Romneycare Foreshadows Obamacare
If you want a preview of President Obama’s health-care “reform,” take a look at Massachusetts. In 2006, it enacted a “reform” that became a model for Obama. What’s happened since isn’t encouraging. The state did the easy part: expanding state-subsidized insurance coverage. It evaded the hard part: controlling costs and ensuring that spending improves people’s health. Unfortunately, Obama has done the same.
[...]
But much didn’t change. Emergency rooms remain as crowded as ever; about a third of the non-elderly go at least once a year, and half their visits involve “non-emergency conditions.” As for improvements in health, most probably lie in the future. “Many of the uninsured were young and healthy,” writes Long. Their “expected gains in health status” would be mostly long-term. Finally—and most important—health costs continue to soar.
Aside from squeezing take-home pay (employers provide almost 70 percent of insurance), higher costs have automatically shifted government priorities toward health care and away from everything else—schools, police, roads, prisons, lower taxes. In 1990, health spending represented about 16 percent of the state budget, says the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. By 2000, health’s share was 22 percent. In 2010, it’s 35 percent. About 90 percent of the health spending is Medicaid.
[...]
Similar forces will define Obamacare. Even if its modest measures to restrain costs succeed—which seems unlikely—the effect on overall spending would be slight. The system’s fundamental incentives won’t change. The lesson from Massachusetts is that genuine cost control is avoided because it’s so politically difficult. It means curbing the incomes of doctors, hospitals and other providers. They object. To encourage “accountable care organizations” would limit consumer choice of doctors and hospitals. That’s unpopular. Spending restrictions, whether imposed by regulation or “global payments,” raise the specter of essential care denied. Also unpopular.
Obama dodged the tough issues in favor of grandstanding. Imitating Patrick, he’s already denouncing insurers’ rates, as if that would solve the spending problem. What’s occurring in Massachusetts is the plausible future: Unchecked health spending shapes government priorities and inflates budget deficits and taxes, with small health gains. And they call this “reform”?
There are certain economic rules that no amount of political grandstanding will overturn.
And yet Romney is one of the frontrunners for the republican nomination. I’m sure he’s changed and besides, winning is what’s important here.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 19, 2010 at 2204 hrs
It’s an example of why, despite sounding good, bi-partisan efforts don’t work on a large scale. While there are compromises which one would think would be a good thing, they just end up throwing more and more garbage in to mollify both sides. Democrats want one thing, Republicans want another. Both give a little, get a little and everybody gets a huge wad of cash to wash it down.
I think in many ways, the Massachusetts plan was well intentioned by both sides. But I just don’t believe any program that large can succeed in this country.
And I am absolutely dumbfounded - I literally cannot comprehend how we haven’t come up with small, targeted bills to deal with the individual problems with health care. Sure the Democrats have licked their chops and not let a “crisis go to waste,” but the Republicans has did absolutely nothing about it when they were given the opportunity. Simply creating a portability law would have been universally loved, easily passed and gone a long, long way to taking the issue away. But then, politicians of all flavors have no interest in the accountability that would arise from that approach.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 2335 hrs
The President said it will work. He went to Harvard.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 0632 hrs
As much as I respect Mitt as a businessman this is exactly why he cannot be the nominee in 2012. I’d rather look at a Governor who helped their state out- someone like Daniels or Pawlenty.
As for Locke’s comment- you are absolutely right, its really ticks me off how Republican leaders in congress over the past decade want to take no blame for giving the dems the chance to pass this- before they point the finger, they better point the thumb.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 0730 hrs
I think in many ways, the Massachusetts plan was well intentioned by both sides. But I just don’t believe any program that large can succeed in this country.
Of course there is a program that can succeed. It will require relatively high premiums for most people who work. It will require limits on the number of health care providers and the amount of high tech equipment available. It will be strictly rationed according to age and outcome. There will be waits for care. It will be mandatory for everyone, though it may have a high priced buy-out clause to offer good care to the rich and the political class. No one will be happy with it, nor will anyone be healthy.
That’s pretty much what we are looking at down the road under the progressive Obama plan too.
Odd that Mitt would offer such a dark scenario when he was instrumental in creating the problem. Sorry Mitt… I think I’d rather vote for Hillary… at least I’d know what I was getting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 0923 hrs
Even if its modest measures to restrain costs succeed—
I don’t grant this premise at all. In all the reading I did on the bill, I never found any measures - even “modest” ones that addressed the cost issue. A number of elements will drive costs up even further, but nothing to bring them down. And the citing the magical of the vacuous “technological advances” and record keeping don’t count.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 0956 hrs
genuine cost control is avoided because it’s so politically difficult. It means curbing the incomes of doctors, hospitals and other providers. They object.
I’ve been saying this from the beginning. With any luck, however, it’ll be “phase 2” of American health reform.
Posted by scott on July 20, 2010 at 1254 hrs
Shockingly, I agree with Scott to some degree, however, and a BIG however, is that the country and its companies will be bankrupt if Phase 1 is enacted.
Remember when Obama said “It’s not a tax”? Well now that Obamacare has questioned constitutionality, the Messiah says “sure it constitutional…it’s a tax”.
“Trying to tax your way to prosperity is like trying to stand in a bucket and pick yourself up”. - Winston Churchill
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 1359 hrs
We should curb the incomes of doctors and providers? Do you have any idea what it takes to become a doctor? Or a nurse? Or a PA? Or medical tech? There is already a shortage of such people due to the difficult requirements and stressful working conditions. Now you want to cut their pay and at the same time add millions of new patients into the system?
We should curb profits for hospitals and facilities? Any clue what it costs a hospital to provide the high level of care that you are accustomed to? Plenty of diagnostic equipment, fully staffed ERs, fast access to surgery and testing, private rooms.. etc. You want to cut the very incentive that encourages the availability of health care?
Yeah, I can’t see any problems coming from THAT decision. Nope, none at all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 1424 hrs
If we don’t find a way do those things we will never bring down the cost of health care. And we do need to bring them down.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/an_insurance_industry_ceo_expl.html
The problem isn’t that we go to the doctor more than other countries. Or that we use more drugs. Or that we use more procedures or stay in the hospital more. it’s that these things have higher price tags here. The prices need to come down (or at least stop growing for a period).
If you don’t want to do this, then you’re really not ready or willing to deal with the problems in American health care.
Posted by scott on July 20, 2010 at 1443 hrs
Son of Liberty:
True. Then again, I just read the arcticle on the 7-figure kickbacks the docs were getting from the drug companies. If you can get it fine; but the money could be better spent elsewhere. That is where (scary as the thought is) I agree with Scott a little. Also, if the docs-to-be don’t like the pay, then they shouldn’t go into that profession.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 1446 hrs
Also, if the docs-to-be don’t like the pay, then they shouldn’t go into that profession.
