This entry was posted on August 13, 2009 at 6:36 am and is filed under Free For All . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
This is interesting now Imus is irascible…that isn’t what people in the business were calling him before I think Imus might be highly motivated now that he will be on the rival network of CNBC…after all MSNBC fired him. I am sure he doesn’t hold a grudge…accept for every other time in his life when he let his critics have it.
I’m sure ratings-wise this would be good for FBN, but I still don’t see how this will help them build up any credibility in business news. Traders will be over at CNBC getting their morning data.
Reminds me of MSNBC dumping their news program on weekends, just for ratings. They should be there to report what they’re in business to do. Same w/FBN.
Se. Harry Reid is calling the protesters “Evil Mongers” and Ed Schultz has said on his radio show that right-wing talkers and conservatives want to see Obama “get shot.”
Whose using scare tactics now? Remember, Dissent is Patriotic…
Team Obama is suffering from Extended Campaign Syndrome. In an election, campaign staffers are often just trying to survive until the next week or the next primary. They cut corners because they are fatigued or under pressure. They can be purposely combative and even portray critics as enemies.
Carrying this mindset into the White House can get you into trouble, a lesson the Obama administration is now learning the hard way.
The author was: Karl Rove.
Oy. The man’s got chutzpah, that’s for sure.
The words ring true but this is hardly the person to sound them.
That was awesome. Just as they were leaving air, Ed Schultz told Karen Heinretty(sp) that if Jesus came back today, He would want everyone covered under health care. She called him insane. He’s bringing her back on tomorrow to, as Ed says, get after it. Ed Schultz is the left wing Glenn Beck!
if Jesus came back today, He would want everyone covered under health care.
Probably true, although I don’t think Augustine opined on it.
But he wouldn’t be putting a gun to your head and taking property to provide the care. Moral suasion was his approach.
Pretty sure about that one.
It’s like all of these hosts are in a contest to say the most outrageous stuff. Beck today on the radio as I drove home from work was just insipid. The sturm-und-drang stuff again…
Score one for Sarah Palin. Though her “death panels” comment was derided by the libs, it got major media play, and now those end of life decisions in ObamaCare are … well… dead.
Though her “death panels” comment was derided by the libs, it got major media play, and now those end of life decisions in ObamaCare are … well… dead.
Does anyone remember where the whole ‘living will’ stuff came from? Am I the only one who remembers the big ‘patients’ rights’ stuff thirty years ago?
For the babies among us, a brief recap… back in the sixties and seventies, children, if you were in the hospital and dying of some incurable condition, you could NOT refuse treatment – doctors would do everything in their power to keep you alive even if all that awaited you was another few days or weeks of pain and indignity. ESPECIALLY if you were very very ill, you simply could not get up, pull the tubes out and walk out of there. And even if you begged, doctors would tell you they were not ALLOWED to not treat you as long as you were alive – if they stopped treating you and allowed you to die with dignity, they could be brought up on charges for manslaughter or criminal negligence.
Eventually sanity (and individual human rights) prevailed and people regained the right to refuse care if it was their choice. That’s what ‘do not resusitate’ and ‘no heroic measures’ mean – if you’re dying, you have specifically requested that they do nothing to artificially prolong your life when there is no hope of eventual recovery.
A ‘living will’ is simply a legally binding document that tells doctors what your wishes are should you be too ill to make your decision verbally – if you were in a coma, for example.
This was a big human rights advance and seen as such at the time – people SHOULD have the right to tell their doctors to stop treating them if they, for instance, want to die at home, or simply don’t want their last memory to be some surgeon cracking their chest open to try to get their heart restarted.
Only complete a$$holes like Palin and Gingrich could play this basic human right as ‘elderly euthanasia’. Even more evil, Gingrich CLEARLY doesn’t believe what he’s saying now, because as recently as a few months ago, he was a huge proponent of end-of-life rights. So either he’s lying now or he was lying then, and given that lying NOW gives him political points with the crazies that make up the GOP base, I can make a pretty good guess which one’s the lie.
Art, are you familiar with the hippocratic oath? If doctors are following it, there is no need to have a government bill telling them they have to (or how to) discuss end of life issues, or any other issue, for that matter.
If this goes back to the concept that there are doctors who fail to follow this, then review the systems already in place and fix those problems.
Art, are you familiar with the hippocratic oath? If doctors are following it, there is no need to have a government bill telling them they have to (or how to) discuss end of life issues, or any other issue, for that matter.
I’m apparently more familiar with it than you are. The Hippocratic oath says NOTHING about a patient’s right to refuse care.
“if they stopped treating you and allowed you to die with dignity”
Personally, I’ve never found being sick, needing help, or having tubes running in and out to somehow be undignified. But perhaps that’s me…
“Only complete a$$holes like Palin and Gingrich could play this basic human right as ‘elderly euthanasia’.”
What’s really interesting, is how the actual issue, “will a ‘death panel’ be needed to make the decisions over who is ‘too sick to help’ and who is ‘worthy of treatment,’ as in other socialized-medicine countries, be utilized in this plan,” became something about “end of life” treatment. It’s not “end of life” treatment, is “life ending treatment” that’s the concern.
Didja’ ever notice how netroots dittoheads are remarkably similar to talk radio dittoheads?
Different political views, obviously; but the same my-way-is-the-only-way mentality. The only time they criticize their own side is when it’s not being partisan enough or “pure” enough.
To each his or her own; but it’s not my cup of tea.
You know what I believe?! Awesome! I always love when you tell me what I think, before I’ve said anything to lead you to believe one way or another… and then complain when I build conclusions based on things you’ve actually said!
