PDA

View Full Version : Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters Are "Carrying Swastikas"



megimoo
08-06-2009, 07:30 AM
"Pelosi has gone out of her mind pushing Obama's health care bill through the house !"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/05/pelosi_town_hall_protesters_are_carrying_swastikas .html

PALEOCON
08-06-2009, 08:03 AM
hmmm, the local RTL folks and others are linking obamacare to the nazi's soooo perhaps there are protest signs which feature a swastika

NJCardFan
08-06-2009, 10:36 AM
hmmm, the local RTL folks and others are linking obamacare to the nazi's soooo perhaps there are protest signs which feature a swastika

Then I suggest posting a non-photoshopped pic.

PoliCon
08-06-2009, 10:38 AM
repeat

stsinner
08-06-2009, 10:45 AM
She's gone insane!! She's been corrupted by power and can't deal with being told no.

HowardRoark
08-06-2009, 11:08 AM
She hasn't gone insane. It's a very calculated way of trying to silence criticism. All the MSM networks besides Fox are jumping right on board with this too.

PALEOCON
08-07-2009, 04:43 PM
hmmm, the local RTL folks and others are linking obamacare to the nazi's soooo perhaps there are protest signs which feature a swastika


Listening to Boortz this morning- he essentially verified the above.

Gingersnap
08-07-2009, 04:46 PM
Yeah, this kind of sign:

http://i28.tinypic.com/2mhu715.jpg

:rolleyes:

Lanie
08-07-2009, 06:27 PM
Yeah, this kind of sign:

http://i28.tinypic.com/2mhu715.jpg

:rolleyes:

It's still offensive. Just because people don't agree with Obama on healthcare doesn't mean he's like a man who murdered millions of people. Sort of reminds me of when people compared Bush to Hitler.

But to be fair toward the other side, there hopefully aren't a lot of people with those signs and it's unfair of Pelosi to broadbrush.

HowardRoark
08-07-2009, 11:13 PM
It's still offensive. Just because people don't agree with Obama on healthcare doesn't mean he's like a man who murdered millions of people. Sort of reminds me of when people compared Bush to Hitler.

But to be fair toward the other side, there hopefully aren't a lot of people with those signs and it's unfair of Pelosi to broadbrush.

I don't know, this administration's connections to eugenics are very Nazi-esque. Read up on some of the quotes from his health advisers, it's terrifying.

Lanie
08-08-2009, 01:27 AM
I don't know, this administration's connections to eugenics are very Nazi-esque. Read up on some of the quotes from his health advisers, it's terrifying.

I've read some stuff that was supposedly anti-elderly, but I just didn't see it. Some people took a quote about keeping the elderly hydrated and given nutrition, and it was taken to mean killing them. Huh?

Lanie
08-08-2009, 01:41 AM
One important part was state's rights. Slavery was part of that but as an issue, not part of the fundamental rights of states to govern themselves. Most Southerners frame the war in a very different way - it was an incursion into basic rights.

Slavery was already on the way out by the time of the war. It became inefficient economically, destructive socially, and a lot of Christians simply couldn't live with it.

I don't have a problem with people admiring the principles behind the battle flag. You take the good and dump the bad.

Problem is people couldn't dump the bad. If you were black, could you dump the bad?

I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that slavery was on its way out. It was considered to be constitutional because of the right to own property. It was considered to be Christian to many southern Christians because the Bible appears to speak in favor it. I think this is actually where the Southern Baptists denomination came from. Economically, it was considered efficient to use free labor to pick cotton and to do other work.

I do think it would have left America eventually, but necessarily soon. I argue that the Civil War wasn't about slavery and was really about "saving the Union", and I stand by that. However, I do think a part of Conferate culture was very much about being pro-slavery. I read some of the succession documents. Yes, they spoke about state's rights, but the issue of slavery was in probably most of them.

lacarnut
08-08-2009, 06:40 AM
I've read some stuff that was supposedly anti-elderly, but I just didn't see it. Some people took a quote about keeping the elderly hydrated and given nutrition, and it was taken to mean killing them. Huh?

You need to understand that 500 million dollar (savings) taken out of medicare means that seniors will have rationed care. Even a liberal should be able to understand that. Additionally, the House of Rep. plans states in CLEAR ENGLISH that medicare will go under the public option plan and that NO MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLAN WILL BE ALLOWED. In other words, seniors will not even be allowed to buy additional coverage. That is FUCKING UN-AMERICAN. No wonder people are angry. This is worse than health care in EU. At least if you are elderly and rich, you can go to the head of the line and pay out of pocket for a surgical or expensive medicine that has been denied under the public option plan. If this is not anti-elderly and anti-American, I don't know what is.

You little spiel about nutrition is bull shit. If you have cancer like Ted Kennnedy, you would be dead because under the socialized med. program your life would not worth saving. A Federal bureaucrats would enter your age and the surgical procedure into a computer and it would DECIDE whether or not the health care would be allowed. You need to STFU because you do not have a clue what is in the bill. Comprende

Nubs
08-08-2009, 10:24 AM
I've read some stuff that was supposedly anti-elderly, but I just didn't see it. Some people took a quote about keeping the elderly hydrated and given nutrition, and it was taken to mean killing them. Huh?

Read up on the "Complete Lives System". Under this system, it is worse that a 10 year old die than a 3 year old. So if both are stricken with lukemia, they 10 year old will have a higher probabilityof recieving care. The only way they can claim this system is sucessful will be by a decrease in life expectency and increase in infant mortality.

NJCardFan
08-08-2009, 12:07 PM
Instead of equating the swastika flag to just murdering Jews, how about looking into what National Socialism is then maybe you'd understand the use of that sign.

HowardRoark
08-08-2009, 12:11 PM
I've read some stuff that was supposedly anti-elderly, but I just didn't see it. Some people took a quote about keeping the elderly hydrated and given nutrition, and it was taken to mean killing them. Huh?

“When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” This may be justified by public opinion, since “broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over very elderly people.”

“Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects…. Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments…. It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does.”

Good ole' Zeke Emanuel is behind both of those quotes.

Then we have this gem on seniors receiving life extending care vs. hospice care (care that would simply keep them comfortable but make no attempt to extend life...

Obama: "I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

So how do you — how do we deal with it?"

" …you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now."

I realize I may have formatted this post fairly poorly but you have Emanuel talking about rationing health care and Obama talking about creating a group of "counselors" who would attempt to convince the elderly to refuse life-extending care in favor of hospice care.

BadCat
08-08-2009, 12:44 PM
“When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” This may be justified by public opinion, since “broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over very elderly people.”

“Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects…. Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments…. It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does.”

Good ole' Zeke Emanuel is behind both of those quotes.

Then we have this gem on seniors receiving life extending care vs. hospice care (care that would simply keep them comfortable but make no attempt to extend life...

Obama: "I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

So how do you — how do we deal with it?"

" …you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now."

I realize I may have formatted this post fairly poorly but you have Emanuel talking about rationing health care and Obama talking about creating a group of "counselors" who would attempt to convince the elderly to refuse life-extending care in favor of hospice care.


Let me translate that:

"Hey old people...FOAD"

Nubs
08-08-2009, 12:53 PM
Let me translate that:

"Hey old people...FOAD"


Don't forget the newborns.

If you look at the Probability of Action graph Zeke includes, newborns have as close to zero chance of medical care. So what happens if your child is premature or Downs etc?

Lanie
08-08-2009, 01:00 PM
You need to understand that 500 million dollar (savings) taken out of medicare means that seniors will have rationed care. Even a liberal should be able to understand that. Additionally, the House of Rep. plans states in CLEAR ENGLISH that medicare will go under the public option plan and that NO MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLAN WILL BE ALLOWED. In other words, seniors will not even be allowed to buy additional coverage. That is FUCKING UN-AMERICAN. No wonder people are angry. This is worse than health care in EU. At least if you are elderly and rich, you can go to the head of the line and pay out of pocket for a surgical or expensive medicine that has been denied under the public option plan. If this is not anti-elderly and anti-American, I don't know what is.

You little spiel about nutrition is bull shit. If you have cancer like Ted Kennnedy, you would be dead because under the socialized med. program your life would not worth saving. A Federal bureaucrats would enter your age and the surgical procedure into a computer and it would DECIDE whether or not the health care would be allowed. You need to STFU because you do not have a clue what is in the bill. Comprende

You're not civil enough to discuss with.

Lanie
08-08-2009, 01:02 PM
“When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” This may be justified by public opinion, since “broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over very elderly people.”

“Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects…. Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments…. It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does.”

Good ole' Zeke Emanuel is behind both of those quotes.

Then we have this gem on seniors receiving life extending care vs. hospice care (care that would simply keep them comfortable but make no attempt to extend life...

Obama: "I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

So how do you — how do we deal with it?"

" …you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now."

I realize I may have formatted this post fairly poorly but you have Emanuel talking about rationing health care and Obama talking about creating a group of "counselors" who would attempt to convince the elderly to refuse life-extending care in favor of hospice care.

Who is Emanuel (I'll be looking him up soon), and do you have a link or another source for me to look at these quotes?

Gingersnap
08-08-2009, 01:10 PM
Problem is people couldn't dump the bad. If you were black, could you dump the bad?

Of course I could. Men have beaten, raped, enslaved, and sold women for thousands of years yet I live happily with a man.

My knowledge of the things men have done to women in the past doesn't at all negate the the blindingly obvious contributions, values, and positive behaviors of men in general. :confused:

HowardRoark
08-08-2009, 02:20 PM
Who is Emanuel (I'll be looking him up soon), and do you have a link or another source for me to look at these quotes?

http://www.jonasclark.com/blog/misc-christian-information/obama-on-end-of-life-health-care/

That's the link to the Obama quotes. It may not be a source of your choice but it's directly from a New York Times Article but I'm not sure whether you can read those online but that's easily documentable (not a real word, i know).

http://rightsoup.com/rahms-brother-dr-ezekiel-emanuel-the-death-czar/ (http://rightsoup.com/rahms-brother-dr-ezekiel-emanuel-the-death-czar/)

There's the quotes to Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm Emanuel's brother) who is the Health Policy Adviser to Obama.

The quotes are all cited and documented so it's not a case of a website snipping up quotes to make someone look bad.

Need anything else lemme know.

lacarnut
08-08-2009, 03:33 PM
You're not civil enough to discuss with.

Your are off topic and a dumb ass liberal

AmPat
08-08-2009, 03:35 PM
It's still offensive. Just because people don't agree with Obama on healthcare doesn't mean he's like a man who murdered millions of people. Sort of reminds me of when people compared Bush to Hitler.

But to be fair toward the other side, there hopefully aren't a lot of people with those signs and it's unfair of Pelosi to broadbrush.

There is a HUGE difference. Bush didn't use NAZI tactics. The RATS use ALL the tactics of the NAZIs excluding (so far) mass murder.

O Blah Blah hates criticism and wants it stifled. There is very little he won't do to stop this. The ONLY thing Oblah Blah loves more than power is himself.:cool:

Nubs
08-08-2009, 04:09 PM
Here is Zeke's paper from the Lancet Lancet
(http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf)


If you look at the left top corner of pg 428, you will see the medical priority graph. If you are 10 years and younger, you have the same medical priority as someone 70+. How would this affect me? I was treated for cancer at age 8. I may have not been allowed treatment, eventhough my parents had the ability to pay. It would be really ironic if a physicians son was not allowed to have life saving treatment because of a governmental mandate.

My mother is 70+ anf had a stroke years back. We were talking about this, and she just sighed and said,,"If anything happens to me, I'm done." Now this is coming from a Registered Nurse of 25 years. My father was a MD for his entire life. Both spent their lives saving others lives. Now according to Zeke, their contribution to society has run it's course and in the event of some ailment, so must they.

Luckily, I was treated for I would not have been, if this program is put in place, as I had not contributed to society nor had much of an investment been made. I just hope my 4 year old son makes it to 10 years old in an uneventful manner.

Lanie
08-08-2009, 05:30 PM
Of course I could. Men have beaten, raped, enslaved, and sold women for thousands of years yet I live happily with a man.

My knowledge of the things men have done to women in the past doesn't at all negate the the blindingly obvious contributions, values, and positive behaviors of men in general. :confused:

But how would you feel if your husband proudly proclaimed himself to be part of a group that participated in those rapes and murders?

Lanie
08-08-2009, 05:38 PM
There is a HUGE difference. Bush didn't use NAZI tactics. The RATS use ALL the tactics of the NAZIs excluding (so far) mass murder.

O Blah Blah hates criticism and wants it stifled. There is very little he won't do to stop this. The ONLY thing Oblah Blah loves more than power is himself.:cool:

No offense, but I heard similar arguments last administration. It was even better backed up when Ashcroft kept saying we were enemies if we disagreed with him. The Patriot Act made Bush look bad. The potential Patriot Act II made the Bush Administration look downright evil. You think Bush didn't support some crazy people? He did. Some of his court choices went way nuts. I'm not just talking about my own personal politics.

No offense, but people ALWAYS cry out the word "Hitler" when the President is not who they picked. Didn't Hillary get compared to Hitler? These accusations are NOT to be taken seriously unless you have something concrete. It's downright hypocrtical to pick on DUers all these years and then turn around and do the EXACT SAME THING they did. And of course, Democrats are also being hypocrites for thinking the Bush Administration was cause for panic, but the Obama administration isn't.

I won't say that there's nothing to worry about with Obama, but I wish people would think outside of their own political box for two whole, entire seconds.

Nubs
08-08-2009, 06:07 PM
No offense, but I heard similar arguments last administration. It was even better backed up when Ashcroft kept saying we were enemies if we disagreed with him. The Patriot Act made Bush look bad. The potential Patriot Act II made the Bush Administration look downright evil. You think Bush didn't support some crazy people? He did. Some of his court choices went way nuts. I'm not just talking about my own personal politics.

No offense, but people ALWAYS cry out the word "Hitler" when the President is not who they picked. Didn't Hillary get compared to Hitler? These accusations are NOT to be taken seriously unless you have something concrete. It's downright hypocrtical to pick on DUers all these years and then turn around and do the EXACT SAME THING they did. And of course, Democrats are also being hypocrites for thinking the Bush Administration was cause for panic, but the Obama administration isn't.

I won't say that there's nothing to worry about with Obama, but I wish people would think outside of their own political box for two whole, entire seconds.

Did you read Zeke's paper???? He is the main architect of what is the current reform in healthcare. It is a paper published for peer review. It was published AFTER the Big O assumed the presidency. It has only been available to peer review for about 6 months. If these healthcare bills were passed on the Big O's time table, it would have gone from idea to law in less time than O took to choose a dog.

Lanie
08-08-2009, 06:24 PM
Did you read Zeke's paper???? He is the main architect of what is the current reform in healthcare. It is a paper published for peer review. It was published AFTER the Big O assumed the presidency. It has only been available to peer review for about 6 months. If these healthcare bills were passed on the Big O's time table, it would have gone from idea to law in less time than O took to choose a dog.

I haven't read his paper yet. I was just aggravated.

I need to know his pov will be part of the actual policy. Bush tried to get a judge that once wrote a paper against inter-racial marriage in. I wasn't worried about turning back the clock though.

Okay, I just looked at his wacky paper. I still need to look into how this might have affected the policy Obama wants passed. If I can find where these views are affecting the potential healthcare reform, then I will come out against it. I don't have time to research right now. I'll be back tomorrow.

Nubs
08-08-2009, 09:14 PM
I haven't read his paper yet. I was just aggravated.

I need to know his pov will be part of the actual policy. Bush tried to get a judge that once wrote a paper against inter-racial marriage in. I wasn't worried about turning back the clock though.

Okay, I just looked at his wacky paper. I still need to look into how this might have affected the policy Obama wants passed. If I can find where these views are affecting the potential healthcare reform, then I will come out against it. I don't have time to research right now. I'll be back tomorrow.


Who was this judge? Like Zeke, did this judge publish his paper for peer review after Bush was sworn in? Or was this judges opinion like that of Sen Byrd, beliefs that were held a long time past?

Sonnabend
08-08-2009, 10:39 PM
Bush tried to get a judge that once wrote a paper against inter-racial marriage inCite the judge, his name, the paper, show us the paper, and show us where he "tried to get him in"

Otherwise you're lying.

AmPat
08-09-2009, 12:09 AM
No offense, but I heard similar arguments last administration. It was even better backed up when Ashcroft kept saying we were enemies if we disagreed with him. The Patriot Act made Bush look bad. The potential Patriot Act II made the Bush Administration look downright evil. You think Bush didn't support some crazy people? He did. Some of his court choices went way nuts. I'm not just talking about my own personal politics.

No offense, but people ALWAYS cry out the word "Hitler" when the President is not who they picked. Didn't Hillary get compared to Hitler? These accusations are NOT to be taken seriously unless you have something concrete. It's downright hypocrtical to pick on DUers all these years and then turn around and do the EXACT SAME THING they did. And of course, Democrats are also being hypocrites for thinking the Bush Administration was cause for panic, but the Obama administration isn't.

I won't say that there's nothing to worry about with Obama, but I wish people would think outside of their own political box for two whole, entire seconds.

1,,,,2,,,,,,,,,

First, I didn't cry Hitler. I do see him as a despot though and DID say there was no difference in him and any other present dictator.

Bush did not try to stifle argument or dissent, O Blah Blah is on record doing this.

Bush didn't send goons out to beat people. Although there is no proof O Blah Blah did, he does seem to attract these thugs and where is the outrage? (As a matter of fact, Where are all those racially bigoted black groups and falsely indignant Black bigots that always show up when a black person is treated this way)?
Bush didn't remind everybody he was the president, O Blah Blah can't speak to a group without reminding everybody that he is POTUS.

Bush did many things right/wrong-good/bad:
Patriot Act- good intent, bad outcome now that the Potentate is in power.
Increased spending: BAD. Paved the way for the POTENTATE. He catered to the DIMocRATS under the false impression they would play fair. The National Socialist Democrat Party is only interested in power. They will never be interested in the good of the country.
Invade Afhanistan- Good and bad. Good initially, bad now. We once again went in and got bogged down. We need to bring back the concept of "total war."
Invade Iraq- Bad for the above reasons, Good for the eventual outcome. the sad part of ridding the world of vermin like the Husseins is that thousands of much better people had to die to accomplish it.

I'll have as much chance convincing you of the Potentate's evil intentions as you will getting me to hate all things Bush. All I ask is that you assess O Blah Blah as an American with the Constitution as the judge.

I see 1984 and Animal House all over these clowns.:cool:

PoliCon
08-09-2009, 12:23 AM
Cite the judge, his name, the paper, show us the paper, and show us where he "tried to get him in"

Otherwise you're lying.

Mistaken does not = lying.

Lanie
08-09-2009, 01:04 AM
Cite the judge, his name, the paper, show us the paper, and show us where he "tried to get him in"

Otherwise you're lying.

First of all, go screw yourself. Second, coming right up.

Lanie
08-09-2009, 01:32 AM
Okay, I believe it was Charles Pickering. I remember raising some total crap about this guy years ago.

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2002/03/07/2002-03-07_bush_in_all-out_push_for_jud.html


It's Pickering's past that is haunting him. Opponents have cited:

• His push in 1959 to strengthen laws banning interracial marriage.





http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1387868/Bush-in-battle-to-save-race-row-judge.html


Much of the argument has centred on a 1959 article in which the judge suggested ways of strengthening a Mississippi law that made inter-racial marriage a crime.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/17/bush.pickering/


They also point to a law review article he wrote more than 40 years ago, suggesting ways to amend Mississippi's law banning interracial marriages so that it would pass constitutional muster. Pickering has repudiated the article.


I cannot find the name of the article yet. Quite frankly, I feel that I shouldn't go out of my way for the sake of a zealot who is quick to accuse me of stuff. I have things to do.

Lanie
08-09-2009, 02:08 AM
Just want to let others know I'm going to spend more time tomorrow and Monday studying Emanuel, his role in the policy, and if his views affect the potential reform Obama is attempting to pass. Talk to you all later.

PoliCon
08-09-2009, 02:33 AM
Okay, I believe it was Charles Pickering. I remember raising some total crap about this guy years ago.

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2002/03/07/2002-03-07_bush_in_all-out_push_for_jud.html





http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1387868/Bush-in-battle-to-save-race-row-judge.html



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/17/bush.pickering/



I cannot find the name of the article yet. Quite frankly, I feel that I shouldn't go out of my way for the sake of a zealot who is quick to accuse me of stuff. I have things to do.

Initially, Pickering's Bush administration allies deemed these charges so weak that they scarcely took them seriously. In the nearly half-century-old law-school note, Pickering had been making a technical point, rather than commenting on the content of the law; in any case, even some liberals conceded that it was unreasonable to apply contemporary racial sensibilities to the Jim Crow South, especially since at the time overwhelming majorities of both whites and blacks, in the North as well as South, frowned on interracial marriage.FROM (http://townhall.com/columnists/HarryStein/2007/06/11/charles_pickering_gets_the_last_word)

PALEOCON
08-09-2009, 08:09 AM
It's still offensive. Just because people don't agree with Obama on healthcare doesn't mean he's like a man who murdered millions of people. .....................

Nah he just intends to thin the herd of millions of old folks and physically/mentally infirm (over 90% White BTW) whom he regards as useless eaters.

Anyway Obama is more like a Stalin or Mao..........or just maybe a PolPot

Lanie
08-09-2009, 04:53 PM
Okay, I still don't know much about this Emanuel person other than he's the Chief of Staff. However, I can't support these cuts in Medicare. Unless I can hear some convincing arguments, I can't support an idea that will cut Medicare. It will hurt the elderly and the poor.

lacarnut
08-09-2009, 05:34 PM
Okay, I still don't know much about this Emanuel person other than he's the Chief of Staff. However, I can't support these cuts in Medicare. Unless I can hear some convincing arguments, I can't support an idea that will cut Medicare. It will hurt the elderly and the poor.

500 billion dollars (from the mouth of Obama) in Medicare cuts will result in rationed care for the elderly. It is a form of Euthanasia. Most seniors carry Supplemental Policies called Medicare Advantage. This policy is an additional policy that seniors pay to reduce the amount of cost for expensive tests or surgery. Those policies will be outlawed and Doctors and Hospitals will NOT be allowed to provide this type of care under the Congressional plan. Canada allows private care if you have the money. The US will forbid this and hospitals and doctors will be fined if they violate the provisions under the new law proposed. All seniors will be placed in the public option system. What this means is that rather than a Doctor or Hospital making a decision whether or not you need treatment, a bureaucrat will put your name, age and type of procedure into a computer and it will determine if you worthy of the treatment. If not, you will be sent home to take a pill and or given life ending consultation by hospice services. Conclusion, this is a life and death issue. That is why you see so many angry people. This bill is un-American. BTW, Medicaid (poor that have no insurance) will be subject to the same plan as those on Medicare.

This is the legislation written by the House of Representative. A thousand page bill that very few people have read. The Democrats do not want any debate on the bill; they want to ram it down our throats like the stimulus bill which also has not worked.

HowardRoark
08-09-2009, 05:40 PM
Okay, I still don't know much about this Emanuel person other than he's the Chief of Staff. However, I can't support these cuts in Medicare. Unless I can hear some convincing arguments, I can't support an idea that will cut Medicare. It will hurt the elderly and the poor.

Rahm Emanuel is the Chief of Staff, Ezekiel Emanuel is his brother, who is Obama's Health Adviser (someone correct me if I'm mistaken).

Basic economics will tell you that when you put price controls on a good or service (such as health care), then the result will be shortages and rationing. It's the same principle as rent control creating apartment shortages in New York. An artificially low price (or an artificially low amount the supplier can make) will cause a decrease in the supply because the incentive won't be there to stay in the field.

This will doom private insurance because they will not be able to compete with a price of "zero". The government run health care system will create shortages with doctors and medical supplies and the result will be, again, forced rationing. Numerous Obama administration members have repeatedly stated that in the case of rationing health care, infants and the elderly will be held in a lower regard than adults and adolescents.

These are simple facts. It's happened overseas where socialized medicine is attempted and, if the legislation passes, it will inevitably happen here.

Grouchy
08-09-2009, 07:35 PM
Getting back 'On Topic', I find Speaker Pelosi's remark's funny as hell.

Thousands of violent, treasonous Liberal protesters undermining
our war effort are "citizens exercising their First Amendment
rights" while Americans of all political parties enraged at their
healthcare going away are "Nazi's"?

The Liberal Democrats think they are the only ones with the
right to protest against the Government.

Wrong, Bitch.

Bring those goons of yours down South. We'll thin that Goddamned herd,
toot sweet.

Lanie
08-09-2009, 07:58 PM
Rahm Emanuel is the Chief of Staff, Ezekiel Emanuel is his brother, who is Obama's Health Adviser (someone correct me if I'm mistaken).

Basic economics will tell you that when you put price controls on a good or service (such as health care), then the result will be shortages and rationing. It's the same principle as rent control creating apartment shortages in New York. An artificially low price (or an artificially low amount the supplier can make) will cause a decrease in the supply because the incentive won't be there to stay in the field.

This will doom private insurance because they will not be able to compete with a price of "zero". The government run health care system will create shortages with doctors and medical supplies and the result will be, again, forced rationing. Numerous Obama administration members have repeatedly stated that in the case of rationing health care, infants and the elderly will be held in a lower regard than adults and adolescents.

These are simple facts. It's happened overseas where socialized medicine is attempted and, if the legislation passes, it will inevitably happen here.

I'll give some thought to what you said. I already have trouble wanting to support these ideas because Obama's idea is to cut Medicare. I don't want to keep what we currently have either. They're also rationing. The people with money get care, while the ones without it don't. Yes, one can go to the ER, but the ER can't do but so much. They can't do cancer treatments for example. Nobody should be getting denied healthcare. Not for their age, not for their lack of money, not for having crappy insurance, nothing. I won't support this current set of ideas though. If Dems are coming out against it, one knows something's wrong.


Getting back 'On Topic', I find Speaker Pelosi's remark's funny as hell.

Thousands of violent, treasonous Liberal protesters undermining
our war effort are "citizens exercising their First Amendment
rights" while Americans of all political parties enraged at their
healthcare going away are "Nazi's"?

The Liberal Democrats think they are the only ones with the
right to protest against the Government.

Wrong, Bitch.

Bring those goons of yours down South. We'll thin that Goddamned herd,
toot sweet.

I do think Pelosi was in the wrong for broadbrushing those people, but all liberals are not alike anymore than all NCers from the Piedmont are all alike.

HowardRoark
08-09-2009, 08:44 PM
I'll give some thought to what you said. I already have trouble wanting to support these ideas because Obama's idea is to cut Medicare. I don't want to keep what we currently have either. They're also rationing. The people with money get care, while the ones without it don't. Yes, one can go to the ER, but the ER can't do but so much. They can't do cancer treatments for example. Nobody should be getting denied healthcare. Not for their age, not for their lack of money, not for having crappy insurance, nothing. I won't support this current set of ideas though. If Dems are coming out against it, one knows something's wrong.



Everybody wants everybody to have health care. I don't hear a lot of people out there arguing that some people just should not have it, but the fact of the matter is a government sponsored monopoly of health care is not the answer. My parents used to be able to go to the doctor as kids and have it paid for out of pocket by their parents. With the inception of Medicare and Medicaid (and the so called "war on poverty"), there's no incentive on the part of the health care industry to keep costs down because they know they'll be subsidized by the government.

It's the same argument about government involvement in education, when government is subsidizing, there's no incentive to keep costs low and you see education costs explode.

Insurance used to simply cover catastrophic events and there's no reason insurance should be needed to go and get a flu shot or get medicine for an ear infection and the government has gotten involved the worse they've made things.