I don't know how we could possibly stop it at this point. The politicians don't care that we don't want it. They'll take their payoffs littered throughout the bill, and vote for it, then go back to their home states (Louisiana, for example) and say they've brought home the bacon, oh by the way there's this little wart attached to it.
Interesting and compelling article. It makes me wonder why this seems to be working so well in Ohio. Honestly, what are your thoughts about it? http://cli.gs/23yYaM/
And we should believe an article posted on a pro-public-option blog (I noticed that there was not a "none of the above" option in their online "poll") because.....?
It is fine and good that things like CareSource exist.
That's not what has been promised us, and not what's in the bill.
Many things that work well locally do not work well on a national scale. And right now the good citizens of Ohio have a choice.
Even if we "fire" all the politicians who vote for this thing, they'll still get fat "consultancy" gigs at the corporations they write laws to benefit.
I can't remember if it was someone here commenting who came up with it, but I'm starting to favor the strict two term system for congressmen. One term in office, one term in jail.
Stephanie, any article that include the old saw And while 47 million Americans now have no health care at all, speed and honesty is a big part of what we all need. is by definition untrustworthy as a source.
Anyone. ANYONE can walk into the ER and be seen. Now, this leads to some serious problems when that's the only avenue of care some people have, but claiming that 47 million Americans have no health care is a complete and utter fabrication.
He won't be making any house calls right now. He's digging out from under a world of hurt over at his own blog. Y'all might wander over there, but I warn you, it isn't pretty. Funny as hell, but not pretty.
But Jumpin' Jehoshaphat, that's some serious amounts of intellectual schizophrenia.
So his proof of "corporate control" is a corporation on the orders of the government, dealing with him in a civil (legal) sense, and/or contractually, with a government-endorsed monopoly.
I'd be boggled, but sadly, that's what passes for "critical thinking" apparently these days.
Oh, and then the _banking industry_ comment. Again. Lovely.
Hey, Mark, what do you call a bank that's not blessed and sanctified by the government?
Consider that M's words are normally directed at children. Warping a mind in its formative stage is much easier than challenging a fully developed intellect.
A "Loan Shark".
Reminds me of calling a person selling guns on the street an "unlicensed dealer" (as many of the gun control freaks have). My reply to that has always been that a dope pusher must be just an "unlicensed pharmacist".
Phil, didn't that kind of article used to get a "tut, tut, Karol Sivoka isn't an English name", sort of response? I mean, surely the enlightened left wouldn't respond like that nowadays.
If what I understand about this legislation is true, then my current high-deductible health insurance policy will be made illegal, and thus canceled.
So I will be without any form of health insurance. But, this legislation mandates that I either buy an "approved" health insurance policy, pay a healthy fine, or go to jail.
That "approved" health insurance policy, btw, will also be mandated to cover all pre-existing conditions, and mandated that no applicant be refused, so the rates will necessarily have to be jacked-up in order to cover all possible pre-existing conditions.
That leaves me with the following choices:
1) Do as I am dictated to do. Having read the constitution, I know that it does not grant the federal government the power to dictate what products I must buy, so I will refuse to follow this dictate.
2) Pay the fine for non-compliance. I refuse to pay for services NOT rendered.
3) Go to jail.
(BTW, substitute protection for health care, and a shallow grave in New Jersey for jail, and you have a classic case of extortion.)
4) Pray that enough Democrats drop dead between now and the final vote on this legislation such that they no longer have the majority in the Senate, and the legislation then fails to pass.
5) Pull up stakes, close all accounts, live off of the grid and under the radar, in hopes of never getting caught.
5) Give up my citizenship and move out of the country.
This just can't be right. I can't believe this. Somebody please prove me wrong.
If what I understand about this legislation is true, then my current high-deductible health insurance policy will be made illegal, and thus canceled.
Amazingly, this runs counter to Obama's promises and campaign.
Yet it's what's going to happen. My health insurance, which I'm very happy with, will also be cancelled.
