Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 251 To 260 Of 657 Comments
@Rick:
Some members of the GOP introduced a bill (S. 1099), which is since May 20th is sitting in limbo in the Finance Committee as far as I can tell.
But the GOP hasn't gotten behind it. Blunt STILL hasn't gotten anything for the House, and here is what he said at the end of July:
"Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said, 'Our bill is never going to get to the floor, so why confuse the focus? We clearly have principles; we could have language, but why start diverting attention from this really bad piece of work they’ve got to whatever we’re offering right now?'"
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-tries-to-steal-initiative-on-economy-from-the-dems-2009-07-22.html"we could have language". I could hit a home run over the Green Monster . . . but I haven't.
Since he's in charge of the GOP effort for Health Care Reform in the House (and has been for, what, 5 months?) . . . that means the House GOP haven't got crap, and apparently they're fine with that. Sure, it's the Democrat's fault -- why even bother?
(btw -- "why even bother" = "why bother writing a bill" = "we don't have one")
So some (6?) Senators introduced a bill . . . which the GOP has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to put in front of the people. They held a press confrence back when it was introduced, then they forgot all about it. The House isn't even pretending anymore that they're going to introduce a Bill.
In all the "debate" on reform, where is the GOP saying "our bill is better"? They're not. The GOP isn't making the slightest effort to promote S.1099. Hell, has Coburn even mentioned it since it was submitted? Has the GOP?
Gotta say, it doesn't look like the GOP is trying too hard to get it passed. Doesn't seem like the GOP even remembers it. They're not trying to pass GOP healthcare reform . . . they're trying to kill Democrat healthcare reform.
I'm sure you disagree. Maybe from your perspective the GOP is valiantly struggling to push healthcare reform. Maybe behind the scenes the GOP is deeply concerned about reforming healthcare in this country but they're too circumspect to publicize all their hard work.
But from where I'm sitting it diesn't look like the GOP gives a damn. Coburn and crew did submit something, true. That hardly equals a GOP healthcare reform effort. If Kucinich submitted a bill welcoming UFOs, that hardly means the Democrats are pushing for recognition of aliens.
It was billed at the time as the comprehensive GOP alternative. It was written by both senators and house members. It had the approval of both Boehner and McConnell - who both attended the press conference unveiling the package. It contained not only free market provisions and medicare reform but was dubbed "revenue neutral" by the CBO.
This was and is the GOP alternative. It is considered that way by the RNC and the rest of the party. I don't care what you think Blount is saying, this is it, it was introduced in May, and was never given a fair hearing by the press or the democrats.
ed.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.08.2009 @ 04:37
Sure there are other options, Rick . . . but they aren't on the table.
Blunt says they may not bother putting out a Red plan. Boehner says they are working on one. It's coming. Really. It'll be awesome. Details? We'll tell you later. First we have to kill the reform movement dead, then we'll propose reform. Promise.
The choice isn't between the Democratic plan and a better plan. The choice is between the Democratic plan and nothing. In a perfect world there would be other choices, but here and now there are not. Reds aren't offering anything except "the Blue bill sucks".
Two questions for you Rick . . .
1) Do you believe that if the Reds can kill the bill, they will engage in health care reform after all this?
Assuming the answer to question #1 is "no", then . . .
2)Would you rather no change, or the flawed Democratic plan?
Hey! Rip Van Winkle! The GOP introduced its plan back in May.http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2009/05/20/gop-unveils-health-insurance-plan/
ed.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 13.08.2009 @ 20:47
THE LOGICAL FALLACY OF SOME SLIPPERY SLOPE REFORM ARGUMENTS
@SJ:
I thank you for your reply.
Work has demanded my attention, so my response is being delayed. You deserve more than a one line comment. I will reply as soon as I can.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 15.08.2009 @ 22:34
@SJ:
Looks like I stung you with the "Jesus" remark.
You're right . . .I am angry. I'm angry over all of the "debate" over healthcare reform. I'm angry at the misinformation, confusion, and outright lies being "debated". This is a serious topic, and it deserves serious debate.
You said your comment about abortion was to illustrate the "slippery slope" danger of this bill. I asked it before, and now I'll ask it again: Does that mean you are against the government doing anything? If the argument against the bill is "I'm against X, this bill has nothing to do with X, but who knows what might happen in the future so I'm opposing the bill", then there really isn't any bill, on any topic, that could pass that standard. That's not discussion.
You refer to your use of abortion as a "grenade". I agree. It's a powerfully emotional topic (btw -- I've posted on this site often, and I feel confident saying you will not find a single comment of mine that endorses or supports abortion). The purpose of a grenade is to destroy a target. The purpose of throwing the "abortion grenade" into a discussion about this bill is the same -- to enflame passions and stop any rational debate. It is a deliberate tactic to stop conversation, made more manifest since this conversation has nothing to do with abortion. It is the same tactic as saying "Obamacare will euthanize the elderly" or "the healthcare logo is a Nazi icon". I don't say this to be rude -- it is cheap and shallow, and it is an insult to everybody on both sides trying to learn from each other.
The remark about Jesus was a deliberate slap in your face, and it was clearly effective. That was me throwing a "grenade" right back at you. You didn't like it? I'm not suprised. I didn't intend for you to. I didn't like your grenade either. You clearly are opposed to abortion. You think it is killing a person. That means people who support it are murderers. By tying your beliefs about abortion to this bill, and by extention to those that support it, you intentionally backhanded them (I am one of "them") by implying they are morally bankrupt baby killers. Don't like it? Think about that the next time you cook a grenade.
"Push the bills through that no one will read. . ."
