What a liar this Douglas lady is.

Lorax · August-13-09, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

Obama said that if he were starting from scratch, he would prefer a single payer system.

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck...sistent_in.php

Also, "in 2003 Obama told a crowd of AFL-CIO members: "I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health care coverage." "

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20090812072831.aspx

And this is a bad thing? Geez. It's the best possible option, however it's off the table sadly. The most we can expect is a public option, which is not transformative change.

Lorax · August-13-09, 06:26 PM

Omaha, great post. LOL!!!

Here in Florida, Florida Power & Light [[FPL) is a private monopoly which got a dose of deregulation under the fascist dictates of Jeb Bush on his way out the door as a parting gift to big business.

Now our rates are subject to twice yearly increases. Our most recent was 19%. We have some of the most costly residential service in America, thanks to the fascist monopoly.

**Jimaz** · August-13-09, 06:35 PM

Yeah, and the FDA and EPA too.

Which reminds me: has anyone else noticed that the once-seemingly endless string of hazardous Chinese imports news stories has indeed ended? I'm curious why that happened. It could have had multiple causes. I read that Obama increased the FDA budget to some record level. I also read that over half of China's toy factories were closed around Halloween last year because no one wanted their poisonous products anymore. [[Halloween is normally a busy time for toy factories ramping up for Christmas sales.)

No bad news is good news!

Lorax · August-13-09, 07:12 PM

These screamers on the right love to harrass "socialism" as if it's a dirty word! It's not. We live in a socialist state, and have for 70 years.

I would love to take the Reich Steppers and ask for their Social Security cards back, their driver's licenses, and their Medicare/Medicaid cards. We'll be sure to cancel the military and intelligence agencies, the FDA, so tainted food can be sold to their children, as well as poisonous Walmart imported toys from China. We'll end oversight on how their pet food is made, so their dogs and cats can die, too. Better think twice about taking that pill, it wasn't cleared through any big, bad, government agency. It may kill you [[like they were under the Bush Regime).

You want no taxation and no government involvement? Go ahead, make my day, pull out of society as we know it today, and live the life of a pioneer.

I would also like a list of their addresses, so the next time the police are called, or the fire department, then we'll be sure to bypass their houses. And we'll be sure to pull their kids out of public schools nationwide as well, so they can be home-schooled by their "god fearing" less than intelligent parents.

Hey dum dum's, your taxes render you in a socialistic society, you are part of the social fabric, like it or not.

If all of you would love to move to Appalachia in a one room cabin, built from your own labor, and off the grid, go right ahead. Then you will have achieved what you can expect to as a citizen under the vision of our founding fathers. How would that work out for ya?

ccbatson · August-13-09, 08:42 PM

Anarchy is not the only alternative to socialism...in fact, they refer to different entities. Anarchy refers to absence of government, socialism is when government controls the means of production [[the economic characteristic of a society). Capitalism, which entails extensive government involvement to run justly, is the opposite of socialism.

Not a dirty word? Ask any current or former oppressed individuals forced to live without liberty under a socialist economy.

**oladub** · August-13-09, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

and he also said, in that speech, that that was not possible/feasable .

sometime you might consider doing a paul harvey and getting the rest of the story before you go on.

I am, by the way, pro single payer for zillions of previously stated reasons

Lorax: And this is a bad thing? Geez. It's the best possible option, however it's off the table sadly. The most we can expect is a public option, which is not transformative change. The links were included for the rest of the story.

rb, lorax, My post #22 addresses the disagreement about what the President said earlier in this thread. It wasn't a critique. The links were included for the rest of the story.

**Papasito** · August-13-09, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by Lorax

You really need to read the link on the Bush Crime Family I posted in the other thread. I know you haven't. But you'd learn all you need to know about your heroes, the fascist House of Tush.

Bush sucks, so does Obama.
Quit defending Obama, his administration is just as corrupt as any other given Washington scumbag.
Simply slapping the opposition to whom one follows while casting a blind eye to the filth in one's own backyard makes no one better than anyone else.

If I am a Republican and my Republican leaders stink, I'm not going to pretend that they don't. If I am a Democrat and my leaders are corrupt, I'm not going to make excuses and cast them a blind eye.

