Rep. Westmoreland: Healthcare vote fundamentally alters nation

U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland

The Democrat victory on healthcare Sunday night “will fundamentally alter the nature of our nation by implementing a government takeover of healthcare that Americans don’t want and can’t afford,” said U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Grantville).

The Democratic healthcare plan passed 219-212.

“This vote creates an expensive new entitlement that implements a government takeover of one-sixth of the American economy,” the Third District congressman said. “This law will raise taxes on all Americans, it will kill jobs in a lagging economy, it will put mandates on Americans and on businesses, it will put government in between doctors and their patients, it will raise the premiums of people who currently have insurance.

“The Democratic healthcare bill will add $2.6 trillion in new spending. There’s no free lunch,” Westmoreland said. “We’ll either tax ourselves to the point we’re not competitive internationally or we’ll simply add on more and more debt. Regardless, the bottom line is we cannot afford this new entitlement.

“We have bills that as a nation we can’t pay as it is. Now we’re adding on more stress to an overburdened system. Our debt obligations threaten to put our economy in critical care, and we’re crippling the ability of innovative Americans to create new jobs,” the former Fayette County resident said.

“There’s no doubt that there are many Americans facing tragic situations because they lack health insurance. Many more are underinsured and millions live in fear of losing their coverage. By opposing this legislation, we are not belittling or ignoring the real crisis in our nation’s health care system. Republicans have put forth responsible reforms that have fallen on deaf ears with this Democratic Congress and administration. No matter how great our desire to cover each and every American who lacks coverage, we do not serve the greater good if our actions bankrupt our nation,” Westmoreland said.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Ninja - You're so much

fun.

The post office is the first example of how political influence purchased a monopoly. As you may or may not know Ben Franklin ran most of the postal service before and during the war. Following ratification, he contracted these routes to the government for a nice profit and ensured a continuing stream of income for himself, all with no competition. Look it up.

However, it is there in the Constitution and so is the USPS, they compete not so well against, FEDEX, UPS, and up until recently DHL. Fact is if they gave the work to FEDEX and UPS we would have a much better system and we wouldn't be paying for a service we don't use. It would be only people who use it.

Contracting the USPS to private enterprise would not be contrary to the Constitution, as Ben Franklin agreed so many years ago.

On the FBI, CIA, and DEA, they too are an extension of police and defense.

Yes, I served and served proudly 1966 to 1970, how about you?

Any other thought provoking questions?

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Gosh, You Mean

those founding fathers were not immune to political influence and the Constitution is not a perfect document? Who woulda thunk it? You shouldn't reveal such shocking news to GPAT right before Christmas lest he keel over in the cranberry sauce. Yes, I knew old Ben was into the postal game way back when. So, why are you saying that government should have a monopoly on defense? Aren't the defense concerns of the west coast of the US different from those of the east coast? Are the concerns of Texas and Arizona the same as for Maine and Minnesota? Why not let defense forces compete? I believe you are in favor of competing currencies as espoused by Ron Paul? Why not defense forces? What is sacrosanct about defense and not the post office? Nope, never served--was 4F in too many ways, but did try.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Ninja

Interesting question, I have had some mental exercise on this very point. It is I suppose possible for corporations to fund defense, they have the most to lose from a material standpoint. Can't you see USS Exxon?

But I have come to the conclusion that the Constitution is about "common" defense and therefore all that benefit from the security should pay for this. The states, that were once countries, have given up or lost most of their independence from the central government, therefore they too should pay.

The bottom line is that among the enumerated powers is the defense of the country and it is up to the government to protect us. Owning to the fact that they do nothing well, it is a frightening prospect. It's too bad you weren't in the military, then you too could see how poorly the government runs oue Armed Services.

So, if we focus on the role of government again: the protection of life, liebery and property, clearly defense falls within this role.

Competing currencies we will save for another day, but let's say that in a truly free market there is no need for "one currency" or a private central bank (monopoly), currency after all is simply a tool to transfer wealth from one person to another.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Check Out David Friedman

Check out David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom for all you want to know on this point and more. He is Milton's son. Do you also call for free emigration/immigration? Why should some people be doomed to live in failed nations like Haiti and others in Africa just because of the circumstances of their birth. If were are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, then why prevent people all over the world from seeking out the best place to enjoy those rights? It's just like the competing currency/defense force issue. So, once you go down that road, the free movement of people around the world is where you end up. Also, why shouldn't kids be able to divorce their parents? Why the arbitrary age of 18 to become a full-fledged citizen? Don't you think most 7-8 year olds know if they are getting a raw deal in the parenting department and are capable of choosing the best place for them to live? These questions and more are what await you at the end of the long and slippery slope of libertarianism. Happy pondering during the holidays!!!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Ninja - The problem with Libertarianism

just like every other philosophy is that it is not "pure". There are and should be limits on individual freedom, just not too many. For me, I would rather err on the side of freedom than government control, do you see this differently?

Let's take each one of these, one at a time. Which one first?

You choose.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
The Problem with Libertarianism

is that it works only in a universe consisting of one person. Once you start adding players, the underlying principles start to unravel. Sorry, what are we taking one at a time?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
I will start at the beginning

of this string, so we aren't all strung out.

lookout2011
lookout2011's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/19/2010
PTC O

I'll join in:

Defense budget + Social Security + debt payments + Infrastructure + States Aid + Medicare + Medicaid + Parks, government land upkeep, etc. + Soldiers Pensions + VA + Oh, OK enough for now.

This may be as much as 80% of the federal budget, so whack away!
Cut the other 20% if you want (all departments, for instance).

We need about 20 Trillion to break even, plus a year's budget that is left.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
lookout - I have a better

idea. Let's take all the money the country brings in in taxes, then let's divide it up proportionaly based on the current spending alottments.

That's it that's what we have to live with, want more?

Well we could simply freeze spending along with the above, freeze hiring too.

Then we could withdraw our troops from all over the world, keep the Navy to protect our shores and project power if we need to but bring our troops home.

Want more?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
SF no need for insults

why is it when progressives cannot cogently argue a point everyone else's education must therefore be deficit?

You need to focus. You went from railing against Insurance CEO pay to now Delta.

I think you proved my point. Your issue is with people who make more then you do. Period. No one should be able to make more so it's all unjustly earned.

You are entitled a better life aren't you?

