The New Communism: Healthcare

[Agnapostate]

Pahnyamaya, Tovaritch

I'll assume you've accepted the point, then.

 

[mskafka]

Once upon a time the cognoscenti were proud to tell all that they were communists! Proud to be on the cutting edge of societal thought, clearly ahead of everyone else. But once the horrendous nature of the ideology became apparent, it was no longer possible to wear that badge.

Then, they were liberals, then progressives…whatever incarnation served, until its predilections became known.

Now, the rebirth of the thinking that we, the proletariat, the bourgeois, must be deprived of our lives and our liberties.
The new title is Communitarian, and the new bumper sticker is ‘social justice,’ and nowhere is it more evident than in the healthcare debate.

Read their own self-description, and recognize the political babble of the 1950’s American Communists:

“Communitarianism emerged in the 1980s as a response to the limits of liberal theory and practice. Its dominant themes are that individual rights need to be balanced with social responsibilities, and that autonomous selves do not exist in isolation, but are shaped by the values and culture of communities…The critique of one-sided emphasis on rights has been key to defining communitarianism…"Rights talk" thus corrupts our political discourse, and is used to trump genuine conversation, public deliberation, and practical compromise…rights need to be seen in a more balanced framework, and that the U.S. would benefit by a temporary moratorium on the manufacture of new rights.
While a few communitarians have developed refined institutional analyses to match their critiques—one thinks of liberal-communitarian Ezekiel Emanuel's very interesting proposals on health care…”
CPN - Tools

“Another key administration figure… is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor in the Office of Management and Budget and brother of Rahm Emanuel, self-described 'communitarian, the president's chief of staff…”is one of those responsible for inserting into the “healthcare bill” the ideas that we no longer should have rights, such as determining what care we can buy, or how long we should live, and doctors should no longer look to the Hippocratic Oath, and the particular patient, but neglect the patient in the interests of ‘social justice,’ and the society as a whole.

The shocking element is that, in the words of Democat former Colorodo Governor Dick Lamb, "the elderly have a patriotic duty to die."

There are numerous psychological studies on the right wing mind... but you are the classic example of the extreme right wing mind... overwhelming paranoia and totally driven by the strongest human emotion...FEAR...

Look OUT, the black helicopters are circling!!!

Love the quote at the bottom!

 

[PoliticalChic]

My mother tried that argument (not specific to cancer, why narrow it down to that?). Funny thing, later in the same conversation she admitted that she (like many Americans living on fixed incomes) buy their prescription drugs from Canada

I narrowed it down to cancer because there is ample evidence that nowhere else on earth has the survival rate for cancers that the United States has.

I found mixed results when I tried to find same for the various forms of heart disease.

As you have used and anecdotal, let me throw in one:
"Holmes (see video below) was diagnosed with brain cancer, with her vision deteriorating rapidly, but was placed on the treatment waiting lists common to health care in socialist countries. While the average wait time for many procedures can run 18 months or more, Holmes actually made out pretty good by only having to wait 6 months for surgery for her brain tumor.

Rather than wait like a good little subject, she came to the States and got the health care she needed within three weeks. You know, the United States health care system liberals claim is so broken it must be replaced with a government system…you know, kinda like the one in Canada."
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/where-can-americans-go-for-treatment-under-govt-health-care/

Has mom seen this:
"If you think all drugs from Canada are cheaper than U.S. drugs, think again. In the United States, generic drugs--roughly half of all prescriptions--are often cheaper than both Canadian brand-name drugs and Canadian generic drugs, according to a study by the Food and Drug Administration."

Or this:
"While some foreign drug manufacturers submit their products to FDA for approval, the imported drugs arriving through the mail, through private express couriers, or by passengers arriving at ports of entry are often unapproved drugs that may not be subject to any reliable regulatory oversight. FDA cannot assure the safety of drugs purchased from such sources."
Study: U.S. Generic Drugs Cost Less Than Canadian Drugs

Also, there was in interesting article in City Journal on the subject:
"He tells me stories of other people whom his British Columbia–based company, Timely Medical Alternatives, has helped—people like the elderly woman who needed vascular surgery for a major artery in her abdomen and was promised prompt care by one of the most senior bureaucrats in the government, who never called back. “Her doctor told her she’s going to die,” Baker remembers. So Timely got her surgery in a couple of days, in Washington State. Then there was the eight-year-old badly in need of a procedure to help correct her deafness. After watching her surgery get bumped three times, her parents called Timely.
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007

Very, very best wishes to you mom.

