Tweet
Originally posted by ShockCity
Per usual, you not only miss the point, you completely fail in your understanding of unintended (or blatantly intended) consequences.
You're on the wrong side of this. Please think for yourself.
-
Per usual, you not only miss the point, you completely fail in your understanding of unintended (or blatantly intended) consequences.
You're on the wrong side of this. Please think for yourself. -
Originally posted by ShockCity
It seems to me that all Pearlstein demonstrates is that if you assume at the outset that all conservative arguments on health care are so without merit that nobody could possibly sincerely believe them, you can make a case that conservatives are bad people.
Pearlstein makes the assertion that one side of the health-care debate is undermining civility. I would happily concede that it not appropriate, or useful, when people start branding their opponents "political terrorists," assume with no evidence that their arguments are not just wrong but insincere, and use rhetoric such as "flat-out lie" and "wacko-logic." When people become this unhinged, it's usually because they have nothing useful to add to the conversation. But the people who are guilty of this specific list of rhetorical excesses, by and large, are not the Republicans Pearlstein is attacking. In this case, it is Mr. Pearlstein.
Strip away his rhetoric, and his argument is laughably thin. He claims that statements made asserting that the health-care plan costs $1 trillion is a "lie" because that's a ten-year figure, "which is the silly way that people in Washington talk about federal budgets." So now it's a "lie" to use the time frame that Washington usually uses? But he also would be wise to consider the cost beyond a 10 year window and consider whether any government program (Medicaid and Medicare are good examples) meets its budget projections. Furthermore, the President has repeatedly stated any plan must be “budget neutral” – does anyone really believe any of these plans are “budget neutral” or they will be “budget neutral”? The following article addresses this issue a bit. The author, Mike Leavitt – former HHS secretary -- basically states that his experience shows that costs are typically underestimated while savings are usually overstated, which makes it almost impossible to keep new programs within budget projections.
Well, back to Pearlstein. Stating that the plans under discussion in Washington amount to a "government takeover" of health care counts for Pearlstein as a "flat-out lie." His main argument is that the bills will be amended to keep a public option from crowding out private insurers. So I suppose it follows that if we don't accept his read of the political situation and of the likely effects of amendments, we're all liars. Not terribly convincing. Besides, a public option is seen by many in Washington as the ultimate goal, the holy grail of heath-care, so pardon my trepidation if I view what is proposed as a step in that direction or a set up of the framework to accommodate a public option over time.
Pearlstein also suggests that it is hypocritical to want to control health-care costs while also opposing government-directed rationing and price controls. If I were to adopt his method of reasoning, I'd naturally conclude that such obviously fallacious arguments prove that Pearlstein is insincere and has some hidden agenda. But I don't think that. I think he's just frustrated that the health-care debate isn't going the way he wants it to go and therefore lashed out rather irrationally.Comment
-
I don’t agree with her all the time but she writes a good column. Peggy Noonan in the WSJ, in part:
:lol:The big, complicated, obscure, abstruse, unsettling and ultimately unhelpful health-care plans, proposals and ideas keep rolling out of Washington. Five bills, thousands of pages, "as it says on page 346, paragraph 3, subsection D." No one knows what will be passed, what will make its way through House-Senate "conference." They don't even know what the president wants, what his true agenda is. He never seems to be leveling, only talking. Everything's open to misdirection and exaggeration, and everything, people fear, will come down to some future bureaucrat's interpretation of paragraph 3, subsection D, part 22.
What a disaster this health-care debate is. It strains, stresses and pierces, it unnecessarily agitates and is doomed to be the cause of further agitation. Who doubts the final bill will be something between a pig in a poke and three-card Monte?
Which is too bad, because our health care system actually needs to be made better.
***
The president's town hall meeting on Tuesday in Portsmouth, N.H., was supposed to be an antidote to the fractious town halls with members of Congress the past weeks. But it was not peaceful, only somnolent. Actually it was a bit of a disaster. It looked utterly stacked, with softball after softball thrown by awed and supportive citizens. When George W. Bush did town halls like that—full of people who'd applaud if he said tomorrow we bring democracy to Saturn—it was considered a mark of manipulation and insecurity. And it was. So was Mr. Obama's.
The first question was from a Democratic state representative from Dover named Peter Schmidt. He began, "One of the things you've been doing in your campaign to change the situation is you've been striving for bipartisanship."
"Right," the president purred. They were really holding his feet to the fire.
"My question is," Mr. Schmidt continued, "if the Republicans actively refuse to participate in a reasonable way with reasonable proposals, isn't it time to just say ,'We're going to pass what the American people need and what they want without the Republicans'?"
Stop, Torquemada, stop!
The president said it would be nice to pass a bill in a "bipartisan fashion" but "the most important thing is getting it done for the American people."
Then came a grade-school girl. "I saw a lot of signs outside saying mean things about reforming health care" she said. Here one expected a gentle and avuncular riff on the wonderful and vivid expressions of agreement and disagreement to be seen in a vibrant democracy. But no. The president made a small grimace. "I've seen some of those signs," he said. There's been a "rumor" the House voted for "death panels" that will "pull the plug on grandma," but it's all a lie.
I'm glad he'd like psychiatric care included in future coverage, because after that answer that child may need therapy.
Comment
-
A good article with some realistic alternatives that should be considered:
Comment
-
Fear mongering conservative whacko group spreading lies about Canada's National Health Care. Proving once again that what these people say cannot be trusted. They are just using scare tactics to brainwash their blind followers. And surprise surprise, their followers are eating it up with their silver spoons.
Comment
-
Uncovering more lies being spread by right wing whack jobs. They will stop at nothing.
Comment
-
Comment
-
This just in, President Obama doesn't want to euthanize your grandmother, regardless of what the right wing whack jobs want you to believe.
Comment
-
Still not getting it, only now your foot is firmly on the accelerator, Thelma.Comment
-
Hey city boy... did somebody crap in your cereal this morning? :roll:SFL is back!Comment
-
Palin the savior is misleading and lying to the American people about health care reform. I doubt she has even read the bill or understands it even if she has read it.
Comment
-
I'm sure the republicans would rather see these people go without health care than help honest hardworking Americans who are trying to care for their families. As long as the fat cat right wing whackos are covered it's all good.
Comment
-
Read the article... didn't find a lie.Originally posted by ShockCity
Hyperbole yes, but the article doesn't refute anything said about NHS."Don't measure yourself by what you have accomplished, but by what you should accomplish with your ability."
-John WoodenComment
-
Conservatives, who have been shown to donate to non-profits at much higher levels are all for volunteer organizations.Originally posted by ShockCity
Wasn't it George W Bush who championed government support of Faith-Based groups who were working in the community?"Don't measure yourself by what you have accomplished, but by what you should accomplish with your ability."
-John WoodenComment
-
Originally posted by ShockCity
Even if you were correct (I guess it's possible, even a blind squirrel....) then all it would prove is that she is the perfect house or senate democrat.
Anyone see Sheila Jackson Lee last night?
Comment
Comment