Democrats’ ‘tribal loyalty’ to be tested on health care
Democrats as a rule aren’t very good at the political loyalty thing, certainly not as good as the Republicans are.
Often that’s a good thing. The refusal of George Bush to rein in the excesses of the Republican-controlled Congress, and the refusal of the Republican Congress to do the same with Bush, in the end did long-term damage to both the country and the party.
On the other hand, party discipline does help a lot when you’re trying to get things done. If the Republicans had 60 votes in the Senate and a healthy margin in the House, as the Democrats now do, you can bet they’d be pushing through their preferred programs with a lot more dispatch and efficiency than Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have managed so far.
For that reason, Republicans have been pretty foolish to talk openly of their desire to halt health-care reform as a way to “break” the Obama presidency and make it his Waterloo, as Sen. Jim Demint said the other day. GOP Chairman Michael Steele and Newt Gingrich have chimed in too, with Gingrich suggesting that health care reform “could be the bill that drags his whole presidency down and they look back on it and suddenly the whole thing is unraveled.”
That’s just the kind of talk that could rally Democrats to Obama’s side. Preserving Obama’s image of strength was clearly part of the party leadership’s calculation in drumming up votes in support of the his veto threat on the F-22, and that same dynamic will play out on health care as well. Even Democrats who have concerns about Obama’s approach — whether those concerns are heart-felt or more political in nature — have a lot invested in the president’s success. If he’s crippled this early in his term, congressional Democrats become crippled as well, and the Republicans have kindly reminded them of that reality.
That’s one reason I think that in the end, we’ll see a major reform bill passed.
Oft
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
391 comments Add your comment
DoggoneGA
July 22nd, 2009
9:31 pm
“The mandate on business to provide health insurance is a non starter with me. We need to get that cost off of its back”
Not going to happen this time around. It would be too easy to characterize that big a change as “forcing you to change your insurance plans.”
electrician
July 22nd, 2009
9:31 pm
Doggone at 9:17 that is my point.our commander in chief when asked by Rick Warren”when does life begin?’responded with”that’s above my pay grade”. fact is that people do deny that,it makes them more comfortable.
jt
July 22nd, 2009
9:32 pm
Paul-
I never called you a metrosexual, and besides, there is nothing wrong with being one.
This is for you-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu1q17rUkVU
DoggoneGA
July 22nd, 2009
9:38 pm
“our commander in chief when asked by Rick Warren”when does life begin?’responded with”that’s above my pay grade”. fact is that people do deny that,it makes them more comfortable”
He wasn’t denying it. The question “when does life begin” is code for “when is a foetus a human being” He answered the hidden question…that deciding humanity is above his pay grade. I got it the first time I heard it.
It is, and is meant to be, a “gotcha” question. At that point in the campaign there was no need for him to give an involved answer, so he didn’t.
Whenever a discussion of abortion comes up, I keep waiting and waiting and waiting for abortion foes to tell us how they would END abortions. I’ve never seen an answer. So I’m still waiting.
Swami Dave
July 22nd, 2009
9:39 pm
Chris:
“MYTH: EVERYONE will be forced to go on government health care.
(Alleged Liberal) REALITY: Everyone who is on an employer program or is happy with their current program will stay there….Bottom line is that its OPTIONAL if you already have insurance.”
–ACTUAL REALITY: Everyone -will- eventually be forced onto government health care because employers (not employees) will make the decision of which program they offer [-therefore- those employees will have the exact same choice they have today; that offered by their employer]. Also, by introducing a competitive pressure in the market (the government competing against private insurers) under which the government has no motive for profit or quality and is financed by the taxpayer (and the very companies against which they are competing) confiscated earnings, private insurers will undoubtedly leave the market further diminishing choice.
Ergo, liberal alleged “reality” is in fact either a) uninformed and ignorant parroting of lies and spin from proponents of this plan or b) willing accomplice in perpetuating this lie.
“MYTH: Congress has exempted itself from this plan.
(Alleged Liberal) REALITY: Since this is a choice based plan, no one is forced into it unless they need it. …Same choice confronting congress. Again, its OPTIONAL for those who already have insurance.”
–ACTUAL REALITY: Members of Congress (many of whom are ballyhooing the gradiosity of this plan – that few if any understand or have even read) will continue with their great health care while condemning others to lesser standard care. In the process, the quality of care for many who today have coverage will decrease (as they are forced onto the government option) while at the same time costs to those same Americans will rise. Effectively, they would get less, pay more, and have noone to blame but the collectivists shilling this destined to fail plan. As if historically proven, those responsible for this debacle will deny any responsiblity for the disaster and simply blame achievers and the successful for not “giving enough” to “properly fund” their altruistic plan.
“MYTH: The government plan will suck.
(Alleged Liberal) REALITY: It may, truthfully we don’t know that yet. Bottom line is that we need to bring in those 50 million Americans who have no insurance and those additional millions of Americans who have insurance but who have chronic or pre-existing conditions exempted under their current health care insurance plans.”
–ACTUAL REALITY: The quality of care for everyone who current has coverage will drop and the costs that they pay for it will increase. Effectively, instead of resolving the problems within the system, we will simply increase costs, increase confiscations to pay them, and ration the available resources further taxing the system and impeding care for all.
“So what about OPTIONAL do some people not understand. I hope Obama clears this up.”
–What part of there is no such thing as “OPTIONAL” when the actions you are taking will most certainly -limit- options? There is nothing that PrezBO or any of his other PrezBOt shills can do to “clear up” the REALITY that taking actions such as he plans will make health care worse for ALL Americans while further driving costs beyond sustainable levels. Sadly, the President knows this, but since his goal is the acquisition of power (not health care coverage for Americans), he does not care.
