Rubber Meets the Road: Healthcare Reform Bill with EMS funding has just passed the Senate

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Thomas Durkee on August 14, 2009 at 12:19am

More misinformation CRAP!! Up until now, I considered Sarah Palin a feeble-minded nit wit. By perpetuating rumors about proposed U.S. legislation, she has added to the confusion and discontent of the average American who takes the time to try to learn about healthcare reform:

The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama’s health care proposals would create government-sponsored “death panels” to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere in recent weeks.

Advanced even this week by Republican stalwarts including the party’s last vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, and Charles E. Grassley, the veteran Iowa senator, the nature of the assertion nonetheless seemed reminiscent of the modern-day viral Internet campaigns that dogged Mr. Obama last year, falsely calling him a Muslim and questioning his nationality.

But the rumor — which has come up at Congressional town-hall-style meetings this week in spite of an avalanche of reports laying out why it was false — was not born of anonymous e-mailers, partisan bloggers or stealthy cyberconspiracy theorists.

Rather, it has a far more mainstream provenance, openly emanating months ago from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were central in defeating President Bill Clinton’s health care proposals 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative movement (and ultimately, New York’s lieutenant governor).

There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting measure. But over the course of the past few months, early, stated fears from anti-abortion conservatives that Mr. Obama would pursue a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda, combined with twisted accounts of actual legislative proposals that would provide financing for optional consultations with doctors about hospice care and other “end of life” services, fed the rumor to the point where it overcame the debate.

On Thursday, Mr. Grassley said in a statement that he and others in the small group of senators that was trying to negotiate a health care plan had dropped any “end of life” proposals from consideration.

A pending House bill has language authorizing Medicare to finance beneficiaries’ consultations with professionals on whether to authorize aggressive and potentially life-saving interventions later in life. Though the consultations would be voluntary, and a similar provision passed in Congress last year without such a furor, Mr. Grassley said it was being dropped in the Senate “because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”

The extent to which it and other provisions have been misinterpreted in recent days, notably by angry speakers at recent town hall meetings but also by Ms. Palin — who popularized the “death panel” phrase — has surprised longtime advocates of changes to the health care system.

“I guess what surprised me is the ferocity, it’s much stronger than I expected,” said John Rother, the executive vice president of AARP, which is supportive of the health care proposals and has repeatedly declared the “death panel” rumors false. “It’s people who are ideologically opposed to Mr. Obama, and this is the opportunity to weaken the president.”

The specter of government-sponsored, forced euthanasia was raised as early as Nov. 23, just weeks after the election and long before any legislation had been drafted, by an outlet decidedly opposed to Mr. Obama, The Washington Times.

In an editorial, the newspaper reminded its readers of the Aktion T4 program of Nazi Germany in which “children and adults with disabilities, and anyone anywhere in the Third Reich was subject to execution who was blind, deaf, senile, retarded, or had any significant neurological condition.”

Noting the “administrative predilections” of the new team at the White House, it urged “anyone who sees the current climate as a budding T4 program to win the hearts and minds of deniers.”

The editorial captured broader concerns about Mr. Obama’s abortion rights philosophy held among socially conservative Americans who did not vote for him. But it did not directly tie forced euthanasia to health care plans of Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress.

When the Democrats included money for family planning in a proposed version of the stimulus bill in January, the socially conservative George Neumayr wrote for the American Spectator: “Euthanasia is another shovel ready job for Pelosi to assign to the states. Reducing health care costs under Obama’s plan, after all, counts as economic stimulus, too — controlling life, controlling death, controlling costs.”

Ms. McCaughey, whose 1994 critique of Mr. Clinton’s plan was hotly disputed after its publication in The New Republic, weighed in around the same time.

She warned that a provision in the stimulus bill would create a bureaucracy to “monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost-effective,” was carried in a commentary she wrote for Bloomberg News that gained resonance throughout the conservative media, most notably with Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck.

The legislation did not direct the coordinator to dictate doctors’ treatments. A separate part of the law — regarding a council set up to coordinate research comparing the effectiveness of treatments — states that the council’s recommendations cannot “be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage or treatment.”

