You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Palin wins "lie of the year" for 2009
- Thread starter Ricter
- Start date
Quote from bugscoe:
Why isn't housing a right?
Exactly, why does health come before a house in Liberal minds? Shelter is by far the most pressing need of any individual out there, after food and water. Though i guess once they win socialised healthcare, that housing will be the next step, then it will be a car, then an ipod, and so on and so forth.
Quote from Ricter:
Before I answer that, a quick question: did they get their hard work ethic, creativity, and productivity edge from wealthy parents?
Oops, another question: are they paying for better treatment that otherwise would go to a younger but poorer person who may yet demonstrate all those qualities and more, to a greater degree?
this is the most false argument coming from these people.
Remember, these people are Darwinists ... The Least Of Their Concerns Are the Weak
God Helps Those Who Help Themselves ... Theses Scumbags pretend to help those who vote for them.
Last weekend while you were preparing for the holidays with your family, Harry Reidâs Senate was making shady backroom deals to ram through the Democrat health care take-over. The Senate ended debate on this bill without even reading it. That and midnight weekend votes seem to be standard operating procedures in D.C. No one is certain of whatâs in the bill, but Senator Jim DeMint spotted one shocking revelation regarding the section in the bill describing the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (now called the Independent Payment Advisory Board), which is a panel of bureaucrats charged with cutting health care costs on the backs of patients â also known as rationing. Apparently Reid and friends have changed the rules of the Senate so that the section of the bill dealing with this board canât be repealed or amended without a 2/3 supermajority vote. Senator DeMint said:
âThis is a rule change. Itâs a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. Iâm not even sure that itâs constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I donât see why the majority party wouldnât put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.â
In other words, Democrats are protecting this rationing âdeath panelâ from future change with a procedural hurdle. You have to ask why theyâre so concerned about protecting this particular provision. Could it be because bureaucratic rationing is one important way Democrats want to âbend the cost curveâ and keep health care spending down?
The Congressional Budget Office seems to think that such rationing has something to do with cost. In a letter to Harry Reid last week, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted (with a number of caveats) that the billâs calculations call for a reduction in Medicareâs spending rate by about 2 percent in the next two decades, but then he writes the kicker:
âIt is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.â
Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call âdeath panelsâ the âlie of the year,â this type of rationing â what the CBO calls âreduc[ed] access to careâ and âdiminish[ed] quality of careâ â is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.
And why shouldn`t hardworking/innovative/productive parents provide for their children etc?Quote from Ricter:
Before I answer that, a quick question: did they get their hard work ethic, creativity, and productivity edge from wealthy parents?
Oops, another question: are they paying for better treatment that otherwise would go to a younger but poorer person who may yet demonstrate all those qualities and more, to a greater degree?
Maybe/maybe not, but you want to tell medical personell who to treat?
If government control medical care, bureaucrats will make the call.Quote from Dr. Zhivodka:
Bureaucrats hardly ever in any country decide who lives and dies.
It's generally disease and/or organ failure that determines death. However, one that is terminal might find more pleasant to treated by "end-life associates," like is done with medicare read: Government insurance....rather than "death panels."
You may choose differently.
Quote from loik:
And why shouldn`t hardworking/innovative/productive parents provide for their children etc?
Maybe/maybe not, but you want to tell medical personell who to treat?
An innocent enough process it would seem, but over time it leads to social stratification, which undermines the meritocratic ideal. Besides, to quote Thoreau, it is not enough to say that you work hard to get your gold, so does the Devil work hard. How do we mitigate this? That's one of Man's toughest problems.
Actually, yes, I do want medical professionals to allocate medical resources. That is, assuming they are professionals in the truest meaning of that word.
Quote from loik:
If government control medical care, bureaucrats will make the call.
loik don't you think they already make the calls, as insurance company execs.
I understand the mistrust of the government but I do not understand the trust of the insurance cos.
I'm not in the corner of either side, I am for what works. If the right would put out their ideas and take the effort to put together a complete plan that would give them a little credibility, but they put forth nothing. As it is they have no credibility only walking party lines as spoilers.