PDA

View Full Version : Obama: "We will call you out."



Terry Britton
09-10-2009, 09:25 AM
So, this is what post-partisan politics looks like...

This man is the most arrogant and partisan person to sit in the oval office in the history of the presidency. Instead of casting a vision for the reform of healthcare and offering olive branches to the people to try to decrease the rancor of the town hall meetings, he throws down gauntlets. Rather than answering any of the counter-arguments against the healthcare reform bills that are meandering through congress he gives nothing but angry rhetoric. Rather than carefully explaining his vision for healthcare reform to get buy-in and try to build consensus he threatens and bullies. I'm not sure a more unpresidential phrase than "we will call you out" has ever been uttered. I truly believe that he cannot stand any opposition or dissent. He doesn't want to listen to any other point of view, he wants to silence them. He is the ultimate Chicago political-machine thug. He is the Demagogue-in-Chief. All hail Obama. Build the golden statue. I will never bend my knee.

Henry V
09-10-2009, 09:29 AM
Let the hate flow.............

Terry Britton
09-10-2009, 09:33 AM
Do you support Cass Sunstien as the Reglatory Czar too?

BonMallari
09-10-2009, 09:39 AM
I caught the replay last night after work and was also stunned by the "we will call you out" phrase. Its back to the we won the election and that how its going to be attitude..so much for the reach across the aisle and remove partisan politics..His arrogance came through loud and clear..Lets see how many of our elected representatives have the stones to get called out by this administration

Terry Britton
09-10-2009, 09:40 AM
P.S. - The plan put forth by Tom Coburn actually has some real solutions for the real problems, but the partisan politics will remove any of the solutions that will help the people including the major reform that will force the President, his family, and the legislative branch to use the Government Plan. Without the "What is Good for the Goose, is Good for the Gander" stipulation, this thing will be screwed up for special interest groups.

Buzz
09-10-2009, 09:43 AM
offering olive branches to the people to try to decrease the rancor of the town hall meetings

That would be the dumbest thing he could do.

Buzz
09-10-2009, 09:45 AM
I caught the replay last night after work and was also stunned by the "we will call you out" phrase. ..so much for the reach across the aisle and remove partisan politics..

You don't reach out and hold hands with people who lie and distort. I thought he said it just right.

Henry V
09-10-2009, 09:50 AM
63 senators did yesterday. Information about this established office is at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/
Not exactly sure what Bush's czar did in this exact same position.

YardleyLabs
09-10-2009, 09:54 AM
So, this is what post-partisan politics looks like...

This man is the most arrogant and partisan person to sit in the oval office in the history of the presidency. Instead of casting a vision for the reform of healthcare and offering olive branches to the people to try to decrease the rancor of the town hall meetings, he throws down gauntlets. Rather than answering any of the counter-arguments against the healthcare reform bills that are meandering through congress he gives nothing but angry rhetoric. Rather than carefully explaining his vision for healthcare reform to get buy-in and try to build consensus he threatens and bullies. I'm not sure a more unpresidential phrase than "we will call you out" has ever been uttered. I truly believe that he cannot stand any opposition or dissent. He doesn't want to listen to any other point of view, he wants to silence them. He is the ultimate Chicago political-machine thug. He is the Demagogue-in-Chief. All hail Obama. Build the golden statue. I will never bend my knee.
Sarah Palin gives a speech accusing Obama of trying to pass a plan with death panels. Obama references that lie and is called partisan by the same people who say nothing about Palin's comment. What she has been saying is a lie -- a false statement that she knows is untrue. If someone chooses to lie in making their political attacks, why is it partisan to call them out?

Terry Britton
09-10-2009, 10:05 AM
Sarah Palin gives a speech accusing Obama of trying to pass a plan with death panels. Obama references that lie and is called partisan by the same people who say nothing about Palin's comment. What she has been saying is a lie -- a false statement that she knows is untrue. If someone chooses to lie in making their political attacks, why is it partisan to call them out?

I guess you missed the interviews of Obama's people advocating end of life counseling. Those on that panel being interviewed denied what the published in their literature. They have a hidden agenda, and backtracked and lied about it every time they are called on it.

Every rose has a thorn, and some thorns have flowers. Anytime something involves more government control, it is usually the case of a lot of thorns hidden by one flower presented to the people no matter the political affiliation.

Terry Britton
09-10-2009, 10:09 AM
Do you support Cass Sunstien as the Reglatory Czar too?

Buzz, Henry, Yardley - I noticed you all avoid this question. We can't have an open discussion by cherry picking questions.

Will you all be called out by Obama for opposing this Czar?

Or do you all support everything about Obama?

Goose
09-10-2009, 10:10 AM
From the New Hampshire Union Leader...

"President Obama has shown us that to achieve the unrealized promise of this great nation, we must transcend outdated values such as public thrift, individual liberty and restrained government. All power must be shifted to Washington and deposited in the hands of a wise and benevolent ruler whose will is never questioned...To do anything less is to guarantee disaster."

Our President is nothing more than a young, well-spoken liberal fascist. He won and he will trump us and the next 4 years will be brutal.

We live in Cuba now.

YardleyLabs
09-10-2009, 10:16 AM
I guess you missed the interviews of Obama's people advocating end of life counseling. Those on that panel being interviewed denied what the published in their literature. They have a hidden agenda, and backtracked and lied about it every time they are called on it.

Every rose has a thorn, and some thorns have flowers. Anytime something involves more government control, it is usually the case of a lot of thorns hidden by one flower presented to the people no matter the political affiliation.
End of life counseling and information about "final directives" has been a Republican sponsored issue under Medicare for years -- often with proposals sponsored by the same people who are now talking about death panels.

Find any place in the House bill, the President's proposals or any comparable source that creates death panels. Do you believe that information should be withheld on a patient's right to direct how they will be cared for in the event they are no longer able to give direction? I have the right to stipulate that I want everything possible to be done to keep me alive for as long as possible, or I can direct that I do not want any treatment at all in the end that I am unable to direct my care. Either way, it should be my choice. That is both a moral and legal imperative now. All the house bill did was to allow physicians to bill for time spent helping patients to understand and take advantage of their rights. Calling that "euthanasia counseling" or a "death panel" is a blatant lie by people who know better but have decided that their cause is served better by lies than by the truth.

road kill
09-10-2009, 10:26 AM
End of life counseling and information about "final directives" has been a Republican sponsored issue under Medicare for years -- often with proposals sponsored by the same people who are now talking about death panels.

Find any place in the House bill, the President's proposals or any comparable source that creates death panels. Do you believe that information should be withheld on a patient's right to direct how they will be cared for in the event they are no longer able to give direction? I have the right to stipulate that I want everything possible to be done to keep me alive for as long as possible, or I can direct that I do not want any treatment at all in the end that I am unable to direct my care. Either way, it should be my choice. That is both a moral and legal imperative now. All the house bill did was to allow physicians to bill for time spent helping patients to understand and take advantage of their rights. Calling that "euthanasia counseling" or a "death panel" is a blatant lie by people who know better but have decided that their cause is served better by lies than by the truth.
Yardley, I am going to have to agree with you here to a point.
My wife had pancreatic cancer.
When the time came, the Nurse Practitioner & the Dr. in charge of the whole case and a Counseler (Psychologist) sat me down and explain what was in front of me.
We had some decisions to make.
As we moved tp Pallative care and then into Hospice I was informed of the decisions we (I) had to make and their ramifications.
I don't know if I would call them "Death" panels, but they were informative and helpful as I did not have the experience of having gone thru this before.
With out their oversight and help how would I know what to do?

