Homepage
Music (down)
Design
| Tuesday, September 08, 2009 |
| Paging Dr. Janda |
Like most people, I've been getting 'health care scare' emails, and after a string of replies that consisted solely of links to Snopes articles, I was sent a link to a Snopes article from a certain Dr. Janda. While it's good to see people slowly learning to do at least a little checking, the Snopes article only claimed that it was "correctly attributed," and didn't do any fact-checking on the content of the article.
First, I wanted to find out who Dr. Janda is. I found that Dr. Janda is a published author on the subject of preventing sports injuries, and was appointed by the H.W. Bush Administration to the Board of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (source). He seems to truly be an expert on sports injuries (the NFL hired him to review injuries; same source), and it seems the book was also part of a religious awakening (I haven't read the book). In general, he seems like someone to be taken relatively seriously in his field of expertise, which is sports medicine, but his credentials don't really have much to do with macro-level medical care policy. So given his relative expertise, he seems like someone who can be judged based purely on the quality of their arguments, even if we can't cite him as an all-encompassing authority on the matter.
Snopes had two versions of the piece he had written - the email forward version, and his original. I am not even going to bother reading the forwarded email text, since those inevitably get garbled, but rather the original text that was provided to Snopes. The basic structure of his article (essay? writing? screed?) goes like this: - Introduction to him as a doctor and expert
- Assertion that ObamaCare in came 2 parts, starting with the Stimulus bill
- Issues a warning that ObamaCare is as certainly dangerous like smoking
- Discusses Comparative Effective Research:
- ObamaCare cuts costs through rationing
- The FCCFCER is inhumane and overpaid
- There is a formula for Comparative Effective Research: Cost per treatment divided by number of years patient will benefit
- Cites Betsy McCaughey that the standard will have the effect that "if you are over 65 or have been recently diagnosed as having an advanced form of cardiac disease or aggressive cancer, [you'll die]." Says this is on p.464 of the Stimulus
- The plan is the same models as in Britain
- The purpose of Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research is to slow development of meds and tech (HC bill Section 1181, p.502)
- Claims that the Stimulus Bill p 116, 442, 446 guides decisions at the time and place of care; defines penalties for breaking gov't protocol (Stim 366, 478, 511, 518) including prison; claims that Stalin did this.
- Claims section 102 of the HC bill illegalizes private insurance.
- Claims Obama didn't know about section 102
- Claims sec 1233 HC bill mandates counseling every 5 years (annual if chronic illness), and designed to end life sooner.
- Claims topics of these sessions include how to deny hydration, nutrition and initiating hospice care. Claims Obama "hates" prevention.
- Concludes the proposed system is "fascist".
Let's take this one piece at a time, shall we? - Introduction to him as a doctor and expert
Dr. Janda begins by telling us that he has "authored books on Preventative Health Care and Health Care Cost Containment." Now, I'm not sure why he decided to capitalize everything, but he has written books on preventative care and health care cost containment. That book was about cost containment in the context of sports injuries, not macro-level policy; so this is mildly untrue but I liken it to padding a résumé. Fine. He gets a pass because everybody on Amazon liked the book. Then he mentions he was presenting "Health Care Reform; The Power & Profit of Prevention" as a keynote speaker at a Congressional Dinner at The Capitol in Washington, D.C. This is odd because that that title is often given as the title of the very text we're reading. Again, this is technically true, but why not just say, "I presented the following presentation"? Strange. Also, I couldn't find a record of this presentation, which is also odd because you'd think it'd be mentioned somewhere by someone for as important as he makes it sound.
Summary:
True, in the way that most résumés are true.
- Assertion that ObamaCare in came 2 parts, starting with the Stimulus bill
He asserts that the Stimulus was the first part of the health care plan, but doesn't tell us anything about what it did. He cites page 152 (you can read it here), which is a continuation of §13405, "Restrictions on Certain Disclosures and Sales of Health Information" section, specifically the part about disclosures that are required if the hospital or whatnot uses electronic health records. This has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of a new arm of the U.S. Government.
Now, a good writer would have simply told us what he was talking about. I am inferring here that, when he talks later about the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, which is established by the Stimulus, he means that they are this first part of the Health Care bill.
The problem is that he's conflating a research body with the creation of a Health Care System. This is especially bad because (as I detail below), the FCCCER is absolutely toothless; it has no power to mandate anything at all. Now, why he would lie about something like this, I have no idea. It really has no place in the argument other than maybe adding a little paranoia that Obama slipped something by us.