Until both parties reject the trash that is forced down our throats, all sides are to blame for this country going to hell.

**rb336** · August-14-09, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

And then he said that he envisions a slow transition so that it is feasible. It is all moot as the point is that he is lying, as usual, about his intentions and agenda.

no, he didn't

yet again, show me a lie. yes, a lie, as differentiated from changing your position on something when facts line up differently than expected [[of course YOU wouldn't know about that -- you always insist the facts are wrong, a conspiracy or irrelevent when they show you are wrong)

Lorax · August-14-09, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Papasito

Bush sucks, so does Obama.
Quit defending Obama, his administration is just as corrupt as any other given Washington scumbag.
Simply slapping the opposition to whom one follows while casting a blind eye to the filth in one's own backyard makes no one better than anyone else.

If I am a Republican and my Republican leaders stink, I'm not going to pretend that they don't. If I am a Democrat and my leaders are corrupt, I'm not going to make excuses and cast them a blind eye.

Until both parties reject the trash that is forced down our throats, all sides are to blame for this country going to hell.

Sorry, but it's so convenient go lay EQUAL blame on both sides of a discussion, and this is rarely the case.

The Reich is by far the most insidious, twisted, backward orgainzation of sycophantic thugs in modern political history.

Bush was a figurehead president, led by the nose by the likes of Dick Cheney, the RNC, and the wealthy fascist special interests.

For the record, as I have stated in numerous posts, which you haven't read, obviously, I in no way rubber stamp the decisions, agenda, or policies of Barack Obama.

I voted for him, but unlike the Rethuglican congress of the Tush Administration, which nearly 100% of the time voted in lockstep with this thug, I will not blindly follow or concede to any agenda that hasn't been thoroughly vetted.

I am disappointed that single payer health is not on the agenda, and with the prospects of a public option waning, which is the least I would accept, there will be no measurable health care reform without it. Will whatver passes be a gateway to single payer, or a public option in the future? Perhaps, and perhaps 1/2 a loaf is better than none.

What frustrates me most is how paralyzed America has become in making bold, decisive decisions with regard to it's domestic policy agenda. The flea circus of lobbyists dangling from the fur of congress is such a distraction from accomplishing anything meaningful, that we constantly get the status quo rather than real change.

Obama was suppose to be the flea powder, I'm having my doubt as to his effectiveness.

**Detroitej72** · August-14-09, 10:25 AM

It always amazes me how blind conservatives can be when they listen to the right wing media. Those radical talking heads who are forced upon the masses on AM radio continuesly lie and distort fact with soundbits and retoric and their sheep like Bats continue to drink the kool aid and not research the truth for themselves.

**elganned** · August-14-09, 10:40 AM

Detroitej72, they don't do the research because they don't want to know the truth. They listen to the right-wing talking heads because those heads say things their listeners already believe and want to hear reiterated and reinforced.

In truth and fairness, the same happens on the left, only they don't have too many talking heads to choose from. They rely more on books and articles that reinforce their already formed ideas.

[[This lack of left-wing call-in shows is curious considering how "liberal-controlled" the media supposedly is, wouldn't you say?)

**Detroitej72** · August-14-09, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by elganned

Detroitej72, they don't do the research because they don't want to know the truth. They listen to the right-wing talking heads because those heads say things their listeners already believe and want to hear reiterated and reinforced.

In truth and fairness, the same happens on the left, only they don't have too many talking heads to choose from. They rely more on books and articles that reinforce their already formed ideas.

[[This lack of left-wing call-in shows is curious considering how "liberal-controlled" the media supposedly is, wouldn't you say?)

I agree with your assessment 100%.

I think the lack of left leaning radio is due to the fact that deregulation of radio under the Republicans allowed a couple of media giants to own the majority of stations across the country. The companies, such as Clear Channel, in turn, force their station managers to run these radical right wing nuts since they have a monopoly on the air waves.

**mjs** · August-14-09, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Lorax

Obama was suppose to be the flea powder. I'm having my doubts as to his effectiveness.

The problem you are having is that you refuse to categorize the fleas by their actions rather than their support of socialism. In your mind, a Republican can never do anything good and a Democrat can never do anything bad.

