Now, Biden certainly has his share of gaffs, but he's not a stupid man. Sarah Palin is either mentally screwed up or thinking outside the box genius. She really should take some of that book money of hers and hire someone to assist Palin in pulling her head out of her ass.

Damn that Obama for not calling the Dutch back...

YouTube - Palin Doesn't Know What She'd Do... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrsQkIzzPbc&feature=player_embedded)

This is what happens when the desire to make Obama look bad supercedes the desire to add constructive comments.

Rudy had the same problem on Morning Joe today...

So Obama did the right thing by refusing help from other countries? I'm not saying that Palin isn't completely nuts, but she has a point about the refusing of help. I don't know how the Dutch can help with a dike, but maybe they could stuff a bunch of sticky bud in the pipe and seal it up.

I'd really like to hear Alvin Greene's take on fixing the oil leak problem.

So Obama did the right thing by refusing help from other countries? I'm not saying that Palin isn't completely nuts, but she has a point about the refusing of help. I don't know how the Dutch can help with a dike, but maybe they could stuff a bunch of sticky bud in the pipe and seal it up.

I'd really like to hear Alvin Greene's take on fixing the oil leak problem.

I don't think any government has the means to handle this leak. What additional support is another country going to provide? What other country has ever had to resolve a disaster even remotely like this?

It sucks to accept it, but oil companies are the only ones armed with the technology, skill and know-how to deal with this. Many keep yelling "The government needs to do more. They aren't doing enough," but what exactly are they suppose to do? All our government can do is mobilize forces to try and reduce the environmental fallout and then force BP to pay for clean up.

There are also people hoping BP goes bankrupt. These same people forget that if that happens, who's left to try and fix this mess?? It is in our (American's) best interest for BP to continue being profitable. If they go under, guess who is stuck with the bill...

So Obama did the right thing by refusing help from other countries?
Before you answer that you'd have to determine if the accusation is fact or politically motivated spin.

-spence

Before you answer that you'd have to determine if the accusation is fact or politically motivated spin.

-spence

Even you know the answer to that.

Johnny, I agree about other governments *probably* not being able to do much, but if I were the POTUS, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. A lot of help was offered for cleanup and containment and was refused. This, more than any time in recent history is when all reasonable offers of help should be welcomed and accepted. As a country, the US has come to the aid of other nations time and again. Are we too proud to accept a helping hand when we need it?

for every lame shot at Palin that you Obamunists take to make you feel what? smarter...wiser...more informed???, your messiah and his merry band of radicals put this country another tillion in debt and undermine the foundations of the country that they're sworn to uphold and protect...who has their head up their ass????

Palin is irrelevant...

the creep that you've elected is very relevant and dangerous...

. Are we too proud to accept a helping hand when we need it?

no, there was just much more to be gained by a prolonged crisis...

for every lame shot at Palin that you Obamunists take to make you feel what? smarter...wiser...more informed???, your messiah and his merry band of radicals put this country another tillion in debt and undermine the foundations of the country that they're sworn to uphold and protect...who has their head up their ass????

Palin is irrelevant...

the creep that you've elected is very relevant and dangerous...

From sensibility to stupidity in an hour and a half. I think that's a new record.

Palin is irrelevant...



Then why do the repub. keep giving her $000,000 to hear her?:rotf2:

Then why do the repub. keep giving her $000,000 to hear her?:rotf2:


I don't think it's any indication of the Republicans thinking she's relevant. $000,000 doesn't go very far these days.:rotf2:

I don't think it's any indication of the Republicans thinking she's relevant. $000,000 doesn't go very far these days.:rotf2:

:smash::smash::rotflmao::rotflmao:

:smash::smash::rotflmao::rotflmao:

I think Al Gore still gets paid to speak...couldn't be more discredited that that former left wing ICON

they lie to you EVERY DAY...you must like it :uhuh:

Drilling Bits of Fiction
Seven experts say the White House distorted their views

The Obama Administration is under political pressure to reverse its ill-considered deep water drilling moratorium, and the latest blowback comes from seven angry experts from the National Academy of Engineering who say their views were distorted to justify the ban.

