The U.S. Health Care Debate

Quote:

---

YOU ARE JUST LIKE US, YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT AND YOU MUST DO WHAT WE DO OTHERWISE YOU ARE ALL FOOLS.

---

Of COURSE! :beam:

See, it's like this:

1. I am a well-informed, thoughtful, reasonable person; under no circumstances am I EVER biased.

2. All people have the same life experiences. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

3. Thus, if someone disagrees with me, I KNOW that there is SOMETHING wrong with them. They are probably infirm.

4. I must deign to grace all such persons with my hightened level of intellect. It is my duty as God's gift to mankind.

5. All people who do not recognize these FACTS must have alterior motives. They are not to be trusted.

----

:laugh4:

OK, so the reality is that this could describe everybody. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

You should judge a society on the basis of its poorest people, not its richest.

---

How so?

I'd say that's a dangerous route to go on. The poor could very well be poor because they're lazy slobs. They could be poor because they haven't handled their possessions well. They could be poor because beer and cigarettes cost to much money, given the amount they drink/smoke.

So am I saying that no regard should be given to the poor? Certainly not.

What I AM saying is that to try and turn judging a society into a bumper sticker is a dangerous way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ariovistus Maximus

How so?

I'd say that's a dangerous route to go on. The poor could very well be poor because they're lazy slobs. They could be poor because they haven't handled their possessions well. They could be poor because beer and cigarettes cost to much money, given the amount they drink/smoke.

So am I saying that no regard should be given to the poor? Certainly not.

What I AM saying is that to try and turn judging a society into a bumper sticker is a dangerous way to go.

---

There is a difference, you contribute to society through working, there should always be opportunity for work, there is always a job to be done, even if it is to sweep the streets. Having people getting money for nothing is a failure in the system.

However, Essential Healthcare should be a fundamental human right. It should be provided for you.

The argument in America is a deathpanel or something like that, it is pretty much incorrect. In America, if you can't afford the treatment, they just let you die or people have chemotherapy then have to stay in tents. There are charities in the 3rd World will provide Healthcare service which is absent in the lives of Americans, in fact there are a few working in America.

Watch anything from Sicko, to the Panaroma review about the American Healthcare system. Anyone who suggests that is better than the NHS clearly does not know what they are talking about.

America praises itself as a land of opportunity, then it should allow people to have opportunities, rather then robbing them of them, because they come from a poor background.

Only people that lose out are the fatcats, and since they earn millions per year, it is not like they need it anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ariovistus Maximus

How so?

I'd say that's a dangerous route to go on. The poor could very well be poor because they're lazy slobs.

---

Can you blame them if their laziness is genetic? Can you blame a sloth for being slow? :inquisitive:

I have always thought society should be judged on how it treats its undesirables*... be they the poor, the lepers, the jews, the muslims, the racists or the peadophiles...

If they are humane and compassionate (thinking racist and paedophile here) rational and not forming lynch mobs you have a civilised society right there...

If they defend thier rights (jews and muslims) and stand up to those who try to slander and vilify them no matter what activities small sections of thier people do

If they provide the basics (poor) and try thier best to not only give them an enjoyable life but give them every chance of progressing themselves or at least ensuring theres a good chance thier children can move up...

So i suppose i kind of include the poor but its not just the poor, for a godwin example i think Nazi germany was ok to the poorest german men (although you could argue once thier stuff was taken the jews were poorer, so if we think back to before the jews stuff were taken) so under your definition the nazi goverment would be good... whereas under mine it would class as bad... a much more accurate conclusion...

Sorry if this is a bit off topic...

Edit

* undesirable as in people can often have problems with... rather than the fact those groups are undesirable... well the rapists and peadophiles are...

I can see your point, Little Grizzly. However, it can EASILY be taken too far if you concentrate only on the one class and not the other.

But please do keep in mind that I really don't disagree with you, but I'd like to mention how an imbalance in the areas you mentioned can cause trouble. Thus, it is harmful to have tunnel vision here.

Exempli gratia:

Quote:

---

If they are humane and compassionate (thinking racist and paedophile here) rational and not forming lynch mobs you have a civilised society right there...

---

However if they become so compassionate that they let murderers go free the first time, then you have a lawless, rather than a civilized, society.

