Hours Away
We are literally hours away from changing our country for the worse forever. With the apparent decision of Stupak and his cohorts that killing babies is really OK, the House Democrats look poised to shove through a health care bill that is opposed by a majority of the nation and will not receive a single Republican vote. It will fundamentally change our relationship with our government and there is no going back.
I’ve said in the past that I think we will see violent revolution in our nation within my lifetime. If this passes, I will be certain.
Pearl Harbor Owen. Pearl Harbor. And it happens on a Sunday as well.
We were headed towards a complete untenable fiscal-societal situation anyways, regardless of whether this passes or not. Better we get bombed and wake up.
The long island hoping campaign to reclaim freedoms begins tomorrow. And time for me to make my first donations of time and money towards political campaigns in my life.
We’ll work small (West Bend School Board) and big (2012 Presidency)
On that note, I would say that we need to draft Paul Ryan for 2012. This guy has “made the leap” during the healthcare debate. He carries no baggage like the other GOP hacks from 2008. He’s our guy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1323 hrs
This is a pretty modest bill. Sure the numbers seem large because it is associated with health care, but it affects relatively few Americans. Now, if the bill had been to expand Medicare coverage and cover all Americans with that, I could see why you might think that was going to change a lot, but this one does far less than your friends have been warning you about.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1336 hrs
Regardless of the content, it’s certainly an accomplishment if the Democrats are able to secure the votes they need to enact the changes they’d like to see. It also serves as a staunch reminder of just how feckless the GOP was in the first half of this decade, when it too had control of the White House and Congress and couldn’t be bothered to even bat an eye at this problem. The ideas the GOP is presenting are ideas that have been bounced around for years, but the GOP never bothered to marshall the political resources necessary to implement them when they had their chance. Now we’re all left with the alternative.
The Democrats are clearly willing to do something the GOP was always too afraid to do: sacrifice seats in the name of progress toward their goals.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 21, 2010 at 1336 hrs
It is a modest bill if you are illiterate about economics.
The bill pretty much rigs it to knock the insurance companies out of business, creates even more uncertainty and cost for business and in the end will cost us trillions.
If you are an employer tomorrow and you wake up with this thing passed, what do you do? Your business plans and business model are forever changed in ways you can’t plan for nor anticipate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1345 hrs
Owen, I pray that you are wrong about the violence. But fear that you are correct.
The anger hanging in Washington yesterday was palpable - it was heavy.
But we can’t let Nancy’s “gavel walk” today demoralize us (as was its intent).
This will be a major loss in this new war begun a year ago where we had victories in MA, VA, and NJ and a loss in NY. But this war is far from over. I like Steve’s analogy in #1.
Stay strong, stay angry.
Remember two things: 1) It has taken us over 100 years to get to this point and 2) the Revolutionary Army was the underdog and had devastating losses as well.
On to November! If they vote “Yes” today, or, like my Rep, votes “No” today but voted “Yes” for Nancy to be Speaker… Our goal is to send them home.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1425 hrs
Paul Ryan does have some baggage. He voted for the original bailout bill twice (it failed the first time, passed the second.) He also voted for TARP and the auto bailout(s).
Here’s one article: http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/14/paul-ryan-explains-his-votes-for-tarp-auto-bailouts-and-tax-on-aig-bonuses/
And a nice quote from the San Francisco Gate: “Rep. Paul Ryan, a conservative Wisconsin Republican who had been a ringleader of the House rebellion, said he voted for the legislation so he could go home to his family and sleep at night in good conscience, despite his reservations and his belief that Paulson had made the crisis worse.”
http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-09-30/news/17160048_1_majority-leader-steny-hoyer-senate-gop-vote
So he votes for something he believes will make things worse just so he can “feel” better?
He isn’t “our guy”. He’s yet another chameleon politician that will say and do whatever wins him some political points. If he had a D after his name people would want his head, but since he has an R I guess he’s OK.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1443 hrs
When the democrats amend health care ,it will cause violence.
The logic is ridiculous as is the statement in Post #5
“new war” -sure ,we’re at war because an election was lost and your side can’t make all the rules as they did for 6 of the previous 8 years.
Great philosophy _"If We win, we rule.”
“If we fairly lose then we are at war.
Please, keep talking (loudly) so rational people can hear how unhinged you folks really are .
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1454 hrs
Steve Austin,
Could you provide specific examples of this huge risk?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1518 hrs
Mark,
Your comment shows clearly that you don’t understand the nature of this new struggle.
It defies definition in terms of “R” and “D”. It is based on Liberty and not defined by a political party. Kudos to the “R”‘s for standing strong - right now. But we are very well aware of their long list of failures. However, they are, at this moment, listening to the people on this issue. But make no mistake, we do not trust them. We just trust Obama and company less. But perhaps this will help explain it a bit better…
From Jonathan Cohn from today’s New Republic online on yesterday’s protest:
But the most remarkable thing about the demonstration was how little it had to do with health care. The signs said “Stop socialism,” “A government of laws, not men,” “Respect our constitution—preserve our republic.” Nobody talked about death panels. Instead, one speaker—a Chicago radio host, I believe—attacked the First Lady’s obesity initiative. “Michelle, keep your hands off my kids’ lunchbox!” Yet another protest sign seemed to capture the mood perfectly: “This isn’t about health care. This is about control.”
And from Bruce Walker at the American Thinker on how Process is Important:
What Democrats are creating is a government in which the historic rules governing how laws are made is permanently changed. The rights of the minority—or, at least, the minority as of the last election—are crushed. The abrogation of power to the federal government is complete.
I wonder if Democrats have considered just how grim and dangerous this course of action will be. In the past, elections have always been sporting affairs: Both sides understood that the loss of majority status still left the minority with substantial rights. Now, that principle seems torn to shreds. Whoever has a majority does not preside, but rather rules. We have had liberty precisely because the rights of the minority have, so far, been considered sacrosanct.
Honorable process is the heart of liberty. The destruction of established and recognized process will inevitably be the destruction of liberty—not just for Republicans, but for everyone.
So yes, this is indeed a war. And we are far from unhinged.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1546 hrs
Violence? Shit, I called that way back in the fall of last year.
http://scottfeldstein.net/blog/?p=2833
http://scottfeldstein.net/blog/?p=2659
I’d love to hear more about the violent revolution. Who will be fighting whom? And which side will you be on?
Posted by scott on March 21, 2010 at 1555 hrs
“I’ve said in the past that I think we will see violent revolution in our nation within my lifetime. If this passes, I will be certain.”
I’m curious Owen, are you advocating a violent revolution. And if you answer yes why, and if you answer no, why.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1623 hrs
You’re not going to see a violent revolution because of this, you’re going to see a wonderful revolution. People will come up with thousands of ways to undermine this bill, from people insuring themselves and each other to thousands of insurance companies springing up specifically to peddle cheap policies specifically designed to get around the bill, to innumerable lawsuits from an entire country of people who suddenly have standing to sue, to 50 states each of which will quickly figure out the money to fund the bill doen’t exist and will challenge the federal government. This bill will be like prohibition, following around every politician who voted for it until it is repealed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1634 hrs
Fuckn relax
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1644 hrs
Fuckn relax
Is that Obama-supporter-speak for “This won’t hurt a bit”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1649 hrs
Neomom—
When the GOP was busily cutting taxes that increased deficits by hundreds of billions, passing an inadequately funded subsidy for ethical drug companies with Medicare Part D, destroying our rights with things like the USA PATRIOT Act and letting George Bush start wars without a declaration of war, were you also standing up and loudly complaining about how Congress was behaving irresponsibly?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1651 hrs
.....George Bush…..
Now you’ve done it! You mentioned he who must not be named. Let the “our government people are better than your government people” fight begin!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1655 hrs
Jay,
I haven’t been here that long. I know there are conservatives who were incensed by Cheney and Bush’s lack of respect for our rights. I know there were liberals who were willing to be stampeded because they thought it might cost them if they stood up against such behavior.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1658 hrs
An armed revolution would require you to quit fondling your guns in your basement and waddle your old ass out and into the streets.
