To the editor:
Mr. Skepnek in his Nov. 23 letter has the audacity to lecture those of us on the right that can read (Joy Behar reference) about lying. Let’s look at some lies over the last 24 months. Reduce unemployment, that’s one. Drain the swamp, that’s two. Anyone making less than $250K will not see their taxes increased one cent, that’s three. The penalty for not obtaining health insurance will be a “penalty” not a “tax” (even though we’re going to use the IRS to enforce it), that’s four. Shovel ready jobs, my favorite, five. Shall we continue?
There isn’t much of the media I trust but there are journalists out there that are better than others. This sorry excuse for a president was never vetted by the big three network media; he was anointed. I don’t care a whit whether the trip to Asia cost 5 cents or 5 dollars. Return on investment yielded nothing! He’s an intellectual with no common sense or real world experience who has surrounded himself with intellectuals that have no common sense or real world experience. He has reduced our country to a mere shadow of itself and is perfectly all right with that.
Everybody ask yourself this question: If I owned a business, would I turn it over to Barack Obama to manage? See if you can lie to yourself about that one.
Scott Burkhart,
Lawrence
Comments
vertigo 2 years, 5 months ago
"he was anointed"
Nothing to see here, moving on.
BrianR 2 years, 5 months ago
You didn't hit all of Glenn Beck's talking points, please submit another inane letter and try to make up for it.
vertigo 2 years, 5 months ago
What business is that? The business of making PB&J sandwiches for the kids before they head to school?
Akreed 2 years, 5 months ago
How cute, Jesse is letting his sexism show. Gooooo Sexists!
vertigo 2 years, 5 months ago
Akreed is letting their ignorance of the running joke between Tom and I show and their ability to jump to false conclusions show.
Go Akreed!
vertigo 2 years, 5 months ago
Akreed is letting their ignorance of the running joke between Tom and I show and their ability to jump to false conclusions show.
Go Akreed!
overplayedhistory 2 years, 5 months ago
Must be rough going through life not able to generate a thought that was not prepackaged, purchased and then regurgitated.
overplayedhistory 2 years, 5 months ago
At least there are not 30 people on here who sound just like Merrill.
Agnostick 2 years, 5 months ago
About as clueless and ignorant as someone like you, who can't grasp the simple difference between "elected" and "anointed." The fact that you shirked your responsibility at the ballot box on November 4, 2008 is no one else's problem but yours. Accept responsibility for your own ineffectiveness and move on.
ivalueamerica 2 years, 5 months ago
tom, considering that you have told more than a dozen lies in the last week alone, do you really think you have any credibility on the subject?
Agnostick 2 years, 5 months ago
And the Burkhart Whine continues...
What the overly-simplistic and child-like author fails to grasp is that we all have a business--the "business" of our government. Every four years, we have the responsibility of selecting a chief executive. On November 4, 2008, we were presented with a number of choices on our ballots: A majority of voters--myself included--chose to turn it over to Barack Obama, rather than John McCain, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin, or Cynthia McKinney. It's possible that in some cases, a particular candidate's choice of running mate might have influenced voters, one way or another.
Those were the choices we were presented with on Election Day, November 4, 2008. That was the day Barack Obama was elected by a majority of the American citizens casting ballots that day.
The bias and stripe of bigotry expressed by Mr. Burkhart and those false patriots like him (barrypenders/berrypenders, for example) is only surpassed by the child-like temper tantrums they've thrown since November 5, 2008. Rather than take responsibility for their inability to win an election for "their side," they resort to words like "anointed."
Similarly, these individuals have no real love, devotion, or respect for the Constitution that serves as a framework for our democratic republic. If they did, they would show a bit more respect for the election process, if not the winner of the election itself.
Agnostick agnostick@excite.com
jafs 2 years, 5 months ago
Many Americans have little to no understanding of the Constitution.
This may affect how they "feel" about the government in that regard.
cait48 2 years, 5 months ago
You can take that to the bank, Jafs. Go read the survey done by the Center for the Constitution at Montpelier. http://center.montpelier.org/survey/highlights Only 28% of the respondents had actually read the entire thing.
