@georgeob1,
His so-called compromise is in direct refutation of what he said during his campaign. From associatedcontent.com:
Quote:He also talked about reversing Bush's tax cuts for the rich, to the delight of the crowd bringing about a large round of applause. He explained that many rich people are happy to reverse the tax cuts as long as they know that the money is going to a good cause.
That was a huge promise to the American people that he failed to live up to. Whether it provides Obama with any political strength with the GOP is a foregone conclusion; it doesn't. The GOP will not provide Obama with more "wins" in the future.
What you call "sensible political calculation" only ends up increasing our national debt that will hurt all Americans. Political expediency that continues to increase our deficit is stupid, because we all know what's happening to the world economies that created debt beyond their ability to finance them.
Who, how and when will this deficit be paid?
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
I am very familiar with Obamacare and the death panels and I don't
need no stinking liberal or other talk show host to 'splain it to me
Could you explain, preferably in your own words, what the "death panel" issue is all about? Thank you.
@georgeob1,
It's interesting that along with Obama supporters (or
former supporters) like CI there are those who are trying to argue that The Compromise was a brilliant political success.
@cicerone imposter,
Funny isn't it that concerns about the national debt didn't appear to concern him (and the now indignant Democrats) when they passed the largely ineffective stimulus package and the repeated extensions of unemployment benefits, or the massive extension of entitlements implicit in the ill conceived and very deceitfully packaged health care "reform" bill.
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:
Could you explain, preferably in your own words, what the "death panel" issue is all about? Thank you.
I can't speak for others, but for me it is about government making these decisions for individuals. I certainly don't object to folks making the end of life decisions for themselves that you referred to above. However, I strongly object to a government that will presume to tax me into dependence on it and then make those decisions for me.
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
I strongly object to a government that will presume to tax me into dependence on it and then make those decisions for me.
Hmm. Could you please expand on that theory, Georgeob? Thank you.
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:
H2O MAN wrote:
I am very familiar with Obamacare and the death panels and I don't
need no stinking liberal or other talk show host to 'splain it to me
Could you explain, preferably in your own words, what the "death panel" issue is all about? Thank you.
Do you understand what the issue is about? Could you do a bit of independent research on it and report back to us?
Or will you wait to hear what NPR and MSNBC tell you what to think about it?
@georgeob1,
If you've kept up with what many of the financial pundits have said about the stim package, it softened the Great Recession. The extension of unemployment benefits are a direct support of our citizens which most Americans support in a time of need. As for the ill-conceived Obamacare, I've expressed my disappointment in the plan many times. It was sloppy, and will end up costing much more than "it won't cost a dime more." My guesstimate based on adding 40 million more people will add billions to the cost - for which Obama has not explained how that will be paid for.
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
realjohnboy wrote:
H2O MAN wrote:
I am very familiar with Obamacare and the death panels and I don't
need no stinking liberal or other talk show host to 'splain it to me
Could you explain, preferably in your own words, what the "death panel" issue is all about? Thank you.
Do you understand what the issue is about? Could you do a bit of independent research on it and report back to us?
Or will you wait to hear what NPR and MSNBC tell you what to think about it?
How about 3 hours from now. That would be about 7 pm ET. I will do my research and you will do yours, We will each post. Let me know if as soon as possible if you are game for the great "Death Panel" debate.
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
I strongly object to a government that will presume to tax me into dependence on it and then make those decisions for me.
Hmm. Could you please expand on that theory, Georgeob? Thank you.
There is no theory involved. I believe my statement is fairly self-explanatory. However, to make it more clear - I don't wish to see the government making the rules for the distribution of health or any other services in this economy except as they may be necessary to regulate commerce as indicated in the constitution. In particular, I don't wish to see the government taxing me or anyone else to organize the distribution of goods and services that I am well able to do for myself. My reasons for this are twofold; (1) in general I prefer limited government within our traditional meaning of the term; (2) I don't trust our government not to pollute its decision-making in this or other like areas with the various elements of favoritism it has so enthusiastically embraced in the comtemporary doctrines of political correctitude (In short I do not believe the government will manage the distribution of services fairly).
