Not this one:
Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) appears to be a decent and honorable man. Part of his background includes military service (with four sons currently serving). The truth czar’s impassioned outburst during President Obama’s healthcare speech may seem out of step with his character and his military discipline, but he vented/channeled what many frustrated Americans were shouting into their tv sets, while provoking a million-mob strong march to turn out in D.C.: You LIE.
Not only is former ambassador Joe Wilson a liar; but the current president of the United States is one, too.
Congressman Wilson broke decorum and the rules of civility with his outburst (not like Democrats didn’t do this during Bush’s speech). But he manned up and offered his apology (accepted by President Obama) while not backing down from the facts of the matter. If Democrats wish to press for a forced apology (not happening) for nothing more than political humiliation, then lets bring to the floor Charlie Rangel and his ethical transgress. Where was the disapproval resolution for Democrats who booed President Bush? Did Harry Reid ever pay through the nose for his comment about President Bush as a “loser” and a “liar“? Did the Pelosi vs. CIA embarrassment ever get resolved? Apparently not, since she’s still House Speaker.
Joe Wilson’s charge may have been improper, but it achieved positive results. (He could use your support).
What is most remarkable about President Obama’s speech last Wednesday (and again, since), was just how divisive it was; and how un-evolved from previous speeches. What bizarro world is it that talking heads live in when they ooh and aah the partisan campaign speech that was anything but presidential?
Status quo? Who’s advocating for that?
Republicans haven’t been offering alternative bills and solutions? Lies, spin, strawman, and more lies and spin.
Last Friday, September 11th, Investors Business Daily put out a brilliant piece as part of their Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure series. Here, they dismantle piece by piece, some of the misinformation and spin in President Obama’s healthcare speech:
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, September 11, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Reform: Millions of Americans finally got to hear the Democrats’ pitch on health care reform, made by their top salesman. But they heard nothing new — just a lot of discredited myths recycled as the truth.
For the record, we support improving our health care system. As is, it has too many rules, too much government spending and too few market forces to keep costs low and quality high.
We spend north of $2 trillion every year on health care — 17% of our GDP, the most of any wealthy nation. If that sounds like a lot, remember this: An estimated 47% of that already is spent by the government. And government’s share will grow even without “reform.”
Look closely at the plans so far to emerge from Congress. What the Democrats have proposed, in essence, is a government takeover of nearly one-fifth of our nation’s economy. When brought up in Congress, this idea has been rejected repeatedly. Yet, somehow, the idea never dies.
That’s why the president’s speech Wednesday night was a big disappointment.
Rather than a breakthrough that would remove government’s stranglehold on a once-healthy market and move us toward true reform, we heard a lot of old bromides and myths — things we just can’t let go uncorrected. Too much is at stake.
So following are 15 of the biggest misconceptions — and there are many more, we assure you — that we found in the speech:
• “The uninsured . . . live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare.”
Actually, of the 46 million people the census estimates don’t have insurance, some 20 million have incomes above average and could afford to buy it, according to a study by former Congressional Budget Office Director June O’Neill.
Of the remaining 26 million uninsured, an estimated 13.7 million are poor. They are eligible for Medicaid — the state health care programs for the poor. But many, too, are illegals — about 8 million.
Though they’re eligible, research from the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association suggests as many as 14 million uninsured Americans qualify for public coverage, but don’t enroll. And as many as 6 million are enrolled, but don’t report it to the government, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis.
That leaves about 5 million people with no care.
By the way, according to the Census Bureau, America now has 37 million people in poverty. But Medicaid enrollment covers 55 million people — at a cost of $350 billion a year.
Based on this, no one should be without care. Which leads us to wonder: Is nationalizing our health care system really necessary to take care of people who already have care available to them?
• “Many other Americans . . . are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.”
This statement betrays a profound ignorance of what insurance is. If you can buy insurance after you’ve gotten sick, it’s not really insurance, is it? And why have insurance at all? It’s an incentive to simply wait until you get sick, then make someone else pay for it.
