Holy fucked up healthcare reform Batman!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[the mongoose]

http://www.youtube.com/v/ho-0SHFEgGo&hl

Link to the Hasting Center mentioned in the video above:>>>CLICK<<< (http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Issues/Default.aspx?v=244)

Michigan is the place where a fucked up not for profit company called EXIT international has begun it's US operations this summer. There is also a Swiss company called Dignitas that does similar work:
article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXIT_%28Australia%29

EXIT International, is a pro-euthanasia group founded by Dr Philip Nitschke. It was previously known as the Voluntary Euthanasia Research Foundation (VERF Inc.). Other assisted dying organisations are Dignitas and Final EXIT.

Exit International is a Voluntary Euthanasia and end-of-life choices information and advocacy organisation.Exit International was founded by Dr Philip Nitschke in 1997 after the over-turning of the world's first Voluntary Euthanasia law - the Rights of the Terminally Ill (ROTI) Act. During the ROTI Act, Dr Nitschke became the first physician in the world to administer a legal, lethal, voluntary injection.

http://www.exitinternational.net/media/image/exit_minusintHR.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/v/oEF1preSp_M&hl
Love how the otherwise healthy old lady that has decided to die early is concerned about the death vapor bag messing up her fucking hair......lol.;)

Who could be funding Exit? Well......who else is incorporated in Michigan? The Ford Foundation! >>>CLICK<<< (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Foundation)


Add that to the fact that Sam Walton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton) was in a secret society at his universary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QEBH), was a prison camp supervising captain in the military, and then even later lead a Rotery Club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_International). The "Ol' Roy"-tery (Sam's)Club.

Fucking just look at the other companies that Wal-Mart board of directors are a part of.....>>>CLICK<<< (http://walmartstores.com/Investors/7622.aspx)

How is Ford, Wal-Mart, and other private companies legally able to influence and finance such social (ist) matters???????


Answer ------>The Center for Environmental Leadership In Business >>>CLICK<<< (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Environmental_Leadershi p_in_Business)



They have implemented a rule that all participating countries in Conservation International's jurisdiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_International) must agree to..... >>>Water Privatization<<< (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization)

>>>>>>See how World Bank plays into water privatization<<< (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Bank&section=26) ....>>>and other areas of your life<<< (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Bank&section=14)....or just, >>>read it all!<<< (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank)


From the wiki link above:
“Industry analysts predict that private water will soon be a capitalized market as precious, and as war-provoking, as oil�. Goldman continues to argue “These days, an indebted country cannot borrow capital from the World Bank or IMF without a domestic water privatization policy as a precondition�. The Bank is utilizing “the 'Washington Consensus' model of development to promote water privatization. Following this model, the World Bank is forcing many countries to commodify their water resources, rather than using their expertise in the public sector to acknowledge water as a universal human right and an essential public service�. The push for water privatization development plays upon “the shocking tragedy that much of the world lacks access to affordable and clean water�. This image creates “new opportunities in development though it may have little to do with ultimately quenching� the needs of impoverished countries. “The problem of water scarcity for the world’s poor has been analyzed by the World Bank as one in which the public sector has failed to deliver and has therefore prevented development from “taking off� and the economy from modernizing. If the state cannot deliver something as basic as water and sanitation, the argument goes, it is a strong indication of a general failure of public-sector capacity�. However, “with the sale or lease of a public good comes more than simply a privatized service; alongside it comes a wide set of postcolonial institutional forces that intervenes in state-citizen relations and North-South dynamics�.

Lucky that World Bank controls just about everything else if "we cannot deliver something as basic as water", so if someone were to let the water get poisoned around here "it would show a general failure of public-sector capacity" which would affect damn near everthing. World Bank has control in the following areas:
* Agriculture and Rural Development
* Conflict and Development
* Development Operations and Activities
* Economic Policy
* Education
* Energy
* Environment
* Financial Sector
* Gender
* Governance
* Health, Nutrition and Population
* Industry
* Information and Communication Technologies
* Information, Computing and Telecommunications
* International Economics and Trade
* Labor and Social Protections
* Law and Justice
* Macroeconomic and Economic Growth
* Mining
* Poverty Reduction
* Poverty
* Private Sector
* Public Sector Governance
* Rural Development
* Social Development
* Social Protection
* Trade
* Transport
* Urban Development
* Water Resources
* Water Supply and Sanitation

Notice how on a Florida Water site it clearly states that they are not in contol of making sure you have water or that it is safe: >>>CLICK<<< (http://www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=1874,4167309&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&navpage=home)
While the SFWMD is responsible for permits that determine how much water city, county utilities and other large users are allowed to withdraw from our shared underground water reserves, it is not responsible for delivering, or treating the water you use in your home or business. If you have questions about your water bill, or about water pressure or water quality, you should contact your city or county. The same is true for sewage treatment questions. Both these activities are overseen by the state's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).


Still think we should pass a 1000 page legistation with Ford, Wal-Mart, and the World Bank at the helm which also effectively gives medical access to illegal immigrants?!?!??
Article:
During a town hall meeting Tuesday on health care reform, Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) stated his opposition to legislation that would cover illegal aliens. Specter has been a long-time champion of amnesty for illegal aliens, he was the author of the 2006 amnesty bill (S. 2611) that was widely rejected by the American people. Specter's opposition to including illegal aliens under the proposed reforms is a clear indication of how strongly the public opposes the idea.

Facing constituents in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, yesterday, Specter said he "wouldn't support a bill that extends coverage to illegal immigrants." However, Specter went on to state erroneously that "none of the bills in Congress would provide health insurance to illegal immigrants."

A detailed analysis by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) of the America's Affordable Health Care Act of 2009, H.R. 3200, reveals that illegal aliens would be eligible for government provided insurance, and could easily obtain government "affordability credits" to buy private insurance. An amendment that would have effectively prevented illegal aliens from receiving these benefits was blocked by Democrats on the House Ways & Means Committee. FAIR's analysis of the provisions of H.R. 3200 that pertain to illegal aliens can be found at www.fairus.org (http://www.fairus.org).

"FAIR commends Sen. Specter for opposing this costly benefit for illegal aliens," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "Illegal aliens and their dependent children account for as much as one-third of the medically uninsured in the U.S. Including them under the plan is unwarranted and would add billions to the price tag. We hope that the senator will use his influence in Congress to ensure that deliberate omissions and loopholes, like those in the House bill, that allow illegal aliens to benefit from taxpayer funded health care, will be corrected in the Senate."

The concerns raised by constituents at the Lebanon town hall meeting reflect the growing costs of illegal immigration both nationally and in Pennsylvania. According to a new report by FAIR, The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Pennsylvanians, state taxpayers spend nearly $49 million annually to provide health care to illegal aliens.

"In Pennsylvania and all across the nation, the public is understandably upset about the staggering costs of illegal immigration and adamantly oppose providing a full range of health benefits to illegal aliens," said Stein. "We hope that others in Congress join Sen. Specter in opposing any provisions that would require American taxpayers to provide the full spectrum of health benefits to illegal aliens."

[bas_I_am]

Dude . . do you wear a tin foil hat?

How does one go from voluntary dignified euthanasia to forced and mandated eugenical termination???

Oh I know - LaRouche >>>CLICK<<< (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche#Criticism)

[chuck]

Can someone explain the chaos that Obama announcing a health care policy has caused?

I hear talk of "death panels" "communism" and town hall meetings that are erupting in chaos. But I'm not sure what it's all about.

Is there somewhere that's not rabidly Fox - that can explain what everyone's so up in arms about?

Or should I just stay watching the Daily Show?

[Troy McClure]

The 'death panels' is a crock of shit started by Death Panel for Cutie herself Sarah Palin, New Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Senator Grassley and a handful of Congressman. I've been watching Rachel Maddow's show exposing the lobbying groups funding protests. It's the same groups that backed the Tea Parties. Someone last week left their gun at a Congresswoman's townhall meeting in southeastern Arizona.

Jason

[Deckard]

Can someone explain the chaos that Obama announcing a health care policy has caused?

I hear talk of "death panels" "communism" and town hall meetings that are erupting in chaos. But I'm not sure what it's all about.

Is there somewhere that's not rabidly Fox - that can explain what everyone's so up in arms about?

It's SOCIALISM, Chuck. S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M has come to 'merica.

Barack Hussein Obama is going to turn the country into the United States of Russia.

Or worse, the UK.

Oh, and BO is not a real 'merican either. He's a dirty forrrner. He don't even got a birth certificate or shit like that to prove who he says he is. (But you can tell - y'know - just by LOOKING at him)

On a serious note, it's quite scary how, since Obama came to power, the (outside perception of the) whole of the US seems to have turned into Fox-watching, NRA gun-toting, barely literate wingnuts. Where are all the calm rational voices on our screens? Sanity not Hannity please (hey it's monday morning)

mongoose - sorry, no time to digest all that or do it justice - hence this time-contrained, jR-style free association post.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Can someone explain the chaos that Obama announcing a health care policy has caused?

I hear talk of "death panels" "communism" and town hall meetings that are erupting in chaos. But I'm not sure what it's all about.

Is there somewhere that's not rabidly Fox - that can explain what everyone's so up in arms about?

Or should I just stay watching the Daily Show?


I've been waiting for this thread to start. Just sitting back for now to see were it goes. To be honest, I'm a bit(no,VERY MUCH) disgusted with all the attention it's getting. We still have boys dying over seas in a war started and so heavily approved by the same people screaming at these town hall meetings.



- hence this time-contrained, jR-style free association post.



What exactly do you mean by free association? PM me(like call me ;)) Just kidding.


Also, is it not just such a pretty colored website? Gives me the munchies for Easter candy: http://www.exitinternational.net/

[Deckard]

Michigan is the place where a fucked up not for profit company called EXIT international has begun it's US operations this summer. There is also a Swiss company called Dignitas that does similar work
Why is it "fucked up" exactly?

Is it euthanasia in general that you think is fucked up, or just the background to this company that's making you suspicious?

Gives me the munchies for Easter candy: http://www.exitinternational.net/
Now that is fucked up. :)

[//\/\/]

On a serious note, it's quite scary how, since Obama came to power, the (outside perception of the) whole of the US seems to have turned into Fox-watching, NRA gun-toting, barely literate wingnuts.

...actually, this was happening waaaay before obama won! obama's election has actually improved things! ;):D

[Deckard]

Well I was hoping it would, but ever since he became president there seems to be a never-ending stream of these loonies queueing up to appear on camera to tarnish the country's reputation. Maybe in some strange way it's a good thing, like a disease making itself most known when faced with treatment? (It's ok, the arrogance of my analogy hasn't escaped me)

Anyway... healthcare....

[Strangelet]

Mongoose, when it comes to Larouche, how can you take someone seriously who compares Obama to Hitler?

Between you and me, don't you think you need to, I don't know, conquer three quarters of a continent and attempt to exterminate an entire minority off the face of the earth before that comparison would be warrented?

just throwing that out there...

[Sean]

I'm not quite sure what you're looking for people to respond to or what you're trying to say exactly, mongoose. Is it a commentary on a conspiracy theory, or a stance on supposed "death panels", or health insurance for illegal immigrants, or the World Bank, or all of the above? If all of the above, then does that mean this is why you oppose a health care overhaul?

On a serious note, it's quite scary how, since Obama came to power, the (outside perception of the) whole of the US seems to have turned into Fox-watching, NRA gun-toting, barely literate wingnuts. Where are all the calm rational voices on our screens? Sanity not Hannity please (hey it's monday morning)It's understandable that this is the outside impression you may get, but as a U.S. insider, I can assure you that it seems the vast majority of us are staring in just as much wide-eyed amazement at these crazies as you are. I mean seriously - "birthers"? "Death panels"? Comparisons to Hitler? The main difference now seems to me that these people are flipping out over the fact that we suddenly have a President who's trying to shift us into the 21st century where health, energy, international relations, and many other fundamental issues are concerned, and holy crap - did I mention that this President is BLACK?!?!?! So basically, some older white people think they're losing their country, and they're having tantrums about it. All they can think to do is shout down the opposition, invent wild conspiracy theories, try to foment fear as a means to their ends. But I don't think they're fooling as many people as they used to be able to.

[Deckard]

Comparisons to Hitler?
*shifts silently off stage..... *

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Are we shocked?

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/17/the-secret-life-of-tom-daschle-moonlighting-for-the-inurance-indutry/


I'm not.

[the mongoose]

Anyone that doesn't understand why I could possibly put this information out there can just go ahead and look at it like a midget fucking a donkey...........and just keep being a sheep.

http://zzzone.net/coverart/cdcover168.jpg

[Sean]

*shifts silently off stage..... *Ha! It's becoming more common with the health care debate. Case in point... (http://www.larouchepac.com/node/11422)

Anyone that doesn't understand why I could possibly put this information out there can just go ahead a look at it like a midget fucking a donkey...........and just keep being a sheep.All I was asking was for some clarification since your initial post read like a shotgun blast of subjects with varying levels of interconnectivity. If that's too much to ask, then so be it.

[Strangelet]

Anyone that doesn't understand why I could possibly put this information out there can just go ahead a look at it like a midget fucking a donkey...........and just keep being a sheep.


i understand why. I just don't find any merit in it. And its sooooo typical of the alex jones nurtured mind to close up and call detractors sheep. That's very disappointing. So i'll do the footwork for you.


Tell me if I'm wrong but the connections are these:

The new world order has a plan to depopulate the earth, to a managable size of worker bees that will be easy to enslave by the elite. The process by which they do this is through eugenics and euthanasia. Obama is a member of the CFR which means de facto a member of the New World Order, and so there's no need to even argue whether or not his health care system is a strategy of the bohemian grove and the bilderberg group, right? The fact that Sam Walton was in a secret society just proves that all bilderbergers are secret buggering devil worshipers.

There's a lot to loath about this worldview. All I can say is either bring proof, bring arguments, or bring me the number to exit international, because I'm starting to feel like I could use their services.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

..., or bring me the number to exit international, because I'm starting to feel like I could use their services.


Not funny.

Do not piss me off, boy.

[Sean]

i understand why. I just don't find any merit in it. And its sooooo typical of the alex jones nurtured mind to close up and call detractors sheep. That's very disappointing. So i'll do the footwork for you.


Tell me if I'm wrong but the connections are these:

The new world order has a plan to depopulate the earth, to a managable size of worker bees that will be easy to enslave by the elite. The process by which they do this is through eugenics and euthanasia. Obama is a member of the CFR which means de facto a member of the New World Order, and so there's no need to even argue whether or not his health care system is a strategy of the bohemian grove and the bilderberg group, right? The fact that Sam Walton was in a secret society just proves that all bilderbergers are secret buggering devil worshipers.

There's a lot to loath about this worldview. All I can say is either bring proof, bring arguments, or bring me the number to exit international, because I'm starting to feel like I could use their services.So this thread is about a very similar line of thinking to what's in Alex Jones' film, "The Obama Deception" yes? Okay, it's all clear now. I'll just go back to being a sheep, thanks. I don't typically even give the time of day to the "findings" of people like Alex Jones, or Anne Coulter, or Michael Moore, or Rush Limbaugh. I tend to prefer reality....

[Strangelet]

So this thread is about a very similar line of thinking to what's in Alex Jones' film, "The Obama Deception" yes? Okay, it's all clear now. I'll just go back to being a sheep, thanks.

exxxactly.....

[Strangelet]

It's understandable that this is the outside impression you may get, but as a U.S. insider, I can assure you that it seems the vast majority of us are staring in just as much wide-eyed amazement at these crazies as you are.

agreed, but unfortunately the crazies are members of the congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pel0CoFM9FE

that video is *perfect* to this thread.


god i love rachel maddow. no, i mean i love rachel maddow. sighhhhhh

[kagenaki koe]

Everybody in America knows that Universal Healthcare is the vag that Nazi's sprung out from, and it is also from that same vag that Communists came out from. Universal Healthcare is Socialism, and that's one step away from Communism.

that last line i wrote are the exact words that my Fox News watching cousin said on her facebook, (it's a good thing she's just a slacktivist). My eyes rolled back so hard, it felt like Yuen Biao doing backflips.

if you add that to the other nuts who think that we are slowly turning into Russia, then it would seem to me that there are a lot of people who failed Social Studies/History in american high school.

the sad thing is, these people (including my cousin and her brainwasher/paranoid/wingnut boyfriend) only gets their information from FUX News and they don't trust any other information outlet whatsoever. my cousin's boyfriend even had the gall to say "well you get your information from PBS etc" when i gave her a link to information about Healthcare systems in other countries from the PBS website. I was not aware that PBS has become one very politically biased, leftwing, talking points channel. My eyes were doing parkour at that point.

