Mar 05 2009
Oh Lord, I Agree With Chris Mathews
While many political watchers are amazed that MSNBC’s Chris Mathews would turn on Obama and the dems for not keeping their campaign promises, I am intrigued about why Obama doesn’t take advantage of this low hanging fruit? Mathews is spot on in the piece below – Obama could easily instill confidence in the administration and the federal process over all by simply sending the Omnibus bill back to Congress with redlines on all the ear marks and pork.
As the liberal media apologists note in defending the indefensible, this is not a lot of money and was left over from the last administration. Two good reasons to use it to political advantage! Obama could blame Bush (again), could pretend to make good on cleaning up DC spending (though much more pork was in the Spendulus bill), and he would steal thunder from the GOP.
So why not do what Mathews says? And that maybe the elephant in the room. The only reason not to have a Sister Soldjah moment with the liberal Congress and gain a lot of PR points with little cost is because Obama is afraid of taking on Congress.
That has to be the answer – Obama has surrendered to the Democrat leaders in Congress. There has been a theory out there that he had the potential to be a weak and ineffective leader because of his lack of experience. The failure to take this easy win-win opportunity probably is the clearest indication to date this is theory is now becoming fact.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
62 Responses to “Oh Lord, I Agree With Chris Mathews”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
There is also the theory that he will be a weak and ineffectual leader because beneath the glitzy veneer, he is a weak and ineffectual man. He does a very good job of standing on a stage and reading lines that other people tell him to say. And
I think the sum total of his abilities begin and end there.
He is nothing but a clever chameleon. He do not believe he even has thoughts of his own; he doesn’t need them. Look how many even on the left are beginning to realize that they only saw what they wanted to see, not what was there. Because in reality there was nothing there.
Wow, I guess the ‘thrill’ is not still running up Slobbering Matthews leg….
Obama will not do as he suggests, because he doesn’t think for himself and his handlers are not for it.
Serves Matthews right, along with all these other kool-aid drinkers. I may be young, but I know better to trust anything a politician says on the campaign trail. Especially when the politician is a product of the Chicago political machine.
Reagan once remarked that politics is alot like the world’s oldest profession. Indeed- politicians will say and do anything for a vote.
I think Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are beginning to scare people in their own ranks. Many probably still remember what happen when the Clintons tried ramming Socialized Medicine down our throats. What our three Stalinists are trying, makes that seem mild.
By the way, when are we going to stop calling these people “Liberals”. There’s nothing liberating about anything they these three seem to be planning. At the very least it’s Socialism. Actually its boarding on Facism.
Obama is afraid of taking on Congress
Watching Obama during the run up to the passage of the “economic stimulus” was like watching a little boy being lead around by his mommy (Nancy Pelosi).
There there little Barry .. sign on the line.
Does Nancy Pelosi have pictures of Obama with a dead woman or a young boy ? It sure seems so.
tunkbob:
First off, the word you’re looking for is “bordering”, not “boarding”.
Secondly – what exactly is “fascist” about trying to provide health care for everyone in the country?
GayFellow, check out the definition of the word fascist. Do you want us to flag you every time you accidentally use the wrong word or spelling?
Fascist: a person who is dictatorial.
dictating that everyone have their money confiscated to provide something to someone that does not care enough to provide it for themselves.
Sounds fascist to me.
No, that’s the definition of a dictator.
Which is not the same thing as a fascist.
If you had the brains that God gave a turnip, you’d know that.
Guy:
I work in health care. That is what I do and everybody in the country has health care, it is just not paid for by someone else.
I think it would be refreshing if Obama would be honest with people about what kind of health care this will be. Who will pay and how and what happens if someone does not want to be part of the program. What will keep companies like mine from dropping health care insurance to employees and just letting the government {or taxpayers} pay for it?
Obama has not been honest about the quality of the insurance, the amount of control the state will have over families’ health care decision or the price tag.
I don’t think it is fascist, but I think it is a dishonest attempt to buy votes.
As or why Obama did not do what Matthews said, one reason might be that at least one of the earmarks was put in there by {then}Senator Barack Obama.
The fraud.
fascist
One entry found.
Main Entry:
fas·cism Listen to the pronunciation of fascism
Pronunciation:
\ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date:
1921
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality
*************
Just in case anyone really wondered what fascist means.
I like that part about severe economic and social regimentation.