Summary:
False, and poorly written to boot.
- Issues a warning that ObamaCare is as certainly dangerous like smoking.
I suppose there might be some creative parallel between smoking and a health care insurance reform bill, but this isn't it.
Summary:
Non-sequiturs and hyperbole are signs of weak writing. So far this is shaping up to be a pretty poor essay.
- Discusses Comparative Effective Research:
- ObamaCare cuts costs through rationing
The biggest problem with the bill is how to pay for it, and I am honestly worried about that aspect myself, but rationing of care will happen no matter what plan is in place — right now, heath care is rationed away from people who aren't incredibly rich, and get sick (sadly, this is most people). Health insurance companies do things to get out of their responsibilities (pre-existing conditions, lifetime and yearly caps, etc.) and thereby ration heath care with little regard for the morality or even responsibility of their role as insurers. Not only does Dr. Janda not back up this claim with evidence, the very problem with the current system is that it is rationing health care in a way that makes every single person vulnerable to death-by-denied-claims.
Summary:
A red herring at best, an intentionally misleading lie at worst.
- The FCCFCER is inhumane and overpaid (or generally that $1.1B is too much money for research stimulus), and run by "ivory tower" bureaucrats.
Here is the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council "provides information on the relative strengths and weakness of various medical interventions. Such research will give clinicians and patients valid information to make decisions that will improve the performance of the U.S. health care system."
Page 73 of the Stimulus Bill (§804 (b)) creates this Council with this purpose: "The Council shall foster optimum coordination of comparative effectiveness and related health services research conducted or supported by relevant Federal departments and agencies, with the goal of reducing duplicative efforts and encouraging coordinated and complementary use of resources."
The $1.1 Billion is money that is directed towards research, and one of this team's jobs is to direct that money to places that will keep the U.S. at the forefront of medical technology. That's a lot of money for a lot of white-collar jobs that patent a lot of high-value technology, which is I think an extremely good place to put stimulus money. The Council is also limited to use at most 1% of their total budget for staff and administrative support ((§804 (f)). 99% has to go to research.
As to whether they're bureaucrats, the bill does state that they must be "senior federal officers or employees," but Dr. Janda omits the rest of the sentence. The full sentence is: "The Council shall be composed of not more than 15 members, all of whom are senior Federal officers or employees with responsibility for health related programs, appointed by the President, acting through the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this section referred to as the "Secretary"). The appointment by the President means that they are members of his Cabinet.
As for who was chosen: They are mostly clinicians, but also have the Chief Policy Officer for the Center for Disease Control, a Rear Admiral, and other "that makes sense" places. All but 2 have M.D.'s. The qualifications also require that "[a]t least half of the members of the Council shall be physicians or other experts with clinical expertise" (§804 (d)(2)(B)), with senior members from seven various health care-related agencies including the VA ((§§804 (d)(2)(A)(i-vii)). Based on their credentials, and the continuing requirements for the members, the claim that they're just random government bureaucrats is also false.
Finally, it is difficult to imagine how this entity could be inhumane, because their sole purpose is to fund research based on what they believe is most important to doctors. As noted below, they do not have the power to mandate any kind of care or procedure.
Summary:
All of the claims in that almost-incoherent paragraph are wild, terrible lies.
- There is a formula for Comparative Effective Research: Cost per treatment divided by number of years patient will benefit. Cited as "Section 9201 H.R. 1 Version of the Stimulus Bill."
There is no Section 9201 in that bill. The phrase, "Federal Council" never appears in that bill. I can't find this formula anywhere on the Internet or in the bills — only in this chain mail. Moreover, the Council cannot force anybody to do anything to any patient, because the last thing the Stimulus section that established it has to say about it is this:
(1) COVERAGE. — Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Council to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer.
(2) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. — None of the reports submitted under this section or recommendations made by the Council shall be construed as mandates.
Summary:
A HUGE lie.
- Cites Betsy McCaughey that the standard will have the effect that "if you are over 65 or have been recently diagnosed as having an advanced form of cardiac disease or aggressive cancer, [you'll die]." Says this is on p.464 of the Stimulus.
There is no page 464 of the Stimulus bill, which is 407 pages long. Also, being diagnosed with various terminal diseases is already something that insurers deny coverage for all the time. That's part of the problem. That's why people are proposing reform.
Also, Betsy McCaughey is a terrible, terrible person to cite about health care since she's been willing to lie about health care reform for a long, long time and never really stopped: she's the one who came up with those ridiculous death panels!