In the wake of the oil spill, President Obama asked Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to produce a report on new drilling safety recommendations. Then on May 27 Mr. Obama announced a six-month deep water drilling ban, justifying it on the basis of Mr. Salazar's report, a top recommendation of which was the moratorium. To lend an air of technical authority, the report noted: "The recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering."


Senior Editorial Writer Joe Rago explains the latest bizarre news from the White House.
.That would be false, sir. In a scathing statement this week, the seven experts explained that the report draft they had reviewed did not include a six-month drilling moratorium. That was added only after they signed off. "The Secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct, but he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions," wrote the seven in a letter to Gulf Coast politicians.

The seven noted that they broadly agreed with the report and had even signed off on a proposal to suspend new deep water permits for six months. They also agreed to a "temporary pause" in drilling to perform additional testing on the Gulf's 33 deep water wells that have already received permits to drill.


.But as for a "blanket moratorium," the seven said it "is not the answer. It will not measurably reduce risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the nation's economy which may be greater than that of the oil spill." If anything, the ban could prove "counterproductive to long term safety."

One of the seven, University of California at Berkeley engineering professor Bob Bea, further explained in an email cited in the New Orleans Times-Picayune: "Moratorium was not a part" of the "report we consulted-advised-reviewed. Word from [the Department of Interior] was it was a [White House] request." In other words, the drilling ban is a West Wing political invention designed to make the boss look tough on oil companies. Our guess is that the credit goes to energy czar Carol Browner, who has been loudly touting the ban to show the Administration is doing something.

Mr. Obama has said he's open to rescinding the ban earlier if new safety recommendations could be implemented sooner. But he has punted that question to the commission he appointed to investigate the spill, which isn't even fully staffed and has six months to report its findings. That will arrive too late for thousands of Gulf residents who are at risk of losing their jobs within weeks as deep water rigs prepare to leave the Gulf. As a tacit admission of the damage it is causing, the White House is now saying it expects BP to cover the wages of workers affected by its own politicized moratorium.

Americans don't blame Mr. Obama for the oil spill, but they are beginning to doubt the competence of a President whose decisions suggest political panic more than careful policy. In their letter, the seven experts encouraged Mr. Salazar to "overcome emotion with logic" and rethink the ban. That's good political advice too

Scotts right - you spend more time on Palin who leads nothing than on the guy running this country. Just. A reminder - 2 wars, guantanamo, recession, unemployment, natl debt, largest oil disaster ever. How's it going?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Scotts right - you spend more time on Palin who leads nothing than on the guy running this country. Just. A reminder - 2 wars, guantanamo, recession, unemployment, natl debt, largest oil disaster ever. How's it going?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ah right. Because there are other issues in the country, we aren't allowed to pay attention to anything else. Palin willingly puts herself and her asinine comments out for the public.

The funny issue is that you and scott are fixated on Obama and unable to see anything else. You may not be aware, but there is a world outside of bitching and moaning about Obama.

Heh heh...She said Dyke...:hihi:

Just. A reminder - 2 wars, guantanamo, recession, unemployment, natl debt, largest oil disaster ever. How's it going
Incredible what Obama has inherited isn't it?

And then they attack him for a lack of "focus."

Oy vey.

-spence

Incredible what Obama has inherited isn't it?

And then they attack him for a lack of "focus."

Oy vey.

-spence

Every POTUS "inherits" the history that precedes him and that occurs on "his watch." The presumption is they want it, else why run for the office. What's your point?

Palin is irrelevant. Get over it. My future and my childrens are in obamas hands, the lives of our soliders, obamas hands. And spence, inherited? Who doubled down in afghanistan?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Every POTUS "inherits" the history that precedes him and that occurs on "his watch." The presumption is they want it, else why run for the office. What's your point?

The point is that Obama was left with the worse economic situation since the great depression with many pillors of our economy on the verge of going out of business in addition to 2 wars (1 we shouldn't have been in).

The point is that Obama was left with the worse economic situation since the great depression with many pillors of our economy on the verge of going out of business in addition to 2 wars (1 we shouldn't have been in).

drink some more kool-aid.