So, even though Mark assures me that he knows the questions to ask Obama, and that I'll be able to keep my health plan, in fact, Mark is wrong, and I won't be able to.
Funny how that works. The high-deductible plans are sustainable, and you pay for most things with your own money.
And those are the ones that the Democrats want to outlaw.
And those are the ones that the Democrats want to outlaw.
That shouldn't be surprising given that you know the true objective is control. You are exercising way too much of that under your current program - so it must go.
You can't just legislatively cancel the health insurance policies of 8 million people, then force them to buy your "approved" policy by threat of fine or jail, and not expect to be introduced to a long rope hanging from a tall tree.
"Phil, didn't that kind of article used to get a "tut, tut, Karol Sivoka isn't an English name", sort of response? I mean, surely the enlightened left wouldn't respond like that nowadays."
Ahhhhhhhhh… you Americans will never catch up with the UK if you don’t sit up, pay attention and stop making blatantly racist remarks that don’t align with the multicultural politically correct doctrine and other orthodoxies which change according to the latest crisis that the spin doctors need to address. Never mind that the British politicians are so bent, you could not twist wire into the shape they are in, the politically correct new speak must be enforced at every possible opportunity.
Britain has had multiculturism forced upon it by our “Lords and Masters” (didn’t you read the last comment I made that Kevin generously posted as a main article?). Multiculturism is a GOOD THING (in the same sense that Seller and Yeatman used in their history book “1066 and all that” – in other words, sarcastically). Therefore anything which can be used to show multiculturism is a GOOD THING is, well, a good thing, I suppose.
One of the mantras and a core tenet of faith is that unlimited immigration is a GOOD THING for the country and that the benefits brought by unlimited immigration far outweigh the disadvantages. For example, if it wasn’t for the skills brought into the country by such highly skilled people as Oncologists, the NHS and the country would be barely functioning and the amount of tax that such high earners pay is a net benefit to the country. It is not a good idea to point out that about 1/3 of newly qualified British doctors cannot get jobs in Britain (and it CANNOT be due to Asian (Pakistani/Indian) doctors dominating the NHS) – it doesn’t align with the message. Tut tut indeed!
Of course it is wickedly racist of you to refer to the infinitely higher number of people who leave their countries (probably due to some vague, undefined reason which can be blamed on the great Satan America) who travel through many safe countries much more aligned with their culture and religious beliefs and scrupulously avoid claiming political asylum until they reach Britain as economic migrants. People such as these :
(Try Googling SANGATTE in any UK newspaper website).
No – for the Left to justify their policies, Karol Sivoka is a Godsend. They can point out such highly skilled, legal migrants as this and ignore the almost 3 million or so other migrants that have flooded into the country (bringing in their highly sought after skills such as goat herding, shooting AK47’s, turning artillery shells into improvised roadside booby traps and growing opium poppies).
Mocking peoples names and questioning their usefulness to the country is so “little Englander” and is not useful in helping the cause. Besides, it is so “last year” – you really MUST try to keep up with the trends and the latest way to think otherwise you will be mocked or worse, ostracised as a unreconstructed, knuckle dragging redneck reactionary and won’t be invited to the chattering classes cocktail parties.
Just imagine, if President Obama needed some kind of medical treatment and someone called Miguel Gonzales was the doctor selected to treat him. Wouldn’t this be used to point out to you political unsophisticates the benefits that unlimited “southern” immigration brings to America? Haven’t you learned that any crisis can be used to advance the politically correct agenda?
No brownie points for you in the Politically Correct essay competition.
As Q says to 007 in the James Bond movies “Do try to pay attention”.
Yep - a standard left wing technique. One single success of their ideas justifies the whole thing, a single failure of the right wing concept is a full repudiation of the idea.
For example, I am certain that a 16 year old girl who becomes pregnant may bring up the child morally and the child will then got to university. A triumph of the concept and a ringing condemnation of those evil right wing fascists who would damn the mother and child to an impoverished existence. This conveniently ignores the thousands upon thousands of cases starting from the same base line which results in a dysfunctional child who becomes a burden on society, turns to criminality and ends up in jail, etc. and so forth.
