27
   

Alright Republicans, We Give Up

 
 
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 11:15 am
Dear Republicans,

Over the past week, we have seen your passionate protests and heard your concerns about Democratic proposals for health care reform. We have considered your insightful and well reasoned arguments, and on behalf of progressives everywhere, I am here to say: OK! We give up! We are willing to compromise on the proposals that concern you. You've won! Yay!

In accordance with your cogent and potent criticisms, these are the terms of our concession:

1. We will not euthanize your grandmother. This is the big one, and I really hope you guys appreciate how much of a concession this is on behalf of the progressive movement. Since the days of the Bull Moose Party, progressives have wanted nothing more than to slaughter old people by the millions. This much is obvious. After all, if we wanted senior citizens to have long and healthy lives, why would we have created Social Security and Medicare? Think about it. Death to grannies has long been the core of progressive policy, so it's not without some consternation that we give it up. So there: no euthanizing old people. You've got it.

2. Rahm Emanuel's brother will not kill Sarah Palin's baby. While this will require us to gut HR 3200 "America's Health Choices and Murder Sarah Palin's Baby Act of 2009," we're currently working with Henry Waxman to remove the extensive Sarah Palin's baby-killing provisions from the final bill. While this will probably cost us Andrew Sullivan's support, we recognize that this is a necessary sacrifice for securing broad bipartisan support of health care reform.

3. The government will not nationalize hospitals and other health services providers. This is another big one. Though the Chamber of Commerce has correctly pointed out that current Democratic proposals involve adopting the British health care system, we now recognize that this is not politically viable. The final bill, accordingly, will not involve the nationalization of hospitals and other health services providers. This will be a major setback to Obama's well known communist agenda, but again, we progressives agree with the Blue Dogs that we need to reach a broad national consensus by responding to Republican concerns.

4. We will make the health care reform bill available for all Americans to read as soon as possible. I know that conservatives and pundits have been eagerly anticipating an opportunity to read the final health care reform bill, and after extensive discussion, we have decided to comply with your request. While we would like to have unseen drafts languishing in committee forever, we have asked Senate Democrats like Max Baucus and Kent Conrad to deliver a bill as soon as possible in order to allow the public to read it. As you know, progressives wanted nothing more than to keep these drafts hidden for as long as possible, but in the interests of transparency and bipartisan consensus, we recognize that it's vital to move the legislative process forward. In fact, it is our hope that Baucus and Conrad will return from the August recess early in order to ensure that the public has as much time as possible to inspect their work.

5. We will not subsidize abortions with your hard-earned tax dollars. Despite the fact that both FactCheck.org and Politifact insist that we already made this concession months ago, we're going to make extra-special-super sure that we did. Just give me a second...
...

...

...

... yep, we did.

6. We will not allow the government to have direct access to your bank account. I know several conservatives I've spoken to are deeply concerned about this measure, and while we progressives are always looking for new ways for the government to unlawfully violate your privacy and steal your money, we have decided to remove this provision from the final bill. While we may include a way for individuals to voluntarily set up an electronic funds transfer with their insurance provider, we will no longer push for government access to all individual bank accounts. You've won this one.

7. We will not provide illegal immigrants with free health care. Though progressives want nothing more than to provide unlimited social services to illegal immigrants while denying them to everyone else, we now recognize that this plan was, perhaps, a bit inequitable. However, while they will not be receiving unlimited free health care, each illegal immigrant will still receive a pretty pony. I'm sorry, but we have to draw the line somewhere.

8. Private health insurance will not be eliminated. Though, as Drudge recently pointed out with a damning YouTube video, the long-stated Republican goal of moving away from employer-based coverage somehow means "eliminating private insurance" when Obama talks about the same thing, we've decided to preserve private insurance plans for those who want them. However, we have yet to convince ultra-socialist Charles Krauthammer to drop his communist crusade against employer-based (i.e., according to Drudge, "all private") coverage.