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
no, you don't know what an

example is... and you certainly don't know how to run a successful ..honest..business.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Really SF.. I have three and have been doing so for 28 years

but why let facts get in the way.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Observerofu - Envy

There are only two reactions to wealth: Envy or Motivation. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the people that have a problem with wealth are envious and/or lazy. There was a time in this country with mothers would stoop down to their children and whisper in their ear, “now you do well in school and work hard and you can drive a big car like Mr. X”. Or a time when fathers would work like a dog everyday to improve the lot of their family in the hopes that one day their children would be able to live a better life, a time when wealth was something to be achieved and not envied. This time has been destoryed by the great destoryer of hope.

In today’s entitlement society, it is all about what the government should be doing for us to provide “social justice” or “level the playing field”. It is not about working hard, it is not about doing the right thing, living within your means and paying your bills no matter what, it is not about anything but working the system to see what you can get for nothing.
It is about finding fault in wealth accumulation and class warfare.

It is this way because the government has trained its people to depend on government to solve all problems. It is this way because government and the people who run government really believe they can solve the ills of society. They can’t. Good intentions and political corruption run amuck. The government is the great destroyer of hope for a brighter future, it is a “road to serfdom”.

The sooner we reduce government size and scope the sooner we can restore the American dream, hope that our children through their own abilities, skills and hard work can achieve greater wealth than we had to give.

We need to restore America by restoring ourselves. Reject government largess.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Wah wah wealth envy
PTC Observer wrote:

There are only two reactions to wealth: Envy or Motivation.

This is a classic False Dilemma Fallacy

There's at least a third reaction to wealth: indifference.

I'll never have as much money as Bill Gates, and I'm neither envious of the man nor motivated to try and attain his level of wealth.

I'm a strong proponent of the progressive income tax system, and my support of this system does not imply in any way shape or form "wealth envy".

"Wealth Envy" is bumper-sticker sloganeering primarily promoted by the likes of Neal Boortz to promote his pseudolibertarian views.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Yes Wealth Envy

The classic response of the pseudo-intellectual that knows little of history and why we have a "progressive" tax structure.

Classic case of Cognitive Disconnect

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
Chris

I totaly agree.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Yes Observerofu

The evil concepts of "incentives" and ROI. Just think what healthcare would be like if some have their way and healthcare becomes a socialized exercise. Something tells me that "movement" will not stop at healhcare. Oh well, it's off to gym.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
PTO now you've gone and done it.

You used credible National sources while the lefty used the LA Times as the basis for thought.

Bacon will be here shortly now to refute your sources and use Media Matters or the Atlantic blog to support his ideology.

Sugarfoot sounds like any number of progressive socialist that want the Government to take care of us. They shield it and wrap it up as taking care of those less fortunate but in reality they just want more handouts. I mean life is hard after all.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, I consider you my

OofU, I consider you my primary source for misinformation. Whenever I want to not know something I just navigate out to "The Citizen" and there you are. Just bubbling over with that right wing propaganda!

BTW, is it true you voted for Jimmie Carter?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Gort well you know

you can go elsewhere right?

And remember simply disagreeing with my opinions only means you disagree. Does not make you right it just makes you disagreeable.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, I told you, I come here

OofU, I told you, I come here on purpose. What about the Jimmie Carter vote?

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
It might interest you to know

I've work many years, paid taxes...AND NO ONE HAS TAKEN CARE OF ME. I've always earned my own living.

I'm not a leftist or rightist, I am a person who stands up and says 'hey this is wrong'

My money doesn't come from being affiliated with the insurance group nor special interest.

A good businessman makes an honest profit off of a good product.

Not to be confused with someone who overcharges and who's business would likely fail and bloated salary would shrink, if it wasn't for the money and power they use to hire paid lobbyist to sway and pay dishonest politicians.

Also not to be confused with someone who would take money from people who can't afford it, but must pay their rates because they have no other choice.

The problem with your little group is that you don't know the difference in a good honest work ethic and swilling off the poor and helpless.

And with that my dear, I'm finished with you. You may have caught my interest if you had tried to argue why these people deserve such salaries and a raise. But you can't. All you can do is take a big old paint brush and try to label people. A lefy? hardly. your friend used National sources? and the LA Times is wrong? Honey, I could get you more, but you aren't worth the effort.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Suggarfoot - I'm sorry

I am sorry, I confused you with someone that can't be confused with the facts.

The poor and the helpless can best be handled by charity, at this time of year I hope you keep this in mind and support those that support others.

We are talk here about business, profit making, capital formation that provide jobs to those who would like not to be poor and helpless. People like yourself for example.

So, if you have a problem with insurance companies, simply stop using their service.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Cyclist - Slow down...

please...your moving too fast for the leftists on this blog. High level math is way too difficult for them...besides it goes against the idea that big business is the problem. It can't be right.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, maybe it’s you and

PTC_0, maybe it’s you and Cyclist that are moving too fast. If I read Cyclist correctly he is making the assumption that private insurance companies pay for all health care in the US. I’m pretty sure that isn’t true.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
No Gort

You're not reading "me" correctly. The exercise was to compare insurance profits to what the US spends annually.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Cyclist, I just didn’t see

Cyclist, I just didn’t see that as a relevant comparison.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Gort,

It is relevant when insurance companies are portrayed as everything that is wrong with the US healthcare system. The interesting thing about this is that it's not just suggarfoot that prescribes to this notion. Look at the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka "Obamacare".

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Cyclist, if insurance

Cyclist, if insurance companies have a bad public image it’s their own fault. They know it and that’s why they spend millions on lawyers, lobbyist, and public relations firms to mask their actions from the general public.

IMO, the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka "Obamacare" didn’t go far enough.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Gort...

So you too prescribe to that "evil" insurance notion, eh? I'm so sorry to hear. As for Obamacare; not to worry. I suspect it will not pass the supremes. Without the mandated insurance thingy, the whole thing starts to unravel.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Cyclist, I really don’t

Cyclist, I really don’t prescribe to any notions, I just call ‘em the way I see ‘em.

I don’t know if healthcare will be overturned, or repealed, or amended. But I do know this. If anyone ever writes an addendum to “Profiles in Courage,” the people responsible for passing even this healthcare bill should be in chapter 1.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - so what did you like about it?