But if (for the sake of argument) a single concealed carry permit holder is caught in a technical breach of the Law, it justifies canceling the whole concept.
I am looking for an article like this that I can use to convince a good friend of mine in the medical field that what just happened is NOT a good thing.
Unfortunately, I don't know as much about the medical field as she does, so I am not a credible source on how this health-care thing is going to be.
She thinks that this is going to fix the problems she sees on the wards every day (eg. people who are bankrupted trying to treat diseases). Somehow it won't cause worse problems.
I asked her why she didn't get a job with the State doing similar things that she does at her hospital, and she says that it's because they won't pay her enough to pay away her debt. She doesn't seem to have made the connection that when the government takes over the hospitals, that she will become a "public servant" and payed accordingly. While other government officials can scam themselves a decent wage, most floor nurses never will because hospitals don't function without a lot of them. Their wages will be kept low as a cost saving measure.
If it is bad enough for her, a NURSE, just think how bad it will be for doctors trying to pay off medical school.
Johns Hopkins just might go out of business.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/11/abort-health-care-reform.html (24 comments)
I don't know how we could possibly stop it at this point. The politicians don't care that we don't want it. They'll take their payoffs littered throughout the bill, and vote for it, then go back to their home states (Louisiana, for example) and say they've brought home the bacon, oh by the way there's this little wart attached to it.
I hope they all rot.
I hope they all rot.
I'm finding the idea of helping begin that process more and more attractive.
There's a reason socialized medicine has been referred to as the Intolerable Act.
No, no, no, that's not going to happen HERE - the "right people" are in charge... "Dr Utopia" is in the house.
Interesting and compelling article. It makes me wonder why this seems to be working so well in Ohio. Honestly, what are your thoughts about it? http://cli.gs/23yYaM/
And we should believe an article posted on a pro-public-option blog (I noticed that there was not a "none of the above" option in their online "poll") because.....?
It is fine and good that things like CareSource exist.
That's not what has been promised us, and not what's in the bill.
Many things that work well locally do not work well on a national scale. And right now the good citizens of Ohio have a choice.
In the future (if this bill passes), we won't.
Even if we "fire" all the politicians who vote for this thing, they'll still get fat "consultancy" gigs at the corporations they write laws to benefit.
I can't remember if it was someone here commenting who came up with it, but I'm starting to favor the strict two term system for congressmen. One term in office, one term in jail.
Stephanie, any article that include the old saw And while 47 million Americans now have no health care at all, speed and honesty is a big part of what we all need. is by definition untrustworthy as a source.
Anyone. ANYONE can walk into the ER and be seen. Now, this leads to some serious problems when that's the only avenue of care some people have, but claiming that 47 million Americans have no health care is a complete and utter fabrication.
Try again.
there was no need, the Government would provide everything
*shudders*
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."
"Dr Utopia" is in the house.
He won't be making any house calls right now. He's digging out from under a world of hurt over at his own blog. Y'all might wander over there, but I warn you, it isn't pretty. Funny as hell, but not pretty.
Juris: That thread is both hilarious and depressing. I mean, that's the level of brainpower we're up against, and we're still losing the culture war?
juris:
I don't like to give him the hits or attention.
But Jumpin' Jehoshaphat, that's some serious amounts of intellectual schizophrenia.
So his proof of "corporate control" is a corporation on the orders of the government, dealing with him in a civil (legal) sense, and/or contractually, with a government-endorsed monopoly.
I'd be boggled, but sadly, that's what passes for "critical thinking" apparently these days.
Oh, and then the _banking industry_ comment. Again. Lovely.
Hey, Mark, what do you call a bank that's not blessed and sanctified by the government?
A "Loan Shark".
...and we're still losing the culture war
Consider that M's words are normally directed at children. Warping a mind in its formative stage is much easier than challenging a fully developed intellect.