9. You will not be issued a "National Health Insurance ID. " While we thought this was a fun idea, the final version of the health care reform bill will not require you to have any kind of ID when you're pulled over for drunk driving or found loitering outside of a military base. In fact, you are hereby encouraged not to carry any proof of insurance whatsoever. Trust me, it's a terrible idea!

10. There will be no super-secret-awesome health care program for ACORN employees. Though we love our election-stealing squirrels, we have decided that they'll have to settle for the same options as everyone else.

With these concessions having been made, I trust that we can now move forward with on health care reform with a broad, bipartisan consensus. Blue Dogs and Republicans, you can now rest easy knowing that the concerns of the town hall protesters have been met. While the progressive dream of a nation in which old people are slaughtered to pay for the abortions of ACORN-employed illegal immigrants will again have to be deferred, we are willing to settle for a bill without these measures in the name of bipartisanship.

Congratulations, Republicans. You've won this round.

Crossposted from... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/9/764064/-Alright-Republicans,-We-Give-Up.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 27 • Views: 6,510 • Replies: 135

 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 11:24 am
Thank Jeebus that's taken care.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 11:25 am
@edgarblythe,
Now someone needs to send the chain email to all the Conservatives that got the first one.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 11:30 am
I'm sure the author lacks both the authority to declare these things and credible knowledge that they're true.
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 11:52 am
@Brandon9000,
Aww, crap...

I just got a call from Rahm Emanuel's brother. Apparently, he really really really wanted to kill Sarah Palin's baby.

Deal's off guys.

Sorry, nothing to see here. Move along now.

And just so you know that I'm not in any way joking.

Here was Sarah Palin's direct actual unedited response when she found out.

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel',"

Dammit, I don't know how found out about the Deathpanel. We were all secretive about it and stuff too.

Way to ruin our fun Sarah!
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 12:00 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

I'm sure the author lacks both the authority to declare these things and credible knowledge that they're true.

Anyone that can read can check if they are true or not.

The author accurately represents what is in the bill while disputing outlandish claims that are not factually accurate about the bill.

The bill is here
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

If you think the author is wrong about what is in the bill, please feel free to reference the correct text of the bill.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 12:14 pm
The patronizing tone of the article Centroles posted here tells us more about the complacency and denial of the self-styled "progressives" who are so sure they know what is good for the rest of us that they seek to use the power of government to force it on us, than it does of those who oppose them and whom they mock so assiduously.

The essential flaw in the snide and very contemptuous article above was the implicit acknowledgment that the power to ration or limit health care to elderly sick people or even those with chronic disease or genetic impairment; to finance abortions with government taxes on those who oppose them; and all the rest -- do indeed exist in the draft legislation before the Congressional committies - and in the rhetorical arguments used by various proponents to support this otherwise poorly defined program. Whether people or even government would actually use this power in the self-serving scenarios offered us is an entirely different question. The essence of our democracy is to deny even the potential for such abuse of individual freedom to government, and that is what is being violated here by the self-styled "progressives" who claim to know what is good for the rest of us.

It is merely ironic to note that the "Lion of the Senate", the champion of health care for the ignorant masses, Teddy kennedy, is himself in his unfortunate disease being served by a team of doctors in a rather prominent example of the "end of life" wastage of expensive medical care -- an immediate example of just what the administration seeks to eliminate.

More importantly, it is the obvious contradictions in the laughable rationalizations offered us concerning the economic effects of the "plan" that so offend those who oppose it. MEDICARE is offered up to us an an example of an "efficient" government-run medical plan,, even though it has exceeded government projections of its cost by more than a factor of ten. We are assured that somehow the vaunted Democrat Congress and a President who doesn't do details will find a way to limit that cost without making the program any less desirable to its recipients. Something like cash for clunkers I presume.
Centroles
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 12:16 pm
@Centroles,
http://i426.photobucket.com/albums/pp343/MtnWoman/no-country-for-old-men-poster1.jpg

We're coming for you. Wink
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 12:26 pm
It will be interesting to observe the temper and disposition of the Congress when it returns from its summer recess.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 12:28 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

It is merely ironic to note that the "Lion of the Senate", the champion of health care for the ignorant masses, Teddy kennedy, is himself in his unfortunate disease being served by a team of doctors in a rather prominent example of the "end of life" wastage of expensive medical care -- an immediate example of just what the administration seeks to eliminate.