We’ll take our chances that you’re all to old and lazy to really do that.
You can talk about it all you want while you’re hiding in West Bend but the reality is none of you would last 2 minutes on the streets of Milwaukee.
Bring it Goober
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1711 hrs
Well….there was that “brick through the window” of Slaughter’s office someplace in NY State yesterday.
This will be very interesting.
Posted by dad29 on March 21, 2010 at 1712 hrs
I am not a regular contributor to this blog, I have far too much work to do in my business, however I do read this post here regularly.
All this talk of violence and revolution make the regular commentators here sound like a bunch of cranky old me in a tavern changing the world from their bar stools. Take a deep deep breath and stop the apocalyptic rhetoric. Moderate such as myself read such comments and are left with the impression that the people on the right are like that figure of John Brown in the mural, wild eyed with a rifle in one hand and a bible in the other.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1722 hrs
Unfortunately the people on the streets of Milwaukee wouldn’t last about a month after knocking off the rest of us.
There would be no one left to work, be taxed and thus fund all their government handout programs that support them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1733 hrs
Free Lunch…
First.. I was burning up Congressional and Senate phone lines long before Obama. So there goes that one.
But I love the childish “Yeah - well a Republican did it, so we can do it even more!” argument.
Did Bush run up a $480B deficit ($350B from the first half of TARP) for the FY2008?. Yup. Obama’s deficit is making those days, however, look downright fiscally responsible. Hell, I think the deficit for just Jan/Feb 2010 was more than $480B. As some one said not too long ago: “The Democrats tax and spend, The Republican’s spend but won’t tax”.
The key issue is to stop spending now. Cuz its getting harder to sell our bonds. Fat chance with this crew.
Love the “Medicare Part D” argument… Wait, that one doesn’t make any sense. I thought you liked government spending on healthcare?
And wasn’t it Obama that just signed the extension passed for the Patriot Act through the Pelosi House and Reid Senate? Damn those facts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1740 hrs
I certainly do like chocolate chip cookies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1742 hrs
I certainly do like chocolate chip cookies.
Chocolate chip cheesecake mmmmmm.
Will that be allowed under the new health bill?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1749 hrs
“A government big enough to supply you with everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything that you have…. The course of history shows that as the government grows, liberty decreases.”
-Thomas JeffersonPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1759 hrs
neomom -
Glad to see that you don’t like it when the GOP is irresponsible, either. I think that the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act was a horrible idea. I have no problem expanding wisely considered government programs when they are paid for, after all, those programs save money elsewhere. I don’t like programs that are intentionally unfunded.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1816 hrs
Tark, if you can find a proper citation for that quote, you’ll be the first person ever. There’s no proof of Jefferson ever saying the first part. That’s Gerald Ford, in a 1974 address to Congress. And the second half is a paraphrase of something Jefferson actually did say, which is that “the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 21, 2010 at 1822 hrs
I don’t like programs that are intentionally unfunded.
Then you should really not like the bill about to be passed. When you dig into the instructions that Pelosi gave to the CBO, you’ll see what a travesty those numbers are.
1) Pelosi insisted revenue for the full 2010 year be counted even though its 1/2 over and the bill is not yet law. Scoring should have started for 2011. Therefore, the CBO scored 10 years of revenue with 6 of outlays instead of 10 of revenue with 7 of outlays. Thats about $250B
2) The CBO has a memo stating that even though the instructions were to count the $500B savings from the Medicare cuts for both shoring up the Medicare trust fund for longer solvency AND for funding the new entitlement.
3) The “doc fix” isn’t in the score. Its a separate bill and not funded - another $371B.
So we are now over $2T for the first 10 years with adding $600B to the deficit.
Like I said earlier. I hope it remains peaceful. But the possiblity is very much there that we are already in a low-grade civil war.
Now this is old news to anyone who really studied Obama’s past. And I’m not as concerned about this kind of argument, nor the “birthers” distraction.
Here are my real fears about the United States heading into a civil war:
There is a clear distinction between those who want a more authoritarian/socialist nation versus those who want to preserve the capitalist/democratic America we live in.
There is a clear distinction between those who understand the principles and guidance and importance of the representative legislative process versus those who hide behind the Constitution as an excuse to create laws from the bench.
There is a clear distinction between those who favor strong national security vs. those who want a borderless, global government.
There is a clear distinction between those who hold US Constitutional principles dear (1st, 2nd, 10th Amendments in particular) and those who are ignorant or want to subvert those principles.
There is a clear distinction between those who want to maintain a sensible fiscal policy versus those statists in Washington who spend our tax money with reckless abandon.
There is a clear distinction between those who see themselves as Americans first versus those who want to segregate themselves into communities and ignore the national identity.
Despite his promises, surveys show that Americans have elected one of the most divisive Presidents since Richard Nixon.
These are serious issues that fundamentally challenge the formation of the Republic itself. Don’t buy into the childish arguments that every criticism of the Federal Government is based in racism. That is ignorant and simple-minded talk.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1837 hrs
RS - but these quotes are from Thomas Jefferson…
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.
I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas JeffersonPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1848 hrs
I like ham.
- Mr. Pelican PantsPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1911 hrs
I love lamp.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 1930 hrs
You for got one: “wall of separation between church and state.” Knowing how relevant and important you think Jefferson is to our current problems, I’m sure you wouldn’t want to miss that one.
I promised myself I wouldn’t gloat when health care reform passed, but the whole “armed rebellion” thing really is too much to resist.
You guys stocking up on ammo? Oh, wait, you were already doing that because Obama is coming for your guns.
Posted by scott on March 21, 2010 at 2007 hrs
What is there to gloat about?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 2016 hrs
The fact that it’s passing and you can’t stop it.
Posted by scott on March 21, 2010 at 2018 hrs
Ah - but you take just a few words out of the sentence scott… The full context is of the first amendment.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
Once again he reiterated that the government could not establish a religion, but that nobody should be prohibited from freely excercising that right either.
But as long as we are using writings of the founders as constitutional law.. How about these…
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 2022 hrs
nobody should be prohibited from freely excercising that right either.
The ironic thing is that you don’t understand that I believe this as firmly as you do.
Posted by scott on March 21, 2010 at 2025 hrs
No scott, the irony is that the phrase “Separation of Church and State” appeared in the Soviet Constitution, not the US Constitution.
But instead the progressives treat that phrase as if it is in out Constitution and use it to drive religion out of the public sphere completely. So pardon me if I find your comment above disingenuous.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 2031 hrs
I don’t know what “out of the public sphere” means. All I know is, I’d rather not have the government expressing religious views. My neighbors can go nuts. Not so hard to understand.
It’s funny. When it comes to other matters—health care for example—acting collectively through our elected government is taboo. But when it comes to religion suddenly individual responsibility just isn’t good enough.
Posted by scott on March 21, 2010 at 2034 hrs
By the way, I have exclusive video of Bart Stupak meeting with Obama and Pelosi on the abortion language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMmEdEMbXL8&feature=related
Amazing that the Eric kid from Survivor is from Stupak’s district I believe. It must be in the water over there.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 2043 hrs
Oh I don’t know.. something about anything the “Freedom From Religion” foundation does….
Like suing over a public high school renting out a great big, comfy, climate-controlled auditorium in a church to hold graduation services so that students could bring have their whole families there.
Like screeching when the Boy Scouts, or a student Bible study group want to use a public school classroom to meet.
Like threatening to sue the small-town SC volunteer fire department for putting out a nativity and a menorrah like they have for the last few decades.
Like suing for allowing a private group to permit erect a nativity set in a public park.
There are more… But you get the drift.
But as long as you are doing the “ironic” and “Its funny.” Isn’t it ironic that the group of people that have been telling us since 1973 that the government isn’t allowed to be in the exam room with a woman and her doctor are now advocating (and gloating) for the government to be in every exam room?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 2044 hrs
@neomom Have you read the writings of Jefferson on religion? I have a book with that (complete?) collection but haven’t gotten through all of it. It’s more of a reference than a book to read straight through. The Federalist Papers is another good collection, but it’s very large and again is a reference. Fortunately the book that I have has them broken out by topic or issue, so if I wanted to read about taxes or standing armies or foreign policy it’s easy to find.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 2045 hrs
neomom, just tell me you understand the principle. I do not want the government expressing religious views. We can quibble about the details until Jesus returns, but tell me you at least understand the principle I’m getting at. (Agree with it or not.)
