| Author |
|
William McCormick
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 February 2006
Posts: 3297
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 3:50am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
The quote Mike referenced above:"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it." ******** How will Obama get anything done without all that Repub cooperation he's been getting up till now? And this pathetic turd was almost President? If my kid acted the way some of our politicians do........... She's more mature and she's only 5.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 7:18am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
here is what Obama said before the vote:
“Every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made ... And this is the time to make true on that promise. We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine.”
And on the other side, here’s what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation.
Whole Article
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12767
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 7:43am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Just to be accurate, the NYTimes article corrects the Gingrinch reference: >> The Paul Krugman column on Monday, about the health care bill, quoted Newt Gingrich as saying that “Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation. The quotation originally appeared in The Washington Post, which reported after the column went to press that Mr. Gingrich said it referred to Johnson’s Great Society policies, not to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. <<
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joseph Gauthier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 March 2009
Posts: 1421
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 7:47am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I don't blame you, Jodi, for reaching the conclusion you've reached; that article was a hatchet-job, and was deliberately vague about Mr. Gingrich's point so as to lead you to a specific conclusion. Even I, an ardent Gingrich supporter, might have been taken aback had I not already read the original article on Sunday.
A quick internet search, if you have the inclination, will reveal the former Speaker's actual meaning-- both in the form of the Washington Post's more responsibly written article, as well as his clarification subsequent to the New York Times hatchet-job.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joseph Gauthier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 March 2009
Posts: 1421
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 7:57am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Just to be accurate, the NYTimes article corrects the Gingrinch reference: Thank you, Michael, I hadn't noticed the correction before writing my previous post. But that does very little to alter my sentiment; Paul Krugman, regardless of the correction, still committed a deliberate manipulation with the intent to distort the Speaker's words. Perhaps in the interest of honesty, the Times should have placed the correction above the article, rather than below where it masquerades as a by-line note.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 8:53am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
It was the Washington Post who quoted Gingrich, which he later claimed as mischaracterization.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Geoff Gibson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5741
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 11:14am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Then, logically, would it also not fit that if one wished to receive healthcare in this country one must buy insurance?
No. There is an alternative. If a man deems it prudent, he has (or had) the right to pay for health care services from his pocket, without being legally bound to purchase health insurance.
You could, however, say: If one wishes to receive health care services in this country, those services must be paid for, unless the provider of those services chooses otherwise.
The original statement was without the conditional you added: If one wishes to operate a hospital in the United States, one can not turn away a patient.
My rejoinder took the same absolute statement and turned it on its head. In the case of ED or ERs they cannot, legally, refuse to treat a patient regardless of that patient's ability or willingness to pay. The new law requires people to buy insurance (importantly only if they have the means -- if one does not have the means they have alternatives). The obligation asked of patients in the mandate is not substantively different from that required of Hospitals under EMTALA. The government is requiring an affirmative act.
And truthfully the mandate is less onerous than EMTALA one can choose not to buy insurance. They will simply be penalized with a tax for that choice.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Joseph Gauthier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 March 2009
Posts: 1421
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 11:16am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Yes, the Post is often times not a friend of conservatives, but in this case, as I said, it was more responsible in its presentation than was the Times. It is true that both papers present the quote out of context, but whereas the Times uses the quote to suggest that Gingrich believes civil rights legislation to have been a mistake, the Post immediately follows the quote by clarifying that no one believes civil rights legislation to have been a mistake.
When examining the two articles side by side, there's a big difference in intent, as well as in result.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Kevin Hagerman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 18101
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 12:00pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Well, I'm sure Gingrich and I agree that Johnson did the right thing and Republicans tried to pound the Democrats for it, to their eternal shame...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joseph Gauthier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 March 2009
Posts: 1421
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 12:27pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
The original statement was without the conditional you added:
You miss my point. I closed my post with the added conditional only as a means of restating your preceding conditional in a more accurate way, and by doing so, to reveal that even when divorced from the vulnerability of alternative equivalencies, it still required further modification to become a true statement.
This sentiment: [would it also not fit that if one wished to receive healthcare in this country one must buy insurance?] does nothing to approach the logical validity of the original conditional from which this discussion began.
The new law requires people to buy insurance (importantly only if they have the means -- if one does not have the means they have alternatives).
The distinction you site here, in truth, makes no difference. Whether the mandate applies to one, or to three-hundred million people, the Federal government is still mandating a purchase (and that doesn't even touch upon the nightmares of what defines the means, who defines the means, what constitutes an acceptable level of coverage, and who defines the acceptable level).
And truthfully the mandate is less onerous than EMTALA one can choose not to buy insurance. They will simply be penalized with a tax for that choice.
And this, Geoff, strikes to the heart of the matter. You, as well as more ardent supporters of the legislation, attempt to define the penalty for non-compliance as a tax; which it is not. Whether it be an excise tax or a state of being tax, a tax requires a specific action or specific ownership. But on the other hand, a transfer of funds initiated as a result of an absence of action is a fine.
I think we also need to know how the fine is collected, and what is the result of non-payment of the fine.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joseph Gauthier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 March 2009
Posts: 1421
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 12:34pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Kevin, if you're speaking of civil rights legislation, Republicans did not try to pound Johnson for it. If you're speaking of Great Society legislation, Mr. Gingrich does not agree that it was the right thing. Either way, you're wrong.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jeremiah Avery
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 December 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 2431
|
| Posted: 23 March 2010 at 12:37pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Actually, a lot of Democrats were against the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's since the south was predominantly Democratic since after the Civil War. After more and more civil rights legislation was passed, then the shift of the south leaning towards voting Republican began more earnestly.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