I love the "worst economic situation since the great depression"
Yeah, maybe for people who have no knowledge of history. :uhuh:

lets see -
70's oil crisis
Vietnam
WWII
Korean War
Cuban Missile crisis
9/11
Dot com bubble
MULTIPLE RECESSIONS and Periods of Unemployment , with gasp...... HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT THAN THE LAST FEW years...

gee, Obama sure has it rough!

Every POTUS "inherits" the history that precedes him and that occurs on "his watch." The presumption is they want it, else why run for the office. What's your point?

Previous experience leads me to believe that if you didn't get it the first time there may be no use trying.

-spence

Heh heh...She said Dyke...:hihi:

:rotf2:

Palin is irrelevant. Get over it. My future and my childrens are in obamas hands, the lives of our soliders, obamas hands. And spence, inherited? Who doubled down in afghanistan?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Doubled down telling the opposition when we'd pull out :wall:

And yes, Palin is irrelevant.

We suffer from a lack of leadership all over both parties.

OK, following up on this the reactions may be very typical knee-jerk and maybe, just maybe she didn't come across well enough in the 30 second sound bite. Reading this stuff does a better job of flushing out what she may have been talking about.

This is from a Blog that is pretty good with things naval and maritime and this particular blogger is Dutch or Belgian IIRC.

Information Dissemination: Deepwater Horizon: Dutch Point Of View (http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/06/deepwater-horizon-dutch-point-of-view.html#disqus_thread)

In Dutch media I'm reading an increasing criticism regarding the response to the oil spill in the Mexican Gulf and the use of their expertise and equipment.

So, first, the timeline according to the Dutch press and press-releases from Dutch companies and governments:

* April 25. Only 3 days after the accident with the oil platform the Dutch offered their skimmers to combat the oil spill. According to the Dutch consul-general in Housten the reaction of the American government was that help was not needed, because they could handle it themselves.

* May 6. Dutch research institute Deltares and dredging company Van Oord propose an inovative concept to combat the oil spill. The US government has been alerted to the existence of this proposal through the contacts that have been established between the 2 governments since hurricane Katrina.more...

* May 28. The Dutch have offered 3 sets of sweeping arms, after a US request. T&T Marine Salvage, which has been hired by BP, will use these skimmers. They should be operational next week.

* June 16. Boskalis has gotten a contract to deliver sand to make barriers to protect the Lousiana coast, based on the proposal from May 6.And now for the critique.
One thing that always pops up is the Jones Act, or more correctly Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act from 1920. In practice the Act means that foreign vessels can't be employed in the oil spill.
Boskalis has a local company, Stuyvesant Dredging with a US flagged ship, so that's how they were able to get a contract.

The US thinks that the sand barriers will take 9 months to be completed, but Belgian dredgers claim (http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=542R5JNH) they can do it in 4. They also say the Jones Act is the reason the US is using antiquated technology to combat the oil spill. The European companies, of which the Dutch and Belgians ones are seen as the best in the field by most, buy their ships in the Middle East for only halve the cost of building it in the US.

The company that manufactures the skimmers that have been sent, has said (http://www.refdag.nl/achtergrond/techniek/olie_vegen_op_het_water_1_485109) that had the US allowed them from the beginning to use their skimmers they could have done this clean-up with their eyes closed. This is because the skimmers have the capacity to clean up the amount of oil that is leeking in 7 hours.
They also say the USCG was well aware of the skimmers and have visited the company 3 times in the past.

But now the skimmers are in use, the company that manufactures them says they are not being used right (http://www.rnw.nl/nederlands/article/nederlands-materieel-olierampbestrijding-amper-benut). They say communication with the Americans is going slowly and they do not listen to the Dutch instructors. Currently only 5% of their actual capacity is being used, because BP is sending the ships too close to the source. The problem is that the oil is not very thick there, reducing the effectiveness of the skimmers.
The communication between the USCG, BP and T&T Marine could also be a lot better, the Dutch company says. Now it is 'too many chiefs, not enough indians'.
Cargo capacity is also a problem, and because of the Jones Act, foreign ships with a cargo capacity 3 times that of US ships cannot be deployed.There is more, and at the blog many of the links go to Dutch sites that I can't read.