Point is, there needs to be a support & educational offering as patients and care givers travel the process of dieing.

Issue??
Having a Postal worker or DOT worker (civil service employee) replacing these wonderful caring people that helped me in my darkest time.

That, frankly, is the rub!!

stan b

Terry Britton
09-10-2009, 10:36 AM
End of life counseling and information about "final directives" has been a Republican sponsored issue under Medicare for years -- often with proposals sponsored by the same people who are now talking about death panels.

Find any place in the House bill, the President's proposals or any comparable source that creates death panels. Do you believe that information should be withheld on a patient's right to direct how they will be cared for in the event they are no longer able to give direction? I have the right to stipulate that I want everything possible to be done to keep me alive for as long as possible, or I can direct that I do not want any treatment at all in the end that I am unable to direct my care. Either way, it should be my choice. That is both a moral and legal imperative now. All the house bill did was to allow physicians to bill for time spent helping patients to understand and take advantage of their rights. Calling that "euthanasia counseling" or a "death panel" is a blatant lie by people who know better but have decided that their cause is served better by lies than by the truth.

That is a different topic than the guy that Obama put in charge of writing up portions of the government health plan that will look at your future productivity, and if the $$$ can be better spent helping a 20 year old, you are out of luck if you are 65 and retired.

"Sorry sir, you are retired and won't contribute as much to taxes in the future as this 24 year old who is in law school. I know there is a 50% cure rate for this medical problem, but our government plan sees a better chance on return by taking care of this 24 year old's medical problem. He will return more in taxes, and probably will be a democrat looking at the education field he has chosen. Here is some literature on how to accept your fate, or you can cash out more of your retirement funds and pay for the procedures out of pocket in Mexico or India."

Or even my own experience with HMO:

"I don't care if you are in pain, you can still walk." A year later after many returns to the Dr, "Okay, I will refer you to the orthopedic surgeon, I doubt he will find anything." Ortho Surgeon - "WOW, you can't straighten your leg when I put a slight pressure on it here. You have a torn medial meniscus cartilage. Your surgery is scheduled Friday." After surgery, "WOW, you had a major tear in there. Your knee cap, and knee has shown some major wear from that torn cartilage floating around in there. Expect to have a knee replacement down the road. These HMO's delaying necessary medical care is creating more costs down the road, and are a headache to deal with."

The government plan will be like the HMO.

Pete
09-10-2009, 10:38 AM
Let the hate flow

Yes we know ,,,its the typical liberal response when people disagree with the left

Pete

tpaschal30
09-10-2009, 10:51 AM
They will be making treatment choices for all. The choices at "end of life" will be included. "Maybe you will need just a pain pill rather than a pacemaker" to paraphrase the President. The are life and death decisions made now, but governments can't be sued without their permission, corporations can.

Buzz
09-10-2009, 10:54 AM
Issue??
Having a Postal worker or DOT worker (civil service employee) replacing these wonderful caring people that helped me in my darkest time.

That, frankly, is the rub!!

stan b

The bill calls for doctors being reimbursed for providing these services. I don't know where you get that the bill calls for a civil service employee to take over that role.

YardleyLabs
09-10-2009, 11:00 AM
That is a different topic than the guy that Obama put in charge of writing up portions of the government health plan that will look at your future productivity, and if the $$$ can be better spent helping a 20 year old, you are out of luck if you are 65 and retired.

"Sorry sir, you are retired and won't contribute as much to taxes in the future as this 24 year old who is in law school. I know there is a 50% cure rate for this medical problem, but our government plan sees a better chance on return by taking care of this 24 year old's medical problem. He will return more in taxes, and probably will be a democrat looking at the education field he has chosen. Here is some literature on how to accept your fate, or you can cash out more of your retirement funds and pay for the procedures out of pocket in Mexico or India."

Or even my own experience with HMO:

"I don't care if you are in pain, you can still walk." A year later after many returns to the Dr, "Okay, I will refer you to the orthopedic surgeon, I doubt he will find anything." Ortho Surgeon - "WOW, you can't straighten your leg when I put a slight pressure on it here. You have a torn medial meniscus cartilage. Your surgery is scheduled Friday." After surgery, "WOW, you had a major tear in there. Your knee cap, and knee has shown some major wear from that torn cartilage floating around in there. Expect to have a knee replacement down the road. These HMO's delaying necessary medical care is creating more costs down the road, and are a headache to deal with."

The government plan will be like the HMO.

Terry,

Where in HR 3200 or any other bill do you find that guy? I have not found it and I have not seen any reference to any bill that included any such provision.

YardleyLabs
09-10-2009, 11:02 AM
...

Point is, there needs to be a support & educational offering as patients and care givers travel the process of dieing.

Issue??
Having a Postal worker or DOT worker (civil service employee) replacing these wonderful caring people that helped me in my darkest time.

That, frankly, is the rub!!

stan b

That is why I liked the fact that the House bill provided reimbursement to physicians to provide that type of counseling. Currently they may provide such advice, but Medicare will not pay for the service.

Terry Britton
09-10-2009, 11:07 AM
The bill calls for doctors being reimbursed for providing these services. I don't know where you get that the bill calls for a civil service employee to take over that role.

They will start acting like civil service employees when they get reimbursed at rates that won't cover their insurance expenses and student loans. What incentive will they to work after 5 pm? Also, nurses will be leaving the field if they have to take more patients, and get rewarded less.

"Sorry that you are having a heart attack, can you come back at 8 am. Get here early if you want to get a good spot in line."

Show me how a man is measured and rewarded, and I will show you how he will perform.

Terry Britton
09-10-2009, 11:07 AM
Did anyone else catch Joe Wilson calling Obama out on lies?

Terry Britton
09-10-2009, 11:17 AM
REVIEW & OUTLOOK WSJ
AUGUST 29, 2009
Health-Care Secrets
Chris Dodd keeps his Senate bill under wraps.
Obama has promised a "new era of transparency" in Washington, so perhaps he should talk to the Senate about getting with his program. On July 15, six weeks ago, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee passed an amended $1 trillion health-care bill, with acting Chairman Chris Dodd calling it a "historic achievement." Too bad the committee won't reveal this history even to other Senators, much less to the public.
Three weeks ago Republicans on the committee wrote Mr. Dodd "to reiterate our request for a full copy of the bill as amended, in the four-week mark-up." Mr. Dodd has refused to comply. The Senate bill that is available on the committee Web site is 790 pages long. While that is some 300 pages shorter than the House health bill, that's in part because it doesn't include nearly 200 amendments that passed when the committee redrafted the bill. Amended sections of the bill might as well be written in invisible ink.
The whole process was so haphazard that at one point during the committee mark-up Barbara Mikulski, the Democrat from Maryland, declared: "Giving me language on little pieces of paper on which I'm going to commit the sacred fortunes and honor of the United States for decades, this is not the way to go. We can't do this on the backs of envelopes."
We called Mr. Dodd's committee office last week to ask why the bill isn't posted, and a spokesman explained that it is still being "worked on." Will it be ready by October? "Don't count on it," the staffer said.
Meanwhile, President Obama has been saying that critics are "misrepresenting" his proposals. But who's to know what's reality and what's a myth when the public and Members of Congress aren't able to read a bill that would restructure one-seventh of our economy. We don't have any idea what the bill will cost or how many people it will provide insurance for, because the Congressional Budget Office can't score it. No wonder the public is increasingly skeptical of this entire exercise

Roger Perry
09-10-2009, 11:42 AM
Our President is nothing more than a young, well-spoken liberal fascist. He won and he will trump us and the next 4 years will be brutal.