Summary:
Exploring bottomless new levels of calumny.
- The plan is the same models as in Britain.
I haven't been able to find a clear yes or no on this; I heard somewhere that it's not that same (that it's less government-centric), but I can't cite where I heard that.
Summary:
Not sure. Given the track record of the essay so far it'd be a small miracle if it were true.
- The purpose of Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research is to slow development of meds and tech (HC bill Section 1181, p.502)
That section says that the Center's mission is to "conduct, support, and synthesize research ... with respect to the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically." It then talks at length about how it will do that (via gathering official data, creating forums, etc.). The group is essentially a data-gathering and disseminating unit.
How that inhibits development and research is anybody's guess since they aren't given any strong-arm abilities.
Summary:
False.
- Claims that the Stimulus Bill p 116, 442, 446 guides decisions at the time and place of care; defines penalties for breaking gov't protocol (Stim 366, 478, 511, 518) including prison; also claims that Stalin did this.
Page 116 is about the promotion of heath information technology.
Page 366 is about how hospitals can report their data using.
None of these talk in any way about guiding medical decisions.
Pages 442, 446, 478, 511, and 518 do not exist because the document is 407 pages long.
Summary:
False, and apparently Stalin is the new Hitler.
- Claims section 102 of the HC bill illegalizes private insurance and that Obama didn't know about section 102 when asked in an interview.
In his essay (I'm using the term loosely at this point), Janda uses the following response from Obama to claim that he didn't know that the plan would illegalize private insurance: "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about." But Dr. Janda omits the following: "I'll — let me just speak for the Obama administration. I have committed myself consistently to a very simple proposition: If you have health insurance, and you like it — and you have a doctor that you like — you can keep it. Period. And I won't, uh, sign a bill that somehow would make it tougher for people to keep their health insurance" (here's the source).
Section 102 is on page 16 of the bill itself (which is here). It basically says that insurers' plans don't have to follow the health care rules (on cost, care, etc.) if the plan is grandfathered in by being active for 1 year beforehand. Dependents are allowed to be grandfathered in with the primary insured person. The insurer also can't jack up their grandfathered insurance plan coverage rates or reduce benefits after they're grandfathered in (§102 (a) 1 to 3). This doesn't apply to limited-benefit plans that I frankly don't understand in (§102 (b) 1 (B)). The following section (§111) is the rules that insurers have to follow for all their new (not grandfathered) plans.
Summary:
Wildly false, to the point where I wonder if they actually read this section or just picked a number at random.
- Claims §1233 HC bill mandates counseling every 5 years (annual if chronic illness), and designed to end life sooner. Also claims topics of these sessions include how to deny hydration, nutrition and initiating hospice care. I won't really go into this whole "death panel" thing much, because it has been disproven and discussed over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
Summary:
No points for guessing — false.
- Claims the proposed system is fascist.
Fascism is a lot of things. In short, it's highly eugenic, emphasizes government power, is corporate, and aggressive. I can almost see how Dr. Janda might see something like that in his distorted and frankly insane characterization of the health care bill. But unfortunately, that's all it is: insane.
Summary:
Justification for institutionalization.
GENERAL SUMMARY: This is absolutely full of distortions and lies. And actually the more I read it, the more unhinged I realized it was. When I first read it, I thought it was at least relatively sane, in that it sort-of had a structure and didn't misspell things. But after really breaking it down and looking at the arguments, I have to say this person is either intentionally distorting the truth, is completely insane, or more likely is just like so many other Americans who'll believe anything they hear if it's said at high enough volume and justifies their most ludicrous fears. Now, I've managed to hold a regular 40-hour-a-week job, plus some side freelance work, start setting up my new house — bought with help from the stimulus — write an album, and clean up the house from time to time, all while still learning all this stuff. And I'll tell you, it took me a whole lot more time to write than to read all this. Yet somehow I don't think the people yelling at the town halls are taking the time to do even a fraction of the research I've done here. Hell, it took me as long as it did to get this written because it took forever to track down every ludicrous claim this quack misinformed doctor came up with, or that he was told. But I did this because I love my country, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let people like him screw up necessary reform by lying. Be a patriot. Be informed. Forward this to whomever sent Dr. Janda's screed to you. Maybe it will eventually get back to him. I would LOVE to see what he has to say. Labels: conspiracy, David Janda, health care, idiots, lies |
posted by Steve @ 1:19 PM  |
|
| 31 Comments: |
-
You are an ass - who paid you - George Soros?? If it talks like a lying Marxist it is a lying MArist. You have shown ne credtials to make you assinine comments.