I don’t know if its in the bill… I haven’t had a week to dedicate to reading it. And since it’s not really the real bill, or final proposal, or anything that means anything… I doubt I’ll find the time. So, I guess that puts me on par with all those other Senators and Representatives.
However, I know that other socialized-medicine countries DO deny people medicine for financial reasons… that has been documented. So there is ample concern if we’re going to build a system “like the rest of the world,” that we not have the same problems as the “rest of the world,” right? Follow the logic?
No, this isn’t (as you suggested) my major concern for Obama-care. Rather, I think healthcare reform is a good thing… but I don’t trust the government to build and run an entirely new structure of healthcare. Tort reform… absolutely. Better information gathering and sharing… certainly. Better protection for those when buying insurance… 100%. Helping those who need (and deserve) help… sure. But rushing through a whole new concept, absolutely not.
The government often tries to do the “right thing.” But, as we’ve seen, screws it up with bureaucracy, special interests, political favors, political bickering, fraud, and other nonsense which makes for a lot of failures. In fact, name one government run program that works well! We already have a few forms of government controlled heathcare: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security… and how are those running? Well, they’re all going bankrupt, and fraud is rampant! Let’s clean up and fix what we’ve got, before we try to build something new. Show me that you CAN do something right… because I just “take your word” for it.
In fact, name one government run program that works well!
Yet another outmoded conservative talking point – they really need to raise their heads and notice it’s no longer the eighties… “Do you want healthcare run like the POST OFFICE??? like the DMV??”
I don’t know about you guys, but every time I go to the Post Office, I get excellent service from pleasant people at a reasonable rate. Same with the DMV – renewed my tags in ten minutes.
Trying to get an actual HUMAN on the line with Comcast, on the other hand?
The question SHOULD be, are you happy with healthcare being run like your cable company.
Man… you guys didn’t even read what I wrote did you? Hmm… sad.
I guess I could be really snarky and ask if YOU read the bill… but I know the answer to that.
I could instead point to someone like Congressman Conyers who (which promoting the heathcare bill) mocked people for suggesting HE should actually read the bill:
BUT… I doubt you’d care… and since you have that nasty habit of “not talking about things you don’t want talk about,” you’d dodge the obvious question, “WHY WOULD YOU HOLD ME TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN AN ACTUAL ELECTED OFFICIAL?” So instead, I think I’ll go do something else more worthwhile.
Oops… I guess I did it anyway. What a sucker I am…
The question SHOULD be, are you happy with healthcare being run like your cable company.
So you love the post office and the DMV… I’ve had a terrible experience with all of those, in multiple towns and states… but haven’t had a problem with Cablevision (or more appropriately) my insurance company.
So I guess, by your logic… we shouldn’t have government run healthcare because I like my private insurance… right?
I guess I could be really snarky and ask if YOU read the bill… but I know the answer to that.
I could instead point to someone like Congressman Conyers who (which promoting the heathcare bill) mocked people for suggesting HE should actually read the bill:
My point in asking you to quote the non-existence text that creates death panels is that there are people who ARE taking a phrase here and a phrase there out of context and confabulating all the connective tissue in the middle and voila! death panels. I expected you to quote from your favorite right-wing rabble rouser. You apparently can’t even do that.
You and people like you who insist people ‘read the bill’ have not read it themselves. They simply COULD not – when was the last time you read a thousand page ANYTHING?
Bills are not light fiction – they are incredibly complex documents with a lot of moving parts that practically have to be put together by computer to make sure all the parts fit and nothing is left dangling.
Back in the day, you could give an assembly worker all the parts of an airplane and in time, he could put together an airplane for you. Today, one individual could NOT put an airplane together by himself; there are simply too many specialized skills required for one person to have acquired them all in a single lifetime.
You are either hopelessly naive or abysmally ignorant if you believe that Joe the Plumber could sit down and read 1000 pages of legalese and be able to understand and explain it.
Art, I disagree with your assertion that bills by their nature are always big & complex. One of the most defining bills in our nation’s history (1935 Social Security Act) was less than 100 pages. Being newly unemployed, I’ve decided do some U.S. historical reading (besides job hunting). The link for the 1935 Social Security Act is found here:
The bill/law is pretty easy to read because of it’s overall simplicity. Generally speaking large/bloated bills become bad laws & anything resembling this current Health Care legislation, in its current form, will probably become bad law.
You and people like you who insist people ‘read the bill’ have not read it themselves. They simply COULD not – when was the last time you read a thousand page ANYTHING?
Why shouldn’t our elected representatives read the “final” bill that comes out of conference? If “Joe or Jill Sonofagun” become my Congressman/woman I expect…no I demand that he/she take the time to read any important piece of legislation that will impact almost 20% of the U.S. economy. If the “final” piece of legislation is too complicated for a Congressman/woman then that person should not be in Congress.
Unfortunately for us, we do not have the best nor the brightest representing us in Congress and we suffer everyday because of it.
Sam Rayburn or Nancy Pelosi…not even close. Speaker Pelosi could not even hold Rayburn’s briefcase on a good day.
Mike Mansfield or Harry Reid….one was articulate, thoughtful, & decisive…the other is Harry Reid.
” I expected you to quote from your favorite right-wing rabble rouser.”
Yes yes, you’re upset I’m not the right-wing lunatic you think everyone who doesn’t agree with you is. Darn… for you that is.
” You and people like you who insist people ‘read the bill’ have not read it themselves.”
I don’t recall being elected to anything recently. Hmmm. Should elected officials publically promoting an idea, have actually read what it is they’re talking about? That just seems like logic to me. But I suppose if you just want them to ASSUME, go right ahead.