Posted by scott on March 21, 2010 at 2050 hrs
jay - most of my reading on this is on the internet right now because its easier to figure out what books I actually want to buy without spending a few days in a bookstore. I’m working on George Washington right now. But your book sounds pretty good, which one do you have?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 2051 hrs
Yes scott - I understand the principle that the government should not establish a religion. ie- the Church of England, or Islam in a good portion of the middle-east and Africa.
I disagree that showing a symbol of a major religion on public property during a national holiday is said establishment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 2055 hrs
@neomom is it OK if I email you? I’ll send you some amazon links so you can check ‘em out. I think there’s also some audio books as well but I’ll have to look into that a bit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 2059 hrs
That isn’t what I said, neomom. I guess the answer to the question “do you understand this principle” is no.
Posted by scott on March 21, 2010 at 2102 hrs
Gee, I wonder why the guy who recently admitted to thinking it’s okay to kill someone with a fully-developed brain, a heartbeat, and the ability to feel pain wants to keep religion as far away from politics as possible…..
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on March 21, 2010 at 2105 hrs
Ok scott - instead of being cryptic, how about you tell me which specific principle you are talking about. I have very little patience for guessing games.
jay - my e-mail is linked to my name.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 2107 hrs
a fully-developed brain, a heartbeat, and the ability to feel pain
What are you so worried about? Clearly Republicans are safe.
Posted by scott on March 21, 2010 at 2107 hrs
neomom, I wasn’t trying to be mysterious! In comment 42 I said ” I do not want the government expressing religious views.” That is the principle I’m talking about. You get it, right? You get how that’s different from trying to eradicate religious displays or expression of individuals and non-government entities, right?
Posted by scott on March 21, 2010 at 2109 hrs
What are you so worried about? Clearly Republicans are safe.
I guess shrugging off your pro-murder views with jokes is a step up from recklessly lying about your opponents’ true motives…still pathetic and contemptible, but a step up, nonetheless.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on March 21, 2010 at 2112 hrs
scott - I believe I was trying to express that - evidently clumsily. I think you’re wrong in your interpretation of “establishment”, but yes, I understand your view. I get your world view, I was liberal until about 10 years ago.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 2118 hrs
I didn’t lie about anything at all. But do you have to turn every discussion we have toward abortion just because you’re pissed off about it? Take a deep breath, man.
Posted by scott on March 21, 2010 at 2118 hrs
Government cannot force adherence to any particular religion. But the Founders would never have said religious principles shouldn’t inform one’s political views, which should be obvious to anyone who reflects on the fact that even one of our less religious Founders, Jefferson, saw fit to invoke the Creator in the Declaration of Independence.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on March 21, 2010 at 2118 hrs
I didn’t lie about anything at all. But do you have to turn every discussion we have toward abortion just because you’re pissed off about it?
The record on the thread you ran away from says otherwise (you are free to return to it to clear up any misconceptions—if you can). I simply bring it up here because I think it would be nice if you owned up to your sleazy tactics once in a while. But I guess life isn’t perfect….
Also, I do think it is relevant to the real reason leftists hyperventilate at even the slightest hint of religion in politics.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on March 21, 2010 at 2122 hrs
neomom, I’m not trying to redefine “establishment.” I’m simply saying I’d prefer that the government refrain from expressing religious views. We can argue about whether this is a good idea or a bad one, or is called for by our founders or not, but I just want to make sure you actually understand what my position is first.
calvin, I don’t know what “inform one’s political views” is supposed to mean. I just don’t want the government expressing religious views.
Posted by scott on March 21, 2010 at 2122 hrs
Scott
What happens now with the Amish do we now or in the near future jail or fine them? The Amish religion prohibits them from excepting government handouts/programs.
They must now abandon there beliefs in order to avoid prosecution.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 2218 hrs
I don’t see the problem. Could you elaborate?
Posted by scott on March 21, 2010 at 2221 hrs
I avoided the news today…couldn’t bear to see this pass. I’m only 45, but I don’t even recognize the America I grew up in. There will be a revolution…hopefully at the voting booths soon…otherwise it will be decades from now…after socialism destroys what is left of this country. We are still too comfortable…we are the frogs in the pot…losing our freedoms one by one….so fng sad…...
The worst part is the rest of the world isn’t any better, but they are at least heading in the right direction. Going to interesting picking a country to move to when I retire.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 2332 hrs
Insanity. But I am interested in knowing where you’re headed. Someplace without universal health insurance, no doubt. That should narrow it down quite a bit. How do you feel about Bolivia or Paraguay? If that doesn’t suit you, maybe you’d like Chad or Zambia.
Posted by scott on March 21, 2010 at 2337 hrs
Wow, unreal. A President who promises to pass health care reform does it, and there is talk of an armed revolution. A president who decides he has the unilateral authority to declare an American citizen captured on US soil an “illegal enemy combatant” and held for 4 years without trial or charges….and not much concerns. Telling.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 2338 hrs
violent revolution? - it won’t be from a gov health care bill or bailing out banks too big to fail.
1. “US builds up its bases in oil-rich South America”
www.independent.co.uk
Seven new U.S. military, naval and air bases in Colombia.
The US gets half its oil from Latin America.2. “Oil Production to Peak in 2014, Scientists Predict”
...scientists from Kuwait University and the Kuwait Oil CompanyPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 2353 hrs
Scott
I’ve got 22 years to figure that out. Universal health care may be inpossible to avoid…and as I said the rest of the world isn’t any better, but they are in general heading in the right direction. The shining city on the hill, that half the world tossed communism aside to emulate, is heading toward the dark days they are leaving in the past.
America has long been a bastion of freedom, but we have been selling them for some time. I’ve long thought that retiring overseas would be a wise monetary decision. Right now a dollar goes a long way in much of the world…so you can set yourself up to live very well….but not for that long as we keep making ourselves less competive, and devaluing our currency. (with the debt we are accumulating, we are going to have to inflate our way out of the debt, there really isn’t another option. (well besides not doing stupid things like today’s vote)
Not sure I can find a place more free, but I think it will be easy to find a place heading there. I do think Owen is right, but unfortunately I think he and I will be very old men by then.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2010 at 2354 hrs
People…
take note the people here like scott.
These are the actual enemies of this country. You can say it’s the politicians, but it’s people like scott here that enable them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 0534 hrs
Curt,
Before you move, make sure that the country will allow you to buy into their health care system. You are paying for Medicare now, but I doubt you will want to fly back to the US for all medical treatments. As far as I know, the US doesn’t have any agreements to pay for retiree medical care in other countries.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 0758 hrs
Gee, woke up this morning, and the world hasn’t ended.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 0814 hrs
As far as I know, the US doesn’t have any agreements to pay for retiree medical care in other countries.
Well, that’s how socialism works. You become an unimportant cog in the government machine. Medicare does effectively imprison you in the US after retirement. You can travel on work release, but leaving becomes possible only for the wealthy or the elite. Unfortunately for the liberal man on the street, he is not as elite as the regime would have him believe.
Now, we are ALL on medicare… or soon will be. Over the next few years of implementation (arranged to begin just after the next presidential election… go figure) we will see a large erosion of our economy, and our personal rights. For the more servile socialists in the crowd, this will be a warm safe bed to lie in. No effort will be required, just do as you are told and be happy with the edicts you are issued. No whining about care denials, joblessness or the bad economy though… this IS what you have chosen for yourselves.
Foe those who loved the liberty that we have lost, I can only hope that new options will present themselves. The shining city on the hill no longer shines and it’s an uphill battle from here.
It’s been that way before though. Once, many of our countrymen chose the servitude of obedience to a King over the difficult freedom of liberty. Do what you can, everyday, to resist this abomination. the battle may have been lost, but the fight must go on.