Gratzer is a nutjob. He was made to look like a fool at a House hearing recently. He got very defensive.

Top of your class again!

This time, you receive a perfect score on rule #2
(apocryphal) “Liberal Protocols”, as ratified by Saul Alinsky.

2. Refuse to accept the statements of any opposing view, from individuals or media, unless reliably liberal.

It has been said that 'variety is the spice of life.'

Just for a bit of variety, how about directing your attention to the substance of the post.
(I won't tell Saul.)

And don't forget, it's 'your,' not 'you.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pahnyamaya, Tovaritch

I'll assume you've accepted the point, then.

You know what they say about 'assume'...When you assume, you make...

 

[mskafka]

so lemme get this straight here

50 millon of us can't cut the HC mustard, probably about the same are underinsured and would find out they can't from some catastrphic incident, the highest % of personal bankrupcy is HC realted, we've more poverty than any other 1st world nation

and anyone who points out that the capitalist HC system we have is crumbling with socialist fixes creeping in is a communist?

anyone who consideres the fact that what comes around goes around (meaning we could be next in line) is labeled a childlike liberal?

look, i don't know what you people consider the Amercan ideology, but i would think it's that everyone gets a fair shot at the brass ring here

when any system in any country moves the goal posts enough so the upper echelon literally holds the masses economic hostage, and the middle class sucks what does it matter what form of governance it has?

it sucks to live there just the same....

Don't bother arguing. If you don't listen to Limbaugh, and you find Ann Coulter repulsive, then you are going to be branded as a Commie. While the Neo-Cons continue to copy and paste The Rand Institute, Rush Limbaugh, The Heritage Foundation, The Fascist News Channel, Ann Coulter, The Cato Institute....you will be continuously discounted.

 

[Agnapostate]

You know what they say about 'assume'...When you assume, you make...

Probably the same thing they say about trying to write without Cyrillic text and producing spelling errors that render words incoherent.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Once upon a time the cognoscenti were proud to tell all that they were communists! Proud to be on the cutting edge of societal thought, clearly ahead of everyone else. But once the horrendous nature of the ideology became apparent, it was no longer possible to wear that badge.

Then, they were liberals, then progressives…whatever incarnation served, until its predilections became known.

Now, the rebirth of the thinking that we, the proletariat, the bourgeois, must be deprived of our lives and our liberties.
The new title is Communitarian, and the new bumper sticker is ‘social justice,’ and nowhere is it more evident than in the healthcare debate.

Read their own self-description, and recognize the political babble of the 1950’s American Communists:

“Communitarianism emerged in the 1980s as a response to the limits of liberal theory and practice. Its dominant themes are that individual rights need to be balanced with social responsibilities, and that autonomous selves do not exist in isolation, but are shaped by the values and culture of communities…The critique of one-sided emphasis on rights has been key to defining communitarianism…"Rights talk" thus corrupts our political discourse, and is used to trump genuine conversation, public deliberation, and practical compromise…rights need to be seen in a more balanced framework, and that the U.S. would benefit by a temporary moratorium on the manufacture of new rights.
While a few communitarians have developed refined institutional analyses to match their critiques—one thinks of liberal-communitarian Ezekiel Emanuel's very interesting proposals on health care…”
CPN - Tools

“Another key administration figure… is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor in the Office of Management and Budget and brother of Rahm Emanuel, self-described 'communitarian, the president's chief of staff…”is one of those responsible for inserting into the “healthcare bill” the ideas that we no longer should have rights, such as determining what care we can buy, or how long we should live, and doctors should no longer look to the Hippocratic Oath, and the particular patient, but neglect the patient in the interests of ‘social justice,’ and the society as a whole.

The shocking element is that, in the words of Democat former Colorodo Governor Dick Lamb, "the elderly have a patriotic duty to die."

There are numerous psychological studies on the right wing mind... but you are the classic example of the extreme right wing mind... overwhelming paranoia and totally driven by the strongest human emotion...FEAR...

Look OUT, the black helicopters are circling!!!

Love the quote at the bottom!

Hi, MS!

As they say in Chinese, Oh-loy-moh-geen! (Cantonese, long time no see)

Just to bring you up to speed, your friend above is the A+ exponent on the (apocryphal) “Liberal Protocols”, as ratified by Saul Alinsky.
In the words of Carly Simon, "Nobody Does It Better."

