The president’s contention was questionable.
But Rep. Wilson’s rash rudeness was a disgrace for him, an embarrassment for South Carolina and a particularly appalling breach of protocol by a native of Charleston, a bastion of gentility. Fellow federal lawmakers swiftly responded with bipartisan condemnation….
And we express sincere disappointment at seeing Joe Wilson descending to such deplorably bitter depths in a sorry spectacle that’s a sign of our increasingly acrimonious times.
I’m not from South Carolina, but I think too much is made of this incident. Considering the history of the Congress as well as governing bodies around the world this is not that unusual. The British Parliament has hade more than a lot of racous comments in its history. Yes, Rep. Wilson come have been more civil, but these are upsetting times, and people will get upset. The man apologized. One would think the Congress would have have better things to do than censure him, as some have suggested.
While my own interactions with Rep. Wilson have been quite limited, those who know him best testify that he’s hardly a hothead but rather a thoughtful, deliberative gentleman. That he was led to take such action testifies to the duplicitousness of the President’s rhetoric; Joe Wilson spoke for plenty of Americans who were saying the same thing as they watched at home!
And what do you know? Rep. Wilson was right: http://justifiedright.typepad.com/justified_right/2009/09/joe-wilson-wins-obama-amits-to-lie.html
I also don’t think it reflects badly on South Carolina at all, and no person from there needs to be embarrassed. Joe Wilson is one man; Even though he’s a Rep. he’s not actually THE state. Wilson apologized and President Obama accepted it. Let’s move on.
I completely agree, but fat chance of that happening — Jim Clyburn, the NAACP, and a host of liberal groups are going to try to milk it for all of the fundraising potential that they can!
Much has been made of the money that flowed into the coffers of his 2008 and presumptive 2010 opponent, but little has been said about the substantial funds raised by Congressman Wilson after the incident. It’s also significant that much of the money for his challenger has come in from out of state — something that doesn’t sit well with many of his constituents.
Has this writer not observed Parliament in action?
Comparisons with the British Parliament are inaccurate. The House of Commons has a tradition of rowdiness, but calling other members liars is absolutely forbidden. Such “unparliamentary” language, if used, has immediately to be withdrawn with apology and, if not, results in immediate (temporary) expulsion from the House.
How short our memories.
Remember when Democrats in Congress ‘boo-ed’ President Bush? Nary an eyebrow was raised by members of the press and TV media.
What we are dealing with here is either a ‘double-standard’ or different expectations of civility being applied to Republicans vis a vis Democrats. In any case, ‘what hypocrisy.’
#6 Forgive the hasty reaction from this prickly South Carolinian. You are correct.
Perhaps if there were more Joe Wilson’s in the House and the Senate, Congress would not be the lapdog of the Administration and it’s approval rating might be higher than the current 19%.
Meh.
Certainly [i]some[/i] South Carolinians are embarrassed. This one isn’t — and plenty of my friends aren’t either. I’ve long ago recognized that I — and South Carolina — have no one particularly to impress or from whom to seek out approval.
So the editor is “speaking for himself” and others — but not me. I’m afraid though that . . . he flatters himself as a representative of “the state of South Carolina.” ; > )
As I stated on another thread . . .
I wouldn’t have done it myself, but I’m not remotely embarrassed—and apparently the folks who donated $775,000 [it’s now $1 million] through his website in the last two days weren’t embarrassed by his behavior either but rather heartened.
I don’t have anyone in the political world that I particularly want SC to impress.
My reason for being embarrassed by Sanford is not his association with SC, but simply that he is a principled conservative—and therefore has engaged in disgraceful and horrific behavior. I find it repulsive and shameful.
I do think we’ll see more of the Joe Wilson kind of behavior and not less over the coming years. As the party of the Democrats lurches to the left, and as Republicans refuse to run conservative candidates in their own mistaken strategy, we’ll see more and more frustration and open disagreements among both the right and the left and less and less white-glove behavior.
Again—I wouldn’t have done it but it doesn’t embarrass me or surprise me.
badman, #6
I heard Stuart Varney comment the other night that Joe Wilson’s outburst would not be permitted in the House of Commons, but if he said “the right honourable gentleman lies” that would be acceptable. Can you shed some additional light on Varney’s assertion?
I think that the comparisons with Parliament are bit off the mark.
In England you have two separate people–one, the Prime Minister, is the Head of Government and gets heckled when he speaks, the other, the Queen, is the Head of State and I doubt that she gets heckled when she addresses the Parliament.
In the U.S., the President is both “Head of Government” (albeit not in anyway like the U.K. Prime Minister) and the “Head of State” (albeit not the “non-political” Queen of the U.K.). So Wilson wasn’t shouting out against a member of the House (as is the case in Parliament).
Besides, I hardly see why British rudeness excuses American rudeness. This isn’t Merrie Olde England.
[Off topic comment deleted by Elf. Subsequent comments referring to this have been deleted or edited]
“Besides, I hardly see why British rudeness excuses American rudeness. This isn’t Merrie Olde England.”
Idle thought: If it was, then maybe people would actually be motivated to watch CSPAN. At least Parliament is entertaining.
At any rate, his actions may have motivated the Democrats to finally accept previously rejected ammendments to remove the loopholes allowing illegal immigrants to use the proposed public option health insurrance. Small victory, but better than nothing.
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/09/11/ben-smith-wilson-wins
I apologize for my error about Parliament (but I don’t plan to go to the floor of the floor of the website and apologize for it in public. ;^). However, some politicians are awfully self righteous about it given the behavior of both parties. I also I think people should be censured for quite serious things; I just don’t think this is one.
