What a liar this Douglas lady is.

[Lorax]

So true- the biggest push toward this metric was done by big media itself. The news divisions were dying in the ratings game, while their dip into entertainment news was taking off, so, in the executive's infinite wisdom, they decided to turn the news divisions into "Infotainment" divisions.

Cable "news" was the first to go, followed by network news stations. Everything is entertainment first, and if the news gets worked in there somehow, then, OK, but they're not killing themselves at it.

There is no investigative journalism out there anymore, so what was set up to be our nation's "fourth estate" has been compromised by corporate influence.

Even allowing Murdoch more than one license in any market is criminal, in my view.

You really need to glean news from many sources and try and make an informed decision on issues. When socially backwards people like Joe Scarborough claim to be "journalists" then the battle is lost.

[vetalalumni]

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.

Excellent example of subtle bias underlined above.

You may have noticed last week some reporting out west of bears in swimming pools in residential areas. The discussion included both the cuteness and potential danger of humans mingling with bears. The TV Reporter went on to say that some bears have been stealing apples from some backyards.

http://www.ksby.com/Global/story.asp?S=10928001

[Stosh]

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).

No, you are just too lazy to post the facts.
Or are you too afraid that your positions will be exposed as fraudulent?
Just as I thought you would respond. Just like Pavlov's dog, you are.
When Rove rings the bell, you salivate, or in your case, type the tripe.

Metasight? Look that definition up too, oh learned one.

[ccbatson]

Metasight meaning that one sight links to many others.

So, rather than address the established evidence, you prefer to change the subject to why I will not hold your hand and walk you through the simple steps it takes to gather the numerous pieces of evidence?

Your loss.

[Stosh]

Metasight meaning that one sight links to many others.

So, rather than address the established evidence, you prefer to change the subject to why I will not hold your hand and walk you through the simple steps it takes to gather the numerous pieces of evidence?

Your loss.

I would post something that would refute everything you say, but piss on it. Nothing I say to you would change your mind.

There is no established evidence to uphold anything you say.

And the term is metasite.

[jams]

Metasight meaning that one sight links to many others.

Aww cool, we no longer have to see things for ourselves, just connect to a metasight.

OR, We could learn to spell and use standard definitions.

[Stosh]

Aww cool, we no longer have to see things for ourselves, just connect to a metasight.

OR, We could learn to spell and use standard definitions.

Must be a Rambo fan.

MetaSight - Precision laser-guided targeting for seeing the enemy and other threats even before Rambo does. Appears as crosshairs that zoom into a target with laser pointer spot appearing on target. MetaSight will be displayed via picture in picture. Frame will display a brief synchronized animation segment showing the zoom in to the target. 9 MetaSight targets, 3 for each film in the trilogy, each 5-15 seconds.

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum...fm/247258.html

[rb336]

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, you say they are straight from the bill. I actually have all 1000+ pages of it. where are they located? you don't know, do you. I notice that with two days to find it, NOT ONE of you has, which clearly means you haven't got a clue, since you are too intellectually lazy to find out facts for yourselves, or [[equally likely, and probably a codeterminent) you know the facts will not and never will support your BS

[Stosh]

ok, you say they are straight from the bill. I actually have all 1000+ pages of it. where are they located? you don't know, do you. I notice that with two days to find it, NOT ONE of you has, which clearly means you haven't got a clue, since you are too intellectually lazy to find out facts for yourselves, or [[equally likely, and probably a codeterminent) you know the facts will not and never will support your BS

Exactly my point of view. If there's so much printed about it, publish the links, so we all can see. But I'd prefer direct quotes from this document below, digitally signed by the US government. Not some potentially altered hack job.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...11hr3200IH.pdf

[rb336]

Exactly my point of view. If there's so much printed about it, publish the links, so we all can see. But I'd prefer direct quotes from this document below, digitally signed by the US government. Not some potentially altered hack job.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...11hr3200IH.pdf

that is where i downloaded mine

[ccbatson]

I have heard the page numbers called out as they were read , but don't recall all of them.

Page 16 for the prohibition on new private insurer enrolments is one I recall for certain.

Hannity's site has a good number of them listed.

Isn't that part of the problem anyway? A purposely long, vague, complicated piece of junk rushed through which has the potential to cripple the country.

BTW...the fascist flag site marketed by Douglas is??... Gone, as, it seems, is this Douglas lady.

[rb336]

Page 16:

16

•

HR 3200 IH

1

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT

2

COVERAGE.

3

[[a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV
4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of

5

this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov
6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health

7

insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance

8

coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the

9

first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

10

[[1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—

11

[[A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in

12

this paragraph, the individual health insurance

13

issuer offering such coverage does not enroll

14

any individual in such coverage if the first ef
15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first

16

day of Y1.