[the mongoose]

Globalization through ISO standardization, World Bank(with it's hands in all pots), Conservation International, and the WTO has built up now to a point where they can stop paying lip service to human rights/religious/environmental groups, and implement sneaky secret policies that are social nightmares like Water Privatization, Eugenics, and government subsidized healthcare for illegal alien immigrants undocumented with the USCIS.

[the mongoose]

I was not aware that PBS has become one very politically biased, leftwing, talking points channel.

Also, trusting anything PBS says is totally fucked because they used to be known as the National Education Channel before THE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER!!!!


Wikipedia Article:
The network was founded as the Educational Television and Radio Center (ETRC) in November 1952 by a grant from the Ford Foundation's Fund for Adult Education. It was originally a limited service for exchanging and distributing educational programs produced by local television stations to other stations; it did not produce any material by itself.[1]

In the spring of 1954, ETRC moved to Ann Arbor, Michigan, and on May 16 of that year it began its operation as a "network". It put together a daily five-hour package of programming, releasing it primarily on kinescope film to the affiliated stations by mail.[2] The programming was noted for treating subjects in depth, including hourlong interviews with people of literary and historical importance. The programming was also noted for being dry and academic, with little consideration given to entertainment value, a marked contrast to commercial television. Many of the shows were designed as adult education, and ETRC was nicknamed the "University of the Air".[3]

The center's headquarters moved from Ann Arbor, Michigan to New York City in 1958 and the organization became known as the National Educational Television and Radio Center (NETRC).[1]

The center became more aggressive at this time, aiming to have the role of the U.S.' fourth television network. This included the beginning of imported programming from the BBC into the United States. It increased its output to ten hours a week.[1]

The organization changed tack again in November 1963. It renamed itself National Educational Television, and spun off its radio assets. Under the centerpiece show NET Journal, NET began to air controversial, hard-hitting documentaries that explored numerous social issues of the day such as poverty and racism. While praised by critics, many affiliates, especially those in politically and culturally conservative markets, objected to the perceived liberal slant of the programming.

In 1966, NET's viability came into question when the >>>Ford Foundation<<<< (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Foundation) decided to begin withdrawing financial support because of NET's continual need for additional funding. In the meantime, the affiliated stations were determined to try to keep that from happening by developing a reliable source of revenue.

The U.S. government intervened and created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 1967 to fund the network for the time being. However, the CPB's intent was to create its own public broadcasting network. The CPB embarked on that course of action because many NET affiliates were alienated by the programming that network offered. These affiliates further felt that NET's simultaneous production and distribution of programming constituted a conflict of interest.
The last NET's 3rd and final ID. (February 19, 1968 to October 4, 1970)

PBS first began operations in 1969, with NET still producing several shows. However, NET's refusal to stop airing the critically praised but controversial documentaries led to the decision of both Ford and the CPB to shut the network down. In early 1970, both threatened to cut their funding unless NET merged its operations with Newark, New Jersey public station WNDT-TV.

On Monday October 5, 1970, the exact day that PBS began broadcasting, NET and WNDT-TV officially completed their merger. NET ceased to operate as a separate network from that point, although some NET-branded programming, such as NET Journal, was part of the PBS schedule for another couple of years before the identity was finally retired. WNDT's call sign was changed to the present WNET shortly thereafter. Some shows that began on NET, such as Sesame Street and Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, continue to air on PBS today.



This US Health Care Bill is brought to you by Wal-Mart and Ford:
http://www.businessweek.com/careers/managementiq/archives/wal-mart-image.jpg


http://www.sandiego.edu/soles/images/ford_2.jpg

[kagenaki koe]

Also, trusting anything PBS says is totally fucked because they used to be known as the National Education Channel before THE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER!!!!

my point is they are hardly a politically skewed propaganda machine and neither are they a place to get illegitimate information from (i just saw a poll that showed that close to 50% mostly southerners consider FOX news as THE most reliable place for information). here is the exact show that i linked to and you tell me if this is a politically heavy biased report (compared to the shrill autospew points of fox news):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/


on a sidenote, i like how government officials (senators, reps whatever) like to talk about how EVIL government is...as if they AREN'T part of government. wtf is up with that?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

my point is they are hardly a politically skewed propaganda machine and neither are they a place to get illegitimate information from (i just saw a poll that showed that close to 50% mostly southerners consider FOX news as THE most reliable place for information). here is the exact show that i linked to and you tell me if this is a politically heavy biased report (compared to the shrill autospew points of fox news):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/


on a sidenote, i like how government officials (senators, reps whatever) like to talk about how EVIL government is...as if they AREN'T part of government. wtf is up with that?




Oh come now, don't worry, everything will be alright.


agreed, but unfortunately the crazies are members of the congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pel0CoFM9FE

that video is *perfect* to this thread.


god i love rachel maddow. no, i mean i love rachel maddow. sighhhhhh


GOD, I love her too. You confuse me, boy. C'mon, fess up with the leather bit, I can't even find any Police Academy clips...

[froopy seal]

if you add that to the other nuts who think that we are slowly turning into Russia, then it would seem to me that there are a lot of people who failed Social Studies/History in american high school.Nooo, you can't turn into Russia! I mean, how should I read your posts in the future, since I can't read cyrillic? :(

Seriously, from across the pond this healthcare reform "debate" seems very exaggerated and quite a bit ridiculous - it's the silly season, right? Well, we have crocodile sightings at bathing lakes, you have sightings of black, democratic Nazis...

Of course, the euthanasia and Hitler analogies have been picked up by German media. - But let me assure you, they aren't anywhere near a major news topic, and are correctly being classified as "absurd" and the healthcare reform debate getting out of bounds due to the activities of calculating, conservative political forces. Critical coverage mostly concentrates on the fact that President Obama is forced to offer compromises on one of his central pre-election promises.

For those among you who understand German (or can make sens of Bablefish gibberish), here are soberly written articles from three well-respected German news authorities:
ARD: Debatte über Obamas Gesundheitsreform eskaliert (http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/usagesundheit104.html)
Spiegel: Obama kämpft für seine Gesundheitsreform (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,641929,00.html)
Zeit: Obama lenkt bei Gesundheitsreform ein (http://www.zeit.de/online/2009/34/obama-krankenversicherung-usa)

[froopy seal]

Update on German media coverage, both from Spiegel Online:
- Front page right now: "Obama tunes financial plan of his mega reform (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,643418,00.html)"; a German article on political lies; Babelfish "translation" (http://66.196.80.202/babelfish/translate_url_content?.intl=de&lp=de_en&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fpolitik%2Fausl and%2F0%2C1518%2C643418%2C00.html).
- "Americans Want 'Freedom to Pay Too Much for Inferior Health Care' (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,643501,00.html)"; original English article by Spiegel Online, containing quotes from German newspapers.

Neither article even mentions the Nazi/conspiracy accusations.

[Sean]

Also, trusting anything PBS says is totally fucked because they used to be known as the National Education Channel before THE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER!!!!


Wikipedia Article:
The network was founded as the Educational Television and Radio Center (ETRC) in November 1952 by a grant from the Ford Foundation's Fund for Adult Education. It was originally a limited service for exchanging and distributing educational programs produced by local television stations to other stations; it did not produce any material by itself.[1]

In the spring of 1954, ETRC moved to Ann Arbor, Michigan, and on May 16 of that year it began its operation as a "network". It put together a daily five-hour package of programming, releasing it primarily on kinescope film to the affiliated stations by mail.[2] The programming was noted for treating subjects in depth, including hourlong interviews with people of literary and historical importance. The programming was also noted for being dry and academic, with little consideration given to entertainment value, a marked contrast to commercial television. Many of the shows were designed as adult education, and ETRC was nicknamed the "University of the Air".[3]

The center's headquarters moved from Ann Arbor, Michigan to New York City in 1958 and the organization became known as the National Educational Television and Radio Center (NETRC).[1]

The center became more aggressive at this time, aiming to have the role of the U.S.' fourth television network. This included the beginning of imported programming from the BBC into the United States. It increased its output to ten hours a week.[1]

The organization changed tack again in November 1963. It renamed itself National Educational Television, and spun off its radio assets. Under the centerpiece show NET Journal, NET began to air controversial, hard-hitting documentaries that explored numerous social issues of the day such as poverty and racism. While praised by critics, many affiliates, especially those in politically and culturally conservative markets, objected to the perceived liberal slant of the programming.

In 1966, NET's viability came into question when the >>>Ford Foundation<<<< (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Foundation) decided to begin withdrawing financial support because of NET's continual need for additional funding. In the meantime, the affiliated stations were determined to try to keep that from happening by developing a reliable source of revenue.

The U.S. government intervened and created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 1967 to fund the network for the time being. However, the CPB's intent was to create its own public broadcasting network. The CPB embarked on that course of action because many NET affiliates were alienated by the programming that network offered. These affiliates further felt that NET's simultaneous production and distribution of programming constituted a conflict of interest.
The last NET's 3rd and final ID. (February 19, 1968 to October 4, 1970)

PBS first began operations in 1969, with NET still producing several shows. However, NET's refusal to stop airing the critically praised but controversial documentaries led to the decision of both Ford and the CPB to shut the network down. In early 1970, both threatened to cut their funding unless NET merged its operations with Newark, New Jersey public station WNDT-TV.

On Monday October 5, 1970, the exact day that PBS began broadcasting, NET and WNDT-TV officially completed their merger. NET ceased to operate as a separate network from that point, although some NET-branded programming, such as NET Journal, was part of the PBS schedule for another couple of years before the identity was finally retired. WNDT's call sign was changed to the present WNET shortly thereafter. Some shows that began on NET, such as Sesame Street and Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, continue to air on PBS today.




I love that this post started out with saying how "fucked" it is to trust anything on PBS, and ends with the smoking gun that clearly proves the point - "...some shows that began on NET, such as Sesame Street and Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, continue to air on PBS today". Shit dude, you're totally right. We can't be letting our children get brainwashed by those goddamned, number counting, hand-stuffed muppets. I heard they were sponsored by the letter "H", the same letter that kicks off a name we all know - HITLER! And of course, we all know about Evil Bert (http://www.bertisevil.tv/)...




This US Health Care Bill is brought to you by Wal-Mart and Ford:
http://www.businessweek.com/careers/managementiq/archives/wal-mart-image.jpg


http://www.sandiego.edu/soles/images/ford_2.jpg




I also love that you actually wrapped up by slapping a couple bumper stickers on your post.

I'm sorry to be so flippant - sort of - okay not really, but you're not giving me much of substance to work with here...

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

:eek: ...& the left takes a swing!




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul_analysis

[the mongoose]

I love that this post started out with saying how "fucked" it is to trust anything on PBS, and ends with the smoking gun that clearly proves the point - "...some shows that began on NET, such as Sesame Street and Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, continue to air on PBS today". Shit dude, you're totally right. We can't be letting our children get brainwashed by those goddamned, number counting, hand-stuffed muppets. I heard they were sponsored by the letter "H", the same letter that kicks off a name we all know - HITLER! And of course, we all know about Evil Bert (http://www.bertisevil.tv/)...



Mister Rogers helped plump up PBS's funding like one motherfucker, wonder why he never had a catchy song about THAT, ha ha:
Mister Rogers and PBS funding

In 1969, Rogers appeared before the United States Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) Subcommittee on Communications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Commerce_Subcommittee_on_Comm unications,_Technology,_and_the_Internet). His goal was to support funding for PBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Service) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting), in response to significant proposed cuts. In about six minutes of testimony, Rogers spoke of the need for social and emotional education that public television provided. He passionately argued that alternative television programming like his Neighborhood helped encourage children to become happy and productive citizens, sometimes opposing less positive messages in media and in popular culture. He even recited the lyrics to one of his songs.
The chairman of the subcommittee, John O. Pastore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O._Pastore), was not previously familiar with Rogers' work, and was sometimes described as gruff and impatient. However, he reported that the testimony had given him goosebumps, and declared, "I think it's wonderful. Looks like you just earned the $20 million." The subsequent congressional appropriation, for 1971, increased PBS funding from $9 million to $22 million.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers#cite_note-20)

Some other fairly recent political stuff ole Mr. Rogers was involved in getting passed before he himself passed:
On March 4, 2003, the U.S. House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) unanimously passed Resolution 111.which can be found........>>>HERE<<<
(http://wwww.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2007_08/pdf/sr111.pdf)The NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business) ultimately uses >>>PACS<<< (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Action_Committee) that influence who gets supported in a campaign and how much they get:



http://i31.tinypic.com/2j2wcgx.jpg

Fair and balanced support huh? ;)

On March 5, 2003 the U.S. Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate) unanimously passed Resolution 16.............found >>>HERE<<< (http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/pdf/sr6.pdf)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Fred_Rogers_White_House.jpg/180px-Fred_Rogers_White_House.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fred_Rogers_White_House.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fred_Rogers_White_House.jpg)
Rogers meeting with President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) in 2002.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

[QUOTE=the mongoose;115171]



Fair and balanced support huh? ;)

[QUOTE]


Have you seen the accurate statistics(you KNOW what I'm talking about) on those who get their soul news information from FOX NEWS??

This is a perfect example of why PBS is considered educational television. Pretty clear cut.

[the mongoose]

Oh yeah, and Big Bird is and always will be a Communist turncoat....PROOF BELOW!:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL4ulo04h4g

[bas_I_am]

proof nixon was a communist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4czjjuxFva0

[Sean]

Mister Rogers helped plump up PBS's funding like one motherfucker, wonder why he never had a catchy song about THAT, ha ha:
Mister Rogers and PBS funding

In 1969, Rogers appeared before the United States Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) Subcommittee on Communications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Commerce_Subcommittee_on_Comm unications,_Technology,_and_the_Internet). His goal was to support funding for PBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Service) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting), in response to significant proposed cuts. In about six minutes of testimony, Rogers spoke of the need for social and emotional education that public television provided. He passionately argued that alternative television programming like his Neighborhood helped encourage children to become happy and productive citizens, sometimes opposing less positive messages in media and in popular culture. He even recited the lyrics to one of his songs.
The chairman of the subcommittee, John O. Pastore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O._Pastore), was not previously familiar with Rogers' work, and was sometimes described as gruff and impatient. However, he reported that the testimony had given him goosebumps, and declared, "I think it's wonderful. Looks like you just earned the $20 million." The subsequent congressional appropriation, for 1971, increased PBS funding from $9 million to $22 million.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers#cite_note-20)

Some other fairly recent political stuff ole Mr. Rogers was involved in getting passed before he himself passed:
On March 4, 2003, the U.S. House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) unanimously passed Resolution 111.which can be found........>>>HERE<<<
(http://wwww.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2007_08/pdf/sr111.pdf)The NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business) ultimately uses >>>PACS<<< (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Action_Committee) that influence who gets supported in a campaign and how much they get:


Fair and balanced support huh? ;)

On March 5, 2003 the U.S. Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate) unanimously passed Resolution 16.............found >>>HERE<<< (http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/pdf/sr6.pdf)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Fred_Rogers_White_House.jpg/180px-Fred_Rogers_White_House.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fred_Rogers_White_House.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fred_Rogers_White_House.jpg)
Rogers meeting with President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) in 2002.



So at this point, I have to ask - how serious are you being about this stuff? I honestly can't tell. Are you being tongue-in-cheek, or do you believe stuff like Mr. Rogers being a willing tool in a broader conspiracy to create a new world order through eugenics?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I get it.

I mean, his PowerPoint Presentation is all over the place and really it's one big franking(ben ;)) puzzle I'd rather not try to explain.

And mongoose(duck, duck, duck - GOOSE!), I'm sure you'd get an "F" from your professor in your Poli-Sci Course at your community college with your project being very poorly constructed. You might want to save it for your thesis, maybe(THAT'S WHAT ALL GENIUSESES SAY!).

[the mongoose]

So at this point, I have to ask - how serious are you being about this stuff? I honestly can't tell. Are you being tongue-in-cheek, or do you believe stuff like Mr. Rogers being a willing tool in a broader conspiracy to create a new world order through eugenics?

No I don't think everything is that tightly knit, and Rogers genuinely believed in his legacy of helping children....he only testified to prevent cuts at the station he worked at and was successful. Posted just to show you that there are things you never knew about people you thought you knew pretty well.

Big Bird must be stopped at all costs though....

[Strangelet]

Posted just to show you that there are things you never knew about people you thought you knew pretty well.

wow.... just wow.... look mongoose, don't take this personally, especially when I see that your intention is in the right place. But this thread is proof positive our country is fucking D.O.A.