Well, actually when you look at the European socialised mandatory health care: every one who gets more than two haematoma and is over 60 ... well, health insurance even doesn't pay the costs for the burial anymore!
Centroles
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 12:34 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel'"

Way to fight us on this Sarah.

I can't believe you managed to foil us again!
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 12:37 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
The essential flaw in the snide and very contemptuous article above was the implicit acknowledgment that the 1.)power to ration or limit health care to2.) elderly sick people or even those with 3.)chronic disease or genetic impairment; 4.)to finance abortions with government taxes on those who oppose them; and all the rest -- do indeed exist in the draft legislation before the Congressional committies - and in the rhetorical arguments used by various proponents to support this otherwise poorly defined program.

Please point out where 1, 2 and 3 are in the legislation george.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

As to your number 4. It is a silly argument since everything government does is financed by taxes on those that oppose that particular program.

But the interesting thing is george, you didn't address any of the issues in the article you said is contemptious. Yet the article dealt with specifics that opponents have been saying. Specifics that are far more specious than your response seems to admit.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 12:37 pm
@Centroles,
Centroles wrote:

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel'"

Way to fight us on this Sarah.

I can't believe you managed to foil us again!



Is that what you consider to be an argument to refute her case?
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 12:38 pm
There are plenty of sincerely frightened people out there that believe what Palin says. I don't think any message could reach them.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  5  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 12:38 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:



Is that what you consider to be an argument to refute her case?


You honestly want to say she has a case?

The statement DESERVES to be ridiculed simply because it is so ridiculous. You deserve to be ridiculed for defending it as if it as any merit.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  3  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 12:42 pm
@georgeob1,
No, I'm absolutely one hundred percent agreeing with her.

That whole killing off old people and death panel thing was a bad bad idea. Don't know why we ever put it in the bill.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 12:42 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:


Please point out where 1, 2 and 3 are in the legislation george.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf



The power is already in existing legislation, implicit in government's ability to administratively set rates; limit coverage; and specify the treatments it will cover - and those it will not cover. It is implict also in our presidents vague promise that he will somehow find a way to limit the rising cost of MEDICARE (now more than ten times its originally forecast cost) and extend this entitlement to an even larger segment of the population -- all while taxing the private alternatives and setting the stage for a government monopoly.

I think you recognize these truths and are merely being evasive.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 12:47 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
The power is already in existing legislation, implicit in government's ability to administratively set rates; limit coverage; and specify the treatments it will cover - and those it will not cover.

Since it ALREADY exists, it isn't an argument against the NEW legislation, is it goerge?

By the way, it is already in the existing coverage EVERYONE has with private insurance.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 12:50 pm
@georgeob1,
I really can't understand these arguments.
Our mandatory health insurance, for example, doesn't pay for glasses, pay only the basic dental cost and just up to e.g. 70% of the crowns.
But you pay the rest or if you want something with isn't covered either cash or with a bank order .... or your supplementary and/or private health insurance pays it.

The Swiss system is more or less such with all medical 'problems' (= only the basics are paid). (Oh, since you didn't believe it a some time ago, George: Swiss health insurers in the mandatory system [about 50, I think) aren't allowed to make profit, too.)

And similar will be impossible in the USA?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 12:50 pm
@parados,
I think even you would recognize how specious it is to argue Obama's health care plan will limit coverage when the system already does that and would continue to do that without Obama's plan.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Oddities and Humor - Discussion by edgarblythe
Let's play "Caption the Photo" II - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Funny Pictures ***Slow Loading*** - Discussion by JerryR
Caption The Cartoon - Discussion by panzade
Geek and Nerd Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Caption The Cartoon Part Deux - Discussion by panzade
IS IT OK FOR ME TO CHEAT? - Question by Setanta
2008 Election: Political Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Alright Republicans, We Give Up
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 11:14:15