Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 171 To 180 Of 657 Comments
SHOULD THE PRESIDENT DECLINE THE PEACE PRIZE?
Last week Obama was an International lightweight who didn't have the madd $killz to play the game. The IOC pronounced judgment, and their judgment was scorn. Therefore Obama sucks.
This week the International political game is a farce that has no merit. The Nobel Judges have pronounced judgment, and that judgment is that they tacitly admit their opinion is completely divorced from reality. They like Obama, and that proves they don't know what they are talking about because Obama sucks. Therefore, Obama sucks.
Regardless of my opinions of the Right, I do salute y'all for your unerring ability to stay on point. "Message Discipline" has some serious emotional resonance for you guys.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 9.10.2009 @ 17:34
INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATISM ISN'T DEAD: IT'S ON THE MARGIN
@Rick:
"I would hope that our liberal friends read the preceding and understand why conservatives cannot and will not support the Obama version of national health care reform. It is decidedly not connected to our traditions, or our customs, and in no way can be supported since it posits 'change' as some kind of mythical 'progress.'"
I understand . . . but I disagree.
The same argument could be made for sufferage, or Civil Rights. The magic dividing line is what the definitions of "traditions" and "customs" are. These are emotionally resonant words, but they lack meaning. We had both a tradition and custom of owning slaves . . . does that mean that Conservatives opposed civil rights and Emancipation because "we never did it that way before"? They thought is was the moral and good course of action, but it wasn't "tradition" or "custom"?
We have a tradition and custom of Christian mercy and charity in this country. We have tradition and custom emphasizing community (and the common good) without disrespecting individuality. I could easily say that these traditions and customs put healthcare reform squarely in line with our past.
I could say that . . . but it wouldn't be true. I'd be twisting the meaning of "tradition" and "custom" to suit my ends.
Just as you are twisting them to suit yours. You use those terms for their emotional hook -- not because they are inherently "good". The Right publicly prides itself on being the "moral" party -- are there any Reds who will publicly defend slavery? Denying the vote to all but White Male land-owners? No (Dear God I hope not). I assume they won't do that because it's just wrong, tradition and custom be damned. You note that trying to go back to a 19th century society is tantamount to killing ourselves. At some point, we as a people need to break from tradition and custom. The question should be is this one of those issues with which we should break from tradition and custom, and if so why?
Sometimes . . . "tradition" and "custom" are wrong. Sometimes you have to say "that's just not right" even if it is the way things have been done. Attitudes and behavior become tradition and custom because people have followed them . . . but they were new and different once.
Disagree with HC reform. There's plenty to disagree about. It is good and right that people have different opinions.
But don't hide behind a reverence for the past as the reason. That's the coward's excuse.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.10.2009 @ 16:02
INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATISM ISN'T DEAD: CHANNEL YOUR INNER ELDER
@Earl T:
Out of curiosity, is the "slipping into a BBC Pirate mockumentary" dialogue supposed to by symbolic, impressive, or is it just another personality breaking out?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 7.10.2009 @ 21:32
While I'm no doubt pissing into the wind here, I respectfully take exception to including Maddow in with Schultz and Olbermann.
Sher is without a doubt a biased leftie . . . but she does some solid research and analysis to back up her bias. Or maybe she just looks moderate(ish) when bookended by the other two.
Personally, I'd laber her biased-but-honest rather than biased-but-manipulative. I don't mind a bias as long as it isn't a replacement for actual reasoned thought -- that's why I come here. I may disagree with her ultimate conclusions, but I've yet to see her make up wild accusations out of whole cloth.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 7.10.2009 @ 18:15
INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATISM ISN'T DEAD: WOULD YOU BUY A USED CAR FROM A LIBERAL? (PART II)
Don't know if this thread is being checked anymore . . . but I've been thinking about this for a few days and just wanted to add this:
I certainly accept that people with power (government) should always looked at suspiciously if they try to expand/retain their power. "I don't trust 'em" is smart thinking in my book. Sometimes though, there is some power that power-obsessed people don't want, because it's not worth the cost.
EOL to me is a perfect example of a power the government desperately does NOT want to wield. There has to be a default rule for "pull the plug on an incapacitated person or not" if there isn't a directive in place. There HAS to be a default rule because its going to come up.
You said the hospital hounds everybody about having AMDs. If there isn't one, then they have to enforce the government's rule. They either have to leave the patient plugged in despite the sobbing relatives begging them to end the suffering, or they have to pull the plug despite the sobbing relatives calling them murderers. The hospital is doomed no matter what the rule says.