Terrye:
Okay, I see the point you are making there, and yes – I’m also curious about the details of Obama’s plan. However, that’s something we’ll hear about over the course of the year.
If you are truly curious, and not simply looking for another reason to bash Obama without really caring what his plan is, you can read the transcript of his speech at the health care forum here.
However:
“Health problems are behind half the bankruptcies in this country, and three-quarters of those bankrupt people had health insurance when they got sick.”
Now, do those two facts tell you that the current health care situation in this country is A) awesome! or B) seriously broken?
Mathews is finally coming to realize something that most people don’t quite get:
1. The President doesn’t make laws.
2. The President doesn’t make earmarks.
3. The President can’t remove earmarks.
Any campaign promises about earmarks are absolute hot air because the reality is that earmarks are completely beyond the control of any President. These were promises that Obama absolutely could not deliver on no matter what, they are simply out of his jurisdiction. Without a line-item veto, a President must take ALL of the legislation or NONE of it.
Anyone who fell for that rhetoric that Obama was going to do anything about earmarks does not understand how our government works. They were promises as empty as the heads believing them.
Guy:
His speech? Oh please. There is no way I am going to believe some stump speech by Obama.
I am going to tell you something else Guy, I know plenty of people without insurance who could afford it if they wanted it. But they don’t. If you get a plan like this and 700 billion is just a down payment, it will almost certainly be paid for by additional taxes. Like medicare or social security. And what is more they will want to tell you what to do with your health care and what to do and not to do.
Obama is not trying to do anyone a favor, he wants people dependent on the state so that they will vote Democrat. That is all this is.
No one gets turned away for a lack of health insurance. People can get care even if they are destitute. To say that people have to have a government program or they are denied health care is absurd.
crosspatch:
If I remember correctly Obama was promising to veto the bill.
BTW, Evan Bayh Democrat, Indiana, did an oped saying this bill was obscene. He will not vote for it and he says Obama should veto it.
And Guy, no matter what kind of plan they come up with people would still claim bankruptcy if they are sick or hurt enough. They can not work, they are behind on payments so unless you want to completely support them then a lot of these people will end up filing bankruptcy no matter what kind of health insurance they have.
Fascism also may include industries as a part of government, and the “cult of personality” of a great leader. And we certainly have that.
Terrye is right, by federal law, no one can be turned away at a hospital or anywhere due to lack of coverage. Health care is expensive, and premiums are increasing, but I certainly don’t want federal control over health care. No, national health coverage is not free- not when you’re paying higher taxes to maintain it. For all the talk the left has about socialized health care, they never mention how many Canadians come here to be seen by a physician so they don’t have to wait in line. And, if it is so great, why has a private health insurance industry taken root in Britain?
I read a little bit about Daschle’s plan and it is about allocating resources. Such as letting the old folks die even if the family has the money to pay for their care. Or not spending resources on research for certain conditions and instead spending the money on what government deems to be the most necessary areas to cover. And of course, doctors will be penalized if they fail to take guidance from the state in this brave new world.
Health care needs less regulation and more competition.
Terrye:
Okay, that has to be the silliest thing you’ve ever written. Please show me one single part of Daschle’s plan, or ANY plan, that calls for “letting the old folks die even if the family has the money to pay for their care”. Demonize all you want – but don’t insult us, okay?
And gosh, I’m SOOO surprised you couldn’t take the time to read Obama’s speech (especially after very specifically saying you wanted to know what was in his plan). Hey, you don’t need to know anything about an issue to have an opinion on it, right?
And finally, that’s quite the humanitarian attitude you have: shown that half of the people in bankruptcy are there before of health issues, your response is a very Cheney-esque “So?” Are you actually against attempts to improve the current health care system in this country? Or have you just decided that you’re against anything Obama wants to do, no questions asked?
Guy:
No, it is not silly. Look it up yourself, it is in his book, and he used certain systems Europe to support the concept. The idea being that once a person has reached a certain age there is nothing more that can be done but to keep them comfortable. The idea is too much money and resources is spent on elderly people with limited time left. It is about rationing care. That is what the state does. The plan is not about free care, it is about utilizing resources.
And no, I am not going to take the time to read some frigging speech. When and if they actually come out with a real plan, I will read that.