Here are the rules bg lives by:

1. Always be the first to accuse, and make certain to accuse the opponent of exactly what you are doing.

2. Refuse to accept the statements of any opposing view, from individuals or media, unless reliably liberal.

3. Always assure the opposition that you know what is better for the proletariat, even if there are polls that claim the opposite.
a. Assure the compliant that you are only looking out for their best interests, as in “look, it’s not about me…”

4. Be sure to you carry your ‘concern’ as though it was a hypodermic needle, but one filled with poison. Furrow your brow, look vaguely sad, (think Leon Panetta) but watch for opportunities to stab, to use abusive language, using your (imagined) superiority to allow you to do violence to the reputation of those who have alternative views.

5. If you find yourself in a debating ‘box,’ where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
a. Claim that the question is ‘above my pay grade.’
b. Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe.( Colleagues of Henry Louis Gates Jr., Harvard's most prominent scholar of African-American history, are accusing the police here of racism after he was arrested at his home last week by an officer investigating a report of a robbery in progress. According to the police report, Gates initially refused to show identification. Education | Was arrest of Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. an act of racism? | Seattle Times Newspaper)
c. Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.

7. Never, never criticize in any way any government or movement that is totalitarian, homicidal or anti-American.
d. Claim to idolize despots and tyrants. But always state how their people love them.
e. The corollary applies: never support traditional American values.
f. Deny atrocities by tyrants. If not possible, explain they were necessary. Finally, justify them, and, show how America was ultimately at fault.

8. Remember to spend appropriate time in front of the mirror practicing outrage, shock, and disbelief, or, and best, a sarcastic sneer.

9. Remember, as a liberal, you never have to apologize, be accurate, nor have any knowledge. No matter how many times your talking points are shown to be wrong, continue to repeat them.

10. Remember the gullible and grumbling always identify with vague terms like ‘hope’ ‘change’ ‘new’ ‘empathy’ and ‘better.’

Notice how deftly he sidesteps any reference to the cogent points in the OP (see rule #6).
The footwork! The grace! Not since watching bull fighting in Spain have I seen a passe double like that!

Just thought you might want to brush up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You know what they say about 'assume'...When you assume, you make...

Probably the same thing they say about trying to write without Cyrillic text and producing spelling errors that render words incoherent.

Cyrillic.

I think you got my drift.

 

[mskafka]

There are numerous psychological studies on the right wing mind... but you are the classic example of the extreme right wing mind... overwhelming paranoia and totally driven by the strongest human emotion...FEAR...

Look OUT, the black helicopters are circling!!!

Love the quote at the bottom!

Hi, MS!

As they say in Chinese, Oh-loy-moh-geen! (Cantonese, long time no see)

Just to bring you up to speed, your friend above is the A+ exponent on the (apocryphal) “Liberal Protocols”, as ratified by Saul Alinsky.
In the words of Carly Simon, "Nobody Does It Better."

Here are the rules bg lives by:

1. Always be the first to accuse, and make certain to accuse the opponent of exactly what you are doing.

2. Refuse to accept the statements of any opposing view, from individuals or media, unless reliably liberal.

3. Always assure the opposition that you know what is better for the proletariat, even if there are polls that claim the opposite.
a. Assure the compliant that you are only looking out for their best interests, as in “look, it’s not about me…”

4. Be sure to you carry your ‘concern’ as though it was a hypodermic needle, but one filled with poison. Furrow your brow, look vaguely sad, (think Leon Panetta) but watch for opportunities to stab, to use abusive language, using your (imagined) superiority to allow you to do violence to the reputation of those who have alternative views.

5. If you find yourself in a debating ‘box,’ where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
a. Claim that the question is ‘above my pay grade.’
b. Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe.( Colleagues of Henry Louis Gates Jr., Harvard's most prominent scholar of African-American history, are accusing the police here of racism after he was arrested at his home last week by an officer investigating a report of a robbery in progress. According to the police report, Gates initially refused to show identification. Education | Was arrest of Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. an act of racism? | Seattle Times Newspaper)
c. Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.

7. Never, never criticize in any way any government or movement that is totalitarian, homicidal or anti-American.
d. Claim to idolize despots and tyrants. But always state how their people love them.
e. The corollary applies: never support traditional American values.
f. Deny atrocities by tyrants. If not possible, explain they were necessary. Finally, justify them, and, show how America was ultimately at fault.

