Althouse: "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."

July 21, 2009

"You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."

Obama answering the question: "Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?"

Is he a fool or is he lying?

I'm leaning toward lying because of the way his answer emphasizes keeping insurance — which (I think) the bill permits — and avoids talking about writing new policies — which (I think) it forbids.

209 comments:

1 – 200 of 209 Newer› Newest»

Alex said...: Either he is an utter fool for not knowing key provisions while engaging in a media blitz or he's lying. There is no other conclusion where Obama comes up smelling like roses. Sorry Jeremy.; 7/21/09, 4:26 PM
Alex said...: And Althouse inches ever closer to finally throwing Zero under the bus for good. Althouse is getting all of us Palin-bots very hot and bothered...; 7/21/09, 4:26 PM
Anonymous said...: I never thought that he would be this bad.

Now, don't get me wrong, I voted against him with gusto. I was listening to all the warnings; I understood that he came from dirty politics, that he was further left than so many were willing to believe, that the cult of personality was nearly insane over him. But, in the end, I thought, well, he's just not what I want, but whatever, we'll get through it like we always do.

It literally never occurred to me that he would play us like such fools on health care, spend so much more than we could ever imagine, support dictators over democracy, etc, etc, etc.

I was never anything close to a fan; I never had anything even approaching high hopes, and yet, I'm still remarkably disappointed.; 7/21/09, 4:28 PM
Alex said...: July 21st 2009 - the day ObamaCare died politically.; 7/21/09, 4:31 PM
Telford said...: Why can't he be both?; 7/21/09, 4:31 PM
traditionalguy said...: The Obama hope is for such a quick change that no one knows about it until after our old world of good health care has been broken like humpty dumpty. Then who are we gonna call...CapitalismBusters himself.; 7/21/09, 4:32 PM
Alex said...: If the libs are hoping this is a temporary set-back, they have another thing coming. There is no bashing on a weak McCain to bail them out of this one. ObamaCare is going to die a nasty death.; 7/21/09, 4:35 PM
Once written, twice... said...: Alex wrote
" Althouse is getting all of us Palin-bots very hot and bothered..."

Here is my prediction. Althouse spends the next three years dropping hints about how she is disenchanted with president Obama so that she can keep the adulation of all of her right wing posters (I would guess at most a dozen people) that she so weirdly craves and then announces right before the election that she will vote again for President Obama but with reservations.; 7/21/09, 4:40 PM
AllenS said...: I'm going to give Obama the benefit of doubt, he just doesn't know what he's talking about.; 7/21/09, 4:41 PM
Factory Yoyo said...: I had a spirited debate about Obama with my Director at work a month before the election. I was adamant that for all the flowery talk about post-partisanship and center-y accommodation that was being belched out from the media, this guy's record and stated positions clearly indicated he would be the most Left president in our history.

My Director calmly laughed and stated "You listen to too much talk radio. He is none of those things."

To which I responded. "How do you know?"

"You can just tell."

"How can you tell?"

"You just can if you weren't so myopic and right wing."

Well, let's just say that events have confirmed my suspicions. To my credit, I haven't had the heart to rub his nose in it.

Yet.; 7/21/09, 4:44 PM
Anonymous said...: L.E.Lee: "Althouse spends the next three years dropping hints about how she is disenchanted with president Obama so that she can keep the adulation of all of her right wing posters (I would guess at most a dozen people) that she so weirdly craves and then announces right before the election that she will vote again for President Obama but with reservations."

Funny, I don't recall any of us going away when she announced that she would vote for Obama. Why would we if she supported him now?; 7/21/09, 4:45 PM
Methadras said...: He is both. As I've said before and I'll say it again, this man is a fraud. He is an empty suit. He is perpetrating a fraud on the American People and on the body politic in this country. He has amassed a cadre of 5th columnists that want to move beyond the America we know and love to reshape it in an image of how they feel America should be for them.

He is an unmitigated fool and he hides his foolishness by lying, with a straight face, about it. You who voted for him should endure the perpetual castigation for what you foisted on America. You voted for him because he is black, not because he is smart. You voted for him because you thought he could speak well, not because his speeches had any substance, much less actual content. You voted for him because he was young and yet what you allowed is inexperience in doing anything. You voted for him because you thought his message of hope and change would actually matter or make a difference and as you can see you voted for a lie. A lie in the form of hope, which is a sentiment reserved for those times when there is a compulsion or a dire need that you, we, or whatever the dire situation is that we can come out of it in whole or in part without coming to harm. You bought his notion of hope and it was a false premise. You further hoped that his change reform would have some meaning, but as you can see his change has been to follow the prescription of someone like Karl Marx and those that ascribe to that philosophy and ideology. You who voted for him are tools and as Lenin and Stalin would say, useful idiots.

You who put a tainted and yet untested vacuous orator of nearly no note into the White House should hang your heads in utter disgrace and shame for what you have done to the fabric of this country.; 7/21/09, 4:46 PM
The Drill SGT said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/21/09, 4:47 PM
Alex said...: Jim - I hope you rub it in his myopic left-wing face.; 7/21/09, 4:47 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Either way, it demonstrates one of his biggest faults. Just like State Senator Obama, President Obama does not like to help make the sausage. He cheerleads from the side lines, lets others shape the law, then takes credit, until its time to disavow the law again.

He continues to try to vote present.

Truman, Johnson and Nixon? Expert Sausage makers; 7/21/09, 4:48 PM
Alex said...: L.E.Lee - even Althouse has her limits of left-wing bullshit I suspect. She's reaching hers rather fast.; 7/21/09, 4:49 PM
ricpic said...: They want your body. These insane freak power mad lefties want control over your body. To ensnare you in a web of taxes and regulations is not enough. They want to enslave you. Forget about the Althousian sophisticates of the world who either don't get it or get it but must stay above it, must stay amused. Do you get it? Do you get it that your body is about to be owned by the state?; 7/21/09, 4:50 PM
Big Mike said...: What Telford said. And Methadras, but not quite so vehemently.; 7/21/09, 4:52 PM
Alex said...: I have to say that Althousians are some of the most brilliant minds I've seen on the interwebs. Thank you, thank you!; 7/21/09, 4:54 PM
Alex said...: BTW, do you notice a pattern with the trolls? Instead of addressing our very real concerns about ObamaCare, they just spam insults like Jeremy or call names? Where is their basic compassion for fellow human beings who are rightly VERY concerned about this issue? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!; 7/21/09, 4:55 PM
MadisonMan said...: Why not just say you haven't read the bill yet because it hasn't been passed?

I don't think it would be surprising to say that you don't know what the Representatives are doing in their committee work.; 7/21/09, 4:56 PM
Alex said...: I want to ask Althouse, why she believes that Obama is not totally on the same page with Nancy Pelosi? Then again that is so July 20th thinking. We are 7/21ers around here.; 7/21/09, 5:01 PM
avwh said...: This fits:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/cartoons/toon072109.gif; 7/21/09, 5:07 PM
Jeremy said...: The reason Obama was confused by the question is this:

Saying Section 102 will prohibit private health care in the future is bullshit.

Section 102 protects the right of people to keep their current coverage and by only quoting the one line that says: "Limitation on New Enrollment" is disingenuous at best.

Here's the statement that creates the confusion:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1."

Saying that this means it makes "private insurance illegal" is ridiculous, especially considering what the rest of the bill actually says:

The bill not only sets up new rules relating to accessibility, coverage, and cost, but also says that "existing insurance coverage and plans will be grandfathered for 5 years after the law goes into effect."

The bill would certainly prevent new insurance customers from going into a grandfathered plan, but still allows exceptions for the dependents of people already on a grandfathered plan.

The "new policy holders" would have to be on a plan that meets the new standards of accessibility, coverage and affordability, and it would still be a private insurance plan via a private insurance company.; 7/21/09, 5:15 PM
Alex said...: Jeremy - take your stinking filthy left wing paws off my health care!; 7/21/09, 5:17 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Ok, as I read the bill:

Will people be able to keep their insurance? Maybe. That will depend on their employer and/or policy, at least in the short run.

This is the grandfathering provision, and what Investors Daily ran into (and I think misunderstood). Grandfathered policies are grandfathered. But they can't be changed, and they can't be replaced by anything except for standard policies (see below). And eventually, they will be dropped, for one reason or another. Likely, they will start costing too much, through adverse selection, aging participants, etc. And no one can be added.

Will insurers be able to write new policies? Only if they conform to the requirements of the various approved policies. I need to reread this part of the bill to see if his health care policy czar will be able to specify as many different policies and provisions as he may wish, or if he is limited to a fixed number (two?).

Nevertheless, while insurers will be able to write new policies, they won't really be able to set the provisions in their new policies - which is almost equivalent to not being able to write new policies, but legally distinct.; 7/21/09, 5:18 PM
Alex said...: Jeremy you post whatever provisions verbatim and it will make not a whit of difference to me. It's a lack of trust issue. I will not ever trust any piece of legislation that this gang of Alinsky-ites passes period. It is not my interest, and I will oppose it with ever fiber of my being. You might as well declare me the enemy.; 7/21/09, 5:21 PM
Alex said...: Jeremy and his ilk is basically saying - "trust Obama he means well, he will not take away your private health insurance". But why should we trust him? hopeychange never made it far in my book.; 7/21/09, 5:25 PM
former law student said...: It's a thousand page bill -- why would he be familiar with every line of it? Hell, the IBD guy only got as far as page 16 -- he didn't even try to read it in context with the rest of the bill.

