QED.
The point seemed pretty important to you at the time, not to mention that it is the basis for everything you’ve posted in this thread. All of it based on a falsehood, sigh …
Don’t have to, wouldn’t matter if I did. You’d still be just as wrong. But it’s widely believed, and never disputed, nonetheless.
QED once again.
I’d like to throw in that it’s the epitome of intellectual laziness to say “both sides are equally bad.” That simply isn’t true, and it’s likely to never be true. One side is acting like more like douchebags right this moment. And as it happens it’s the children that act as the leaders of the right.
Off the top of my head:
Deathers.
Birthers.
Tea-baggers.
Socialism!
Hitler!
Wanting to derail health care reform.
Forcing bible classes into Texas public school curricula.
The left has loonies, most definitely. But they aren’t in charge. The loonies of the right are.
People describe themselves as ‘reality-based’ because they care about facts and reasons, mocking the guy who thought that was a naive thing to do. It is a rejection of the viewpoint that stating Iraq is a threat to our national security makes it true.
I saw it and thought my head was going to explode. She wasn’t even reading from the correct portion of the bill. She was reading the physicians reporting provisions, NOT the actual description of the requirements on end-of-life planning, which start on page 424, not page 432 as she was referencing.
Also, nowhere in the bill does it note that doctors are required to have this conversation with their patients - it just prescribes what elements should be included in the conversation if the patient wants to have it. Treatments and discussions for a patient are always optional, especially under Medicare. That’s part of Medicare beneficiary rights & protections. It would go contrary to Congressional intent to require such a conversation if the patient opted out of it.
But what pissed me off the most about McCAughey and her ilk is that they’re acting like this thing is law. IT. IS. NOT. LAW. That’s why it’s called a proposed bill.
I’m not going to merge this thread with this Daily Show thread from Wednesday since the topics are still pretty different. But if health care reform/death panels continue to dominate Daily Show content and the SDMB in September when the show comes back, I’m going to propose we have a weekly Daily Show thread rather than threads about individual episodes.
I can agree with that. But when one side convinces themselves they are right by virtue of identity well that’s when the slow/quick slide into irrationality occurs.
As the ability to prolongue life indefinitely comes closer and closer to reality the more truth there will be to the idea of death panels.
Agreed
No sillier than leftist protestors I’ve encountered. My favorite leftist protestor moment was when two guys standing about four feet from one another were arguing about the arms race and the guy who was taking that contrary position was answering through a megaphone. I wanted to ask him if he got the irony but I figured he probably wouldn’t and just shuffled along.
Not so far-fetched.
Was it cool when people were calling Bushitler?
Wanting to railroad health-care reform in a short period of time?
I admit I haven’t seen this one. I heard that the textbooks were being mucked with but not bible classes.
I tend to agree with this sentiment.
And I see a fine line between being interested in facts and just accepting the liberal groupthink because of course liberals facts are more likely to be on point.
‘Reality has a well-known liberal bias.’, can very easily become an excuse for intellectual laziness.
I dunno… I can see where McCaughey could have come up with what she did. But only if she’s either an asshole attempting to use fear for political gain or illiterate.
What kills me was that she wasn’t even reading from the correct portion of the bill. She was reading the physicians reporting provisions, NOT the actual description of the requirements on end-of-life planning, which actually start on page 424, not page 432 that she kept nattering on about.
Also, nowhere in the bill does it note that doctors are required to have this conversation with their patients – it just prescribes what elements should be included in the conversation if the patient wants to have it. Treatments and discussions for a patient, particularly one with Medicare, are always optional. That’s part of Medicare beneficiary rights & protections. It would go contrary to Congressional intent to require such a conversation if the patient opted out of it.
But what pisses me off most about McCaughey and her ilk is that they’re frightening people over something that is NOT law. It’s a proposal, not actual signed legislation. None of this stuff can be implemented until it’s law.
And that’s what we’ve seen from what’s left of the Republicans.
Psst … we already have them. They’re called HMO’s.
Cite?
It’s been discussed for literally decades. The people now in control of the White House and Congress were elected to finally implement it. How is that “railroading”? :dubious:
Go back and reread. The Bible is being forced into textbooks, not the other way around.
I could not believe how unorganized and unprofessional McCaughey was in presenting her argument. (In fact, I now wonder if it was a put-on.) If you’re going on national TV to read selected sections from a 1,000 page bundle, it seems basic that you would tag the relevant pages with post-it notes so that you would avoid wasting everyone’s valuable time by having to awkwardly flip through the notebook. That’s something I learned to do before I entered high school. I can’t believe somebody with McCaughey’s educational and professional background had not learned such elementary presentation skills (unless her supposed lack of preparation was a deliberate tactic of some sort).