I read it. KenMcCloud read it. Rick read it. Have you? If you haven't, maybe you should before you decide if its a good bill or not.
". . .no one can figure out . . ."
It is certainly a mess, confusing, and downright boring, but it ain't hard to figure out. Have you tried?
". . .and put lots of pork in there for your Liberal special interest groups."
Newsflash -- I'm not a Liberal. Nor do I have any special interest groups (except the Hallowed Brotherhood of What's Best for Busboy, of course). Nor do I have any input on what goes into the bill. This might also suprise you . . . I'm a spiritual person, and as such I have no animosity for "Jesus lovers", and I don't think that makes anybody stupid. Loving Jesus doesn't make a stupid person any less stupid, though.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.08.2009 @ 06:39
I didn't call you stupid, before or now. Seems like I'm not the only one here with a little anger.
@sninky:
What Ken said was "no such 'shall' sentence exists". The term "such" means that there is no sentence using "shall" in the style that Sandy Szwarc used: "you shall do x,y, and z".
As you noted, the "shall" sentence that you quoted defines what shall be included in the meeting . . . not whether the meeting shall occur or not.
That isn't ambiguous or vague. There isn't any honest way to interpret that sentence as applying to anything other than what is included in the meeting. That isn't what Ken is talking about, since this entire conversation deals with mandatory (you shall/must have a meeting) meetings.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.08.2009 @ 17:49
@John:
"Ambiguity like this is why people are upset about it."
If you are saying that bills are written confusingly, you are preaching to the choir. I often think they must get paid by the word, as no sane human would write in such a sloppy fashion. Ambiguity is the hallmark of legal language.
HOWEVER, for language to support two ambiguous interpretations, the language must be logically able to sustain both interpretations. I can read the sentence "I like cheese" to mean "Bananas are explosive", but that doesn't mean the original sentence is ambiguous.
On the other hand, a sentence like "The biggest car goes first" could be ambiguous. What does biggest mean? Volume? Mass? Length? Height? Those are all ideas that could be synonamous with "biggest", and so whether my 2-ton mini Cooper or your 400 pound minivan should "go first" is debatable. Both can reasonably claim to be the "biggest" (although it more likely means size rather than mass, so my side of the argument is pretty weak).My point is, for you to read the bill as mandating meetings there needs to be language that suggests that. You said:
"I read it as saying advanced care planning consultation is required. On this, we just need to agree to disagree"
What language did you read that led to that interpretation? Granted, the bill is a mess . . . but I can't find ANY language that could be interpreted to suggest that. Apparently Palin read it to suggest death panels (or she's a flat-out liar), but just because she thinks that is what is says doesn't mean that it says that, or suggests that, or is ambiguous about that.
I may well be wrong. I often am. That's why I'm asking for a reference. Page number, line number, subsection number . . . anything I can look at. What words did you read that led to your conclusion? You must have read something that implied mandated meetings. If you don't want to cut-and-paste the text, just cite where it is and I'll look it up myself.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.08.2009 @ 14:46
Found some further Isakson details . . .
I had first heard his name from Claire McCaskil, but apparently Obama named him in his town hall meeting the other day (I didn't watch it), and apparently Rush has lit into Isakson as a result. I don't listen to Rush so I can't say that from 1st hand knowledge . . . that's the word floating around the InterTubes.
The comment linked above was released after Rush targeted him, which leads me more than ever to think he's backpedaling for the base.
Here's a video of Isakson from April 08. He says he thinks people should be REQUIRED (his word) to get a Living Will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPqRFuSZyZg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcampaignsilo%2Efiredoglake%2Ecom%2F2009%2F08%2F11%2Fjohnny%2Disakson%2Ddeath%2Dpanel%2Dplea%2D2008%2Dvideo%2F&feature=player_embedded
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.08.2009 @ 13:23
Let me make clear . . . Isakson is loudly denying that he had anything to do with the Advanced Care Planning in the bill in its current form. The link above should make that very clear.
He's claiming he has nothing to do with it . . . but at the same time admits he introduced the amendment for the planning. Whether the Democratic party is full-on blatantly lying, or whether Isakson is trying to cover his backside with the Republican base, is not clear to me at this point.
Given that he acknowledges that he DID introduce the amendment, my personal opinion is that he's backpedaling for the base . . . but at the moment that's just my opinion.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.08.2009 @ 13:06
It was Johnny Isakson. (R) from Georgia:
"Isakson’s amendment to the Senate bill says that anyone who participates in the long-term care benefit provided in the bill – if they so choose – may use that benefit to obtain assistance in formulating their own living will and durable power of attorney."
http://isakson.senate.gov/press/2009/081109healthcare.html
He is now distancing himself from the issue, saying that the bill now incentivises doctors to have the conversation with their patients . . . which "pushes" them to do it.
I still don't see any mandate for the counseling in the bill . . . and if the fact that doctors get paid for the meeting "pushes" them to have it against their patient's wishes, how is that different from health insurance "pushing" doctors to do ANYTHING that they get reimbursed for?btw . . . when I practiced law one of the most popular form documents we produced were Advanced Care Directives (DNR, Living Will, and Durable Power of Attorney For Health Care). Regardless of what the decisions for the clients were (pull the plug or keep me plugged in), EVERYBODY should have these documents. Everybody should have a will(at least) as well. Otherwise, well . . . remember Terry Schiavo? A large part of that court case involved what Terry would have wanted. A living will would have avoided all of that.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.08.2009 @ 12:58
@c3:
"I wonder why they had to purposefully write in the 'end of life consultation'”.
Odd . . . I was under the impression that this section was introduced by a Republican.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.08.2009 @ 12:46
