Wow. You are a Google God! :eek:
How about: “This allegation was invented by Starving Artist at an indeterminate time in the past ten years or so, and posted on the SDMB at 5.12pm GMT on March 5th, 2007. It was subsequently proven to have been false when said SA failed to produce a single shred of evidence that this meme was even spread anywhere outside his fevered imagination.”
Do for ya?
(And I don’t even like Hillary. Nor can I vote in the US.)
I’m trying to follow the logic here, and I’m afraid my mind is slipping a drive belt or something. Starving Artist posts, " I have this idea that Hillary Clinton once said something I don’t like, and it may be entirely in my imagination, but until you prove she didn’t say this imaginary thing, she’s a would-be dictator." So we’re upposed to prove or disprove the contents of SA’s mind. I don’t think we’re going to get very far on that one.
Then there’s the whole ‘dictator’ thing itself. Asuming SA’s imaginary memory is correct, apparently, Mrs. Clinton would be a dictator for daring to propose legislation which would, under all circumstances, have to be approved by Congress before implementation. I was under the impression that presidents propose legislation all the time. Presidents also apparently can issue executive orders, which amount to de facto legislation, and which do not require congressional approval, and the two most recent presidentsts are responsible for a very large number of these orders. I’m pretty sure that SA does not consider our current president a dictator. Am I to understand that a Democratic President submitting legislation for approval through the usual channels is somehow a more dictatorial move than a Republican president filing an executive order, or what?
Seriously, Starving Artist, that’s really lame. How is anyone supposed to know where you heard it, assuming you’re not just making it up? Be a man of your word and recant.
Well, I’ve always tried to treat you with respect too, even on those occasions when I may already think you’re being stupid. So as you can see, I’m an equal opportunity respecter. I’d like to think you were, too.
Just because things are normally done one way, it doesn’t mean all others are verbotten…nor does it mean that doing things in a different way has no merit. My position is that once upon a time I heard or read it said that HRC’s health plan would provide for severe legal penalties for both patients and physicians that attempted to circumvent the health coverage provided by her plan. That in this way, it would be assured that no one got an unfair advantage when it came to health care and it would force compliance by all. I heard it enough that I came to accept it as fact, based largely on the fact that while it could so easily be refuted if it were false, I heard nor read nothing whatsoever indicating that it was. Time went by, the health plan bombed, years went by, and here we are. The post on the HRC speech page reminded me of it, I came here and pitted her for it, and said I was open to refutation if anyone could provide it. So here we are. People can call me names and wring their hands over the fact that I’m not following established protocol, but given that so much time has gone by and that so little remains of the closed-door sessions (and why were those necessary in the first place?) that attended the formulation of her health care plan, anyone expecting me to recant my belief that this was part of her plan is going to have to persuade me that it is not so, board practice or not. Refusal to submit to a message board’s protocol in instances when the protocol is not workable does not equal stupidity.
Regards,
SA
It’s not your adherence to a protocol that people are pitting you for. It’s that you’re clinging to a view that not only seems to have no evidence for it, but that you yourself admit you can find no evidence of. People aren’t attacking you because “People bring cites to this board, you’re making a logical fallacy, etc etc” - they’re attacking you because your standard for accepting things is incredibly, incredibly low. It’s not protocol you’re abandoning, it’s simple mental processes.
I disagree - this thread constitutes overwhelming evidence that Starving Artist doesn’t have a mind.
“What a waste it is to lose one’s mind. Or not to have a mind…how true that is.”
–J. Danforth Quayle
Sorry, reopened. Of course she didn’t say it; it was part of the original preliminary workup of the plan that she was cooking up behind closed doors during the first few months of Bill Clinton’s first term. I find it hard to believe that Limbaugh or anyone else could make such allegations and have them become so widespread without some sort of denial or refutation having come to the fore afterward, yet I remember nothing more than that the language was missing from the final bill. Bill himself probably told her to take it the hell out, as he is a much more savvy politician than she is…and particularly so back then back then when she was even more clumsy than she is now.