Not as brutal as the last 4 years.

Roger Perry
09-10-2009, 11:44 AM
Did anyone else catch Joe Wilson calling Obama out on lies?

McCain said on a morning news show that there are no provisions for health care for illegal immigrants. Therefore Joe Wilson was wrong.

ducknwork
09-10-2009, 11:49 AM
Not as brutal as the last 4 years.

Get your waders, boys. It's getting deep in here...
________
Get it on (http://www.fucktube.com/video/21600/amateur-turkish-couple-get-it-on)

Buzz
09-10-2009, 12:21 PM
McCain said on a morning news show that there are no provisions for health care for illegal immigrants. Therefore Joe Wilson was wrong.

You need to listen to right wing radio. You're one step behind. They don't care what McCain says. Because there is "no enforcement mechanism" in the house bill, Obama is a liar, and Wilson was justified in shouting out.

"If you aren't going to specifically exclude it's almost like permission." Therefore, not including them in the bill does not exclude them...

It is based on this from the Center for Immigration Studies.


Lack of Enforcement in HR 3200

The America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (HR 3200) is extremely complex and there’s no way to know how the bill ultimately will be implemented. First, it is unclear if illegal immigrants will be required to have health insurance, as would citizens and legal immigrants (green card holders). In its summary of the bill, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) states, “Under HR 3200, all legal permanent residents (LPRs), non-immigrants, and unauthorized aliens who meet the substantial presence test… would be required to obtain health insurance.”1 Substantial presence is defined as having been in the United States for at least 31 days during the current year and at least 183 days during the current year and previous two years. No mention is made of legal status in the legislation for determining substantial presence.

The legislation offers affordable premium credits, or more simply affordability credits, to persons with low incomes who meet the substantial presence criteria. Under HR 3200, individuals would use the newly created Health Insurance Exchange to get affordability credits or to enroll in the to-be-created government-provided health insurance program often referred to as the “public option.” The credits are based on a sliding scale, with lower-income people getting a larger credit. The income ceiling for the credits and public option is 400 percent of the poverty level. Section 246 of HR 3200 states, “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”2 But as CRS points out, “HR 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens — whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently — participating in the Exchange.”3 So it would seem that illegal immigrants, along with some temporary workers and visitors, would be required to have insurance and could use the Exchange, despite a bar on them receiving taxpayer-financed affordable premium credits.

Even so, the bill does not include any means of determining legal status for those attempting to receive the affordability credits or the public option. Most similar means-tested programs require use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to prevent illegal immigrants or other ineligible non-citizens from getting benefits. The SAVE program is currently used to verify immigrant eligibility for 71 other means-tested programs of this kind. However, on July 16, an amendment by Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) that would have required the use of the SAVE program to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving the affordability credits was defeated by the House Ways and Means Committee. At present, there seems little to prevent illegal immigrants from accessing the proposed taxpayer-subsidized health insurance.

So even though:

Section 246 of HR 3200 states, “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

Since it isn't means tested, and because those who are legally here will be required to carry insurance, and they will have access to the exchange to shop for a policy, Obama is a liar because they are not means tested by SAVE. I'm not sure why they should means test someone who is not eligible for benefits, but that's what they are saying...

YardleyLabs
09-10-2009, 12:28 PM
Buzz, Henry, Yardley - I noticed you all avoid this question. We can't have an open discussion by cherry picking questions.

Will you all be called out by Obama for opposing this Czar?

Or do you all support everything about Obama?
I guess I don't see the relevance of his appointment to the topic of this thread. I know very little about the man. I have no sympathy for his position on hunting (obviously). I have equally little sympathy for evangelicals and right to lifers who want the government to use its power to further their positions. However, that does not mean I believe they should be excluded from government. It's a big tent and will include people with lots of different and often conflicting beliefs.

Julie R.
09-10-2009, 12:57 PM
To my mind the President did nothing but a bunch of tub thumping about how great this health care reform will be and that cleaning up all the waste and fraud in the current system will pay for it. So if there's so much waste and fraud in the current system why doesn't he fix that? And then come back and build on that success? I think he truly believes his pathetic fire and brimstone speeches help him win friends and influence people. He's an empty windbag but such an unbelievable narcissist, he just likes the sound of his own voice booming out.

We don't even live in Cuba now; we live in North Korea.

Marvin S
09-10-2009, 01:33 PM
To my mind the President did nothing but a bunch of tub thumping about how great this health care reform will be and that cleaning up all the waste and fraud in the current system will pay for it. So if there's so much waste and fraud in the current system why doesn't he fix that? And then come back and build on that success? I think he truly believes his pathetic fire and brimstone speeches help him win friends and influence people. He's an empty windbag but such an unbelievable narcissist, he just likes the sound of his own voice booming out.

We don't even live in Cuba now; we live in North Korea.

I didn't listen to the speech - my quota of Obongo BS was exceeded the day he filed for POTUS.

But my son who voted against McCain did, his comment is both sides are lying. I agree with Julie, fix the waste first & then come back with something more substantative.

Gerry Clinchy
09-10-2009, 01:39 PM
Yardley

That is why I liked the fact that the House bill provided reimbursement to physicians to provide that type of counseling. Currently they may provide such advice, but Medicare will not pay for the service.

Herein lies some confusion for me. Like you, Jeff, I see no evil in counselling patients on their options & the results of those options. And sometimes that relates to terminal illness, sometimes not.

The experience roadkill describes seems like part and parcel of the responsibility of being a doctor. The doctor dx's the disease; explains the disease; explains the treatment alternatives and the possible results of each alternative. In the case of a terminal illness, this also would often includes length of possible remission, etc.

I'm not entirely sure why one would pay an additional fee for doctors doing this part of their job. This intends no offense to the doctors on this board.

When the discussion goes beyond the purely medical alternatives (in terminal illness), then that should be provided by an attorney and accountant, as that would be their specialty.

This makes me wonder whether someone anticipates that doctors and PAs will no longer have the time per patient to provide this information, due to the patient load?

Or is it because fees will be negotiated to the point that this is a vehicle for providing an additional payment through the health omnibus legislation to offset other downard fee negotiation? Due to the rather "vague" nature of this service, would it not be open to abuse? Could each doctor involved in a case check off the "end-of-life counselling" box & the fee get paid multiple times for the same patient?

Unfortunately, we wouldn't know the answers to my last few questions until the administrative bureaucrats craft the actual rules.