“…with a lot of moving parts that practically have to be put together by computer…”
Okay, so we have these robo-bills… which the public OR the elected officials can’t understand or read. And yet, you expect talk radio hosts to do it. Methinks your priorities are a little off kilter.
Also… if the elected folks can’t manage the bill (that they’ve written… with the help of… um… a bill-writing computer… maybe they use that paperclip guy in MS Word… *DING* ‘It looks like you’re trying to write some legislation, do you need some help?’)… if that’s the case, why are we paying these folks? Really… what is their job? They can’t be bothered to read the bill, so I’d gather they can’t be bothered to actually WRITE the bill. They don’t like talking to their constituents when their constituents disagree with them. So what is it that they do?
“Back in the day, you could give an assembly worker all the parts of an airplane and in time, he could put together an airplane for you.”
What the hell are you talking about?! Are you making an analogy to the Wright Brothers or something? Man… put down the pipe!
” You are either hopelessly naive or abysmally ignorant if you believe that Joe the Plumber could sit down and read 1000 pages of legalese and be able to understand and explain it.”
Okay, so the public can’t read the government’s legislation… AND YOU THINK THAT’S A GOOD THING?!
Now, let’s relate this to healthcare. Won’t it be great when you find out what benefits the government is giving you… and you need to hire a lawyer (or former politician) to figure it out for you. Wow! Sounds like a great idea to me!
I don’t understand how you can proudly talk about how the government manages to make things too complicated and convoluted, to the point where the people they work for (ie: us) can’t understand it… and yet, you want them to take over something were misunderstandings could KILL you. You are a conundrum, wrapped in hypocrisy, radical liberalism, blind faith, and egotism… and bacon. In other words, Art… you are a walking, talking sh*t sandwich… with bacon.
(PS- Do you realize that the nature of the bills, which you talk about here, the complexity and ‘legalese’ with which they’re mumbo-jumbo-ed, is the reason why talk radio hosts are able to say there are “death panels” (true or not) and people will believe them? The problem you define as acceptable, is the reason for the problem you think are unacceptable! Talk radio hosts have to decipher for ‘Joe the Plumber’, as you said, so they make the decisions on what’s what. If you don’t like that they have that power, perhaps you should encourage the writers of bills, to do a better job… yes Art, even the Democratic ones.)
I have to get this from the Drudge Report but the “End of Life” provision will be dropped from the final bill because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.
The Town Hall is going to be around 1:00 P.M Today. I am sure the cable news channels are going to cover it if nothing else to see if it was different from the New Hampshire Town Hall Meeting.
Montana Gun Laws is one of the most viewed post on Logistic Monsters Blog. Maybe that is why Bozeman, Montana is on the town hall meeting junket for the President’s Health Care Insurance Reform Bills?
So why Bozeman, Montana town hall meeting for the President to CAMPAIGN “for which” Health Care Reform Bill? Why Grand Jct. Colorado? They are indicative of what demographic of Americans?
My home state is called an empty state so what is the draw for the Obama administration? Is it because Max Baucus is under pressure?
Montana is an ultra strong 2nd Amendment state they are not keen on Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court. Max Baucus has reasons to be weary. Montana is carry in the open state mostly because of hunting. This Health Care Insurance Reform “Bills” is looking like it could go sideways, and it doesn’t look like the Obama administration can course correct.
I don’t understand how you can proudly talk about how the government manages to make things too complicated and convoluted, to the point where the people they work for (ie: us) can’t understand it…
This is really not a hard concept, but I’ll try again.
Managing very complex systems requires specialists. I would not expect a computer illiterate to be able to design a network architecture for a large organization. In fact, I would not expect a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL to design a network architecture. I would also not expect the average Joe to even be able to UNDERSTAND the design.
I would not expect a college undergrad to be able to perform spinal surgery.
And I would not expect Joe the Plumber to be able to write, or even read, legislation governing a very large complex system.
ONLY in that segment of society that lavishes admiration on the subnormal and is openly suspicious of education – ie. the base of the GOP – is this at all controversial.
“I would also not expect the average Joe to even be able to UNDERSTAND the design.”
Agreed. However, when it’s something as important as their healthcare… don’t you think that someone should be able to clarify? One of the big problems with the current system is that there’s too much “fine print,” right? That’s what a lot of people are complaining about, right? Well… how is this any different? The print may not be small… but it’s just as indecipherable to the “average Joe.” And that doesn’t concern you?!
ONLY in that segment of society that lavishes admiration on the subnormal and is openly suspicious of education – ie. the base of the GOP – is this at all controversial.
Rubbish. Complete rubbish. To you, anyone who disagrees with you -ie: not a Democrat or Liberal- is a “sub-par” human. What a disgusting and egotistical way to look at the world.
But let me ask again… if the “average Joe” (who is so ‘average’ as to have the word “AVERAGE” in the name, not “SUBNORMAL” as you suggest, dumb-dumb) can’t read it… and YOU can’t read it either… how will we (American’s) know what the heck we’re signing up for?
I don’t understand the trust you suddenly have for government. Where was that trust a few years ago? Where’s the trust in the CIA when Pelosi says they “lie all the time?” It’s all politically motivated BS, if you ask me.
Rubbish. Complete rubbish. To you, anyone who disagrees with you -ie: not a Democrat or Liberal- is a “sub-par” human. What a disgusting and egotistical way to look at the world.
No. I said the GOP base ‘lavishes admiration on the subnormal’ and they do. Examples: Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Joe the Plumber. I would not hire any of these people as OFFICE MANAGER. They’re just too dumb.