I think a lot of that had to do with McCaughey’s aforementioned lack of organization. Stewart is used to a certain level of preparation by his guests and her apparent amateurishness likely through him off.
And even beyond that, those are the requirements if the patient wants the doctor to be compensated by Medicare for the conversation.
Mesquite-oh, the thing is, that ambiguity is there not just for healthcare reform or the document you were discussing, but for virtually all of the laws and regulations we get by on every day. Apparently a lot of Americans didn’t realize policy is more more complex than the Speed Limit 55 signs they see on the roads, but it is. So the complexity of this bill is being used as a distraction.
Well it’s good to see that you have found people you’d like to emulate and are hard at work on it.
:dubious:
You really don’t understand how the process works like at all huh? You haven’t followed this topic in the news? I mean not even a little? This particular bill was being rushed through the process. I guess you don’t know how to separate the theoretical from the practical. It’s been talked about for years in the abstract. The specific implementation is where the battle lies. The Devil is in the details as they say.
Not even an appropriate response to what I said.
Off-the-cuff remarks are where people tend to reveal embarrassing truths about their attitudes.
True, but since we aren’t sure who actually said it…
Sorry for the double post - my PC’s been acting funky all day and I thought my post had been eaten. I guess not.
Now that you’ve established your level here, let’s proceed on that basis.
Apparently the significance of “cite” needs to be explained here. Are you seriously suggesting that “Bushitler” had a similar sort of currency and popularity among, well, anybody as the “Obama is a socialist” meme to which you’re trying to equate it? Can you cite that?
After decades of discussion and being elected by We the People to put it in, yes.
Any excuse for trying to stall it is acceptable to you and your shrinking minority, IOW. You might as well admit it directly. You could, and certainly would, say exactly the same thing about any bill of any significance which you oppose for reasons you can’t or won’t state directly.
Your side lost the decades-long debate. You tried, and fought well and effectively, but it’s over. Responsible citizenship in a democracy requires that you accept that. Please do so.
It was pointing out your problem with what you call “reading comprehension”. You failed to comprehend what you read, so completely that you came up with the opposite meaning somehow. I suggested you try again before you embarrass yourself further. You refused to do so. And, apparently, still do. The consequences are your own.
PS: Why does it matter *which *Bush top assistant said the “liberals” are the “reality-based community”? You’re not going to get any less wrong by being stubborn about it.
This was a formal interview, on a not-for-attribution basis, *not *off the cuff.
I know this is gross over-simplification but reading the health bill reminds me of reading the inserts in prescription drugs. That’ll scare the bejeezus out of you too and make you question whether you should really risk taking that drug.
Actually I am referring to comparing him to Hitler strictly, and in terms of comparison I think there’s no comparison. The left’s comparison of Bush to Hitler was orders of magnitude more common than the reverse on Obama. The same for calling Bush a fascist vs Obama a socialist, in which case it’s about equal.
Yeah I guess you really don’t understand how legislation is drafted.
MY shrinking minority? Left leaning Democrats are a shrinking minority? Is it 2010 already? Here I thought we still had a solid majority.
I guess you really just didn’t pay any attention to the rush this bill was put under, the arbitrary deadline that was set. We aren’t talking about decades of debate here, we are talking about THIS bill, not others that came before it, and the amount of time it took from drafting to the first deadline set for voting on it. It was rushed in every sense of the word.
Lost what side of the debate? You mean we’ll never get socialized medicine? And here I thought that there was a good chance we were going to get something real out of this legislation. You think that this bill is going to be killed for sure?
Between the two of us in terms of reading comprehension, I’m Stephen Hawking and you’re Gomer Pyle. You’re not even actually responding to what I’m writing, and your memory of the Bush years seems to be fading so fast you must’ve smoked A LOT more pot than I have to not remember Bushitler.
Which ‘top assistant’? There you go with assuming something about the identity of the source without evidence. What was that about facts having a well-known what bias? I forget the point you were trying to make since you’ve been so big on your unsupportable assertions.
It’s a testament to your reading comprehension that you think I am still arguing against the cites regarding the article written by Ron Suskind about some administration ‘aide’ who made some comment about the reality-based community.
There you go with saying something you don’t have evidence for.
According to Ron Suskind:
Where in that do you get that it wasn’t off the cuff? I am not arguing that it was. You’re just claiming an intimate knowledge that I feel you should easily be able to back up with your, ‘reality based community’, bona fides.