Thursday, August 27, 2009
Now where have we heard this before?
"FOX News' Glenn Beck is doing an extraordinary job this week walking America behind the scenes of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and outlining who is actually running the White House. Monday night he asked us to invite one friend to watch; tonight I invite all my friends to watch." -Sarah Palin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
At least now we know why they keep "imploring" us to watch Beck - because he tells them to.
Really painful have mercy RAC.
Since the quote was from Sarah Palin;
Apparently the Palins built their 2m dollar home with supplies and help from a company she later gave a 13 million dollar contract to. (To build a hockey stadium which put Wasilla into debt.) I predict a bipartisan effort in the future. As you recall Sarah can see Russia from her back yard. So I bet the democrats try to yank her passport out of concern she might try to flee to Russia to avoid prosecution and the republicans will yank it out of concern she might try do drive there.
I'll be watching to see who our president has surrounded himself with, as his closest personal advisors (czars). From communists, marxists and socialists to anti-capitalist, anti-American radicals. Do you approve of these czars?
Dave, you don't really think that way, do you?...I hope not.
Dave, I really hope you think that way!
yea, big surprise Ric. You hope he thinks like you and visa versa.
;)!!!
How can anyone disagree with Dave? Pure logic , truth and common sense!
I have a new nickname for Glenn Beck's loyal followers, I call them Beckkies. Like their Hollywood inspired counter parts the Trekkies, the Beckkies also live in an alternate reality and world of fantasy. They even have their own conventions like the Trekkies, only they call them town hall meetings and teabag parties.
I see where John McCain had a loud protester removed from one of the town hall meetings the other day.
She wanted to know when she would have health care as good as a US Senator.
He could have just been truthful and told her when hell freezes over.
It would be interesting to map the last months of Ted Kennedy's life to see how he would have fared under, er, KennedyCare. I don't imagine he would have had anything like the attention and care he received as a senator. Do you?
As I understand the type of brain cancer the senator had the prognosis long term is quite poor.
You're talking months, not years.
Ted Kennedy would be afforded the best care available regardless of coverage. The family is wealthy. He would not be forced to rely on "Kennedy care".
Not a fair comparison.
Certainly, it is a fair comparison. Were Ted a "commoner" the cost of his treatment would have been weighed against his age and his "contribution to society". He probably would have been given pain killers and shuffled off to a hostel. Now, I haven't seen his medical bills since his tumor was detected, but I don't imagine it was peanuts.
The senator was going to succumb to this disease. That really was only a question of how long.
You are correct that the cost of his treatment would have been "weighed" and quite possibly denied...by an insurance industries faceless, random bean counter.
The very same insurance industry that you and your fellow tea baggers inexplicably so ardently defend.
I am truly befuddled by right wing claims that the elimination of the public OPTION will afford the people greater choice and as a consequence higher quality and more equitable health care.
You really wanna use the term "tea bagger"? I'm certain you know what that means. I'm certain you know that I don't appreciate being called that.
I really try not to live life in the negative. At the same time, I'm practical. I know if I got brain cancer, breast cancer or cervical cancer, there will be no one to reach out to for help.
Sorry Dave, that's how I feel.
And I'm not asking for a free ride.
Just asking for what every american citizen has a right to.
What right would that be, Pat?
You don't get it yet Sean?
Sean,
Is this meant to intimidate me in some way?
If you wish to attach some derogatory and pornographic meaning to something as innocuous as a tea bag than that's on you, not me.
Be assured that if I wish to insult you (which I don't) the message will not include nebulous or vague euphemisms open to interpretation.
Once you are finished with your adolescent show of bravado we can continue the discussion if you'd like.
It's up to you.
Hell, my cat even gets it.
initimidate you? give me a break, Doug. I do like our back and forth discussion on issues, but I don't really like being called a "tea bagger". That's all - no chest pumping (and certainly no scrotum dangling).