[the mongoose]

Yep, cause it's people like you who let these Affiliated Global Vultures pick our Localism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Localism_%28politics%29) clean off the bone....

WITSA's list of countries..........>>>CLICK<<< (http://www.witsa.org/about/members.htm)

WITSA Members

Afghanistan
National ICT Association of Afghanistan (NICTAA)

Algeria
Algeria IT Association (AITA)

Argentina
Cámara de Empresas de Software y Servicios Informáticos (CESSI)

Armenia
Armenian Union of Information Technology Enterprises (UITE)

Australia
Australian Information Industry Association (AIIA)

Bangladesh
Bangladesh Computer Samity (BCS)

Benin
AP.TIC Benin – The Professionals of Information and Communication Technology Association

Bermuda
Business Technology Division of the Bermuda Chamber of Commerce (URL)

Bulgaria
Bulgarian Association of Information Technologies (BAIT)

Cambodia
ICT Association of Cambodia (ICT:CAM)

Canada
Information Technology Association of Canada (ITAC)

Chinese Taipei
Information Service Industry Association of Chinese Taipei (CISA)

Colombia
Colombian Software Industry Federation (FEDESOFT)

Costa Rica
Costa Rican Chamber of Information and Communication Technologies (Camtic)

Formerly: The Chamber of Software Companies of Costa Rica (Caprosoft)

Ecuador
Ecuadorian Software Association (AESOFT)

Egypt
Egyptian Information, Telecommunications, Electronics and Software Alliance (EITESAL)

Finland
Federation of the Finnish Information Industries (TIETOALAT)

Greece
Federation of Hellenic Information Technology and Communications Enterprises (SEPE)

Guatemala
Software Commission of Guatemala (SOFEX)

Hong Kong
Hong Kong Information Technology Federation (HKITF)

Hungary
Hungarian Association of IT Companies (IVSZ)

India
National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM)

Indonesia
Indonesian Telematic Software Association (ASPILUKI)

Israel
Israeli Association of Software Houses (IASH)

Japan
Japan Information Technology Services Industry Association (JISA)

Jordan
Information Technology Association - Jordan (int@j)

Kazakhstan
Association of IT Companies of Kazakhstan (ITK)

Kenya
The Computer Society of Kenya (CSK) - Kenya

Laos
Lao ICT Commerce Association (LICA)

Lebanon
Professional Computer Association of Lebanon (PCA)

Lithuania
Association of the information technology, telecommunications and office equipment companies of Lithuania (INFOBALT)

Malaysia
Association of the Computer And Multimedia Industry Malaysia (PIKOM)

Mexico
Mexican Information Technology Industry Association (AMITI)

Mongolia
Mongolian National Information Technology Association / Mongolian Information Development Association (MIDAS/MONITA)

Morocco
Moroccan Federation of Information Technology, Telecommunication and Offshoring
(Fédération des technologies de l'Information, des Télécommunication et de l'Offshoring) (APEBI)

Nepal
Computer Association of Nepal (CAN)

Netherlands
ICT~Office

Netherlands Antilles
Curacao Information & Communication Association (CICA)

Nigeria
Information Technology Industry Association of Nigeria (ITAN)

Norway
ICT Norway (IKT Norge)

Pakistan
The Pakistan Software Houses Association (PASHA)

Palestine
Palestinian Information Technology Association (PITA)

Philippines
Information Technology Association of the Philippines (ITAP)

Poland
Polish Chamber of Information Technology and Telecommunications (PIIT)

Republic of Korea
Federation of Korean Information Industries (FKII)

Republic of Macedonia
Macedonian Association of Information Technology (MASIT)

Romania
Association for Information Technology and Communications of Romania (ATIC)

Russia
Russian Information & Computer Technologies Industry Association (APKIT)

Rwanda
Rwanda ICT Association (RICTA)

Senegal
Senegalese Information Technology Association (SITSA)

Serbia
Union of ICT Societies of Serbia (JISA)

Singapore
Singapore infocomm Technology Federation (SiTF)

South Africa
Information Technology Association of South Africa (ITA)

Spain
Spanish Association of Electronics, Information Technology and Telecommunications Companies (AETIC)

Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka Information and Communication Technology Association (SLICTA)

Syria
Syrian Computer Society (SCS)

Tanzania
The Tanzania Information and Communication Technologies Association (TICTA)

Thailand
The Association of Thai ICT Industry (ATCI)

Trinidad & Tobago
ICT Society of Trinidad and Tobago (ICTS)

Tunisia
Tunisian National ICT Federation (UTICA)

Turkey
Turkish Informatics Industry Association (TÃœBISAD)

Uganda
Private-Sector ICT Association of Uganda (PICTA)

Ukraine
Association "Information Technologies of Ukraine" (IT Ukraine)

United Kingdom
Intellect - the Information Technology, Telecommunications and Electronics Association

United States
TechAmerica

Uruguay
Uruguayan Chamber of Information Technology (CUTI)

Venezuela
Venezuelan Chamber of IT Companies (Cavedatos)

Vietnam
Vietnam Software Association (VINASA)

Zimbabwe
Computer Suppliers' Association of Zimbabwe (COMSA)

Meet your friendly neighborhood global affliation of advertisers and advocates....."the future begins now"...>>>Tech America<<< (http://www.techamerica.org/)

Watch the trailer for TechAmerica.....>>>CLICK<<< (http://www.youtube.com/v/5twu9c1xjFM&hl)


Don't worry though, all of those companies are just swell and have noooooo alterior motives, conflicts of interest, or political/media lobbying power WHATSOEVER.......so just go back to your advertised media outlets meant for sheep and keep championing oBAAAAAAAAAAAAma and his sneaky fucked legislation.
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/05/03/samaritan4507_wideweb__470x311,0.jpg


Heathcare for illegal immigrants is the proverbial "GOLD RUSH" or "unexplored economic frontier" that all providers are all foaming at the mouth for. Due to potential discrepencies between state and federal guidelines, for instance >>>PWORA<<< (http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/rules/Legislation/pdfs/PL_104-193.pdf) and certain >>>State Statutes<<< (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute).

Then combine that confusion with the newly enacted Reauthorization Act of 2009........>>>CLICK<<< (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ003.111.pdf)
Section 211 (which allows anyone currently waiting in a five year holding period to be eligible for un-subsidized coverage, seemingly defining them as "legal").....which in turn could make them eligible to not be included as being part of section 605 as they normally would have in the past.

But really, what's the harm in making it official and just legally opening up all of our medical resources to what essentially amounts to the entire country of Mexico? What could possibly go wrong?;)


.

[chuck]

So I'm with Sean on this one - wtf does any of that have to do with health care reform??

thanks for the wikipedia link to George W. Bush tho.

Coz I really need to know more about him and his life. :rolleyes:

[froopy seal]

But really, what's the harm in making it official and just legally opening up all of our medical resources to what essentially amounts to the entire country of Mexico? What could possibly go wrong?;)Are there any estimates as to the quota of (cost of 'legally opening up all of our medical resources to' illegal immigrants)/(overall cost of American healthcare)? I mean, is it more in the tenth-of-a-percent range or more in the thousandth-of-a-percent range?

[Deckard]

the sad thing is, these people (including my cousin and her brainwasher/paranoid/wingnut boyfriend) only gets their information from FUX News and they don't trust any other information outlet whatsoever. my cousin's boyfriend even had the gall to say "well you get your information from PBS etc" when i gave her a link to information about Healthcare systems in other countries from the PBS website. I was not aware that PBS has become one very politically biased, leftwing, talking points channel. My eyes were doing parkour at that point.

Fox News viewers overwhelmingly misinformed about health care reform proposals (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/fox-news-viewers-misinformed/)

(No shit? :D )

[Sean]

Don't worry though, all of those companies are just swell and have noooooo alterior motives, conflicts of interest, or political/media lobbying power WHATSOEVER.......so just go back to your advertised media outlets meant for sheep and keep championing oBAAAAAAAAAAAAma and his sneaky fucked legislation.
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/05/03/samaritan4507_wideweb__470x311,0.jpgThis is the second time you've referred to people who may support Obama as "sheep" here. I find that interesting when you're the only one spouting off conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory - basically everything that a certain fragment of American society is being told to say by a few ultra-conservative nuts, like Hannity, Limbaugh, Jones, Beck, etc. Meanwhile, those of us being labeled as "sheep" by you are actually interested in the facts of what potential health care reform might look like, and are probably open to discussing the options available to us. We may have different perspectives on what qualifies someone to be labeled as a "sheep", but you can probably see where I'm going with this. Glass houses and stones and all that.

Heathcare for illegal immigrants is the proverbial "GOLD RUSH" or "unexplored economic frontier" that all providers are all foaming at the mouth for. ....

But really, what's the harm in making it official and just legally opening up all of our medical resources to what essentially amounts to the entire country of Mexico? What could possibly go wrong?;)True - which is why it's a good thing there's nothing actually included in health care reform at this point that would insure illegal immigrants (http://factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/).

And I just read through section 211 of the Reauthorization Act of 2009 you linked. It's all about what forms of proof of citizenship are required in order to obtain health care in the U.S. It in no way opens up health care to "the entire country of Mexico", or even to any illegal immigrants. You're freaked out and complaining about a non-issue.

[kagenaki koe]

Mexico has universal healthcare btw. since 2006.

[kagenaki koe]

so just go back to your advertised media outlets meant for sheep

do you have your own media outlet where you get your information from that doesn't have any advertisers?

[Sean]

It's not just that one section though, like I said....it's the ole' PWORA definition of "qualified" vs. each state's scrambled statutes....mixed up now even further with this Reauth Act of 2009 and other newly enacted state legislation "allowing thousands more to have coverage". (http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2009/06/crist-signs-kidcare-bill-launches-flyaround.html) ;)Yeah - here's a clipping from the article you linked above that supposedly allows "thousands more to have coverage":

"Crist acknowledged that KidCare could be improved even more. By law, the children of state workers and undocumented immigrants, as well as pregnant women, are not eligible for the program."

Seems to highlight yet another example of illegal immigrants not being eligible for health care rather than an example of opening it up to "the entire country of Mexico". So basically, you've presented a couple links as evidence of supposed public insurance options being made available to illegal immigrants, while neither does anything of the sort. Do you actually have anything of substance to back up your claims? So far all I've seen from you is links that don't say what you claim they do, and a bunch of Wikipedia pages alongside a couple random sites about Bush and stuff.

[chuck]

Respect!

Barney Franks talks sense to the insanity that seems to be paraded as red-blooded patriotism. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGX-2oTNens)

Superb to hear a politician just chop someone down so frankly and fairly.

[//\/\/]

ha! nice!

[Deckard]

Yeah, go Barney go!

"...like trying to argue with a dining room table!"

Oh we've had a few of those moments round here. ;)

[chuck]

I know it's a well worn cliche, particularly around these parts.

But the Daily Show has given me more insight into this issue than anything else, and while that might be a little bit scary, if you consider the state of 'journalism' - that's another story.

The August 20th episode of the Daily Show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/246932/thu-august-20-2009-betsy-mccaughey) - the interview with Betsy McCaughey is just outstanding.

Stewart is smart and knows his shit.

McCaughey is patronising and seemingly making shit up.

Jump across to ColbertNation, and there's an insightful Stephen Colbert debate with a dining room table. I have to agree with the desk lamp's argument actually.

3 weeks without the Daily???!! - thank god for the interwebs.

[Sean]

I know it's a well worn cliche, particularly around these parts.

But the Daily Show has given me more insight into this issue than anything else, and while that might be a little bit scary, if you consider the state of 'journalism' - that's another story.

The August 20th episode of the Daily Show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/246932/thu-august-20-2009-betsy-mccaughey) - the interview with Betsy McCaughey is just outstanding.

Stewart is smart and knows his shit.

McCaughey is patronising and seemingly making shit up.

Jump across to ColbertNation, and there's an insightful Stephen Colbert debate with a dining room table. I have to agree with the desk lamp's argument actually.

3 weeks without the Daily???!! - thank god for the interwebs.I'm glad to hear you say this. These days, I bounce around between CNN, MSNBC and FOX to see what they're all saying, and yet it's the Daily Show and Colbert Report that seem to be shining a spotlight on what's really happening much better and more clearly than any "legitimate" news shows. As much as I love Daily and Colbert, that's a bad, bad sign for cable news. FOX is in the freakin' tank for ultra-conservatives, MSNBC for ultra-liberals, and I've cut way back on CNN ever since Michael Jackson died and became their lead story for like at least a month. I just couldn't take any more rehashing of the same old Jackson stories over and over and over and over again. So after a couple years of being addicted to CNN as the 2008 election rolled on, they've now almost completely lost me. Anyway, this is just my long way of agreeing with you, Chuck. And thanks for reminding me that I want to see the rest of the Betsy McCaughey interview that they couldn't fit into the half hour show last night. She was a nut and a half, wasn't she? Trying to actually convince us that "death panels" were real even though all information she provided said otherwise? Crazy.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Yeah, go Barney go!

"...like trying to argue with a dining room table!"

Oh we've had a few of those moments round here. ;)


Some people can be hypocrites too though. :)

& I'm not referring to you, so don't go getting YOUR panties all tied up in a knot. At least, not while your still wearing them . . .

[Sean]

"Seems" so doesn't it, but I think the following should be considered as well.;)

Is a parent's immigration status part of eligibility?
No. The Florida KidCare application does not ask about parents' status.

Does Florida tell the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) I am applying to Florida KidCare?
No. The state of Florida cannot provide any information to the USCIS about people applying for Florida KidCare or medical benefits. (However, people who apply for cash assistance or food stamps can be reported if they reveal they're under a final order of deportation or not lawfully present.) Remember, the child's immigration status — not the parent's — is considered for Florida KidCare eligibility.

Will enrolling a child in Florida KidCare harm me in adjusting my status through USCIS?
No. Regulations state that health care cannot be used to deny individuals admission to the U.S., to bar legal permanent residence, or to deport. (May 25, 1999, Administration Policy Announcement directed to all federal agencies.)

Does Children's Medicaid give my social security and income data to the USCIS or the U.S. Department of State?
No. A 1997 federal decision requires this information to be confidential.

If I enroll my child in the Florida KidCare program, can I later be asked to pay back the money?
No. Neither the state of Florida nor the USCIS can require you to repay a lawfully received benefit. They will not accept it even if you want to pay it back.As I continued reading these questions and answers, it became increasingly clear to me that they were likely copied and pasted from somewhere, so I did a quick search and found the (or at least one of the) site you got it from (http://www.floridakidcare.org/eligibility-noncitizen.html). Interestingly, it specifies right off the bat that:

"In general, children eligible for Florida KidCare must be U.S. citizens. However, the federal government classifies some non-citizen children as "qualified aliens". These children are eligible. Also remember that some persons born outside the United States may be citizens.

Examples of Non-Citizen Children Who May Be Eligible
Children with Lawful Permanent Residence (for at least five years)
Refugees
Asylees
Cuban and Haitian entrants
Amerasians
Canadian Indians
Dependent children of Active Duty United States Military Personnel or veterans
Children paroled into the United States for a year or more
Chidren who have been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a U.S. citizen with approved Violence Against Women Act case
Children victims of Human Trafficking certified by the Office of Refugee Resettlement
Iraqi and Afghani Special Immigrant Visa holders"

From there, it launches directly into your list of questions and answers. Context really is everything. So I ask again, where's your evidence that we're opening up health care to "the entire country of Mexico"? Because this site tells us that the immigration status of the children themselves are considered in determining eligibility, and the non-citizen exemptions appear to be geared directly towards humanitarian considerations rather than across-the-board acceptance of legal and illegal immigrants alike as you're apparently trying to imply.

[chuck]

Anyway, this is just my long way of agreeing with you, Chuck. And thanks for reminding me that I want to see the rest of the Betsy McCaughey interview that they couldn't fit into the half hour show last night. She was a nut and a half, wasn't she? Trying to actually convince us that "death panels" were real even though all information she provided said otherwise? Crazy.

And Betsy resigns. (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Elizabeth-McCaughey-Resigns-prnews-2975137710.html?x=0&.v=1)

Odd that - day after getting her ass handed to her on a plate by Stewart, she resigns so as to "avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest during the national debate over healthcare reform."

Yeah right - I think it's to give her more time to find the page 432. or was it 423??

Stewart: "Maybe you could have used some post-it notes...."

priceless. :D

Sean - we get the Daily Show fresh on TV here, but can't watch the full episodes online - I'll have to get that proxy server working.

