If the 'Death Panel' article above is not enough to refute the slippery slope you said is not there, I give you the income tax in its original form versus what it is today as a prime example of how modern day statism works in this country. Social Security is another. The list is long. Starts out reasonable and the creatures in the cesspool that is D.C. attach, attach attach expand, expand, expand......until the original law is unrecognizable.
Statism in this country has been introduced incrementally (slippery slope) by progressives of BOTH parties, and death panels (already here in H.R. 1) and rationing (way to cut costs at maximum) are givens if H.R.3200, or any semblance passes, with or without 1233. The structure and the will is already there.
15 people disagree in another thread and it's time to start another party? "13 year old girl". How mature. Flame after flame for disagreeing? Who needs this?
Ban my IP too. Thanking you in advance.
Let the flames begin.
You people really can't take yes for an answer, can you. I have acknowledged there are slippery slopes in the bill. I have maintained that there are plenty of examples of slippery slopes in government generally. But this isn't one of them - not by a longshot. And Palin knows it.
Anyone who believes we already have "death panels" is an idiot. Show me where we have a board set up that would deny medical care to her kid? And why do you fail to acknowledge that we already have rationing by insurance companies? The exact same kind of board you fear so much has existed in the insurance industry for decades. They routinely deny payment for a wide variety of treatments - or do you think no one is unhappy with their insurance company?
All I'm asking is for people to get a grip for God's sake. Positing these outrageously stupid outcomes with absolutely nothing presented as proof except "Well, government has been evil in the past and will be evil again," is illogical, unreasonable, and fallacious. Having a "feeling" is not proof and to believe it is only tags you as an hysteric.
ed.Comment Posted By sninky On 15.08.2009 @ 08:03
'Death panel' is not in the bill... it already exists
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.htmlComment Posted By sninky On 15.08.2009 @ 04:16
"Sandy Szwarc’s example of “shall” is perfect for this! I could see how “you shall do x,y and z” could be interpted either way. Unfortunately, no such “shall” sentence exists anywhere in section 1233."
•HR 3200 IH
1 not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such
2 consultation shall include the following:"
Might not be in the context either person implied, but there is a "shall" sentence.Comment Posted By sninky On 12.08.2009 @ 16:15
busboy, curiously, who is the Republican, and what's your source?Comment Posted By sninky On 12.08.2009 @ 12:55
Take a ride down this slope. Be warned, it is not so much slippery as it is razor sharp.:
"Death panels" (or at least one death panel) is a reality already within the confines of the USofA. Point Z is real in Oregon. A PANEL really is authorizing DEATH.
Listen to the woman's view versus the PANEList's view:
Approximately 10 years ago I sat with my wife for her many chemotherapy treatments. 10 years later she is alive and well because there was no panel like this one standing between her and her doctor. Our private health insurance never balked at providing her treatment. It is/was NOT a "Cadillac" type plan. So, yeah, color me skepticle at the notion that any state run (public plan) solution is the answer. My real life's experience tells me what the obvious choice should be for me.
I AM NOT a Palin apologist, but to deny her statement is without ANY merit is disingenuous at best. Knowing president zero's advisers toward this regard should give us all pause.
Unlike some on this blog I am not a self-professed "intellectual", "critical thinker". I am just a common sense person, who has at least somewhat a command of the English language, and an understanding of how political games are play. I believe I can use deductive reasoning as well as the next guy/gal. I am of the opinion that some of these peoples' thinking will only be critical to my choice in health care and/or access to providers.
H.R. 3200, as written, however, on pages 15 and 16 set the terms of what insurance is permissible. Under "SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE," (HOW CLEVER. IT HAS THE OPPOSITE EFFECT ALSO) sets the perameters of who will be eligible for the private option. Falling out of the governmental perameters will disqualify you for private coverage. That includes changing jobs, retiring, and the list goes on and on. Bottomline, you cannot tranfer from one private provider to a different private provider, period. You're stuck with the provider you were with on the day before a bill goes into effect should this provision attach to the final product. That is total bovine excrement! YOU CANNOT CHANGE AND PAY FOR ANY OTHER PRIVATE PROVIDER OUT-OF-POCKET even. I think it was 'glasnost' who suggested this was NOT the case. 'glasnost' is/was wrong. SEC. 102 does eliminate choice!
Common sense and history tells me the cost of the 'not yet proposed' nobamacare healthcare plan will spiral out of control, like all governmental plans do. He lectures us on the dos and don'ts, wills and won'ts on his yet unwritten plan? Give me a break. I have all the snake oil I want or need.
An excellent article, IMO:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13612Comment Posted By sninky On 11.08.2009 @ 12:19
Pages (1) :