A place for me to pour out my rants without clogging the inboxes of my friends and family. Also a place to give info on myself and Mary, our family news and events.
One more falsehood from the Obama Cadre:
“47 million are uninsured”; such ridiculously overblown statements seem a hallmark of this particular Democrat-controlled government.
I guess their philosophy is, "the bigger the fish story, the more people will be inclined to believe it".
Actually, though, it’s closer to 17 million, and some say even less than that. Many of those are younger, healthier people, simply opting out of health insurance for the present, orthose  who are eligible for government coverage, but have not applied.
Now, from a moral standpoint, I can understand how health care could be perceived as a “right”; and I really could agree with that sentiment. Everyone should have access to quality health care. However, just because one has a right to something doesn’t make it practical.
Where would the money for this huge boondoggle come from? No one who supports this policy seems forthcoming with this answer; we should take Nike's advice, and "just do it". Aren't we in debt deep enough, already? The CBO says this, along with Obama's other policies, would increase the debt by nearly $9 trillion.
Many of these same people outraged when Bush increased the debt by a mere $3 trillion, much in post-9/11 defense spending.
As many examples I’ve found have shown, Socializing health care does little to improve overall quality. In fact, quality declines.
Why do so many Canadians come here, if they’re able? Why, for example, didn’t Ted Kennedy go to Canada, Europe--or even Cuba--for treatment, if Socialized medicine is so much better?
According to an article I read here, a man in England removed thirteen of his own teeth, because he couldn’t get in to see a dentist.
Upon further investigation, I've come to understand that it’s apparently so difficult to do so, that “do-it-yourself” kits are actually sold to Brits in extreme need of dental care. (Any Brits reading this: is this true?)
When/if we start seeing those at KMart or Wal-Mart, we’ll know we’re sunk.
In Canada, local lotteries are regularly held to get on lists for medical care.
In London hospitals, babies are born in operating rooms, hallways, even elevators, because there aren’t enough rooms; and with the present system in place, there's simply no incentive to add more rooms, either. And therein lies the overall, inherent problems with Socialized health care. It crushes incentive.
Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security; all are horribly mismanaged messes, hobbling along on fading fumes. Has government ever made anything more efficient, and less wasteful?
Obama flacks are now presenting the Veteran's Administration as a prime example of a government-run health care system.
Wasn’t it just a couple years ago, that everyone--especially the liberal Lefties (who, as a group, normally couldn’t care less about veterans)--was up in arms, over the VA? It was “inefficiently-run”, hospitals were rundown and in disrepair; they were understaffed, underfunded, using substandard equipment.
But then, that was a different President, wasn't it? Just like those $3 trillion buckeroos.
Now that government-funded, one-payer health care is being pushed, the VA's been repackaged as a shining beacon among government programs, as if such a thing actually existed.
More recently, we’ve had the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program; and now, I understand that ‘Cash for Refrigerators’ is coming soon to a nightmarish bureaucracy near you.
“Where’s all this cash coming from?” one might ask.
Apparently nowhere; many car dealerships are still awaiting their “Cash for Clunkers” money, which was guaranteed to come within 10 days of the transaction.
The “transparent” Obama Administration loves convoluted, overly-wordy, foggy legislation.
The average piece of legislation is around 10-20 pages. The worthless, pork-stuffed stimulus bill was 1,073 pages long; the health care bill, 1,017 pages.
What other political chicanery is buried in there? Despite so many pages overflowing with vague wording, it’s perfectly clear there's something more to this. Maybe something sinister.
It probably takes a way with words, however, when you’re shifting billions in pork funds to groups like ACORN, while simultaneously attempting to completely reshape the American Republic into something the Fouinding Fathers never intended. The United States Constitution is pretty wordy itself, after all.
“Free”, unlimited health care, along with “Cap and Trade”, the Stimulus program(s?), and everything else, would bankrupt America and collapse our economy, finally and completely.
But then, maybe that’s the plan.

Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Sep 09, 2009

You have to admit, Humble's kind of entertaining... in a highly obnoxious sort of way.  That's not personal - I'm sure he's a fine human being and just plays the jerk on JU for grins.  It's apparently a form of bored masturbation or autoerotic asphyxiation for him.  Not that that's a bad thing.

on Sep 09, 2009

The NHS does not decide who gets treatments, or anything else by looking just at the persons age.

There are things that the NHS will not treat in elderly patiants, slow growing prostate cancer is one,  but only for clinicial reason.  The cancer one is simply that it normally takes years for the slow growing cancer to cause major problem and by that time they would have propably died anyway.  They also do not treat because it is not worth it for the person, eg too invasive, the improvment in life quality is not enought to justify the risk.  All of these decisions are however taken with the doctors advice and not decided for them. 

I know an 80 year old who had a hip change for example.

on Sep 09, 2009

Oh sorry forgot to  add something,

 

Of course there are hospitals that are below the average of the NHS, there have to be!, and there have been cases where that cost lives.

Has that never happened in the US?

All parts of the NHS are montiored for the end results for the treaments they provide, eg number who get infections, number who die etc. 

The hospitials that have worse rates are spotted and investigated in a controlled and systemic fashion.

on Sep 09, 2009

You have to admit, Humble's kind of entertaining... in a highly obnoxious sort of way. That's not personal - I'm sure he's a fine human being and just plays the jerk on JU for grins. It's apparently a form of bored masturbation or autoerotic asphyxiation for him. Not that that's a bad thing.
Go fuck yourself, BenWa.

on Sep 09, 2009

I'll start with this one:

Take a look in the mirror and see if you can honestly say you aren't taking "disdainful pot-shots" at me simply because I disagree with you. If you can do that without cracking a smile then you're either a real estate agent or you should be.[/quote]--Mumbles

  

 [quote who="Mumblefratz" reply="5" id="2365621"]Brit here.So that means you're both a socialist *and* an idiot.
I got it from "Health care by the Numbers", posted by Draginol, which consisted of a link to the article....
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/07/state-run-health-care-by-the-numbers/ There you have it.
Who are you going believe, someone that actually lives in Britian and has had personal experience with their healthcare system for their entire life or an American that reads a single article from a blog founded by Michelle Malkin?
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about and you have no business intruding on our misguided opinions with your pesky facts.
[/sarcasm]
@Basmas, there are one or two folks here that do appreciate input from folks that have real life experience with a national healh plan. The problem is that they are so few and far between that all you're really doing here is wasting your breath. Just be thankful you live in a civilized country.

 

 Don't pretend that I started this little temper tantrum. It started with the above post.

You threw out the first turd, as you are so often wont to do.

Nothing is ever going to get solved here, and minds, I'm sure, are very infrequently changed by anything posted here.

This is a discussion forum, and that's all it is. There's no need to be a smug asshole, and liberals have a tendency to be just that; I've seen it many times on here.

There used to be a lot of liberals who came here. I don't know where they all went; maybe they got tired of being stonewalled by honest questions, logic and common sense, and went off to the HuffPo or the DU, where their egos weren't so easily injured, and they could get attaboys and back pats for their idiocy (like you say conservatives do here). I go there, sometimes, just for fun, and yes, I get swarmed. But I expect it, because liberals are far more intolerant of other views than conservatives. I will say, however, that conservatives tend to be more respectful and considerate. I've used some poor language here, yes, but this is nothing compared to the treatment I recieve on the DU, for example. Those people are animals.

And you should see what happens when I post some political or cultural opinion on YouTube, for another example. I said once that I thought Bob Dylan couldn't sing worth a crap. Such vulgar abuse, and from the media-acknowledged cultural elite!

I know a few of the liberals I used to spar with on JU got banned simply for being dicks. Like I said....liberals have that tendency.

As long as you're seriously discussing what's posted, I have no problem with you, or anyone else, coming in and saying what you will, and you're free to disagree as much as you like. 

But see Mumbles, you have this terribly annoying habit of being a self-superior jagoff. Maybe you do so, as Daiwa suggests, simply for weird kicks. That's what I don't like about you. So, again, if you seriously want to discuss, discuss. If not, leave.