We also get Fox, CNN International, BBC and Sky News and al-Jazeera, so if you work hard you can get a decent cross-section of opinion. Our local news is just a regurgitate of CBS/NBC/ITV stories - plus local stuff.

[the mongoose]

And Betsy resigns. (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Elizabeth-McCaughey-Resigns-prnews-2975137710.html?x=0&.v=1)

Odd that you chuckleheads are calling Betsy a nut for quoting the actual fucked legislation to support her arguments. It's completely obvious that most people only saw the first ten minutes which ended quite abruptly on air, but the whole interview must be seen in it's entirety in order to understand all of the facts involved. She totally makes Jon Stewart look like a rich, socialist moron (although I personally think he's very funny and it was cool of him to at least let her talk, unlike the typical media"out of time" Nazis at NBC for example)


The first 10 minutes of the interview (where she walks out with an actual copy of the health care bill) was aired on tv, but the whole thing must be seen in order to realize that everything Betsy McCaughn said was actually very empirical; and she did a great job of proving every argument with facts and stopping him from railroading her with his contant bombardment of wiseass "AUDIENCE (paid to)LAUGH!!!......AUDIENCE (paid to) APPLAUSE!!!" infantile tangents:

Only way to see the beginning ("part 1") is watching the full televised version of the show. It includes a portion of part "2" that cuts off abruptly after the ten minute interview is over. The producers did not edit the interview at all so that the rest would have to be found "UNCENSORED" online........>>>Click for full episode with part "1" of the interview<<< (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/246932/thu-august-20-2009-betsy-mccaughey)



Uncensored (part "2" - reuses the second portion of part 1)
Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. "2" (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/exclusive---betsy-mccaughey-extended-interview-pt--1)

Uncensored (part "3")
Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. "3" (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/exclusive---betsy-mccaughey-extended-interview-pt--2)


Once you've seen the man in the bear suit, it's hard to appreciate an "entertaining political" show for bears, by "bears".
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HuNnSGzvpdU/R1RivbDP8YI/AAAAAAAAAc8/5oLIficBLvI/s320/_44183799_wallinger_sleeper_cut.jpg

[chuck]

Odd that you chuckleheads are calling Betsy a nut for quoting the actual fucked legislation to support her arguments.

WTF are you smoking. Seriously - I'm fucking done with putting up with your idle rants. I don't even live in your country - I really don't give a rats ass about how far down the toilet you flush your society.

But please - where in that interview - which I watched in the entirety - before you get all fucking sanctimonious - did Betsy find anything to actually backup the claims of "death panels"/socialism/imperialism and everything else that's apparently bad and evil in the policy. I mean she struggles to even find the fricking page that apparently contains the keys to hell. She was reading clear and unequivocal statements - and then her secret decoder ring was turning it into unqualified crap from the rear end of looney-ville that didn't even make sense whilst she was saying it. And Stewart had the balls to call her on it.

It's completely obvious that most people only saw the first ten minutes which ended quite abruptly on air, but the whole interview must be seen in it's entirety in order to understand all of the facts involved. She totally makes Jon Stewart look like a rich, socialist moron (although I personally think he's very funny and it was cool of him to at least let her talk, unlike the typical media"out of time" Nazis at NBC for example)Did you even listen to Stewart - at all? Did you hear him talk about how he was happy to have his taxes go to help others....

Oh wait - there's Nazis working at NBC now????

christ all fucking mighty - at least have the decency to reserve your slanderous bullshit for individuals that might actually deserve it. You're throwing the term 'Nazi' around like it's the same as calling someone a dickhead.

The first 10 minutes of the interview (where she walks out with an actual copy of the health care bill) was aired on tv, but the whole thing must be seen in order to realize that everything Betsy McCaughn said was actually very empirical; and she did a great job of proving every argument with facts and stopping him from railroading her with his contant bombardment of wiseass "AUDIENCE (paid to)LAUGH!!!......AUDIENCE (paid to) APPLAUSE!!!" infantile tangents:WHAT FUCKING FACTS! She was making shit up as she went along. Even when Stewart was agreeing with her facts, she still couldn't make any sense.

Betsy just makes asinine remarks like "Isn't he cute." with that falsetto smile and shrill little giggle that makes me want to punch myself in the eyeball.

Holy shit - I'm so glad you linked to the entire interview. It's far better viewing than anything you've posted here. And everyone else can see it as well.

Again - I'm not even in your country and don't really care - but watching Stewart dismantle the arguments that supposedly are at the core of the what the right is holding to in this debate - I'm sitting here wondering why there's all this smoke and the fury, when in reality it's more like the sound of one hand clapping.

[froopy seal]

...; and she did a great job of proving every argument with facts ...To paraphrase a certain US Senator: What planet have you been brought up on to come to this totally quirky assessment of her performance? I cannot remember from the recent past any would-be-professional politician behaving as insecure and "proving" as ponderously as Betsy McCaughey did on that show. (I must admit, though, I've only seen the truncated part of the interview and can't be bothered to watch the rest.)

Seriously, it gave me physical pain watching her talking around that hot spot "page 432" for ages. - Why the hell didn't she just read out the important part of the law in the beginning in order to demonstrate her point? I mean, "someone must have ripped out that page"... COME ON?!?! Are you kidding me? Even if somebody DID rip that page out, she should have checked again right before the show. Better, she should know the paragraph in question by heart.

And don't start telling me Jon Stewart was unfair, interrupting her all the time. Of course he was. That's his style. She must have known before, and, despite this very style, should have been able to confidently, and in plain language, insert her point. Otherwise, she's just not fit for TV interviews, esp. with all that grinning in the wrong direction and stupidly laughing at Stewart making fun her. Face it, she made a complete fool of herself and her cause with that performance.

[froopy seal]

I'm sitting here wondering why there's all this smoke and the fury, when in reality it's more like the sound of one hand clapping.Brilliant! :D

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

No shit it is.....so maybe just by informing you that I'm employed as a trainer that teaches people about the intricate details of the SCHIP program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children%27s_Health_Insurance_Program) and how it's used here in FL (http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view_page.pl?Tab=session&Submenu=1&FT=D&File=sb0918er.html&Directory=session/2009/Senate/bills/billtext/html/) will make you understand.....;)


What is your opinion of the SCHIP program?

Mind you: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/08/21/outing.anonymous.bloggers/index.html

[Sean]

No shit it is.....so maybe just by informing you that I'm employed as a trainer that teaches people about the intricate details of the SCHIP program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children%27s_Health_Insurance_Program) and how it's used here in FL (http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view_page.pl?Tab=session&Submenu=1&FT=D&File=sb0918er.html&Directory=session/2009/Senate/bills/billtext/html/) will make you understand.....;)True story - years ago, I knew a girl who was working as a grade school teacher. In a conversation with her and her boyfriend, somehow Hitler was mentioned. Her response to hearing his name: "Hitler....who was he again? I know he did something bad..." So being employed as a teacher didn't inherently mean she was smarter than anyone else - in fact, she was far stupider than most. Obviously. So knowing what you do for a living doesn't make me understand your points any more clearly, but it does terrify the crap out of me. All I can use to reach any conclusions about your positions is what you've posted here, and all you've posted here so far have been theories that you don't seem to be able to back up with anything of substance. To fall back on "well I train people about this stuff" after posting such easily debunked positions and evidence does nothing but explain to me why people seem to be so misinformed as this national debate (if it even deserves such a reasonable moniker) rages on.

As for your claims that "everything Betsy McCaughey said was actually very empirical; and she did a great job of proving every argument with facts" - the tricky thing about using empirical evidence and facts is that they have to actually support your point to be effective. Despite how "obvious" it is to you that I didn't, I did watch the entire interview, and sure, McCaughey read excerpts of the legislation in question, but none of what she read actually said what she claimed it did. Kind of like your arguments here so far. You quoted some out of context questions and answers from the KidCare website as "evidence" of how we're - in your words - "legally opening up all of our medical resources to what essentially amounts to the entire country of Mexico", but as soon as I went to the site (http://www.floridakidcare.org/eligibility-noncitizen.html) myself, I found that the first sentence there (which you conveniently excluded) said "In general, children eligible for Florida KidCare must be U.S. citizens", and then went on to outline the very reasonable exceptions to that rule. So just because you quote something that's real doesn't inherently mean it supports your own (or Betsy's own) subsequent, unrelated, bizarre leaps in logic. That's not proving your points with empirical facts, that's spinning empirical facts into whatever happens to suit your purposes. And it doesn't help that you throw in little details like claiming the audience at the Daily Show is paid when the fact is, tickets to the show are free (http://www.thedailyshow.com/tickets). But I guess why should facts get in the way of that claim by you any more than they have with anything else?

I'll start taking you and your claims more seriously when you offer at least one, single, reliable source of information that actually backs you up. So far, you have not, and neither has anyone on your side of the argument that I've been listening to for the past few months on this. The biggest common tactics we do hear from your side is to call your opposition "sheep" or "Nazis", to make up scary names like "death panels", and to shout down anyone who disagrees while calling them "liars" and such. Facts simply don't seem to be entering into it. All you've done here in the face of direct questions and points is either not respond at all, link to user-driven sites like wikipedia as well as other sites that upon investigation don't actually substantiate your claims, quote stuff out of context, or fall back on informing us that you're employed as a trainer that teaches people about the intricate details of the SCHIP program. I won't take what you say on pure faith any more than I ever would from anyone else, and that's all you've asked me to do so far. So bring some substance to the table, and maybe this thread can be worthwhile.

[kagenaki koe]

i think this debate boils down to (similar to Betsy vs stewart):

"this will lead to"

and

"but there's nothing there that says that"

not necessarily in that order. and i've been in that discussion with real people in real life. more specifically it's "well they won't say it exactly, but I KNOW it will eventually lead to (insert paranoia here)".

[the mongoose]

Given as much public domain "proof" as I can provide.....you will have to do all of the connecting of dots... (http://www.iin.oea.org/2007/Noticias_pasadas_2007/Noticias_abril_2007/noticia8ingles.htm)

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I TOLD all ya'll that "ignore" function is really cool.

I never thought mongoose was such a bitch. :p to you too!

[the mongoose]

Article source: Click (http://jonjayray.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/lamar-smith-spells-out-costs-of-speaker-pelosis-insistence-on-covering-illegal-aliens-with-federal-health-plan/)
Now, nobody in Congress can claim not to know what is going on with illegal aliens and the proposed federal health plan. Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas has laid out the details in The Hill, a newspaper for the Capitol Hill staffers and Members of Congress. The Democrats’ bill in the House, H.R. 3200, contains gaping loopholes that will allow illegal immigrants to receive taxpayer-funded benefits. And these loopholes are no accident.
— Rep. Lamar Smith quoted in the Hill
Rosemary Jenks (NumbersUSA’s Director of Government Relations) and I have been doing non-stop radio shows across the country about this. One thing that occurs to us routinely is that the host reads a quote from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying firmly that the health plan will NOT cover illegal immigrants.
To that, I have to say simply, PELOSI IS LYING. And she knows she is lying.
I don’t talk and write like that often. I tend to give people — even politicians — a lot of benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. But Pelosi and her leadership team have been engaged all year in coming up with deceptive language and amendments to make it look like they are denying illegal aliens benefits, all the while including language that that creates loopholes giant enough to drive 11-19 million illegal aliens through them.
(Read here and here about the vote in House committee last week and then here about the effort to cover up their dirty deed the next day. Also watch my short video from Friday about the subject.)
The costs to the American taxpayer will be incredible, writes Smith, the Ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. If Americans aren’t already concerned enough about the astronomical costs of the healthcare proposal, this taxpayer-funded benefit for lawbreakers should sound the alarms.
Take just the uninsured: According to the latest research from the Pew Hispanic Center, 59 percent of all illegal immigrant adults lacked health insurance in 2007. These figures are dramatically higher than the 14 percent uninsured rate for U.S.-born adults. The children of illegal immigrants are also uninsured at extremely high rates — 45 percent of their foreign-born children are uninsured!
Of course, when it comes to illegal immigration, taxpayer-provided health insurance represents just part of the cost. Healthcare for illegal immigrants costs Americans at least $1 billion each year, not including health costs for children and the elderly. In my home state of Texas, just the price tag of educating the children of illegal immigrants adds up to around $4 billion annually!
— Rep. Lamar Smith
Of course, Pres. Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid have a simple solution that would greatly reduce the cost of insuring and providing health care to illegal aliens:
Their solution is to stop calling them illegal aliens and to call them “legal immigrants� and “U.S. citizens.� Of course, the cost to the taxpayer will be the same (or probably quite a bit higher as they fully take advantage of more welfare benefits). But since they are no longer called “illegal aliens,� nobody can say the costs are attributable to paying for illegal aliens.
Don’t you just feel like you have been plunged into a George Orwell novel?
Right now, millions of people around the world are preparing to move to the United States illegally to take U.S. jobs from American citizens because the Congress won’t require businesses to use E-Verify.
If Congress now approves a federal health plan that covers any foreign national who can get into the country, just imagine how many more millions of people will be preparing to move here illegally. Spending billions of taxpayer dollars to overhaul a healthcare system that provides Americans with the best care in the world makes no sense. And using those taxpayer dollars to provide benefits to illegal immigrants is inexcusable.
The Obama administration and Democrats in Congress should not force American taxpayers to provide healthcare benefits to illegal immigrants.
— Rep. Lamar Smith
I urge all of you to protest at the top of your lungs at all Town Hall meetings of your Members of Congress this month.
If you have Republican Members, protest the fact that the Republican leadership in Congress is taking a pass on this issue. Lamar Smith is high-ranking. But the half-dozen highest ranking Republicans are standing mostly mute. They are not making the inclusion of illegal aliens a big issue. What is wrong with them? Which big-money special interest is keeping them quiet.
If you have Democratic Members, make them understand that YOU hold THEM responsible for the fact that THEIR Party is putting illegal aliens and the corrupt businesses that hire them ahead of the interests of U.S. citizens, taxpayers and workers.
We the People surely can stop an outrage this clear and this gigantic.

[the mongoose]

I TOLD all ya'll that "ignore" function is really cool.

I never thought mongoose was such a bitch. :p to you too!

You're welcome.:)

Just block it all out man.....
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_72TBBX6T92Q/R2Oyk5bbmcI/AAAAAAAAAA8/hOgVgEFosdc/s400/See_no_hear_no_speak_no_evil_by_Alexiou.jpg

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I'm getting all Sally Field at the moment.

One time, when I was practically kicked out of one of the many towns...

About 2 hours into driving a 25 hour drive, I witnessed, what at first I thought was a controlled burning or fire of some sort. The horizon was turned orange, red and yellow and I really thought I might have to take a detour, it was that bright. Then the entire sky turned the same colors and the entire desert landscape around me appeared orange and red and yellow(I know, sounds like The Orb song, but it's not).

It was a spawning of monarch butterfly. I swear I'm not making this up. It was a trip. It kinda sucked too as I had to wash my damn truck once I got to the next major city as I couldn't see through the damn windshield. I must have driven through, at least, a thousand of them. But it's not like I shot Bambi's mother or anything.

I'm bored.

[the mongoose]

source article: click (http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/08/should_universal_health_care_cover_illegal_immigra nts.php)

President Obama said the health care bills weren't designed to cover illegal immigrants, except perhaps for children and in cases of emergency.
OBAMA: We don't want a situation in which some child, even if they're an illegal immigrant, shows up in an emergency room with tuberculosis and nobody is giving them treatment, and then they're going back to the playground and playing next to our kids.

[the mongoose]

It was a spawning....................................a thousand of them.

Mine was the same but it was a black spotted sky filled with "loads of birds" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxuhSBjBOas):

>>>CLICK HERE FOR THE BIRDS<<< (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2UJaoZkjdc)

lol at the crazy bitch on whatever town's talk radio station my friend was tuned to while passing through....."if only more people had fasted before the election." Ha.:D



reminds me of this MHD/Palladia commercial.....>>Click<< (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I58Mlr7o4Q)


.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

TOLD YA!(Per post #21 in the No WMD...blah blah.... No Oil thread)

"We're concerned about whether the kids will come to school at all. "

MARLA BLACKLEDGE, chief financial officer of a school district in California that is grappling with a 20% cut in funding for school transportation; the district decided to eliminate all bus service except for special-education students.*


*Time.com

AND GUESS WHAT?!? It's not just happening in California.