To see how absurd this is, let’s take the same concept to auto insurance. Why not let people buy insurance after they get in an accident? One reason, of course, is it leads to fiscal and personal recklessness.
• “There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage . . . every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.”
As noted above, the bulk of the 30-plus million uninsured actually can get coverage — and in many cases, qualify for existing government programs. But how about 14,000 Americans losing their coverage each day? A little math shows this is just a scare statistic.
Multiply it out, and it comes to 5.1 million people losing coverage in a year. Sound scary? Consider that, according to the census, 46.3 million Americans don’t currently have insurance — 600,000 more than last year. That means that, along with 14,000 Americans losing their coverage each day, another 12,400 Americans are signing up for it — even in the middle of a brutal recession.
Those who lose insurance do so usually because they’ve lost a job. Most are without insurance for a couple of months or so. The best way to boost the number of insured — and one that “costs” nothing — is to cut taxes, ease regulations and slash government spending. Those policies are all proven job creators.
• “We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it.”
This is a non sequitur. We spend one and a half times more per person, true. But because our health care here is better. That’s right — better. True, our life expectancy of 78.1 years — which is up sharply from just a decade ago — ranks us 30th in the world in longevity. But look a little closer at the data.
The U.S. homicide rate is two to three times higher than in other industrial nations. And we drive a lot more than others, so our auto fatality rate of 14.24 deaths per 100,000 people is higher than in Germany (6.19), France (7.4) or Canada (9.25). Add to this, we eat far more than other countries on average, contributing to higher levels of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer.
When all those factors are figured in, according to a recent study by Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa, Americans actually live longer than people in other countries — thanks mainly to our excellent health care.
In case anyone missed it, Charles Krauthammer’s excellent piece regarding the myth of prevention as “cost effective”.
• Rising health care premiums are “why American businesses that compete internationally — like our automakers — are at a huge disadvantage.”
Well, right and wrong. Soaring health care premiums are a problem for some. But who’s to blame for this? Government health care programs, which make up 47% of all health care spending, are the biggest drivers of rising insurance premiums.
For example, Medicare forces doctors and hospitals to give patients 20% to 30% discounts on their care and drugs. Sounds great. But who pays for the “discount”? Private insurers, that’s who. And they pass it on to businesses. This is yet another case of government causing a problem, then blaming the victim.
Even so, in some industries health care premiums are an enormous problem and competitive liability. This is certainly true of the auto and steel industries. But they have no one to blame but themselves.
They gave gold-plated benefit packages to their unions during the fat times, and now that times are lean, want us — taxpayers — to make good on their extravagant promises.
This is why so many big businesses support nationalized health care. It bails them out of their own bad decisions — and by those imposed by government. Just last week a congressional oversight panel announced that taxpayers were unlikely to recoup much of the $81 billion they spent to bail out GM and Chrysler. That’s another indirect health care tax your children and grandchildren will have to pay.
• “Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. . . . If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined.”
Are we supposed to believe that adding more government will bring down government costs?
Medicare is already spending more than it is taking in through payroll taxes. Medicare trustees expect the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund part of the program to be insolvent by 2019. From now through 2017, it will need $342 billion of taxpayers’ money in order to keep paying hospital insurance benefits alone. Over the next 50 years or so, Medicare’s shortfall is expected to hit $37 trillion — an almost unbelievable deficit nearly three times our current GDP.
If Medicare has done one thing, it’s proved that government programs always cost more than their original projections. Citing the runaway costs of Medicare is an argument against, not for, further government intervention.
• “On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own. . . . I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.”
Discouraging employer-based coverage and encouraging individuals to buy their own insurance would help. But only if lawmakers make two real reforms, neither requiring a “new system from scratch.”
First, Washington must give tax credits for premiums paid on individual policies. That would make them more affordable for more people. Second, Washington has to make it easier for Americans to have health savings accounts. HSAs hold costs down because account holders self-ration treatment. They also give people more control over their health care.
• “Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.”