Akreed 2 years, 5 months ago
That sounds like about 28% more than the percentage of dems that read the laws they voted for.
Akreed 2 years, 5 months ago
Who are you talking to?
jafs 2 years, 5 months ago
He didn't demand respect for the president - he said people should respect the process that elected him. Obama was elected, not anointed, appointed, or anything else.
I'd say if you don't respect the process, then it should be even-handed - you shouldn't respect the recent large wins by Republicans more than wins by Democrats.
In my view, the process is less than ideal, given the massive amounts of money involved with campaigning, and television advertising which is manipulative in nature, combined with the short attention span of the population. But that's true regardless of who wins.
In the last election, I just read that $8 billion was spent, a record high, and that Republicans outspent Democrats by 2-1.
In 2008, I'll wager that Obama outspent his opponent.
This feature of our system bothers me, and I think it should bother everybody.
jafs 2 years, 5 months ago
What do you call "Lamestream Media" and "anointed" if not arrogant and name-calling?
I'm sorry to see you using those tactics - you're generally someone who doesn't.
Delivering speeches and pandering would accurately describe pretty much every single political campaign I've ever seen.
The majority of people who chose to vote in the 2008 presidential election voted for Obama - he was, in fact, elected.
vertigo 2 years, 5 months ago
"2"
jafs 2 years, 5 months ago
What the best qualifications for elected office are are subjective, and open to debate and disagreement.
Many of the recent Tea Party candidates ran on the fact that they were "outsiders" - that was seen as a positive attribute.
I don't recall exactly what the press did or didn't write about Obama when he was campaigning. I also don't know that the media decides who is a viable candidate.
It was, I believe, the Democratic primaries that decided on Obama rather than Hillary Clinton as the candidate.
Would you hold the same view if Obama had been a conservative candidate?
jafs 2 years, 5 months ago
I might argue that nothing prepares someone fully for the job of being president, and that all presidents need a certain amount of "on the job training".
The division in our country was not created by Obama - it has been there for some time, and had been getting worse over the last 5-10 years before he was elected.
I also don't see "chaos on all fronts".
jafs 2 years, 5 months ago
I agree that voters should be less swayed by campaign rhetoric and promises, and look for the qualities they want in a president. But for me that applies all of the time, and to all candidates.
In fact, I warned people when Obama was campaigning that he was good at making speeches, but that he was promising more than he could deliver, that the president didn't have the power to make everything happen, etc.
In my experience, virtually every candidate for president does the same thing, and people generally vote for them based on that.
He started out trying to bring both sides to the table, but it didn't succeed - in fact, one of the criticisms from the left is that he waited too long for bipartisan cooperation.
Again, I don't see him as a "far-left" president at all - the health care bill is not Medicare for all, doesn't have a public option, etc.
I agree that he seems unwilling to change his policy approach, which may be unwise, and seems to think it's more a matter of presentation.
Our country is very divided along ideological lines, and it's hard to see how we could craft policies that include both sides, since they're so different.
At the same time, I think the majority of Americans, and certainly the majority of independents, really want the government to find solutions that work.
The right wing was very effective in framing the issues during the last election cycle - according to something I just read, $8 billion was spent, and Republicans outspent Democrats by 2-1.
If they simply oppose the Democratic agenda, though, I think they'll be out in 2012. Independents are about 30-40% of voters, and they swing back and forth based on outcomes, not ideology.
Agnostick 2 years, 5 months ago
More helpful information for BornAgainTroll:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Those are the requirements for President, as set forth in the Constitution.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1
boltzmann 2 years, 5 months ago
Anyone who uses the term Lamestream Media, should simply be ignored, as they have nothing useful to offer to the discourse.
BrianR 2 years, 5 months ago
Agreed. A good indicator that it's time to stop reading is: 1. lamestream 2. Shewmon 3. As a life coach, 4. anointed etc., etc.
Agnostick 2 years, 5 months ago
Yeah, almost as funny as trolls who've been shown the door three or four times before, then sneak back in using cheap posts with new usernames and forged email accounts.