But let me ask again… if the “average Joe” (who is so ‘average’ as to have the word “AVERAGE” in the name, not “SUBNORMAL” as you suggest, dumb-dumb) can’t read it… and YOU can’t read it either… how will we (American’s) know what the heck we’re signing up for?
I CAN read it – I have read parts of it to convince myself that what the right was getting all hysterical about isn’t actually IN there. I simply haven’t read all thousand pages of it. Neither have you, Rush Limbaugh, or the crazies with their signs.
Look, this is a representative democracy. We elect people to represent us and expect them to do their job. You may disagree with what’s actually IN the healthcare bill (in as much as you understand it, which clearly isn’t much) but even you have to admit that one of the positions Obama RAN on was reforming healthcare and he got elected by people expecting healthcare to be reformed.
WRT understanding legislation – a number of years ago, I managed fairly technical research projects (in artificial intelligence, if that means anything to you). I can’t claim to be an expert on AI but I understood enough of it to be able to understand the people working for me who WERE experts. (I could NOT, for instance, follow the math.) Now, my bosses – they couldn’t even follow the substance. So for them, I had to prepare what is called the Executive Summary. The boiled down version that says what we hope to accomplish, what the benefits would be and what the potential problems in our path were. With, usually, some pretty pictures that showed, say, a neural network or something glitzy like that.
No one is bothering to look at the reform plan’s ‘executive summary’ – they’re getting into the weeds and debating details they don’t fully understand. And they’re not qualified or experienced enough to do this. (This would be the equivalent of my bosses getting into the weeds and criticizing the CODE on one of my projects when they don’t know a thing about LISP or Java.) Which is why, imho, there’s so much pointless sturm and drang.
Well, I’m sorry that those people (successful in their own right), don’t pass your test. It’s good to know you’re the arbiter of who’s “smart” and who’s not. I just wonder how big an ego you have to have, before you can start claiming other people are “dumb” from behind the computer, despite their wealth, fame, or popularity.
“I CAN read it – I have read parts of it to convince myself that what the right was getting all hysterical about isn’t actually IN there.”
So you’ve read enough of it, to “disprove” the right… but not enough of it to know what’s actually in there. You’ll blindly put your faith in the Democrats, and accept that what they’re doing is good… and only educate yourself enough to fight with Republicans. How argumentative of you… how sad.
“but even you have to admit that one of the positions Obama RAN on was reforming healthcare and he got elected by people expecting healthcare to be reformed.”
Isn’t that the platform of EVERYONE who runs? Didn’t McCain run on that too? Well, that is until he suggested something that Obama was able to attack… and then decide to use later once he got elected.
And virtually everyone agrees that healthcare should be reformed… but that is not the same as rebuilt, or completely redesigned. Sometimes, you don’t need to start from scratch to fix the problem. If you spent more time actually listening to the opposition, instead of just trying to attack them for every perceived slight, you’d know that.
“in artificial intelligence, if that means anything to you.”
I can’t say I’m surprised. I’ve often thought your intelligence was artificial.
“they’re getting into the weeds and debating details they don’t fully understand.”
Um… but aren’t these “details” fairly large and important? Exactly what “details” are acceptable to you and debate? The people discussing them think they’re pretty important… so I guess they’re not just “minor details,” are they?
I still don’t understand how one of the complains against the current healthcare system is that it’s “too confusing” and the insurance companies are manipulating people with fine print… and yet, the same people can say that expecting the public or politicians to be able to decipher the plan, is unreasonable. You’re arguing against what you’re arguing for… it doesn’t make sense!
And while I’d agree (and this is O’Reilly’s POV… if you were interested) that we need the bullet points… we’re not getting them. Obama hasn’t sold the plan well, and nobody really knows what’s going on. Where are the “executive summaries”?
Of course, even if we saw them, what would prevent the government from “oops-ing” a little detail here or there, that they didn’t think was important. “Coverage for all seniors”, big headline. “Coverage for all illegal immigrants” or “Tax money used to finance abortions”, little headline. Trust… no, I have very little trust that they’d be telling us the truth.
August 13, 2009 at 6:45 am
This is interesting now Imus is irascible…that isn’t what people in the business were calling him before
I think Imus might be highly motivated now that he will be on the rival network of CNBC…after all MSNBC fired him. I am sure he doesn’t hold a grudge…accept for every other time in his life when he let his critics have it.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/imus-may-move-to-the-fox-business-network/
August 13, 2009 at 7:17 am
I can’t even bug you about this, can I Laree? Your boy is actual news. The floor is yours.
August 13, 2009 at 7:34 am
I’m sure ratings-wise this would be good for FBN, but I still don’t see how this will help them build up any credibility in business news. Traders will be over at CNBC getting their morning data.
Reminds me of MSNBC dumping their news program on weekends, just for ratings. They should be there to report what they’re in business to do. Same w/FBN.
August 13, 2009 at 8:11 am
Terrible, horrendous idea.
August 13, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Se. Harry Reid is calling the protesters “Evil Mongers” and Ed Schultz has said on his radio show that right-wing talkers and conservatives want to see Obama “get shot.”
Whose using scare tactics now? Remember, Dissent is Patriotic…
August 13, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Who wrote these words?
Team Obama is suffering from Extended Campaign Syndrome. In an election, campaign staffers are often just trying to survive until the next week or the next primary. They cut corners because they are fatigued or under pressure. They can be purposely combative and even portray critics as enemies.
Carrying this mindset into the White House can get you into trouble, a lesson the Obama administration is now learning the hard way.
The author was: Karl Rove.
Oy. The man’s got chutzpah, that’s for sure.
The words ring true but this is hardly the person to sound them.