But Ms. McCaughey’s article provided another opportunity for others to raise the specter of forced euthanasia. “Sometimes for the common good, you just have to say, ‘Hey, Grandpa, you’ve had a good life,’ ” Mr. Beck said.

The syndicated conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote, “No one should be surprised at the coming embrace of euthanasia.” The Washington Times editorial page reprised its reference to the Nazis, quoting the Aktion T4 program: “It must be made clear to anyone suffering from an incurable disease that the useless dissipation of costly medications drawn from the public store cannot be justified.”

The notion was picked up by various conservative groups, but still, as Mr. Obama and Congress remained focused on other matters, it did not gain wide attention. Former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, an advocate for the health care proposals, said he was occasionally confronted with the “forced euthanasia” accusation at forums on the plans, but came to see it as an advantage. “Almost automatically you have most of the audience on your side,” Mr. Daschle said. “Any rational normal person isn’t going to believe that assertion.”

But as Congress developed its legislation this summer, critics seized on provisions requiring Medicare financing for “end of life” consultations, bringing the debate to a peak. To David Brock, a former conservative journalist who once impugned the Clintons but now runs a group that monitors and defends against attacks on liberals, the uproar is a reminder of what has changed — the creation of groups like his — and what has not.

“In the 90s, every misrepresentation under the sun was made about the Clinton plan and there was no real capacity to push back,” he said. “Now, there is that capacity.”

Still, one proponent of the euthanasia theory, Mr. Neumayr, said he saw no reason to stop making the claim.

“I think a government-run plan that is administered by politicians and bureaucrats who support euthanasia is inevitably going to reflect that view,” he said, “and I don’t think that’s a crazy leap.”

---NYT



The thing is, people LIKE Sarah Palin. She resonates with a lot of average Americans. I think she has acted irresponsible by creating/spreading such rumors about a piece of U.S. legislation. It has only added to the furor and contempt that many Americans have for their government. And a decent proposal that would have helped the dying is now toast.

-Tom

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on August 14, 2009 at 12:36am

OK, then who decides how costs are controlled with the proposed new health care plan? Is it going to pay for infinite levels of care no matter what the cost for everyone, of every age? If not who decides who gets what level of care at what cost? If it's not your doctor, then it's going to be some kind of government group. Call it a "Cost Control Consortium" or a "Death Panel" and the results will be the same for at least some people.

The alternative is endless costs that will eventually outstrip revenues to the poiunt that the GNP can't pay for it and the country truly will be bankrupt.

"Progressives" have a century=old track record of wanting government to run everything important, including health care. Read the book "Liberal Fascism" to see the comparisons between the "Progressive" government parallels between FDR and the Nazis in the 1930's. A lot of our older citizens remember those days, and the similar rhetoric that's being bandied about now. They also remember the similarities of how the Nazi's sold Hitler's eugenics programs to some of the sales rhetoric for the current U.S. health care proposals.

No wonder that people are afraid and the debate is heated.

Further, no on in their right mind would completely trust legislative intent, particularly with a Congress that passes thousand-page bills at 3 AM that they have admittedly not read themselves.

Giving a voice to consituants' fears isn't CRAP, it's excercising very real concerns about what people think might happen, especially if their tax money gets taken away to pay for it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Thomas Durkee on August 14, 2009 at 2:03am

Sarah Palin KNEW it was a lie yet she perpetuated it anyway. She used scare tactics to spread misinformation. Period. The rest of it is just b.s.

And healthcare reform isn't a liberal cause, or a conservative cause, or a progressive cause or anything else. It is a movement to CHANGE the wasteful ineffective system (or market) that we have now. Most people who have travelled overseas have seen and/or used a healthcare system that is more efficient, more effective, less expensive, and more equitable than we have here in the U.S., and they've rolled up their sleeves and worked very hard toward a better solution. The only people here that want to keep our healthcare the SAME are the people who are milking the medical care system for all it's worth. And Americans are suffering from it.

