Comments Posted By Anon43
Displaying 1 To 5 Of 5 Comments


glasnost Said:
3:57 pm

"Until such time as a bill is proposed - and I as a partisan liberal don’t support either of those ideas, and neither does anyone I know - even if this fictional panel existed, Sarah Palin could pay for her kid’s needs out of her own da*n pocket, instead of using taxpayer money."

You miss the point, glasnost.

Of course no bill will be "proposed to outlaw private health insurance and private payment for medical treatment in this country..."

However, you tell me how a private insurer can compete with a government run plan that never will have to make a profit? IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, is the answer.

The bill does make for provisions how and if you ever change jobs, or your insurer does go out of business(and they will), etc. that YOU HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO JOIN THE PUBLIC PLAN.

I could produce more than a couple of quotes where politicos of the Dem/lib variety, including president zero, who say that a single payer system is the goal. The bill you say has not been produced has by fiat been produced. You know it. Sounds like some trolling going on to me. You've just about used up the Dem/libs daily talking points.

Palin's child's insurance is paid by taxpayers? What's the proof? I seriously doubt that, and you can't prove it. Don't let facts get in the way of an honest debate, eh? We've gone full circle now-->right back to “DEMAGOGUERY”.

Comment Posted By Anon43 On 8.08.2009 @ 19:43

"You live in a world of health-care rationing."

Not yet.

This is what happens in a REAL state run healthcare:

You become a "negative economic unit."

Can the system be improved? Yes, but not by the state. What program is it that the state at any level runs effieiently? Answer: NONE. Medicare costs over 600% of what the original projection was. That's 'guv-ment' for ya'. Where we getting the funds to prop up this boondoggle? We're headed to bankruptcy as a country now.

Besides, president zero predicated his "change" in healthcare with the FACT(?) that everyone would be covered more cheaply. Two lies in one sentence. Everybody won't be covered, and it won't be cheaper. Covering 50 million more people with the same amount of doctors, how? Of course the 50 million figure is a lie too, but it's the one zero et al like to throw around. HOKUS POKUS keep your focus.

I take it his advisers DID lie to themselves.

Which country is it that has the best health care on planet earth? It can be improved through competition of companies, not this shell game bandied about now. FOLLOW THE PEA UNDER THE SHELL, or perhaps you're under the spell of-->the self=professed ONE.

Personally speaking, I want not one bureaucrat from that cesspool that is called D.C. standing between my doctor and me.

If this proposed system is so great why is it that all congressmen, their staff and both of their families, as well as all federal employess will be exempted? They'll keep their big, bad, terrible, private insurance. I'd call that "Game, set, match!" You can't explain that away.

Comment Posted By Anon43 On 8.08.2009 @ 17:09

Open your eyes, glasnost. He's surrounded by people who advocate rationing, and have for a long time. Their theories are alive and well. Seek and ye shall find it written in their own words. Perhaps they lied to themselves with their on words.

Comment Posted By Anon43 On 8.08.2009 @ 16:08

You can see the Pelosi, swastika commentary here:

Open your eyes, glasnost. He's surrounded by people who advocate rationing, and have for a long time. Their theories are alive and well. Seek and ye shall find it written in their own words. Perhaps they lied to themselves with their on words.

Comment Posted By Anon43 On 8.08.2009 @ 16:07

I can't find a quote where Pelosi used the word "Nazi", but she did use the word "swastika" when asked a question about the health care protesters at the townhall meetings. You can watch it for yourself:

It is hard to hear and the fonts are small. This is what was said, "Interviewer: Do you think there's legitimate grassroot opposition going on here?

Pelosi: "I think they're Astroturf... You be the judge. "They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."

The only thing I could find was a photo of one woman with a sign that had a swastika with a circle around it, and a slash through it. It's obvious to me it meant, "No nazis," as in the tactics the obamanites are using. There is absolutely no proof any of the protestors support anything attached to naziism. One can see the photo at:

If there was any proof otherwise the dem/lib nutroots would have produced it by now.

On to the bashing of Palin in the article. You are known by the company (advisers) you keep. One such adviser is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm. The good doctor wrote this:

"This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. ***An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason."***

So, according to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health care advisor to President Obama, the elderly with dementia and the young who have neurological disorders should be sacrificed for the common good. If I was Sarah Palin I would have made the same comments that Rick allluded to as "DEMAGOGUERY". There is much truth in her statement. Read the full article here: It's quite enlightening.

"Emmanuel recently authored an article in the Lancet describing the various models of non-market health care rationing. Titled “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions”, it is co-authored with Govind Persad and Alan Wertheimer. In it the authors simply review the pros and cons of the various ways of deciding who gets treated and who doesn’t." THIS ISN'T RATIONING PER AGE AS ONE FACTOR???

It gets better. Have you heard of the "the complete lives system"? It is complete with a graph depicting the optimum age group worthy of care. Emanuel and cohorts write, "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated." Read it here:

How about that "science czar(?)" obama appointed, John Holdren. He's advocated for "a global police force to keep population down." Read it here:

Yep, we ARE known by the company (advisers) we keep. IF any semblance of the many health care bills are passed rest assured it will only be the camel's nose under the proverbial tent. When the rest of the camel makes its way into the tent it will leave a big pile of ****.

Palin has/had it more right than the hit job of an article represents.

Comment Posted By Anon43 On 8.08.2009 @ 15:56



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page