August 13, 2009 at 3:04 pm
That was awesome. Just as they were leaving air, Ed Schultz told Karen Heinretty(sp) that if Jesus came back today, He would want everyone covered under health care. She called him insane. He’s bringing her back on tomorrow to, as Ed says, get after it. Ed Schultz is the left wing Glenn Beck!
August 13, 2009 at 3:08 pm
anyone see the back and forth between Gibbs and Garrett today? What is Gibbs problem? He’s kind of rude, IMO.
August 13, 2009 at 3:29 pm
if Jesus came back today, He would want everyone covered under health care.
Probably true, although I don’t think Augustine opined on it.
But he wouldn’t be putting a gun to your head and taking property to provide the care. Moral suasion was his approach.
Pretty sure about that one.
It’s like all of these hosts are in a contest to say the most outrageous stuff. Beck today on the radio as I drove home from work was just insipid. The sturm-und-drang stuff again…
Give it a rest, Glenn.
August 13, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Joe, I was watching the press conference live & thought the same thing.
It’s all part of the “Fox is evil” strategy.
Too bad, for Obama, it ain’t working.
August 13, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Score one for Sarah Palin. Though her “death panels” comment was derided by the libs, it got major media play, and now those end of life decisions in ObamaCare are … well… dead.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/finance-committee-to-drop-end-of-life-provision-2009-08-13.html
August 13, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Though her “death panels” comment was derided by the libs, it got major media play, and now those end of life decisions in ObamaCare are … well… dead.
Does anyone remember where the whole ‘living will’ stuff came from? Am I the only one who remembers the big ‘patients’ rights’ stuff thirty years ago?
For the babies among us, a brief recap… back in the sixties and seventies, children, if you were in the hospital and dying of some incurable condition, you could NOT refuse treatment – doctors would do everything in their power to keep you alive even if all that awaited you was another few days or weeks of pain and indignity. ESPECIALLY if you were very very ill, you simply could not get up, pull the tubes out and walk out of there. And even if you begged, doctors would tell you they were not ALLOWED to not treat you as long as you were alive – if they stopped treating you and allowed you to die with dignity, they could be brought up on charges for manslaughter or criminal negligence.
Eventually sanity (and individual human rights) prevailed and people regained the right to refuse care if it was their choice. That’s what ‘do not resusitate’ and ‘no heroic measures’ mean – if you’re dying, you have specifically requested that they do nothing to artificially prolong your life when there is no hope of eventual recovery.
A ‘living will’ is simply a legally binding document that tells doctors what your wishes are should you be too ill to make your decision verbally – if you were in a coma, for example.
This was a big human rights advance and seen as such at the time – people SHOULD have the right to tell their doctors to stop treating them if they, for instance, want to die at home, or simply don’t want their last memory to be some surgeon cracking their chest open to try to get their heart restarted.
Only complete a$$holes like Palin and Gingrich could play this basic human right as ‘elderly euthanasia’. Even more evil, Gingrich CLEARLY doesn’t believe what he’s saying now, because as recently as a few months ago, he was a huge proponent of end-of-life rights. So either he’s lying now or he was lying then, and given that lying NOW gives him political points with the crazies that make up the GOP base, I can make a pretty good guess which one’s the lie.
August 13, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Pure, blathering nonsense.
Art, are you familiar with the hippocratic oath? If doctors are following it, there is no need to have a government bill telling them they have to (or how to) discuss end of life issues, or any other issue, for that matter.
If this goes back to the concept that there are doctors who fail to follow this, then review the systems already in place and fix those problems.
August 13, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Art, are you familiar with the hippocratic oath? If doctors are following it, there is no need to have a government bill telling them they have to (or how to) discuss end of life issues, or any other issue, for that matter.
I’m apparently more familiar with it than you are. The Hippocratic oath says NOTHING about a patient’s right to refuse care.
August 13, 2009 at 6:05 pm
… and as it turns out, Sarah Palin too was for patients’ end-of-life rights before she decide they were really “Death Panels”.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/sarah-palin-thanks-but-no-thanks-on-that-death-panel.php?ref=fpa
August 13, 2009 at 6:16 pm
“if they stopped treating you and allowed you to die with dignity”
Personally, I’ve never found being sick, needing help, or having tubes running in and out to somehow be undignified. But perhaps that’s me…
“Only complete a$$holes like Palin and Gingrich could play this basic human right as ‘elderly euthanasia’.”
What’s really interesting, is how the actual issue, “will a ‘death panel’ be needed to make the decisions over who is ‘too sick to help’ and who is ‘worthy of treatment,’ as in other socialized-medicine countries, be utilized in this plan,” became something about “end of life” treatment. It’s not “end of life” treatment, is “life ending treatment” that’s the concern.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com
Really? Do you read ANYTHING but Liberal blogs? Dude… you gotta branch out more. The world is more than deep blue.
August 13, 2009 at 6:22 pm
It’s not “end of life” treatment, is “life ending treatment” that’s the concern.
Only because you believe the lies you’re being fed.
Face it – insurance companies TODAY can decide who to treat and who not to treat.
August 13, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Tell you what, Blue – find the exact text that authorizes ‘Death Panels’ and reproduce it here. I know you believe the text exists – let’s see it.
August 13, 2009 at 6:36 pm
It’ll be a long time comin’.
August 13, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Do you read ANYTHING but Liberal blogs?
Didja’ ever notice how netroots dittoheads are remarkably similar to talk radio dittoheads?
Different political views, obviously; but the same my-way-is-the-only-way mentality. The only time they criticize their own side is when it’s not being partisan enough or “pure” enough.
To each his or her own; but it’s not my cup of tea.