8. Remember to spend appropriate time in front of the mirror practicing outrage, shock, and disbelief, or, and best, a sarcastic sneer.

9. Remember, as a liberal, you never have to apologize, be accurate, nor have any knowledge. No matter how many times your talking points are shown to be wrong, continue to repeat them.

10. Remember the gullible and grumbling always identify with vague terms like ‘hope’ ‘change’ ‘new’ ‘empathy’ and ‘better.’

Notice how deftly he sidesteps any reference to the cogent points in the OP (see rule #6).
The footwork! The grace! Not since watching bull fighting in Spain have I seen a passe double like that!

Just thought you might want to brush up.

All of that, and I'm still democratic. Amazing. I am willing to listen to both sides of any argument, but because (like Ann Coulter) you don't allow anyone to disagree with you. The louder you shout, and the more you copy and paste, the more frustrated people will become with you...and the more likely they are to give up on the argument.

Because it is obvious that you have read nothing but extremely conservative commentary, I am convinced that you have no sense of balance. I used to be just like you. Then I realized that hard times can fall on anyone. No matter how much you quote Alinsky, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter-you're still not going to change my mind.

Be as obnoxious as you want. How do you propose we fix healthcare? I keep asking that question to people (cons) and I keep getting the same answer: "Keep the government out of it." So what do we do? Let me have your answer. I don't care what Ann Coulter thinks. I don't want to see a copy and paste. I want to hear YOUR opinion.

 

[Agnapostate]

Cyrillic.

I think you got my drift.

Yeah, it was intended to be iranic (hint).

Your drift was just ill-conceived, and I presented what seems to me a sound argument for concluding such. You didn't really respond to that.

 

[Maple]

I know that we need to reform it but to nationalize it, is another thing. Why not do

1. Tort reform.
a. Doctors do all kinds of unneccesary procedures to avoid being sued, driving up our medical insurance premiums.
b. The exorbidant cost of mal-practice insurance is passed back onto us the consumer in higher fees for service.

2. Everyone who does not have health insurance now should be required to purchase an individual catastrophic insurance plan to cover catastrophic losses should they end up in the hospital for extended stays.
a.These are high deductible plans that do not cover doctor office visits and prescription meds. The poor would have to pay on a sliding scale according to income but could be subsidized should they require it.

3. Health savings plans.
a. Pre-tax dollars that a person can use for preventative care such as exams, mammograms and testing necessary for prevention.
b. Estimate the amount of these exams and if the person does not go for preventative care, penalize him or her by deducting this estimated expense and returning it back to the treasury.
c. If the person does not use all of his or her health care savings plan but has done the preventative by going to his or her physician as recommended, they get to keep what's left over in that plan and it is their money to use as they see fit. This will encourage people to stay well and it will prevent overwhelming our health care providers with the newly insured. In other words, if it's your money, you are going to be careful how it's spent.

4. Regulate the insurance companies, they do everything else, why not insurance companies.
a. Pass laws that an insurer can not deny an individual because of a pre-existing condition.
b. Pass laws that they have to cover a legitimate claim, no more denials.
c. Open up competition, there is no reason that states are limited to certain insurance carriers.
d. Individualize insurance options- example-there is no reason for some people to have maternity care but have it and pay for it through their group plans.
e. Make it law that there has to be a group plan for small business to join, over 70% of Americans are employed by small business yet there is no group plan for them.

We do not have to socialize this system in order to reform it. I am glad to see this rapid push to reform has slowed down, because it is much more important to get this right than it is to get it fast.

 

[mskafka]

I know that we need to reform it but to nationalize it, is another thing. Why not do

1. Tort reform.
a. Doctors do all kinds of unneccesary procedures to avoid being sued, driving up our medical insurance premiums.
b. The exorbidant cost of mal-practice insurance is passed back onto us the consumer in higher fees for service.

2. Everyone who does not have health insurance now should be required to purchase an individual catastrophic insurance plan to cover catastrophic losses should they end up in the hospital for extended stays.
a.These are high deductible plans that do not cover doctor office visits and prescription meds. The poor would have to pay on a sliding scale according to income but could be subsidized should they require it.

3. Health savings plans.
a. Pre-tax dollars that a person can use for preventative care such as exams, mammograms and testing necessary for prevention.
b. Estimate the amount of these exams and if the person does not go for preventative care, penalize him or her by deducting this estimated expense and returning it back to the treasury.
c. If the person does not use all of his or her health care savings plan but has done the preventative by going to his or her physician as recommended, they get to keep what's left over in that plan and it is their money to use as they see fit. This will encourage people to stay well and it will prevent overwhelming our health care providers with the newly insured. In other words, if it's your money, you are going to be careful how it's spent.

