The bogeyman of health reform
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
ONE OF THE FAVORITE scare words in the national battle over health-care reform is “rationing.” Opponents of the administration plan carry the word in front of them like a priest carrying a cross at a vampire convention.
The subtext of the word is this: In a reformed health-care system, you could go to your doctor and be told you need an emergency appendectomy. Then comes the really bad news.
“Unfortunately, there is a six-month backlog on emergency surgery, so you’ll just have to wait your turn.”
This dystopian view of extending affordable health care to all or almost all Americans is based, knowingly or unknowingly, on a fundamental misunderstanding of today’s health-care system.
Rationing is a way of life in American hospitals, medical offices and pharmacies. Every clause and every formulary in every health-insurance policy rations care. Every increase in the cost of medicine or treatment rations care.
Americans are getting medical treatment. Treatment is available. The problem is that most Americans, whether insured or uninsured, are being priced out of the market for health care. A visit to the emergency room can break a family’s budget for months or years. A short hospital stay can be the doorway to bankruptcy.
Costs are driven up by the moral and ethical necessity to treat the poor and uninsured. The cost of treating the uninsured is passed on to the hospitals and the insured, which drives up the premiums and means that more people lose or drop their coverage. And so the cycle of rising costs spirals up and up and beyond control.
True health-care reform could control costs by assuring the availability of affordable health insurance to almost all. It could control costs by ending the rampant fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. It could control costs by ending the pointless duplication of expensive tests as patients move from doctor to doctor or from doctor to hospital.
Reform could also control costs by letting doctors concentrate on promoting good health and preventing disease instead of stepping in at the last moment to try to prevent health disasters.
Once costs are controlled, the time comes for sensible rationing — rationing by need, not by ability to pay.
That’s why it’s called health-care reform.
Patrick S. Kelley
Editorial Page Editor
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
----Once costs are controlled, the time comes for sensible rationing — rationing by need, not by ability to pay.----
This is one of the many things that scares me about the proposed reform. Who decides the need? It will be the insurance company of the USA, not the doctor. If I can afford it, why can't I get the treatment.
July 28, 2009 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"It could control costs by ending the rampant fraud in Medicare and Medicaid."
Why is this fraud allowed now, and how will it be prevented in a new system? Why are proposals to fix Medicare and Medicaid first before adding a new system on top of a broken system scoffed at?
July 28, 2009 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
allintogether (anonymous) says...
Health care reform is much simpler than our government is making it, but the simple solution doesn't involve government becoming involved as much as they would like to. The government should regulate health insurance companies and other companies that are involved with healthcare providers in a meaningful way. Stop exclusions for pedestrian existing conditions, open risk pools across state lines, stop disproportionately high premiums for higher risk patients, etc.
The fact is that insurance companies are taking in more premium money and paying less out due to a litany of sleazy reasons. I myself got dropped from my insurance carrier because I used my insurance to see my doctor for a medication refill. I got dropped for USING my insurance that I paid for.
Another angle the lawmakers could take is investigating the pricing that is largely affected by third party payers. It does not cost anywhere near $3000 for a head CT scan but the hospital has to charge that in order to get $1500 out of the insurance company (50% for the sake of argument. The actual number is around 42%). $1500 is closer to the real cost of providing the service but only while the asset (The CT scanner) is being depreciated. Once the asset is fully depreciated then the price should be lower even though the cost of the rad tech may stay constant or rise slowly year to year, but it can't because the hospital's reimbursement is predicated on what the insurance company is paying per their managed care contract. So why not charge $3000?
Same goes for Big Pharma. Pharmaceutical companies know that the demand for their drugs follows what is called a "Shark fin curve". It goes up fairly slowly and steadily then falls rather sharply once competitors follow suit and generics are allowed into the market for that drug target. So, they need to charge as much as they can for the drug early on to maximize profits.
The frustration among consumers is that these industries will never change their practices for the benefit of we the people because the people that are supposed to be looking out for us have been bought and paid for several times over. Government cannot run health care any better than it is being run right now. Medicare is a shambles. Medicaid still fosters dependency on the program and the VA system is a mess nationwide (Except I think the Topeka VA does a spectacular job given their challenges).
STILL waiting on Kelley to explain the C street story. I won't forget.
July 28, 2009 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
There is one word in the medical and health care world that describes who and how the decision as to who gets treated and looked at first and that word is " TRIAGE " .
Definition of Triage
Triage: The process of sorting people based on their need for immediate medical treatment as compared to their chance of benefiting from such care. Triage is done in emergency rooms, disasters and wars when limited medical resources must be allocated to maximize the number of survivors.
The US Department of Defense defines "triage" as follows: "The evaluation and classification of casualties for purposes of treatment and evacuation. It consists of the immediate sorting of patients according to type and seriousness of injury, and likelihood of survival, and the establishment of priority for treatment and evacuation to assure medical care of the greatest benefit to the largest number."
Triaging was first used to great extent in WW1 and was adapted to use in civilian hospitals, emergency rooms, etc..
If you have ever had the unfortunate experiece to be in or observe a combat field hospital, you would understand exactly how Triaging is done and how it works.
Of course, not everyone with an injury, illness or complaint will be first on the list to be seen or treated. That is just not possible nor prudent.
Just for instance, lets say you are setting in the emergency room, with a broken finger and some one comes in suffering all the signs of a " heart attack", who do you think has the greater need for medical attention ? Yes, you may be in a moderate amount of pain, however the person suffering a heart attack may be dying and you are not, should the person suffering the heart attack be made to wait for treatment, just because you feel you were there first and should be treated first.
These are decisions that have to be made each and every day and yes if falls to the doctors and other medical professionals to make these decisions, based upon severity of need for treatment, etc. and not based upon who has the ability to pay or who can pay the most. This is why all physicians must take the " Hypocratic Oath " before practicing medicine and becoming physicians.
If you would like to see the full, modern day hypocratic oath, go to, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/....
July 28, 2009 at 2:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I know that there are those physicians, health care providers and insurance companies that don' t give a hoot about any oath, ethics, etc., only to grab as much money as fast as possible, for as long as possible.
That is why I believe that there needs to be some regulation of all aspects of healthcare in this country. If the Federal Government is the only entity that can do the job and get the job done, then that is going to be a necessary evil, because the profit minded health care insurance companys, health care providers are not and will not do it on their own.
And I believe that we all know this to be a fact.
July 28, 2009 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
If this trend that only those who can afford to pay, will be the only ones receiving healthcare treatment, goods, services, etc.. You are looking at reverting to a situation that has not really been seen nor experienced since the dark ages to the late 1700's and I don' t believe that anyone wants to revert back to those times.
July 28, 2009 at 2:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Again I ask, if there is "rampant fraud in Medicare and Medicaid" now and they are unwilling to first fix that, who is to say this "system" will be any different?
July 28, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
I think allintogether is dead on. Maybe he/she could right our Congressman and pass that along?
I have come to the conclusion that health insurance companies are a huge ripoff a lot of the time. Nothing ticks me off more than being told I have to go to a couple drs just to get a test run. How is that cost efficient? And being told sure, you can have drug X for your allergies but we'll suddenly decide between refills to double the price without letting you know was a great surprise. The insurance company didn't care that I'd tried all the other allergy medicines and that was the only one that worked for me. So I got to suffer until that drug went generic and I could afford it again. Ridiculous!
July 28, 2009 at 2:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eiggohp (anonymous) says...
