Health Care

[billcoe]

OMG that's hilarious jb! Thanks!

[prole]

[tvashtarkatena]

Sooooooo...whattaya guys think about health care passing? If you done talking about Prole sucking Hitler's cock, that is.

[prole]

This bill is an infected bandaid. The parasitical for-profit healthcare system is still intact (if not strengthened) by this legislation. None of the underlying issues are addressed. Ten years from now, we'll need a universal single-payer system more than ever.

[ivan]

bill, i'm not going to believe its beautiful 'till it is - i think prole's right in that it'll be, at best, only a step in the right direction - mostly i hope it doesn't end up being like bush prescription drug thing

[StevenSeagal]

As I stated before, I am glad to see an attempt at moving this issue in the right direction; on the other hand I'm not convinced it is really doing much if anything to address the real problem of costs and institutional issues. Therefore what I fear is being forced to buy expensive and inadequate coverage in the future.

 

Before FW chimes in with a "told you so", this sentiment diverges from

the Republican proclamation that the bill stinks because our health care system "is the best in the world" and it works great for those who can afford it and aren't already sick.

 

My hope is that by getting more citizens insured and with continuing debate the reform process will continue to evolve according to what proves to work and what doesn't; this shouldn't by any means be the last word on this and I do hope- probably futile- that the R's will join the reality that the train is moving and will try to contribute meaningful content rather than childish obstruction and hysterical exaggeration and mischief. It won't help them or the country.

[LostCamKenny]

maybe its time for the posters on this thread to do as ivan suggests and play russian roulette with their posts again... i'm certain that kkk and prole would have extra holes in their heads already.

[Peter_Puget]

I can't help but to think of J_B when I read this.....

linky

 

First, partisanship undermines clear thinking. Second, it undermines moral integrity. In both cases, the root cause is the same: the conflation of friend and foe with right and wrong.

Consider this pair of poll results cited by Andrew Gelman in his wonderful book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State. According to a survey conducted in March 2006, nearly 30 percent of Republicans believed not only that Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction, but that the U.S. military had actually found them. Meanwhile, in a May 2007 poll, 35 percent of Democrats expressed the view that President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.

It's not just that partisans are vulnerable to believing fatuous nonsense. It's that their beliefs, whether sensible or otherwise, about a whole range of empirical questions are determined by their political identity. There's no epistemologically sound reason why one's opinion about, say, the effects of gun control should predict one's opinion about whether humans have contributed to climate change or how well Mexican immigrants are assimilating -- these things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa.

[billcoe]

Sooooooo...whattaya guys think about health care passing? If you done talking about Prole sucking Hitler's cock, that is.

 

Unfortunately, much like the many congressmen who did not actually read the bill, I fall into the same camp. Still without having read the bill I feel confident in saying this: I think the process was flawed and will lead to an abortion. I rarely see any bill come out of those groups that does the good one thinks it should do. Usually, on even relatively simple bills - after years of litigation, all kinds of things get created that were not actually intended. Given the complexity's of this and how many fingers got put into the pie, I suspect that is again the case here. The process should have been a group of experts examining best practices around the world and incorporating the best of them into a completed plan for us.

 

Once the experts plan was in place, then let the politicians vote yes or no. Instead, what we had was a full carcass tossed out into a pit. The politicians all jumped in and ripped it apart here and there while adding things here and there and then the drug company's and insurance companies picked at the bones and added some excrement here and there, does anyone believe that the final product looks anything like what they started with or wanted?

 

Time will tell. Once a thing like this gets in place, even if billions of dollars are getting transferred from our pockets directly to private companies like drug and insurance concerns while we pay twice as much for half of what we should get, it will be difficult, if not impossible to change it. Maybe this is different that everything else they produce, maybe this is a good thing. Sure.

 

You asked. Have a nice day.

[billcoe]

As I stated before, I am glad to see an attempt at moving this issue in the right direction; on the other hand I'm not convinced it is really doing much if anything to address the real problem of costs and institutional issues. Therefore what I fear is being forced to buy expensive and inadequate coverage in the future.

 

Before FW chimes in with a "told you so", this sentiment diverges from

the Republican proclamation that the bill stinks because our health care system "is the best in the world" and it works great for those who can afford it and aren't already sick.

 

My hope is that by getting more citizens insured and with continuing debate the reform process will continue to evolve according to what proves to work and what doesn't; this shouldn't by any means be the last word on this and I do hope- probably futile- that the R's will join the reality that the train is moving and will try to contribute meaningful content rather than childish obstruction and hysterical exaggeration and mischief. It won't help them or the country.

 

Shit, if we hadn't been typing at the same time, I could have just copied and pasted this. Well said.

