Obama, TEA Party, 'Fired up, ready to go'

Interesting Obam ducked out of Washington, he should have faced them and would probable be called a lair once more.

Does Obama get that governing is NOT an endless campaign rally? I don't think he understands that actually leading the country is not the same as a rally. He has to craft legislation, not sell snake oil.

It's nice to see that the Right Wing Teabagger Taliban is out protesting for the rights of the Richest 1%, Big Corporations and Big Oil to continue screwing over average Americans again.

There is NOTHING funnier than watching a good ol' corporate sponsored (Freedom Works) astroturfed "protest" featuring a bunch of toothless redneck GOPer Teabaggers who are "protesting" against their own well-being. Ha Ha ha!
.
http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2009/05/socialist_tea_p.html
.
http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2009/09/random_912_tea.html
.
http://static1.firedoglake.com/29/files//2009/04/incredibleteabag-offer.jpg
.
http://crooksandliars.com/bob-cesca/tea-bagger-fail-day
.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/12/133735/194
.
http://livingliberally.org/files/u1260/descent.jpg
.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/12/781093/-Wow-just-Wow;-Bury-Obamacare-with-KennedyUpdated
.

I guess they all support GWB's 1999 death panel law?

Anybody want to talk about the 800lb gorilla in the room?

Didn't think so.....

This is like Comedy Saturday featuring a bunch of Right Wing rubes and foaming at the mouth Teabaggers - being led around by the nose by Corporate lobbyist groups (Freedom Works), protesting against themselves having the same gov't run healthcare coverage that their Republican congressman already have. Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Letterman, Leno and Conan are probably loving this.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63sMyCAJXEY
.

Inky,
Why would Pres Obama care what a bunch of right wing racists, liars and Joe Wilson wannbe's have to say? The voters spoke in November and the told the Repukelican party to go pound sand.

The sooner the right wing lunatic fringe stops acting like petulant children, the sooner the American people will start caring what they think.

Congrats on spelling all of your words correctly this time Inky, and remember - just say NO to Jack Daniels.

***********************************************
Does Obama get that governing is NOT an endless campaign rally? I don't think he understands that actually leading the country is not the same as a rally. He has to craft legislation, not sell snake oil.
Posted by: beth | September 12, 2009 7:50 PM
**********************************************
.

Teresa,
Maybe Obama should start a war based on lies, start committing war crimes/torture and give a bunch of huge tax cuts to 'needy' billionaires, all in the process of tanking our economy....oh...wait a minute....that was what your hero Bush Jr and the lockstepping Republicans?.....nevermind.

Not a responsible media organization link in the bunch there former Republican. LOL

The very same lazy, fat-assed, knuckle dragging, mouth breathers who sat back and did absolutely nothing while Bush was pouring a trillion dollars into an empty hole in Iraq. You people are such brainwashed liars that you can't even protest believably.

Beck has said or implied that Van went to prison for taking part in the Rodney King riots.

LIMBAUGH: There's a disconnect in this country like I haven't seen my whole life. This is -- it may not even be just two countries anymore; it may be two or three different countries. Finding a common American culture today is a difficult thing to do. We are so multicultured and fractured here.

Glenn Beck has a handle on what this health care bill is about. He states: Obama is a community organizer that is all you need to know."
"Health care bill is about the beginning of reparations".

Folks...it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure what is going on here.

Inky--please translate "would probable be called lair once more" from Goober into English.

Beth--I see you travel from site to site with with a different kind of lack of education than "inky". The Pres. does NOT craft legislation--the corrupt Congress does (through their Masters in Big. Ins. lobbyists). The Pres. was elected with a Mandate from the majority for Health Ins. Reform--he, in turn, tries to get Congress to quit lining their pockets long enough to pretend to do something. At least you can spell even if you are a serial troll.

President Obama has been on a roll all week.

You have to have a lot of respect for a man (Obama) who completely turned the healthcare debate around in 5 days and his approval rating is going back up too. I knew if the Republicans were given enough time and rope they'd over-play their hand, and apparently Obama knew it too.

When he gets a good bill President Obama will go down in history as one of the greats.