I get, I suppose, that you think American Citizens have rights to services that are to be funded by government entitlements. Is that correct?
gun rights don't include free guns.
voting rights don't inlcude a free ride to the polling place.
pursuit of happiness rights don't include "free happiness".
But, you seem to think that the right of life includes free medical care. Sorry, I don't see anything in our constitution that give feds the power to take money from some to pay for other's doctor bills.
Do you?
Sean,
duly noted. I will not use and the term, well you know, together ever again.
What I meant to say is I won't say it again. That's what I'm saying.
It sucks that you guys pretend I'm not here. Hey, It's all about the boys. kiss kiss
The US constitution and what rights it protects or gives is subject to interpretation. It was written 200 years ago and has served us well, but we are a new world with different and greater needs. Comparing the right of being given a gun or health care is not the same thing. If you think they are then you do not have a very developed sense of social empathy or human understanding. As a society I think we adapt and grow with the ideal to move our selves up ward and forward. As an American we have developed into a culture that thinks beyond ourselves and to serve our nation. Access to health care was not an issue when the constitution was written because health care as a science was really not that developed. Getting care meant "leaching" something I doubt anyone wanted a right to. People who had problems for the most part were shut away, locked up, or left with the windows open on a cold night. The point is Sean that running to the constitution and saying where does it say Pat has a right to health care, is not a response that serves the needs of all Americans and the future development of our country. You make a valid point, why should you pay for it. I say because the greater the distress of our citizens the greater the overall function and development of our society is diminished. The less humane we become as a nation the greater the loss of dignity. At the root of the health care debate is the issue of humanity and the protection of an individuals dignity.
I would pay more. My kids have said they would pay more to cover everyone. What is really sad about your attitude is that it is not all that much more to pay. You pay more now for private then you probably would with a government option and private on top of it. The whole health care industry in America needs to be brought in line with the other western nations. Our health care costs are over inflated and with universal health care you would see that. Get those illegals paying taxes and into the system. They are not what bankrupts our country and our health care. It is the over inflated costs and a lack of affordable care options.
Okay, well I going to offer one more piece of commentary on this and then I'm done.
According to data from the US Census there are roughly 47 million US citizens uninsured for health care. According to WHO data we rank 37th in the world in health care coverage and are 24th in life expectancy. All while paying nearly twice as much for health care per person than any other country in the world. Now Alexander Hamilton I am not but paying more for less does not strike me as an indication of a healthy marketplace.
To say that one sees nothing in the constitution relating to free health care is rather disingenuous. Of course there's no reference to free or any other kind of health care because it was at that time as foreign a concept as moon travel. What you do see in the constitution is clearly spelled out in the first paragraph, to "promote the general Welfare". Loosely translated, take care of the citizens of the Republic. One might reasonably conclude that would include the ability of those same citizens to go see a doctor as needed without fear of bankrupting the family.
We hear a lot from those opposing universal care about how it's socialism and will mean free care for illegal immigrants and even the more unbelievable tales devoid of reality such as death squads and the book of death like.
Fact, under the current proposal there would be NO free care for illegal immigrants.
Just for funsies let's take a look at Spain's universal care. I choose Spain because their program has been in place for many years. Implemented by the regime of Francisco Franco (hardly a Socialist) it currently produces an average life expectancy of just over 81 compared to our average of 78. Expenditures per capita in Spain $2,458 compared to $6,714 here in the US. We are paying more for health care than we should. There are more doctors per capita in Spain, 3.8 doctors per thousand compared to our 2.4.
In Spain, the gov't negotiates with pharmaceutical firms the prices for prescription drugs. This ultimately leads to significant savings for the end user, including free prescriptions for those suffering from cancer.
There is also the option of supplemental private insurance costing on average $115 a month per person which includes in home doctors visits.
All prescriptions are free to retirees and the disabled. Those countries in the western world (that would be ALL of them except the US) that enjoy universal care have success rates similar to Spains.
Now I'n not saying we should just copy Spain. Oh no. I'm well aware of how unrealistic it is that we should be asked to copy or emulate anyone or anything. Can't have that.
