The American Spectator

Bob| 9.5.09 @ 11:56AM

Hey, Scandlen... I know you don't expect people to actually read the articles. It is obvious that you didn't. For example, here are some direct quotes from the first article that talks about NURSING care:

“This report is based on the two per cent of patients who feel that their care was unacceptable."

"...patient experience survey shows that 93 percent of patients rate their overall care as good or excellent."

If we had the same survey standards in the U.S., you would easily get into the several millions even if our rate was half of that. Articles also indicate that other countries with nationalized health care have half of that rate.

Furthermore, we now have statistics from California that insurance companies deny 22% to 40% of all claims.

Now I am not a supporter of nationalized health care, but for VALID reasons. You continue the dumbing down of the Republicans that we see with death panels, paid for abortions, etc. This is why Republicans lost the graduate degreed population and college graduate population by a landslide during the last election and the party consists of primarily Southern, uneducated whites.

The fact that virtually no on on AmSpec actually reads and understand this type of data or economic data is appalling. My guess is that you don't know how to analyze the data either. Right?

The party is missing principled, educated, spokespeople like the late Buckley who would actually base their opinions on an appropriate view of facts -- not taking one or two semi-truths and blowing them all out of proportion.

There is a name for what we see here in most of the blogs -- It's called "yellow journalism".

You Can Call me Al| 9.5.09 @ 12:21PM

So Bob the liberal troll woke up early this morning to massage his ego;Only He has the IQ and insight to tell us about his preffered version of reality! give us all a break and go back to the HuffPO where your comments belong!

SoCon| 9.5.09 @ 12:37PM

Bob, you're a pretty old guy; it's expected that you'll march right up to the "DEATH PANEL" when it's your turn, okay? Should be shortly.

Just you and the faceless bureaucrats--no family allowed.

Mary Louise| 9.5.09 @ 1:38PM

The charity has disclosed a horrifying catalogue of elderly people left in pain, in soiled bed clothes, denied adequate food and drink, and suffering from repeatedly cancelled operations, missed diagnoses and dismissive staff.

The US is probably the worst Country to try this experiment with NHC. Too large to be even close to manageable.

Geraldo got his start admirably by exposing some mental health facility that allowed its patients to remain in their own excrement for days. Rockefeller, IIRC, acted immediately.

Obama didn't mind engaging in hyperbole by going after doctors with his anti-intellectual yammering.

I've done my share of criticizing Palin but she single-handedly bought the Country precious time for which I'm very grateful. And she exposed Emanuel's clinical ghoulishness which needs to be taken seriously. By continuing to bring us this information you're helping to buy more time too.

Hyper-rationalism is a disease. It lacks the capacity to allow wisdom its due. And these people are about the collective. They'd likely ask you, as a woolly-headed liberal once asked me in a job interview, if given a choice would I describe myself as Lion, Eagle or Ant? I knew, according to her, what the right answer was, but I could not bring myself to state that I was an Ant. I would have scrubbed dishes for a living before I debased myself like that.

You have a Godless bunch thinking they can play God, and we have to do our best to stymie that, whether you believe or not. Oh, and they believe in Total Depravity but from the other, nihilistic side. Think about that for a bit.

One good thing the TH protests have proved is that at least at present, leaders are less important or necessary than we thought. We can move things ourselves. Nurses, engineers, small business people (Hi, I'm a registered nurse, and I'm the mob!) are capable people.

Democrats have the numbers but they've been stopped for the time being. And it's important we refuse to be taken in by any slick compromise that will make NHC a foregone conclusion in a few years.

Truth is we probably do too much to extend life way past its natural end. But I have two parents who have benefited from this generosity of mind and spirit, and I still have them with me. I can never put a value on such a gift, much less repay it.

But the decision on when not to do anymore must always remain between doctor, patient and family. There is no place here for the clinical work of the bureaucrat, petty or otherwise.

This is a good piece by Jennifer Rubin.