The IBD guy is basically trolling, and Obama is too smart to take the bait. You will be able to keep the insurance you already have. Will other people be able to buy the exact same policy you have? Not without going through the new Health Insurance Exchange. Some policies might not be eligible.

Either way, it demonstrates one of his biggest faults. Just like State Senator Obama, President Obama does not like to help make the sausage. He cheerleads from the side lines, lets others shape the law, then takes credit, until its time to disavow the law again.

Letting others shape policy is one of Obama's biggest virtues. He is not a tops-down guy; he is a community organizer. Everybody must be able to put in their input. He gets credit for enabling it to happen; he neither wants nor needs to put his stamp on every line.

We are uncomfortable with this approach because it is fundamentally unAmerican. We each want to grab the credit and let someone else take the blame. We are each geniuses, with brilliant ideas springing from our brains as fully formed programs, which we will try to cram down others' throats.

Obama doesn't work that way; he would make a terrible drill seargent.; 7/21/09, 5:25 PM
Alex said...: FLS calls Obama a "community organizer" like that's a GOOD thing. Well maybe where I live it's a good thing, but not from Chicago.; 7/21/09, 5:28 PM
Jeremy said...: Alex - You're right, I do have a tendency to trust our President.

I didn't vote for Bush, but I trusted him, right up until it became apparent he lied and distorted us into invading Iraq instead of going into Afghanistan.

Alex, you and others can play this any way you want, but I have yet to hear any of the wingnuts here agree with Obama about ANYTHING...EVER.

All you do is bitch about literally everything he says or does, yet you appear to not understand the fact that you represent the portion of America that voted for the losing party.

He inherited quite a mess and has been President for about 6 months and all anyone hears from this crowd is that he's already failed.

I think you're all just bitter and acting like little babies.; 7/21/09, 5:43 PM
knox said...: I love the various attempts to dissemble here. The provision on page 16 has been talked about nonstop for the last week, at least.

If Obama is going to give a press conference, he damn well better be able to give us a good answer to that question. He is promoting this bill vigorously, and he works for us.

There's no excuse for his answer. He's the one who's out there telling us this reform is crucial. Well, what sort of reform? He doesn't know?? WTF.; 7/21/09, 5:43 PM
knox said...: DON'T RESPOND TO JEREMY YOU IDIOT; 7/21/09, 5:44 PM
Jeremy said...: Michael Steele provided a bit of fodder on Tuesday for Democrats trying to frame both him and the GOP as obstructionist forces in the national debate about health care.

The RNC Chairman stumbled during an appearance on CNN on Tuesday when he was asked to name what type of insurance he has and who exactly is his health care provider.

"What company is it?" host Kyra Phillips asked.

"Blue Cross Blue Shield I believe," Steele replied. "Or maybe not. I think it is Blue Cross Blue Shield."

Doesn't even know who his provider is.; 7/21/09, 5:45 PM
chickelit said...: You will be able to keep the insurance you already have. Will other people be able to buy the exact same policy you have? Not without going through the new Health Insurance Exchange. Some policies might not be eligible.

Without new entrants, my particular policy, which is a high deductable plan that I couple with an HSA, will go broke or increase premiums to the point where I will want to quit.

The president is not lying, but he is not telling the truth that his aim is to eliminate such private health insurance. And all because his mommy neglected to buy some when she went overseas.; 7/21/09, 5:45 PM
Balfegor said...: Re: FLS:

We are uncomfortable with this approach because it is fundamentally unAmerican. We each want to grab the credit and let someone else take the blame.

But this is exactly what Obama does -- remember his theatrical signing of the stimulus bill? Normally, a President does that kind of thing with all the Senators and Congressmen around him, smiling for the photographs, spreading the credit, etc. Obama did it alone, on a stage, for the cameras. (Well, I guess the VP was there in the background).

The President didn't do any of the work -- just took credit for what other people had done. And when it turned out there were embarassing or awkward provisions in the bill, e.g. the grandfathered bonus provisions, covering the AIG bonuses, his administration got in an undignified scuffle with Congress (especially Senator Dodd), each attempting the push the blame off on the other.; 7/21/09, 5:47 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: It's a thousand page bill -- why would he be familiar with every line of it? Hell, the IBD guy only got as far as page 16 -- he didn't even try to read it in context with the rest of the bill.

Because he is trying to sell it to the American people, and as we are seeing right here, it doesn't work all that well to be selling the bill by selling what he thinks should have been in it, when it isn't even close to what is actually there. He is too vulnerable to these gotchas, when caught selling his wish list, and not the actual goods.; 7/21/09, 5:48 PM
former law student said...: Community organizing is a good thing in Chicago, too. It's a fine American tradition: people working together to improve their communities. Read about one of the earliest successes, the group of people who lived near Chicago's Union Stockyards:

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/100.html

Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council

The Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council (BYNC) is one of the oldest community organizations in America still functioning. Founded in New City on the Near South Side in 1939 by Saul Alinsky and Joseph Meegan, the council was dedicated to their motto, “We the people will work out our own destiny.”

...
Between 1953 and 1963, the council fostered the rehabilitation of 90 percent of the community's housing stock.
...; 7/21/09, 5:49 PM
Unknown said...: Jeremy

You are correct that the clause refers to grandfathered insurers. The devil is in the details, however. Unless the insurer meets all the coverage demands of the bill, and of the commission the bill sets up, it will fall under the grandfathered clause.
One item the bill requires is a prescription plan as part of the coverage. My employer provides a prescription plan from a different insurer than my medical plan. They do this to provide better (and cheaper) coverage.
Under the law, my company would be forced to drop the medical plan for a different option, as they would not be able to enroll new hires.
So I end up with worse (and more expensive) coverage because of the law.
The prescription rider is just one thorn - add in prohibiting copay for well care and dozens of other clauses- and all of this is before the commission has a chance to add dozens of other requirements.; 7/21/09, 5:50 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Founded in New City on the Near South Side in 1939 by Saul Alinsky and Joseph Meegan..

That isn't the same Saul Alinsky whose rules for seizing and wielding power Obama seems to be following, would it?; 7/21/09, 5:51 PM
Unknown said...: Jeremy,

For the last time, Bush did not lied about Iraq. He presented intelligence that was less than accurate. You expect Bush not to trust the country's intelligence services?

Also, its not a clear case whether Iraq had WMD or not. It's quite possible Iraq hid/moved the WMDs before the invasion.; 7/21/09, 5:52 PM
Alex said...: hahah FLS citing Saul Alinsky as a good influence on Obama. I needed a good belly laugh. Well at least the Obamabots are finally coming clean to the fact that they are Communists.; 7/21/09, 5:53 PM
Alex said...: BTW, even though Jeremy-types say that "Bush lied, people died", he never actually PROVES it he just says he never could trust a GOP President. However I am supposed to trust the most left-wing President in our history? Pot MEET kettle!!!!; 7/21/09, 5:55 PM
The Drill SGT said...: The IBD problem is not an issue. What it means is that nonconforming policies can continue, but not accept new customers.

The problem will be this:

1. The Obamacare folks will mandate what a baseline conforming policy includes (aka, the public plan)

2. you can count on it including a bunch of pet rocks from various interest grops,

3. no private policy will be allowed that does not provide at least as much as the public plan

4. the pubic plan will be subsidized explicitly and implicitly

5. private policies will not be able to customize coverage for markets, they will all be private plans plus+ and therefore more expensive

6. the "no pre-existing conditions rule" will allow folks to move from cheap plan to expenive plan once sick

7. the country will chose the public plan when healthy and the private plans when sick, till there are no private plans

8. single payer.; 7/21/09, 5:55 PM
former law student said...: Communists

Sure, just as volunteer fire departments are Communist, or America's early militias were Communist. Everyone knows Communists live to fix up older houses. Habitat for Humanity? Yep, Communist.

Because he is trying to sell it to the American people

That might be why he presented the features of the plan to the American people on the American Broadcasting Company a month ago. I forget why, but the commentariat here bitched and moaned about that.]

I would start with the Health Insurance Exchange, and work down to the existing plans. Again, if the Heritage Foundation thinks Health Insurance Exchanges are good ideas, how radical can they be?

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm1230.cfm; 7/21/09, 6:02 PM
Alex said...: You see how FLS-Commie Types try to confuse the average dumb voter? They try to equate a fire-fighter with Alinsky-ite rabble rousers. I guess in the post-America reality, every fire-station will have a political Commissar to make sure everything is handled the politically correct way.

Are these people FOR REAL? Even in the 1930s Americans did not go as far as to accept Communism wholesale!; 7/21/09, 6:06 PM
Synova said...: Knox is right on target.

This issue has been discussed for about a week now. Obama has no excuse whatsoever for not having an answer to this question.

And FLS is right as well.

It's a (nearly) thousand page bill. How could he be familiar with every provision? How could anyone?

That doesn't stop him from expecting Congress to pass the thing and make it law, though. Or imply that anyone with "issues" is just mean and wants people to die.