Shawn Tully, Fortune editor at large, dug into the legislation and found that for “Americans in large corporations, ‘keeping your own plan’ has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you’ll get dumped into the exchange,” a government program in which heavily regulated private companies sell insurance policies.
Workers who buy their own insurance or begin coverage through small businesses will also be forced into the exchange if their plans change in any way, because it’s then considered a new plan. Since plans generally change policies every year, Tully says, “it’s likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.”
According to a July study by the Lewin Group and the Heritage Foundation, health reform could cause as many as 88 million Americans to lose their private, employer-based coverage.
• “If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange.”
The president says this is “a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.” But it won’t be a real marketplace. Participating insurers will be saddled with a host of mandates. Those that don’t like the regulations will be left out. There’ll be little room for competition.
The Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner has said that “in practice, at least as demonstrated in Massachusetts,” an exchange “can quickly devolve into a regulatory body.”
• “Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims . . . The best example is . . . that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. . . . It is a lie, plain and simple.”
As far as we know, there is no provision for a death panel buried in the 1,018-page bill. But we do know how Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the administration’s health care czar, feels about treating those who need the most help.
“When the worse-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating (treatment) to the better-off is often justifiable.”
So the federal government won’t be actively killing the old and the sick. It will just let them die by denying them the care that will supposedly be available to every American.
• “There are those who also claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”
Tough words are one thing, enforcement is another. As IBD’s Sean Higgins reported last week: “Some independent analysis indicates — contrary to Obama’s claim — that the House health bill could result in coverage being extended to illegal immigrants.”
It starts with the mandate for everyone to buy insurance, including illegals. Their choices will be presumably through the “exchange,” and they won’t be eligible for subsidies to buy. But the non-partisan Congressional Research Service warns there’s no verification mechanism. An amendment by GOP Rep. Dean Heller of Nevada, to use electronic immigration records to verify eligibility for subsidies, was shot down by Democrats.
Enforcement woes are nothing new. The U.K.’s nationalized system treats as many as a million illegal immigrants a year because eligibility verification at the point of service is nearly impossible. It’s now giving up the ghost of trying because illegals have won the right to be treated at taxpayer expense as a “human right.” That’s brought new waves of “health tourism” as word spreads.
Cabinet officials, such as Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, support union demands to give amnesty to 12 million illegals. If so, they will get public health care. And hospitals that continue to treat illegals through emergency rooms, are reimbursed through Medicaid.
• “My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a ‘government takeover’ of the entire health care system . . . Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. . . Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down.”
Obama is right about limited numbers of insurers in states. They’re the last ones able to survive the layers of bureaucratic mandates and regulations without going bankrupt.
The fastest way to create choice for consumers isn’t by adding a government option, but by breaking down trade barriers across state lines. By letting citizens buy insurance from any state, a truly competitive market can develop, with choices in coverage, service and price. It would be far better if each American could buy health insurance from any of the nation’s 1,300 insurers, not just a handful in their own states.
• “Despite all this, some . . . argue that these private (insurance) companies can’t fairly compete with the government. And they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public option. But they won’t be. . . . (The public option) would . . . keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better . . .”
When the government acts as both producer and regulator of its own and everyone else’s products, the playing field is tilted because there’s a basic conflict of interest. It’s also a recipe for cronyism and corruption. Witness Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
We looked at the after-tax margins of some big health insurers over the last 12 months. Here’s what we found: Among HMOs, Humana, 3.1%. Cigna, 4%. Wellpoint, 5%. United Health Group, 4.4%. Broader health insurers, like Unum (8.6% after-tax margin) and AFLAC (12.3%), do a bit better.
The point is, these are not outrageous profits. And the health care industry’s $13 billion in 2008 profits pale in comparison to the $65 billion in annual fraud in Medicare alone.
• “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize.”
From the folks who brought us a $10 trillion deficit over the next decade, that’s hard to swallow. The White House has assured us the public option would be funded by premiums. So, it’s hard to know what he means by savings or spending cuts.