But can we at least admit that maybe there is a better way? That the US Health Insurance Industry does not have your best interests at heart. It is an industry first and foremost profit driven. Not patient care driven. There is nothing wrong with profit. There is something wrong with allowing the motive for profit to leave 1 in 6 of your fellow citizens at risk of catastrophe.
1) 200 hundred years later and we've "evolved" into being more dependent on government? baloney.
2) "protect the individual's dignity" by removing their responsibility? How dignified is it to be dependent on the government?
3) What, exactly, "overinflates" the costs?
4) I suppose everyone who objects to KennedyCare is somehow lacking in empathy? Or, is it just me?
In the end, it isn't about the cost, it is about individual responsibility (dignity, if you will) and controlling a government which is reaching deeper and deeper into our lives.
WHO is using "social justice" factors to rate healthcare. Remove them and we are clearly number one.
And, before you say it, if we're such a socially unjust country, why are people literally DYING to come here? for opportunity. far better opportunity than they had in the home countries.
Who ever got bankrupted from going to see the doctor?
Why not universal food?
Universal water?
Universal shelter?
Universal clothing?
All of these are certainly lower on the needs scale than pills or surgery.
How much of those expenditures include research? drug development? compliance with regulations (like HIPAA or the FDA)? malpractice insurance? legal fees for defending against lawsuites? punitive damages?
Who ever got bankrupted from going to see the doctor?
You know what the meaning is there Sean. There are thousands of American's in bankruptcy due to their inability to pay their medical bills.
"And, before you say it, if we're such a socially unjust country, why are people literally DYING to come here? for opportunity. far better opportunity than they had in the home countries."
Would you be so kind as to refrain from putting words in my mouth. I'm quite capable of formulating a response without your input.
Sean said: "It would be interesting to map the last months of Ted Kennedy's life to see how he would have fared under, er, KennedyCare. I don't imagine he would have had anything like the attention and care he received as a senator. Do you?"
Actually, yes I do. My father also died of terminal cancer. As Doug pointed out there comes a point when the only option is to make the patient as comfortable as possible and allow nature to take its course. Medicare provided the the same basic comforts for my for my Dad that Sen. Kennedy received. He spent his last days at home under the care of a hospice doctor and nurse. He was provided ample pain medication and whatever other meds he needed. Medicare also paid for the rental of a hospital bed and oxygen.
I'm glad you don't have the personal experience do draw on when rating government health care. But then again, maybe if you had, you might have a little different point of view.
RAC - I'm sorry for your loss. Sadly, my father also died of a cancer in the form of a brain tumor. He was not on Medicare at the time, so I can't really comment on that aspect.
However, I still doubt that you or I would have the same options and coverage under our "public option" plan that may bare his name than did Ted Kennedy under the senate plan.
So what did Kennedy get that the others with brain cancer wouldn't? I think there would be security issues, but as far as medical care goes, he did die after all. Heroic measures to keep himself functional seemed to be in the national interest. Be sides the health care debate is not about what a small population of senators get. It is about what the large population of all Americans should have. Medicare has limits and co pays. after a certain number of days you have to pay a daily co-pay of around $133.00 then it goes up to $250 and eventually a daily $530.00. So if Grandpa has a stroke and is on life support or able to stay in a coma or needs hospital rehabilitation or what ever after day 20 you start to pay. There are many little twists to Medicare.
[edit] Deductible and coinsurance
Part A — For each benefit period, a beneficiary will pay:
A Part A deductible of $1,068 (in 2009) for a hospital stay of 1–60 days.
A $267 per day co-pay (in 2009) for days 61-90 of a hospital stay.
A $534 per day co-pay (in 2009) for days 91-150 of a hospital stay, as part of their limited Lifetime Reserve Days.
All costs for each day beyond 150 days[27]
Coinsurance for a Skilled Nursing Facility is $133.50 per day (in 2009) for days 21 through 100 for each benefit period.
