AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text
LINK TO THE 2009 HEALTH CARE BILL

The last couple of days, I was watching several news programs on this subject:

Among some of the more interesting was one with Greta VanSustern cordially interviewing a Democrat congressman. She listed some of the concerns re the pending H.R. 3200 and he said that the bill is being accused of all sorts of things that just aren't so.

She asked him why they could not give us a bill written in plain English spelling out in understandable language what the bill would and would not do so that the American people could evaluate it correctly and wouldn't presume anything that wasn't so and also so that health care providers would be able to understand what was being expected. His explanation was that it had to be technical and difficult and obscure or it would invite lawsuits.

She, an attorney in her own right, strongly disagreed.

Another was Bill O'Reilly on this same subject stating that he had not read the bill and did not intend to read the bill because what he had seen of the bill was incomprehensible even to legal minds. He challenged any member of Congress to present a three page bullet pointed synopsis of what H.R. 3200 would specifically do re healthcare including who would and would not be insured and the projected costs and savings. He was advised that would simply not be do-able because nobody in Congress either understood what was in it well enough to do that, or even if they did, they damn sure didn't want any of us to know what was in it.

And this morning I watched Arlan Spector in another town hall meeting in which most of the constiuents there were anti-H.R. 3200. No shouting or disrespect. He admitted he had not read the bill but then he didn't have to since the Senate bill wasn't written yet. He solemnly promised that he would not sign a bill that increased the deficit and he would not sign a bill that provided a penny in healthcare services to illegal aliens. We'll see how that holds up.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

The last couple of days, I was watching several news programs on this subject:

Several FOX News programs on this subject; that's an important part, because it correctly identifies for the reader the inherent bias in the presentation; and provides a partial explanation for why you are somewhat uninformed on this issue, despite your attempt to become informed.

Quote:

His explanation was that it had to be technical and difficult and obscure or it would invite lawsuits.

She, an attorney in her own right, strongly disagreed.

On what basis did she disagree? If legal language - and that's what this is, material which will have the binding force of law - if legal language is not extremely specific and precise, it is quite easy for an enterprising lawyer to poke many holes in it, which will definitely invite lawsuits.

I'm not sure what the alternate explanation is supposed to be - that lawmakers write complicated bills just for fun?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

. . . Is "Click it or ticket" a 'facist threat' for our own good as he suggests? . . . .

Walter Williams wrote:
Who May Harm Whom?
[snip]

What about the right to harm oneself, such as the potential harm that can come from not wearing a seatbelt. That, too, is a property rights question. If you own yourself, you have the right to take chances with your own life.

Some might argue that if you're not wearing a seatbelt and wind up a vegetable, society has to take care of you; therefore, the fascist threat "click it or ticket." Becoming a burden on society is not a problem of liberty and private property. It's a problem of socialism where one person is forced to take care of someone else. . . .

What is society supposed to do with the mangled bodies that are torpedoed out of their vehicles upon impact? Leave them on the highway like dead animals and allow nature to take its course? Perhaps if your remaining family members or friends are willing to scrape you off the highway, you might get some medical attention or a burial (whatever), but why should society have to bear the costs of this carnage when you assumed the risk by choosing to drive on the highway? Why should society have to pay for wrecking crews to remove the debris, pay for public ambulances to haul away the the human carnage, or pay to keep your body alive in a public hospital? If those damn conservatives weren't against euthanasia, the local sheriff could simply stop by the scene, put a bullet in the head of your mangled body, and toss you into the ditch. Alas, society has rejected that option. Therefore, society chooses to mitigate the damages that might befall upon the public purse by requiring citizens to wear a damn seatbelt or be ticketed. And Williams calls that a fascist threat? Williams is a moron.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Well you can claim Fox is more biased than any other media source, but I have already disputed that too. Fox does beat NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, and CNN COMBINED on ratings in most time slots and their demographic studies are showing that they are not only attracting conservatives, but also the lion's share of moderates and even liberals who want to know what is going on and can't find out anywhere else.

And no, they aren't writing complicated bills just for fun. They are writing complicated bills on purpose so that they can get them passed before anybody can fully inform the general public what is in them. In my opinion, shared by a growing body of others, is that the purpose is to obfusicate, distort, confuse, and hide the true intent that they know will be unpopular. In my opinion, they know the smart people will figure it out. They are counting on the dumb ones who voted them into office to remain dumb but loyal and they are counting on there being more dumb ones than smart ones.

(Disclaimer: I am not saying that everybody who voted for Obama is dumb. I AM saying that anybody who thinks they're getting what was advertised, however, is a brick or two short of a load.)

