DNC now calling angry average Americans a mob

[pBills]

you criticize people who watch O'Reilly and Beck, yet you post a link to a video from Olberman.

 

 

 

 

As much as I don't like O'Reilly, I think he can be fair. And by the way, I don't criticize people for watching him. I do though for Beck and Limbaugh. Olberman doesn't talk about poisoning people like Beck does.

 

Do you disagree with what Olberman says in that video?

[Kelly the Dog]

And if and when they do, I can fight with them and have the option to go elsewhere for insurance.

 

Gubmint runs everything and what option do I have to "take my business elsewhere"? NONE.

There is absolutely nothing in any of the plans discussed that remotely resembles that. The public option in all of the assorted versions is going to be one out of dozens and dozens of plans. It will be a bare bones kind of policy designed for low cost.

[K-9]

It won't happen to yours because you won't have the public plan. According to the CBO, only 11 million people TOTAL will go for the public plan. Besides, the private insurers ration care all day long every single day.

 

Good point. If they DIDN'T ration, they wouldn't be as profitable.

[blzrul]

She didn't say it was perfect, that is far from the truth. I read her post as a comparsion to others in the world. Just because we are better off, do we stop trying, stop equipping the miltary, stop maintaining the infrastructure... No!

 

We can be so much better. Right now things are fine when everything is running well... Yet as nation we still run around having to put out the "fires"... IMO, that is not how we should operate... We should be planning for the future.

 

I think that is all she is trying to say... And that we still have it very great in what we get back compared to other parts of the world.

 

Some want to see it crumble and those "fires" are getting closer and closer together than what has happened in the past since 1929.

What I was trying to say is that without the government, and the programs and services it provides, America wouldn't be where we are today. No way, no how.

 

If the government is competent enough to field armies that bring tears of pride to wingnut eyes, it's competent enough to replace big fat profit-taking corporations that only succeed by hindering access to healthcare.

 

In short, it's just more wingnut hypocrisy. They are too lazy to actually read the legislation, their wingut leaders tell them any time the government does anything it's bad, so they rend their garments instead of engaging in discussion. And they are SO stupid they don't realize they're the ones being used. Somewhere in boardrooms across America corporate fat-cats are laughing their asses off at the stupidity of the people who are so ignorant and easilty frightened. How ironic that those are typically the same people who are hurt MOST by the policies they support.

 

But it has always been so.

[pBills]

What I was trying to say is that without the government, and the programs and services it provides, America wouldn't be where we are today. No way, no how.

 

If the government is competent enough to field armies that bring tears of pride to wingnut eyes, it's competent enough to replace big fat profit-taking corporations that only succeed by hindering access to healthcare.

 

In short, it's just more wingnut hypocrisy. They are too lazy to actually read the legislation, their wingut leaders tell them any time the government does anything it's bad, so they rend their garments instead of engaging in discussion. And they are SO stupid they don't realize they're the ones being used. Somewhere in boardrooms across America corporate fat-cats are laughing their asses off at the stupidity of the people who are so ignorant and easilty frightened. How ironic that those are typically the same people who are hurt MOST by the policies they support.

But it has always been so.

 

 

 

If you say the bolded part above louder and in a threatening way I'll want to discuss and most likely believe you.

[Wacka]

Today at Specter's "town hall" a woman read directly from the bill. Specter says that she was spreading lies and rumors. He has no idea of what is in the bill as do all of the dems.

[justnzane]

And Norwoods kick went right through the uprights.

ooh, i tried staying out of this one... but that is low and heartsinking.

[Booster4324]

And Norwoods kick went right through the uprights.

 

Link?

[1billsfan]

Today at Specter's "town hall" a woman read directly from the bill. Specter says that she was spreading lies and rumors. He has no idea of what is in the bill as do all of the dems.

 

It's no wonder. The guy's about 150 years old and is a walking billboard for the need for term limits in congress.

[Kelly the Dog]

Today at Specter's "town hall" a woman read directly from the bill. Specter says that she was spreading lies and rumors. He has no idea of what is in the bill as do all of the dems.

He knows what are in the Senate bills, that thing online is a working draft of a House bill that is two months old already and has already been altered. The woman didnt understand what she was reading either.

 

For the record, I thought that Specter was absolutely terrible in that town hall. Just atrocious. And I saw almost all of it.

[StupidNation]

They are too lazy to actually read the legislation, their wingut leaders tell them any time the government does anything it's bad, so they rend their garments instead of engaging in discussion.

 

So the United States becomes a power-house because of it's lack of regulation and innovation, and we have to thank government for staying out of the way?

 

or

 

Do we thank gov't for pillaging and siphoning the wealth of this country with programs that are unsustainable perpetually, and which will end the strength of the dollar and concurrently destroy the programs they hoped to continue?

 

Maybe what needed to be rationed was all the social security benefits, cut taxes, allow freedom, and allow people to succeed.