Republican Congressman who oppose universal health insurance (Joe Wilson, I'm looking at you) should immediately relinquish their federal health insurance. After all, these members of Congress have long enjoyed taxpayer-subsidized gov't run health insurance, a privilege that they apparently believe tens of millions of working, uninsured Americans and their families don't deserve.

If Republicans don't think being uninsured is a big deal, then they should go right ahead and try it out. And if they really believe a public plan is such a bad option, maybe they can persuade their parents to give up Medicare too.

FreedomWorks Misquotes ABC News on Tea Bagger Turnout

Whackjob Michelle Malkin is claiming 2 million turned out in Washington, D.C. today to "celebrate" the day after 9/11. The organizers, Freedom Works claimed that ABC News was estimating 1 to 1.5 MILLION turned out.

Uhhh...actually? ABC News didn't say that at all.

They said 60,000-70,000.

Oops.

According to ABC News:

"Conservative activists, who organized a march on the U.S. Capitol today in protest of the Obama administration's health care agenda and government spending, erroneously attributed reports on the size of the crowds to ABC News.
Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, the group that organized the event, said on stage at the rally that ABC News was reporting that 1 million to 1.5 million people were in attendance.
At no time did ABC News, or its affiliates, report a number anywhere near as large."
.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protest-crowd-size-estimate-falsely-attributed-abc-news/story?id=8558055

I can believe they turned out 60,000 or even 70,000 people. They probably photoshopped the crowds to make them look bigger. But deliberately misquoting ABC News? Really?

Did these Teabagger idiots really think they'd just let that one go?

They keep crowing about how "well organized" the tea baggers are. I'd say they are good at rallying a solid core of right wing whackos, after all, they have a huge anti health care lobbying group (Freedom Works organizing it for them and a fake news outlet (Faux "News") giving them free publicity in the days leading up to this. The Teabaggers are obviously to stupid to realize that they're being led around by the nose by the very same corporations who are keeping them dumb and poor. But when those numbers didn't approach what they fantasized about, they are reduced to lying about it even when there's no question that they're going to get called on it.

Maybe after 8 years of a Bush administration that was capable of getting away with murder, both figuratively AND literally, in broad daylight and under the glare of media scrutiny, the Right must think they can just do and say whatever they want and nobody will notice.

NEWSFLASH: You're liars and we notice.

Ahhh, "former republican," I mean, Deranged and Demented John E., the people at the TEA party rallies are largely middle class folk. People who work hard every day, pay their bills, raise their kids, basically lead normal lives. They are protesting against ALLM taxes because we realize and are smart enough to know that there aren't enough wealthy to support all the government spending and that it also is not right to take more than half of someone's income just because they are "rich."
Course, Mark Silva continues to peddle the Obimbo and Axelrod lie that only the richest will pay for the health care overhaul. See, Mark, us regular folk know that can't happen. There aren't enough wealthy to pay for another trillion dollars in spending. It's a fallacy, a lie, complete BS.

A real person, not a corporate sponsored Teabagger, gives his first hand observations after watching the right wing idiots drool and pant in DC yesterday.

"I was at the Lawn with all of the red shirted, white, angry Beck loving neo-patriots and there in no way it was a million people or even close. There were small groups huddled around the Glen Beck inspired flags and the usual disaffected white males wandering in groups with the American flag desecrated by being incorporated into clothing. Having been to the exact same location for the Obama Inauguration and other large political events, this was small fry in comparison. However, it was an angry group with a real sense of absolute entitlement. Something not focused on by many. This sense of entitlement that they deserve to be the dominant deciders and that it's being taken away".....Continue reading
.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/09/entitled.php#more?ref=fpblg

* * * * *
Posted by: OldCreaky | September 12, 2009 8:01 PM
.
Is that your Kool-Aid talking again? You think these people are supposed to be in favor of a 1999 Texas “death panel” law from because they’re Repelicans? Or is it because they are protesting against Obama’s plans for health care reform (if they are really his)? Whatever your premises were at the outset, your conclusion doesn’t follow from them. Go ask a logician what that makes you.
.
Better yet: Instead of clouding the air with your partisan BS, why don’t you have someone from the DailyKos or MoveOn.org go to the rally and ask some of the people there for their opinions on Duh’bya’s 1999 “death panel law”? You might be surprised to find out that they would have opposed it had they known of it (and most probably hadn’t heard of it). You might also catch them asking the relevant questions: “Who the heck cares what Bush did back in 1999? I thought we were trying to deal with what Obama and Congress are trying to do to us now? Does some idiot think that two wrongs make a right?”