August 13, 2009 at 6:57 pm
“I know you believe the text exists”
You know what I believe?! Awesome! I always love when you tell me what I think, before I’ve said anything to lead you to believe one way or another… and then complain when I build conclusions based on things you’ve actually said!
I don’t know if its in the bill… I haven’t had a week to dedicate to reading it. And since it’s not really the real bill, or final proposal, or anything that means anything… I doubt I’ll find the time. So, I guess that puts me on par with all those other Senators and Representatives.
However, I know that other socialized-medicine countries DO deny people medicine for financial reasons… that has been documented. So there is ample concern if we’re going to build a system “like the rest of the world,” that we not have the same problems as the “rest of the world,” right? Follow the logic?
No, this isn’t (as you suggested) my major concern for Obama-care. Rather, I think healthcare reform is a good thing… but I don’t trust the government to build and run an entirely new structure of healthcare. Tort reform… absolutely. Better information gathering and sharing… certainly. Better protection for those when buying insurance… 100%. Helping those who need (and deserve) help… sure. But rushing through a whole new concept, absolutely not.
The government often tries to do the “right thing.” But, as we’ve seen, screws it up with bureaucracy, special interests, political favors, political bickering, fraud, and other nonsense which makes for a lot of failures. In fact, name one government run program that works well! We already have a few forms of government controlled heathcare: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security… and how are those running? Well, they’re all going bankrupt, and fraud is rampant! Let’s clean up and fix what we’ve got, before we try to build something new. Show me that you CAN do something right… because I just “take your word” for it.
I think that’s reasonable… no?
August 13, 2009 at 7:00 pm
“I don’t know if its in the bill…”
imnotblue Says:
August 13, 2009 at 6:57 pm
And there you go… This speaks volumes.
August 13, 2009 at 7:20 pm
I don’t know if its in the bill…
But it’s worth getting all hysterical about it… because Rush TOLD me too!
August 13, 2009 at 7:23 pm
In fact, name one government run program that works well!
Yet another outmoded conservative talking point – they really need to raise their heads and notice it’s no longer the eighties… “Do you want healthcare run like the POST OFFICE??? like the DMV??”
I don’t know about you guys, but every time I go to the Post Office, I get excellent service from pleasant people at a reasonable rate. Same with the DMV – renewed my tags in ten minutes.
Trying to get an actual HUMAN on the line with Comcast, on the other hand?
The question SHOULD be, are you happy with healthcare being run like your cable company.
August 13, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Man… you guys didn’t even read what I wrote did you? Hmm… sad.
I guess I could be really snarky and ask if YOU read the bill… but I know the answer to that.
I could instead point to someone like Congressman Conyers who (which promoting the heathcare bill) mocked people for suggesting HE should actually read the bill:
http://www.atr.org/congressman-conyers-shows-contempt-taxpayers-a3587
Or quote House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.):
Or give you this video of Rep. Waxman saying he doesn’t know the “details” of his OWN bill:
http://tinyurl.com/qtenxs
Or yet another video of Sen. Specter saying “make adjustments very fast” and thusly can’t read it:
http://tinyurl.com/njnhrx
BUT… I doubt you’d care… and since you have that nasty habit of “not talking about things you don’t want talk about,” you’d dodge the obvious question, “WHY WOULD YOU HOLD ME TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN AN ACTUAL ELECTED OFFICIAL?” So instead, I think I’ll go do something else more worthwhile.
Oops… I guess I did it anyway. What a sucker I am…
August 13, 2009 at 7:32 pm
The question SHOULD be, are you happy with healthcare being run like your cable company.
So you love the post office and the DMV… I’ve had a terrible experience with all of those, in multiple towns and states… but haven’t had a problem with Cablevision (or more appropriately) my insurance company.
So I guess, by your logic… we shouldn’t have government run healthcare because I like my private insurance… right?
August 13, 2009 at 7:56 pm
(PS- My response is waiting moderation… please stand by)
August 13, 2009 at 9:53 pm
I guess I could be really snarky and ask if YOU read the bill… but I know the answer to that.
I could instead point to someone like Congressman Conyers who (which promoting the heathcare bill) mocked people for suggesting HE should actually read the bill:
My point in asking you to quote the non-existence text that creates death panels is that there are people who ARE taking a phrase here and a phrase there out of context and confabulating all the connective tissue in the middle and voila! death panels. I expected you to quote from your favorite right-wing rabble rouser. You apparently can’t even do that.
You and people like you who insist people ‘read the bill’ have not read it themselves. They simply COULD not – when was the last time you read a thousand page ANYTHING?
Bills are not light fiction – they are incredibly complex documents with a lot of moving parts that practically have to be put together by computer to make sure all the parts fit and nothing is left dangling.
Back in the day, you could give an assembly worker all the parts of an airplane and in time, he could put together an airplane for you. Today, one individual could NOT put an airplane together by himself; there are simply too many specialized skills required for one person to have acquired them all in a single lifetime.
You are either hopelessly naive or abysmally ignorant if you believe that Joe the Plumber could sit down and read 1000 pages of legalese and be able to understand and explain it.
August 14, 2009 at 1:45 am
Art, I disagree with your assertion that bills by their nature are always big & complex. One of the most defining bills in our nation’s history (1935 Social Security Act) was less than 100 pages. Being newly unemployed, I’ve decided do some U.S. historical reading (besides job hunting). The link for the 1935 Social Security Act is found here:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/35actinx.html
The bill/law is pretty easy to read because of it’s overall simplicity. Generally speaking large/bloated bills become bad laws & anything resembling this current Health Care legislation, in its current form, will probably become bad law.
You and people like you who insist people ‘read the bill’ have not read it themselves. They simply COULD not – when was the last time you read a thousand page ANYTHING?
