My mother is very upset.
She called this evening telling me every time she hears anything about this "Kill the Elderly Stimulus Plan" she starts having a-fibs. She is very fragile. In other words, once this new medical program is put into place, she will be one of the first "they" will decide not to bother saving.
What gives a government official the right to decide who lives and who is to die?
One wonders what thoughts must be going on in the minds of people like Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, Barack Obama, and even our three treacherous Republicans who voted for the Kill the Elderly Stimulus Bill. How can a decent human being even conceptualize something like what just passed in the United States Senate?
There is nothing wrong with updating the way medical records are transferred and maintained. In fact, it is something that truly needs to be done. Trust me, I know. With my mother's cardiac condition, we end up in the ER at least once every three or four months. Every time we go to the ER, we end up doing the same paperwork over and over and over and over (you get the picture) again. Using some modern technology just makes sense. We could probably save enough to give a few million senior citizens some life-saving technology.
The whole thing reeks of “communism." In other words, according to the Daschle version, from each to each. The elderly have already lived long enough to pay their taxes, many of them having been forced to hand over several million dollars over a lifetime, if they are even moderately successful in life.
I keep going back to the questions: Why destroy one of the best medical systems the world has ever known? Why doom Americans to mediocre care? Why curtail medical research? And most importantly, what gives the Democrats the audacity to think they now have the power to decide who lives and who is to die?
There are no logical answers other than that Democrats want everyone to have not much of anything. They want to perpetrate their hold on everything and keep people almost enslaved in entitlements and perpetuate a Democratic majority forever.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baritone
Yes! The "PLAN" will work! WE WILL PUT OUR EVIL EUGENICS PLAN INTO MOTION AS SOON AS WE RID THE WORLD OF ALL "inferior" PEOPLE! THE TRIUMPH OF THE MASTER RACE IS NEAR!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
And so on....
B
2 - Baritone
How did that happen? heehee. hoho. hoohoo. haha.
Perhaps like Luke, I was able to "use the force."
B
3 - Kathy
Typical of what America and Americans are becoming-just let the generation that fought for us and others die off when no longer productive. I get the feeling from alot of blogs that younger people could care less as this doesn't involve them....yet. You can bet that plenty of the elderly will go offshore for their medical needs and plenty of their kids will miss the money Mummy and Daddy spend to extend their lives.
4 - Dr Dreadful
So it's a good thing that SJ's mother has nothing to worry about, then, isn't it?
5 - Roger Nowosielski
What's the connection, Doc?
6 - Dr Dreadful
Right-wing scaremongers' claimed motive: the government wants to kill off old people to save money.
Actual motive: The government wants to better track healthcare expenditures to save money.
The Media Matters link at the bottom of the article I linked to goes into it in more detail.
7 - Roger Nowosielski
Yes, I did look at it. Just the usual scare tactics - only to be expected.
8 - Baritone
The entire basis for SJs article is specious owing to an error of interpretation picked up by the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity. No one beyond the patient, his or her family in consultation with their physician(s) will be making any decisions regarding how and whether to administer care.
The whole article is baloney.
B
9 - Roger Nowosielski
But whatever Limbaugh says is gospel truth to some. Hence the attenuating circumstance.
10 - Cindy
Right-wing scaremongers' claimed motive: the government wants to kill off old people to save money.
You have to know it's not true. Because if it was many of them would be supporting the idea.
11 - Baritone
Apparently, the original source of this crap is New York's former Lt. Governor Betsy McCaughey who mis-read the health care portion of the bill and reported pretty much what SJ ranted on about above. This was immediately picked up by Rush and Sean among others and bandied about with no one actually picking up the bill to do ANY fact checking before aping her mistake. Par for the course.
B
12 - Dan(Miller)
Baritone says,
The Bill, 1,071 pages in length as of 8:20 this morning when what might or might not have been the final text appeared, was approved by the House of Representatives this afternoon, even though not even one member of that august deliberative body had read it. It would, of course, have been impossible for any of them (or anyone else) to read or even skim it before the vote was taken. Now, it goes to the Senate which will quite likely vote without any more information on what the bill actually says.The devil is in the details, and with 1,071 pages the bill doubtless has lots of details.
Occasionally, "Rush and Sean" get things right, and the Democratic party leadership gets things wrong. We will, eventually, learn what the bill actually says. Then, it may be too late.
In the meantime, I guess we, along with our elected representatives, will just have to go on faith in their leadership.
Some leadership. Some faith.
Dan(Miller)
13 - Lee Richards
Rush and Sean would jump up and down on Jesus, Gandhi, Lincoln, or Mom if it would gain them ratings or $$$. That's how they "get things right" for their faithful.
They ARE NOT real, nor serious. They are actors playing characters--and their gullible audiences can't tell the difference.
14 - bliffle
So, what's the problem here that SJ is concerned about? Is there a chance that her mom will be sentenced to death by an uncaring public official instead of an uncaring health insurance official?
Not much to choose among, as far as I can see.
15 - Baritone
Ms. McCaughey refered to a specific section of the bill relating to changes in national health care. It wouldn't have been that difficult for Rush and Sean - or at least someone on their respective staffs to check out what she was refering to prior to repeating the error on their programs.
The bulk of this bill has been in the hands of the members of Congress for several days. Any and all changes were submitted as they were made.
I personally don't see any compelling reason to force a vote today either. But neither do I believe that Congress should even think about taking a break prior to getting this legislation or something similar passed and on Obama's desk.