Thank God, President Obama doesn't quit. His ideals, like America's, are written in stone. Healthcare for everyone and if it isn't a right, than we'll make it a right !!
Let these Healthcare Corps, or whatever Corps, throw all of our money around, to buy loyalties and hooliganism, we, the people, will not be denied, nor will they be fooled by merchants of Greed. I feel as though we are fighting the Revolutionary War, all over again. This time the Greedy Corps, and their mercenaries are representing the English point of view. They want to keep us in financial shackles, but we are tired of being exploited, tired of being trapped in a system that cheats us out of our money and still, we get nothing in return, but more dictates. Shame on those that know better and are silent, they shall rue the day, they chose money over their fellow citizens life or health. There is no good luck that emanates from money, or a way of life, that is acquired by the debasement of another's life. That you can take to the Lehman Brother's Bank !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Which would you prefer?

Tea with these losers,

or a beer with Obama?

Cindy Sheehan--10 protesters, 10 Swamp articles.

Tea Bag--"tens of thousands" of protesters (one British newspaper said "up to 2 million"), 1/8th of a Swamp article, sandwiched by yet another Obama speech.

We all knew the DNC Swamp would try and downplay the protests. After all, they've ignored them up to now.

So your trying to compare a rally with over a million people at capital hill to an "assembly" packed with union, OFA and acorn supporters?

Here is a good video of the event:http://trc.taboolasyndication.com/log/breitbart/click?pi=500491&ri=9b9b2f2c07bc6af0f4d71bf9eb2f2622&si=a2b0f4e71387e397fb79424dddb0dc17&it=video&ii=1241481263749000665&pt=video&li=rbox-focused&url=http%3A//www.breitbart.tv/black-speaker-at-dc-rally-mocks-obamas-teleprompter-dependence/&r=84

Great to see Americans speak, out aganist Obama Socialism.

For all you death panel people....why don't you respond to GWB's 1999 death panel he signed in Texas?

Hypocrites!

Hopefully he also remembers when he gave a talk in Columbia, SC on the capital steps when everyone was told that this cheer is a traditional NAACP cheer. I wonder if reusing the cheer without telling the rest of the story will unfair open Obama up to the sorts of snide attacks Joe Wilson just flung his way.

Little Boys Club:
-
Bush is no longer in office -- neither in Washington nor Austin -- thought maybe you'd like to know.

“Who the heck cares what Bush did back in 1999?
Posted by: John W. | September 13, 2009 6:17 AM

Somehow you miss the point John. Not only did Bush sign this "death panel" bill, it was something Palin was very pleased with and wanted to bring to Alaska. Funny how "death panels" didn't matter then, but do now. The belief that because this was 10 years ago it doesn't matter is utterly ridiculous. Talk about partisan BS.

Sign seen at the Tea Party:

"Mr. Obama, you don't want to be called a "liar"?

Then stop lying"

Sign seen at the Tea Party:

"Mr. Obama, you don't want to be called a "liar"?

Then stop lying"

Posted by: Forgive me, I Thought Dissent Was Patriotic | September 13, 2009 11:31 AM

Sign seen at Tea party....Bury Obamacare with Kennedy.

Signed......oh I see, NOW dissent is patriotic!

Posted by: John W. | September 13, 2009 6:17 AM

Logic would show that the 1999 death panel law in Texas is still active. Why aren't the Mobs down there trying to stop the active death panels?:
Simple hypocrisy.

Face it, neither you nor any of the Repups in the congress can give a credible answer.

"...the people at the TEA party rallies are largely middle class folk. People who work hard every day, pay their bills, raise their kids, basically lead normal lives."

There are several contradictory elements in the above sentence, including use of the word "normal" when you're speaking of fringe lunatics. And then, of course, there's the line that these tea-baggers "work hard every day" when in reality, they do nothing but sit on their fat butts watching FOX news from morning til dusk. So, it's unlikely they actually work hard at anything, unless you count skinning possum and polishing two remaining teeth as employment.