And why should we be so rude as to want it gone over with a fine-toothed comb? It's not just a question if insurers will be able to write new policies or the insured be free to change policies if they chose.

"Republicans yesterday managed to block a remarkable provision that had been slipped into the House leadership’s 794-page health care bill (...)it sounds as if they managed to (for the moment) hold off one of the more audacious and far-reaching trial lawyer power grabs seen on Capitol Hill in a while."

Link at http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15151

Lots of of boring and rather dense stuff about Medicare and who has standing to sue... eye-glazing lawyer business.

And we're supposed to just concentrate on the fact that passing this bill proves how much we all care.; 7/21/09, 6:08 PM
Alex said...: Synova - the fact that FLS/Jeremy-types won't ever read the entire bill means they TRUST it is single-payer takeover of health care. So since we're playing a trust game, that means I don't have to trust Obama when he claims my private insurance is not threatened. The libs can't have it both ways, it's time to put up or shut up.; 7/21/09, 6:10 PM
former law student said...: Alex, what does Communist mean in your world?

A community organizer is known in the corporate world as a "facilitator." They are as touchy-feely as you get. Alinsky techniques are available to everyone. If Republicans keep getting their asses kicked, they could profitably use them.; 7/21/09, 6:10 PM
chickelit said...: I forget why, but the commentariat here bitched and moaned about that.

FLS: maybe you forgot why it was dubbed and "infomercial" and that the other networks didn't appreciate being left out.
But hey, maybe you've got something against capitalism and competition.
You should tout the fact that you had the smartest man in the world, Albert Einstein, on your side: Link.; 7/21/09, 6:11 PM
former law student said...: maybe you forgot why it was dubbed and "infomercial" and that the other networks didn't appreciate being left out.

Did you watch it, or were you afraid you were going to learn something?; 7/21/09, 6:15 PM
Alex said...: FLS - Communism officially speaking is "the means of production owned by the people". Practically speaking it means the USSR/North Korea/Maoist China. Can't you admit that's what it is along with the wholesale butchery that goes along with it? My god, how can you blithely defend such a horrid ideology?; 7/21/09, 6:16 PM
Alex said...: FLS - no thanks I'm not interested in ABC's Obama infomercial. Maybe you can go "neener neener neener" at us and tell us how we're just an irrelevant wingnut minority. Then you can leave us be.; 7/21/09, 6:17 PM
Pastafarian said...: L.E. Lee said: "Here is my prediction.."

I can pretty much stop reading there, since another of your predictions is a robust economic recovery thanks to $24 trillion of spending.

Other LE Lee predictions: Washington Nationals over the Indians in the series this year; and shit will taste like strawberries if you put it on ice cream.; 7/21/09, 6:20 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Alex said...
Synova - the fact that FLS/Jeremy-types won't ever read the entire bill

Alex,

think FLS is wrong on this, but he is not the same class as Jeremy, who is just a Troll.; 7/21/09, 6:21 PM
former law student said...: USSR/North Korea/Maoist

Excellent examples of Communism. These are all tops-down, command-and-control structures, led by dictators like Stalin, Kim, and Mao. Alinsky advocated the opposite: bottom-up grass roots activities. Find out what people want to accomplish, and help them get there. In practice, no one even remembers the organizers' names.

(One of the most successful Alinsky-trained organizers was Fred Ross. Off the top of your head, whet did he accomplish?); 7/21/09, 6:21 PM
Alex said...: FLS - so are you telling me Obama is pro capitalist? Excuse me while I wipe my monitor.; 7/21/09, 6:22 PM
Pastafarian said...: Drill SGT nailed it at 5:55. If this bill passes, eventually there will be no private insurance.

FLS, do you dispute this? Or is that a "feature and not a bug", as they say?; 7/21/09, 6:24 PM
chickelit said...: Did you watch it, or were you afraid you were going to learn something?

No, I did not watch it. I watched independent coverage. I objected to the format out of principle, as should most people.

Look, this insurance business is strong stuff. I deliberately moved my family from the sort of "co-pay for any sniffle" type coverage to a high deductable plan. We are backed by catastrophic coverage. I believe this should be the future for most people.; 7/21/09, 6:27 PM
Alex said...: The only thing that concerns me right now is the GOP is giving muddled messages. Between the Ron Paul "tin foil" types, the soc-cons and the actual pragmatic types(Cantor) we don't have a coherent message except "party of No". Blue-dog Democrats will look over the aisle and see a fractured GOP and decide to throw in with Obama to save their seats in 2010.; 7/21/09, 6:27 PM
Pastafarian said...: And bravo, FLS, for defending the fine tradition of community organizing. Without community organizers, the heartbeat-impaired voter would be completely disenfranchised.

Thanks to ACORN, we had about 100,000 dead voters here in Ohio in 2008. It brings a tear to my eye -- I'm pretty sure that's a tear of joy, or pride, and not murderous rage. Let me check: Yep, pure pride in ACORN and all their good works.; 7/21/09, 6:30 PM
Alex said...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_organizing

Notice the first photo is of ACORN protest...

Somehow I don't think these "community organizers" built America.; 7/21/09, 6:31 PM
Alex said...: Saul Alinsky, based in Chicago, is credited with originating the term community organizer during this time period. Alinsky wrote Reveille for Radicals, published in 1946, and Rules for Radicals, published in 1971. With these books, Alinsky was the first person in America to codify key strategies and aims of community organizing. He also founded the first national community organizing training network, the Industrial Areas Foundation, now led by one of his former lieutenants, Edward Chambers.[14]

The following quotations from Alinksy's 1946 "Reveille for Radicals" gives a good sense of his perspective on organizing and of his public style of engagement:

A People’s Organization is a conflict group, [and] this must be openly and fully recognized. Its sole reason in coming into being is to wage war against all evils which cause suffering and unhappiness. A People’s Organization is the banding together of large numbers of men and women to fight for those rights which insure a decent way of life. . . .

A People’s Organization is dedicated to an eternal war. It is a war against poverty, misery, delinquency, disease, injustice, hopelessness, despair, and unhappiness. They are basically the same issues for which nations have gone to war in almost every generation. . . . War is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play. . . .

A People’s Organization lives in a world of hard reality. It lives in the midst of smashing forces, dashing struggles, sweeping cross-currents, ripping passions, conflict, confusion, seeming chaos, the hot and the cold, the squalor and the drama, which people prosaically refer to as life and students describe as “society.[15]

He dedicates the book to lucifer.“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer."; 7/21/09, 6:32 PM
Alex said...: Anyone who supports Saul Alinsky is a devil-worshiper by definition!; 7/21/09, 6:32 PM
Darcy said...: LOL, chickenlittle.; 7/21/09, 6:33 PM
Penny said...: Government wish lists have always been scary because each of us, regardless of party affiliation, knows exactly who ends up with the bill... whenever it comes due.

But let's not concern ourselves with that tonight. Tonight it's all about the stimulating dinner conversation.; 7/21/09, 6:34 PM
Alex said...: But let's not concern ourselves with that tonight. Tonight it's all about the stimulating dinner conversation.

Yes a nice Chianti and a few Titus sexual puns should help liven the mood!; 7/21/09, 6:36 PM
Pastafarian said...: But back to the topic of the original post: If I know about this controversy (whether it's well-founded or not), how is it that President Obama does not? I spend perhaps an hour a day reading news; he has a team continuously briefing him on every detail.

He's no fool -- he's lying.

I wish that Obama were merely a fool. Jimmie Carter was incompetent; but not Obama. I see actual malice in Obama's policies, and ruthless efficiency in their implementation.; 7/21/09, 6:37 PM
Alex said...: Pastafarian - if Obama is as ruthless as you believe he is, he should be burning the midnight oil twisting the arms of every single blue dog Democrat with whatever threats/bribes he can. That is his #1 priority.; 7/21/09, 6:40 PM
Methadras said...: former law student said...

It's a thousand page bill -- why would he be familiar with every line of it? Hell, the IBD guy only got as far as page 16 -- he didn't even try to read it in context with the rest of the bill.

Your argument holds about as much water as a colander. Where you screeching about the Patriot Act because you made the excuse that people or the President didn't fully read it too like you are about the healthcare bill? How about when Echelon, Carnivore, or the DMCA where enacted? Cap & Trade was more than a thousand pages and it was attempted to be read on the House floor and failed and yet it get rammed into the American public where hopefully the Senate will give it an enema. Here's a ticket for your argument on the failboat.; 7/21/09, 6:42 PM
Alex said...: The idea that FLS is for transparency in government is a laugh. He only cares about the left-wing takeover. Results my friend. Keep your eye on the ball. Cap n Trade is not dead yet.; 7/21/09, 6:44 PM
Methadras said...: Jeremy said...

The reason Obama was confused...

Excuses, excuses. So full of excuses for the multitudinous errors of your Little Black Jesus. Your healthcare savior. What is the messiah to do without his teleprompter to tell him what to say when he has knee-pad using, schlong-suckers like you defending his every inaction at every turn.; 7/21/09, 6:46 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I love this: Budget chief: Docs fees not paid for in Obama bill:

WASHINGTON (AP) - A senior administration official says billions of dollars to raise fees for doctors treating Medicare patients are not covered by President Barack Obama's pledge to pay for health care legislation.