*****

Video response to mongoose: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihrye2RFGpA :p

[Sean]

Given as much public domain "proof" as I can provide.....you will have to do all of the connecting of dots... (http://www.iin.oea.org/2007/Noticias_pasadas_2007/Noticias_abril_2007/noticia8ingles.htm)It seems that we just "connect the dots" quite differently from each other, and based on differing levels of facts versus assumption. Even looking at your latest links, it appears that we reach very different conclusions about the very same texts. The first one about Lamar Smith wraps up with statements like "I urge all of you to protest at the top of your lungs at all Town Hall meetings of your Members of Congress this month", which I've personally found to be a deplorable, counter-productive tactic. This isn't a debate that's best serviced by who can screech out the loudest - it requires rational, informed discussion. And frankly, the things that have been said by the loudest people have tended to be the dumbest, most ignorant stuff I've heard.

Another of his final statements is "If you have Republican Members, protest the fact that the Republican leadership in Congress is taking a pass on this issue. Lamar Smith is high-ranking. But the half-dozen highest ranking Republicans are standing mostly mute. They are not making the inclusion of illegal aliens a big issue. What is wrong with them? Which big-money special interest is keeping them quiet." I've personally found that if this kind of "standing mostly mute" is happening in cases like this, it's usually because the theories in question have no real merit, so they don't justify the time and energy that conspiracy theorists are demanding they get.

And then you cite Obama saying "We don't want a situation in which some child, even if they're an illegal immigrant, shows up in an emergency room with tuberculosis and nobody is giving them treatment, and then they're going back to the playground and playing next to our kids." Can't say I disagree with him. I also can't say that this qualifies as proof of your accusation that Obama is "legally opening up all of our medical resources to what essentially amounts to the entire country of Mexico".

And then of course there's this - "seven falsehoods about healthcare" (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/). Check the last point in particular.

I'm sure you see all of this very differently from me though, and that's your prerogative. So I guess just take it all for whatever it's worth to you.

[Sean]

Here's a pertinent article (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112315433&sc=fb&cc=fp) - albeit from the lying bowels of the vile beast Mr. Rogers helped create...

An excerpt:

In Health Care Debate, Fear Trumps Logic
by JULIE ROVNER

...Jonathan Oberlander, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says he's not at all surprised to see recent claims — all thoroughly debunked — that suggest, for example, that bills under consideration would encourage senior citizens to commit suicide when they become ill or infirm.

"It's really a case of deja vu," he says. "You hear in today's debate echoes of the past that extend all the way to the early part of the 20th century. And I think the reason that people use fear again and again is that it's effective. It's worked to stop health reform in the past. And so they're going to try and use it in the present."

History Of Scare Tactics

Oberlander says opponents used scare tactics the very first time the idea of national health insurance was broached — around 1915 — by tying would-be reformers to the nation's then-greatest international threat.

"They said that national health insurance was a plot by the German emperor to take over the United States," he says.

The next effort to remake the health system came during the late 1940s. This time the opposition, led by the American Medical Association, exploited the newest fears. "They said if we adopted national health insurance, the Red army would be marching through the streets of the U.S.; they said this was the first step toward communism," Oberlander says.

By the time the Clinton administration took on the health effort, the power of the American Medical Association was fading. But now a new opponent took its place — the health insurance industry. It ran ads using an ordinary looking couple, named Harry and Louise, to raise doubts among middle-class Americans about how the Clinton plan might hurt rather than help them.

Says Oberlander, "The opponents have changed over time; the tactic of relying on fear and scaring Americans has not."

And now, we have a black, Socialist President with the middle name "Hussein" and who's not even a U.S. citizen that wants to pull the plug on Granny with his "death panels", insure illegal immigrants, and bankrupt the country, all of which clearly means that he wants to destroy America. :rolleyes:


And while we're at it, www.factcheck.org has come out with a new article called "Twenty Six Lies About H.R. 3200" (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/). Among them is this:

Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

False: That’s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes "SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE," which says that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." However, the bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can’t get any government money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we’ve said before (http://factcheck.org/2009/07/misleading-gop-health-care-claims/), current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs.

[Sarcasmo]

What tickles me immensely about people who talk about "connecting the dots," is just how many of the dots they're connecting don't actually exist.

[Sean]

Confidentiality:(What do you mean by this? You have the smoking gun to prove your points but can't share it thanks to a confidentiality agreement or something? I would think that if your point was valid, you'd be able to find at least some publicly available, reliable information out there to support it.

And holy crap - I just went for the first time to your link that quoted Obama. The portion of his statement that you shared here said:

OBAMA: We don't want a situation in which some child, even if they're an illegal immigrant, shows up in an emergency room with tuberculosis and nobody is giving them treatment, and then they're going back to the playground and playing next to our kids."

You provided this as evidence of the U.S. providing health care to illegal immigrants. What was interesting to me was when I went on to actually read the very next thing Obama says:

"So I think there is a basic standard of decency where if somebody is in a death situation or a severe illness, that we're going to provide them emergency care. But nobody has talked about providing health insurance to illegal immigrants. I want to make that absolutely clear."

And then in the article you linked (http://www.iin.oea.org/2007/Noticias_pasadas_2007/Noticias_abril_2007/noticia8ingles.htm) about KidCare through the phrase "connecting the dots...", I had a hard time knowing which side of the debate you were trying to prove. The article outlines how on both sides of the aisle, the House voted overwhelmingly in favor of covering the children of illegal immigrants, but then there's this comment:

Immigrant advocates were caught off guard by the number of House members who stood up to fight for coverage of children here illegally, but said it likely wouldn't have a practical impact because of the need for documentation.

Rep. Bill Galvano, the sponsor of the bill agreed that there likely wouldn't be many - or maybe any - illegal immigrants who try to get into the program.

So anyway, your point is basically that the definitive information to counter all of this is not publicly available?

[the mongoose]

The fucking liar is called out on national TV!

>>>Click<<< (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN_mw1ZwZWE&feature=player_embedded)


Oh yeah, and here's more public proof that stuffs already rockin' and rollin':

Washington, DC—The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, praises President Barack Obama and Congress for passing the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2009 with measures that strengthen health care for America’s children, including legal immigrant children. By signing this bill today, President Obama ensured health coverage for four million more children in the U.S. and ended a five-year waiting period for health care to which legal immigrant children and pregnant women have been subjected for more than a decade.

“President Obama’s signature on the CHIP reauthorization is a tangible demonstration of the Administration’s commitment to the Latino community,” said Janet MurguÃ*a, NCLR President and CEO. “Our nation’s leaders have made a wise choice to stand up for our communities in the face of unfounded attacks and do what’s right for children by strengthening this important health program. They have sided with what is in the best interest of our nation’s children instead of a divisive anti-immigrant minority that seeks to invoke fear among Americans.”

Americans overwhelmingly favor health coverage access for legal immigrant children; polling has shown that 79% of voters supported the elimination of the five-year waiting period. NCLR thanks the Administration and Congress and looks forward to continued collaboration to improve opportunities for all Americans.


I'm sure you guys will try to point out that it uses the term "legal" but also note the fact that it says that they would normally be waiting 5 years under the old rules before the bill was signed.....

[Strangelet]

I'm sure you guys will try to point out that it uses the term "legal"


are you for real?

ya know...its this type of bullshit that makes me want to be an immigrant myself.

[Strangelet]

The fucking liar is called out on national TV!
>>>Click<<< (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN_mw1ZwZWE&feature=player_embedded)


:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: :mad::mad::mad::mad:

Kitchen Table? Meet Mongoose. Mongoose? Kitchen Table. We'll I'm sure you have a lot to talk about so I'll just leave you two alone on my ignore list.

[the mongoose]

Oh chill out, he apologized (sort of):
http://i29.tinypic.com/2sb07ld.jpg
"This evening, I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the president's remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill," the statement said. "While I disagree with the president's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility."

[Sean]

No surprise that you actually celebrate the stunningly inappropriate - not to mention ill-informed - behavior of Wilson. And I think it's safe to assume that he only apologized because he realized what an out-of-line tool he made himself look like in front of his peers, his President, and the entire world. Hard not to realize that when after his moroninc outburst, everyone in the room stopped and turned to stare at him for a moment. The guy has outed himself as an idiot who has no business holding public office. And ultimately, when there is actually language in the legislation that says "nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States", I'd say that Wilson (and you) are standing on pretty shaky ground.

But I have to say that I am a bit surprised you so confidently showcase legislation that will help insure legal immigrants as "public proof" that Obama wants to insure illegal immigrants, or as you say, "all of Mexico". You do understand the difference between the terms "legal" and "illegal", yes? At what point do you look at your argument as presented in this thread and realize that it comes across as nothing more than uninformed ramblings? You haven't presented any credible evidence, or even the tiniest fact to support your points. Not one. But you have resorted to trying to convince us that "legal" and "illegal" are the same thing - and with stunning confidence no less! Incredible.

[the mongoose]

the legislation that says "nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States", I'd say that Wilson (and you) are standing on pretty shaky ground.


That's because they've fucking changed the very definition of "legal". That's why it's the perfect deception. ;)


edit:......without changing the actual federal laws themselves.....

It's like saying:
"we're absolutely not giving out oreos today...only creme filled chocolate cookie sandwiches".

[Sean]

That's because they've fucking changed the very definition of "legal". That's why it's the perfect deception. ;)


edit:......without changing the actual federal laws themselves.....

It's like saying:
"we're absolutely not giving out oreos today...only creme filled chocolate cookie sandwiches".Yeah...okay. And your factually supported evidence of this is.......surprise surprise, still nothing beyond wild inferences and assumptions. I know I know, you have the smoking gun, but you signed a confidentiality agreement saying you couldn't share it with us. Give me a break. It's so ridiculously tedious listening to people like you. Congratulations. You've just earned spot number two on my ignore list.

Ahhhh....that's better. :)

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

He's just saying that.


[QUOTE=Strangelet;115797
Kitchen Table? Meet Mongoose. Mongoose? Kitchen Table. We'll I'm sure you have a lot to talk about so I'll just leave you two alone on my ignore list.[/QUOTE]


Sounds like porn.

[mmm skyscraper]

Obama Legacy Might Be Hampering Health Care Reform

AP - April 1, 2217 - More than two centuries after St. Barack Obama the First proclaimed that he would be the last president to deal with health care reform, the High Panel of Experts is debating whether such proclamations should be taken literally. Before St. Barack's Ascension, he told a "joint session" of the Old American Congress (what today would be a plenary gathering of both members of the High Panel of Experts and the Total Planners Commission) that he would settle the issue of collective medical provision for all time. "I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last."

As we all know from our pre-pubescent data downloads, he was wildly successful, ending discussion of such issues for generations. Now that might be changing.

The problem, according to a minority of experts and members of the Suk guild, is that changes in diet, lifestyle and, of course, the radiation fallout from the Gamma Epsilon Implosion, have created new conditions that a centuries-old health care system is ill-eqipped to deal with. The fact, for instance, that some 30 percent of the population now have foreheads the same length and breadth of their torsos or that members of this transcranial community no longer consumes traditional foodstuffs is just one development the Old American Congress could not have foreseen. "Look, the Transcrans, don't even move anymore," argues Dr. Noonian Sung a reformer on the TPC. "It's all telekinesis with them. They don't even need to get out of their hover chairs to get their protein slushy goo drinks. Why is it heresy to suggest we need to adjust to new realities?"

Fortunately, notes Roy Batty of the Thomas Friedman Foundation for Efficient Decision Making, the Transcranials are largely self-sufficient and autonomous, asking little of the Hive while contributing a great deal. Batty even goes so far as to argue that by telekinetically turning the giant turbines that power our cities, Transcrans should even be exempt from mandatory consultation with Life Termination Panels at the age of 50 like most citizens.

One can't say the same about the Zombies. The health care needs of the differently-animated community are profound. Their diet of brains is not only expensive, but sustaining a steady supply of brain matter arouses political resentments among the sewer lurker community which has been assigned the job for years. At-home visits to Zombie families by feeder-nurse practitioners are costly and time consuming. "Yes, sure, it's all still covered by Medicare, but that's not really the point," says a Third Privy Actuary for the Second Tier Citizens of Zone Beta who declined to give his name. "The current system is just grotesquely inefficient. Look I light my candles to The One before I go to bed every night like everybody else. But let us remember the sacred texts. St. Obama said he was a "pragmatist" and that he just wanted to go with what works. If he were corporeal here on Terra Prime today, he would agree."

The General Secretary of the Plenary Session is less convinced. When asked for comment, Dr. Stepford replied that St. Obama said what he said and the time for bickering is over. He then asked this reporter for the names and domicile cube numbers of anyone who has suggested otherwise. He says they will be harvested for brains and protein goo immediately.

[Sean]

I've been noticing something on a much more obvious level in recent months regarding this health care debate. Typically on a lot of news shows and such, you hear a point, then a counter-point, maybe a moderate opinion to balance them out, and all have their own spin with their own evidence - cherry-picked evidence of course - to support their respective positions. But this debate has been amazing to me in that the opposition from Republicans in particular doesn't seem to even try going beyond "Nuh-uh. Obama's lying. He wants to kill your Grandmother with his death panels. He wants to insure illegal immigrants." But literally no one I've seen or heard argue these points has ever provided a single shred of evidence or proof to back up their claims. Not one!

I was listening to a conservative talk show host this morning, Dennis Prager, and his entire retort to the speech was "does anyone really believe what Obama said last night?" No points about erroneous figures given by Obama, or excerpts from proposed legislation that would counter Obama's points, not even any anecdotal evidence to counter the content of the speech. This is what I seem to hear the most. "Obama's lying". But it's never accompanied by any real explanation of what the supposed truth is. We're just supposed to take their word for it for some reason.

And of course there was Joe Wilson who shouts out "you lie" to Obama during last night's speech, but I haven't heard him explain what that lie is, or what the truth might be.

Or Betsy McCaughey, the guest on the Daily Show who tried with all her might for a really long time to show us exactly where these "death panels" are supposedly outlined in the healthcare legislation. Of course nothing she referenced actually said what she claimed it did.

And even earlier this morning, I threw on the news and flipped from CNN to MSNBC, to FOX. On CNN, they were talking about the speech, resulting polls about attitudes towards reform, Joe Wilson, etc. MSNBC was focusing a bit more heavily on Joe Wilson, but they too were focused on the content of the speech and reactions to it. FOX news was doing an exposé on ACORN (incidentally, the story about it from CNN here (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/acorn.prostitution/index.html). My favorite quote: "The conservative filmmakers unsuccessfully attempted similar ruses at the group's offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Los Angeles, California, and New York, Levenson said").

And let's not forget Palin spouting her "death panel" claims repeatedly - although in her case we just know to expect random, made up stories. From her "bridge to nowhere", to "palling around with terrorists", to her chastising the news media for "makin' stuff up", to these "death panels", it seems to have become a habit for her to say whatever she thinks might destroy her opponents regardless of pesky things like "reality".

And lastly, people like our own Mongoose and people who I see writing in comment sections of articles are all following the same exact formula. Leveling accusation after accusation, but not worrying about ever having to provide any real evidence or facts to back up the claims.

So is it just me waking up to it, or is the amount of flat out, blatant lying getting more common? Didn't people at least used to bury their lies within misleading, cherry-picked facts? Sure, they were facts that they spun to high heaven, but at least they tried. No one even seems to be trying on this one. It's just a free-for-all, where anyone can say anything they want without having to prove it. It's frightening.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

YEAH!

Everyone just needs a good SPANKING!

& they like it.

:D

I mean, are they lying or just using the wrong choice of words? Some dot connections are invisible or something.

[kagenaki koe]

in Olbermann's opinion, it's all about stupidity (you might need to ffd to 8:56):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#32790023

[the mongoose]

I mean, are they lying or just using the wrong choice of words?



Many of the finer details are in this wonderfully accurate synopsis:

Immigration will affect and be affected by the health reform legislation being crafted in the U.S. House and Senate. There are around 12 million uninsured immigrants. Their presence means every provision designed to extend health coverage to those without insurance will potentially expand taxpayers’ costs by billions of dollars. Many immigrant households have children who are automatically eligible for government health care, even if their parents are here illegally.

Bear in mind, Government agencies and nonprofits often look only at income levels and similar qualifiers when enrolling new beneficiaries in public programs like Medicaid and SCHIP. They often overlook immigration status, even though that could disqualify someone from program participation.

Health reform legislation, particularly H.R. 3200, contains a number of provisions that open the door to taxpayer funding of immigrants’ health care. That’s for illegal aliens, legal aliens who are supposed to rely on their sponsor for financial assistance their first five years here, and certain immigrants who sponsor other immigrants.

In brief:

* Despite nominally barring illegal immigrants from receiving a health-insurance subsidy, an amendment to require that applicants be screened for eligibility — as are all other welfare recipients — was rejected on a party-line vote.