Obamacare....., and what would you have done differently?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, I'm already insured

PTC_0, I'm already insured through my employer, so I didn't gain anything. In June of this year, “Early Retiree Insurance” became law. If I decide to retire next year it may help me out for a few years, until I reach 65.

After all was said and done, in the current social, political, and economic atmosphere, I don’t think anything more could have been done by anyone.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort, so I guess

you thought the idea of universal healthcare was a good idea because it would help everyone?

What if it increased your cost for your healthcare or made you wait a month or so to see your doctor, would you still support it? What if you could only see the doctor the government wants you to see? Would any of this change your mind about the wisdom of Obamacare?

I guess what I am asking is at what point would you change your mind and wish Obamacare had never passed in its current form?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, actually I was under

PTC_0, actually I was under the impression that the current law did not provide for universal healthcare coverage. Am I wrong?

My personal opinion is: giving people affordable access to at least primary care is essential to keeping the total cost of healthcare down. I think of primary medical care as, (like granny used to say,) “the stitch in time that saves nine” and in every ones “enlightened self -interest.” Do you know what I mean by “enlightened self-interest?”

I’ve read this argument many times in “The Citizen”:

Quote:

… it (would) increased your cost for your healthcare or make you wait a month or so to see your doctor, …

Whenever I read it, I get the impression the writer believes that hoards of poor people will suddenly rush out from between the cracks in the pavement and flood into every doctor’s office in the land!

I just don’t see that happening. I’m guessing most doctor’s offices are privately owned businesses. They would have to agree to take on any new patient. If they reached a point of over capacity they would have to turn people away regardless of how they pay for the services. If you’re poor and live in the inner city, your lucky to have a grocery store in the area, forget about a doctors office. The poor from our rural parts of the country have the same problem with availability.

Where will the poor go for service? The same place they do now, they will show up at the hospital emergency room and be either turned away or receive emergency services by the highest cost provider. The highest cost provider then collects from the taxpayers.

You also have to take into consideration that peoples habits don’t change because someone passes a law. If someone is not in the habit of regular visits to the doctor, why would they start now?

Quote:

… at what point would you change your mind and wish Obamacare had never passed in its current form..

This is easy to answer. When someone shows me a better one and willing to do more than just talk about it!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - I suppose

that we will have to wait and see if the law is considered Constitutional before we will know any of this.

I beileve that when something is provided "free" then more people will be inclined to use it, I think this is normal consumer behavior. That's why "buy one get one free" works so well in commerce.

So, if you have healthcare costing nothing, its value will be nothing and then people will use it more. Why wouldn't they? It costs them nothing.

So, let's say I am right on this for arguments sake, if this happens and the supply of doctors is realitively fixed won't that cause a lot of patients waiting for treatment, assessment, etc.? This would include those able to pay for their healthcare too. They would all be in the same line, right?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, I agree with you when

PTC_0, I agree with you when you say,

Quote:

… when something is provided "free" then more people will be inclined to use it, …

I just don’t see the big numbers you imply. Like I said earlier, the majority of the newly insured will have no place new to go for services. I also think when the unemployment rate starts to decreases that the total number of people that are not insured will diminish. Besides, I turn down free offers almost every day, don’t you?

Quote:

…say I am right on this for arguments sake,..

Okay, for the sake of argument, let’s say you’re right and the long lines you talk about come true. I would say, this is the United States of America. Somewhere out there will emerge the “Henry Ford” of healthcare delivery and figure out how to do the job faster.

Example: When I first went into the service, one morning right after breakfast, about 0800, they marched us out to what looked like an old wooden warehouse. There were two or three hundred guys there. We went into a door on one side of the building, and every single one of us was given a physical examination, gave blood and urine for the lab work, and got shots before we exited the door on the other side of the building. Then we marched back in time for chow at 1130.

Does your doctor’s office have that kind of capacity? Neither does mine but it can be done, I’ve seen it with my own eyes.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - you may be right

unfortunately the government must pay some of this, I would say about 1/3. Therefore, if correct, Cyclist is wrong. The profits of insurance companies would pay for 80 or so hours, or 120 hours, or 200 hours. Either way the point is the same, it's not the insurance companies that causes our healthcare delivery issues. So, what do you think Gort? What's your solution?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, well first of all, I

PTC_0, well first of all, I don’t think it’s just government and insurance companies that pays for all the healthcare in this country. The out of pocket expense represents a sizable chunk of that big number as well.

Second, I don’t have a problem with any company making a profit. I do have a problem when a company behaves like racketeers.

Finally, I’m just a guy that lives on a cul-de-sac in Coweta County. I get up in the morning and go to work like everyone else. I don’t have any professional researchers on staff. I’m skeptical of everything I read or hear, and believe only half of what I see!

With that said, do you still want my opinion based on my personal observations?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Absolutely Gort

I am always interested in knowing why people believe what they believe, it is part of the learning process.

May I frame this dialog though?

Can we start by understanding your thoughts on business in general? Then we can get more specific on healthcare companies and the like.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, I don’t mind if you

PTC_0, I don’t mind if you want to “..Frame this dialog…” as long as you don’t mind if I do my best to set you up like a bowling pin! 8-)>

Seriously though, I thought I already framed my general position on business in my last post.

Quote:

… I don’t have a problem with any company making a profit. I do have a problem when a company behaves like racketeers.

Is there something more you need to know? Is my general position on business that much different than yours?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - I don't think so

I believe the following concerning business.

Someone wants to take a risk at deliverying a service or product to consumers. They invest their money or money they get from other investors. They produce (if they can meet all county, city, state, and federal government regulations) and hopefully they sell at a price higher than their cost. Cost of regulation is included in their cost and associate price. If they make a profit they can re-invest it into the business or pay a dividend to their investors, including themselves.

Is this ok with your ideas?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, a little wordy for my

PTC_0, a little wordy for my taste, but, what the heck, I can work with it. Now that we have framed the dialog, I’ll continue with “my” opinion on healthcare.

First of all you have to recognize we have a problem. This is the way I see it. As a percent of GDP, the United States spend about 50% more for healthcare than any other industrial nation. This is bad because it’s not an efficient use of capital when you benchmark it against other industrialized countries. (Example: For each $100 of GDP the US spends about $15 on healthcare. All the rest of the industrial countries spend about $10)

Let me put it another way, lets say you own a barber shop. For every $100 in sales, you have to pay $15 rent on your store. All the rest of the barber shops in town pay $10. All other things being equal, this leaves you at a competitive disadvantage. You either renegotiate your rent, move, or bleed until you go out of business.