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra, Their fear of "socialism" has impacted their humanity and common sense. That's until one of their own family members are involved in one of those accidents or are in need of our social services provided by all levels of government. I wonder how many of those in fear of "socialism" are collecting extended unemployment benefits?

Not me!

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Well you can claim Fox is more biased than any other media source, but I have already disputed that too. Fox does beat NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, and CNN COMBINED on ratings in most time slots and their demographic studies are showing that they are not only attracting conservatives, but also the lion's share of moderates and even liberals who want to know what is going on and can't find out anywhere else.

I don't claim that FOX is more biased than any other source (though I think such a claim could easily be made), but they are EQUALLY biased as other sources - to the right, instead of the left. Many times comically so.

Quote:

And no, they aren't writing complicated bills just for fun. They are writing complicated bills on purpose so that they can get them passed before anybody can fully inform the general public what is in them.

Oh, come on. What a joke of a conspiracy theory. Your official position is that the bills have intentionally been made complicated just to keep the right-wing from being able to attack them before they are passed? Seriously?

Quote:

In my opinion, shared by a growing body of others, is that purpose is to obfusicate, distort, confuse, and hide the true intent that they know will be unpopular.

Looks like that is your position. I really don't know what to say to that. Do you think that MOST complicated legislation is made that way just to trip you and your 'growing body' up? Or is this just a special event, designed to hurry our death-panels and taxpayer-funded abortions along - before anyone catches on!

Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I am saying that if they wanted to, they could quickly issue that three page bullet pointed synopsis that O'Reilly asked for. This will be covered. That won't. These people will be covered. These won't. This is the mandatory requirement and the penalty for failing to meet it. This is the projected cost via the Democratic Party and via the CBO. This is how caps on costs will be handled. Etc. etc. etc.

But they won't do that because then they couldn't continue to accuse the Republicans of alarmism or the people of misconceptions or the protesters of extremist anti-American views.

Calling dissenters 'anti-American' was the most STUPID thing Nancy Pelosi has said yet. If she thinks people were angry before. . . .

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Debra, Their fear of "socialism" has impacted their humanity and common sense. That's until one of their own family members are involved in one of those accidents or are in need of our social services provided by all levels of government. I wonder how many of those in fear of "socialism" are collecting extended unemployment benefits?

Not me!

Exactly. My friend and her husband have health insurance through his employer. Not long ago, she was complaining about health care reform and asked why she and her husband should have to PAY so that everyone else can have health insurance???? After all, she and her husband have EARNED their excellent policy through the fruit of their own labor. Then I asked her, why should my husband and I have to pay for her daughter's and her grandchildren's state medicaid? Her 28-year-old daughter is pregnant, has two other children, and receives public assistance including health care. The state is going to pay for the birth of my friend's next grandchild and she can't see the hypocrisy of her own opposition to healthcare reform.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I am saying that if they wanted to, they could quickly issue that three page bullet pointed synopsis that O'Reilly asked for. This will be covered. That won't. These people will be covered. These won't. This is the mandatory requirement and the penalty for failing to meet it. This is the projected cost via the Democratic Party and via the CBO. This is how caps on costs will be handled. Etc. etc. etc.

But, they don't know what those points are going to say yet! There are no bills yet passed by either house. What good does it do to put out a three-page synopsis, when the final bill will have several additions and deletions? All you would do is claim that the Dems 'left stuff out' to mislead people.

Face it, you wouldn't be happy no matter what the Dems were doing on this issue, because they are proposing plans that you disagree with. That won't change no matter how they release information.

Quote:

But they won't do that because then they couldn't continue to accuse the Republicans of alarmism or the people of misconceptions or the protesters of extremist anti-American views.

Or the other reason that I listed above, which is: they don't know what the bills are going to say yet. Especially in the Senate. I know, I know - not as exciting as your theory. But still.

Quote:

Calling dissenters 'anti-American' was the most STUPID thing Nancy Pelosi has said yet. If she thinks people were angry before. . . .

Go ahead - get angrier! Defend disrupting meetings using violence and intimidation and mob tactics as 'acting American.' Defend hanging effigies of Representatives and holding signs with swastikas on them next to pictures of Obama and Pelosi. Really, put yourselves out there to a greater extent. I honestly hope that you and others like you do exactly that.

Because it is backfiring on you, and the funniest part is that you don't even realize it yet. As Krauthammer said about this earlier: you are handing us a gift with this poor behavior.