Even the most die-hard right wing conservatives have spoken out against our wasteful system. President Bush spoke out against it quite frequently. He was instrumental in getting Medicare Part D passed. But because a Democrat is in power, some people just want him to fail. When the reform movement fails, or when the Congressional bill fails, or when our President fails, the United States fails. And the people fail.

That's what I don't like about Sarah Palin. She is a sore loser. Just because she failed at the election, she wants the United States to fail. She knows that if the United States fails often enough, the people will vote for change in 2012. And just who do you think is running in 2012? Getting people to withdraw support for a bill that corrects our healthcare system or any other problem is just simply wrong. You don't get to be President by consistantly cheering for American failure while failing to offer any viable solution.

The minority of people who speak out against healthcare reform offer no alternative solution. All I hear from these people is "it's bad...it's bad....it's bad" Most, if not all of them have no clue how our U.S. system works any more than they know how any other healthcare system works. For all of you who have read the Affordable Health Choices Act and have reservations about it, I thank you for voicing your opinion/concerns. Now sit down and shut up until you can come up with a better idea.

And quite frankly, that's what I think our politicians should say to those people who show up at town halls full of decent Americans who struggle to understand this complex topic. I think each politician should listen to the complaints, thank the person who aired his/her opinion, and then tell them to sit down and shut up until they can come up with something better.

I've spent years studying our healthcare system. It took me a long time to get my Master of Healthcare Administration, my Master of Public Health - Health Mgmt & Policy, and my MBA-Healthcare Mgmt. Not to mention 20+ years of working within the emergency medical system. Ted Kennedy and John Dingell have dedicated their LIVES to understanding and working toward a better healthcare system. Yet you are going to quote me nutjob like Jonah Goldberg?? Really?? Come on. Your (and the rest of the obstructionists) 15 minutes are up. Until you can come up with something better, you can take a seat.

-Tom





Ben Waller said:

OK, then who decides how costs are controlled with the proposed new health care plan? Is it going to pay for infinite levels of care no matter what the cost for everyone, of every age? If not who decides who gets what level of care at what cost? If it's not your doctor, then it's going to be some kind of government group. Call it a "Cost Control Consortium" or a "Death Panel" and the results will be the same for at least some people.

The alternative is endless costs that will eventually outstrip revenues to the poiunt that the GNP can't pay for it and the country truly will be bankrupt.

"Progressives" have a century=old track record of wanting government to run everything important, including health care. Read the book "Liberal Fascism" to see the comparisons between the "Progressive" government parallels between FDR and the Nazis in the 1930's. A lot of our older citizens remember those days, and the similar rhetoric that's being bandied about now. They also remember the similarities of how the Nazi's sold Hitler's eugenics programs to some of the sales rhetoric for the current U.S. health care proposals.

No wonder that people are afraid and the debate is heated.

Further, no on in their right mind would completely trust legislative intent, particularly with a Congress that passes thousand-page bills at 3 AM that they have admittedly not read themselves.

Giving a voice to consituants' fears isn't CRAP, it's excercising very real concerns about what people think might happen, especially if their tax money gets taken away to pay for it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Thomas Durkee on August 14, 2009 at 2:22am

Here is a group of people who have worked very hard toward improving America's healthcare:



We have reached a sobering point in our national health-reform debate. Americans have recognized that our health system is bankrupting us and that we have dealt with this by letting the system price more and more people out of health care. So we are trying to decide if we are willing to change — willing to ensure that everyone can have coverage. That means banishing the phrase “pre-existing condition.” It also means finding ways to pay for coverage for those who can’t afford it without help.

Both of these steps stir heated argument, not to mention lobbyists’ hearts. But what creates the deepest unease is considering what we will have to do about the system’s exploding costs if pushing more people out is no longer an option. We have really discussed only two options: raising taxes or rationing care.

The public is understandably alarmed.



There is a far more desirable alternative: to change how care is delivered so that it is both less expensive and more effective. But there is widespread skepticism about whether that is possible.

Yes, many European health systems have done it, but we are not Europe. And evidence that places like the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota or the Cleveland Clinic are doing it is likewise dismissed because their unique structures (for example, their physicians work on salary rather than being paid for each service) make them seem as far from Middle America as Sweden is.