Although Medicare and Medicaid, are slated for $313 billion in cuts, the government has yet to eliminate the $65 billion or so that goes to waste and fraud. They don’t need health reform to do that, they can do it now.
• “The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies — subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care.”
Speaking of waste and fraud, as we said, why can’t it be done today instead of waiting for some health care reform bill to pass? The president proposes $313 billion in Medicaid and Medicare cuts, saying $110 billion would come from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments.
“That would encourage health care providers to increase productivity,” White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters. $110 billion would come from ending payments to hospitals to treat uninsured patients. But much of that comes from treating illegals, who aren’t supposed to be eligible for the public option.
Another $75 billion would come from “better pricing of Medicare drugs,” Orszag said.
What he doesn’t get is that some $10 billion of Medicare funding goes to dubious expenditures like hospitals padding bills because they are paid too little and must make up lost revenue in volume.
Cutting payments more means more padding, as the Mayo Clinic has warned. That means rationing. The Democrats’ plan may not be explicitly mean to ration, but not paying a fair and market-determined price for services will ensure less of it for patients.
President Obama began his speech by noting it’s “been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health reform” and that “nearly every president and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way.”
“A bill for comprehensive care reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943,” he also pointed out. “Sixty-five years later, his son (Rep. John Dingell, Michigan Democrat now in his 28th term) continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.”
Could it be, we wonder, that the reason why health reform of the kind the Dingells and Democrats have been pushing for 100 years has gone nowhere is that Americans want nothing to do with it? What is it about “No!” that they don’t understand?
Does he see his own image reflected back at him from his telemprompter:
“But we’ve also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we’ve seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenged. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.”
-President Barack Obama, “Remarks to a Joint Session of Congress on Health Care,” U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C., September 9, 2009
That seriously could have been written at the president.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY is just another right wing stocks, mutual funds and commoditites news service that is aimed at financial institutions and individual investors. They have every intent on keeping things the way they are. They represent the folks who are doing well under the current system. They are a biased source of information because they have a pre conceived agenda and interests to protect before they put the first word down on that editorial.
Health care for Americans should be viewed the same way that the Fire Department or the Police department are. Is it a Socialist system that the Fire or Police department will come to your aid, be available for you, and every other American? No, we all see this as a common good for all, and in fact support this across party lines and ideology. Do Conservatives get bent out of shape because most states require insurance for your vehicle by law? Nope, never hear them call that socialism. In fact, some conservatives will say that a vehicle can cause property damage, so it makes sense.
Property damage insurance requirements for vehicles make sense, but for real actual Human Beings, there is less regard? For all the talk about Grandma and Trig Palin standing before a death panel, the truth is that, as the INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY article illustrates, conservatives represent the interests of the status quo, those who are making the big money from the system as it is. They rake in big money too to keep the system the way it is now. REPUBLICANS HAVE SAID LATELY THAT WE NEED THAT REFORM, ONLY JUST THE GOOD COMMON SENSE APPROACH, NOT THE OBAMA CARE. In 8 years of Bush, not a peep out the Republicans about health care, not one. Bush wanted to roll Social Security into the stock market and fought for that, but not a word about health care reform. Obama campaigned on health care reform, and he won. The Republicans would not even be saying anything about health care reform being important now had Obama lost the election. The people have let them know by their vote that this is important.
My Daughter is 26 years old, has been on an insulin pump since the age of 15. She works hard and has insurance. She does well and takes very good care of herself, but she is restricted financially from moving to another job, since she may not get coverage due to her pre existing condition, paying the costs of the Cobra while the transition is in process is very, very expensive, and most importantly, she needs her insulin, meter, test strips, doctor visits, and other medications she requires in order to stay alive for the long term. For her to change jobs and improve her lot and live the American dream involves so many more considerations and financial drawbacks than most healthy folks her age.
