Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 111 To 120 Of 657 Comments
THOUGHTS ON THE PASSAGE OF HEALTH CARE REFORM
@manning:
That's impossible. After all, nobody has read the bill, and nobody knows what's in the bill, so there can't be a list of agencies created.
Seriously, I take it your point is that this is massive.
Yup.
This is a massive problem. If you want to say that a full 111 divisions/agencies/bureaus/whatever-the-hell-they-are isn't completely necessary, I'd be willing to bet that you're right. Is there bloat? No doubt . . . we're talking about the Federal Government here.
Taking it as an assumption that everything the Federal Government does will have some ammount of waste, bloat, and unnecessary bull$h!t, does that automatically invalidate (a) the problem and (b) the solution? If it doesn't, then the fact that those whatevers will be created doesn't carry any weight in and of themselves.Certainly ALL of them are probably unnecessary, but is the reverse true -- are NONE of them necessary? That's probably not true. So the question comes down to which are necessary and which are not? That's where the Repub legislators should have been -- trimming the fat. By refusing to engage with the bill (or wasting their time offering nonsense amendments like "all States that begin with the letter 'U' can opt-out"), we the people end up with something that has more fat than necessary.
That sucks -- no two ways about it. Would I rather there be less fat? Absolutely. But if the choice I'm given is Solution-With-Excess-Fat and No-Solution-at-all . . . then unfortunately I have to side with the imperfect solution.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.11.2009 @ 10:20
"A bill nobody has read"
No . . . YOU haven't read it. I haven't read it. That doesn't mean NOBODY has has read it.
"that contains nobody knows what"
See above.
"that no one has a clue of what kind of impact it will have on the current health care system"
NO. There are many people that have an informed opinion as to what impact it may/will have on the health care system. Are any of them guaranteed accurate? No guarantees about anything. But to say that there are no ideas whatsoever is nonsense.
"with a cost known only to God"
. . . and the CBO, who published their report for all the world to read. Is their assessment a guarantee? Of course not. But "nobody has a clue what it will cost" is, again, pure unadulterated hysterical nonsense.
"has been passed with no formal hearings, extraordinarily limited debate"
Define "formal hearings". This has been debated, in Congress and in the public arena, since at least March.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=54&extmode=cat&cat_id=5
Here's the schedule for the House committee on Energy and Comerce, Subcommittee on Health, from this year.
http://www.cprights.org/2009/03/rick-scotts-congressional-testimony-on-health-care-reform.php
Here's the text of testimony from Rick Scott with Conservatives for Patient's Rights submitted to the March 24th meeting.Was that a "formal hearing"? If not . . . what's the substantive difference?
"extraordinarily limited" debate? Are you high? Name something that the federal government and the general public of America have debated MORE in the last decade than health care reform? They have been working non-stop on this topic for months and months and months . . . and months . . . and months . . . and ITS STILL GOING ON.I asked you before in your "Stop. Go Back" post how much debate will satisfy you. It seems like the problem isn't the length of time and the quantity of the debate. Rather, the problem for you seems to be that you don't like the outcome. That's fine . . . but to call what has been happening this year "extraordinarily limited debate" is demonstrably false.
"and in a totally partisan manner"
If you mean that Republicans have declared that this will be Obama's Waterloo, and that they promise they will vote "no" on it . . . then you appear to be right. Republicans acting like petulant children is certainly partisan, and you lay that as an indictment of health care reform?
(btw, how do you like the "Republican health care reform plan" they released last week? You know, the one they wern't going to release because they already submitted one back in March?)
If it makes you feel any better, my bet is we don't get down to a final bill (House and Senate pass bills, then reconciliation) until late spring. Frankly I'll be stunned if they pass something before the end of the year. Happy . . . but stunned.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.11.2009 @ 09:28
"Childish, naive, self deluding - to believe this 'reform' will create some kind of health care paradise where all problems are solved and nobody suffers as you seem to believe is madness."
Jesus Christ riding a pogo stick, what is it about Conservatives nowadays that only allows them to think in absolutes?
NOBODY advocating for health care reform claims it will make all of the problems of the world go away. The commenter never claimed that Rick, and you know it.
It WILL, however, help fix the problem of tens of millions of people unable to afford health care that they need. Pay very close attention Rick . . . I said "help fix", not "completely wipe out without any consequences". Will all Americans have all the healthcare that they need? Of course not. Will more have access to more? HELL YES. You focus on childish claims? How about "if its not an absolutely perfect solution than it is without merit"? Now that's childish.
Of course there will be costs. Everything has costs. TANSTAAFL is just as inviolate a natural law as the law of gravity. But this problem isn't going to get fixed with tax cuts, or allowing insurance monopolies to sell across state lines.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.11.2009 @ 08:51
THE HOPELESS BANALITY OF THE BLOGOSPHERE
@M. Simon:
"Why don’t Protestants go out in a blaze of glory as often? Or Catholics? Or Jews? Or Atheists?"
All the postal rage mass shootings, school shootings, "suicide by cop", people who opened fire in McDonalds, and all the other blaze of glory mass killings in the United States . . . you think the majority of them were Muslim?
If that makes you feel better . . . sure.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 7.11.2009 @ 01:44
@angullimala:
I buy that the stories that he heard in his job may have driven him over the edge -- there's no evidence yet that it did, but there's no evidence that it didn't, either.