@georgeob1,
Well, that makes sense, if by 'fair' you mean 'any system favoring the rich.' That is what you mean, right?
The idea that not all goods and services should be doled out based solely on the amount of personal wealth one owns seems to be anathema to Conservatives.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Actually, I don't want the normal mode of distribution of any goods and services to be the "doleing out" of them by government - except those services involving essential and exclusively governmental functions, such as police, courts and national security. There are many reasons for this preference including the historical failures of all such government programs; the losses of personal freedom they invariably entail; and the poverty, shortages, and mediocrity they usually create.
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
I am very familiar with Obamacare and the death panels and I don't
need no stinking liberal or other talk show host to 'splain it to me.
Good evening, all. Sarah Palin, back in 2oo9, I believe, came up with the phrase "Obama's Death Panel," which would decide who merited health care. Rep John Boehner proclaimed that we were heading down a "...treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."
In my mind, all that the new Medicare rule does is allow doctors to have the same frank discussions that we have had with regard to end of life decision-making in our own families.
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:
In my mind, all that the new Medicare rule does is allow doctors to have the same frank discussions that we have had with regard to end of life decision-making in our own families.
That is largely true, except for the now delayed attempt to reduce Medicare reimbursement rates to physicians by about 25% - a key part of the ficticious "savings" that were deceitfully attached to the ill-conceived HC legislation. That; the billable counselling provision in the HC law; the centrality of the Democrat argument that reform was needed to contain the growth of the national cost of healthcare; and the implausibility of the argued notion that the government can do anything more economically than the private sector; all worked together, I believe, to persuade many people that the government would screw it all up (as it is becoming increasingly evident that it has done) and continue to play favorites with "protected" minorities and favored constituents in the operation of a major sector of the economy.
I believe those fears are well-justified. Perhaps you don't. If so we will just disagree.
@georgeob1,
georgeob, You're confusing reimbursement rates to doctors vs "death panels." Not the same thing; no relationship.
George Soros appears to believe his ends justify his means.
George Soros in his 1995 book, page 145, Soros on Soros, I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today. I am a law-abiding citizen, but I recognize that there are regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don't apply. One needs to adjust one's behavior to the changing circumstances.
George Soros owns the Democrat Party, and as of December 2004 has directed the members of the Democrat Party.
"Sam Hananel in his associated Press article, December 10, 2004,"] On December 9, 2004, Eli Pariser, who headed Soros's group Moveon PAC, boasted to his members, "Now the Democratic Party is our party. We bought it, we own it."
Soros … pushed for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 which was intended to ban "soft money" contributions to federal election campaigns. Soros has responded that his donations to unaffiliated organizations do not raise the same corruption issues as donations directly to the candidates or political parties.
Soros gave $3 million to the Center for American Progress, committed $5 million to MoveOn, while he and his friend Peter Lewis each gave America Coming Together $10 million. (All were groups that worked to support Democrats in the 2004 election.)
@cicerone imposter,
I'm not confusing anything. What I wrote was very clear with respect to the points I did make. You may not like or agree with some of the connections I made, but that doesn't make them either inadmissable of forbidden topics in this commentary.
@ican711nm,
GEORGE SOROS HAS YET TO REFUTE, DENY, OR CONTRADICT ELI PARISER'S STATEMENT.
George Soros owns the Democrat Party, and as of December 2004 has directed the members of the Democrat Party.
"Sam Hananel in his associated Press article, December 10, 2004,"] On December 9, 2004, Eli Pariser, who headed Soros's group Moveon PAC, boasted to his members, "Now the Democratic Party is our party. We bought it, we own it."
@georgeob1,
How you're able to relate the two remains unexplained to me from what rjb wrote earlier:
Quote:Sarah Palin, back in 2oo9, I believe, came up with the phrase "Obama's Death Panel," which would decide who merited health care. Rep John Boehner proclaimed that we were heading down a "...treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."
How does your statement about reduced payments to doctors relate?
@cicerone imposter,
I think you should read the exchange between RJB and myself. You will find the answer there. You may also consider asking yourself if any of us, yourself included, are confined to literal references to specific topics noted by previous posters here .