While I'm no Palin fan (naughty librarian looks aside) it looks as though she may have been on to something and not just looking at the lights from nearby Russia.

Read it - Information Dissemination (http://www.informationdissemination.net/)

I got into a discussion over at the other place (scary as it is) where ScottW's political leanings would be equivalent to Spence here....

The berms are a bad IDEA. bad, Bad, bad

From another thread. (Posted by me, so cut-pasted myself)

I can't believe how much play this idea has gotten... the reason they need to study and or NOT DO THIS (and this is just a few off my head as a geologist)

1. There is NOT a huge surplus of sand down there to begin with, hence the severely eroding barrier islands. Just trying to find enough sand will be an issue

2. Dig the holes to get the sand in the wrong place, and you can and will severely increase erosion of the marsh/existing barrier islands in spots, often called erosional hot spots, and they do exist, naturally and from dredging elsewhere on the gulf and Atlantic coast. This will end up causing MORE impact for who knows how long (years) down the road.

3. After the fact you would have MILLIONS of cubic yards of contaminated sand to deal with, in addition to the oil in the marsh now, and oil will continue to get into the marsh, regardless. these berms will be low and will be overtopped by waves

4. it will take MONTHS to build. the time and effort will be better spend intercepting and cleaning up the oil not trying to build a giant 'berm' (they are actually building small barrier islands, not berms). The US estimate is 9 months, the Dutch 4. even if you split the difference and say 6months, and had started them May 1, they are done in NOVEMBER

5. It is foolish to think this is a catch all. all his talk about blocking the oil is BS. it will go over it, the berms will erode, the oil will still be transported, and what oil sits in the sand (sand is permeable after all) will just get moved onshore if there is a hurricane.

Focus on the the clean-up as much up and GET IT OUT of the ecosystem as quickly as possible, period!

clean it as best you can, contain all you can, but don't waste the time, money and effort on a BS design...

will parts of the marsh die, YES is that awful, YES! but will some, probably high percentage of it come back, yes! Will the marsh continue to degrade if these berms are built YES!

I have yet to see an expert come out in favor of it. Louisiana (LSU) has some of the brightest coastal geologists around, and if they were in support of it, I think Jihndal would be trotting them out to the press w/ his nifty pfd....

Just because it is less of a waste of time doesn't mean it is a good idea. put all the barges and personal he would be needing to run skimmers, booms, Costner's pumps, whatever.... the berms will do more long-term harm than good.

You are our resident (and highly respected) Rocktologist so thank you for that info.

As for this thread in the political discussion my point was maybe she wasn't being so looney as the conversation has been driven viraly.

drink some more kool-aid.

I love the "worst economic situation since the great depression"
Yeah, maybe for people who have no knowledge of history. :uhuh:

lets see -
70's oil crisis
Vietnam
WWII
Korean War
Cuban Missile crisis
9/11
Dot com bubble
MULTIPLE RECESSIONS and Periods of Unemployment , with gasp...... HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT THAN THE LAST FEW years...

gee, Obama sure has it rough!


At least you make me laugh:biglaugh:

Palin willingly puts herself and her asinine comments out for the public.

The funny issue is that you and scott are fixated on Obama and unable to see anything else. You may not be aware, but there is a world outside of bitching and moaning about Obama.

as do you....:uhuh:

I was actually fixated on her boobies when you posted the pic...soooo...not entirely fixated on the Face Stuffer-in-Chief...I also fish a lot.....there is a world outside of bitching and moaning here about Palin you know :rotf2::rotf2:

At least you make me laugh:biglaugh:

70's oil crisis
Vietnam
WWII
Korean War
Cuban Missile crisis
9/11
Dot com bubble

what's funny?? people dying and suffering during these events?? you think it's funny...you have a very sick sense of humor and need psychological help!!!

at least I think that's how a lib would respond :uhuh::rotf2:

70's oil crisis
Vietnam
WWII
Korean War
Cuban Missile crisis
9/11
Dot com bubble

what's funny?? people dying and suffering during these events?? you think it's funny...you have a very sick sense of humor and need psychological help!!!

at least I think that's how a lib would respond :uhuh::rotf2:

Its not that, during those terrible events in our history, we had presidents that took charge and delivered postive messages. Paul cant react to that. He apparently only understands whining, fingerpointing and messages of catastropy!