[rob]

HCR is the republican waterloo

 

When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

 

Edited March 23, 2010 by rob

[jon]

When does Rush's plane leave for Costa Rica?

[StevenSeagal]

When does Rush's plane leave for Costa Rica?

 

As soon as the find a flight with three open seats together so he can fit.

[jon]

And is there room for Sarah, Bill O', and Glen? Imagine, Sarah can give Rush a BJ, Rush can give Bill O' and HJ, and Bill O' can give Sarah a ZJ! What about Glen? He will just continue with his closet cocaine habit.

[StevenSeagal]

And is there room for Sarah, Bill O', and Glen? Imagine, Sarah can give Rush a BJ, Rush can give Bill O' and HJ, and Bill O' can give Sarah a ZJ! What about Glen? He will just continue with his closet cocaine habit.

 

Beck will also be beating off in the lavatory with a picture of Sarah, in between lines. Did you see his creepy interview with her?

[StevenSeagal]

ZJ? Que es esto?

[StevenSeagal]

Actually Sarah won't need to leave, the new Death Panels will take care of her.

[Choada_Boy]

Does the healthcare bill violate the 10th ammendment?

 

Probably not. The 10th Amendment states that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The federal government, however, can claim two Constitutional justifications for mandating health care. One is the right to regulate interstate commerce, which includes any business that operates across state lines. (Even if not all health insurance companies operate in more than one state, Congress can still regulate them as long as that regulation is part of a comprehensive interstate scheme, according to the Supreme Court.) Congress also has the Constitutional right to tax. Just as Congress taxes polluting companies for imposing a burden on other people, it could tax Americans who don't buy health insurance for doing the same. As if to emphasize the point, the fine for not buying insurance is levied by the IRS.

 

Suck it, half-assed constitutional "scholars".

[j_b]

I can't help but to think of J_B when I read this.....

linky

 

First, partisanship undermines clear thinking. Second, it undermines moral integrity. In both cases, the root cause is the same: the conflation of friend and foe with right and wrong.

Consider this pair of poll results cited by Andrew Gelman in his wonderful book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State. According to a survey conducted in March 2006, nearly 30 percent of Republicans believed not only that Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction, but that the U.S. military had actually found them. Meanwhile, in a May 2007 poll, 35 percent of Democrats expressed the view that President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.

It's not just that partisans are vulnerable to believing fatuous nonsense. It's that their beliefs, whether sensible or otherwise, about a whole range of empirical questions are determined by their political identity. There's no epistemologically sound reason why one's opinion about, say, the effects of gun control should predict one's opinion about whether humans have contributed to climate change or how well Mexican immigrants are assimilating -- these things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa.

 

total failure of logic on your part PP. For example, I never assume that the enemies of my enemies are my friends, but it is however what Churchill did (giving him the benefit the doubt by assuming he wasn't an outright fascist himself and was merely an opportunist) when he praised a trifecta of fascist distators because they cracked the lefties' heads. Throughout the 30's fascists showed they were no democrats by perpetrating numerous acts of violence on their political opposition. Churchill's support for the fascists that enginered ww2 has everything to do with his world view that progressives and the left were the foremeost danger at the time, and that they had to be stopped by any means available (including dictatorship, apparently).

 

bonus trivia: guess which president had a bust of Churchill in the White House?

[billcoe]

bonus trivia: guess which president had a bust of Churchill in the White House?

 

Well, we know which President sent it back to Britan anyway: INITIALS ARE BO -LINK

[j_b]

Consider this pair of poll results cited by Andrew Gelman in his wonderful book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State. According to a survey conducted in March 2006, nearly 30 percent of Republicans believed not only that Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction, but that the U.S. military had actually found them. Meanwhile, in a May 2007 poll, 35 percent of Democrats expressed the view that President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.

 

Note that these 2 sets of beliefs have a very different relationship to reality despite what the nutjobs at CATO say. The first one, "Iraq had WMD and we found them", has been shown to be false, although right wing media said differently on numerous occasions. The second one, Bush knowing in advance about the 9-11 attack, hasn't been verified and it is merely speculation.

[j_b]

bonus trivia: guess which president had a bust of Churchill in the White House?

 

Well, we know which President sent it back to Britan anyway: INITIALS ARE BO -LINK

 

LOL I missed that! I thought it was a gift but noooo.

 

"when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."

 

[G-spotter]

Still without having read the bill I feel confident in saying this: I think the process was flawed and will lead to an abortion.

 

AND YOUR TAXDOLLA WILL PAY FOR KILLING THAT BABY, BABY!

 

[prole]

YOU LIE!!!

 

OBAMA'S LYIN', GRANNY'S DYIN'!!!

[Choada_Boy]

BABY KILLER!! I mean: IT'S A BABY KILLER!!!