What happens if the profession experiences a shortage of doctors? Then what? Raise what they’re paid? What happens if, once they figure that out, they go on strike to demand more money? Do we force them to keep working because we need them? What if they refuse, should we unleash the power of men with guns to force them to work?
It’s easy to say “just cap the expense and their pay” but they are human beings that, at this point, still can choose whether to provide the service or not. No magic words scribbled on pieces of paper can make anyone provide a service that they don’t wish to provide.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 20, 2010 at 1508 hrs
As a conservative, I believe in supply and demand; more demand for Doctors = more pay. It’s like with the teachers; stop pissing and whining….if you don’t like the pay, go into a different profession. If it applies to the teachers, why not the docs? That’s why I don’t believe in Obamacare…it dictates caps. My point was the kickbacks and other percs the docs receive from drug companies et. al. could be better spent on lowering the cost of the care rather than on the docs themselves. I worked in the medical profession for many years and believe me, the docs salary, albeit deserved, was just a small fraction of their income. I hope this makes sense.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 1519 hrs
It’s simple, guys. Either you are willing to do something about the astronomical prices in American health care or you are not. How we deal with it is another matter, I guess, and open to considerable debate unto itself. But there’s no option not to deal with it. If you don’t deal with it, you fix nothing. Recent reforms have essentially resolved the issue of access and curbed some of the more egregious insurance industry practices, but it did very little to address the issue of the price tags. Did you guys even look at the graphs at the link I provided earlier? You cannot fix American health care without addressing this.
Which brings me to…
I don’t believe in Obamacare…it dictates caps.
if only it did! It should but does not. Perhaps in the future we’ll address it.
Posted by scott on July 20, 2010 at 1525 hrs
if the docs-to-be don’t like the pay, then they shouldn’t go into that profession.
Yes, less doctors and rationed care is certainly an option… though I’d prefer to continue seeing my doctor rather than waiting months (or the rest of your life) to get the care you need. That is the case in most industrialized countries that supply “government as the provider” care. I’m not sure how hacking apart the health care system because you don’t like kick-backs is a real solution. Perhaps we could just deal with the small problems instead.
The prices need to come down (or at least stop growing for a period).
Great reasoning for a free market solution that places consumers in charge. Government has never cut a cost in it’s history, and adding 100,000 new bureaucrats to the system isn’t going to do much in the way of cost reduction. Costs are high for many reasons… excessive regulatory compliance costs, add-ons to your charge in order to cover medicare and medicaid payment deficits, high malpractice costs, frivolous law suits, the consumer disconnect, irresponsible overuse of the ER… and lots more. Many of those issues do not exist in other nations.
Rather than address any of that, we decided to hack the head off the patient and start over from scratch. We are already suffering for it, and that will get far worse if we don’t repeal this stinker of an entitlement.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 1526 hrs
That is the case in most industrialized countries that supply
“government as the provider” care.Same old scare tactics. People in other countries have rationed care! And they wait for services in like soup lines! Whereas here in America any of us can just waltz into a doctor’s office and get same-day visits, procedures, etc. no problemo.
All of which is complete bullshit.
Great reasoning for a free market solution that places consumers in charge.
As I said, how you deal with prices is a matter of some debate. But it’s not debatable that we need to do something. The world awaits your fabulous idea. But the idea that doctors, hospitals, drug and device makers can’t possibly accept lower fees is absurd. They have to. One way or another, they have to.
Government has never cut a cost in it’s history,
Well, Medicare has done a hell of a better job controlling costs than the private sector has. (Cue the “sheyeah, Meidcare is bankrupt!” non-argument in 3, 2, 1…) Plus, all these other countries have controlled costs a hell of a lot better than we have, and most of them have an increased role for government in health care than our system does. So… I’m inclined to think you’re completely wrong in your assertion that government involvement can’t address the cost concerns. Just completely wrong.
Posted by scott on July 20, 2010 at 1535 hrs
Same old scare tactics.
Same old denials. Other nations are having major problems with their nationalized care, but to you and others of that ilk, it doesn’t exist simply because you don’t wish it to be so. Baseless denial doesn’t alter the fact that Canada, England, and Massachusetts are all floundering.I have relatives in England and Germany… you’ll pardon me if I believe what they tell me over what your guru told you, Scott
Whereas here in America any of us can just waltz into a doctor’s office and get same-day visits,
I can go to my urgent care clinic and walk right in. Tests are usually done the same day or scheduled for the near future. My family utilizes this clinic often, and we have never been turned away… that is the norm in most places, and such clinics are springing up everyplace. Doesn’t work that way in the government health care utopias.
The world awaits your fabulous idea.
I already offered it, and so did the conservative movement. You folks rejected it without a second thought as you rushed off to decapitate the evil health care industry.
Consumer control of insurance purchases in a Paul Ryan style system. It has the benefit of reducing costs by adding a healthy dose of competition to that market. Competition tends to reduce costs while government control and regulation always drives them up.
Well, Medicare has done a hell of a better job controlling costs than the private sector has. (Cue the “sheyeah, Meidcare is bankrupt!” non-argument in 3, 2, 1…)
Oh, it isn’t? Well, that will come as a great surprise to it’s board of trustees. Again, delusional denial of arguments and facts that you don’t like does not make them any less true… or would you like to explain to your gentle readers why the fact that Medicares bankruptcy should not factor into our critique of it.
Let’s also not forget that medicare costs to providers are often subsidized by the other patients. When the government fails to pay it’s way, the providers makes it up by billing everyone else more. When no one is left to cover that cost, what do you think will happen to those services?
I’d prefer a solution that incorporates reality as opposed to the denial of reality that you seem to be offering.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 1627 hrs
Canada, England, and Massachusetts are all floundering.
Their health care systems aren’t floundering as badly as ours is. Whatever problems they have, I’d trade even up. And I don’t really give a rats ass about your overseas relatives or what they report to you. It’s an indisputable fact that the people of these other countries are satisfied with their systems. None of them are clamoring for US-style health care system. If things were even half as bad as people like you say they are, there’s be riots in London and Toronto and, well, everywhere.
that is the norm in most places, and such clinics are springing up everyplace. Doesn’t work that way in the government health care utopias.
I don’t think you have any idea what is “the norm” in “most places” nor do you have any better idea whether it does or does not ‘work that way” in other countries. In short, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about at all.
Consumer control of insurance purchases in a Paul Ryan style system.
Go ahead and explain it.
Competition tends to reduce costs while government control and regulation always drives them up.
Which doesn’t explain a) why Medicare has kept prices lower than the private sector, or b) why our prices, in arguably the most privatized health care delivery system in the industrialized world, pays vastly higher than everyone else’s.
When no one is left to cover that cost, what do you think will happen to those services?
They’ll become cheaper.