Right, barrypenders/berrypenders?
You and your troll cronies crack me up. ha ha ha (lame)
merrill 2 years, 5 months ago
Pres Obama and congress men and women don't ban earmarks BAN special interest financing of elections
Now we're on to something!!!!
Perhaps it would be best for all of us if our elected officials would stay at the work place instead of flying to everywhere chasing special interest dollars.
How about if they stay at the work place and take care of business? instead of chasing special interest dollars!
How about if they stay in the work place and read the legislation they vote on? instead of chasing special interest dollars!
How about if they stay at the work place and cut wayyyyyy back on travel expenses? instead of chasing special interest dollars!
How about they stay at the work place and cut off special interest financing of our elections? instead of chasing special interest dollars!
This is directed at democrats,republicans,cabinet officials and their staff people!!!
Thank You!
merrill 2 years, 5 months ago
Election funding is ONE the of the big issues and spending wayyyyyyyy too much money is ANOTHER issue and allowing the Chamber of Commerce to launder political donation money is ANOTHER issue!
Why are not corporate special interests held accountable? They are not less guilty.
WE VOTERS need to say NO MORE special interest funding of elections!!!
snap_pop_no_crackle 2 years, 5 months ago
In 2008, Dear Leader broke his promise to accept public funding and abide by the rules and tweaked his campaign's website to take in untraceable donations.
jafs 2 years, 5 months ago
According to something I read recently, during this last election, $8 billion was spent, a record high for elections.
And, Republicans outspent Democrats by 2-1.
bearded_gnome 2 years, 5 months ago
"three letter word: J-O-B-S ..."
Jawbone Joe Biden.
and over and over from Mr. Obama: you'll be able to keep your doctor and your health insurance plans if you like them.
there's two more for you Scott!
Everybody ask yourself this question: If I owned a business, would I turn it over to Barack Obama to manage? See if you can lie to yourself about that one.
---LOL!
nicely done letter. the loons want to distract but your "anointed ref is right, even Obama's own followers have admitted that the fawning syrupy media coverage of him during the '08 election was worth as much as 15% of the vote in support of Mr. Obama.
I still say Sarah Palin has more administrative experience today than Mr. Obama.
clearly she has much more success as a leader/administrator than does Mr. Obama. and she's far better at speaking off teleprompter!
Mr. Obama started running for president after just something like 180 days sitting in the Senate. sheesh.
and his answers to questions today show that he is still seriously misguided on economic issues.
scott3460 2 years, 5 months ago
Sarah the Quitter? Who's patently fake "I'm a gun totting mama" advertising vehicle for her upcoming attempt at the Presidency saw viewership crater by nearly 1/2 from week one to two? Right, she would make quit a President! Has she offered anything substantive, other than the half baked tweets and where she'll be signing her book next Tuesday, that is? Please, please, please, right wing loons, please nominate the zilch from Wasilla. Your last empty suit turned out so well, after all.
cait48 2 years, 5 months ago
I hope they nominate her too. She lost the 'Pubs the election in '08. She'd lose them the election in '12 too. I don't think the Republican Party will do it though. She's shoved her nose into a number of areas of main line Republican politics that lost them elections (New York anyone?) and they aren't too happy with her for it. My dream candidate is Olympia Snowe. Heck, I think I would vote Republican if she showed up on the ticket. She's about the only realist in the bunch and the only woman who could take on Hillary and win.
jafs 2 years, 5 months ago
Hey, you guys - stop telling the right wing that liberals want Sarah to run.
If you do that, they won't nominate her.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 5 months ago
Come on, Scott, everyone deserves their champion. For vacuous voters, there is an equally vacuous candidate named Sarah.
scott3460 2 years, 5 months ago
Nope, bozo, there is such a thing as playing with fire. We, who foresaw the disaster for this country that was george w. bush, took a similar approach then and got burned. With the power of 24/7 corporate media behind her, it is exceedingly likely that a dolt such as Sarah the Quitter could be "elected." The big media, big military and big business interests that control the republican party would find her a willing and extremely useful tool for accomplishing even more of their ruinous agenda for our country. I dissent.
notajayhawk 2 years, 5 months ago
Let them keep focusing on her.
cait48 2 years, 5 months ago
Like you when Obama won? Your lack of drugs and therapy has showed for the last two years.
scott3460 2 years, 5 months ago
I'll be backing Russ Feingold in the primaries, so I hope you are right and we get a true Progressive to run for the Democrats next time.