And before you consider that to be too extreme of an example, listen to this quote from Constantine (IIRC), which sums up the concept.

"I would rather that the guilty go free, then that the innocent be punished." That's a dangerous route to take. When you think only of the "underdog" you become unbalanced. Quite frankly, the reason that underdogs get attention is because they are relatively rare.

Quote:

---

If they defend thier rights (jews and muslims) and stand up to those who try to slander and vilify them no matter what activities small sections of thier people do.

---

However you must guard against protecting the rights of the minority above those of the majority.

I really am concerned that being a majority (white), I may actually be handicapped by society. Disagreeing with Obama has often been equated with racism.

I honestly believe that many African-Americans are racist. I know this is touchy, which really just proves my point. I think that they often segregate themselves, and look down on other groups almost as a reaction to the terrible treatment they have received in the past.

Quote:

---

If they provide the basics (poor) and try thier best to not only give them an enjoyable life but give them every chance of progressing themselves or at least ensuring theres a good chance thier children can move up...

---

But at what point does personal responsibility come in? I'd agree with giving them the opportunity to succeed, but often it goes much farther than that. Wellfare is widely manipulated by the lazy and parasites of society, and it actually DISCOURAGES advancement in many cases.

Quote:

---

So i suppose i kind of include the poor but its not just the poor, for a godwin example i think Nazi germany was ok to the poorest german men (although you could argue once thier stuff was taken the jews were poorer, so if we think back to before the jews stuff were taken) so under your definition the nazi goverment would be good... whereas under mine it would class as bad... a much more accurate conclusion...

---

Eh... why would I describe Nazi Germany as good? [INSERT] "words in mouth" [/INSERT]. :clown:

Do I need to apply Godwin's law here? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Sorry if this is a bit off topic...

---

Personally, I think it's a great topic, and very insightful.

And keep in mind that on the whole I agree with what you're saying. However, go full-bore into any of those and you have a problem. As with anything, balance is essential. And I'm not even saying that my rightist oppinions are balanced, either.

I hope you see where I'm coming from.
[/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Can you blame them if their laziness is genetic? Can you blame a sloth for being slow? :inquisitive:

---

I take it you're serious.

OK then.

No, I don't blame a sloth for being slow. However, you don't see me feeding the sloth every day so that he doesn't have to bother with getting up. :smash::smash::smash:

I love dismantling analogies. :beam: So much fun.

And actually the sloth isn't lazy. It's just slow.

I'm talking lazy here.

However if they become so compassionate that they let murderers go free the first time, then you have a lawless, rather than a civilized, society.

And before you consider that to be too extreme of an example, listen to this quote from Constantine (IIRC), which sums up the concept.

"I would rather that the guilty go free, then that the innocent be punished." That's a dangerous route to take. When you think only of the "underdog" you become unbalanced. Quite frankly, the reason that underdogs get attention is because they are relatively rare.

I wasn't so much thinking in terms of the punishments we give them (or not) though i would say part of being a civilised society is that we lock our prisnors up not out of vengance* but as a punishment (though i think rehabilition rather than punishment I don't see basic imprisonment as too barbaric)

*along the same lines as its ok to smack your kid but you don't do it in anger...

My point was more geared towards individual peoples attitude towards these people, Jesus loved the prostitute, or the murderer... or some bible story backs my point but im vaguely remembering it... (help! christian required!)

It is more about people's attitude towards these people, (paedophiles and racists) when they go and form lynch mobs to get these people, when these people are mercilessly hounded. In a just and civilised society it should only be the justice system that hands down punishments, people should accept the wrong these people have done and if anything try to help them overcome themselves...

Im not saying have the paedophile babysit or take you black friend to visit the racist guy (although the second one could work if he isn't too far gone) just don't hound and ostracise these people and well if anything help them... (or that is what would/should occur in a civilised society)

However you must guard against protecting the rights of the minority above those of the majority.

I really am concerned that being a majority (white), I may actually be handicapped by society. Disagreeing with Obama has often been equated with racism.

I honestly believe that many African-Americans are racist. I know this is touchy, which really just proves my point. I think that they often segregate themselves, and look down on other groups almost as a reaction to the terrible treatment they have received in the past.


I think that is important too, not so much because the majority requires too much protection, but mainly because once the majority starts to feel disenfranchised thats when the racist partys start picking up votes...