I am getting older and it scares me to think that someone other than myself and my physican will decide IF I can get the care I need. I have a friend who lives in Canada and I was told that we definately do NOT want their health care system. She had a friend in her 40s that needed a MRI...she was told that she had to wait 10 months to have one, and by that time, her cancer had advanced too far to save her, and she died. She also said that if the Canadians really need something quickly, they come to the USA, take out a mortgage and pay for it themselves~~~
Also I have an acquaintance who lives in the UK and when I was facing my knee replacement, she said that over there I would have to wait 9 months to even see a surgeon and than wait another year to get it done~~~ I got in to see my surgeon in 4 days and had the surgery in 6 weeks here.
Is this national health care the insurance we want here?...I don't think so, or at least, I don't!!!!!
July 28, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dale011 (anonymous) says...
I realize no one wants to see a failed system like what we hear about Canada's, but like alintogether was saying, I had to have an MRI at Newmann's. The cost was around $3000 and after my work insurance got done stealing from my wallet, my out of pocket expense was well over $700. I can afford to pay the bill, but think of all the folks in town that could not. Now if we were in Canada, I would have gone for the MRI and not paid a bill, I would have paid payroll taxes to cover it. We pay for insurance now and get crappy coverage. I have a lot of friends in Canada and I can truthfully say their system has some kinks but they don't have folks that have to decide whether to eat or take meds. What we do to our elderly in America is a crime and the physicians and insurers in America are the criminals.
July 28, 2009 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Meth - I am quite aware of what triage means. I used to be an EMT. However, we are talking about 2 different things. If Bill Gates is sitting in an ER with a broken leg and a homeless guy off the street walks in suffering a heart attack, I don't think you will find many people who don't say treat the homeless guy first. My concern comes around needed care that is non-emergency related.
I'll relay a story from the Q&A thing on tv a few weeks ago. Owebamma was answering questions from the audience on the specifics of his healthcare proposal. A lady stood up and told the story of her mother who at 80 was told she needed a pacemaker in order to go on much longer. She wanted the pacemaker, her daughter was all for getting her the pacemaker and her doctor was ok with it too. She said Medicare paid the roughly $30k to get her the pacemaker. Obama then says that end of life care is a hard decision to make, blah blah blah. Basically he all but said under his plan, she wouldn't have got the pacemaker. The cost was higher than worth it for a woman her age.
After he finished his rambling, the woman goes on to say that this is the situation that came up 5 years ago. Her mother got the pacemaker and has done fine for 5 years. Before the pacemaker, she spent approx. 2 days a month in the hospital at a cost of whatever. She has not been in the hospital after recovering from the pacemaker. If you add up the cost (I don't remember what her numbers were) of her 2 day stay every month with the complications, it actually cost MORE to not give her the pacemaker.
Now, following that story, the woman could have died on the operating table or she could have lived until natural causes took over. Thankfully, the pacemaker worked and she is still kicking. However, why does the government get to decide if she even get the chance without ever meeting her? She's over 80, so she's not eligible for the surgery?
One other question that came up is if Obama himself would put his wife and daughters on this plan and live by its rules since they have access to the fine government healthcare insurance. Like a true politician, he totally dodged the question (in my mind at least).
July 28, 2009 at 9:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Pt. 2 -
I am really following seriouslyfolks's thinking here. We have Medicare. We have Medicaid. Both are run by the government. Both aren't working (I guess, people are claiming that anyway, I honestly don't have a clue how either work). This seems to be a way of insurance for those that can't afford much. They say this isn't working, so we are going to scrap that plan altogether and implement a new one that's guaranteed to work? Excuse me? Why are we not looking at those and figuring out what's wrong first? Just like the current insurance companies decide what they will and won't pay for, I see it being worse with government health insurance.
Anyway, I'll use the tag now. I could go on for quite a bit longer. Maybe I'll tell the story of some of my tenants in another post......
July 28, 2009 at 9:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
Healthcare reform. Our esteemed editor is all for what the messiah wants to give us. Give us? So far what I've seen is a power grab. He has consistently consolidated power to the executive office. The lord only knows how many czars he has made, and put them above cabinet positions. They operate below the radar and with impunity. He has his corrupt Acorn group lined up to conduct the 2010 census. He is pushing for a "Cap and Trade" plan that he, himself said is going to cause our electricity rates to "skyrocket". "Obama and Biden will call on citizens of all ages to serve. They are trying to set a goal that all middle school and high school students engage in 50 hours of community service a year, and develop a plan for all college students who engage in 100 hours of community service to receive a fully-refundable tax credit of $4,000 for their education. Obama and Biden will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start." Our esteemed editor has looked the other way while our factories were sent across our border and has shown small concern while taxpayers money is squandered to the same people that squandered their money in the first place (big banks). Now our esteemed editor wants us to turn our medical care over to a government that has shown how inept it can be with Medicaire, Medicaid, and Social Security. Heck our government can't even balance a budget. I can see the day when (with a little more age) our editor becomes senile and "triage" is pulled on him. Hmmmmm, our government might say, "He's too old and senile for any more health care". It's not about health care it's about grabbing power.
July 28, 2009 at 9:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
YY4U, There is no doubt that there is an abundance of need to reform healthcare. I just question if socialized medicine is the way to go. Our private enterprise system worked pretty well until the government got it's hands into it. Our esteemed editor appears to think that if they get their hands into it deeper, it will be improvement. I think not. I have had two parents pass away in the last three years (approximately). I did not see what you describe, but I don't doubt that it happens. That's one way the system works once our federal government gets involved. They could just as well make it work the other way when they are in complete control. I do appreciate hospices, but I don't want the government in control there, either. Learn to goose-step.
July 28, 2009 at 10:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Oxen, that's one of the things I find so amusing about our current administration and his adoring throngs. The same people that complained so loudly and voraciously about Bush expanding the powers of the presidency and taking away our freedoms, now seem to be totally clueless (or hypocritical) that it is now happening X 10.
One can just never, ever tell for sure when it comes to health care. Two 75 year old patients in the same condition can get the same treatment and care, one may die in 6 months and we'll all say what a waste, the other might live another 25 productive and active years (for the most part). Same thing with two healthy young 30 year olds. One might live to be 100, the other die in 3 months after the same procedure. Those are tough decisions to make. And they need to be made by the individuals and families. Sure, you might have it written down and understood amongst your family that you do not wish to drain their finances once you reach a certain age, but if it is your beloved spouse lying there or someone else dear to you, can you honestly put a $$ figure on it? Exactly how much are you willing to spend? Do you need a guarantee of x number of years of good health to decide whether your beloved is worth x number of dollars?
Never easy, but the one thing I DO know, is the LAST people that I want making that decision is the government.
Oh, and Acorn is changing their name. Just like Beck predicted. Gee, now why didn't anyone on any other network get that one right? LOL
July 28, 2009 at 11:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Our private enterprise system may have worked fairly well for those lucky enough to have the right job.....or wealthy enough to make the payments.....for everybody else it was a failure.
As to all these stories about a friend of a friend who lives in Canada saying we don't want their health care system.....I could name you a lot of people who would be more than happy to tell the Canadians they don't want ours either. In fact, I have a cousin who is married to a Canadian that has lived under both systems, and he says the Canadian system is preferable because it doesn't leave millions out in the cold.
July 29, 2009 at 4:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
Your point about how much are you willing to spend is well taken.....and relevent.....as long as you are the one that is doing the spending. But how much should you be willing, or able, to spend when the cost of all that spending is being supported by other rate payers in your risk pool.....or by taxpayers in a government program.