Jimo 2 years, 5 months ago
ROFL
Mr. Burkhart is so intent on claiming some grab bag of lies that he never stops long enough to establish a single one!
Sorry Burk, but having reviewed your letter carefully, I can't document any lie - unless of course we adopt a Clintonian definition of the word: any statement or hope that falls short of its potential.
(Oh, and what's this chutzpah from Sarah Palin about Obama "not being vetted"?!? Did you learn this during Sister Sarah's press conference? Sorry, trick question: she's - NEVER - had a press conference. But of course sociopathic liars rarely do.)
scott3460 2 years, 5 months ago
But at least she know who we back in the North/South Korea spat.
merrill 2 years, 5 months ago
Actually Bush and Cheney did have a lot to do with the current situation. There are some who like to pretend otherwise.
Obama did not know he was going to be responsible for finding jobs for the suddenly 11 million unemployed created by Bush/Cheney. That was not in the cards. Then again Bush/Cheney were wanting to keep that quiet until the last minute.
What cannot be disputed is the pattern of crime that has been established. Nixon got it underway with Watergate...spying on the democrats. But that was not quite enough no way jose'
Not to be outdone Reagan/Bush and the Bush boys decided to pull a major fraud scheme off by taking the Savings and Loan industry down the tubes along with tons a retirement plans that put soooo many golden agers on the streets looking for jobs. Yes believe it or not HOME LOANS were part of this scandal as well.... can you believe it !!!
Holy cow Reagan/Bush,Oliver North,Gen Richard Secord and Adm John Poindexter discovered an opportunity to go against USA government laws and illegally sold weapons to a dictator aka Iran-Contra illegal weapons deal.
Then came along Bush/Cheney who lied to the world so they could invade and occupy Iraq. Those oil fields were just like Heroin to this group..... they can't live without other nations oil fields no matter the monetary cost or the cost of human lives ..... soooo ruthless.
Not to be outdone by daddy Bush .... Bush/Cheney had to have their own financial scandal whoaaaaaa and what a whopper. And guess what Jeb Bush and Cousin George Walker were on the Lehman Bros payroll when it suddenly went bankrupt and crumbled.
For icing on the cake GW Bush went around the country lying to nation about Social Security plus never telling anyone that privatizing Social Security would add $700 billion annually to the national debt for the next 20 years. AND it could the nations economy at risk.
What in the hell do those D.C. republicans think they are doing?
merrill 2 years, 5 months ago
Just in case some wanted some verification....
are several ways in which the Bush family plays into the Savings and Loan scandal, which involves not only many members of the Bush family but also many other politicians that are still in office and were part of the Bush Jr. administration.
Jeb Bush, George Bush Sr., and his son Neil Bush have all been implicated in the Savings and Loan Scandal, which cost American tax payers over $1.4 TRILLION dollars (note that this was about one quarter of our national debt").
The Reagan/Bush savings and loan heist was considered the largest theft in history at the time. George Herbert Walker Bush then took $1.4 trillion of taxpayers money to cover the theft. http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm
The Bush/Cheney Wall Street Bank Fraud on Consumers(millions out of work) Yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities(Bush admin) ignoring their regulatory responsibilities." http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html
Only 3 major Financial Institutions were at risk in spite of what we’re told ? "There were just a handful of institutions that were terribly weakened. AIG the insurer, Bank of America and Citigroup, Those three were clearly in very weakened form. Many of the other big banks simply were not. http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year
We do know it is a good thing Social Security was not under Wall Street control during the Bush/Cheney years. In fact Wall Street has a consistent history for losing money...Yep!