4. Regulate the insurance companies, they do everything else, why not insurance companies.
a. Pass laws that an insurer can not deny an individual because of a pre-existing condition.
b. Pass laws that they have to cover a legitimate claim, no more denials.
c. Open up competition, there is no reason that states are limited to certain insurance carriers.
d. Individualize insurance options- example-there is no reason for some people to have maternity care but have it and pay for it through their group plans.
e. Make it law that there has to be a group plan for small business to join, over 70% of Americans are employed by small business yet there is no group plan for them.

We do not have to socialize this system in order to reform it. I am glad to see this rapid push to reform has slowed down, because it is much more important to get this right than it is to get it fast.

Now THIS is an answer!

 

[mskafka]

I know that we need to reform it but to nationalize it, is another thing. Why not do

1. Tort reform.
a. Doctors do all kinds of unneccesary procedures to avoid being sued, driving up our medical insurance premiums.
b. The exorbidant cost of mal-practice insurance is passed back onto us the consumer in higher fees for service.

2. Everyone who does not have health insurance now should be required to purchase an individual catastrophic insurance plan to cover catastrophic losses should they end up in the hospital for extended stays.
a.These are high deductible plans that do not cover doctor office visits and prescription meds. The poor would have to pay on a sliding scale according to income but could be subsidized should they require it.

3. Health savings plans.
a. Pre-tax dollars that a person can use for preventative care such as exams, mammograms and testing necessary for prevention.
b. Estimate the amount of these exams and if the person does not go for preventative care, penalize him or her by deducting this estimated expense and returning it back to the treasury.
c. If the person does not use all of his or her health care savings plan but has done the preventative by going to his or her physician as recommended, they get to keep what's left over in that plan and it is their money to use as they see fit. This will encourage people to stay well and it will prevent overwhelming our health care providers with the newly insured. In other words, if it's your money, you are going to be careful how it's spent.

4. Regulate the insurance companies, they do everything else, why not insurance companies.
a. Pass laws that an insurer can not deny an individual because of a pre-existing condition.
b. Pass laws that they have to cover a legitimate claim, no more denials.
c. Open up competition, there is no reason that states are limited to certain insurance carriers.
d. Individualize insurance options- example-there is no reason for some people to have maternity care but have it and pay for it through their group plans.
e. Make it law that there has to be a group plan for small business to join, over 70% of Americans are employed by small business yet there is no group plan for them.

We do not have to socialize this system in order to reform it. I am glad to see this rapid push to reform has slowed down, because it is much more important to get this right than it is to get it fast.

Now THIS is an answer!

I agree. Tort reform would be nice. And I'm sure that healthcare providers might sleep better at night. You're right. Because it is so easy to sue, malpractice insurance is ridiculous.

It is difficult for some people (I'm sure that you know) to get insurance because of pre-existing conditions. That would be the tricky part of making coverage mandatory. But you covered that at the bottom.

I don't care for the health savings accounts. Many people cannot be trusted to be THAT responsible, so we as taxpayers would still be paying for their care in the long run. I'm not sure where you got this info, or if you came up with it on your own, but I think that it is very reasonable.

 

[mskafka]

I can practically hear Wagner's "Ride the Valkyrie". There is a verbal attack brewing bearing my name.

 

[Bfgrn]

Let's check.

If an American and a Canadian both discovered that they had cancer, would the odds be better that the American would rush off to Canada, or that the Canadian would hurry to America.

So much for your argument.

That's a good question. About 0.8% of Canadians go across the US border for all medical treatments.

About 10-15 years ago, citizens of New York and Michigan near the border of Ontario were buying fraudulent Ontario Health cards for $3000 a pop so they could go across the border to receive treatment for expensive procedures and treatments they couldn't afford in the US or their insurance would not cover. The problem was becoming so rampant, the government of Ontario changed the health card to give it security features similar to drivers licenses.

Another question is how many Americans fly outside of the country for treatments which they cannot afford to pay in America?

I have read extensively on the subject and have yet to find indicia of Americans going "...across the border to receive treatment for expensive procedures and treatments they couldn't afford in the US." I'd appreciate links.

The same for the 0.8% figure. Thank you.