Thomas Jefferson said “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.” Never let yourself be counted among the timid.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 0832 hrs
I’m sure more voting will fix this right up. Oh wait, this will change everything forever. Well….at least you can participate in popularity contests every couple of years and think it’s making a difference. It won’t, but hey, one can hope.
I’m looking forward to see what new campaign slogans and empty promises will be made this November to give us the illusion that the red team will change what the blue team has done.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 0900 hrs
So, TFG, it sounds as if you want to repeal Social Security and Medicare. Hardly anyone else does, so your political desires won’t go anywhere. You are part of a small minority.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 1018 hrs
Repeal? You must wonderful glasses to be able to read so well between the lines.
Obviously, those programs have failed. Doctors, hospitals and pharmacies are choosing not to participate. Government is seeking to cut benefits for those helpless people trapped statutorily on the dole and at the mercy of Washington. The fund is bankrupt, both Medicare and Social inSecurity.
Gee FL, it sounds as if you just want to go status quo and let these programs sink as you ignore the enormous hole blown in their budgets.
I think they need to be revamped and repaired. We made promises to people, and then we took their money… now we need to fix both systems in order to pay up as promised. Then we need a full redesign so that we don’t sell yet another generation into the helpless poverty of reliance on government. That’s what is sounds like I want to do.
Unfortunately, our nation is now even less able than before to fix our old problems… we have these massive new ones to fight against first.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 1040 hrs
I understand that Republicans are angry about this bill, to the point where some are talking about violent uprising, which is just scary. Why? Because health care reform was a central platform on which Obama ran. And ultimately it’s a big part of what people voted for.
For example, during his campaign, Obama promised to:
* Create a “National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses purchase private health insurance.”
* Require insurance companies to “cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans, regardless of their health status or history, can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.”
* “Require that all children have health care coverage…and expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage by allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents’ plans.”
* And literally dozens of additional actions related to health care.In other words, this was the platform that got Obama elected, which is the way things work in this country. This is what Americans voted for. You may not agree, but you get a shot to change things during the next elections, okay? So please chill with the talk about violence.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 1042 hrs
Why should they chill with the talk of violence, NYTexan?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 1051 hrs
the rest of the world isn’t any better, but they are in general heading in the right direction.
You’re suggesting, what, exactly? That the rest of the world is moving toward a more American style of health care delivery? I really doubt that. Or maybe you simply mean that a couple of European countries have elected “conservative” governments recently? Putting aside whether or not this constitutes any kind of long-term trend, what passes for conservative in Europe would make Dennis Kucinich look like Rush Limbaugh. I’m just not sure I’m buying it.
I don’t think the United States will ever opt for the kind of social spending and social programming that, say, France chooses for itself. It’s just not in our national character to do so. But the kind of changes we’re talking about in the health care reform bill are a small (and much overdue) step to the left. And one that still leaves us lightyears away from where most of the rest of the world is on health care, taxation, social retirement, minimum wages, workers rights, etc. Let’s not kid ourselves that we just became France and that France is a couple years away from becoming the US. Far, far from it.
Posted by scott on March 22, 2010 at 1104 hrs
Sarkozy’s party lost all but one region to the Socialist Party and its allies in the regional elections over the weekend. France isn’t moving right any time soon.
Something for Americans to remember is that our government spending is smaller than that of other developed nations, but not that much smaller. We spend a lot less on social services, but we offset a great deal of it with our huge military budget.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 1129 hrs
I understand that Republicans are angry about this bill, to the point where some are talking about violent uprising, which is just scary.
Violent uprising? No. Uprising, definitely. When the Obama pen touches paper on .. what, Tuesday, that will pretty much signal an end to any pretext of Constitutionally protected liberties. There is really no point in fooling ourselves about it any longer. Two of our three branches of government have turned their backs on everything that the old America stood for these last 200 plus years.. There is a definite need for anyone who values personal liberty to get good and angry.
Let’s be even more honest here… this is not the end of what is coming. We have seen a seizure of industry, a massive redistribution of wealth, strong moves toward control of banking, a seizure of the health care sector and control of our health security, and a complete disregard for the US Constitution. Energy controls, Immigration “reform”, more banking and private finance controls, as well as further consolidation of health care rules is all in the making. We are on track to have all of the bad socialist policies of France enshrined as “law” by the end of the year. Get angry folks… and stay angry…. and when you get a chance, do your part to stop this in it’s tracks.
I’m sad to say it, but on this day, much like Michelle Obama was her whole life, I am not proud of this nation ( not my nation, to be sure) I am living in, and I lament the loss of the old one. What a sad, sad day it is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 1150 hrs
Violent uprising? No.
Well, yes. That’s what Owen and some other commenters are saying. Glad to know you disagree, though.
a massive redistribution of wealth,
you mean from the rest of us to the top few percent of earners, right? Because if you mean something other than that you must be living in a different country.
an end to any pretext of Constitutionally protected liberties.
We are on track to have all of the bad socialist policies of France enshrined as “law” by the end of the year.
Dude, that’s hilarious. You actually believe this hyperventilated, overwrought, paranoid baloney? This is a very modest bill given the scope and severity of the problems it aims to fix. We didn’t just become France. We’re still far to the right of ...well, just about anyone you’d want to be compared to. The idea that we just witnessed the death of human liberty is utterly absurd.
Posted by scott on March 22, 2010 at 1155 hrs
Obviously, the supporters of the regime will stand by it, and mock those who point to the old Constitution and cry foul. They are not really people who can be trusted to look out for our liberty, so I’m fine if they want to lie down with the central government and suffer it’s safe servility. They’ve been around since the beginning, and they are not going anyplace. Sam Adams knew all about loyalists. he said:
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
True then, true now.
One can only hope that at least some states will stand up to this new regime and say no. While I don’t advocate tarring and feathering the agents of the government, I can’t say that I’d blame any state that refused and threatened to ignore any unlawful dictates that violate the Constitution that bound us as a nation. They certainly have that right… and I might even say that responsibility. Perhaps a return to the pre-civil war beliefs that you are a citizen of your state first and the nation second might be in order here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 1212 hrs
TFG,
Tell us exactly what violations of the Constitution are in the bill.
Then tell us how loudly you complained about USA PATRIOT act.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 1243 hrs
You are a dangerously wrong, scott. Mass violence in civilizations that value life is rarely chosen. It is blundered into; leaving the blunderers appalled at the violence and bewildered that what they consider minor actions could have caused such a result.
The blundering results from assumptions and beliefs that we hold about others which are simply false. We agree with others and presume the agreement must arise from shared (correct) beliefs and values. We disagree with others and presume the disagreement arises from the incorrect beliefs and values of others. But this is not so. People have very different natures, histories, and experiences which shape and define them and they arrive at their conclusions from points of view completely alien to ourselves. The success of this country is due in no small part to our ability to accomodate and channel those different natures into common ends.
This bill does not do that. Congress assumes, understandably, that this is merely another battle over policy. In reality the victors have challenged the very existence of the defeated. The reaction you see is not one of people whose beliefs have been challenged, but one of people whose existence as they define it has been challenged. That’s dangerous ground to tread.
I don’t believe this bill will result in violence yet, but we have been given a warning that needs to be heeded.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 1247 hrs
Owen: You are certain there will be a violent revolution in the U.S. because of this? That’s truly laughable. Think of how many things have gone on in this country in the last 100 years - the number of things that people disagreed with. The number of unpopular wars. The number of controversial legislative actions. Court actions. Elections.
And NOW you think people are going to use violence to overthrow the government.
Dude, whatever you’re smoking, I want some…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 1303 hrs
The scope of this bill is small. That is precisely why those of us paying attention from the conservative side are worried. The small scope of this bill, and the fact that it does NOTHING for four years is all the evidence that we need to point toward other legislation moving further towards single payer, coming down the pike. I know some here favor that, and that IMO is a problem of personal idiocy, but the President has made it very clear that this is just the first step, that the bill is imperfect, and that it will need to be “adjusted”.
The budgetary parlor tricks that the congress played with the CBO on this bill, and the fact that the majority of the public stood against this bill make me think that we are indeed in for some serious action this fall…. Violent, nah, but the politics are going to be nasty.