Privatizing Social Security Would Place the Nations Economy at Risk "Social Security privatization will raise the size of the government's deficit to nearly $700 billion per year for the next 20 years, almost tripling the size of the national debt.
Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at risk--it would likely put the entire economy at risk."
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0505orr.html
The ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class = tax increases for the middleclass. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2001/0301miller.html
Reagan/Bush Illegal Sale of Weapons aka Iran Contra
Richard Nixon wiretapping democratic headquarters aka Watergate
snap_pop_no_crackle 2 years, 5 months ago
Woo hoo! Haven't seen this set of links in at least a couple of days. I was wondering if perhaps you'd lost them.
weeslicket 2 years, 5 months ago
as jimo explained quite nicely earlier: when a process or decision does not work as quickly or as smoothly as we might like, that does not make it a lie.
lies might include statements such as: "we have evidence of weapons of mass destruction" "iraq attacked our country on 911" "i did not have sex with that woman"
similarly, "the economy is fundamentally sound" was not a lie, so much as it was simply not correct.
beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago
Mission Accomplished I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski. I have a wide stance. Death panels WMDs Scooter Libby
Yep, we get lied to a lot.
Godot 2 years, 5 months ago
Mission Accomplished: That sign was to salute the mission of the particular naval ship from which Bush made the speech; their mission was accomplished, successfully.
I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski: spoken by a Democrat president who is a major advisor to, and husband of the Secretary of State for, the current occupant of the Whitehouse. I have a wide stance; disprove it. And what does it have to do with policy? Death panels: Semantics. They are in the health bill, but not called that. Disprove it. I dare ya. WMD's; they were found, but not in the quantity suspected. Might have something to do with the fact that we gave them several month's advance notice that we were going to invade, giving them time to ship the WMD's to Syria and/or Iran.
Scooter Libby. Really? Are you that desperate?
You cite a few, alleged lies from two presidents over a period of more than a decade. Obama lies every time he speaks in public. Who knows what goes on in private? He cannot help it. His reality is, To be or not to lie, that is the question.
weeslicket 2 years, 5 months ago
"WMD's; they were found, but not in the quantity suspected."
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&q=weapons+of+mass+destruction+found&aq=2&aqi=g4g-o1&aql=&oq=weapons+of+mass+de&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=cae82668a2ddab14
must've been "bad intelligence". or more likely, the cherry-picking thereof.
also, i don't know if "wide stance" is true or false. what was your argument here? (potty humor: does this statement even pass the smell test?)
beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago
"Obama lies every time he speaks in public."
And you call someone else desperate? How remarkably sad to think someone hates the President of the United States of America so much that they claim that he lies every time he speaks, and you still call yourself a citizen of the United States.
It must make me wonder, what is it about this president, this president in particular, that would make someone say that?
weeslicket 2 years, 5 months ago
no. please go back and read the texts.
Slowponder 2 years, 5 months ago
Mr. Burkhart,
I am sorry on this American holiday you see the President as the source of the lower stature of America. It must be nice to live in a simple world where you can blame one person for all the ills you perceive. May I suggest you read Thomas Friedman for a more nuanced analysis.
The critical question that no one asked/asking/will ask is this: "What hard choice are you willing to make? Unfortunately for Mr. Burkhart, there is no hard choice, just easy blame.
jafs 2 years, 5 months ago
Someone making a claim has the burden of proof.
If you want to make that claim, it's up to you to prove it, not to others to disprove it.
cait48 2 years, 5 months ago
This is something Tom has historically had a very hard problem with; he makes claims with no support or proof then dares you to disprove it. I recently told a story about the man who snapped his fingers constantly and irritated people. When asked why he did it, he said, "To keep the tigers away." When it's pointed out to him that tigers aren't indigenous to North America he says, "See? it works!". This is Tom's brand of attack and logic.
snap_pop_no_crackle 2 years, 5 months ago
A search for "The Reagan/ Bush Savings and Loan Heist" + merrill = 826 results. Nobody's mind will be changed by you posting that another 800 times.