This loser Obama is going down fast and so will most of the Congress.

* * * * *
Posted by: bill r. | September 13, 2009 10:57 AM
.
bill,
.
Did you even read what you folks are calling Bush’s “death panel” law of 1999? Let me put it another way: Are you ready to eat some crow?
.
The law is not a “death panel” law. Prior to the enactment of the Texas “Advance Directives Act” of 1999, a hospital could obtain an injunction from a court to permit it to unplug a patient - and without any opportunity by the family to object or make alternative arrangements. The 1999 law changed that.
.
Now, “[i]f If an attending physician refuses to honor a patient's advance directive or a health care or treatment decision made by or on behalf of a patient” : (1) the matter must be referred to an ethics committee which doesn’t include the attending physician who refused to honor the advanced directive; (2) the patient and/or adult guardian is entitled to notice of the procedures, 48 notice of the meeting that will take up the case, and to attend the meeting. This “ethics committee” has the power to either affirm or overturn the attending physician’s decision not to honor an advanced directive. If the patient or adult guardian disagrees with the result of the review process (i.e. most often in the event the ethics committee affirms the attending physician’s belief that further treatment would be inappropriate and futile), then “the physician shall make a reasonable effort to transfer the patient to a physician who is willing to comply with the directive.” (See Texas Health & Saf. Code, § 166.046.) The physician or hospital is then required to maintain any life-sustaining treatment for the period of ten (10) days after the ethics committee decision, and longer if a district court judge grants the patient or his/her guardian an extension of time within which to find another medical facility to transfer the patient. (See Id., at subds. (e), (e-1) & (g).)
.
In other words, the law you folks have been calling a “death panel” law actually gives patients the right to VETO any doctor’s or ethics panel’s decision to terminate life-sustaining treatment by seeking transfer. That is a step UP from the prior law, which allowed hospitals and doctors in Texas to unilaterally pull the plug with a court order and gave no opportunity for the patient or patients’ guardian to object or seek a transfer. Thus, given the choice to maintain the status quo or give people more rights in making life and death decisions, Bush’s decision to sign the Texas Legislature’s bill into law is hardly pro-death or anti-patient. Remember: Bush had the choice to sign the law or veto it. He didn’t have the third option of re-writing it to make it even more pro-life or pro-patient.
.
Aside from your utter and total gullibility in believing this law provided for “death panels,” you also unreasonably assume that everyone is going to know of every obnoxious law and object to it or suffer the label “hypocrite.” I live in California and practice law here. But even I had no way of knowing about this so-called “death panel” law until someone directed my attention to it. How are average Joe and Jane Teabagger supposed to know about them, or object to them (now that they are the law)? I’m sure I could find a slew of laws on the books of Democrat controlled states that Democrats should object to in order to remain consistent with their own ideology. Does that make Democrats total hypocrites? Does it disqualify Democrats from adding their voices to the current debate? I don’t think so. People are entitled to address and fix problems one at a time.
.
I then have to ask myself: How does any of this have any relevance to the question of the current FEDERAL health care bill? I don’t see the relevance at all. Really, who gives a rat’s ass about what Sarah Palin thinks? She is a nothing in this debate and becoming more of one by the second. Trying to sandbag the tea-baggers over something she said or did some time ago is making the metaphoric tail wag the figurative dog. Notwithstanding Palin’s input into the debate, she doesn’t control it and the objectors aren’t necessarily wedded to all of her views. The tea-baggers are on the march over the growth of the government and the consequential increase of the debt. The proposed federal health care bill will grow the size of the federal government and, according to the CBO, contribute hundreds of billions to the debt. Thus, they have plenty to complain about despite your desire to make a side show out of little Sarah Palin.
.
If you can’t get this now that I’ve spoon fed it, you are not just a partisan hack, but a hopeless partisan hack.

* * * * *
Posted by: OldCreaky | September 13, 2009 12:31 PM
.
Read my reply to bill r. (if it gets posted). It applies to you too.

I'll start with a favorite: What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A good start. First let me start with relevance of it. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Palin and the right have used scare tactics on senior citizens, and you are oblivious to that? Who cares what Palin thinks? Are you in the right court room sir?