First, the closed door hearings you heard about probably refer to Cheney’s Energy Task Force which wouldn’t even say who was on the panel. In fact, I am going to state that is what you are thinking of and ask you to refute it.
Second, the Health Care plan is published in full and available on the internet.
Third, I showed you a site that opposes the plan and it states quite clearly that it would not be illegal for patients to seek care outside the plan.
Now in order to do what you asked, we would have to find a quote that does not exist and then show why that non-existent quote was propogated in the first place.
The penalties were for providers and plan managers. Theoretically, people who could afford to do so still could consult doctors privately, but in practical terms, doctors could be put out of business (and therefore not available to consult) for running afoul of several gotchas.
More importantly, though, the proposal will impose civil monetary penalties for a host of violations which do not have to be intentional, but which will be punishable if the individual or institution “knows” or “should know” of the violation. A penalty of $10,000 may be imposed for each item or service claimed, plus triple the amount of the payment claimed. These sanctions may be imposed by an administrative law judge–the government will not have to take the institution to court to impose these penalties.
[…snip…]
Perhaps most disturbing is the catch-all provision: these penalties may be imposed on any person for “failing to report violations of Federal law.” In addition, violation of any of the provisions just listed, or any of the others listed in the proposal, also will be grounds for exclusion from “health care programs.” Since all healthcare programs will now be governmental programs, exclusion will mean that the provider must close.http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3257/is_n1_v48/ai_14980653/pg_1
The reason the protocol is there in the first place is because it works. You’ve been given a number of examples why it’s the only logical way to approach the question. Honestly, to do it backwards just makes no sense at all. I even tried to do you a favor and give you precisely what you asked for, going above and beyond what you deserve. Googling various phrases such a “rush accused hillary” and about every possible permutation, I got a flood of hits that just proves to me that Rush has been a windbag for a very long time.
Perhaps you could rely on the memory of a poster here. But we’re into page 3 of the thread, and not one person recalls anything resembling what you claim. And I doubt very much that someone knows exactly what was said, but is holding back. That’s just not the character of the board.
So here’s the thing – the refutation that you’re asking for is not going to be forthcoming. Period. Won’t happen. Does this mean that Clinton said what you think she did? Of course not. Lack of proof does not constitute proof.
I submit that either your memory is faulty, or you got your info from rightwing windbags, or you family and friends were passing around rumors.
Whatever you wish to hold in your mind is your business, of course. But you might want to not hold complete crap in there.
From the OP: “(I’m looking mainly for information (and, frankly, exposition, if her comments are indeed as I recall them)”
I think Lib, of course, may be the one to have actually hit the nail on the head. Am I correct, then, in thinking now that what HRC’s plan actually strove to accomplish was to eliminate access to private health care and therefore force everyone to submit to the govenment plan, and that severe penalties (including prison time apparently, should the doctor is question fail to submit to the financial penalties) would be visited upon any physician who attempted to treat patients privately?
Yeah, they became so widespread you couldn’t find a cite for them.
No, you are not. The plan strove to accomplish providing health care for all. Whether it would have accomplished it is open to debate.
This reminds me of a story my wife tells. When she was 8 she had a discussion with a neighbor girl who claimed her mother said Japan and China are the same country. My wife said that was not true. The girl went home and came back proudly saying “I was right, my mom said Japan and China are both countries”.
You are still incorrect in all of these assumptions.
“A” is not “A” because “B” is “B”?
The fact that the plan strove to provide healthcare for all does not mean in the slightest that it didn’t strive to eliminate outside care at the same time.
Ah, the quarterly fart from Starving for Attention. You can almost set your watch to it.
Good on you, you old douche bag! Quite a rousing game of pull my finger you have going here.
How so? Care to…uh…elucidate? 
(And where the hell has he been lately, anyway?)
I did some Googling to try and find other pages that echo something of the concept that SA has that “harsh penalties were to be given to patients and doctors who to tried to go outside the system.” I’ve found two links that express the same sentiment. Whether or not the statements are true, they do exist outside SA’s mind.