Its not that, during those terrible events in our history, we had presidents that took charge and delivered postive messages. Paul cant react to that. He apparently only understands whining, fingerpointing and messages of catastropy!

Some of the most significant legislation in our history has been passed recently - that's taking charge.

I've been reading whining, fingerpointing and many message of catastrophy here for the last 18 months.

Its not that, during those terrible events in our history, we had presidents that took charge and delivered postive messages. Paul cant react to that. He apparently only understands whining, fingerpointing and messages of catastropy!

I was harkening back to this little gem....and suggesting how "they" might respond if you were to suggest that those things you listed "made you laugh"...

likwid

" I don't see anything funny or "karmatic" about being hit by a drunk driver doing 60.

Have you ever been privy to it? If so, I'd really like to know whats so amusing."

and

" Yeah, we totally get our kicks out of people getting hit by drunk drivers.

Stay classy dude."

can we get back to bashing Palin, or would you like to move on to the anti-semetic sex goddess of the left ?...wonder if she had a boob job?....

The point is that Obama was left with the worse economic situation since the great depression with many pillors of our economy on the verge of going out of business in addition to 2 wars (1 we shouldn't have been in).

No. Spence's point, as far as I can tell, is that it is incredible that "they" attack Obama "for a lack of focus"--incredible because he "inherited" "two wars, Guantanamo, recession, unemployment, Natl debt, largest oil disaster ever."

As for your "worse economic situation since the Great Depression"--that "situation" has been building through "inherited" mismanagement and continued mismanagement of several administrations and continues to do so under the management/mismanagement of the Obama administration.

The wars also are a continuation of world pressures and radical Islamic attacks that led to our response to 9/11 (presumabley the war we should be in?) and expanded to Iraq which Obama says is basically over and Biden says is going well (so the "bad" war was a good inheritance.) Guantanamo was not supposed to be an inheritance since "O" said he would simply close it. Recession is an in-and-out that most POTUSes, if they're smart, let run its natural course and don't prolong or exacerbate with opportunistic political meddling (don't let a crisis go to waste). Unemployment expanded under "O" from what he "inherited." The National Debt has been "inherited" by all POTUSes who pass it on to the next, larger than what they "inherited." "O" has already grown the Debt MASSIVELY in less than two years. And he didn't "inherit" the oil disaster.

Now, most of what "O" "inherited" was what he promised to "fix." That is, presumably, what got him elected. So why should he , or any other President, past, present, or future, be coddled for "inheriting" the burdens they promise to fix. If they are attacked by a "they" for lack of focus, . . . then . . . focus.

I do not feel sorry for the executive branch because of its overburdening workload. The POTUSes have brought it on themselves by usurping the powers that were meant for others--other branches of gov. especially powers granted to the States and the People, NOT to the Federal Gvt. and NOT to its executive branch. Wars, YES. Recessions, unemployment, oil disasters, hurricanes, NO. And once having stolen these responsibilities for themselves, it is unseemly to complain about being overburdened, to the point of lacking focus, with the problems that were not meant to be handled by one man and his politically motivated cronies.

Some of the most significant legislation in our history has been passed recently - that's taking charge.

I've been reading whining, fingerpointing and many message of catastrophy here for the last 18 months.

That legislation is significant does not mean it is good. And what you may mean by significant may only be a part of the legislaltion's full importance. A great deal of what "O" has done goes far beyond its expressed intent. For example, more important than the so-called health care legislation (which defeats the intention of lowering cost) is its continued assault on the People's power and further consolidation of power into the Federal Gvt. and specifically into the hands of the POTUS.

That legislation is significant does not mean it is good. .

