PostPartisan - Republicans Behaving Badly
Naturally, the MSM has been all over the one congressman that said "you lie!" to BO. I agree, that is bad behavior and he was right to apologize. Listen to the Democrats boo and guffaw away in the background while Bush tries to make progress on overhauling Social Security in the video below -- another multi-Trillion dollar bad debt hanging over our collective heads. Remember any outcry in the MSM over the impropriety of that show of disrespect? Neither do I!
How many times has Bush been called a "liar" for WMD? I'd think thousands by just the Democrat elected officials alone, yet a "lie" assumes that one KNOWS the truth. Saying "the stock market is going to go down" and then seeing it go up isn't a LIE, it is making a bad prediction. The Republican that blurted out "liar" apoligized and could validly claim "heat of the moment", but what about the same rule of decorum being followed by the President since he is speaking in the chamber? Certainly he can't assert that he said this in "the heat of the moment":
While "death panel" is certainly incendiary speech, that sort of speech is far from unusual in congress. I recall Reagan's "Dirty Water Bill", and BO recently appointed Van Jones (who had to resign) that claimed that Bush did 9-11 as an "inside job". BO himself mentioned "And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead." So what is "waste"? Is it a waste to give expensive brain cancer treatment to a guy in his late '70s with brain cancer? (like Teddy Kennedy) I honestly don't know -- to one set of folks, it is probably "wasteful", but to another set, not doing it would be a "death panel". How about if he was 85? 95? 105? Does it EVER become "wasteful"? What does it mean when someone is too old for national health care to pay for some treatment?
Isn't this EXACTLY what is "uncivil" -- one side says "independent commission", the other says "death panel" and then the president escalates it to "lie"? Can we talk about some age where "heroic measures" are just going to prolong suffering rather than improve life? Who decides that? A "commission"? the individual? insurance companies (including maybe the "government option"?). Isn't that what the discussion is supposed to be about?
Oh, and while we talk about that, last night's speech had a lot of examples of the Democrat's favorite argument -- SHUT UP!!
Reminds me of Global Warming -- "the debate is over".
So Medicare and Medicaid are growing out of control. Wouldn't a sane person say to control the costs of Medicare and Medicaid FIRST, then we will give the government more control over health care once they have proven that they can control the costs on these two programs that they have owned for decades? If the government can't control the costs of these key programs, how in the world is it going to control the costs by taking on MORE??? If the CURRENT burden is "unsustainable", then why in the world would we want to ADD to that burden?? "These are facts, nobody disputes them". In other words, "shut up". But you follow it with "the question is how". My goodness, "Death is a real issue that causes a lot of grief, nobody disputes this. We must reform death. The question is how."
Indeed -- the question very often is "how" -- sometimes just because in the case of winning the game, making a really good cherry pie, or getting a kiss from Cindy Lou, it is the HOW (execution) that is difficult not the goals, even if we have decided on the outcome that we would like. Sometimes, like the death case, and possibly like the health care case, even though the problems are obvious, the solutions (how) are anything but. They are flat out impossible (like death), or they require a whole set of trade-offs that are so difficult or costly that they are fraught with peril. In those cases, the obvious answer is INCREMENTAL! Show the brilliance and resourcefulness of the US government by fixing medicare and medicare FIRST. Instigate various programs at a STATE LEVEL and verify that they work, and THEN see if they SCALE!! Things that work for 30 million people are not guaranteed to work for 300 million people. If you doubt this, put 300 lbs in your trunk, see how your car drives, and then try it with 3,000lbs!! (10x, same scale factor as 30 million to 300 million). The scale factor alone is one of the reasons that our situation is different from Canada, England and others.
BO did very little to help on that path. One man's "bickering" is another mans "discussion of issues" -- were a Republican trying to deal with a real problem (as Bush did with Social Security), no matter how much he "reached out", there would be ZERO help from the other side (as there was with FICA) and he would be 100% demonized over "trying to kill social security" (as Bush was). It is really interesting to watch the MSM be 100% on the reverse side -- all BO's motives are pure, he would NEVER try to create a bunch of big government unionized bureaucracy that would vote Democrat!! or (perish the thought), try to pay off one section of the population that he thinks will vote for him with money taken from those he thinks will not!!! Certainly, the great and pure BO is above that!!
