Really. What was your first clue?

Was it the fact that his entire post was one long, insipid example of reguripasted plagiarism? Is that what made it obvious that he actually wasn’t “saying” anything at all?

Or was it the fact that he didn’t bother to note that he was just spreading drivel he found on someone else’s web site?

Your comment is the energy equivalent of saying …
Only if straw man arguments are valid. Guess what: they’re not.

No, I don’t think Graham is saying that. But I am. Your comment is the energy equivalent of saying that AIG, Lehman, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, etc. were the best qualified to dictate policy on credit default swaps and various other derivatives.

Energy policy discussion is something that all citizens should have the right to participate in, not just energy companies. Yet, citizens were denied that right thanks to V-P Cheney’s “secret” energy task force that he convened in early 2001.

The mantra last election and for the prior 8 years was “drill, baby, drill.” Yet, as of June, 2008, before the recession hit big time, companies were sitting on over 67 million acres of undeveloped O & G leases, on-shore, mostly in the West, and off shore. Sale of leases conveys a property right to energy companies. What we’ve seen since 2001 is the biggest land grab of the federal public land since the late 19th century days of the railroad robber barons.

Federal agencies are required by law to manage National Forest and Bureau of Land Management lands under a principle of multiple use. Here in Colorado, we now have BLM field offices where 90% of the acreage has either already been turned over, or is proposed for sale, to the energy industry. That’s not multiple use. It’s management for one interest; an interest that here in Colorado has been detrimental to other uses such as hunting and fishing.

That’s the result of allowing energy companies to dictate government policy. Suggest that you do some homework before posting such a statement in the future.

While it seems liberalism is all about control, it looks like there is a more subtle plan here. 1,000 pages were written about extraneous details. The core is the savings of 500 billion from medicare. Medicare is broke and any honest solution will cost the democrats votes. So, the 500B in savings is critical to the survival of the democrat’s majority. The plan has two simple thrusts: the effective thrust is the “savings”. Well, that won’t come from savings in expenses since those are low already. It won’t come from cutting fraud since there are not sufficient resources proposed for that. It can’t come from cutting the reimbursement scale since the current schedule has already strained availability. So, the savings have to come from reducing the number of procedures. Limiting them to the “effective ones”, exactly as you described, as a private discussion between a patient and her bureaucrat.

The hints are everywhere; the effectiveness studies funded in the stimulus bill, reference to “taking the pain killer”, Obama’s grandmother’s hip and the notorious ones who use “80%” of the benefits. And the most draconian, “these decision cannot be made in the usual way….”. The hardship under ObamaCare will not be the result of government incompetence but part of the plan.

The second thrust is to hide the intent. We can hide the 20 or 30% of seniors that will be adversely affected by mixing them in with all those young folks that don’t need care. Then the restrictions will only affect a small percent of all those covered. It is brilliant. It reminds me of the insurance company that brags of 97% customer satisfaction. But since only 12% of the auto customers have a claim in a given year, that means that 25% of the claimants are dissatisfied. Obama’s plan is to muffle the cries of those in need in a sea of “satisfied customers”.

God help us.

Only in your feverish, straw man dreams, viv’.

@113. goy: – I accept that your ‘facts’ are very entertaining.

I’m happy you’re entertained, though I’m sure that doesn’t take much. The facts stand on their own either way.

“You don’t have any right to demand to be cured of anything – including your very obvious stupidity.”

If you are w/o health coverage, you have a bad traffic accident, you will plead NOT to be taken to any medical facility not covered by the Constitution (!!).

You have a LOT of nightmares, don’t you?

113. goy:

“Although it’s a dead giveaway that you’re completely out of facts and ideas. As usual.”

Not really. Why waste my time with a hamster running on a wheel? Although I accept that your ‘facts’ are very entertaining.

What then gives bureaucrats the idea that if a few million individuals, or families, need to (or should) have insurance and/or healthcare, the government needs to take over the entire health care system in order for those few to have a health care plan?

Could it be that the solution to the problem is simpler than meets the eye? Like the food stamp programs, perhaps the government should just allow for applications from those who feel they need health care assistance and take their application. After verifying their income resources, the government could just give those few individuals and/or families a subsidy. So they can afford health care, buy down the policy.

Then, the government should do what a government should do — that is, do whatever it takes to promote and motivate the economy — encourage enhance trade incentives — so that those same people, the poverty-line folks, can earn decent wages and have jobs that allow them to work for a living instead of idling by on welfare.

I guess this idea is too simple. But how about this: The poor don’t have decent clothing; perhaps the government should take over Macy, Wal-Mart, J.C. Penny’s, and all clothing retailers so that EVERYONE can have clothing allotted to them controlled though a socialist government run clothing care program with an emphasis on clothing those working and under 65 years of age.

Funny how ad hominem isn’t any less fallacious (or desperate) when you use it than it is when Mofo uses it. Although it’s a dead giveaway that you’re completely out of facts and ideas. As usual.