As I've suggested before, couldn't this type of service be provided for through other existing agencies? Here in PA each of our counties has an "Agency on Aging" for assisting elderly on many items. This service could easily fall into that area. And it could be, perhaps, more effectively handled by such agencies before the highly emotional time of imminent death.

Yesterday I lost a dear friend to cancer. She was undergoing treatment for diabetes and a bloodclot in her leg. She was taken to the hospital ostensibly for that, & they discovered she had extensive cancer. She refused chemotherapy which, she was told, would extend her life only by a few months. She had watched several friends die who had chosen chemotherapy, and she had already decided what her choice would be.

Bruce MacPherson
09-10-2009, 01:48 PM
McCain said on a morning news show that there are no provisions for health care for illegal immigrants. Therefore Joe Wilson was wrong.

So an illegal walks into an emergency room, are they going to throw them out on the street? We both know the answer to that. No provisions yet is more like it.
I understand this is your guy but come on.

Gerry Clinchy
09-10-2009, 01:52 PM
Yardley

Sarah Palin gives a speech accusing Obama of trying to pass a plan with death panels. Obama references that lie and is called partisan by the same people who say nothing about Palin's comment. What she has been saying is a lie -- a false statement that she knows is untrue. If someone chooses to lie in making their political attacks, why is it partisan to call them out?

Because Sarah Palin is not President?

Sarah was, perhaps, a refreshing personality in the campaign, but I cannot say that she would have been Presidential material.

OTOH, O's attitude reminds me of Hillary's unprofessional, emotional outburst on her Congo trip. I am also reminded of O's foot-in-mouth statements about Putin, while the new Soviet leader was far more diplomatic. From our President, from our Secretary of State we should be able to expect a level of professionalism, dignity and diplomacy that those positions require.

Buzz
09-10-2009, 02:05 PM
So an illegal walks into an emergency room, are they going to throw them out on the street? We both know the answer to that. No provisions yet is more like it.
I understand this is your guy but come on.

I don't understand how this applies to healthcare reform. If anyone walks into an ER, now or in the future, they get treated.

Do we want people going to the ER, where it costs $800-$1000 just to say hello, or do we want them going to an $80 doctor visit????

Terry Britton
09-10-2009, 02:28 PM
I don't understand how this applies to healthcare reform. If anyone walks into an ER, now or in the future, they get treated.

Do we want people going to the ER, where it costs $800-$1000 just to say hello, or do we want them going to an $80 doctor visit????

That is a major cost that needs to be corrected in the healthcare reform. Fix the ER's with triage to cut out non-emergencies and deportation of illeagal immigrants after their life is saved.

Currently, ER's are filled up with criminal aliens, and those who don't have insurance, and want others to pay their bills for common non-emergency problems. Those hospital write-offs get passed on to the rest of us in higher medical bills, and higher insurance fees.

The real problems in health care can be fixed with industrial engineering, ER triage, enforcing existing laws (deportations), and tort reform. Start with those things, and the other problems will be much more affordable.

TXduckdog
09-10-2009, 09:49 PM
Let the hate flow.............


Henry......like Doc said in Tombstone..."My hypocrisy knows no bounds"....the Dems/Left demonized Bush like no other president in history.

The hate ran like a river.

TXduckdog
09-10-2009, 09:54 PM
McCain said on a morning news show that there are no provisions for health care for illegal immigrants. Therefore Joe Wilson was wrong.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.....how the hell would John McCain know what the hell is going on in the HOR? He doesn't...this loser should just shut his mouth.

Wilson serves on several committees that put amendments into the health care bill only to see other committees neuter the amendments by stripping out enforcement for not insuring illegals.


Buzz nailed it.

Martin
09-10-2009, 10:30 PM
You don't reach out and hold hands with people who lie and distort. I thought he said it just right.

Wow. I recall a whirlwind tour of Allah land where he did just that, reach out and hold hands with people who lie and distort. Hell he even bowed.

Martin

road kill
09-11-2009, 07:26 AM
Joke of the Day:

"We will fund Govt. run health care by cleaning up the waste and fraud in Govt. run Medacaid!"


WHAT??:shock:

dnf777
09-11-2009, 07:36 AM
I guess you missed the interviews of Obama's people advocating end of life counseling. Those on that panel being interviewed denied what the published in their literature. They have a hidden agenda, and backtracked and lied about it every time they are called on it.

Every rose has a thorn, and some thorns have flowers. Anytime something involves more government control, it is usually the case of a lot of thorns hidden by one flower presented to the people no matter the political affiliation.

Despite the Fla supreme court and the swift-boating, the last administration won the electoral process by the skin of its teeth, and did not have the majorities in both houses like the current administration does. Yet there were no explanations for anything they rammed through congress, except "trust us, we're from the gov't and need to do this to protect you".

I think the right should be happy that a little spirited speech is all they've had forced upon them so far. They should be VERY happy that the democrats are free thinking and nearly impossible consensus-formers, or else Obama would have EVERYTHING he wants delivered on a platter. The dems have no "hammer". I would indulge Obama a little speech time, in return for giving the opposition such a forum and opportunity to thwart his agenda, like it or not.

YardleyLabs
09-11-2009, 08:02 AM
Yardley


Herein lies some confusion for me. Like you, Jeff, I see no evil in counselling patients on their options & the results of those options. And sometimes that relates to terminal illness, sometimes not.

The experience roadkill describes seems like part and parcel of the responsibility of being a doctor. The doctor dx's the disease; explains the disease; explains the treatment alternatives and the possible results of each alternative. In the case of a terminal illness, this also would often includes length of possible remission, etc.

I'm not entirely sure why one would pay an additional fee for doctors doing this part of their job. This intends no offense to the doctors on this board.

When the discussion goes beyond the purely medical alternatives (in terminal illness), then that should be provided by an attorney and accountant, as that would be their specialty.

This makes me wonder whether someone anticipates that doctors and PAs will no longer have the time per patient to provide this information, due to the patient load?

Or is it because fees will be negotiated to the point that this is a vehicle for providing an additional payment through the health omnibus legislation to offset other downard fee negotiation? Due to the rather "vague" nature of this service, would it not be open to abuse? Could each doctor involved in a case check off the "end-of-life counselling" box & the fee get paid multiple times for the same patient?

Unfortunately, we wouldn't know the answers to my last few questions until the administrative bureaucrats craft the actual rules.

As I've suggested before, couldn't this type of service be provided for through other existing agencies? Here in PA each of our counties has an "Agency on Aging" for assisting elderly on many items. This service could easily fall into that area. And it could be, perhaps, more effectively handled by such agencies before the highly emotional time of imminent death.

Yesterday I lost a dear friend to cancer. She was undergoing treatment for diabetes and a bloodclot in her leg. She was taken to the hospital ostensibly for that, & they discovered she had extensive cancer. She refused chemotherapy which, she was told, would extend her life only by a few months. She had watched several friends die who had chosen chemotherapy, and she had already decided what her choice would be.
I'm sorry about your friend.

Under current Medicare law, when your friend or other Medicare patient is admitted to the hospital, they must be asked about their preferences for treatment in the event that they are no longer able to direct their care. The unanswered question is where do patients find out what choices they have, which necessarily includes having someone explain that in terms that the patient can understand.