Yet in studying communities all over America, not just a few unusual corners, we have found evidence that more effective, lower-cost care is possible.

To find models of success, we searched among our country’s 306 Hospital Referral Regions, as defined by the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, for “positive outliers.” Our criteria were simple: find regions with per capita Medicare costs that are low or markedly declining in rank and where federal measures of quality are above average. In the end, 74 regions passed our test.


So we invited physicians, hospital executives and local leaders from 10 of these regions to a meeting in Washington so they could explain how they do what they do. They came from towns big and small, urban and rural, North and South, East and West. Here’s the list: Asheville, N.C.; Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Everett, Wash.; La Crosse, Wis.; Portland, Me.; Richmond, Va.; Sacramento; Sayre, Pa.; Temple, Tex.; and Tallahassee, Fla., which, despite not ranking above the 50th percentile in terms of quality, has made such great recent strides in both costs and quality that we thought it had something to teach us.

If the rest of America could achieve the performances of regions like these, our health care cost crisis would be over. Their quality scores are well above average. Yet they spend more than $1,500 (16%) less per Medicare patient than the national average and have a slower real annual growth rate (3 percent versus 3.5 percent nationwide).


“I was embarrassed for us,” said Jim Levett, a cardiac surgeon and the head of a large physician group. More important, the area’s doctors and clinics are turning that embarrassment into change by seeking out solutions to reduce the expense and harm of unnecessary scans.

Caveat: Because we relied on Medicare data for our selections, it is possible that some of these regions are not so low-cost from the viewpoint of non-Medicare patients. But overall data strongly suggest that most of these regions are providing excellent care for all patients while being far more successful than others at not overusing or misusing health care resources.

So how do they do that? Some have followed the Mayo model, with salaried doctors employed by a unified local system focused on quality of care: these include Temple, where the Scott and White clinic dominates the market, and Sayre, where the Guthrie Clinic does. Other regions, including Richmond and Everett, look more like most American communities, with several medical groups whose physicians are paid on a traditional fee-for-service basis. But they, too, have found ways to protect patients against the damaging incentives of a system that encourages fragmentation of care and the pursuit of revenues over patient needs.

The physicians and hospital leaders from Cedar Rapids told us how they have adopted electronic systems to improve communication among physicians and quality of care. Last year, they decided to investigate the overuse of CAT scans. They examined the data and found that in just one year 52,000 scans were done in a community of 300,000 people. A large portion of them were almost certainly unnecessary, not to mention possibly harmful, as CAT scans have about 1,000 times as much radiation exposure as a chest X-ray.

That number of scans in Cedar Rapids may seem shocking, but there is nothing surprising about it. Nationwide, we do 62 million CAT scans a year for 300 million people. So Cedar Rapids’s rate was actually better than average. But all medicine is local. And until a community confronts what goes on in its own population — to the point of actually seeking the data and engaging those who can solve the problem — nothing will change.

The team from Portland told us of a collaboration of doctors, state officials, insurers and community leaders to improve care. For more than four years, physicians have been tracking some 60 measures of quality, like medication error rates for their patients, and meeting voluntary cost-reduction goals.

Asheville, after gaining state support to avoid antitrust concerns, merged two underutilized hospitals. In Sacramento, a decade of fierce competition among four rival health systems brought about elimination of unneeded beds, adoption of new electronic systems for patient data and a race to raise quality. Sacramento also went from being one of America’s high-cost areas for health care to being among the low-cost elite.

In their own ways, each of these successful communities tells the same simple story: better, safer, lower-cost care is within reach. Many high-cost regions are just a few hours’ drive from a lower-cost, higher-quality region. And in the more efficient areas, neither the physicians nor the citizens reported feeling that care is “rationed.” Indeed, it’s rational.

Many in Congress and the Obama administration seem to recognize this. The various reform bills making their way through the process have included provisions to protect successful medical communities by incorporating payment approaches that reward those that slow spending growth while improving patient outcomes. This is the right direction for reform.