-SD
Hillbilly Deluxe
July 22nd, 2009
9:40 pm
After having watched the press conference I don’t understand anymore than I did before. I still don’t know how it’s going to work.
Here’s what I see happening. We’ll have some kind of public option while keeping employer provided insurance like many have now. Won’t take long until employers will figure out how to dump people into the public option plan just like they moved people from defined benefit pensions into 401k’s. Then insurance companies will figure out if they can’t deny you for a pre-existing condition, they can make it too expensive for you to afford. They can cherry pick the low risk groups even more than they do now. So the majority of people will be shifted into the public option plan. It’ll evolve into a single payer plan but with another name of course. Why not just cut to the chase and get on with it?
TnGelding
July 22nd, 2009
9:43 pm
Raider
July 22nd, 2009
9:29 pm
The couple would probably come out better in the long run by paying their taxes. And they’d probably sleep better, too.
TW
July 22nd, 2009
9:48 pm
DoggoneGA – they never will suggest how to end abortions. The anti-choice movement isn’t so much about ending abortions as it is participating in the rightwing morality that involves no sacrifice at all…scream at the woman who gets an abortion, degrade the homosexual, badmouth the muslim, etc etc.
But when it comes to coughing up real coin to help with poverty here in the US, or with those who don’t have healthcare – they are nowhere.
That’s the nice thing about rightwing morality, why it draw tools like rush and bill – all it takes is the extention of a judgemental finger to make you a part of the gang.
RW-(the original)
July 22nd, 2009
9:48 pm
It’ll evolve into a single payer plan but with another name of course. Why not just cut to the chase and get on with it?
Hillbilly Deluxe,
That brings to mind the horrible sentiment that if rape is inevitable then the woman should relax and enjoy it. Hopefully you didn’t mean it like it reads. We need to fight this now so we don’t ever get to the end of the path that you accurately mapped.
Bud Wiser
July 22nd, 2009
9:49 pm
Do your own homework Salzmann, or are you just another lazy school dropout?
@@
July 22nd, 2009
9:51 pm
He was laid bare on the rationing question.
He still spends too much capital of his “blamestorming”.
electrician
July 22nd, 2009
9:52 pm
doggone.that wasn’t code,its the same thing. I Dont agree with abortion,its against my personal beliefs,bt I can accept that it is a very personal thing for someone to decide,I can also accept that it is legal and probably always will be,I’m not` campaigning for the overthrow of roe v wade.as far as ending abortions,I don’t have an answer,I did however facilitate a private adoption between people known to me but not each other,but that was only one.maybe `that’s the best answer,do what you can to help.
mike
July 22nd, 2009
9:52 pm
DoggoneGA –
“Whenever a discussion of abortion comes up, I keep waiting and waiting and waiting for abortion foes to tell us how they would END abortions.”
And I assume that anyone who is opposed to murder must tell us how they would END murders. And people who are opposed to rape must tell us how they would END rapes. And people who are against robbery must tell us how they would END robberies.
Abortion opponents do so because they believe that abortion is the murder of an innocent life. Demanding that these people must tell you how they would avoid what they perceive to be an injustice in order to espouse their own beliefs about said injustice is just stupid rhetoric.
Paul
July 22nd, 2009
9:53 pm
jt
Okay, and, I know!
The song that started it all. Eurovision. 1974.
Oh, do I know… went to a pool party. Slipped an ABBA cd All the guys moved away, the ladies… gathered around…
getalife – there’s a lesson there!
Time to shut this down and have that drink for Bosch.
mike
July 22nd, 2009
9:59 pm
TW –
“The anti-choice movement isn’t so much about ending abortions as it is participating in the rightwing morality that involves no sacrifice at all…scream at the woman who gets an abortion, degrade the homosexual, badmouth the muslim, etc etc.”
Yeah, the “anti-choice” movement should be tolerant like pro-abortion folks like yourself and dismiss their arguments and demonize them.
I oppose abortion for purely secular reasons. I could not care less about your morals. I have never screamed at a woman. I live in one of the gayest nieghborhoods in Atlanta. I have no issue with Muslims at all.
Like many of the “tolerant” and “intellectual” liberals on this board, you demonstrate your utter lack of tolerance and inability to make a logical argument and instead rely on broad stereotypes and ad-hominem attacks.
electrician
July 22nd, 2009
10:03 pm
doggone one more thing,I have a grand child who was unplanned and borne to young and totally unprepared parents,whom I encouraged not to have an abortion..he lives with me, beliefs incur responsibility.
Trust me
July 22nd, 2009
10:04 pm
Hillbilly,
Those in favor of the current system proclaim it to be the best, better than anything. If that is the case, then they should be able to hold their own against a public option. The reality is that the current system allows for the insurance companies to squeeze folks at both ends — the doctor and the patient and everyone else — and then skim off millions and millions to line their pockets. They don’t want to lose out on that easy money and that is why they are scared of the public option.
DoggoneGA
July 22nd, 2009
10:07 pm
“Abortion opponents do so because they believe that abortion is the murder of an innocent life. Demanding that these people must tell you how they would avoid what they perceive to be an injustice in order to espouse their own beliefs about said injustice is just stupid rhetoric”
No it isn’t. Abortion foes right now are in exactly where the “anarchists” of 100 or so years ago were: they know what they don’t want, but what they don’t know is what they DO want. If you are against abortion, then it’s nothing but words if you don’t have anything to put in it’s place. What is YOUR alternative to abortion. Or, if you think it’s murder, then whom will you penalize and with what penalty?