Seriously, how do you think other countries are getting away with paying so much less than we are? Oh, right. Rationing, lines, horror stories that I don’t believe. Rinse repeat. Unless you got anything new, I’m done going around in circles with you.
Posted by scott on July 20, 2010 at 1640 hrs
Their health care systems aren’t floundering as badly as ours is.
Ours isn’t floundering at all. That was an Obama straw man. It’s expensive, but everyone who needs care, gets it. I work with folks everyday who use a variety of free or subsidized care networks… and they seem to get what they need.
I don’t really give a rats ass about your overseas relatives or what they report to you. It’s an indisputable fact that the people of these other countries are satisfied with their systems.
Peoples opinions are now facts? Anything you say. Another fact is that you clearly have no concept of how foreign systems work, or what financial state of affairs they are in. I suspect that your sum total of knowledge on the subject comes from reading things written by your usual cast of gurus.
I’ll add, for the more reasonable reader, that most of the people in those foreign systems have never had any other system to compare it to. It would be like asking an American what they like better, the American system of taxation or the Chinese one. Most folks would say American because they have no clue how taxes are collected in China.
I don’t think you have any idea what is “the norm” in “most places” nor do you have any better idea whether it does or does not ‘work that way” in other countries. In short, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about at all.
Now, is that a fact… I mean, it’s your opinion… so does that make it a fact to you?
In reality, people all over the US are getting care from a variety of functioning sources. Also in the real world, Germany, Canada, and the UK are all looking at ways to change their systems because of the danger they may not be able to afford them any longer. Waits are long in Canada and the UK. Germans pay a fortune for their system… and more out of pocket if they want better care. It’s not cheap to be a German.
Which doesn’t explain a) why Medicare has kept prices lower than the private sector, or b) why our prices, in arguably the most privatized health care delivery system in the industrialized world, pays vastly higher than everyone else’s.
I believe I refereed to “a” earlier. Medicare forces providers to accept less than the actual cost of treatment in many cases. Often doctors will not even accept medicare patients based on that. Unfortunately, a system that won’t pay the value of services it procures won’t last long… and viola… medicare is bankrupt. Odd that you never have been able to grasp that simple fact. As for “b”, our system is hardly a free market one, and most people have no idea what they are being charged… nor do they care. Imagine if your auto insurance paid for car repairs. Would you ever shop for the best deal if you never had to pay for it? A free market based system would solve those issues by adding competition to the insurance market.
When no one is left to cover that cost, what do you think will happen to those services?
They’ll become cheaper.Hm, another brilliant example of progressive economics. Service “A” costs $5 before profit. We make a law that providers of service “A” will be forced to accept only $3. Problem solved.
In reality though, the providers of service “A” will either discontinue that service, or go bankrupt (see medicare for an example).
What they do in other countries is subsidize service"A” to some degree, though the limited amount of money available causes the amount of service “A” to become limited. That’s why they have to wait in line. There just isn’t enough to go around, and there is no motive for anyone to improve things. Profit is the reason that care in the US is so plentiful, and excessive regulation and interference by bureaucrats is the reason that costs are out of control.
Say what you like, but there is no system of health care more abundant, easily accessed, or innovative than the one we threw away in favor of Obamacare.
The only saving grace would be a law requiring proponents of Obamacare to be the only ones subject to it… free market Paul Ryan style care for the rest of us… and no changing your mind once you pick.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 1745 hrs
and they seem to get what they need.
You’re ignorant. And we’re not even talking about the millions of people who have insurance, pay far too much for it, and who are still left bankrupted by a serious illness.
It’s an indisputable fact that the people of these other countries are satisfied with their systems.
Peoples opinions are now facts?
My statement is accurate and factual as written.
the people in those foreign systems have never had any other system to compare it to. It would be like asking an American what they like better, the American system of taxation or the Chinese one. Most folks would say American because they have no clue how taxes are collected in China.
An interesting idea—but wouldn’t the same thing apply in reverse? Asking an American how they like the Canadian or British health care systems would suffer from the same problem, would it not?
Medicare forces providers to accept less than the actual cost of treatment in many cases. Often doctors will not even accept medicare patients based on that.
And so… when the British or Canadian government forces providers to accept a fee half of what ours is… what? They turn around and charge more to… whom? Or perhaps you’d like to suggest that they just close up shop and stop providing medical care and products? That doesn’t seem to have happened.
I agree that we can’t simply just cut everyone’s fees in half next week and expect that everything will be fine. There’s a whole host of issues one might want to address in conjunction with it such as how medical school is paid for and so on. But we can, we must and we will be asking providers to accept less money. There isn’t any other alternative. Even you seem to acknowledge this, even though you have a totally different idea about how those prices are going to go down.
there is no system of health care more abundant, easily accessed, or innovative than the one we threw away
Say what I like? I’d like to say you’re nuts. US health care has some important things going for it, but you’re describing a system that would be the envy of the world. Ours is more of a laughingstock.
Posted by scott on July 20, 2010 at 1820 hrs
Even you seem to acknowledge this, even though you have a totally different idea about how those prices are going to go down.
Unless we deal with the reason that the prices are so high, they’ll never go down… and progressives will never admit that it is the government interference that is the cause of many of the problems. Liberals don’t want to fix our system, they want to replace it with one that is run by government.
You can howl all you want about all the people who have no health care, but that number is tiny. You can wail about the folks who spent a million dollars on care ... but those people are alive. Under a European or Canadian system, they would have been cut off at some point and denied further treatment due to cost… an it all be by the book and very proper. I’d rather be bankrupt than dead.
Ours is more of a laughingstock.
Yet oddly this is the first place people come when the bureaucrats in their own countries refuse them care… or when the wait in Canada is longer than the time they have left to live. Sorry Scott, the stuff Barack told you isn’t all true.
Or perhaps you’d like to suggest that they just close up shop and stop providing medical care and products? That doesn’t seem to have happened.
Actually, it has. This is the very reason that there are so few doctors and nurses in Canada and the UK. The UK actually imports them from India and Pakistan now. It’s the reason that there are ten times more CAT scanners per capita in the US than in Canada. It’s the reason German patients are forced into wards rather than offered a private room. Eventually, you get down to the lowest common denominator. You pay so little that there is a shortage and what you do have is of lower quality. That, in a nutshell, is Obamacare. Lowest common denominator… and that is what you are begging for.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 2023 hrs
progressives will never admit that it
is the government interference that is the cause of many of the problems.Well, you’re right—I won’t “admit” that. It’s right in front of our fucking faces, man. Everyone else pays less than we do and they ALL have a greater role for government and government regulation of their health care systems. What on earth am I supposed to “admit”?
they want to replace it with one that is run by government.
I certainly do. But elected Democrats, not so much. Which is why it galls me so much to hear them decried as crazy radical liberals. The liberal position never even got a seat at the table in all this.
I’d rather be bankrupt than dead.
