Grassley Responds, Sort Of

Is it merely an oversight, or is it something more deliberate? Why do liberals seem universally to frame this as opposition to counseling, or suggestion of euthanasia? I notice that you deftly sidestepped the point about saving money on medical costs.
.
The point is, who gets to decide what are reasonable procedures for someone in the context of "end-of-life care". And if the those doing the counseling have an incentive to limit costs to the medical system, can we reasonably expect that more than a small fraction of them will be unaffected by that financial incentive? We surely wouldn't trust financial advisers to be impartial in such circumstances.
.
And when a doctor or an administrator is faced with the decision to provide more care than the government will pay for, or only provide what procedures the government subsidizes, what do you suppose will be their choice.
.
PPOs and HMOs have consistently been presumed guilty in such scenarios. And do you think that a government bureaucracy will be that much more tender and compassionate, when their goal is to cut costs?

Why do liberals seem universally to frame this as opposition to counseling, or suggestion of euthanasia? I notice that you deftly sidestepped the point about saving money on medical costs.
.
Because as you admitted in your own post, pcwalt, we have gatekeepers saving money by denying care now.
.
This provision simply requires that end of life counseling be a reimbursable expense.
.
As for the assumption of bad faith, there is good historical cause for that. The same people defeated health care reform in 1993-1994 using the same tactics. Lying their @sses off.
~

In defense of Amy:

1. By titling her post "Grassley Responds, Sort of," she has made it quite clear that she isn't buying what he's peddling.

2. Read the comments. Grassley didn't fool anyone other than those who wanted to be fooled.

3. This is a blog post. There's plenty of room elsewhere for detailed vivisection of Grassley -- like this comments section). And he's getting it. Of course, the crazies buy in, but they'd already bought in before Grassley "explained" what he meant.

4. God help us. (That's an allusions to Amy's usual beat.)

And of course Grassley wouldn't have had to respond at all if he hadn't been so thoroughly fisked. Maybe the MSM are waking up.

I'm sorry, but I agree with James here. Just the other day, Amy's posted a challenge rather than just a regurgitation of what was being asserted and it made it's way to Rachel's show (nice work by the way Amy). But you need to keep it up, being relentless is the only way to combat this deluge of lies, half-truths, rumors, innuendos, omissions but mostly big fat bold face sweaty lies raining down on us from the GOP legislators and their minions. What is written here matters, it helps shape the coverage even when it takes a while to filter down to the mainstreamers. It's not an accident that David Gregory is finally covering this stuff on Sunday, and I can only hope Rachel hands him his a$$ (I've got the popcorn). Rachel's persistent call out of the villagers for ignoring this story, while ultimately making enough noise to get Dick Armey fired from his day job because of his involvement in the more sleazy "freedom works," has finally penetrated the cone of silence covering their collective heads.

To all of you defenders of Amy's half-a$$ed smirky blog post on the basis that it's a blog post, please read this Steve Benen's post this morning in which he communicates with Republican Bruce Bartlett:

Washington Monthly: The Penance has not been paid
Key graf from Bartlett:

One reason this isn't happening is because the media don't treat Republicans as if they are discredited. On the contrary, they often seem to be treated as if they have more credibility than the administration. Just look at the silly issue of death panels. The media should have laughed it out the window, ridiculed it or at least ignored it once it was determined that there was no basis to the charge. Instead, those making the most outlandish charges are treated with deference and respect, while those that actually have credibility on the subject are treated as equals at best and often with deep skepticism, as if they are the ones with an ax to grind.

Fascinating take from a long-time Republican operative, apparently one with a modicum of sanity and decency remaining.

He's right, you know, Amy. Else why even bother to obtain and reprint in its entirety, Grassley's statement defending the completely lunatic assertion. It's people like Amy who keep this stuff going and being talked about with smirky blog posts like this. You think Grassley and them care about anything except getting this in print? Amy's post is a victory for them, a victory for the Tree of Crazy. Defend *that.*

hell's freezing over -- I'm agreeing with Dee here.
_
When the public debate is so full of transparent lies and disinformation being promulgated by one side of the issue, its not enough to simple raise an eyebrow at statements like Grassley -- the mainstream media has an obligation to call bullsh*t, and do so loud and clear.
_
The reason why the first amendment exists is so that the press can call bullsh*t, and this is especially true when that press purports to be acting on behalf of the general public. Right now, the biggest story the media should be covering is the hate-based disinformation campaign being waged by the Republican Party and its sock-puppets... one hestitates to break Godwin's law, but what we are seeing right now really is how Nazism was able to establish itself in Germany in the 1920s...

The Nazis were exponentially better organized, more intelligent, and extremely more sinister than these severely misguided souls whose fears are being manipulated by a select few to defeat health-care reform. The whole Nazi card is a bit tired and really incomparable.

The point is, Who gets to make these decisions, and on what basis? (Finally someone is reasonably admitting the central point of the "death panel" controversy -- that there will be rationing, and there will be people making the decisions about the rationing.)
.
The crux of the issue is this: Is it better to let some people have extraordinary care because they can afford it though others cannot? Or is it better to tell them, "I don't care if you can afford it, you're not getting it; and we're taking some of your 'surplus' money to care for the people who don't have as much as you do"?
.
Just acknowledge the issue for what it is, and state it plainly. Then there can be an honest debate over the real issue.

i see. So we come back to an evasion of the facts: we have an unfree, monopolistic market in healthcare, and you want to keep it that way, rationing care and denying it to Americans, so the rich get rich and the health insurance providers get between patients and doctors? Do you really think we can't see through your dishonest attempt to reframe the debate away from the real issues?

Really? Does Limbaugh, or any of the other "extreme right-wing fringe" commentators whom liberals love to cast as hate-mongers -- does any of them come close to the personal and vitriolic attack that you have posted here?
.
I thought that liberals were supposed to be gentle, peaceful folk. But, really?

I see... so you come here without actually denying the fact that Grassley has lied and demagogued a bill of vital importance to our fellow-citizens, bleat out something totally irrelevant about Limbaugh, and expect us to be convinced? And if anyone told you liberals were going to put up with the usual GOP horsesh*t, you've got some waking up to do. Let's see you actually analyze what Grassley said. Put some facts on the table, if you can. Show us that Grassley isn't offering distortion and falsehood - again!

I believe that Sarah Palin (R-Quitterville) is currently writing her book. So far she's gotten through twelve packs of crayons and two bathroom walls. Since you asked.

Like an upturned insect wildly flailing about grasping for salvation from the inevitable death spiral, it harmlessly spits poison into the ether in the vain hope of landing something, anything, anything at all upon non-existent enemies. It's pathetic, but gets no grace from this grader. A solid F.

Ooops grol, that wasn't for you.

James, I assumed you were describing Palin's scrawls, and being somewhat charitable. *s*

Are you still pretending to be a real live human being?

hey dont you dare leave out playboy and hustler

Stuart, another question also too *wink*
.
Is it not the case, Senator Grassley, that medical care is already rationed by the health insurance companies, via one's ability to pay? Isn't it the case that you are deliberately choosing to ration health care in a way that excludes 48 million Americans under the current system? Why do we have to stand before your corporate death panels, rather than ensuring that all Americans have a chance at decent health care?

At the same time if he agrees that no rationing would occur and we add 46 to 125 million un-insured (depending on the psychosis of the liberal scribe) and 60 percent or better of the health care costs come at the end of life and demographically we will have more people nearer to the end of their life than the start, how will Congress pay for this right of health care since Pres Obama insists that 1) it will be revenue neutral and 2) no tax increases on the middle class?

Follow-up if 1) or 2) happen will every liberal pol and journalist retire, go home and annoy just their families and not the rest of the populace. CA will be running charters to accomodate the crowd

Freepie, I realize you aren't an American, but the rest of us actually want to make some progress and benefit our fellow-citizens. Please, spare us the view from the Fuhrerbunker.

Freeper remains blithely unaware that the 'uninsured' consume health care just like everyone else. They just get billed three times as much and fail to pay ten times as much as everyone else.
.
Everything everybody is afraid of is already happening.

Just once, could a reporter respond to this rationing assertion by asking the purporter of the meme one simple question -- if government run health care will automatically lead to rationing, why hasn't the last 40 years of Medicare, Medicaid, even longer term VA care and tri-care, all government run health care systems, already produced rationing?

Oh, really? This many people think that all procedures that patients of medicare, medicaid, VA hospitals, and other government funded medical programs are performed pronto? (...regardless of the medical condition, the age, or the prognosis for the patient....)
.
And for a while there, I thought that the people posting to this blog were actually intelligent!

Don't worry, pcwalt, none of us thought you were intelligent, or trying make a serious contribution to debate. We recognize trolling when we see it.

"Is it true or false that the establishment of a publicly funded insurance plan, e.g Medicare, would inevitably arrive at the rationing, i.e. scarcity/bureaucratic administration of life and health saving care?"
.
Yes, this would be TRUE. The President himself said yesterday at his Townhall meeting in Colorado, that in order to fund those currently without healthcare, he will cut medicare to the elderly. He will cut the "Medicare Advantage" program to private insurers that currently allows for payments under Medicare to the insurance companies to afford a discount to Seniors. The President will take this money currently used for Medicare, and spend it on those who do not have insurance at this time. This will pump into the healthcare system over "46 million new people".
.
Adding that many people to the system will cause rationing of healthcare.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published at the end of last year with the headline “Obama Will Ration Your Health Care,” Sally Pipes, C.E.O. of the conservative Pacific Research Institute, described how in Britain the national health service does not pay for drugs that are regarded as not offering good value for money, and added, “Americans will not put up with such limits, nor will our elected representatives.”
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html
.
In Canada right now, for a person without a Primary Care Physician, the wait time is over 4 months. To get a simple MRI to rule out potential cancers, 6 months. And to get drugs such as Sutent, you are turned down for the treatment and sent home to die.
.
In order for a "public option" to be viable, and not cost the government trillions of dollars, Obama must ration healthcare and overhaul Medicare, take the money currently being spent on Seniors, and put it into the "publice option" program. Even tho Obama says he is not "pulling the plug on Grandma", he is. He is simply pulling the plug by not funding healthcare to seniors through the Medicare Advantage program, and funding the programs that ACORN and SEIU want him to fund for their Community Organizing backers.
.
Grandma dies, and ACORN lives. How wonderful.

Would it be true that we already have rationing now, and a system in which health insurance bureaucrats actively deny care even to Americans who have purchased it?

Yes, absolutely. Of course, this doesn't take into account the vast number of Americans without healthcare insurance.

Is it true that health insurance companies hold a monopoly on the health care market, and that the introduction of a public option would introduce much need competition?

Yes, absolutely. The health insurance companies are effectively able to rig the market, and have done so for decades. When they talk about a public option being unfair, what they mean is that they can see their grossly dishonest monopoly being threatened.

Is it true that Republicans and the hard right have been deliberately lying and misleading Americans on these issues, including claims of death panels, rationing, and other false or misleading claims?

Yes, absolutely. It's simply something they do in order to play partisan politics, rather than considering the good of the country. Health care is already rationed by your ability to pay - and how far your health insurance company will go to swindle you. Corrupt practices like rescission are rampant, and they cost American citizens their lives.

Is it true that countries with government health care live in misery, waiting years for life-saving operations, denied modern drugs and forced to endure death panels of faceless bureaucrats?

Not at all. In fact, such countries generally have a more efficient and reliable system in terms of care provided relative to money spent. In Britain, Canada and France, to take three examples, citizens receive high quality care, are not routinely swindled by health insurance company bureaucrats, and are also free of the fear of bankruptcy if they should develop a serious condition.

Spob
~
Interesting blog. The points about young adults deliberately choosing to not enroll in health-insurance policies is valid. I am one of those people. It's simply not a priority for me at my point in life. However, if you do currently have an insurance policy, there is absolutely no reason to resist health-care reform. You will not be paying for other people's health-care. Take a truly universal health-care proposal. The additional costs for the individual are off-set by the elimination of your current monthly insurance payments. Where's the loss? The only issue, to me, is what costs are forced upon those who currently do not have insurance and consequently will incur cost increases.

When did HR3200 turn into "the Pelosi" bill.

Shortly after Grassley turned into an obvious hard right flipflopping liar, after a brief period of pretending to be an American Senator.

Exiled-at-home--

"The only issue, to me, is what costs are forced upon those who currently do not have insurance and consequently will incur cost increases."

And what happens if you get into an accident on your motorcycle - or even on a bicycle -, or get t-boned by a drunk driver, or any of a dozen other things that can, and do, befall otherwise healthy young people?

Who pays then? What costs are forced upon others, assuming you don't have the $50,000 or more of ready cash to foot the bill?

mjshep, Neo defines himself as an independent with a strong libertarian streak.
.
In 2009 that translates to risky, perhaps reckless, behavior.
.
No insurance and, from what gather from reading another thread, unsafe relations.
"On several occasions, we have had some scares"
.
Now that doesn't stop those very same individuals from passing judgments on two people getting married or those nasty jezebels who choose abortions.

mjshep
~
I have auto insurance, with substantial bodily injury coverage. Seeing as it is mandatory to have auto insurance to register one's vehicle, or, in some states, to even obtain a driver's license there is no tax-payer burden for injuries sustained in roadway accidents.
.
However, I take it your larger point was in reference to any sudden injury, withstanding illness, disease, that could befall any healthy person. In this regard, the individual will be billed and monthly payments will be incurred, just as any other debt. Again, no burden on the greater tax-paying community. My risk, my potential debt.

PNNTO
~
So, I gather your view is that by engaging in premarital relations I am somehow precluded from criticizing 'abortions of convenience,' notwithstanding, of course, my own non-duplicitous experience of attempting to carrying through with an unplanned pregnancy? I say attempting, in that ultimately and unfortunately my significant other befell a miscarriage. So, what is your point?

Who mentioned premarital? I said unsafe.
.
And if you have had "several" scares in the course of 2 years then you aren't being safe.
.
Same as being uninsured. It is irresponsible.
.
And when the irresponsible lecture others about their choices it's hard not to point out.

Ok, I get your point. However, in my situation, i.e. misogynous, with the use of contraceptives and fully willing to bear the product of my actions, I see no irresponsibility.

"However, in my situation, i.e. misogynous"
.
Thank you for that.

Ouch! M-O-N-O-G-Y-N-O-U-S....Chalk that one up to the subconscious influence of Sheperdwong....Haha. Sorry, peeps.

Thank you for sparing me a head snap at work Neo. I'm just glad I wasn't drinking water, and I get made fun of enough as it is!

I thought the accepted term was "monogamous."

Cliff
~
Monogamy/monogamous and monogyny/monogynous. Spelling variations of the same, both equally acceptable.

Exiled:
You will be required to carry healthcare insurance in the Obama / Pelosi plan. In order for it to work, healthy young people will need to be paying into the Government Healthcare Program in order to off-set those who have castostropic diseases who are also in the same program.
.
Not only will your Employer be required to offer healthcare, you will be required by law to pay your portion of this benefit.
.
“We agree that health insurance reform is a critical part of health care reform and health insurance reform means getting everyone in, making sure that pre-existing conditions are a thing of the past and that people have a guaranteed source of affordable coverage,” said AHIP spokesman Mike Tuffin."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25312.html#ixzz0OLjRunch

Rusty
~
I'm well-aware of this. You see, though, I don't oppose the general principles of attempting to create a system whereby any individual can obtain access to basic treatment. I am not of the view that free health-care is a basic human right, however that does not suggest that to have such a system would be inherently flawed. On it's principles, it is desirable to assist everyone is gaining the necessary treatment that they require. If such a system could be established without substantial financial burdens I support it, wholeheartedly. What I do not support, though, is a mandatory enrollment plan where those who are without current coverage and are not eligible for MEDICAID are obligated to enroll in the public option (or obtain a private policy if they can afford such) under the threat of fines for failure to do so. In my opinion, if the general principle is to assist those in need, it seems counter-intuitive to force the already financially strapped (which included millions more than simply the MEDICAID eligible) to incur the additional costs of the public-option lest they be fined; such is the proposal from the HELP Committee. I generally detest progressive taxation schemes, however, when dealing with a system that is purportedly aimed at protecting the health of all Americans, even those who are incapable of obtaining the medical treatment they require (due to financial reasons) I strongly believe that a tax-funded safety net system should be established that excludes the lowest tax-brackets. I understand this is in contradiction to my conservative notions of taxation, however we are dealing with a situation that cannot be remedied, humanely, with rigid adherence to a philosophy that hasn't the answer for this predicament.

I don't know about the people you cite but many of us don't think that it should be a matter of "insurance coverage" at all. We think that we should have a national health plan that provides needed care to all legal residents.

We accept the idea that for-profit companies have to limit their "medical losses" -- which is exactly why we don't think they should be the centerpiece of an effective health policy.

Okay, I'm going to write slowly. All In-dy dri-vers have in-sur-ance! No ex-cep-tions!

Dee:
.
He's illiterate. He's a Republican for God's sake!
.
He just doesn't want to tell you that. You need to speak very slowly and show him pictures.

Dee, I suppose you are that ignorant, because the discussion somehow just disappeared here in Iowa as soon as the law requiring auto insurance passed. So I will write this very slowly:
.
N-O,...n-o-t...a-l-l...I-n-d-y...d-r-i-v-e-r-s...h-a-v-e...i-n-s-u-r-a-c-e.
.
I am sure that all you would have to do is spend a few hours in traffic court, multiply that by the amount of time that all of the traffic courts are in session, then add in all of the people who simply paid the fine and skipped court (plus those who simply did not show up for the court appointment). Then you would have some idea of how many people *are caught* driving without insurance, let alone those who are not caught.
.
And then you would not spout such ignorance.

Most Iowans do not see Obama as the embodiment of their messiah-government. And they intuitively understand that "power corrupts" mere mortals, and that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." So to *them* it IS plain to see.

interesting attempt to construct a strawman argument, pcwalt, but basically an epic fail. And you forgot that Iowa went massively for Obama in the primaries and by a very impressive 10 point margin in the presidential election. Perhaps real Iowans have more sense than internet trolls like you?

Grape
~
That's absurd. Anyone involved in any debts, loans, mortgages, bills, expenses, etc can declare bankruptcy and thus burden the system. This is not unique to merely those who may not be able to afford their medical bills. It's certainly not an excuse to force everyone to enroll in an insurance policy just to make you feel more comfortable.

And by the way, I see we are finally getting to the bottom of why many of you are so staunchly for health-care reform. It's certainly not out of any altruistic desire for the greater good, it's merely greedy cynicism and opposition to what you perceive as the uninsured raising your premiums.

"And by the way, I see we are finally getting to the bottom of why many of you are so staunchly for health-care reform"
.
Foul. Out of bounds, Exiled. The current system is broken. Got that? B. R. O. K. E. N. Broken.
.
We need something better, and so do those 50 million (not 47 million, the numbers are growing since those 2006 figures.) Americans.
.
I'm absolutely not happy with Obama's course right now, but I do know that most of us here feel that health care is something that all Americans should enjoy.
.
If I have to pay taxes that are higher than my current taxes plus my premiums then I am willing to pay it. I've seen too many family and freinds go down under the current system, and I have to walk the line between health care and ruin, too!

53-3
~
I agree with you, and I support health-care reform that does allow those who cannot afford health-care to actually obtain a policy, and does not obligatorily force those who absolutely, unequivocally cannot afford any increase to enroll in a mandatory policy that will subsequently do just that, increase their personal financial expenditures. However, when grape_crush bemoans my lack of health-insurance on the grounds that it is driving up his/her premiums, it's difficult not to see that for what it is: raw greed and disdain for those who are "milking" the system; you know through bankruptcy and all, yes that's such a hoot, fun times, right?

It is always amusing when you catch people talking about something they know nothing about, vis-a-vis Exiled. "Everyone has to have car insurance, therefore there is no burden on the public." You know... until you get hit by someone with no car insurance. If you just have liability coverage, you're SOL trying to get money for hospital bills and car replacement from someone who obviously thought car insurance was too expensive.
.
70% of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills, and half of those are bankruptcies filed by people who had insurance. That's a fact. Everyone has an incentive for health-care reform, and it extends far beyond merely reducing the public burden for individual idiocy ("health insurance just isn't a priority for me"). It is also about steering health-care into something that promotes preventive care and regular check-ups and otherwise reducing/eliminating co-pays and other BS measures that provide "incentives" for people to not go to the doctor.
.
In any case, I don't expect childish, misinformed people like Exiled to understand, which is why it's great it's becoming an individual mandate. The alternative is simply letting him bleed to death in the ER.

No, Exiled, it hasn't been, as you can see by my example below, which is just one of many that I'm familiar with, being surrounded by some 20 or so immediate relatives around my age. Add to that the currently stable, but very precarious, situation that I and my wife are in.
.
I'm pretty pissed by the attempts at "equivalency" and all. I don't really know you and grape's beef, so maybe I jumped up a bit, and maybe that was a bit of a quick kick.
.
I'm fed up with these fact-less crazies actually succeeding in gumming up the works on HCR. Psychologists, anthropologists, and psychiatrists have enough fodder from the outset of the campaign leading to the election through this very moment to examine some totally bizarre phenomena at the group level.
.
I'm for getting rid of this whole thing and going with UHC. Fock the insurance companies.
.
Of course, I could be totally crazy myself, in which case, one should just bag this whole effort and just let the system collapse, then field it, just what happened with the economy!

Anyone involved in any debts, loans, mortgages, bills, expenses, etc can declare bankruptcy and thus burden the system.
.
Oh, but we are talking about who pays for your medical expenses, so please try to keep on topic...
.
Pop quiz: What percentage of banckruptcies declared are due to medical debt?
.
I see we are finally getting to the bottom of why many of you are so staunchly for health-care reform.
.
No, you definitely do not. I have no issue with helping to support you when your health craps out and you have no insurance...Unlike you, with 'your risk' and 'your potential debt', pretending that you are an island, a self-contained, self-sufficient unit of existence. Talk about greedy cynicism...
.
Don't project your own ethical or logical failings on me or anyone else who wants things to be better, cost less, and be more efficient.
.

Listen, I happen to support a universal health-care plan. However, I, unlike grape_crush, do so out of altruistic motives of assisting the disenfranchised, not out of greedy indignation at the uninsured boosting up my premiums. Any health-care reform must address this very crucial point: there are millions of Americans bordering on financial ruin, fighting on a daily basis to pay the mortgage, keep the electricity on, and put food on the table. These people cannot afford any increase in financial expenditures, be it via tax increases or personal mandates. Either way reform comes it must do so with a progressive taxation scheme (which I generally abhor) which excludes particular tax-brackets from incurring any increase in their taxes to cover health-care. This, however, would likely not sit well with grape_crush, though, as again, it would mean the least among us getting a free ride. And, in the case of redraven, again, an entirely callous demeanor towards the oppressive personal mandates, in apparent ignorance to the financial ruin this will undoubtedly result in for millions of Americans. The personal mandate scheme is a money-making ploy, enforcement, mind you, is financially administered. That's right, fines for the already destitute for failure to afford a mandatory health-plan. Beautiful. Oh, the compassion!

"That's right, fines for the already destitute for failure to afford a mandatory health-plan. Beautiful. Oh, the compassion!"
.
This is probably the single biggest reason I'm unhappy with Obama right now.
.
The problem is, saying so brings the crazy bonkers Republicans out of the woodwork, crawling about, spewing their false equivalent falsities!
.
I'd just as soon grab a can of Raid...

53_3
I agree. But let us not pretend that these latest rounds of health-care reform bills are wonderful out of fear of giving radical Republican fear-mongers ammunition. If the bills will ultimately be more burdensome on the poor than anyone else, it is our duty to discuss these points, no?

However, when grape_crush bemoans my lack of health-insurance on the grounds that it is driving up his/her premiums
.
You're being dishonest, Exiled. You are the one bemoaning being required to pay into the pot on the grounds that you assume your own risk and will deal with your own consequences...I've pointed out that your unwillingness to contribute to the greater good - or even to your own good - can have an impact on the world outside of your own little island.
.
You're doubly dishonest for all the disparaging poo-slinging you've posted since. Your original argument ("My risk, my potential debt") is faulty. Accept that it is, acknowledge that you are wrong, and move on instead of reacting in a fit of childish pique.
.
Either way reform comes it must do so with a progressive taxation scheme (which I generally abhor) which excludes particular tax-brackets from incurring any increase in their taxes to cover health-care.
.
Sounds good to me. While we are at it, might as well do a two-tiered system like Australia with one tier being a government single payer supported by taxes and a second tier available for those who wish to purchase insurance. Is that enough for you?
.
That's right, fines for the already destitute for failure to afford a mandatory health-plan
.
More dishonest bullsh!t and fearmongering. Families that earn below 133% of the Federal poverty level would be covered by Medicaid.

Grape_crush
~
Maybe we are largely in agreement, yet too stubborn to see that we are speaking past one another...
~
However, there are a few things that need clarification...
.
1) Was it not you who said And when that doesn't pan out, who pays then? Me, when my premiums go up...Again. Or, when my claim gets wrongfully denied and I have to pay out of pocket. Sounds to me as if you are rather indignant at those who do not have health-care because it's burdening your premiums. If that's an erroneous interpretation, please clear up your actual intent.
.
2) You are the one bemoaning being required to pay into the pot on the grounds that you assume your own risk and will deal with your own consequences...I've pointed out that your unwillingness to contribute to the greater good... Sorry, but no where have I bemoaned having to ante up and kick in. What I suggested was that health-care reform will pose increased expenditures on those who do not have health-insurance, while those who already have a policy have nothing to protest. Basically, the only people with legitimate concerns are those who do not have a policy and are fearful of being burdened with additional mandatory costs. I wasn't complaining, I was merely pointing this out.
.
3) You're doubly dishonest for all the disparaging poo-slinging you've posted since. Your original argument ("My risk, my potential debt") is faulty. Accept that it is, acknowledge that you are wrong, and move on instead of reacting in a fit of childish pique. You'll have to do better than that, because I see nothing aimed at you other than my bringing to light your comment about the uninsured driving up your premiums. You did say that, right?
.
4) Sounds good to me. While we are at it, might as well do a two-tiered system like Australia with one tier being a government single payer supported by taxes and a second tier available for those who wish to purchase insurance. Is that enough for you? Yes that works for me.
.
5) More dishonest bullsh!t and fearmongering. Families that earn below 133% of the Federal poverty level would be covered by Medicaid. Not dishonest. The HELP Committee bill does include a personal mandate, enforced by way of fines. Those who would not, could not enroll in the public option, did not currently have a policy and are not eligible for MEDICAID would be fined. It's not as if only those eligible for MEDICAID are struggling to get by financially. There are millions of others who have so much debt and/or family required expenditures (note, large families), although not eligible for MEDICAID/MEDICARE, who would still be unable to purchase the public option and would subsequently be fined.

Sounds to me as if you are...
.
Sounds to me that you applied your own interpretation and ignored the larger point that if you get sick, it's not just you that can face the consequenses, it's everyone.
.
If that's an erroneous interpretation...
.
Yes, it is, and I've cleared it up multiple times already.
.
I see nothing aimed at you other than my bringing to light your comment about the uninsured driving up your premiums.
.
As you said previously, "I wasn't complaining, I was merely pointing this out." Pop Quiz 2: Misinterpreting one piece of a larger point and attacking that misinterpretation is a dishonest rhetorical tactic called a .......... .............
.
Not dishonest. The HELP Committee bill does include a personal mandate...
.
Oh, for God's sake, read this.

You're right Exiled, and I would be the last to suggest that debate on these bills be cut off just to dodge the likes of Freetopee, or freethreepeeo or whatever his name is.
.
I've generally avoided getting involved for the last couple weeks because I've given up on us getting a good bill.
.
As long as this provision is in it, I'll regard it as a failure. And the pie-in-the-sky belief that they will be able to squeeze $265 billion out of the low income turnip from fees and fines makes me just want to wretch.
.
Pirate Wenche's absence from the scene can certainly be viewed also an opinion of the failpath we are on.

What, no shout outs to your supporters?

A good CNN example:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/14/henry.obama.health.care/index.html
.
This got the top bill on their politics page, meanwhile, in much smaller print, the "truth squad":
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/health-care-fact-check/
.
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/14/wingnuts-of-the-week-11/
.
As one can easily see, the crazies get top billing. Facts get second billing.

Dee, I'm sorry. Yes. Your posts have been right on point, as always. I appreciate your support and I've been egregiously neglectful in not acknowledging. I'll do better, I promise. (hangs head, shoves hands in pocket, kicks pebble with toe.) Forgive me?

Of course your forgiven, I was really just trying to say hello.
.
"And here's my public service announcement for the day.!"
.
Don't watch CNN it will make you lose your lunch dinner and tomorrows breakfast. And whatever you do don't be fooled by the short little segments billed as busting the myths or fact checking.
.
It's all just another set-up for their beloved score keeping. IGNORE THAT FLAG ON THE PLAY: CNN rules it's okay to have 12 men on the field!
.
They are actually promoting "Americans for Prosperity" as a grass roots organization, holding town halls across America. He showed an interview with a woman who volunteered she'd been in the health care field for 20 years, of course he didn't ask her in what capacity, the only thing that was important was she was pushing the euthanasia meme from a perspective of a health expert. How much you want to bet she's an insurance company employee?
.
Come on bet me the baby needs new shoes!

Hell, James!
Didn't you know that that "pebble" you kicked was the carpometacarpal bone of the oldest avian fossil ever discovered?
.
It fell in the catchbasin just off to your left and it's gone forever!
.
Shame...

The middle carpometacarpal bone? Oh, noes!

There's good reading in the MISDIRECTED REPUBLICAN RAGE column from the day before too:

The conventional wisdom seems to be that the president and his allies simply aren't supposed to mention Bush/Cheney anymore. It's uncouth, we're told. It's lazy. No one likes a leader who spends time looking back.But Bartlett makes a very compelling case that Bush probably isn't getting nearly enough blame. Conservatives are angry about the deficit, but Bush left Obama a $1.2 trillion annual deficit. Conservatives are angry about the weak economy, but "conservative protesters should remember that the recession, which led to so many of the policies they oppose, is almost entirely the result of Bush's policies." Conservatives are angry about efforts to reform the health care system, but the system was deteriorating throughout the Bush years, and the Republican administration ignored the problems."I think conservative anger is misplaced," Bartlett said. "To a large extent, Obama is only cleaning up messes created by Bush."

Yes!
.
Too bad. Now we will never know just who this basal avian was flipping off!
.
Your cup runneth under, James...

Definition of Insurance:

The business of insurance is sustained by a complex system of risk analysis. Generally, this analysis involves anticipating the likelihood of a particular loss and charging enough in premiums to guarantee that insured losses can be paid.

What liberals propose is paying everything for anyone That is the definition of a handout. If people lose their jobs should the government pay for their house how about a car

Liberals are always free with everybody else's money

Freeinpa:
.
With compassion like that, you make Al Queda sounds like a charity organization.
.
Riddle me this, buttman:
Why should we fight enemies over the ocean who hate Americans with a passion when we have enough just like you, right here at home, to do some really serious hating? Hell, it'd be cheaper to fight you!
.
Give me one good reason!
.
And remember, think of your comment in terms of life, liberty, and happiness...

You confuse compassion for stupidity. Outside of your normal name-calling I fail to see any logical connection between a health care system and fighting people trying to destroy us. Do you spill bile full posts about those people or is it politically incorrect.

And while it be more expensive, that fight allows people like you to speak unfiltered at whatever thought pops into your mind.

The same gun toting, bible carrying neanderthals that you despise are the ones voluntarily taking up that fight.

You are exactly right. All of your points are right on. I've talked to journos about this, honest, hardworking journos who definitely aren't biased in favor of Repubs. They were mostly in denial, and served up a bucket of BS which you could tell was an attempt to absolve themselves of culpabity.

One thing I got, though, was they are so addicted to their Republican operative sources and they don't even bother to cultivate other sources. On deadline, they print up whatever the Republican gives them. The Rs are expert at getting their message out, and the Dems are pretty much incompetent at that. So they are too lazy (or, busy) to go out and try to get any other view. They do most of their work on the phone, and Republicans are great at getting back to them, furnishing them with usable material. Not so, the Dems.

And too, cable news is always looking for meat, and the Repubs serve it up gladly. And they are so paranoid about the "liberal bias" thing that they have hired just about every ex-Bushie out there as analyst. So you have a preponderance of Republican "guests" a preponderance of Republican analysts, and an entire profession in denial of the shortcomings of the work that they do.

This isn't a complete explanation, obviously. Just a few factors I've found in trying to tease out the problem.

Plus, Dee, score-keeping is a lot easier than writing up anything serious or analytical. It's easy because they don't get brow-beaten by the Republicans, and it's easy because that's what they talk about at their cocktail parties, so they know they won't be out of tune with their peers, subject to ridicule for writing something that doesn't conform to the prevailing cocktail party opinion.
.
Everybody wants to work for Politico.

James--
.
How right you are. I just heard Ali what's his name, report that the support of reform was mixed because at a dinner party he attended last night support for the administrations plan was half and half. Give me abreak. We always knew they wrote for the cocktail set, but who knew they would actually admit it on live teevee.

Channel 5 here in Seattle is bad enough. They never mention the fact that this is rampant hysteria, and never mention the loonies who are stirring it up, but they sure will interview a gray bearded white guy holding a sign saying "No To Death Panels!" and earnestly confirming that he believes the health care debate has gotten off track!
.
Go figure...

Yes. A random sample of upper-middle-class predominantly white beltway cocktail party types. They really do believe, a lot of them, that they are a representative, if more knowledgeable, sample of the public. They genuinely believe that. It doesn't register to them that their $110,000 salary is in the highest 10% of earners. Lack of health insurance isn't a problem for them, so they really can't relate to how genuinely hard it is for people, even the ones who mean well. Thus they look with a certain amount of bemusement at stuff like this:
LINK: Real Time's Real Reporter Dana Gould: Town Hall Protesters vs Remote Area Medical Patients | Video Cafe
.
I repeat, I think a lot of these journos mean well, but they are very concerned about fitting in with their social networks, which are dominated by Republican operatives like Juleanna Glover. Maintaining that insider status often trumps the doing of an honest job. That's what makes the system so corrupt. They are paid entirely too well.
.
Fifty three, we have the same problem in LA with our local news. They just eat up the crazy. We are the Capital of the Car Chase, here, y'know. They *did* cover the Third World Medical Fest at the Forum pretty well, tho'.

Channel 5 here in Seattle is bad enough.
.
I already see the fail here Fitty. If I have to watch a local news in the Seattle area it's almost always gonna be KOMO. And no it's not just because my aunt interned there and I've been in the studio several times.

If you folks even have local teevee nooze that does more than report car wrecks, fires and shootings, count yourselves among the lucky. Around these parts the extent of public issues reporting is limited to "snappy visuals," wholly fact-free – largely moronic where-and-when voiceover reports of tinfoil hat sightings.

Dee The press abdicated their responsibility years ago. They were more interested in cheerleading and having a tingle up their leg than asking Bambi a question. Hasn't changed. Now anyone who does is either a nut job or a racist just look at the dimbulb libs that write here

freepie
~
Have you ever considered that someone might listen to you if you dropped the inflammatory schtick? "Bambi," "dimbulb libs..."
~
I tend to agree that the coverage of the campaign was horribly lopsided and agenda driven. The media certainly sided up on behalf of Obama over Clinton, and then Obama over McCain. However, the case now is quite different. And your thoughtless rants, riddled with spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors serves only to make you look unintelligent. Take a few minutes, create a reasonable, logical and factual argument. Next, take a few more minutes to accurately articulate it through written communication. Then maybe you can relinquish your position as village-idiot to the likes of "Kattest" or "Textee." Hell, I might actually back you up on occasion. But, not like this, never like this.

I love it. Complaining about shtick with a closet full of people on this site who continually start and end with name calling is priceless. Check you own post to me.

position as village-idiot to the likes of "Kattest" or "Textee."

And you think that passes for intelligence.

That was merely constructive criticism, freepie. If you choose not to take the advice, so be it.

Exile Let me get this straight. Your name calling is constructive criticism but mine is low brow and distasteful? What a country!

My intention was not to name-call, freepie. I was pointing out that you are perceived as the village idiot by many here at Swampland, and that you might garner some more support/sympathy to your views, plus less rebuttal hostility if you chose to take a more civil, reasoned and articulate approach.

It's ok, Exiled.
.
Just picture Freeinpa in an Al Queda getup...
.
He can definitely out-hate 'em.
.
Like I said, why should we worry about people waaaaaaaay over there who hate Americans with a passion when we have so many here, like Freepee?

Yuts:
.
Just what did you give Freepee?
.
He's just drunk with insanity. I've figured he out-hates Al Queda, and now I'm working through the serial killers I've heard about to see if there are any who can hate more than threefreepeeo here.
.
And dubblygoshdarnitall, I can't find any!

Here is an interesting take by 538, and at the very end, they make an interesting and cogent point about this death panel thing:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/are-health-care-protests-working-and.html
.
It makes me wonder just how far we might get horse-trading these imaginary and intangible (not to mention factless!) points to get a deal from the GOP!

AND got a standing O for that.
.
It was a good town hall. Got some good questions. Good answers. I'm sure the cables were disappointed there were no knife fights.
.
Cue the beltway dimwits to bemoan how booooringggggg it was. Lynn Sweet and Helene Cooper are particularly bad about that.

Great town hall Every MBA school in the country should be required to listen to a community organizer talk about the cost of capital and business. Who wouldn't be proud to have their medical care brought to them by the same folks that brings us the Post Office , The IRS, the House Bank (oh yeah they did close that), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Flownover -- Don't count on it, every time CNN replays the President's response, they stop short of the part where he calls the behavior dishonest. The listener would have to refer it from the remarks where he says "what you can't do, well you can, but you shouldn't say I want to pull the plug on Grandma."
.
Even Ed Henry's commentary on the emotional component of the President's response, evidenced by his unprecedented reference to the death of his own grandmother, was not accompanied by the appropriate visual, because it was too close to the part where the president called those dealing in this meme dishonest.
.
While the President stopped short of calling Grassley out by name, he did mention the information from Amy's previous post, the same one that Rachel Maddow singled out yesterday calling into question Grassley's vote on the 2003 Medicare bill which included the same provision that was supposedly generating the justifiable fear of pulling the plug on grandma.
.
Clearly CNN, wants to keep this crap up so they can make themselves feel like they are doing something useful by setting the record straight. when in fact they are really doing everything in their power to keep the game going so they can continue to keep score.
.
P.S. NOW WILL YOU BELIEVE ME THAT WHAT WE SAY HERE MATTERS!

freeinpa-- As a fellow American I feel sorry for you. I know it must be an awful thing to have your entire worldview discredited, your every hero exposed as frauds and charlatans, your belief system proven a failure and to discover that your very sense of superiority was based on lies, rumors, inaccuracies or on a reputation of achievements that conservatives did not in fact earn and can no longer claim.
.
Oh must be the woe of a man whose relevance is no longer certain and his reluctance to accept modernity renders him incapable of being a part of the country that has grown beyond him.
.
My fellow left of center commenters, let's give a great big collective sigh of relief that we are not walking in the same shoes as freeinpa. How sad it must be to know that the future will not be kind and that the coming generation will not abide by your prejudices against blacks, browns, yellows, women and gays. How frightening it must be for you to know you face a world where you can not control the pace of change because you and your kind alone are content to live in darkness while the rest of us go running smiling and laughing embracing change and headed happily towards a greater enlightenment.
.
I can't know what it means to face the fact that the world has left you behind, that the future has no place for you and the present is certain you have nothing to offer. Perhaps, if you could just name you latest achievements, if you could remind us of some greatness or provide us a promise of some value, we would could make you feel better about your road towards extinction.
.
shall we pray?

Dee:

Yes especially since the left cannot have a rational position you move immediately to the racist, sexist homophobe card. It beats thinking doesn't it. You can write pages of flowery prose but it all gets reduced to name calling and questioning some characteristic you believe is relevant. If it helps you feel superior fine. Its your sad little world you live in with your fellow deluded souls.

Pray? Careful you will have your ACLU card revoked

Dee
~
That's unnecessarily cold. It's also fallaciously self-aggrandizing. Both liberalism and conservatism have much to offer society; a healthy combination of various ideals borrowed from both can help to build a strong, benevolent society. Both, also, have resulted in many social ills, although often at the hands of over-zealous individuals adhering to perversions of these ideologies. Perhaps you are just a bit too confident in your own self-righteous sanctimony; remember the pride that cometh before the fall.

Dee

PS There won't be death panels. All seniors will be driven to their consultations by Ted Kennedy.

Exiled: I would agree with you wholeheartedly if the liberalism of which you speak is classical liberalism and not the trash that is proposed today.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan believed in classical liberalism. Although I disagreed with many things he stated you could not fault his logic, reasoning nor motives. He is rolling over in his grave with today's liberals

freeinpa at 8:02 pm

" .. Every MBA school in the country should be required to listen .. Who wouldn't be proud to have their medical care brought to them by the same folks that brings us. .."

In you post "the same folks that brings us " is the central theme. So you want to discuss who shoulb bring us anything - by looking at their track records.

Government! My, My, Fannie Mae, Post Office. Horrid!

When discussing this as a case study in that MBA program (in an accredited school), you will explore whether the non-governmental alternative, the private sector, is more effective/efficient alternative.

Here is how you will start your argument: Analysis of business records show that private concerns like AIG, GM, Enron and the other "too big to fail" private companies do/did a better job in the delivery of goods and services while making a healthy profit, right?

Enron failed as it should have. The same fate should have included GM and AIG (among others). With the government, they fail and we continue to pour more taxpayer money down the rat hole so they can make the same mistakes. And the Congress who create those failures continue to push the same policies. Has any of the government sponsored entities ever returned the taxpayer "bailouts" they have received?

And the healthy profits they had like Fannie Mae,,, oh right that was fraud. And Johnson, Gorelick and Raines received millions in bonuses that they have kept. Enron executives ended in jail, these guys work for other political hacks.

freepie
~
Classical liberalism includes both mainstream American liberalism and conservatism. The free-market, institution-oriented conservatism juxtaposed aside social-welfare, individualist liberalism both are encompassed by classical liberalism. American liberalism's emphasize (at least purportedly, yet not always genuine) on the individual over the corporation and the basic social-welfare programs are certainly admirable agendas. I would seek to limit the extent of welfare-related programs so as not to encourage lethargy nor create dependency, but a basic welfare structure is needed to assist those in society who simply need to be picked up and nudged along back into self-reliance. While I wholeheartedly reject the big-government liberal agendas with sweeping federal mandates over societal issues, I do very much support the libertarian slant of liberalism, albeit not without morally tinged exceptions, I'll admit. While big-government and libertarianism may seem contradictory, the liberal movement is very fractured and is often at odds with itself. To reject American liberalism as a whole, whilst ignoring its often competing initiatives, is likely to reject many things that you yourself might stand for. Very few are truly wholly conservative. Not on all issues. There is certainly overlap between conservatism and certain wings of liberalism.

*whisper*

Exiled, if you use that many long words, freepie is going to be up all night trying to understand them. Are you trying to freak the poor creature out?

Exile:

I had to laugh after reading your well expressed comment followed by grollican snarky remarks. His is the typical response when you enter any discussion with modern liberals If you do not parrott the same lame arguments you are nothing but a low life creature.

There are many concepts of classical liberalism that do overlap conservative values. Somehow conservative ideals have been interpreted to be a hatred for government. As you state conservatism embraces an efficient, non-intrusive government which becomes an oxymoron in light of modern liberals push for the government to be involved in every aspect of life. In what may seem like a contradiction, there are aspects of American life that the government needs to be involved. Providing a social safety net for those of true need such as the elderly, armed forces veterans, and orphans. For example, the concept of Social Security on its face is a noble concept. There are many in their twilight years that did not experience the robust life in this country that many now enjoy. They did sacrifice much and should reap some of that benefit we all enjoy now. Using it to send a government check to anyone of a certain age flies in the face of what the program promised. I find it appalling that there are folks receiving social security who had no education, low wage jobs struggling to get by. Yet we have folks like Warren Buffett collecting a check from Social Security.
I do disagree with the modern liberal concept that because someone has worked hard and has been successful that they become the checking account for every program that one can imagine.

It's always amusing to watch as Freepie tries to avoid the real debate by using verbiage. We've known for a long time that freepie doesn't actually want to discuss facts, because lying about and to his fellow-Americans is so much easier. Even Exiled has called you out for your hate-filled nonsense, which ought to tell you something, Freepie. Interesting that you should make such claims about Buffett, when he is on record as saying he ought to pay more taxes. Here's a suggestion: investigate a subject before you discuss it. I know this is breaking the habits of a lifetime, but it is the American way to find facts, not rely on the dogmas peddled by self-interested millionaires like O'Reilly, Beck and Limbaugh. For starters, why don't you look at what Buffett himself had to say about this:
.
http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/001096.html

yes grollian and you always argue fact-not. Every post is filled with name calling and bile.

Fact Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway has sued the IRS multiple times over tax issues( and lost).

His belief in higher taxes is for other people to pay them.

He has used every section of the tax code to assure that his money passes virtually tax free. I don't have a problem with him doing that as anyone should use whatever is written into the tax code to his/her advantage.

To portray him as a proponent of higher taxes is someone who gets "facts" from People Magazine.

And to shatter another one of your delusions, the "aw shucks persona" is bought and paid for. He spends more money on pushing his own publicity than the GDP of some third world countries

the wording suggests its true -- note that Grassley isn't saying that doctors have to provide end-of-life counselling to get the bonus, instead he's saying that doctors (merely) have to "report" on whether they provide that counselling.
_
In other words, its a "check box" that doctors would have to fill out on some longer form making them eligible to receive payment from Medicare. If they check "yes", they are probably required to provide additional information regarding their qualifications to provide the counselling (and thus bill Medicare for providing the counselling.)

I wonder if you could copy the comment thread and sort by time and see if it made any more sense.

Maybe if they had a designation for *New* it would help. Like normal blogs that have nested comments.

Indeed, the sheer explosion of 'replies' on this thread has managed to keep it in the one page arena...for now. Only two more original comments left. I agree, though, It's really tiresome scrolling down the page trying to find the 2 new posts amidst all this clusterf*ck of commentary.

I lose track of the multiple conversations and then neglect replies that occur farther up. Sometimes that's a real loss of a good conversation. Plus, someone will post a good link that everyone misses cause it's too high up and you think you've read everything up there.
.

Any idea what the tipping point is in terms of comments, before we move over the fold?

James,
That's why I tediously start at the top and work my way down when I see there are new comments on a thread in which I am involved. It's sometimes painstakingly miserable, though.
~
Grollican,
Once the original comments hit 25. All replies are excluded from this aggregation.

We are still on 23 mainline comments, two more to go to stay on the page. the third mainline will turn the page. As many "reply" comments as you want tho.' Better men than me have got to keep track. You are diligent and conscientious, Neo. I admire that.

Can the Swamp really be this boring tonight that we are actually carrying on a discussion about the High Sheriffs' formatting?

Well I certainly don't want to be the one forcing a page turn. But maybe we should just to signal the need for a new thread because I think this topic is pretty much exhausted.
.
Neo -- I don't feel the need to defend my snark attack on freeinpa, his condescension asked for the slap down. And I might agree that both philosophies had something to offer if folks on the right weren't so busy telling us about the superiority of their way of thinking. Especially, while framing themselves as the real Americans and the rightful heirs to this grand experiment even though they lost the last two elections in dramatic fashion.
.
I get tired of the right not acknowledging their failures. Especially when documentable evidence exists showing that twice in the last hundred years their policies have brought this country to its economic knees. Moreover, I would be much more willing to listen to their ideas, if they weren't always trying to saddle the rest of us with every derogatory label they can come up with when we present ours.
.
I'm am the first one to say to my friends that something is not wrong simply because someone on the right has said it, but it gets harder to take that view when conservatives are willing to say or do anything to win a political gain, no matter how low they have to go or lies they have to tell and old folks they have to terrorize. Especially when what they are doing is clearly going to hurt the country they supposedly love.

Dee

And when does the left ever acknowledge its failings? You seem offended that folks on the right are busy telling everyone they are right. We have a President who has done nothing in life who has no issue with telling us how to run every aspect of our life and I suspect you have little issue with it.

Your comments about documented evidence about this country coming to its knees through the right's policies are quite telling of your ignorance of the financial and economic system.

And your comment that only the right will say or do anything for political gain is laughable. One only needs to look of the last election that you seem so proud of and review the adoring coverage Obama received. Every major media outlet threw out any pretense of non-bias reporting. Imagine the coverage if GWB could only speak with a teleprompter or why he most present when in the Illinois legislature or visiting over 50 states. More coverage was focused on denigrating Palin who was a VP candidate than on someone wanting the Oval Office. The left went through the entire campaign claiming "the worst economy ever". They predicted employment with their$800 billion porkulus package would not exceed 8.0% We hit 9.5% and the economic explanation? It was worse they we expected! Unemployment is nowhere near the levels of the Depression and this was the worst economy ever and it was worse than we expected? Follow that logic. So does the left not say things for political gain or are they just stupendously incompetent? Yes the right does make mistakes but you are past delusional if you think the left is free from that burden.

I would also suggest you check out a study from the UCLA economic professors that document that the policies of the New Deal actually lengthened the Depression by 7 years!

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

Dee
~
Here's the thing, no one can reasonably suggest that every facet of a political ideology is wholly without merit. Every system, no matter how oppressive or malevolent, does bring positive gains to society. It's an unavoidable fact. What system is absolutely, unequivocally corrupt? You even acknowledge this when you say And I might agree that both philosophies had something to offer if folks on the right weren't so busy telling us about the superiority of their way of thinking. So, Dee, was your anti-conservative diatribe merely spiteful? You accept that it has beneficial ideals to offer, yet you will deny their existence simply because you are angry with the right over some of its tactics? Is this what you are saying? If not, please clear that up.
.
I get tired of the right not acknowledging their failures. I know full well that when you posted this, I had not yet written the following to Rusty:
I generally detest progressive taxation schemes, however, when dealing with a system that is purportedly aimed at protecting the health of all Americans, even those who are incapable of obtaining the medical treatment they require (due to financial reasons) I strongly believe that a tax-funded safety net system should be established that excludes the lowest tax-brackets. I understand this is in contradiction to my conservative notions of taxation, however we are dealing with a situation that cannot be remedied, humanely, with rigid adherence to a philosophy that hasn't the answer for this predicament.
So, I ask, is this ackowledgment enough of the shortcomings of my ideology with regard to health-care reform to warrant a little less frustration on your part? Could I be excluded from your demonizing portrayal of conservatism, now?
.
Moreover, I would be much more willing to listen to their ideas, if they weren't always trying to saddle the rest of us with every derogatory label they can come up with when we present ours. You know, Dee, I could say precisely the same thing. Are you aware how frustrating it is to be a center-right poster here at Swampland? On a near daily basis I have to combat broad caricatures, offensive labeling and otherwise mocking condescension for my different views than the overwhelming majority of Swampland commenters. Please, tell me that you are realistic enough to acknowledge that your own movement engages in offensive name-calling and ad hominem attacks. "Racist," "sexist," "ignorant," "classist," "homophobic." Are any of these ringing a bell, some of which have been used directly in your own commentary. Let's not overlook the divisive tactics of the progressive movement when lamenting the unfair caricatures painted by the right. I am guilty at times of crossing lines when provoked beyond a point where I can bring myself to respond entirely civilly. However, I believe I have a good reputation of promoting civil discourse and reasoned argumentation, of calling out my fellow conservatives when they engage in abhorrent stratagems, and essentially steering clear of personal insults of those with whom I disagree. Is this a fair assessment of my own behavior? If so, then you need not paint with such a broad brush. I implore you.

Exiled:

I disagree with your premise that it is contradictory for you as a conservative that a safety net is provided to those in true need. I think the argument breaks out when you define "needy". There are folks through no fault of their own become victims in our society and flounder. They truly deserve our help. Those who bear a large portion of the responsibility for their lot in life do not. They will typically renege on their membership in the human race and expect to receive the same benefit. That is patently unfair to the ones who truly deserve the help and end up short-changed

I know this will cause a furor with the liberals but it is illogical to believe you can save everyone or that there is unlimited funds by "taxing the rich".

FinPA
~
I was not suggesting that to assist the needy or provide a social safety net is a contradiction of the conservative philosophy, by no means was that my assertion. I believe you misunderstood. I was contending that to implement such programs by way of a progressive-tax plan is contrary to conservative principles of taxation. I generally adhere to the notion that income taxes should be levied in a proportional manner, i.e. 15% for all, 20% for all, 30% for all, etc. As it is, those making more will still pay a higher amount, yet it will be proportionally equal. That is fair. However, when dealing with the life and death, the basic medical necessities of American citizens I have no qualms with providing this access by way of a progressive tax program.

Exiled:

I did misunderstand your point. I would agree that some sort of progressive tax to accommodate those in need is fair. My one caveat would be is that nothing grows faster than an entitlement and the definition of the truly needy distorts horribly.

Damn. I wasted a mainline by accident. Sorry.

Ah shucks just when I was ready to debate the pros and cons of both philosophies and the media distortion inherent in both. I guess I'm too late.