DoggoneGA
July 22nd, 2009
10:10 pm
“I have a grand child who was unplanned and borne to young and totally unprepared parents,whom I encouraged not to have an abortion..he lives with me, beliefs incur responsibility”
Good for you, but what’s the point? Are you going to be responsibile for EVERY child born to a woman who doesn’t want that child, but whom you would – either personally or through laws – “encourage” not to have an abortion? Because if you, either directly or indirectly, take away the woman’s choice…then make no mistake, you are, or are participating in, the responsibility for that child’s life and well-being.
mike
July 22nd, 2009
10:15 pm
DoggoneGA –
“Abortion foes right now are in exactly where the “anarchists” of 100 or so years ago were: they know what they don’t want, but what they don’t know is what they DO want.”
Huh? Abortion foes want abortion to be illegal. What is so confusing to you about that?
“If you are against abortion, then it’s nothing but words if you don’t have anything to put in it’s place”
Huh? So you can’t be opposed to an injustice unless you have something to put in its place? That doesn’t even make sense. What has been “put in the place” of homicide or rape?
” What is YOUR alternative to abortion.”
I don’t have one. I don’t have an alternative to murder or rape either.
“Or, if you think it’s murder, then whom will you penalize and with what penalty?”
The same people who would be penalized for the murder of a newborn child with the same penalties.
mike
July 22nd, 2009
10:17 pm
DoggoneGA –
The cornerstone of the anti-abortion crowd is that abortion is the murder of innocent life.
How about refuting that argument instead of telling us that these folks have to tell you how to prevent abortion or that they have to take care of unwanted babies?
TW
July 22nd, 2009
10:20 pm
mike – how about all those half-babies you decorate your magazines with? Yup, I’m calling the cops
Hillbilly Deluxe
July 22nd, 2009
10:21 pm
Trust me,
Unfortunately I’ve been dealing with the health care system almost daily for several months. My dealings with the medical end have been great. 99% dedicated professionals who want to help people. The business end sucks, just to be plain about. I constantly hear horror stories from other patients. The stories I hear from the medical people aren’t any better. What we have now isn’t working and I just want something that works.
Ask a doctor sometime what percentage of office worker man-hours are spent haggling with insurance companies.
electrician
July 22nd, 2009
10:21 pm
doggone..I ENCOURAGED them ..it was still thier choice, and I took responsibility when it went bad. I told you I am not against roe V wade..so when it comes to me WHAT IS YOUR POINT? PLEASE ENLIGHTE ALL OF US
TGT
July 22nd, 2009
10:21 pm
TW said: “But when it comes to coughing up real coin to help with poverty here in the US, or with those who don’t have healthcare – they are nowhere.”
When it comes to social involvement, recent George Barna research (http://www.barna.org) showed a significant difference between what he describes as “active-faith” Americans, [the vast majority of whom are Christians] who tend to be more conservative in their politics, and “no-faith” Americans, who tend to be more liberal. Barna reports that, “One of the most significant differences between active-faith and no-faith Americans is the cultural disengagement and sense of independence exhibited by [no-faith Americans] in many areas of life. They are less likely than active-faith Americans to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%), to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%), to describe themselves as ‘active in the community’ (41% versus 68%), and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%).”
There is also a significant difference between active-faith Americans and no-faith Americans when it comes to the amount of money donated to charitable causes. On this, Barna notes that, “The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is over seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500).” Furthermore, as of 2005, according to the Christian Science Monitor, of the top 10 U.S. charities that are categorized as social services or relief/development, nine are Christian charities.
When it comes to domestic charity, total U.S. giving in 2006 was just over $295 billion according to The Giving USA Foundation. Of this amount, 83.4% was given by individuals, which far outpaces the giving by U.S. corporations, whose total giving came in at 4.3%. [Giving by foundations made up the other 12.3%.] According to Generous Giving Inc., “religious observers, which are those who attend weekly services [again, the vast majority are Christian], while only about 38% of all Americans, donate two-thirds of all charitable dollars in the United States.”
Looks like us “right wingers” are generally the ones putting their money and their actions where their mouths are. Liberals (as pointed out recently by Nicholas Kristof himself) are generally “personally stingy.” Notice he says “personally”– liberals are fabulously generous when it comes to OTHER PEOPLES money!
mike
July 22nd, 2009
10:24 pm
TW –
“how about all those half-babies you decorate your magazines with?”
More stereotypes that have nothing to do with me? What else would I expect from a “tolerant” and “intellectual” liberal? A reasoned response? LOL
“Yup, I’m calling the cops”
This drivel doesn’t even make sense. Is it supposed to be some kind of “zinger” to stand in place of a logical argument?
DoggoneGA
July 22nd, 2009
10:24 pm
“Huh? So you can’t be opposed to an injustice unless you have something to put in its place? That doesn’t even make sense. What has been “put in the place” of homicide or rape?”
Homicide, in particular, and rape usually…do not result in a living, breathing human being that must be cared for and raised. What is YOUR plan for dealing with those lives?
“Huh? Abortion foes want abortion to be illegal. What is so confusing to you about that?”
It isn’t confusing…but who will YOU penalize, and what penalty will you assess?
“I don’t have one. I don’t have an alternative to murder or rape either”
But you HAVE to have an alternative to abortion. As I stated above, no abortions means living human being to deal with.
“The same people who would be penalized for the murder of a newborn child with the same penalties”
The doctor, the woman, the father? All of them, and with what penalty? Murder can, and does, involve the death penalty. Would you still be “pro life” if you were willing to kill those involved?
DoggoneGA
July 22nd, 2009
10:27 pm
“How about refuting that argument instead of telling us that these folks have to tell you how to prevent abortion or that they have to take care of unwanted babies?”
You can’t do one without the other. If they want abortions made illegal…then there has to be some alternative for dealing with the resulting child. It has to be nurtured and raised. Who will do that? Who will pay for it? I asked someone else: if you think it’s murder, will you invoke the deaths of those involved as a penalty?
DoggoneGA
July 22nd, 2009
10:28 pm
“WHAT IS YOUR POINT? PLEASE ENLIGHTE ALL OF US”
My point? That it is the woman’s decision, and her doctor’s decision…and NO ONE ELSES.
