Stimulus bill is a Trojan Horse

[PoliticalChic]

If passed as is in both houses of Congress, the Senate "stimulus bill" will affect every single person in the country because of the hidden provisions buried deep in the bill. This bill really isn't about stimulating the economy because scores of economists have repeatedly said this bill will not do that because government cannot spend the country out of a recession. Never has, never will. It was about something else all along. I'm sure Obama was hoping to get it passed before anyone read that far into the bill -and see it imposed on all Americans without their approval or even their knowledge. Until too late.


Remember the founders were the same people who thought the fact England was imposing taxes on Americans without their input and consent -was worth violent revolution.

I don't know if you're one of those belatedly and recently minted "I never supported Bush" republicans, but if you voted for him twice in presidential election, if you stood by in silence as the GOP nominated him twice in republican primaries, if you defended his tax cuts for the rich scheme, his iraq war, and his hands-off approach to regulating banks and wall street, then your predictions and opinions aren't worth a warm bucket of piss.

Based on your scatter-gun attack above, you get your talking points from the Huffington Post, or Olbermann. And in your circles, it probably makes you appear intelligent, as in "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

But, just for a moment, at the risk of giving you a headache, try to focus on his point: "never has, never will."

Can you, in some intelligent way, deny this?

 

[jillian]

If passed as is in both houses of Congress, the Senate "stimulus bill" will affect every single person in the country because of the hidden provisions buried deep in the bill. This bill really isn't about stimulating the economy because scores of economists have repeatedly said this bill will not do that because government cannot spend the country out of a recession. Never has, never will. It was about something else all along. I'm sure Obama was hoping to get it passed before anyone read that far into the bill -and see it imposed on all Americans without their approval or even their knowledge. Until too late.


Remember the founders were the same people who thought the fact England was imposing taxes on Americans without their input and consent -was worth violent revolution.

I don't know if you're one of those belatedly and recently minted "I never supported Bush" republicans, but if you voted for him twice in presidential election, if you stood by in silence as the GOP nominated him twice in republican primaries, if you defended his tax cuts for the rich scheme, his iraq war, and his hands-off approach to regulating banks and wall street, then your predictions and opinions aren't worth a warm bucket of piss.

Based on your scatter-gun attack above, you get your talking points from the Huffington Post, or Olbermann. And in your circles, it probably makes you appear intelligent, as in "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

But, just for a moment, at the risk of giving you a headache, try to focus on his point: "never has, never will."

Can you, in some intelligent way, deny this?

you read frazzle dazzle's post but are criticizing Red Dawn for a scattergun approach? RAFLMAO!

I think perhaps you're the one who needs to stop playing dittohead.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't know if you're one of those belatedly and recently minted "I never supported Bush" republicans, but if you voted for him twice in presidential election, if you stood by in silence as the GOP nominated him twice in republican primaries, if you defended his tax cuts for the rich scheme, his iraq war, and his hands-off approach to regulating banks and wall street, then your predictions and opinions aren't worth a warm bucket of piss.

Based on your scatter-gun attack above, you get your talking points from the Huffington Post, or Olbermann. And in your circles, it probably makes you appear intelligent, as in "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

But, just for a moment, at the risk of giving you a headache, try to focus on his point: "never has, never will."

Can you, in some intelligent way, deny this?

you read frazzle dazzle's post but are criticizing Red Dawn for a scattergun approach? RAFLMAO!

I think perhaps you're the one who needs to stop playing dittohead.

And would you like to defend the Stimulus Bill as efficacious? I thought not.

 

[jillian]

good work and well said.

This manner of stimulating the economy is flawed, decietful and based on nothing but conjecture.

you actually read one of frazzle dazzle's posts? if i hadn't repped you this a.m., i'd rep you just for fortitude.

 

[jillian]

Based on your scatter-gun attack above, you get your talking points from the Huffington Post, or Olbermann. And in your circles, it probably makes you appear intelligent, as in "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

But, just for a moment, at the risk of giving you a headache, try to focus on his point: "never has, never will."

Can you, in some intelligent way, deny this?

you read frazzle dazzle's post but are criticizing Red Dawn for a scattergun approach? RAFLMAO!

I think perhaps you're the one who needs to stop playing dittohead.

And would you like to defend the Stimulus Bill as efficacious? I thought not.

efficacious? more so than doing nothing like the people who've been wrong for eight years and want us to continue to do.

 

[Ravi]

If you come up with an original thought , opinion or observation there probably won't be anything on the net to link it to.

No way! You mean people can say any crazy shit they want and expect us to believe it?