Again I’m just moved to say I don’t think you know jack about what you are talking about. At. All.
This is the very reason that there are so few doctors and nurses in Canada and the UK.
I don’t think you have the remotest clue as to what the facts are. Do you believe that the US has more doctors per capita than all these other countries? If so, you’re sadly mistaken. If not, then explain it.
Posted by scott on July 20, 2010 at 2051 hrs
This is the very reason that there are so few doctors and nurses in Canada and the UK.
I don?t think you have the remotest clue as to what the facts are. Do you believe that the US has more doctors per capita than all these other countries? If so, you?re sadly mistaken. If not, then explain it.Canadian doctor shortage:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/08/28/doctor-shortage.htmlhttp://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=02bfd235-e330-4e81-8187-3f86999d8098
5 million Canadians have no doctor (17% of population). Half of new doctors leave the country
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=02bfd235-e330-4e81-8187-3f86999d8098Canadian wait times at record high
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.htmlUK imports doctors from India to ease shortage:
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/79840/uk-welcomes-51-indian-doctors.htmlHealth care costs rising faster in the UK than in the US
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/healthiness_3584_image001.gifPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 2154 hrs
Let’s just build ovens to stuff all the old people in. That’d save some cash. General welfare and all. Do your service citizen and kill yourself.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 20, 2010 at 2158 hrs
ZOMG links! Those damn foreign conservative biased newspapers. You can’t trust them. They’re just making up stories to make Obama look bad. Move along nothing to see here.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 20, 2010 at 2208 hrs
Zoinks! Links! But I have links of my own. According to SOBs theories, the US should have more doctors per capita than any of those socialist countries comprising the entire rest of the civilized world. But…
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_phy_per_1000_peo-physicians-per-1-000-people
But I’m sure he has some explanation why France, Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Finland, Ireland, Denmark, Spain, Portugal and italy (among others) have more physicians per capital the the good ol’ US of A.
Posted by scott on July 20, 2010 at 2217 hrs
According to SOBs theories
Ah, back to the name calling. We must be getting close to the truth now. Is this where I am supposed to howl that you hate me personally? Perhaps not.
But I have links of my own
A site that mines data from the CIA Fact Book and compares how many doctors one nation had in 1990 to another in 2005… I like it better when you cited peoples opinions as facts, or when you implied bankruptcy was worse than death… yeah… definitely getting close to truth now, the signs are there.
Fact still is that in Canada, one in five people have no doctor. Fact still is that the UK is forced to import doctors. Fact still is that Canadians wait weeks or months for tests, treatments and surgeries.
The real meat of the matter is that you and your sort want to control the decisions of other Americans… by force if needed. It’s not a popular position, but your minority has decided to make it anyway. People will give up their health care in favor of a DC based bureaucrat plan that has already added 20% to it’s proposed cost before treating a single patient. The whole concept was based on lies.
There is no explanation for the fact that the progressicrats ignored all manner of sound free market alternatives and went full bore on a plan to emaciate private insurers in favor of a government plan…. except that people like you, Scott, relish telling others what to do, what to buy, and how to live.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1001 hrs
Fact still is that in Canada, one in five people have no doctor. Fact still is that the UK is forced to import doctors. Fact still is that Canadians wait weeks or months for tests, treatments and surgeries.
Fact is, you don’t know how many people in the US “have no doctor.” (I do happen to be aware that there’s a shortage of nurses and dentists here. Theories on that?) Fact is, you don’t know how many doctors we are “forced to import.” Fact is, you have no comparison data for wait times in the USA (and if you come by any, I’d like to know how it treats people who just don’t go to the doctor because they have no insurance or otherwise can’t afford the visit).
Is this where I am supposed to howl that you hate me personally?
Sure, if you feel like it. I don’t like you. I don’t know why you should be surprised by that in light of the incredibly insulting things you’ve written to/about me here and elsewhere over a long period of time. But my personal feelings about you are not really relevant to the issue at hand, you’re right.
Posted by scott on July 21, 2010 at 1015 hrs
Fact is, you have no comparison data for wait times in the USA
Well done ignoring the points made about Canada and changing the subject. I read quite a bit about wait times in the US. There are some serious issues of long waits, service denials, and rationing of limited care in the US. If you are on Medicare, or receive your care from the VA, you have probably seen these problems first hand. Of course, those systems are the models for the one that you hope to force your neighbors onto.
I’d like to know how it treats people who just don’t go to the doctor because they have no insurance or otherwise can’t afford the visit)
You would? You mean you didn’t check into that before you formed your opinion? What a shock.
Who can’t see a doctor? Which people can’t go because there is no plan or care available to them? Really… who are “they”? Not wanting to spend your money to buy insurance, or not applying for the free plans that you are offered isn’t the same as not having access. Being here illegally is not the same as not having access. Who can’t see a doctor?
I don’t like you.
Yet, oddly, that is the accusation you hurl at me between schoolyard name calling and curses. What do they call that… transference…. yeah, that’s it. Not a surprise, I guess. People who use emotion as a base for opinion often react with anger when those beliefs are questioned. At least we have that little fact cleared up for the future.
Those damn foreign conservative biased newspapers. You can’t trust them. They’re just making up stories to make Obama look bad. Move along nothing to see here.
Jay, I’ve disagreed with you on some things in the past, but sometimes you do hit the nail on the head.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1051 hrs
ignoring the points made about Canada
The example is just not very interesting or compelling. Whatever doctor shortage they have, it’s not a direct result of their tax-funded system otherwise you’d see other countries all with the same problem—and you don’t see that. A point which I did address above and which you immediately dismissed.
Not wanting to spend your money to buy insurance, or not applying for the free plans that you are offered
So basically it’s your contention that if you don’t see a doctor it’s simply your own fault; that you either “don’t want to” spend your money on sensible things like doctor visits or that you’re too lazy to apply for free insurance. It’s like we have had no access problems at all. We just don’t have that problem. Obama invented it out of thin air or something.
At least we have that little fact cleared up for the future.
Don’t make me copy and paste some of your choice comments from the past, mr. nice guy.
Posted by scott on July 21, 2010 at 1104 hrs
The example is just not very interesting or compelling. Whatever doctor shortage they have, it’s not a direct result of their tax-funded system otherwise you’d see other countries all with the same problem—and you don’t see that.
You don’t like the problem, so you dismiss it with a wave of your magic wand by declaring that all countries health care systems are the same and therefor must have the same problems. Well thought out and researched. Pretty much the same level of thought that the Obama-Congress gave to the matter too. Facts we don’t like don’t matter. Got it.
We just don’t have that problem. Obama invented it out of thin air or something.
Redirection again? I asked you to tell me which groups are being denied access to doctors and you give me a rant about what I am really saying… all the while avoiding any type of direct answer to the question posed. You are batting a thousand, Scott.