Why shouldn’t our elected representatives read the “final” bill that comes out of conference? If “Joe or Jill Sonofagun” become my Congressman/woman I expect…no I demand that he/she take the time to read any important piece of legislation that will impact almost 20% of the U.S. economy. If the “final” piece of legislation is too complicated for a Congressman/woman then that person should not be in Congress.
Unfortunately for us, we do not have the best nor the brightest representing us in Congress and we suffer everyday because of it.
Sam Rayburn or Nancy Pelosi…not even close. Speaker Pelosi could not even hold Rayburn’s briefcase on a good day.
Mike Mansfield or Harry Reid….one was articulate, thoughtful, & decisive…the other is Harry Reid.
August 14, 2009 at 5:21 am
” I expected you to quote from your favorite right-wing rabble rouser.”
Yes yes, you’re upset I’m not the right-wing lunatic you think everyone who doesn’t agree with you is. Darn… for you that is.
” You and people like you who insist people ‘read the bill’ have not read it themselves.”
I don’t recall being elected to anything recently. Hmmm. Should elected officials publically promoting an idea, have actually read what it is they’re talking about? That just seems like logic to me. But I suppose if you just want them to ASSUME, go right ahead.
“…with a lot of moving parts that practically have to be put together by computer…”
Okay, so we have these robo-bills… which the public OR the elected officials can’t understand or read. And yet, you expect talk radio hosts to do it. Methinks your priorities are a little off kilter.
Also… if the elected folks can’t manage the bill (that they’ve written… with the help of… um… a bill-writing computer… maybe they use that paperclip guy in MS Word… *DING* ‘It looks like you’re trying to write some legislation, do you need some help?’)… if that’s the case, why are we paying these folks? Really… what is their job? They can’t be bothered to read the bill, so I’d gather they can’t be bothered to actually WRITE the bill. They don’t like talking to their constituents when their constituents disagree with them. So what is it that they do?
“Back in the day, you could give an assembly worker all the parts of an airplane and in time, he could put together an airplane for you.”
What the hell are you talking about?! Are you making an analogy to the Wright Brothers or something? Man… put down the pipe!
” You are either hopelessly naive or abysmally ignorant if you believe that Joe the Plumber could sit down and read 1000 pages of legalese and be able to understand and explain it.”
Okay, so the public can’t read the government’s legislation… AND YOU THINK THAT’S A GOOD THING?!
Now, let’s relate this to healthcare. Won’t it be great when you find out what benefits the government is giving you… and you need to hire a lawyer (or former politician) to figure it out for you. Wow! Sounds like a great idea to me!
I don’t understand how you can proudly talk about how the government manages to make things too complicated and convoluted, to the point where the people they work for (ie: us) can’t understand it… and yet, you want them to take over something were misunderstandings could KILL you. You are a conundrum, wrapped in hypocrisy, radical liberalism, blind faith, and egotism… and bacon. In other words, Art… you are a walking, talking sh*t sandwich… with bacon.
(PS- Do you realize that the nature of the bills, which you talk about here, the complexity and ‘legalese’ with which they’re mumbo-jumbo-ed, is the reason why talk radio hosts are able to say there are “death panels” (true or not) and people will believe them? The problem you define as acceptable, is the reason for the problem you think are unacceptable! Talk radio hosts have to decipher for ‘Joe the Plumber’, as you said, so they make the decisions on what’s what. If you don’t like that they have that power, perhaps you should encourage the writers of bills, to do a better job… yes Art, even the Democratic ones.)
August 14, 2009 at 6:09 am
I have to get this from the Drudge Report but the “End of Life” provision will be dropped from the final bill because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090813/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_end_of_life_2
August 14, 2009 at 6:48 am
The Town Hall is going to be around 1:00 P.M Today. I am sure the cable news channels are going to cover it if nothing else to see if it was different from the New Hampshire Town Hall Meeting.
http://logisticsmonster.com/2009/05/03/the-montana-gun-law-you-will-never-hear-about/
Montana Gun Laws is one of the most viewed post on Logistic Monsters Blog. Maybe that is why Bozeman, Montana is on the town hall meeting junket for the President’s Health Care Insurance Reform Bills?
So why Bozeman, Montana town hall meeting for the President to CAMPAIGN “for which” Health Care Reform Bill? Why Grand Jct. Colorado? They are indicative of what demographic of Americans?
My home state is called an empty state so what is the draw for the Obama administration? Is it because Max Baucus is under pressure?
Montana is an ultra strong 2nd Amendment state they are not keen on Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court. Max Baucus has reasons to be weary. Montana is carry in the open state mostly because of hunting. This Health Care Insurance Reform “Bills” is looking like it could go sideways, and it doesn’t look like the Obama administration can course correct.
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/08/tgif-circus-life-bozeman-montana-high.html
August 14, 2009 at 9:55 am
I don’t understand how you can proudly talk about how the government manages to make things too complicated and convoluted, to the point where the people they work for (ie: us) can’t understand it…
This is really not a hard concept, but I’ll try again.
Managing very complex systems requires specialists. I would not expect a computer illiterate to be able to design a network architecture for a large organization. In fact, I would not expect a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL to design a network architecture. I would also not expect the average Joe to even be able to UNDERSTAND the design.
I would not expect a college undergrad to be able to perform spinal surgery.
And I would not expect Joe the Plumber to be able to write, or even read, legislation governing a very large complex system.
ONLY in that segment of society that lavishes admiration on the subnormal and is openly suspicious of education – ie. the base of the GOP – is this at all controversial.
August 14, 2009 at 5:40 pm
“I would also not expect the average Joe to even be able to UNDERSTAND the design.”