TW
July 22nd, 2009
10:28 pm
TGT – Barna is an Evangelical Christian.
Some free advice for you – don’t ask the guy at the Chevy dealer if it would be a good idea to buy a Chevy.
electrician
July 22nd, 2009
10:29 pm
DOGGONE… enjoyed the exchange,gotta go now,see you on another topic
@@
July 22nd, 2009
10:30 pm
Just so you know. Every year, more than one million couples want to adopt a baby. Yet, there are only about 50,000 babies placed for adoption each year (source: National Council for Adoption).
400,000 teenage girls opt for abortion each year.
mike
July 22nd, 2009
10:33 pm
Doggone –
“You can’t do one without the other. If they want abortions made illegal…then there has to be some alternative for dealing with the resulting child. t has to be nurtured and raised. Who will do that? Who will pay for it?”
Hmm. So does that apply to parents who feel like dumping their newborn baby in a dumpster? I imagine that you would judge that to be a crime. If so, what is your alternative for dealing with the surviving child?
“I asked someone else: if you think it’s murder, will you invoke the deaths of those involved as a penalty?”
The penalty should be commensurate with a state’s homicide penalty.
How about actually responding to my question for once, as I continue to do with you:
Refute the argument that abortion is the murder of a living being.
mike
July 22nd, 2009
10:38 pm
TW –
“Barna is an Evangelical Christian. Some free advice for you – don’t ask the guy at the Chevy dealer if it would be a good idea to buy a Chevy.”
Well Arthur Brooks, author of “Who Really Cares”, who was cited by uber-liberal Nic Kristof, is Louis A. Bantle Professor of Business and Government Policy at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and Whitman School of Management.
As Kristof states:
“This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.”
Sorry to let facts get in the way of your stereotypes.
TGT
July 22nd, 2009
10:40 pm
TW: Barna’s an evangelical—SO?! This disqualifies him from good research? How many researchers/scientists etc. that comment/research social issues are secular humanists? Good research speaks for itself and can be evidenced by the methodology, which is practically always reported. Of course there is the occasional biased study/poll such as the recent New York Times poll on health care.
Trust me
July 22nd, 2009
10:46 pm
400,000 teenage girls opt for abortion each year.
Well, we do already have puppy mills.
Trust me
July 22nd, 2009
10:48 pm
Hillbilly,
I feel your pain. We have been through the grief with the insurance companies and I have many friends who have also. There have been no praises of the insurance companies for doing anything for anyone other than themselves. I want change and I know many others that do as well. The current system is crap.
Swami Dave
July 22nd, 2009
10:58 pm
TGT / Mike:
Good job guys making your point. As laughable as it is, the “liberal” shill questioning the veracity of your point and source because “he was a Christian” is silly since it is a LIBERAL (with no sources or basis except “uh-uh”).
The reality is that the biggest portion of compassion shown by most liberals is what they “support” so long as it is paid with other people’s confiscated earnings / wealth. Lucky for them, their position as the self-appointed arbiters of how other people’s money should be spent is apparently their “contribution” to society.
-SD
TnGelding
July 22nd, 2009
11:04 pm
Swami Dave
July 22nd, 2009
10:58 pm
I haven’t been following the discussion that closely, but do those contribution figures include donations to churches, i.e, tithes?
I think your second paragraph is a little over-broad. Many factors come into play when it comes to giving to charities. Frankly, I’m fed up with them. I think they’d take your last dime and not feel any shame.
Trust me
July 22nd, 2009
11:09 pm
The reality is that the biggest portion of compassion shown by most liberals is what they “support” so long as it is paid with other people’s confiscated earnings / wealth. Lucky for them, their position as the self-appointed arbiters of how other people’s money should be spent is apparently their “contribution” to society.
What reality are you referring to? Any facts, for example, to support your hyperbole would be greatly appreciated and it would go a long way toward establishing your credibility as well.
TnGelding
July 22nd, 2009
11:20 pm
The deductibles and co-pays for Medicare are considerable.
In for a rude awakening:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdaa-PTrs_k
I like the idea, tho.
Greg Mendel
July 22nd, 2009
11:22 pm
“You said “Obama has put forward facts, figures and details”, is that why the other day while talking on the phone to a blogger he couldn’t answer what was on page 16 of this health care bill.” — raider
What’s on page 16 of your drivers license, numb nutz? (No, don’t look. Trick question.)
Swami Dave
July 22nd, 2009
11:23 pm
Tn:
I am sure that the figures include tithes. Many churches sponsor their own outreaches and charitable organizations (or pool their resources with other communities of faith to do so) with those funds. Personally, I select which charities (both through my church and outside it) that I materially participate.
Trust Me:
The -reality- that collectivists (by their statements and actions) apparently think they know best how other people’s money (via taxation and increases in such) should be spent. They also assume the authority to decide how much “is enough” for others and, therefore, how much can be “fairly” confiscated from one group to redistribute or provide services for another group.
The point being that -if- Liberals think that their taxes are too low and more money should be transferred to other specific groups then -you- are free to give them as much of -your- money as you see fit. However, -you- have no right or authority to decide how -my- earnings or wealth should be spent or distributed.
-SD
Swami Dave
July 22nd, 2009
11:30 pm
Greg:
There is no page 16 on my driver’s license, numb-nutz!
However, to the second level stupidity of your “point”, when I got my driver’s license – I took the time to read what was on it. Likewise, I took the time to read the material preparing for my written test, practice driving in preparation for the practical test, and read the materials that I was signing to obtain my license.
So yes, I took the time to read documents and do due diligence relative to something that largely affected only me (my driver’s license). However, PrezBO and most of the PrezBOt shills waxing eloquent about legislation that will affect ALL Americans that they have NOT taken the time to read or understand would be unacceptable to any rational, thinking observer.
