thinkprogress.org — According to The Hill’s Walter Alarkon, the only Republican senators seen standing and applauding Obama’s dismissal of the “death panel” myth were Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Judd Gregg (R-NH).
Sep 11, 2009 View in Crawl 4
melvinschlubmanSep 12, 2009
You're rather good at pretending you're serious. Not good enough to be taken seriously, but good.
epicselektaSep 12, 2009
It's good to see that the GOP still has a few remotely sane members in it's ranks.
northmassSep 12, 2009
I said death panels are a sensationalistic term, so what makes you think I wholly approve of the term? I defend people who use the term because their point is usually correct, even though it isn't my favorite term to use because it can be used to scare people rather than inform.And how exactly am I a troll?
digdugdiggerSep 12, 2009
YOU LIE
jeffiekSep 12, 2009
"But you are a troll so you probably already knew all that."Takes one to know one.I'm thinking that if you want to play kindergarten games then so be it.I'm also thinking that you are the one guilty of trying to silence rational thought. You completely misrepresented NorthMass's position, either out of ignorance or malice ( I don't know which). You ignore the fact that lack of money (haven't you heard - we're in the middle of the greatest recession since the Great Depression) WILL cause limits on medical care, regardless of any legislative action. (unless you believe money grows on trees - or in the Fed) The only question is who and why.I take it reality is something you don't have the guts to confront. You would rather just call people names.
teessidedazzaSep 12, 2009
In the UK the equivalent I suppose is the Queen's Speech (basically the governing party lists out its business for the year and the head of state, currently Elizabeth II will read it out.) No way in hell would any politician shout out during that speech (although I would not mind if people have examples to the contrary). The Queen is apolitical. (I speak as a republican - that is I believe that Britain needs an elected head of state, not a GOP supporter!)As for parliament having a hoo-hah - that would come after the speech in a debate. That's when you see those scenes of shouting etc.
smacksawSep 12, 2009
It's troubling to see that the GOP still remotely has a few sane members in it's ranks./fixed that for yaI would not call Collins or Snowe "remotely sane" as they are quite excellent people and probably the only ones with legitimate concerns about how to pay for this beyond pandering for support at home.
bossm4nSep 12, 2009
Scare tactics like, "If we don't pass this $787 Billion stimulus, unemployment will jump go beyond 8%." Or perhaps using the example of the man who was denied coverage because it was discovered he had previously unknown gallstones. That was an outright lie. "Obama cited a second person with cancer to make his case. The president said a man from Illinois lost his health coverage when his insurer found he hadn’t reported a past case of gallstones that he never knew about.“They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it,” Obama said in his speech.In fact, the insurer reversed its decision to rescind coverage, and the planned treatment went ahead as scheduled, according to testimony to a congressional panel in June by Peggy Raddatz, the sister of Otto Raddatz, the man who later died.“He was reinstated without any lapse” in coverage after she appealed the cancellation to the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, Raddatz testified. She called the original decision by the insurer, Fortis Insurance Co., unethical. "Or continuing to use the proven overinflated number of 47 million uninsured in this country as a scare tactic. It's been shown over and over again this number is inaccurate and includes not only millions of illegals, but also people with income exceeding $75k a year who simply choose not to be covered. Obama is as guilty if not more so by using his own scare tactics, sensationalizing or inflating stats in his favor to try to persuade people the country MUST pass this bill. Health insurance reform may be necessary, but radical steps that he and fellow Democrats have proposed are not.
jeffiekSep 12, 2009
"Also, if we're spending a trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan and this health care plan costs a trillion...well, if we can afford a war, why not health care?"OK. Here's a fact. War and medicine are independent variables. Your comment is exhibiting rationalization. A sign of sloppy thinking and a weak argument."Alternately, we could not pay for the war and pay for health care instead. "Another rationalization. About as logically correct as saying you could quit spending money on cocaine and spend it on strippers instead."Except that if we're spending $7k per person when other nations spend $3k, we could save money." More sloppy thinking. It avoids HOW???? By cutting the amount of care to less than half?"Don't believe him?" Here's the best fact of all. In YOUR words. All you have is a promise. Nothing else. Do I really have to post all the political promises that haven't been kept?Here's a fact about cost. Medicare prescription drugs<a class="user" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9328-2005Feb8.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A932 ...</a>That isn't "he said, she said" about future results. This is what ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Now that one only took six years. How about HMO's, another government creation? Now who's truth-adverse?