There are provisions in the stimulus bill to create an agency to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the application of medical procedures. (busy work)

(and more busy work) The president also has often stated and did so again today in Florida, that it is obsolete, and inconvenient, to have to go into a doctor's office and fill out a form or forms to provide your medical history. It would create new jobs to have technicians recording that information into electronic files so that that information would be instantly available. I'm not so sure any of would want that. How long before our genetic information becomes a part of that and is used in those coming soon "cost effectiveness evaluations"?

Here is an article that was in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, 9 February, that deals specifically with the issue of health care rationing:

Nadeem Esmail Says Nationalized Health Care Will Cost Us Pain and Suffering - WSJ.com

Thanks. I'm not thrilled about the electronic tracking of patients but I figure it is already happening.

Someone else PMed me this information:

WASHINGTON—AARP CEO Bill Novelli released the following statement in response to false reports regarding health care provisions in the economic recovery package:

“They’re at it again. Opponents of health reform are now using scare tactics in a misguided attempt to stop progress in its tracks, blocking attempts to fix the broken health care system that is hurting American families and our economy.

“The latest attacks revolve around a smart policy in the economic recovery package that would fund ‘comparative effectiveness research’—a wonky term that just means giving doctors and patients the ability to compare different kinds of treatments to find out which one works best for which patient.

“Opponents—like some drug companies and medical device makers—don’t want this research. They fear it will cut the profits they make on ineffective drugs and equipment.

“But they won’t tell you that this research could save your life by giving your doctors better information so they can prescribe the best treatments available to you.

AARP on Health Care Scare Tactics: Health Research Investment Helps Doctors Give Best Possible Care to Patients

 

[PoliticalChic]

you read frazzle dazzle's post but are criticizing Red Dawn for a scattergun approach? RAFLMAO!

I think perhaps you're the one who needs to stop playing dittohead.

And would you like to defend the Stimulus Bill as efficacious? I thought not.

efficacious? more so than doing nothing like the people who've been wrong for eight years and want us to continue to do.

Consistent with your usual train of thought, exactly wrong. The non-partisan CBO actulally states that doing nothing is better than this bill.
Washington Times - CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

 

[American Horse]

There are provisions in the stimulus bill to create an agency to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the application of medical procedures. (busy work)

"...But don't forget that everyone agrees that health spending is already too high. So the stimulus also devotes $1.1 billion to create a new bureaucracy called the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. A billion dollars isn't nearly enough to conduct the rigorous clinical studies needed to provide more information on what medical treatments result in the best outcomes. But Democrats want to get this "health-care Fed" on the books now so it's around when they pass the next entitlement expansion -- for the entire middle class.

When government finances start to buckle under that subsidy, the comparative effectiveness outfit will start to ration care to control costs, much like the United Kingdom's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). The draft report accompanying the House portion of the bill notes that procedures and drugs "that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed."
Here's the Link to The Full Article

For those in this Community who think you can only benifit from a government run health care system, consider this: You may be young now and don't need to access it very much. That's why so many of the young don't purchase a health insurance plan. That group is constantly being told that the existing system is in a crisis, and health care may not be available when needed, or cost too much, creating a consensus that an entitlement could only be a good thing.

But in reality, when you get to an age when you are making some real demands on the system, you will be cut out by a cost effeffectiveness evaluation, and even if you can afford it out of your own purse, your won't be able to get it done. That's the way it is in Canada and England, and increasingly the way Medicare performs in this country. The coming healthcare system will follow the Medicare model.

How quicky come the sixties after those wonderful thirties and fourties. If like many of us you've spent your life doing hard physical labor, you'll need some surgeries that will have become more rare and therefore more costly, and the decision won't be yours to make. If you've read the previous article in my first post you'll not that in Canada MRIs are hard to get and the wait is long. On the other hand, here at home I was able to arrange my own appointment with an orthopedic speciliast, and within a week, go in and get an MRI (as well as X-rays) in his office and procede with a knee operation for a painful problem that was keeping me from my work, within a month.

There are more MRI machines in Western Pensylvania (which is Appalachia) than there are in the whole of Canada. That scarcity in Canada is de facto rationing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How quicky come the sixties after those wonderful thirties and fourties. If like many of us you've spent your life doint some hard physical labor, you'll need some surgeries that will have become more rare and therefore more costly, and the decision won't be yours to make. (by American Horse)

Please allow me to agree and expand on your point:
"What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make. "

Bloomberg.com: Opinion

Refers to Daschle's book, source of these ideas now hidden in the "Stimulus Bill."

 

[American Horse]

How quicky come the sixties after those wonderful thirties and fourties. If like many of us you've spent your life doint some hard physical labor, you'll need some surgeries that will have become more rare and therefore more costly, and the decision won't be yours to make. (by American Horse)

Please allow me to agree and expand on your point:
"What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make. "

Bloomberg.com: Opinion

Refers to Daschle's book, source of these ideas now hidden in the "Stimulus Bill."