When I come home from work this afternoon, I'll address the rest of your post. Til then, have a good one.

on Sep 09, 2009

Don't pretend that I started this little temper tantrum. It started with the above post
Hardly. It started 3 years, hundreds of threads and thousands of replies ago. Not precisely with you perhaps but with folks whose opinions are pretty much indistinguishable from yours.

Nothing is ever going to get solved here, and minds, I'm sure, are very infrequently changed by anything posted here.
Of course not. I'm never going to change your mind and you're never going to change mine. That's not the point or at least shouldn't be the point because to assume that you're going to change the mind of someone that already has an entrenched position is not realistic.

I post in overtly conservative threads for probably the same reasons that you sometimes post in overtly liberal threads. I'm not trying to change *your* opinion because that's clearly not going to happen. I'm simply trying to indicate to those that may be reading and whose minds may not be quite as fixed in their position as ours that the point of view presented here is not the only possible point of view that reasonable people may have.

As far as my supposed intolerance I will admit that there's virtually nothing you can say that will change my mind just as there is nothing I can say that will change your mind whether you'll admit that or not. However one thing I have never done is to assert that the opinions that someone holds are invalid or even unreasonable opinions to hold. I've simply indicated that I don't happen to agree with them, I have never claimed that someone is evil or stupid because they don't agree with me.

However that is not how my opinions are treated. I'm not singling you out specifically as this is true of pretty much the entire site, but liberal opinions are not treated here as if they are opinions of a significant portion of reasonable people with which another significant portion of reasonable people happen to disagree. Instead liberal opinions are treated not as merely a differing opinion but are treated as if they are entirely 100% in every case wrong whereas conservative opinion is not treated as simply opinion it's treated as if it's 100% true fact and anyone that disagrees with it is either stupid or has their hand in your pocket.

That is what intolerance is.

In any case if you want someone to address each of your points and occassionally grant merit in one or another of them then you have to be willing to do the same with your opponent. I've posted thousands of replies in threads accessible on JU, tens of thousands of replies if you count those on my primary site, and yet I have yet to make a single valid point in all that time. You'd think that I would have had to have made at least one valid point if only by accident. But no, everyone here is *always* right and I am *always* wrong but it's me that's intolerant.

You see evidence of hate in the things I've posted and pretend that it's totally unsolicited and yet every thing you post holds as much hate for the left as what I post has for the right. You just don't see it from your side. I read your OP and see hate in pretty much every sentance but you think you're being reasonable.

Everyone sees themselves in a different light than how others see them. Everyone is an asshole to someone else but not to themselves. I can see how some folks here might feel that I'm an asshole. The problem is that you can't see how others might legitimately say the same about you.

You can't see how others can legitimately hold an opinion that differs from yours but I'm the one that's intolerant.

You are not my judge. Those that read and seldom respond make their own decision and judge us both. Are you *really* so sure that you're *always* right?

on Sep 09, 2009

Go fuck yourself, BenWa.

It's not always easy to accept a diagnosis.  I understand that.

on Sep 11, 2009

 

It's not substantive to suggest that someone living in the country might know a bit more about their own healthcare system than someone that doesn't?
---Mumbles

Sure; but when you've had government-run health care your whole life, you don't know what anything else is like. Now, I realize that applies in the reverse, too, but again, as I asked in the original post, "when has government ever made anything more efficient and less wasteful"? Maybe our system, flawed as it is, overall, is better than what they have.

I don't want the government in control of my health care; maybe insurance companies, in a very real sense, really aren't any better; but at least there are lots of them, all competing for my business, and hence my money. The Market does right itself, according to the needs of the consumer; look at prescription drugs: a couple years or so back, there was this big outcry over drug prices. People were saying that the government needed to pay for people's prescriptions. After a little while of intense debate, we suddenly started seeing pharmacies offering hundreds of drugs for $4 a prescription. I myself pay about $150 less than I used to, for my prescriptions. They didn't want the government taking it over, because they know the government is too inefficient; so, they bit the bullet and started bringing things down to where they should have been, all along. There was incentive for them to do so. take it out of the private sector, give it to one, controlling power, and that incentive evaporates.