[Edited by Elf – refers to #13]
Back to “rudeness” and “embarrassment” . . . sure it was rude. And nope — I am not embarrassed by it.
[Comment deleted by Elf – refers to #13]
“… [D]escending to such deplorably bitter depths… .” That’s a little overwrought, don’t you think? Mr. Wilson got caught up in the moment and acted out. We expect better from our Republican legislators.
BTW, my Yankee heart still loves S.C. The palmetto and the crescent moon has got to be the most evocative state emblem!
RE: “That’s a little overwrought, don’t you think?”
Some lavender water and a swooning couch is certainly called for.
; > )
Just elevating the debate, are you, Catholic Mom #13?
Rep. Wilson has issued a public apology and has called the White House to make his apology there. Enough. And since I often criticize the current administration, to their credit today the press secretary has denied the offensive notion, found in New York Times opinion columns and elsewhere, that Wilson’s outburst was “racism.” No such thing, they say.
[Edited by Elf – thanks for noting the issue Katherine]
[Off topic comment deleted by Elf
Which is to say, you believe what you want to believe, official investigations and reports notwithstanding. Ooookay.
Sarah1, can you lend Catholic Mom some of that lavender water?
Now we’re on to Obama — and Joe Wilson and his purportedly being an embarrassment to our good state of SC.
; > )
[Edited by Elf]
Catholic Mom, please refer me to the investigation that found that: that Bush knew what he was saying (about weapons of mass destruction, I guess? You tell me) was wrong – that he lied deliberately. Most of us thought he wasn’t lying; most Democrat leaders in the Congress thought he wasn’t lying; every single major intelligence agnecy in the world though he wasn’t lying.
Unless you can put up the evidence, then I hope you won’t mind me calling you a liar, since you’ve said two things here that are blatantly wrong, which I’m sure you know. It sounds like you don’t mind throwing the word around, so I hope you won’t take offense – sauce for the goose, and all that.
(I want to be clear, before the editors start coming around here: I am calling Catholic Mom a liar based on her own standards. By the common-sense standards of the rest of the world, as well as the definition of the word, neither she nor George Bush is lying; but she should be willing to live by her own rules.)
We’re supposed to be talking about Joe Wilson, Obama, and how we either are or are not embarrassed by Joe Wilson’s comments.
[Edited by Elf – thanks Sarah for noting the off topic comments]
Well, as far as being embarassed by what anybody else does, that’s pointless unless you have just vouched with your hand on the bible for their character and they have proven you a liar. I’m just now (almost) reaching the maturity not to be embarassed by the things my mother says. (Introducing my husband to her doctor: “This is my son-in-law. He has TWO doctor’s degrees.”) As far as being embarassed by my kids — never. The desire to kill them, yes, Embarassment, never. They’re on their own hook for what other people think of them.
I will save my remarks re: Bush and lying for another thread. The only relevance here was that I DON’T have a problem with someone calling out a person whom they consider to be lying over a life-and-death matter. In fact, I wish it had been done a lot more and a lot louder by the people who could actually have made a difference. But of course, they were all waiting to see which way the political winds blew before they exposed their butts to the slightest danger.
Q: Catholic Mom, please refer me to the investigation that found that: that Bush knew what he was saying (about weapons of mass destruction, I guess? You tell me) was wrong – that he lied deliberately.
A: I will save my remarks re: Bush and lying for another thread. The only relevance here, blah, blah, blah.
Thought so.
I wish we didn’t have to review the inner workings of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Rice-Tenet-Mueller group. But maybe the only way it can be settled is by an unlimited prosecutorial investigation, with results published uncensored.
I have some trouble with the business that Congress agreed with the assessment of Iraq. Where does Congress get its intelligence? Why from the administration, of course. If the administration is messaging intelligence to provoke war, they aren’t going to be telling that to the Congress. Duh. Maybe Congress needs to have its own intelligence agency, so that it can provide its members an independent assessment of intelligence apart from any administration filters.
There are two distinct possibilities. Either the intelligence agencies prior to March 20, 2003, were generally incompetent or else intelligence information being provided to Congress, the American people and our allies through the Administration filters was being deliberately manipulated so as to mislead. (If I recall some foreign governments–Germany, France, and Russia among others–disagreed with the Administration’s assessment.)
Now if the intelligence agencies were simply incompetent, then Congress and we the people need to know that, so that it can be fixed. If, on the other hand, accurate intelligence was being misrepresented by the administration, we need to know that so that we can be vigilant, perhaps put some safeguards in place and at least greet filtered intelligence with some healthy skepticism–and perhaps avoid another trillion+ dollar war, 4,000+ dead and 30,000+ wounded soldiers.
There has been enough smoke–some of it coming from insiders who should know what was going on–to suggest there may have been a fire. We need to know one way or the other.
You can start [url=http://www.bushwatch.com/iraqevidence.htm]here[/url] There are a few thousand others. Then email me privately since this is clearly off topic. I have to go drop off Boy Scout fliers at the schools in our township.
Had Joe not said what he did (right or wrong) the entire thing would never have come onto anyone’s radar and we would be paying for all those undocumented people’s healthcare forever. So “horray for Joe.”
[Edited by Elf]
See this [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png ]chart[/url] from wikipedia where entitlements (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security) plus cost of servicing the debt will cost 100% of Government revenues somewhere between 2030 and 2040.