To do that well costs more than the 6-12 minutes paid for by standard visit rates under Medicare and private insurance plans. For the physician to be paid more, there must be a specific reimbursable service that they provided and that may be billed. That was the reason for including this item in HR 3200. The specific language actually began its life as a proposed amendment to Medicare authored by a Georgia Republican.

You raise the question of whether or not this counseling should be done by the physician. That's a fair question. I think the answer is that it is a service that should be provided at the moment and in the context where it is most relevant for the patient. If a physician is providing a general physical exam, or delivering bad news, or discussing an impending hpospitalization with a patient, the timing and context are likely to be right. The physician may provide the information directly or the physician may have a nurse or counselor in his office provide the information. However, without reimbursement, it is unlikely that the service will receive the time it deserves. I don't think anyone is prepared to have Medicare establish a special reimbursement program to pay an attorney to help with this, although it would be an interesting service.

The reality is that the legalities are not that complex (other than the fact that they are different in every state), but part of what is included must be specific instructions for each type of medical service, whether that be medications and other treatment procedures, pain killers, IV nutrition, or even IV hydration. My father's instructions, which he thought about extensively, explicitly prohibited any IV hydration if his condition were deemed by his designated representative (me) to be terminal. That was his way of guaranteeing that he would not linger for long. In the end, that was not what killed him since he actually awakened lbriefly the evening before his death and in his 15 minutes of lucidity ate some eggs and drank some juice. However, throughout his final days he was receiving extensive morphine to eliminate all pain and no IV's were attached to him at any time other than for the administration of morphine.

helencalif
09-11-2009, 04:21 PM
Currently, ER's are filled up with criminal aliens, and those who don't have insurance, and want others to pay their bills for common non-emergency problems. Those hospital write-offs get passed on to the rest of us in higher medical bills, and higher insurance fees.


You are correct. My daughter has been in the medical field for 15 years (hospital x-ray, CT scan, MRIs, ultrasounds). Not too long ago she managed that dept for 3 major hospitals in the S.F. Bay Area. She explained to me the term was called "charity care".

What griped her the most was ...

The ERs at those hospitals had a lot of uninsured walk-in non-emergencies by foreigners who said they were "just visiting" and got sick; however, their health problems were not sudden. She said it was well known that there were many who come to the U.S. and then were immediately brought to the ER by family to get medical diagnosis, operations, and free medical care and hospitalization because they know they cannot be turned away. They will receive medical care many Americans can't afford though they have no insurance and have no intention of paying, and they don't pay.

Which is why those who have insurance and do pay, foot the bill.

Helen Graves

helencalif
09-11-2009, 04:37 PM
And another medical care cost we are paying for ...

Same daughter left the job of managing dept's at 3 different hospitals. Could not stand the pressure. She moved to a different city where she is now managing just one imaging dept (x-rays, CT scans, MRI, etc).

This is near a prison. Inmates who need x-rays, CT scans, etc are brought to her lab. The majority of those prison inmates are brought there for self-inflicted situations such as metal or glass fragments shoved into stomachs, hands, arms, legs, etc. Sometimes they swallow metal and glass. Often there are items shoved up their rectum. (Batteries included.)

The only reasons she can figure out as to why they do this is: 1) attention, 2) pain medication, and 3) it's a trip to the outside which offers a break to the boredom of prison life.

We know we are paying for the medical care of prisoners inside the prison (doctors, nurses, clinics, medication inside prison), but did you know you were paying for self-infliction and trips to the outside for X-rays, CT scans, MRIs? At least 2 guards accompany them. They have to be driven to the hospital (car/van and driver, plus 2 guards). You do the math.

Buzz
09-11-2009, 05:06 PM
The only reasons she can figure out as to why they do this is: 1) attention, 2) pain medication, and 3) it's a trip to the outside which offers a break to the boredom of prison life.


I would guess that most of them are not playing with a full deck.

Rick_C
09-11-2009, 05:31 PM
Despite the Fla supreme court and the swift-boating, the last administration won the electoral process by the skin of its teeth, and did not have the majorities in both houses like the current administration does. Yet there were no explanations for anything they rammed through congress, except "trust us, we're from the gov't and need to do this to protect you".

I think the right should be happy that a little spirited speech is all they've had forced upon them so far. They should be VERY happy that the democrats are free thinking and nearly impossible consensus-formers, or else Obama would have EVERYTHING he wants delivered on a platter. The dems have no "hammer". I would indulge Obama a little speech time, in return for giving the opposition such a forum and opportunity to thwart his agenda, like it or not.

You CANNOT be serious!

GM bailout
AIG bailout
Cash for Clunkers
$700 Billion stimulus package that went who knows where...

Seriously. What flavor was that kool aid?

The only thing he has not gotten despite having majorities in both houses is Health Care reform...at least not yet.

His bullying and fire and brimstone speaches are because he knows the only way to get it passed is to shove it down
our throats without having the chance to taste it. Not to mention before we move into an election year for many senators and congressmen. IF he is not able to get this passed it would be a major defeat. He
knows this and is now fighting back out of desperation.

By the people, for the people? Well the majority of the people don't want his health care reform. Unfortunately Obama
and his followers don't give a damn about anything but their agenda.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/08/poll-support-health-care-reform-tepid-americans-oppose-legislation/

Buzz
09-11-2009, 08:40 PM
By the people, for the people? Well the majority of the people don't want his health care reform. Unfortunately Obama
and his followers don't give a damn about anything but their agenda.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/08/poll-support-health-care-reform-tepid-americans-oppose-legislation/

If you to to Gallup to read about the poll, it shows that 37% want their rep to vote for the legislation, 24% want them to vote against, and 39% have no opinion. FOX writes so that it reads like 37% are for, and everyone else is against.

Interesting story:


The poll, conducted by Anzalone Liszt Research in advance of President Obama's
address to Congress, showed that 57% of business leaders believe health care
reform should be an important government policy. They support key elements of
a reform plan, including insurance exchange (78% favorable), efficiency
reforms and an oversight commission (71%), requiring insurance companies to
cover pre-existing conditions (79%) and a public health option (51%).

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS148047+11-Sep-2009+PRN20090911

Rick_C
09-11-2009, 11:43 PM
In the article I provided - "Nearly a quarter of those polled by Gallup -- 24 percent -- still have no opinion on the issue." This was From last week.

I was a business owner for several years. Having been there and paid for employee benefits, I can understand why business leaders would be for this plan too. It will save their company's millions of dollars if they don't have to contribute to employee health plans.

Buzz
09-12-2009, 12:39 AM
I was a business owner for several years. Having been there and paid for employee benefits, I can understand why business leaders would be for this plan too. It will save their company's millions of dollars if they don't have to contribute to employee health plans.

We operate a small family business, and the rate at which employee health plan costs have escalated is terrifying.

Uncle Bill
09-13-2009, 07:49 PM
So little of what you all are arguing about is universal healthcare. It's ALL ABOUT REMOVING YOUR FREEDOMS!!!!

And it won't matter what form it comes in, once it's signed into law, the camels nose is under the tent...Humpty Dumpty will have fallen. If you can't see the fascist creep in all this, dayum you are soooo blind.

UB

dnf777
09-13-2009, 10:01 PM
You CANNOT be serious!