Bob| 9.5.09 @ 2:17PM

Mary Louise --

"But the decision on when not to do anymore must always remain between doctor, patient and family."

Actually, you forgot the most important part of the decision group, the insurance company -- and for us old people -- Medicare (a single payer universal government run health plan).

SoCon -- Thank you for the thought. However, you've seen my libertarian position on this. While I'm against use of yellow journalism and the lies we hear from many of you right wing ideologues, I'm also against government involvement in this. I think you ought to pay for your own health care as it is a privilege -- not a right. If you don't have the money for advanced care, you don't get it -- and you die. If you want to borrow the money, lose your home, and go bankrupt paying for yours, or your parents or children's care, that is your choice. That puts rationing truly in your hands.

If you believe you should get care even if you can't afford it, then you believe that health care is a right and you should let the government do it. I find a lot of hypocrisy here. In addition, I would not force hospitals and doctors to treat patients for whom they are not reimbursed. Nor should hospitals treat illegal immigrants without payment.

This is easy for me since I am pro-choice. Again, most of you are hypocrites who believe health care is a privilege but you should get care even if you can't afford it. That is a very intellectually weak argument.

Mary Louise| 9.5.09 @ 3:02PM

Bob,

Mediare is primary but not sole provider for many seniors. Doctors can and do advocate for their patients w/insurance companies. And judging from the 80% satisfaction rate of the current current health care system, there can't be a whole lot of insurance company death paneling going on. It varies State to State, I realize that, but when Uncle Sam is the insurer no appeal will be possible and the doctor's role will be compromised too.

My work involves health care benefits, both intra and inter-State. I'm no expert in the field but I have a good understanding of the industry, for lack of a better label.

You don't really seem to know what you believe regarding health care. On one thread you might advocate a tiered system with personal responsibility at the core. On another you might intimate that health care as privilege creates its own death panels. These are contradictory; they aren't "consistent."

This is a very complex issue with very personal and permanent consequences.

Your equating abortion with this is not very convincing or astute, especially if you hold personal responsibility in high regard. If a person can't afford health care, it would matter why. How did he live his life? How does he spend his money, etc, etc.? A baby and the defense of his or her life does not offer the possibility of posing such questions because the baby can't choose a thing. And even at 8 weeks, you have tiny body parts you're tossing into a landfill. I understand that doesn't mean anything to you, and I don't really care. Abortion is here to stay, even the Churches tacitly admit this when they treat the woman who had an abortion as the other victim. With this ambivalence the tie goes to the running Mom. Sins and debts, he who makes them must pay for them.

Those of us, especially those who live where Medical Centers are a marvel of care, and where no one who approaches will be turned away, understand that this is an issue that requires the time to think through without the pressure of lining any pockets or flattering any ideology.

You don't want a bureaucrat in your bedroom but you don't really seem to mind one in the examining room. It seems to me that you are the hypocrite and the Statist.

Your basis for moral law is terribly shaky. Not that you're not a moral man; it's that you have no foundation and perhaps that's why your arguments made from a moral standpoint are so weak and unconvincing.

You accuse some of the contributors here of not being consistent, but consistency is not your forte either. Besides, it really is "the hobgoblin of small minds," even if a mind that never closes never really learns anything either.

I voted for George Bush and I'm responsible for his decisions, his weaknesses and his incompetence. You are responsible for Obama's decisions, weaknesses and incompetence. You didn't vote for just Obama, you voted for Pelosi, Reid, Frank, etc. Voting for a man gets you his party too, whether you like it or not. So learn to adjust and be happy w/the cadre of "intellects" that you've chosen to steer the Country.

We are not on the same side. I don't wish you ill. I thank you for your service to the Country, but I don't want to be ruled by hyper-rationalists who deny the gifts of common sense and wisdom.