If you look at your own health insurance policy, you will see a section the tells you when the coverage stops. Read it. Most every one has the standard boilerplate about if you stop paying your premium, when you leave employment of the company, when you reach the maximum benefit payout level…….and you will also see something like “when the plan ends”. Find out what that means folks, I did, and it is scary. It means that they can end your plan at any time they choose, for any reason. Period. You (or your employer) signed it, agreed to it, and you are bound by it. This applies to those who work hard, pay the premiums, and are productive people. Conservative love to paint the Health care reform as something to benefit only those who are lazy, want something for nothing. This is because they only represent the interests of the Insurance Companies, and not the people who buy and need the insurance, work hard and pay the premiums and are denied coverage.
We pay taxes so that the Fire and Police departments will be there for the common good of all. The Fire and Police are not perfect, but we support them nontheless because we all understand how we benefit from having them there to serve us. Health care should be no different. It may never be perfect, but it can be there and affordable for everyone who wants and needs it, and pre existing conditions and denial of coverage when you pay your premiums should be a thing of the past. Doing something about this is imperative, doing nothing is not an option…..the people have spoken with their votes in favor of it. That is one, among many reasons why Republicans are now the minority party across the board on the federal level.
As for Joe Wilson, in 2003, he voted to provide federal funds for illegal immigrants’ healthcare. He is a hypocrite, plain and simple.
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1219-Joe-Wilson-Voted-to-Provide-Taxpayer-Money-for-Illegal-Immigrants-Healthcare
Not only that, but he and his sons receive a Government run health care called Tricare.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/09/10/joe-wilson-s-dirty-health-care-secret.aspx
He earned it, and he is deserving of it, but what a flaming hypocrite to enjoy your own Government ran health care and demonize and deny the same type of care for other Americans. If Government health care is so bad, leads to death panels, and rationed care, why is hypocrite Joe Wilson taking and using it? And why would he allow his kids to be on such a Socialist rationed care death panel government plan?
He stays on the plan and enjoys the benefits because he knows it is good insurance, and he fights against reform for the rest of Americans because he is a hypocrite and he is in the pocket of the big Insurance money. Good enough for him, but too good for the rest of America, Joe Wilson: a hypocrite who wraps himself in the Confederate Flag, against you having the same coverage he and his family enjoy.
BTW: My daughter can’t join the Service to earn these benefits, because of her health conditions, I am not against Joe’s rights to have the coverage he has, only his hypocritical stance against other’s need for the same guaranteed coverage. And his vote to fund Illegals for their health care then crusade against it.
Hey Moose, what does your post have anything to do with Rep.Joe Wilson other than throwing your personal bias out here for display?
I earned my TRICARE with 28 years of Military Service in places that most Americans would find very dangerous. I earned a pension over those years. Do You have a problem with that too? It was a condition of Service by Federal Law, US Code Title 10.
http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_10.shtml
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C571.txt
(Please note that these links are Official Government not just some crap found on the net)
Find for me anywhere in the Constitution where Universal Health Care is guaranteed for the general populace and don’t hand me that tired old BS about the General Welfare clause that is abused too frequently by the Thieves that people like You elect to Congress. There is No Free Lunch guaranteed in the Constitution either.
While you are at it find “Social or Economic Justice” in the Constitution or US Code.
Rep. Wilson is a Patriot.
Fmr. Ambassador Wilson is a lying SOB.
Why do you set off my BS detector so hard with everything you post here?
Maybe moose sets off alarms because he starts from calling people names. He does not address issues. He is a standard run of the mill shout you down liberal with his fingers firmly in place in his ears.
Dear Moose,
Have you ever considered that the insurance companies are regulated? The fact they are required to provide or not provide items within the policy can be regulated by state and federal laws. Coverage for sex changes, pregnancy coverage for single males, etc. are not their choosing. So a lot of the really stupid stuff within policies are mandated by guess who?
No one here believes nothing should be done. It is the plan shoved down our throat no one likes. Obama, if he so wishes, could become a rock star by actually doing what everyone during the election said he was so great at – reaching across the aisle. Unfortunately, he is so enamored with Unions and the pink hair ladies, that will never happen. Therefore he loses a gigantic portion of middle America.
