Morality Games
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,733
- Reaction score
- 1,156
- Location
- Iowa
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Damned right! Only Conservatism has the correct answers to the problems we face as a nation. Because each time Liberals have been in power, there has been nothing but failure after failure!
No reason to senastionalize it at all, since it has een their stated goalI doubt you value self-consistency, but if there is nothing unusual about wishing the opposition didn't exist, then there is no reason to sensationalize the wish of liberals their opposition didn't exist.
No reason to senastionalize it at all, since it has een their stated goal
What for?? You're the one who wants Conservatives out of the political discourse!I can't decide if you don't care if you are hypocritical, or if you really don't notice, or if you have noticed but are playing dumb in the hope nobody else will notice.
What for?? You're the one who wants Conservatives out of the political discourse!
What for?? You're the one who wants Conservatives out of the political discourse!
And you want liberals out of the political discourse. And all opposing ideologies try to minimize the influence of the other ideology.
You really didn't notice the hypocrisy in complaining about how liberals want to get conservatives out of the political discourse when you declared your desire for a conservative hegemony and for liberalism to longer exist? It's the same thing.
Aside from death panels?
1. You'll have no choice in what health benefits you receive.
2. No chemo for older Medicare patients.
3. Illegal immigrants will get free health insurance.
4. The government will set doctors' wages.
The Top 5 Lies About Obama's Health Care Reform - Newsweek.com
The AP is technically correct in stating that end-of-life counseling is not the same as a death panel. The New York Times is also correct to point out that the health care bill contains no provision setting up such a panel.
What both outlets fail to point out is that the panel already exists.
H.R. 1 (more commonly known as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even more commonly known as the Stimulus Bill and aptly dubbed the Porkulus Bill) contains a whopping $1.1 billion to fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is the brain child of former Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle. Before the Porkulus Bill passed, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant governor of New York, wrote in detail about the Council's purpose.
Daschle's stated purpose (and therefore President Obama's purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make. The end result is to slow costly medical advancement and consumption. Daschle argues that Americans ought to be more like Europeans who passively accept "hopeless diagnoses."
McCaughey goes on to explain:
Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.
More than all other presidents before him combined?
After harshly criticizing President Bush for running $3.3 trillion in deficits over eight years, President Obama's budget would run $7.6 trillion in deficits over what would be his eight years in the Oval Office. Moreover, President Obama would run up more debt over his eight years than all other Presidents in American history--from George Washington through George W. Bush--combined. As a result of these deficits, net interest spending would reach $840 billion in 2020
Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined
The major difference is that Liberalism has nothing but lies and emotions whereas Conservatism is grounded in the Truth.
Quote:
More than all other presidents before him combined?
Link
Quote:
After harshly criticizing President Bush for running $3.3 trillion in deficits over eight years, President Obama's budget would run $7.6 trillion in deficits over what would be his eight years in the Oval Office. Moreover, President Obama would run up more debt over his eight years than all other Presidents in American history--from George Washington through George W. Bush--combined. As a result of these deficits, net interest spending would reach $840 billion in 2020
Link
Quote:
Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined
Its credible if he keeps spending at the rate he is, do you see any sign he's going to change that? I dontNone of that is credible. There is no telling what Obama's deficits will be until his tenure in office is finished.
There is furthermore no proof higher and higher deficits is something any president could have avoided; on the contrary, deficits are projected to rise significantly no matter what is done or who is in office.
The White House's 2011 budget is only the second-most interesting budget proposal released recently. First prize goes to Congressman Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, who's released a budget proposal that actually erases the massive long-term deficit.
That's not mere press release braggadocio. CBO agrees (pdf). Under the CBO's likeliest long-term scenario, deficits are at 42 percent of GDP in 2080. Under Ryan's proposal, we're seeing surpluses of 5 percent of GDP by that time.
Oh really?
Link -Wash. Post
Its credible if he keeps spending at the rate he is, do you see any sign he's going to change that? I dont
I'm torn. I don't like the bills in the House or Senate. I also don't think Obama's bill is much better. But I think the Republican ideas are ludicrous. It would undouctedly cost more to go the step by step approach and they know it. They just want to stall so it falls through. In fact, everything they have done has been a threater show and I'm pretty sick of it. So I'll probably end up supporting a bill pushed through by reconciliation just because I'm sick of the tactics that Republicans have stooped to in order to sway public opinion.
states that have enacted tort reform have seen minimal decreases in the cost of malpractice insurance.One part of the Republican bill that I like it the tort reform. It is far to easy to sue doctors for malpractice.
states that have enacted tort reform have seen minimal decreases in the cost of malpractice insurance.
Is anyone surprised?
I'm not a partisan but I've got to say Obama has shown a real desire to make something happen that both parties can support, the last year of his efforts are evidence of that enough for me.
states that have enacted tort reform have seen minimal decreases in the cost of malpractice insurance.
Impact of State Laws Limiting Malpractice Awards on Geographic Distribution of PhysiciansThere is a sizable body of economic literature demonstrating that the legal environment in a State affects the frequency of malpractice claims and the size of the awards. For examples, Zuckerman, Bovbjerg, and Sloan demonstrated that physicians in States with caps on damages in malpractice cases experience lower premiums than physicians in States without such laws. Danzon found that damage awards in States with caps on damages were 23 percent lower than in States without caps.
In another article, Kessler and McClellan examined the impact of tort reforms on the practice of defensive medicine and found that tort reforms such as reasonable limits on noneconomic damages, which have been in effect in California for 25 years, can reduce health care costs by 5 percent to 9 percent without substantial effects on mortality or medical complications. Proponents of tort reform legislation emphasize that only 28 percent of physician payments for malpractice insurance are allotted to patients and that the remaining 72 percent are consumed by administrative and related costs.
They weren't in the bill, therefore they cannot exist.
I'm not a partisan but I've got to say Obama has shown a real desire to make something happen that both parties can support, the last year of his efforts are evidence of that enough for me.
Then the reform must have been insufficient.states that have enacted tort reform have seen minimal decreases in the cost of malpractice insurance.
Yeah, they'll add the death squads and gulags later one. :lol:I would have thought that being unable to pass it through in one fell swoop, the sensible thing would be to pass points that they are in agreement with.
They can always come back with more clauses later on.
Let us try and get something done.
I would have thought that being unable to pass it through in one fell swoop, the sensible thing would be to pass points that they are in agreement with.
They can always come back with more clauses later on.
Let us try and get something done.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?