A "Loan Shark".
Reminds me of calling a person selling guns on the street an "unlicensed dealer" (as many of the gun control freaks have). My reply to that has always been that a dope pusher must be just an "unlicensed pharmacist".
This newspaper article puts the main article into a nutshell ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1229443/KAROL-SIKORA-A-Stalinist-NHS-quango-British-cancer-victims-denied-drugs-available-Europe.html
Phil, didn't that kind of article used to get a "tut, tut, Karol Sivoka isn't an English name", sort of response? I mean, surely the enlightened left wouldn't respond like that nowadays.
If what I understand about this legislation is true, then my current high-deductible health insurance policy will be made illegal, and thus canceled.
So I will be without any form of health insurance. But, this legislation mandates that I either buy an "approved" health insurance policy, pay a healthy fine, or go to jail.
That "approved" health insurance policy, btw, will also be mandated to cover all pre-existing conditions, and mandated that no applicant be refused, so the rates will necessarily have to be jacked-up in order to cover all possible pre-existing conditions.
That leaves me with the following choices:
1) Do as I am dictated to do. Having read the constitution, I know that it does not grant the federal government the power to dictate what products I must buy, so I will refuse to follow this dictate.
2) Pay the fine for non-compliance. I refuse to pay for services NOT rendered.
3) Go to jail.
(BTW, substitute protection for health care, and a shallow grave in New Jersey for jail, and you have a classic case of extortion.)
4) Pray that enough Democrats drop dead between now and the final vote on this legislation such that they no longer have the majority in the Senate, and the legislation then fails to pass.
5) Pull up stakes, close all accounts, live off of the grid and under the radar, in hopes of never getting caught.
5) Give up my citizenship and move out of the country.
This just can't be right. I can't believe this. Somebody please prove me wrong.
If what I understand about this legislation is true, then my current high-deductible health insurance policy will be made illegal, and thus canceled.
Amazingly, this runs counter to Obama's promises and campaign.
Yet it's what's going to happen. My health insurance, which I'm very happy with, will also be cancelled.
So, even though Mark assures me that he knows the questions to ask Obama, and that I'll be able to keep my health plan, in fact, Mark is wrong, and I won't be able to.
Funny how that works. The high-deductible plans are sustainable, and you pay for most things with your own money.
And those are the ones that the Democrats want to outlaw.
And those are the ones that the Democrats want to outlaw.
That shouldn't be surprising given that you know the true objective is control. You are exercising way too much of that under your current program - so it must go.
I am incredulous about this.
It just can't be.
You can't just legislatively cancel the health insurance policies of 8 million people, then force them to buy your "approved" policy by threat of fine or jail, and not expect to be introduced to a long rope hanging from a tall tree.
Juris: exactly.
And it's *my money*.
How dare I want to keep it and control it.
Shit, I might hand it to a con man like Madoff! I'd better be stopped!
juris_imprudent
"Phil, didn't that kind of article used to get a "tut, tut, Karol Sivoka isn't an English name", sort of response? I mean, surely the enlightened left wouldn't respond like that nowadays."
Ahhhhhhhhh… you Americans will never catch up with the UK if you don’t sit up, pay attention and stop making blatantly racist remarks that don’t align with the multicultural politically correct doctrine and other orthodoxies which change according to the latest crisis that the spin doctors need to address. Never mind that the British politicians are so bent, you could not twist wire into the shape they are in, the politically correct new speak must be enforced at every possible opportunity.
Britain has had multiculturism forced upon it by our “Lords and Masters” (didn’t you read the last comment I made that Kevin generously posted as a main article?). Multiculturism is a GOOD THING (in the same sense that Seller and Yeatman used in their history book “1066 and all that” – in other words, sarcastically). Therefore anything which can be used to show multiculturism is a GOOD THING is, well, a good thing, I suppose.
