John David Lewis of Duke University isn't a lawyer or doctor, but he has analyzed the bill and put parts of it into our English.
The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, "America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009," by John David Lewis, August 6, 2009
He addresses rationing, punishment of people who don't join the plan, what is acceptable coverage, will it destroy private health insurance, does it redistribute wealth (i.e., does it punish the successful), does the government set the fees, will the government be able to investigate the citizens, will the health czar and his/her cronies be exempt from court review (my wording, not his).
It also appears at Objective Standard, a journal of culture and politics. My friendly troll might click/hop on over there and take a look, since she seems unable to understand the government legalese in the bill and thinks that Medicare isn't struggling and Medicaid broke, so therefore we should do more of the same but for everyone, not just elders and the poor.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Thank you for the helpful link and your anguish over my supposed inability to comprehend. You can always count on your friendly rumor-monger to try and straighten you out by directing you to someone or something that mirrors their own views.
If this Prof. John David Lewis of Duke University is the same person who's articles I've read previously and I assume he is. Then I can say that in his past writings I have found both things to agree and disagree with. But just as I couldn't, with a straight face, recommend either of us as a source of unbiased opinions. I couldn't in good conscience advise anyone to accept the professor's comments as unbiased. In my opinion, he like most people has an agenda of his own. Witness his recent association with the extremist Tea Party movement.
So hopefully you'll pardon my reluctance to accept his comments on insurance reform at face value. But then, unlike some, I have no aversion to doing my own research.
I believe that is a libertarian blog, so I don't accept it all either--where we differ--you and I. He has very little opinion in this piece, if you read it, but does explain the language, which often isn't the case when the townhall attenders, congressmen and e-mailers get going.
There is such a thing as an open mind, dearest reader, and then there are pits in which to drive and fall in. You are there, my friend.
Murray sez:
Anon #1-- "Extremist" Tea Party movement. Hey, you're talking about me. A 71 year old retiree who's is concerned about the wasteful bleeding of our treasury. If that's an extremist then I'm guilty! Your problem is anyone who doesn't agree with Obamaism is either un-American, an extremist,or some kind of nut case.
You need to set down , take a deep breathe and think about what the current adminstration is doing to this country. And please don't use the cop out that it was all Bush's fault. It took more than 1 person to cause this much destruction.
Other Anonymous guy-- I agree, we do differ somewhat about the professor's article. It would seem the major difference is that I find what was left out of it as telling as what it contained. If the article was intended to be an unbiased evaluation and not a list of suppositions promoting a certain viewpoint. Then it's a little baffling as to why he conspicuously ignored the one issue that has turned out to be the 800 pound gorilla in the room. I'm speaking, of course, about the much maligned end-of-life provisions or what Sarah and her pinheads call "Obama's death panel." Now I may be naive, but it's hard to imagine that when he decided to undertake the chore of explaining the language contained in the bill, he just accidentally overlooked something this controversial. To those of us down here in the pit, that, my friend, reeks of bias.
Murray, I'm content to bow to your personal assessment of your extremist levels. But, my guess is, age probably has very little to do with whether a person embraces an extremists movement or not. I suspect that age, taxes, government spending or health care reform had a lot less to do with the formation of the Tea Party movement. Than the country's electing a Halfrican American president did. Considering that most of it's devoted adherents have only become converts to the cause since the last election. The vast majority of these folks demonstrated no visible concern about the "wasteful bleeding of our treasury" when the person you don't think I should mention was spending uncounted billions on the Iraq war. So, maybe you also need to set down, take a deep breath and think about what the *u*h administration did to this country.
Look. The guy is a marxist/socialist/progressive--whatever you want to label him-- trying to take over one more segment of the economy and you guys always claim racism when people disagree with his politics and methods. Although we knew that during the campaign. Any complaint, even Bill Clinton's, was called racism. You didn't like Bush, so what's that make you? Was it his race, religion or politics? And for spending, it has been shown in multiple studies that Bush was the biggest spender up to his time, he could hardly be called a conservative, but Obama makes him look like a beginner. You guys need to so get over the white guilt thing and think you need to atone for all the sins of the world. As far as the Duke Prof not addressing every issue, he states that at the beginning. Is that required? There are numerous sites analyzing its pieces parts.
Actually we only claim racism when you guys demonstrate it. And man have you fascists been busy demonstrating it lately.
Picture of sign reading "Death to Obama, Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids."
You guys were generous about calling Bush a fascist too. Anyone you don't like is a fascist. Anyone who doesn't support Obama is a fascist. Any kook who shows up at a meeting, conservatives are supposed to claim. Fascism is the flip side of Communism, in fact, politically speaking in government interference in the lives of citizens and control of all businesses, you can barely get a piece of dental floss between them.
Sorry to mix my metaphors, but this name calling gets tiresome.
Are you visiting from the President's hit list?
You're right, we do call Bush and you guys fascists. Just as you call Obama and people you don't like Marxists.
So where do we go from here? I'm open to any possible solution.
I guess you'll need to look for the national socialism in Bush's programs, where the government takes over businesses and the citizens fawn over a charismatic narcissistic leader, and we'll compare that to Obama's record and style.
I'm sure that if you just think about it, you'll eventually realize there are more indicators of impending national socialism than the two you imagine are happening. They are probably trivial stuff in your book, but significant nevertheless.
Signs that were quite common during the Bush years. Things like fraudulent elections...disregard for Human Rights, secret prisons and torture... Cronyism and Corruption, no bid contracts to corporations with close governmental ties. So start comparing.
I just found my clip art for left facing bull at the Angus site. Want the link?
Well, considering that bull is your field of expertise. Go ahead and post that link.
Left bull is my expertise. But it is a good clip art site.
Post a Comment