That's your opinion. Even working in the Ins. industry, I'm very happy with it.

I think Obama's doing a swell job.:smokin:

That legislation is significant does not mean it is good. .

That's your opinion. Even working in the Ins. industry, I'm very happy with it.

What is it, specifically, that makes you happy with it?

it's kinda like saying you are "very happy" with the new car that you haven't taken delivery of yet and have barely driven and you are just hoping the salesman was being honest with you, isn't it?

[QUOTE=PaulS;775050]

What is it, specifically, that makes you happy with it?

I think its a matter of morals that people have healthcare.

it's kinda like saying you are "very happy" with the new car that you haven't taken delivery of yet and have barely driven and you are just hoping the salesman was being honest with you, isn't it?

so you mean all the people whining the last 18 months should have waited to see how it turns out before breaking out in complaining fits?

[QUOTE=detbuch;775103]

I think its a matter of morals that people have healthcare. inane, the left seems to really like to pick and choose when it comes to morality, sliding scale based on political values and advantage rather than right and wrong



so you mean all the people whining the last 18 months should have waited to see how it turns out before breaking out in complaining fits? should you try to put the fire out in your kitchen or wait till the house burns down to "see how it turns out"?

is that all you've got? you just severely lowered my opinion of Obama voters and that's really saying something....:uhuh:

[QUOTE=PaulS;775136]
is that all you've got? you just severely lowered my opinion of Obama voters and that's really saying something....:uhuh:

And you obviously haven't changed my opinion of you.

Any time you want to compare morals, pls. let me know.

[QUOTE=scottw;775142]

And you obviously haven't changed my opinion of you.

Any time you want to compare morals, pls. let me know.

:rotf2::rotf2:

what does that mean? your argument for government run healthcare is "I think its a matter of morals that people have healthcare." ?

first, you need to show me people who don't get healthcare, I think the dems tried in the primary and during the push for this debacle and each time the examples were shown to be either bogus or misrepresented.....what you want is Government Provided Healthcare because you believe for some unknown reason that Government can do a better job of providing it than the private sector...better check what's going on with the "doc fix" right now and see how happy those folks that are relying on the govt. for coverage and payments are feeling ....you can't possibly explain how this will work financially, each week another surprise in the legislation is exposed and the costs are going up and up along with the spending and accumulating debt from this congress and administration...you must believe in the toothfairy

with all of the other big democrat entitlements un-funded, bankrupt and about to be burdened as never before...how do you think this will work out???

"How do you slap a $940 billion pricetag on what’s actually a multitrillion-dollar bill? Well, as we’ve seen, the first thing you do is make sure not to start the program until almost halfway through CBO’s window of time for measuring how much it’ll cost. That cuts a trillion or two right off the top. But what if that still leaves you with budget deficits, thus crippling your sub-moronic talking point about how this massive new federal entitlement will save money over time?
Simple. You break the bill up and pass one of the expensive parts separately later. Here’s how a supposed $118 billion reduction in the deficit becomes another case of Obama bloat:
You asked about the total budgetary impact of enacting the reconciliation proposal (the amendment to H.R. 4872), the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590), and the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961). CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period.
Under current law, Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’ services will be reduced by about 21 percent in April 2010 and by an average of about 2 percent per year for the rest of the decade. H.R. 3961 would increase those payment rates by 1.2 percent in 2010 and would restructure the sustainable growth rate mechanism beginning in 2011. Those changes would result in significantly higher payment rates for physicians than those that would result under current law. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961, by itself, would cost about $208 billion over the 2010–2019 period. (That estimate reflects the enactment of two short-term extension acts, which lowered the cost in 2010 by about $2 billion compared with CBO’s estimate of November 4, 2009.)…
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961 together with those two bills would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period. That amount is about $10 billion less than the figure that would result from summing the effects of enacting the bills separately. The $10 billion difference occurs primarily because H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal would modify how the government’s payments to Medicare Advantage plans are set.
Still waiting to find out that if that memo urging Democrats not to talk about “doc fix” is real or not, but you can see why it’s good advice either way. Not only are they hiding another $208 billion in costs, but their dishonesty in passing doc fix separately will cost another $10 bil that could be avoided by passing everything together. Except, of course, that trying to pass everything together would send “fiscally conservative” Democrats fleeing for the hills — not because they care about a trillion-plus pricetag, but because they care that you might care. Or maybe they don’t even care about that, given the way the votes are falling today. Add Suzanne Kosmas to the roll of the shame.
More to come tonight, no doubt, in a very special edition of the Friday evening news dump.
Update: Oh look, some more hidden costs discovered by CBO. Who’s up for another $50 billion on the hook just to administer this thing?
In its March 11, 2010, cost estimate for H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as passed by the Senate, CBO indicated that it has identified at least $50 billion in specified and estimated authorizations of discretionary spending that might be involved in implementing that legislation. The authority to undertake such spending is not provided in H.R. 3590; it would require future action in appropriation bills. The attached table provides additional information about those authorizations.
Discretionary costs under PPACA would arise from the effects of the legislation on several federal agencies and on a number of new and existing programs subject to future appropriation. Those discretionary costs fall into three general categories…
Update: This is all contingent, of course, upon the Democrats actually passing doctor fix later. Oh, hey look — the AMA, which supports doc fix, just endorsed ObamaCare!"

