Hubba, Hubba!
Republicans say the Democratic proposals fail to address the problem of rising medical costs. Sen. John Thune (R., S.D.) said the Democrats’ legislation will cripple the economy by increasing taxes. “It’s going to fall on a lot of average middle-class Americans,” Mr. Thune said.
You obviously are misleading the public, again. First off, where is your concern about the middle-class over the billions wasted in the Iraq & Afghan wars? Or GW’s TARP funding? Or the fact that 50% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills? As for your tax concerns, I don’t know too many ‘middle-class’ Americans making $500,000 a year, that may be in your world John, but not in mine (those will be the individuals taxed to pay for health reform).
‘Regular guy’ Thune is hot commodity in GOP circles
Washington (CNN) — He walks through Washington’s Reagan National Airport, arriving as he does nearly every Monday from a weekend home in South Dakota. He makes his way unnoticed.But John Thune’s anonymity may not last forever.
He is a Republican on the rise: a freshman senator who is already a member of the GOP leadership.
As head of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, Thune runs the weekly strategy session where all Senate Republicans try to find consensus on the best way to challenge President Obama and the Democratic majority.
“It’s probably the most candid assessment that we have in a given week,” Thune said, riding the subway to the Tuesday lunch.
With just 40 Republicans in the Senate now, Thune insists that there is still a diversity of GOP views — but one that he argues must be expanded.
“Because, like, there is tall white men, short white men, old white men and middle-aged white men, in our party”
Thune argues that Republicans can rebuild only by uniting around a promise to control spending — and meaning it.
His big push these days is to return unused bailout money.
“The TARP program now has over $300 billion of unspent funds. Why not end that program and apply it to the federal debt?”
Thune is concerned about the spending? What rock were you living under the past 8 years? I think you are more concerned about a black man as president, just admit it already.
“We want to see more people joining our party,” Thune said.
White, Christian conservatives, that is.
“We want to see more people joining our party,†Thune said.
Ditch the social conservative agenda, Johnny. It’s the only way to keep the GOP mailing list from looking like the Buick mailing list.
Or a black helicopter mailing list
“First off, where is your concern about the middle-class over the billions wasted in the Iraq & Afghan wars?”
Apples and hand grenades as far as a comparision goes. BHO campaigned on expanding the Afghan war, so apparently there’s good reason to “waste” money on the GWOT.
“Or the fact that 50% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills?
Not a fact, that’s a Michael Moore talking point based on a Harvard study that has flawed methodology. It’s actually closer to 17%.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/25/2/w74?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=bankruptcy&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
“Or GW’s TARP funding?”
That both Obama and Biden supported. TARP was a success, BTW. Take a look at what happened after 1929 when the whole enchilada collapsed. 700 billion authorized, about half spent, much of which has been paid back with interest. (good thing) The whole program had a net impact on the ’09 budget of $80 billion. Peanuts compared to a multi-trillion dollar global collapse. If this is all GWB, we should put his head on MT. Rushmore, with the rest of the great POTUS’.
http://stimulus.org/?filter0=80&filter1=&filter2=&filter3=
But Barry didn’t start the war, unfinished business as far as I am concerned.
Is he still “being groomed”? One day he will lead this…republican superminority.
Until then, Doug Hoffman (R-SD) for senate!
Hoffman!
The whole program had a net impact on the ‘09 budget of $80 billion. Peanuts compared to a multi-trillion dollar global collapse.
From what I’ve read, the commercial paper market nearly locked up when the banks started collapsing. If there’s nobody there to underwrite commercial paper, a lot of corporate payrolls go unfulfilled. Bad, bad news for millions of people. This is what I understand as the reason for the sudden cash enema given to the banks.
Apples and hand grenades as far as a comparision goes.