 

 

But in looking at what you are saying, and why you are wrong (again), the people who are really debating the issue is based on the bill itself. All of the lapdogs who support it are just going on what they are told.

[Kelly the Dog]

But in looking at what you are saying, and why you are wrong (again), the people who are really debating the issue is based on the bill itself. All of the lapdogs who support it are just going on what they are told.

That's a flat lie. The vast majority of the people complaining about what they read in the bill are misinterpreting what they read -- OR -- the legalese that dominates these bills is just too confusing which opens itself up to all kinds of speculation that is often the exact opposition of the provisions intention. There are all kinds of legitimate elements to complain about, in that bill, other bills, and the reform itself. But pretty much none of the stuff that people are complaining about that is in the bill is actually in the bill, like that Medicare benefits will be cut, the government will be rationing care, the government will be running health care, private insurers will be run out of business, the elderly will be subject to death panels deciding on their care, we will be on a single payer system, etc.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

What I was trying to say is that without the government, and the programs and services it provides, America wouldn't be where we are today. No way, no how.

 

If the government is competent enough to field armies that bring tears of pride to wingnut eyes, it's competent enough to replace big fat profit-taking corporations that only succeed by hindering access to healthcare.

 

In short, it's just more wingnut hypocrisy. They are too lazy to actually read the legislation, their wingut leaders tell them any time the government does anything it's bad, so they rend their garments instead of engaging in discussion. And they are SO stupid they don't realize they're the ones being used. Somewhere in boardrooms across America corporate fat-cats are laughing their asses off at the stupidity of the people who are so ignorant and easilty frightened. How ironic that those are typically the same people who are hurt MOST by the policies they support.

 

But it has always been so.

 

Is it really necessary to read about a government plan that will add hundreds of billions of dollars ON THE LOW END per year to the Federal budget, while not even addressing the needs of the "40 million" of the uninsured?

 

I think not. I know shait when I smell it, and this "plan" reeks.

[Kelly the Dog]

Is it really necessary to read about a government plan that will add hundreds of billions of dollars ON THE LOW END per year to the Federal budget, while not even addressing the needs of the "40 million" of the uninsured?

 

I think not. I know shait when I smell it, and this "plan" reeks.

 

How is this not addressing the needs of the 40 million?

[Magox]

That's a flat lie. The vast majority of the people complaining about what they read in the bill are misinterpreting what they read -- OR -- the legalese that dominates these bills is just too confusing which opens itself up to all kinds of speculation that is often the exact opposition of the provisions intention. There are all kinds of legitimate elements to complain about, in that bill, other bills, and the reform itself. But pretty much none of the stuff that people are complaining about that is in the bill is actually in the bill, like that Medicare benefits will be cut, the government will be rationing care, the government will be running health care, private insurers will be run out of business, the elderly will be subject to death panels deciding on their care, we will be on a single payer system, etc.

I'll tell you where the problem is Dog, is that there is a lot of confusion on how this Bill is going to look like. Uncertainty breeds discontent, and one of the main problems with the way the Obama administration is handling this is that they are paying for the sins of the Clinton administration by not becoming more active in directing the way they want this bill to go through. OverKill, they are taking the exact opposite approach from the Clinton administration, if I were in their shoes I would try to find a happy medium between the way the previous democratic regime handled it and their lax, off hands approach is and change course of direction.

[Kelly the Dog]

I'll tell you where the problem is Dog, is that there is a lot of confusion on how this Bill is going to look like. Uncertainty breeds discontent, and one of the main problems with the way the Obama administration is handling this is that they are paying for the sins of the Clinton administration by not becoming more active in directing the way they want this bill to go through. OverKill, they are taking the exact opposite approach from the Clinton administration, if I were in their shoes I would try to find a happy medium between the way the previous democratic regime handled it and their lax, off hands approach is and change course of direction.

Very true.

 

They haven't done a great job explaining what is in it, but part of the problem with doing things like putting the legislation online like people have been clamoring for is that those same people, from both sides, don't seem to understand how politics work and what are actually in the bills and how bills are actually passed and the variations and machinations it all goes through before something is a bill. The legalese in these things are ridiculous trying to cover everyone's ass. It lends itself to extreme distortion.

 

The things about the "death panels" and "euthanasia" and the worries the elderly have that they will be forced to decide about their death are just flat lies specifically designed to scare old people. The program/legislation was started by a Republican Johnny Isakson when he was a Congressman and is now a Senator. It protects seniors, saves them money, and protects their family. Here are his own words explaining what that provision is all about:

Is this bill going to euthanize my grandmother? What are we talking about here?

 

In the health-care debate mark-up, one of the things I talked about was that the most money spent on anyone is spent usually in the last 60 days of life and that's because an individual is not in a capacity to make decisions for themselves. So rather than getting into a situation where the government makes those decisions, if everyone had an end-of-life directive or what we call in Georgia "durable power of attorney," you could instruct at a time of sound mind and body what you want to happen in an event where you were in difficult circumstances where you're unable to make those decisions.