With Obama increasing the federal debt and taking on a huge new entitlement program, the government will be paying 100% of its revenues on entitlements plus debt servicing even earlier. No DoD, no NASA, no NIH, etc.
‘Perhaps if there were more Joe Wilson’s in the House and the Senate, Congress would not be the lapdog of the Administration and it’s approval rating might be higher than the current 19%. ‘
while i think this incident has gotten blown out of proportion, i would like to say in response to this quote is that we had persons like mr. wilson in the majority for quite a few years and there is a reason why they are no longer in power. one could have reasonably used this same quote regarding the republican dominated congress led by a republican pres. this mess we are in now didn’t just happen in last six months, like it or not.
#31, great, a serious website! Does that also tell the world about how the Bush family and the bin Ladens worked together?
I’ll look, but first I need to get through the authoritative 9/11 Truth websites and jackrubyworkedfornixon.org.
History Lesson Update: George Bush is no longer president.
Congressional update: they get their intelligence from the same agencies as everyone else; the difference is lying to them is perjury
Entitlement Update: No NASA? No NIH? Does that also mean no more NEA? NPR?
24. Already left wrote:
[blockquote]Had Joe not said what he did (right or wrong) the entire thing would never have come onto anyone’s radar and we would be paying for all those undocumented people’s healthcare forever.[/blockquote]
I have news for you, we already are paying for undocumented people’s health care and we will continue to pay for their health care regardless of whatever health care bill becomes law as long as criminal Americans continue to employ them in violation of federal law.
Let’s consider a fairly common case. A worker is seriously injured on the job and needs emergency medical attention. Does the 911 operator determine his citizenship/immigration status first? Based on that is an ambulance or an INS officer dispatched? Who pays for the ambulance run? For that matter, who pays for the INS officer and having an undocumented worker deported? The worker arrives in the emergency room. Does the admitting nurse check his citizenship/immigration status before triage? If it is determined that he is an undocumented worker, does the nurse call the INS? Or if triage, who pays? If treated, who pays? Get the idea? We are being asked to subsidize criminal employers by providing emergency room treatment for the undocumented workers and their families, so the criminal employers can hire cheap, illegal workers, avoid having to provide health care insurance and, as is often the case, not observing laws regarding safe work sites. And we pay through higher medical bills, higher health insurance, higher taxes and more public debt.
[Edited by Elf]
Ken not certain what you’re talking about. The only person who mentioned Bush on this thread was the one pointing out the doublestandard of “rudeness” and “civility” that appears to apply — he wasn’t “justifying” th outburst – -I don’t see anyone here trying to “justify” it — no need to, honestly.
He wasn’t saying that Bush did or didn’t “lie” — he just wondered why the distinction on standards of civility or rudeness.
I, of course, wondered no such thing. I already know why.
Than Catholic Mom — noted political liberal here — began the chants about Bush lying.
Regardless of whether he lied or not, why are ya’ll talking about it?
We’re discussing Joe Wilson, remember? The mean horrible Joe Wilson! ; > )
The one that got $1 million in his coffers after his outburst.
That guy.
The one I appreciate knowing about now.
It’s amusing to see you guys try to continue fighting the Bush Wars — even on threads that have absolutely nothing to do with him.
But keep on, Ken — it’s revealing when you have to “look to the past” and try the distraction game.
38. Sarah1 wrote:
[blockquote]Ken not certain what you’re talking about. The only person who mentioned Bush on this thread was the one pointing out the doublestandard of “rudeness†and “civility†that appears to apply[/blockquote]
[i]Quod erat demonstrandum[/i]
[blockquote]Regardless of whether he lied or not, why are ya’ll talking about it?[/blockquote]
Because AnglicanFirst brought it up and you enthusiastically took the theme up. BTW, did you happen to have a son killed in Iraq? Cindy Sheehan did. Maybe that entitles her to be outraged and renders your slam more than merely rude.
Wilson: Right on accusation. Wrong on forum.
Elves – please. This thread has really gone off-topic, and engendered quite a bit of rancor. Help!
[You are correct Uh Clint – thank you – Elf]
For what it’s worth this Democrat thinks this is overblown. Rep. Wilson said what he said, and then apologized. The President accepted his apology. That should have been the end of it. Now Democratic congressmen are trying to make hay, and Wilson is now defending himself and essentially saying he was right to say what he did (which in my mind, is essentially retracting his apology).
I think his outburst was regrettable and factually inaccurate. There are safeguards in the proposed legislation against serving illegal immigrants. That those provisions may not be strong enough is an issue. That stronger provisions have been rejected is an issue. But there are safeguards. That does not make the President a liar. But still, Wilson’s outburst is not worthy of censure. All the Democratic attacks are now doing is raising his profile and making him a hero on the right (so that the likes of our sensible Sarah can say that, though she wouldn’t have done what he did, she’s going to contribute to his campaign…Sarah, you’re priceless – the next time you’re in Northern California you have an invitation to dinner).
[Edited by Elf]
There’s an old joke that there are two kinds of people in the world: those that think there are two kinds of people in the world and those that don’t. I count myself among the latter. I don’t consider that I have a “foundational worldview” (other than as a Catholic) which necessarily predisposes me to fit any kind of political category. I call them as I see them. I don’t shout out my calls on the floor of the United States Senate (then again I don’t have many opportunities to do so) but neither do I shy from expressing them in a forum in which they are likely to be unpopular. In fact, it seems to me, that if you’re only expressing your views to people who agree with you you might as well pretty much save your breath (or electrons, as the case may be.)