First lets look at what you have posted:2) the patient and/or adult guardian is entitled to notice of the procedures, 48 notice of the meeting that will take up the case, and to attend the meeting. This “ethics committee” has the power to either affirm or overturn the attending physician’s decision. Now I ain't some high falutin lawyer...but if that ain't a death panel.......

This act was to prevent hspitals, and doctors to escape a law suit or prosecution.Please read:The Texas Advance Directives Act (1999), also known as the Texas Futile Care Law, describes certain provisions that are now Chapter 166 of the Texas Health & Safety Code. Controversy over these provisions mainly centers on Section 166.046, Subsection (e),[1] which allows a health care facility to discontinue life-sustaining treatment against the wishes of the patient or guardian ten days after giving written notice if the continuation of life-sustaining treatment is considered medically inappropriate by the treating medical team. For the hospital personnel to take advantage of legal immunity from prosecution for this the following process must be followed:

The family must be given written information concerning hospital policy on the ethics consultation process.
The family must be given 48 hours' notice and be invited to participate in the ethics consultation process. Family members may consult their own medical specialists and legal advisors if they wish.
The ethics consultation process must provide a written report to the family of the findings of the ethics review process.
If the ethics consultation process fails to resolve the dispute, the hospital, working with the family, must try to arrange transfer to another provider physician and institution who are willing to give the treatment requested by the family and refused by the current treatment team.
If after 10 days, no such provider can be found, the hospital and physician may unilaterally withhold or withdraw the therapy that has been determined to be futile.
The party who disagrees may appeal to the relevant state court and ask the judge to grant an extension of time before treatment is withdrawn. This extension is to be granted only if the judge determines that there is a reasonable likelihood of finding a willing provider of the disputed treatment if more time is granted.
If either the family does not seek an extension or the judge fails to grant one, futile treatment may be unilaterally withdrawn by the treatment team with immunity from civil or criminal prosecution.

Ps...I spose you know what you can do with your spoon.

"Aside from your utter and total gullibility in believing this law provided for “death panels,”

There you go again; A perfect nutshell of the T-Baggers and Mobs 'death panel' accusation against BHO and the Dems when none exist!

John W. ....... sigh ........ this whole exercise of the 1999 Texas law has been to try to show the right wingers that hate BHO that a Republican Governor signed into law a measure with actual mechanisms to pull the plug. Nothing comes close in the Dem. bill!
It doesn't matter if it was an improvement over the prior dark ages law that existed in cow $#!! Texas.
The point is, the Dems. measures in the House fall way short of the Texas measures. By all logic the Texas law has, by comparison, death panels.
I for one agree that futile measures should not be taken. It so states in my living will.

BTW, I am not eating crow today. Mrs. Creaky and I enjoyed a beef tenderloin.

And good day to you, Sir!

One other point John. If Jane and Joe Teabagger don't know about this law, it is because the leaders of the Teabaggers didn't tell them. Now why would that be? It certainly seems important now...have a clue why Esquire?

I have to say after reading Old Creaky's response, he obviously was a little more eloquent. But for a lawyer, you certainly don't seem to understand the neuances of the issue. The fuss over "death panels" is ridiculous, NOW and THEN. As he pointed out, there is nothing in this new healthcare bill that even resembles the wording in this bill, yet the rhetoric continues. Quite frankly, I didn't hear you use your knowledge to dispell this idiotic claim. I have to ask why?

bill r,
Goodnight, and have a pleasant tomorrow!

* * * * *
Posted by: OldCreaky | September 13, 2009 12:31 PM
.
Read my reply to bill r. (if it gets posted). It applies to you too.
Posted by: John W. | September 13, 2009 6:07 PM

Creaky,
Hilarious! JW has consumed enough Swamp pixels to account for all the dark matter in the universe.

Old Creaky........To you sir...a good night. May the G&T abound!

Look at that photo in Minnesota, the wideangle one that shows the size of that crowd in that arena where President is speaking.

Do you think he was sending another message to Pawlenty?

As in:

See the size of my crowd?

How big a crowd can you draw in your own state?

Actually, it's a message to other politicians as well.

One they should take note of.