There is a lot of troubling rhetoric being thrown around in the health care debate. But we don’t need to be trapped between charges that reforms will ration care and doing nothing about costs and coverage. We must instead look at the communities that are already redesigning American health care for the better, and pursue ways for the nation to follow their lead.

--Atul Gawande directs the Center for Surgery and Public Health at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and is a staff writer at The New Yorker; Donald Berwick is the president of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement in Cambridge, Mass.; Elliott Fisher directs policy-reform efforts at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice; and Mark McClellan is the director of health care reform policy at the Brookings Institution. All are physicians.



And of course, they were busy working toward the solutions rather than spending time reading garbage or studying the Weimar Republic.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joe P. on August 14, 2009 at 2:49am

Hey Tom,

If you're going to copy and past articles, at the very list include a link back to the original article.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Thomas Durkee on August 14, 2009 at 2:54am

sorry.

10 Steps to Better Health Care ..... Aug. 12, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13gawande.html

Why Sarah Palin wants to Confuse and Incite Americans ..... Aug. 14, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html?hp

Health Reform and Small Business ..... Aug. 12, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13thu1.html?_r=1

-Tom

Joe P. said:

Hey Tom,

If you're going to copy and past articles, at the very list include a link back to the original article.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on August 14, 2009 at 9:19pm

Tom...nice leavening of meaningless platitudes and B.S. in that post there, dude.

From your characterization of the text I recommended as "garbage" and the author as a "nutjob" I see intentional ignorance on your part. There are a lot of valid comparisons between the U.S. in the 1930's, Germany in the 1930's, and the U.S. today. Here's one example....FDR's CCC and the Hitler Youth shared many things in common...they were trained in a military manner, performed national service work, learned to be healthy and spend a lot of time outdoors, and were indoctrinated in political philosophies that were often at odds with what they would have learned from their parents if they had still been at home. I wonder if we've heard any recent proposals for national service that parallel that in, say, the last six months??? Hmmmm???
Guess who drew that very valid comparison? You guessed it, Mr. Goldberg. How about national health care plans designed to create the healthiest people around during a very bad time for the national economy??? Hint, Germany in the 1930's...again, a comparison by Mr. Goldberg.

People who express caution about going to far and/or in untended directions are driving the counterpoint to the liberal-biased, pro-socialist, endless national debt proponents, and they have a right to voice their opinions. When you have Congressmen who voted for health care reform who haven't even read the bill, people have the right to question that, too. Sorry if I don't trust your posting of a few isolated examples with no demonstrated evidence of pertinence to the larger national issue, and parroting of DNC talking points as being on the same planet with either a convincing argument or meaningful fact.

So...Did you actually read Liberal Fascism prior to assigning perjoratives to its author? From the tone of your replies, I doubt it. "Those who do notremember the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them." (Santayana) There are quite a few of the Greatest Generation of Americans who remember those lessons and see the current health care proposals as the start of a repeat of a terrible part of world history, and want to stop it before we risk it happening again. Goldberg reminds us of a lot of that history that "Progressives" would rather ignore, hide, or forget.

There are a lot of Americans who mistrust self-important, self-proclaimed experts, especially those who are dismissive of and insulting to anyone who questions them, who refuse to listen to any concern or alternative, or who advocate nebulous, unproven, faux solutions with a vague and ill-defined plan as something that the rest of us should blindly fall into line like good sheep...while potentially paying through the nose for it. They are not nitwits, they're not inferior to anyone else, and their opinions are just as valid as the government's demands that they pay ever-increasing taxes while giving up pieces of their self-determination.

Everyone has the right to a voice on political issues - it's a guaranteed 1st Amendment right. You complain about someone causing "discontent" as if it were a bad thing. It is not, it's a GREAT thing when that discontent is causing a re-examination of exactly what is at stake...for all of us. Thanks for the challenge, though. I'm up to it, and it will be a cold, cold day in hell before I ever take a seat on this issue, around you, or anyone else who shares your blatant biases and disregard for comparisons in the context of history.

If your position was based solely on solid fact, you wouldn't need to stoop to ridicule, dismissiveness, or elitism. You used all three, which is pretty solid evidence that your position isn't as solid as you seem to think it is. You also wouldn't need to cite a far-left rag like the New York Times as if it were a reliable, neutral source.