-
Anonymous should actually take the time to read this well-researched article.
Thank you for taking YOUR time to do all this research and spread the truth!
-
English major? Philosophy student? Weak writing and run-on sentences are not the point here. The point is that our leadership is spouting half-truths and trying to force through a bill that is going to break the backs of the tax payers. You can't provide more care to more people with less money. This is a zero sum game.
-
Sorry Anonymous,
Chuck is right. Steve provided a thorough, well thought out analysis. If you can find the lie or the Marxism in the analysis, please feel free to point it out.
Steve, I appreciate your due diligence.
-
Great article Steve, and thanks for doing the footwork for us. I've bookmarked this to use in replies to anyone spouting mistruths about health care reform. Unfortunately many, including some posters here, obviously aren't even looking for a FREE lunch...they'll keep on lovingly munching their poisoned fiction for which they pay dearly with their own intelligence and integrity, and spreading the lies of nutjobs like Janda.
Thanks again for this wonderful resource.
-
Interestingly, I found a link to this post at Snopes, while I was looking for some material on how fake health care talking points get started and persist. I really enjoyed reading the article. It was well researched and organized, with close to "O" body fat and presented with an engaging style - altogether a fine example of essay and a great read. Thank you for it.
-
FUNNY how all your quotes are from LIBERAL MEDIA!!!
-
Give me a break!! I am absolutely appalled at how some people will close their minds to basic and courteous discussion. It would help, I think, if they would then also close their mouths instead of calling names and making accusatory remarks! Thank you, Steve, for your research and incisive reporting. I AM sending your analysis to the person who emailed Janda's conclusions to me.
Connie
-
Hello Steve. Could you tell me why it is important for your readers to know your astrological sign and your zodiac year? Thank you.
-
okay, seriously anonymous, watch the documentary "Myth of the Liberal Media" and get back to me, there will be a quiz where no insane emotional outbursts will be tolerated, only rational calm discussion and the only allegorical reference must be your own personal experience, not some cooked up parable circulating on FOX news or your inbox.
-
Why is it that the majority of the negative comments of this article are from "Anonymous"? What are they afraid of? Someone (maybe, an educated nieghbor) may realize how ignorant you are? Stand up and be recognized!
-
LMAO.
Yes, everyone involved in the healthcare discussion who has an opposing opinion to you is a liar, an idiot, or insane. For a better example of one of those monikers, maybe you should take a look in the mirror.
Maybe you should spend less time trying to correct someone elses grammar, and a bit more time reading some of the crap tucked away in the 1000 page healthcare bill.
-
@cap-w/leomoon
I think you lost him at "documentary". That's a whole 5 syllables! In case anyone is interested, here's a link to the YouTube version: http://tinyurl.com/2xcnb3.
-
Thank you! My mother forwarded Janda's creative writing exercise to me in August and I told her most of the same things you've said here (though less articulately). I was disappointed though that the email she forwarded me (or the person who wrote the original) stated that all of the claims therein were found to be true by Snopes. However, the premise that Snopes found to be true was simply that the article was correctly attributed to Janda, and made no mention as to the factuality of the content. I emailed my grievance to Snopes (hopefully others did too) and it appears they have finally changed their conclusion to "mixture" and added a disclaimer basically stating that many have found falsehoods in the claims that Janda makes, with a link to your blog, which is how I found it. Anyway, glad someone finally got around to clearly and concisely refuting his outlandish claims!
-
You are wrong about section 102. Section 102 does allow premium increases. It says increases cannot be made "without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner." Further, the way I read section 102, it does make it illegal to sign any new enrollees after year 1 of the act, which means if we lose or change health insurance plans we apply where? You got it, the public option. Pick a number and in line over there until your number is called.
-
See how the right always resorts to name calling and lies, and no matter how many times caught, only continues.
They are becoming traitors.
They hope Obama and America fails.
-
All you need to do is to check Steve's profile to see where he is comming from. He posts his zodiac info and tells us he is interested in liberalism. I'll take the word of any Doctor over "Steve"
-
Snoops is again showing it liberal bias by putting an unqualified blogger response as their rebuttal to a very serious assessment by a very qualified author. Snoops must be desperate to dig so deep to come up with this blog to reinforce their bias, and try to pass it off as a ligimate response.
