And what setup is that, exactly? Got any reports you can point to of hordes of FDA inspectors retiring at 55, of postal workers not sweating putting their kids through college, of Police officers buying large homes in affluent communities? Or are you just making shit up?

Think how much cash you’d have to squirrel away to pay for the retirement and benefits those people get.

How much? Come on, 0, you seem to knowenough to know it’s a generaous amount. So just how much is it? or are you just making shit up?

I still maintain that the costs associated with federal management exceed those of the private sector regardless of the golden parachutes.

Based on what? Got any actual numbers or are you just making shit up?

It’s just too hard for the private sector to steal as much as the government wastes.

How much does the gov’t waste? How does it compare to how much the private sector steals? Got any actual facts to support your view? I’ll help you get started. The amounts spent on the recent “bail out” of banks have been widely reported, you could use those as a starting point for what was “stolen” by Wall St, the private sector. Got any actual gov’t waste to compare it to? Or are you just making shit up?

Seriously, 0. It’s a trait I’ve seen on the left, too, but never as prevalently and insistently as on the right.

You get an opinion in your head and then, when it is challenged, you show a pathological need to just make up completely unsupported, false and so obviously stupid stuff rather than allow you might be wrong.

It must be hard to have self-esteem that low.

You are just insistently ignorant, aren’t you?

And you still haven’t addressed how we are going to deal with all the malingerers who don’t get insurance yet end up sucking up resources in the emergency rooms. Or why we shouldn’t get a system that pays for their preventive care.

Whoever has been waiting longer? Not always optimum.

The other problem is the lower class who we all support in their moment of greatest need – emergency care – instead of prevention. This is probably why we on balance have higher mortality and morbidity for preventable diseases than our counterparts in Europe and Asia.

And yet you continually are unable to provide and specific section that contains what you claim is being proposed, unable to provide and specific quote from Dr Emmanuel to support your claim of hat he’s advocated.

Instead you fall back on the typical “find it for yourself on Google” excuse used by folks who are unable to back up what they say.

It isn’t our job to provide support for your claims. It’s very telling that you can’t.

Nice punt. Have you considered a career in professional sports?

That’s good. Because nobody is suggesting we do so.

My criteria would differ from the good doctors. Given the situation you describe of two suitable patients
waiting for the gift of life the choice I would make would be to go by the ranking on the list as it is done now. I would not giving further consideration to moving one ahead of the other because of a government formulated weighting of life’s value.

We as a nation are not yet threatened severly enough that we must cast our elderly onto the iceflows in time of famine.

A correct inference on your part. Congratulate yourself.

The main reason I ask for your sources is to learn whether you have read Dr. Emmanuel’s writings yourself or if you have entrusted the task to serial fabricator Betsy McCaughey.

You keep saying that, but you can’t seem to point the way to the words that trouble you so.

I suspect that you have read Dr. Emmanuel’s work about as carefully as you have read the house bill.

But if you insist on hiding the ball, perhaps we can go at this from a different angle. One heart is available for transplant. Two suitable patients await a donor organ. The decision is in your hands.

What criteria would inform your decision? Your criteria differ from Dr. Emmanuel’s in what way?

I’m begging you here, AO. Please, please point us to the writings of Dr. Emmanuel at which you hint so darkly.

And is this reading in any way related to your defamation of Dr. Emmanuel?

BINGO!

While Obama has the flexibilty of a snake in his rhetoric the staus quo I refer to is his solumn promise that if we liked our coverage we could keep it. Which incidently is diametrically opposed to his recorded sentiments on the public payer option and the inevitable demise of the private option.

And I don’t know that “no change in the status quo” (whatever that means) is actually a Dem talking point. Certainly wasn’t the tone of Obama’s Montana speech.