How many of you are ex-diehard Obama lovers

CrackerJax

New Member
It should be obvious to even a casual observer.

We get our talking points from the same source because we are incapable of independent thought. :lol:

Unlike those free-thinking Proggies. :dunce:

Wait... there's a fax coming in from Fox News right now!

More to follow just as soon as I read and regurgitate....
You got yours just now? I got mine earlier.... man talking point 342 is the BOMB! Let's synchronize our group think watches and let it fly tonight!
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
You got yours just now? I got mine earlier.... man talking point 342 is the BOMB! Let's synchronize our group think watches and let it fly tonight!
Dang! My handlers better get on the stick.

Sorry for the back post. I thought of an even more smartassed comment and could not resist.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
You guys are sooooo smart, LOL. Wait untill it hits you.
That's high praise coming from you.

It could be worse. If I chose, I could be a moocher waiting for his turn to suck on the government teat.

If ever I put myself in that position you can say you're smarter than me.

Until that day comes... suck away. Suck it dry.

It shouldn't be too long now.
 

Big P

Well-Known Member


The Ant and the Grasshopper

In a field one summer's day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart's content. An Ant walked by, grunting as he carried a plump kernel of corn.

"Where are you off to with that heavy thing?" asked the Grasshopper.

Without stopping, the Ant replied, "To our ant hill. This is the third kernel I've delivered today."

"Why not come and sing with me," said the Grasshopper, "instead of working so hard?"

"I am helping to store food for the winter," said the Ant,

"and think you should do the same."

"Why bother about winter?" said the Grasshopper; "we have plenty of food right now."

But the Ant went on its way and continued its work.

The weather soon turned cold. All the food lying in the field was covered with a thick white blanket of snow that even the grasshopper could not dig through. Soon the Grasshopper found itself dying of hunger.

He staggered to the ants' hill and saw them handing out corn from the stores they had collected in the summer.
Then the Grasshopper knew:
It is best to prepare for the days of necessity.

 

tinyTURTLE

Well-Known Member
Does anyone here think that lobbying should be illegal?

hell yeah.
talk about undue influence.
talk about abusing your patrons.
the millions that the insurance industry is spending to lobby our government was all paid by people's premiums. that's more care they will have to deny people in order to protect the bottom line.

i chop lobbyists up and bury them in the desert. (in my imagination)
 

Balzac89

Undercover Mod
If you sit down and do the math thats not really that many people............ like 800 people in ten years in new york state......
 

stumps

Well-Known Member
Got this today. Don't know if it's lagit.



>
> THIS IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL
>
> Subject: : Judge Kithil of Marble Falls , TX - HB3200 highlighted
pages
> most egregious
>
>
> Please read this........ especially the reference to pages 58 & 59
>
>
>
> JUDGE KITHIL wrote:
>
> "I have reviewed selected sections of the bill, and find it
unbelievable
> that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a
bill
> loaded with so many wrong-headed elements."
>
> "Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the
financial
> mess of both Social Security and Medicare programs."
>
> "I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is
> estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new
employees
will
> be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion
of a
> government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are
going to
> hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our
borders,
> fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law
> enforcement/firefighters out there."
>
>
> JUDGE KITHIL continued: "Other problems I have with this bill
include:
>
> ** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all
non-U.S.
> residents, even if they are here illegally.
>
> ** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an
> individual's bank account and will have the authority to make
electronic
> fund transfers from those accounts.
>
> ** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the
government)
for
> all union members, union retirees and for community organizations
(such as
> the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).
>
> ** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not
be
> treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with
> that?)
>
> ** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of
> specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.
>
> ** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according
to
the
> patient's age.
>
> ** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on
hospital
> expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
>
> ** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning
> consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an
> "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counceling.)
>
> ** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors
can
> write an end-of-life order.
>
> HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:
>
> "Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to
members
> of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social
> Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their
> retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe
they
> would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for
their
> future."
>
> Honorable David Kithil
> Marble Falls , Texas
 

Mrs. Worm

Active Member
I wish Hilary would run again. If I remember correctly (and I very well may not remember correctly), the last time this country was doing even close to good was when Hilary was running it.... while Bill was cigaring ugly bitches in the oval office.
 