Budget Director Peter Orszag said Tuesday that's because the administration always assumed the money would be spent to prevent a cut of more than 20 percent in doctor fees.

The Congressional Budget Office said last Friday the higher payments cost $245 billion over 10 years. It said including the money in the overall bill would result in deficits totaling $239 billion.

- On Friday, a few hours earlier, the president declared: "I've said that health-insurance reform cannot add to our deficit over the next decade. And I mean it."; 7/21/09, 6:47 PM
Alex said...: So Zero tells breath-taking lies about how ObamaCare will not increase the deficit, and Althouse buys it. Amazing.; 7/21/09, 6:48 PM
traditionalguy said...: Hey guys. Obama is going to lose in as public a way as possible telling everyone all about his noble concern for everyone needing a Plan of health insurance. Then when the rest of the jobs have disappeared, every one will re-elect Dems and Obama to bring back the Hope for Health Insurance. The fact that we cannot afford the CrapPlan is no problemo since Obama only talks about its virtues and never enacts(pays for)it. That is Dem strategy 101 since Clinton days.; 7/21/09, 6:52 PM
Big Mike said...: Alinsky techniques are available to everyone. If Republicans keep getting their asses kicked, they could profitably use them.

Sonny, we've already started.

By the way, about Barack Obama's time as a community organizer in Chicago's Altgeld Gardens? It turns out that (1) in his memoir Dreams of My Father he implicitly takes credit for efforts to get asbestos removed before he got there, and which, according to today's US News & World Report, has not been completed even today, a full 20 years later, and (2) he didn't actually set up the community organization -- a white man named Jerry Kellman did and turned it over to him to run. In keeping with Obama's sense of self-importance, even then he lived in the upscale liberal enclave Hyde Park instead of inside the Altgeld Gardens community.; 7/21/09, 6:53 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I should add to my last post that one of the big unpublished (by the MSM) scandals about Medicare is that it is massively cross-subsidized by most everyone else through its paying doctors and hospitals below cost. And, any time they want more "savings", they just cut reimbursement rates a bit more, causing even more cross-subsidization.

The first problem with that is that a lot of doctors are now starting to reject new Medicare patients. If they can't pay for their care, then why provide it to them?

But as importantly, this cannot go on much longer. The way that Medicare works is held out as an example of how government payer medical care should work. But, while this cramming down of fees below well below costs is failing with Medicare, it would be disastrous if another 100 million or so would be put under a similar plan. A little cross-subsidization can be hidden. But the magnitude envisioned here would cause massive exodus from the medical field by health care providers such as physicians.

But, of course, if this problem is factored in, Obamacare looks even worse economically.; 7/21/09, 6:55 PM
Alex said...: traditionalguy - no need to be so pessimistic. If the GOP can get its act together in time for 2010 there will be no round 2 of ObamaCare. By 2011 Palin will be edumacated sufficiently and ready to kick ass.; 7/21/09, 6:57 PM
Penny said...: "On Friday, a few hours earlier, the president declared: "I've said that health-insurance reform cannot add to our deficit over the next decade. And I mean it."

Bruce Hayden, we've heard this before, and when someone challenges him on his "new math", the response is always, "George Bush did it this way, too!"

If there were any justice in this country of ours, the IRS would be sending out individual tutors to each of our homes so we can all learn this "new math" that presidents and congress people seem to have mastered.; 7/21/09, 7:09 PM
traditionalguy said...: Alex...Huah!; 7/21/09, 7:24 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Bruce Hayden said...
I should add to my last post that one of the big unpublished (by the MSM) scandals about Medicare is that it is massively cross-subsidized by most everyone else through its paying doctors and hospitals below cost. And, any time they want more "savings", they just cut reimbursement rates a bit more, causing even more cross-subsidization.

The irony is that the Feds call it fraud an debar you from all Federal contracting if your firm tries to do that to them. The DCAA (Defense Contract Audit Agency) is very on-guard looking for firms that attempt to shift overhead costs from a commercial type contract on to a reimbursible one.

When it's to their favor, the Feds love it.; 7/21/09, 7:32 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I like the part in the Dem bill that mandates cumpulsory "end of life counseling" once you reach 65 years of age.

How does that save money? Does the counselor smother the most feeble seniors with a pillow?; 7/21/09, 7:35 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Justice Sotomayor's brother is a doctor in upstate New York. His website says "we do not take Medicare nor Medicaid patients". Or so I am told.; 7/21/09, 7:37 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I like the part in the Dem bill that mandates cumpulsory "end of life counseling" once you reach 65 years of age.

How does that save money? Does the counselor smother the most feeble seniors with a pillow?

I almost think that the idea is that they will be counseling them (us someday?) on why they shouldn't ask for any more health care, but should just die with dignity, etc. instead of running up the bill with Medicare.; 7/21/09, 7:58 PM
The Drill SGT said...: AJ Lynch said...
Justice Sotomayor's brother is a doctor in upstate New York. His website says "we do not take Medicare nor Medicaid patients". Or so I am told.

Dr Juan Sotmayor...

http://www.allergyaway.com/insurance.aspx

INSURANCE: Please verify with our office staff if we participate with your insurance. Our office does not participate with Medicare, Medicaid, UHC Medicaid government programs, Total Care. **If your insurance changes to one of the products (including Secondary coverage), you must notify our office immediately.; 7/21/09, 8:01 PM
Alex said...: LOL. So "Wise Latina" brother wants nothing to do with government healthcare, but we are supposed to swallow it?; 7/21/09, 8:04 PM
chickelit said...: I like the part in the Dem bill that mandates cumpulsory "end of life counseling" once you reach 65 years of age.

Don't laugh. The hospital where my wife works is already about 60% Medicare or Medicaid, nearly all of them seniors. And yes, they are ringing up tremendous bills.

Years ago, the governor of Colorado, Dick Lamm, got into quite a bit of trouble over his dire predictions for the future of social security and health care. He said seniors had a "duty to die;" that one earned him the nickname Governor Gloom.; 7/21/09, 8:05 PM
bagoh20 said...: "what does Communist mean in your world?"

The most prolific murderers in human history. Always in the name of the common good. That's what it means.

FLS, They applaud you for your support.; 7/21/09, 8:12 PM
Mark said...: I like the part in the Dem bill that mandates cumpulsory "end of life counseling" once you reach 65 years of age.

Yeah, that cranks the creepiness knob to eleven. The Senate could twist it to twelve by adding a Soylent Green provision....; 7/21/09, 8:16 PM
Penny said...: There is no doubt that this is what that required counseling session is about.

And every five years the government gets a shot at influencing an old parent to do what most have spent their lives doing...Whatever seems best for their kids, because you know, they really wouldn't want to be a "burden".

Not that this isn't bad enough, imagine the unintended consequences. Lawsuits out the wazoo because some "mentally failing" parent made such a decision without fully understanding the consequences.; 7/21/09, 8:19 PM
Penny said...: Thus is born a new legal specialty..."End of Life". Which will beget specialty psychology and sociology advocates, all on the government payroll of course. These in addition to the ones hired to conduct the initial counseling, who somehow got it all wrong.

Oh, and I guess we will also need a few doctors to "certify" for either the government or the suing children.; 7/21/09, 8:34 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Penny said...
Thus is born a new legal specialty..."End of Life". Which will beget specialty psychology and sociology advocates, all on the government payroll of course.

a Required coverage in Obamacare and mandated in all cnforming private plans :); 7/21/09, 8:41 PM
Joe said...: Why the assumption that Obama gives the smallest shit about what's in the bill. HE DOESN'T CARE. He didn't care what was in the stimulus bill, the GM bailout, etc.. He went after the F-22 Raptor thing in the defense bill because one of his "advisors" told him to and he had to appear non-spineless, otherwise he wouldn't have cared about that either.; 7/21/09, 8:50 PM
Methadras said...: Pastafarian said...

Drill SGT nailed it at 5:55. If this bill passes, eventually there will be no private insurance.

FLS, do you dispute this? Or is that a "feature and not a bug", as they say?

What is there to defend? He knows he can't. The notion of private providers will become regulatorily outlawed. It has been and already is in Canada. Private healthcare providers in Canada are effectively illegal. In 6 of the 10 provinces, they are outrightly illegal. This is what will happen here.; 7/21/09, 8:50 PM
Jeremy said...: A challenge:

How many here, who have full health insurance coverage, especially via their employer (ANN ALTHOUSE) think, that if they gave it up today...could get coverage (anywhere close to what they have now) via a private insurance company...for (anywhere close to what they pay now)?

I would bet at least 40% couldn't even get coverage because of pre-existing conditions, etc.

Call around tomorrow, say you have NO insurance, and see if there's coverage available...and for how much.

GFL; 7/21/09, 8:53 PM
Jeremy said...: Methadras said..."The notion of private providers will become regulatorily outlawed."

MORON:

Once again:

Saying Section 102 will prohibit private health care in the future is bullshit.

Section 102 protects the right of people to keep their current coverage and by only quoting the one line that says: "Limitation on New Enrollment" is disingenuous at best.

Here's the statement that creates the confusion:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1."

Saying that this means it makes "private insurance illegal" is ridiculous, especially considering what the rest of the bill actually says:

The bill not only sets up new rules relating to accessibility, coverage, and cost, but also says that "existing insurance coverage and plans will be grandfathered for 5 years after the law goes into effect."