I have seen this in a speech by John C. Goodman, Center for Policy Analysis: " Medical tourism: hospitals in India, Singapore and Thailand are competing worldwide for patients. They have lower costs, and high quality, with doctors board-certified in the United States, and publicize their error rates, mortality rates, infection rates, etc. "
Seems an excellent idea, as wealthy Arabs do so, as well as North Americans and Europeans. I actually tried to invest in Apollo Hospitals, India, based on my research, but found it only possible through pink sheets.

Not sure what your point is about this, unless you see this as a weakness of the US healthcare system.
I see it as an intelligent response by the healthcare consumer, and proof of my point re: behavior of liberty-exercising American.

HERE is your problem...you have NO interest in the TRUTH...you only seek out what matches your right wing dogma...you post GARBAGE that is so disingenuous, it it not worth the time & effort to refute...

Here's ONE example...this post is a TOTAL lie...your source has taken WORDS from an article that create a completely different portrayal of what Dr. Emanuel is saying...HOW is that being honest and in the best interest of the PEOPLE of this country PC?

I thought that the Hippocratic Oath was part of the DNA of the medical profession, or have you learned that in " every other Western country" this is dispensed with?

"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel, must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.) But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice."
Defend Your Health Care

HERE, why don't try this for once...READ IT yourself...

http://www.ipalc.org/Healthcare_Policy/The%20Perfect%20Storm%20of%20Overutilization%20%28JAMA%202008%29.pdf

 

[Political Junky]

Love the quote at the bottom!

Hi, MS!

As they say in Chinese, Oh-loy-moh-geen! (Cantonese, long time no see)

Just to bring you up to speed, your friend above is the A+ exponent on the (apocryphal) “Liberal Protocols”, as ratified by Saul Alinsky.
In the words of Carly Simon, "Nobody Does It Better."

Here are the rules bg lives by:

1. Always be the first to accuse, and make certain to accuse the opponent of exactly what you are doing.

2. Refuse to accept the statements of any opposing view, from individuals or media, unless reliably liberal.

3. Always assure the opposition that you know what is better for the proletariat, even if there are polls that claim the opposite.
a. Assure the compliant that you are only looking out for their best interests, as in “look, it’s not about me…”

4. Be sure to you carry your ‘concern’ as though it was a hypodermic needle, but one filled with poison. Furrow your brow, look vaguely sad, (think Leon Panetta) but watch for opportunities to stab, to use abusive language, using your (imagined) superiority to allow you to do violence to the reputation of those who have alternative views.

5. If you find yourself in a debating ‘box,’ where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
a. Claim that the question is ‘above my pay grade.’
b. Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe.( Colleagues of Henry Louis Gates Jr., Harvard's most prominent scholar of African-American history, are accusing the police here of racism after he was arrested at his home last week by an officer investigating a report of a robbery in progress. According to the police report, Gates initially refused to show identification. Education | Was arrest of Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. an act of racism? | Seattle Times Newspaper)
c. Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.

7. Never, never criticize in any way any government or movement that is totalitarian, homicidal or anti-American.
d. Claim to idolize despots and tyrants. But always state how their people love them.
e. The corollary applies: never support traditional American values.
f. Deny atrocities by tyrants. If not possible, explain they were necessary. Finally, justify them, and, show how America was ultimately at fault.

8. Remember to spend appropriate time in front of the mirror practicing outrage, shock, and disbelief, or, and best, a sarcastic sneer.

9. Remember, as a liberal, you never have to apologize, be accurate, nor have any knowledge. No matter how many times your talking points are shown to be wrong, continue to repeat them.

10. Remember the gullible and grumbling always identify with vague terms like ‘hope’ ‘change’ ‘new’ ‘empathy’ and ‘better.’

Notice how deftly he sidesteps any reference to the cogent points in the OP (see rule #6).
The footwork! The grace! Not since watching bull fighting in Spain have I seen a passe double like that!

Just thought you might want to brush up.

All of that, and I'm still democratic. Amazing. I am willing to listen to both sides of any argument, but because (like Ann Coulter) you don't allow anyone to disagree with you. The louder you shout, and the more you copy and paste, the more frustrated people will become with you...and the more likely they are to give up on the argument.

Because it is obvious that you have read nothing but extremely conservative commentary, I am convinced that you have no sense of balance. I used to be just like you. Then I realized that hard times can fall on anyone. No matter how much you quote Alinsky, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter-you're still not going to change my mind.