One of the mantras and a core tenet of faith is that unlimited immigration is a GOOD THING for the country and that the benefits brought by unlimited immigration far outweigh the disadvantages. For example, if it wasn’t for the skills brought into the country by such highly skilled people as Oncologists, the NHS and the country would be barely functioning and the amount of tax that such high earners pay is a net benefit to the country. It is not a good idea to point out that about 1/3 of newly qualified British doctors cannot get jobs in Britain (and it CANNOT be due to Asian (Pakistani/Indian) doctors dominating the NHS) – it doesn’t align with the message. Tut tut indeed!
Of course it is wickedly racist of you to refer to the infinitely higher number of people who leave their countries (probably due to some vague, undefined reason which can be blamed on the great Satan America) who travel through many safe countries much more aligned with their culture and religious beliefs and scrupulously avoid claiming political asylum until they reach Britain as economic migrants. People such as these :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1215350/Johnson-says-Britain-refuse-migrants-evicted-The-Jungle-Calais.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1203310/Arrests-UK-bound-stowaways-lorries-soar-76-released-try-again.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202009/Bloody-siege-Calais-The-violent-new-breed-migrants-let-stop-coming-Britain.html
(Try Googling SANGATTE in any UK newspaper website).
No – for the Left to justify their policies, Karol Sivoka is a Godsend. They can point out such highly skilled, legal migrants as this and ignore the almost 3 million or so other migrants that have flooded into the country (bringing in their highly sought after skills such as goat herding, shooting AK47’s, turning artillery shells into improvised roadside booby traps and growing opium poppies).
Mocking peoples names and questioning their usefulness to the country is so “little Englander” and is not useful in helping the cause. Besides, it is so “last year” – you really MUST try to keep up with the trends and the latest way to think otherwise you will be mocked or worse, ostracised as a unreconstructed, knuckle dragging redneck reactionary and won’t be invited to the chattering classes cocktail parties.
Just imagine, if President Obama needed some kind of medical treatment and someone called Miguel Gonzales was the doctor selected to treat him. Wouldn’t this be used to point out to you political unsophisticates the benefits that unlimited “southern” immigration brings to America? Haven’t you learned that any crisis can be used to advance the politically correct agenda?
No brownie points for you in the Politically Correct essay competition.
As Q says to 007 in the James Bond movies “Do try to pay attention”.
I see. So, they praise his existence while ignoring his message, without the old blatant "not very English" reference. Gotcha.
Also saves them the trouble of attempting to refute all those nasty facts.
Damn, that does sound familiar.
juris_imprudent
Yep - a standard left wing technique. One single success of their ideas justifies the whole thing, a single failure of the right wing concept is a full repudiation of the idea.
For example, I am certain that a 16 year old girl who becomes pregnant may bring up the child morally and the child will then got to university. A triumph of the concept and a ringing condemnation of those evil right wing fascists who would damn the mother and child to an impoverished existence. This conveniently ignores the thousands upon thousands of cases starting from the same base line which results in a dysfunctional child who becomes a burden on society, turns to criminality and ends up in jail, etc. and so forth.
But if (for the sake of argument) a single concealed carry permit holder is caught in a technical breach of the Law, it justifies canceling the whole concept.
One set of rules for them ...
I am looking for an article like this that I can use to convince a good friend of mine in the medical field that what just happened is NOT a good thing.
Unfortunately, I don't know as much about the medical field as she does, so I am not a credible source on how this health-care thing is going to be.
She thinks that this is going to fix the problems she sees on the wards every day (eg. people who are bankrupted trying to treat diseases). Somehow it won't cause worse problems.
I asked her why she didn't get a job with the State doing similar things that she does at her hospital, and she says that it's because they won't pay her enough to pay away her debt. She doesn't seem to have made the connection that when the government takes over the hospitals, that she will become a "public servant" and payed accordingly. While other government officials can scam themselves a decent wage, most floor nurses never will because hospitals don't function without a lot of them. Their wages will be kept low as a cost saving measure.
If it is bad enough for her, a NURSE, just think how bad it will be for doctors trying to pay off medical school.
Johns Hopkins just might go out of business.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>