GM bailout
AIG bailout
Cash for Clunkers
$700 Billion stimulus package that went who knows where...

Seriously. What flavor was that kool aid?

The only thing he has not gotten despite having majorities in both houses is Health Care reform...at least not yet.

His bullying and fire and brimstone speaches are because he knows the only way to get it passed is to shove it down
our throats without having the chance to taste it. Not to mention before we move into an election year for many senators and congressmen. IF he is not able to get this passed it would be a major defeat. He
knows this and is now fighting back out of desperation.

By the people, for the people? Well the majority of the people don't want his health care reform. Unfortunately Obama
and his followers don't give a damn about anything but their agenda.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/08/poll-support-health-care-reform-tepid-americans-oppose-legislation/

I believe I noted in that post (or another) that both Obama AND Bush are guilty of these massive bailouts. Do you not remember McCain rushing back to washington and "suspending" his campaign to vote for the bailout? I'm not the only one drinking kool-aid around here!

Eight years of Bush neocon policies and the largest disaster since the Great Depression, eight months of Obama, and everyone wants to blame HIM!?

I guess I better start swiggin' the kool-aid, so I can understand where the disgruntled right is coming from. I do understand and share many of the spending concerns, but will not take part in wacko conspiracy panics like Birthers and Death panelers, and Obama youthers! Those claims sap credence from the legit debates.

Gerry Clinchy
09-14-2009, 05:27 AM
Eight years of Bush neocon policies and the largest disaster since the Great Depression, eight months of Obama, and everyone wants to blame HIM!?


I do so wish we could put this "to bed".

There are very few that would refute the economic situation we face now was not created by Obama. But it was also not created by Bush, alone. It started even before him. The perceived solutions to the financial meltdown appear to have been the same between Bush and Obama.

As I recall, if I have the timeline right, and I could be in error, the prior administration saw the handwriting on the wall about 2 years before the election; just about the time the Congress gained D majority. On this board, there are those who do not see govt $ being the preferred solution, even though it was chosen by both leaders.

Personally, I think they were all pretty ignorant not to anticipate the end of the housing boom. The pattern of boom, then bust had occurred before in California. This time the boom spanned many more geographical areas. How could they believe such inordinate increases in housing prices could last forever? It never did before.

We do not know how a Republican administration would have acted when it comes to the AIG or GM bailout. We do know that O chose those solutions, so he becomes responsible for those actions. We cannot lay responsibility for the problem at O's door, but we can hold him responsible for whether his preferred solutions turn out to be correct or not.

So why should we hold O responsible for "fixing" the problems? Because he insisted that he could do so. We cannot relieve O of his responsibility because Bush did something "x" years ago that was just as bad or worse. It's reasonable to expect someone as intelligent as O should learn from past errors; and having a literal army of advisors to help analyze what did and didn't work ... as long as pragmatism takes precedence over ideology and special interest groups.

So, if we don't like what B did in the past, then we should advocate with our representatives to take whatever action we believe should be supported to improve the status quo. Whatever B or other predecessors did, is no longer of any consequence except insofar as it points us to more effecttive solutions. And, in fact, what worked before may not work as well if the conditions (economic or diplomatic) have changed in the interim. No amount of anger for past errors will help fix anything. If it distracts from finding the better solutions, it is very counter-productive.

When O's tenure is over, we will be able to analyze which of his actions were useful, and which were not. During his tenure, we should also be assessing results of policies on an ongoing basis.

YardleyLabs
09-14-2009, 07:07 AM
I do so wish we could put this "to bed".

There are very few that would refute the economic situation we face now was not created by Obama. But it was also not created by Bush, alone. It started even before him. The perceived solutions to the financial meltdown appear to have been the same between Bush and Obama.

As I recall, if I have the timeline right, and I could be in error, the prior administration saw the handwriting on the wall about 2 years before the election; just about the time the Congress gained D majority. On this board, there are those who do not see govt $ being the preferred solution, even though it was chosen by both leaders.

Personally, I think they were all pretty ignorant not to anticipate the end of the housing boom. The pattern of boom, then bust had occurred before in California. This time the boom spanned many more geographical areas. How could they believe such inordinate increases in housing prices could last forever? It never did before.

We do not know how a Republican administration would have acted when it comes to the AIG or GM bailout. We do know that O chose those solutions, so he becomes responsible for those actions. We cannot lay responsibility for the problem at O's door, but we can hold him responsible for whether his preferred solutions turn out to be correct or not.

So why should we hold O responsible for "fixing" the problems? Because he insisted that he could do so. We cannot relieve O of his responsibility because Bush did something "x" years ago that was just as bad or worse. It's reasonable to expect someone as intelligent as O should learn from past errors; and having a literal army of advisors to help analyze what did and didn't work ... as long as pragmatism takes precedence over ideology and special interest groups.

So, if we don't like what B did in the past, then we should advocate with our representatives to take whatever action we believe should be supported to improve the status quo. Whatever B or other predecessors did, is no longer of any consequence except insofar as it points us to more effecttive solutions. And, in fact, what worked before may not work as well if the conditions (economic or diplomatic) have changed in the interim. No amount of anger for past errors will help fix anything. If it distracts from finding the better solutions, it is very counter-productive.

When O's tenure is over, we will be able to analyze which of his actions were useful, and which were not. During his tenure, we should also be assessing results of policies on an ongoing basis.
I agree with your post. Bush had eight years to fix any problems he inherited and to build the kind of economy that he believed possible. He did not have a completely free hand with Congress, but enjoyed a level of support that few Presidents have had over the last hundred years. What he delivered was a country with much more serious economic problems than the one he inherited. For a little more than half of his Presidency, the country saw economic growth. However, that growth was financed by national and consumer debt and collapsed, leaving us in the present situation. It will take years to reverse the damage done. If we actually begin to live within our means, as we must, we will not see a return to the standard of living enjoyed by the most wealthy under Bush because that standard of living was not supportable.

For now, I think the President's priorities have to be to arrest the slide, stabilize employment, and restore at least moderate growth. That turnaround will make the debt problem worse in the short term but growth will reduce that effect as it kicks in. While it now looks like the economy is growing, that growth is still being financed by debt. In the longer term (2 to 3 years), the growth in the deficit needs to be cut dramatically. However, I do not see any possibility of generating a surplus to begin paying down our debt in the next four years without crashing the economy in a way that would actually reduce tax revenues and increase the deficit further. Over a period of eight years, however, it should be possible to begin paying down debt. In part, this will be achieved through higher taxes and in part it will be achieved through reduced expenditures including cuts in both social and military programs.

With respect to responsibility, I agree that Obama must be accountable for the effects of his policies, including his effectiveness in working with Cogress and his effectiveness in leading the people. Absent an unprecedented miracle, Democrats will lose seats in the next election (as have virtually all prior administrations in their first mid-term elections). In another three years, he will be judged by the voters on his successes and failures in office. For now, I think he has done both good and bad things but has generally been moving in the right direction on the economy.

zeus3925
09-14-2009, 07:11 AM
You speak well, Gerry!

Gerry Clinchy
09-14-2009, 07:48 AM
Yardley


With respect to responsibility, I agree that Obama must be accountable for the effects of his policies, including his effectiveness in working with Cogress and his effectiveness in leading the people. Absent an unprecedented miracle, Democrats will lose seats in the next election (as have virtually all prior administrations in their first mid-term elections).