If you haven’t a clue who Obamacare is supposed to help, then just say so. There are plenty of other liberals who don’t know either…. some are in Congress.
At least we have that little fact cleared up for the future.
Don’t make me copy and paste some of your choice comments from the past, mr. nice guy.
I stand by what I have said about your commentary, and my responses to your more inflammatory remarks. I don’t curse an unending blue streak at you, participate in schoolyard name calling, have a go at your family, publicize private information about you, or your family, or falsely publicly accuse you of being violent or threatening violence (all things you’ve done to me)... I just respond to your public commentary with my feelings and opinions on the matter.
Your out of context quotes of the past, or inaccurate beliefs about what you feel I really meant are not my concern. I’m not going to go and cut/paste your tender comments from the Feldstein Files either. After the exodus of the few conservative commentators you had, I decided to join them. Not a pleasant place for honest discussion… Hurl away your snippets now, if you wish. Your vendettas (I’m certainly not the only one), transference and personal hatreds grow old. You really should learn to divest your personal opinion from your political one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1218 hrs
You don’t like the problem, so you dismiss it with a wave of your magic wand by declaring that all countries health care systems are the same and therefor must have the same problems.
It makes perfect sense, actually. YOU contend that when the government puts price caps on physicians fees it results in doctor shortages. As evidence for this, you point to one or two examples. My response to you is, I’d like to know why a dozen other countries who do the same thing don’t have this problem. And I’m suggesting that if it was an inherent problem in that kind of health care system, you’d see it all over the place—and you don’t. That’s not bullshit reasoning, man. That’s a response that merits an answer from you. So what’s your answer?
Posted by scott on July 21, 2010 at 1240 hrs
YOU contend that when the government puts price caps on physicians fees it results in doctor shortages. As evidence for this, you point to one or two examples. My response to you is, I’d like to know why a dozen other countries who do the same thing don’t have this problem.
First, you fail to address the actual problems I’ve offered, and now you say that a dozen other nebulously un-named countries do the same without issue.
Which other countries pay less for health care than the actual costs of the care… and can you show that they do NOT have a shortage of providers, shortage of equipment, rationing, or long waiting times?
Why can’t Canada and the UK provide enough doctors, hospitals, and equipment? Why do Canadian come to the US for full cost treatment if it is available to them for free?
Which specific groups of people in the US are denied access to health care and how many of them are there?
Either answer some questions, or admit that you have nothing to offer in response, have not researched the issues, and are ignoring problems that don’t fit the meme you have constructed for yourself.
If you want to argue that Obama care will be better, then prove it. If you just like the idea of controlling your neighbors choices, then there is no need to discuss specifics or outcomes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1303 hrs
I AM addressing one of your “problems”—the problem of physician shortages you say are brought about by government price controls. And there’s nothing “nebulous” about “France, Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Finland, Ireland, Denmark, Spain, Portugal and Italy,” either. I even provided a link to a whole bunch more. Very specific, if you ask me, and not “nebulous” at all.
can you show that they do NOT have a shortage of providers
I think I just did.
shortage of equipment, rationing, or long waiting times
Yes, I could probably do that, too, with a reasonable person—but not with you. Nothing I’ve ever written or linked to in the past (and you and I have gone around and around on these issues a lot of times) has ever budged you from your position. So, no. I can’t do that to your satisfaction and you know it.
Posted by scott on July 21, 2010 at 1311 hrs
Jay, I’ve disagreed with you on some things in the past, but sometimes you do hit the nail on the head.
We can disagree on whatever. Hell life would be pretty boring if everyone agreed on everything all the time. Don’t take anything I might type personally. It’s a blog for crying out loud and most of the time it’s fun to stir stuff up and see what happens.
You and Scott will never agree on this nor will you convince the other your side is right. It’s good entertainment though.
So with that in mind…channel your anger at me! I’m sure it’ll be easy for both of you to do.
I’ll help out.
Government is an evil terrorist organization that only knows how to force people to do what it wants. It doesn’t care about your medical care, your retirement or anything else. You are just an ATM and must pay what they demand unless you want men with guns to come and lock you up.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 21, 2010 at 1323 hrs
I bet the guy who just shot at two cops in Oakland agrees with every word in that last paragraph.
Posted by scott on July 21, 2010 at 1334 hrs
Since January of 2009, I would tend to agree with you, Jay. The folks we have now are all about controlling your choices… and so are you, Scott.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1344 hrs
I bet the guy who just shot at two cops in Oakland agrees with every word in that last paragraph.
I haven’t heard that story. What was his motivation? Chips in his pills? Full body scanners at the airport? JCPenny is going out of business?
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 21, 2010 at 1358 hrs
The folks we have now are all about controlling your choices… and so are you, Scott.
Scott and Kamala really don’t know what they are all about…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1401 hrs
The folks we have now are all about controlling your choices… and so are you, Scott.
That’s all government, different politicians just want to control different things. It’ll be no different in a few years if the red team beats the blue team in the presidential popularity contest, the targets will just change. Of course the roles of attacker and defender will also be reversed. And hopefully I’ll be secure in my mountaintop crackpot command center.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 21, 2010 at 1405 hrs
What was his motivation?
The liberal policies being “jammed down our throats” by the government. Apparently he had in mind to “start a revolution” by killing people at the ACLU office in San Francisco.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/20/MNMN1EHB37.DTL
Posted by scott on July 21, 2010 at 1405 hrs
The liberal policies being “jammed down our throats” by the government. Apparently he had in mind to “start a revolution” by killing people at the ACLU office in San Francisco.
LOL…sorry I shouldn’t laugh. What a nutball. Personally I abhor any violence and leave that to the government people.
Trying to start a revolution….that’s a good one. The days of armed rebellion are long over, especially in a country as fat and happy as ours.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 21, 2010 at 1412 hrs
Oh, I don’t know. Your Republican senate candidate thinks “second amendment remedies” are called for if people lose elections and subsequently don’t like the policies being made in Washington.
Which leads me to wonder: Do people who say stupid, irresponsible shit like that ever feel even a twinge of guilt when some nutter goes out and shoots people just as described?
Posted by scott on July 21, 2010 at 1416 hrs
Which leads me to wonder: Do people who say stupid, irresponsible shit like that ever feel even a twinge of guilt when some nutter goes out and shoots people just as described?
Does BHO feel any guilt for spending a trillion dollars and having nothing to show for it? Probably not…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1421 hrs
So I guess your answer is no, they don’t feel guilty.
Next up, Glen Beck being outraged that “liberals” are blaming inflammatory assholes like him for this most recent example of right-wing terrorism.
Posted by scott on July 21, 2010 at 1426 hrs
... because BHO isn’t inflammatory…. of course…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1431 hrs
Most people criticism him for being “too cool,” actually.
