Althouse: "[I]is striking to come back — from the world of controlled media and not-always-accurate 'official truth' in China..."

August 10, 2009

"[I]is striking to come back — from the world of controlled media and not-always-accurate 'official truth' in China..."

"... and see the world's most mature democracy, informed by the world's dominant media system, at a time of perceived economic crisis and under brand new political leadership, getting tied up by manufactured misinformation. No matter what party you belong to, you can't think this is a sign of health for the Republic."

With a chilling reference to state-controlled media in China, James Fallows bemoans free speech.

237 comments:

1 – 200 of 237 Newer› Newest»

AC245 said...: The Washington Post and The Atlantic absolutely must keep repeating, amplifying, and reinforcing the talking points given to them by Obama and the Democrats, regardless of how inaccurate and dishonest those talking points are.

To do otherwise would put their alternate revenue streams and private access at risk.

Those publications have reduced themselves to whores whispering whatever sweet nothings their high-paying clients want to hear.; 8/10/09, 5:33 AM
New York said...: If it were the case - as Fallows claims - that the opponents of the Obama plan have drastically misrepresented it or misunderstood it, then we would expect to see articles and TV programs explaining in detail how it is likely to work.

Instead, there are unbelievable promises from Obama that the plan is all-gain, no pain; and endless whining and insults against the motivation and integrity from the likes of Pelosi and the MSM.

The nature of the Obamabot response only increases concern about the plan.; 8/10/09, 6:23 AM
New York said...: Fallows claims the media is "tied up" with "manufactured misinformation". Yet the major networks have thoroughly Obamified their coverage and wholly adopted the O administration's framing of the issue.

What is Fallows talking about?; 8/10/09, 6:26 AM
paul a'barge said...: Fallows is a liar and a fraud.; 8/10/09, 6:29 AM
KCFleming said...: "...the world of controlled media and not-always-accurate 'official truth'"

He can't mean just China. He's describing every socialist government that has ever existed.

His bit about 'manufactured information' from those who disagree is disturbing, as he lacks the capacity to see any such behavior by national health care proponents, the ones that actually control the media, for liberals are always the hero in every contest. Disagreement is a lie, a sin, a crime.

Nor does he have the wisdom to see that his agreement with the idea that we must "embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off" is identical to the beliefs of the former Chinese Communist Party, the one that led to state-controlled media he decries.

Yet he is unable or unwilling to see how 'embracing' the former inevitably leads to the latter.; 8/10/09, 6:34 AM
New York said...: Also weird: Fallows gives links that purportedly show flaws in the representations of Elizabeth McCaughey regarding one version of the Obama plan.

These links go to a network of blog entries of his own and of the Steve Benen and Media Matters - none of which actually quote the proposal's language and show where McCaughey is wrong.

In other words Fallows is just pointing to a bunch of he-said, she-saids about the health plan without attempting to evaluate who is correct.

Fallows blog doesn't allow comments; 8/10/09, 6:35 AM
The Drill SGT said...: I think any debate where both (well 3 now :) bedrock reasons for hope and change are so clearly dishonest is going to rapidly drop to he said, he said...

"We're going to increase the number of people covered and lower costs at the same time"

"It's going to save money, but we need to raise taxes to pay for it"

"if you like what you've got, you can keep it"; 8/10/09, 6:35 AM
rhhardin said...: Journalist just means you write on the day, not that you have any brains.

Same root as diurnal.

You need some other etymological root for good advice, like mathematician.; 8/10/09, 6:42 AM
KCFleming said...: On cue, Instapundit linked to the UK Daily Record article describing how a National Health Service MD gave a 39 year old woman a pill rather than admit her to the hospital for severe chest pain, and she died from a heart attack 7 hours later. The family described the docs as "dismissive", "abrupt and rude", that is, typical government workers.

That's the US in 5 years.

Oh, but the lies! the lies! about national health care!!1!; 8/10/09, 6:47 AM
KCFleming said...: I may have misread Fallows.

He might not be 'decrying' state-controlled media at all, but eyeing it wistfully, envying that awesome power he wants for US elites, so he doesn't have to listen to the manufactured misinformation (the Lies!!) from dissenters.

And an aside: in what way is this a 'perceived' economic crisis? You mean the wiping away of our 401Ks, the 9.5% unemployment, and mortgage defaults are all just a chimera?

Has it really all been just a dream, just like on TV movies?; 8/10/09, 7:03 AM
Jack said...: Ann,
You are consistently dishonest and a willful liar. Your gross mischaracterization of Fallows' observation is par for the course.; 8/10/09, 7:09 AM
Bissage said...: I think Mr. Fallows makes a powerful argument and I’m giving serious thought to firing up the old time machine and taking her out for a little spin.

I find my curiosity has been renewed to see what this Golden Age® was all about.

Problem is, last time I tried, I came back with a terrible case of crotch-rot and it was three days before I could take a dump.

Hmmmmm . . .

Come to think of it, maybe I’m not so curious, after all.; 8/10/09, 7:10 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Well Jack,

Why don't you tell us how you really feel about the hostess.; 8/10/09, 7:13 AM
bearbee said...: Does it occur to this genius that the country is BROKE and 2 trillion dollars to finance this behemoth must be borrowed or monetized and Obama's bull shitting does not change that fact?

Does it occur to this genius that the currently broken medicare/social security system is a government run system?!!! And that the geniuses occupying the halls of congress helped break the system by raiding funds from the so-called lock box?!!

If everyone is to give up something to benefit the whole, and if on the whole this is a good reforml why aren't congress creatures along with federal employees giving up their privileged medical plans financed by the taxpayer?

US Debt Clock; 8/10/09, 7:15 AM
New York said...: Ann,
You are consistently dishonest and a willful liar. Your gross mischaracterization of Fallows' observation is par for the course.

So Jack, why don't you explain why Ann's description is a mischaracterization??

Or do you prefer to be an Obamabot ie. just deny and demonize.; 8/10/09, 7:15 AM
KCFleming said...: Jack calls disagreement with liberal orthodoxy "lies", "dishonest", and "gross mischaracterizations".

Fallows calls disagreement with liberal orthodoxy "misinformed", "misleading", "disingenuous", and says their complaints are " just not true".

I sense a pattern here.
No need for proof; all one need do is deny, deny, deny, and call your opponent a Liar!!1!
Nothing else is required.; 8/10/09, 7:18 AM
Martha said...: Fallows: "It's better to do that after the fact than not to do it at all. And, if I do say so, I think the article remains useful background reading for what's going on now -- including the return-guest-star role of the voluble but consistently misinformed Elizabeth "Betsy" McCaughey."

Betsey McCaughey's take down of the Clinton healthcare bill appeared in The New Republic. It was the first and only comprehensive analysis of the bill I saw during that healthcare debate. It was a game changer. If McCaughey were so consistently misinformed, why oh why would TNR (not known to be partial to non-liberal ideas) have published McCaughey's article.; 8/10/09, 7:19 AM
KCFleming said...: It works, too.

That's how Al Franken came to be Senator in Minnesota.

That and a few thousand extra ballots lying around.; 8/10/09, 7:19 AM
The Dude said...: I think there is a typo in the headline.

Also, every time I click on a comment section that has a comment made by "Christena" my Eset security popup pops up.

She is bad news. Diseased. Lousy with viruses. A Chinese version of Crystal Gail Mangum.; 8/10/09, 7:36 AM
Zach said...: If you see the protests as an organized campaign, then I guess the logical next step is to say that any bad information is disinformation.

If you see the protests as being unorganized, it's easy to see why bad information might make its way in -- people are freaking out! They panic, they hear rumors, they draw their own conclusions.

The idea of a massive disinformation campaign is so self serving and tiresome. You never have to admit a plan is bad, or unpopular, or sold badly, or just pushed at the wrong time.

Honestly, the existence of a panic is more important than its content. There are always rumors and fears floating around. They're usually kept under control, because there's an equally strong inclination to think that things will turn out ok in the end. If people lose the expectation that things will turn out ok and start panicking, that's not a failure of argument, that's a failure of leadership.; 8/10/09, 7:42 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Bearbee said....Does it occur to this genius that the currently broken medicare/social security system is a government run system?!!! And that the geniuses occupying the halls of congress helped break the system by raiding funds from the so-called lock box?!!

while I agree that medicare/Medicaid is broken, the fundemental reason is that our Congress and successive President's talk a good game about cost controls but over time do nothing except raise benefits and increase the number of people eligible for them.

That the Medicare/SS Trust funds have been used to cover up structural deficits in General Revenue accounts is different from the fact that both the Medicare and SS systems are actuarily broken and do not take in enough to cover expenses.; 8/10/09, 7:48 AM
David said...: Well, if the media used its energy to report honest and comprehensive summaries of the details of the proposals, rather than the political horse race and the talking points of each side, Fallows point might have some validity. But they don't do that kind of work on this or most other issues. Too difficult, too boring, I suppose.; 8/10/09, 7:54 AM
ricpic said...: You need some other etymological root for good advice, like mathematician.

Thinking back on my life I don't think I've ever received any good advice, given directly that is. But cues have been dropped in the strangest places. The Nike ad - Just Do It - for example. Admittedly, seen more than once it's common. But on initial impact, powerful. To me at least. But far and away the best method of giving good advice is by example. Ones parents of course. The writer William Saroyan. Again, not when he's lecturing; when his writing, in its courage and verve and lack of pomposity is an example of how to conduct oneself: that's when he gives good advice.; 8/10/09, 7:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Fallows is not bemoaning free speech. He is bemoaning an incompetent press corps.

Which is 100% correct.

Compare our press corps to Britain for example - and ours pales in comparison. The best example might (in recent terms) might be the Iraq War, where the argument that there were no weapons of mass destruction was widely considered in Britain before the war. In the US, you didn't even hear the possibility come up in the mainstream press.

In fact - when the French refused to support the war because they said there were no WMD's - the only news stories in the US were about whether French Fries should be rename "Freedom fries". The French, of course, were proved correct - and the U.S. passed a law renaming the fries.

And of course, post-war, when it was proven that Iraq did not have WMD's, you had a full scale investigation in Britain. If you only got your news from Fox News, or even Althouse, for that matter - you would have no clue that WMDs were never found. Fox News in fact reported that they WERE found (which is a lie).

That is what Fallows is bemoaning.; 8/10/09, 7:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Ann,

Yesterday, some of your readers bristled at your being labeled a "provocateur" by your friends at BhTV. Thanks for going out of your way, one day later, to prove those friends right.