O ought to be thinking of this very carefully, i.e. effectively working with Congress. I don't believe he has yet been very good in coalescing his own party; and less successful at nurturing bi-partisan support.

Whatever O's agenda may be, whether I agree with it or not, will not matter if he does not win over the Congress broadly on both sides of the aisle. For better or for worse, change is not easily effected by being heavy-handed, or giving the appearance of being heavy-handed. On this point, his lack of longer length of tenure in Congress is a disadvantage for him.

Henry V
09-14-2009, 08:33 AM
Great posts Gerry and Jeff. Well stated and a good assessments of the situation.

dnf777
09-14-2009, 10:47 AM
I do so wish we could put this "to bed".
.

I do too! The first step would be to acknowledge responsibility for failed policies. No, Bush is not 100% to blame, but he certainly get the lion's share of the blame! the last two years of his regime did have democratic majorities in both houses, but they did NOTHING to stand in his way, and he got ALL his budgets AND supplemental war bills passed easily, did he not? So let's put blaming this on two years of democratic congress to bed!

The reason I keep mentioning this, is I am also very concerned about gov't spending. I've been saying that for the past 12 years. I want to make sure we don't forget who ran up our $11 Trillion debt, so we don't mistakenly elect them again and worsen the problem. The other reason, is, I have been complaining for 8 years about runaway gov't defecit spending. I feel I have legitimacy in complaining now. The most vocal tea-baggers, birthers and deathers have been SILENT over the past 8 years. Where do they gain credibility NOW all the sudden to voice protest with such indignation? Is it because a democrat is in office? I ask again, Where was the outrage??? Had they been protesting Bush's MASSIVE, RECORD SETTING defecit spending bills, I would be donned my tea-bags and been right there with them. (although most Bush protesters were either silenced or kept out of camera's eye view, maybe that's why I never saw them!)

As it was, I never heard or saw a peep from these folks, until the country chose in a democratic election that we were headed in the wrong direction, and elected the opposing party. Now everyone's panties are in a bind.

Gerry Clinchy
09-14-2009, 08:37 PM
I do too! The first step would be to acknowledge responsibility for failed policies. No, Bush is not 100% to blame, but he certainly get the lion's share of the blame! the last two years of his regime did have democratic majorities in both houses, but they did NOTHING to stand in his way, and he got ALL his budgets AND supplemental war bills passed easily, did he not? So let's put blaming this on two years of democratic congress to bed!

I'm willing to do that ... there is no sense in trying to parse what %-age of "blame" should be assigned to whom unless it serves the purpose of learning from the errors.

The reason I keep mentioning this, is I am also very concerned about gov't spending. I've been saying that for the past 12 years. I want to make sure we don't forget who ran up our $11 Trillion debt, so we don't mistakenly elect them again and worsen the problem. The other reason, is, I have been complaining for 8 years about runaway gov't defecit spending. I feel I have legitimacy in complaining now. The most vocal tea-baggers, birthers and deathers have been SILENT over the past 8 years. Where do they gain credibility NOW all the sudden to voice protest with such indignation? Is it because a democrat is in office? I ask again, Where was the outrage??? Had they been protesting Bush's MASSIVE, RECORD SETTING defecit spending bills, I would be donned my tea-bags and been right there with them. (although most Bush protesters were either silenced or kept out of camera's eye view, maybe that's why I never saw them!)

Since I might consider myself one of the "johnnie-come-latelys", I don't see any good reason not to join forces with you on those issues upon which we can agree :-) ... like fiscal responsibility.

Some hunters might view hunt tests and field trials as frivolity, but certainly is a good thing to join with them to defend the right to bear arms. The hunt test & competitive crowd is more likely to see what the HSUS can do to infringe on our dog ownership. If the hunters only catch on later, should we turn them away?

As it was, I never heard or saw a peep from these folks, until the country chose in a democratic election that we were headed in the wrong direction, and elected the opposing party. Now everyone's panties are in a bind.

It is also possible that the silent majority just finally reached its limit of acceptance?

There are likely some irrational on both sides. I put the birth certificate crap to bed long ago. I did, however, found it disturbing to see legislation proposed & quick voting encouraged without the ample time to even read the stuff, much less understand it.

I'm getting a little annoyed that O is spending more time on speeches than "doing", like making sure that his "examples" are accurate ones. The school kids' message, the 9-11 messages, a stint on 60 minutes, and a visit to Wall Street all in one week's time.

Instead of just saying that illegals would not be covered, he could have actually said that legislative details would be modified to specifically exclude them. Either he didn't know that the attempt to enter such wording had been voted down in committee; or he did know & was insulting my intelligence by trying to gloss over it? Not sure which is worse.

I will admit that I intuitively didn't care for the super-glossy facade of O from the get-go. Got that same feeling with Slick Willy. "Plastic" was the first word that comes to my mind.

That said, much as I respect McCain, he didn't convince me he should be President. Refreshing as I found Sarah Palin's spunk, that wasn't enough to convince me of her qualifications to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. I do wonder that this might have been one of the toughest choices ever for everyone who went to the voting booth last November ... if they were really thinking about it. I'm almost certain that all of us would be complaining just as loudly if McCain had won.

If there is an up-side to all of this, it is maybe we have all sat up and started paying more attention to our civic responsibility & holding our elected representatives accountable.

dnf777
09-14-2009, 09:42 PM
I'm almost certain that all of us would be complaining just as loudly if McCain had won.


I was thinking about that the other night. I'm sure there are many quick fire responses geared at Obama bashing, but honestly, where would we be if McCain was elected? Assuming he would carry on many of Bush's platforms, what would the economic recovery look like right now? More tax cuts? A little less defecit spending than Obama? How 'bout the wars in Iraq and A-stan? After listening to Obama, Levin, the Generals on the ground....I have no idea in hell what our goal is. To be fair to Obama, I never did know what our missions were/are. Kill osama? Rid the taliban? Neither is very likely anymore, so what are we doing there?

By design, change comes slowly in our democracy. Frustrating at times, it also provides stability that has served us well for 233 years.

Gerry Clinchy
09-14-2009, 11:23 PM
To be fair to Obama, I never did know what our missions were/are. Kill osama? Rid the taliban? Neither is very likely anymore, so what are we doing there?


Both Osama and the Taliban avowedly want to destroy infidels, and the U.S. and Israel seem to be their personifications of infidels. So, I have to believe that reducing/eliminating the radical influence of Osama & the Taliban are at the core of why we're over there.

I also think that bringing education to women in these countries will effect change in those countries beyond imagination in comparison to centuries of stifling women's possible contribution to their societies.

If Chinese leaders can be watching their backs because of their populace discovering capitalism, betcha Osama & the Taliban aren't in favor of spreading education and raising the standard of living.

I wonder if Osama is actually already dead? No mention is made any longer of his kidney disease. Surely would not be to the benefit of their cause to let the outside world know if Osama did die, as he has been the powerful figurehead of jihadism.

I think it is undeniable that the recent demonstrations in Iran show that as the memory of the Shah's rule fades among the younger people who don't remember him, the oligarchy rule of the mullahs is going to be taking heat as well.