vertigo 2 years, 5 months ago
The phrase “is amended” should have alerted readers that this section already exists in law — and actually has existed for over 60 years. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson restructured the Ready Reserve Corps by executive order as a deployable response team reporting to the Surgeon General for disaster relief. Actually, that EO appears not to have created the RRC but merely to have codified its chain of command under the Surgeon General. According to Findlaw, the relevant statute creating the RRC originated in 1944, during World War II, and has been repeatedly modified since, reorganized in 1949, 1966, and 1993. This section of ObamaCare modifies it yet again, mainly in terms of funding. It’s not a great surprise that a bill that seeks to increase the federal government’s role in health care would also seek to expand or at least redefine its emergency response agencies. Even if this was a “private health-care army,” though, it would be a woefully underfunded one with a $12.5 million annual budget. The state of Minnesota alone will spend $1.8 billion on public safety in its biennial budget, with a good portion of that on law enforcement.
Good boy Tom, you're falling hook-line-and sinker for the misinformation being feed to you by your favorite talking heads. What a nice little puppet.
jafs 2 years, 5 months ago
The amounts of money involved bother me a bit - they add up to quite a lot.
And, some of the wording is a bit vague, but it appears that the purpose of this is to expand the number of folks available in public health and emergency public health situations.
weeslicket 2 years, 5 months ago
LJW is blocking the actual pdf site address as "spam".......not a surprise. I tried to post it 3 times the other day , and today. It won't post....again, LJW calls the h/c bill in it's entirity, "spam". But there is the verbage.
i'm just stuck on the words: tom shewmon, spam and verbiage (also verbage). help me here. this is fun: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/verbage cato?
merrill 2 years, 5 months ago
Sure I'm ready to dump Obamacare. Returning to the previous medical insurance scam is jumping from the frying pan into the fire = reckless reckless reckless!
Let's reduce health care costs by getting rid of the medical insurance industry. Why? Because the medical insurance industry does not provide health care. But they are a whopping expense. And most consumers do not spend what is paid out annually per policy.
Improved Medicare Insurance for All would provide real medical insurance reform!
The United States spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on healthcare – $8160 per capita – yet performs poorly in comparison and leaves over 46 million people without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered.
Expanded and Improved Medicare Insurance for All is one of the solutions.
Easy to Implement: Medicare has been in existence since 1966, it provides healthcare to those 65 and older, and satisfaction levels are high. The structure is already in place and can be easily expanded to cover everyone.
Simple: One entity – established by the government – would handle billing and payment at a cost significantly lower than private insurance companies. Private insurance companies spend about 31% of every healthcare dollar on administration. Medicare now spends about 3%.
Real Choice: An expanded and improved Medicare for All would provide personal choice of doctors and other healthcare providers. While financing would be public, providers would remain private. As with Medicare, you choose your doctor, your hospital, and other healthcare providers.
State and Local Tax Relief: Medicare for All would assume the costs of healthcare delivery, thus relieving the states and local governments of the cost of healthcare, including Medicaid, and as a result reduce State and local tax burdens.
Expanded coverage: Would cover all medically necessary healthcare services – no more rationing by private insurance companies. There would be no limits on coverage, no co-pays or deductibles, and services would include not only primary and specialized care but also prescription drugs, dental, vision, mental health services, and long-term care.
Everyone In, Nobody Out: Everyone would be eligible and covered. No longer would doctors ask what insurance you have before they treat you.
No More Overpriced Private Health Insurance: Medicare for All would eliminate the need for private health insurance companies who put profit before healthcare, unfairly limit choice, restrict who gets coverage, and force people into bankruptcy.
Lower Costs: Most people will pay significantly less for healthcare. Savings will be achieved in reduced administrative costs and in negotiated prices for prescription drugs.
http://www.healthcare-now.org/
snap_pop_no_crackle 2 years, 5 months ago
Ad infinitum, Ad nauseam
notajayhawk 2 years, 5 months ago
"Expanded and Improved Medicare Insurance for All is one of the solutions."
Why, that's an excellent idea, mertle.