Agreed. However, when it’s something as important as their healthcare… don’t you think that someone should be able to clarify? One of the big problems with the current system is that there’s too much “fine print,” right? That’s what a lot of people are complaining about, right? Well… how is this any different? The print may not be small… but it’s just as indecipherable to the “average Joe.” And that doesn’t concern you?!
ONLY in that segment of society that lavishes admiration on the subnormal and is openly suspicious of education – ie. the base of the GOP – is this at all controversial.
Rubbish. Complete rubbish. To you, anyone who disagrees with you -ie: not a Democrat or Liberal- is a “sub-par” human. What a disgusting and egotistical way to look at the world.
But let me ask again… if the “average Joe” (who is so ‘average’ as to have the word “AVERAGE” in the name, not “SUBNORMAL” as you suggest, dumb-dumb) can’t read it… and YOU can’t read it either… how will we (American’s) know what the heck we’re signing up for?
I don’t understand the trust you suddenly have for government. Where was that trust a few years ago? Where’s the trust in the CIA when Pelosi says they “lie all the time?” It’s all politically motivated BS, if you ask me.
August 15, 2009 at 12:06 am
Rubbish. Complete rubbish. To you, anyone who disagrees with you -ie: not a Democrat or Liberal- is a “sub-par” human. What a disgusting and egotistical way to look at the world.
No. I said the GOP base ‘lavishes admiration on the subnormal’ and they do. Examples: Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Joe the Plumber. I would not hire any of these people as OFFICE MANAGER. They’re just too dumb.
But let me ask again… if the “average Joe” (who is so ‘average’ as to have the word “AVERAGE” in the name, not “SUBNORMAL” as you suggest, dumb-dumb) can’t read it… and YOU can’t read it either… how will we (American’s) know what the heck we’re signing up for?
I CAN read it – I have read parts of it to convince myself that what the right was getting all hysterical about isn’t actually IN there. I simply haven’t read all thousand pages of it. Neither have you, Rush Limbaugh, or the crazies with their signs.
Look, this is a representative democracy. We elect people to represent us and expect them to do their job. You may disagree with what’s actually IN the healthcare bill (in as much as you understand it, which clearly isn’t much) but even you have to admit that one of the positions Obama RAN on was reforming healthcare and he got elected by people expecting healthcare to be reformed.
WRT understanding legislation – a number of years ago, I managed fairly technical research projects (in artificial intelligence, if that means anything to you). I can’t claim to be an expert on AI but I understood enough of it to be able to understand the people working for me who WERE experts. (I could NOT, for instance, follow the math.) Now, my bosses – they couldn’t even follow the substance. So for them, I had to prepare what is called the Executive Summary. The boiled down version that says what we hope to accomplish, what the benefits would be and what the potential problems in our path were. With, usually, some pretty pictures that showed, say, a neural network or something glitzy like that.
No one is bothering to look at the reform plan’s ‘executive summary’ – they’re getting into the weeds and debating details they don’t fully understand. And they’re not qualified or experienced enough to do this. (This would be the equivalent of my bosses getting into the weeds and criticizing the CODE on one of my projects when they don’t know a thing about LISP or Java.) Which is why, imho, there’s so much pointless sturm and drang.
August 16, 2009 at 6:19 pm
“They’re just too dumb.”
Well, I’m sorry that those people (successful in their own right), don’t pass your test. It’s good to know you’re the arbiter of who’s “smart” and who’s not. I just wonder how big an ego you have to have, before you can start claiming other people are “dumb” from behind the computer, despite their wealth, fame, or popularity.
“I CAN read it – I have read parts of it to convince myself that what the right was getting all hysterical about isn’t actually IN there.”
So you’ve read enough of it, to “disprove” the right… but not enough of it to know what’s actually in there. You’ll blindly put your faith in the Democrats, and accept that what they’re doing is good… and only educate yourself enough to fight with Republicans. How argumentative of you… how sad.
“but even you have to admit that one of the positions Obama RAN on was reforming healthcare and he got elected by people expecting healthcare to be reformed.”
Isn’t that the platform of EVERYONE who runs? Didn’t McCain run on that too? Well, that is until he suggested something that Obama was able to attack… and then decide to use later once he got elected.
And virtually everyone agrees that healthcare should be reformed… but that is not the same as rebuilt, or completely redesigned. Sometimes, you don’t need to start from scratch to fix the problem. If you spent more time actually listening to the opposition, instead of just trying to attack them for every perceived slight, you’d know that.
“in artificial intelligence, if that means anything to you.”
I can’t say I’m surprised. I’ve often thought your intelligence was artificial.
“they’re getting into the weeds and debating details they don’t fully understand.”
Um… but aren’t these “details” fairly large and important? Exactly what “details” are acceptable to you and debate? The people discussing them think they’re pretty important… so I guess they’re not just “minor details,” are they?
I still don’t understand how one of the complains against the current healthcare system is that it’s “too confusing” and the insurance companies are manipulating people with fine print… and yet, the same people can say that expecting the public or politicians to be able to decipher the plan, is unreasonable. You’re arguing against what you’re arguing for… it doesn’t make sense!
And while I’d agree (and this is O’Reilly’s POV… if you were interested) that we need the bullet points… we’re not getting them. Obama hasn’t sold the plan well, and nobody really knows what’s going on. Where are the “executive summaries”?
Of course, even if we saw them, what would prevent the government from “oops-ing” a little detail here or there, that they didn’t think was important. “Coverage for all seniors”, big headline. “Coverage for all illegal immigrants” or “Tax money used to finance abortions”, little headline. Trust… no, I have very little trust that they’d be telling us the truth.