Naturally, the MSM has been all over the one congressman that said "you lie!" to BO. I agree, that is bad behavior and he was right to apologize. Listen to the Democrats boo and guffaw away in the background while Bush tries to make progress on overhauling Social Security in the video below -- another multi-Trillion dollar bad debt hanging over our collective heads. Remember any outcry in the MSM over the impropriety of that show of disrespect? Neither do I!
How many times has Bush been called a "liar" for WMD? I'd think thousands by just the Democrat elected officials alone, yet a "lie" assumes that one KNOWS the truth. Saying "the stock market is going to go down" and then seeing it go up isn't a LIE, it is making a bad prediction. The Republican that blurted out "liar" apoligized and could validly claim "heat of the moment", but what about the same rule of decorum being followed by the President since he is speaking in the chamber? Certainly he can't assert that he said this in "the heat of the moment":
Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.
While "death panel" is certainly incendiary speech, that sort of speech is far from unusual in congress. I recall Reagan's "Dirty Water Bill", and BO recently appointed Van Jones (who had to resign) that claimed that Bush did 9-11 as an "inside job". BO himself mentioned "And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead." So what is "waste"? Is it a waste to give expensive brain cancer treatment to a guy in his late '70s with brain cancer? (like Teddy Kennedy) I honestly don't know -- to one set of folks, it is probably "wasteful", but to another set, not doing it would be a "death panel". How about if he was 85? 95? 105? Does it EVER become "wasteful"? What does it mean when someone is too old for national health care to pay for some treatment?
Isn't this EXACTLY what is "uncivil" -- one side says "independent commission", the other says "death panel" and then the president escalates it to "lie"? Can we talk about some age where "heroic measures" are just going to prolong suffering rather than improve life? Who decides that? A "commission"? the individual? insurance companies (including maybe the "government option"?). Isn't that what the discussion is supposed to be about?
Oh, and while we talk about that, last night's speech had a lot of examples of the Democrat's favorite argument -- SHUT UP!!
Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.
These are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how.
Reminds me of Global Warming -- "the debate is over".
So Medicare and Medicaid are growing out of control. Wouldn't a sane person say to control the costs of Medicare and Medicaid FIRST, then we will give the government more control over health care once they have proven that they can control the costs on these two programs that they have owned for decades? If the government can't control the costs of these key programs, how in the world is it going to control the costs by taking on MORE??? If the CURRENT burden is "unsustainable", then why in the world would we want to ADD to that burden?? "These are facts, nobody disputes them". In other words, "shut up". But you follow it with "the question is how". My goodness, "Death is a real issue that causes a lot of grief, nobody disputes this. We must reform death. The question is how."
Indeed -- the question very often is "how" -- sometimes just because in the case of winning the game, making a really good cherry pie, or getting a kiss from Cindy Lou, it is the HOW (execution) that is difficult not the goals, even if we have decided on the outcome that we would like. Sometimes, like the death case, and possibly like the health care case, even though the problems are obvious, the solutions (how) are anything but. They are flat out impossible (like death), or they require a whole set of trade-offs that are so difficult or costly that they are fraught with peril. In those cases, the obvious answer is INCREMENTAL! Show the brilliance and resourcefulness of the US government by fixing medicare and medicare FIRST. Instigate various programs at a STATE LEVEL and verify that they work, and THEN see if they SCALE!! Things that work for 30 million people are not guaranteed to work for 300 million people. If you doubt this, put 300 lbs in your trunk, see how your car drives, and then try it with 3,000lbs!! (10x, same scale factor as 30 million to 300 million). The scale factor alone is one of the reasons that our situation is different from Canada, England and others.
BO did very little to help on that path. One man's "bickering" is another mans "discussion of issues" -- were a Republican trying to deal with a real problem (as Bush did with Social Security), no matter how much he "reached out", there would be ZERO help from the other side (as there was with FICA) and he would be 100% demonized over "trying to kill social security" (as Bush was). It is really interesting to watch the MSM be 100% on the reverse side -- all BO's motives are pure, he would NEVER try to create a bunch of big government unionized bureaucracy that would vote Democrat!! or (perish the thought), try to pay off one section of the population that he thinks will vote for him with money taken from those he thinks will not!!! Certainly, the great and pure BO is above that!!