-
David,
I can't believe that you ,who deal mainly with bones and joints, rarely life threatening cancer or other life threatening diseases, would deliver such diatribe. Your perspective regarding medicine and the need for REFORM baffle me. I see patients @ a charity clinic who are in the depths of medical need, as does one of your orthopedic colleagues. What kind of blinders do you have that keep you from seeing the pain and suffering due to the lack of medical care coverage that exists in our community/country?
Miki
-
A pathetic attempt to discredit a Dr. by a zodic-fixated graphic artist full of misdirection and shameless patisanship.
Sorry Steve , nice try but only the kool-aid kids can buy this tripe. I might as well discuss credit swap defaults with my cat as the same exercise in futility as your attempt to "debunk" Dr. Janda
-
Why is it that Snopes and other so called Fact finders are always correct? Could it be that they are a Special Interest Group, that has a stack in government handouts?
-
Is there a problem? What's the answer? Any suggestions from the good doctor? Whatever the market will bear! If you can't afford it, then go to a socialist country where everybody is suffering some much, like Norway, Sweden, Canada, etc. All those commie, fascist countries.
-
I have some problems with this health care reform process for sure, and I appreciate your attempt to bring a reasoned argument forward against Dr. Janda's criticism of it.
However, I think you lost credibility when you referred to Dr. Janda as a "quack" at the end of your analysis. That is a very serious-libelous even-charge. Just because Dr. Janda's argument may have some holes in it, doesn't mean he is professionally malfeasant in the practice of medicine.
This is a non-sequitur ad hominem, is it not?
-
First and foremost - please don't imply that you are in any way shape or form a "patriot" - it's fairly obvious you have no idea what the word means. If anything, you are a "nationalist" - and as a combat veteran who has actually paid in blood for what freedoms I have (UNLIKE you) - it sickens me when a Socialist uses the word.
If you took the time to research the Constitution - which would have taken way less time than reading through the health-care bill, you would know that neither Congress or the Federal Government have the power to administer health care in the first place. Period. End of discussion. It's criminal that the last few presidents and our congressmen take the same oath as I did, yet have no intention of honoring it - and Obama isn't any different - actually, he's worse.
If FORCING people to carry insurance - regardless if they want to or not - doesn't sound Marxist/Fascist/Stalinist to you, well, then I'd have to say you're pretty broken. Government run health-care is a primary plank of the Communist Manifesto - just like government-run banks.
Read "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat - you can read it online for free - and it's a lot shorter than the 1018 page health care reform bill.
-
As a healthcare worker for 26 plus years I still don't understand how this all works. Someone has to go without or get significantly less. It most likely will be patient care. It could be as in many other countries that the workers get a marked decrease in pay, increase in workload, or marked changes in patient care. I read an article recently that had effective changes, controlling fraud and excess. It is evident the government does not work. Look at the VA hospitals and past 20 years. More federal regulation is NOT the answer. People from the politicians on down view the government as a bottomless money pile. Just as preventive care proves to be much more cost-effective, so should be the same approach to medical plans.
-
Thank you for your research.
IF the blowhards who are criticizing you would take the time to go to the bill itself and SEE in black and white, the discrepancies the Dr. is purporting, the hot air would (should) go cold. But they won't; that is part of their psychology. Bitch about something WITHOUT the facts or with dubious facts SOMEONE ELSE wrote that they will believe without question.
As for being a patriot, our military IS a socialist organization if anyone who is ex-military will tell you. You go in at the bottom, everyone's head is shaved, you are stripped of individualism, everyone is the same. Healthcare is provided to you, as is food and transportation... all on the backs of taxpayers. You are directed to do ANYTHING, including KILL, without doubting the orders given to you... and on and on.. so.. maybe if an ex-militant who realized the horror they just went through was against it, I would agree...
Anyway.. Thank you for spending YOUR personal time.. and I challenge all who are throwing stones to go look it up themselves and don't believe EITHER this article NOR Dr. Janda. SEE FOR YOURSELF; all information is public.
Take Care All,
Russ
-
Anytime the government wants a hand in things it will be worse.. anytime.
Standing by an health care bill that give the government more control is giving freedom and liberties away and this bill that forces people to have health care coverage is very un-American.
The Dr. made some good points, having lived in several nations around the world that have government run plans I can say that many of the fears he gives are the truth in any state health care system - just give it time.
Obama in my book can just keep his "change".