Between this and the last administration we have seen more belligerence displayed toward the constitution since FDR… I look forward to the state challenges of the bill. I think they will be fruitless, but I think they will at least bring some attention to the fact that we have just taken it as acceptable to ignore the constitution in this country… Seems like everyone I talk to agrees with Nancy Pelosi, “If the congress does it, it’s constitutional.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 1434 hrs
Then tell us how loudly you complained about USA PATRIOT act.
First, YOU can tell us how you complained when Dr. Utopia renewed the patriot Acts provisions… twice. You can also try and explain to us why using the same type of law enforcement techniques on terrorists that we use on the mafia is bad. After that, you can try and show us all the innocents that were jailed because of it. Lastly, you can tell us how a tiny piece of law enforcement legislation has ANYTHING to do with a massive take over of the entire health care system and a total change of the very fabric of the nation using parliamentary tricks instead of Constitutional governance. Maybe you’ll be able to, but more likely you’ll just come up with additional galactically stupid horse droppings.
When a government seizes control of something so basic as health care, it stops being a government of, by , and for the people. Rather, it turns into a government that has control of it’s people. It changes from our voice in Washington to the voice FROM Washington. That’s where we stand today.
The list of states that plan to attack this abortion of our Constitution is growing. The Attorneys general from Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alabama will file a lawsuit as soon as Obama signs this instrument of Constitutional crisis. God speed to them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 1600 hrs
“I’ve said in the past that I think we will see violent revolution in our nation within my lifetime. If this passes, I will be certain.”
So it passed. Did you get the secret “bat signal?” Do you have pre-assigned targets, or are you allowed to select your own? I’m assuming here that you’ll be participating; that’s the only way you could move from thinking violent revolution possible, to certainty.
But remember, though the neighbors might have put out an Obama sign, there may be closeted conservatives in the household. Please do your research carefully before pulling the trigger. Perhaps it would be best to leave the rank and file Dems alone entirely and go only after officeholders.
Posted by jimspice on March 22, 2010 at 1608 hrs
“Dude, that’s hilarious. You actually believe this hyperventilated, overwrought, paranoid baloney? This is a very modest bill given the scope and severity of the problems it aims to fix. “
Maybe to someone who believes in a completely taxpayer funded Universal Health care plan, this does look modest. However, to those of us who find that concept absolutely abhorrent, it’s scope is huge just in what it does in terms of the shift in the relationship between people and their Federal Government.
This bill mandates ... MANDATES ... that all US Citizens purchase Health Insurance. If that isn’t far reaching and intrusive into the daily lives of every single American, I don’t know what is.
Next, it dictates that all American’s must have a Health Insurance Policy that conforms to Federal Requirements, dictating what can and cannot be covered. The power in that alone is astounding. We get a glimpse of where hundreds of bloody legislative battles will be fought in the decades ahead in Nancy Pelosi’s floor speech last night, when she grandly proclaims that those with Diabetes and Bi-Polar disorder, who don’t have insurance today, can now look forward to coverage in the future. So what exactly will and won’t be covered? Bi-Polar disorder coverage for all is the goal of this legislation??? So we can seen now, that Lobbyists will converge on Washington every legislative session demanding that this affliction and that affliction be covered ... and then next, in order to ensure that there are providers to treat them, they will start demanding the reimbursement rates that must be made in order to ensure that someone can make money doing it. Don’t think that will happen, one need look no further than how few dentists there are that take Medicaid recipients to understand how reimbursement is directly tied to supply of services. That should be economics 101, yet it seems like we have to rehash that fact every time this argument comes up. Something will have to give ... either some services will have to be removed from coverage to pay for it , or reimbursements for other services will have to be reduced, or taxes will have to be raised, or higher deficits run to pay for it all. Of course, this is how Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have grown to become so large in scope, and have such a dramatic impact on our budget. This will be no different, except that it will impact 100’s of millions of more people at any given time. And you argue that the scope is limited?
Then of course, you have the billions and billions of dollars of additional Medicaid outlays that states will have to come up with to cover their share of the additional Medicaid recipients and coverages that will be mandated through this legislation, which will have dramatic impacts on how State’s, many of which are required by their State constitutions, to balance their budgets. Again, only two ways to deal with that ... cut services at the State level, or increase taxes.
The cost of this program will skyrocket in the decades ahead, just as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare have. The most cynical aspect of this whole debate is that everyone who supports this bill knows it, and refuses to admit it even though the know the American people know it too, and it is the very reason it is so unpopular with the majority of American.
Sure, there may be individual provisions that are popular. And it may very well be the case that a majority of American believe some kind of Health Care or Health Insurance reform is necessary. But they don’t want this, and the reason they don’t is because they know we can’t afford it. Eventually, the only way to sustain it will be through scrapping private insurance altogether, and getting the Single Payer, universal public program that statists have been pushing for, for decades ... or it will require huge tax increases, on every American, most likely through some sort of National Sales Tax ... or both.
To even try and suggest this bill is modest in its scope is so patently absurd that it boggles the mind to think anyone would be stupid enough to try and advance it and think anyone would actually believe it. But I guess that’s what supporters of this are reduced to ... in the desperate hope that enough Americans will be dumb enough to believe them, and not take it out on those that foisted this crap on them, against their will, in upcoming elections.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 1643 hrs
This bill mandates ... MANDATES ... that all US Citizens purchase Health Insurance. If that isn’t far reaching and intrusive into the daily lives of
I’m sorry to take away your precious freedom not to have health insurance, but this is the way it works, man. The ONLY way it works. Everyone has to participate to spread the risk and cost. Look around you. (And by that I mean outside our borders.) Universal coverage is the linchpin principle to half a dozen different ways of creating a just and affordable delivery system. If there’s an example of a country NOT doing this and still achieving that end, I’d like to know where it is.
Next, it dictates that all American’s must have a Health Insurance Policy that conforms to Federal Requirements
I’m pretty sure that’s already the case. For sure every health insurance policy conforms to your state insurance commissioner’s regulations. And I’m betting there’s some federal ones in there too.
dictating what can and cannot be covered.
Dictating what cannot be covered? Like what?
Don’t think that will happen, one need look no further than how few dentists there are that take Medicaid recipients to understand how reimbursement is directly tied to supply of services. That should be economics 101, yet i
That would explain why there are so many more physicians per capita here in the United States than in places where they have these horrible socialist systems. Right?
To even try and suggest this bill is modest in its scope is so patently absurd that it boggles the mind to think anyone would be stupid enough to try and advance it and think anyone would actually believe it.
Well, taking a broader view of how other industrialized nations solve this problem, yeah—our current solutions seem, well, downright half-assed. The liberal position was single-payer. The moderate solution was a bill just like this one which included a much-watered-down public option (that almost nobody had AS an option). The slightly right of center solution is the one that just passed. Again, taking the wide view of how these kinds of problems are solved around the world.
Posted by scott on March 22, 2010 at 1656 hrs
Thanks for sharing this great post.
Posted by autism on March 22, 2010 at 1729 hrs
If it’s such a simple and non-intrusive piece of mediocre legislation, then why did it take over 2000 pages to write down all the aspects of the bill?
If it was so moderate, then why were bribes and parliamentary trickery required to pass it through a Congress wholly controlled by one party?
I’m sorry to take away your precious freedom
Your certainly are not, but you certainly did so.
Perhaps the socialist folks are happy with that situation, but those of us who enjoyed the freedoms that existed only in this nation find the shackles you have forged for us to be intolerable.
We have crossed a line. The American people are now ALL beholden to the government for our most basic health needs. We are no longer a nation governed by it’s people… we are now a people governed fully by our nation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 1746 hrs
I’m sorry to take away your precious freedom not to have health insurance, but this is the way it works, man. The ONLY way it works. Everyone has to participate to spread the risk and cost.