Here’s the bottom line folks Joe Wilson said what many of us watching Present Obama’s telecast were thinking…. “enough with the lies and distortions… and stop your borrow and spending us into generational debt”.
.
This is too easy. Read the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt10.html
TENTH AMENDMENT
RESERVED POWERS
__________
“The 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.”
States already regulate INSURANCE of ANY type by Boards and Commissions and set requirements. The Feds need to the hell stay out of it.
Medicare and Social Security are Federal PROGRAMS and regulated by Congress because
Congress makes the Laws and Funds these programs.
The idiotic notion that Health Insurance should be Mandatory like Auto Liability insurance
is a violation of the Tenth Amendment. Period.
Moose doesn’t understand that fire and police services are emergency interventions which is different than health insurance. There are government health services operated for the public good (like mass public health campaigns, vaccinations) which are designed to prevent damage to the public good via large scale epidemics.
That is entirely different from the provision of health care. The next thing you know liberals will be wanting a public option to cover oil changes and tire rotation.
It’s too bad the fed won’t let car insurance companies carry health insurance.
It’s too bad health insurance companies can’t cross state lines like car insurance companies do.
It’s too bad the fed won’t give me the same tax benefits as companies get.
It’s too bad the fed won’t let health insurance companies provide “a la cart” services.
It’s too bad the Johnson fed put SS into the general fund, cuz the interest alone could now cover everyones healthcare bill.
It’s too bad the feds welfare program works to destroy poor families, esp Blacks.
It’s too bad that out of the 5 parts of present fed-care, (40% of all healthcare dollars spent) all are broke, corrupt, laden with pork, and fraught with fraud.
It’s too bad the fed is doing nothing about it, but now holds up yet another shiny object for the dumassas to focus on.
It’s too bad the fed guided school system teaches dependency on others.
Bullwinkle:
Strawmen arguments do nothing around here, no matter how longwinded.
Then there is that pesky old scrap of paper to consider, you know the one they call the “law of the land” aka “the Constitution”. Fire departments and police departments are local (as in NOT FEDERAL). I think it is very debatable if most of the federal law enforcement agencies actually are allowed by the Constitution.
@mooseburger:
First of all, if you can’t stay on topic at least try to make a sensible off-topic argument. You used the Wilson topic to transition into an ineffective argument for national health care.
Second, don’t accuse a man of being racist without grounds, as you did with the “Confederate Flag” swipe. We all know that playing the race card is the last refuge of the defeated.
TRICARE, fittingly, is the third caveat here. TRICARE is a constant source of financial difficulty for the DoD even though it serves a segment of the population that is primarily younger and much healthier than the all encompassing demographic of a national health care program. From the mention of your children, you already know that the broader American demographic could never qualify to enter a program like TRICARE. So much for covering pre-existing conditions, eh? Would you care to sign up for mandatory physical training every work day? Mandatory drug tests, anthrax shots, DNA samples, finger prints, and a background check? How about height and weight requirements and physical fitness tests several times a year? Would you object if you failed and lost your “free” medical care (and your job)? Drug or alcohol problems? Don’t go there. You should also know that TRICARE is heavily dependent on outside medical facilities and personnel because the military cannot provide for its own active duty personnel and family members as it is, to say nothing of the expanding population of retirees. The point is that TRICARE comes with conditions and limitations you don’t understand and would not tolerate in the first place, so drop that shoddy argument right now.
Then there is this weak sister of a complaint you issued about the IBD article:
“INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY…They have every intent on keeping things the way they are.”
What’s that? Operational, solvent? You would prefer a complete financial collapse of America under the unbearable burden of a massively expanded federal health care scam when the current entitlement programs have already run us up on the rocks? Apparently you are prepared to trash 1/5th of the economy, ration health care for all, and drive up prices across the board, for the sack of 5 million people whose needs could be met through means other than burning down the current system.