The bill would certainly prevent new insurance customers from going into a grandfathered plan, but still allows exceptions for the dependents of people already on a grandfathered plan.

The "new policy holders" would have to be on a plan that meets the new standards of accessibility, coverage and affordability, and it would still be a private insurance plan via a private insurance company.; 7/21/09, 8:55 PM
Jeremy said...: Bitchy, whiny little babies.

You should be ashamed.; 7/21/09, 8:56 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Yes I thought the same thing myself. End of life counseling creates a whole new set of useless and overpaid community organizers er bureaucrats.

They better be skilled in self-defense cause folks like my father (at 88 years old) would beat them to death if they ever even got inside his house.; 7/21/09, 8:58 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Gene Olson has himself some of that gold-plated state employee lifetime health insurance from El Cajon Community College.

Are you keeping those urinals and toilets clean Jeremy Gene Luckoldson Michael?; 7/21/09, 9:01 PM
Alex said...: The irony of child Jeremy calling adults here "titty babies", many of whom are middle aged and have raised children to adulthood. Amazing gall. What else would one expect out of an Obama-bot but complete lack of respect.; 7/21/09, 9:02 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Extra innings. Guess I will have a smoke and a JD. Gotta die of something.

In fact, maybe when I croak I will take one or two of those "end of life" counselors with me.; 7/21/09, 9:04 PM
knox said...: We are backed by catastrophic coverage. I believe this should be the future for most people.

Agree.; 7/21/09, 9:08 PM
KCFleming said...: In the brave new world of Obamacare, the old and weak, and those without political clout, can just take a soma, and fade away.; 7/21/09, 9:10 PM
KCFleming said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/21/09, 9:10 PM
Jeremy said...: You know you're in trouble when...

Michael Steele doesn't even know who his provider is.; 7/21/09, 9:13 PM
Jeremy said...: Pogo - Who pays for your insurance?; 7/21/09, 9:14 PM
Alex said...: JeremyTroll... I know who my provider is, so am I qualified to talk about health care? My god you are dumb.; 7/21/09, 9:14 PM
Jeremy said...: Alex said..."Althouse is getting all of us Palin-bots very hot and bothered..."

Does that mean you're not blowing Pogo anymore?

Does he know?; 7/21/09, 9:16 PM
Alex said...: BTW I noticed Jeremy keeps attacking Michael Steel an AFRICAN AMERICAN. Thus I can assume Jeremy is a racist. After all Janeane Garafolo said that all conservatives who attack Obama are doing it for racial reasons...; 7/21/09, 9:16 PM
Jeremy said...: Alex - Who pays for your insurance?

And if it's YOU...do you feel the premium is fair?; 7/21/09, 9:16 PM
Jeremy said...: Alex, just because Steele is black, doesn't mean I can't think he's dumb.

I think Bush was dumb, and whether you're black white or brown, I still think you're an uneducated dolt.; 7/21/09, 9:18 PM
Alex said...: Jeremy - like most people my employer provides insurance coverage and have all the booklets providing all the terms and regulations of the coverage. Now I haven't read it all, but that's my responsibility. Not yours or anyone else's. However I want to retain my gold-plated health plan.; 7/21/09, 9:18 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Alex:

Jeremy is like all good libs. They attack non-white conservatives for being race traitors, lackeys for Da Man or Uncle Toms.; 7/21/09, 9:19 PM
Alex said...: Jeremy - when I attack Obama for being a lying arrogant fool, BELIEVE ME it's not out of racial bias. But I take it you will not cut me any slack.; 7/21/09, 9:21 PM
Alex said...: Jeremy - believe me, black people do not like honkeys like you calling other black people "Uncle Toms" or "Oreos". They reserve that and the N-word to themselves.; 7/21/09, 9:24 PM
Jeremy said...: Alex - You don't pay so who are YOU to whine? Who are YOU to say what is best for those who don't have coverage?

You're a hypocritical prick.; 7/21/09, 9:30 PM
Jeremy said...: Alex said..."Jeremy - believe me, black people do not like honkeys like you calling other black people "Uncle Toms" or "Oreos". They reserve that and the N-word to themselves."

I have no idea what that even means.

Do you??; 7/21/09, 9:31 PM
Alex said...: Jeremy Troll - when I was a contractor I paid for my own insurance. Most perm employees get health coverage as a benefit. I'm sure I could get a higher salary with no benefit and buy my own. That you think I'm getting it "for free" shows how utterly myopic you are.; 7/21/09, 9:31 PM
Jeremy said...: AJ - Suck my dick.

You're a small-minded fool.; 7/21/09, 9:31 PM
Alex said...: Jeremy... only black people are allowed to use racial epithets about other black people. Crackers like you don't get that special privilege. So be a good honkey and get the hell out of here.; 7/21/09, 9:32 PM
Alex said...: Every comment thread needs the clown dunce. Jeremy fits the bill!; 7/21/09, 9:33 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Jeremy Gene Olson is here so El Cajon Community College must be missing an idiot.; 7/21/09, 9:38 PM
traditionalguy said...: Last thought for the night: Instead of end of life counselors, repeal all the taxes on alcohol and tobacco for everybody over 65. They will die sooner and happier. The truth is that Social Security is underwritten as if everyone will die by 70 or less. The stupid second hand smoke puritans have ruined a perfectly good FICA ponzi scheme just to be the proudly legalistic SOBs of the post-Christian era. Shalom.; 7/21/09, 9:39 PM
Jeremy said...: Alex - AJ - I bet both of you idiots are "birthers."

Right?; 7/21/09, 9:46 PM
Alex said...: Jeremy - wrong. I'm not a Nirther, Creationist or a snake-charmer. I'm a libertarian, war-hawk, anti drug war, pro-choice Jew. But that's much too complex for your feeble little mind to process.; 7/21/09, 9:48 PM
Jeremy said...: Alex said..."Jeremy... only black people are allowed to use racial epithets about other black people."

Are you saying "dumb" is a "racial epithet?"

Duh.; 7/21/09, 9:49 PM
Synova said...: I was going to explain, earlier, that anyone getting insurance through their employer *pays* for that insurance. It is taken out of their pay every bit as directly as if they wrote a check themselves.

But I thought that was so blindingly *obvious* that I'd seem like an idiot to mention it.

Goes to show a person I suppose.; 7/21/09, 9:50 PM
Jeremy said...: Alex - What the fuck is a "nirther?"; 7/21/09, 9:50 PM
Jeremy said...: Synova said..."I was going to explain, earlier, that anyone getting insurance through their employer *pays* for that insurance."

You're an idiot.

Health insurance via an employer is financed almost exclusively by the employer.

Any contribution via the employee does not compare to the amount via the employer.

You think people want health insurance from their employer because they pay for it anyway?

Duh.; 7/21/09, 9:52 PM
Penny said...: "How many here, who have full health insurance coverage, especially via their employer (ANN ALTHOUSE) think, that if they gave it up today...could get coverage (anywhere close to what they have now) via a private insurance company...for (anywhere close to what they pay now)?"

Jeremy, you make an excellent point, but in my opinion, not the point you intended to make.

Tenured professors and teachers, federal and state employees, including police and firefighters and politicians everywhere pretty well know that they will not be losing any benefit coverage any time soon. Not that the above group isn't large enough... add in their spouses, and you have pretty well doubled the numbers.

Additionally the above group can speak to levels of job security that so totally exceed the rest of us in the private sector. To my mind, these are the people I put into the "Why Worry" category, and there are RARE few who speak out with concern.

You see, deep down inside, most of us do this swift calculation in our heads about how this or that is going to impact me and mine today or tomorrow.

It's that live-for-today, short term thinking that got us into this mess to begin with.

But...eventually...the tax man comes for us all.; 7/21/09, 9:55 PM
Alex said...: Synova - things that should be blindingly obvious aren't to pathetic trolls like Jeremy. They think there is such a thing as "Free" anything in life.

Jeremy - didn't your pappy teach you "son there's no such thing as a free lunch". Mine sure did.; 7/21/09, 9:58 PM
Alex said...: hmmm. I would think Jeremy being so ultra-savvy in blogs would know what Nirther means. He'll have to find that out for himself.; 7/21/09, 9:59 PM
Jeremy said...: Penny - I make two points:

1. If they think insurance is so plentiful, and at such reasonable rates, they can find out immediately by challenging the system to provide insurance. But of course they never would take that chance.

2. I would bet that at least 30-40% of the wingnuts here, regardless of age, etc., and at least 50%+ of our politicians couldn't get coverage ANYWHERE...because of pre-existing conditions, etc.

But until they actually have to face that situation, it's a moot point to those who have.

And of course, many here just want to bitch about anything Obama.; 7/21/09, 10:01 PM
Jeremy said...: Alex - What is it I think is "free?"; 7/21/09, 10:04 PM
Jeremy said...: Alex - I try to steer clear of the insanity provided by the wingnut sites.