17

[[B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER18

MITTED

.—Subparagraph [[A) shall not affect

19

the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an

20

individual who is covered as of such first day.

21

[[2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR

22

CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph [[3) and except

23

as required by law, the issuer does not change any

24

of its terms or conditions, including benefits and

25

cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be26

fore the first day of Y1.

yet again, your leaders lead you astray, as this is concerning GRANDFATHERED POLICIES and is NOT GENERALIZED.

[ccbatson]

10 is a separate item prohibiting "new enrolments" , not grandfathered policies as is the subject of the preceding item as you so kindly reproduced. IOW, wrong again Rb [[do you need more proof, or physical evidence of that?).

FYI, page 425 is another hot spot, I believe having to do with the grief counseling.

For more citations, a good place to look is the Heritage Foundation's website.

[vetalalumni]

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.

Interesting analysis once again mjs. Missed reading your post earlier. Up late tonight catching up. Often enjoy your thoughtful posts and sought one in which I could dialogue with you. There may be potential flaws in your analysis, so please help me out with your input on any of these questions:

1. why would the government agency, as you say, specifically advise the White House on what procedures should be approved, and which will [[do you again mean should here?) be denied?
2. isn't it the case under [[proposed) insurance reform, that SOP for both private insurance and the [[proposed) public option, an NFP, would be equally bound to the same advisements or recommendations?
3. are advisements and recommendations synonymous?
4. why would a "balance of power" conflict arise between the government agency and Congress?
5. is it the conflict itself that would drive the government agency to favor youth?
6. "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." Does this type restriction not occur already with insurance bureaucrats [[under different auspices)?
7. data rather than emotions? Is this because non-liberals see the data, and liberals see emotionally?
8. "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." Misunderstand opposition from conservative physicians, bean counters, or both? Is it possibly just an automatic, illogical reaction on their part?

[ccbatson]

This 1000+ page disaster is not salvageable from all perspectives; politically, economically, or in terms of efficacy. Throw out the garbage.

[Lorax]

10 is a separate item prohibiting "new enrolments" , not grandfathered policies as is the subject of the preceding item as you so kindly reproduced. IOW, wrong again Rb [[do you need more proof, or physical evidence of that?).

FYI, page 425 is another hot spot, I believe having to do with the grief counseling.

For more citations, a good place to look is the Heritage Foundation's website.

Why would any sane person refer to anything printed on the fascist pages of "Hannity's" site, or the Heritage Foundation's fascist propaganda website?

That's like referring to Dr. Mengele's book on child care.

[oladub]

mjs and vetalalumni, One more thought regarding mjs' objective analysis. Thank you mjs for your take. There is a note of martial law triage in all of this with age being a negative. If government was the only provider, as it is on a battlefield, triage is practical. However, in the day to day world in which most of us live, there are other variables and dimensions. For instance, some people work jobs they don't like just for the health care benefits and some people abuse their bodies. So many patients entering the health care system have already made decisions that finance their health care or determine when they enter it. On the back end, anyone with resources including earned health care plans have choices. Do I want to spent my own money on a new car or an elective surgury that the bean counters deem me unworthy of? Life is, in short, multi-dimensional. From the viewpoint of budget strapped bean counters, health care might be a lock tight compartment. From the viewpoint of most retirees, forbidden health care expenditures might be seen as just another spending option. Ask any Canadians who come here for treatment.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If the government option contains the bean counters' triage formula while other retirees with their own private health care programs, or personal resources, are allowed to partake in extra proceedures, a health care disparity will continue to exist. I predict the health care debate will be ongoing.

[ccbatson]

Lorax...the actual bills, actual video and audio clips, etc are found there.

[Lorax]

Lorax...the actual bills, actual video and audio clips, etc are found there.

No they aren't.

Anything "Manatee" or Rethuglican Stink Tanks put out are pure propaganda. They can interpret what is in black and white all they want, and spin it to the moon and back, they still lie like they breathe, which unfortunately is constantly.

Any video or audio clips are completely false when on Fox. Pure fascist propaganda.

[ccbatson]

You will have to delve into the Heritage Foundation site to find them, they are there.

[Lorax]

Why would I waste my time?

Isn't there something you can post of Ann Coultergeist's that would suffice?

[ccbatson]

I could not care less what you do. You asked for a source, I gave it.

[Lorax]

I could not care less what you do. You asked for a source, I gave it.

How about a legitimate source for a change? One not connected to the fascist right.

[Detroitej72]

This 1000+ page disaster is not salvageable from all perspectives; politically, economically, or in terms of efficacy. Throw out the garbage.

Thats all you can say after you were soundly beaten by true facts from fellow posters?

Bats, you disappoint me!

[ccbatson]

And then you woke up Detroitej72.

The heritage foundation is in the process of deciphering this bill and exposing it for what it is. All people valuing liberty and freedom owe it to themselves to pay very close attention.