Fair enough, Catholic Mom, but we have a higher standard than “calling them as we see them.” Even Van Jones does that. We also have to be reasonably informed about events, from sources that eschew tin-foil hats. If you’re not going to learn about your Catholicism from The DaVinci Code, you shouldn’t learn about intelligence and security matters from bushwatch.org.
It’s possible to feel – yes, even in retrospect – that the Iraq War was a mistake and profoundly regret the mistaken intelligence provided to our policymakers without ascribing sinister motives to the same.
“…that’s a sign of our increasingly acrimonious times.”
Was talking to a colleague about healthcare reform and Obama. He said that he didn’t remember a time that the country was so polarized. We had our state meeting this weekend and one of the speakers who was “Obama good, Republicans bad” started to say that much of the opposition to Obama was due to racism. I lost it and was very rude, too.
Tactics like playing the race card together with obvious bias in the media that ignores the tea parties, etc., is driving the acrimony. If Obama and the democrats push health care through disregarding the grassroots objections, it will be much worse.
Depends what you mean by sinister. If you mean “I’m out to do evil and cause harm” then I don’t think Bush was sinister. What I do think (and it’s fairly well documented) was that he and Condoleeza Rice developed a fixation that if Iraq could be turned into a pro-American democracy, the complexion of the whole middle east would change and the current deadlock/debacle would begin to turn in our favor. He just needed Saddam Hussein to give him an excuse to invade. Unfortunately he didn’t give him an excuse to invade. So Bush et al made one up. Just look at what was actually going on in the last 10 days before the invasion. Hussein was actually capitulating. Bush would say “you have to agree to international inspection or else we invade” and Hussein would pretty much say “OK.” And then Bush would say “and you have to agree to dismantle any plants found producing materials that could be used to detonate a nuclear device or else we invade” and Hussein would pretty much say “OK”. And then Bush would say “and you have to agree to commit hari kari on the main street of Baghdad by Friday or else we’re going to invade.” It was totally obviousl that Bush was looking to find SOME ultimatum that Hussein wouldn’t agree to as a pretext for invasion. Even “tin foil hat” loonies like Colin Powell have said as much. But it was obvious to anyone just listening to the speeches at the time. When you’ve worked in corporate life as long as I have, you know the set up to a done deal when you hear it.
[This thread has been edited to remove an off-topic and increasingly ad hominem sub-thread. We apologise that in doing so it has been necessary to remove or edit a considerable number of comments. It is now open for comments which are on topic and conform to the usual standard which T19 expects commenters to observe – Elf]
RE: “All the Democratic attacks are now doing is raising his profile and making him a hero on the right . . . ”
You are exactly right. Today as I was coming home from my run, I had on talk radio and Wilson called in to the show — he’s a rock star now in SC. People were thrilled — just ecstatic — over his feistiness. And the “60,000” [sic, actually 1.3 million] folks who marched in Washington over the weekend were all chanting “you lie” . . . so now they’ve taken up his effusion as a new battle and protest cry.
I’m watching closely, however, to see if his feistiness is just a cover for being a horrible countryclub Republican and not a principled conservative. We’ll see.
You see . . . I am not taken in by purported feistiness in a public inappropriate forum — I must have much much more. ; > )
RE: “Sarah, you’re priceless – the next time you’re in Northern California you have an invitation to dinner).”
[sob]
Where were you when I resided for two dreary weeks in Anaheim transcribing vacuous inanities by revisionists?
I could have used being around someone who thought I was priceless!!!
Elves — I tried and tried. I was so noble. I restrained myself. I hope you all noticed just how good I was — how much I invoked your sacred names, how I toiled trying to get people back on topic — I even sacrificed and threatened to bring up Ronald Reagan — all to no avail. They were like the Israelites demanding the Golden Calf.
Modestly and Virtuously,
Sarah
People who don’t like what Joe Wilson said, should get a life and move on. He spoke the truth, there is no outright ban on illegals getting health care or outright ban on abortions.
I was there for a couple of days, but I finally figured that if I was going to visit a mindless fantasy world, I might as well go to Disneyland. Quelle domage, next time… invitation stands.
there are several levels of insult and embarrassment inherent in Congressman Wilson’s ill-bred comment. It is true that he has apologized to the President and the President has graciously accepted the apology. But Mr. Wilson also insulted the Congress of the United States and its House of Representatives. In so doing, he insulted the American people, whose Congress it is. And he insulted those of us who, as conservative Republicans, are in danger of being associated with him. By my reckoning, three more accepted apologies may get him back to zero. But it never should have happened in the first place.
I disagree — of course — with everything that NoVA Scout says above. No surprise.
But wait . . . no no no . . .
. . . He not only insulted “the American people” and “the Congress of the United States and its House of Representatives” and “conservative Republicans” but also [insert quavering voice here] the Canadian peoples, the South American peoples, the European Union, and indeed All People’s Whose World This Is. [hand pressed to brow]
19 more apologies at least!
Reply to #36,
Where the Democrats in Congress “ill-bred” when they boo-ed President Bush?
The bottom line is clear. Obama was lying and Wilson told the truth by saying so. So, what standard was violated and by whom?