-SD
G
July 22nd, 2009
11:41 pm
@ Road Scholar
“What is the best healthcare system presently in the US? Stumped? It’s the VA!!!!!! I guess they don’t like socialized medcine, even for our troops, esp if they are vets themselves?”
Now, before I ask you to back that up with any facts or figures I’m going to ask you a question. Is this the same VA that exposed tens of thousands to possibly HIV infected equipment? The same VA that, after texting, several people have tested positive to HIV after a VA hospital visit? Or is this the VA that botched radiation treatments on more than a dozen people?
Dear God. If this is the best in our country I shudder to think of how I’ve made it these many years.
Trust me
July 22nd, 2009
11:45 pm
The -reality- that collectivists (by their statements and actions) apparently think they know best how other people’s money (via taxation and increases in such) should be spent. They also assume the authority to decide how much “is enough” for others and, therefore, how much can be “fairly” confiscated from one group to redistribute or provide services for another group.
So, these collectivists that you refer to must also include conservatives as well as liberals and all other parties in government since they all seem to think that their own ideas on how to spend our money are the best ideas. The same also applies to your “authority” argument given that Republicans decided to borrow money from other countries to do things like fund tax cuts for select people and fight wars, etc.
The point being that -if- Liberals think that their taxes are too low and more money should be transferred to other specific groups then -you- are free to give them as much of -your- money as you see fit. However, -you- have no right or authority to decide how -my- earnings or wealth should be spent or distributed.
Again, the same thing applies with the word “liberal” replaced with any other word. Conservatives, for example, have no more authority to go out and borrow money to pay for capital gains tax cuts or wars or prescription drug plans or farm bills, etc., than liberals.
Trust me
July 22nd, 2009
11:53 pm
We could start by giving all tax payers access to the same group policies that our tax dollars use to provide coverage to the politicians. Why do we have to pay for their coverage and yet not have access to the same coverage. Further, what is wrong with opening up access to medicare and medicaid to everyone. Also, access does not translate into free for all as some people seem to think.
S
July 23rd, 2009
5:43 am
U.S. of America we have a problem. The problem is Health Insurance Companies. They are NOT warm and fuzzy creatures. They giveth and they can take away. They have no competition therefore they can agree to cover you or not it is up to them. What Obama wants to do, I believe, is make sure these insurance companies have competition so they will see the light. If you can’t compete with the Government system, then you won’t be in business long. Everyone knows this in business. Competition keeps costs down. A Health Insurance Company that can have a profit of over 21 BILLION, well, that money had to come from somewhere and most likely from not covering people that it is suppose to be covering. We need to repair this major problem in this Country and now is the time, not at the end of the year, NOW.
AmVet
July 23rd, 2009
6:32 am
“Refute the argument that abortion is the murder of a living being.”
Murder is defined as “illegal killing with malice aforethought.” Abortion fails this definition for two reasons. First, abortion is NOT illegal, and second, there is no evidence to suggest that expecting mothers feel malice towards their own flesh and blood.
Much as you conned frequently hate it, this is a nation of laws.
And the law is straight forward, abortion is NOT murder.
Now, your penchant for disregarding the rules of grammar, syntax and semantics and mangling your mother tongue is something you’ll need much more remedial work than can be accomplished here…
AmVet
July 23rd, 2009
6:40 am
G, I don’t have time to tell you of my experiences with the VA. On a scale of ten it is a ten and blows away ANYTHING I have ever heard of in the private sector.
Since I presume you have never spent one moment of your entire life in any capacity – patient, staff or volunteer – in ANY VA facility – your input is useless.
Thank you…
Doggone/GA
July 23rd, 2009
6:51 am
“Refute the argument that abortion is the murder of a living being”
Murder is the taking of the life of another HUMAN being. A foetus still totally dependent on the woman’s body is not yet a human being. Yes, it is living…but if the woman ceases to live, so does the foetus. It is not a separate being apart from the woman, it is a symbiote in her body and as such is part of HER. It is HER body, and she has control of it.
It is not “murder” because the foetus is not, yet, a complete and separate human from the woman.
Doggone/GA
July 23rd, 2009
6:52 am
“Every year, more than one million couples want to adopt a baby. Yet, there are only about 50,000 babies placed for adoption”
And how many older children are there in foster care just begging for someone to adopt THEM?
I Report :-) You Whine :-(
July 23rd, 2009
6:56 am
On a scale of ten it is a ten and blows away ANYTHING I have ever heard of in the private sector.
I spent 3 weeks in the Presidio, laid up out cold in a hospital bed, recovering from pneumonia that the VA doctors misdiagnosed and that almost killed me.
No kidding, I had to lay on the chairs in the ER, lapsing in and out of consciousness before they admitted me.
It was free, though, and I suspect that is why AmVet thinks that it rocks.
TnGelding
July 23rd, 2009
6:57 am
Swami Dave
July 22nd, 2009
11:23 pm
Many churches do a lot of god work. The need is overwhelming.
TnGelding
July 23rd, 2009
7:03 am
Swami Dave
July 22nd, 2009
11:23 pm
Good idea, but I don’t think most would take advantage of it and many couldn’t afford to. I’d like to see the requirements for Medicaid eased a little, but at the same time crack down on fraud and abuse. I’ve never met anyone that was on it that wasn’t taking a handful of prescription drugs.
TnGelding
July 23rd, 2009
7:04 am
Trust me
July 22nd, 2009
11:53 pm
Correction, my 7:03 should have been addressed to you.
Sorry, Swami Dave.