Just because it makes your model work, doesn’t give the Federal Government the power to mandate a US Citizen what products it MUST purchase. I look forward to the Supreme Court weighing in this particular provision of the bill. The fact that you brush off something so tyrannical reveals what all of us who oppose this have been saying for decades about liberals generally. They really have no concern for individual liberty, or the constitution, when they stand in the way of getting what they want. The precedent that this sets, if allowed to stand, is terrifying.
“Look around you. (And by that I mean outside our borders.) Universal coverage is the linchpin principle to half a dozen different ways of creating a just and affordable delivery system.”
I could care less what any other nation does. I care what the United States does ... and I care that the Constitution is not trampled in the process of achieving any end.
As for this whole issue of ‘Just’ ... Just, by whose definition or standard? Yours? Barrack Obama’s? Nancy Pelosi’s? You all have a monopoly on defining what ‘Just’ is?
“Dictating what cannot be covered? Like what? “
Obviously, whatever is not identified as a covered service is by its omission from that list, what cannot be covered. And that is where the bloody legislative battles will be fought in the decades to come. Or are you suggesting, that the list of covered services will in essence, be unending, and universal in its scope?
Just what does this have to do with the original argument you made that his is a modest bill? As is the case with you all too frequently, you make a point, and when it is challenged directly, you try and change the argument. Your supposition was that this was a modest bill, with the implication that it is limited in its scope. I laid out for you how, in fact, this bill is anything but modest in its impacts on individual freedoms, costs, scope and future impact on how issues related to health care and how it will be dealt with in the future. You essentially ignored all of those, and instead chose to basically argue that this is what everyone else in the world is doing and so should we. Can you, for once, stick to the subject?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 1801 hrs
If it’s such a simple and non-intrusive piece of mediocre legislation, then why did it take over 2000 pages to write down all the aspects of the bill?<i>
I didn’t say it was simple. But since you ask, the reason it’s so long is because it has to interface with so many areas of existing law. Would have been really short to write a bill that said “medicare for all,” now wouldn’t it? Besides, all the whining about the length of the bill or the idea that “nobody” knows what’s in it” is absurd.
<i>If it was so moderate, then why were bribes and parliamentary trickery required to pass it through a Congress wholly controlled by one party?
I think the reasons are several. Some more salient than others. For starters, the Democrats are ascendant right now precisely because they have the bigger tent, are inviting in more diversity than the GOP. Diversity means it’s harder to get all the votes in your caucus, especially for something so controversial as this. I also think that too many politicians of both parties are entirely beholden to the businesses which are currently benefitting from our current terrible system. This is because of how campaigns are financed, mostly. Also, some of these guys are too into bringing home the bacon to their constituents and not interested enough in what’s good legislation nationally. (But if you’re going to tell me that it’s “unprecedented!” I’m going to tell you you’re full of it.)
I look forward to the Supreme Court weighing in this particular provision of the bill.
Me, too. I suspect you’ll lose spectacularly, however. But since we’re on the subject, I wanted a public option that people could choose instead of being compelled to buy a product of private industry. If they chose to. Unfortunately it was nay-sayers like yourselves who nixed that idea. It would have made it more palatable to me anyway.
I could care less what any other nation does. I care what the United States does
There are plenty of times I would agree with that. We’re us, not somebody else. However, when we’re looking at a grave and serious crisis and every other nation on earth seems ot have solved that problem one way or another, I think it’s downright negligent not to ask how they did it. No—it’s stupid.
As for this whole issue of ‘Just’ ... Just, by whose definition or standard? Yours?
I think it will be the American voter who decides what is just and what isn’t. Do you think our previous system was just?
Obviously, whatever is not identified as a covered service is by its omission from that list, what cannot be covered.
So, if it’s that easy and clear cut, why don’t you give us a list of things which must not be covered? Four or five would do.
Posted by scott on March 22, 2010 at 1830 hrs
“I wanted a public option that people could choose instead of being compelled to buy a product of private industry. If they chose to. Unfortunately it was nay-sayers like yourselves who nixed that idea. It would have made it more palatable to me anyway.”
The reason ‘nay-sayers’ like me nixed the idea is because the Public Option was, and is, the easiest path to Single Payer Government funded health care short of mandating it directly through legislation.,. This whole arguement was hashed out almost a year ago ... Private Option puts private insurance companies at a competitive disadvantage, and would have led to them going out of business. I have no doubt this bill will lead to it as well, its just going to take longer.
“However, when we’re looking at a grave and serious crisis and every other nation on earth seems ot have solved that problem one way or another, I think it’s downright negligent not to ask how they did it. No—it’s stupid.”
You may perceive they have ‘solved it’, but there is no doubt that vast numbers in the countries you cite would argue that their countries approach solved nothing, or created a whole new set of problems worse than what they set out to solve. If there is something to be learned from looking at what other nations have done, I would argue that those are the lessons to be gleaned, and provide all the more reason not to follow their lead.
“I think it will be the American voter who decides what is just and what isn’t. Do you think our previous system was just?”
I agree, it will be the American voter. And the Democrat party will suffer huge losses this November precisely because the American people do not believe this bill will lead to ‘Just’ outcomes. Even more important in how Americans will vote, and why, is that despite expressing their will overwhelmingly, that this was not the solution they wanted, Obama and the Democrat controlled congress crammed this shit sandwich down their throats anyway. Unfortunately, it will be too late then to do anything about it.
“So, if it’s that easy and clear cut, why don’t you give us a list of things which must not be covered? Four or five would do. “
I can’t tell if you are truly not understanding the point I am making, or you are simply pretending not to in order to bait me into some trap you think you’re setting for me, but in either case, i will play along ...
Hypothetically, for the sake of this discussion, I would propose that the following not be covered services that government approved plans could cover:
1) Injuries incurred while participating in recreational activities (broken legs from skateboarding, ACL tears from playing football, etc). Taxpayers should not be required to subsidize the cost of care for people who incur injures that they knew the risk of before engaging in it. I mean, 45 year old fat guys should know not to try and play full court basketball, shouldn’t they?
2) Weight loss surgery - Taxpayers should not be required to subsidize surgery to correct an affliction that came from being a lazy, big mac eating couch potatoes. Although, they should stick to low impact workouts to stay in shape, because if you break your leg playing softball, you’re on your own.
3) Birth Control - If you don’t want to have kids, don’t have sex, or, pay for your own damn Trojans
4) Depression Treatment - We’ll approve one self help book a year. Otherwise, you pay for the doctor to unscramble your wiring on your own dime.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 1914 hrs
just tell me you understand the principle
The principle is this: that the Federal Government shall NOT make US citizens accept a religion—including Secular Humanism.
Posted by dad29 on March 22, 2010 at 1932 hrs
This is a very modest bill given the scope and severity of the problems it aims to fix
Especially since it does not “solve” ANY of those problems until 2014 or later.
Yah, that was some “fix”, alright.
Posted by dad29 on March 22, 2010 at 1939 hrs
I’m sorry to take away your precious freedom not to have health insurance, but this is the way it works, man. The ONLY way it works.
A wise man once said,
What’s gravy for the gander is gravy for the goose.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 2133 hrs
Right wing blogs are absurd.
Only a right winger can spout off their certainty of impending “violent revolution”, offer no substantive analysis of how this will come to be, and still be considered reputable.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 2209 hrs
I have no doubt this bill will lead to it as well, its just going to take longer.
I definitely get that this is your ultimate fear. I don’t agree, but I get it. The thing I don’t understand is why you’re so against the very reforms that just might make the private insurance industry work sufficiently for us all not to scrap it. I mean, really. If we don’t enact reforms such as these, there’ll be no choice but to ultimately declare medicare for all.
Besides, lots of other countries achieve affordability and universal coverage with private insurance companies still very much in business. You know that, right? Why don’t we take a look at those places and see what they’re doing right?
njuries incurred while participating in recreational activities (broken legs from skateboarding, ACL tears from playing football, etc).
Why, is that what you see in the rest of the “socialist” world? No? Then why are you so gawdawful paranoid about it? Same goes for your other “examples.”
The principle is this: that the Federal Government shall NOT make US citizens accept a religion—including Secular Humanism
Totally wrong! That is definitely not the principle I’m advocating or defending. Guess again. (Hint: I’ve expressed it really, really clearly in one single sentence even! See if you can find it.)
it does not “solve” ANY of those problems until 2014 or later.