-
Ok, Mr. "Anonymous", you claim you have lived in a number of countries and have witnessed how bad their healthcare systems are. So, which ones have you been to? If one was the U.K. you will know that healthcare is not rationed there. Seniors are not denied treatment, and even the most conservative "Conservative" looks at the U.S. system and is amazed how bad and unfair it is. Sure, U.K. taxes are a bit higher, but no one goes bankrupt when he/she breaks a leg because he/she has no health insurance. There is real value received in the U.K.'s healthcare expenditures. The amount spent in the U.K is far lower than the amount spent in the U.S. In addition, the people are quite satisfied with both the care they receive and the results of their care. So, tell us Mr "Anonymous", which countries are you referring to? Please tell us so residents of each might take the opportunity to refute your claims. My guess is you may be referring only to underdeveloped, third world nations, not modern industrialized ones. If that is the case, your argument might hold up. Please let us know.
-
Thank you for breaking this down. I refuse to believe that most things posted on the web are true. What I do believe is that nothing will be solved in this country as long as we are greedy and apathetic, nor can we scream comunism everytime the government wants to oversee something. Freedom is an ever changing balance with a duty and a price the rest is just bickering that keeps us busy while we get screwed for being uninformed. As a nation we need reliable information and representatives that will truly work for us again. I have had to use mediaid to have heart surgury just recently since I lost everything from job to house. They have done wonderful things for me but what am I to do when I go back to work and cant get insurance now. From what Ive read the new healthcare bill is not the answer but I think it is a starting place for ideas that need to be review and changed and if implemented room allowed for changes to be made the same as our constitution allows in government. Thanks again now I know what to do with my free time while i heal. Read and learn. Now wheres that document of 400 some pages.
-
Well, that's what I get for neglecting my blog: I didn't see any of these comments until today.
Anonymous (be you one or many): If you have some reason to believe my analysis is incorrect, please post your cited explanation.
Regarding the notion that the Federal Government should not implement health care, I completely agree. The VA is a good example of how badly the Fed can botch direct medical care. That's why I support this legislation: it is health insurance reform. It is much closer to Medicare than the VA.
Regarding the notion that the Federal Government does not have the authority to regulate insurance companies, see the Constitution, Article I, Section 8: "regulate commerce [...] among the several states".
I stand by my reading of Section 102, both because of the way it's written, and because of the way it is discussed by level heads. It gives insurance companies a year to change; after that, they have to follow the new rules which include restrictions on "pre-existing conditions" and other corporate weasel-words.
I can assure you I haven't given a second thought to my zodiac since clicking the little checkbox in Blogger that asks for it. I find astronomy to be vastly more interesting than astrology. You also apparently missed that "conservation" and "conservatism" are also on the list.
Patrick: I wouldn't dream of calling everybody who disagrees with me a liar. I'm accusing Dr. Janda of believing propaganda without considering whether or not it's true. Given your post, I would do the same to you.
John W: That's a fair critique. I've modified the entry. Honestly, I was just very frustrated that someone who should know better had created the article. But you are correct: his misguided opinion about health care legislation has no bearing on his ability to practice medicine.
-
I liked this article since it is very well researched.
I have read a lot of the comments most are just regurgitating propaganda spouted by Larry King, Hannity, Beck and others. The problem is that they don't read the entire bills they have other people who happen to follow the ideals of their networks read and interpret. Sorry regurgitating ideas is not you representing your opinion its representing others opinion. The one that makes me laugh so much is Anonymous,
"English major? Philosophy student? Weak writing and run-on sentences are not the point here. The point is that our leadership is spouting half-truths and trying to force through a bill that is going to break the backs of the tax payers. You can't provide more care to more people with less money. This is a zero sum game."
This makes me laugh because why do we have no money in the first place? Bush administration double paying civilians (at a much higher rate.) and service members. The sad thing is the higher paid civilian construction workers do more that the construction workers in the military do. Halliburton wins again! The fact is most of our national debt is in the pockets of Halliburton, since they hold a majority of DoD contracts.
Also Anonymous you need to check some facts. Are you saying that socialism (which are ideals this country was actually based on before socialism actually came out.) What kind of degree does he need? One from the University of Ass Clowns, which you and Hannity are obviously apart of?
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Steve
Home: Tucson, Arizona, United States
About Me: I like to think about things, and I occasionally like to write what I think.
See my complete profile
|
| Previous Post |
|
| Archives |
|
| Links |
|
Blogroll
|
|
You are an ass - who paid you - George Soros?? If it talks like a lying Marxist it is a lying MArist. You have shown ne credtials to make you assinine comments.