Yes, and this is not new. In the President's Health Care Plan, a book that was published in 1993 to sell the plan to the public (I bought my own copy) doctors were precluded from treating and surgeons from operating outside of the government run system. They were to be subject to fines and even imprisonment if you can believe that. This plan limited how much they could earn and what specialties they could go into.

Consider the effects of that. Why would you spend the years and money to go into a field like medicine if the rewards were to be meager? Since income would be limited, talent would go elsewhere (other fields), there would be no competition, of the sort that enough new talent provides in any field. If that happens here in the U.S. the medical profession and the level of treatment throughout the world will be impacted negatively from then on into the future.

...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Consider the effects of that. Why would you spend the years and money to go into a field like medicine if the rewards were to be meager? Since income would be limited, talent would go elsewhere (other fields), there would be no competition, of the sort that enough new talent provides in any field. If that happens here in the U.S. the medical profession and the level of treatment throughout the world will be impacted negatively from then on into the future. (from American Horse)

...

Aside from the medical profession, how about what will be the final steps in this Dans Macabre, Soylent Green.

 

[American Horse]

Consider the effects of that. Why would you spend the years and money to go into a field like medicine if the rewards were to be meager? Since income would be limited, talent would go elsewhere (other fields), there would be no competition, of the sort that enough new talent provides in any field. If that happens here in the U.S. the medical profession and the level of treatment throughout the world will be impacted negatively from then on into the future. (from American Horse)

...

Aside from the medical profession, how about what will be the final steps in this Dans Macabre, Soylent Green.

Exactly! Why can't all the brilliant ones (and there brilliant ones hereabouts) who dismiss the obvious, can't see through shams like this and others? I think the problem is that we have no one looking out for us; we are poorly served by our information media, to whom the constitution gave that power and responsiblity.

I seriously doubt that a democracy can survive without a studious information reporting media dedicated to doing their jobs. And all the piling on with Bush for the lst 8-years is a poor excuse for actualy doing a good job.

...

 

[frazzledgear]

.....if you defended his tax cuts for the rich scheme.....

I was actually reading your post until I got to this part and realized you just a parrot -as if mindlessly repeating something like this somehow makes it "true".

Sorry, but an across-the-board-tax rate reduction for all taxpayers -is not a tax cut for the rich "scheme".

Small businesses, which create more than 85% of jobs - are taxed at the same individual rate as the wealthiest in this country. So what's the point of calling something an "economic stimulus" if it isn't providing a stimulus to the very sector that creates new jobs? Then its just "redistribution of the wealth" which has a recessionary effect on the economy -which was already recessionary at that time. It wouldn't have provided any economic stimulus at all - which is why tax cuts to stimulate the economy MUST include the very businesses and people who actually create new jobs! Or it won't work.

Take some math and economics please and spend less time parroting leftwing whackos. A 2% reduction in EVERY tax bracket that allows all taxpayers to keep 2% more of THEIR OWN money instead of forking it over to government -has the identical impact on everyone's wallet. They have 2% more of the money THEY earned in their wallet. Not the identical dollar amount -because everyone doesn't pay the identical dollar amount in taxes the first place.

It only means that everyone kept 2% more of THEIR money they earned in the first place. No one was given money that someone else earned. The rich were not given a higher tax rate cut than everyone else. And no one got to keep a higher percentage of their own money than the next guy -which is apparently what you think should have happened, because you certainly object to the rich getting to keep the identical percent more of their own money THEY earned -as you were given.

All while you ignore the fact that if that 2% tax rate cut resulted in someone keeping $10,000 more of the money he earned -it means he STILL paid more than $360,000 in taxes. He is STILL forking over well over 1/3 of his income to government -and YOU aren't. What possible justification could you have to insist that because that 2% tax rate cut for a rich person results in a larger dollar amount than that 2% of your income represents - he shouldn't be allowed to keep 2% more of his own money even though YOU are?

You still don't pay anywhere close to the dollar amount that rich guy will still pay in taxes -which doesn't bother you any. But allowing that guy to keep the identical percent more of HIS own money that you are also being given somehow makes it a "scheme" for the rich? ROFLMAO That guy is STILL paying exactly the same percent MORE in taxes than every other tax bracket as he was before. What's the matter? Having the top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes still not enough for you?

But you go ahead and indulge in your useless class envy. It is such a productive use of time, isn't it? Tell me -do you also envy the rich for the fact they put in almost 70 hours a week to earn their money? You'd be a lot richer too if you worked nearly twice as much as you do -but like most people, you chose not to forfeit other aspects of your life in exchange for making more money. While sitting on your ass instead and envying those who made a different choice and the fact that working nearly twice as much as you chose to do - actually paid off for them. Sheesh.