I do think thier anger is somewhat understandable... I remeber a recent visit to Israel by the last german chancellor, A group of Israeli's who all looked fairly young (20's my guess) were burning a german flag and shouting stuff (probably not racist stuff but not pro-german either i doubt) these are people whose parents or even grandparents suffered and told them about it, somewhat similar to young black americans today...

Although I do think on a level some reverse racism policys are nessecary... as the minority will have a slight bad effect from not being part of the majority... so some slight policy which favours minority is more of a leveller...

Im not a fan of Affirmative Action though for example, If they really want to help the worst of blacks it should be a sliding scale of how many points you get for nothing depending on your background, Obamas kids get no points and crack baby 4 in the ghetto gets the maximum (then i would also make it for all races)

But at what point does personal responsibility come in? I'd agree with giving them the opportunity to succeed, but often it goes much farther than that. Wellfare is widely manipulated by the lazy and parasites of society, and it actually DISCOURAGES advancement in many cases.

Well I was more thinking of your minumum wage worker than unemployed scrounger....

If were talking someone who is already an adult I refer to things such as, helping them gain some qualifications (like a forklift lisence or simple things like that) if they need childcare or they cannot afford the time off work to better themselves then the goverment should help. They should have a health service that keeps them in good working order (healthy citizens are productive citizens!) and there should be unemployment benefit for those who fall on hard times...

That was more geared towards the minumum wage worker than the unemployed scrounger, unfortunately it is hard to help the worker and at the same time avoid funding the scrounger... the one thing i will say is i dont think scrounging is too big a problem... like paedophilia* for example it is widely reported as its something that angers people alot.

*As in we hear about it alot in relation to the amount it happens... compared to deaths by donkeys for example...

Eh... why would I describe Nazi Germany as good? [INSERT] "words in mouth" [/INSERT]. :clown:

Do I need to apply Godwin's law here? :laugh4:

Sorry my post was mainly aimed at Beskar's comment of society should be judged on how it treats its poor...

So I was saying that technically, under the mantra of judging a society by how it treats its poorest, that technically (before the jews become the poorest) Nazi Germany was a good state as it made every effort to help get the unemployed back into work and such (across a very small timeframe this reference could be made...)

I was almost backing your point up of its probably a bad way to judge a society...

Personally, I think it's a great topic, and very insightful.


:2thumbsup: Thanks, I did find it intresting which is how i managed to ramble on for so long...

Your points are well made and i see where you are coming from...

Gentlemen,

The topic of this thread is the US Health Care debate.

That should be quite enough to divert us. Please get back to that topic.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Gentlemen,

The topic of this thread is the US Health Care debate.

That should be quite enough to divert us. Please get back to that topic.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

---

Ok, so health care, now I don't want to rock the boat here but.....I think we might we need some. But how? I'll let others build on this so I don't hog what little conversation in this thread.

I hate to interrupt this debate about who settled Jamestown first, but I'm going to derail this thread into healthcare reform.

After doing a goodly bit of reading, I'm increasingly of the opinion that tort reform is a distraction. From the CBO:

Some observers argue that high malpractice premiums are causing physicians to restrict their practices or retire, leading to a crisis in the availability of certain health care services in a growing number of areas. GAO investigated the situations in five states with reported access problems and found mixed evidence. On the one hand, GAO confirmed instances of reduced access to emergency surgery and newborn delivery, albeit "in scattered, often rural, areas where providers identified other long-standing factors that affect the availability of services." On the other hand, it found that many reported reductions in supply by health care providers could not be substantiated [...]

In short, the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency. Thus, choices about specific proposals may hinge more on their implications for equity--in particular, on their effects on health care providers, patients injured through malpractice, and users of the health care system in general.

And a quote from actuary J. Robert Hunter, Director of Insurance for the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), former Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Texas:

Thirty years of inflation-adjusted data show that medical malpractice premiums are the lowest they have been in this entire period. This is in no small part due to the fact that claims have fallen like a rock, down 45 percent since 2000. The periodic premium spikes we see in the data are not related to claims but to the economic cycle of insurers and to drops in investment income. Since prices have not declined as much as claims have, medical malpractice insurer profits are higher than the rest of the property casualty industry, which has been remarkably profitable over the last five years.

