Left in the West - Recent Comments

Me saved lives?

JC — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:41:10 GMT

Heavens no, not in this battle. Whatever gave you that idea?

And I'm sorry you're such a nihilist that you can't see any good coming out of this. But I suppose you have your own insurance, and don't care if other people live or die. It's more convenient to your hatred of democrats to just deny any smidgeon of relief to people who have no alternative but to die without access to health cre.

Your hatred is far outweighing your humanity today.

And throwing a tantrum and yelling "you dems" does not make me any more of a democrat than I already am. Which is to say that I am not, because I am an independent. You really sound like a little kid who doesn't want to get his hair cut.

You have resorted to using the phrase "you dems" in the same way that xenophobes yell "you n*ggers" or "you f*gs". In other words, you have marginalized yourself to an isolated corner of bigotry where no one really cares what you say anymore, because you'd rather see people die and suffer out of your notion of ideological purity, than to acknowledge what good may come from this bill, as overshadowed it may be by the bad elements.

Cowgirl

Craig Moore — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:47:39 GMT

You were requested to substantiate your workers comp assertion that a claim was filed. Please demonstrate substance to your claim without deflection and prevarication.

Rehberg considers McDonald a serious challenger, and so do I.

Montana Cowgirl — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:08:33 GMT

I think a Tea Party candidate would have received enough votes to make it a cake walk.

I know right!

Montana Cowgirl — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:06:04 GMT

I am continually amazed at how the conservative newspaper owners refuse to let their reporters write these stories. So much for the myth of the left wing media.

Dodged a bullet?

Eric Coobs — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:45:46 GMT

What do you mean Montana Cowgirl - don't you consider Dennis McDonald a serious challenger?

Please, dear God, tell me that was tongue-in-cheek

Mark Tokarski — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:53:16 GMT

Knowing you, Clampett, it probably was, so I am chuckling.

Wait a minute, clark.

jed — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:40:35 GMT

Is there really that big a difference between theory and opinion?

It is the utter depth of depravity ...

Mark Tokarski — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:50:49 GMT

For you Dems to sell us out as you have and then say that as bad as it is, you are saving lives. That is not only base rationalization, but also insulting to our intelligence.

This is not a glass half-empty. This is not the "good" that our "perfect" wants to mess up. This is not a case where "we didn't get everything we wanted." This is not the result of a "process."

This is a bill largely written by a former Baucus staffer who went to work for Wellpoint. It is essentially unchanged from the way she wrote it over a year ago. The "process" has been political theater, with people playing bad guys and good guys, Obama and Democrat after Democrat telling us they counted the votes and they just aren't there and can't do anything about it ... you were herded into pens like sheep, and the final, sad act of the play is going on now, where we find that Obama actually can be persuasive, forceful. He can make things happen. The problem is, he is doing it now for the wrong side.

The bill is an insurance wish-list with no public option, no cost or abuse controls, it protects those who already make billions by not providing care, pays them even more billions for doing what they refused to do without being bribed.

Do not tell me you have saved lives. God that's insulting to stake out a moral high ground for such base craven selling out!

Wondering how low?

JC — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 05:21:18 GMT

Whatever does that mean? I'd try to guess what you're reading between the lines, but first I'd have to assume you've been reading the lines. And that would just be a gratuity.

Here, let me lay it out for you clearly: 1) premiums are going to raise, no matter what happens, or doesn't happen with reform--now, or in the next decade or two; 2) I have been consistently and adamantly against a mandate without a strong public option or true single payer; 3) this bill, as bad as it is, may make a difference by providing some further access to health insurance, and saving some lives of people who would otherwise die from lack of access to insurance; 4) this bill fails miserably because it does not provide universal health care, and an ever-more invisible (though halved in size) underclass of people will continue to be excluded from health insurance and all of the other benefits touted by this legislation.

As I've said elsewhere, this bill is a half full/half empty proposal with winners and losers. Politicians and wonks will herald the winners. Social justice advocates will point out the plight of the losers. Only the cold-hearted and antisocial nihilists among us that cannot put a value on the human lives that this bill will save, and families that will benefit.

The tragedy is that we will have traded those benefits for an increased inequity in our society. For 20 million people nothing will have changed, and the likelihood that it will change for them will have diminished. And 20,000 of them will still die prematurely every year from lack of access to health insurance. But they will not matter any more, as they are those that will have permanently fallen through the cracks, and are easily forgotten. Max Baucus picked a percent of people that were expendable under his legislation. One could say that his Finance Committee was the true death panel that picked who would get access to insurance, and who wouldn't. Who could have a better chance of surviving, and who would not.

Those that were barely worthy will have been lifted up enough with $800+ billion in payoffs to the insurance cartel. I call that guilt money. Just enough so that we can assuage our consciences, and permanently forget about the rest. We've done what we can, and we can do no more. And if they don't die, the IRS will make sure they have enough wits left to get an exemption, or will put them in the modern version of a debtor's prison if they they can find them. And if they don't have enough wits, then they will continue to hide in the shadows and sleep in any nook or cranny they can find.

Were work comp claims actually filed

jhwygirl — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:28:32 GMT

are you sure of that?

I mean - it wouldn't surprise me, but I hadn't read it anywhere...and if it's true, people really should know.

At least if we don't pass this piece of shit ...

Mark Tokarski — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 01:07:50 GMT

we have the ability not to buy their crappy products.

Odd to say, but our best hope is that Republicans take this thing to court, and we get some non-Clinton-non-Bush judge to rule that it is wrong to force us to buy lemons from car salesmen.

JC- I'm just a spectator. I am wondering how low you will go.

I just checked my independent thought alarm ...

Mark Tokarski — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 01:01:29 GMT

It's not flashing.

I don't want to hurt you ...

Mark Tokarski — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:57:46 GMT

I can do that pretty good - I mean, I know how to toss the insults and stuff. But you do seem impermeable, so let me lay it out for you. You don't have even a slight grasp of the complexity of the issue. You have just taken the work of thousands of people who are waaaay smarter than you - and written them off with the words "There are conflicting scientific opinions. That is beneath contempt.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. You are not even entitled to an opinion.

Since you are impermeable, these words will not register. LOL.

That dog don't hunt ...

Mark Tokarski — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:45:43 GMT

It's kind of like, you know, a Democratic talking point for weaselheads. They have stuffed us, given us a very bad bill, and it is not a starting point! Matt! Can I swear some more? We got another moron! Please Matt can I?

"conflicting scientific opinions"

JC — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:04:46 GMT

um, no.

Science isn't about opinion ("it's my opinion the sun revolves around the earth" or "the earth is flat"). It's about observable facts.

Conflicting political and ideological opinions about global warming? Yes, very much so.

Hehehe

Wulfgar — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:56:59 GMT

Don't understand science even a little, do you, Eric?

Oh, and you forgot to include that Al Gore is FAT!

Not Surprised -

Eric Coobs — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:26:44 GMT

OK Mark, I'll explain it for you -

The Earth goes through periods of unstoppable global warming and cooling cycles.

The last Ice age came, and went, and it wasn't caused by your car, or Al Gores' jet.

Can man affect this cycle?

There are conflicting scientific opinions.

Did Al Gore turn it into a religion for the left? Yes.

Now do you understand Mark?

(Next time I'll spell it out better, for the benefit of the pseudo-intellectuals over here - LOL)