The word grenade is actually derived from the french word for apple. The more you know…
Sy should check his facts. He is wrong. In fact now 60% + of bankruptcies are due to medical bills.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5530Y020090604
Medical bills are behind more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies… More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/
Bankruptcies due to medical bills increased by nearly 50 percent in a six-year period, from 46 percent in 2001 to 62 percent in 2007,
http://www.bills.com/news/senate-subcommittee-examines-medically-related-rule-changes-for-bankruptcy-0163/
Wednesday, Oct 21, 2009
A recent report from researchers at Harvard University indicated that medical bills were the cause of 62 percent of bankruptcy filings in the U.S. in 2007. Furthermore, the study concluded that of those, 78 percent of the filers had health insurance
Sy is wrong as usual.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5530Y020090604
Medical bills are behind more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies… More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/
Bankruptcies due to medical bills increased by nearly 50 percent in a six-year period, from 46 percent in 2001 to 62 percent in 2007,and most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners, according to a report that will be published in the August issue of The American Journal of Medicine.
http://www.bills.com/news/senate-subcommittee-examines-medically-related-rule-changes-for-bankruptcy-0163/
Wednesday, Oct 21, 2009
A recent report from researchers at Harvard University indicated that medical bills were the cause of 62 percent of bankruptcy filings in the U.S. in 2007. Furthermore, the study concluded that of those, 78 percent of the filers had health insurance
Wow Sy… not one, but two “bu bu bu Obama…” excuses in your post.
You’re slipping.
Wow back Costner, not one “Rush talking point” excuse in your post.
Who’s slipping?
and maybe you didn’t/refuse to notice, but 2 of 3 of those points support Obama’s stated position(s). Now whether or not he follows through is another topic.
As you see, L3wis was right on cue with his “but, Obama…” retort.
How about a book recommendation for y’alls:
“All buts stink” by Walter Bond.
GoD:
“The word grenade is actually derived from the french word for apple. The more you know…”
..The more you blow. Actually, it’s from pomegranate, but you’re close enough for horseshoes and high explosives.
Sy: “and maybe you didn’t/refuse to notice, but 2 of 3 of those points support Obama’s stated position(s).”
Obviously you didn’t notice – this was a topic about John Thune, and instead of using legitimate reasoning to explain why Thune supported his positions, the only defense you have is “bu bu bu Obama…”.
It is a classic case of a Syesque red-herring argument. It doesn’t matter what Obama supported. Obama merely supporting something does not in any way give credibility to a position. In short, simply invoking Obama’s name is no defense and in fact it may only mean that both Obama and Thune were ‘wrong’ although if you really wished to press the issue you could also think they were both ‘right’. You didn’t opt for either however, but instead just relied upon your old fallback… “bu bu bu Obama”.
As far as Lewis’s response – it was a direct comment to your lame ass argument…thus you don’t get to pull the “bu bu bu Lewis” excuse here either.
..The more you blow. Actually, it’s from pomegranate, but you’re close enough for horseshoes and high explosives.
Actually, pomegranate is also derived from the french word for apple, IIRC.
Helga:
“Sy should check his facts. He is wrong. In fact now 60% + of bankruptcies are due to medical bills.”
I don’t need to, people much smarter than me did so and concluded the following about the Harvard Study which is parroted in EVERY single link you provided. Since you obviously don’t follow suit by clicking on links provided, I’ll post the salient info here for you:
“First, they fail to provide a causal relationship to support the claim that medical spending contributes to “half of all bankruptcies” (54.5 percent). Our analysis of their data finds a causal link in only 17 percent of personal bankruptcies. Nor do their data support their contention that “solidly middle-class Americans” are threatened. Four decades of studies that have explicitly addressed the bankruptcy–medical spending connection lend credibility to our conclusion. These studies, which we discuss below, support a much smaller figure than half, as does a more recent national consumer survey sponsored in part by the Harvard School of Public Health.3 As for the “solidly middle-class” citizens who face “impoverishment,” Himmelstein and colleagues report an average household income of $25,000 for their respondents—a level more accurately characterized as “marginally middle class.”