Our study also shows that states that have passed severe medical malpractice tort restrictions on victims of medical error have rate changes similar to those states that haven't adopted these harsh measures. Finally, our research makes clear that medical malpractice claims and premiums have almost no impact on the cost of health care. Medical malpractice premiums are less than one-half of one percent of overall health care costs, and medical malpractice claims are a mere one-fifth of one percent of health care costs. If Congress completely eliminated every single medical malpractice lawsuit, including all legitimate cases, as part of health care reform, overall health care costs would hardly change, but the costs of medical error and hospital-induced injury would remain and someone else would have to pay.

Here is a rather good article.

It shows the massive value placed on what we have compared to the value we assign to something that is offered. Those that are anti-reform appear to want to continue with the current unsustainable system.

~:smoking:

Well I mean on the topic of health care, all joking aside here is what I think with all seriousness.

I think that among all this bickering, the big picture is somewhat being missed. I mean this is not a black and white world and when we talk about health care there is no right answer. Is our health care system right now totally ****** up? Absolutely, but to argue that it must be this way or that way, that we must do our own thing or that we need to just swallow our nationalistic pride and copy from Europe is not very constructive in my opinion.

You can have a totally socialized government owned health care system, hospitals, doctors etc and it would work, you can have single payer system with a basic gov coverage or a public option and private for those with money and a want for extra coverage and it would work, you can break up the collusion among the insurance companies and break them apart into smaller competing companies with anti trust laws and inject much needed consumer protection to prevent coverage being denied once a person becomes too expensive along with some other smart regulation such as tort reform etc and that would work as well.

If we are going to debate this it really shouldn't be about what is the right way to do it (because again, there is no "right" way), but rather if it is being implemented correctly. I have read a lot of the bill that is getting a lot of criticism (HR 3200) and it is a huge bill which obviously just from my skimming of it has a lot of loopholes, benefits and special interest influence that don't help the people but are going over looked because the only people pointing things out for the most part are those manipulating the interpretations of the good parts spewing half truths and lies in order to satisfy their own political agenda. Now I wouldn't want this bill to be passed not because I am against the big ole scary government but because I want this bill to work flawlessly with the first time around so people still are not suffering due to the pens of corrupt lobbyists and politicians.

Right now I am looking at another bill that I hear has some promise as well, HR 676 that does not seem to be as full of such problems. I mean the bottom line is to get those 47 million covered and to save those already covered some money as well as receive better coverage, to deny a bill that can do that just because you don't like government running your life or because you hate those fat capitalist pigs making money off of peoples fear of sickness is missing the point. That's about all I have to say. I can't for the first replies telling me how wrong I am because their view of pro-gov or anti-gov is the one with all the facts behind it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I don't know what they teach you in your history classes - but this is a load of cobblers.

The US wasn't founded by religious outcasts. They didn't want a representative government. Non-intervention in the two world wars was a military and economic strategy, not a desire to be distant from the old world (although that was how it was sold to the public).

As for the US having a unique history - everywhere has a unique history. And the history of the US is inexorably bound up with Europe and Europeans. The work ethic is entirely 'Anglo-Saxon' and notions of the role of government are copied directly from the British.

---

Depends on where in the USA. Massachusetts Bay and Maryland could be considered as founded by religious outcasts. Can't make the same claim for any of the former French or Spanish areas. Pennsylvania took its "freedom of religion" approach fairly seriously, and did become something of a haven for Mennonites and Quakers. Most of the rest were not religious in focus and some (Virginia) were set up as profit centers pure and simple.

The founders did want a representative government, but by no means was the whole thing supposed to be direct representation. The House of Representatives were supposed to represent the people in their district, whereas the Senators were there to represent their state/state government. This WAS supposed to function as a check on too much popular sentiment -- the founders did NOT want government by referendum.

Isolationism was both policy and sentiment. Like any such policy, both "driving forces" tend to become intertwined. Certainly we took a much more active role in the Americas, emphasizing isolation from the Old World, but even there our dust-up with the Barbary pirates indicates there were economic issues that would over-ride the basic "steer clear of Europe" theme. GW really did crystalize our early isolationism with his "keep free of the entanglements of Europe" approach to foreign policy. Part of the reason he did so, however, was simple self-preservation. He didn't want some European power to gain leverage over the USA when we were just barely a going concern.