I also frankly don't believe your claims about this not being a liberal issue...for you or anyone else who blindly shills for the Obama Administration's plans. When you bash John McCain and Sarah Palin, promote Ted Kennedy, and ridicule Jonah Goldberg, that's a pattern of liberal bias. When you call me an obstructionist because I ask questions, that confirms it...it's a classic liberal tactic used by everyone from the liberal bloggers in my town's local newspaper to the far-left stars of the MSNBC evening news programs.

All I did was express that people have a right to state their concerns...and that makes me an "obstructionist". Tom, I'm not an obstructionist. I'm a realist, I ask questions, and I'm not going away.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on August 14, 2009 at 9:44pm

You must be talking about the Democratic Senators and Congressmen/women that don't read 1,000+ page bills when they pass them at 3 AM, or numbnuts like that flip-flopper from Pennsylvania who can't decide what party is best for him for the next 5 minutes.

Or...people who say things like "sit down and shut up..." to anyone who simply asks a few basic questions...

Do you have a MSNBC teleprompter next to your computer?


Thomas Durkee said:

It helps if people would actually READ the reform proposals, rather than just simply guess. Too many people get their information from numbnuts like Glenn Beck and others who are paid by the healthcare insurance lobby to scare Americans.

thanks
Tomnathan said:

"There's a lot of misinformation out there" Ya there is! its ridiculous! It does seem progress is being made though

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nathan on August 14, 2009 at 10:02pm

I have to say I support voicing disagreements and having a good debate on something. The end product in theory should end up an even better hybrid of the two ideas. But what being played over and over in the media is not reasonable discussion or even heated debate. Everyday on the news you can see some person yelling and making a fool of themselves. (usually without any real knowledge of the issue) When the speaker tries to respond to the question, sometimes screamed in their face, the person does not give them a chance! This example IS obstruction!! I would however be very concerned if these people were tackled and hauled away because that would be like the fascist regime! That being said it does annoy me when the politicians opposing the bill do not voice a counter offer in their rebuttal. I usually consider myself a conservative but I find myself on the side of reform in this debate. I am totally against adding to the national deficit which is why I support reform. Look at most any other country with government regulated health care and you will find a longer life expectancy and the government paying about half as much per person for their health care. I dont see why we cant do that for the greater good of everyone.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Formidable Opponent - Stephen Heckles a Burger King Commercial
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Meryl Streep

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by asysin2leads on August 14, 2009 at 10:44pm

Ben Waller said:

Tom...nice leavening of meaningless platitudes and B.S. in that post there, dude.
From your characterization of the text I recommended as "garbage" and the author as a "nutjob" I see intentional ignorance on your part. There are a lot of valid comparisons between the U.S. in the 1930's, Germany in the 1930's, and the U.S. today. Here's one example....FDR's CCC and the Hitler Youth shared many things in common...they were trained in a military manner, performed national service work, learned to be healthy and spend a lot of time outdoors, and were indoctrinated in political philosophies that were often at odds with what they would have learned from their parents if they had still been at home. I wonder if we've heard any recent proposals for national service that parallel that in, say, the last six months??? Hmmmm??? .