Start with a bill or series of bills you dislike and see how congressmen voted on it. Then to really understand it, look at what special interests pushed for it and see who they gave the most money to. You just might be suprised.

And here's the fact of HR 3200 that both sides are making assumptions on. There is a provision where a government agency will compare the cost of procedures to its results to advise the White House on what procedures should be approved and which will be denied. They will get their data from standard and mandatory procedure reports by all hospitals and doctors and Congress only has the option to deny all the recommendations or accept all the recommendations. This no pick and choose clause will some day make for a very interesting Supreme Court case regarding balance of power.

A reasonable person can believe that this will lead the agency to recommend denying seniors certain high cost procedures, but approve the same for younger people which some spin docotors are colorfully describing as death squads or euthanasia. A reasonable person can also believe that there will be procedures that some Doctors swear by, but the agency will say can't be justified on a cost basis thus the colorful description of beuracrats restricting your doctor. I am one of the people who believe the provision will lead to this because its necessary to control costs and get the most number of days of life for our health insurance dollar.

However, I actually like this provision because it takes tough decisions that must be made and decides them on data rather than emotions. I doubt liberals will like it because it acknowledges that we can't save everyone at all costs which is their current fit with HMOs. Doctors may not end up happy with it because they are rightfully trained to save all their patients at all costs. Doctors and bean counters will always be at odds regardless of what system is in place which is why I don't understand conservative opposition. This is nothing more than another way of using financial data to decide to accept or deny a procedure. As for the more liberal politicians, its the usual problem, they are incapable of comprehending that in the real world, resources are always limited.

When reality does hit this provision and create the inevitable result, the Dems will just claim that wasn't their intent and its Republican politics, and then people like Lorax will blame the Republicans for using the provision to cut inevitably rising costs and people like Batson will blame the Democrats for having passed morally required universal health care in the first place and the blame game will continue as usual and no one will be held accountable.

**mjs** · August-14-09, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

I agree with your assessment 100%.

I think the lack of left leaning radio is due to the fact that deregulation of radio under the Republicans allowed a couple of media giants to own the majority of stations across the country. The companies, such as Clear Channel, in turn, force their station managers to run these radical right wing nuts since they have a monopoly on the air waves.

You are just being sarcastic right? As fucked up crazy looney bin as the talking heads on Fox can be, there's just as many left leaning talking heads. They all interview only those they agree with and feed them so many leading questions it looks like a SNL skit. Rachel Maddow is as clearly full of shit as Sean Hannity.

I hate the lack of FCC intervention as well, but think of who had the power when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed. At this point, the people need to fix this because Washington is the fox watching the hen house. If more people got their news from somewhere other than FOX, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS, the market concentration would then be lowered. Try something new. Use the DVR if necessary. In voting Jon Stewart as their most trusted anchor, people obviously see the problem, but keep tuning into these Jerry Springer type of newscasts.

**rb336** · August-14-09, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by mjs

And here's the fact of HR 3200 that both sides are making assumptions on. There is a provision where a government agency will compare the cost of procedures to its results to advise the White House on what procedures should be approved and which will be denied. They will get their data from standard and mandatory procedure reports by all hospitals and doctors and Congress only has the option to deny all the recommendations or accept all the recommendations. This no pick and choose clause will some day make for a very interesting Supreme Court case regarding balance of power.

A reasonable person can believe that this will lead the agency to recommend denying seniors certain high cost procedures, but approve the same for younger people which some spin docotors are colorfully describing as death squads or euthanasia. A reasonable person can also believe that there will be procedures that some Doctors swear by, but the agency will say can't be justified on a cost basis thus the colorful description of beuracrats restricting your doctor. I am one of the people who believe the provision will lead to this because its necessary to control costs and get the most number of days of life for our health insurance dollar.

where in HR3200 is this alleged provision?

ccbatson · August-14-09, 04:31 PM

Libs...you have a major flaw in your arguments...the parts of the house bill criticised by the likes of Rush and Hannity are validated by these commentators by way of publishing the actual provisions...straight from the bill. The deceptions are coming from the left to cover this up.

Remember, it is Obama who wanted to rush this through....do you think he was doing so for no reason? Think again.