To bill r. and OldCreaky:
.
I have read the law. I understand it. Apparently, neither of you have a clue as to why it was enacted and what it does.
.
1. You claim that Bush “created” death panels in Texas is utterly false. Texas already had private “death panels” - and worse - before Bush signed the “Advanced Directive Act” into law. A hospital and/or doctor could go to court and then unplug the patient almost before the ink dried on the order. If a patient or guardian objected to the plug being pulled, a doctor only had to "make a reasonable effort to transfer the patient to another physician." (Former Texas Health & Saf. Code, § 672.016(b-c).) There was no right to notice or a hearing, a right to a grace period to find another doctor, or for judicial intervention to stop the plug from coming out of the wall. Thus, the new law didn’t create “actual mechanisms to pull the plug” (contrary to what OldCreaky said.) Those had already existed. What it did was to add the aforementioned procedural rights to stop the plug from coming out of the wall. Those rights didn’t exist before.
.
You might say that it isn’t a very good law. You might not find too many people to disagree with that. Republicans in the Texas Legislature have been seeking to amend the law to lengthen the time period for a transfer or to create better procedural rights. However, at the time, the bill was the best that its Democrat authors (see below) and the Texas Legislature would give Bush. Bush’s choices were to sign the bill and give patients some procedural protections or veto the bill and give them none at all (see above). So basically what you are doing is muck-raking stuff from when Bush was in a ‘damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t’ position.
.
2. Furthermore, if you insist on calling it a “death panel” law, you should at least be forthright enough to admit that it was authored and sponsored by DEMOCRATS. The author of the 1999 legislation was Democrat Senator Mike Moncrief from Fort Worth. The bill’s House sponsors were Art Reyna (D) from San Antonio and Garnet Coleman (D) from Houston. (See http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Sponsors.aspx?LegSess=76R&Bill=SB1260 .) The bill passed out of two Senate committees by unanimous votes, and the State Senate by a vote of 30-0 (see http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/76R/billtext/html/SB01260F.htm ). That means all but one (or maybe all) of the Democrats in the Senate voted for it (there being 15 Democrats in the Senate out of 31 in its 76th Session. See http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/members/roster.cfm .) It also passed by a non-recorded vote in the House - which had 6 more Democrats than Republicans in it. Certainly, if the Democrats were against it, the bill would have died in the House. So, if you want to (ehem) ‘crow’ about this law, you should know that YOUR party owns it.
.
3. But back to the Texas Law: The fact an ethics committee has the power to affirm or overturn a doctor’s decision doesn’t make it a “death panel” because a patient has the means of taking that decision away from that committee. A true “death panel” would be one with an irrevocable decision to allow a patient to die. That is not a feature of the Texas law. The ethics committee decision is taken away by a demand for transfer - which the doctor or hospital must make reasonable efforts to accommodate. A patient or guardian can also get more time from the court in the event that 10 days isn’t long enough and there is a prospect for a new physician. You should also know that the vast number of cases that have reached ethics panels in Texas have ended up with either the plug NOT being pulled or the patient dying from his or her own illness before the hospital did it.
.
4. You are either blind or lazy if you didn’t see where I analyzed HR 3200 and stated that it did not make any provisions for death panels. I have done this multiple times in the Swamp. I’m sorry you missed them.
.
5. However, even though the law doesn’t provide for “death panels,” it does provide for a committee to decide what a minimum qualified health care plan must provide. Thus, if a person is too poor to pay (or receive subsidies) for more than the minimum package, the limits of his or her coverage could equally form the basis for denial of life-preserving coverage under certain conditions against a patient’s will. What bothers me is the potential scenario where a patient is misled and even buoyed by coverage into believing he or she will receive care when it is unavailable. Furthermore, the very fact the plan attempts to wedge 30 to 47 million more people into an already overcrowded, underfunded and understaffed system of health care delivery makes it ludicrous to believe that severe rationing is not on the horizon. To believe otherwise is just wishful thinking. If you don’t agree, just look and see what’s going on now in Massachusetts.
.
6. Why wouldn’t Joe or Jane Teabagger know about the Texas Law? Let’s see. Maybe it’s because none of the people who had anything to do with writing or passing that law (including George W. Bush) are in politics or politically relevant. Sarah Palin didn’t write the law, and she is perfectly free to disagree with the notion of “death panels” (even if they really don’t apply to the debate). Her own state of Alaska prohibits “death panels.” (See http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?22+Alaska+L.+Rev.+213+pdf .) In which case, you are simply forking up (at worst) a generic inconsistency in Republican positions. That’s not the same as hypocrisy - which only occurs if the SAME person or people act in a manner contrary to their stated positions. If you think the Texas law is relevant, them maybe people might like to know that Woodrow Wilson was responsible for pushing eugenics and compulsory sterilization for the mentally deficient. After all he was a Democrat. By the same reasoning you two have employed, Wilson’s pathetic record is perfectly relevant to the Democrats stances on the current health care debate, right? Then again, maybe the Texas law isn’t well known because the Texas Law isn’t up for a vote. And, then again, maybe the Texas law isn’t well known because the leaders of the tea-baggers have less access to the law than I do, or less interest in it.
.
6. I submit that the tea-baggers and others would be out in the same numbers to protest against the planned government regulated health care system even if Sarah Palin hadn’t said a word about death panels. I would venture to guess that most of them are there regardless of what Sarah Palin said. As I mentioned before, they are out there because the government is too big, getting bigger, expensive, and getting more so. That, to me, is reason enough to peacefully protest against Obama and his plans. These were the explicit reasons for the protest that was the subject of this article. Yes, I know what you’re thinking: George Bush did it too. To which I reply: Two wrongs don’t make a right. The fact that Bush damaged the system is no excuse to allow Obama to destroy it.
.
I’ll be plucking the crows for your servings.
.
PS - I’ll spare you all the progressive Democrat jokes I know.