What a tempest in a tea pot! Where was the outrage when Dingy Harry Reid called President Bush a loser, and a liar? Where was the outrage when Democrats hissed and booed President Bush’s SOU in 2005? When Van Johnson slurs white people, is he not blatantly racist? One would be hard pressed to find these stories in the so-called elite media. Joe spoke his mind, vocalizing what millions of Americans believe. The administration is totally out of touch with what the “masses”, the working stiffs, the man on the street believes and works for. They may be smart, but they are naive and their hubris is creating problems for them.
Rep. Wilson has apologized, and the apology has been accepted by the President.
I await Speaker Pelosi’s and Rep. Hoyer’s apology for calling vocal opponents of the health-care bill “unAmerican” in a USA Today op-ed, and Majority Leader Reid’s apology for calling them “evil mongers.” And even the President, in the speech at which Wilson lost control, called prominent political opponents liars. If Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid and Obama wish to tone down the nature of this debate, they can begin addressing the bill in detail, answering objections point by point. Let’s talk about the Capps amendment which ensures abortion will be in the plan, about the illegal alien question, about the release of IRS data on millions of Americans to HHS officials, about the large personal fines people will pay for non-compliance, about how approved plans will be decided on by the government commission, about what plans will no longer be legal, about the large annual fines to be laid on insurance companies and medical device suppliers, about how Medicare spending will be reduced, and so on. The more people become familiar with the details of these Congressional plans, the less they like them.
Sarah: why in the World would you feel Wilson’s comment had any impact on Canada, Europe, or anywhere else (other than to feed foreign prejudices that American political leadership is infested with a high degree of oafishness, an outlook I’ve had to fight all my adult life when I’ve lived abroad). I think the harm is very much institutional and confined to the American institutions directly involved. Your internationalist outlook seems a bit over the top to me.
39. Katherine wrote:
[blockquote] Let’s talk about the Capps amendment which ensures abortion will be in the plan[/blockquote]
That’s not what the Capps amendment says. It says that if you want to pay for a [b]private[/b] plan that covers abortions, you can do so; that [b]private[/b] plans will not be precluded from offering such coverage. [url=http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/node/10887]House Committee Passes Capps Amendment, Protects Abortion Coverage in Private Plans[/url]
[blockquote]about the illegal alien question[/blockquote]
I find this rather fascinating. In my experience illegal aliens really do try to avoid as much dealing with the federal government as possible for the rather obvious reason that it is a good way to get arrested, detained and eventually deported. In other words, if health reform passes with a provision that there be a subsidy for those who cannot afford health insurance, illegal aliens simply won’t bother to try to get government subsidized health insurance because it is a good way to meet an INS officer. Criminal employers who break the law hiring undocumented workers will [b]continue[/b] not offering health insurance (and complain that they have to pay 8% tax on payroll because they don’t provide health insurance) and illegal workers simply won’t try to get it because (a) they can’t afford it with the wages paid by the criminal employer and (b) they don’t want to risk deportation by applying for government assistance.
[blockquote]about the release of IRS data on millions of Americans to HHS officials[/blockquote]
It is amazing that Republicans are so enthusiastic about encouraging fraud and hindering law enforcement from doing its job. Actually, of course, this sort of thing goes on already. To think, Republicans have no problem with the government engaging in warrantless wiretaps of private phone calls and interception of e-mail. How about government monitoring of bank accounts?
A lot of criminals (think Al Capone) don’t go to prison because of the extortion, drug dealing or racketeering activity, but because they screwed up on their income tax returns.
The ability to compare income tax returns against applications for means tested government programs is clearly a sensible way to prevent fraud and abuse. Get real. You have more to fear from an IRS audit than from the IRS sharing limited tax return information to HHS.
[blockquote]about the large personal fines people will pay for non-compliance[/blockquote]
Well here’s the issue. If Joe decides he doesn’t need health insurance and breaks the law (I thought Republicans were big on law and order, silly me), all is fine until Joe is in an automobile accident or is diagnosed with advance testicular cancer. Joe’s income of $26,000 a year isn’t sufficient to cover his medical expenses–and besides, being an hourly wage earner, his income stops. Who pays? Well, the rest of us pay in higher medical costs for us and higher insurance rates for everyone.
[blockquote] about how approved plans will be decided on by the government commission[/blockquote]
O.K., let’s do away with this. All health insurance plans are equal. Shady Operator Insurance Company can offer a health insurance policy that covers only Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma–and you can get coverage for $25 per month with a government subsidy. The operators laugh all the way to the bank. You know what? The Republicans got a prescription benefit plan for Medicare passed into law. One of the things in that law has the federal government saying what is a “qualified plan” under the law. As a retired Texas teacher, I have TRS-Care-3. We (and those who bought only TRS-Care-2 which is cheaper and offers less benefits) get a letter from Aetna stating that our plan has a “qualified” prescription drug benefit and that we probably shouldn’t buy a prescription drug plan; others have TRS-Care-1 which is even cheaper and and offers even less get a letter stating that it does not have a “qualified” prescription drug benefit and that those retirees should consider buying a prescription drug policy. I know about that letter because last year Aetna sent the “non-qualified” letter to all retirees by mistake and about two weeks later–after thousands of phone calls from retirees–we got a letter apologizing for the mistake and informing us that TRS-Care-2 and TRS-Care-3 have a “qualified” drug benefit.
[blockquote]about what plans will no longer be legal[/blockquote]
Shocking! The scammers at Shady Operator Insurance Company are horrified that government will put a stop to their scam.
