Shouldn't we just murder the "death-panel" idiots?

[Shirley_Ujest]

Yanno what I would like to see is some hidden camera on Sara Palin where she is cackling and dissin’ Old Peeple and the Geezer Brigade and saying how they should all die.

See this angry mob turn and slowly come after her would be awesome.

[Merijeek]

@Bryan_Ekers

I’m not sure how this is different that what exists currently in the U.S. If you have coverage (and millions of Americans don’t), you have to go begging to your insurance company to see if they’ll graciously decide to fund your treatments, and since they have battalions of lawyers on retainer, they can almost certainly find a way to deny coverage (or at least delay it for years) if they really want to.

Because, to those mom’s-basement-dwelling free marketeers out there, corporations are blameless, holy creatures and you should be thrilled they deign to take your money.

-Joe

[Merijeek]

@BrainGlutton

Now Michael Steele is doing it. :rolleyes:

He has to pander to keep his job.

Just watch, he’ll spend the rest of his time in that position latched onto The Palin as tight as a tick.

-Joe

[MEBuckner]

@Fuzzy_Dunlop

Here’s an interesting and timely article on the subject:

The Democrats' senior problem - POLITICO

@Politico

Frustrated older Americans are packing the town halls on health care. They are incredibly passionate about their Medicare benefits. Polls show senior citizens largely disapprove of health care reform ideas so far.

And of course, they vote — in larger numbers than any other demographic.

But so far, Democrats have focused much of their health care sales pitch on middle-class Americans and the uninsured — a slight that has been noticed by senior citizens, who hold great influence with members of Congress.

“We’ve already GOT our socialistic government-provided health care! Besides, every time one of those young whippersnappers dies it frees up more of those fresh, delicious organs our bodies need to stay alive!”

[foolsguinea]

point of information: It’s not genocide if they’re past reproductive age, anyway.

Not that I’m advocating killing them. Then we’d get blamed for some other reason. I wouldn’t mind knocking some of them over & yelling at them, though.

[Liberal]

@jsgoddess

Before anyone else goes into any detail attempting to correct the errors, how about a little good faith offer on your part. If you read the bills and get information, etc. will you start rejecting the information from the people who are either mistaken or lying?

My mother will parrot talking points and then, if they are disproven, go back and listen to those same people again and parrot those talking points. She never says, “Enough. This source is tainted.”

This happened with my brother-in-law. He was all upset about how Obama was going to take his guns away because he saw something on Fox Noise about a house bill, and he knew the HR number. So I pulled it up for him, and we read it together. It was a short bill, and the only thing really new in it was the photo ID and permanent weapon ID, so that a gun used in a crime could be traced back through its chain of ownership. After reading it, he shrugged and said, “It won’t stop criminals.” And I asked “What will?” And that was the end of that.

[elfkin477]

@jsgoddess

Before anyone else goes into any detail attempting to correct the errors, how about a little good faith offer on your part. If you read the bills and get information, etc. will you start rejecting the information from the people who are either mistaken or lying?

You mean like this?

[wonky]

@elfkin477

You mean like this?

Exactly like that. Awesome.

[wonky]

@elfkin477

People keep saying this, but they also keep saying that if the plan goes into effect then insurance companies will be forbidden to write new policies…so, if you ever lose your private policy, you’ll have to take the government one.

These things can’t both be correct, so which is it? You can still buy new private insurance policies ****or ****the insurance companies won’t be able to sell them to you?

Okay, I haven’t tracked down the original source of this story, but I have tracked one source to, oh dear, Investor’s Business Daily. Yep, them again.

Second paragraph here:

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:

“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.

Sounds dire, but if you take a look at the bill (I hope that link works), you see that we seem to be under the header of “Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage.” So, the bill is saying that after this bill were to go into effect, new policies couldn’t be written that were grandfathered in. That makes sense, since the definition of grandfathering doesn’t allow new things, only existing things. The bill does make exceptions for adding dependents to those grandfathered policies.

That’s the only place I can find “limitation on new enrollment” under any header.

I hope that answers your question. It appears Investor’s Business Daily makes a habit of, well, we’ll be generous and call it less than vigorous research.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@elfkin477

You mean like this?

Wait a tick… I thought you were Quadgop’s kid. No?

[Polycarp]

@Taber

That’s not true. The bill has some requirements that any new policy has to meet i.e. they have to ignore pre-existing conditions, they have to renew you unless you don’t pay premiums, some other things that mostly help sick, old or at risk people get covered more affordably, presumably at the cost of premiums rising for young healthy people. Old policies are grandfathered in, and do not have to meet these requirements.

Please note the bolded, underscored sentence. Is that accurate, or the reverse of what you meant?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

No, that’s accurate- private insurers will not be able to deny coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions.

[SteveG1]

@ShibbOleth

When I was a kid I saw Logan’s Run and Soylent Green. I’ve also seen Gattica, Conspiracy Theory and Blade Runner. I know what the government is up to, you goddamned dirty apes!

If anyone ever mentions Carousel, RUN LIKE HELL.

[kaylasdad99]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Wait a tick… I thought you were Quadgop’s kid. No?

elfbabe.

[Zoe]

Der Trihs:
Is it propaganda if it’s the simple truth?

Liberal: It’s propoganda, in my opinion, if it is disseminated by the govnernment, whether it’s true or not. A “Just Say No” campaign is propoganda, even though it is true that some drugs can really fuck you up.

Actually, such an idea disseminated by anyone can be considered propaganda in its strictest sense. But I would be willing to speculate that most think of propaganda as the twist that people put on information for the purpose of getting people to think their way. If it’s a political party using propaganda, certainly some parties are more apt to use it dishonestly than others.