Are you with me so far? Shall I continue?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - sure

please continue.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, Sure? Hmmm. Sure,

PTC_0, Sure? Hmmm. Sure, meaning you agree that the US spends too much on healthcare and it leaves us at a competive disadvantage with other industialized nations?

Or do you mean, "Sure" while you raise your eybrows and say "but I dont believe anything you say?"

I couldn't tell by your answer.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort, no eyebrows raised here

I am interested.

You say that the US is non-competitive with other nations. Are you saying that our capital is wasted spending so much on healthcare that we can't invest it in more productive things? Is this really true?

Is there no value created when we have breakthroughs in medicine? It would seem it's something that we could export to those countries that are not doing as well. You know like socialist countries where investment is controlled and technology is thwarted. Or we could simply let patients come here for treatment with our advanced technology. Aren't both these scenarios good for the economy?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, I've got some chores

PTC_0, I've got some chores today, but I'll answer this tonight or tomorrow morning. Before I go, I would like to point out one thing. What I said was, we are at a "competive disadvantage." You said, "non-competive" and they are not the same thing.

Talk to you later.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Westmoreland wins national "Lie Of The Year"!
Lynn Westmoreland wrote:

The Democrat victory on healthcare Sunday night “will fundamentally alter the nature of our nation by implementing a government takeover of healthcare that Americans don’t want and can’t afford,” said U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Grantville).

Congratulations to Lynn Westmoreland! His specious claim that Democrats were somehow "implementing a government takeover of healthcare" was voted 2010 Lie Of The Year by analysts at PoliFact.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Bacon & Westmoreland

Actually, blv that comment originally came from a Consultant, Frank Luntz, NOT Westmoreland.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
AtHomeGym and Westmoreland

I am not surprised Luntz is the one feeding the "hive mind" of the Borg....err, Republican, collective. I doubt Westmoreland has had much in the way of original thought in his life.

Somewhat coincidentally, I just downloaded Luntz's book "Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What They Hear" to my e-reader. Should be a good read.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
We can hear perfectly well Bacon.

"Somewhat coincidentally, I just downloaded Luntz's book "Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What They Hear" to my e-reader. Should be a good read."

Frankly Chrispy, I think reading a book entitled, "Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What They Hear" is a waste of time for you.

It's what you say that so many people disagree with, the same old claptrap from the left that we have been hearing since Marx. If we want to hear from you we simply need to listen to radio Havana. Do you still write their scripts?

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
PoliFact

Voted left wing socialist liar's by Facts-R-US. Lynn Westmoreland is a Patriot! Of course HC law is a thinly disquised takeover of private industry. Why don't we just pass a law that insurance co.'s must cover my auto AFTER the accident, makes about as much sense. All of this is headed to government single payer unless we can kill it. If Anthony Kennedy is a Patriot it will happen. On a side note will Kagan recuse herself? She has already had her fingers in this while at the JD. My gut says 5-4 good guys. -GP

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Patriotism: the last refuge of the scoundrel...
Georgia H8riot wrote:

Voted left wing socialist liar's by Facts-R-US.

I'm curious as to why you reflexively label Polifact as a "left wing socialist liar's" (sic). In looking at their website they seem to take a middle-of-the-road stance, since they supported claims made by George W. Bush and Senator Tom Coburn (!!!), neither of which could be regarded as "left wing". Perhaps in the future you might doing a bit of research before shooting your mouth off and looking like a jackass.

Georgia H8riot wrote:

Lynn Westmoreland is a Patriot! ... If Anthony Kennedy is a Patriot it will happen.

Another question for you: who gives you the right to judge the patriotism of others? There are plenty of people I vehemently disagree with, and you are generally one of them, but I wouldn't question their (or your) patriotism.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Original Thought - Bacon

Those not familar with your subject line of this post should link to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson's_political_views#cite_note-7

Samuel Johnson's famous quote has always been misused and misunderstood. He was indeed a great but odd fellow that authored the first compiled dictionary of the English language.

So, my point is, your subject line should have been, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.", in quotes since this was not your original thought.

Johnson was a master at snubs and insults, believe me Bacon you are no Samuel Johnson, not by a longshot.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Please tell

what does Patriotism mean to you? I did research Polifact http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-vadum/2009/06/03/biased-politifact-... as the article states it has "left leaning DNA".I love what America was BEFORE socialism, not what it is becoming thanks to people like you. And I look like a jackass? By your words you sound like a Marxist. I have known Lynn Westmoreland for almost 50 years and your personal attack calling him a liar is classless and unacceptable. The man is a Patriot in true sense of the word. -GP

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Somalia Beckons....
Georgia H8triot wrote:

what does Patriotism mean to you? I love what America was BEFORE socialism, not what it is becoming thanks to people like you. And I look like a jackass? By your words you sound like a Marxist. I have known Lynn Westmoreland for almost 50 years and your personal attack calling him a liar is classless and unacceptable. The man is a Patriot in true sense of the word. -GP

Patriotism is, quite simply, love of and loyalty to one's country.

Sadly, since by your own words above you've admitted that you no longer love America, you are by definition no longer an American patriot.

May I suggest that you consider relocation to that glibertarian paradise Somalia, where you would be free to worship your false idol Mammon.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Humor Bacon Style

"May I suggest that you consider relocation to that glibertarian paradise Somalia, ....."

Cute.

Somalia seems to be a common theme in your posts, in fact you seem to be quite familar with Somalia. I believe prior to 1989 it was a socialist state that devolved into a clan warfare based society in 1991.

Change the colors of the Somali flag and you get....The single star state flags of Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, etc. A single star representing the power of the state, and exactly what do these countries have in common? A powerful centeral government that provides all needs to all of their citizens. You know spread the wealth countries. Something that I believe you agree with, true?

So, I would suggest that it is you that needs to move to Somalia, it is the natural outcome of your philosophy: chaos, poverty, and starvation.