[blockquote]about the large annual fines to be laid on insurance companies and medical device suppliers, about how Medicare spending will be reduced, and so on[/blockquote]
I don’t know how old you are, but I’m 72. And I get tons of junk mail because of that offering me Medicare supplemental insurance, Medicare prescription drug insurance, hearing aide devices (some pretty obviously scams) and power driven wheel chairs (scooters). You’ve probably seen some of this stuff advertised on TV.
The Medicare supplemental and prescription insurance is pretty straight forward. So are the hearing aide ads, except that they are sometimes scams selling junk usually for $1,000+ per device. (The last time I bought a good hearing aide I paid over $3,000–not covered by any insurance.
Not so the scooter ads, which say “We will qualify you under Medicare or else we will give you the scooter free.” Now it is in there interest to qualify me for the scooter whether or not I actually need a scooter (I don’t). If they qualify me, they sell a scooter paid for on the public’s dime; if not they suffer the loss of not making the sale and having to give me that free scooter.
One of the things that is pretty obvious is that this is, to some extent, a scam. And one way for the government to stop it is to tighten the requirements for scooters for the elderly. And if a less expensive hand powered wheel chair or a cane or maybe just a good pair of sneakers will meet my mobility needs, then actually everyone benefits. Obviously these less expensive alternatives are actually healthier choices–even the sneakers which aren’t covered by Medicare–where appropriate. (And I would note that Medicare is looking into this scooter business.)
Now either we try to curtail government waste or we don’t. I don’t think Republicans can have it both ways. Either we try to reduce waste in government programs or we don’t. Which is it?
NoVA Scout #36, the people who really insulted the American people – deliberately, openly and in print (USA Today) – were Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer (and these are 2 of many Democrat examples). What do you have to say about them?
Ken Peck, no matter what anyone brings up, you’re going to find a way to justify what the government wants to do here. Your tax return information funneled to HHS? No worries; they’re only trying to prevent fraud. Young people can’t buy the high-deductible low cost major medical policy any more? Well, they should be paying more towards the care of their elders anyhow, more than their Medicare taxes. And individuals might make poor decisions so they must be forced to make better decisions, as defined by the government, and fined if they don’t. How people can complain about wiretaps (supervised by a court) when one end was international and al Qaeda-suspected but find NO PROBLEMS with this Rube Goldberg health-care plan is beyond me.
More and more voters are becoming convinced there’s a problem as they see the details.
I have to laugh when I see Ken Peck respond to Katherine’s IRS concern, with no apparent sense of irony, “It is amazing that Republicans are so enthusiastic about encouraging fraud … A lot of criminals (think Al Capone) don’t go to prison because of the extortion, drug dealing or racketeering activity, but because they screwed up on their income tax returns.” This, in the government of Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle and Charlie Rangel (sadly, that’s only a partial list).
43. Katherine wrote:
[blockquote]Ken Peck, no matter what anyone brings up, you’re going to find a way to justify what the government wants to do here.[/blockquote]
One of the neat things about America is that [b]we the people[/b] are the government. And what 53% of [b]we the people[/b] who voted back in November want to do is have a comprehensive, universal national health plan. Even John McCain wanted that back in the fall.
[blockquote]Your tax return information funneled to HHS? No worries; they’re only trying to prevent fraud.[/blockquote]
First off, the government already has and knows my tax return information. I really do have some difficulty with the idea that we should encourage waste and corruption by keeping that information from various departments of government some sort of deep, dark secret. Let me assure you that any time the FBI, CIA, Secret Service or DHS wants to see what’s in your tax return, they can do so.
[blockquote]Young people can’t buy the high-deductible low cost major medical policy any more?[/blockquote]
Anyone will be able to buy high-deductible low cost major medical insurance under the plan. The insurance companies will continue to offer a variety of options.
[blockquote]Well, they should be paying more towards the care of their elders anyhow, more than their Medicare taxes.[/blockquote]
I’ve been paying Medicare taxes for decades to pay the medical expenses of my elders. So what’s new other than now I can derive some benefits from the system. (BTW, next year appears to be the first year I don’t pay Medicare taxes.)
[blockquote]And individuals might make poor decisions so they must be forced to make better decisions, as defined by the government, and fined if they don’t.[/blockquote]
We do that all the time when one person’s bad decisions impact the rest of us. You make a bad decision and run a red light, endangering law abiding citizens, you pay a fine. That’s how it works. I’m sorry that you think all of us should pay for others’ bad decisions.
[blockquote]How people can complain about wiretaps (supervised by a court)[/blockquote]
Sorry, but those wiretaps were not supervised by a court. There was a special court which, in fact has jurisdiction over such matters, but the administration broke the law and snooped without any legal basis and in violation of the Bill of Rights. It is amazing that you can tolerate that sort of behavior on the part of government and proposed lawful use of information already possessed by the government to prevent fraud. But such is the inconsistency of Republicans these days.
44. Phil wrote:
[blockquote]This, in the government of Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle and Charlie Rangel[/blockquote]
All of whom paid back taxes, along with interest and penalties. There are a number of Republicans, both in public and private life, have had similar difficulties.
I have made mistakes on my tax returns and, as a consequence, had to pay back taxes, along with interest and penalties. It happens. Even to people who are expert in tax law.
Your point is?
Really, Ken? “And what 53% of we the people who voted back in November want to do is have a comprehensive, universal national health plan”?
What’s your source for that? If it’s just the non-logic of going by Barry’s share of vote, do you think 53% of we the people also wanted 9/11 Truthers in high government positions?