Be as obnoxious as you want. How do you propose we fix healthcare? I keep asking that question to people (cons) and I keep getting the same answer: "Keep the government out of it." So what do we do? Let me have your answer. I don't care what Ann Coulter thinks. I don't want to see a copy and paste. I want to hear YOUR opinion.

 

[sparky]

so lemme get this straight here

50 millon of us can't cut the HC mustard, probably about the same are underinsured and would find out they can't from some catastrphic incident, the highest % of personal bankrupcy is HC realted, we've more poverty than any other 1st world nation

and anyone who points out that the capitalist HC system we have is crumbling with socialist fixes creeping in is a communist?

anyone who consideres the fact that what comes around goes around (meaning we could be next in line) is labeled a childlike liberal?

look, i don't know what you people consider the Amercan ideology, but i would think it's that everyone gets a fair shot at the brass ring here

when any system in any country moves the goal posts enough so the upper echelon literally holds the masses economic hostage, and the middle class sucks what does it matter what form of governance it has?

it sucks to live there just the same....

Don't bother arguing. If you don't listen to Limbaugh, and you find Ann Coulter repulsive, then you are going to be branded as a Commie. While the Neo-Cons continue to copy and paste The Rand Institute, Rush Limbaugh, The Heritage Foundation, The Fascist News Channel, Ann Coulter, The Cato Institute....you will be continuously discounted.

there was a time when 'Liberty & Justice for All' was respected

now it's been painted with this socialist bent by the rabid right

ironically, these same sorts advocated socializing wall street

rather flaming hypocricy imho.....

 

[editec]

PC asks:

What kind of thinking would encourage the demise of our senior citizens in order to save the state medical costs?

The same kind of thinking that refuses to insure pre-existing conditions to save the insurance companies medical costs, actually.

This rationing scare tactic isn't going to work because far too many Amnerican already know that their HC is rationed, already.

No where is the childlike view of the world of liberals more evident than this inane post.

Out of the mouth of babes

Should life insurance companies offer life insurance to those on their deathbed?

Of course not. They should RATION health care. Just as the government already does and will continue to do.

You seem to be proving my case that HC is now and will continue to be rationed regardless of whether it is provided by a for profit insurance scheme or a government insurance scheme, PC.

I don't actually see where your opinion and mine are at odds when it comes to this issue.

 

[sparky]

perhaps only in that the rich can go to the HC well on their own, the poor stand in the pecking order line behind them.....?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Love the quote at the bottom!

Hi, MS!

As they say in Chinese, Oh-loy-moh-geen! (Cantonese, long time no see)

Just to bring you up to speed, your friend above is the A+ exponent on the (apocryphal) “Liberal Protocols”, as ratified by Saul Alinsky.
In the words of Carly Simon, "Nobody Does It Better."

Here are the rules bg lives by:

1. Always be the first to accuse, and make certain to accuse the opponent of exactly what you are doing.

2. Refuse to accept the statements of any opposing view, from individuals or media, unless reliably liberal.

3. Always assure the opposition that you know what is better for the proletariat, even if there are polls that claim the opposite.
a. Assure the compliant that you are only looking out for their best interests, as in “look, it’s not about me…”

4. Be sure to you carry your ‘concern’ as though it was a hypodermic needle, but one filled with poison. Furrow your brow, look vaguely sad, (think Leon Panetta) but watch for opportunities to stab, to use abusive language, using your (imagined) superiority to allow you to do violence to the reputation of those who have alternative views.

5. If you find yourself in a debating ‘box,’ where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
a. Claim that the question is ‘above my pay grade.’
b. Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe.( Colleagues of Henry Louis Gates Jr., Harvard's most prominent scholar of African-American history, are accusing the police here of racism after he was arrested at his home last week by an officer investigating a report of a robbery in progress. According to the police report, Gates initially refused to show identification. Education | Was arrest of Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. an act of racism? | Seattle Times Newspaper)
c. Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.

7. Never, never criticize in any way any government or movement that is totalitarian, homicidal or anti-American.
d. Claim to idolize despots and tyrants. But always state how their people love them.
e. The corollary applies: never support traditional American values.
f. Deny atrocities by tyrants. If not possible, explain they were necessary. Finally, justify them, and, show how America was ultimately at fault.

8. Remember to spend appropriate time in front of the mirror practicing outrage, shock, and disbelief, or, and best, a sarcastic sneer.