Now....keep in mind I am saying this from the perspective of a seventy year old man. But we are all going to die....and I for one have no desire to hold on to life like a cat on a blackboard long after my ability to live that life has passed. And I see that same attitude amoung many of the people my age and older that I work around every day. This idea that life must be continued at all cost is as much a delusion of the young as it is a heartfelt belief of the old.
July 29, 2009 at 4:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Since others have shared personal stories to make a point ley me share one also......though I'm not sure what point it makes.
I had gone for several years without any health care coverage...public nor private.....and had only seen a doctor twice during that period when I had a bad flu. Then I went to work for a place that had good health insurance coverage. Before I knew it a routine visit to my new doctor for a minor ailment had snowballed into test for virtually every illness known to man.....referrals to several specialist for more tests.....and on-going presciptions for several things.....all paid by the insurance company except for my relatively small co-pay.
Then I fell off a ladder at work and injured my shoulder. This was workman's comp so soon after a battery of x-rays and a referral to a surgeon it was determined I needed surgery on my rotator cup or I would soon lose the use of my right arm.
But before the surgery could be performed....in fact during the work up for the surgery....it was discovered that I had suffered a heart attack at some time in my life. This was news to me and had been totally missed during all my previous doctoring but it caused the postponement of my surgery until they could determine if my heart was strong enough to stand it.
Meanwhile I was put on more medication for my newly discovered heart problem because without it my heart could fail at any moment.
Too make a long story as short as possible.....I'll just say that my eventual frustration with it all caused me to cancel the surgery and quit taking all of the medications from all of the doctors. That was ten years ago.....my heart still pumps....my shoulder still works as well as one could expect for a man my age.....and I am still working full time at 69-years of age.
All of this debacle occurred under private insurance and workmen's comp. Medicare....which incidentally I am very happy with now.....had nothing to do with it. So all these claims that government run programs are wasteful and ineffective compared to private enterprise fall a little short with me. And I doctor very little and only take two prescriptions.....neather of them for my heart or shoulder.
July 29, 2009 at 7:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Oxen, that's one of the things I find so amusing about our current administration and his adoring throngs. The same people that complained so loudly and voraciously about Bush expanding the powers of the presidency and taking away our freedoms, now seem to be totally clueless (or hypocritical) that it is now happening X 10."
x10 eh? Care to explain? I am not an "adoring throng" but I do have a hard time believing that claim.
"Oh, and Acorn is changing their name. Just like Beck predicted. Gee, now why didn't anyone on any other network get that one right? LOL"
Glen Beck is to the right as Olbermann is to left, and in regards to both and their predictions, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.
July 29, 2009 at 7:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
Patrick,
We don't need a government run health care system to control or fix a the problems you pointed out with the current system.
I don't want goverment telling me what health care I need and what I don't, ever.
Anyone that has ever went down to the courthouse to pay vehicle taxes can tell you 100 good reasons why they would rather have a doctor determine what is best for their health vice a government employee.
You should not be working on any other editorials until you make clarifications on the C Street Article. We can handle the truth either way but I think we're entitled to know what is going on with that since you said updates would be forthcoming.
July 29, 2009 at 7:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
I do agree with all of the posters on here who said government can and should play a role in regulating the sleezy practices of insurance companies.
July 29, 2009 at 7:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy,
I have to agree with you on beck. That guy is a complete moron. I can't even stand watching him.
biscuitboy,
I'm sorry to hear about your bad experience with private insurance, and I'm sure there a hundreds of stories like it, but I'm sure they were trying to do the right thing.
I have never had a single problem with my private insurance. I don't like to pay the deductibles and copay but when you are having a highly trained professional working on you that is the price you pay.
I know consultants who make more money than doctors and they are working on things a lot less complex than the human body and if they make a mistake it is most likely never a life and death situation.
We need to fix the current system, not re-invent the wheel. And a large part of this is the millions of illegal aliens with access to "free" health care in the current system. Any fix to the health care system needs to be tied to immigration enforcement laws.
July 29, 2009 at 8:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
under_score
I certainly agree with you about the illegal immigration problem especially as it applies to health care. But I kinda look at that as two seperate problems that need fixed
1......How...or even if.....we provide any health care to illegal aliens?
2....How we do a better job of providing health care to our own citizens?
July 29, 2009 at 8:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy, I clearly stated in my post that one may have it written down and clearly understood amongst family that one might not wish to drain their resources, etc, etc..... (as I do) but I've also seen both those who declared that and those who agreed have alot of second thoughts when they were actually staring the situation in the face. I'm just saying it is never an easy decision, but one I do not want the government to be the decider on.
Ok, ya got me goodoleboy, I didn't do the math and come up with an exact X10 figure :). But its pretty obvious to even the blind squirrels what is going on. As I read in a particular article:
"In a way, Obama is doing what George W. Bush did in the national security sphere, using a crisis to expand presidential authority. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Bush moved to increase and exert his war-making powers. Now, amid the recession and financial meltdown, Obama is moving to increase and exert his peacetime powers. The result in both cases has been a more muscular presidency."
Actions after 9/11 I can understand (Patriot Act, etc). The rush towards socialism and big daddy government controlling everything I think is more insidious.......
As for Beck, I fully expected someone to come up with the idiot remark somewhere. At least my crystal ball is still working for the most part - LOL. But in this case, I think a more appropriate way to phrase it is only a blind squirrel can't find a nut when it falls and hits him on the head.
July 29, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
allintogether (anonymous) says...
Something to consider. I never have a problem paying for insurance of any kind. I don't have a problem with high deductibles and copays as mechanisms to make me stop and consider the utilization of a medical professional versus treating my condition with over the counter meds. What I have a huge problem with is when an insurance company agrees to cover me and takes my money then they change their coverage parameters to exclude paying for a condition I have, no matter how minor.
With regard to illegal aliens, our system would be in much better shape if it weren't for the fraud, inappropriate use and patient care guarantees made by lawmakers. I don't know what the current, staggering figure is that represents the amount of fraudulent care that is being reimbursed by medicare and medicaid, but it is appropriately described as "staggering". Billions of dollars feeding parasites that game a system solely meant to be utilized by our most vulnerable citizens. Meager enforcement and ever increasing sophistication of cons by the scammers ensures that this trend will continue into any further involvement by the government as a payer.
Due to gross misinterpretation of EMTALA provisions and to a lesser extent well meaning religious and moral tenets, the emergency room has become a hyper expensive primary care physician for some people. Just because someone (irrespective of their citizenship status or ability to pay) presents at an ER they are not guaranteed care unless of course their condition is emergent. Emergent does not mean sore throat, sick to your stomach for 8 hours, or feigning an emergent condition to get access to a physician to discuss depression or engage in drug seeking behavior.
Triage nurses decide who appears to be emergent and a doctor or nurse practitioner confirms and treats them. The sticky part is that the ER staff is in an actionable position as soon as anyone walks through the door so they better treat them or face consequences later on. Tort reform would help the situation but Obama has already forcefully ruled that out because he dare not go against the trial lawyers. He'll get sued!
STILL need Kelley to clarify his C street story. I will not forget.
July 29, 2009 at 9:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I have not seen so much of an expansion as I have the continuance of a lot of the Bush era polices that made him so unpopular, would be rather surreal if a conservative candidate attacked him on that very topic. I feel that in the coming years the Supreme courts will be ruling on presidential powers, there are already a good deal of politicians working towards this goal.
It is my belief that Health Care does need reformed, but I feel that with all the bickering going in Washington on both side that the compromises made will result in a “band-aid” (no pun intended) and we will be revisiting this issue again. I think everyone can agree that the costs incurred to those that pay the premiums are getting out of control.