My point is, Ken, don’t accuse Republicans of encouraging tax fraud when it’s only in a Democrat administration that you can be one and be Treasury Secretary, high-level health policy advisor to the President or high-ranking committee chair in Congress. The back taxes were paid when the media got wind of the issue – not before. Which you know, but such is the inconsistency of Democrats these days.
47. Phil wrote:
[blockquote]Really, Ken? “And what 53% of we the people who voted back in November want to do is have a comprehensive, universal national health plan�[/blockquote]
This really doesn’t make any grammatical sense.
As I recall, a comprehensive, universal national health plan was a major issue for both political parties in both the primaries and general election. The only differences were on how best to go about that. 53% of Americans voted for Barak Obama/Joseph Biden rather than John McCain/Sarah Palin. They also increased the Democratic majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, where again that was one of the issues of the campaigns.
RE: “I think the harm is very much institutional and confined to the American institutions directly involved.”
And of course, there was no “harm” at all done.
But good news — Wilson’s on a nationally syndicated talk radio show today — yesterday my home town local talk radio show.
Go Joe Wilson!!!!
If only Pelosi and Rangel can bestow upon him the honor which they are considering, I see fast-selling t-shirts in his future. The man’s a Rock Star more and more now.
[Turning into a fan now, every day this goes by].
RE: “Ken Peck, no matter what anyone brings up, you’re going to find a way to justify what the government wants to do here.”
Right — because Ken Peck’s values and ideology are collectivist. His defense therefore of Obama’s plans are perfectly in line with his foundational worldviews regarding private property, capital, and the role of the State.
That’s why there’s not going to be any sort of agreement between conservatives and folks like Ken Peck — they hold antithetical worldviews and values regarding political matters.
RE: “And what 53% of we the people who voted back in November want to do is have a comprehensive, universal national health plan . . . ”
Heh.
Even were that granted to be true . . . I think the American people are now “changing their minds.” ; > )
It doesn’t make any grammatical sense, Ken? Since most of it was quoting you, I guess I’ll agree.
Also: your recall is wrong. Comprehensive government nationalization of our health care industry wasn’t an important issue in the campaign, particularly after the economy almost melted down in September (scarcely after the conventions, leaving that as the dominant issue for nearly 60 days). But I’ll take it from your non-response and reiteration of your unsourced imaginations that you do, in fact, think 53% of the American electorate also wanted 9/11 Truthers in senior government positions. I guess that’s why Barry’s approval rating is upside down, because he eased Van Jones out at midnight on Sunday of Labor Day weekend.
No, the reality is, the American people, for whatever reason, thought they were electing a moderate. Except – they didn’t.
48. Phil wrote:
[blockquote]My point is, Ken, don’t accuse Republicans of encouraging tax fraud when it’s only in a Democrat administration that you can be one and be Treasury Secretary, high-level health policy advisor to the President or high-ranking committee chair in Congress.[/blockquote]
The simple fact of the matter is that if you have a federal program which makes money available based on a means test, the easiest way to verify income is to have access to basic income tax return data. I suppose one could require applicants to submit copies of tax returns–as do most college loan programs, mortgage banks and others. That process obviously reveals a good deal more to the loan and mortgage officers than the proposed law would require the IRS to reveal to HHS. The information that would be provided would be an important way to prevent cheats from cheating the rest of us by providing false information to HHS.
Assuming that the congressional Republicans are not simply attempting to thwart the will of the majority of Americans by blocking any sort of comprehensive, universal health care coverage (which I admit may be assuming far too much) then it would seem to me that a party that talks so much about cutting out government inefficiency, waste and corruption would walk the walk and see provisions in the law that would reduce cheats getting around the law at everyone else’s expense. But apparently not.
As for your accusations against Tim Geithner and others, you assume far to much not in evidence. People do make mistakes on tax returns. There can be disputes over what laws and regulations may mean which sometimes take years to resolve. And the people in question paid back taxes, interest and penalties–perhaps even in instances where they felt the IRS was wrong. The IRS has did not accuse them of criminal activity. They weren’t indicted. They were tried.
Joe Wilson apologized–and some say that should be the end of the matter. Geithner paid back taxes, interest and penalties; that should be the end of the matter.
50. Sarah1 wrote:
[blockquote]Right—because Ken Peck’s values and ideology…[/blockquote]
I think it is time for the Elves to intervene again. Sarah’s back to [i]argumentum ad hominem[/i] again.
But “Modestly and Virtuously” I’ll not respond in kind, although I could.
51. Phil wrote:
[blockquote]Also: your recall is wrong. Comprehensive government nationalization of our health care industry wasn’t an important issue in the campaign[/blockquote]
Well, no. No one was talking about “comprehensive government nationalization of our health care industry” then; and, of course no one is talking about that now, either. But I guess it makes a good straw man for those who do not want to address the actual issues.
But all candidates including the Republicans–both in the primaries and in the general election–were talking about comprehensive, universal health care reform. And the sort of thing Obama is talking about now is what he talked about during the campaign. He won; McCain who had different ideas lost–although Obama has adopted some of McCain’s ideas as he mentioned in his speech last week.
And, incidentally, one of the reasons why we need to address the problem is that it is one of several factors resulting in defaults on home mortgages, bankruptcies and the meltdown of credit last year. There are, of course, other factors–but individuals facing financial disaster because of illness or accidents contribute to the collapse of the finance system a year ago.