US culture draws heavily on European sources and our Legal system is, in all but one state, largely framed around English Common Law. While we have had asiatic and latin cultural influences as well, these have really only recently begun to have a lasting effect on the larger culture.

Good post, ACIN.

I'm going to try to read H. R. 2520 tomorrow. It's only 250 pages, so I'll try to read the whole thing. HR 2520 is Paul Ryan's (R) proposal. It will set up state based health insurance exchanges. I'm very curious about this bill.

Since my earlier request was pointedly ignored, I have deleted the off-topic bickering. The topic of the thread is interesting to many members, and therefore it will be kept open.

There is certainly some benefit in discussing the topic within cultural context, but I feel sure there is a great deal more to be illuminated on the healthcare debate itself.

Further discussions on the history of the United States may be taken to a new thread, where respect for each other's knowledge and point of view will no doubt, be a key standard.

Any resurrection of earlier disagreements will be dealt with in the usual manner applied to the shambling dead: head-shots and deletion.

Thank you kindly.

:beadyeyes:

So sorry Banquo! :embarassed:

My most humble apologies.

Henceforth, I shall not let myself get carried away.
:bow::bow::bow:

So, the main issues that HC detractors seem to have:

1. Tort reform would accomplish the same thing without gov't interference. I believe that someone has already posted an article dealing with the other side of this issue.

2. Costs too much. Supporters argue that the short-term cost is not that much higher than the current system, and the long-term benefits are worth it.

3. Government care will be inefficient. Supporters would show where private businesses are inefficient.

4. We just generally fear big government. Well, this gets into that little cultural argument... so let's not got there.

OK, so other issues do we have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ariovistus Maximus

1. Tort reform would accomplish the same thing without gov't interference. I believe that someone has already posted an article dealing with the other side of this issue.

---

Has anyone here argued that? Tort reform would be a positive step, but I don't think anyone could reasonably claim that it would "fix" healthcare.

Quote:

---

2. Costs too much. Supporters argue that the short-term cost is not that much higher than the current system, and the long-term benefits are worth it.

---

This one seems like a clear win for opponents. The OMB has come out and said that the proposed reforms would "bend the curve up" when it came to the growing costs of health care. It would accelerate the skyrocketing costs- not decrease them.

Despite it's lofty goals, our proposed health care reforms would accelerate costs and still not provide universal coverage. No thanks. Maybe they should start smaller- find a way to control the spiraling costs of Medicare first. Prove you can do that and then come back and talk to us about providing government health insurance available to all Americans. So far, the only cost saving measure we've seen the administration is further slashing reimbursement to health care providers for Medicare treatments. That's something like the proverbial finger in the dam compared to the huge wave of red ink from Medicare. It's great that they're trying to save money, but it's not a meaningful step compared to the massive overall burden of Medicare costs.

Sorry, mate. Just trying to be objective. :D

Ah, yes. That's another thing I forgot. The above points would be problems with the ideal health care system.

It would be quite a stretch to suppose that, in light of the success of recent measures, our glorious legislature will come up with anything close to the ideal.

Cash for clunkers was supposed to last... how long? And it got, what, 30% of the way to the deadline before they ran out of money? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Cash for clunkers was supposed to last... how long? And it got, what, 30% of the way to the deadline before they ran out of money?

---

errrr....There was no deadline until they announced a deadline last week:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

errrr....There was no deadline until they announced a deadline last week:dizzy2:

---

Umm, yes. And unless they dump more money into the system, it will run out before said deadline at the current rate.

But if I'm a retard for engaging in simple mathematics, I concede the issue to you. Congratulations on your most noble victory. :bow:

Anyways, don't let my previous off-topic discussion distract you all. Debate! Discuss! Contribute!

Damn you... damn you all... have you no regard for proper form?

The official name of the program, which according to Rham Emmanuel must be used in its entirety is:

THE WILDLY POPULAR Cash for Clunkers Program.

Get it right, people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Damn you... damn you all... have you no regard for proper form?

The official name of the program, which according to Rham Emmanuel must be used in its entirety is:

THE WILDLY POPULAR Cash for Clunkers Program.