There are many smart and substantive ways to respond to Fallows' post (or Steven Pearlstein's column), but it is just plain cheap to boil Fallows' complaint and concern to the equivalent of "why do you hate free speech so much?"

Perhaps you do feel that the debate over reform of the health insurance system in this country is just a matter of which side's meme proves the strongest (Palin's images of "death panels" who dole out care based on one's "level of productivity in society"; Obama's image of evil, wasteful insurance companies). But I don't believe it.

That is to say, I don't believe that you believe it. This may not make you a "fraud," but it doesn't make you honest. And it definitely presents you as someone mainly interested in provoking a reaction -- under the guise of just raising the question. (When I say that Obama's going to kill me, I don't mean that he's going to do it with a gun....)

Of course, you could attack some of Pearlstein's sweeping dismissals or Fallows' image of the media echo chamber -- an image you seem to support on other days. But at least you could show that you appreciate the problems.

Or -- with the issue of health case insurance -- you could talk about what you see as viable alternatives to an increasingly unbearable status quo (with its costs the uninsured, of Medicare/Medicaid, and to the private sector). As a law professor, you might even post your ideas on medical malpractice reform and its chances, legally and politically.

But that would take some work on your part -- work that is definitely less fun than implying that your opponents have a secret love for state-controlled media.

Are you up to it?; 8/10/09, 7:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Drill has it spot on here.

If the right’s lies are so blatant and obvious it should be no trouble to correct them.

But the reason Obama and the left can't seem to do that is because the tenants of their plan and message are pure bull crap.

-cover more people yet lower costs

-keep what you have, yet what you have will have to "compete" with a tax payer backed, absolute dictatorial price fixing "insurance company" run by the government.

-save costs but nothing to fear about a bureaucracy making end of life decisions.

-lower the costs, but not going to cap med-mal exemplary damages

No wonder Obama and the left are having problems selling this. As I said, pure incoherent bull crap.; 8/10/09, 8:02 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Here is my scorecard so far:

Obama and the Dems have not read the bill so they really don't know what is in it.

But they do know the Republicans are spreading disinformation.

LOL.; 8/10/09, 8:03 AM
New York said...: The best example might (in recent terms) might be the Iraq War, ... This is what Fallows is bemoaning"

Fallows is not talking about Iraq, he's talking about health care.

Even DTL can't defend Fallows without totally distorting him.; 8/10/09, 8:05 AM
T J Sawyer said...: Everything You Need To Know About the Health Care Bill:

-It will reduce the cost of health care.

-It will cover 46 million more people.

-It contains over 1000 pages of rules and regulations.

Obviously, there is no need to read this fairy tale.; 8/10/09, 8:08 AM
ricpic said...: Don't be such an obvious liar, downtownload. There were tons of stories in the MSM asserting that there were no WMDs in Iraq.; 8/10/09, 8:15 AM
Anonymous said...: New York - you are a moron.

Iraq was MY example, not Fallows'.

Again, if you weren't a moron, you would realize that he was bemoaning an incompetent press corps - that is afraid to call a lie a lie - and instead chooses to show two sides of an argument - even when one side is a lie.

Take global warming for example (and since you're a moron - this again is MY example - not Fallows'). The media presents global warming as a debatable issue - rather than one in which 99.99% of scientists are in agreement that the earth is warming because of manmade factors.

If I had my choice, I would take my news from China Daily over Fox News any day of the week. Not that China Daily is always correct - it is propaganda - but vastly less so than Fox News. Take Global Warming:

Here's an article from today's China Daily:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009-08/10/content_8549527.htm

The story is non-existent in Fox News. Instead you get stories about how global warming is a myth:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529856,00.html

Again if you only read Fox News - you'd have no idea global warming was taking place. Just like you'd think that Obamacare will lead to death squads.; 8/10/09, 8:16 AM
Bart DePalma said...: Fallows is irony deprived.; 8/10/09, 8:16 AM
Anonymous said...: ricpic - Show me one story from FoxNews saying that there were no WMD's in Iraq.

Show me one Althouse blog post.

Call me in December when you give up.; 8/10/09, 8:18 AM
KCFleming said...: Peter S. said:
"Or -- with the issue of health case insurance -- you could talk about what you see as viable alternatives to an increasingly unbearable status q"

The hell with that, Peter.
It's become quite clear that no such discussion ever took place or will be allowed. The decision has been made, minds are made up, talks are over (if they ever took place), and the public wasn't invited to weigh in on the biggest change in America in 60 years. Obama himself said he wants dissenters to shut up while he 'cleans up the mess we made'.

And to hell with you, Peter. There have been myriad alternative proposals, hundreds of them, over the past 20 years.
But all the left can hear is the siren song of socialism. When we bitch about socialism's inevitable problems, then you (on cue) complain, 'where are your alternatives'?

Your side offers nothing but bullshit.; 8/10/09, 8:18 AM
Anonymous said...: "Take global warming for example .."

Global warming is just like the 'health care crisis'.

It's fabricated.; 8/10/09, 8:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Here is a Fox News article about how we found "hundreds" of WMD's in Iraq.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2006/06/22/report-hundreds-wmds-iraq/

Here's another one:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html; 8/10/09, 8:21 AM
The Drill SGT said...: 'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate

By Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer

everybody please stay on the same talking points; 8/10/09, 8:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Show me where any of the following bloggers/periodicals has ever acknowledged that no WMD's have not been found in Iraq:

Instapundit
Dr. Helen
Althouse
Ace of Spades
National Review
The Wall Street Journal editorial page

etc, etc., etc.

That to me shows how the wingnuts refuse to acknowledge reality. Even to this very day.; 8/10/09, 8:25 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: Nice threadjack attempt by DTL. How many comments can he make about Iraq WMD in a thread about Obamacare?; 8/10/09, 8:27 AM
KCFleming said...: dtl is desperately trying to change the subject.; 8/10/09, 8:27 AM
bearbee said...: That the Medicare/SS Trust funds have been used to cover up structural deficits in General Revenue accounts is different from the fact that both the Medicare and SS systems are actuarily broken and do not take in enough to cover expenses.

Agree. My primary point is these are government programs that have not been properly/efficiently/effectively/adequately administitered.

To hand over a healthcare system estimated by 2017 to become 20% of the American economy to government is to broaden the field for more political corruption/stupidity/inefficiency and is lunacy.; 8/10/09, 8:28 AM
The Dude said...: Obamacare is a WMD. It will blow up our nation.; 8/10/09, 8:28 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Nice Barone article

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/10/government_health_care_in_stealth_mode_97826.html; 8/10/09, 8:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Ok Maguro - Since you have an IQ of 30 I'll make it simple for you.

When the media debates Obama's health plan - and they have talking heads saying "Is it going to have a death panel?" And one side says yes and the other side says no - the media is abdicating its responsibility.

Because no - Obamacare does not implement a death panel. Despite every effort of Palin and Gingrich and Althouse to pretned that it does. The Death Panel talk is a LIE - and the media should call out those who spread that lie - instead of turning it into a "debate".; 8/10/09, 8:32 AM
bearbee said...: WMD = Weapons for Medical Destruction.; 8/10/09, 8:33 AM
Anonymous said...: By the way - Pogo still thinks that WMD's were found in Iraq.

Because he's been brainwashed. As has Althouse.; 8/10/09, 8:33 AM
Anonymous said...: If you only listen to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, and read Instapundit and the Wall Street Journal editorial page for your news - it is very easy to get brainwashed I suppose.

But why people engage in that kind of self-censorship is beyond me.; 8/10/09, 8:35 AM
Anonymous said...: While Fallows was actually in China, he displayed an impressive ability to miss most of the major stories actually happening there. As Fallows was once a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, one might be excused for believing he was just stupid, but it seems more likely that Fallows practiced an extraordinary degree of self-censorship while there. Thus, it comes as no surprise that he finds it uncomfortable adjusting to the standards of a more free-wheeling society.; 8/10/09, 8:35 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I thought the Chinese learned how to control their media from elitist Manhattan libtards like Fallows?; 8/10/09, 8:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Here's another China Daily story that you will never see on Fox News:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009-07/29/content_8485582.htm; 8/10/09, 8:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Here's the Fox News article:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/29/tommy-seno-obama-birthers/; 8/10/09, 8:41 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: The problem is that Obama and the Congressional leaders have no credibility in pushing a centrist bill. Everyone assumes that a bill supported by the liberals and not bi-partisan in any meaningful way is a socialist bill. This is a smart assumption to make since Obama and most of the liberals desire a socialist medical system - we all know this.

Until a health care reform bill has meaningful bi-partisan support, it will never pass with public support. And it won't get bi-partisan support until it is stripped of all the socialism.

All the other major government programs - social security, medicare etc.. were passed with significant support from the minority party. Even Bush got 20+ dems in the senate to sign onto the invasion of Iraq.

If Obama attempts to push Obamacare through without bi-partisan support, it will be a total disaster if it passes because 50% of the country will work to undermine it before it even begins.

Obama really blew it with this bill. He should have started small.; 8/10/09, 8:42 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: LOL. Love the IQ insult, that's a very mature and sensible way to discuss healthcare reform.

As others have pointed out, the whole thing boils down to the fact that the Dems claims about healthcare reform are patently absurd. You can't give subsidized health insurance to 40 million people, not ration care and save money all at the same time. Anyone can see they're lying, which is why there's all this pushback.

And your attempts to change the subject are predictable and pathetic.; 8/10/09, 8:42 AM
Balfegor said...: Re: downtownlad:

Compare our press corps to Britain for example - and ours pales in comparison. The best example might (in recent terms) might be the Iraq War, where the argument that there were no weapons of mass destruction was widely considered in Britain before the war.

A more recent example is that the British press were on to Obama as a pompous git from practically the very start. Even the Guardian poked fun at him. In the US, the attitude of the press (though it has been improving of late) has generally been half worshipful reverence, like he's our Ataturk or something.; 8/10/09, 8:42 AM
Anonymous said...: "You mean the wiping away of our 401Ks, the 9.5% unemployment, and mortgage defaults are all just a chimera?"

Must be. Megan McCardle, handed some "information" by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, gushed: "The unemployment rate (in July) dropped 200 basis points, from 9.6% to 9.4%. That's great news."

She conveniently forgot to mention that the only way the BLS got the unemployment rate to go down was to not count, you know, unemployed people.