* Even legal immigrants whose sponsors are supposed to provide them financial support would be eligible for taxpayer-funded subsidies.

* Certain legal immigrants who qualify for premium subsidies or expanded Medicaid would also be able to sponsor new immigrants, whom they would have to pledge to support.

* Illegal immigrants would be exempt from the legal mandate to have health insurance, but they’d still receive taxpayer-funded medical services at health clinics and hospitals required to serve all those presenting with medical emergencies.

Taxpayer-Funded Premium Subsidy

H.R. 3200’s Title II of Division A relates to coverage. It creates a government agency to regulate health insurance. Individuals and employers will have to go through its “exchange” arm for government-approved health insurance, it will run the “public option,” and it will operate a graduated subsidy program.

Section 242(a) defines who’s eligible and for how many credits to receive a premium subsidy. The bill apparently qualifies all lawful permanent residents, regardless of their sponsor’s pledged responsibility or the required five-year bar from most means-tested programs. Sec. 242(d) excludes receipt of these payments from counting as welfare. Taxpayers will subsidize households earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level.

Thus, Section 242 generously subsidizes the foreign-born well into the middle class (up to about $88,000 a year income for a family of four). The money doesn’t count as welfare payment, which might potentially risk deportation as a public charge or jeopardize one’s ability to sponsor other immigrants. And the credits are available to sponsored legal immigrants and foreign-born sponsors themselves. The Senate Finance Committee’s health-care reform outline indicates that the bill will subsidize insurance costs for people earning up to three times the poverty income level.

The public charge doctrine is a longstanding U.S policy dating to colonial times. It’s supposed to protect the country from importing people who would become a burden on society. Would-be immigrants are denied visas on public charge grounds, but very few immigrants are deported for this reason any more. The 1996 welfare and immigration reforms strengthened public charge doctrine. Immigrant sponsors must now sign a legally enforceable affidavit of support. They must earn at least 125 percent of the poverty level. And their household income is deemed available to the immigrant applying for federal means-tested programs.

Because H.R. 3200’s provisions suspend welfare reform’s requirements, they weaken public charge doctrine. It creates a situation where sponsors of immigrants and the immigrants themselves can collect taxpayer dollars for health coverage, when immigration policy would require that they be self-reliant.

Section 246 states illegal aliens are excluded from receiving federal payments under the Affordable Credits subsidy. But there’s nothing requiring screening of affordable credit recipients, such as through the SAVE system. Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) offered an amendment in the Ways and Means Committee to correct that, but it was defeated along party lines. Senate legislation omits the same eligibility verification requirements that would ensure only lawful immigrants and U.S. citizens benefit under these programs.

Medicaid and SCHIP

Title VII under Division B of H.R. 3200 expands Medicaid eligibility to those earning one-third above the official poverty level. Thus, the minimum income required of immigrant sponsors, at 125 percent, will fall below the sponsors’ eligibility for taxpayer-funded health care for the poor, at 133 percent. The HELP bill (from the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee) expands Medicaid eligibility to 50 percent above the official poverty rate. That leaves an even larger gap, enabling immigrant sponsors poor enough to be on Medicaid to still bring in — with a promise to support — additional immigrants from abroad. Again, this aspect of the legislation undermines public charge doctrine.

Section 1702 of H.R. 3200 explicitly prohibits states, which administer Medicaid and SCHIP, from making further determinations about new enrollees’ Medicaid eligibility. One such provision requires states to presume someone’s eligibility. In other words, these provisions amount to“enroll first, don’t ask questions later.”

In the Energy and Commerce Committee markup, Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) offered an amendment to correct this. The Deal amendment would require a check of the eligibility, on immigration and citizenship status, of those being signed up for Medicaid. It would apply the same verification standards and use the existing verification system that’s in the Medicaid statute. This taxpayer protection lost on a largely party-line vote by a single vote. Senate legislation similarly omits any eligibility verification requirements.

Mandate Exemption

The Senate Finance Committee outline, like the HELP and House bills, mandates that individuals must carry health insurance or face a fine. The Finance outline says illegal aliens will be exempt from the individual mandate. This means Americans and legal immigrants must have health coverage or else pay a fine. But illegal aliens escape both the mandate and any fine for being uninsured. It appears that illegal aliens would be free riders, of sorts. They’d still receive taxpayer-funded medical services at health clinics and hospitals required to serve all those presenting with medical emergencies. Yet illegal aliens would be free from any responsibility or sanction that other people would bear.

Essentially, these bills expand government health coverage and taxpayer-funded subsidies for government-controlled private insurance and the public option. They make it easy to enroll new people in government-run health programs with what amounts to built-in willful ignorance about characteristics that would exclude them from qualifying, such as being here on temporary visas, still being under sponsorship, or being an illegal alien. And the bills make no provision at all for ensuring that only lawful U.S. residents and U.S. citizens benefit from these trillion-dollar health programs.

In short, the health reform plans on the table will create new incentives for illegal immigration.They’ll reward illegal aliens by giving them health care at no expense to them. And they’ll further weaken the important public charge doctrine that long served our national immigration policy so well.


Whew....so glad someone else said it.:D

[kagenaki koe]

In short, the health reform plans on the table will create new incentives for illegal immigration.They’ll reward illegal aliens by giving them health care at no expense to them.

these illegal aliens want to be in the US because they can't get healthcare from their own countries?:rolleyes:

it bears mentioning again, MEXICO AND CUBA BOTH HAVE FREE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE. so your fear of the US government extending US healthcare to those countries is retarculous (retarded + ridiculous). why would countries with universal healthcare want US healthcare that costs twice as much as what they get for FREE (if they stay in their countries)?

[Sean]

Bear in mind, Government agencies and nonprofits often look only at income levels and similar qualifiers when enrolling new beneficiaries in public programs like Medicaid and SCHIP. They often overlook immigration status, even though that could disqualify someone from program participation.So then let's find ways to be more thorough in our screening, but why should this prohibit us from reforming health care?

* Despite nominally barring illegal immigrants from receiving a health-insurance subsidy, an amendment to require that applicants be screened for eligibility — as are all other welfare recipients — was rejected on a party-line vote.How can someone be "nominally barred"? There really are no shades of gray with the word "barred". Either you're barred, or you're not. My guess is the author threw in the word "nominally" in a weak attempt to soften his admission that his entire argument is based on flawed reasoning. And of course if you're already on board with his thinking, then it would be very easy to just breeze on past this statement without a second thought.

* Even legal immigrants whose sponsors are supposed to provide them financial support would be eligible for taxpayer-funded subsidies.I'll just focus on the illegal immigrants.

* Illegal immigrants would be exempt from the legal mandate to have health insurance, but they’d still receive taxpayer-funded medical services at health clinics and hospitals required to serve all those presenting with medical emergencies.So then you think we shouldn't help someone with a medical emergency based on their immigration status? Some illegal immigrant comes into the ER with a severed hand from working on some farm in California, and we should just tell them they're on their own?

Section 246 states illegal aliens are excluded from receiving federal payments under the Affordable Credits subsidy. But there’s nothing requiring screening of affordable credit recipients, such as through the SAVE system. Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) offered an amendment in the Ways and Means Committee to correct that, but it was defeated along party lines. Senate legislation omits the same eligibility verification requirements that would ensure only lawful immigrants and U.S. citizens benefit under these programs.I want to look into this more, because what he proposed in his amendment, on first glance, seems pretty reasonable. I'm curious to see why it didn't pass.

Medicaid and SCHIPThis was, again, all about the logistics regarding legal immigrants, so I'll skip ahead.

The Senate Finance Committee outline, like the HELP and House bills, mandates that individuals must carry health insurance or face a fine. The Finance outline says illegal aliens will be exempt from the individual mandate. This means Americans and legal immigrants must have health coverage or else pay a fine. But illegal aliens escape both the mandate and any fine for being uninsured. It appears that illegal aliens would be free riders, of sorts. They’d still receive taxpayer-funded medical services at health clinics and hospitals required to serve all those presenting with medical emergencies. Yet illegal aliens would be free from any responsibility or sanction that other people would bear.This is bizarre logic to me. Illegals are, according to this author, "barred" from receiving health-insurance subsidies, and yet he wants them to be fined if they don't have health insurance? In my opinion, we should not be fining them for not having something that we're making unattainable to them in the first place.

In short, the health reform plans on the table will create new incentives for illegal immigration.They’ll reward illegal aliens by giving them health care at no expense to them. And they’ll further weaken the important public charge doctrine that long served our national immigration policy so well.

Whew....so glad someone else said it.:DAs was pointed out earlier by kagenaki koe, I doubt they're coming here for the awesome health care. Are there kinks in the legislation that need to be worked out? Absolutely. Is that reason to rabidly oppose the goal of reforming health care? Absolutely not.

[Sean]

Protect insurance companies! (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/041b5acaf5/protect-insurance-companies-psa?rel=player)

And I wanted to take a moment to put in perspective what the views of some of those who oppose health care reform are. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) showed his caring, understanding side (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/22/cantor-uninsured-option/) when faced with a situation posed by a woman named Patricia Churchill at a "public square" forum who has a relative suffering through stomach tumors:

CHURCHILL: I have a very close relative, a woman in her early forties, who did have a wonderful, high-paying job, owns her own home and is a real contributing member of society. She lost her job. Just a couple of weeks ago, she found out that she has tumors in her belly and that she needs an operation. Her doctors told her that they are growing and that she needs to get this operation quickly. She has no insurance. I'm just wondering gentlemen, we can talk about (?) ideas, and we can talk theory all we want to, but this person is a very close member of my family, she's ill, and she has no way to have this operation. So I'm asking you, what would you do if this were your close relative - your niece, your aunt, your sister, or whatever - and she was in this situation now. What would your solution be, and how would you be involved in helping her?

CANTOR: First of all I guess I would ask what the situation is in terms of income eligibility and the existing programs that are out there. Because if we look at the uninsured that are out there right now, there is probably 23, 24% of the uninsured that is already eligible for an existing government program [...] Beyond that, I know that there are programs, there are charitable organizations, there are hospitals here who do provide charity care if there’s an instance of indigency and the individual is not eligible for existing programs that there can be some cooperative effort. No one in this country, given who we are, should be sitting without an option to be addressed.

Charity. That's the dependable solution to someone who's uninsured that's facing a life-threatening situation and maybe $100,000+ in medical bills. Go get charity. And of course, Churchill summed it up best when later asked if she found Cantor's answer helpful: “it was helpful in a sense, but of course nowhere near as helpful as having this healthcare reform bill passed so that we could know that she could definitely go and get taken care of.�

[the mongoose]

I think this country needs Immigration and Health Reform......I'm not anti Reform, I just don't like a lot of the things they were planning in this 1018 page piece of legislation.

I think that the 5 year wait for naturalization should be reduced to a 2 year probationary citizen status (sort of like paying "out of state tuition" at a school....for their taxes etc). America drops all the shitty fees and fines and citizenship Exam in favor of a quarterly family checkup to assess integration and compliance. 8 little checkups over a 2 year period and extra taxes isn't that bad, and unless they commit a severe crime or something they can stay.

[Sean]

Interesting report from the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/21/health.care.cbo/index.html) that claims the Democratic health care bill that includes the public option would actually reduce the deficit in it's first ten years. That would be the same health care plan that Republicans falsely represent in the following question on their ridiculous census questionnaire (http://web.campaignsolutions.com/rnc/2009surveycensus/?initiativekey=F5BMW17GUXCG): "Do you oppose the Obama-Pelosi health care takeover plan that would bring Washington bureaucrats between doctors and patients, ration medical treatment and deny critical care while skyrocketing the national debt?" How strange that they would lie. :rolleyes:

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Ya know, I love to plop a few Altoids into my coffee, then stir after a few minutes to let them dissolve. Damn, this tastes good.

[Strangelet]

http://img24.yfrog.com/img24/8892/pqjs.jpg

[Strangelet]

holy fucked up healthcare reform indeed.


President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform. In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan "triggered" into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks.
The administration retreat runs counter to the letter and the spirit of Obama's presidential campaign. The man who ran on the "Audacity of Hope" has now taken a more conservative stand than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), leaving progressives with a mix of confusion and outrage.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/leaderless-senate-pushes_n_332844.html



Does anybody know what the fuck is going on? More importantly, how many people think we'll eventually get something that's actually opposed to the interests of the health care industry and offers more than token consumer/patient benefits?

[Steven Beck]

There's a worrying amount of citing wikipedia and youtube as sources in this thread.

[the mongoose]

WASHINGTON — A stunning loss in Massachusetts has cost President Barack Obama and the Democrats the 60-vote Senate majority they’ve needed to push health care overhaul to the verge of enactment.
Now what? For Democrats, it’s miles of bad road in any direction.
Obama and party leaders anxiously worked through fallback options — none good — for salvaging the half-century quest to provide health insurance to all Americans.

Democrats don’t appear to have enough time to resolve differences between the House and Senate bills — and get cost and coverage estimates back from the Congressional Budget Office — before Republican Scott Brown is sworn in.
That leaves House Democrats with the unpalatable option of passing a Senate bill many disagree with.

[King of Snake]

FAIL

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Lamest centerfold. Ever.

[Sean]

The Democrat's big problem isn't that they lost the Massachusetts seat, it's that they have no balls. They still have an overwhelming majority in both the House and Senate - far more than Bush ever had when he was getting the Iraq war up and running - and they're somehow incapable of getting things like a decent health care bill through?

Grow a pair, Dems!

[Deckard]

The Dems' biggest weakness is they don't drive a BIG MANLY TRUCK.

[froopy seal]

The Dems' biggest weakness is they don't drive a BIG MANLY TRUCK.Say what? Sorry, can't hear you over the sound my big, manly, shiploads-of-fuel-consuming American truck makes while running down those pathetic, weakish Health-o-crats.

"VROOM, VROOOOOOM!", sez Vroomfondel.

[Strangelet]

The Dems' biggest weakness is they don't drive a BIG MANLY TRUCK.

then they should be stocking up on RPG's

[Sean]

The Dems' biggest weakness is they don't drive a BIG MANLY TRUCK.Yeah...what the hell was that?

"I'm Scott Brown. I'm from Wrentham. I drive a truck." Okay. So what? Now I know that you drive a truck, do semi-nude pictorials, and are anti-health reform, anti-gay rights, pro-waterboarding, and advertising the availability of your daughters to all the men in the country. Yippee.

The Republicans didn't win this one. Democrats lost by putting up Coakley as their lame, ineffectual candidate.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Sweet dreams are made of these...


OH, AND THIS: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35917590/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

This has been boing on for a looooooong time already.

[Sean]

Some interesting thoughts from former Congressional Budget Office director Robert Reischauer on Obama's latest health care proposal here: part 1 (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/03/on-stimulus-health-care/37142/), part 2 (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/03/what-kind-of-health-care-reform-would-actually-help-the-debt/37163/). They talk about stimulus packages and such too, but his basic take on health care is that it's crucial that it pass as a foundation for ongoing reform. Not passing it, in his opinion, will be far more costly and damaging. Both parts aren't too long of a read overall, but here are the Q&A bits about health care specifically:

QUESTION: Let's talk about health care reform. Even though you expressed doubts about the cost-saving of Clinton's health care reform when you were at the CBO, you told the Washington Post's Ezra Klein that you would cast a yes vote on this bill. I want you to tell me why, but I also suspect, given the fact that nobody seems to consider this an ideal bill, that you have concerns. So why do you support the bill, and what are you concerns?

ANSWER: I support the bill because I think we have to address the cost problem. We have to quote -- bend the curve -- end quote. While this particular peice of legislation doesn't do much on that front, and I could make a good case for why it may bend the curve in the wrong direction, it creates a platform off of which further measures to reduce cost growth can be built. We turn this down, and we have nothing.

There's a lot of pilot programs and emphasis on the infrastructure that we will eventually need to begin cutting back the growth of health care spending. That, together with the fact that you're going to cover 30 odd million uninsured people and raise the richness of the insurance packages that people get, will create a floor on which something more substantial can be built. We'll have the clear locus of responsibility for cost containment.

If we do nothing more, then will these pilots bear fruit in the next five years? The answer is probably no. Cost growth might even accelerate. But we can have another push for health care and we'll have this foundation. We have no foundation right now. We have an inequitable landscape, and you have to bulldoze it before constructing a building.

QUESTION: Granted that health care inflation is a monster without a silver bullet, what's the most important step -- either in this bill or outside this bill?

ANSWER: My view is it's going to take many many things, some of which are in the bill some of which we don't even know about yet. I am an unabashed supporter of changing the tax treatment of employer sponsored health insurance. We're doing it in a clumsy way with the excise tax in the legislation. But in a sense it starts a conversation that this is an appropriate new policy.