I feel that the president should have moved on Illegal Immigration and Health Care instead of Health care and Cap and Trade. Illegal Immigration and Health Care are intertwined and the cost of Illegal Immigrants is just breaking this country. But no politician wants to touch the issue for fear of offending the Hispanic base; if it would get the immigration problem addressed I would support anyone, even… Palin (deep breath). Immigration is a malignant tumor that needs to be excised, it affects homeland security, jobs, tax rates, etc etc. It is simply abhorrent to me that it continues to have a blind eye turned to it.
PS I would have to agree that Beck is a moron, him and Hannity lost their DVR slots, but then again so did most everything MSNBC and ABC. About the only thing I actually care to "watch" anymore is O' reilly and Lou Dobbs everything else has too much slant.
July 29, 2009 at 9:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Um? We call them law abidingly challenged now not illegal.
July 29, 2009 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I agree with that statement quite a bit, goodoleboy, there are many Bush era policies that Obama has continued and even expanded upon. My quote above even noted Bush's expansion of powers. But, as I've often noted, I feel what we are doing now, however blatantly open in some ways, is more insidious and covert in others. And ultimately much more difficult to disable down the road if we were to so choose to attempt.
And I agree on the last to watch. I've often said I quit watching Hannity when Combes left, Beck makes some good points at time but his presentation is sometimes comedically bizarre, (does that sound right?), I watch parts of him occasionally, actually I catch alot of different commentators in bits and slices at times, but the last 2 are pretty much the only ones I can stand to sit thru the entire show when I do anymore, with an occasional Anderson Cooper thrown in for occasional topics.
Actually, I agree with your middle paragraphs too....... dang, we're thinking alike here! Should I be happy or worried? LOL :)
July 29, 2009 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"I watch parts of him occasionally"
Which parts?;)
July 29, 2009 at 10:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
My problem with Obama is not that he is continuing a lot of the Bush era policies, since I mostly agree with them, but that Obama came to power based on his promise to end them. So, while I'm happy that he's going back on his word on a lot of the National Security stuff, it bothers me that he has been so hypocritical. What I find most curious is that he issues executive orders to stop certain things publicly but turns around and continues them privately. I say privately becuase most Americans don't pay close attention and the MSM doesn't cover what he is actually doing. He is essentially getting the best of both worlds by talking out both sides of his mouth.
Kind of like when he talks about fiscal responsibility and then spends out his arse. Bush was a big spender in the end but he has nothing on Obama. Obama can say all he wants that he is cleaning up after Bush but I'm not buying it. I don't recall Bush blaming all of the problems that he inherited on Clinton. Don't remember? Stock market crash from the .com era? That was HUGE, the only thing that saved it was another bubble in the works, housing. 9/11 anyone? I really don't personally blame any president for this but Bush could have easliy laid blame on Clinton. N Korea developing nukes I do sort of blame on his approach to natl defense.
Bush had plenty to deal with and I think he mostly did a pretty good job. I liked Clinton and was a big supporter of him at the time. In hindsight given his weakness in National Defense and the .com problems I would say his presidency was average at best.
I'd still take any Clinton any day over Obama though. Both are probably more conservative than McCain.
July 29, 2009 at 10:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Exactly, under_score. I've posted some info on here before how the much-ballyhood stop to "torture methods" was full of holes, etc, for one example, and the examples you mention above are among the covert and insidious moves I was referring to. Many of the places where he has gone back on his word as you mentioned above I too was relieved, other than the fact that they were part of my pet predictions where I was 100% wrong.
I became pretty unhappy with Bush his last couple of years in office, but overall I wasn't ready to crucify him. But I never thought I'd see the day when I would take Bill over Barack but I'm there. Interesting to see how things go if/when the balance in Congress changes. If it isn't too late by then.
July 29, 2009 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Oh, I forgot to answer seriouslyfolks. I generally concentrate on his forehead and waving around of his left hand - LOL
July 29, 2009 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Um? We call them law abidingly challenged now not illegal."
Leeches would befit them better.
July 29, 2009 at 10:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Maybe so but we gotta sound nice. The truth is much less important anymore than sounding good and nice and talking good and being pretty.;)
July 29, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Actually, Republicans refer to them as "cheap labor", and Democrats refer to them as "voters"...... both for their obvious reasons....... which is why little ever gets done about it regardless of who is in power.....
July 29, 2009 at 10:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
One could make the case that Bush and Clinton both had some ideal economic times to work under. Clinton had the .com era, Bush had the housing era. The difference was that the Clinton acted more like a conservative than Bush did. Bush stuck his neck out, and overextended us. I would give Clinton a solid B for a president, he left a budget surplus and I feel the country as a whole was in a better state than it was preceding his two terms. A lot of people grade him based on the whole sex scandal, which really had little to do with him as a president and more to do with him as a person. Sure he did some things wrong but he was a good president. I feel that when Bush jumped the gun and invaded Iraq that was what sunk his ship, this collapse of the economy, which he could have done a great deal to avoid with a Republican congress and very high approval ratings. In all honesty I actually felt sorry for Bush at times, he was almost overshadowed by his staff and it was as if they were speaking through him, whether he liked it or not. But that does not excuse his failures on critical issues that have led to colossal problems that we face now.
July 29, 2009 at 10:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Actually, Republicans refer to them as "cheap labor", and Democrats refer to them as "voters"...... both for their obvious reasons....... which is why little ever gets done about it regardless of who is in power.....
Well, if we make them all voters, then they will likely be cheap labor anyways, so what then?
July 29, 2009 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"The difference was that the Clinton acted more like a conservative than Bush did."
Just curious, do you think that a lot of people voted for Obama because he is a Democrat and Clinton was a Democrat and they thought that they would get a President more like Clinton?
I agree about Clinton and the entire government at that time. They did a great job except the witch hunts which I think the Republicans are still feeling the hurt from to a degree and maybe rightly so.
July 29, 2009 at 11:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Since after the first 2 years, Clinton had to work with a Republican Congress and adopted their principles in some ways ("The era of big government is over"), maybe Bush would have done better if he had a Democratic Congress to work with the majority of those years. (Except that's when he really began to disappoint me). But he did especially at the end completely turn his back on many conservative Republican principles.
That's our problem as voters these days. We never really know what we're getting until they're in office.
July 29, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
"Well, if we make them all voters, then they will likely be cheap labor anyways, so what then?"
Good point :). Exactly what I'm talking about. Why nothing gets done regardless of who is in control. Because it certainly is NOT the voters themselves who are in control of this country anymore, IMO.
July 29, 2009 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
I really don't think anyone could have avoided the housing collapse after the foundation was created. Housing was the only thing propping the economy up. What politician is going to throw a wrench in something like housing which was generating growth and basically force the country into a recession. Bush tried harder than anyone else to correct housing but there was no political capital to make that happen, on either side of the ailse. Besides that, outcomes of actions are never in black and white and I don't know of anybody that thought housing would have the effect that it's had on the economy.
I don't feel like Bush jumped the gun on Iraq. In fact, I blame a lot of the war going badly on the media and the Democrats who abandoned a war effort prematurely. Bush stuck with it and we have accomplished all of our goals in Iraq, which spells victory in my book.
The collosal problems that we face now are not a result of policies that Bush or any Republican began. In fact, I think our most colossal problems are being initiated by our current President. Of course, we will never agree on that.
I have a hunch that you don't necessarily have to be a legal resident to vote. I think all you need is an address and maybe a drivers license.