She's got a college degree, though, so it's probably not an accident that she just reprinted what they handed her and announced that things are now "great."

What a bunch of maroons.; 8/10/09, 8:43 AM
KCFleming said...: "Obamacare does not implement a death panel".

I am a physician, and I read the provision describing a requirement for a 'discussion' about 'end of life decisions' every 5 years as being a stealthy way to coerce the elderly and infirm to stop seeking active care and go into hospice mode.

It was the very first thing I thought of, based on my 25 year experience with Medicare's tendency to euphemize and obfuscate.; 8/10/09, 8:44 AM
AllenS said...: WMD = Wandering Motherfucking Downtownlad; 8/10/09, 8:46 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: Show me one story from FoxNews saying that there were no WMD's in Iraq.

Downtown, you still don't get it after all these years. The most important WMD in Iraq was Saddam himself - his desire and motivation to use his 100% control of Iraq's wealth to build nuclear weapons.

The other fact that is playing itself out is that it would have been too difficult to defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Iraq was a far better battlefield.; 8/10/09, 8:47 AM
Anonymous said...: At my "required discussion" about end-of-life care, the conversation's going to go something like this:

Government Lackey: "Sir, we need to talk about your end-of-life care."

Me: "No lady, we're gonna talk about YOUR end of life if I don't get my care."; 8/10/09, 8:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Pogo's "to hell with you, Peter" response, summarized:

(1) There never has and never could be a debate because the powers-that-be won't allow it -- so there's no need to talk now; (2) there has been a vigorous debate over the past 20 years, with hundreds (or possibly "myriad") proposals -- so there's no need to talk now.

Confused? You shouldn't be. All you need to know is that there are two "sides": you are either for "socialism" or against it.

Nice reply, possum. Why don't you just say that the Obama plan is "downright evil" and be done with it?; 8/10/09, 8:50 AM
Salamandyr said...: If you only listen to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, and read Instapundit and the Wall Street Journal editorial page for your news - it is very easy to get brainwashed I suppose.

Do you read/listen to those outlets, DTL? And if not, how do you know what's on them?

Also, you made the claim that the French failed to support the Iraq war because they didn't think there were any WMD's. Au Contraire; the French didn't support the war because they had billions in sweetheart deals with the Hussein government that would be void if he was deposed. At one point they offered support if the Bush Administration would agree to enforce those deals on the Iraqi populace after the war. Bush, justifiably, refused. Thus we went to war without the aid of the valorous French soldiers.; 8/10/09, 8:50 AM
traditionalguy said...: Sounds to me like Fallows and friends are setting the stage for a massive "Lost Cause" meme staged to cast all blaim for their defeat of this Hurricain Single Payer upon enemy propaganda forces. The very thought that Americans are smart enough to think for themselves must be avoided by Fallows and friends at all cost. The biggest Fraud in all history is coming from them next. Hurricain Cap and Swindle, supposedly "To Regulate the Air" as a national defense issue, is forming over the horizon while we celebrate victory. IMO the "fixing" of the health care financing problems has never been Obama's priority. These Marxist destroyers seek first to finish off their destruction of the American economy. Then they believe that a Single Payer plan will fall into their hands like a ripe fruit.; 8/10/09, 8:51 AM
Christy said...: DTL said "The media presents global warming as a debatable issue - rather than one in which 99.99% of [the] scientists [whose incomes depend upon government grants to study global warming] are in agreement that the earth is warming because of manmade factors."

There, fixed it for you DTL. Oops, I fell for his attempt to change the subject, didn't I?

DTL, is it healthy to wallow in the media you despise? That has to contribute to self-loathing. It feeds your anger which surely makes people turn away. What a vicious cycle! Please, stop the behavior which leads to so much of your unhappiness.; 8/10/09, 8:54 AM
Anonymous said...: "You mean the wiping away of our 401Ks, the 9.5% unemployment, and mortgage defaults are all just a chimera?"

And for this, we have the Fed Reserve and Department of Treasury to thank.

They are the ones that were supposed to keep an eye on our banks, and keep them from overleveraging themselves, as is their natural tendency.

Another government responsibility poorly carried out with disastrous results for you and me personally.

But the left tells us we shouldn’t draw any conclusions from the government’s handling of banks.

They want us to believe that healthcare by the government will be brilliantly run.

It will be an unquestionable bureaucratic masterpiece.; 8/10/09, 8:56 AM
Salamandyr said...: Seems to me like Fallows is missing the big picture. What we have here in America is citizens gathered together to loudly protest the actions of their government, largely without violence, without fear of reprisal. Yes, there's noise, exaggerations and falsehoods, but there's also a lot of truth. And there's a lot of things that are only noise, exaggerations and falsehoods if you buy into the claims made by the Administration, which don't add up. The burden of proof is on the people wanting to make the change, not the ones arguing for stasis.

The protests aren't some failure of American society, they're a triumph of it.; 8/10/09, 8:57 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Pogo said...
"Obamacare does not implement a death panel".

More precisely, a paid procedure rather than an unfunded mandate.

Doctors will be paid to counsel, a cheap $55 dollars or so. The ultimate impact will be to put the Federal government's thumb on the decision scale. The end result will clearly be more DNR orders and Hospice care than if the procedure was not funded.

are more DNRs and Hospice good? As the son in law of a 93 y/o who passed 60 days ago, the answer is sometimes.

I just dont like the idea that somebody that has a financial stake in encouraging cost savings, pays for the counseling.; 8/10/09, 8:58 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: "Obamacare does not implement a death panel".

I am a physician, and I read the provision describing a requirement for a 'discussion' about 'end of life decisions' every 5 years as being a stealthy way to coerce the elderly and infirm to stop seeking active care and go into hospice mode.

Bingo. They WANT old people to just shut up and die already and quit using resources that can be better used elsewhere.

They want the handicapped, yes just like Sarah Palin's son, to just die already or better yet be aborted so they don't have to spend money and resources on usless lumps of flesh that won't be working and paying taxes.

The dirty, and not so secret anymore, news is that the cost savings in this new plan is because those who are deemed worthless and incapacitated will be squeezed out of the system and encouraged to DIE.

No brick ovens......yet.; 8/10/09, 8:58 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I'd like to see Obama and Company explain to me how they plan on providing health care coverage for 47 million folks at a cost of $100 billion a year when Medicare costs $500 billion a year and covers 42 million people.; 8/10/09, 8:58 AM
Cabbage said...: Everyone seems a little tense this morning.

Must be because Ann has only given us one post. We're losing her attention and getting angry about it -- like a maid-of-honor picking a fight with the bride a few weeks after the wedding.; 8/10/09, 8:58 AM
garage mahal said...: I am a physician, and I read the provision describing a requirement for a 'discussion' about 'end of life decisions'.

This is what Fallows was talking about. There is no "requirement", it would not be "mandatory", only that Medicare would fund those consultations. Jesus that was dumb.; 8/10/09, 8:59 AM
Balfegor said...: IMO the "fixing" of the health care financing problems has never been Obama's priority.

Well I agree with that at least, but I don't think it's because he's a Marxist bent on this or that -- it's because he is, as far as I can tell, just totally disinterested in the policy questions there. During the primaries, his health care "plan" was really just Clinton's plan with a few tweaks so he could claim it was different. It wasn't in any way an expression of his own thinking on policy, because in this area, I don't think he's thought hard about the policy. Indeed, the President's ultimate goal doesn't seem to extend beyond a headline saying "Obama signs landmark health care reform bill." He good so long as he gets that headline.

If protesters and Republicans could refrain from calling the House bill "Obamacare," they would probably have a real opportunity to split the President from his party here. I don't think the President has much emotional investment in the plan as it stands, since he played no role whatsoever in coming up with it. If Republicans can break the current bill and work with Blue Dog Democrats to devise a different health care refrom bill, I don't think the President would really care. He just wants to have something to sign. On the other hand, the closer protestors tie the President to the bill, the more his ego becomes involved, and the more likely he is to hole up in his bunker with the House bill.; 8/10/09, 9:00 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/10/09, 9:08 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Perhaps if everyone didn't have the expectation that every visit to the doctor should only cost them a $10 co-pay we might see a reduction in how much a health care plan costs. I say health care plan because health insurance as we know it is a misnomer. Think about how much your auto insurance would cost if you submitted claims for oil changes, tire rotations and tune ups. Insurance is designed to protect you from unforseen accidents not to cover your annual mammogram or prostate examination.

If we really want health care reform it should start with reforming what our expectations should be with how we receive our care.; 8/10/09, 9:08 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Pogo said

...in what way is this a 'perceived' economic crisis? You mean the wiping away of our 401Ks, the 9.5% unemployment, and mortgage defaults are all just a chimera?

401Ks were not wiped away, mine is back to more than 3/4 of it's peak value. Certainly a bad 12 months, but nowhere near wiped away.

9.5% unemployment is bad, but we've had worse. ( Note that I don't say this lightly, I lost my job last month. )

Mortgage defaults are bad, but mostly in a few states that had unreasonable real estate markets to begin with.

dictionary.reference.com define crisis as a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, esp. for better or for worse, is determined; turning point.

This is just a recession, not a crisis. Many on the left want it to be perceived as a crisis in order to justify whatever government programs they already favored anyway.; 8/10/09, 9:10 AM
jayne_cobb said...: So basically this manufactured misinformation campaign is just the current version of the old "vast right-wing conspiracy".

You know a method by which people, who are so much smarter than us, explain just how they can be losing an argument without having to admit that their ideas just aren't that popular.; 8/10/09, 9:10 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: If protesters and Republicans could refrain from calling the House bill "Obamacare," they would probably have a real opportunity to split the President from his party here

Sorry, but not really sorry, when theLogo for the health care plan is the same as Obama's campaign logo and has the slogan "Organizing for Health Care" ......Obama owns it. And I hope it hangs around his neck and drags him, and all the other liberal fascists with him, down into hell.; 8/10/09, 9:11 AM
Anonymous said...: She conveniently forgot to mention that the only way the BLS got the unemployment rate to go down was to not count, you know, unemployed people.

What are you talking about? Has there been a change in BLS methodology that I don't know about?; 8/10/09, 9:14 AM
garage mahal said...: DBQ links to article "Conspiracy Watch".

"As conspiraces go, this one seems pretty lame".

Indeed.; 8/10/09, 9:15 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: So Fallows was the kid who cried, "No! No! Liars! Liars! Shut up!" when he was ten and the other kids finally told him that there was no Santa Claus.