Get it right, people.

---

Why do you hate hope?

Quote:

---

THE WILDLY POPULAR Cash for Clunkers Program.

Get it right, people.

---

Not as wildly popular as Irelands version.
At least America put restrictions on what you could trade in, just imagine what the uptake would have been if you had been allowed to just dump a rusted pile of scrap metal on the forecourt and call it a car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Why do you hate hope?

---

Perhaps he hates it when it collides violently with reality. :beam: Because excessively unrealstic hope is actually counter-productive. You will pass up what you CAN accomplish in hopes that you can accomplish the impossible.

Or such is the possibility.

Quote:

---

Not as wildly popular as Irelands version.
At least America put restrictions on what you could trade in, just imagine what the uptake would have been if you had been allowed to just dump a rusted pile of scrap metal on the forecourt and call it a car.

---

Wow! How's that been working for them?

I can see how that would be popular though. :beam:

GOP releases "Seniors' Bill of Rights."

The Republican Party issued a new salvo in the health debate Monday with a "seniors' health care bill of rights" that opposed any moves to trim Medicare spending or limit end-of-life care to seniors.

Intended as a political shot at President Barack Obama, the Republican National Committee manifesto marks a remarkable turnaround for a party that had once fought to trim the health program for the elderly and disabled, which last year cost taxpayers over $330 billion. [...]

The country's largest lobbying group for seniors, AARP, said it welcomed the RNC's commitment to protect Medicare. But the group, which supports efforts to overhaul the health-care system, also dismissed the RNC statement as misleading and alarmist.

"Change by itself is anxiety producing, but as we have analyzed the various bills [before Congress], the proposed Medicare savings do not limit benefits, they do not impose rationing and they do not put the government between patients and their doctors," said John Rother, AARP's executive vice president.

Mr. Rother said that AARP was frustrated by the lack of concrete proposals being put forward on the Republican side of the debate. "The debate as I see it doesn't even focus on health care," Mr. Rother said. "It is all about the role of government and the importance of the federal deficit."

The Republican statement highlights an irony in the health debate, as illustrated during some of the emotional town-hall meetings this month: Many Americans say they fear a government takeover of health care, even as they resist any cuts to Medicare, the federal government's largest health program.

I just read a column on the Washington Post that raises a Constitutional issue I hadn't considered in regards to individual insurance mandates. That being- does the federal government have the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance? After skimming through their argument, I would agree that, no, it does not. It'd certainly make for an interesting Supreme Court Case.

Edit:For Lemur: Steele Today: "Don't Cut Medicare!" Steele in 2006: "Cut Medicare!"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So RNC chairman Michael Steele took to the pages of the Washington Post to warn seniors, "we need to protect Medicare and not cut it in the name of 'health-insurance reform.'" A convenient refrain for the current political climate, but, in bad news for Michael Steele, a complete departure from GOP business as usual. Here, for instance, is an October, 2006 exchange on cutting Medicare between Tim Russert and--wait for it--Michael Steele.

MR. RUSSERT: What programs would you cut?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, what I would like to do is something that we did in Maryland. We -- Governor Ehrlich and I came into office, we had a $2.2 billion deficit staring us in the face and a bloated government to contend with. And so we stepped back and evaluated exactly what the priorities of our government should be. Seventy-eight percent of our spending is in two areas: education and health care.

MR. RUSSERT: It's the same in the federal government.

LT. GOV. STEELE: It's the same. And my point...

MR. RUSSERT: Seventy percent is Social Security, Medicare and Defense.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Absolutely. Absolutely.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you touch those?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Abso -- Tim, everything has...

MR. RUSSERT: Everything's on the table.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Everything has to be on the table, my friend. We are living in a time -- we have to -- government has to act like the rest of, the rest of the world and sit back and look at your budget. If you don't have enough money in any given month, what do you do? You've got to reprioritize. You've got to take care of the business at hand.


So much for that, I guess.

I, for one, am relieved that we don't have a bunch of incompetent opportunists in the opposition... :sweatdrop:

doh

I saw this and it made me think of this thread:

https://img132.imageshack.us/img132/4967/outrageous.jpg

Inmates Receive Stimulus Checks

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stimul....html?x=0&.v=2

Sorry hyperlink's not working for me. Will fix soon.