Happy travels to your devolved socialist paradise. ;-)

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
I, Along with Many Others

intend to RESTORE America to the shining city upon the hill, free of Marxism and Tyranny. It is the right and the duty of ALL Patriots to oppose a government that ignores constitutional liberties. -GP

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Democrats and the takeover of...

healthcare. Most interesting that NPR would acknowledge this. I'm curious how NPR would characterize H.R. 676? Yes, H.R. 676 never made it out of committee but it does show a desire of some Democrats that truly believe that single-payer healthcare is a viable solution.

As for the President and his position, he had stated in town hall meetings back in 2003 that he advocated a single-payer model.

One other thing that is noteworthy in NPR "lie of the year" article is the runner up lie - Charles Rangel. Gee, imagine that.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
It IS a government takeover

To go along with the decades-old state takeover of health insurance that existed long before and turned health care into a government-management kludge in the first place. The idea of insurance companies not being able to sell the same policies across state lines has been a disaster and totally blows away the notion of "free market healthcare causes rising costs."

The problems with healthcare in the US aren't from "too much" free market; it's from way too little.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Correct more Free Market is needed

The inability for me to shop my policies say in Texas is the root cause of the cost.

Let's face it Insurance is a business. They take all the risk. If the Government hands you a monopoly then is it unreasonable to expect a business will not exploit it?

Our Government is the only entity that creates the problems and then rails against the very thing they themselves created.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Reply to DM - Views

I am not a progressive because I don’t believe in the following:

1. It is the proper role of central government to social engineer “equality” and to redistribute wealth from one group of citizens to another group of citizens based need. (Karl Marx, 1849)
2. It is the proper role of central government to directly tax its citizens.
3. It is the proper role of central government to usurp the power of the individual states that make up the United States.
4. It is the proper role of central government to “own” large portions of territory and land.
5. It is the proper role of government to seize private property for public use and the “common good”.
6. It is the proper role of central government to regulate and interfer in free markets between free individuals.

The above is a short list of what I don’t believe but I could go on and on about progressive beliefs and how I don't believe in them.

Here’s what I believe:

It is the primary role of central government to protect life, individual freedom, and property FROM the government, individuals or other nations’ interests.

We should repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution, just to name two.

We should not have a democracy but a Republic (“a Republic for which it stands”)

I believe in free markets and the ability and wisdom of individuals to make rational economic decisions for themselves. I believe that if someone within free markets rob, steal, cheat or otherwise deprive individuals of their property, then they should be charged and if found guilty face punishment under the law.

This is just a quick summary of what I believe, but you can simply read the original Constitution and capture most of what I believe politically. It is the Constitution as framed by greater minds than we have today, certainly more rational than we have today. That is not to say that I disagree with every Amendment, I agree with those that guarantee individual liberty.

Have a wonderful weekend.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Top 10 Disasters of Obamacare

Top 10 Disasters of Obamacare

.New Spending Grows the Federal Deficit

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the official scorekeeper for Congress, sets the projected cost of the health care package from 2010 to 2019 at $940 billion, reducing the deficit by $138 billion.[1] Unfortunately, the true cost of the new law will be far greater.

The CBO is proficient at its work, but it is required to score legislative proposals based on assumptions about the future behavior of Congress—not according to its more likely behavior. The authors of this legislation took advantage of this in crafting the language of the bill, employing several budgetary gimmicks to make it appear cheaper.

These include omitting cuts to Medicare provider payment rates, known as the “doc fix,” double-counting savings from Medicare and the CLASS Act, indexing benefits to general inflation rather than medical inflation, and delaying the expensive provisions of the bill. When these costs are accounted for, the new law is more likely to cost closer to $2.5 trillion.[2] Such levels of spending will not only negate any projected deficit reduction but increase the federal deficit further than would prior law.

2. Bending the Cost Curve in the Wrong Direction

The provisions of the legislation aimed at reducing health care spending are reactionary, addressing the symptoms rather than the root causes of growth in spending.[3] Instead of reducing spending in health care, the bill will increase overall health spending in the U.S. by $222 billion between now and 2019.[4]

In addition, CBO reports that premiums in the non-group market will increase by 10–13 percent as a result of the bill.[5]

3. New Taxes and Mandates Hinder Economic Growth

The new law requires employers who do not offer insurance deemed adequate by the federal government to pay a fine of $2,000 for every employee, exempting the first 30 employees. Employers forced to pay this penalty will have to reduce wages, cut jobs, or rely more heavily on part-time workers. Any of these options will be bad for the economy.[6]

The health care package also taxes investment income as a means to provide additional revenue to pay for the bill. The tax will discourage investment in the U.S. economy, thereby decreasing capital and reducing the potential for economic growth.

Heritage Foundation analysts Karen Campbell, Ph.D., and Guinevere Nell found that this tax, at President Obama’s proposed rate of 2.9 percent, would reduce household disposable income by $17.3 billion a year.[7] The rate included in new law is 3.8 percent, so the actual effects are likely to be even more dramatic.

4. Regulations Grow Government Control over Health Care

The new law empowers the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to define a required benefits package that every health plan in America must include. Moreover, the law now allows the federal government to dictate the prices that insurers set through new age rating regulations and medical-loss ratio requirements.

The bill also opens the door for a de facto public option by creating government-sponsored national health plans to compete against private health plans in the health insurance exchanges the states are required to establish. The national health plans would be administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which currently runs the Federal Civil Service and also administers the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which serves federal workers and retirees.[8] OPM would make the rules for these government-sponsored plans.

Because of this difference in regulatory authority, it would be very easy for the OPM-administered health plans to secure an unfair advantage against other plans in the state insurance exchanges. The reason: They will not be subjected to the exact same rules and regulations that are set by HHS for private health insurers. This could result in a gaming of the system in favor of the government-sponsored health plans. It is also possible that the government-sponsored health plans could be protected from insolvency through taxpayer bailouts.[9] Government sponsored enterprises are usually “too big to fail.”