"Health care will be top notch, everyone will have it, it will cost less than care now, and the government is going to run it!" Please.

Next thing you know, Obama will be promising to make Santa real.; 8/10/09, 9:15 AM
Anonymous said...: To Pogo @ 8:44, who wrote:

I am a physician, and I read the provision describing a requirement for a 'discussion' about 'end of life decisions' every 5 years as being a stealthy way to coerce the elderly and infirm to stop seeking active care and go into hospice mode.

Ok, I take back 25% of what I said above -- one percent for each year of your experience. This is a substantive argument, or at least an informed reaction to a challenging issue.

I admit, there is something creepy and euphemistic about terms like “advance care planning consultation.” And it becomes more creepy when the call for such consultations comes from the same people who want to control costs.

But can you at least admit that terms like "death panel" have similar rhetorical problems? And -- still more -- wouldn't you agree that the medical and insurance professions use such euphemisms all the time, particularly when it comes to issues of aging and dying?

More to the point, would you be willing to concede that, according to the current proposal, such "advances care planning consultations" are not a requirement, but an option for people who have not had such discussion with medical professionals in the previous five years? That's an important difference, right?

Furthermore, would you concede that such consultations and conversations are -- by and large -- a good ideas? In fact, aren't they one of the best ways to profess and protect one's wishes about end-of-life care, to draw up a living will, to delegate power of attorney, etc.?

These kinds of conversations go on all the time with doctors. I think they should happen more frequently. My current insurance provider encourages them -- and they have cost-control "issues," too.

OK. Now we can discuss whether the such discussions should be subsidized by the government -- and whether such subsidies (along with the drive to control costs by the same government) presents dangers to the elderly, ill, or infirm.

In my first post, I asked for "alternatives" -- that is, for alternate solutions to current problems. How do you think that such end-of-life discussions might be better handled and/or encouraged? Or do you think that we're doing just fine as we are? Could we do better?

Yours, from Hell,
Peter; 8/10/09, 9:17 AM
Balfegor said...: Sorry, but not really sorry, when theLogo for the health care plan is the same as Obama's campaign logo and has the slogan "Organizing for Health Care" ......Obama owns it.

Yeah, I saw that just a few minutes ago. Cor. We're in real fascist territory now. I can't believe they thought it was a good idea to transform the Dear Leaders's personal icon into a government logo. Who does he think he is? The Bonaparte? The Fuhrer? Are we going to have to give the O salute to the flag next?; 8/10/09, 9:18 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: If the biggest impediment to Obama care is free speech then it must mean that the thing is worthless.; 8/10/09, 9:18 AM
bearbee said...: I'd like to see Obama and Company explain to me how they plan on providing health care coverage for 47 million folks at a cost of $100 billion a year when Medicare costs $500 billion a year and covers 42 million people.

Government eeeefffffffficienies don'chya know...... Haven't you been paaaaying attttention?!!

They've shown us what they can do with SS, Medicare/caid.; 8/10/09, 9:23 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: DBQ links to article "Conspiracy Watch".

"As conspiraces go, this one seems pretty lame".

Hey retard.....I linked to Newsweek and the Obamacare Logo. I agree that the allusion that the logo is representative of the Nazi logo.

The actions of this administration and the liberals ARE, however, very much representative of the early actions of the German Fascists.

Link

Link

Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship.

Sound a bit familiar?; 8/10/09, 9:27 AM
The Dude said...: That's what Bush did. What Obama does smells like fresh baked cinnamon buns.; 8/10/09, 9:29 AM
garage mahal said...: Hey retard.....I linked to Newsweek and the Obamacare Logo. I agree that the allusion that the logo is representative of the Nazi logo..

Do you read your own links? That link called you lame. And I couldn't agree more.; 8/10/09, 9:30 AM
jayne_cobb said...: PZ,

The BLS has multiple methods of counting the unemployed.

The 9.4% number is the amount of people currently seeking employment; the number does not include those who have given up on seeking employment.

If it did the rate would be at 10.2%. The reason it went down was because more people stopped seeking a job than lost their jobs.

In reality we added about 240K more people to the ranks of the unemployed.

And before anyone says anything, this number juggling is something all presidents do to try and cover their ass (Bush included).; 8/10/09, 9:31 AM
Wince said...: Paul Zrimsek said...

Has there been a change in BLS methodology that I don't know about?

People who give up their job search have always been dropped from the "reported" unemployment statistic.

Now let's tackle the question of how the unemployment rate could decrease while the number of unemployed actually increases...

Given this change in unemployment including discouraged workers, I think it's pretty clear that the 0.1% decrease in the reported unemployment rate can be misleading. In reality, those who would like a job but don't have one increased by 0.1% up to 10.2%.; 8/10/09, 9:32 AM
AllenS said...: "9.5% unemployment is bad, but we've had worse. ( Note that I don't say this lightly, I lost my job last month."

Yes, we have had worse, but the bad news is this: it's summer, and employment should be at it's high point, but it isn't. What will it be when winter comes? Manufacturing jobs around here are being shed. To think that things will get better, later on in the year when the cold weather is upon us, would be foolish. Things are not looking good.; 8/10/09, 9:33 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: How do you think that such end-of-life discussions might be better handled and/or encouraged? Or do you think that we're doing just fine as we are? Could we do better?

You didn't ask me, but I think that they should be a personal decision and voluntarily considered with family, loved ones and not with the Government who has a vested interest in your death.

People say that insurance companies also ration or limit coverage and this is true. The difference between private independant insurance and being forced into a Government run option is this......

You can change your private insurance to another company or buy better coverage. You can't change your Government or get other coverage with Obama's plan which he has already stated his goal of destroying private insurance.

If you like having all of your choices taken away from you and every aspect of your life run by government paid lackeys, you might really like prison or working in a gulag.; 8/10/09, 9:34 AM
Crimso said...: "The media presents global warming as a debatable issue - rather than one in which 99.99% of scientists are in agreement that the earth is warming because of manmade factors."

Absolute bullshit. 9,999 out of every 10,000 scientists believe in AGW? Absolute, total, utter bullshit. Or do you have a citation for that?; 8/10/09, 9:36 AM
BJM said...: One really doesn't need to look very deeply to find a glaring fallacy in the Dems manufactured information.

The current health care bill now under discussion, if passed into law will not be implemented until 2013. So what happens to the 13,000 people a day who are losing their insurance (4,745,000 per year or 14,235,000 in 2013), or the 40+ million uninsured for the next 3+ years?

Isn't this a bit like calling the fire dept 3 years after a fire began?

However the big whopper is that if these numbers are to be believed, 53,235,000 uninsured enter the new system (14 mil of whom may be the sickest among us) without rationing or raising taxes.

Sorry that just doesn't pass the laugh test.; 8/10/09, 9:36 AM
Balfegor said...: And before anyone says anything, this number juggling is something all presidents do to try and cover their ass (Bush included).

That's not even "number juggling" -- that's just how we define the unemployment figure.; 8/10/09, 9:37 AM
Scott M said...: In the article, he says,

"Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society -- whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off."

How many things do we have to give up for the common good of all? There seems to be a never-ending list of demands the left would place on private citizens that fall under this category. I could possibly stomach a compromise on this issue if government weren't so unbelievably inefficient and wrong most of the time.; 8/10/09, 9:39 AM
garage mahal said...: You can change your private insurance to another company or buy better coverage. You can't change your Government or get other coverage with Obama's plan which he has already stated his goal of destroying private insurance..

Then keep your existing plan! Did you even know that the Obamacare Death Panels you're freaking out about would be optional? Stop reading Spectator and Jonah Goldberg and that would become abundantly clear, one would think.; 8/10/09, 9:41 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: garage is right. There isn't anything wrong with Obama's use of symbolism or those Soviet styled posters of Obama sagely looking off in the distance just send tingles up and down bodyparts.

All this talk of fascism is just lame as garage says. I mean its not like the Obama administration is asking their supporters to turn in their fellow Americans to the White House. Sheesh.; 8/10/09, 9:43 AM
Scott M said...: After re-reading that same quote I just referenced above, I suppose I could have reworded his statement something along the lines of...

Not touching other peoples food in the frig at work is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society

because, frankly, if we lived in a world where I could bring chocolate pudding packs to work and have them unmolested for as long as they're in there, most of the Left's policies might actually work. Since I'm, at the moment, chocolate pudding pack-less due to human nature over the weekend, we're back in a world as-is, not a world as-they-would-have-it.; 8/10/09, 9:44 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Scott M:

Same here but the Dems won't cut anything.

The Fed budget for Dept of Education is $100 Billion. What do we get for that? What do we lose of it "goes away"?

Back to basics I say. Stop with all this BS. It's funny but Obama's election has energized people to stand up and say enough is enough.; 8/10/09, 9:44 AM
Richard Dolan said...: Fallows' point is confused at best. Even if he were right that opposition to Obamacare is rooted in "manufactured misinformation," that fact is not equivalent to "not-always-accurate 'official truth' in China." The point of the free speech right is that each gets to decide whether the opposition is or is not "misinformation." And the party in power is always accusing the opposition of spreading "misinformation." His conclusion that "you can't think this is a sign of health for the Republic" is, frankly, ridiculous.

Last week, Obama was in Virginia giving a spiel, to the effect that he's willing to "clean up the mess" but doesn't want those who created the mess to do any "talking." Obama's little tirade went hand-in-hand with the request that folks forward to the White House any "misinformation" being circulated about Obamacare, so they can, you know, keep track of things. Like who's saying what. In its way, the White House is just mimicking the call a few years ago by some lefties to set up a monitoring group what would look out for misinformation on the Web, and (more generally) the enthusiasm of academic lefties for speech codes on campus. At its root, it's a kind of Puritanism. Very odd, really, coming from a scribbling class that thinks of itself as free-thinking.

If Fallows were looking for a parallel to "not-always-accurate 'official truth' in China," he would have done better to look at the increasingly cranky First Cool Dude who wants everyone else just to shut up. Don't hold your breath.; 8/10/09, 9:45 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Is there any reason why I can't sign up for a government funded auto or homeowner's policy?; 8/10/09, 9:46 AM
Balfegor said...: However the big whopper is that if these numbers are to be believed, 53,235,000 uninsured enter the new system (14 mil of whom may be the sickest among us) without rationing or raising taxes.

Sorry that just doesn't pass the laugh test.

(1) The House bill does raise taxes.

(2) I don't think that current projections indicate that all uninsured individuals will get insurance as a result of the bill.