Wrong. Starting immediately some people who cannot get their preexisting conditions covered will have them covered.
Posted by scott on March 22, 2010 at 2219 hrs
Right wing blogs are absurd.
I guess we will find out won’t we?
The left wing is very familiar with protesting and doing insignificant vandalism like breaking windows at Army recruiting offices. Lots of sizzle, not much steak.
You are underestimating the simmering rage. One of the biggest things you are missing is that conservatives, as a group, have never protested anything…. ever. This healthcare bill is a proxy for the encroaching tyranny of the government. The process of this bill certainly did matter. Vast swaths of the American people are rejecting the notion that they are too stupid to make their own decisions…
And we don’t say anything unless we are serious about it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 2221 hrs
I think all we’re going to get out of you folks is hysteria and whining all over the media that supposedly doesn’t let you speak.
That and one or two total nutjobs are going kill some people. And right after that happens, those of you who’ve been shrieking about how Democrats are the enemy of the country will be aghast that someone thinks you’re partly to blame. So much for the people of “responsibility.”
Posted by scott on March 22, 2010 at 2226 hrs
I’m waiting for one of you mouthbreathing rightwing Trig Palins to try and commit an act of violence. This government and the military you all worship will squash you like bugs. Only then when that happens will there be true progress in America.
And suck it Owen for posting that hit piece on me over the weekend.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2010 at 2236 hrs
“Hit piece” Keith?
How so? You mean blogging about a story in the paper is now a “hit piece?” How about you go to that post and explain your business plan and why it was so majestically designed to thwart the prevailing economic trends in the book market?
Nah, that would take some thought, wouldn’t it?
As you say…. suck it. Your business failed. Not mine. It’s on you to explain it.
Posted by Owen on March 22, 2010 at 2258 hrs
I’d like to hear Owen say on public radio that he predicts violent revolution in our country.
Posted by scott on March 22, 2010 at 2300 hrs
Why Scott? Do you think the PR listeners would storm me or something? Or do you think I wouldn’t say such a thing? If not, have you heard me on PR? Heck, I said “diddle their unmentionables” on PR
Posted by Owen on March 22, 2010 at 2321 hrs
“This is a very modest bill ” Perhaps for a socialist. This is a huge step in the contract between government and the people. Giving up one of your liberties might be nothing to you…but it is everything to me. We’ve let government overstep the bounds that the constitution set up around it. Now we have a government that doesn’t listen to the people, that decides what is best for us. The profess of this bill is a reflection on just how government thinks of us. It no longer matters what we want, but ratehr what government decides we should have or not have.
For most of my life, I’ve felt most of our government to be a unnecessary inconvienience. But now I feel my government is truly my enemy. One that has stripped me of yet another freedom, and who thinks of me as nothing more than someone to fund their whims. I’m tired of funding that which I abhor. And I fear for the legacy we are leaving our children.
I agree with Owen that there may be a revolution in our future. Not over this…we are still to comfortable, but as we give up more and more rights and are crushed under the unsustainable burdens these new commitments are heaping on us. We will collapse, just like the USSR did. Unfortunately we may have to wait a few generations for the pendulum to swing back.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 0031 hrs
Giving up one of your liberties might be nothing to you…but it is everything to me.
Which liberty is that?
Posted by scott on March 23, 2010 at 0721 hrs
Dad29 -
The principle is this: that the Federal Government shall NOT make US citizens accept a religion—including Secular Humanism.
Ignoring that secular humanism is not actually a religion, even though people who do not accept religions are also protected by the First Amendment, we can note that the US government has never once made any effort to force anyone to accept any religion.
Could you tell me what this has to do with health care?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 0757 hrs
Free Lunch, I was simply tired of being misunderstood. I wanted to know if folks here actually knew what my position was, the principle that I’m up in arms about, before they start walloping me on the head for things that are peripheral to that. That principle is: I do not want the government expressing religious views. I’m not arguing it’s constitutionality, or discussing Jefferson or any of that other stuff. I’m merely saying that I would rather that government not express religious views. Private persons should of course be as a free as birds to do so, but not the government.
It has nothing to do with health care. Not sure how we got on the subject any more, but we did.
Posted by scott on March 23, 2010 at 0926 hrs
“I’m waiting for one of you mouthbreathing rightwing Trig Palins to try and commit an act of violence. This government and the military you all worship will squash you like bugs. Only then when that happens will there be true progress in America.”
What truly disgusting human being ...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1225 hrs
And suck it Owen for posting that hit piece on me over the weekend.
UH-OH Sounds like Keith may have had his fragile little ego hurt….
I love it.
Keith sets up his business, as a co-op when in actuality it should have been an LLC, gets caught, calls it “an oversight” _when IMO it was a tax dodge….defaults of a 35K loan from Shorewood taxpayers, and Owen is the bad guy?
Man Effin up Keith! And quit being such a pansy…..
BTW I trust Keith has already talked to his Lawyer about a slander suit?
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on March 23, 2010 at 1257 hrs
For most of my life, I’ve felt most of our government to be a unnecessary inconvienience. But now I feel my government is truly my enemy. One that has stripped me of yet another freedom, and who thinks of me as nothing more than someone to fund their whims. I’m tired of funding that which I abhor. And I fear for the legacy we are leaving our children.
OK, can we all take a step back and realize that this is what non-Bushites (Dems, some independents, and others) were saying just a few years ago? There is common ground here, if we stop shouting past each other and don’t resort to name-calling and threats of violence.
And fwiw, I’m still going to be paying premiums to Blue Cross, not the U.S. Treasury. The government has NOT taken over our health care system, or the insurance industry for that matter. Has it imposed regulations on the insurers? Sure, because they were practicing bad policies. An analogy would be that we didn’t have laws against polluting until pollution got so bad that something had to be done, and it had to be imposed nationwide so those causing the problem couldn’t just skip around to different areas.
Like others here, I’m curious about what the legality of the mandate is. I do know that my current coverage hasn’t changed since last week, so I find all the talk of being stripped of my liberty hyperbolic. Just one citizen’s opinion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1309 hrs
I’m sorry to take away your precious freedom not to have health insurance, but this is the way it works, man. The ONLY way it works. Everyone has to participate to spread the risk and cost. Look around you.
Hey, let’s make every adult purchase car insurance (driver’s insurance) as well! That will spread the risk and cost even further. Even the people that don’t own cars! Who cares about them, lets just drive down costs and spread the risk!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1407 hrs
I was simply tired of being misunderstood.
You needn’t worry… I think the posters here understand you quite well. Don’t confuse strong disagreement and consternation with a misunderstanding of your positions… and dragging a religious debate into the middle of one of the most astounding attacks on personal liberty in my lifetime is certainly not a good recipe for the understanding that you seem to seek.
I’m waiting for one of you mouthbreathing rightwing Trig Palins to try and commit an act of violence. This government and the military you all worship will squash you like bugs. Only then when that happens will there be true progress in America.
Hard to believe that with such a magnetic personality you were unable to draw in customers. With one statement you managed to offend Republicans (40% of the electorate), veterans, soldiers, the disabled, families of the autistic, and entomologists. It’s a wonder you sold any books at all.
This is a huge step in the contract between government and the people. Giving up one of your liberties might be nothing to you…but it is everything to me.
I fully agree. We are now a people who will feel the heavy hand of governmental control invade many aspects of our lives. We lost our health security, which now stems solely from the hand of government… though they are far from done with the edict they concocted on Sunday. We also ended the pretext that the Congress elected by the people would work by Constitutional rules when enacting laws. States Rights? Under the bus too. Those who thought that individual liberty was the back bone of the nation now find themselves swallowed by a spineless, fluid monster that seeks to invade every corner of their lives.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1520 hrs
Hard to believe that with such a magnetic personality you were unable to draw in customers. With one statement you managed to offend Republicans (40% of the electorate), veterans, soldiers, the disabled, families of the autistic, and entomologists. It’s a wonder you sold any books at all.