Stosh · August-14-09, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Libs...you have a major flaw in your arguments...the parts of the house bill criticised by the likes of Rush and Hannity are validated by these commentators by way of publishing the actual provisions...straight from the bill. The deceptions are coming from the left to cover this up.

Remember, it is Obama who wanted to rush this through....do you think he was doing so for no reason? Think again.

OK, I give up. Show me where these [[[[[[[[[s have published anything of the sort. Show me a valid link. And not their "news" shows either.

Edit: Having been on the Hannity page, I feel that I need my eyes washed off. Ick.

ccbatson · August-14-09, 04:44 PM

marklevinshow.com is a great site that links to all of these bits as well as Hannity and Rush...pay it a visit.

Stosh · August-14-09, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

marklevinshow.com is a great site that links to all of these bits as well as Hannity and Rush...pay it a visit.

Now why would you send me to this site? Just another posturing [[[[[[ that wants to sell you a book about his lunatic theories... and still no credible publishing of the actual provisions, and THEIR objections to it. I'd sooner read it myself. And think for myself, unlike you.

**Detroitej72** · August-14-09, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

marklevinshow.com is a great site that links to all of these bits as well as Hannity and Rush...pay it a visit.

What you are suggesting is the same as telling someone to check out a web sight by the KKK for information about civil rights.

Mark Levin is about as far to the fringe right and out of touch with the mainstream as you can get, hardly an objective source for anything other than his narrow, radical views.

ccbatson · August-14-09, 04:55 PM

Click close for the book advert [[but go and buy a copy if you would like to be enlightened), and then look at the free site he has set up as I described.

A question for you. Do you boycott CNN because they advertise for themselves? I didn't think so.

Stosh · August-14-09, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Click close for the book advert [[but go and buy a copy if you would like to be enlightened), and then look at the free site he has set up as I described.

A question for you. Do you boycott CNN because they advertise for themselves? I didn't think so.

Credible unbiased news sources, of course not. Idiots, lunatics, and teabaggers, yes.

Try posting a direct link to both the original text and their interpretation of it.

ccbatson · August-15-09, 12:28 AM

Too numerous...use this metasight, or don't..your choice, and your loss [[if you are too closed minded to take advantage of a convenient resource).

Lorax · August-15-09, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by elganned

Detroitej72, they don't do the research because they don't want to know the truth. They listen to the right-wing talking heads because those heads say things their listeners already believe and want to hear reiterated and reinforced.

In truth and fairness, the same happens on the left, only they don't have too many talking heads to choose from. They rely more on books and articles that reinforce their already formed ideas.

[[This lack of left-wing call-in shows is curious considering how "liberal-controlled" the media supposedly is, wouldn't you say?)

That's because Reagan decided to do away with the Fairness Doctrine, which disallowed single media giants from owning all media- print, TV and radio in any given market. Clinton gave it a push as well, and what do we get? FOX Noise.

**gazhekwe** · August-15-09, 09:02 AM

Reagan decided to do away with the Fairness Doctrine, which disallowed single media giants from owning all media- print, TV and radio in any given market. Clinton gave it a push as well.

Ooh, so true. I am one who studied and learned journalism back in the dark ages before this happened. I can't listen to the news today without wanting to get out my blue pencil and writing "ED" for editorializing all over everywhere.

Case in point, I was just listening to Renee Montaigne on NPR talking about her stint in Afghanistan. She mentions the election and is asked about the chances of opposing candidates. She seems to know what she is talking about and gives valid seeming innocuous information. Then she comes up with this gem [[Paraphrasing). When you're outside of the big towns, you get into places where you see all these mud huts and you wouldn't think anyone here was following the elections, but then you see a campaign poster for a local candidate on somebody's hut. And there will be campaign posters out along the road.

Her ethnocentricity is plainly on view here, not uncommon for her. She hasn't impressed me at all since she started there.

You hear this kind of unrecognized bias from all kinds of reporters. We learned, back in the day, to try to get past our own biases to the facts, and to report those facts without hinting at our own opinions. It is impossible to find such reporting these days. Even big supposedly balanced news organizations like NPR and CNN seem to have abandoned their principles of getting to the facts behind the individual opinions of the reporters. It is difficult to tell the difference between the news pieces and the opinion pieces.