I don't believe that the goal isn't really a one-payer, government controlled system; Obama is a communist, and that's what communists believe in. A growing cadre of (presently) 30-odd "Czars" made up of radical loons and leftist ideologues, who answer only to him, is enough to tell me that.

It's not substantive to suggest that an article posted on a blog founded by an infamous right wingnut may have ulterior motives?

"Infamous right wingnut" to whom, exactly? I don't always agree with Ms. Malkin, or O'Reilley, Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.; but there is one line that has proven itself to me, however. Coulter once wrote (paraphrased): "Liberals don't hate (conservatives) because we lie about them, but rather, because we tell the truth." In my travels, I've found that thought to be very true.

I have to go; more later.

on Sep 11, 2009

After a little while of intense debate, we suddenly started seeing pharmacies offering hundreds of drugs for $4 a prescription.
Offering $10 generics for $4 is hardly a big deal. It’s no different than drugstores offering a gallon of milk for $2 instead of $3 at the grocery store. You still pay $140 per month for Plavix, Lipitor or Crestor, if they offered those for $4 that would be something. It’s a cheap loss leader to get people into the store and hopefully spend more elsewhere.

Obama is a communist
Obama is neither a communist nor is he a socialist, he's merely a politician and the only goal of all politicians is to get elected and once elected, get reelected.

I don't believe that the goal isn't really a one-payer, government controlled system
No like I said he’s a politician not an ideologue. He maybe perhaps wants a single payer system but that’s not his primary concern. What he really *needs* is to pass some kind, *any* kind of healthcare bill so that he can claim victory. It really doesn’t have to do much of anything that’s why he’s clearly indicated that he’s willing to throw the public option under the bus in order to get a deal done.

No one is talking about a true single payer system. Everyone realizes that is simply out of the question.

I personally favor a strong public option because I believe that is the only real way to insure that health insurance costs decline and their future increases keep a closer pace to overall inflation. Any system without a public option is a profit windfall for the insurance industry because everyone will be forced to have health insurance and be forced to pay a tax penalty if they don’t. You don’t think the insurance companies are drooling at the thought of 30 or 40 or 50 million new customers dependent on whose numbers you believe that are now suddenly *required* to purchase insurance?

See the following clip that expresses this point http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0fl6r-EzTQ.

The end result will likely be that premiums will go up because without a public option there will be no pressure on them to go down. Taxes will also go up because of the subsidies to low income subscribers. You’d think that republicans would actually be in favor of this because it would give them ammunition for their 2012 presidential run that would otherwise be very weak. I mean the best ticket you have at this point is Cheney-Palin, and they’re going to need all the help they can get.

What is most likely at this point is initially no public option but with certain conditions that would “trigger” a public option. I’m definitely not for this either since Medicare part D had a trigger that’s still waiting to kick in. Basically a trigger is some form of protection because it does place a bottom line on the performance of the health insurance companies but they will all simply go right down to the limits but take care not to go over that line and I don’t believe that will be enough.

I spent last night emailing my senator, congressman, Obama, Speaker Pelosi, the Progressive caucus, and the black caucus, basically any and all, particularly all those that have expressed support for the public option, and expressed my opinion that I would rather have *no* healthcare reform than the pretense of healthcare reform that would exist without a public option.

”Infamous right wingnut” to whom
To anyone from the center to the left.

on Sep 11, 2009

Offering $10 generics for $4 is hardly a big deal. It’s no different than drugstores offering a gallon of milk for $2 instead of $3 at the grocery store. You still pay $140 per month for Plavix, Lipitor or Crestor, if they offered those for $4 that would be something. It’s a cheap loss leader to get people into the store and hopefully spend more elsewhere.
---Mumbles

Well, aren't you just the cynical one?  As I said, I pay around $150 less for my prescriptions now, than I did before they started offering me two of them for $4 a piece. That's a nice savings, and one that clearly could have been offered before. The reason they dropped the prices was the threat of a government takeover. They wanted to make sure they got paid, so they started charge=ing more reasonable prices. What else could it be? The people were paying them too much? Yeah, sure.