In typical "lawyer" fashion, mental masterbation is the defense. The term "can't see the forest for the the trees" comes to mind. Wording of the 1999 Texas Directive to the layman seems much worse than any wording of the current pending healthcare bill, yet the death panel cries continue. That IS the issue here no matter what smokescreen is presented. If you prefer the term "inconsistent" that's fine with me.

Main Entry: in·con·sis·tent
Pronunciation: \-tənt\
Function: adjective
Date: 1620
: lacking consistency: as a : not compatible with another fact or claim b : containing incompatible elements c : incoherent or illogical in thought or actions : changeable d : not satisfiable by the same set of values for the unknowns

Saw what appeared to be GOP corporate-scriped teabaggers with signs attributing lack of jobs and TARP to Obama. Funny to see that --given this is the Bush /Paulson/Cheney Republican recession. Where were the teabaggers when Bush put all of the Iraq "emergency war" funding on the nation's credit card? Where were the teabaggers when Paulson and Bush gave Americans the biggest con job in history re the "banking failures"? The failure was also that of the Bush administration--where he put the most wealth in the hands of the upper 1% since the start of The Great Depression. Where were the teabaggers when Bush gave trillions to Big Pharma instead of negotiating for lower Rx prices for seniors? Teabaggers are not credible. They can't remember history from a week ago, or else they are basically prejudice against Obama and the majority of voters who had no confidence in Cheney/Bush Washington anymore--and went for Change.

Health Insurance and Big Pharma didn't seem to mind all the transgressions of the Bush Administration. Funny how they are stopping at nothing to stop Health Reform in its tracks. When we see images of protesters now, they are viewed as mercenaries of the Middle Man Health Insurance Corps and of Big Pharma. It makes one ill to ever have to take another pill.

"Furthermore, the very fact the plan attempts to wedge 30 to 47 million more people into an already overcrowded, underfunded and understaffed system of health care delivery makes it ludicrous to believe that severe rationing is not on the horizon. "

This John W guy is apprently one of the millions of americans who either isn't capabable of understanding that severe rationing of health care is't "On the horizon." It's here now, and has been for years, or he is willing to deny the obvious rationing that currently exist to protect his own interests. We currently ration healthcare based on wealth and employment. Millions of americans cannot not get the healthcare they need based on the inability to afford it, and that their employer does not provided a decent health plan. That's rationing. However John W, and those like him only become concerned about this "severe rationing" when it migh impact them presonally. They don't even give our current rationing system enough thought to recognize it as rationing. As long as the only rationing affects the poor, and the low income employee it isn't worth consideration by the elites who can get access to what ever healthcare they need based upon their wealth. In fact. like John W, they shudder at the thought of everyone having the same access to healthcare they have. They shudder at the thought that some lower income person ,might get a doctors appointment instead of them, even if that low income person has more need of the doctor than they do. John W speaks for those who pretend there is not currently rationing in order to preserve a system of rationing that benefits them, no matter what the impact to others.