5. Expanding Broken Entitlement Programs

Under the new law, Medicaid will be extended to all Americans who fall below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. This is one of the primary means through which coverage is increased among the uninsured. According to CBO, of the 32 million newly insured in 2019, half will receive their coverage from Medicaid.[10]

As it stands, Medicaid is a low-quality, poorly functioning program that fails to meet the needs of the Americans it serves. In most states, Medicaid beneficiaries have great difficulty finding a doctor who will treat them at the program’s low reimbursement rates and are more likely than the uninsured to rely on emergency rooms for care. Heritage Foundation Health Policy Fellow Brian Blase reports that, following an expansion of Tennessee’s Medicaid program, health outcomes in Tennessee actually deteriorated and Tennessee’s mortality rate declined at a much slower rate than surrounding states that did not expand their Medicaid programs.[11]

6. Burdening State Budgets

The reconciliation bill ensures that the federal government will cover the expansion of Medicaid benefits in all 50 states until 2017. Federal matching rates will decrease from 100 percent in 2017 to 93 percent in 2019, resting permanently there. Moreover, the 100 percent federal match rate does not include administrative costs, which Heritage analyst Ed Haislmaier finds will accrue a cost to the states of $9.6 billion between 2014 and 2019.[12]

The health care reconciliation bill further adds to several states’ new costs by changing Medicaid funding formulas. The new law would increase payments for primary care providers to match Medicare payment rates. In the initial years of the expansion, the federal government will provide 100 percent of the funding. However, after two years, federal funding for increases in provider payment rates will end, leaving states to either find a way to pick up the cost or go back to lower reimbursement rates. This provision would thus only temporarily solve the problems Medicaid beneficiaries have finding primary care, instead digging an even bigger financial hole for the states, whose budgets are already in the red due to decreasing revenues.[13]

7. Neglecting Medicare

Medicare is due to become insolvent in 2016, and long-term unfunded liabilities exceed $38 trillion.[14] To address this, Medicare provider payment rates are scheduled to decrease annually according to the Sustainable Growth Rate. However, Congress votes to suspend these cuts every year, as it is a well-known fact that severe cuts in provider payments would result in many physicians refusing to see Medicare patients altogether.

Congress did not include a permanent way to repeal and pay for the cuts to physician reimbursement rates in their health care bills. Instead, they added a similar and even more unlikely “fix” to create savings in Medicare: more than half a trillion dollars in cuts to the program. These include billions in cuts to the popular Medicare Advantage program, which creates savings for seniors and gives them more options and control over their care. These savings—assuming they ever occur—will be used not to extend the solvency of the Medicare program but to fund the new entitlement programs that are now law.

8. Creates Discrimination Against Low Income Workers

The employer mandate requires employers to offer a federally defined level of insurance or pay a fine. Moreover, even if an employer does offer insurance but their low-income employees qualify and elect to enter the health exchange instead, the employer will pay a $3,000 penalty for each employee who makes this choice. This is in addition to the cost of offering insurance.

In several cases, depending on the proportion of an employer’s workforce that comes from low-income families, it would be more beneficial for employers to drop coverage altogether rather than pay for the increased penalty for employees in the exchange. This creates an incentive for employers to avoid hiring workers from low-income families, hurting those who need jobs the most.[15]

9. Exchange Eligibility Creates Inequity

The new law will create generous subsidies for Americans to purchase insurance in the newly created health exchanges. However, these subsidies will be available only to those who fall between 133 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level and are not offered federally defined sufficient assistance by their employer to purchase health insurance. All other Americans—including those in the very same income bracket—will not get subsidies but will instead rely only on the current tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance for federal assistance to purchase coverage. For workers with comparable incomes, the difference between this and the generous subsidy to buy insurance in the exchange will be thousands of dollars.[16]

The federal government will thus create a gross inequity between Americans making similar incomes. It is unlikely that this will be tolerated for long by the American public, which will instead demand that the subsidies be made more equitable. However, doing so will add enormously to the cost of the government overhaul of the health care system.

10. Questions of Constitutionality

The new law requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. This represents an unprecedented extension of congressional power—never before has the federal government required Americans to purchase a good or service as a stipulation of being a lawful citizen.[17]

The health care overhaul also diminishes the federalist system upon which the U.S. was founded, which grants certain powers to the states in order to limit those of the federal government. The new law undermines state authority through the individual mandate to purchase insurance, a mandate to expand Medicaid (a state–federal joint program), and several new federal regulations of the insurance industry.

The End of the Beginning

These disasters are only the beginning of the vast effects the President’s health care overhaul will have on the U.S. As bits and pieces of the law are implemented, its effects on states, businesses, and Americans of every ilk will become manifest. Congress and the American people should not view passage of the liberals’ health care package as the end of the debate on reform. Rather, the long and tedious journey toward restoring personal control over health care dollars and decisions is just beginning.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
kawfi

Well, (as Reagan said) your diatribe is simply too long to comment upon fully!
No one wants to cripple the American incentive to do well and even better than their family and friends. But when a certain area makes some of us suffer much more than is rightful, then corrections need to be made.
Such as healthcare, safety, food, shelter and education.

Those things are not "creeping socialism."

You say things like, "CBO is wrong" due to ignorance I think.
Words like "deemed adequate" what and by whom?

Forced insurance upon employers by the government! That doesn't mean employer provides such insurance free...employee must contribute----either by giving to the insurance costs or fines. You know it can't be unreasonable.

You say "investment income" will be taxed at some small number. Mine is taxed now at higher rates than proposed except for municipality bonds.

Tell the whole story and maybe you can convince someone of some of your views!

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
"You Picked a Fine Time to Lead Us, Barack"
Git Real
Git Real's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/17/2006
Oops...

New site is taking a little gittin' used to. Is it slow or is it just my perception?

GAltant
GAltant's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2009
S Lindsey-I guess only time will tell

I guess only time will tell if we end up with a single payer system.
Its now the law of the land.

I am glad that the brakes have been put on the insurance companies...and glad to see high risk co-ops being set up.

doright
doright's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2008
GAltant: Single payer on the way

GAltant the health care bill was set up so that private insurance will go away after 2014 at which time the government will only have a single payer system to implement.

Now won't that be special.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
doright

I think we will have single payer long before 2014!

Insurance companies had their heyday and failed. Costs too high and efficiency is absent! Plus 40 million have no insurance.

Git Real
Git Real's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/17/2006
Thanks For Nuttin' Wastemoreland

6 years of a Republican majority and you and the rest of the clowns grow our govenment and increase wasteful gumament spending. Look at the wasteful spending that YOUR senate candidate foisted on us when shoving through that farm bill a couple of years ago.

Instead of ramming through Social Security reform, limiting government, and holding the line on wasteful spending; YOU and the rest of your Republicrat cronies gave the American people 'Democrate Lite' in compromosing with the same slime you criticize in your statement above.