It isn’t so much ad hominem as correctly predicting the line you’ll take in an argument. She isn’t saying an argument is bad because you espouse it, but rather that you tend to espouse arguments which Sarah views as deeply flawed on their own merits. I took it more along the lines of “why bother talking, we aren’t going to change their minds. What we see as ‘good’ they see as ‘bad’ and vice versa.” I think that’s a fairly accurate statement. Events I would greet with horror as the death of liberty would find you dancing in the streets, and I suspect the contrary is also true. One can use personal names without being ad hominem.
RE: “Sarah’s back to argumentum ad hominem again.”
No “argument” at all, Ken. You and I hold mutually antithetical foundational principles and value in regards to the State, capital, private property, and individual liberty.
Further — I did not say anything negative about you personally. I merely pointed out our mutually opposing worldviews . . . which exist and which guide both of our following decisions and arguments.
RE: “What we see as ‘good’ they see as ‘bad’ and vice versa.†I think that’s a fairly accurate statement. Events I would greet with horror as the death of liberty would find you dancing in the streets, and I suspect the contrary is also true.”
Yup — exactly so, Andrew.
55. Andrew717 wrote:
[blockquote]It isn’t so much ad hominem as correctly predicting the line you’ll take in an argument.[/blockquote]
“Predicting the line” some one will “take in an argument” isn’t an argument against “the line”.
It is quite predictable what “line” Sarah will take on most any issue. That doesn’t make them “flawed” nor does it offer a rebuttal against the line.
To mistake a “prediction” as some sort of rebuttal is in this case [i]argumentum ad hominem[/i]. It is even more certain that it is [i]argumentum ad hominem[/i] when one couples it with a pejorative term like “collectivist”, as she did.
If, as Sarah argued earlier, we should stick to the issue of how to provide quality and affordable health care to all Americans or what is and is not suitable to achieve that end in the various bills and proposals before Congress. Personal insults do not achieve that end.
I recall in happier, less partisan times, one of the leading Democrats of the U.S. Senate praised Senator Robert Taft of Ohio by saying that when the Democrats had met the all challenges to their legislation he could offer, they felt that they had a good bill.
What we are seeing is not the “loyal opposition” striving to make legislation better, but simply attempting to maintain the unsatisfactory [i]status quo[/i]. And even when the Democrats adopt language to meet their objections, they still oppose action.
56. Sarah1 wrote:
[blockquote]RE: “Sarah’s back to argumentum ad hominem again.â€
No “argument†at all, Ken. You and I hold mutually antithetical foundational principles and value in regards to the State, capital, private property, and individual liberty.
Further—I did not say anything negative about you personally[/blockquote]
Actually you threw in a pejorative term to characterize my “values and ideology”. And while I am complaining, I would suggest that you have no idea what my “foundational principles and value in regards to the State, capital, private property, and individual liberty” are. That is particularly true considering your labeling them as “collectivist”–which they aren’t.
But you are right. You do not offer an argument for your position, but merely attempt to denigrate the arguments of those American citizens who exercise their fundatmental right and individual liberty to disagree with you.
But you are right. Our views are antithetical. But you are unwilling to discuss the real issues which confront our nation and the world, so discussion with you is pointless.
Good bye.
And have a nice day.
Ken Peck . . .
RE: “To mistake a “prediction†as some sort of rebuttal is in this case argumentum ad hominem.”
It might be . . . if I had been offering a rebuttal. But I wasn’t even attempting to rebut your assertions. I did not care to — and I explained why too.
RE: “It is even more certain that it is argumentum ad hominem when one couples it with a pejorative term like “collectivistâ€,” . . .
How intriguing that you see that as a pejorative term. It’s not.
RE: “What we are seeing is not the “loyal opposition†striving to make legislation better, but simply attempting to maintain the unsatisfactory status quo.”
Well duh. The legislation cannot be “made better” as long as it involves the State making decisions about healthcare that individuals should be making.
Again — back to mutually opposing foundational worldviews.
The legislation would have to be completely obliterated, and then started all over again, this time from a moral, and Constitutional, and helpful worldview. Of course, there have been numerous suggestions of what kind of legislation to have . . . the Jim DeMint act being a nice start. But . .. of course . . . that does not involve collectivist State controlled decision making. And thus . . it’s not acceptable to . . . you know . . . . the folks like Ken Peck in the legislature. ; > ) Which is the reason why the two sides cannot “come to the table” to “make the legislation better.”
RE: “you have no idea what my “foundational principles and value in regards to the State, capital, private property, and individual liberty†are. . . . ”
Well of course I do. Just as you do about [i]my[/i] foundational principles and values in regards to the State, capital, private property, and individual liberty. We’ve both made them quite clear over the past months of disagreeing about most things regarding those topics.
You may not like people knowing those — why I don’t know — but people do. I personally don’t mind a bit people knowing what mine are — again, they’ve been demonstrated in spades, as yours have been.
RE: “You do not offer an argument for your position, but merely attempt to denigrate the arguments of those American citizens who exercise their fundatmental right and individual liberty to disagree with you.”
You are right I did not offer an “argument” — there was no point as we don’t share a foundational worldview in common enough to “argue” about details. I did not denigrate your assertions, and in fact pointed out why we would continue to disagree about most things regarding the role of the State, individual liberty, private property, and capital.
RE: “But you are right. Our views are antithetical.”
Yup. As I pointed out above.
RE: ” . . . so discussion with you is pointless.”
Yep, it is. We do not hold similar enough worldviews regarding the State, capital, private property, and individual liberty to have fruitful discussion . . . as I pointed out above.
RE: “And have a nice day.”
Thanks — it was great!