I Report :-) You Whine :-(
July 23rd, 2009
7:06 am
America is now being pushed headlong into enacting a massive federal government-run health care program. The rush, of course, is the Congressional Democrats’ chosen strategy prompted by the Obama Administration’s hunger for a big victory. This strategy may be politically expedient, but it is extremely irresponsible, unwise, and unfair to the American people. Government-monopolized health service flatly contradicts both the moral principles of free market democracy and the excellence of health care that still draws patients from socialist utopias to the capitalist United States for medical treatment. This untested experiment with our national health demands no less than responsible public debate and prudent political judgment. Right now America is getting neither.-AmSpec
And this leads you to ask, do the democrats care more about “improving” health care or increasing their power through big government?
TnGelding
July 23rd, 2009
7:08 am
S
July 23rd, 2009
5:43 am
With single payer we could eliminate the profit and marketing costs, and reduce the administrative costs. We get direct mail and telemarketing solicitations almost every day.
Red Foreman
July 23rd, 2009
7:10 am
Hope and Change…HAHAHAHAHA!!!
TnGelding
July 23rd, 2009
7:11 am
Swami Dave
July 22nd, 2009
11:23 pm
And GOOD work, too!
Normal
July 23rd, 2009
7:11 am
Good morning, all…AmVet, My dealings with VA has also been superb,
and I have used them whenever I didn’t have any other insurance. My only gripe was having to travel to get where you had to be. I’m not sure if you have already said this, but the VA system would not be a bad model for the health plan to follow…
Trust me
July 23rd, 2009
7:11 am
I’m actually compelled to ask, “AmSpec! Are you kidding?”
TnGelding
July 23rd, 2009
7:16 am
I Report
You Whine 
July 23rd, 2009
7:06 am
Good points, but as to your question, I’d say health care. Didn’t a Democrat end the era of big government, only to see it resurrected in the next administration?
The way Obama talked last night, and I admit I couldn’t watch it all either, he might veto anything that comes out of Congress, if anything does. I’d bet right now nothing will.
TnGelding
July 23rd, 2009
7:18 am
Red Foreman
July 23rd, 2009
7:10 am
Maybe we should hope there is no change?
I don’t think there will be unless it is truly an improvement.
TnGelding
July 23rd, 2009
7:22 am
Trust me
July 23rd, 2009
7:11 am
I don’t think the intent is to have government monopolize health service, but I gave them the benefit of a doubt. It’s nearly 50% now tho.
Trust me
July 23rd, 2009
7:29 am
…A government plan that’s 40 percent cheaper, as Bachmann noted, would cost around $286 per month — a $190 discount. The government plan, though, wouldn’t exclude us for preexisting conditions. It wouldn’t randomly deny us coverage. It wouldn’t conspire to cancel our coverage as soon as we got sick. It wouldn’t jack up our premium for no reason. And we could take it with us wherever we go…
Darn those government health plans. They’ll be the death of us all.
DB, Gwinnettian
July 23rd, 2009
7:31 am
The question “when does life begin”
Oh, but Doggone, it was much worse than that. The question was “When does a BABY get human rights?” It was deliberately phrased to a) give his sick followers a reason to hate Obama, and b) hand McCain an applause line.
Of course they hate his “pay grade” answer. They’d hate anything he said in reply that wasn’t “Oh Massuh Rick, you right, I done sinned for supporting women’s rights and believing that their uteri aren’t property of the state!”
DB, Gwinnettian
July 23rd, 2009
7:36 am
recovering from pneumonia that the VA doctors misdiagnosed and that almost killed me.
Funny, my private, for-profit insurance-network doc misdiagnosed me one time. So obviously private for-profit insurance docs totally suck too. Guess we should just self-medicate and hope for the best.
Doggone/GA
July 23rd, 2009
7:48 am
“Of course they hate his “pay grade” answer. They’d hate anything he said in reply that wasn’t”
No doubt, and they are so dishonest when they tie abortion to murder…they simply CANNOT SEE that what they are REALLY saying is: It’s Ok for abortions to occur, as long as we get to punish those involved. Which is why they never have any sort of coherent alternative to abortion. They aren’t really worried about forcing a woman to carry her pregnancy to term, because if they DID to that…they wouldn’t get to “punish” her for HAVING an abortion.
Mrs. Godzilla
July 23rd, 2009
8:01 am
RB
I gave a great deal of thought to your accusation that I “celebrated”
the deaths of American Servicemen and women. My conclusion remains the same. You are wrong.
I offer this challenge.
If you can find anything I posted that celebrates the death of American soldiers and provide the link…..I will permanently leave this blog.
If you cannot you will either leave or offer an apology for your cruel remark.
jt
July 23rd, 2009
8:07 am
If you all would eat plenty of vegetables, buy your meat locally, and not be afraid of beer and wine in moderation, then ya’ll wouldn’t need insurance so much.
Oh yeah, and plenty of exercise.
DB, Gwinnettian
July 23rd, 2009
8:09 am
they simply CANNOT SEE that what they are REALLY saying is: It’s Ok for abortions to occur, as long as we get to punish those involved.
Interesting. Not sure I agree, though; in practice, most who claim to be vehemently opposed to legal abortion seem clueless when it comes to what sort of punishment should be doled out. I get a lot of Ralph Kramdenesque “hammita hammita”s when I ask point blank.
Consider too that a rather conservative state (S. Dakota) four years ago rejected a referendum that would’ve criminalized elective abortions outright. It’s like most folks want to be able to say they’ll consider abortion to be “murder” without actually treating it as such in the criminal code.
Because in their heart of hearts they know that aborting an 8-week-old embryo (about the median stage of development for an elective termination), while a regrettable circumstance, isn’t equal to child murder.
DB, Gwinnettian
July 23rd, 2009
8:10 am
If you all would eat plenty of vegetables, buy your meat locally, and not be afraid of beer and wine in moderation, then ya’ll wouldn’t need insurance so much.