This is as close as I get.; 7/21/09, 10:08 PM
Alex said...: Jeremy - you just said that my health coverage is "Free" provided by employer. You really said such a dumbfuck type of thing ,that I'm shaking my head. Sort of like when Titus sees unfabulous people.; 7/21/09, 10:09 PM
Penny said...: This isn't about Obama. This is all about quieting the masses until such time that there is no way out of the spider's web.; 7/21/09, 10:15 PM
Jeremy said...: Alex said..."Jeremy - you just said that my health coverage is "Free" provided by employer."

When?; 7/21/09, 10:18 PM
Pastafarian said...: Jeremy, in our company, employee contributions to their own premiums are non-trivial -- on the order of 30%. And this is typical in the private sector.

And as has already been pointed out: The 70% that we (the company) covers is called a "benefit" for the employee. When an employee decides whether he wants a job, based on that job's demands, pay, and benefits, he'll take all three into consideration. If we didn't offer them this (70% of premiums), they'd expect more pay.

So, in a sense, the employee pays all of their premium.

Under the Democrat's plan, eventually, private insurance will cease to exist (see Drill SGT's excellent explanation at 5:55). At that point, we'll be unable to offer our employees this benefit; we'll be "penalized" an astounding 8% of our payroll; our employees will have to wait 3 months to get an operation; and we'll be less able to attract employees in general, since they'll have the same "public option" as "funemployed" slackers and underemployed hipster ju-co part-time psychology instructors. Why work when you get insurance for free, welfare, unemployment benefits for 1.5 years, etc?; 7/21/09, 10:19 PM
Jeremy said...: "Health insurance via an employer is financed almost exclusively by the employer."; 7/21/09, 10:20 PM
Jeremy said...: Pastafarian said..."Jeremy, in our company, employee contributions to their own premiums are non-trivial -- on the order of 30%. And this is typical in the private sector."

Every plan is different. Every emloyer is different. Just as every deductible and range of coverage is different.

If you think 70% via your employer is bad...why not opt out and pay 100%?

Would that be better?; 7/21/09, 10:22 PM
Jeremy said...: "Under the Democrat's plan, eventually, private insurance will cease to exist..."

A bald-faced lie.

Saying Section 102 will prohibit private health care in the future is bullshit.

Section 102 protects the right of people to keep their current coverage and by only quoting the one line that says: "Limitation on New Enrollment" is disingenuous at best.

Here's the statement that creates the confusion:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1."

Saying that this means it makes "private insurance illegal" is ridiculous, especially considering what the rest of the bill actually says:

The bill not only sets up new rules relating to accessibility, coverage, and cost, but also says that "existing insurance coverage and plans will be grandfathered for 5 years after the law goes into effect."

The bill would certainly prevent new insurance customers from going into a grandfathered plan, but still allows exceptions for the dependents of people already on a grandfathered plan.

The "new policy holders" would have to be on a plan that meets the new standards of accessibility, coverage and affordability, and it would still be a private insurance plan via a private insurance company.; 7/21/09, 10:23 PM
Alex said...: Jeremy - another thing. My arrangement of health care coverage is between myself and my employer. It's none of your fucking business.; 7/21/09, 10:24 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Synova:

That was nicely done. You made a very obvious, clear point but doofus Jeremy Gene Olson was confounded. Hahahaha.

Synova- as to your point, it's much like the employer portion of FICA/ Medicare tax. In effect, the employee is paying those taxes because the tax is generated by his work effort even when it never gets to their payback and goes directly to Uncle Sam (to be wasted).; 7/21/09, 10:25 PM
Jeremy said...: Alex - I could give a flying fuck what is "between" you and your employer.

What does that have to do with the discussion?

You're a moron.; 7/21/09, 10:26 PM
Alex said...: Jeremy - you keep citing some paragraphs out of a 1000 page document that nobody has the time to read. Tell me, why should it be a 1000 pages when no more then 100 would do? I bet these lengthy tomes are deliberately designed to make big government opaque to the average citizen an so thoroughly confuse them as to force paralysis. This is anti-democratic if you ask me.; 7/21/09, 10:26 PM
bagoh20 said...: If you want free health care, just don't buy insurance, and go to the emergency room when you need it and wait in line. This is identical to socialized medicine, except it might cost you your job.

The rest of us like me whose life was saved by private health care will keep what we have.

Incidentally, I would pay double what I do to keep my amazing state-of-the-art, convenient health care. It is the best thing I have ever bought in both quality and value.

I've survived Cancer, chemo, liver transplant and many sports injuries. I'm currently in great health and very active.

American medicine is a miracle. What do you call people who throw away miracles?...Socialists.; 7/21/09, 10:27 PM
Jeremy said...: AJ - If you think employees pay for their company provide health care, why do so may demand it for employment. Why do employers use it as an inducement for hiring? Why is their any demand for it?

You're as dumb as Alex.; 7/21/09, 10:28 PM
Pastafarian said...: Jeremy, you've misunderstood a couple of things from my comment.

I'm part of management, and the 70% or so that we offer is pretty good. Not great, but pretty good, and typical of small manufacturers. There really isn't much variation in the private sector, other than heavily unionized companies, of which there aren't many remaining, because they priced themselves out of the running.

I'm not sure what you mean by "why don't you opt out and pay the whole thing". My point is that when you receive insurance from your employer, it's not like you're being given a hand-out. You earn that benefit; and you help pay for it directly, too.

Second, you've copied and pasted the same argument you made from a previous comment -- I didn't say that the bill would make private insurance immediately illegal. I said that Drill SGT's 5:55 explanation perfectly and concisely explains why the subsidized public plan will drive private plans out of existence, inevitably.; 7/21/09, 10:32 PM
Alex said...: Jeremy is not content to let the free market sort out company health benefits. He wants to socialize it all. Why not just cut straight to the chase and nationalize the entire economy instead of just 1/6 of it? Why only health care?; 7/21/09, 10:33 PM
Pastafarian said...: Jeremy, you're just hurling insults and nonsense. I'm done with you. And FLS has apparently fled the thread, having run out of apologies for the Democrats; so I guess I'm done with this thread.; 7/21/09, 10:36 PM
Alex said...: Surely design & Manufacture of semiconductors is vital to national security. Why let Intel/AMD in private, greedy hands that could ruin them? Nationalize em I say.; 7/21/09, 10:36 PM
bagoh20 said...: Does being a troll require complete incoherence. Even a half-assed troll should be able to make sense. This isn't exactly advanced checkers here.

I pay 40% of my premium. My total premium is $2900/yr. I've cost them about $600K so far. No cancellations, no delayed or denied treatments or tests, NONE! Can Obama promise me that? Hell no!; 7/21/09, 10:38 PM
Pastafarian said...: Alex -- why stop there? I'm sure that AMAT (Applied Materials), who makes the semifab equipment used by AMD et al, is equally vital. And all of their suppliers, and so on down the line. They'll nationalize it all, eventually.

Businesses that are too small to be efficiently caught up in that net, they'll try to get through their $35,000 no-interest SBA bridge loans. And any small businesses that are too smart to take those loans, they'll crush with an iron fist of taxation.; 7/21/09, 10:46 PM
Jeremy said...: bagoh20 said..."If you want free health care, just don't buy insurance, and go to the emergency room when you need it and wait in line. This is identical to socialized medicine, except it might cost you your job."

C'mon, you can't be this dense.

But you are, aren't you?; 7/21/09, 10:47 PM
Jeremy said...: bagoh20 said..."I pay 40% of my premium. My total premium is $2900/yr."

That's because you have insurance via your company...dumbfuck.

If you didn't, your coverage would cost about $7,000 and they could drop you at any point in time.

The ONLY reason you have what you have is because it's tied to a "group."

Duh.; 7/21/09, 10:52 PM
Jeremy said...: CAVE GUY - "I'm part of management, and the 70% or so that we offer is pretty good. Not great, but pretty good, and typical of small manufacturers."

And one of a hell better than your employees having to pay 100%.

And it serves as a great incentive, right?

What the fuck is your point?; 7/21/09, 10:54 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Someday, grasshopper, the health insurance system will be portable so the employer will pay 100% of the compensation in your paycheck and you can pay your own premiums to the same health insurance company you have had for many years.

Today, the prospective employee must negotiate salary along with benefit packages. In addition, the employer (especially small businesses) will be happy to get out of the health benefits business so they can simply write a single check to pay an employee.

The current system requires they write multiple checks to pay dental, health, life insurance etc plus ADP or Paychex to process the actual payroll checks.

If you disagree, bet me grasshopper.

Your idol, President Obama, does not understand this. Because community organizers don't have Profit & Loss responsibility and they are never trusted to write checks.; 7/21/09, 10:56 PM
Jeremy said...: AJ - What percentage of Americans do you think have employer provided insurance?; 7/21/09, 10:59 PM
Jeremy said...: We estimate that 2.4 million workers have lost the health coverage their jobs provided since the start of the recession, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Approximately, 1.3 million of these losses have occurred in the last four months. More than 320,000 Americans lost their employer-provided health insurance in March alone, which amounts to...

...approximately 10,680 workers a day.

The fear of losing your job is a familiar feeling to many Americans today. And for the nearly six-in-ten Americans—59.3 percent—receiving health care through their employer, that fear is often exacerbated by the anxiety that losing a job also means loss of health care coverage—not just for the worker, but often for their family as well.