July 29, 2009 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I totally agree on the housing issue. Barney & the dems on the committe got alot of publicity for denying anything was wrong with Fannie/Freddie, and effectively killed it in committe, but as you say there wasn't enough political capital on either side with incentive to push it through. So I'm not letting the GOP off the hook there either. As I've said on here often, nobody was willing to stop this gravy train, and risk possible political suicide at the time. There WERE some who predicted the collapse all along, as early as 1999, but again they didn't get the attention they deserved in hindsight.
I don't feel that we have accomplished all our goals in Iraq yet, but we are closer than we have been for awhile, at least to the point I am pretty hopeful. I certainly don't agree with Harry Reid's earlier assessments.
As the article below states, there is no reliable method of determining what percentage of voters are illegal, but a study done in 2005 found that "up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens."
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/ind...
Three percent sway in an election can be pretty big.
July 29, 2009 at 11:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sundancekid (anonymous) says...
"America's health care system is neither healthy, caring, nor a system". — Walter Cronkite
July 29, 2009 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
I think everyone knew that housing was a problem. That's why everyone was calling it a bubble. As far as predictions go as to what will happen, back in 1998 and 99 some people were predicting the DJIA would go to 20k by 2010. These people were on the fringe and at the time it wasn't totally out of the question based on the way things were going. Had the stock market continued and reached 20k by 2010 they would look pretty smart, as it is they look...not so smart.
open_eyes, seems like I saw you write something about writing code at one time. Have you seen this before?
There are 10 kinds of people on this world, those that understand binary and those that don't.
Heard of with this?
All your base are belong to us!
July 29, 2009 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
I respectfully disagree with Walter.
July 29, 2009 at 12:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I really feel that the worst of all possible situations politically is when one of the two mainstream parties holds both the presidency and the congress. Then any attempt at compromise is lost and the abuses begin. Our system was designed to encourage compromise and limit abuse but the dominance of the two party system has pretty much negated that.
I would love to see the emergence of more third party activity......I just wish a third party would come along that's less conservative than the hard right of the current republican party. But I'm sure many of you would disagree with me on that.
July 29, 2009 at 12:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
under_score
I must say that I origanally underestimated you.....and I apoligize. That doesn't mean that I might often agree with you....but I am certainly learning to respect you.
And I am fascinated by your code reference but have no idea what it's about.
July 29, 2009 at 12:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy,
I'm fine with that as long as they are right of most of the Democrat party.
Taken as a whole I would say the Republican party is mostly moderate. Taken as a whole I would say the Democrat party is mostly liberal.
Out of curiousity, who in the Republican party would you say is the most right wing and why? Is there anyone you would support?
July 29, 2009 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yes, under_score, I do code, or at least I work OT correcting it for India so they can get all the credit for it.
Reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon I saw once that went something like this:
Wally: "We didn't have any sissy icons or windows. All we had were zeroes and ones. And sometimes we didn't have any ones."
Dilbert: "You had zeroes? I once had to write an entire database program using only the letter 'O'"
I agree, bisquitboy, but unfortunately, many times when we have a split all they do is the usual partisan bickering and then nothing gets accomplished. We're just screwed either way these days. We just need a benevolent King!!!! LOL
July 29, 2009 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Libertarian party. Left of what the Republicans are perceived to be. Right of the Democrats but that ain't hard to do.
July 29, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you and goodoleboy a few moments ago. It seems that this thread has found some common ground with a lot of people who normally disagree.
I like a good argument though so let's not make a habit of it.
July 29, 2009 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"I really don't think anyone could have avoided the housing collapse after the foundation was created. Housing was the only thing propping the economy up. What politician is going to throw a wrench in something like housing which was generating growth and basically force the country into a recession. Bush tried harder than anyone else to correct housing but there was no political capital to make that happen, on either side of the ailse. Besides that, outcomes of actions are never in black and white and I don't know of anybody that thought housing would have the effect that it's had on the economy"
I disagree, he had a republican congress and VERY favorable approval ratings. This was the people that stand for fiscal conservatism and they were poised perfectly to deal with it, granted there are others to blame, but no one can question that they had the power to reign in what happend.
July 29, 2009 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Unfortunatly I'm on lunch and must now go back to work....but would like to continue this discussion. Perhaps later.
July 29, 2009 at 12:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"I don't feel like Bush jumped the gun on Iraq. In fact, I blame a lot of the war going badly on the media and the Democrats who abandoned a war effort prematurely. Bush stuck with it and we have accomplished all of our goals in Iraq, which spells victory in my book."
No he did jump the gun, there was no sound reason to be there, if we follow the logic that led to Iraq than we should be in Iran, Pakistan and N. Korea right now. WMD's were never found, nor confirmed, yet we went anyways, its was a lie. Do you think the American people would have gone for the war if it was just to liberate Iraq? I doubt it. My question is that we know N Korea is a threat, and we can confirm they have WMD's, and this is nothing new, yet we went to Iraq? Sorry not buying it, Iraq is a mistake, and a very costly one in lives and in resources.
July 29, 2009 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
Yes, I saw that one. I get the dailydilbert in my inbox.
biscuitboy,
binary 10 = decimal 2
July 29, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"The collosal problems that we face now are not a result of policies that Bush or any Republican began. In fact, I think our most colossal problems are being initiated by our current President. Of course, we will never agree on that."
What we have now is still Bush era, even the Fox News crews give that up. But then again it seems Obama is content to make a lot of the same mistakes that Bush did, so here we go again! As I stated before you can't judge Obama yet, we can speculate, but it just too early to pass judgement other than opinion.
PS. I have stated all along that I am an indempendent, and thus there will be quite a few matters we are going to agree upon, and oming to a consensus is not a bad thing.
July 29, 2009 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I think there was much, much, much, much more that went into the decision to invade Iraq vs Iran, Pakistan and N. Korea than just WMD's (and getting even for daddy, as I commonly hear).
Both long-term and short.
As the entire country continues to gradually drift left, again, I'm not sure what "far-right" means anymore. I think it means the middle-right of 20 years ago, and on the fence 50 years ago. In some ways. I seriously doubt that 50 years ago we would have had an article condemning our Congressmen for the far-right fanaticism of attending a Bible study, for instance.
And I'm still waiting on C Street clarification, also.
July 29, 2009 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"I think there was much, much, much, much more that went into the decision to invade Iraq vs Iran, Pakistan and N. Korea than just WMD's (and getting even for daddy, as I commonly hear).
Both long-term and short."
This was the main excuse given, the UN speech, the so called inspections, the scare tactics that Al Queda would procure them from Saddam. To me the war has nothing to do with politics, break it down to logic, was Iraq anymore of a threat than the other countires I listed? No, in some cases the others trumped Iraq by a landslide. There just was no good reason for it.
July 29, 2009 at 12:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy,
I think we should just agree to disagree on housing. Nobody in congress or the presidency drove very hard to fix it and I doubt they would have gotten very far if they had.
Bush lied? That is a common term thrown around by the far left that is,well, a lie.
Nobody every said that they had WMD for sure. Saddam was standing in the way of inspectors from making that determination.
Here is a good synopsis of the case for going to war with Iraq.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content...
N Korea had nuclear capability by the time Bush came into office and delivery systems that could deliver to S. Korea and Japan. War with N. Korea is out of the question unless we want to put our allies in harms way. Diplomacy is now the only option there.
I believe that Iran would have been on the table, for killing our troops in Iraq, and we would have dealt with them had the American people not turned so quickly on the war effort.