 

This has been an issue for 35 years. All 50 states now have either durable powers of attorney or end-of-life directives and it's to protect children or a spouse from being put into a situation where they have to make a terrible decision as well as physicians from being put into a position where they have to practice defensive medicine because of the trial lawyers. It's just better for an individual to be able to clearly delineate what they want done in various sets of circumstances at the end of their life.

 

How did this become a question of euthanasia?

 

I have no idea. I understand -- and you have to check this out -- I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up.

 

You're saying that this is not a question of government. It's for individuals.

 

It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.

 

The policy here as I understand it is that Medicare would cover a counseling session with your doctor on end-of-life options.

 

Correct. And it's a voluntary deal.

 

It seems to me we're having trouble conducting an adult conversation about death. We pay a lot of money not to face these questions. We prefer to experience the health-care system as something that just saves you, and if it doesn't, something has gone wrong.

 

Over the last three-and-a-half decades, this legislation has been passed state-by-state, in part because of the tort issue and in part because of many other things. It's important for an individual to make those determinations while they're of sound mind and body rather than no one making those decisions at all. But this discussion has been going on for three decades.

 

And the only change we'd see is that individuals would have a counseling session with their doctor?

 

Uh-huh. When they become eligible for Medicare.

 

Are there other costs? Parts of it I'm missing?

 

No. The problem you got is that there's so much swirling around about health care and people are taking bits and pieces out of this. This was thoroughly debated in the Senate committee. It's voluntary. Every state in America has an end of life directive or durable power of attorney provision. For the peace of mind of your children and your spouse as well as the comfort of knowing the government won't make these decisions, it's a very popular thing. Just not everybody's aware of it.

 

What got you interested in this subject?

 

I've seen the pain and suffering in families with a loved one with a traumatic brain injury or a crippling degenerative disease become incapacitated and be kept alive under very difficult circumstances when if they'd have had the chance to make the decision themself they'd have given another directive and I've seen the damage financially that's been done to families and if there's a way to prevent that by you giving advance directives it's both for the sanity of the family and what savings the family has it's the right decision, certainly more than turning it to the government or a trial lawyer.

And yet conservatives and opposition to the bill saves it is going to kill grandma.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klei...ing_to_eut.html

[Chef Jim]

That's a flat lie. The vast majority of the people complaining about what they read in the bill are misinterpreting what they read -- OR -- the legalese that dominates these bills is just too confusing which opens itself up to all kinds of speculation that is often the exact opposition of the provisions intention. There are all kinds of legitimate elements to complain about, in that bill, other bills, and the reform itself. But pretty much none of the stuff that people are complaining about that is in the bill is actually in the bill, like that Medicare benefits will be cut, the government will be rationing care, the government will be running health care, private insurers will be run out of business, the elderly will be subject to death panels deciding on their care, we will be on a single payer system, etc.

 

And there is your problem. Seeing most congress members are lawyers they can have these bill interpreted to fit different circumstances. Why can't it be in simple language that the average American can interpret? For instance most defined benefit plans are pretty straight forward and very easy to understand because they were written for the average American not by several hundred lawyers.

[Magox]

Very true.

 

They haven't done a great job explaining what is in it, but part of the problem with doing things like putting the legislation online like people have been clamoring for is that those same people, from both sides, don't seem to understand how politics work and what are actually in the bills and how bills are actually passed and the variations and machinations it all goes through before something is a bill. The legalese in these things are ridiculous trying to cover everyone's ass. It lends itself to extreme distortion.

 

The things about the "death panels" and "euthanasia" and the worries the elderly have that they will be forced to decide about their death are just flat lies specifically designed to scare old people. The program/legislation was started by a Republican Johnny Isakson when he was a Congressman and is now a Senator. It protects seniors, saves them money, and protects their family. Here are his own words explaining what that provision is all about:

 

And yet conservatives and opposition to the bill saves it is going to kill grandma.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klei...ing_to_eut.html

Politics, ghastly politics...

 

Same tactics, different criteria

[Kelly the Dog]

And there is your problem. Seeing most congress members are lawyers they can have these bill interpreted to fit different circumstances. Why can't it be in simple language that the average American can interpret? For instance most defined benefit plans are pretty straight forward and very easy to understand because they were written for the average American not by several hundred lawyers.

 

Totally agree but that doesn't give people the right to intentionally distort that legalese into saying it does the opposite of what it is saying.

[Kelly the Dog]

Politics...

So this is the way things should be? That's a very good element of the health reform which not only helps gramma but helps their kids/family -- AND saves them money -- AND saves overall health care money -- and yet opponents are saying it kills gramma and a lot of elderly are terrified when they hear this, whether they were for reform or not.