QUESTION: Let's look under the hood of the debt. It's no secret that the main driver is entitlements: Medicare and Medicaid and, to a less extent, Social Security. On one end of the spectrum, Republican Rep. Paul Ryan has called to transform Medicare into a tightly budgeted voucher program. On the other end, you've got calls to expand Medicare and Medicaid to cover millions more. Where do you stand?

ANSWER: There's no way to save significant amounts in Medicare and Medicaid without transforming the health sector at large. We don't have a Veterans Administration or Indian Health Services analogue that treats the elderly, disabled and low income people in a different system. They get their services from the same providers that we get our services from. We have to bring down the growth of costs across the entire spectrum.

If we lower the amounts that we pay providers in Medicare then providers won't perform services for these individuals and there will be an access problem. If we begin raising the cost on beneficiaries, you'll quickly find that minority of Medicare beneficiaries have the wherewithal to pay. I'm for raising the burden for those with means. We do some of that in Medicare Part B already. But Medicare is a less generous policy than the average worker has from a large employer in America. So I don't think there's a lot to be gained there, even though this administration has suggested that we should start doing more to means test Part D as well.

QUESTION: Raising the burden on, or cutting benefits for, older Americans with means -- ie means testing -- could be one approach?

ANSWER: Some of Medicare, like Part B, is already means-tested. I'm for that. But again the solution has to come from within system to lower the rate of growth of spending. By some rough estimates 30 percent of the services provided to everybody are of little, no, or negative value. The problem is identifying that wasted care ahead of time, and it's hard if not impossible to do if we remain on a fee for service basis. In the long run, moving toward capitation is the only way to align the incentives of patients, providers and payers in the direction of providing high quality and affordable care.

QUESTION: You're talking about moving away from fee-for-service toward a broader definition of medicine, something like fee for care. When you told me you supported health care reform, you said it bulldozed the landscape to prepare us for something bigger. So is fee-for-care the proverbial building we want to build over the bulldozed health care landscape?

ANSWER: I think that could be right.

[the mongoose]

I support the bill because I think we have to address the cost problem. We have to quote -- bend the curve -- end quote. While this particular peice of legislation doesn't do much on that front, and I could make a good case for why it may bend the curve in the wrong direction, it creates a platform off of which further measures to reduce cost growth can be built. .

That's like saying that our new bus driver is not even going to be taking us in the right direction, but it will take us to an intersection where it could turn and we COULD go to where we need to get to.:confused:

This all trusting mentality sure didnt' turn out too well for these guys.........>>>Click<<<:p (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmZ_Hs1oshE)


you're going to cover 30 odd million uninsured people and raise the richness of the insurance packages that people get, will create a floor on which something more substantial can be built. We'll have the clear locus of responsibility for cost containment.

No the fuck it won't create a stable floor or raise the "richness" of anything..........If instead of waiting in line for 11 people at a Subway restaurant there's now an estimated 46 odd people in front of you, you'd actually consider that a good thing? I'm sure that the newly overworked, under supplied, and understaffed store would be so much better off too.:rolleyes:

]QUESTION: You're talking about moving away from fee-for-service toward a broader definition of medicine, something like fee for care. . So is fee-for-care the proverbial building we want to build over the bulldozed health care landscape?

ANSWER: I think that could be right.[/i]

Well that's all fine and dandy unless you bring reality into the mix. You cannot ration health care like it's the buffet option at a sit down restaurant. Lobster (heart surgery) will not be on the buffet for sure. Especially since there's now a mother fucking line out the door consisting of 30 million hungry illegal immigrants ready to lap up anything that we would consider slop and object to. This completely changes the "restaurant". Evil Sam Walton would be proud though.:D

[the mongoose]

In a surprising and fascinating look at the behind-the-scenes negotiations of proposed health care legislation on Capitol Hill, a prominent Democrat says the actions of his party's leaders in recent days represents a "pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party."
If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is holding out hope that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) will replicate his "yes" vote on health care reform she can probably forget it. In a wide-ranging swipe at his party's leaders, Stupak told an interviewer that he is a definite "no" vote on a health care bill that is expected to reach the House floor next week.
A single vote could make the difference in the fate of the legislation but Stupak says other pro-life Democrats who had been part of his coalition fighting for specific language on abortion funding have given up the fight. "It's almost like some right-to-life members don't want to be bothered. They just want this over," Stupak told National Review's Robert Costa in an article published on-line Friday. If that's the case, Democratic leaders may be able to prevail without Stupak's support.
The Michigan Democrat's vitriol for House leaders shines a bright light on the normally secret negotiations. "They're ignoring me," Stupak asserts while concluding that the final bill will not have the stronger abortion-related language that he's long supported and was able to force in the first bill the House passed late last year.
"[E]ven if they don't have the votes, it's been made clear to us that they won't insert our language on the abortion issue," Stupak says. "I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance. Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered."
Stupak offers an interesting take on why party leaders don't want his effort to succeed. "If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That's one of the arguments I've been hearing," Stupak says. "Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue - come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we're talking about."
Stupak believes that if a final health care bill passes without strong language on abortion funding, it will effectively freeze out pro-life Democrats in the future. He says he will remain a Democrat but predicts that any effort to change the abortion language would have to wait "until the Republicans take back the majority to fix this." You read that right, a Democrat looking forward to a Republican take-over of Congress!
Stupak's prominence and apparent resolve on this issue has increased the political heat on the nine-term Democrat. "This has really reached an unhealthy stage," Stupak says. "People are threatening ethics complaints on me. On the left, they're really stepping it up. Every day, from Rachel Maddow to the Daily Kos, it keeps coming. Does it bother me? Sure. Does it change my position? No."
A Friday posting on Daily Kos has this headline: "Women ROAR BACK against Stupak/Pitts!" It targets Stupak and Congressman Joe Pitts (R-PA) and is a fundraising appeal for Stupak's primary challenger. "If you were pissed when Joe Wilson shouted YOU LIE at President Obama I want you to channel that same sort of anger and aim it in support of Connie Saltonstall..."
Earlier this week, MSNBC's Maddow took direct aim at Stupak saying his efforts were designed to do nothing more than get him on television. "Abortion rights only for rich ladies. That's Bart Stupak's principled crusade," Maddow said.
Stupak does not name names in his attack on party leaders but in a radio interview Thursday, Stupak recounted a conversation he had with House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), a central figure in the health care debate. Stupak said Waxman told him that Democratic leaders "want to pay for abortions." In a statement to Fox News, Waxman said “My position has been clear and consistent. I do not believe health reform should be used to change current law, which prohibits federal funds from paying for abortion.�

[the mongoose]

link (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/14/promises-promises-health-care-biggest-faith-based-vote-house/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528T ext+-+Politics%2529&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher)

The health care overhaul facing the House this week is being called the biggest faith-based vote ever considered by Congress.

That's because the White House and Democratic leaders, who express certainty that the House will approve a Senate-passed health care bill, insist the widely-reviled bill won't become law even though President Obama must sign it into law before changes demanded by House lawmakers can be made.

Get it?

"Here's what the House Democrats are being asked to do. They're being asked by the president to hold hands, jump off a cliff and hope (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid catches them in the Senate after the bill is law," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

"Trust the untrustworthy Senate," is the message Rep. Anthony Weiner says Democrats are being asked to do this week. Weiner, D-N.Y., who supports a so-called public option that is not in the Senate bill, suggested in a statement Sunday that trust is a big leap for lawmakers who've seen 290 bills passed by the House ignored by the Senate in the last 14 months.

To make matters more complicated, Democratic leaders are considering an option -- never tried before -- to avoid getting stuck with a recorded "yes" vote on a Senate bill they oppose by using a maneuver that some authorities say is unconstitutional.

The procedural move -- proposed by Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, would allow Democrats to usher through the Senate bill (which, by the way, still has a House numerical designation) without actually having a vote "on passage" of the legislation.

"The alarming thing that I'm hearing now is that (House) Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi is thinking about bending the rules and, frankly, making it so there's not a direct vote on the Senate health care bill," Rep. Eric Cantor, D-Va., told "Fox News Sunday."

"I've got the Constitution right here. It's section one -- or Article One, Section 7 that says in all cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays. And right here, we're seeing a perversion of the rules to go ahead and ram through this ... trillion-dollar health care bill," Cantor said.

"We're going to have an up-or-down vote," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who appeared with Cantor, "whether it's up or down on the Senate bill or up or down on a procedure that would include passage of the Senate bill, recognizing that we're amending the Senate bill."

Even by bending the procedural maneuvers to get the Senate bill through the House, no one can guarantee the Senate will come back and pass "fixes" House Democrats insist be made to win majority support for the Senate bill.

Those fixes include a rescission of amendments like "the cornhusker kickback" or "Louisiana Purchase" -- sweeteners that were placed in the Senate legislation to win recalcitrant Democratic senators.

"I need to see the provisions that affect my home state. I want to see my state treated fairly," said Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., who added that if things go right the House could vote by the end of the week.

"Every member of the House who wants this bill to go forward has to vote for the cornhusker kickback, has to vote for the Louisiana Purchase," said Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., warning that those who vote for it "will hear from their constituents loudly and clearly."

"That's what has to pass the House first," he said.

Van Hollen acknowledged that the Congressional Budget Office hasn't yet offered an analysis of the cost of the "fix-it" bill, so even if House Democrats insist on changes to the Senate bill, they can't yet negotiate based on the supposed deficit reduction to be found.

"Of course, we want to see what the Congressional Budget Office says. That's the reason we haven't begun the debate process," he said.

President Obama's senior aide, David Axelrod, on Sunday said the time has come for a vote, regardless of the procedural maneuver used to get the Senate bill through the House.

"We have had a year. Enough game playing, enough maneuvering. Let's have the up or down vote and give the American people the future they deserve," he told ABC's "This Week."

Even while pushing passage, Axelrod admitted the Senate bill is not the president's bill.

"The president's proposal is not the Senate proposal. With the corrections that have been made, with the improvements that have been made, some including Republican ideas, some including Democratic ideas, this is -- this is a different proposal, and I think it addresses some of the concerns that people have had," he said.

Ultimately, it will be the Senate's decision on whether to make any changes to the bill that passed that chamber on Christmas eve, one month before Democrats lost their 60-vote supermajority.

Van Hollen said regardless of how it takes form, House Democrats "need some absolute guarantees from the Senate" that at least 51 senators will support changes

"Whether that takes the form of a letter, whether that takes the president of the United States saying that he has conferred with 51 senators and they're all on board -- whatever form it takes, it has provide assurances to enough House members that they will follow through," he said.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he believes the Senate and the House will take up corrections that will become law, but he couldn't guarantee it.

"I think (the president) can give assurances to the House that he's working just as hard to make sure that the Senate passes those corrections as he is in trying to get the House to pass the underlying bill," Gibbs said.

Alexander told CBS' "Face the Nation" that all 41 Republican senators agree to enforce Senate rules, which means for changes to be made through reconciliation, Democrats have to deal strictly with taxing and budget matters. That means issues like taxpayer-funded abortion, which a few House Democrats insist is not adequately covered in the Senate legislation, will not be addressed.

Van Hollen said most Democrats are fine accepting that part of the bill.

"I don't believe we're going to go beyond the Senate language, but I know there are ongoing discussions that have been taking place," he said.

[Sean]

This trusting, sheeple mentality...Until you manage a reply that omits all the arrogant "sheeple" business and the like, I really just can't bring myself to care what you say.

[the mongoose]

There.....all omitted so it is quite safe for you to go baaaack and read it now.;)

[the mongoose]

The vote tally on health care reform is starting to look like the Dow.
Just when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed to be one vote shy of the 216 she needs for health care reform to pass, a Democrat who voted for the bill last year says he's switching his vote to no.
The opposition from Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., dials back the number of House members leaning toward voting yes to 214, and the number leaning toward voting no to 217.
DeFazio announced his opposition shortly after Ohio Rep. John Boccieri, also a Democrat, announced that he will switch his vote to yes, temporarily putting Pelosi within one vote of what she needs.
Boccieri, a freshman lawmaker who opposed the House version of the bill last November, announced his decision at a Capitol Hill news conference on Friday. He was one of four Democrats to switch from no to yes in the past few days as Obama and Democratic leaders try to corral enough votes for the legislation. A vote is expected on Sunday.
DeFazio, who voted for the bill last year, complicated things for Democratic leaders. But he indicated he could still change his mind again.
"I'm a no unless they fix this," he said, referring to what he sees as insufficient Medicare spending in rural areas.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[the mongoose]

State officials are concerned the burden of providing healthcare will fall to them without enough federal support.
Eleven of the attorneys general plan to band together in a collective lawsuit on behalf of Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
"Congress' attempt to force Michigan families to buy health insurance -- or else -- raises serious constitutional concerns," said Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox. "We will fight to defend the individual rights and freedoms of Michigan citizens against this radical overreach by the federal government."
The state attorneys general say the reforms infringe on state powers under the Constitution's Bill of Rights.
Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who plans to file a lawsuit in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, said Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. The bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance, he added.
"If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce," Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"
Forrest McDonald, a retired University of Alabama history professor who has written a book on states' rights, said Congress has no power to make someone buy something.
"You can stretch it all to hell and you're going to find a lot of power, but you can't find the power to make me buy a car or anything," he said.
But Mark Rosen, a Constitution scholar at Chicago-Kent College of Law, said the states do not really have a constitutional leg to stand on.
"Congress has clear authority to pass this type of legislation and under the supremacy clause that makes federal law supreme," he said.
Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat, blasted the lawsuit, saying: "It's a waster of taxpayer money and it's nothing more than political grandstanding," he told reporters.
Several Democratic governors released statements in support of the healthcare reform bill.
States have also cited the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which states that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states," as proof that the U.S. government cannot set their healthcare laws.
In addition to the pending lawsuits, bills and resolutions have been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures seeking to limit or oppose various aspects of the reform plan through laws or state constitutional amendments, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
So far, only two states -- Idaho and Virginia -- have enacted laws, while an Arizona constitutional amendment is seeking voter approval on the November ballot. But the actual enactment of the bill by President Barack Obama could spur more movement on the measures by state lawmakers.
Tea Party groups in Ohio planned to unveil a proposed constitutional amendment later on Monday aimed at shielding the state's residents from "financial burdens and individual mandates" related to the federal healthcare changes.
As is the case on the Congressional level, partisan politics is in play on the state level, where no anti-healthcare reform legislation has emerged in Democrat-dominated states like Illinois and New York, according to the NCSL.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican candidate running for governor, said the mandate would cost Florida at least $1.6 billion in Medicaid alone.
All states would receive extra funding to cover Medicaid costs, which are expected to rise under the reform, including 100 percent federal coverage for new enrollees under the plan through 2016.
Medicaid is the healthcare program for the poor jointly administered by the states and federal government.

[the mongoose]

The health care reform bill to be signed Tuesday by President Obama would give the IRS a new mandate to enforce some of the initiative's key provisions -- but apparently not the means to do so.
Under the Senate bill approved Sunday by the House, the Internal Revenue Service would be called on to ensure Americans are obtaining health care insurance and businesses are offering it, or else they could face fines. Many would receive subsidies to help pay for insurance.
The emphasis is on incentives for healthy people to buy insurance, thereby spreading the risk of older, less healthy people over a broader pool of customers. For those earning between $22,050 and $88,200, there are tax credits for health insurance premiums. In addition, individuals initially face fines of up to $750 for not buying in; businesses would face fines of up to $3,000.
It will cost the IRS $5 billion to $10 billion over 10 years to handle the new workload, according to a March 11 estimate by the Congressional Budget Office. But the Senate bill doesn’t provide any funding for the expansion of the IRS, and it virtually ties the hands of the IRS to collect fees on individuals and businesses who don’t buy health insurance.
“The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty," according to the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation. "Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner."

That means there’s virtually nothing the IRS can do to enforce the fines in the legislation, forcing the tax man to rely on the consciences of taxpayers or to skim off any federal benefits, tax credits or refunds they have coming to them.
"In other words, if you're due a refund or some other federal benefit, and you didn't obtain qualified insurance, your refund or benefit will be tapped for your fee,� said Bill Ahearn, director of policy and communications for the Tax Foundation.
“People who aren't due any refunds or federal benefits will apparently face no collection action, as the IRS's hands will be effectively tied and it will be a truly voluntary tax."
Supporters of the bill, however, believe that while the IRS needs to be able to enforce the fines, it’s unlikely that the agency's inability to do so will give people a reason not to buy into health care.
“Surveys routinely show that people don't pay for health care because they can't afford it,� said Timothy Jost, a professor at Washington & Lee University Law School. “This bill gives them a way they can afford it.�

[Eikman]

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/6858/tumblrkzo4o64ztq1qzmowa.jpg

[Deckard]

Mongoose - do you ever have an opinion of your own?