Thaddeus McCotter right now represents what is needed in both substance and style. He has no desire to eat his own base, chew it up and spit it out. Yet he understands that politics is the art of the possible, and also understands the fiduciary responsiblity of each member of Congress to Teh People of this Country. Not the tax-consumer, but the tax-payer.

Mary Louise| 9.5.09 @ 3:28PM

Maybe O/T, maybe not. Either way, this needs to be read. Foundation for you:

***Liberalism was the first political movement in America without a clearly defined goal of reform, without a terminus ad quem: the first to offer an endless future of continual reform. Its intent was to make American government "progressive," which meant to keep it always progressing, to keep it up to date or in tune with the times. No specific reform or set of reforms could satisfy that demand, and no ultimate goal could comprehend all the changes in political forms and policies that might become necessary in the future.

Obama's campaign slogans were marvelous examples of such open-endedness. It takes an effort to remember them, so gauzy were they; but last year they galvanized millions of voters in the primaries and general election. "Hope." "Change." These catchwords lack what are called, in grammar, subjects and objects. Who should change, and in what way? Hope for what, exactly? Obama's slightly more elaborated tag lines didn't solve the mystery but merely restated it—as with the catchy "We are the change we've been waiting for." Or that classic of self-actualization, "Yes, we can!" These slogans were meant to discourage deliberation, to hover childlike and dreamlike over all debate; each required some external agent to define it. Together they said, in effect, we are ready to follow a leader who will tell us what to hope for.***

Bob| 9.5.09 @ 7:09PM

Mary Louise -- it's nice that you speak for me, but with all due regard, you don't know what you're talking about. A tiered system IS private -- not government. You would be able to buy as much coverage as you want. However, if you don't buy enough coverage, you are out of luck. It's called personal responsibility. Obviously, you are confused by the concept.

You don't seem to realize that Medicare IS a government program and there are limits. Yes, 80% of the people here in the U.S. are happy with the current system (but unhappy with the costs). However, 83% of U.K. citizens are happy with their health system. Somehow, you don't understand the numbers.

"Death panels" are created by ANY system -- however they are different. Your private insurance policy creates "death panels" by refusing claims and limiting coverage. Many cheaper policies have lifetime limits. Pre-existing condition requirements are also, de facto, death panels and those with serious illness cannot get coverage at all. If you are sick, and use all of your benefits, you can lose your job AND your health care. If that is not a "death panel", I guess I don't understand the term.

So far, people seem to be happy with the "death panels" known as Medicare. There are fewer exclusions with a government plan than a private plan because YOU ELECT your representatives and if they let people die, they don't get re-elected. You don't seem to understand the concept of representative government.

When YOU require people not be turned away from a medical center, you are saying that you believe they have a right to medical care. If it truly is a privilege, turning them away would be just fine. It seems you are totally inconsistent here and don't even realize it.

Let me repeat, I don't want government health care. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency and hypocrisy in YOUR position. I don't want government in my bedroom and I don't want government in my health care. You seem to want government in both.

I voted for Obama because I could not stomach Palin. FYI, I did not vote for Pelosi, etc. Outside of President, I voted a straight Republican ticket.

I recommend you stop drinking the water of yellow journalism and start thinking for yourself.

Mary Louise| 9.5.09 @ 8:37PM

Bob,

I don't require that anybody not be turned away, I was merely commenting on the good Medical Center we have. You added the requirement; that's your meaning, not mine. It's your usual cheap manner. So nothing new there.

Of course you voted for Pelosi, she's writing or farming out the writing of legislation. Think for yourself. For what you paid for those suede- on-tweed elbow patches, you ought to be able to do a lot better than you do.

And I recommend you get a good moral foundation from which to argue from because you don't have it. You grab from the air of the times. What you grab is worth almost nothing.

You want the government to ration instead of insurance companies you said so in a recent post arguing that the reason was that government "was most responsible to the people." Yet you don't want the government in your bedroom. You're going to have to try harder.

I recommend you stop prattling mindlessly. You didn't lay a glove on me or my post. And you're not really a very good reader, are you? Is that part of the area that you didn't perform so well in at Harvard?

