The Pain Begins by Michael D. Tanner Six Months Later... by Michael F. Cannon ObamaCare: the Burden on Small Business by Michael F. Cannon Bad Medicine: A Guide to the Real Costs and Consequences of the New Health Care Law by Michael D. Tanner Discuss?
It will..... A) Be repealed B) Be defunded by Republican controlled house and senate C) Fail due to Supreme court decision declaring parts of it unconstitutional Bottom line it will eventually FAIL.
The article "Six Months Later" appeared in the Washington Times. The Washington Times was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder and leader Sun Myung Moon, head of a crackpot cult that many people have actually grown up in since childhood. As for the CATO Institute, the following is a short summary of what it stands for, which should be here to provide some balance to the hysteria that these propagandists are trying to stir up. Criticisms of the Cato Institute. Part of the "Critiques of Libertarianism" site. http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html Last updated 08/27/10. A "libertarian" quasi-academic think-tank which acts as a mouthpiece for the globalism, corporatism, and neoliberalism of its corporate and conservative funders. Cato is an astroturf organization: there is no significant participation by the tiny libertarian minority. They do not fund it or affect its goals. It is a creature of corporations and foundations. The major purpose of the Cato Institute is to provide propaganda and soundbites for conservative and libertarian politicians and journalists that is conveniently free of reference to funders such as tobacco, fossil fuel, investment, media, medical, and other regulated industries. Cato is one of the most blatant examples of "simulated rationality", as described in Phil Agre's The Crisis of Public Reason. Arguments need only be plausibly rational to an uninformed listener. Only a tiny percentage will notice that they are being mislead. That's all that's needed to manage public opinion.
The other tabloid newspaper that published one of these articles (The Pain Begins by Michael D. Tanner Michael Tanner is a Cato Institute senior fellow.Added to catolog on September 23, 2010 This article appeared in The New York Post on September 23, 2010.) which are on the CATO Institute site referenced above, is the New York Post, owned by Rupurt Murdoch. Guess what? Murdoch is also on the Board of Directors of the CATO Institute.
I take the wait and I told you so approach to all of this. Why discuss it? Let the house burn. The supporters of Obamacare will see just how devastating this law is when small businesses start shutting down, firing workers, or eliminating health care for their workers. They are ignorant of economic facts and their ignorance will lead to disaster. So be it.
As if we'd be so lucky. Garrison stop trolling. If you're going to attack the articles, refute their findings and assertions. No one cares about any of the irrelevant crap you've posted thus far, and none of the irrelevant crap you've posted thus far has any bearing on how valid or invalid these articles are.
Does this not directly affect you? The "I told you so" approach isn't good at all. I don't want to have to see (more) small businesses shutting down, laying off workers, and ceasing providing health benefits.
It affects me directly as a small business owner, yeah. But what can I do about? What can you do about it? Nothing. The only thing we can do about it is let it ride. We can't fix the economy or the dollar. They are toast. We can't fix health care. It's toast. We are fast approaching the event horizon for this entity we call the United States of America. Let it ride. The USA will collapse like the Soviet Union, and good riddance to it. The USA is a cancer on the world anyway. Our government is bloated, bullying and corrupt. Let it fall. We can't stop it. It's too late. We need to start preparing for the aftermath.
On the contrary I believe that knowing the backers and the motives of those whom you're reading has a very strong bearing on the validity of the crap that you deem worth believing. Regulation requires disclosure, which big businesses hate. This board could use a nice healthy dose of disclosure as well, regarding the sources and motives behind some of the articles that are posted. Health care is a major issue that affects everybody, and we must separate the good information from the bad. To not do so will be to march into fire with our eyes closed, whatever our views on the issues may be. 60 Plus Association, a group that has been described as an alternative to AARP, is mentioned in the NPR article, above. This is a valid group to mention, since they are trying to knock down the current health care bill. According to SourceWatch, and others, they are nothing more than a front for the pharmaceutical industry, with ties to the Republican Party:
You have no way of accurately deciphering the motives of the authors and knowing the backers of those authors is completely irrelevant to the validity of an article.
Mistakenly? How so? I love how they lump that little tid-bit in with the polarizing extreme of the death panels... As for the second quote, I don't think they'll be doing that any other way than spreading more lies.
If an article is totally against the health care bill, there is a good chance that the pharmaceutical and/or insurance industries are behind it - and upon examination they often are. The tobacco lobby and other corporations do the same thing. The CATO's of the world do their bidding.
Guilt by association is not a relevant analogy. When you are on the payroll, and pushing propaganda exactly as your employer dictates it, it's more than simple association and the guilt is not "weak".
It's a completely relevant analogy. You're attempting to discredit entire institutions and the information they put out because of who they receive money from.