While the share of workers relying on employment-based health care coverage has declined from its peak of 64.2 percent in 2000, access to adequate affordable health care for a majority of Americans is still contingent on their employment status.

Employers are shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs every month—just last month employment declined by 663,000—and the number of uninsured Americans continues to rise.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/insurance_loss.html; 7/21/09, 11:06 PM
Alex said...: The overwhelming job losses are happening to Democrat voters anyways, so it doesn't really increase the overall support for single-payer. Harsh, but true.; 7/21/09, 11:09 PM
Jeremy said...: Alex said..."The overwhelming job losses are happening to Democrat voters anyways..."

You can always count on this dumbfuck to come up with something this stupid.

What in the world would you base such an inane statement on?

Other than being uneducated and semi-literate?; 7/21/09, 11:12 PM
The Drill SGT said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/21/09, 11:13 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Someday, grasshopper, the health insurance system will be portable so the employer will pay 100% of the compensation in your paycheck and you can pay your own premiums to the same health insurance company you have had for many years.

that portability was where McCan was headed when he proposed to tax emplpyer health benefts and then turn around an provide tax breks for individuals health care. Combined with nation wide policies.

Obamas 500 billion dollar ad budget ate his lunch. now Obama talks about taxing benefits to pay for Obamacare :(; 7/21/09, 11:13 PM
Jeremy said...: We've reached the bottom of the intellectual ladder with the dueling dolts: Alex and AJ.

Adios.; 7/21/09, 11:14 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't care about these laid off workers. Most of them are white and that is why they got those jobs in the first place.

As a result, my grandfather Dunham was so screwed. No scratch that he was white but he was a lazy, shiftless white guy. That is why my Grandma Dunham had to work so had.; 7/21/09, 11:15 PM
Alex said...: If Jeremy were right and I was a moron, ObamaCare would not be polling 50% or less right now despite increasing unemployment and loss of health care coverage. But I am right about the nature of most of the job losses happening to Democrats(ie union workers) and it doesn't affect the big picture. Now IF 10 million corporate workers lost their jobs + health coverage all of a sudden, then yeah ObamaCare would get great support. Barring that catastrophe, I hope DeMint can help ensure this is Obama's Waterloo.

Jeremy - bye bye and plz don't ever come back!; 7/21/09, 11:16 PM
Anonymous said...: You know -I don't care for this guy Jeremy and I sure don't want him standing up for me or my policies.

But Rahm and Axelrod and Gibbs said I need all the help I can get.; 7/21/09, 11:19 PM
Synova said...: See? I knew better.

Now I'm banging my head on the wall wondering how a certain person even manages to function. Please oh PLEASE tell me that those of you convinced he TEACHES at a college are wrong about that!

If you are employed your "pay" consists of your pay AND benefits.

Your benefits are every bit as much a payment for your labor as the money you get in your check.

Believe me your *employer* knows just exactly how much they are paying out for your labor.

This is not magic money that springs freely from your employer's coffers... it is money you EARN.

That your employer writes a check to the insurance company for part of it, or even all of it, does not change the fact one iota that you've EARNED that as part of your PAY.

It doesn't matter if the employer pays 70% and you pay 30% or even the other way around, or 100% before you see it, or 100% after you have the money in your own hand and write a check yourself -- the only difference is a book-keeping one and you earn 100% of your insurance premiums and your labor PAYS FOR 100% of your premiums.

Sweet Baby Jesus, Jeremy. Where do you think money comes from?; 7/21/09, 11:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Look. I heard that beyaatch Hillary is already thinking about resigning so she can run against me in 2012. I have to get something big done and soon. Goddamn Pelosi screwed up the stimulus and I am left holding the bag of crap. Michele warned me. She told me to read the Stimulus bill before I signed it. Hell, I was busy studying for my NCAA pool. Got that one right. Tarheels damn straight!; 7/21/09, 11:50 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: One thing noticeable from Jeremy's recent postings is how different the justification is for health care reform and what is being proposed.

As noted, McCain was pushing for transportability, and that is what is needed right now in the recession. But, instead, we would be getting elimination of almost all choice in policies, ultimate destruction of the private health insurance market, likely elimination of the high deductible policies like I have right now with my HSA (which means, loss of HSAs), health care policies loaded with politically motivated bells and whistles, end of life counseling, rationing by bureaucrats, massive new taxes, etc.

As with the "stimulus" bill and Tax and Bribe (aka Cap and Trade), the problem is that the bill is being sold as one thing, but it is providing something very different. Let me suggest that the problem for Obama is that the American people are getting wise to this sort of legislation. They have the bill, as it sits right now, a lot of people are going through it, and it doesn't contain what the President is trying to sell us on. But what is humorous is that they seem to know what is in it better than he does.

Oh, and note that Jeremy's quote on people losing jobs, etc. doesn't take the next step. It states that a lot of people are worried about losing health care coverage. But it doesn't tell us that they have. Why? COBRA.

Personally, I see nothing good for me coming from the proposed health care reform. I have a great high deductible plan with a HSA, to which my employer makes contributions, as do I. It allows me to get dental work done, get new eyeglasses, etc., with the money that I am not spending on actual health care. And, I can carry the excess forward, at least right now.
And, under Jeremy's and the House's plans, I will ultimately lose this, to no apparent advantage to myself, and much detriment. Maybe immediately, maybe later, but no later than five years after the bill becomes law.; 7/21/09, 11:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Look Bruce. I may be picking gnats but "transportablity" was from a Star Trek episode.

Even I know you meant to say "portability" and I didn't even read the bill yet.; 7/21/09, 11:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Look Synova. I wouldn't want that guy Jeremy on my side no matter how low my poll numbers go. Is he a bit slow?; 7/21/09, 11:57 PM
Jim said...: Alex -

"The overwhelming job losses are happening to Democrat voters anyways, so it doesn't really increase the overall support for single-payer. Harsh, but true."

Just to back up your previous post...

The majority of job losses have occurred in manufacturing, construction and transportation and warehousing - all fields heavily dominated by union labor.

Following those fields are retail trade and leisure and hospitality - typically low-paying unskilled labor jobs whose workers tend to be relatively young and Democratic.

So you were dead on about which workers are being hardest hit by the ObamEconomy. I guess that hope and change isn't working out so well for them after all.; 7/22/09, 12:19 AM
Alex said...: Jim - I take some solace that in this recession it's the Obamabots suffering far more then Republican voters. It brings no shortage of joy to the cuckholds of my heart. I hope that gets quoted all over the blogosphere. I'd be famous.; 7/22/09, 12:24 AM
Mark said...: I know it's troll-feeding, but I wonder if Jeremy has ever heard the term "total cost of ownership"?

It's analogous to what an employer has to budget for employees.

There's base salary. Then there's government-mandated contributions (Social Security, unemployment insurance, etc.) Then there's health and other insurances, some of which are also government mandated, at least in the minimums.

Bottom line, the employer can afford you or they can't. They make an offer on what they see as your worth to the organization, with all the costs factored in. If the government mandated portion increases, the employer can offer you less money, or they can say screw it, we'll make do. (For current employees, of course, that means unemployment.)

So in the end, the employee gets the government's mandates trickled down, whether said person understands it or not. In your case, I would guess "not".; 7/22/09, 12:41 AM
BJM said...: Actually I recently shopped for health insurance as my COBRA was expiring. I'm in my early 60's, a non-smoker with mildly elevated cholesterol (genetics, not lifestyle) and take statins.

I bought an Anthem PPO plan with a $4500 deductible for $247 a month. I added a dental plan for an additional $42.

UHC also had competitive PPO plans. Had I wanted to join an HMO I could have paid around $160 a month.

The jargon is mind boggingly complex and comparing the plans is time consuming, but it's much less difficult than shopping for a mortgage.

There's plenty of reasonably priced options out there. The more every day expenses, i.e., wellness, doctor visits, etc. you can cover, the cheaper and better plan you can buy for catastrophic events.

I think those of us above poverty levels should be responsible for a portion of our medical expenses, there is no free lunch in life.

The govt doesn't pay for our auto or home insurance, or a lube job or to fix a broken window. why should it pay 100% for our health care?

We should have a safety net not a ticket to ride.; 7/22/09, 1:07 AM
AllenS said...: AllenS said...
"Jeremy and Titus, two shit eaters, have taken a vacation. When they come back, and they will come back, they'll come back at the same time."

7/21/09 3:51 PM

And they have.; 7/22/09, 3:30 AM
Unknown said...: Note that the troll never answered those of us who pointed out the deal-buster provisions in the law which would make a lot of our insurance non-conforming. Nor could he respond with anything other than insults to those who pointed out total compensation is, well, total compensation, and that we all consider salary, vacation, insurance, 401ks, etc. when deciding to take a job.
It is hard to have a debate when the other side refuses to add cogent points, or respond to valid criticisms of the bill.; 7/22/09, 7:13 AM
Roger J. said...: Obama is a liar--pure and simple--what is so hard to understand about that?; 7/22/09, 8:18 AM
Jason said...: I feel like starting any debate with a liberal on ObamaCare by asking them what adverse selection is.

If they know what adverse selection is, then they cannot deny that the provisions on page 17 everyone has talked about, combined with restricted underwriting for preexisting conditions, plus ANY government-subsidized plan, MUST combine to create a gargantuan adverse selection problem which will completely blow up any quality private coverage.