Posted by scott on July 21, 2010 at 1433 hrs
that makes no sense…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1436 hrs
Uh, well I assure you I didn’t just make it up.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=obama+too+cool&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Posted by scott on July 21, 2010 at 1441 hrs
I’m sure his 38% approval rating stems from being ‘too cool’ and not for imploding the already bad economy…
...
I guess it’s all in the eye of the beholder.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1448 hrs
Your Republican senate candidate
Hold on scott, he’s not MY republican candidate. I don’t vote for republicans and the last 2 elections I haven’t voted at all. I don’t approve of any of the clowns running for office and I won’t consent to their governing by voting for any of them. I could vote 3rd party but then I get yelled at that I’m “just wasting my vote” so I choose not to cast it at all.
I know. That’s terrible, I have no voice, “they” are just going to do whatever “they” want if I don’t speak up.
“They” are going to do whatever “they” want whether I vote for them or not so I don’t waste my time. I don’t have the hours and hours it apparently takes to get politicians to listen to me, so I just pay their protection money and try to live in peace by doing all I can to avoid government people.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 21, 2010 at 1531 hrs
Strange as it may seem to you, I’m kind of in the same boat. I’m a liberal. We haven’t had a liberal president in my lifetime. And there’s generally not enough of them in the house or senate to do any of the things I want them to do. (No, really. If you think there are, you have a mistaken idea about what liberals actually think and want.)
I guess I could just vote for the Kuciniches and Naders, but that is indeed a wasted vote in most ways. I could just not vote at all. But instead I vote for the lesser of two evils, the more left-leaning candidates and party.
Posted by scott on July 21, 2010 at 1547 hrs
You are clearly living in the wrong country under the wrong system of government to suit your desires, Scott. My condolences to your unfulfilled ideological desires.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1819 hrs
One could make that case. But if I am so are most of y’all.
Posted by scott on July 21, 2010 at 1821 hrs
It’s not strange. I’m the polar opposite of you, call it libertarian if you must. However, I don’t consider republicans the lesser evil so I don’t vote for them.
Know what? We’re so far off the original topic, I think we need a discussion forum. Seriously, the Boots and Sabers discussion forum. That’d be leet. I’ll set it all up on free hosting if Owen doesn’t want to do it.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 21, 2010 at 1914 hrs
I’m pretty sure the opposite of “libertarian” is not “liberal.”
How about a discussion forum having nothing to do with boots n kittens? I volunteer to help. Administering web applications is something I’m passingly familiar with.
Posted by scott on July 21, 2010 at 2008 hrs
I guess it depends on your definition of the two terms. I know most people would see libertarian and liberal and believe they are opposites of each other.
There are many things libertarians have in common with both liberals and conservatives. Hard to pigeon hole libertarians.
I’d love to see a discussion forum. There are a lot of topics on here that just get lost in the updates…which they should on a good regularly updated blog. I was thinking something along the lines of a free forum host like proboards.com or freeboards.net There are others as well.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 21, 2010 at 2014 hrs
Re: 53. In all seriousness Scott, and with all due respect, why aren’t you living in the USSR or Cuba rather than suffering here in the States? You clearly don’t approve of the foundation this country was built upon. And Obama, while making a valiant effort, is going to be turned back by whatever forces are necessary: be they time, militias, the tea party or some other group uniting the country against his regime. I hope it happens in my lifetime.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 2018 hrs
There was a B&S discussion forum but few used it. Jed made it disappear.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 2036 hrs
most people would see libertarian and liberal and believe they are opposites of each other.
Here’s how I think about it.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection
In all seriousness Scott, and with all due respect, why aren’t you living in the USSR or Cuba rather than suffering here in the States?
In all seriousness bajaskier, and with all due respect, you’re a fucking moron.
You really believe that American liberals such as myself are pining for, and would be happier in, a communist country? I’d like to give you a chance to back out of this asshattery, but you’ve pretty clearly already exposed yourself so what’s the point. You’re a dumbass who knows absofuckinglutely nothing about politics. You think that I—who happens to believe in things like a modicum of regulation of business and industry, who favors a modest increase in our social safety net, and who thinks taxation could be a couple of points more progressive—is exactly the same as Mao Zedong? You honestly cannot distinguish between what passes for a liberal in the United States of America and member of the communist party in the old USSR?
Dude, whatever political crack you’re smoking put it down and back away slowly.
I’m not even going to get into your hoped-for “militia” action against the Obama administration other than to reiterate that you’re an idiot and add that you should probably not be allowed to own a gun, operate heavy machinery, touch sharp objects or be left unsupervised with small children.
And before any of you other yahoos decide to comment about the harsh language and personal insults—for fuck’s sake, the man in all seriousness just called me a communist, literally can’t understand why I’m not moving to Cuba.
Either you’re with me in condemning this as total bullshit or you’re a moron as well.
Posted by scott on July 21, 2010 at 2050 hrs
Either you’re with me in condemning this as total bullshit or you’re a moron as well.
Same old Bi-Polar scott. Wow, it’s so old.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 2106 hrs
And before any of you other yahoos decide to comment about the harsh language and personal insults
I already did comment on it. Thanks for the validation. The cursing always comes when things hit a bit too close to the mark.
with all due respect, why aren’t you living in the USSR or Cuba
Hm, I was thinking along the lines of France or the Netherlands… maybe Venezuela… even Hong Kong. Certainly America is far too barbaric and medieval for a modern progressive… and there is that awful Constitution to deal with… that government handicapping bill of negative rights.
Cuba would never put up with a liberals crap even though it is the ultimate end of liberal policy. Government runs it all, and makes all the decisions. The rich are reviled (unless they are in the party), the poor are carried along, and everyone lives at the lowest common denominator. Most liberals never think out the ultimate end of their policy choices, and most would never be able to live with the results of the rules they desire.
who happens to believe in things like a modicum of regulation of business and industry,
Not true… you argue in favor of total control over the health care industry and the health choices of all Americans… that’s not a modicum. Business and industry are already grossly over regulated… the auto industry is actually under the total control of government, again, not a modicum.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 2120 hrs
Ah Scott! Can’t argue with intelligence, so you resort to name-calling. Yes, Scott you are a liberal. Forget the “all due respect”. You just disowned it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 2120 hrs
Re: 62 Eloquently written. Scott already knows what you retorted; no point in outlining it again, and again, and again, and again ... and again. One gets so sick of his “bi-polarism” that one just gives up and suggests, as I did, just leave already. You, Son of Liberty, simply express/write better than I….that’s is why he retorts to name calling in my case. That’s fine, I can take it considering the source. Rave on, Scott.
Oh, and by the way, is this the same Scott who wasn’t going to post any more ‘cuz we were all “morons”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 2133 hrs
So I see three raised hands in the idiot poll. Congrats, gentlemen.