Okay, so Ben, you're saying that being trained in a military manner, performing national service work, and learning to be healthy are the first step in a slippery slope towards Nazism? I find it so amusing that when its a conservative issue, national service, etc. are the hallmarks of a redblooded American, but when its a democrat were talking about, well, roll out the Swastikas and start saying Sieg Heil. You know what smacks more of Nazism? Invading countries. Suspending civil liberties. Using fear mongering propaganda to encourage fanatical loyalism to ideals. Xenophobia. Paranoia. Do any of those things sound familiar? They should. The point of the matter is that the GOP is not against this healthcare plan is not because its a bad plan, but because stopping it would weaken a popular president. And after they screwed up so badly in the past few years, they are willing to see thousands of Americans die from lack of healthcare so long as they get back in power. But then again, maybe they'll be right with Jesus, and that's all that matters, right? Getting this country back to a good, Christian, God-fearing nation, at all costs. Even if it means spreading lies about the President's place of birth. Even if it means spreading more lies about "death panels". No matter what, dammit, you gotta take this country back. But then again, the GOP was so excellent at letting Americans die during Katrina, it seems its what they do best.
Give me the old GOP, the ones with ideas, not just the ones who feel they need to carry out God's will, even if it means lies and deceit. I'm sorry if the New York Times doesn't have as many explosions and talking heads as say Fox News, and doesn't give you that battle charged feeling that a session with Rush Limbaugh will, but actually, it contains some pretty good information. Or maybe the GOP should just be done with it and start some big bonfires to burn the liberal rags while they goosestep around it.
I read the other day that 58% of Republicans do not believe that the President was born in America. That tells me all I need to know. Maybe an issue of the NY Times would be good for you guys. Or at least Highlights for Children.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on August 14, 2009 at 11:01pm

Well, asys, since I'm not a Republican and I don't want the country in ruins, I'm not sure what that has to do with me. My points about the 1930's comparisons are specific to things pointed out in Liberal Fascism, not generalizations.

Funny how everyone in the U.S. has the right to believe as they wish, worship as they wish, or support political issues as they wish...if they're liberal and anti-traditional.

What civil liberties did anyone lose who wasn't captured in battle or while involved in a terrorist plot? Invading countries...one that was a stated enemy of our country and that was ruled by a dictator who had his own people raped, tortured, killed, and gassed with chemical weapons? Xenophobia is a specious charge...no fear involved, just practical steps to prevent a repeat of the 9/11 attacks. As for fear mongering...you mean the fear mongering that the Obama Adminstration is using to scare everyone into supporting huge increases in the national debt, or the fear mongering that Tom is using to scare us into supporting his personal views of what health care reform should look like?

As for where President Obama was born, he could clear that right up by producing a birth certificate.
Has he done that? I haven't heard. If not, it should be easy enough to do - I have notarized copies of mine in my home and in my office.

As for the ridicule and namecalling, you and Tom need to go to kindergarten...the 5-years olds can do better.

They seem to understand more about civility, too.

asysin2leads said:

Ben Waller said:

Tom...nice leavening of meaningless platitudes and B.S. in that post there, dude.
From your characterization of the text I recommended as "garbage" and the author as a "nutjob" I see intentional ignorance on your part. There are a lot of valid comparisons between the U.S. in the 1930's, Germany in the 1930's, and the U.S. today. Here's one example....FDR's CCC and the Hitler Youth shared many things in common...they were trained in a military manner, performed national service work, learned to be healthy and spend a lot of time outdoors, and were indoctrinated in political philosophies that were often at odds with what they would have learned from their parents if they had still been at home. I wonder if we've heard any recent proposals for national service that parallel that in, say, the last six months??? Hmmmm??? .

Okay, so Ben, you're saying that being trained in a military manner, performing national service work, and learning to be healthy are the first step in a slippery slope towards Nazism? I find it so amusing that when its a conservative issue, national service, etc. are the hallmarks of a redblooded American, but when its a democrat were talking about, well, roll out the Swastikas and start saying Sieg Heil. You know what smacks more of Nazism? Invading countries. Suspending civil liberties. Using fear mongering propaganda to encourage fanatical loyalism to ideals. Xenophobia. Paranoia. Do any of those things sound familiar? They should. The point of the matter is that the GOP is not against this healthcare plan is not because its a bad plan, but because stopping it would weaken a popular president. And after they screwed up so badly in the past few years, they are willing to see thousands of Americans die from lack of healthcare so long as they get back in power. But then again, maybe they'll be right with Jesus, and that's all that matters, right? Getting this country back to a good, Christian, God-fearing nation, at all costs. Even if it means spreading lies about the President's place of birth. Even if it means spreading more lies about "death panels". No matter what, dammit, you gotta take this country back. But then again, the GOP was so excellent at letting Americans die during Katrina, it seems its what they do best.
Give me the old GOP, the ones with ideas, not just the ones who feel they need to carry out God's will, even if it means lies and deceit. I'm sorry if the New York Times doesn't have as many explosions and talking heads as say Fox News, and doesn't give you that battle charged feeling that a session with Rush Limbaugh will, but actually, it contains some pretty good information. Or maybe the GOP should just be done with it and start some big bonfires to burn the liberal rags while they goosestep around it.
I read the other day that 58% of Republicans do not believe that the President was born in America. That tells me all I need to know. Maybe an issue of the NY Times would be good for you guys. Or at least Highlights for Children.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by asysin2leads on August 14, 2009 at 11:07pm

Here you go Ben...