(3) The bill is projected to run a $1 trillion deficit over 10 years. Covering 50 million people with $1 trillion (actually $1.2 trillion, including the amount offset by new taxes) is not nearly so unrealistic. It comes out to about $200/month for each of those 50 million, which is a bit low, but given that many of the new enrollees are only going to be partially subsidised, the actual average monthly premium is likely to be considerably higher. And that's assuming the full 50 million get covered.; 8/10/09, 9:47 AM
Anonymous said...: "Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society...."

Of course, if it doesn't pass... civil war, descent into fascism nuclear winter, the end of civilization.

What a little twit. That Fallows would quote him, makes Fallows a hysteric twat.; 8/10/09, 9:48 AM
Fred4Pres said...: We now depend on the kindness of strangers...like China. The bad news and the bad news, which do you want first?

Slow Job Growth and Inflation, but...

Those numbers will probably be good enough to enable President Obama to get re-elected, but his second term will be plagued by rising inflation, high interest rates, and unsustainable deficits, along with stubbornly high unemployment.; 8/10/09, 9:49 AM
Scott M said...: @Richard

"Obama's little tirade went hand-in-hand with the request that folks forward to the White House any "misinformation" being circulated about Obamacare"

That association was the very first thing that popped into my mind when I heard about his statement in VA. I don't know how anyone can see that other than as a black-and-white assault on 1st Amendment freedoms.

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."; 8/10/09, 9:51 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Then keep your existing plan! Did you even know that the Obamacare Death Panels you're freaking out about would be optional

You really are a dim bulb aren't you?

If your insurance is through your employer's plan, as MOST people are insured, and your employer decides to go for the cheaper Government plan...YOU don't get a choice.

I'm on the board of directors of a water district/public utility and we are changing our employee's coverage as a cost cutting measure. Is it popular with the employee's? HELL NO. Do they get a choice....HELL NO. Not if they want to keep their jobs. The other option is to lay off people and cut jobs and cut hours to eliminate the eligibility for benefits. These are the types of decisions that businesses have to make all the time. If/when the government option comes (GOD forbid) we will probably opt for that to keep the district fiscally sound.

Small businesses all over the country will be dropping their group plans and forcing people to go onto the government option.; 8/10/09, 9:51 AM
ark said...: I think you are mistaken about what he is bemoaning. It seems to me that he is agreeing with Pearlstein's claim that it is the Republicans who are making things up in an attempt to derail Obamacare by any means necessary.; 8/10/09, 9:53 AM
KCFleming said...: " would you concede that such consultations and conversations are -- by and large -- a good ideas?"

I do them now. Lots of doctors do them. We are in fact already required to ask if they want to discuss it on every patient encounter.
The only reason to reqiuire a new visit to go over these issues every 5 years is economic.

If you want to control costs, do it yourself. Don't ask me to make some goddamned judgement about 'QALY remaining' or crap like that. If you don't want 90 year olds around, don't pay. Just don't cover it up by calling it a 'discussion'.
Man up and tell her she isn't worth it.
Don't be a pussy and make me do it for you.

"In my first post, I asked for "alternatives" "

A little late for this 'discussion'. A bill is in place to be voted on. No other proposals are going to be considered.
Don't waste my time.
It's condescending.; 8/10/09, 9:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Did you even know that the Obamacare Death Panels you're freaking out about would be optional?

Operationally, what exactly does that mean, Garage?

Your doctor will get paid (i.e. given an incentive) to counsel you about end of life options.

Do you think that we'll get LESS of it if the government will pay them to do it?

And you say "optional", but how is the patient ever going to know whether the doctor is or isn’t giving “end of life” counseling?

Is the patient going to stop the doctor from talking mid-sentence, when the patient realizes that he’s now getting the counseling and he doesn’t want it?

The doctor will check the box on his government bill sheet, and the government will pay, because the government will never be able to know whether the patient asked for it or not.

Net result: more counseling, not less.

And more abuse and fraud to boot.; 8/10/09, 9:55 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: The bill is projected to run a $1 trillion deficit over 10 years.

Hey we're already on the hook for $64 trillion in unfunded liabilities so what's another trillion here or there?; 8/10/09, 10:02 AM
Kirby Olson said...: The Chinese leadership loots actual live organs from political prisoners to prop up their ailing bodies. They're like vampires.

If he's going to accuse Republicans of being worse than the Chinese, he would have to actually give us a few examples from both sides, and compare them. As it is, he just makes stupid generalizations, never once touching upon a real, actual image, or fact.

What a goon.; 8/10/09, 10:05 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/10/09, 10:05 AM
Anonymous said...: If we lived in a world where I could bring chocolate pudding packs to work and have them unmolested for as long as they're in there, most of the Left's policies might actually work. Since I'm, at the moment, chocolate pudding pack-less due to human nature over the weekend, we're back in a world as-is, not a world as-they-would-have-it.

It is all the right's fault, Scott, that the left is blocked from implementing their policies

If the left were left unmolested, the world would bend their pudding spoons into recycling bins.; 8/10/09, 10:06 AM
The Drill SGT said...: DBQ said...Small businesses all over the country will be dropping their group plans and forcing people to go onto the government option.

Our SB pays 60% of our staff health care (employee contributions amount to 40%). That 60% is about 16% of our labor costs

so by shedding our health care coverage and paying the Obamacare 8% payroll surcharge, we can save the 8% directly to our pretax earnings.

since salaries are a huge percentage of costs for a services firm, thats a big savings; 8/10/09, 10:09 AM
bagoh20 said...: dtl: "you are a moron."

These guys usually get to this kind of "dialog" with 2-3 comments. I'm willing to consider their comments worth reading until then, but it's always pathetic. It's not funny, it's not smart and it proves you can't grow a beard yet.; 8/10/09, 10:10 AM
jayne_cobb said...: Balfegor,

Perhaps juggling was not the best word but it is, at the very least, misleading for any administration to tout the lower figure in such a way as to suggest that total unemployment has dropped.; 8/10/09, 10:12 AM
Anonymous said...: OK folks, let's review what we know. The Democrats tried to ram through a massive 1000 plus page bill reforming (nationalizing) health care. Our dear leaders, by their own admission, hadn't read the bill, and yet they tell us not to worry. Everyone will get insurance, great care, costs will be controlled, the plan is budget neutral, and the government will run it. Would any sentient adult believe that steaming pile of horse shit?

And then, to add insult to injury, when our beloved Congress critters deigned to explain the bill that they failed to ram down our throats and that they hadn't read, they found we groundlings to be a bit touchy. What to do? Why call us, nazi, unAmerican, astroturfers, of course, and then sick union thugs on us and provide fishy web sites for us to rat out our fellow citizens who oppose the plan that hasn't been read. Brilliant I tell you.

And I don't want to hear any whining from the left about alternative proposals. I don't have to have a cure for cancer to know that I don't want it.; 8/10/09, 10:13 AM
hdhouse said...: gosh oh golly my little rightwing friends, did it ever occur to you that when you're "angry citizens" show up and disrupt that their stupid and knowingly wrong snipets find their way on the air and after oft repeating as is the case on FauxNoise they become what passes as "truth".

Just in case you didn't get what is going on....; 8/10/09, 10:15 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: hdhouse can you do us a favor and translate that jumble of words into grammtically correct English for those of us who actually have an education?

Thanks much.; 8/10/09, 10:17 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Hoosier Daddy said...
Is there any reason why I can't sign up for a government funded auto or homeowner's policy?

better yet, since under Obamacare, health insurance firms can't refuse to cover pre-existing conditions, let's get the government to mandate that I can buy auto insurance AFTER my accident, and home owners insurance while the house is burning.

insurance is all about spreading risks and evaluating future risks. If you force insurers to cover folks after they get sick, you eliminate the rationale for insurance and shift costs from the ants to the grasshoppers. Welfare not insurance.; 8/10/09, 10:18 AM
BJM said...: How do you think that such end-of-life discussions might be better handled and/or encouraged? Or do you think that we're doing just fine as we are? Could we do better?

Our family has had this conversation three times in the last ten years and we handled it. Doctors initiated the discussion and provided resources.

Those of us who have competent family or have made end of life plans will not be affected. However, the disabled, mentally ill and elderly without family may be in peril. The govt requires and funds ad litem guardianship for those unable to make their own life/medical decisions.

Who will insure that conflicts of interest do not arise when the state benefits more than the patient?

Whatever acronym the govt chooses for the health care system I suspect SNAFU will be operative.; 8/10/09, 10:19 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Everyone will get insurance, great care, costs will be controlled, the plan is budget neutral, and the government will run it. Would any sentient adult believe that steaming pile of horse shit?

I think if there was anything that should give folks pause is the 'wildy successful' cash for clunkers program. See they forecasted that funding this program to the tune of $1 billion which was to last until November ran out of money in 5 days.

Now these are the same folks who say this program will cost only $100 billion a year.

Never mind that Medicare costs $500billion a year and covers less people than the 47 million uninsured.; 8/10/09, 10:21 AM
Scott M said...: @hdhouse

I'm curious, hdhouse. In what part of your worldview is it okay for a bunch of union thugs to beat up a guy outside a meeting who's primary offense seems to be that he's opposed to this health care thing and just happens to be black?; 8/10/09, 10:21 AM
bagoh20 said...: Balfegor,

The numbers work out as you say, and thanks for that, but since these people are all getting medical care now even when uninsured, means they are actually being paid for by the current system. Therefore, why the extra 1 trillion to cover them in the new plan?; 8/10/09, 10:22 AM
mrp said...: Fallows: Pretty soon I will lay off the "As a Rip van Winkle returnee to your country, what I notice is...." approach. But I have to say that it is striking to come back -- from the world of controlled media and not-always-accurate "official truth" in China

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Red China have a government-run single payer plan?; 8/10/09, 10:24 AM
T J Sawyer said...: "The house bill raises taxes."

It can't! The reason we are doing all this is because the U.S. spends too much on healthcare - 16% of GDP.

Quit reading the bill and listen to The Leader.; 8/10/09, 10:26 AM
bagoh20 said...: I want to see health care changed from the current system to:

1)Total portability

2)Cover preexisting conditions.

3)Maintain or increase competition.

People are not being left in the streets to die, so the cost of these things is already being born by the current private system while actually subsidizing medicare, I don't see why doing these things would coat anything extra if done right.

We just need copays that discourage people from using the doctor as a friend or the hospital as a crash pad. But, that would be up to the individual companies to decide in the act of competing.