If you want to read a speech, go read Clinton’s speech when he signed the Iraqi Liberation Act and told America that Saddam was dangerous and had to be removed from power. It seems to me that people only read the speeches they want to hear, the ones that can not be proven to be bs. The ones that might shed a little light on real history they ignore. Nooo, they would rather sit gape mouthed and drooling listening to Obama make promises the rest of us will have to keep.
“I am going to tell you something else Guy, I know plenty of people without insurance who could afford it if they wanted it. But they don’t.”
AMEN!
There was once a woman who was going to do some babysitting for me. She was a young single mother with a 3yo. She had no medical insurance. I went online to kp.org and found a plan that had a $30 copay and annual 1500 deductible. The idea being to have coverage in case of a major event like a car accident or something. The cost was under $300 a month and I offered to reimburse her for half the cost as being a single parent, worries about things like health insurance can keep people awake.
She said that if I could afford to pay half of that, she would rather have the money because she had free state coverage (MediCal). She doesn’t babysit for me.
So instead of 50% of something, she got 100% of nothing.
crosspatch:
Terrye was talking about people who didn’t have insurance, but could have. The woman in your example DID have coverage – she just didn’t have the coverage you wanted her to have.
That somewhat invalidates your story. (Plus, did you ever ask if the coverage under Medi-Cal was better than what you were offering?)
Another Obama appointment goes bust:
The Medi-Cal was coverage for the child. I was offering her coverage for both of them. Kaiser isn’t all THAT bad of healthcare.
Guy, you just seem to want to find something negative in anything anyone says. Why all the criticism? I believe that personal responsibility is an important thing. Basically what she is doing by using state healthcare is going door to door panhandling for the money to cover her child. She is placing the burden of her child’s healthcare on her neighbors when she had another option available. But that is only one story. I myself declined health insurance when I was in my 20’s. I was uninsured by choice. Many other people are too.
If you want lower healtcare costs, get rid of medical insurance and rates for things will come down to prices people can afford. Get rid of malpractice insurance and you will see unneeded procedures that also drive costs up going away along with the huge lawsuits that we all end up paying for.
I believe in insurance for catastrophic cases, but it should be against the law to provide health insurance for a working person that has less than a 1000 annual deductible and it should be against the law to provide malpractice insurance for more than a million bucks.
“Guy, you just seem to want to find something negative in anything anyone says. Why all the criticism?”
Thank you for the unintentional hilarity.
(HINT: do you think maybe that question could be directed to everyone here (except myself and conguy) about Obama?)
GayFellow, I shouldn’t do this, but I will. From Dictionary.com, check it out:
fas⋅cist
/ˈfæʃɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fash-ist] Show IPA
–noun
1. a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism.
2. (often initial capital letter) a member of a fascist movement or party.
3. a person who is dictatorial
It clearly defines a fascist in 3. as a person who is dictatorial. Seems like it would be fairly easy for a learned person to look up word definitions.
universal health care is fascist, implemented by dictatorial powers.
Terrye,
His speech? Oh please. There is no way I am going to believe some stump speech by Obama.
Obama doesn’t make speeches, he read other people’s words off teleprompters. These are written by his handlers.
OBAMA LIED, THE ECONOMY DIED!!!!
Redteam:
Great minds think alike.
Redteam:
And Dubya wrote every single word he ever spoke in a speech himself.
Are you actually trying to zing me with the oh-so-stunning fact that the White House employs speechwriters?
ZOMG! REALLY!!!!!1111one!!
Insurance really has become something of a racket. Back when people had very little insurance day to day health care costs were much less in terms of percentage of income. It was not free by any means, but a broken leg was not going to cost you 3 months to pay to fix either.
Guy:
Bush did not use a teleprompter for press conferences. Obama is the only president we have ever had who used a teleprompter for almost every public appearance. It is not a question of someone writing speeches for a guy. It is a question of whether or not he has a thought in his head that someone else did not put there.
That is a truly terrible alternate defintion. I had assumed you made it up out of your own stupidity – I never considered the fact that dictionary.com might actually confused “facist” and “dictator” so clearly.
I find it curious that you didn’t leave the whole defintion intact, though:
3. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.
Hmmm… could it possibly be that someone who calls himself “Redteam” might possible hold an extreme right-wing view or two?
And if you are going actually state that universal health care is “fascist” because it’s the government dictating that everyone must have health care, then:
The posted speed limit dictates that you must drive your car under a certain mph. Is that fascist?
The U.S. government dictates that I pay income tax. Is that fascist?