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

Something you were saying about a birth certificate? And what is this BS about only being allowed your rights if your non-traditional and crap? People are still free to marry, free to carry guns, free to drink and drive, free to act like lunatics on TV, as I was was saying, all the right has left is fear and rumor mongering.
Let me guess, you also hear that no Jews died on 9/11, right?

Ben Waller said:

Well, asys, since I'm not a Republican and I don't want the country in ruins, I'm not sure what that has to do with me. My points about the 1930's comparisons are specific to things pointed out in Liberal Fascism, not generalizations.

Funny how everyone in the U.S. has the right to believe as they wish, worship as they wish, or support political issues as they wish...if they're liberal and anti-traditional.

As for where President Obama was born, he could clear that right up by producing a birth certificate.
Has he done that? I haven't heard. If not, it should be easy enough to do - I have notarized copies of mine in my home and in my office.

As for the ridicule and namecalling, you and Tom need to go to kindergarten...the 5-years olds can do better.
They seem to understand more about civility, too.

asysin2leads said:

Ben Waller said:

Tom...nice leavening of meaningless platitudes and B.S. in that post there, dude.
From your characterization of the text I recommended as "garbage" and the author as a "nutjob" I see intentional ignorance on your part. There are a lot of valid comparisons between the U.S. in the 1930's, Germany in the 1930's, and the U.S. today. Here's one example....FDR's CCC and the Hitler Youth shared many things in common...they were trained in a military manner, performed national service work, learned to be healthy and spend a lot of time outdoors, and were indoctrinated in political philosophies that were often at odds with what they would have learned from their parents if they had still been at home. I wonder if we've heard any recent proposals for national service that parallel that in, say, the last six months??? Hmmmm??? .

Okay, so Ben, you're saying that being trained in a military manner, performing national service work, and learning to be healthy are the first step in a slippery slope towards Nazism? I find it so amusing that when its a conservative issue, national service, etc. are the hallmarks of a redblooded American, but when its a democrat were talking about, well, roll out the Swastikas and start saying Sieg Heil. You know what smacks more of Nazism? Invading countries. Suspending civil liberties. Using fear mongering propaganda to encourage fanatical loyalism to ideals. Xenophobia. Paranoia. Do any of those things sound familiar? They should. The point of the matter is that the GOP is not against this healthcare plan is not because its a bad plan, but because stopping it would weaken a popular president. And after they screwed up so badly in the past few years, they are willing to see thousands of Americans die from lack of healthcare so long as they get back in power. But then again, maybe they'll be right with Jesus, and that's all that matters, right? Getting this country back to a good, Christian, God-fearing nation, at all costs. Even if it means spreading lies about the President's place of birth. Even if it means spreading more lies about "death panels". No matter what, dammit, you gotta take this country back. But then again, the GOP was so excellent at letting Americans die during Katrina, it seems its what they do best.
Give me the old GOP, the ones with ideas, not just the ones who feel they need to carry out God's will, even if it means lies and deceit. I'm sorry if the New York Times doesn't have as many explosions and talking heads as say Fox News, and doesn't give you that battle charged feeling that a session with Rush Limbaugh will, but actually, it contains some pretty good information. Or maybe the GOP should just be done with it and start some big bonfires to burn the liberal rags while they goosestep around it.
I read the other day that 58% of Republicans do not believe that the President was born in America. That tells me all I need to know. Maybe an issue of the NY Times would be good for you guys. Or at least Highlights for Children.

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 15
• Next ›
• Page