Eikman - LOL, god bless America!

[cacophony]

i'm beyond thrilled that the health care reform measure passed. is it perfect upon first draft? nope. but no government program has ever been perfect upon first draft. we pass the initial measure to prove that it's our desire to fix what's broken. we then work to tweak, tweak, tweak until it's right.

we rank at the bottom of the list for life span in the developed world. we rank at the top of the list for infant mortality in the developed world. right wing pundits and their parrot followers are happy to inform you that the US has the best medical system in the world. but we're dying younger and saving fewer newborns than any other developed nation.

people want to polarize this issue, we either have the best system of care or the worst. we either want all free market or a communist *gasp!* public option. but the truth, as with everything, lies inbetween. we have a great medical system for those who are fortunate enough to satisfy the right requirements to have care subsidized by private group insurance. we have a terrible medical system for anyone who suffers a catastrophic medical event. go home and look at your insurance policy and look for the "lifetime limit" provision. what is it, a million bucks? do you have any idea how quickly you can eat through a million bucks on a single catastrophic accident or illness? and what if that event happens when you're 35? you've now got a pre-existing condition and a lifetime cap on the only policy that would cover you so you're up shit creek without a paddle.

we have a fantastic medical system with lots opportunities for technologically cutting edge treatment options and lots of choices of care providers. none of that will change. and if you think it will change please quantify exactly what will change. preferably in your own words, without cutting/pasting from another pundit's rant.

what will change is that the people who have struggled financially to stay within the restraints of the current system will have to struggle less. those of us with children with preexisting conditions won't have to worry daily that our policies will kick them out. we won't have to worry about raising half a million in cash to afford a lung transplant because insurance imposed a cap mid-treatment or kicked us off of our policies.

everyone is so het up about this whole dichotomy of "good vs evil," "right vs left," "commusocialifascism vs GOD BLESS AMERICA LAND 'O THE FREE DONT TREAD ON ME" that we've totally lost the ability to look at the actual practical implications of this reform package and see what's really there.

i'm just glad it passed.

and i'll tell you what, let's pick this discussion up in 6 months when it goes into effect and we'll reminisce about the good old days, before america collapsed and zombie stalin rose from the grave and the minions of radical commusocialifascism swept the nation injecting old people with cancer.

[cacophony]

p.s. i always have to laugh at the people who are convinced funding for every government program comes directly out of their income taxes. taxation comprehension fail.

here's a pro tip: the government derives funding from many sources. taxes are one, and individual income taxes are just one portion.

[//\/\/]

we rank at the bottom of the list for life span in the developed world. we rank at the top of the list for infant mortality in the developed world. right wing pundits and their parrot followers are happy to inform you that the US has the best medical system in the world. but we're dying younger and saving fewer newborns than any other developed nation.

but rush told me it was true http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032210/content/01125107.guest.html so you must be wrong :confused::confused::confused:

[Sean]

i'm beyond thrilled that the health care reform measure passed. is it perfect upon first draft? nope. but no government program has ever been perfect upon first draft. we pass the initial measure to prove that it's our desire to fix what's broken. we then work to tweak, tweak, tweak until it's right.

we rank at the bottom of the list for life span in the developed world. we rank at the top of the list for infant mortality in the developed world. right wing pundits and their parrot followers are happy to inform you that the US has the best medical system in the world. but we're dying younger and saving fewer newborns than any other developed nation.

people want to polarize this issue, we either have the best system of care or the worst. we either want all free market or a communist *gasp!* public option. but the truth, as with everything, lies inbetween. we have a great medical system for those who are fortunate enough to satisfy the right requirements to have care subsidized by private group insurance. we have a terrible medical system for anyone who suffers a catastrophic medical event. go home and look at your insurance policy and look for the "lifetime limit" provision. what is it, a million bucks? do you have any idea how quickly you can eat through a million bucks on a single catastrophic accident or illness? and what if that event happens when you're 35? you've now got a pre-existing condition and a lifetime cap on the only policy that would cover you so you're up shit creek without a paddle.

we have a fantastic medical system with lots opportunities for technologically cutting edge treatment options and lots of choices of care providers. none of that will change. and if you think it will change please quantify exactly what will change. preferably in your own words, without cutting/pasting from another pundit's rant.

what will change is that the people who have struggled financially to stay within the restraints of the current system will have to struggle less. those of us with children with preexisting conditions won't have to worry daily that our policies will kick them out. we won't have to worry about raising half a million in cash to afford a lung transplant because insurance imposed a cap mid-treatment or kicked us off of our policies.

everyone is so het up about this whole dichotomy of "good vs evil," "right vs left," "commusocialifascism vs GOD BLESS AMERICA LAND 'O THE FREE DONT TREAD ON ME" that we've totally lost the ability to look at the actual practical implications of this reform package and see what's really there.

i'm just glad it passed.

and i'll tell you what, let's pick this discussion up in 6 months when it goes into effect and we'll reminisce about the good old days, before america collapsed and zombie stalin rose from the grave and the minions of radical commusocialifascism swept the nation injecting old people with cancer.Well said on all counts. And your final point is what I'm personally most curious to see. When all the impending lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of this bill have been lost, when no "death panels" show up at anyone's door to kill anyone's grandmother, when we don't become a communist nation, when the practical benefits of the bill have been experienced by a significant portion of the population, when our taxes don't skyrocket, and when our country doesn't spiral into bankruptcy, how will those who have been spouting all this politically motivated rhetoric react? I'm sure they'll just come up with a whole new set of lies....

[Sean]

but rush told me it was true http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032210/content/01125107.guest.html so you must be wrong :confused::confused::confused:Wow. He's already laying the foundation for how this will be a failure:

"Ladies and gentlemen, now that we have health care reform, we should expect Obama's approval numbers to skyrocket, right? Not just get a bump. Everybody's talking about a "bump" that he might get 'cause he got it done. We should expect them to skyrocket because of health care reform. This is what we were told. We should expect the budget deficit to immediately start going down. This is what we were told. And employment should shoot straight up, right? These were all the promised benefits that we are breathlessly sitting around and waiting for."

So despite the fact that none of these things were ever "promised", or even claimed by anyone actually working for this reform, Limbaugh will be able to shout "failure!" if Obama's approval numbers don't "skyrocket", if the defecit doesn't "immediately" start going down, and if employment doesn't "shoot straight up". How many devoted listeners does this guy have? Frightening.


And just for laughs, check out this photo gallery from the final tea party protest (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2010/03/16/GA2010031602547.html?sid=ST2010032100955) leading up to Sunday's vote. I always get a kick out of how blatantly white the entire crowd is. Although picture #20 shows a surprising amount of diversity, staring you right in the face...

[//\/\/]

yeah; palin suddenly says you should take notice of protesters in washington - in fact demands it. of course, when the protests were against the war....

but if it's white outrage you want, look no further than good ol' michelle malkin's site to be stirring up the folks http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/23/racial-preferences-in-obamacare/

[Troy McClure]

Leave it to 'Ride or Die' Joe Biden to sum it up in 6 simple words today:

'This is a big f-ing deal'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic2eEcnwghU&feature=player_embedded

I'm relieved and elated that this passed. The elimination of lifetime limits and pre-existing conditions are the most personal things to me.

Jason

[Deckard]

Cacophony - good post.

Question: how feasible is it that this could all be repealed at some point? I ask because support for it seems to have split the country 50/50 down the usual cultural fault line, and opposition to this particular issue seems unusually fierce.

With the balance of power inevitably seeping away from Dems, won't the Republicans make it their absolute priority to kill/reverse it, and won't that receive a good deal of support from a large and growing chunk of the country still muttering 'socialism' and 'tax dollars' in the same sentence?

Does optimism really hang on the belief that in 6-18 months, enough opponents or fence-sitters will have been converted into thinking "how could I have ever done without it?"

[//\/\/]

deck - i'm wondering if it's another case of the anti-obama mob being comparatively small, but very vocal, whilst the supportive majority are happy to let their politicians do their will...

[cacophony]

stolen from someone who stole this from 4chan. hey, if mongoose can C/P, so can i!

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed energy corporation officials to dictate energy policy.
You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.
You didn't get mad when the Pentagon misplaced $2.3 trillion.
You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.
You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.
You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.
You didn't get mad when you saw the Abu Grahib photos.
You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.
You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.
You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.
You didn't get mad when we let a major US city drown.
You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.
You didn't get mad when the debt went up $5 trillion under Bush.
You finally got mad when.. when... wait for it... when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all ok with you but helping other Americans... well fuck that.

[stimpee]

http://www.endtheaddictionnow.com/resources/216279883_7b5603f6e5_o+copy.jpg

[Troy McClure]

Cacophony - good post.

Question: how feasible is it that this could all be repealed at some point? I ask because support for it seems to have split the country 50/50 down the usual cultural fault line, and opposition to this particular issue seems unusually fierce.

With the balance of power inevitably seeping away from Dems, won't the Republicans make it their absolute priority to kill/reverse it, and won't that receive a good deal of support from a large and growing chunk of the country still muttering 'socialism' and 'tax dollars' in the same sentence?

Does optimism really hang on the belief that in 6-18 months, enough opponents or fence-sitters will have been converted into thinking "how could I have ever done without it?"

I know you need a 2/3 majority to override a presidential veto. So if the Republican party's vision is to repeal the healthcare act, this is what they need for a strict party line veto override:

67 out of 100 Senators.
They have 41 currently.
There are 36 US Senator elections this November. Each major party has 18 seats. The GOP would have to hold on to their 18 plus gain 8 of the Dem. held sets. Extremely unlikely.


290 out of 435 House members.
The R's have 178 currently. So, they need 112 more seats than they have now. Super duper unlikely in one election.

Jason

[cacophony]

even if they have the votes, and they'd have to walk away with WAY more seats than are projected at this point for the november election, they're going to have a very hard time convincing people to give back the benefits they've been given. when the dust settles and people realize that most of the changes haven't hit their bottom lines, but their kids can stay on their policies until they're 26, they're going to be a lot more reluctant to tell their elected officials to go ahead and repeal the measure.

the problem with public opinion is that it's easy to get support when you're trying to stop something new and scary. but when the thing is already in the public's grubby little paws it can be damn near impossible to get the masses to agree to give it back.

it's why republicans looooooooove to argue against federal taxation for public programs but you'd never ever ever ever get them to support a measure to repeal social security. they've already got it and they ain't about to give it back.

[Deckard]

Thanks, that all makes sense now.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Sweet dreams are made of these...


OH, AND THIS: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35917590/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

This has been boing on for a looooooong time already.


TOLD YA!!!!: http://wellness.blogs.time.com/2010/04/06/more-people-hospitalized-for-prescription-drug-overdose/



Between 1999 and 2006 the number of people hospitalized for poisoning from prescription drugs including opioids (such as OxyContin and Vicodin) and tranquilizers and sedatives (depressants such as Valium, Xanax and Ambien) has increased by 65%—representing nearly twice the increase in hospitalizations due to overdose with other substances during the same time period , according to new research published in the May issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Analyzing data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), which accounts for some 8 million annual hospitalizations, researchers from West Virginia University and the University of Rochester determined that, during the period studied, intentional overdose on prescription opioids and depressants increased by 130%, while unintentional poisonings rose by 37%.During the seven-year study period, unintentional overdose with other substances increased by 21%, while intentional overdose with other substances grew by 53%.


Compared to patients admitted to the hospital for overdose with other drugs, researchers found that those hospitalized for opioid or sedative/tranquilizer-related poisoning were more likely to be women under age 34, were less likely to live in an urban area, and were more likely to have Medicare as their primary form of insurance. When they examined intentional versus unintentional overdose, the study authors found that men were admitted more frequently for accidental overdose, while women were more often hospitalized for intentional overdose. Those findings were consistent not only for opioid and depressant poisonings, but for all types of substance overdose.

The parallels between hospital admissions for drug overdose and growing numbers of death caused by overdose suggest that initial hospitalizations could provide an opportunity for intervention, the study authors suggest. In order to most effectively counter this growing trend of prescription drug abuse and overdose-related hospitalizations and death, the authors conclude, future research needs to examine "the contextual factors associated with these cases, and the association between hospitalization for prescription drug poisoning and subsequent fatal overdoses."



Y'all don't want to know the stories I have on this, trust me.

aaaaannnddd, cut & fade out with MM's The Dope Show . . .

[the mongoose]

Oh joy! RFID chips embedded under the skin!:):):):)


From OpenCongress:

The Obama Health care bill under Class II (Paragraph 1, Section B) specifically includes in it's lists of things that must be in registered in the NATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICE REGISTRY: ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable."

Then on page 1004 it describes what the term "data" means in paragraph 1, section B:

14 ‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘data’ refers to in
15formation respecting a device described in paragraph (1),
16 including claims data, patient survey data, standardized
17 analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of
18 data from disparate data environments, electronic health
19 records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the
20 Secretary"



What exactly is a class II device that is implantable?

Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is a "implantable radiofrequency transponder system for patient identification and health information." The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as "claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary."





But what I want to know is will these new Chips come with some Dip to go with them?
If not, that's fucking lame.:mad:


Seriously though, I don't want no motherfucking Rothschild Chip in me. Creepy under the skin electro rice is not ever going down unless they force it upon me physically kicking and screaming. Here's Aaron Russo, the late friend of a Bilderberg All-Star (Jake Rockefeller) to explain the Elite's not-so secret goal of enslaving the serfs/peasants using RFID:

>>>Click<<< (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSii-xWoyKM)

RIP:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JaC4WN3dvJA/SvDLJhixQNI/AAAAAAAABAw/k-fCzp8yogw/s400/Aaron_Russo.jpg

[Deckard]

This would only affect mental patients and miscreants. No need to worry mongoose.

Oh hold on....

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

TOLD YA!!!!: http://wellness.blogs.time.com/2010/04/06/more-people-hospitalized-for-prescription-drug-overdose/



Between 1999 and 2006 the number of people hospitalized for poisoning from prescription drugs including opioids (such as OxyContin and Vicodin) and tranquilizers and sedatives (depressants such as Valium, Xanax and Ambien) has increased by 65%—representing nearly twice the increase in hospitalizations due to overdose with other substances during the same time period , according to new research published in the May issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Analyzing data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), which accounts for some 8 million annual hospitalizations, researchers from West Virginia University and the University of Rochester determined that, during the period studied, intentional overdose on prescription opioids and depressants increased by 130%, while unintentional poisonings rose by 37%.During the seven-year study period, unintentional overdose with other substances increased by 21%, while intentional overdose with other substances grew by 53%.


Compared to patients admitted to the hospital for overdose with other drugs, researchers found that those hospitalized for opioid or sedative/tranquilizer-related poisoning were more likely to be women under age 34, were less likely to live in an urban area, and were more likely to have Medicare as their primary form of insurance. When they examined intentional versus unintentional overdose, the study authors found that men were admitted more frequently for accidental overdose, while women were more often hospitalized for intentional overdose. Those findings were consistent not only for opioid and depressant poisonings, but for all types of substance overdose.

The parallels between hospital admissions for drug overdose and growing numbers of death caused by overdose suggest that initial hospitalizations could provide an opportunity for intervention, the study authors suggest. In order to most effectively counter this growing trend of prescription drug abuse and overdose-related hospitalizations and death, the authors conclude, future research needs to examine "the contextual factors associated with these cases, and the association between hospitalization for prescription drug poisoning and subsequent fatal overdoses."



Y'all don't want to know the stories I have on this, trust me.

aaaaannnddd, cut & fade out with MM's The Dope Show . . .


One point this article did not include, & which I believe should have been stated, is the height of prone to lead to addiction factor of legal medications. The numbers are really all over the place when one reads reports on these studies. I've seen the numbers read anywhere from 5-15% more addictive than illegal substances i.e. cocaine/heroin/and there was another one but I can't remember what it was. But it wasn't cigarettes.

[Sean]

This would only affect mental patients and miscreants. No need to worry mongoose.

Oh hold on....:D

[cacophony]

The Obama Health care bill under Class II (Paragraph 1, Section B) specifically includes in it's lists of things that must be in registered in the NATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICE REGISTRY: ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable."
doesn't that mean these types of devices must be included in the registry of approved medical devices? looks like a mandate to include these devices in a registry, not a mandate to put them in people.

if i'm wrong find me a direct quote. not some nutball youtube video.