[QUOTE=detbuch;775103]

I think its a matter of morals that people have healthcare.


Are we now to abandon the idea that you can't legislate morality? And if legislating morality is now to be a domain of our Federal Government, whose morality will be the model? Will that change with changing administrations?

The founders understood that individual freedom rests on the notion that the bulk of governmental restriction is against the government not against the people.

My personal view of what Obama meant when he promised to fundamentally change this country is that he would change the constitutional view of what government is not allowed to do, to his (and the left's) view of what the government should do.

And if the government should prescribe so much as to even include how we care for our health and to decide what is moral, then individual freedom will be a phrase with no substance.

And, anyway, before Obama care, the uninsured, as Scott implied did get health care. Maybe not in your moral point of view. The "health care" bill was not about providing health care but about how to pay for it. And it will now, against what was promised, be more expensive and more restrictive. And, temporarilly, maybe why you being in the insurance industry are happy with it, insurance companies will make more money. In the long run, they may be driven out of business.

[QUOTE=PaulS;775147]

:rotf2::rotf2:

what does that mean? your argument for government run healthcare is "I think its a matter of morals that people have healthcare." ?



It means that I think every person should have access to quality healthcare. That is a personal value.

I tend not to read long posts or cut and pastes so I didn't read the rest of the post.

he hasn't clarified if he's in health insurance or selling car insurance

seems the side that has traditionally screamed "don't force you morals on me"..rosaries and ovaries and all that...are perfectly willing to not only force their morals on others, but force others into a system of healthcare against their will and force them to pay...huh? I suppose if you include yourself under the umbrella or marxism and all of it's tawdry branches...you ought be quite happy....sadly..that's not America and polls show that American's are not pleased with the morality being forced on them by this radical leftist president and his followers....quick quiz...DID OBAMA GOLF OR GO TO CHURCH THIS WEEKEND?

[QUOTE=scottw;775151]

It means that I think every person should have access to quality healthcare. That is a personal value.

I tend not to read long posts or cut and pastes so I didn't read the rest of the post.

GOOD...YOU PAY FOR IT THEN...:uhuh:

AND PLEASE PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE THAT DOESN'T HAVE "ACCESS" TO QUALITY HEALTHCARE AND SOME REASON TO THINK THAT THE NEW HEALTHCARE LEGISLATION IS GOING TO MAGICALLY PROVIDE THIS WHERE IT IS CURENTLY LACKING

would you prefer pictures to words?

[QUOTE=PaulS;775169]

GOOD...YOU PAY FOR IT THEN...:uhuh:

AND PLEASE PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE THAT DOESN'T HAVE "ACCESS" TO QUALITY HEALTHCARE AND SOME REASON TO THINK THAT THE NEW HEALTHCARE LEGISLATION IS GOING TO MAGICALLY PROVIDE THIS WHERE IT IS CURENTLY LACKING

would you prefer pictures to words?