Mary Louise| 9.5.09 @ 9:30PM

From VDH

Health Care Grab

We all know what that a good health care system can be improved by increased competition, tort reform, tax credits for catastrophic insurance plans, deregulation, etc.

But Obamacare is not really about medicine. It is rather aimed at absorbing more of the private sector—once more, to create a vast new constituency of government workers and beneficiaries, to ensure an equality of result in treatment and access, and to replace private health insurers with public bureaucrats. (I got a taste of the future of the government octopus when I went yesterday to a California DMV office, and noticed that all the state employees at the windows had on purple union T-shirts with “organize” and “solidarity” emblazoned across them.)

In other words, in the Obama mind, would you want an autonomous family practitioner, entrepreneurial, keen to adopt to patient needs and tastes, juggling 10 employees and a 2-million-dollar family practice budget, grossing $400,000 a year in profits, highly opinionated and self-reliant, using his profits once in a while to ski or buy a BMW—or have him transmogrified into a GS-something, at $100,000 a year, with government benefits, unionized, docile, and waiting to go home when his shift at the dreary government clinic ends, wearing his doctor union T-shirt to work and eager to vote in politicians who ensure him lifetime tenure, generous retirement packages, and guaranteed pay raises?

Mary Louise| 9.5.09 @ 9:36PM

was most responsible

Should read most responsive.

SoCon| 9.5.09 @ 10:23PM

Good on you, Mary Louise; you cleaned the old geezer's clock! He's a heartless old b@stard and I usually avoid him.

ML, I see you as an eagle because you write soaring prose. What do you think of that?

An ant? So disgustingly despicable, so disgustingly typical of liberals.

Mary Louise| 9.5.09 @ 10:42PM

Hey SoCon, I appreciate the vote of confidence. Eagle was my answer, by the way.

I was interviewed by 3 women. One, who was the head of the dept, was an ex-nun and we chit-chatted for a while before the Ant Woman heading the unit I was being interviewed for arrived.

You would have loved to have been a fly on the wall at this interview. It was 100% cotton-headed, liberal nonsense. It evolved into something close to hostile. The ex-nun could hardly look me in the eye as I was leaving. A bastion of psychbabble, is what it was.

Mary Louise| 9.5.09 @ 10:46PM

SoCon, tried to send mail but server rejected it.

SoCon| 9.5.09 @ 11:02PM

Ex nuns I've seen are quite liberal, unlike those I loved when I was young.

A lot has happened to the Catholic Church in the last 40 years--most of it unpleasant. I was more
pro-life than my priest; I argued the pro-life side of our 'discussion'! I can't even imagine being a pro-abortion priest: Wouldn't want that Judgment Day!

I bet Ant Woman was a real looker. lol

martin J smith| 9.6.09 @ 8:09AM

I am a medicare recipient. I have choices. And, so far I am satisfied with me health care. I could chose medicare advantage and if not satisfied change providers. I could go original medicare root and get a medicgap policy and go anywhere.. And there are many competitors in both medicare advantage and medicgap polices. Why not lossen policies of insureance accross state lines and tort reform--ah--politics--that's it !!!

martin j smith| 9.6.09 @ 8:13AM

One more point: If Obamacare is so great why will not every politician and government employee be willing to be on board ? They are not-they are hypocrites !!!!

Bob| 9.6.09 @ 8:31AM

Mary Louise -- People who are closed to intelligent thought, like you, cannot understand discourse and logic. Your views are totally illogical. To support a requirement that doctors and hospitals serve everyone means you believe health care is a right. If it was a privilege, you wouldn't ask all of us to pay for them. That is socialism. De facto, you must be a socialist. Right?

Perhaps you should have had more schooling....

Mary Louise| 9.6.09 @ 11:06AM

Bob,

You can't defend your own contradictory, inconsistent words. That's your problem.