Is this doable?; 8/10/09, 10:34 AM
Bart DePalma said...: downtownlad said...

Show me where any of the following bloggers/periodicals has ever acknowledged that no WMD's have not been found in Iraq...That to me shows how the wingnuts refuse to acknowledge reality. Even to this very day.

Dude, the WMD team found over 500 artillery and mortar shells with mustard and sarin payloads and admitted that they cannot account for materials moved into Syria during the lead up and opening days of the war.

Go read the reports.

The claim that we did not find WMD in Iraq was never true. It is accurate to say that we did not find as many WMD as we expected.; 8/10/09, 10:35 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: hdhouse,
Why don't the Democrats just vote it in? They can. There will be a very clear line between the party that supported the great health care program, and saved the economy, and the party that opposed it. Not only would that save the country, it would also be a great tactical move by the Democrats, because it would be a huge defeat for the Republicans.

Unless ...; 8/10/09, 10:38 AM
The Dude said...: Isn't that cute - old, one-foot-in-the-grave hdhouse, who, not being a faithful democrat, has not died, is here writing, as only he can, in lower case letters, using the ever so witty and always fresh substitution of Faux for Fox. Wow, that kind of originality is just breathtaking. And it never gets tired - you really must use that in every post - what's that? You do? That is ever so clever.

Now run along and work on your latest tax dodge, hdh, the government wants even more of your money.; 8/10/09, 10:41 AM
BJM said...: ScottM @ 9:51, two Ben Franklin quotes come to mind:

"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.

Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech."

The thing I do not understand is why the WH abandoned the very effective power of persuasion that succeeded during the election? They have a willing media, the carrot, why the stick?

Trying to shut down debate will not succeed, it will only ratchet up the volume of dissent. Or is that the intent? To frame the debate as out of control thus removing the public from the equation for our own good?

These people are not stupid do not underestimate them.; 8/10/09, 10:42 AM
bearbee said...: ....let's get the government to mandate that I can buy auto insurance AFTER my accident, and home owners insurance while the house is burning.

Ooooooooo........ I LIKE that!

I can cancel auto/HO insurance to pay for higher taxes from O'Care and buy back when house is burning....and then cancel when ashes have ceased smoldering.

You need to lobby your congress creatures.; 8/10/09, 10:43 AM
The Dude said...: Sarin gas is not a WMD - it is Obama's new therapy for old folks - walk this way - now breathe deep...; 8/10/09, 10:46 AM
Roger J. said...: DBQ: thanks for enlightening our liberal friend on who buys employee health insurance and what their main criterion for purchasing is. As soon as an employer sees it can save some dollars on a very expensive component of their cost structure, private insurance is out the window. The supporting economic theory that explains this process is "crowding out."; 8/10/09, 10:46 AM
bagoh20 said...: In our current system everyone gets care, the best in the world. So, why are we doing this again? Because the government is going broke on it's share of covering people in the current system. So let's get the government to cover everyone. Is there any reason to suspect such a solution? Just asking.

That's what people are doing. They are saying it does not make sense and we don't want you passing it until it does seem right to most of us stupid peons. Our lives will depend on it and we will pay for it.

Is that too much to ask of our smarter keepers?; 8/10/09, 10:47 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: We just need copays that discourage people from using the doctor as a friend or the hospital as a crash pad. But, that would be up to the individual companies to decide in the act of competing.

Is this doable?

Of course it’s doable, in fact it was done and is called a High Deductible Health Plan with an HSA. Problem is you have to pony up a chunk o change out of pocket before the insurance coverage kicks in. I think the minimum deductible was $1050 for single and over $2K for family. It was a hard sell because too many folks thought the idea of having to pay such ‘exorbiant’ out of pocket costs was icky. Again, we just have very expensive expectations of what we want our health insurance to be.

Drill Sgt is spot on when he states that insurance is all about spreading risks and evaluating future risks I have worked in the insurance industry for better than 15 years and I will state that ‘health insurance’ is expected to operate contrary to how insurance is supposed to work. Like I said before, auto insurance doesn’t cover maintenance on your car. You are expected to pay for your own car maintenance so it is puzzling to wonder why people are outraged over the cost of health insurance when they expect it to pay for every single ailment or preventive measure. It is expected people will get an annual physical and if the insurer is expected to pay for that expected expense then naturally will be priced into the damn premium.; 8/10/09, 10:51 AM
Roger J. said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/10/09, 10:53 AM
knox said...: To libertarians and conservatives several points are self-evident:

1. Government cannot run things efficiently.

2. Government costs always surpass original estimates.

3. A plan like this, with a public option, does *not* increase choice: it does the opposite. It slowly, over time, eliminates choice. Simply because the public option doesn't have to compete. It's funded no matter how bad it sucks. How in the world does the private sector compete with that?

4. Because of (3.), a plan like this leads to a government takeover.

5. Government takeovers are bad.

Obviously, liberals do not agree with those points. They have no sense of history of big government, of where it leads. They see big government solutions as reasonable, and government workers as friendly and cooperative.

Why they ignore all evidence to the contrary is the big question.

But I don't see how we'll ever reach agreement. The dangers of this plan, which are obvious to libertarians and conservatives, are things that liberals are utterly blind to.; 8/10/09, 10:54 AM
Alex said...: It's called the 1st amendment. I can lie, lie, lie all day long and it's protected speech. How come our government representatives don't get such a simple concept? Instead they literally want to shut us up!; 8/10/09, 10:54 AM
Alex said...: Also Althouse, Instapundit, Dr. Helen, etc.. .are not obligated to say anything about what they think should be done with health care. They can go LA DE DA all day long if they so care. It's their freedom!; 8/10/09, 10:57 AM
BJM said...: Sarge said:

insurance is all about spreading risks and evaluating future risks.

Bingo! Obamacare is not insurance, it is taxpayer funded, single payer health in a faux insurance wrapper.

Obama says I can keep my current plan, but HR 3200 requires that it be entered into the govt exchange to insure it meets conditions set by HR 3200.

I make sausage, I know what happens when you feed meat into a grinder, what comes out is still meat but it's vastly changed.

My plan will not remotely resemble what I now have because it contains restrictions, caps and benefits Obama has spoken against.; 8/10/09, 10:58 AM
Alex said...: hdhouse said:

gosh oh golly my little rightwing friends, did it ever occur to you that when you're "angry citizens" show up and disrupt that their stupid and knowingly wrong snipets find their way on the air and after oft repeating as is the case on FauxNoise they become what passes as "truth".

This is what passes for "reasoned discourse" from the left.; 8/10/09, 10:58 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: It seems to me that HD actually used to be able to write in complete and comprehensive sentences--that was a couple of years ago. HD: You may very well want to get a thorough medical check up.

And some 'counseling' on not accepting medical care if you can't be made "well", after all it would be a waste of money and resources better suited for younger people..... and how to just DIE already. Thank you.; 8/10/09, 10:59 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: It slowly, over time, eliminates choice. Simply because the public option doesn't have to compete. It's funded no matter how bad it sucks. How in the world does the private sector compete with that?

Bingo. Its rather hard to compete with an entity that doesn't have to worry itself about those pesky things like reserve requirements and RBC ratios.; 8/10/09, 11:00 AM
Alex said...: Fallows only thinks its a healthy republic when the right shuts the fuck up and Obama gets to fuck America up the ass.; 8/10/09, 11:00 AM
KCFleming said...: The progressive ideal of socialized health care is set up as the ne plus ultra of health care, a standard to which all others fall short.

Why?

Because their main criteria for acceptability includes 'fairness', meaning egalitarian access and outcomes, and if rich people can get more than poor people, that won't do.

But like other socialist schemes, it never quite seems to reach its own goals, yet holding competing programs to meeting that perfection. (For example, the UK has the worst cancer treatment rates in the Western world, but survival is especially bad for the poor) Under socialism, the rich and well-connected will still get the best.

Despite the multiple failures of nationalized systems, disagreement isn't principled, it's evil.; 8/10/09, 11:01 AM
bagoh20 said...: I'm generally against government mandates, but if we mandate care as we do now, then it seems we have to mandate that you get coverage. Nearly everyone has a couple hundred bucks that they waste every month on cell phones, cable, etc. If they are truly destitute then a small "welfare" plan to cover them. They would need to prove their need.

Many of our citizens have simply chosen to be uninsured. I did too when I was young and broke, but I still spent $200/ month on beer and other fun. If I had to (like rent) I would have come up with it or found more work to afford it. We always do this for everything else we want or need bad enough.; 8/10/09, 11:02 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: It seems to me that HD actually used to be able to write in complete and comprehensive sentences

I recall a very well written comment by hdhouse in which he bragged about his financial expertise in how he doesn't pay his fair share of federal income taxes because he knows all the loopholes.; 8/10/09, 11:04 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I think insurance was developed to spread the risk around for ship-owners who were import/ export traders and explorers.

It was quite a simple concept. Wise people would insure that which they value and as Drill Sgt said, spreading the risk made it possible to insure something economically.

Dems and liberals don't get this concept. So they demand a free lunch and a free dinner and a free cell phone and a free house and free college and on and on.; 8/10/09, 11:04 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I think insurance was developed to spread the risk around for ship-owners who were import/ export traders and explorers.

Yep. That's how Lloyd's of London was started and still runs pretty much unchanged from the olden days.

I would encourage anyone who doesn't have coverage to check out any of the big insurers and find out what their cat plans offer in terms of premium. I'll bet dollars to donuts that unless you are chronically ill, you can get coverage at a reasonable price, although I am certain my definition of reasonable will be at odds with someone else.; 8/10/09, 11:08 AM
knox said...: What's unquestionable is that there is an effort by this administration to take more power from citizens than can ever be regained. They're doing it as fast as they can, and they're trying to belittle or silence opposition. Where is it all leading?

I think it's safe to say that is a reasonable question, and not a paranoid one at this point.; 8/10/09, 11:08 AM
bagoh20 said...: Knox: "But I don't see how we'll ever reach agreement. The dangers of this plan, which are obvious to libertarians and conservatives, are things that liberals are utterly blind to."
8/10/09 10:54 AM

That whole comment pretty much identifies the reason for the raucous debate. Regardless of the details of the plan, these differences between us come down to who trusts who. We just won't agree on that.

The conservatives fear the government, and the liberals fear the market.

In a sense we are both right. But, the market is self correcting and the Govt. is always there if it won't. The Govt. is self-corrupting and there is no recourse short of revolution that ever checks it.