* * * * *
Posted by: End wealth based rationing | September 14, 2009 12:32 PM
.
I used the word “severe” to describe the rationing that is coming with Obamacare to distinguish it from the “rationing” we have now. Contrary to your suggestion, that is hardly being unaware of the fact that we have rationing now. You might think the rationing is “severe” now. Fine, believe that if you wish. Then I would simply use some superlative to describe what is coming. The bottom line is that rationing is going to get worse, and when it gets bad enough it won’t be worth anything to anyone.
.
That’s the kind of thing that socialism brings. It doesn’t bring anyone up. It only makes everyone equally miserable. In which case, there is no fear that other people will have “the same access to healthcare …” There will be no healthcare services worth having.

"That’s the kind of thing that socialism brings. It doesn’t bring anyone up. It only makes everyone equally miserable. In which case, there is no fear that other people will have “the same access to healthcare …” There will be no healthcare services worth having.

Posted by: John W. | September 14, 2009 2:47 PM

More tired cliches. Sad. Let's talk facts, not cliche's. (I know that not the prefernce of many of the anti-healthcare reform people like John W)

Every other industrialized country on the planet manages to have all of their citizens have access to better healthcare. Not only that, they do it for less, and many of them have better results than our overpriced, severely rationed sytem does. We have by far the most expensive, least efficient, system in the world, and we only get second or third class results. Yet all we hear is the sheep like bleating from the terminally uniformed like John W "It can never work". It does work, in lots of places, and it works better than our current system.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-death-from-cancer

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx

http://www.forbestraveler.com/beneficial-travel/medical-tourism-2008-story.html

Yet all we'll hear back from John W is more fact free hot air about how universal healthcare could never succeed. Empty rhetoric from empty minds only looking to hold on to their own at any cost.

* * * * *
Posted by: bill r. | September 14, 2009 10:25 AM
.
bill,
.
Were you referring to the DEMOCRAT wording of the 1999 Texas law? You mean that DEMOCRAT “death panel” law? Bush didn’t write it; he only signed it because it was the only think the DEMOCRAT lawmakers would send him.
.
But of course, major distinctions like this get lost on partisan hacks like you who wish your party to have full propaganda value from such a law, without taking any real moral responsibility for the law itself. Moral responsibility for a law does not fall entirely or even largely on an executive. It falls on the legislature. Only a legislature can determine the wording of a law. The executive only gets to agree or veto. Even if an executive vetoes a law, a legislature often has the power to override the veto and turn a bill into a law without the executive. (And the Texas Legislature has this power.) Clearly, the legislature is the more powerful of the two and, thus, has the greater moral responsibility. So, how do we tell people about this horrible DEMOCRAT “death panel” law?
.
And you call my arguments mental masturbation? That’s hardly the case. Methinks it is you who are being intellectually dishonest. I tack you down on one point and you squirm and slip with the facility of a watermelon seed slathered in Crisco.® (I can only imagine that the name calling will come next.) I prove the law, contrary to your original claim, did not authorize or create “death panels” (because they already existed, and the law was intended to lessen their arbitrary power) - but now you go on about how it “looks worse” to a layman in comparison to the current health care bill. Your concern with how bad it “looks” is purely a matter of propaganda. It’s only good or relevant for you if you can somehow blame a Republican for the law while avoiding any blame for the Democrats who wrote it. Now that’s what I call disingenuous.
.
No one involved in the current debate is or was responsible for the Texas law. In which case, it is no hypocrisy for people, in general, to scream about the possible limitations that will come with the health care system. And, frankly, I don’t care if the Repelicans are being generically inconsistent. (I’m not a Repelican.) Show me a political party that is entirely consistent in all of their positions all of the time. They don’t exist.
.
Did you want a wing, a breast or a drumstick?

whats....a....tea...party?