Oh yeah, and plenty of exercise.
That’s mostly correct (I doubt the alcohol in moderation business is a good idea for recovering alcoholics, though). A comprehensive healthcare plan would encourage such behavior.
DB, Gwinnettian
July 23rd, 2009
8:13 am
Oh, one other thought, Doggone–certainly the anti-choice folk want to punish women for having sex. No doubt in my mind about that; this is mostly about imposing a double standard and maintaining a paternalistic status quo.
But it’s not about imposing actual criminal penalties on women. They’d rather bring back the public shame and induce the self-loathing among unwed pregnant women that they believe to have been the universal case back-in-the-day. That’s my point.
Californication
July 23rd, 2009
8:14 am
It turns out that 253.4 million Americans — or a whopping 83% of the country — have health insurance, whether it’s through private insurers, employer-based coverage, a government program or Medicaid/Medicare. The majority, 202 million of the 253.4 million, pay for private insurance.
And as a number of clever skeptics have recently pointed out, breaking down the 45 million number reveals that far fewer folks are actually uninsured. Nearly 10 million of those 45 million aren’t even American citizens, and nearly 17 million of them can easily afford insurance, but choose not to get it (these folks will be taxed under Obamacare for opting out.) When the numbers are crunched, it turns out that only 11 million legal American citizens who would like health insurance don’t have it, and even that figure is likely high. If we take it at 11 million, that’s less than 4% of the country.
RB from Gwinnett
July 23rd, 2009
8:26 am
G, as I said before, I will not waste my time looking for specific blog comments from 1-2 years ago. You have already acknowledged posting the KIA numbers. The difference here is why you posted them. I believe you posted them because their actual numbers serve your political purpose and as I said at the time, when increasing numbers of our soldiers deaths benefit your cause, you really need to consider whose side you’re on.
You can claim any reason you want to for posting the KIA numbers, G. I believe they were posted to embarrass our president and to further your left leaning agenda. I still think thats a sick thing to do with this nations people at war and I will not apologize for it. You can go away if you want to, but I will continue to post my beliefs on here and if that includes questioning your integrity over issues such as this, that’s too bad. If your feelings are hurt, perhaps you should view not just your motives for posting the numbers, G, but the consequences of posting them. Who benefits from it? Unintended consequences are every bit as damaging as intended ones.
ken
July 23rd, 2009
8:32 am
Doggone/GA, the alternative to abortion is adoption. There used to be a lot of adopted children many years ago. Abortion is the easy way out. Too many lazy people.
Swami Dave
July 23rd, 2009
8:37 am
Trust Me @ 11:45:
You can argue spending and costs for wars and the like if you choose. That is a legitimate discussion about the role and actions of our government. However, there is no such thing as “paying for a tax cut”. The money returned in tax cuts belongs to those who earned it; or it should be – highlighting another fallacy of the PrezBO plans giving tax cuts to those many of whom already pay no income taxes. If allowing Americans to keep more of what they earn limits the ability of government to fund some of the pet redistributionist transfer payments and social programs (like socialized health care), then that is simply an opportunity for those who are beneficiaries of those payments and programs to do for themselves the things for which they have been depending on government.
To your 11:53, I have no problem whatsoever opening access to the insurance plans that members of Congress currently participate to everyone. So long as the government and our tax dollars are not used to pay the premiums in another redistributionist transfer scheme, opening access to more plan options is a good thing. Interestingly, I notice that members of Congress (including some of the very Democrats shilling this monstrosity – soon to be debacle) are excluding themselves from the legislated (aka: forced) obligations to participate in the government plan. Apparently, increasing costs (to be further foisted upon America’s taxpayers as things that should be personal responsiblity are declared “societal obligations”) and decreased quality are something that should be mandated upon the “little people” (aka: those not within the hallowed groups of bureaucratic wonks and collectivist know-it-alls who enjoy the self-appointed position to know better how to lead our lives than do we).
Sorry, no dice.
-SD
Trust me
July 23rd, 2009
8:38 am
Of course, if you take the 45 million and divide by 298.4 million total, that would be 15% instead of 4% without health insurance and I have not even looked closely at these obviously biased (in favor of the “do nothing party”) numbers to see how they were derived. And, we all know that when numbers hit double digits, like with unemployment, it’s starting to look really bad.
Trust me
July 23rd, 2009
8:47 am
However, there is no such thing as “paying for a tax cut”.
When you borrow money and then use that money to fund tax cuts to a portion of the tax payers, all taxpayers are then stuck with paying back the principal plus interest. Further, as I said before, your earlier arguments apply equally to all, not just so-called liberals. As for your claims regarding health care, its cost and who pays for what, I will be happy to discuss any facts that you care to present. Just provide links and I’ll look over them and we’ll go from there. I don’t care to debate hyperbole. By the way, sorry about your loss. I hope you find your dice.
Mrs. Godzilla
July 23rd, 2009
8:48 am
RB from Gwinnett
I guess I should be happy that at least you are back pedaling from “celebrate”.
I wouldn’t want your karma dude.
DB, Gwinnettian
July 23rd, 2009
8:55 am
Cali’s basing his numbers @ 8.14 on one (1) right-wing shill who belongs to something called “Americans for Prosperity” and has made a name for himself spreading disinformation.
I’d not trust those numbers as far as I could throw ManTeats Limbaugh.
Swami Dave
July 23rd, 2009
9:03 am
DB, Gwinnettian:
“That’s mostly correct … A comprehensive healthcare plan would encourage such behavior.”
That might be the most laughably asinine post in the near 400 within this thread! A “comprehensive healthcare plan” will do nothing to make people who gorge on junk food, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol in excess, and fail to exercise follow better lifestyle habits. Having no plan should be one of the greatest motivating factors for individuals to practice some or all of these steps because it would be the best way that they could act in a preventative manner for themselves and their families.