Republicans claim that the bill is filled with nothing but old Democratic spending. Dems claim that the Reps offered ONLY the same old, same old of tax cuts and deregulation. I suspect both claims are right.
B
16 - Baritone
Another point. It should be remembered that it is far from uncommon for members of Congress to vote for or against legislation that they haven't read. Considering that much of what is considered in both houses often run to hundreds or perhaps even a couple of thousand pages, the Sens and Reps would be doing nothing but reading every waking hour and still not put much of a dent in all that paper.
Each member of Congress presumably has people who DO read much of that stuff and it is then their job to distill the various bills down to perhaps bullet points or a summary to give their boss at least the gist of what it is he or she will be casting a vote for or against.
I agree it is a lousy system, but I don't really know what can be done about it.
What I want to know - who are the crazy bastards who write all that stuff?
B
17 - Roger Nowosielski
Probably ex-BC writers who moved on to bigger and better things.
18 - Dan(Miller)
Baritone,
As you say, it is far from uncommon for members of Congress to vote for or against legislation that they haven't read. I agree that much legislation is far too prolix and that very often legislators rely on others to provide executive summaries for them.
The "Stimulus" bill was not legislation of the garden variety; it was far more important -- and certainly far more expensive -- than most other legislation and, if we are to believe our masters, even critical to the survival of life as we know it; without prompt approval, a catastrophe was said to be in the offing. In the few hours allowed, it was impossible for any member to read the legislation before voting. Time should have been made available, even at the expense of Speaker Pelosi's trip to Rome and the other all-too-frequent Congressional junkets.
Even had a mere forty-eight hours been provided for review, few legislators could or would have studied or even read the thing. Perhaps, however, members and their respective staffs could have been assigned portions to review and at least some of the substantial problems might have been detected and even fixed before the vote. I am certain that there are such problems, because any hastily cobbled together document of over one thousand pages has them. I assume that the legislation was crafted with the best of good will and honesty. It is possible, however, that some tricky stuff may have been included intentionally. Be that as it may, I can promise you that over the next several weeks inconsistencies, loopholes, "Oh Shits!" and other problems will be found and that advantage will be taken. Lawyers know how and are paid big bucks to do just that.
You ask, probably rhetorically, What I want to know - who are the crazy bastards who write all that stuff? Since no single human could possibly cobble together something like the "Stimulus" bill in the time permitted, it was obviously done by large numbers of "crazy bastards," working under great stress and doubtless quite fatigued, while pursuing different agendas.
The good news, I suppose, is that the "Stimulus" bill will provide badly needed financial help to otherwise impoverished lawyers, lobbyists and their families.
Dan(Miller)
19 - Clavos
impoverished lawyers [and] lobbyists
I believe that's known as an oxymoron?
20 - Roger Nowosielski
That's Dan's usual dig.
21 - Dave Nalle
It's so much easier when the lobbyists just write the bills and give them to their pet congressmen to pass.
Dave
22 - Baritone
Dan,
As I noted, it is likely that the bulk of the bill has been in the hands of legislators for some time. Otherwise, how is it that so many Reps stood up and complained of its contents?
Only changes hammered out by the joint committee would be new.
It was more or less a rhetorical question. I wonder, though, what kind of money those people make? Probably not enough.
B
23 - Dan(Miller)
Baritone,
I don't know, personally, whether this is true. I have had neither the time nor the resources nor even the motivation to do my own analysis of the legislative history and of the legislation as passed. Were I a bright young associate in a major law firm given a week or so of fourteen hour days for the task, I would probably find a bunch of stuff. The partners in the firm would probably use that stuff to the substantial advantage of the firm's clients. I would be willing to bet a substantial amount of money (if I had a substantial amount of money to bet) that this is going on in quite a few law firms and lobbyist offices right now.I understand that the "bulk of the bill" has been available. However, neither the "bulk," nor even the spirit, of the bill as earlier revealed will be dispositive when it comes to implementation of the legislation. A bunch of commas and howevers sprinkled here and there, a "notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 204(b) - 207(c)," or even an innocent typographical error can make a big difference.
There are other matters of perhaps greater and immediately obvious substance. Here is one small example: the bill as passed apparently provides
This happens all the time, of course. However, the length and probable complexity of the legislation, coupled with the tremendous amounts of money involved, are nearly certain to make this task far more rewarding than is customary.
Writing legislation is not like writing a blog article or comment, where it is always possible for the author to say, "Whoops, I expressed myself poorly. What I really meant to say was . . . ." It is for real and a mistake once made is "The law." Legislative errors and oversights can obviously be rectified, but the process is tedious; even more so when the errors and oversights are found by others and advantage is taken of them.
I would like to have seen a brief period, perhaps a week or two, for the proposed text of the bill, as revised in the Conference Report, to be studied and for any egregious goofs to be found and fixed. That would not have made the legislation perfect, but it might well have kept it from being the mess which I fear it is. Candidly, I must admit that I probably would not have liked it any better. But at least my lawyer's soul would not have unpleasant tingles going up and down its extremities.
Dan(Miller)
24 - bliffle
Dans citation is to an advocacy periodical, not near a primary source in:
#23 â€" February 14, 2009 @ 16:22PM â€" Dan(Miller) [URL]
25 - Dan(Miller)
Bliffle,
That's why I used the word "apparently" and expressly disclaimed any personal knowledge of the accuracy of the statement. As I also pointed out, getting to the bottom of what the legislative history shows and what the 1,071 page legislative enactment actually says is beyond my capabilities. I thought I had made that clear.
Dan(Miller)