Almost as bad as your TRICARE fantasy, you pull the lever on the fire alarm. I’ve heard others use the fire department meme but it’s just so much smoke to cover a false alarm.
Your comparing federal apples with local oranges when you suggest similarity exists between a ponderous national health care program and the volunteer fire department that serves it’s local community. Which costs more to operate, mooseburger? A fire truck or a hospital? Ever hear of a volunteer fire fighter? Probably. How about a volunteer oncologist? Who has bigger school loans, a surgeon, an anesthetist, or the guy driving the fire truck? The next time a loved one requires critical care, I sincerely hope you don’t have to go around the waiting room and ask for volunteers.
We’re very lucky to have so many excellent people serving their communities as emergency first responders. I trust fire fighters, cops, and a host of other civil servants that work to provide a safer community for us at their personal risk. Politicians don’t come close to earning that level of trust and I don’t want their hands on my health care.
Fortunately not everyone ever needs the services of the fire department. What would happen if they did? Do you suppose the fire department would be overwhelmed? What would your community’s budget look like if the fire department went to the home of everyone that went to see a doctor that same day?
Getting closer to home for you, why on earth do we have government designed restrictions that limit free market competition and portability of insurance? Removing those restrictions would be a great help to your daughter, yet the Dems don’t address these issues.
One more question to ponder:
Do ambulance chasers chase fire trucks or ambulances? The answer for that is tort reform, mooseburger, tort reform.
@mooseburger:
Dude…newsflash…in case you haven’t noticed, FA is a “right wing” blog with a partisan perspective, mmm’k? Daily Kos is that way
It’s easy to be dismissive of the messenger. Instead of attacking IBD, WSJ, FA, FOX, etc. for having a conservative perspective/agenda, for the moment why not refute the IBD article’s facts? Did you even bother to read the piece? Are any of the 15 points brought up false? Click any links? One of them leads you to Karl Rove’s site. Oooh! Ooh! Scary, scary stuff!
You’d be more effective if you can point out where the article errs.
I see that today the House of Representives is going to sanction the truth. Joe Wilson is the primary target, and I hope to hell that those that vote for sanction will feel the sting of the voters in 2010. Why are we saddled with these fools? We all know politicians lie, that’s why their lips are moving, and Obama is not an exception to the rule. In fact Obama tells some of the biggest whoppers I have ever heard.
tfhr – your comment is a thing of beauty – the entire post was wonderful – thanks to all, and even thanks to moosey for providing such an inviting and educational target – don’t think we could have asked for a better example!
It’s too bad doctors can’t write off the cost’s incurred for treating the un-insured.
It’s too bad you can’t receive your SS unless you sign up for Medicare first.
It’s too bad tort reform is completely overlooked by Progressives.
It’s too bad taxpayers fund Planned Parenthood.
It’s too bad Progressives haven’t learned from the failure of TN and Mass single-payer systems, let alone the Canadian and English systems.
It’s too bad Progressives can’t learn from the successful system in TX.
It’s too bad we don’t create more medical schools, and nursing colleges.
It’s too bad Medicare keeps reducing payments to doctors, thus forcing them to drop patients, and as a side effect causes private insurance, and private payers to subsidize it.
It’s too bad Progressives don’t know that the 3 biggest insurance companies, only average a 3% profit.
It’s too bad Pelosi refuses to let any of the competing Bills come to the floor.
It’s too bad sycophantic Progressives won’t look at ANYTHING BUT what’s been put in front of them by their Masters.
Patvann @ #15: Your item no. 7 re med and nursing schools — something that the left have been able to keep below the radar — the facts of doc and nurse shortages come up if the plan passes — like shortages in the thousands — anybody care to guess how the shortfall will be made up? — another crisis!! — there will be wholesale importation of more third world spawn and pseudo educated doctors — you know — “in allah’s hands” — think of the Glasgow airport terrorist raid a couple years ago — by Britain’s finist NHA health providers — coming soon to a town – hospital and airport near you.