The U.S. governement dictates that it is illegal to consume certain substances. Is that fascist?
What, teleprompters are fascist now?
Seriously – WTF is wrong with you people? Every single President in the modern era has hired speechwriters. Who gives a fuck if the words are on a teleprompter, written down on note cards, or beemed directly into their brains with cosmic rays? What fucking difference does it make?
Redteam, I read a story someplace today that Obama doesn’t go ANYWHERE without the teleprompter.
And GuyF … there is a problem we have where people are deciding that owning a home, having a job, and having medical care are some kind of “right”. They aren’t. Rights are things like being allowed to exist, being a free person where you can choose what job you take (or not) and where you live, and having the right to PERSUE happiness. Happiness itself is not a right. There are no guarantees that any of these “rights” will result in obtaining anything at all.
As for medical care and other things offered by the government for people in need, I believe a person has an OBLIGATION to their community to get off of those services as soon as they are able. Doing otherwise is close to stealing. Also, this notion that people making over $250K are responsible for providing medical care and housing for anyone who can’t otherwise afford it is insane. What incentive would anyone ever have to work hard at getting ahead if they know that they don’t need to do a darned thing? That health care, housing, and protection from poverty is a “right” will guarantee that we will ALL end up without health care, homeless, and impoverished because a shrinking portion of the population will be forced to provide for a growing portion of the population.
It is absolutely insane and completely unsustainable. Nobody has a right to expect anything from their neighbors. The world “owes” you nothing.
“Every single President in the modern era has hired speechwriters.”
True. But most Presidents also knew how to speak without one. This one doesn’t. He doesn’t know his “own” material. If the think blinks up, he goes blank. It is as if he hasn’t even read it before the speech.
crosspatch:
“But most Presidents also knew how to speak without one. This one doesn’t.”
That’s total crap, and you know it.
Just last week, when McCain made a crack about the cost of the Presidential helicopter, Obama came up to the podium right after him, and said:
“By the way, I’ve already talked to [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates about a thorough review of the helicopter situation. The helicopter I have now seems perfectly adequate to me. Of course, I’ve never had a helicopter before. You know? Maybe — maybe I’ve been deprived and I didn’t know it.”
Took the sails RIGHT out of what McCain was saying. Are you going to try and tell me that someone else wrote that up and handed it to Obama in the few moments he had before he said it?
And, really – after 8 years of Bushisms, you’re going to go after Obama on how he *speaks*? Really? They INVENTED A FREAKING WORD for the verbal screw-ups that Bush kept making over and over and over again over the years.
“Is our children learning”? “You can’t get fooled again”? “Can’t practice their love”? “Misunderestimate”? THAT is what you want to compare against?
Your total lack of self-awareness is staggering.
crosspatch:
“there is a problem we have where people are deciding that owning a home, having a job, and having medical care are some kind of “right”. They aren’t.”
Yeah, I saw Rep. Zach Wemp (R-TN) say that on my TV earlier today. It was just as disgusting then, as when you type it.
So, the conservative opinion is: “If poor people get sick, fuck ‘em.” Good to know.
(Oh, but wait – they can just walk into the ER, right? Okay – so, how are they going to pay for it? And if they can’t, who’s going to end up paying for it in the long run?)
Oh, forgot to clarify – I am specifically talking about medical care. The first two are indeed a privilege. But being treated when you’re sick certainly is not. And it’s a truly twisted, heartless mindset which thinks otherwise.
The Obumbler strikes again!
And GuyF … don’t your arms get tired hauling all that water day in and day out? But I am sure Obama needs you to stick up for him. He probably needs everyone he can get at this point.
crosspatch:
My arms feel fine. You, however, are still a cold-hearted, mean-spirited person who enjoys seeing poor sick kids stay sick.
Really – you should be ashamed of yourself by now.
No, my position is “if someone else gets sick, it is a darned shame and it is my moral duty to help out if I can but it is not a LEGAL OBLIGATION for me to have my pay confiscated under penalty of law to simply pay for their health care”.
I don’t have the slightest problem with assistance for catastrophic help. That is what a safety net is for. But when we start handing out “free” insurance to anyone who wants it, we end up with a hammock. And then we end up with a deplorable health system such as Canada and the UK have. THEY don’t want us to change ours because it would leave them with nowhere to get good care.