Obama is neither a communist nor is he a socialist, he's merely a politician and the only goal of all politicians is to get elected and once elected, get reelected.
---Mumbles

HAHAHAHAHA....okay, okay....wait.....no...AAA-HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whew! Thanks; I needed that!

I'll delve into the rest of your post later. Thanks, though; I like honest back-and-forth.

 

on Sep 11, 2009

As I said, I pay around $150 less for my prescriptions now, than I did before they started offering me two of them for $4 a piece.
So you're saying that you're getting $150 off for 2 drugs? Is this per month? I'd be very interested in hearing specifically which drugs you're talking about so that I could verify that claim.

Another thing that would be interesting to hear is your feelings about other government "entitlements". For example social security or Medicare, or how about veterans benefits? One thing that I have difficulty with is seeing Republican congressmen sit there and pontificate about the evils of "big government" and yet they'll suck at the public tit with their best health coverage in the world and think nothing of it. If they truly believed in their principles then they should refuse their congressional health coverage and either pay for their own healthcare out of pocket or at least with commercial health insurance, but you know that will never happen. Don't you see this as just a bit hypocritical?

HAHAHAHAHA....okay, okay....wait.....no...AAA-HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whew! Thanks; I needed that
Happy to provide that bit of comic relief. However do you really believe that Obama is motivated by something other than to be reelected to a 2nd term? Or put another way, do you think that Obama is so principled (even though you believe that his principles are of a communistic nature) that he would be willing to sacrifice his own benefit to follow his principles? If so then you're giving Obama more credit than you imagine because someone willing to follow their principles at risk to their own benefit is very rare, even if you don't happen to agree with those principles.

I'll delve into the rest of your post later. Thanks, though; I like honest back-and-forth.
The point of the rest of what I was talking about is that if the ultimate bill does not have a public option then I'll be against the bill as well. That would essentially put us on the same side. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?

I believe that it’s a total mistake on Obama’s part to even make the attempt or pretense at bipartisanship. There is no thing that can be proposed that will gain any noticeable Republican support, their only point is to water the bill down as much as humanly possible and in the end vote against it. At this point attempts to act in a bipartisan manner only erode support from his base.

The real determinants of what, if anything, gets passed are the Blue Dog Democrats. You have the RINO’s and we have the Blue Dogs. To me, Max Baucus is far more of a problem than someone like Joe Wilson.

on Sep 11, 2009

However do you really believe that Obama is motivated by something other than to be reelected to a 2nd term? Or put another way, do you think that Obama is so principled (even though you believe that his principles are of a communistic nature) that he would be willing to sacrifice his own benefit to follow his principles?
---Mumbles

This, as i see, it, is the crux of your argument, here. I would agree with this, on the whole, except for two words:

Adolf Hitler.

Hitler was a politician with his own set of principles. He was charismatic, as Obama is, used the economy to great effect, as Obama has, and was motivated by much, much more than simply being re-elected. He realized long before that he wasn't going to have to worry about it, anyway. Obama is an idealogue, and is proving that out by choosing fellow idelogues for positions of power in his administration. He writes convoluted and vague legislation that is a nearly hundred times longer than the average bill, and gives the presssured legislatorsonly  a couple days to read it, if they actually do, anyway.

Fidel Castro led a popular revolution against an unpopular dictatorship, then declared his own, revolutionary government to be a communist dictatorship. Hugo Chavez has emerged as another, similar example. Ho Chi Minh; kind of a stretch, but he fits in here.

Isn't all this pretty much, by the way, how your side says Bush caused himself to be elected and re-elected? But now that it's your guy in there, well, he'd NEVER do anything untoward; anything unconstitutional. Well, another word for you: "czars".

From "American Thinker":

"Congress has the right and the duty to review, confirm, or reject the chief officer of the federal executive and legislative branches (except, of course, for the president and vice president.)  And Congress has the right and the duty to remove any important federal officer who is corrupt or exceeds the powers of his office.  The duty of Congress to remove corrupt principal officers of the executive and judicial branches is often simply forgotten.  If the Secretary of the Treasury, for example, engages in some stinky behavior, he usually simply resigns.  But whether he does -- indeed, even if he does -- the House can impeach him and the Senate can convict him. 