A blood deductible of the first 3 pints of blood needed in a calendar year, unless replaced. There is a 3 pint blood deductible for both Part A and Part B, and these separate deductibles do not overlap.
Part B — After a beneficiary meets the yearly deductible of $135.00 (in 2009), they will be required to pay a co-insurance of 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for all services covered by Part B with the exception of most lab services which are covered at 100%. They are also required to pay an excess charge of 15% for services rendered by non-participating Medicare providers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)
Yes, our father died of cancer. Started with prostate, moved to his spine, then his brain and finally his lungs. And Robert he had a great hospice nurse, but never had a Doctor come visit.
I love Hope Hospice. They took care of dad and then mom in the end. You forgot to mention that mom and I were there with him. no nurse. Just us.
I can not say it enough to those of you with private insurance. Check you limits on your policies. See what are the life time payouts for medical conditions and second surgery payments. You might think you are covered but don't find out the hard way that you are not.
"The US constitution and what rights it protects or gives is subject to interpretation". ????
The constitution seems direct and to the point, completely clear and precise in it's meaning and intent when I read it.
"The whole health care industry in America needs to be brought in line with the other western nations".
An internationalist, one-world viewpoint in my opinion. I prefer and cherish American sovereignty myself. America does not have to be 'brought in line' with any other nation.
Well Dave I'm with you. We all cherish the Constitution and its ideals. The following may be only slightly off topic but I do wonder at what the founders would think of the prospect of the following scenario. While the PREP act primarily put in place the mechanism for the production of mass quantities of vaccine as directed by the President there is maybe juuuust a little more to it. While the author may be a bit on the melodramatic side what he says is basically grounded in fact.
"In 2006, former President George Bush signed into law the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP). It gives power to the Secretary of the U.S. government's Health and Human Services department (HHS) to declare any infectious disease a "national emergency" and therefore require mandatory vaccination of the entire population. Because of the existence of this PREP Act, the entire population of the USA is now but one pen stroke away from being subjected to mandatory swine flu vaccinations at gunpoint.
Those who resist such vaccines will be arrested and taken away for "isolation" in domestic prison camps. They can't just leave vaccine refusers free to live among the population, of course, because that would send the message that anyone can refuse the vaccines without consequence. So they'll arrest those who refuse the vaccine, labeling them "a threat to national security" (enemies of the state) and imprison them without trial, without charges and without any legal representation whatsoever.
Meanwhile, all those who take part in enforcing these crimes against the American people will be granted complete immunity. From the HHS website: "[the Secretary may] issue a declaration... that provides immunity from tort liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims of loss caused, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from administration or use of (vaccine or other pharmaceutical) countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions determined by the Secretary to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future public health emergency..."
There are other laws already on the books that strip Americans of virtually all Constitutional rights in a "pandemic emergency" scenario. One such act is The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (S. 3678), which probably merits another article altogether.
Have no illusions: At the stroke of a pen, the Constitutional rights of all Americans will be immediately suspended. Mandatory vaccinations and "decontaminations" will kick in and the mass arrest of resisters will begin. There will be no court, no trial, no jury and no due process. Your actions will be dictated to you by a law enforcement officer or a health care worker who has been granted complete immunity, so if you just happen to get kicked around a bit (or shot), there's really nothing you can do about it"...
Happy Friday everyone!
Where will the madness end? Even the far left liberals are going to have to stand up for their rights someday, or face extermination at the hands of the very people that they put into power. How's that for extreme?
Well FWIW the program was engendered under the previous administration.
The current administration shows no sign of relinquishing the authority.
There were far left liberals in the previous administration, and now there are many more.
I wonder if they plan on vaccinating the illegal aliens.
OMG, you guys are sure paranoid...now you're worried about the government making vaccines mandatory..WTF.. okay so make all vaccines voluntary...the government has no business in making decisions about our bodies..bring on the polio, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus and hepatitis...the planet is overpopulated anyway...
I wouldn't be so paranoid if everyone wasn't out to get me.
Post a Comment