Canadians regularly travel to the US to get treatment and diagnostic procedures done because they might die waiting if they relied on their own system. The UK system is in even worse shape. Free health care is pretty much a death sentence if you get really sick.
People are less motivated to expend energy at obtaining something that is available “free”. If you are given a home, enough food to eat, medical care, and a job from which it is nearly impossible to be fired, what motivation is there to put out any effort to succeed? All of this is given in exchange for their vote. It is basically just bribery.
These programs do not improve people’s lives, they trap them in poverty. They bring up a generation under them who don’t have any concept of a work ethic. Who believe it is the responsibility of “the government” to give them what they need to be comfortable and if they become uncomfortable, they take to the streets.
The programs trap generation after generation in poverty because they enable the behaviors that lead to low income such as illiteracy, for example. People CHOOSE to be illiterate and they can CHOOSE to be literate. It is simply a matter of a decision one makes about where they are going to invest their energy.
Detroit’s newspapers are dying. Know why? It isn’t the Internet … Detroit, Michigan has an adult functional illiteracy rate of 47%. Detroit’s median home price is $7500. And yet we ship BILLIONS of dollars there in programs that simply drive those people further into oblivion. It doesn’t help them, it hurts them. Promise a man free fish for life and I guarantee you he won’t waste much time or effort learning how to fish. In the meantime as you confiscate more and more of the catch of people who ARE feeding themselves, they give up AND you make it harder for people to BECOME rich so they can be taxed.
The programs help nobody and hurt everybody.
GuyF, I get the impression you have never raised children. I can’t imagine having an attitude of “oh, just give it a go, son, and if it doesn’t work out, that’s ok, the Government has to take care of you”.
The one thing that was driven in to me since I was a child was “The world does not owe you a living.”.
crosspatch:
I have two sons. The older has epilespsy and ADHD. The younger has autism. I deal with their conditions every day, all day. I literally cannot leave either of them alone for more than a few minutes. This has been my life for 8+ years.
So shove your lectures straight up your ass, okay?
I am lucky to live in Delaware, one of the few states to take the Autism issue very seriously: with the Delaware Autism Program (DAP)
They got ahold of him when he was almost 3, did some evaluations, and determined that: yes, he did qualify for this program. So, even when he was too young for a “usual” pre-K program, they put him into school, with people that were uniquely qualified to help him along.
And help they have: the difference in this kid between last year and this is INSANE. Last year, he would not care if someone else was in a room with him. Now: he talks to people, looks them in the eye, tells stories, asks for people to tickle him, etc. He comes up to me, and asks me to play”The Alphabet Game” – this is a game where we call out letters, and take turns coming up with words that start with that letter.
Do any of you get this? I am ecstatic that my child is starting to act NORMAL. And why? Becuase he has gone through a state government-run program that taught him how to do that.
None of this was even REMOTELY possible before the DAP got ahold of him. They are freaking miracle workers. They have saved my damn family.
And now.. you all are arguing against measures that would increase spending for programs like DAP?
Why do you hate families?
What? I love families. Tossing money at them doesn’t help them. We have been throwing billions at Detroit every year, and it just gets worse.
MONEY doesn’t solve problems. PEOPLE do. You can’t solve these problems by budgeting money and initiating “programs”. “Programs” don’t make kids do their homework. “Programs” don’t make someone decide to quit spending all day hanging out on the corner and enroll in a class to learn to read. “Programs” don’t work, for the most part.
The best thing that ever happened to welfare in the US in my lifetime was when Clinton put a lifetime cap on benefits. As a result, welfare rolls dropped 85% and violent crime was cut in half.
You know, you never hear the Asian immigrant whining. Know why? They bust their rear ends getting a good public education. They arrive here without a penny, work their butts off, make sure the kids do their homework and stay in school and they succeed. Same is true with Indian immigrants. They work their way out of poverty in a single generation in many cases. Why do we have entire cities that have been in poverty for DECADES? I say it is because they aren’t held personally responsible for their own situation. A kid born in Detroit is likely to end up living just like their parents. Move that same kid to Montana and they might have a shot. Not because they are a different kid, and not because there are more “programs”. Poverty is CULTURAL in some areas. It is a way of life. People don’t know any different and pumping more money will just lead to more people on the dole. It doesn’t get them off. ENDING the gravy train is what causes people to get motivated to improve themselves.