Balzac89

Undercover Mod
decided to seek out an online copy of the bill to get an idea of how accu­rate Mr. Kithil’s claims might be, as his claims sounded like a load of hog­wash to me. A quick google search turned up a copy of the bill over at OpenCongress.org which I’ve used to make my com­par­i­son of the bill to Mr. Kithil’s claims.
  1. “EXACT SPECIFICS, to include page and para­graph in the bill on why this Health Bill is BAD”.
    • Page/paragraph num­bers are use­less for com­par­i­son with­out hav­ing an iden­ti­cal print copy. If Mr. Kithil had legit­i­mate com­plaints with spe­cific parts of the bill, why didn’t he ref­er­ence them all by their Sections/Sub-section head­ings or per­haps even by includ­ing quotes from the bill so other peo­ple could see exactly what part of the bill he was talk­ing about?
    • I also find it inter­est­ing that Mr Kithil appar­ently wrote such an amaz­ing arti­cle against H.B. 3200 that peo­ple are feel the need to for­ward it to every­body they know, and yet they don’t for­ward the entire arti­cle that he wrote.
      • I attempted to do some dig­ging into whether any such arti­cle was writ­ten by a David Kithil of Mar­ble Falls, TX but have not been able to find any­thing except ref­er­ences to this email chain-letter.
  2. “it is esti­mated that a fed­eral bureau­cracy of more than 150,000 new employ­ees will be required to admin­is­ter HB3200“
    • If the Far Right was inter­ested in back­ing this bill; this com­ment would instead be about how the bill will help out our strug­gling econ­omy by cre­at­ing jobs. But since they don’t like the bill, it’s about waste. Also, where is Mr. Kithil get­ting this esti­mate from? By fail­ing to quote a source, it makes one won­der if he didn’t just pull a high out of thin air to try and make peo­ple panic over the bill.
  3. “Page 50/section 152: The bill will pro­vide insur­ance to all non-U.S. res­i­dents, even if they are here illegally.“
  4. “Page 58 and 59: The gov­ern­ment will have real-time access to an individual’s bank account and will have the author­ity to make elec­tronic fund trans­fers from those accounts.“
    • As best as I can tell, Mr. Kithil is refer­ring to SEC. 164. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION. ‘SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS. (4) © which reads “enable elec­tronic funds trans­fers, in order to allow auto­mated rec­on­cil­i­a­tion with the related health care pay­ment and remit­tance advice;” And if we apply a bit of thought to what that says, it’s really no dif­fer­ent from using your debit card to buy milk at the gro­cery store. Thanks for point­ing out the obvi­ous there, Mr. Kithil.
  5. “Page 65/section 164: The plan will be sub­si­dized (by the gov­ern­ment) for all union mem­bers, union retirees and for com­mu­nity orga­ni­za­tions (such as the Asso­ci­a­tion of Com­mu­nity Orga­ni­za­tions for Reform Now — ACORN).“
    • I will note that sec­tion 164 is SEC. 164. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION and every­thing I see under it appears to be talk­ing about how the plan is to be run. But there is noth­ing I can find in the bill which seems to sup­port Mr. Kithil’s claim that the plan will be sub­si­dized for union mem­bers, union retirees and for com­mu­nity orga­ni­za­tions. If Mr. Kithil or another oppo­nent of this bill can find me the rel­e­vant por­tion of the bill which makes up the basis of this claim, I’ll be happy to revisit it.
  6. “Page 203/line 14–15: The tax imposed under this sec­tion will not be treated as a tax. (How could any­body in their right mind come up with that?)“
  7. “Page 241 and 253: Doc­tors will all be paid the same regard­less of spe­cialty, and the gov­ern­ment will set all doc­tors’ fees.“
    • Again the lack of proper doc­u­men­ta­tion of Mr. Kithil’s argu­ment, but my best guess is he’s refer­ring to some lan­guage in the bill that the Sec­re­tary must nego­ti­ate rates for health-care items/services such that the gov­ern­ment will not pay less than the rates already set in the Social Secu­rity Act and not more than the aver­age of other QHBP. Again, this is fear-mongering on the part of the Far Right and if they were sup­port­ing the bill; they’d point out this bit as being fis­cally respon­si­ble on their part.
  8. “Page 272. sec­tion 1145: Can­cer hos­pi­tal will ration care accord­ing to the patient’s age.“
    • (18) AUTHORIZATION OF ADJUSTMENT FOR CANCER HOSPITALS- What this por­tion of the bill really does is give the Sec­re­tary the abil­ity to study the costs of pay­ments to can­cer hos­pi­tals and if it is deter­mined that these spe­cialty hos­pi­tals are charg­ing more for the same ser­vices as gen­eral hos­pi­tals, then the Sec­re­tary has the author­ity to adjust pay­ments to these can­cer hos­pi­tals to reflect those costs. Which sounds more like this bill would have the gov­ern­ment pick­ing up more of the expense for patients going to a can­cer hos­pi­tal, and that sounds good to me.
  9. “Page 317 and 321: The gov­ern­ment will impose a pro­hi­bi­tion on hos­pi­tal expan­sion; how­ever, com­mu­ni­ties may peti­tion for an exception.“
    • I’m shocked as for the first time since I started review­ing Mr. Kithil’s claims, this one appears to be entirely accu­rate. It appears he is mak­ing a ref­er­ence to © PROHIBITION ON EXPANSION OF FACILITY CAPACITY. But where he sees a prob­lem, I see a nec­es­sary step towards reform. When you’re try­ing to restruc­ture some­thing as com­pli­cated as the US health-care sys­tem, you’re much bet­ter off min­i­miz­ing the num­ber of vari­ables you have to deal with. Hence, the pro­hi­bi­tion on expand­ing health-care facilites. How­ever since hav­ing those facil­i­ties can mean life or death to patients; the cre­ators of this bill have included pro­vi­sions for health-care providers to ask for an exemp­tion. Why exactly Mr Kithil finds this to be a prob­lem is not made clear in the email, and I would be happy to dis­cuss his com­plaints on this point if he cares to make them.
    • An alter­nate the­ory as to the rea­sonin behind this sec­tion of the bill, was pro­posed by James in a com­ment:

      [*]the pro­hi­bi­tion on expan­sion of facil­i­ties is only on physi­cian owned hos­pi­tals. I think the idea being one thing that dri­ves up costs is some less eth­i­cal doc­tors refer­ring patients for unneeded tests and diag­nos­tics at facil­i­ties they owned to get more insurance money.​
  10. “Page 425, line 4–12: The gov­ern­ment man­dates advance-care plan­ning con­sul­ta­tions. Those on Social Secu­rity will be required to attend an “end-of-life plan­ning” sem­i­nar every five years.“
    • While there is lan­guage in this bill for advance-care plan­ning which includes men­tion of end-of-life plan­ning; the way it’s writ­ten, it’s clear the inten­tion is to make the patient aware of what pal­lia­tive, hos­pice and other care ser­vices the health-care provider offers which would nat­u­rally be of impor­tance for a per­son reach­ing the end of their life­time. Are those con­sul­ta­tions going to be filled with hap­pi­ness & joy? Prob­a­bly not. Is it a good idea to put infor­ma­tion in the hands of peo­ple who will need? Definitely.
    • It’s also good to point out that under SEC. 138. INFORMATION ON END-OF-LIFE PLANNING, (b) “Noth­ing in this sec­tion shall be construed-“
      • “to require an indi­vid­ual to com­plete an advanced direc­tive or a physician’s order for life sus­tain­ing treat­ment or other end-of-life plan­ning document;”
      • “to require an indi­vid­ual to con­sent to restric­tions on the amount, dura­tion, or scope of med­ical ben­e­fits oth­er­wise cov­ered under a qual­i­fied health ben­e­fits plan; or”
      • “to encour­age the has­ten­ing of death or the pro­mo­tion of assisted suicide.”
  11. “Page 429, line 13–25: The gov­ern­ment will spec­ify which doc­tors can write an end-of-life order.“
    • The phrase “end-of-life order” never appears in this bill and after search­ing through the bill, I can­not find any sim­i­lar phrase to indi­cate the gov­ern­ment can have doc­tors write such a thing.
    • On the other hand, there is lan­guage through­out the bill specif­i­cally detail­ing how assisted sui­cide it com­pletely forbidden.
So hope­fully now that you have links to not only the bill itself, but all the rel­e­vant por­tions of the bill, you will take the time to actu­ally read the bill and see if it some­thing you should sup­port or not (rather than blindly for­ward­ing on some­thing with­out research­ing it).


See I can copy and paste too.
 
Top