Second, the authors’ methodology does not provide a definitive answer to the policy question they implicitly pose: how national health insurance would affect the rate of personal bankruptcy. At best, they show that medical bills are a cause of 17 percent of bankruptcies but are not necessarily the most important cause. They fail to perform the multivariate statistical analysis necessary to determine the magnitude of the causal relationship or to rule out other factors such as loss of job, education expenses, or housing costs. Indeed, an economic study cited by Himmelstein and colleagues concludes (in a portion they did not mention) that there is little support for the theory that households file for bankruptcy when “adverse events”—including health problems—reduce their ability to repay debts.4
Lastly, their suggestion that national health insurance would greatly reduce the number of bankruptcies linked to medical spending is misleading. They acknowledge that the impact would depend on the “comprehensiveness” of the plan. Our analysis shows that “comprehensiveness” in this context would require defining “medical” expenses in a way that is much broader than is now typical of either private or government-funded plans.”
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/25/2/w74?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=bankruptcy&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
Costner:
“Obviously you didn’t notice – this was a topic about John Thune,”
and the OP trys to open a credibility gap by pointing to various policies Thune supports or has supported in order to portend how consistently “wrong” he is. If that gap exists with Thune, than it certainly exists with Obama, since like I said, 2 out of 3 are the same position. (Afghan/TARP)
“It doesn’t matter what Obama supported.”
It most certainly does, if the only difference between agreeing or disagreeing is what letter comes after the person’s last name. When Obama is right, I will give him credit. Been there, done that.
If it’s impossible for you to find any agreement with someone opposite your party than you are part of the problem, not the solution.
So Sy, did you give Thune a reach around, or vice-versa? I’m just asking . . .
Neither, L3wis. But don’t let the truth impede your little fantasy if that’s what you need to make it through the day.
BTW, how is it when Staggers exhibits some fiscal conservative tendancies you cream your shorts, but when our Junior Senator does (which will eventually have a much greater impact on you) you want to stomp him into the ground?
Oh, yeah…that pesky little letter after their names.
Staggers is a Republican, so I’m not sure what you mean by that. And, Thune is full of shit. When Kermit is being fiscally responsible, he means it. When Thune is doing it, he is protecting his campaign contributors. There is a huge difference!
Sy:and the OP trys to open a credibility gap by pointing to various policies Thune supports or has supported in order to portend how consistently “wrong†he is. If that gap exists with Thune, than it certainly exists with Obama, since like I said, 2 out of 3 are the same position. (Afghan/TARP)
Again, that is a logical fallacy. You can debate Thune’s being “right” or “wrong”, but you need to do so in a method that doesn’t simply resort to “bu bu bu Obama”. That doesn’t tell us he was “right” just because Obama voted the same way.
You offered a solid response about the success of TARP, but leading with the comment about Obama does nothing for your case, and instead shows you think in terms of black and white. Nowhere in the OP did the l3wis say he agreed or disagreed with Obama on either of those subjects (or even invoke his name), so I’m not even sure the relevance.
Essentially that is nothing more than an appeal to flattery. When you go so far as to include Biden as well, it makes one wonder if you are attempting to appeal to popularity… but either way it is a logical fallacy.
Sy:If it’s impossible for you to find any agreement with someone opposite your party than you are part of the problem, not the solution.
I agree, and if/when I ever see you disagree with your party, and if I happen to agree with you at the time… I’ll be sure and commend you.
Also, if Thune ever disagrees with his party I’ll praise him for it as well. Unfortunately he doesn’t seem very likely to do so, and when it is a bill of any importance he votes straight party line so often he probably would boycott NASCAR just because they allow drivers to go left.
I won’t speak for anyone else, but in my view John Thune cares less about his state and less about his country than he does his own ego and his political party. He is consistently hypocritical and merely says what is convenient at the time.
Case in point – he claims to be a free market Republican but had no problems voting for TARP. Months later he berates Obama for the stimulus bill because it would require deficit spending – but he actually added over $4M of earmarks to the bill himself!
He has won the “honor” of the “Porker of the Month” due to all of the federal dollars he has brought back to South Dakota, and he brags about $250M being added to the defense budget for long range bombers so Ellsworth can get some funding yet he claims to want a balanced budget.