It goes far beyond that into accepting that wealth is only created by the market and only used up by govt. It really is a deep divide.; 8/10/09, 11:13 AM
Jason said...: bagoh20,

We already have HIPAA, which accomplishes a lot of the above.

Health insurance is portable, provided you keep policies in force and don't let them lapse (DUH.)

You don't get to keep your employer subsidy, naturally, and you lose some economies of scale when you transfer from a list-bill group setting to an individually-billed policy. But the law limits the price increase on premiums after someone in a group leaves his employer.

The law also limits the look-back period for pre-existing conditions, as well. But in order to make it work, you CANNOT have a lapse in coverage, and you have to exercise the option to keep insurance in force within a certain number of days after leaving your group employer.

HR departments, unfortunately, and small employers, do a terrible job of letting people know what their real options are (they're scared to death of liability).

The only thing they tell departing or laid off workers about is COBRA. That is, government health care. COBRA's are atrocious deals for even moderately healthy people. Why? Adverse selection. It's so bloody crappy and expensive that only sick people continue their coverage through COBRA. The healthy opt out of the risk pool. Which drives premiums up even more. It's a vicious cycle.

IF there is a public option, exactly the same thing will happen to private plans. Adverse selection, as clearly as night follows day, will cause them ALL to blow up.

The public option is, I believe by design, a dagger aimed at the heart of private insurance coverage. The salve "if you like the coverage you can have, you can keep it" is a damnable lie.; 8/10/09, 11:14 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Knox:

I agree.

We must demand day after day after day that Dems prove big govt is better than small govt.

If you use big cities as a test tube, there is little or no evidence that big govt is a good solution to our problems.; 8/10/09, 11:16 AM
Fr Martin Fox said...: A little late to the party, but oh well...

> The hand-wringing by Fallows is just sad and embarrassing. Yes, people are so mean and nasty, boo hoo. The Republic totters. Yawn. Ever read some of the things our founding fathers said about each other in those early elections? Poor Fallows would get the vapors.

> Laments about how there's so little information out there...from reporters! is even more lame. OK Fallows, go ahead and...report! (instead of boo-hooing).

The other day, Instapundit linked an article in Popular Mechanics, interviewing a leading medical innovator, who I never heard of, but it was a very informative article. I.e., it was journalism. The guy, Dean Kamen, raised a lot of sound arguments and facts, that raised real questions about this health-care push. Nothing against Popular Mechanics, but shouldn't other people be doing this sort of work?

> Trying to conflate the useless and worthless GOP with the people who oppose this health-care bill is a nice trick, but it's still a trick. Happy to stipulate the GOP is cynical and tricksy...so what? If this is about which party is more noble, well good luck with that.

Meanwhile, a lot of ordinary Americans are up in arms. Oh, but they're so mean and ill-informed, if only someone could inform them--but not me, says Mr. Fallows, who's blowing his nose again and wiping his eyes.

> Oh, and how long is Fallows going to milk that, gee, "I went to China and soaked it all up and now I see things so differently" bit? He was on about that for years on NPR; hasn't he got anything else? It's like Tony Orlando reliving his "Tie a Yellow Ribbon" glory days. Do something new, why don't you?

> Meanwhile, we have the raucously absurd spectacle of Pelosi and Reid in the paper, boo-hooing about how rough and rude people are, protesting their wonderful bill. Who doesn't know that (a) unions not only play rough, they brag about playing rough, and (b) the Democratic Party has relied on those rough tactics for decades. I missed Reid and Pelosi tut-tutting over any of that. Some moron shows up with a swastika on a sign (by the way, that absolutely proves this isn't all carefully orchestrated; no one who is orchestrating this would be so stupid as to fail to see how ill advised a SWASTIKA is in any signs; it's what people come up with on their own, and then a competent organizer politely gives that person a different sign), and it's Kristallnacht?; 8/10/09, 11:24 AM
Chip Ahoy said...: ... you can't think this is a sign of health for the Republic.

Au contraire, Piere. Por contrario, Mario. Not so, Bozo. Yes, I can think that.

Having just come back from the world of controlled media would be heart-breaking for a rational and detached commenter to observe the media for world's oldest democracy break out the knee pads and morph from watch-dog to lap-dog in the span of a six months.

I must categorize the brilliant James Fallows' opinion as a teensy bit partisan, therefore unreliable.

*steps on foot pedal to trash can. Lid flips up *

* drops in Fallow (apposite, given the article, in'nit?) opinion. *

* removes foot from pedal, lid slams shut *; 8/10/09, 11:27 AM
bearbee said...: The conservatives fear the government, and the liberals fear the market.

Markets create wealth, governments do not.

Governments take away wealth.; 8/10/09, 11:28 AM
Kirk Parker said...: Balfegor,

Nice idea: calling the House plan "Pelosi-care" works for me!

:-); 8/10/09, 11:28 AM
Scott M said...: "Markets create wealth, governments do not. Governments take away wealth."

I'll play devil's advocate and put forward that the most basic form of American democracy, as stipulated in the enumerated powers, does in fact create wealth, if only indirectly, but that was the original intention.

The government is supposed to provide for defense. A strong defense creates stability. Stability invites innovation and economic growth, i.e., wealth.

Other than that one axiom, I completely agree with you.; 8/10/09, 11:34 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Ever read some of the things our founding fathers said about each other in those early elections? Poor Fallows would get the vapors.

Heh. Fallows probably never saw the British Parliament in action either.

Considering how conservative speakers are treated at college campuses I think the left should take a nice long swig of STFU.; 8/10/09, 11:34 AM
Kirby Olson said...: On about p. 576 it says the illegals will all get full benefits. That's about 30 million people you're paying for aside from your own family. Pricy?; 8/10/09, 11:34 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Hoosier Daddy said...
Heh. Fallows probably never saw the British Parliament in action either.

LOL or the Korean Parliament :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJdZ0TocTlo; 8/10/09, 11:49 AM
Anonymous said...: People who give up their job search have always been dropped from the "reported" unemployment statistic.

I know that. But the relationship between the BLS alternative measures and the official unemployment rate has been remarkably stable over time. Back in 2001-2002 it was liberals making all the noise about discouraged workers; near as I could tell, they were trying to bamboozle us into comparing the "before" U-3 rate to the "after" U-6. (Your link, on the other hand, wants us to compare a one-month change in seasonally adjusted U-3 to a one-month change in non-seasonally-adjusted U-6. No thanks.); 8/10/09, 11:50 AM
Fr Martin Fox said...: Hoosier Daddy: "Considering how conservative speakers are treated at college campuses I think the left should take a nice long swig of STFU."

Well, there was that ringing denunciation from Pelosi and Reid when a gang of students rushed a stage at Columbia University, to prevent an invited speaker from the "Minutemen" from even giving his talk.

(Looking around for the link to those ringing denunciations...)

Hmmm...anyone know where I can find those?; 8/10/09, 11:50 AM
Anthony said...: Why is this an issue? Democrats control both houses of Congress by filibuster-proof margins and the White House. They could have passed it weeks ago.

Yet they still blame Republicans.

How long until actually being a Republican is against the law?; 8/10/09, 11:54 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Well to me the lack of the usual suspects rushing to the defense of this administration on this is quite telling. Why are these people outraged? Maybe because they're being told by their representatives that they haven't read the bill, can't tell us what's in it but we have to pass it right away and the natural reaction from the voters is 'are you fu@@&ing kidding me?'

Glenn Renyolds had a great email from a reader who said Obama took six months to pick out the right dog for his kids yet insists we have to ram down this expensive and far reaching legislation in 4 weeks.; 8/10/09, 11:56 AM
Synova said...: Pogo: "I am a physician, and I read the provision describing a requirement for a 'discussion' about 'end of life decisions'."

Garage: "This is what Fallows was talking about. There is no "requirement", it would not be "mandatory", only that Medicare would fund those consultations. Jesus that was dumb."

Garage, you interact with the government from time to time, don't you? I'm wondering because I learned this lesson my first year out of high school at my very first job.

I worked at a jewelry manufacturer for a five hour shift in the afternoon to pay for school. Matching pearl earrings is hardly taxing and it's always annoying to be interrupted so I didn't take my break a couple of times.

Now, I know that the law says that employers must give hourly employees breaks if they work more than four hours, but I rather doubt that the law requires employees to *take* them.

Doesn't matter. I was informed that I had no choice, that I *would* take my law required break, or else. My explaining that I didn't WANT to take a break was meaningless if anyone decided to audit the company's labor practices. The only way to prove that they did offer and that I was free to take a break was if I actually took it.

This particular dynamic occurs over and over and over again anytime the government is involved. If anything even *maybe* looks like it *might* be something someone can get in trouble for the CYA factor will make that thing mandatory.

Obama himself said, HE said, that we're going to help old people make better choices. He SAID that. And what are those better choices that the elderly don't manage well enough now? We all KNOW that the "wrong" choices are the ones that involve too much medical intervention at the end of life. These aren't secrets from anyone.

All it takes is the worry that *failing* to schedule and charge for end of life counseling will be interpreted as not offering what patients are entitled to and it won't matter how many old people say they never wanted to be told how to die. Pysicians and hospitals will want to cover their asses because they are highly motivated to do so.

Saying... *this* is in the bill, nothing else! ignores the truth that the health bill doesn't exist in isolation. It exists in context.; 8/10/09, 11:57 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Why is this an issue? Democrats control both houses of Congress by filibuster-proof margins and the White House. They could have passed it weeks ago.

short answer is that the Democratic majority is built on top of a bunch of Freshman (D) who represent purple or red districts. If they vote with Pelosi, they will be out of a job in 16 months.

The first duty of a Pol is to get elected.; 8/10/09, 11:59 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Speaking of free speech..

Does Althouse .. and Meade get Rush on the radio up there in Colorado?

Just curious.; 8/10/09, 11:59 AM
Chennaul said...: Wel I've been watching some of those town halls and-

Damn those Congress Critters-almost all of them expect the crowd to let them-

FILIBUSTER.

And, you have to wonder if this is what they want on some level...

It's that bad.

And, why do the union guys and gals insist on wearing their identifying T-shirts-they do it consistently too by the way.

Then finally I did think the Blue Dogs might be earnest til my friend from Queens had to wise me up.

Essentially watch-an APPROPRIATIONS bill will soon follow whatever health care bill passes and don't be -

*shocked*

when it has certain pet projects in it for those that played hard to get.