But that ain't PTSD (or SPTSD). That's just the thing his crazy grew off of. Like a kid that commits suicide because his Dungeons & Dragons character got killed, it may be the "reason", but its not the reason.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 6.11.2009 @ 23:18
That's only because you haven't heard of the latest (as in, from the last 24 hours) fad in mental health -- SPTSD, or Secondary Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. You don't actually suffer from any traumatic stress, but you feel bad for people that do.
When did mental illness become interchangable with "I feel sad"?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 6.11.2009 @ 19:07
@Sharon Furst:
How is the example you gave similar to what happend?
"he was an Irish American and a member of the IRA . . ."
IRA makes your example confusing because that umbrella encompases different sub-groups. If he was in Sein Fein, then he's not a terrorist. If he was a Provo (Privincial I.R.A.), then he's a member of a violent group. I assume you're referring to the bombing and killing wing of the IRA.
The point is . . . for your analogy to be applicable there has to be a similar terrorist membership associated with Hasan. What is it? What violent group was he a member of?
If I oppose abortion, and I flip and go on a rampage, should somebody have noticed that I have beliefs that doctor-assassins have? That's not fair to legitimate opponents of abortion, and may not have had anything to do with the rampage.
As Rick said, until we have the evidence we're just guessing, and we don't have enough pieces of the puzzle to make an educated guess yet.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 6.11.2009 @ 18:14
@lionheart:
Generally speaking, a video (or note) would be expected if it was a terrorist attack. It's done specifically to denote the attack AS terrorist, and not just some whack-a-doodle going off the deep end (presuming there is a difference). Terrorists want to make a "point" and so they state it out.
All I can say is I'm glad he's not dead (yet). Questions need answered, and he's the best source for the information. After we pump all we can out of him . . . well, I hope he like very small, uncomfortable enclosed spaces.
Side question: It seems like this is a military case (mil base, mil shooter), so the prosecution would be by JAGs instead of Fed prosecutors. I'm not up on mil law -- is there a death penalty in a case like this? I know there is in "heat of battle" scenarios, but this doesn't seem like it would fall under that.
@Gayle: Signed up for Psychology when I went to college -- seemed pretty interesting. Decided to pursue other avenues after a week. You could smell the "deeply disturbed" even before you got in the room. I guess some things don't change.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 6.11.2009 @ 16:18
'V' FOR VILLIFICATION: LIBERAL PARADISE, OBAMA NIGHTMARE?
@Patrick:
Where is the "cult of personality", except in the eyes of the Right? Am I allowed to say "I like Obama" without being worshipfully adoring?
He was elected by a popular majority. He is liked (even the worst polls put his popularity at 50% of the public). Do you distinguish between a "cult of personality" and simply liking someone -- and if so, what do you define the difference as?"yeah, universal health care can very reasonably be called fascistic. It is an attempt to control people and their choices."
hmmm . . .if we go with that definition, do you also consider public roads "fascist"? After all, they limit your choices -- you can't lay your own highway between Chicago and Philadelphia.
What choice is being denied to you by universal health care? The choice to not have health insurance? Fair enough. What about mandatory auto insurance laws? Fascist? You don't have the choice to drive uninsured. Hell, driver's license laws prohibit you from driving without registering. Fascist? Would you prefer I drive the same roads with you without insurance, so if I hit you you pay for my choice?
Heck, by this logic all laws are fascist. Drunk driving laws deny me the choice to drive drunk on the same roads with your wife and kids. Are you philosophically opposed to drunk driving laws? It seems that by your logic these laws are pure fascism. Do you support the freedom of choice to drive drunk? I'm prohibited from choosing the capitalist path of selling crystal meth. If I'm a sex offender, I'm prohibited from choosing to live next to an elementary school.Is this "fascist"? Do you oppose these laws?
The bills going to vote on healthcare don't ban private insurance. The only "loss of freedom" is being required to be insured. What makes this more "fascist" than auto insurance, or drunk driving laws?
It is inarguably an increase in government influence on private lives -- you're not currently required to be insured, so if they require you to get insured that is, by definition, more influence. But . . . "fascism"? Did you oppose those sex-offender registration laws too?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 7.11.2009 @ 19:45
@Patrick:
Facism is a left wing ideology?
I'm curious -- where did this meme come from? I was raised the extremes of "left-wing ideology" were communism or anarchy, and the extremes of "right-wing ideology" were totalaritarianism and facism.
I'll have to miss this -- not for any political reasons but because I haven't watched a TV drama since The Shield went off the air (I'll miss you Vic, you lovable murderous sociopath). If you're looking for pop culture discussions of facism/anarchy though, I'd suggest another V -- V for Vendetta (not the crap movie, but the original comic mini-series by Alan Moore). Liberals and conservatives were screaming that the movie was a statement about Bush . . . even though the series was written in the late 80s. I guess some things never change.
Speaking of memes . . .
What is this sirens song that all the Obamaniacs have fallen prey to? Let me ask it another way -- were the vague, feel-good platitudes Obama said during the campaign somehow substantively different than the vague, feel-good platitudes said by every single politician giving a campaign speech ever? Certainly there are devoted, fanatical Obama supporters . . . kind of like the conservative fanatics that screamed at voters in NY-23 covered in Hoffman stickers.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.11.2009 @ 15:15
I understand that you don't agree with Obama's campaign messages (and I can understand why -- "the audacity of hope" and "yes we can" are truly terrifying messages), but how did "I don't agree" turn into "you've been hypnotized"?
