Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I believe the actual quotation is 'lies... damned lies... and statistics'.
You are correct.
I believe the actual quotation is 'lies... damned lies... and statistics'.
it would likely lead to more care approved than you have now with your insurance company
Actually it doesn't. I linked earlier that the language specifically forbids them from doing that. Like all insurance comapnies it is set to examine effective treatment versus ineffective treatment. This is not about denying care, but making sure you pay for care that works. Your insurance company does that and more. Much more. So, it is plainly dishonest to call this a death panel. In fact, as shown repeatedly, it would likely lead to more care approved than you have now with your insurance company.
Yeah ok....We'll see.
j-mac
Joe, God love ya! You're just plain wrong on this. Listen, this HC debate and law was crafted, pushed, and voted in the middle of the night completely by a demo majority in all three branches. The GOP was powerless to do ANYTHING to stop, change, or move it in any way. That was clear enough by how the GOP was locked out of the closed door meetings on the plan. So you can try and spin it all you want, but the truth is that all the GOP could do was cause noise.
Well, it is true that the people today seem to want to vote themselves riches from the Treasury, to wit is a deathnell to the republic. But we don't have the leadership now to show a different course. Most of these entitlements were enacted by demo politicans, and bleeding hearts decades ago, now you are seeing that you reep what you have sown.
j-mac
We do not have the British system.
Though many on your side selectively choose clips and information
For Democrats, it was "try to make a concensus if you can; but if you can't, go it alone".
Now, I have heard rumors that a few of you still have concerns about our new health care law. So let me be the first to say that anything can be improved. If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you. We can start right now by correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses.
What I'm not willing to do -- what I'm not willing to do is go back to the days when insurance companies could deny someone coverage because of a preexisting condition.
I'm not willing to tell James Howard, a brain cancer patient from Texas, that his treatment might not be covered. I'm not willing to tell Jim Houser, a small business man from Oregon, that he has to go back to paying $5,000 more to cover his employees. As we speak, this law is making prescription drugs cheaper for seniors and giving uninsured students a chance to stay on their patients' -- parents' coverage.
So I say to this chamber tonight, instead of re-fighting the battles of the last two years, let's fix what needs fixing and let's move forward.
I stand by what and how Friedman was quoted.First off, to Zimmer:
If you're going to use someone else's commentary to support your argument, I think it only fair and wise that you USE THE ENTIRE QUOTE so that people can fully understand the context of your argument. Towit, I'm referring to your post #22:
That's what the GOP want you to believe because that's what happened under Clinton's tenure when his administration wrote "HillaryCare". But drafting the PPACA didn't start out that way. Both the House and Senate formed separate committees to draft and review health care proposals. It wasn't until changes to the House bill insisted on by House Republicans who then turned around and voted against every change even when some where their ideas did House Democrats start doing things on their own. And when Senate Republicans followed House Republican's lead and became obstructionis did Senate Democrats start to get creative on how to "deem and pass" health care legislation.
For Republicans, it was a rehash of old "misinform, misdirect" tactics borne out of the 1920s, '60s and '90's. For Democrats, it was "try to make a concensus if you can; but if you can't, go it alone".
Shoved it through? The healthcare bill went through all the normal measures and was in the spotlight for a year. There aren't any secrets in it. They passed it with the 60 votes they needed to break the filibuster. You can criticize the bill of course but if you want to say it was shoved down our throats through illegal processes then you're just wrong.What the Dems did to shove Obamacare through bordered criminal.
Massachusetts of all places personally sent Scott Brown to halt the "shove it through" process so that we could at least get an explanation of what was IN it, never mind its likely impact. And the Dems bypassed the legal process in plain sight of us all...dont hide from that.
Shoved it through? The healthcare bill went through all the normal measures and was in the spotlight for a year. There aren't any secrets in it. They passed it with the 60 votes they needed to break the filibuster. You can criticize the bill of course but if you want to say it was shoved down our throats through illegal processes then you're just wrong.
I stand by what and how Friedman was quoted.
If you read anything from what Friedman had written about the US system before ObamaKare he called it a Communist system, and the root cause was government intrusion. As usual. But of course he would reverse his sentiments today because ObamaKare corrects all these negative intrusions... ROTFLOL.
.
Senate passes health-care bill, now must reconcile it with Housewhat channel are you watching?
are you serious..
they couldnt pass it through, it was 59-41...
Vice President Biden presided over the 60 to 39 party-line vote, described as a historic milestone by senators on both sides of the aisle.
And he would be factually wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.
says who?
you can criticize the bill
Any logical and informed person who knows exactly what those words mean. :coffeepap
And he would be factually wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.
Oh... really? And how is he wrong, and what socialist countries have grand success stories. Why do Kanuckistani's come over the border, and why is their system in shambles after less than a half century?
.
Any logical and informed person
He's wrong if he suggests we have a system that is in anyway communist like. :roll:
Now wait a minute, I remember during the never ending debate concerning health care, you were one of the people thanking others, and possibly indeed yourself making the point that we already had socialist type entitlement programs. So when you say "in any way" are you forgetting that?
j-mac
I think you remember wrong. We have programs that are communial in nature, but they do not equal socialism or communism. We have regulations in business, but are not socalistic or communistic. People who believe as Zimmer do make a leap, suggesting that any type of geroup effort makes something completely socalistic. This would be contrary to the definition of socialism and communicsm.