Posted by scott on July 21, 2010 at 2137 hrs
There ya go!!! More name calling! He did not address one, not ONE of the issues in 62. Point made.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 2146 hrs
There was only one “issue” to “address” in that comment on on any of the last few from you knuckleheads. And I did it pretty thoroughly in comment #60. If you truly and honestly don’t see a difference between an American liberal and a communist then you’re a fucking idiot. Point addressed.
Posted by scott on July 21, 2010 at 2150 hrs
How ‘bout and answer?
“Not true… you argue in favor of total control over the health care industry and the health choices of all Americans… that’s not a modicum. Business and industry are already grossly over regulated… the auto industry is actually under the total control of government, again, not a modicum.”
Too busy thinking up more moronic cursing?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 2154 hrs
Score: Bajaskier - 1 Scott -0
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 2156 hrs
Naw, credit Son of Liberty for the questions. I’m just quoting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 2158 hrs
Ok. I personally am in favor of single-payer health care. Which puts me about on par with our staunchest ally and probably one of the most conservative nations in all of the free world (excepting ourselves), the United Kingdom.
Makes me a communist, no?
I should also point out that this radical position of mine wasn’t even on the table or part of the debate with regard to the recent health care reform law. Totally shut out.
Posted by scott on July 21, 2010 at 2207 hrs
The entire start of the thread is that single payer health does not work. Romneycare has proven that. So what does Obama want do do? Certainly not admit Massachusetts was an experiment that failed and say he was wrong. Nope, he just can’t do it. Rather, ram it through and hope as Pelosi said “we’ll know what’s in it after we pass it”. Does that really sound intelligent to you? I’m mean really?
BTW, one of my best friends lives in Wirral, a suburb of Liverpool. He has to pay a private physician (borderline illegal under UK law) in order to have access to a doctor without being put on a multi-month waiting list. This is “affordable” government run care? His income tax rate is nearly 50% (more some months) and that’s a double whammy as his salary is in American currency. He bought a home in Spain to avoid the UK’s stifling taxes, but the schools could not accommodate his special needs child. So don’t tell me how great UK health care is. He is seriously considering moving to the US to get adequate care.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 2236 hrs
And again, Obama’s total control is not a “modicom”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 2239 hrs
We can pick this up in the morning if you like. Good night.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 2241 hrs
Here?s how I think about it.
I would agree with that. Very similar to http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 21, 2010 at 2302 hrs
Makes me a communist, no?
That and many, many, many, many other ideological views you hold…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 0803 hrs
The entire start of the thread is that single payer health does not work
No, in fact it was not. Neither Romney’s nor Obama’s health care proposals ever involved single payer.
one of my best friends lives in Wirral, a suburb of Liverpool.
You guys always seem to have a friend or an uncle somewhere to agree with whatever it is you’re peddling. I was married to a Brit, had limey in-laws coming out my ears—including one who worked as an EMT. It’s funny how not a single one of them agrees with you. But more importantly, anecdotes prove nothing. Show me the data or forget it.
Obama’s total control
“Total control” of what, pray tell? You mean like when he nationalized the banking industry, the auto industry the health insurance industry? Oh, wait, none of those things actually happened…
Posted by scott on July 22, 2010 at 0810 hrs
That and many, many, many, many other ideological views you hold
Such as?
Posted by scott on July 22, 2010 at 0825 hrs
I’m sorry you don’t believe true anecdotes. Your hang-up, not mine.
“You mean like when he nationalized the banking industry, the auto industry the health insurance industry? Oh, wait, none of those things actually happened…”
Praytell, what is your definition of nationalized?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 0827 hrs
“Total control” of what, pray tell? You mean like when he nationalized the banking industry, the auto industry the health insurance industry? Oh, wait, none of those things actually happened…
Scott must’ve interacted with Kamala this morning. Wake and bake, baby !!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 0919 hrs
I generally don’t believe in just making up whatever definition I feel like. I have this thing called a dictionary. It says nationalize means “transfer (a major branch of industry or commerce) from private to state ownership or control.” So which private industry is now publicly owned or controlled thanks to Obama?
Posted by scott on July 22, 2010 at 0936 hrs
Here’s one of them damn anecdotes about nationalized health care:
NHS tells cancer boy, 5, he is ‘too fat’... after putting on TWO POUNDS during chemotherapy
A gruelling course of chemotherapy caused his weight to plummet to just two stone. So when five-year-old cancer patient Lewis Mighty put on a few pounds, his mother was overjoyed. Until, that is, she received a letter from the NHS bluntly telling her that Lewis was overweight.
The letter suggested Lewis should take up swimming, even though an intravenous drip in his chest to deliver life-saving drugs prevents him from being in water
This is not an anecdote:
Correlation, anyone?
Yippee, we’re all going to die!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 0951 hrs
Perhaps you could explain why it’s sinister and communisticy that BMI be included in one’s health record.
Posted by scott on July 22, 2010 at 0956 hrs
So which private industry is now publicly owned or controlled thanks to Obama?
It’s a nice strawman, the use of the word industry....
Scott is doing his Bobby Ewing impression. He woke up today w/o health care reform passing, without GM & Chrysler owned by BHO, without the continued subsidies to Fannie and Freddie….
How about the question, ‘what private industries are under more gov’t control since BHO has taken office?’
Perhaps you could explain why it’s sinister and communisticy that BMI be included in one’s health record.
Better yet, why don’t you tell me how this will stimulate the economy, since it passed as part of the wasted trillion?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1020 hrs
Perhaps you could explain why it’s sinister and communisticy that BMI be included in one’s health record.
I don’t know - when the Patriot Act was passed there sure was a lot of concern that wiretapping terrorists was a sinister act against citizens by Bush.
[url=”
What’s]http://scottfeldstein.net/blog/?p=1092”]What’s Going On Here? And is there any way to characterize this other than “lie”?[/url]Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1033 hrs
Perhaps you could explain why it is the business of the federal government to view my health records or to REQUIRE that I provide them with that information?
How is it the business of government to monitor or make judgments regarding the “appropriate” weight of it’s citizens?
Certainly our staunch “conservative (really? you actually think that way? lol) ally does so and uses that information to deny access to care. England is one of the most controlled of the western nations… perhaps they might be a good choice to add to your shopping list, Scott.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1034 hrs
It’s a nice strawman, the use of the word industry
You can thank my dictionary, not me. But if you prefer, I think it would be acceptable to use the word “company.” So, which private company is now owned or controlled by public interests now? None.
GM & Chrysler owned by BHO
Translation: we gave them a big bunch of money so they could stay in business. Fuck, I wish someone would step up to “own” me in that same exact way.
How about the question, ‘what private industries are under more gov’t control since BHO has taken office?’