Oh, unless you want to be able to find a doctor that will treat you, that is.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013525407_medicaredocs26m.html?syndication=rss
weeslicket 2 years, 5 months ago
"Oh, unless you want to be able to find a doctor that will treat you, that is."
don't you want more clients?
notajayhawk 2 years, 5 months ago
Medicare doesn't pay for my services. Medicaid would - if I accepted it, which I don't, because it's not worth it.
weeslicket 2 years, 5 months ago
ok, so you're making an economic choice about your services. i also infer from your statement that you would consider accepting medicaid patients if it was "worth more" to you. it's good for you that you have alternatives to choose from in your professional work.
but for many (most?) americans, health care choices are both limited and expensive.
i have the impression that these americans, who might get better and less expensive health services wtih other providers, really won't effect your practice at all. is that generally correct?
notajayhawk 2 years, 5 months ago
"ok, so you're making an economic choice about your services."
Well, no, it's not about economics. As a matter of fact, there's some things that Medicaid pays at a rate comparable to - or even better than - private insurers. It's not worth the hassle of dealing with Medicaid.
"i also infer from your statement that you would consider accepting medicaid patients if it was "worth more" to you."
Infer what you want. If it ever gets to the point where I have to put up with Medicaid's BS, it would be time to look for a new career.
"but for many (most?) americans, health care choices are both limited and expensive."
So cutting Medicare rates to the point where anywhere from one in five to one in three providers that still accept Medicare patients will stop doing so will help that - how, exactly?
"i have the impression that these americans, who might get better and less expensive health services wtih other providers, really won't effect your practice at all. is that generally correct?"
There's very little that affects my practice. I am, however, one of those Americans you were referring to, and a consumer of health care services, and the discussion as such, and decisions being made, affect me and my family as much as they do you. Is that generally correct?
weeslicket 2 years, 5 months ago
notajayhawk: There's very little that affects my practice. then why all the angst?
merrill 2 years, 5 months ago
"The U.S. health care system is typically characterized as a largely private-sector system, so it may come as a surprise that more than 60% of the $2 trillion annual U.S. health care bill is paid through taxes, according to a 2002 analysis published in Health Affairs by Harvard Medical School associate professors Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein." http://www.healthcare-now.org/
notajayhawk 2 years, 5 months ago
Ah, yes, Woolhandler and Himmelstein, the two jokers who gave us the old 30% of our health care dollars go to insurance companies (which their own so-called 'research' doesn't support), and the even more hilarious claim that more than half of bankruptcies are "caused" by medical expenses. Try reading Woolhandler's bio on the HHS website sometime, mertle. She pretty much says outright that the whole reason she became a doctor was to publish tripe like that, a bigger soapbox to promote her social welfare agenda. Really, mertle, your cut-and-pastes are always full of useless propaganda, but those two whackos are the most worthless sources you could come up with. And you seem to cite them pretty much daily.
weeslicket 2 years, 5 months ago
i'm confused here. how do the reports of Woolhandler and Himmelstein effect your practice?
tripe, propaganda, bankrupcies, 30%, soapbox, whackos, agenda, hilarious, worthless, jokers. did i catch all the buzz words?
how do these reports effect your practice?
notajayhawk 2 years, 5 months ago
Geez, where to start.
First of all, PNHP's releases are not 'reports', they're propaganda. You could chalk their work up to weak or flawed research performed just to get published, a requirement for academics, which is what Woolhandler and Himmelstein primarily are. At least, you could chalk it up to that if it weren't for their admitted agenda.
Second, where did I say they had any effect on me at all? Guess what - their published articles have no effect on you, or merrill, either, except to promulgate falsehoods that apparently a lot of people fall for. They're not in public policy positions where their misguided efforts affect my practice, unless, of course, in the power they have to sway the opinion of people that buy what they're selling. Nowhere did I claim it directly affected me in any way. I was responding to a post by merrill where he, as usual, cites these people as authoritative sources. Their so-called research does not rise to that level.