No matter what the AMD says, the hospital (as the physical manifestation of the government's "power") is officially not responsible. Let the sobbing relatives rip each other's hearts out.
The Judge in case like this . . . I'm willing to bet they would rather be doing ANYTHING ELSE rather than dealing with a case like this.
At least in the current healthcare reform discussions, the closest I've heard the government even suggested to exerting power in this field is the proposal that the reform bills mandade getting a directive. Or put another way, forcing citizens to exercise their individual rights to make their own decisions. Demanding that the people take the power from the government. Tell us to plug your ass in, tell us to unplug your ass, we don't care . . . we don't want anything to do with this crap. Horrible family anguish is bad PR, amigo.
I agree that governments inherently try to expand their power, and I also agree that if the government tried to exert power in this area it would be extremely bad. I honestly can't see the government wanting to fight the fight for this minor and unproductive powergrab. There's money to be appropriated, districts to carve up, hookers to abuse, bribes to take, playoffs to watch in boxseats, new jobs to be patronaged away, new types of favors to do for other politicians to grease deals . . . that $h!t actually benefits me. Wading into hysterical family drama with ABSOLUTELY NO TANGIBLE BENEFIT except the smug knowledge I can piss on someone's not-yet-corpse and get away with it? If I want to feel that powerful . . . well, that's why I'm chasing the pages! Its less work, I still feel like I'm above the law, and I still have time to line my pockets afterwards.
Politicans may be turned on by power, but they are usually opportunistic narcissists first and formost. Screwing with EOL just seems like something even they wouldn't want to do. Not because of any sense of morality, but becasue they are such amoral jackholes that they wouldn't do something so self-destructive. That's not just evil -- that's crazy-and-evil.
EOL is certainly something that shouldn't be screwed with, but I guess I'm trying to say I don't think its something to lose sleep over without something concrete. I don't think Obama should mess with the military either, but I'm not worried about the next appropriations bill budgeting for mind control food additives. There are more immediate issues that need dealing with -- like universal health care (I'll just slip that in there at the end . . .).
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 10.10.2009 @ 21:45
@manning:
I just couldn't figure out how I was 100% agreeing with everything you said but kept getting to the end and going " . . . yeah, . . . yes . . . ye-what? No. . . . nonono, wait, . . . wait, no, what happened . . .".
If I thought there was the slightest chance they were trying to seize control of "end-of-life" decisions I'd be screaming bloody murder right next to you. Regardless of our conversations, I hope I've at least displayed a consistent "oppressive government sucks" belief system. We may disagree with what "oppressive" and "government" mean precisely . . . but some things aren't "near the line". I'd be center-of-the-Sun balistic if a US Administration tried something like that, and I CERTAINLY believe with every fiber of my being that Administrations are capable of doing something so morally obscene. You know I'd be screaming bloody murder if Bush tried anything like that, all I can do is swear I have zero "party loyalty" to Obama. He and his can absolutely go to hell if that happened.
You've been through it. I've only seen it from the distance of a desk . . . and I don't ever want to think about how horrible what little I had to see was again. You said that things went "smoother" for you because you were designated, the painful conversations were had with loved ones and doctors. You mentioned your AMD (I'm guessing Advanced Medical Directive?). You wrote down what you wanted to happen.
Please everybody, for God's sake, whatever State you live in:
GET A LIVING WILL, AMD, DNR, WHATEVER THE PAPERWORK FOR YOUR STATE REQUIRES. You do not (notnotnot) want to see what happens when there isn't the proper paperwork and discussions. Even with all the proper paperwork . . . it is a very, very painful and not-nice situation. You will not like it. Without covering your ass legally . . . you will really, really not like it. If the government has to deal with it, everybody involved will suffer. Yes, there is an extremely high chance you won't need it. But you might. And if you don't have it then you're going to be very sad. Really, really, God-damned sad.
Seriously people -- get the paperwork.
manning -- Obama dreams about hoping to attempt to maybe try to mess with EOL for one second . . . you give me the caliber, I'll bring the cartridges. I don't see it today, but if you show something to me in the future I'll even give each round a spit-shine. Just imagining it is getting me pissed off.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.10.2009 @ 23:58
You think I had a grudge against Bush? Hell, I always thought he was a jagoff (a nice jagoff . . . but a jagoff regardless). I actually think Obama is Not Utterly Pathetic, which is the highest ranking I've given a President since I was 6 (Regan's hair rocked). If I was betrayed by a jagoff that slipped past my jagoff radar . . . that's a cold flame of hate right there.