While the original premise of going to Iraq may have been flawed, our action created a void in the orderliness of their society. We actually have, I believe, a responsibility to clean up the mess we created. A society doesn't move from multiple generations of being regimented by a tyrannical govt to freedom of thought & action overnight. There is a need to provide a safe environment so that the people can adapt to what freedom requires of them to keep it.

M&K's Retrievers
09-14-2009, 11:34 PM
DNF said in part "The reason I keep mentioning this, is I am also very concerned about gov't spending. I've been saying that for the past 12 years. I want to make sure we don't forget who ran up our $11 Trillion debt, so we don't mistakenly elect them again and worsen the problem."

Let me get this straight.. Your concerned about the spending for the last 8 years but have no problem with the out of controll spending of Obama, Pelosi, Franks, etc and the hugh increase to the deficit this health care "solution" will cause. I don't get it and I don't think you can explain it.

dnf777
09-15-2009, 12:18 PM
DNF said in part "The reason I keep mentioning this, is I am also very concerned about gov't spending. I've been saying that for the past 12 years. I want to make sure we don't forget who ran up our $11 Trillion debt, so we don't mistakenly elect them again and worsen the problem."

Let me get this straight.. Your concerned about the spending for the last 8 years but have no problem with the out of controll spending of Obama, Pelosi, Franks, etc and the hugh increase to the deficit this health care "solution" will cause. I don't get it and I don't think you can explain it.

Sounds like you haven't read any of my other posts. I have frequently expressed concern for Obama's spending, including the post you responded to. My point was more about the selective outrage we're seeing from anti-Obama groups, who were silent during the multi-trillion debt increase under Bush. Can YOU explain THAT silence?

ducknwork
09-15-2009, 12:27 PM
While the original premise of going to Iraq may have been flawed, our action created a void in the orderliness of their society. We actually have, I believe, a responsibility to clean up the mess we created. A society doesn't move from multiple generations of being regimented by a tyrannical govt to freedom of thought & action overnight. There is a need to provide a safe environment so that the people can adapt to what freedom requires of them to keep it.


And what does setting a timetable to leave tell the enemy?
________
Herbal Vaporizers (http://herbalvaporizers.info)

dnf777
09-15-2009, 12:46 PM
And what does setting a timetable to leave tell the enemy?

We'll force democracy on them whether they want it or not!

shoe-duckin' regards,
dave

M&K's Retrievers
09-15-2009, 03:42 PM
Sounds like you haven't read any of my other posts. I have frequently expressed concern for Obama's spending, including the post you responded to. My point was more about the selective outrage we're seeing from anti-Obama groups, who were silent during the multi-trillion debt increase under Bush. Can YOU explain THAT silence?

Obama's spending surpasses all previous presidents combined in only 8 months. That's enough to make the dead speak up...

YardleyLabs
09-15-2009, 03:51 PM
Obama's spending surpasses all previous presidents combined in only 8 months. That's enough to make the dead speak up...
Where did you come up with that statement?:confused:

Federal spending under Bush totaled approximately $23 trillion. Federal spending under Obama totals about $2 trillion. Deficits incurred while Bush was President total about $5.7 trillion. Deficits incurred to date with Obama as President total about $1 trillion.

dnf777
09-15-2009, 06:02 PM
Obama's spending surpasses all previous presidents combined in only 8 months. That's enough to make the dead speak up...

Well, that explains the silence....you're operating based on completely false numbers and misconceptions. Thank you for explaining though. ;)

Gerry Clinchy
09-15-2009, 08:13 PM
My point was more about the selective outrage we're seeing from anti-Obama groups, who were silent during the multi-trillion debt increase under Bush. Can YOU explain THAT silence?

A lot of the deficit racked up by Bush surely can be traced to the military actions in Iraq and A'stan.

O campaigned on, and continues to say that A'stan is important militarily. In the campaign he even believed that AQ should be pursued into Pakistan if necessary.

I'm not really smart enough to figure that one out, and I certainly have far less info than should be at the disposal of the Pres & his generals.

Right or wrong, at the time that the Iraq stuff started lots of people believed that Saddam was concealing WMDs. Later information, proved that to be wrong. I've wondered if Saddam was bluffing to keep the West purposely afraid of what he might do, erroneously believing that would make them handle him carefully. Unfortunately for him, that backfired on him. The biggest question was how much was known or suspected about the WMD intelligence being faulty before the button was pressed.
If we screwed up their country, we do have some responsibility to set it back up on its feet.

Surely, we would want to see them adopt the concepts of personal freedoms that we enjoy. Can we shove it down their throats? Not likely. However, the people who have recently died in Iran; those who died in Tiamenen (sp?) Square seemed to have tasted what democracy and individual freedom of thought were like, and were willing to die for it without us compelling them to do so.

Bush & O were on the same page with bailing out Wall Street. I think that was a turning point for people getting angry on a large scale. I know that I had no clue what a derivative was before the bailout. I saw the banks lending money to people with crapola qualifcation criteria, but I had no idea that financial "experts" were evidently more ignorant than I was ... by bundling the junk into retirement/pension funds! I didn't use any of those variable rate mortgages for my clients, but when the economy went into the dumper, even those with fixed rate mortgages suffered, especially if their income varied with commission (like my truck salesman client!)

So, I'd say that a lot of people were silent because they didn't know what was happening behind the scenes. Heck, people who should have had the financial astuteness to understand the sleight of hand didn't catch on! How could the rest of us?

But as the details were revealed and explained, and we watched the govt $ reward the greed, it made a lot of people hoppin' mad.

One might say that O's timing on deciding he wanted to be POTUS really sucked. He might have been smarter to let Hillary take this heat :-) Or maybe H was smarter than she appeared when she bowed out. Maybe she figured O had a better chance to get the health care initiatives in place, since she was carrying baggage from her and Willy's attempts on that score?

Lots of possible reasons, I think for the "delayed reaction". Cheer up, Dave, you now have lots of support!

dnf777
09-15-2009, 09:14 PM
Gerry,
I love reading your replies, as they are always thought out and never rude or insulting. Nothing better than courteous, if not sometimes heated debate. I wish more on the far right (and a few on the far left) would take a cue from this, and stop hurling insults like "asshat", "liar" and the such. (or their shoes) Its far more productive to have logical, civil debate than much of the name-calling and insulting that we see too much of, and I thank you.

M&K's Retrievers
09-16-2009, 09:19 PM
Where did you come up with that statement?:confused:

Federal spending under Bush totaled approximately $23 trillion. Federal spending under Obama totals about $2 trillion. Deficits incurred while Bush was President total about $5.7 trillion. Deficits incurred to date with Obama as President total about $1 trillion.

Out of my arse where I suspect most of the BS stats that are quoted here at the drop of a hat come from. Just guessing.....:p

YardleyLabs
09-16-2009, 09:24 PM
Out of my arse where I suspect most of the BS stats that are quoted here at the drop of a hat come from. Just guessing.....:p
For what it's worth, mine came from the Conservative Heritage Foundation.;-)

M&K's Retrievers
09-16-2009, 09:33 PM
Well, that explains the silence....you're operating based on completely false numbers and misconceptions. Thank you for explaining though. ;)

Just wait:(