Republicans really don't have a play here.

It's up to the PEOPLE and then they voted away bi-partisanship essentially.

We'll see what the people do with The House.

2010 can't come fast enough, although incumbency is a tough thing to break.; 8/10/09, 12:00 PM
BJM said...: Kirby, there is also language that those who cannot afford the Exchange "private" coverage or the minimal govt provided coverage will be automatically enrolled into Medicaid.

I don't think that covering illegals means what the Dems are telling the Hispanic community it means.

This will be another unfunded mandate on the states that exacerbates state and local govt deficits and leads to more tax increases on property and local services.

California for example, initiated cost reforms similar to those PelosiCare intends, which resulted in closing half its county hospitals, leaving patients without care. Where will these additional Medicaid users go for care? In some counties drives of 130-180 miles is not uncommon. Many of these counties have large populations of migrant workers.

Even in Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi's backyard.; 8/10/09, 12:00 PM
Steven said...: you could talk about what you see as viable alternatives to an increasingly unbearable status quo

What makes it increasingly unbearable?

When adjusted for our country's higher rates of accidental deaths and homicides, the U.S. has the highest life expectancy in the world.

We pay the most for health care, sure, but we also get the best. What better thing is there to spend money on than extended life?; 8/10/09, 12:03 PM
Synova said...: "I think insurance was developed to spread the risk around for ship-owners who were import/ export traders and explorers."

My husband was playing Eve and I hear his anguished outburst...

Me: What happened.
He: I lost my ship.
Me: Oh, no!
He: I bought insurance.
Me: Well, that's good then.
He: It won't cover the cargo.
Me: Oh. :-(; 8/10/09, 12:05 PM
hombre said...: [Liberals] have no sense of history of big government, of where it leads. They see big government solutions as reasonable.... Why they ignore all evidence to the contrary is the big question.

Because being a liberal used to mean that you could "do the same thing over and over again while expecting different results" without anyone pointing out that you were a lunatic.

Obviously, that is no longer true, but they haven't figured it out -- perhaps because they are lunatics..

Fallows quoting Pearlstein: Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them ....

"Us?" "Them?"

There isn't even a pretext of objectivity between these two left wing elitists. Why would we ever suspect that they believe in free speech for those who disagree with them?

C'mon, Professor. Next.; 8/10/09, 12:06 PM
Scott M said...: @Synova

...lol...he needs to stay in carebearland then and avoid heavy 0.0 or lowsec areas.

Eve is one of the most brutal examples of free market economics available in the world. So much so that academics all over the world are taking a hard look at how it functions. As far as I know, it's the only MMO with a PHD economist on staff.; 8/10/09, 12:08 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Obama himself said, HE said, that we're going to help old people make better choices. He SAID that.

Interestingly enough there is a lot of stuff Obama said that we keep being told he doesn’t really mean that. Like when he said we can’t run our thermostat at 75 or drive our SUVs folks like garage will cluck their tongues and give eyerolls as if we’re oh so very stupid to think he really means this stuff that comes out of his pie hole.; 8/10/09, 12:08 PM
Chennaul said...: Oh and speaking of the swastika sign it was a-

NO NAZIS sign essentially it had the null sign in red stamped across it-and it was one gal out of hundreds in Fort Collins Colorado I think?

Talk about Pelosi getting the mileage out of that one.

If Pelosi and the Press had visions of white supremacists dancing in most people's imagination-well all the better....mission accomplished.; 8/10/09, 12:10 PM
garage mahal said...: You are stupid.; 8/10/09, 12:10 PM
Synova said...: "because, frankly, if we lived in a world where I could bring chocolate pudding packs to work and have them unmolested for as long as they're in there, most of the Left's policies might actually work. Since I'm, at the moment, chocolate pudding pack-less due to human nature over the weekend, we're back in a world as-is, not a world as-they-would-have-it."

And this, dear friends, will from now on be known as the Pudding Pack Profundity.

:-); 8/10/09, 12:14 PM
traditionalguy said...: After the McCarthy days in the early 1950s, it has been socially unacceptable and crude to call Marxists by the name of "Marxists". In place of that category we have encouraged the use of polite terms like Radicals or Progressives. The truth is that the Marxists are now taking off their masks since one of their own has been elected President eight months ago. The voting of Marxists into Presidential office is the slick trick that the Clintonites first perfected, but they were stymied by Congress. Today's Marxist Party controls 90% of the Media and it may have enough votes in Congress to be close to a final takeover. It is small wonder that an Anti-Palin jihad of ridiculing stories erupt every time she raises her head. It may be Showdown time at the DC Corral over the next 4 months when we see how many Blue Dog Democrats come out of the closet as Marxists. There is nothing wrong with the noble Marxist's desires to see equality of financial rewards. It is only wrong when Marxists justify stealing and murdering their way into that promised land and promptly outlaw guns and every other political ideology. Cuba is not Libre, my dear Marxist friends, and we wont be either if we continue with the current experiment of taking Obama at his word.; 8/10/09, 12:14 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Synova:

What do you mean "playing Eve"?; 8/10/09, 12:14 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: You can do better than that garage. Up your game son.; 8/10/09, 12:14 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/10/09, 12:14 PM
garage mahal said...: Saying... *this* is in the bill, nothing else! ignores the truth that the health bill doesn't exist in isolation. It exists in context..

Ignore the actual bill and rely on lies from right wing blogs?; 8/10/09, 12:15 PM
garage mahal said...: I have to give conservatives credit though. Somehow they can always get the media to play fetch on the dumbest patently false arguments, even when it's in print showing it's not true.; 8/10/09, 12:19 PM
Scott M said...: @AJ Lynch

Eve Online (www.eveonline.com)

Kiddies don't have patience for it and the learning curve (actually a learning cliff) discourages most casual gamers.; 8/10/09, 12:20 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Ignore the actual bill and rely on lies from right wing blogs?

Lies! All Lies! That's cool garage. I never did picture you as Frau Farbissima but upon reflection, it does fit.

You know we only wish your devoted Democratic congresspeoples knew as much about this piece of legislation as you obviously do.; 8/10/09, 12:20 PM
hombre said...: "Pelosicare." Excellent!; 8/10/09, 12:23 PM
Chennaul said...: Well you want to talk stupid-

The leader of the House and the leader of the House Majority party calling Americans-

unAmerican.

They have got to be trying to gin things up-or you have dumb and dumber running most of the House and in control of spending....; 8/10/09, 12:24 PM
Synova said...: "Some moron shows up with a swastika on a sign (by the way, that absolutely proves this isn't all carefully orchestrated; no one who is orchestrating this would be so stupid as to fail to see how ill advised a SWASTIKA is in any signs; it's what people come up with on their own, and then a competent organizer politely gives that person a different sign), and it's Kristallnacht?"

It was a NO swastika sign, but... on the larger question, the fact that people were showing up with nicely printed and professionally produced posters with "SINGLE PAYER NOW!" on them, sort of shows that even organized and promoted efforts can be stupid.; 8/10/09, 12:24 PM
garage mahal said...: We don't know anything about this bill! They don't anything about this bill!

We know everything about this bill! It's going to kill us!

Can it possibly get any dumber than that?; 8/10/09, 12:25 PM
Chennaul said...: Gees-

Can we recommend Pelosi for "special" counseling, and then Steny next....

Gawd!; 8/10/09, 12:27 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: garage, the morons claiming they haven't read the fucking bill are from your favorite party. Funny people bitching about the bill are doing so because the assholes who want it passed can't even tell them whats it it. Is that really that difficult for you to understand? Is it? Maybe I'll grab some Crayolas and draw you a picture.

The only thing that can get dumber is dipshits like you who think we should rush through yet another massive federal program whose creators can't even tell us what the fuck is in it or how it works.; 8/10/09, 12:30 PM
Synova said...: Me: "Saying... *this* is in the bill, nothing else! ignores the truth that the health bill doesn't exist in isolation. It exists in context.."

Garage: "Ignore the actual bill and rely on lies from right wing blogs?"

Did I say ignore?

I said it had to be considered in context. The context of the Pudding Pack -- of how real people and real institutions behave. It has to be considered in the context of what the reformers themselves have said about wanting single payer and easing changes in without alarming people.

This is a thousand pages of new law that will be applied by people who are likely understand it badly.

And it *will* change the dynamic of how insurance works and how medical care is managed and the fact that Obama says it will NOT does not make those who say it will, liars.; 8/10/09, 12:31 PM
garage mahal said...: garage, the morons claiming they haven't read the fucking bill are from your favorite party.

Shocked to see no examples.; 8/10/09, 12:32 PM
Chennaul said...: garage-

Aren't there five different DRAFTS and/or different provisions from three or five different commitees?

Do you have the final craft somewhere?; 8/10/09, 12:33 PM
BJM said...: Jason said:

The only thing they tell departing or laid off workers about is COBRA. That is, government health care.

Um, no it's not govt health care, it's labor law. That is why the program is managed by the Dept of Labor and not HHS.

COBRA is govt mandated and regulated access to private health care, but you knew that. Why mislead?

The monthly COBRA checks went to a private entity and my former BCBS coverage remained intact 100% and I retained the same employer provided BCBS cards.

I chose to pay COBRA as could afford to do so and in the middle of a cross country move and lifestyle change, it suited me to enroll in COBRA. You are right, was expensive given that I negotiated 100% premium benefit in my employment contract.

A few months ago I switched to a similar individual policy from the same broker and insurance company, it's more of a VW Passat than a Caddy, but I'm not unhappy with my choices.

My. Choices.; 8/10/09, 12:33 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Shocked to see no examples.

Try opening your eyes for a change.; 8/10/09, 12:34 PM
Synova said...: "Eve Online (www.eveonline.com)

Kiddies don't have patience for it and the learning curve (actually a learning cliff) discourages most casual gamers."

I doubt most adults have the patience for it! (Actually, my son has far more patience than his dad does.)

I thought that AJ was making a comment about "play". ;-)

I will admit, though it looks uber cool, it does not look like a whole lot of *fun*, IMO.; 8/10/09, 12:34 PM
Chennaul said...: And, you're pretty sure Nancy won't sneak in her own personal jet for emergency medi-vacs to her botoxer of choice?; 8/10/09, 12:35 PM
hombre said...: Somehow [conservatives] can always get the media to play fetch on the dumbest patently false arguments, even when it's in print showing it's not true.

Well let's just ignore that ol' "legislative intent" thing, shall we?; 8/10/09, 12:38 PM