I predict that we will have a signed reform bill this Fall, with a public option. I further predict that folks will like it (for a variety of reasons), and that us Dems are going to use this to knife you Republicans in the back during the 2010 election cycle.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Spoken like a truly faithful, unwavering, and totally committed disciple. At least you won't be on Obama's developing 'enemies list'.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Spoken like a truly faithful, unwavering, and totally committed disciple. At least you won't be on Obama's developing 'enemies list'.

You're a damn fool if you believe such a list exists. Can you honestly not separate fact from hyperbole in this debate?

Your response is a textbook example of the way people write, when they want to say something back, but can't find anything meaningful to say.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But, they don't know what those points are going to say yet! There are no bills yet passed by either house. What good does it do to put out a three-page synopsis, when the final bill will have several additions and deletions? All you would do is claim that the Dems 'left stuff out' to mislead people.

The obamacrats in July were prepared to vote on a bill they didn't know what it said ???

Now you think it's ok for the obamacrats not to summarize what the bill currently says because they don't now know what it will say when adopted ???

Do you truly think that rational ???

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

yeah, keep up the good work, y'all!

soon everything will completely fall apart and you can all stand around quoting the constitution and the ten commandments before shooting your guns in the air and declaring yourselves the only real americans.

Are you really truly that partisan?

I take it you had no problem with the Administration and Congress spending hundreds of millions of dollars on airplanes the military didn't want and the Administration and Congress didn't need?

gates has been working on killing that purchase for a while. "the people" didn't have much to do with it.

but then it should be the generals making the decisions what is or is not needed. not the politicians and not a bunch people yelling in the streets, right?

btw, how's the very expensive spending on the yet to work 30 year Star Wars thingie coming along? Smile

and global warming??

i don't think that the future of the human race is a partisan issue. it kills me how you and others are so concerned about burdening your children and grand children with taxes, but you have no problem burdening them with depleting resources, fouled water, fish you can't eat without being poisoned, air you can't breath and a continuous war to acquire oil to fuel all of the outdated technology.

what's partisan is basing one's opinion solely on parity with one's political, or religious affiliation.

1 Reply

and here's yet another head case going off about everything under the sun except health care...

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

You seem to be awfully sure that Republicans want dirty air, water, soil, and polluted food DTOM. Any evidence of that? Can you point to a single post by anybody identifying himself/herself as any kind of conservative who has advocated anything even close to that? You've accused us. You must have something.

And why throw that in? Diversionary tactic? Surely you must know the difference between the AGW debate and environmental pollution. Or do you?

If you think Gates got the military aircraft deal squelched, you must not have read a newspaper or watched any television in weeks.

But I'm not in the mood to fight about it. It's a lovely summer evening in Albuquerque and I'm going to go take advantage of what is left of it.

And you have a good one too.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Do you truly think that rational ???

is it rational to detail a bill that's not even out of committee ?

seriously, you can't find something else to bitch about for a few more weeks?

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
But, they don't know what those points are going to say yet! There are no bills yet passed by either house. What good does it do to put out a three-page synopsis, when the final bill will have several additions and deletions? All you would do is claim that the Dems 'left stuff out' to mislead people.

The obamacrats in July were prepared to vote on a bill they didn't know what it said ???

Now you think it's ok for the obamacrats not to summarize what the bill currently says because they don't now know what it will say when adopted ???

Do you truly think that rational ???

So; when the Dems release a list of points in the bill containing x, y, and z, and the final bill contains w,x,y, and z, you wouldn't accuse the Dems of breaking the deal and adding whatever they wanted later?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

You seem to be awfully sure that Republicans want dirty air, water, soil, and polluted food DTOM. Any evidence of that?

yes. the last 40 years. the republicans held the white house for all but 12 years. held the congress for what, 14 years? had the congress, the white house and the majority of governorships for nearly 8 years.

result? nothing. any talk of it gets turned into satanic verses.

"oooohhhh cap and trade coming to get ya. ooohhhh.." please.

maybe it ain't a perfect solution, but it's a start, which automatically puts it ahead of the non-solutions that the republicans never provided.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

forgot about this.

Quote:

...Surely you must know the difference between the AGW debate and environmental pollution...

are you saying that they are not connected in anyway?

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

This is one of those contradictions that the republicans fails to see; they want laissez faire with no government intrusion into business operations, want to lower taxes for corporations, and haven't created any legislation to find solutions for our environment, then they turn it around and say such contradictory things as (Foxie)

Quote:

You seem to be awfully sure that Republicans want dirty air, water, soil, and polluted food DTOM. Any evidence of that?

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know