That has got to be the funniest thing I’ve read in a week. Thanks for the pick-me-up!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1530 hrs
That principle is: I do not want the government expressing religious views. I’m not arguing it’s constitutionality, or discussing Jefferson or any of that other stuff. I’m merely saying that I would rather that government not express religious views.
And we do not want the government mandating how much, when, what is allowable and how we purchase (or not) health insurance. We also do not want that same government to decide what procedures, treatment plans, tests, and drugs are allowable to us.
Just sayin’
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1532 hrs
So basically you don’t want Medicare, Medicaid, veterans health care or state and federal regulations on private insurers. i suppose you think American health care delivery would be the envy of the world if it were like that. Or something.
But, yeah. I don’t want government expressing religious views. That’s all. I think it’s a pretty understandable principle. So next time you feel “you’re trying to remove god from teh public square!” or something similar, remind yourself: All Scott really wants is for the government itself to refrain from any religious expression.
Posted by scott on March 23, 2010 at 1537 hrs
So basically you don’t want Medicare, Medicaid, veterans health care or state and federal regulations on private insurers. i suppose you think American health care delivery would be the envy of the world if it were like that. Or something.
Lets break these success stories down one at a time:
Medicare - Tens of Trillions in unfunded liabilities, almost insolvent… In desparate need of reforms like a phase in of means testing… disparate reimbursements for rural areas v urban, most places don’t get reimbursed enough to cover costs. Some places (ie - Mayo in AZ) starting to refuse new Medicare patients. Denies a higher percentage of claims than any private insurance carrier.
Medicaid - Unfunded mandate on the states by the federal government. Reimburses even less than Medicare. Even more docs/pharmacies refusing new patients. States having to cut people off because they don’t have enough money. ObamaCare will make this issue even worse.
Veterans Care - has been rife with problems for decade for poor care and waiting periods. Has improved somewhat, but there was a severe issue last year where they were reusing (without proper disinfection) colonoscopy scopes and created x-infections including HIV… Not exactly the standard of care I’m looking for.
State mandated coverage along with refusal to allow purchase across state lines combine to make intra-state mini-monopolies with levels of care that are simply not needed and drive premiums and costs up. Examples, cochlear implants, chiropractic, autism, substance abuse, etc.
None of the problems listed above will be fixed, but will, in fact be exacerbated by ObamaCare.
But, by all means, continue to think that banning the high school band from playing Ave Maria is a bigger issue than truly addressing the problems with the current government-controlled parts of health insurance and healthcare.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1551 hrs
So basically, I’m right. You’d rather we didn’t have Medicare, Medicaid, veterans health care or any regulation on the private health insurance industry. You think this would be a vast improvement over what we have now.
Posted by scott on March 23, 2010 at 1555 hrs
So basically, I’m right.
No, basically, you are a mathematically challenged idiot. Did you miss the sentences like “desperate need of reforms” and parts like “insolvent”, and not accepting patients or the parts about how ObamaCare will make them worse.
Where exactly did I say I would “rather with didn’t have” them? Really?
What I want is REAL reforms that will get us back to financial solvency, not this monstrosity.
But how about you tell me about how ObamaCare improves all of these programs? Hmmmmm? I can’t wait.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1604 hrs
Well, I’m asking you: In your ideal health care world, would we or would we not have things ilke Medicare, etc? Would there be no government-paid or government-delivered medical care?
Posted by scott on March 23, 2010 at 1609 hrs
Nice try at deflection… why won’t you answer the question?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1615 hrs
I’d have to write hundreds of words to do that, neomom, because most of your presuppositions are things I disagree with in the first place. Like the idea that veterans care is bad, etc.
Posted by scott on March 23, 2010 at 1632 hrs
Like the idea that veterans care is bad, etc.
Scott has a gov’t study to prove otherwise.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1637 hrs
I think this is at least the third time you’ve made that claim, smeety. You keep saying that because I originally posted a link to the military times article about the study. The military itself didn’t do the study, as you kept claiming. So now what’s your angle? The organization who did the study has ties to a university which is receives government money? Or something?
Posted by scott on March 23, 2010 at 1640 hrs
Like the idea that veterans care is bad, etc.
Scott has a gov’t study to prove otherwise.
And I’m sure he knows a multitude of veterans getting care through the VA system and had their stories of how fabulous it is. I mean, man, who wouldn’t want a colonoscopy there?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1641 hrs
It’s not a claim. It’s a fact. A government study about a govnenment program done by government employees with government money.
I’m sure it’s completely unbiased.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1643 hrs
You cannot be reasoned with. I keep kidding myself that you can, but you cannot.
Posted by scott on March 23, 2010 at 1644 hrs
My opinion of the VA is based on a heckuva lot more than a single study…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1650 hrs
So basically, I’m right. You’d rather we didn’t have Medicare, Medicaid, veterans health care or any regulation on the private health insurance industry. You think this would be a vast improvement over what we have now.
No scott you are not right…..
What she is saying is that we as a country can’t pay for what we have now.
How in the hell are we as a country going to be able to pay for healthcare when we add 10’s of millions MORE to the tax dole?
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on March 23, 2010 at 1653 hrs
But note that Scott refuses to answer how ObamaCare
a) improves access to Medicare and Medicaid when doctors/hospitals/pharmacies are already refusing to accept patients
b) improves the solvency of Medicare by cutting its funding to subsidize insurance for millions of people (whether they really need it or not)
c) will not bankrupt states by forcing millions more onto Medicaid
d) bends the cost curve down…
Oh yeah, that’s because he can’t. Because the answer is really
e) None of the Above - its all about driving those private insurers eventually out of business, controlling even more of the economy and our lives by a central few, and really is very little at all about healthcare.
But other than that - its great and rainbows will fill the sky and unicorns will poop skittles.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1704 hrs
Nice try at deflection… why won’t you answer the question?
If you figure that out, let me know. It seems to be a a frequent inquiry in these parts.
What I want is REAL reforms that will get us back to financial solvency, not this monstrosity.
Wouldn’t that have been nice. Dr Utopia passed up an enormous chance to institute some useful and effective bi-partisan changes to our health insurance system that would have resulted in real savings for individuals and for the government. There were several excellent Republican plans proposed that included free market, state run exchanges, interstate purchasing, and protections for the consumer as well as the insurer. Instead, we have mandates, division, anger, and no sensible explanation as to how these new edicts will reduce costs or improve the distribution of care. Dr. Utopia substituted “we won” socialist smoke and mirrors for real bi-partisan solutions.
Now we need real reforms to save us from the real reforms.
I would LOVE to hear an explanation from some thinking liberal of how increasing the cost of business for the insurers and adding a MASSIVE new set of rules, entitlements and bureaucracies will reduce the cost of health care.
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1705 hrs
I would LOVE to hear an explanation from some thinking liberal of how increasing the cost of business for the insurers and adding a MASSIVE new set of rules, entitlements and bureaucracies will reduce the cost of health care.
I am most definitely NOT a liberal, but this one is easy.
Since insurance companies are the enemies in this fight, more mandates plus increasing the cost of doing business equals LESS profit for the insurance companies.
And to a liberal that is what it is all about.
Control.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on March 23, 2010 at 1755 hrs
No Michael… The American people are the enemy in this fight.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1801 hrs
Great link neomom.
Ok, Michael, that may be what the Social Democrats will imply… but it lacks economic logic. Health insurance was rated the 86th most profitable industry, garnering and average take of 3.3%
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/profit_and_the_insurance_indus.html
Even if we take the whole 3.3% away and insist on making them non-profit, that offers little in the way of saving. Removing the profit DOES however also reduce any incentive for keeping costs down and offering a good product. No profit equals no motivation for improvement. Sounds like quite a toxic solution to a non-problem.
I believe Barack recently lied that…er, said that we’d save 400%... where does the other 396.7% show up?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1831 hrs
Chairman Obie is more mathematically challenged than that… he said they would drop 3000%
But he’s a constitutional expert (so they say) maybe he can help Conyers find the “Good and Welfare Clause”
I’m thinking these people that think they know more than us…. don’t…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1841 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 96
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 01:28 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).