July 29, 2009 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
And goodoleboy, you may be a registered independent but that doesn't make you neutral or unbiased. You obviously take a liberal stance on most every subject.
Take it from one registered independent to another.
July 29, 2009 at 12:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
And oh yeah.
C Street
July 29, 2009 at 12:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I think a long-term solution to the middle east as far as stopping the spread of terrorism, the spread of fanaticism, the madrasses churning out children brainwashed to hate with the goal to be someday a suicide bomber faster than we can kill them off is to somehow plant the seeds of democracy, tend it carefully through its ups and downs, and ultimately watch it (hopefully) flourish. Overcome it from within, at the source. At least that's one approach. JMO.
As far as WMDs, I'm sure everyone here has seen the recent report on how hard Saddam intended to bluff the world into believing he had WMD's. (Whether he actually had them or not), believing the US would never actually take action. Cried Wolf one too many times, apparently. I also wonder what is the magic number of UN resolutions broken before any of them are given teeth. 17? I imagine both Israel & the US are approaching some substantial numbers. But then again, I don't have alot of faith in the UN not being the corrupt organization that it is. A little Oil-For-Food bribing on the Security Council never hurt anyone, has it? :)
July 29, 2009 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
Yes a lot of the problem is that there is too much money and not enough to do. I have a friend from Pakistan whose family lived in one of the smaller Persian Gulf states. He said that foreigners, like Pakistanis, were brought in to do the work that the Arabs would not do, and the Arabs would not do anything. They have like a 25% unemployment rate among 20-30 year old males. So what do young people do when they don't have to work and have nothing else to do? They get into trouble through gangs, just like in the US. However, in the oil countries the gangs have a higher calling than in the US and the culture is built to practically worship members of these gangs. And there is plenty of money to be used by "venture capitalists" to fund anything these gangs want to do.
July 29, 2009 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Bush lied? That is a common term thrown around by the far left that is,well, a lie.
Nobody every said that they had WMD for sure. Saddam was standing in the way of inspectors from making that determination."
Lied, misled, was dishonest etc. My point is is this, the reason we went there was because of WMD's, that was always the first and foremost reason and what the war was initially predicated on. This is fundamentally wrong, Americans will pay for this deception in lives and over a trillion dollars. This is not a liberal viewpoint, many both RIGHT and LEFT share these very sentiments. If it had not been for the 9/11 attacks I believe we never would have gone, but alas this nation is full of panicky, skittish people, who trusted the Administration to do the right thing, and, he was wrong, how can you defend or be ok with that?
July 29, 2009 at 2:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy,
I think we should just agree to disagree on housing. Nobody in congress or the presidency drove very hard to fix it and I doubt they would have gotten very far if they had."
I can agree to disagree, but I think your not seeing my point, the fact that no one drove hard to fix things is what irriates me to no end. Here are the facts:
Republican President- high approval ratings
Republican Congressional Majority
If he could pass the Patriot Act, and go to war when there was very questionable evidence then they could have very easily pushed to fix this, or at least stem it somewhat, instead they did nothing, and these were the people that stand for being fiscally responsible, come on man, these ARE the very people that are supposed to put an end or prevent these matters, were not talking about liberal spenders here!
July 29, 2009 at 2:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Let's see..... 9/11, country in panic, markets crashing. Fear of further attacks.
Vs
Housing boom, prosperity, (even if unsustainable), popular with the folks even though worries/warnings abound.
Well, I can certainly see why Congress found it much easier to act on one and not the other. Not that I agree, and I'm certainly irritated the "other" didn't get acted on, but I think I understand why nobody drove too hard to fix one, and how/why they managed to drive hard to take action on the other. Again...... nobody wanted to stop that train very badly. Not the people, OR the governement.
I guess we could turn it around. Had the mortgage fiasco been corrected/nipped in the bud, and we stayed lax about things after 9/11, and had another attack of some sort, I wonder what people would be complaining about?
July 29, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
I see the point you are attempting to make given the fact that we know the outcome of both events. Personally I like to look at what we knew or what we thought we knew before the outcome. It is always easy to look back on things and say we should have done this or that.
The fact is that while housing was booming and while .com was booming everyone saw the warning signs and everyone said we should do something. However, what is the magical fix that should have been implemented to prevent these events from occuring? Do those fixes also have consequences? My contention is that they do have consequences and the likely consequence would have been the same outcome that we see now but sooner. Then, when that happens people like you would come out of the woodwork and say, "Look, everything was going fine with the economy until Bush tried to "fix" things and it screwed everything up!" Same with Clinton and the .com era. Sometimes you have to let these things work themselves out and deal with the consequences as there is no better choice. People who were stupid and took out more of a mortgage than they could afford and people who quit their jobs and spent their life savings so the could day trade, sorry, I don't feel sorry for them.
As far as the war goes, I hope you are not one of the 60% of the population that was for the war before you were against it. Because if you are second guessing the President and our Generals after the fact then I don't have any use for your opinion on the war. If you are someone that was against it from the start then I respect your opinion but I disagree whole-heartedly with you.
July 29, 2009 at 3:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
And as far as the Patriot Act goes, listen in all you want to my telephone conversations. I have nothing to hide. I think if we can prevent another terrorist attack by listing to terrorists talking on the phone then so be it.
July 29, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
And by the way, I could be wrong on this b/c I'm going from memory but I don't think Bush ever had a filibuster proof majority. Seems like I remember the Dems constantly filibustering or threatening to do so. I'll let someone else keep me honest on this.
If that is true then given that the Dems have been in bed for some time with the Banking leadership it stands to figure that Bush couldn't have accomplished it anyway. Maybe that's why his attempt to do so didn't gain any traction. I probably shouldn't be thinking out loud here, I'll have to do some research on that when I get a chance.
July 29, 2009 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
And by the way, I could be wrong on this b/c I'm going from memory but I don't think Bush ever had a filibuster proof majority. Seems like I remember the Dems constantly filibustering or threatening to do so. I'll let someone else keep me honest on this.
If that is true then given that the Dems have been in bed for some time with the Banking leadership it stands to figure that Bush couldn't have accomplished it anyway. Maybe that's why his attempt to do so didn't gain any traction. I probably shouldn't be thinking out loud here, I'll have to do some research on that when I get a chance.
July 29, 2009 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
Maybe he didn't do enough but...
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archive...
July 29, 2009 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"As far as the war goes, I hope you are not one of the 60% of the population that was for the war before you were against it. Because if you are second guessing the President and our Generals after the fact then I don't have any use for your opinion on the war. If you are someone that was against it from the start then I respect your opinion but I disagree whole-heartedly with you."
No I was "unpatriotic" thought it was a joke from the start, and seen it evolve from a "prevention of terriost activity" to a "liberation of people", honestly if the people of that country are so greatful to us for our lives and dollars I feel we should recoup some of the cost by them gifting us a good deal of oil. Oh well, at least our contractors made out well!
July 29, 2009 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
hmmm. not sure how the double post happened
July 29, 2009 at 3:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy,
Well at least your not a hypocrit then.
July 29, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Correct, under_score, I posted the congressional makeup during the last 2 pres some time ago, part of Bush's term the Senate was 50/50, (with the VP giving the advantage with the tie-breaker, of course). Never a filibuster-proof majority. Of course, that is if/when they vote strictly along party lines. At 50/50 for instance, of course......all either side has to do is lure one vote over, and the majority means nothing.
I have done some looking into how/why things got blocked, I believe it was in 2005 the Senate Banking committe passed a reform bill cracking down on Fannie/Freddie. "Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter."