And my sympathy for having to grind through EOL dramas again and again. That must have sucked to a jaw-dropping extent.
@manning (again):
You've mischaracterized MikeReynolds argument.
In Comment #20, he tried to illustrate the danger of private insurance -- motivation. He tried to illustrate that private insurance had a motivation for policyholders to die before receiving expensive care. To counterbalance that, he gave the example of the government being motivated to keep people alive, ostensibly to make them happy and so they would vote for the politicians.
The issue was a motivation to provide care. Private insurance companies have an incentive NOT to provide care, whereas public insurance does have a motivation to provide care.
This presupposes something that may have been lost . . . that the patient WANTS the care. A private insurer failing to provide care is only a "negative" if the patient wants the care.
"I don't want plastic surgery!"
"Well, we wern't going to pay for it anyway."
" . . . you bastards!"What MikeReynolds was talking about is trying to get care from your insurer, and being denied. Something that is more of a threat with private insurers than with public insurers. Trying to GET care, not trying to reject care. You read that as the government forcing care on people . . . and that's isn't what anybody meant.
MikeReynolds is NOT advocating or suggesting that the government would tie patients down and force care on them. At all. If the goal was to gain the patient's vote, how would torturing them get votes? Or the votes of their family and loved ones? Even if the government is evil enough to do that, it would be counterproductive.
"Please, please, let me die! I'm in agony!"
"No!! Will you vote for me?"
" . . . okay."???
As far as I can tell, this fundamental misunderstanding has resulted in you, me, and MikeReynolds carrying on different conversations. You are absolutely right that if MikeReynolds was/is advocating that, he's a sumbitch. That is something we all can rally against. But he's not advocating that.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.10.2009 @ 14:40
@manning:
I'm confused how you go from:
"The only thing health insurance providers are responsible for is to pay for covered items–or not. They are not responsible for life or death decisions, and I never said they did."
and this:
"life or death decision for a patient currently resides with the patient, or his appointed relatives, with medical aspects of the decision contributed by doctors, and with no input from the government."
to this:
"it is diabolical to bring the government into this decision if the only motivation of the government is to prolong the life of the patient so that he can vote,when it is totally against the patient’s wishes to continue to live. This is a disgusting idea unworthy of rational people."
and this:
"With the government as provider, and as the determining member of the parties concerned—including the patient, doctors, and relatives–it is the government that has the final say whether to extend the life of the patient or not."
Your first two statements are true. Your last two are absolute nonsense. Out of respect for you I won't call them lies . . . but they are completely and clearly false in every possible facet.
The government is NOT being brought into the decision. At all. No one has proposed that the government have a voice in this debate. The absolute closest was the proposal that a government plan pay for the doctor if you meet with them to discuss end-of-life care (which you said is who you should be talking to). Pay for . . . not direct. You want to talk to your doctor, they will pay for it. You say that the provider only pays for care, not directs it. Then you say that if the government were to be the provider, they would direct care . . . and in the most cruel manner possible.
So if the provider is private, they don't dictate care. If the provider is public, they do. Why the fundamental change in control? No reason. Depending on who writes the check, the entire paradigm of laws, rights, and precedent implodes instantly. Why? Because.
Wouldn't the government just act as the private insurer, and so the "hands off decision-making" approach would apply to them as well? Nonsense, you say. Why nonsense? Because.
You provide the example of the government sadistically prolonging the suffering of a patient who begs and begs for death. You end this utterly disgusting example with the triumphant declaration "FACTS AGAIN".
THAT IS A PARANOID FANTASY. It is NOT "facts". Surely, you know that. You have made up a monster, then attacked it. That would be as silly as deciding not to vote Republican because they want to kill left-handed people in concentration camps. Surely you don't support that? It is diabolical! Only a sick twisted person would support that. Have fun in your right-handed-only utopia!
Let me repeat this again. Nobody is proposing to make the government part of the decision-making process for end-of-life decisions. I agree with you wholeheartedly that would be a bad thing -- but it is not a real fear. It does not exist. Nobody is trying to make it exist. You are railing against an evil that is not real.
"The bottom line for me is I do not want the government anywhere near me when I am approaching death, unless it is to provide me with no-strings cash gifts.I trust my doctors far more than any government weenie."