However, -here- is what a “comprehensive health plan” will do for those in this group:
-It will probably pay for obesity prevention programs or dieticians consultancies or (probably) free food programs that the beneficiaries will either not show up for or not follow their advice or simply throw away as it goes bad in their refrigerator since they refuse to eat it.
-It will probably pay for smoking cessation and alcohol / substance abuse programs that beneficiaries will not attend and / or not follow.
-It will probably pay for gym memberships and -likely- exercise equipment purchases that will go unused since -if- these individuals wanted to exercise, most could walk outside their home and walk / run along any number of miles of sidewalks and trails.
In the end, this boondoggle will have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on programs that the beneficiaries do not follow only to have them showing up at doctor’s offices (spending more taxpayer dollars) to get services and prescriptions (spending more taxpayer dollars) for the health problems that are a direct result of their own decisions and choices.
I have a beter solution.
How about instead of passing legislation that obligates our children and grandchildren to fund what will be a wasteful economic drain, we allow PrezBO and the liberals to go to work now “removing waste” and “consolidating services to decrease cost”. For every dollar that you save (defined as a dollar less spent this year than we spent on health care last year), you are free to redirect that dollar to fund whatever socialist, single-payer government solution that you choose. Since PrezBO and the PrezBOts promise that it will “not increase deficits” and they will “pay” for the reform entirely through things like “waste prevention” and “efficiency”, then I suggest they begin now and redirect all of their “savings” to fund their program in a pay-as-you-go.
My suspicion is that the liberal response will be “no” – evidencing that liberals know the spin and blather is nothing but lies and obfuscation.
-SD
RB's translator
July 23rd, 2009
9:07 am
“G, as I said before, I will not waste my time looking for specific blog comments from 1-2 years ago.”
Translation: I don’t really remember so I’ll spout *my* interpretation of what you said like it’s an actual quote.
Truthiness in action.
DB, Gwinnettian
July 23rd, 2009
9:19 am
blah blah blab blah … My suspicion is that the liberal response will be… blah freedom… liberty… manly man… pull up by my incredible barf-straps… tax cuts make ponies appear…
huh? SD, you still jabbering on?
Go blogwh0re somewhere else, you whiny old coot.
Swami Dave
July 23rd, 2009
9:24 am
Trust Me:
Actually, our government is borrowing the money to continue funding the transfer payments and programs that those confiscated earnings (taxes) were covering. The money does not belong to the beneficiaries of the payments and programs; it belongs to those who earned it. Any deficits are not a result of tax cuts; they are a result of the New Deal / Great Society wasteful spending that tries to justify taking earnings from one group to transfer to another as benefit (in exchange for votes).
I agree we need to address our deficits and we should do it by cutting the redistributionist schemes that do for beneficiaries what they can and should do for themselves.
-SD
TnGelding
July 23rd, 2009
9:59 am
Californication
July 23rd, 2009
8:14 am
Think that might be why sentiment has changed? We have something, altho many not fully satisfied, but scared of the unknown? Plus the legislation being considered is inadequate.
TnGelding
July 23rd, 2009
10:03 am
Swami Dave
July 23rd, 2009
9:03 am
Look for a blitz of public health announcements promoting healthy lifestyles, with or without the comprehensive plan.
Doggone/GA
July 23rd, 2009
12:12 pm
“Doggone/GA, the alternative to abortion is adoption”
Ok, so you WOULD force a woman to carry a pregnancy – which she does not want – to full term. In other words, YOU want control of HER body.
md
July 23rd, 2009
8:19 pm
“YOU want control of HER body.”
Good question considering its obvious she didn’t do a very good job of controlling it in the first place.
Take the easy way out of the delimma, just kill it.
N.J.
July 24th, 2009
1:35 pm
I love quotes like this:
“The money does not belong to the beneficiaries of the payments and programs; it belongs to those who earned it. Any deficits are not a result of tax cuts; they are a result of the New Deal / Great Society wasteful spending that tries to justify taking earnings from one group to transfer to another as benefit ”
Patently false conservo whining. NO matter how they slice it, they cannot get around the fact that tax cuts are invariably and ALWAYS followed by an economic meltdown or economic stagnation, because the basic assertions about what people will DO with their tax cuts has always sounded good, but is always false. Lower the top marginal tax rates and a business owner is going to suck money OUT of his business for personal use. The idea that if you give a person a tax cut on personal income, they will take that money and start a business is basically false. The tax cuts the middle class would get are never large enough for this and on those at the top end, the only way they avoid being taxed when the top rates are high is by LEAVING their money inside of the business, and using it in ways in which the rate of taxation becomes ZERO. So instead of taking 100,000 dollars out of a business and personal income and seeing it be taxed into 30,000, they leave it INSIDE the business and only take out what they need, and only to the point where they are taxed in the LOWER brackets. They still have a huge amount of wealth, its just in a form that cannot be used to buy a personal yacht. But by leaving that money INSIDE of a business, they retain 100 percent of its value as long as they use it in ways that create wealth not profit.
Lowering the top tax rates results in money being sucked out of a going concern where it then goes chasing after high yield investments which results in a speculative market. This has occurred as an immediate response to every INCOME tax cut since the creation of the tax in 1913. The tax cuts of the 1920’s led to the great depression. The Reagan Tax cuts led to the crash of the late 1980’s, the Bush Tax cuts led to the current mess, because those wealthy who got the lions share of the tax cuts did NOT go out and start new businesses, they started investing in credit default swaps and bundled mortgages to get regular monthly income without the muss and fuss of actual property ownership. Why did banks start offering easier and easier mortgages? Because a lot of wealthy people who had even MORE money were demanding new places to put that money and get a better than savings account level of annual interest on it.