That is a deliberate check the Founding Fathers intended to give Congress over the Executive Branch.  But could the House impeach or how could the Senate convict an Obama commissar, who had never been confirmed by the Senate and who held a position not created by Congress?   Cabinet secretaries and heads of agencies are accountable both to the president and to Congress.  These commissars, on the other hand, could not be impeached and removed from office because they do not, formally, hold an office.

This is very dangerous.  The leader, in this case Obama, becomes more than the office itself.  The structure of government morphs into the structure of the party. Stalin, in large measure, did not wield his awful power as the head of the Soviet Union or chief of the Soviet government:  he did, in fact, often brag that he was simply a member of the Communist Party, an ordinary Soviet citizen.  Hitler did combine the offices of Chancellor and President, but his real power was as leader of the Nazi Party, not an official of the German government. 

When separate parts of government blend together, when rules of procedure are simply bypassed, when the distinction between political parties operating within government are transformed into political parties (through a system of commissars) operating as the government, then any nation with established, stable, and republican institutions has entered a very deadly phase.

The patterns are already ominously clear.  Legislators, quite literally, vote for legislation not yet written (which rather sounds like Hitler's Enabling Act.)  Judicial nominees make only the vaguest pretense of adhering to ideals of impartial administration of justice (Hispanic Justice and Aryan Justice may sound different to some people, but they are not.)  Now commissars are replacing cabinet secretaries -- and we should stop letting Obama define the changes.  He is not appointing dozens of "czars."  He is creating a party-state system of political commissars."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/not_obamas_czars_but_his_commi.html


How many people actually vote for, or support, a "dictator"? A person whom they know and truly believe, from the get-go, is going to brutally oppress and murder?  How many politicians who end up as dictators actually run on the Political/Cultural Tyranny platform? Obama is no Hitler, to be sure, but he's in the same vein. Bush may have tap-danced around the Constitution a little, but Obama is quietly subverting in ways Bush never even, in eight years, attempted. And besides, Bush had the War on Terror banner to hold up.

Obama's weakening our position there, however, in trying to make nice with hateful savages and fanatical killers. What's his excuse, then?

on Sep 12, 2009

I like honest back-and-forth.
You don't see your last post as just a little bit off the deep end?

If you don't then it's really hard to have an honest back-and-forth.

Don't become so entrenched in your own rhetoric that you begin to believe it yourself.

I mean I can actually understand most of the craziness at town hall meetings and the like because it actually served a political purpose. I don't agree with all the strident screaming and yelling but I have to admit it was effective at distracting folks from the real issues at hand and making it seem like there is more opposition than there really is. It's the squeaky wheel getting the oil syndrome. I get that.

But this Hitler and communist talk is just crazy for crazy sake. It really doesn't help your case and it makes you seem really out there. This goes back to the days of McCarthyism and the John Birchers. To be kind it borders on paranoia at the very least.

Just be careful not to drink the Kool-Aid.

Isn't all this pretty much, by the way, how your side says Bush caused himself to be elected and re-elected?
No. Bush was elected by cheating and then reelected by the Diebold electronic voting machines that left no paper trail.

on Sep 12, 2009

One thing that I have difficulty with is seeing Republican congressmen sit there and pontificate about the evils of "big government" and yet they'll suck at the public tit with their best health coverage in the world and think nothing of it. If they truly believed in their principles then they should refuse their congressional health coverage and either pay for their own healthcare out of pocket or at least with commercial health insurance, but you know that will never happen.

On that, we can agree.

Don't you see this as just a bit hypocritical?

Yes.

All I want is what Obama said he was going to fight for back in 2008 when he was a candidate - access to a health plan at least as good as what he had as a Senator (Today Show interview).

on Sep 12, 2009

No. Bush was elected by cheating and then reelected by the Diebold electronic voting machines that left no paper trail.

4 Pages1 2 3 4