This is EXACTLY what everybody is agreeing to. The government pays for your care. That's it. Where did you get the idea that the government will get decision-making power, especially over end-of-life issues? It is NOT TRUE. I've cited the actual text in the House Bill before, if you would like I'll be happy to find it again so you can read the actual source material. Haven't read the Baccus Bill, but I'm pretty sure it's not in there either.
No hyperbole, no snark. What you fear is certainly something to be afraid of, but is NOT in danger of being a threat. It is as legitimate a concern as being worried about a zombie invasion. Yes, a zombie invasion would be a bad thing. No, it isn't happening, about to happen, likely to happen, or being advocated to happen.
I really can't think of anything else to say about this.
If we remove the issue of end-of-life care from the table, does your opinion of healthcare reform change at all?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.10.2009 @ 14:18
If I'm reading you comment #25 correctly, it seems your focus is on "end of life" issues, and not other treatment. You are taking the position that philosophically such decisions should not be in the sphere of government powers. That such a decision made on the basis of a private companies profits is more palatable than such a decision made by Big Brother.
If I'm reading your focus right (I may not be -- tell me if I'm not), I have two comments.
First -- they already are the government's responsibility. The judiciary deals with such issues . . . not health insurance providers. You provider (public or private) does not have the legal authority to kill you. That's why IMO Republicans made complete asses of themselves with the Schiavo case. The State law was clear. The matter was litigated over and over. The federal government wanted to step in and dictate care for an individual, in clear contravention of Federal and State law. And Conservatives supported it in droves, even going so far as asking the Republican Judge that followed the law not to come back to his church because he wouldn't be an "activist" judge.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Euthanasia/Terri_Schiavo/judge_greer_asked_to_leave_church.htmDon't want to have the plug pulled on you? Get a Living Will. Any attorney worth their salt should be able to draw one up for 100 bucks. The decision is not between you and your doctor . . . its between you and your God. Whether you have public or private insurance, the issue is legal, not a matter of policy.
Second -- think about what you are implying. The insurance provider makes these decisions (they don't as I discussed above). How could leaving that decision in the hands of a private, for-profit company possibly anything but a recipie for disaster?
"This brings up the other point that under such a diabolical scheme, it is probably the case that there are not enough facilities, doctors, or nurses to go around to keep everyone alive as long as medically possible (but humanly cruel), and there IS a limit to the government’s largess and tax base, though I have not known of liberals to recognize that fact lately."
Agreed. However, how does this argument impact the relation between coverage from the government and coverage from the private sector? The Government is bigger and richer than private companies -- if they can't pay for everything, then private companies by necessity are going to be able to provide less. Are you advocating for less "end-of-life" care? Are you advocating for pulling the plug, regardless of what the patient wanted?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.10.2009 @ 01:39
You threw that out and just left it ominously hanging there. You are implying something -- what is it?
@manning:
I'm following and respecting your analysis in #22, but I have to agree with MikeReynolds on this one. Your last paragraph started:
"It turns out that the Insurance co. can only deny financial coverage at some point, so the decision would be left up to the patient, doctors and relatives, and their ability to pay, or their rationalization that the patient should be allowed to die anyway."
But that is demonstrably not true. The endless examples of Insurance companies denying coverage for profit are legion. Most come from insurance industry insiders. That the insurance industry is objectively paying bills in a disinterested manner is jsut not credible.
Do people have trouble getting coverage at a VA facility? Sometimes, yes. Sure. But does coverage get denied more from the government than from a private insurer? Anecdotal evidence says no. Personal (limited) experience says no. Why are seniors by and large so satisfied with Medicare? Because it pays the bills. Wastefully, ineffeciently . . . but it pays the bills.
With a private insurance claims adjuster, if they can make an argument to deny coverage for a big bill they can get a bonus. They can get promoted. They have a reason to try and deny coverage. A government adjuster? They get paid the same whether you get the treatment or not.
As I said before, I'll take indifference over active negative intention any day. In a perfect world, I'd take active beneficience . . . but that's not on the table.
As you have said, the government is known for wasteful spending. Why would they manage a health-care plan with an eye toward maximizing profit? I have semi-public recourse options to fight against the system if there is a problem, something I wouldn't have against a private insurer.
More expensive? Possibly . . . I'll go so far as to say probably. But just as there is nothing more expensive than the second best military, there is no benefit to a slightly cheaper health insurance plan that doesn't pay the bills.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 7.10.2009 @ 17:01