It would be more accurate to say my practice affects my opinion of the quality of their 'work'. As a provider, I know that the assumptions they made in the NEJM article were false. (You don't need any particular background or training to see the bankruptcy claims as ridiculous, if you actually read the studies themselves instead of the sound bites that appear in the media.) The fact that people like merrill pay attention to sources like PNHP is a large part of the problem with the costs of health care in this country.
Stain 2 years, 5 months ago
The ignorance in this letter is sad. Everyone of the "lies" the writer cites is actually a commitment to support future legislation - legislation that has to be passed by Congress. There is a vast difference between a promise to support something in the future that must be enacted by others, and a lie
mr_right_wing 2 years, 5 months ago
"Yeah, well, he promised a lot of things...." -Nancy Pelosi
The right thanks you Nancy for your help in this months election....keep it up, we need you for the election in two years as well!!
BigPrune 2 years, 5 months ago
I wonder if Obama has the IRS scour newspapers from around the country and audit people who write letters to the editor criticizing his administration like Bill Clinton used to do?
Sorry guy, it most likely looks like the IRS will be on your doorstep in short order. Government controls all and all.
wissmo 2 years, 5 months ago
Excellent letter Scott,
The big three major network news divisions are paying heavily regarding coverage, or lack of responsible coverage vetting of President Obama.
Even former solid supporters including foreign press have realized a few disappointing facts.
One our President Obama is not the charasmatic powerful speaker we were all led to believe.
He stutters and does not think on his feet well at all.
He is very divisive.
His policies are not well thought out.
With all the positive bias press misleading our President Obama he totally misread his election as a mandate to bend our nation towards socialism.
I've never witnessed so many major problems facing us today.
beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago
And dont forget the most important thing that has people really upset: the President is Near, dang blam it!
weeslicket 2 years, 5 months ago
scott burkhart states: "Let’s look at some lies over the last 24 months. Reduce unemployment, that’s one. Drain the swamp, that’s two. Anyone making less than $250K will not see their taxes increased one cent, that’s three. The penalty for not obtaining health insurance will be a “penalty” not a “tax” (even though we’re going to use the IRS to enforce it), that’s four. Shovel ready jobs, my favorite, five. Shall we continue?"
my current perceptions include(s): 1. factual: none of mr. burkhart's examples = lies. 2. opinion: mr. burkhart is experiencing disappointment right now, as are many of us here. 3. factual again: disappointment does not = a lie.
notajayhawk 2 years, 5 months ago
At the absolute least, the one about the penalty for not buying health insurance is a lie. If everyone has to pay it, it's a tax. If only those who refuse to do something the government is trying to get them to do have to pay it, it's a penalty.
Godot 2 years, 5 months ago
The administration claimed in court that the requirement to buy health insurance is a tax. This makes Obama a liar. This means that Joe Wilson may have been rude, but he was absolutely correct.
Agnostick 2 years, 5 months ago
wissmo whines...
"The big three major network news divisions are paying heavily regarding coverage, or lack of responsible coverage vetting of President Obama."
If you're relying on any news media outlet(s) (radio, television, print, online) to do your job of vetting your choices at the ballot box when you cast your vote... then you are shirking your responsibility and duty as an American citizen.
If you're limiting your news sources to the "three major network news divisions"... then you're shirking your responsibility to yourself, and to your own sense of self-respect and self-worth, by stunting your own intellectual growth.
Agnostick agnostick@excite.com
Agnostick 2 years, 5 months ago
Get up for your early morning cup of hatred, berrypenders?
No other life but to plagiarize and "bigotize?"
Is one profile enough to fill up your crack pipe, barrypenders, or do you need three or four these days?
merrill 2 years, 5 months ago
On Nov. 4, Anderson Cooper did the country a favor. He expertly deconstructed on his CNN show the bogus rumor that President Obama’s trip to Asia would cost $200 million a day. This was an important “story.” Thomas Friedman
snap_pop_no_crackle 2 years, 5 months ago
Earlier that same day, Fox News had quoted administration officials debunking the same rumor. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/04/security-entourage-earning-epic-reputation-ahead-obama-india-visit/ Don't you have some urgent copy/pasting to do, merrill?
Commenting has been disabled for this item.