Now I don't know how hard they tried or even if (the GOP), but I doubt they pushed very hard, which is why I don't hold them blameless either. Of course, my hindsight is nearly 100% :).
And then, of course, we had 2003:
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/20...
Question on both of these is, with a majority, why didn't the Repubs try to ram it thru anyway? You know, like not even let anyone read the bill (as we're getting accustomed to with this new & improved transparent administration we now have). Did they have too many defecting to the other side (which would have only taken a few) - or were they just not that serious about pushing it thru, fearing unhappiness about it from their constituents? Either way.... there's blame on both sides.....
July 29, 2009 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Hey under_score, I posted that same link or one like it awhile back, and I realized at the time it looked like GW actually pushed harder than I had thought before. But, according to Dodd, his position was "ill-advised". And now we've all come to know exactly who was paying Dodd and how much to state those sentiments. But never fear, I'm sure Dodd will win re-election, probably easily. At least that's how politics seems to work these days.
And we've got some contractors who will make out quite well if we get cap and trade passed. No matter what we do, someone somewhere is always going to profit from it. Just usually not we Average Joe's.
July 29, 2009 at 3:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
open_eyes, under_score, I guess I'm going to ask why you call Glenn Beck a "moron"? I do like to listen to some of the talk show hosts to hear what they have to say and see if it makes any sense. I don't hear a lot from Beck that doesn't make sense. If you don't mind, please straighten me out. Fire away. I even put an extra cartridge under the hammer of the old .45.
July 29, 2009 at 6:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
oxen, I don't think you meant to include me in that. I originally brought up the fact that Beck was right, and defended him about the blind squirrel remark, and later said that he "makes some good points at times but his presentation is sometimes "comedically bizarre" (made up term there I think), but I do watch parts of him occasionally. Personally I like the guy. I just don't watch him as much as one or 2 others. I think you meant goodoleboy.
July 29, 2009 at 6:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Oops, I just realized that goodoleboy said Beck was a moron in the paragraph/post I said I agreed with him on. My bad, I don't think he's a moron at all. I meant I was agreeing with him that I think O'Reilly & Dobbs have probably the least slant overall of what is available to watch, at least during prime-time hours. Brett Hume I think is pretty fair but he's on late.
July 29, 2009 at 6:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
open_eyes, my apologies. I think I did have it straight, asked my wife to proofread, & my statement got lost. I had to leave, come back, & erred. Again, my apologies.
July 29, 2009 at 7:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
YY4U, your are rather broad with your paint brush. Be specific. It's impossible to argue with shotgun rhetoric.
July 29, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
open_eyes, It seems like all I'm doing is apologizing. Sorry 'bout including you.
July 29, 2009 at 8:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Oh no need oxen, I understood the err. Actually you "opened my eyes" to the fact that I said I agreed with goodoleboys statement and I didn't realize that also included saying Beck was a moron, so I stand corrected as well, and you helped me catch it. So in essense you WERE actually right, and I am the one who needed to clarify a bit. Thx! :)
July 29, 2009 at 8:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
allintogether (anonymous) says...
87 posts by my tired count. When do we go to a forum again? Still waiting for C street clarification.
July 30, 2009 at 2:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Well I'm so glad you all have finally assurred yourselves that beck is some kind of a paragon of virtue and fair and balanced thought. That must take a lot of assurance.
Glen Beck is a wing-nut joke that stands as a monument to everything that is wrong with conservatism at the moment. JMO :-)
July 30, 2009 at 4:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I just pulled this joke off the internet. I think it fits the topic of this thread.
A man carries his limp dog into the vets office and the vet tells him....Your dog is dead.
The agitated man refuses to accept that and demands a second opnion, so the vet brings a cat from the back. The cat smell the dog and meows. The vet says the cat also says your dog is dead.
The man is still not satisfied so the vet brings out a black lab from the back that smells the dog and barks. The vet again says the dog thinks your dog is dead also.
Finally the man accepts that his dog is dead and ask the vet what he owes him. The vet answers, 650 dollars......650 dollars the man says....just to tell me my dog is dead.
No the vet answers....that only cost you 50 dollars, the additional 600 was for the cat scan and the lab test.
Now that my friends sounds just like our health care system today.
July 30, 2009 at 6:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
biscuitboy, It's very easy for a person to make the statements that you just did about Glenn Beck, more shotgun rhetoric. Glenn Beck would be the first to say that his is not "paragon of virtue and fair and balanced thought". At the same time his comments are more "fair and balanced" than the comments you just made. Glenn Beck is nobody that I, or probably most of his listeners put on a pedestal, but he makes a lot of sense to a "thinking" person.
July 30, 2009 at 7:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
If being right is a monument to conservatism..... I'll take it. ;-)
July 30, 2009 at 7:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I said it was just my opinion......just like your post are just your opinion. And I'm sure you know what they say about opinions....They are just like something else that everybody has. :-)
One thing I've learned about many...[not all]....conservatives, they sure don't have any sense of humor except when it comes to making fun of somebody else. :-) Have a nice day.
July 30, 2009 at 8:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
You misquoted me.....I said he was a monument to everything that was wrong with conservatism at the moment.
Things like overwrought rhetoric......oversimplified solutions to complicated problems.....and a pit bull mentality.
I don't hate conservatism any more than I hate religion. What I hate is what some people have done to both of them.
July 30, 2009 at 8:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
biscuitboy, I guess I expected more than generalities, something more specific, like "I put Obama in the idiot category when I heard him say that, (paraphrase) "Don't expect manufacturing to come back", and he still expects the United States economy to rebound". In my opinion that is lunacy. Maybe manufacturing won't return, but if it doesn't, don't expect our economy to come back. It won't come back by our government controlling "all" of the markets and influencing the media to put a "happy smile" on everything. We can allow Obama to lead us into a Marxism or socialism type government. No, what is happening to our country is no laughing matter, I don't find it humorous. "Smile and be happy" while the future of my grandchldren and great grandchildren looks to be a socialist type government? I guess that's for the Patrick Kelleys of this world.
July 30, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Funny, biscuitboy, I've learned the same thing about many (not all) liberals. No sense of humor unless its making fun of someone else. I've about worn out my jokes about what Palin can/can't see from the top of her roof around here, I laughed equally as hard at McCain's jokes at himself as Obama's at their dinner, and I always enjoy the little funny at the end of Bret Hume (when I stay up that late) no matter who it is about. I've passed around on the internet the clips of Bush's stumbles during some speeches and thought they were hilarious. What some conservatives probably get sore about is all the jokes seem to be heavily weighted in one direction these days (please don't give me the usual load of **** that Obama just is "so cool" and that he isn't funny - I could write a season's worth of SNL skits on him before lunch, and don't EVEN get me started on Biden), probably because the main jokesters like the Daily Show are liberal themselves (although Colbert is a little more balanced in his joking JMO).
Now, will all that change someday? Quite possibly. I can honestly remember the overabundance of Monica jokes about Clinton, and I think it's fair to say that who is in power is going to get the lions share of the jokes. So I fully expect Obama to soon be the butt of most of the jokes by the comedians (and I also am sure donkeys will fly soon :). I think Beck is pretty funny, he gets red in the face, gets his dander up, carried away, etc....... but I look thru that and see if his point was correct. And in the Acorn case where I originally mentioned him.............Yes.......
But......... niether candidate was in power last fall during the campaign.... so I saw a big discrepancy....... again, don't tell me they're just "too cool to joke about"..... Biden is on another comedy planet all by himself. I guess we can't joke about Obama because anything would be racist, and Palin is easy pickings, right?