Want to know where the best schools are in a district? Look for the ones that get the least government funding. Increasing government funding to a school does not improve things. In fact, it probably makes things worse by subsidizing failure. That is all we are doing … subsidizing failure and the more we subsidize it, the more we get of it.
You can’t fix these problems by throwing money at them. You have to fix it culturally. We have to stop tolerating illiteracy, for example. It should go like this … go to school and we will pay you for X months. If you do not pass the test, the money stops. If you pass, we will pay you a smaller amount for some period while you look for work and then it stops altogether.
The reason unemployment is so high is that illiteracy is so high. Who is going to hire someone who can’t read a sign or fill out a time card? And nobody can put literacy into one’s head with any amount of money. The people have to do that themselves.
Guy,
Congrats on how well your child is doing – that is great news.
And here is where you and I agree 100%. When Malkin and others went after the CHIPS program it probably ended any hope of me joining the GOP.
I believe in the job based, free market medical system. But Government does have a role in investing in the hard cases as well.
It actually is no different than the space market. Commercial satellite operators make money on providing global communications (something that has changed the face of humanity). But government funds exploration and science and the technology of space (actually, applying terrestrial technology to space missions). There is no profit (right now) in space science data, so no companies will invest or build in that area, so government funds it.
But commercial space gets advancements in technology, and the government learns how to operate efficiently from business – it is a very symbiotic relationship which benefits this country greatly.
Medicine is the same way. You can have government participate (just not control). That is one reason I applauded the prescription drug benefit for Medicaid/Miedicare. It helped numerous people live better lives, is primarily self funded (those who can afford to buy in do so like any medical insurance benefit, which covers much of the cost of those who need the government safety net subsidy), and it is open market – commercial companies compete to get the customers, which drives them to offer competitive services.
The far right is too simple minded at times (again, Malkin jumps to mind). As you know I have had it with both partisan sides. It is time to listen and learn from each other, not berate each other. Even when they are wrong.
Your personal example is a great lesson for the right on why their extreme views of conservatism are wrong.
Cheers, AJStrata
Thank you, AJ. Believe it or not, that bit of empathy does mean something to me.
Guy,
No problem! Hope things continue well. I too have a child with some issues and understand completely.
AJStrata
GayF: a couple things you said:
And Dubya wrote every single word he ever spoke in a speech himself.
Are you actually trying to zing me with the oh-so-stunning fact that the White House employs speechwriters?
They have saved my damn family.
Thank you, AJ. Believe it or not, that bit of empathy does mean something to me.
I didn’t say anything about speech writers. I’m talking about people that can’t talk without a prompter.
Your ‘damn family’ wow, I’d never describe my family that way.
and that ‘thank you’ was phony, that whole bit you wrote about your ‘family’ (notice I left out the ‘damn’) was solely to get sympathy.
And you know ADHD is not really an ‘illness’ it’s a created thing for active children that their parents don’t want to deal with so they drug them to dumb them down, it causes many more problems down the line.
and before you get on my case:
Here’s the rest of it:
http://www.mykidsdeservebetter.com/adhd/disease.asp
For all of you laboring in love for your children, my heart goes out to you. We may or may not disagree on politics but I deeply respect the energy and effort it takes to endure and succeed with your children.
I trust your analysis on health issues about as much as I’d trust Rush Limbaugh with weight-loss advice.
While you’re at it, would you like to insult my children some more and insist that the epileptic seizures were just cries for attention?
You are a despicable human being.
GayF, since you asked:
Here’s the next paragraph. And I wouldn’t say much if I had referred to my family the way you did yours.
GayF
You do realize you said this:
You are a despicable human being.
after just having said this: They have saved my damn family.
despicable? you define the word.
Ah, right – despicable, functionally illiterate *and* unbelievably stupid. Sorry, I left those last two out.
I shudder at how sad, lonely, and pathetic your life must be.
GayF
I see I have rattled your cage……
I was reading quite a bit about the Daschle-like proposals that were incorporated into the Stimulus that passed earlier this year. It isn’t only directed at the elderly, it’s deals with anyone who in on a government health program.
The following oped is what alarmed me enough to look into it, the numbers in parenthesis are the actual page numbers from the Stimulus that I repeat, already passed. They directly link to the page, hope they are still up:
“Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Elderly Hardest Hit ”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs
More recent, Senator Mark Warner is on a similar track:
Sen. Warner calls for discussion of end-of-life treatment
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/03/sen-warner-calls-discussion-endoflife-treatment