 

[Ravi]

Small businesses, which create more than 85% of jobs - are taxed at the same individual rate as the wealthiest in this country.

IF they are making as much money as the wealthiest in this country. Otherwise, no.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Aside from the medical profession, how about what will be the final steps in this Dans Macabre, Soylent Green.

Exactly! Why can't all the brilliant ones (and there brilliant ones hereabouts) who dismiss the obvious and can't see through shams like this and others? I think the problem is that we have no one looking out for us; we are poorly served by our information media, to whom the constitution gave that power and responsiblity.

I seriously doubt that a democracy can survive without a studious information reporting media dedicated to doing their jobs. And all the piling on with Bush for the lst 8-years is a poor excuse for actualy doing a good job.

...

Let's remember, it's always darkest just before the ...doom.

Sorry for the dark humor. In the words of Lord Byron, 'and if I laugh at any mortal thing 'tis so I shall not cry."

 

[Skull Pilot]

Bloomberg.com: Opinion

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

basically the government is going to force your doctor under threat of incarceration to hand all your medical records over so that the federal government can review and decide what procedures you will or will not receive.

Say goodbye to any doctor patient confidentiality.

You better hope your 72 year old grandma doesn't need a new hip because she'll be told that she should just accept the pain because it comes along with getting old. or in other words she should know that it's time for her to die and let her doctor take care of someone who deserves treatment more than she.

but this might be good for some people. An underground cash only medical system where doctors get paid without the government being involved where people can choose their doctor and the doctor is free to practice medicine the old fashioned way.....without the government telling him what to do.

 

[Annie]

Sort of related to Skull's post above. Schools have done the same, 'control teachers from practicing solo.' While mostly effecting k-8, the curriculum is 'set' by 'standards' and 'best practices' as set out by education departments of universities. Less impact on high schools, why? Because the teachers are more effected by history, math, science, English, foreign language departments than education departments. (Secondary teachers are majors in something other than education, they just 'pick up the credentials by about 2 semesters of work.) Thus 'standards' and 'best practices' of secondary subjects tend to be subject related, rather than 'education' related.

Thus the 'standards' in math are driven by education departments, with their beliefs in whatever theories are popular at a given point in time. Notice how much of elementary math is now geared towards 'estimating' answers? The children are not learning facts or processes. It's a scandal.

But with 'standardization', not too worry, they are all getting the same education. The exception being 'gifted' or enriched, they work at the facts, then move onto applications. Not so those not so lucky.

We'll end up with the same with medical care, equally bad practices.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sort of related to Skull's post above. Schools have done the same, 'control teachers from practicing solo.' While mostly effecting k-8, the curriculum is 'set' by 'standards' and 'best practices' as set out by education departments of universities. Less impact on high schools, why? Because the teachers are more effected by history, math, science, English, foreign language departments than education departments. (Secondary teachers are majors in something other than education, they just 'pick up the credentials by about 2 semesters of work.) Thus 'standards' and 'best practices' of secondary subjects tend to be subject related, rather than 'education' related.

Thus the 'standards' in math are driven by education departments, with their beliefs in whatever theories are popular at a given point in time. Notice how much of elementary math is now geared towards 'estimating' answers? The children are not learning facts or processes. It's a scandal.

But with 'standardization', not too worry, they are all getting the same education. The exception being 'gifted' or enriched, they work at the facts, then move onto applications. Not so those not so lucky.

We'll end up with the same with medical care, equally bad practices.

Couldn't have laid out the motivation better! Let's hear it for HOMESCHOOLING!

 

[dilloduck]

Sort of related to Skull's post above. Schools have done the same, 'control teachers from practicing solo.' While mostly effecting k-8, the curriculum is 'set' by 'standards' and 'best practices' as set out by education departments of universities. Less impact on high schools, why? Because the teachers are more effected by history, math, science, English, foreign language departments than education departments. (Secondary teachers are majors in something other than education, they just 'pick up the credentials by about 2 semesters of work.) Thus 'standards' and 'best practices' of secondary subjects tend to be subject related, rather than 'education' related.

Thus the 'standards' in math are driven by education departments, with their beliefs in whatever theories are popular at a given point in time. Notice how much of elementary math is now geared towards 'estimating' answers? The children are not learning facts or processes. It's a scandal.

But with 'standardization', not too worry, they are all getting the same education. The exception being 'gifted' or enriched, they work at the facts, then move onto applications. Not so those not so lucky.

We'll end up with the same with medical care, equally bad practices.

Couldn't have laid out the motivation better! Let's hear it for HOMESCHOOLING!

Oh you twit----don't you do something else other than homeschool !

 

[rayboyusmc]

There are no government regulations on doctors now?