Oh there are plenty of things wrong with conservatism these days..... and plenty wrong with liberalism as well. My problem is, the monuments to what is wrong with conservatism are some talk show hosts, commentators, etc..... and many of the monuments to what is wrong with liberalism........are currently in office. When that happens, as oxen said, its not all that funny anymore.
Wow. Did I write all that about humor? Did I manage to say anything funny myself in there?
Ok, here's an opening I KNOW won't be passed up by we-all-know-who ;-)
What this country/board needs more than anything else at times is someone who can give us a good belly laugh no matter who it is directed at. Seriously.
Ok, take it away......... LOL
July 30, 2009 at 9:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Seriously, to answer your question about why Medicare fraud is "allowed now," just yesterday, dozens were arrested, including doctors, in a Medicare fraud that has been going on in several states for a long time. So yes, something is being done, finally. Here's the news article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
July 30, 2009 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
So now they are trying to prove that they can run thing properly. Sorry, they already lost my confidence in them. Too little too late. You can't try to start taking care of your toys now just because you want a new one. You should have proved that you could take care of your stuff all along.(I'm speaking of and to the government, no one on here)
July 30, 2009 at 10:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
allintogether (anonymous) says...
Arresting those dozens is a first step but it is an infinitesimal drop in a huge bucket that has been collecting water for decades. From what I read, the arrests were made based on their patients not needing the procedure that was performed. I hope they can prove it. Docs can justify damn near anything they do to a patient given the patient's physiology, metabolic profile, demographics, etc.
Surgical intervention (routine) is almost always preferable to drug therapy because while interventions are expensive up front, they usually fix the problem and little maintenance is needed after. Whereas drug therapy can add up over time and only delay the procedure. So, unless these were perfectly healthy people they did coronary artery bypass graft surgery on they will most likely walk. It will be interesting to see. If we ever hear another thing about it.
This arrest is still very meager, it is just getting more ink (or electrons) because of what is happening on capitol hill. Or capital hill like the misspelled signs on the turnpike say referring to Topeka being our "Capital City". Anybody else notice that?
STILL waiting on Kelley to clarify his C street story. Sorry to keep putting this at the end of my posts. I just don't want this story to fade into news cycle oblivion. Thank you for your patience.
July 30, 2009 at 11:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
oxen,
I'm sure Beck probably makes some good points at times. When I said moron I'm referring more to his delivery than anything else. I just looked up the definition of moron and I guess I was completely off base on what it meant. He is a goof ball(silly and outlandish) and he does the wackiest crap so it's hard for me to take him seriously.
I have tried to watch him and I don't think anything he said was stupid, I just can't take his delivery.
July 30, 2009 at 11:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Medicare fraud is a hugh problem and needs some major remedial action what frustrates me however is how much it's used as an excuse for not doing anything to reform health care cost and insurance availability. The Medicare abuse is all about doctors hospitals and other professionals and rarely ever involves patients.....Yet by using it as an excuse to postpone health care reform only punishes the patients.
I'm not saying the abuse problem doesn't need fixed but are we incapeable of doing two things at once?
July 30, 2009 at 12:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I too don’t think him a moron, more just a goofy spaz that is trying to be cool and fails miserably. But aside from that he put a good amount of right wing slant on his programs, I think Hannity has gotten to him. Olbermann is much the same but just a left ward slant version. The other day when I saw Beck on a tirade screaming and ranting, I thought back to the crying incident and wondered if the guy was Bi-polar. If I wanted comic delivery I’ll watch the Daily Show and Colbert report, it is ironic that seeing Jon Stewart do Beck is better TV than Beck himself.
July 30, 2009 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I don't think it's that "we" can't do two things at once, it's more that they have proven that they can't police their programs now. What is going to be different this time? I love to see them get it right this time it's just that I can't ignore the past and assume they can.
July 30, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
The bogeyman of Healthcare reform would be when big brother is allowed MORE involvement in the medical industry.
Government needs to stay out of private business operation, they will only make it more confusing and expensive.
July 30, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Government needs to stay out of private business operation, they will only make it more confusing and expensive."
I don't know about you, but last I checked my premiums have been rising almost yearly, and confusing is trying to figure out how they figured the bills exactly. Reform of some magnitude is necessary, the private industries are in need of oversight.
July 30, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well I guess we won't get any clarification on C street as according to Pat's latest editorial he's leaving.
July 30, 2009 at 2:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
Many may be surprised to hear this from me but I think that our current health system does need more stringent rules regarding insurance company practices. We also need to police medical malpractice suits. The current system definitely has its problems and government can play a role in fixing those problems. Much in the same way as they have went a little further in protecting consumer rights with the credit card companies recently. However, goverment IS the problem with Medicare and Medicaid and any government run health care system is completely unacceptable to me. Name one social program that is government run that isn't completely convoluted and/or bankrupt.
There are a lot of things we can do to fix the current system without completely abandoning it.
July 30, 2009 at 2:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
What confuses me is if we can trust the government to enforce more stringent rules and police malpractice suits.....why is it so hard then to trust the government to run its own health care. I guess my question is.....if we can't trust them to run the operation...how can we trust them to police a private operation? And if they can't police a private operation....then who does......the same private operation that needs policeing? It seems like that's kinda what we already have.
July 30, 2009 at 5:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Simple. The have a better record of policing things than actually running things.
July 30, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Seriouslyfolks, I was pondering biscuitboys question, which I think is a very valid one, and well put, and was somewhat confused myself as to how to phrase a response, but I think you put it well, and at its simplest. (Which is often the best answer). There are alot of shades of gray and blurry areas between running and policing something, but at its core, setting limits, laws and regulations on something (which, I will absolutely admit, I think we need something on those lines to further "police" our health-care system), and letting the market and people do what they want inside those limits, is different than Telling people what they have to do (not in all, but many ways). Hopefully our reps will arrive at something along those lines but these days I'm of little faith in that respect. JMO
July 30, 2009 at 6:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
As I've said many times before.....I am not married to any system and although I am quite satisfied with my Medicare and have had less problem with it than I have experienced with pivate care in the past......I do accept that it is rife with problems of abuse. But I also believe those problems are to a large extent caused by many of the same medical professionals that are fighting to keep the status quo.
I can live with any system however that provides something close to affordable health care to the vast majority if the people that don't have it now. Public, private, from outer space, I don't care....Just get these AMERICAN CITIZEN'S covered.
What I fear I am seeing however is bickering about anything and everything.....muddying the water with all kinds of doubts and questions......politics at its worst,,,,,,and lobbying at its most effective.
And the bottom line is we will end up doing nothing and both sides will do what they always do...blame it on each other.....and we will accomplish nothing. If that happens, I hope the millions of people who depended on our elected offiials to do something will turn against both parties with a vengence.....because the failure will be both parties fault.
July 30, 2009 at 7:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
I'm a little disappointed that we are not allowed to respond to Barbara White Walker's editorial. I'll never forget how she lauded (in a distant article) Bill Clinton for giving us NAFTA. I'm sure she'll be proud of her editorial before too long. However, I should point out that Bill Clinton was just one in a long line of people responsible for the shambles our economy is in now. Oh how I am coming to love free trade. It is so "fair".
July 30, 2009 at 8:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
What we have now is a federal government that is corrupt. How can anyone, that is not a moron, expect competent behavior from something this corrupt. They will exert more and more control over us as their efforts become ever more more futile. I don't want to contemplate the answer.
July 30, 2009 at 8:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
To a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
July 31, 2009 at 6:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )