Patterico's Pontifications

2/25/2010

The Health Care Nightmare

Filed under: Health Care,Obama,Politics — DRJ @ 4:18 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

The Republicans’ nightmare is that health care legislation will be rammed through via reconciliation and voters will blame Congress and not just the Democrats. The Democrats’ nightmare is that Obama means it when he says he will pursue this until November because elections have consequences:

“What I do know is this, if we saw movement, significant movement, not just gestures, then you wouldn’t need to start over because essentially everybody here knows what the issues are, and procedurally it could get done fairly quickly.

“We cannot have another year long debate about this. So, the question I’m going to ask myself and I ask all of you is, is there enough serious effort that in a month’s time or a few week’s time or six week’s time we could actually resolve something? And if we can’t I think we got to go ahead and make some decisions and that’s what elections are for. We have honest disagreements about the vision for the country and we’ll go ahead and test those out over the next several months until November. Alright?”

At the link, Obama is also quoted as saying “people don’t have 7-8 hours a day to work some of these things through.”

Poor babies. Work is hard.

— DRJ

148 Responses to “The Health Care Nightmare”

  1. I am here to make a small prediction which is very sad and depressing — if this bill is passed via reconciliation there will be non-Islamic violence on American soil as a means to express the outrage over this bill. Not hoping but expecting — hope I am wrong.

    HeavenSent (c3c032)

  2. I caught some of the proceedings this morning and just want to make an off-hand observation: I wonder if anyone in the administration is aware of how badly Obama needs some coaching around the use of body language. To see him sitting there with his chin up in the air as he looks at the Republicans as if they were some undocumented life form is mind-boggling. Does he have any idea how imperiously arrogant he appears? Does he care?

    GeneralMalaise (c58b20)

  3. I guess that every one has forgotten about
    Obama’s “You’ve got me.” comment.

    Jack (e383ed)

  4. GM…Yes, and No!

    AD - RtR/OS! (116c8a)

  5. @GM: no, he doesn’t care…..

    @HS: only if you think public protests are “non-islamic violence”…. however, if they do ram it through, and then try to block protests, or do something equally silly, you might have a point. however, if they do push this through, the new Congress in 2011 will be busy reversing the bill and processing Ear Leader for impeachment and removal from office, so they are unlikely to have time for something stupid like trying to silence the people.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  6. I do not believe the House can pass a HC bill. I do not believe the summit lifted up the moderate Dems who most needed to be brought on board. I mean, even if you were a lemming would *you* follow Nancy over the cliff?

    elissa (58be1e)

  7. “I have a gift Harry…”has been reduced to “The Emperor has no Clothes,”by this summit.

    mike191 (5f2170)

  8. Here’s the Obama quote Jack mentioned earlier:

    “[Retiring Rep. Marion] Berry: Obama said “big difference” between ’10 and ’94 is “me””

    DRJ (6a8003)

  9. So if the Democrats do this reconciliation on government rationed health care, then they do it on crap and tax, and then they do it on card check, then they do it everywhere …

    I say we don’t allow it to be done.

    Democracies fail … Look at Venezuela.

    Destroy the Senate — Oops, sorry, that’s what Obama wants Venezuela.

    bill-tb (541ea9)

  10. Why doesn’t the timorous and fey Team R stand as one and vow to bring things to a standstill if our little president man and his dirty socialist thugs try and ram through their gay health care scam?

    Meghan’s daddy was there… did he say something brave and commanding and draw a line in the sand? As if. There were tv cameras there.

    happyfeet (713679)

  11. I thought McCain made an effective and in-his-face point about Obama’s refusal to be transparent as he promised during the campaign.

    DRJ (6a8003)

  12. Obama will back off only if Mayor Daley is afraid of losing the next reelection. Otherwise Co-Presidents Rahm and Axelrod will continue on the same course.

    nk (db4a41)

  13. The lifted chin thing on Obama is annoying and a tell, if anyone asks me. Pretty much, it seems like, he’s either bowing at the wrong people (kings and emperors and the Mayor of Trampa Bay) or he’s lifting his chin indicating how much better he is than the people he’s being forced to be near (any American will do for the chin-lift response, any American at all.)

    If the Dems ram this through using reconcilliation, THIS is their fate.

    If they do this, I will be angry.

    Vivian Louise (643333)

  14. I did too, DRJ @ 5:41 pm. And quite obviously, judging from the president’s response, McCain hit a nerve. Of course Obama refused to acknowledge that McCain was absolutely right re the lack of transparency, and instead deflected by belittling McCain and reminding him they were no longer campaigning…

    In many ways, he reminds me of a little boy.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  15. Dana, a little boy facing down a “Daddy” he is angry with, and I think you are onto something. I always sensed that in the dynamic. The President had a difficult childhood, emotionally. I hope he gets past it.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  16. Yeah, and the entire country will have to experience his working through his past family issues – man, he’s the biggest whiner since Carter, and he even tops him because of his arrogance.

    Dmac (799abd)

  17. Just a little off topic – still Obama related – why is it odd to me that Obama tells Patterson NOT to run for gov’nah of New York, Patterson says “ttthhhhbpt!” and runs anyway, now there’s this whole scandal in the NYT that is pretty much guaranteed to end Patterson’s career.

    See, that’s just odd considering the stories the NYT DOESN’T report.

    Vivian Louise (643333)

  18. I thought McCain did a very poor job of keeping the focus on how laughably unaffordable this nonsense is for a little country such as ours.

    happyfeet (713679)

  19. As long as I don’t have to wear my brother’s dentures after he dies, I’m cool with whatever happens.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  20. Don’t enable them.

    happyfeet (713679)

  21. I thought McCain took “Get lost, deadwood”, with very good grace.

    nk (db4a41)

  22. I sense some hostility to McCain among the gentlemen here. Dwelling on past campaigns is so yesterday, guys. I know that because the President said so.

    DRJ (6a8003)

  23. McCain and Obama competed as to who was less like Bush and Obama won.

    nk (db4a41)

  24. “At the link, Obama is also quoted as saying “people don’t have 7-8 hours a day to work some of these things through.”

    Poor babies. Work is hard.”

    I understood that they have other things to do too. But maybe you didn’t get that.

    imdw (c5488f)

  25. Maybe Happy Feet can borrow that poor dead woman’s dentures–they’ll help him with his biting sarcasm.

    Mike Myers (3c9845)

  26. Interesting that Obama says until November. Why until November? Whatever the result of the election are, they won’t change the composition of Congress until January. So he doesn’t really have until November; he has until January.

    Is Obama calculating that by keeping this issue right up front for the next several months, he’ll get the GOP to inflict damage on itself (“obstructionist,” etc.–you know the media will want to help Obama on that) that’ll help the Democrats in the November election?

    Alan (07ccb5)

  27. In many ways, he reminds me of a little boy.

    Wasn’t it last year that Rush labeled our President as the “Man-Child”?

    If things do turn to s…, the media has a lot to answer for, if they survive – for in chaos, there is opportunity (for a lot of payback).

    AD - RtR/OS! (116c8a)

  28. #26: Um, no, that only applies to Senate elections for complete six year terms. It does not apply to the Delaware election, where the GOP is strongly favored to win, or to Colorado, which the GOP is strongly favored to win if the sword of Obammacare is still hanging over voters heads in November, or to Kristen Gilbrand’s seat in New York which looks like a safe hold for Dems now but could change if the Democrats refuse to take the hint. Still not a majority, but since it isn’t clear the Senate has the votes to ram reconcilliation through as it is, it would be enough to stop that kind of gamesmanship.

    Also, Congress is going to have to convene to allow its members to run for re-election and won’t return to Washington unless a special session is held. Usually special elections are only held if both parties agree in advance to meet immediately (the Clinton impeachment) or where time is of the essense (like the GM bailout). To do it over healthcare, especially if the voters deliver a stining rebuke to the Democrats would guarantee another blowout in 2012.

    Sean P (334463)

  29. According to Republicans, Everybody Knows™ that Americans are completely united against the healthcare reforms within the “Obamacare” legislation. Ergo, to pass the bill via reconciliation will result in nothing less than a blowout victory for Republicans in 2010 and beyond. And hell, if the bill does pass in the face of Republican opposition, Republicans can still pull a Cantor and align themselves with anything good which results from the evil, socialist legislation! Win-win! Right??

    So why all the handwringing over reconciliation?

    Tom (27592e)

  30. Because we don’t really want to see America destroyed, Tom.

    JD (d8c229)

  31. “And hell, if the bill does pass in the face of Republican opposition, Republicans can still pull a Cantor and align themselves with anything good which results from the evil, socialist legislation! Win-win! Right??”

    Maybe if the legislation had a bunch of big promotional photo-op checks, then the GOP could at least get behind that provision?

    imdw (8806e6)

  32. just another reason that a large percentage of people registered as Democrats aren’t worth a damn and undoubtedly are as idiotic and phony as most typical limousine liberals are—and one does not have to be rich to be guilty of that type of defective behavior.

    Rasmussenreports.com:

    By a 46% to 29% margin, Democrats say it would be better for workers if they were dropped from their employers health insurance coverage and enrolled in a government plan.

    How many of the 46% are talking out of both sides of their mouth and would be wary of personally switching from a private to public plan? I bet a lot of them are the same nitwits who’ve slammed, as one example, Walmart for previously maintaining a situation where employees relied on publicly funded healthcare services instead of largely company-sponsored medical insurance.

    Now that I think of that, I can imagine a variety of unprincipled conservatives (or certainly squishy centrists) who are CEOs of big corporations who’d love to eliminate one of the major expenses on their company’s bottom line by doing exactly what 46% of polled Democrats support. IOW, those executives may very well be closeted fans of socialized, Obama-crazed healthcare.

    Mark (411533)

  33. “people don’t have 7-8 hours a day to work some of these things through.”

    About 9.7% of the work force does (really much more, but we don’t talk about them). Not to worry though, because President Obama assured us in his State of Union speech that “jobs must be our number-one focus”.

    Guess that focus thing will start next week or so.

    Pons Asinorum (95faa4)

  34. About 9.7% of the work force does (really much more, but we don’t talk about them). Not to worry though, because President Obama assured us in his State of Union speech that “jobs must be our number-one focus”.

    Guess that focus thing will start next week or so.

    The ADD presidency. And people said Fred Thompson was lazy.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  35. JD – perhaps I’ve underestimated the stakes here. Are you telling me that passing this health care legislation (even with a public option) ushers in the destruction of America?

    Tom (27592e)

  36. Financially, yes. We already cannot afford Medicare/MedicAid as it exists, and Barcky even admits it is one of the biggest drivers of deficits going forward. Adding 30+ million people to the system is not going to cut costs, no matter how you spin it.

    JD (fdd4e9)

  37. “JD – perhaps I’ve underestimated the stakes here. Are you telling me that passing this health care legislation (even with a public option) ushers in the destruction of America?”

    If not this, then the next thing will cause the sky to fall.

    imdw (90970d)

  38. There are other ways to cut costs than by keeping a boot on necks of those who are unemployed (‘Sup, Sen. Bunning), and or by denying people access to health care. It’s not just “sad” that 30 million people aren’t able to get the care they need in the wealthiest country in the world, it’s immoral. It’s a denial of justice.

    (From this seminarian’s perspective, America is lucky that she is not ostensibly a Christian nation. The God of the prophets is quite clear about what happens when God’s people forsake justice at the expense of the orphans and widows. But then, America is not now, nor ever understood herself to be, a Christian nation.)

    Bottom line is, cutting costs is not the same goal as providing basic health care to those who need it but can’t get health insurance. We don’t need to cut costs by denying services to the poor. To the end of cutting costs, I’d take a long, hard look at the cash cow of defense spending.

    Tom (27592e)

  39. …or maybe just up the taxes on the wealthy. 😉

    Tom (27592e)

  40. If not this, then the next thing will cause the sky to fall.

    so its your contention that adding an additional $1,000,000,000,000.00 or more to the national debt over the next few years is a trivial event with no repercussions?

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  41. Well, if cost is not an issue, there are all sorts of other things the govt should do, no?

    JD (6a2cc1)

  42. redc1c4, I’m curious: do you think it is morally right that anybody should go without health care?

    We put away 700 billion a year without a thought to pay for war, yet can’t find the money to come up with a better solution for uninsured folks than “let’s get you to an emergency room?” It’s easy to forget what’s really at stake here when I’ve already got mine.

    Tom (27592e)

  43. Healthcare and health insurance are not the same thing, Tom.

    JD (6a2cc1)

  44. “so its your contention that adding an additional $1,000,000,000,000.00 or more to the national debt over the next few years is a trivial event with no repercussions?”

    It’s as trivial as the next thing that wingnuts find to cause america’s destruction.

    When you say ‘add to the national debt,’ do you mean that all the costs of this bill will go to the debt? Because unlike the last GOP health bill, this one is not pure deficit funding. That last one was pure deficit funding. And America wasn’t destroyed.

    imdw (b62539)

  45. JD – nope. We should prioritize.

    Personally, my priorities include ensuring that anybody who is ailing has access to proper health care. I also think that public education, the true gatekeeper for equal opportunity, has got to be reformed. And let’s put some people back to work, even if, God forbid, it takes some government funding to do it. I think each of those priorities is more morally valid than propping up the already-wealthy and bottomless checks to the DoD.

    Tom (27592e)

  46. it’s immoral. It’s a denial of justice.

    And there, Tom, is where we have the unbridgeable gulf. There is no “middle” between people like us who think letting people die for lack of insurance is immoral and people who think health care is a privilege for people with money.

    Few here at this site would bat an eye at the $677 billion defense budget that passed the same December weekend the Senate debated its health care bill. I bet we could find $50 billion to $100 billion in waste in the defense budget without half trying. Look at those multiple-billion-dollar planes that Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss was defending to the end even after the defense secretary concluded they were not needed. I bet there are several projects like that.

    The health care debate boils down to fundamental values, on both sides. What kind of people do we want to be?

    That’s in part why the “mushy middle” politicians are being squeezed out. This is not their fight; they are better for smaller-stakes battles.

    When an argument gets down to fundamental values, the middle position makes no sense. It is by nature a black-white, partisan judgment. As Ariana Huffington said, what’s the middle position on slavery? Free half the slaves? Free them from noon to 5?

    The middle position on values will eventually unravel, even if it is tried, a la the Missouri Compromise. Or it will just be a milestone in a steady march toward a definite conclusion, as Medicare is. (Medicare was a compromise when a previous attempt at universal coverage fell short during the Truman Administration.)

    One side must prevail on universal health care, plain and simple. In the long run, one side WILL prevail — and it will be the side that supports universal coverage for all Americans. We will eventually join the rest of the western world. It just may take a little time. I’m thinking this year will be a tentative first step.

    As for the deficit, the Repubs and their backers love to ignore the CBO’s report that the Senate reform would lower the deficit over time. Paul Ryan had to be reminded yesterday that he used to believe in CBO numbers before it came to a bill he didn’t support.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  47. JD, 43, True enough. But at least at present, insurance means access, and no insurance means access-denied.

    Tom (27592e)

  48. As Ariana Huffington said, what’s the middle position on slavery?

    Oh, brother. What idiotic hyperbole, but hardly surprising coming from a limousine liberal like her—and in terms of money and mentality, she truly is one of those.

    BTW, Arianna lives in a metropolitan area (ie, LA) that’s full of people without health insurance, without all the glommed-on perks and mandates that Obama-ized healthcare would bring about. Last time I checked, many of those same people aren’t exactly breaking down the door trying to get out of LA, trying to escape from a planation, if you will, trying to get back to countries like Mexico.

    Mark (411533)

  49. Lack of insurance kills people?

    Myron just f*cking slaughtered an entire army of strawpeople.

    Good Allah.

    JD (b32fa4)

  50. Good food for thought, Myron. I’m inclined to agree, that the eventual result of all of this is either health care for all, or health care for only those who can personally pay. I’m guessing we’ll go the way of the rest of the world and it’ll be the first option.

    Not to be even more preachy, but the “mushy middle” stuff reminds me of a verse from the Book of Revelation:

    …you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

    Yep. At least on this moral divide (and others), the differences couldn’t be clearer.

    Tom (27592e)

  51. The only way that this is “deficit neutral” is because the Dems used tricks like taxing for 10 years but only using 6 years of costs, counting cuts to docs for Medicare that will never happen, etc … That, and they rely on people like Myron to run out and spread their hyperbolic breathless propaganda for them.

    JD (b32fa4)

  52. You are all immoral racists. Uncaring bigots.

    I forgot to mention that the next time Congress estimates the costs of a new health program correctly, or even to within a factor of 3, will be the first time they do so.

    JD (b32fa4)

  53. As Ariana Huffington said, what’s the middle position on slavery? Free half the slaves? Free them from noon to 5?

    I don’t think that slavery is the best example for the Democratic Party to invoke.

    What next, the Nazis decry genocide?

    Subotai (8d44c1)

  54. In the long run, one side WILL prevail — and it will be the side that supports universal coverage for all Americans.

    And non-Americans. Don’t forget, this plan covers everybody who manages to get into the country, illegal aliens and all. Because it’s an outrage that anybody in the world does not have free (US taxpayer paid) healthcare.

    Subotai (8d44c1)

  55. JD – I suppose there are ways of getting [into Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory] without [a golden ticket], but having [a golden ticket] is clearly optimal. Otherwise, it’s a short time before you end up getting discharged, rather than receiving sustained [chocolate] from trained [oompa-loompas].

    Tom (27592e)

  56. “In the long run, one side WILL prevail — and it will be the side that supports universal coverage for all Americans. ”

    Either that or the side that thinks congressmen would be better health care consumers if only they had catastrophic coverage and made 40K a year.

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    imdw (33ae78)

  57. I f*cking hate Oompa Loompas.

    JD (d56a94)

  58. Subotai: Beneath your fretting lies the fundamental assumption that health care is only for those who can pay for it.

    So why not start from there, rather than dressing it up in red herrings?

    Tom (27592e)

  59. Bottom line is, cutting costs is not the same goal as providing basic health care to those who need it but can’t get health insurance.

    Hogwash. This whole kabuki show is based on the notion that health insurance should be used to pay for every medical procedure under the sun. This isn’t about providing health care for people who need it–it’s about getting a third party to pay for someone else bills.

    And anyone who thinks these provisions will simply be limited to “30 million” people, or whatever the BS number that’s being manufactured this week, is ignorant. You don’t promise to get “the rich” to pay for complete and total healthcare for 10% of the population without expecting that the other 90% are going to say, “Hey, why are we paying our own bills like a bunch of suckers? Let someone else take care of these expenses, I sure don’t want to!”

    For people like Tom and Myron to bring the question of morality into the equation shows just how weak their position really is. They can’t logically defend their reasoning behind their support for government-run healthcare, so they resort to guilt-induced emotional appeals to try and shame people into agreeing with them. Sorry, but the “compassion” train left right about the time you demanded that the state force me to pay for someone else’s medical bills, which is a private transaction conducted between two private parties.

    If you’re that charged up to provide medical funding for the poor, there is NOTHING to stop you from doing so yourselves. Just walk into any medical clinic and tell a few random people you’ll cover their bills. At least then you’d be practicing what you preach. Hell, how many poor people would have been helped if all the money that went to organizations like MoveOn, the SEIU, and Media Matters during the 2004-2008 election cycles was spent on donations to non-profit medical clinics as opposed to political agit-prop?

    As for the deficit, the Repubs and their backers love to ignore the CBO’s report that the Senate reform would lower the deficit over time.

    The deficit reductions come from the assumption that the “savings” from reducing Medicare inefficiencies would result in lower overall costs. What the hell is stopping them from reducing those inefficiencies NOW, irrespective of any legislation that is passed? Why aren’t they dealing NOW with the fraud that’s already being conducted in the current system? Obama’s in charge of the whole damn program, so why isn’t he telling the Health Secretary to start cracking skulls on this?

    That’s the whole problem with Obama and the Dems little calculated distraction here–they haven’t even shown they can efficiently run what they are already responsible for in the first place. And now they want to take that less-than-stellar track record and EXPAND their oversight? That’s taking a Senior Airman who can’t even configure a node and putting him in charge of the whole tech control facility.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  60. Yep. At least on this moral divide (and others), the differences couldn’t be clearer.

    No kidding. You and Myron are thieves that need the state to rob from your fellow citizens because both of you are too cowardly to do so yourselves.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  61. The liberalism of people like Arianna Huffington is a big reason California is going into the dumper. But enough of the state’s voters over the past 15 or so years have bought into the false compassion and foolish idealism of “progressives” like her, that they nowadays have to reap what they sow.

    Only sad thing is too many of such voters, when even they find their patience (and tolerance) being tested to the breaking point — or, more importantly, when they discover job opportunities are now being nurtured elsewhere, which, in effect, forces their hand — they have the ability (and two-faced gall) to move to other communities, where they’ll repeat the cycle of “I’m liberal, therefore I am” idiocy all over again.

    Mark (411533)

  62. Another Chris, thanks for at least owning up to the fact that you think health care is the privilege of those who can pay for it. I couldn’t disagree more. Glad we’ve established that.

    Oh, and btw, I don’t need your help finding a constructive way to channel my energy. You don’t know me, nor what I do with my resources, nor how I spend my days.

    Tom (27592e)

  63. Another Chris, thanks for at least owning up to the fact that you think health care is the privilege of those who can pay for it. I couldn’t disagree more.

    Guess what–somebody always pays for healthcare, Tom, even in the most communistic countries in the world. You simply just want don’t want to do it yourself, and think others should be responsible for to pay for you. You want all the benefits with none of the responsiblity. I’m only surprised you’re not demanding that “the rich” pay for your mortgage, food, and clothing, too.

    Oh, and btw, I don’t need your help finding a constructive way to channel my energy. You don’t know me, nor what I do with my resources, nor how I spend my days.

    You have no problem hectoring us to do what YOU feel is appropriate for others, so don’t complain when you get the same thrown back in your face.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  64. @59 – Being made to pay taxes isn’t theft. Your tax dollars going to social programs you disagree with isn’t stealing from you, any more than my tax dollars going to Bush’s chosen war was stealing from me. Contrary to conservative narrative, “the government” isn’t some amorphous entity that exists entirely independently from you or I. We, the people, get to decide whom we will send to create the legislation we will live by. You don’t like the laws under consideration by these representatives? Get some more Grover Norquist wannabes in office next time. In the meantime, here’s a little rain for your pity parade: “Elections have consequences.”

    Tom (27592e)

  65. Eye one. Screw bipartisanship

    JD (d56a94)

  66. @62 – more assumptions. Don’t know why you think I’m not willing to pay my fair share of taxes like anybody else.

    Tom (27592e)

  67. health care is not a “right”.

    education is not a “right” either.

    they are both luxuries that a society can indulge in because there is enough excess wealth/production/value to support them, and because, to a certain extent, they provide a return on the investment to the society for doing so.

    since there is only so much “excess” available for any particular society to w*rk with, the question then is, how much can we afford to invest, and what return on that investment does society receive in return? is any particular suggested investment worth the return we get, or are we shortchanging ourselves, and thus failing in our fiduciary duties?

    what else could we invest the same resources in, for a different return, and would that return be more valuable overall to the group than the first investment?

    for instance, maybe we should invest significantly only in useful, hard education, such as sciences, mathematics, etc, and instead of throwing money at the black hole of health care, spend the same value on space exploration, giving us access to additional resources, knowledge and opportunities, as well as ensuring that mankind isn’t exterminated or reduced to a ragged shell of itself by an asteroid strike because we are all stuck on the planet’s surface?

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  68. Don’t know why you think I’m not willing to pay my fair share of taxes like anybody else.

    please define “fair share”…..

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  69. Your tax dollars going to social programs you disagree with isn’t stealing from you, any more than my tax dollars going to Bush’s chosen war was stealing from me.

    An argument that completely nullifies your appeal to morality. You’ve basically admitted that the government is an amoral entity run by people who are out for their own interests, irrespective of whether they are “right or wrong.” So the question of whether paying for every medical procedure for every single person is moral or not is completely irrelevant, and only the question of whether it is sustainable or not matters.

    And given the state of the economy, the make up of our country’s demographics, our unfunded obligations via existing legislation, and overall debt liability, I think we all know what the answer to that question is.

    In the meantime, here’s a little rain for your pity parade: “Elections have consequences.”

    No kidding. And given the complete lack of leadership ability that Obama has shown his first year in office, those consequences look to be pretty severe.

    But then again, you didn’t want a leader–you wanted an empty vessel you could project your feelings of inadequacy onto and give yourself a hug for supporting, irrespective of his actual record of success or failure. Looks like you got exactly what you wanted.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  70. The idea that people are immoral for not sharing your collectivist ideals is noxious.

    JD (d56a94)

  71. Don’t know why you think I’m not willing to pay my fair share of taxes like anybody else.

    I’m not saying that you’re not willing to pay your “fair share of taxes” (whatever that means). I’m saying you’re a hypocrite because you hector people to pay for the complete and total healthcare of others when you haven’t taken the initiative to do so yourself.

    It’s easy to be compassionate with other people’s money, and your compassion clearly only extends as far as the government is willing to hold a gun to your head–hence, your kindergarten logic “fair share of taxes” comment.

    Compassion was around long before the state could potentially mandate it, Tom. Maybe you should show us how it’s done.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  72. Don’t know why you think I’m not willing to pay my fair share of taxes like anybody else.

    I’m not saying that you’re not willing to pay your “fair share of taxes” (whatever that means). I’m saying you’re a hypocrite because you hector people to pay for the complete and total healthcare of others when you haven’t taken the initiative to do so yourself.

    It’s easy to be compassionate with other people’s money, and your compassion clearly only extends as far as the government is willing to hold a gun to your head–hence, your kindergarten logic “fair share of taxes” comment.

    Compassion was around long before the state could potentially mandate it, Tom. Maybe you should show us how it’s done.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  73. Oops, double post.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  74. As Tom noted above, the fair share notion is a codeword for another tax increase on the evil wealthy people.

    JD (d56a94)

  75. …the question of whether paying for every medical procedure for every single person is moral or not is completely irrelevant…

    A sense of morality is what causes me to support and oppose the things I support and oppose. That is not irrelevant to the decisions the government gets to make, because I have a (limited amount of) say in those decisions. Morality is what gets me involved, what caused us as a nation to stand up and shake off Bush/Cheney and many of their locksteppers, and it’ll be what causes the same to happen to Obama et all if the voters reject the Democratic agenda. Interpretations of morality are indeed quite essential to this process, as they are a driving force for many people.

    The idea that people are immoral for not sharing your collectivist ideals is noxious.

    I agree. I don’t know if this was directed at me, but that’s not what I’m saying.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Tom (27592e)

  76. Um, code words aside, “fair share” is whatever I’m supposed to pay. Whether I’m at a middle-class level of income as of now, or if I manage to hit it big someday and have to pay more. You act as if I advocate for gov’t programs without being willing to participate in taxes myself.

    Tom (27592e)

  77. personally, i think the “fair share”, for those who believe in such a concept, is whatever rate keeps their take home income at the poverty line, so that they can do all that’s possible to help lift those below it to or above their level.

    after all, that would be the moral thing to do, because they couldn’t possibly be comfortable reveling in unnecessary luxuries while others suffered without them, could they?

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  78. You would think that after 18 months of President Bush being out of office, the BDS symptoms would start subsiding. I thought President Obama was supposed to fix that.

    Tom, I figured you would show your true colors soon enough. Socialism often tries to hide behind piety. People who disagree with you do so because they’re immoral? Good luck with that.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  79. Stashiu – That was immoral of you to disagree.

    Tom – How is what you are doing not calling others immoral? Are they amoral, or immoral, as you and Myron have declared yours to be the moral position, the caring, compassionate, feeling, pious, and benevolent position. Costs be damned.

    JD (d56a94)

  80. A sense of morality is what causes me to support and oppose the things I support and oppose. That is not irrelevant to the decisions the government gets to make, because I have a (limited amount of) say in those decisions.

    Since you admitted that the government is an amoral entity, your argument here is irrelevant, regardless of how you feel about it. An amoral entity will conduct itself irrespective of whether people feel is right or wrong, but only to ensure its own continuation. Your screed above doesn’t change this one iota.

    I agree. I don’t know if this was directed at me, but that’s not what I’m saying.

    You really are an easy liar, aren’t you?

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  81. Stash – I’m a Christian first. I cannot read my Bible and conclude that God wants us to let people die for lack of healthcare in our communities. This conclusion drives my choices in what policy to support. Call it whatever you want.

    Also, I haven’t called any individuals immoral. I do believe that a society which allows people to starve to death, or die from preventable health complications, and more, is fundamentally unjust. As I am part of this society, I also have a moral stake in the outcome of our societal (governmental) actions.

    We really need to move past a vision of morality that focuses solely on personal piety or “correct thinking” (which is what you assume I want from everyone else). It ain’t all about you. (Or me, or her, etc.) It’s about all of us who comprise this society.

    Tom (27592e)

  82. There was a time when people thought the moral position was to try to free people from government tithing so they could choose for themselves how to spend their money. Now it seems like we’re a commune.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  83. Um, code words aside, “fair share” is whatever I’m supposed to pay.

    Wow, that’s the dumbest example of double-speak and avoidance I’ve ever seen.

    If you can’t even define what a “fair share” is, seeing as its at the core of your taxation philosophy, there’s really no need to take your arguments seriously.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  84. I’m a Christian first. I cannot read my Bible and conclude that God wants us to let people die for lack of healthcare in our communities.

    Kind of ironic that you support a President who’s the modern equivalent of Herod Agrippa.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  85. Another Chris, the government is comprised of individuals. Yes?

    Individuals conduct themselves according to a particular moral framework. Yes?

    Sometimes a given moral framework can be replaced with another. Yes?

    I am simply advocating in accordance with my moral framework. Y’all are doing the same, just within yours. I’m fine with owning the moral implications of my stated policy positions. Are you as fine about yours?

    Tom (27592e)

  86. Tom:

    I’m fine with owning the moral implications of my stated policy positions. Are you as fine about yours?

    Absolutely. I believe in freedom, God’s gift to mankind. It’s what allows us to worship Him.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  87. I do not see how declaring yours to be a moral position does not mean that those that disagree with yours hold either an amoral or immoral position.

    JD (959071)

  88. “I’m a Christian first. I cannot read my Bible and conclude that God wants us to let people die for lack of healthcare in our communities.”

    Tom – Are you now claiming direct communication with God? Has God communicated to you his will for this country?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  89. I’m fine with owning the moral implications of my stated policy positions. Are you as fine about yours?

    I’m just fine with owning the moral implications that people should be responsible for their own lives without forcing that burden on their neighbors, and that any outside help should be freely given according to the conscience of the providers rather than forced by the hand of the state.

    Of course you’re fine with owning the moral implications of your positions, because your compassion is limited to the extent that the government forces your hand. As I said, it’s easy to be compassionate with other people’s money.

    So man up and show us how compassionate you really can be, and stuff your false attempts at guilt inducement.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  90. @83, ah, you wanted numbers or something. Sorry. Here’s my basic tax philosophy: We live in a country that has to pay for things, ranging from national security to highways, to public education. All of this and oh so much more, requires that citizens must pay taxes. People in poverty, having less wealth, should pay less taxes – both in actual dollars (obviously) and in percentage of their income. Wealthy people should pay more (both $, %). Actual wealth should be factored in as well, beyond income. The poorer you are, the less you should pay. The wealthier you are, you pay more. In sum, I’m okay with the current basic philosophy, and I’d be okay with wealthier people paying a lot more than at present.

    @84, more assumptions. I like many things about the president, but he doesn’t have my unqualified support on anything. He ain’t my Messiah.

    Tom (27592e)

  91. I hear you, DRJ. For me, the pursuit of others’ freedom to be healthy is more compelling than preserving the freedom of citizens not to have to pay for said healthcare. Once we’ve got our basic needs covered, we can start talking about which costs are optional.

    Tom (27592e)

  92. We should all be Good Samaritans, Tom, but we should not all be Caesars.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  93. ah, you wanted numbers or something. Sorry.

    If you had actually provided something along these lines, with justifications for why the amount and percentages were set at the income levels that they were, the rest of your silly little screed might have been taken seriously. As it is, it’s just more vague agit-prop that doesn’t mean anything.

    more assumptions. I like many things about the president, but he doesn’t have my unqualified support on anything. He ain’t my Messiah.

    Talk about assumptions. I never said you thought Obama was the Messiah. I just find it ironic that you support a President whose the equivalent of one of the Bible’s most prominent villians.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  94. @daleyrocks – I think we’ve all got the means to communicate directly with God. Prayerfully discerning God’s will is what’s difficult (for me at least). All I’m trying to say here is that a simple, face-value reading of the law and prophets in the Old Testament, and the gospels and Acts in particular in the New Testament, reveal communities in which the members care for the needs of one another (and/or incur the wrath of God when they don’t). Obviously, we live in a different context today. But I believe that the major tenet of caring for those in need is one aspect of Christian life that can and should comprise a primary social ethic.

    Tom (27592e)

  95. For me, the pursuit of others’ freedom to be healthy is more compelling than preserving the freedom of citizens not to have to pay for said healthcare

    What a load of crap. You don’t advocate the pursuit of others’ freedom to be healthy, you advocate forcing everyone at the point of a gun to pay for everyone’s healthcare.

    You can pursue others’ freedom to be healthy all on your own without involving the rest of us–you do realize this, right?

    Anyone who argues that the “costs” healthcare are secondary in a modern state that is already groaning under the burdens of overwhelming debt, liabilities, and unfunded entitlements is ignorant, plain and simple, and need not be taken seriously.

    Tom’s philosophy is the equivalent of heroin–it feels good at first, and then slowly breaks the body down over time until there’s nothing left and the victim is left lying in puddle of blood, needles, and filth.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  96. Another Chris, whatever.

    DRJ, I know, right!! The problem is, there aren’t enough Good Samaritans to go around. (And Caesar sure isn’t helping either.) When it comes to policy that has implications of life and death, I think it’s valid for people of faith to get involved in the activism, motivated by their faith, and insist that Caesar at least cover the basic needs of the people.

    But your broader point is certainly true: we do not want another Christian state.

    Tom (27592e)

  97. Another Chris, whatever.

    Yeah, whatever, you little fraud.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  98. I think it’s valid for people of faith to get involved in the activism, motivated by their faith, and insist that Caesar at least cover the basic needs of the people.

    and i think its valid for you to keep your religious beliefs to yourself and not try to impose them on me, either by your acts or that of the government you have suborned to do it for you. if you really want to advance your faith via taxation, i suggest you start with property and income taxes against all religious institutions and their property.

    we do not want another Christian state.

    i don;t know if that’s a mouse in your pocket, or just hubris, but you could sure fool me with your proposition in the previous line: you cannot use the state to advance your religious values via taxation without doing so, at least indirectly. if the state is enforcing your religious beliefs, what else would it possibly be but a “christian state”?

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  99. Chris, what more do you want me to say? You respond to everything I write with hostility and derision, and you have come to your own conclusions about my arguments, thoughts and motivations, so is there more for you and I to discuss here? If you want me to take you seriously, I do insist on discussion that is at least decent, if not respectful. Or more simply: I don’t make personal attacks. So don’t attack me personally.

    JD –

    I do not see how declaring yours to be a moral position does not mean that those that disagree with yours hold either an amoral or immoral position.

    When you affirm anything, you are simultaneously negating something else. This is true of all decisions, beliefs, choices, etc. The consequence of taking a stand, of making a choice, is that certain other stands/choices are no longer available.

    When I use language of morality, notice that I use my words carefully. I talk about positions, not people. I’m not saying, “anyone who opposes HCR is immoral,” I’m saying things like “it is immoral for our society to let people die for want of healthcare.” This suggests that if you are willing to let people die for lack of healthcare, I think this is ultimately an immoral position. But that just tells me that you hold an immoral position, according to my moral framework. That doesn’t tell me very little about the morality of your personhood.

    I make the same distinctions when talking about racism, you’ll recall. There’s no shortage of racist comments, racist positions, racist acts. But people who are “racists” through and through are fewer and farther between, in my experience. But the language is so inflammatory that people often conflate the two. So it’s usually necessary to distinguish between people and their positions.

    Tom (27592e)

  100. Good food for thought, Myron. I’m inclined to agree

    …to which afterward many e – mails of love and tenderness were exchanged between the two Christian dissidents, culminating in a long night of monkey – love after spending the afternoon throwing rocks at a nearby Starbucks.

    Dmac (799abd)

  101. Wonder if Tom is pro-life?

    JD (b42396)

  102. Basic needs are food, water, air, and shelter, no? I also think Blackberry’s, LED TV’s, and V8 SUV’s are basic needs.

    JD (b42396)

  103. redc1c4, just because this legislation overlays with my particular religious values does not mean that its passage amounts to me forcing my religion on you. That is like saying, Catholics have no business voting on abortion. Mormons shouldn’t advocate against gay marriage. Religious people can and should vote however they want.

    The state enforces laws that overlap with people’s religious beliefs all the time. Think about abortion legislation, or capital punishment, or defense bills. These all have profoundly spiritual implications for voters. Passing them one way or another is not forcing religion upon people.

    Not to be confused with religiously-motivated laws, which often seek to control vice (prostitution, pornography, gay sex) or even simply the civil rights of others (gay marriage). etc.). I am opposed to implementing laws that are based primarily in religious understanding. But that is not the case with HCR.

    Tom (27592e)

  104. JD – don’t you think this thread has been hijacked enough by my beliefs??

    My views on abortion are complex. I’ll happily have that conversation with you another day.

    Tom (27592e)

  105. Happy Friday, y’all.

    Tom (27592e)

  106. I am just trying to imagine a claculus that would make providing health insurance to all a moral basic need, but would not protect the sanctity of a life. And there are non-religious reasons for those civil issues that you appear to have a problem with in #104.

    JD (b42396)

  107. “…with my particular religious values does not mean that its passage amounts to me forcing my religion on you.”

    “…however, since I’ve already expressed my moral superiority over everyone here except from those of my harem, don’t let that distract from my main message that you’re basically subhumans and not even worthy of ridicule.”

    Dmac (799abd)

  108. Happy Friday, y’all.

    as he tucks his tail and runs away, leaving the shreds of his sophistry blowing in the breeze….

    you still haven’t explained how things that have been luxuries throughout the majority of human history have suddenly become rights you want everyone else to pay for with taxes assessed in a Marxian format, just so you have have a warm fuzzy feeling in lieu of the sense of dignity true sacrifice on your part, free and willfully done of your own volitional act would provide.

    you are just the latest embodiment of the saying “Its not that christianity has been tried and found wanting, its that it has been tried and found difficult.”…. you refuse to make sacrifices of your own free will, yet have no moral qualms imposing your guilt on others by force…..

    i reject your guilt, and refuse to pay my money to assuage it. i can think of little that is more immoral than such an act. its your moral creed, you live it. stay the hell out of my life and my wallet: Robin Hood was a common bandit and you are no better, but at least he had the gumption to do his own stealing: you lack even that honesty of purpose.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  109. “…however, since I’ve already expressed my moral superiority over stupidity to everyone…”

    FTFY!

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  110. Anyone who comes on here and uses their religion to prove their alleged moral superiority is to be immediately mocked and scorned. It’s a cheap, tawdry, theatrical little guttersnipe of a move, and lil’ snotnose tommy proves it.

    Dmac (799abd)

  111. For me, the pursuit of others’ freedom to be healthy is more compelling than preserving the freedom of citizens not to have to pay for said healthcare. Once we’ve got our basic needs covered, we can start talking about which costs are optional.

    So, I presume you are spending your time working to stop smoking and obesity. Good for you ! How many hours a week do you spend on that worthy Cause ? 20 ? 40 ?

    Come on tell us how devoted you are to the cause. You have a right to be proud.

    Unless, of course, you are just spouting bullshit.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Mike K (2cf494)

  112. Redefining words like “freedom” to mean free crap from government is pretty bold.

    Did I say “bold”? I meant BS, Tom. BS that any one with integrity would be ashamed of.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  113. Of course, Tom’s “moral position” assumes that people are dying from a lack of healthcare / health insurance ( the conflation of the two by Tom is not an accident – its a deliberate fraudulent tactic of advocates of socialized medicine ).

    Note that as Megan McArdle has been discussing here and on her blog, there really isn’t any evidence that people are dying from a lack of health insurance. Regardless of the myriad myths being promulgated by Democrats like the President.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  114. there is no right to be “happy”. there is only a right to pursue happiness, as you define it, within reason.

    seems like Tom, and all the other usual suspects here, need to read the Bill of No Rights, and apply them to their daily lives.

    if Tom is that worried about his moral standing with G*d or his conscience, he owes it to himself to do something about it on his own, not come here and whine for a handout on his behalf.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  115. If you want me to take you seriously, I do insist on discussion that is at least decent, if not respectful. Or more simply: I don’t make personal attacks. So don’t attack me personally.

    I don’t really care if you take me seriously or not. Getting you to agree with me isn’t my motivation. Mocking your ridiculous assertions and pointing out the hypocrisies in your positions is performing a greater public service than whether or not you come to agree with me.

    We aren’t going to agree. On anything. Ever. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t get to attack your arguments with gusto. Deal with it.

    Or more simply: I don’t make personal attacks. So don’t attack me personally.

    You’re not getting it. I consider your entire ethic of state-mandated coercion to be an attack against my personal freedom, and an affront to individual liberty. People with your attitudes about the role of the state in people’s lives are worthy of nothing but contempt. I don’t care that you personally have the mentality of a slave, but I do care that you are promoting that mindset as a positive good that should be applied to the whole society. So you better believe I’m going to call you out on it repeatedly.

    Another Chris (35bdd0)

  116. even if we took every dollar in the federal budget and spent it on health care, it would do nothing about the leading cause of death in the US.

    hell, we could take every dollar in the US economy, put it into health care spending, and it still wouldn’t help reduce the death toll.

    so, the question then is, at what point is the investment in health care counter productive? What are we giving up by plowing money into this cause, at the expense of others and is it really the best use of those funds?

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  117. “Note that as Megan McArdle has been discussing here and on her blog, there really isn’t any evidence that people are dying from a lack of health insurance.”

    Then why would someone have health insurance?

    imdw (603c39)

  118. Then why would someone have health insurance?

    same reason you buy life insurance, or auto insurance, or homeowners insurance, or renters insurance, or business insurance, or flood insurance, or fire insurance, or…….

    because you can afford it, and you might need it. you, instead, want someone to buy it for you, in case you need it.

    see the difference between the two practices?

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  119. “Then why would someone have health insurance?”

    imdw – Why not ask the people who insist it is an inalienable right?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  120. Comment by imdw — 2/26/2010 @ 9:07 pm

    A classic example of imdw’s practice of making silly comments where he pretends not to understand the point of a discussion and introduces a non sequitur based on that pretense.

    This act got old a long time ago.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  121. “see the difference between the two practices?”

    If you’re not going to die without it, then no problem if we cancel grandma’s health insurance, right?

    imdw (c5488f)

  122. “If you’re not going to die without it, then no problem if we cancel grandma’s health insurance, right?”

    imdw – You can probably find the difference between health insurance, health care and life insurance on answers.com to solve your confusion.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  123. If you’re not going to die without it, then no problem if we cancel grandma’s health insurance, right?

    If that’s what grandma wishes, then let’s allow her the freedom to run her own life.

    Unlike good little Maoists like yourself, who always know what’s better for the little people.

    BTW, have you ever held an actual job in your life? And if so, have you ever worked in the private sector? Every time I ask this question I get no response from you, ever. Which begs another question – have you spend the entirety of your life on a gov’t payroll, or does daddy provide a trust fund instead?

    Dmac (799abd)

  124. The act continues.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  125. Dmac – If we all worked for the government, could we all get the same health insurance plans the members of the House and Senate have, paid for by the taxes of corporations and…Nevermind.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  126. “imdw – You can probably find the difference between health insurance, health care and life insurance on answers.com to solve your confusion.”

    Oh I know the difference. And the connections. Which is why its so odd that people fight the rather common sense idea that lacking insurance might lead to poorer health outcomes. Like death.

    “BTW, have you ever held an actual job in your life? And if so, have you ever worked in the private sector? Every time I ask this question I get no response from you, ever”

    I’ve worked in all sorts of entities. Small (including for myself) to large, for-profit to non-profit. But never for a government: state local or federal.

    imdw (490521)

  127. Can’t hold a job.

    AD - RtR/OS! (13c1a1)

  128. I live to make you feel better about yourself.

    imdw (db3ac7)

  129. ^Spoken like a true Trustafarian.

    Dmac (799abd)

  130. Which is why its so odd that people fight the rather common sense idea that lacking insurance might lead to poorer health outcomes. Like death.

    the secret to immortality has been discovered by imdw…. if you have health insurance, you won’t die!!

    woohooo!

    (you idiot.)

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  131. That’s exactly what Ponce de Leon was looking for – a comprehensive health insurance policy.

    Dmac (799abd)

  132. “the secret to immortality has been discovered by imdw…. if you have health insurance, you won’t die!!”

    You realize that when people say that a negative consequence of something is death, we’re talking about premature death, right? You’re not this dumb are you?

    imdw (017d51)

  133. How do we know what “premature” is?
    Is there a journal somewhere that has each persons’ death date in it?
    What arrogance – usually you have to be a Boomer to display such hubris and chutzpah, not to mention self-esteem.

    AD - RtR/OS! (7d5017)

  134. Let me get this straight, imdw writes “You’re not this dumb are you?

    The irony is strong in this one.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  135. I think whatever Tom and IMDW do for a living should be mandated “free” to the public. Also mandate their labor should be “free” since it is a public good.

    ** Dear jesus people are stupid and naive.

    HeavenSent (c3c032)

  136. Has there ever been a case where lack of health insurance was listed on a death certificate as a cause of death?

    JD (21ab8e)

  137. Lack of insurance is the leading cause of death in the US.

    HeavenSent (c3c032)

  138. You’re not this dumb are you?

    for someone who wrote that not having health insurance causes death, you’re hardly in a position to be questioning how dumb anyone is, unless the discussion is in reference to yourself.

    your poor sentence construction and sloppy writing, traditionally a byproduct of sloppy thinking, are all we have to w*rk with here, so i used what i had. should you wish to admit your error and start over, i’ll be happy to mock your new stupidity, just as i have the current one.

    however, if, by some miracle, you manage to get something right, i will take that as a sign form on high, and go by a lottery ticket.

    furthermore, you have yet to address my contention that all the health insurance in the world will do nothing to reduce the leading cause of death in the US. i’m still waiting for some sort of response on that point.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  139. People who have Medicaid live to 115.

    HeavenSent (c3c032)

  140. Leading cause of death is getting old.

    Liberals act as if death is forever delay-able.

    HeavenSent (c3c032)

  141. actually, the leading cause of death is being alive.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  142. “How do we know what “premature” is?”

    Fascinating.

    “for someone who wrote that not having health insurance causes death”

    You really don’t understand how lack of insurance can lead to lack of care that makes your death come sooner than it would have otherwise?

    imdw (6eb217)

  143. having health care might make your death come sooner than it would have otherwise too.

    therefore, using your brand of logic, the statement “health insurance causes premature death” is perfectly reasonable, and just as valid as your claim…..

    see how that w*rks? go ahead, take another whack at it: this is fun. %-)

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  144. “therefore, using your brand of logic, the statement “health insurance causes premature death” is perfectly reasonable, and just as valid as your claim…”

    You should run with that.

    imdw (8f8ead)

  145. I would only like to say that living in a country where health care is a nightmare is certainly better than living in a country where there is no debate.

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  146. You should run with that.

    so you agree that i should run with the concept that your claims are so poorly constructed, pathetically execrable in their expression, and utterly worthless from an intellectual viewpoint that they are only fit for mockery and derision?

    great, i’ll continue to do that. i realize its a big step for you to admit your abject failure, and i am proud of the part we here had in helping you to finally recognize the blindingly obvious, if only for a moment.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  147. “so you agree that i should run with the concept that your claims are so poorly constructed, pathetically execrable in their expression, and utterly worthless from an intellectual viewpoint that they are only fit for mockery and derision?”

    Run with the idea that having access to health care is as poor for your health as not having access to care.

    You understand what you said. You don’t have to pretend you dont.

    “great, i’ll continue to do that. i realize its a big step for you to admit your abject failure, and i am proud of the part we here had in helping you to finally recognize the blindingly obvious, if only for a moment.”

    I can tell when I’m around a winner. That’s for sure.

    imdw (2c1194)

  148. @147: thank you for admitting your failure…..it is your first step towards adequacy.

    one day, when you decide to pull your head out of your ass, and look at life as it is, instead as how you wish it to be, you can move forward.

    until then, at least you have made the first move.

    HTH. HAND. etc…..

    redc1c4 (fb8750)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1442 secs.