally expanded. There were many limitations in the original bill to protect current providers. In some cases, these provisions spurred the creation of entire abusive industries. This included abuses in nursing homes, laboratory services, and dialysis services among others. Over time controls were implemented to curb these abuses.

Stealth change is hard to sustain in our system of government. Presidents have tried to rewrite laws through regulatory changes (GWB tried pretty hard) but have generally found their powers limited by Congress and political change. Legislators have proposed amendments to redefine existing programs but generally find that only incremental changes are possible in the short term and that in the long term someone else assumes power. All of this gives us a government that is more pragmatic than ideological. It tends to be hated by all ideological purists from either end of the spectrum, and tolerated by everyone else. Personally, I think that sounds like the hallmark of democracy and I like it.

luvalab
08-17-2009, 03:59 PM
My point was that any bill adopted now will be modified over time based on experience.

Medicare was originally passed as a single payer system. In fact, private carriers have been administering payments since the day the program was created. There were a variety of provisions concerning what services were covered and which were not. Over time, the number of services covered has been generally expanded. There were many limitations in the original bill to protect current providers. In some cases, these provisions spurred the creation of entire abusive industries. This included abuses in nursing homes, laboratory services, and dialysis services among others. Over time controls were implemented to curb these abuses.

Stealth change is hard to sustain in our system of government. Presidents have tried to rewrite laws through regulatory changes (GWB tried pretty hard) but have generally found their powers limited by Congress and political change. Legislators have proposed amendments to redefine existing programs but generally find that only incremental changes are possible in the short term and that in the long term someone else assumes power. All of this gives us a government that is more pragmatic than ideological. It tends to be hated by all ideological purists from either end of the spectrum, and tolerated by everyone else. Personally, I think that sounds like the hallmark of democracy and I like it.

Jeff, I hate to say it, but I think you are contradicting yourself, at least as I read you.

Nonetheless, I disagree with your original statement; I happen to think that just passing "something" in this case is an invitation to insurance and pharmaceutical companies to lock-in behind the scenes deals before anyone but the lobbyists really understands what is being agreed to.

This is an elephant that needs to be eaten one bite at a time. It is lack of discipline that has kept genuine reform from passing for many decades, not lack of worthiness of the cause. The last thing this country needs is "fake" reform--that would be a far worse injustice than no reform, IMO.

YardleyLabs
08-17-2009, 04:26 PM
Jeff, I hate to say it, but I think you are contradicting yourself, at least as I read you.

Nonetheless, I disagree with your original statement; I happen to think that just passing "something" in this case is an invitation to insurance and pharmaceutical companies to lock-in behind the scenes deals before anyone but the lobbyists really understands what is being agreed to.

This is an elephant that needs to be eaten one bite at a time. It is lack of discipline that has kept genuine reform from passing for many decades, not lack of worthiness of the cause. The last thing this country needs is "fake" reform--that would be a far worse injustice than no reform, IMO.
I will admit that I pretty much agree with Ezekiel Emanuel's analysis concerning the most important elements of a health insurance reform programs. As I summarized in another thread, these are:


Coverage of all Americans
Effective cost control
High quality coordinated care.
Choice of insurance plans, doctors, and hospitals along with the ability to buy additional insurance coverage
Fair funding requiring all Americans to contribute to the cost of services
Reasonable dispute resolution to replace the current malpractice system
Economic revitalization from removing health insurance as a responsibility of employers.For me, numbers 1, 4, and 6 are the core requirements for health insurance reform. Number 2, effective cost control, will only happen if number 1 happens first in my opinion. I hope that number 7 will happen over time to help US business compete more effectively in the global economy.

I believe, as do many of those most strongly opposing any legislation, that if health insurance reform is not passed this year it will not be addressed again in any substantive fashion for at least 10-15 years. I believe the one bite at a time approach is an open invitation to the profiteers.

Bob Gutermuth
08-17-2009, 04:40 PM
Congressional looney left bailing on osamacare without public option. Great news, perhaps this socialized crap will fail totally.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/17/left-objects-possible-removal-government-run-health-care-option/

luvalab
08-17-2009, 05:03 PM
I will admit that I pretty much agree with Ezekiel Emanuel's analysis concerning the most important elements of a health insurance reform programs. As I summarized in another thread, these are:
Coverage of all Americans
Effective cost control
High quality coordinated care.
Choice of insurance plans, doctors, and hospitals along with the ability to buy additional insurance coverage
Fair funding requiring all Americans to contribute to the cost of services
Reasonable dispute resolution to replace the current malpractice system
Economic revitalization from removing health insurance as a responsibility of employers.For me, numbers 1, 4, and 6 are the core requirements for health insurance reform. Number 2, effective cost control, will only happen if number 1 happens first in my opinion. I hope that number 7 will happen over time to help US business compete more effectively in the global economy.

I believe, as do many of those most strongly opposing any legislation, that if health insurance reform is not passed this year it will not be addressed again in any substantive fashion for at least 10-15 years. I believe the one bite at a time approach is an open invitation to the profiteers.

And I think the "cram something big through" approach is far more dangerous in terms of profiteering.

If a significant reduction in cherry-picking and a significant improvement in portability were made in the next 3 to 5 years, that would be substance enough to improve many, many lives for real, and lay solid groundwork for, or even make progress on, other changes you've outlined (with which I generally agree).

If the Democrats insist on passing big legislation that frightens people (whether their fears are well-founded or not is totally irrelevant, by the way), there WILL be a third party in 2012, and I'll be in it--not because I don't want health care reform, but because I think lawmakers are being selfish and arrogant and stupid. Government can't take that kind of legislative power for itself without the agreement of its citizenry; even though we are a representative democracy, our representatives have to have a certain respect for the voice and will of the people when legislation cuts right to the core of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the ownership of property.

I've said it before, and I'm not afraid to say it again--when and if the time comes for single-payer national health insurance, that will be a day I am a very happy person--single-payer done right makes complete sense to me, and I try to articulate its benefits clearly in every health-care conversation I have in person, but that may not be what happens. The point is to make peoples' lives better.

I daresay if incremental, common-sense reforms had been started during the Clinton administration, we'd be far closer to meeting most of the goals you've listed above today. But no--arrogance and greed and behind-the-scenes dealmaking blew it up then, and those same factors (and some of the same people!!!) are going to blow it up again. It is absolutely, positively infuriating.