9. Remember, as a liberal, you never have to apologize, be accurate, nor have any knowledge. No matter how many times your talking points are shown to be wrong, continue to repeat them.

10. Remember the gullible and grumbling always identify with vague terms like ‘hope’ ‘change’ ‘new’ ‘empathy’ and ‘better.’

Notice how deftly he sidesteps any reference to the cogent points in the OP (see rule #6).
The footwork! The grace! Not since watching bull fighting in Spain have I seen a passe double like that!

Just thought you might want to brush up.

All of that, and I'm still democratic. Amazing. I am willing to listen to both sides of any argument, but because (like Ann Coulter) you don't allow anyone to disagree with you. The louder you shout, and the more you copy and paste, the more frustrated people will become with you...and the more likely they are to give up on the argument.

Because it is obvious that you have read nothing but extremely conservative commentary, I am convinced that you have no sense of balance. I used to be just like you. Then I realized that hard times can fall on anyone. No matter how much you quote Alinsky, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter-you're still not going to change my mind.

Be as obnoxious as you want. How do you propose we fix healthcare? I keep asking that question to people (cons) and I keep getting the same answer: "Keep the government out of it." So what do we do? Let me have your answer. I don't care what Ann Coulter thinks. I don't want to see a copy and paste. I want to hear YOUR opinion.

No, you're still 'Democrat,' not necessarily democratic.

"How do you propose we fix healthcare." Let's remember that over 90% have healthcare, and the vast majority are happy with theirs.

Senator Kyl, the #2 Republican in the Senate, appeared on Fox News Sunday, July 26, 2009 and was asked for the Republican suggestions for healthcare reform. He listed the following, explaining that the Democrats would not accept any to be included in the bill.
1. 91% have healthcare, and 84% scored their satisfaction with them as either good or extremely good. Based on this level of response, the healthcare system should not be scrapped, but rather corrected where fixing is necessary.
2. Democrats will not allow Tort Reform, as trial lawyers are one of their biggest contributors. But the need is there, as the Republicans claim that there is an annual cost of over $100 billion in excess costs to healthcare in both defensive and lawsuit costs. Further, he stated that there is between $60 billion and $120 billion in fraud.
3. Small businesses are at a disadvantage relative to big corporations in dealing with the insurance companies, he encourages reform of laws that do not allow the small businesses to form associations to level the playing field.
4. Insurance companies should be allowed to sell healthcare policies across state lines, as auto insurance companies do. Currently, the risk pools within some states is too small to limit the costs.
5. Health Savings Accounts should be expanded so that individuals can pay for same with pre-tax dollars, and accumulate interest on these accounts.
6. Reform the tax code so that individuals can take a tax deduction for the cost of healthcare, as businesses do today.


"...I am willing to listen to both sides ..." I appreciate that viewpoint, and wish more felt that way.

"...you don't allow anyone to disagree with you..." Now, you know that isn't true, or you would not be on USMB.

"... and the more you copy and paste..." Be very clear, nothing above has been copied nor pasted. But I appreciate the unintended compliment.

Oh, I see now, you don't know what 'apocryphal' means. Alinsky is dead.

"...you're still not going to change my mind." What happened to the 'open minded' part?

My work is rarely a polemic, it is always a reponse to the other view, and well documented.
Like this:

"Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage. "
ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase

Another change that I would like to see is the freedom of individuals and healthcare companies to have individual policy agreements, similar to what Progressive does for auto insurance. Select what coverage you wish.

"Take two very different states: Wisconsin and New York. In Wisconsin, a family can buy a health-insurance plan for as little as $3,000 a year. The price for a basic family plan in the Empire State: $12,000. The stark difference has nothing to do with each state’s health sector as a share of its economy (14.8 percent in Wisconsin as of 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, and 13.9 percent in New York). Rather, the difference has to do with how each state’s insurance pools are regulated. In New York State, politicians have tried to run the health-insurance system from Albany, forcing insurers to deliver complex Cadillac plans to every subscriber for political reasons, driving up costs. Wisconsin’s insurers are far freer to sell plans at prices consumers want.
The gulf in insurance-premium prices among American states is a sign that too much government intervention—not too little—is what’s distorting prices from one market to the next. The key to reducing health-care costs for patients, then, is to promote competition, not to dictate insurance requirements from on high. Unfortunately, a government-run insurance plan is the core of ObamaCare.
Bigger Is Healthier by David Gratzer, City Journal 22 July 2009

Don't be ashamed to admit you agree with much of this post.