Learn to think logically, precisely. You'll be able to brag less, you'll not use words like irregardless (not that you used it here, but you used it in one of your early posts right after the election, and that's a sub-educated tell), and you won't make forced errors.

Oh, and your logic for voting for Obama is not very good. I'd break it down using McCain and Biden, but everyone reading can easily do that.

It proves though, and I use the respectful formal here, that Lui pensa con viscere come tutti nella Comunità dei Figli di Dio.

Truth to Power| 9.6.09 @ 11:21AM

3/5 Bob shouldn't talk to his betters with such disrespect. As a troll he is not even that good. His radical instincts come to the front even when he is pretending. With just a little reading he could become a better fake. I also found amusing his concern about somebody wanting into his bedroom. In the words of today's youth, that is so gay.

Mary Louise| 9.6.09 @ 11:30AM

Oh, my goodness, my bad! I believe it should have properly read unforced errors. :)

SoCon| 9.6.09 @ 1:12PM

Yes, Mary Louise; after you've resolutely beaten Bob's @ss, he pronounces you closed-minded and illogical. Hmmmm. Good debating point, "Boob!"

I remember "Boob's" irregardless, too. That was funny; even funnier that you remembered it, ML.

Ha ha.

Bob| 9.6.09 @ 2:52PM

Mary Louise, if you understood what it means to think logically, you would be able to use the word properly. But alas, you lack the ability to understand logic and macro thought. Yes, I once used the word "irregardless", but old habits of growing up poor in an environment where most adults didn't have a college degree, die hard. You should have seen my language before I entered college.

You seem to think anyone who went to Harvard was accepted because they were part of upper society. There are those of us who worked hard, received excellent grades, worked summers and evenings to pay for it, and still graduated with honors.

If you had the ability, you could have done the same.

Again, your logic that it is acceptable for someone to mandate medical care, but think that medical care is a "privilege", is wholly inconsistent. Perhaps a philosophy class would help.

By the way, are you married to SoCon or is he just a stalker?

SoCon| 9.6.09 @ 5:48PM

Lots of people work hard, "Boob." Your selfish, narcissistic, navel gazing personality is tedious.

"Irregardless," ML kicks your self-absorbed butt, too. Ha ha ha!

Mary Louise| 9.6.09 @ 6:31PM

Bob,

Your posts regarding health care as it relates to the conversation that has been going on these last few weeks are anything but logical. They are contradictory and inconsistent. That only matters because of your own demands on some of the authors here. As I mentioned in my first post, consistency really is the hobgoblin of small minds.

You can't defend your words you can only avoid them.

I don't think and never implied all who attend Harvard are from upper society, and particularly not you, as you've made your background known here on more than one occasion. If a person graduates from Harvard it should show rather than have to be declared. It's a top school and should produce nothing but top-shelf, well-rounded talent.

Maybe a philosophy course would help you. But more than philosophy, a study of theology would do wonders. And it doesn't matter if you're a Deist, Christian, Buddhist, whatever. Actually, you need to study both.

SoCon is a fellow poster who knows that you're trying to weasel out of defending your contradictory statements.

Are we married? Why yes, and blissfully so.

Bye, honey. I'm off to visit my folks. See you in a couple of days. :)

Mary Louise| 9.6.09 @ 6:35PM

P.S. I hope SoCon is male. A 'misuse of faculties' is grievous sin, I think. :)

Daisy| 9.6.09 @ 7:08PM

Bob is a whiny, thin-skinned little b@stard with a huge inferiority complex. Messin' with the little putz is like shootin' fishies in a barrel. Ha ha.

Geoge| 9.7.09 @ 4:16AM

Your blog has been an inspiration to myself and many others. Regardless the old or the young,men or women,Your articles

have enrich our life and highlight the future of ours,so thank you for sharing and please welcome to browse ours too Bailey Button Ugg Boots
cheap ugg boots Best of luck with whatever comes next and
wish you happy every day.