Shame on you Lynn. I'm voting for ANYBODY who runs against you. Your campaign vows from years ago still ring in my ears. "If it grows government, increases spending and....." Hollow words indeed.

Go away you hypocrite. You talk about bankrupting our country as if it were a true concern to you. Guess you only take notice when Democrats waste money.

How hard do you think it is for us producers to actually take your words and contrived concerns seriously?

You are guilty of enabling the left in destroying the economic and liberty foundations that have made this country great. You are NOT part of the solution. You ARE the problem.

Let's get rid of ALL of these clowns this November.

doright
doright's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2008
Git Real

Git I think you have had to much sun. I know you are giddy from the rain finally giving us a break but your nonsense statements are an embarrassment.

First, Congressman Westmoreland has not, never has, and stands against growing our government. As a constituent it would do you well to follow the Congressman's record or at least look at it from time to time so as to not embarrass yourself and others of this county.

Second, Congressman Westmoreland has called out Republicans when they waste money as well. Please take time to listen to his comments on the House floor or go to YouTube to see them.

Third, no one enables the left to do anything they are quite capable of bringing their big government agenda all by themselves. They can do this because they have had the majority for many many years in Congress.

And Finally, There are many in Congress Git fighting hard for your freedom. We have many brave and courageous House and Senate people fighting on your ungrateful behalf. So please get the facts before you spout off on your rambling tangents.

Git Real
Git Real's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/17/2006
DoLIttleRight

You are so full of it. As a former life-long, die-hard, in-the-trenches Republican I know better. How convienent that the Republicans have suddenly found their conservative fiscal responsible roots since losing power. Where were they (YOU) when they weilded the power? They were compromising with the Democrats and yielding the strong footholds of the free enterprise system, liberty, opportunity and... *Freedom* while doing nothing to reverse the destructive policies that contributed to allowing us to slide into this mess in the first place.

Why do I suspect that you either work for Lynn or some other career that operates at the expense of Other People's Money? Or you have your nose buried up so far in GOP's butt because it allows to you to 'Be Somebody' in your own eyes.

Don't give me that dribble about the GOP being the Guardians of liberty, fiscal responsibility and opportunity. It makes your nose grow while making very visible those brown smears on the tip of it.

You best head back to the shallow part of the pool with BladderBoy and argue about who has the hottest Snuggies.

Meanwhile I'm going stand up and spout off on my rambling tangents. I refuse to continue voting for, or somehow enabling the same candy-assed Republican that helped get us in this mess. It is nauseating to watch them prance over to Tea Party movement of the people while shouting out "Me too... Me Too...."

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Westmoron

You made your 1st mistake when you voted him in. Not like he wasn't a known GA politician. I always said, I had more in common w/ a black, Repub from Columbus than some rich white guy from Campbellton. Your 2nd chance was not to vote for the party & vote for the Catholic Dem from Newnan last go 'round. Like being a Dem made him some sorta ranting liberal. Just feel good that the Athens district has its own fool, a real Broun clown. At least DeKalb Dems had the good sense to rid us of their mistake. Where's Spear...Vote Republican? That BOE we have has done a good conservative job too. I begin to ramble.

Git Real
Git Real's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/17/2006
He "BEGINS to ramble????

You begin to ramble???

Ummm...I supported him the State House you goof. Following his tenure there he lost my support.

Your blabbering bladder dripping response was so predictable. You haven't changed a bit.

Oh well... I'm out of here. No sense in listening to the hot air exhausting from the lips of such..... I find in more mentally stimulating hearing the hot air exit a set of Vance & Hines.

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Git did not vote..

(Not that I care) For the record: You did not vote for Westmoron in his 1st or 2nd term? You know ewe are a sheep & the mantra is "Vote Republican"

Git Real
Git Real's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/17/2006
Bladder's Dribblin' From The Lips Without Even Thinkun'

You are such an unworth adversary. You can't even hold your weapon steady in your hand. Send out someone worthy of my time. Hack is a respectable adversary. Step aside boy.

Bladderdrip..... Any fool would know and I'm certain that if you will search the archives you will find that for many elections now I have written in Donald Duck over Wastemoreland. Now go back to dressing your Ken doll.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
S. Lindsey - is correct

I would add to Lindsey's comments by asking all of you that still have on your rose colored glasses to visit

http://www.usdebtclock.org

You will note that our nation is broke and I don't believe that there is any turning the debt clock backward.

So, President O can just keep heaping it on and the financial collapse will come that much quicker. You can go on and on about how we "deserve" quality health care all you want but the fact is no one deserves or has the "right" to health care. It is a service just like ordering burgers and no one has the "right" to burgers either.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC OBSERVER

I don't believe that there is any turning the debt clock backward.

That was said when FDR took over from Hoover and Clinton took over from Bush(the father). JUST WATCH!!!!!

Git Real
Git Real's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/17/2006
Oh God...What an idiot

How can you reason with someone like this?

Wisdom is the right use of knowledge. To know is not to be wise. Many men (and David's Mom and Bonker$) know a great deal, are all the greater fools for it. There is no fool so great a fool as a knowing fool. But to know how to use knowledge is to have wisdom. - Charles Spurgeon

Thought processes from people like DM & Bonkie that apply knowledge without common sense and wisdom are the root of this nations problems. Our government is filled with their types. In successful times... people like them were laughed at and not taken seriously.

Those that can't..... enter gumament and rely on it for their success.

On to bigger and better things.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Welcome back

Now that you can afford health care for your employees - you have time to 'play'. Geeeez

Git Real
Git Real's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/17/2006
The Fool Speaks

I've always been able to provide healthcare for my employees. You are so predictable DM. Nothing more than a bigoted old smart a$$ that sees no shame in raping the producers.

I was at Sams the other day following a male and female fat ass into the store. Each one EASILY weighed over 300 pounds. I was stunned at the obesity. As they shuffled through the doors blocking the path of others I couldn't help but wonder once again... Why is it that the hard working producers in this country are the ones responsible for taking care of such useless, leaching compost makers like that. Sound harsh??? Perhaps it is. Harsh is a response one gets when being robbed at the point of gun.

Slither on DM.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Git

Were these horrible people you saw at Sam's white, black, Puerto Rican, Indian, Eskimo, Mulatto, or Oriental?
I assume you meant also that they used a welfare debit card?

I think that there are more severely obese whites than any of the other types listed above, so that is why I ask.