Yes, how about that question? It’s a perfectly reasonable and fair one to ask. Which is why I wish you would ask it instead of throwing around phrases like “total control.” Did you spot the difference? I guess that you cannot. If you could, you could probably also spot the difference between an American Democrat and Vladimir Lenin, which we have already established that you are unable to do.
why don’t you tell me how this will stimulate the economy
Because a lot of business and IT people will earn paychecks making electronic medical records a reality.
Posted by scott on July 22, 2010 at 1108 hrs
why don’t you tell me how this will stimulate the economy
Because a lot of business and IT people will earn paychecks making electronic medical records a reality.
What scott says is true. My wife works with electronic record keeping and reporting and has the skills in that field that are VERY much in demand. She will make mad bank if/when this all hits.
Of course we’ll still be cheapskates and won’t spend any of the mad bank above what we actually need so it won’t really stimulate anything, but that’s another discussion.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 22, 2010 at 1218 hrs
How about the question, ‘what private industries are under more gov’t control since BHO has taken office?’
<a href= “http://dailyitem.com/homepage/x691321250/Obama-Government-control-over-GM-to-be-short-term”>Obama: Government control over GM to be short-term</a>
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1239 hrs
Here’s that link again.
Obama: Government control over GM to be short-term
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1242 hrs
why don’t you tell me how this will stimulate the economy
Because a lot of business and IT people will earn paychecks making electronic medical records a reality.I’m sure that under the Feldstein/Krugman economy of magical money, that would be true. Unfortunately, under the reality based economy, artificially increasing costs for businesses, compelling them to hire workers for non-productive mandated jobs, and taxing in order to hire new government employees does not create any wealth. It simply takes money from one pocket and puts it in another.
What will all these new IT people actually produce? Not a thing. Companies will be forced to hire them, costs will go up, prices will go up, and the net effect will be a dampening of economic activity in the free market.
I admire the fact that you are sticking up for your own kind though. I imagine that all the cuts in university IT staff must have you worried. A pile of new mandate jobs would be great for that industry…. but unfortunately bad for the nation and the economy as a whole.
So, how again is it in the purview of the federal government to compile such records and compel us to, by threat of force, to comply? I missed that part.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1245 hrs
Which is why I wish you would ask it instead of throwing around phrases like “total control.”
Scott,
Where did I use the term ‘total control’? Kamala must’ve said it…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1246 hrs
I’m sure that under the Feldstein/Krugman economy of magical money, that would be true. Unfortunately, under the reality based economy, artificially increasing costs for businesses, compelling them to hire workers for non-productive mandated jobs, and taxing in order to hire new government employees does not create any wealth. It simply takes money from one pocket and puts it in another.
What will all these new IT people actually produce? Not a thing. Companies will be forced to hire them, costs will go up, prices will go up, and the net effect will be a dampening of economic activity in the free market.
SOL, you are speaking way way above Scott and Kamala’s one-dimensional heads, (no pun intended)...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1250 hrs
And a year later (government contol of GM), we have this:
Race Played Role in Obama Car Dealer Closures
Decisions on which car dealerships to close as part of the auto industry bailout—closures the Obama administration forced on General Motors and Chrysler—were based in part on race and gender, according to a report by Troubled Asset Relief Program Special Inspector General Neal M. Barofsky.
[D]ealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships.
Thus, to meet numbers forced on them by the Obama administration, General Motors and Chrysler were forced to shutter other, potentially more viable, dealerships. The livelihood of potentially tens of thousands of families was thus eliminated simply because their dealerships were not minority- or woman-owned.
As has been widely reported, the Inspector General’s study skewered the Obama Gang for strong-arming the companies into closing 2,000 dealerships, costing an estimated 100,000 people their jobs during a recession.
Barofsky says the administration insisted on the closings even though a GM official told him that GM would usually save ‘not one damn cent’ by closing any particular dealership. ... Furthermore, a GM official stated that removing a dealership from the network does not save money for GM—it might even cost GM money—and that savings cannot be attributed or assigned to any one dealership.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1250 hrs
Oh, and by the way, the federal government runs GM under the stewardship of Barack Obama. It’s true, we all know that. Quit being a pin head, Scott.
<note> no cursing
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1252 hrs
-
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1258 hrs
Where did I use the term ‘total control’? Kamala must’ve said it…
There’s no one named kamala in this discussion that I can find. It was bajaskier and SoL who used the phrase repeatedly. And other comments have been made about how “BHO” “owns” and/or “runs” GM, etc.
None of which should surprise me, as I already know I’m discussing it with people who cannot distinguish between, say, Harry Reid and Karl Marx. Such people can’t really be taken seriously.
Posted by scott on July 22, 2010 at 1418 hrs
Where did I use the term ‘total control’? Kamala must’ve said it…
There’s no one named kamala in this discussion that I can find. It was bajaskier and SoL who used the phrase repeatedly. And other comments have been made about how “BHO” “owns” and/or “runs” GM, etc.If he is acting as the chairman of the board, appointing corporate officers, deciding on compensation, and directly influencing corporate policy, I’d call that control. Perhaps there is a different definition where you are from, Scott.
If it walks like a duck…
I note that you still have no explanation or rationale for the federal access to personal health information. Typical.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1427 hrs
And I “note” that you still can’t tell a Democrat from a communist. Typical.
Posted by scott on July 22, 2010 at 1430 hrs
So Scott has no explanation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1458 hrs
Rest assured I haven’t been rendered speechless by your compelling arguments. I’m just tired of tilting at windmills today. We communists get that way, I guess.
Posted by scott on July 22, 2010 at 1502 hrs
And I “note” that you still can’t tell a Democrat from a communist. Typical.
Oh, I can tell a Democrat… but I sure can’t tell him much.
I don’t recall referring to Obumbler as a Communist though… well, reading things into other peoples comments and making up data to fit your beliefs is certainly nothing new for you.
Now if you said that I referred to Barack as an unqualified, narcissistic, socialist, anti-American apologist with no sense of economic reality and a foreign policy as effective as Neville Chamberlain… now that I’d have to admit to.
I like the tilting at windmills dodge too. There is no answer to my questions, save the honest one. Liberals feel that they make better decisions than the stinking masses, and so they should have access to all the data, and control of all the choices. Put that in nice flowery words that include references to diversity, racial equality, progressive taxation, and social justice and you have the backbone of liberal thought.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1511 hrs
I’m just tired of tilting at windmills today
Yeah, those windmill blades spin pretty fast here - can understand why you can’t keep up with yourself.
Maybe this blog is more your speed - generates less comments in a month (excludiing the blogger’s comments) than Boots & Sabers generates sometimes in an hour:
http://scottfeldstein.net/blog/
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1541 hrs
@ itain’tmebabe Truly funny! Well done.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1940 hrs
You can, but you need a company willing to start such an insurance company and it seems this would definitely not be a profitable business unless the premiums were so high, no one would pay them anyway.
Posted by F150 Parts on August 10, 2010 at 2320 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 99
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 02:44 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).