I am and will continue to pay for it. It looks like you will be too. If you don't like it, you should move someplace you won't have to pay (Somalia?/:biglaugh:).

Why when I call for a Dr. appointment do they always ask how I'm going to pay. If I say I don't have insurance or can pay, do your Drs. still allow you to make an appointment.

Sure, you seem to think your so smart, so draw me a picture.

[QUOTE=scottw;775171]

I am and will continue to pay for it. It looks like you will be too. If you don't like it, you should move someplace you won't have to pay (Somalia?/:biglaugh:).

Why when I call for a Dr. appointment do they always ask how I'm going to pay. If I say I don't have insurance or can pay, do your Drs. still allow you to make an appointment.

Sure, you seem to think your so smart, so draw me a picture.

I know...it's crazy for someone providing a service to ask you how you are going to pay for that service after it has been rendered...go figure?!?

[QUOTE=scottw;775171]

I am and will continue to pay for it. It looks like you will be too. If you don't like it, you should move someplace you won't have to pay (Somalia?/:biglaugh:).

Why when I call for a Dr. appointment do they always ask how I'm going to pay. If I say I don't have insurance or can pay, do your Drs. still allow you to make an appointment.

Sure, you seem to think your so smart, so draw me a picture.

Paul, they always ask me how I'm going to pay as well. But, do you think that someone without insurance is going to call a doctor to make an appointment? You know better than that. They go to a walk in clinic or ER. Even better, they get an ambulance ride to the hospital ER for a sore throat of nagging cough.

"do your Drs. still allow you to make an appointment. "


and to expand on that..the answer is YES...we are considered "uninsured" by our doctors and the hospital because I carry a catastrophic policy for my family of 5 which costs $ 300 per month...at the kids pediatrician, dentist and hospital we've never been denied an appointment, had payment demanded prior to or immediately following services and my wife has had some costly expenses recently, we were able to get the services and negotiate prices and get time to pay anything that we could not pay for immediately....of course, most have been conditioned to think that healthcare services are an entitlement and that they should have to do little more than pull a card out of their wallet or purse and someone else will take care of all of the annoying paperwork and payment for whatever treatment they seek...like most entitlements...you just show up and get what you want...unfortunately for entitlements, the line gets really long....

[QUOTE=PaulS;775185]

Paul, they always ask me how I'm going to pay as well. But, do you think that someone without insurance is going to call a doctor to make an appointment? You know better than that. They go to a walk in clinic or ER. Even better, they get an ambulance ride to the hospital ER for a sore throat of nagging cough.

Right.
so if the means were there for LEGAL residents of the US to have access to a primary care physician etc. wouldn't it be better than this clogging up the ER's for sore throats etc...

[QUOTE=fishbones;775187]

Right.
so if the means were there for LEGAL residents of the US to have access to a primary care physician etc. wouldn't it be better than this clogging up the ER's for sore throats etc...


What exactly do you mean by legal? I'm only asking because there seems to be different definitions being tossed around out there.

[QUOTE=PaulS;775185]

Paul, they always ask me how I'm going to pay as well. But, do you think that someone without insurance is going to call a doctor to make an appointment? You know better than that. They go to a walk in clinic or ER. Even better, they get an ambulance ride to the hospital ER for a sore throat of nagging cough.

Agree 100%. But isn't some of the savings going to be that those people will now go to a Dr. (like you and I) instead of going to the ER. The reason many companies pay for preventive at 100% is b/c the long term savings of nipping something in the bud outways the added cost. There usually is an increase in the 1st year but the savings in the future outweigh those costs.

Now, Biden certainly has his share of gaffs, but he's not a stupid man. Sarah Palin is either mentally screwed up or thinking outside the box genius. She really should take some of that book money of hers and hire someone to assist Palin in pulling her head out of her ass.

Damn that Obama for not calling the Dutch back...

YouTube - Palin Doesn't Know What She'd Do... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrsQkIzzPbc&feature=player_embedded)


Wow, just plain wow.