Health insurers will have no choice but to fire a whole class of customers at a time. If they raise premiums on in-force policies to attempt to compensate, they only accelerate the adverse selection problem.

On the other hand, if a libtard attempts to debate ObamaCare with me, and DOESN'T know what adverse selection means, he's not worth the time it takes to pour my beer in his lap.; 7/22/09, 8:40 AM
former law student said...: My total premium is $2900/yr. I've cost them about $600K so far

You my friend are a bad bet. You have caused your insurer to raise the premiums of everyone in your risk pool. If you lose this job and can't get another, you can count on only what, 18 months of coverage? Before you have to spend down your assets so you can go on Medicaid.

7. the country will chose the public plan when healthy and the private plans when sick, till there are no private plans

Like Obama, I am not wedded to one particular universal health care plan. Now is the time to make your voice heard, to make the plan the best it can be.

I note that Germany, after 137 some years of universal health care, still relies on private insurers to provide all care for some, and some care for all the rest. I note further that the Netherlands relies exclusively on private insurers for health care.; 7/22/09, 9:06 AM
Bart DePalma said...: Ann:

Although Obama's stump speech on behalf of health care is one howling lie after another (my favorite being that Obamacare will not add to the deficit or our taxes), I think you need to go with Obama as the fool on this one.

Consider the audience. Obama was on a conference call with a group of hard left supportive bloggers. As a group, these folks overwhelmingly support single payer socialized medicine and would hardly be upset by a provision outlawing the rest of us from buying new private heath insurance that is not approved by the government. There is no reason for Obama to falsely deny that he knew about the provision to this crowd.

The Obama way is to allow others to do the heavy lifting of enacting legislation and to later take credit for the product. Obama has not offered a health care plan and the provision at issue is not his. Very likely, Obama is ignorant of the provisions of all the health care plans floating around Congress.

President as figurehead.; 7/22/09, 9:13 AM
former law student said...: [McCain] proposed to tax emplpyer health benefts

I note in passing that the Sgt's keyboard caught the same disease mine has.

But that might have been McCain's least free market suggestion of all. If you want to encourage a behavior, you exempt it from taxation, you surely do not start taxing it. This would have encouraged businesses to drop their plans, forcing Americans to buy high cost [because of the cost of administration and risk sharing]individual policies.

I guess in that case McCaincare would have provided a windfall for the health insurance companies.; 7/22/09, 9:16 AM
Bart DePalma said...: If a conservative journalist at tonight's press conference wanted the ultimate gotchya moment, he or she should ask the President to comment about a completely fictional provision in a health care bill that achieves one of his goals and watch Obama take credit for it.; 7/22/09, 9:18 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: FLS said:

"Like Obama, I am not wedded to one particular universal health care plan"

LOL- as if Obama is not single-mindedly intent on single payer. News flash- Obama, the community organizer, is an elitist and a socialist.; 7/22/09, 9:20 AM
former law student said...: a gargantuan adverse selection problem which will completely blow up any quality private coverage.

Why would people abandon policies that they find to be satisfactory? Price is not the only driver. I laugh at the GEICO solicitations because I am happy with the service my auto insurer provides, even though it is not the cheapest You are arguing that price is the only differentiator, which is almost never true in any field of human endeavor. Otherwise we'd all be driving Kias on our trips to the Dollar Store.; 7/22/09, 9:24 AM
former law student said...: as if Obama is not single-mindedly intent on single payer.

Strain your brain for a minute and just consider the possibility that Obama is not a liar and a hypocrite as you assume (perhaps based on years of observing social conservative Republican politicians cheating on their wives).

News flash- Obama, the community organizer, is an elitist and a socialist.

Sure, just like the Dalai Lama is a glutton and a boozehound.; 7/22/09, 9:27 AM
Scott M said...: @FLS

Obama doesn't work that way; he would make a terrible drill seargent.

Without commenting on the complete inaccuracy of your attempt at satire, I just have to say this about your comment cited above...

OMFG...do you even KNOW any drill sergeants apart from what Hollywood has shown you? Have you ever BEEN in basic? Do you have any IDEA what they're primary objective is and how it's achieved?

Specific examples as it relates to your first-hand knowledge would be helpful here.; 7/22/09, 9:37 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: Strain your brain for a minute and just consider the possibility that Obama is not a liar and a hypocrite as you assume (perhaps based on years of observing social conservative Republican politicians cheating on their wives).

You're so right. We should simply trust the obvious goodness of our Democratic politicians and give them a few trillion dollars to sort out our health care.

What could possibly go wrong? At least they're not hypocrites like those Republicans!; 7/22/09, 9:40 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: OMFG...do you even KNOW any drill sergeants apart from what Hollywood has shown you?

Well it obvious he doesn't know how to spell them.; 7/22/09, 9:51 AM
former law student said...: Do you have any IDEA what they're primary objective is and how it's achieved?

How Obama would run boot camp:

Obama stands by flip chart with pocket full of markers:

"Good morning, welcome to bootcamp. We're going to break for coffee and mini muffins in a bit, but first, I want to go around the room and find out what everyone expects to get out of boot camp. You, there, with the dreadlocks, what do you hope to get out of bootcamp?"

- Get in shape, sir!

"Good." (writes "Get in shape" on flip chart) "But there's no "sirring" required here. I am just the facilitator, not the leader. My job is to find out your goals and help you achieve them. You folks will provide your own leaders."; 7/22/09, 9:53 AM
Scott M said...: @FLS

Again, you have no idea what DI's do, so you can't make the comparison and sound like anything approaching intelligent.

The country is in some pretty dire straits and you would rather have a facilitator at the helm? Fuck ideology and policy.

What we need, and what has been sadly lacking since the onset of the 24-hour news cycle, from BOTH sides, is strong leadership. Strong leadership in every sense of the word.; 7/22/09, 9:58 AM
Scott M said...: @FLS

Sorry to jump in here again, but the comedic value of a group of recruits trained in the way you're lampooning is just too good. A healthy amount of body bags would be needed regardless if said recruits were combat arms or just jet engine mechanics.

The analogy applies to wider world in what poli sci wogs refer to as the security dilemma. Lack of purposeful leadership will end up with the same result.; 7/22/09, 10:03 AM
Jason said...: JASON:...a gargantuan adverse selection problem which will completely blow up any quality private coverage. ...On the other hand, if a libtard attempts to debate ObamaCare with me, and DOESN'T know what adverse selection means, he's not worth the time it takes to pour my beer in his lap.

FORMER LAW STUDENT: Why would people abandon policies that they find to be satisfactory?

Duh. If they feel they NEED the insurance, they'll stay. And they will be more likely to stay if they are impaired risks. If they are NOT impaired risks, they will jump to the government plan. Not 100% of them, but enough to destroy the actuarially-assumed lapse rates, and force either the closing of the plan, and the dropping of the insureds, or rate hikes on in force policy-holders. Further, without keeping people honest through pre-existing condition underwriting restrictions, any plan that provides better coverage than the government plan will attract the sick... again, blowing up the plan.

Apparently, FLS thinks car insurance is just like health insurance. But I don't think his current auto carrier is forced to take on GEICO customers after they have DUIs, or cover them for accidents they had while they were still GEICO customers.

GEICO apparently became one of the top carriers in the country, precisely because no one, ever, in the history of the planet EVAR!!111!!1!! has switched their auto carriers based on price.

This is the point at which Jason dumps his beer into FLS's lap.; 7/22/09, 10:48 AM
Jason said...: FLS: I note that Germany, after 137 some years of universal health care, still relies on private insurers to provide all care for some, and some care for all the rest.

Oh, good. Let's point to Germany as a model for Universal Health Care for the last 137 years. At least we know they never embraced a eugenics program that engaged in the institutional wholesale slaughter of the unproductive, the handicapped, and other undesirables.

Good point!; 7/22/09, 10:53 AM
jen said...: Why *would* Obama have an off-hand familiarity with the provision that defines grandfathered insurance policies, which are then only referenced a few more times in the document? Because that's what this "no new policies after the effective date" clause actually is ....; 7/22/09, 11:03 AM
former law student said...: GEICO apparently became one of the top carriers in the country, precisely because no one, ever, in the history of the planet EVAR!!111!!1!! has switched their auto carriers based on price.

Fallacy of false dichotomy.

Let's point to Germany as a model for Universal Health Care for the last 137 years. At least we know they never embraced a eugenics program that engaged in the institutional wholesale slaughter of the unproductive, the handicapped, and other undesirables.

A fine example of ignoratio elenchi

any plan that provides better coverage than the government plan will attract the sick... again, blowing up the plan.

Slippery slope fallacy.; 7/22/09, 11:17 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Scott M,

I, for one, was quite amused by the Obama and flip charts analogy :)

and yes, I really was a Drill Sergeant, 00F30 at Ft Lewis in 71-72.

FLS, my excuse is a wireless keyboard combined with fat fingers and poor editing skills, what's yours; 7/22/09, 11:20 AM
Scott M said...: Fallacy of false dichotomy
ignoratio elenchi
Slippery slope fallacy

All of the above brought to you by the letters "B" and "S" from this blog's apparent king of the false analogy and non sequitur.; 7/22/09, 11:27 AM