He votes against allowing employees to sue their employers and when backed into a corner without a press secretary there to bail him out, he best he can come up with is an excuse about how he might have voted for the bill if it was limited to rape only? Rape only? WTF.
He collects over $1.2M in contributions from the healthcare industry, offers zero bills or ideas on how to improve healthcare, and then he berates Obama for not working in a bipartisan manner on healthcare.
He claims we need more government oversight on Wall Street yet votes against the Credit Card Act.
About the only thing he is consistent about is his desire to have things both ways.
Sy:Oh, yeah…that pesky little letter after their names.
Did I miss something or did Thune change parties?
Last I checked Staggers is a Republican – but the difference is he knows what it really means to be a fiscal conservative with or without the party designation.
You may not always agree with him, but he is consistently conservative. Not just when the press asks him, not just when he is un for re-election, not just when his party wants him to be or when the opposing party is the exact opposite… but all the time.
Hoffman!
I must’ve missed Staggers as a Republican, I had heard from one of his former students they thought he was a Democrat.
My bad.
Costner:
“Essentially that is nothing more than an appeal to flattery. When you go so far as to include Biden as well, it makes one wonder if you are attempting to appeal to popularity… but either way it is a logical fallacy.”
The OP called TARP: “GW’s TARP” and was using it as a neanderthal example of “All Bush = All Bad, Thune = Bush.” In pointing out the fallacy of that, I first noted that our current Admin. not only is continuing the TARP plan (albeit outside of it’s original intent) but they also voted to support it at it’s inception as members of the Senate, just like Thune did.
That said, Obama, Biden, Bush & Thune were all correct in supporting TARP, as it prevented a global financial collapse. They should all be commended for it, not condemned.
Obama’s Stimulus was originally advertised as “timely, temporary & targeted” and was also supposed to level off our Unemployment rate at 8% (the Admin’s claim) Well, we are moving over 10% and in some states its getting to 16% or more if you count under-employment. Nothing in the “Stimulus” bill was aimed at actually creating private sector jobs, and since we now need to have a “Jobs Summit” as announced by the Admin. today, it’s safe to assume these clowns have no clue what it takes to create jobs in this country. That’s why they tend to fallback to the mythical “jobs saved” stat that no one can possibly quanitify or confirm.
Thune was correct to blast the Stimulus, unlike TARP, it has had the exact opposite effect it was sold on.
Sy: The OP called TARP: “GW’s TARP†and was using it as a neanderthal example of “All Bush = All Bad, Thune = Bush.â€
Thats quite an assumption on your part. I read it as simply the TARP program that was signed into law by Bush. He didn’t say it was bad, nor did he say it was good – merely that it exists, and based upon context you can infer it was obviously very costly.
Thune claimed he was a free market Republican and it “pained him” to vote for it, but he did just like we all knew he would. He didn’t know if it would work, but he still voted for it.
Same applies with the Stimulus bill. Thune voted against it not because he felt Obama would mismanage it, but because it was too much money. He had no idea of knowing if it would work or if it wouldn’t just as he didn’t know if TARP would work or not. The difference is the Stimulus was Obama’s idea while TARP was Bush’s.
You have to find the humor in the fact that although Thune said from the begininning that he wouldn’t support the stimulus, that didn’t prevent him from adding a half dozen of his own earmarks to the bill. That is just the hypocrite in action…true to form.
Like it or not, the one and only difference between TARP and the Stimulus is the party responsible for it’s conception. Thune is a party line guy which is why he is such an easy target, and that is the point of the OP when speaking of spending. Thune consistently wants it both ways – he is more than willing to spend Billions and Billions we don’t have for things he likes such as a war, TARP, or pork projects back here in SD… but if an idea comes from a Dem he is one of the first to pipe up about the cost to our children and grandchildren.
It’s just rather pathetic, but what is even more pathetic is how people give him a free pass – even our so-called ‘liberal’ media.