I think the Germans in the 1930s-1940s, led by the "Leader" would have bunched them in with the Jews, don't you?
By "them" I of course don't mean the Aryan ones!

Mind saying how much you pay and how much your employees pay for their health insurance and what are the limitations of the policy? Is there a deductible?
Do your part-timers get any health insurance, how many are there?
You bragged about it, so fess up.

Git Real
Git Real's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/17/2006
Bonky Dollar$

What does color have to do with? Why isn't our resident bigot DM calling you out on the carpet for bringing race into this? You old fool... don't you know most of the people on welfare are white? And what does race have to with the fact that I'm having to pay the healthcare of unproductive citizens who are such mostly by choice?

Mind saying how much you pay and how much your employees pay for their health insurance and what are the limitations of the policy?

I foot the bill fool.

Is there a deductible?

Why of course Bonker$. Question.... Does the insured bare ANY responsibility for the cost or maintenance of their personal healthcare???

Do your part-timers get any health insurance,

What part-timers???

how many are there?

Between 15 and 3000. Your point?

You bragged about it, so fess up.

At least I have something to brag about. No pay cuts, no benefit cuts, no lay-offs and all that in spite of increasing taxes, increased gumament compliance and reporting and not mention no HOPE over the horizon from your president and his boot-strapped thugs.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Git: Politics

You seem to be tired of both the democrats and republicans in general.
By taking that attitude many have created the current influx of strange parties and groups. These groups like you do not talk much about exactly what they want for the average citizen. I mean is available to them.

I have researched the TEAS a little to find out what they want to accomplish.
What I can find on them is that they want "limited government" whatever that is. They want no stimuluses, let those companies go broke and lay their people off.
They don't want the government helping with HD signals for distant areas???
(No, they stressed this! Limit bonuses for executives.. I was surprised by this one. No mortgage bailouts, let all of the foreclosures and storefront fail at once and lay their people off and break their banks.
There are many "Libertarians and "Conservatives in the groups. Lower spending is quoted often, although not in the areas where 80% of our budget is critical.
They consider President Obama a "Socialist Ideologue," whatever that is.

Also in these groups are the John Birchers; Patriots; Birthers; 911 denying people; Gingrich's American Solutions; Freedom Works; and various cranks and conspiracy nuts.

The philosophies of these groups is so diverse and colliding, I can't see where they can organize to do much of anything.

Fact is, the Independents will decide any seats available this fall. Most of these dudes will vote republican or not at all.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
You should have remained quiet (Git Real)

Was the overweight couple robbing Sams or did they pay for what they purchased?
They may have wondered why you were in there. Do you feel that because people are overweight - they are not producers? Hmmmm - you're back - and in rare form. What a shame to judge people by their weight - or because they are in a store that sells discount items (why were you there?) Bravo brave producer!! So glad to hear that you are providing health insurance for your 50+ employees. Congratulations!!!!

Git Real
Git Real's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/17/2006
Foolish Woman

Was the overweight couple robbing Sams or did they pay for what they purchased?

Foolish woman... there is no possible way these manatees could have robbed Sams lest it be by proxy. As long as it takes the Clayton County Police to respond to an incident, I highly doubt these two could have shuffled their way out the door before a front end loader could have been dispatched to hoist them in back of a dump truck. Rob Sams? What is your point?

Do you feel that because people are overweight - they are not producers?

Well there is always an exception to the rule. Were you an exception?

What a shame to judge people by their weight - or because they are in a store that sells discount items

Hmmmm... OMG...I judged them because they were at a discount store??? Gee DM... Where do you come up with that crap? But yes...I do judge (use practical discernment) when observing people. And you would be a liar if you claimed otherwise for yourself. Nobody in their right mind would have concluded otherwise after observing this sloppy pair. Cept maybe you DM. But then we all know that you only see what you want to see.

Bravo brave producer!!

???

So glad to hear that you are providing health insurance for your 50+ employees. Congratulations!!!!

You really are an envious and jealous being aren't you?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Davids mom

I am afraid that is all we can do is watch.

FDR did in fact take over from Hoover, if you read a little history you will find that Hoover was a Progressive and much of what followed in the FDR period was an implementation of Hoover's "master plan" to regulate and "manage" the economy. He was no friend of capitalism.

Of course you wouldn't have learned this in public school.

As for Clinton and Bush there is not a wit of difference in the two.

So, there you go.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC

Herbert Hoover Quote: "Every time the government is forced to act, we lose something in self-reliance, character, and initiative."

So the government didn't act - and in 1930, the US suffered from 'inaction'.
Oops - learned this in public school. Our public schools must return to excellence - so that we are not at the mercy of just a few with limited educational resources.

Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform. Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies. The Progressive Movement began in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working condition for women.

Hoover wasn't a Progressive.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Davids mom - progressive

There is no doubt in my mind that this is what you learned in public school.

However misguided you are, the truth is the truth, I would suggest you read in more detail on this subject, you will find the truth if you seek it.

A brief summary of this period of history outside the liberal mainstream can be found in:

How Capitalism Saved American by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

For a more indepth study of Herbert Hoover as a Progressive you can read:

The Life of Herbert Hoover: Imperfect Visionary, 1918-1928 by Kendrick A. Clements - Vol. 6 of 6.

For a more indepth study of progressivism in the United States you can read progressive thought in their own words by reading:

American Progressivism: A Reader - Ronald J. Pestritto, editor

When you finish then we might have an interesting exchange of views on this subject.

As J.A. Schumpeter said the first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie. This is what we have been fed by our state run schools, lies.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC/Views

Thank you. What other books did you read regarding the Hoover administration? Did you have an opportunity to discuss other views of this period - or were you told that the 'other' views were 'lies'? Thank heavens for teachers who exposed me to ALL views of history - and encouraged me to think for myself rather than calling those with a different view - liars. I've taken the time to read more of the current 'conservative' views since moving here to Georgia. Fortunately I had teachers who exposed me to these views throughout my 'public' education. Conservative views on many issues that were important to me were contrary to my personal quest for freedom as a woman and as a minority. Reading more than 'conservative' views broadens ones understanding. A liberal's view is not necessarily a 'lie'. A conservative's view is not necessarily a 'lie'. If I feel that you have this understanding - I would enjoy having a discussion with you.

Recent Comments