Patvann: It’s too bad that Republicans governed poorly and lost the ability to enact their agenda at the hands of the voters.
It’s too bad that Republicans didn’t address those issues while they had the power to do so.
It’s too bad that if Republicans had spent 1/10th the amount of energy and passion trying to fix these problems while they were in power that they are now spending opposing it, that they could have taken this issue away from the Democrats and had a result that they could live with.
BTW, my reference to Wilson’s being wrapped in the Confederate Flag was not a racist taunt as mentioned above, it is a matter of record:
Senator Wilson said. “The Southern heritage, the Confederate heritage is very honourable.”
The decision to fly the Confederate battle flag was made by an all-white legislature in 1962 as the civil rights movement was picking up steam. The bill passed in 2000 didn’t even remove the flag entirely — it called for a different version of flag to be flown in front of the state house instead of on top of it.
The continued presence of a Confederate flag at the state house has caused the controversy to continue. In July 2009, the Atlantic Coast Conference — after discussions with the NAACP — decided to move three future college baseball tournaments out of South Carolina.
and here is another opinion about Wilson;
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html
He was one of only 7 State senators to vote to keep the Confederate flag flying high over the Statehouse. These are facts. This is the guy Republicans want to be seen as a strong representative of their party and values? This is the face of the Republican Party?
Ok, who ordered the spam?
Edit: Whoila. The spam has disappeared.
I so wanted to go to those links from huffpo and and jack “I’m not insane” Krugman.
mooseburger, the NYT has less credibility than Pravda.
Bullwinkle:
You will get no argument from me about the failure of the last admin, and the repubs that held the House/Congress.
It’s why they lost. It’s why the Indies went for O. Because O said he would fix the mistakes Bush made, particularly spending…
Guess the jokes on them. SURPRISE, HE’S HARD-LEFT PROGRESSIVE!!! Ever person I know who grew up in the mold of the Kennedy Democrat is appalled by the actions of this Admin.
Regarding the South….Do you really want me to go there? Shall I go into the Klan, Bird, The Equal Rights Bill, Prez-Wilson’s record? Carter calling Blacks “n****r on a regular basis behind their backs?
Really?
-I REALLY don’t think you do, because the most racist Party ever in this country were the Democrats, and if all you have is one item with a flag, from 9 years ago, you are starting out in a weak position. But I’m ready with page after page of evidence.
Watching the MSM run cover for the Lier In Chief is borderline comical, if it wasn’t so pathetic.
Patvann: The Dems have a history in that regard, up until the Civil Rights Act, without question.
The point about Joe Wilson is he thrust himself into the spotlight with his own actions, and the truth about his record is just that, the truth. It stands on it’s own merits, whether or not others have done as bad or worse.
@moosehole:
Hmmmm….you should have said “The Dems have a history in that regard, through the Civil Rights Act”.
I’m quite sure that you don’t want to get into a discussion of how that legislation was passed…and who voted overwhelmingly against it.
The facts on that matter are not what you obviously think they are.
Even in the time period since the Civil Rights Act, the record of the Dims hasn’t been stellar on matters of race.
Do you routinely copy/paste (steal/plagiarize) the work of other people without attribution or is this just another isolated incident?
View at EasyCaptures.com
Nope, not even close.
What Cong. Wilson voted for is for hospitals to receive a small portion of reimbursement for care that they are already mandated to provide to illegals.
I find it rather amusing that people want to point a finger at Rep. Wilson and say that he voted for health care for illegals when just a scintilla of curiosity proves that claim is intellectually dishonest at best.
Using the fact that Cong. Wilson and his four sons enjoy health insurance for life courtesy of their employers is the ultimate in hypocrisy on your part.
You bemoan the fact that your daughter is tied to her job because of the health plan while pointing your finger in criticism at five other people who happen to have taken jobs which also offer health care plans.
Your logic has holes the size of Texas and I’m happy to point out both your vapidity as well as your hypocrisy.
You’re welcome.
So I can still collect my Military pension and have TRICARE for Life without Bullwinkles permission now?