"Snowe? Stupak? Lieberman? Who left these people in charge? It's time for the president to get his hands dirty. Some of us have compromised our compromised compromise. We need the president to stand up for the values our party shares. We must stop letting the tail wag the dog of this debate."
Blaming Obama is the new trend. He was going to be magical and miraculous. What was that phrase? Yes, we can? We can. Doesn't mean we will. Fortunately!
ADDED: People just don't want this bill. I think the big mistake was skipping the step of winning public support for a particular plan. It wasn't enough that people believed there was a problem. People needed to believe the solution wasn't worse than the problem. We were supposed to look away and trust them. The trust was never won, never earned. It's been a horrific mess, and it just looks messier and messier as time wears on. Obama kept his distance, which looks pretty smart now. Easy to see why the congressional Democrats are pissed at him now. Good! I like divided government.
१६ डिसेंबर, २००९
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१५२ टिप्पण्या:
It is one thing for the tail to wag the dog but quite another to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Perhaps we should put it out on the stoop and see if the cat licks it up. Otherwise, we can run it up the flag pole and see if anyone salutes it.
As a last resort, throw everything against the wall to see what sticks.
But what if that dog won’t hunt?
The only thing the president wants is some kind of health care legislation, for his "legacy" or whatever. I dont know, of course, but suspect he doesnt much care which congress critter loses their reelection or who gets sacrificed to produce something entitled the health care act of 2009--or whatever the abomination is called.
And the congress critters can read the polls--the polls are very clear that health care is opposed by many more people than want it. Obama is basically asking congress critters are being asked to ride the wild lightning so Mr. Obama can say he brought about health care reform.
And the congress critters can also read Mr. Obama's approval numbers increasingly going down. Getting relected is the only that counts in Washington--Its going to be who throws whom under the bus. If Obama was running 60 percent approval he might be able to get his hands dirty--he isn't. He's already a lame duck for some.
I am, of course, actually enjoying watching this spectacle. And even if the Senate can produce a health care bill, it still has to go to conference, and the house is much more radical than is the Senate. Keep the popcorn coming.
A bill will be passed and signed before New Years. But it will be repealed in the next Congress by an overwhelming margin. That Congress will then adopt the basic, easy reforms like competition across state lines, universal portability if you leave your job, etc.
Bissage:
I think the correct phrase is "what if that beyaaatch won't bark?"
No restrictions on torts, of course.
As a legal matter, there HAS to be a better way than what we do now for cases, like medical malpractice, where scientific evidence is presented, and scientific understanding is required. Trial lawyers, of course, throw out any jurors with a hint of a scientific or engineering background, because they depend on emotion and "someone must pay" crap to extract millions and build big houses, and never mind the costs involved, the careers ruined,....
/rant
AJ, that's slicker than snot on a marble.
Well played.
That's the problem with the senate, nobody would ever call each other out, like Lieberman, Baucus, or Nelson, who are clearly in the insurance industry's back pocket. It's no mystery to anyone why they vote the way they vote. Conyers and Obey should give that a try.
I agree that something is likely to be passed by year-end. However, I do not think it will be repealed any time soon, if ever. There aren't the Senate votes there to repeal it.
As a last resort, throw everything against the wall to see what sticks
Even the baby!?!
That seems harsh.
Remember "catastrophic health care"? Passed with flying colors in the 1990s at some point. Repealed the next year because the AARP found out the hard way that the new tax wasn't welcome.
"A bill will be passed and signed before New Years. But it will be repealed in the next Congress by an overwhelming margin. That Congress will then adopt the basic, easy reforms like competition across state lines, universal portability if you leave your job, etc."
Oh AJ, that is my Christmas wish!
Patca:
I think Americans are so sick of the Congress and both parties, it may be a good time for the people to push for a change to part-time senators and reps.
We really don't need them in the Beltway full-time.
Obama fucked it up completely (and fortunately in my opinion) from the jump when he sub contracted the bill to Reid and Pelosi. A rank amateur; a living embodiment of the Peter Principle.
The left will either go along with a republican style bill which moderate democrats will go for or they won't in which case the status quo remains. The leftist dream is DOA. Same for Cap and Trade and card check.
Obama and the left have jumped the shark. Obama, Pelosi and Reid have lost, correction, squandered their mojo.
As Karl Rove predicted, a HCR bill passes 60-40.
Blaming Obama is the new trend. ...
ADDED: People just don't want this bill
Obama gave the Congress an opportunity to excel. They failed to do the job -- it's too hard! -- so now they're looking to blame anyone but themselves. "Stop us, Daddy-O -- you know how useless we are!"
The bill is a compromise, so no one will be passionately in favor of it.
I think Americans are so sick of the Congress and both parties, it may be a good time for the people to push for a change to part-time senators and reps.
Wasn't that the original intention of the Founding Fathers anyway?
I don't think they ever invisioned a permanent professional political class. In fact they tried to get away from this heriditary ruling class of the English type. We seem to have gravitated back into that mode with permanent politicians and political families that go on for generations like the Kennedys and the Bushes. There is a sense of royal entitlement and arrogance among our self appointed elites.
Possibly a lesson from history and the French Revolution would be in order?
ADDED: People just don't want this bill. I think the big mistake was skipping the step of winning public support for a particular plan.
Oh B.S. You completely neglect that liberals and Democrats are part of the polling, and if you have been paying attention liberals and Democrats are increasingly pissed off at the state of where the bill is at with all the compromises to a few prima donnas like Lieberfuck. Who, just admitted he flip flopped on the Medicare buy in from 3 months ago because of liberal enthusiasm for it. I'm surprised the polling in favor of it is that high. Who wants to be forced to buy shit insurance with the same high premiums ?
"A motion to toss Obamacare back to the Senate Finance Committee has been tabled by a vote of 56 to 41. The amendment was offered by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R., Tex.) and Sen. John Thune (R., S.D.) The aim of the measure was not only to bring the bill back to committee but also to make sure that no new taxes or fees would be imposed until after the benefits of the bill began."
-And-
Mary Landrieu (D-LA) is now saying she'll vote for it. Good luck next election, honey.
Nobody wants to say it.. but Bissage is winning the tread .. again.
wv - barrio
It wasn't enough that people believed there was a problem. People needed to believe the solution wasn't worse than the problem. We were supposed to look away and trust them. The trust was never won, never earned. It's been a horrific mess, and it just looks messier and messier as time wears on.
And yet people voted for Obama anyway...
Garage -
No, not BS. If polls show it tanking, then it's tanking.
It matters little that both sides are hating it.
I've spoken with die-hard liberals who know government run health care won't work, and they too don't want to pay for it.
Who wants to be forced to buy shit insurance with the same high premiums ?
Me. I do. I want the choice to decide for myself that insurance A or insurance B is shittier. What I don't want is your side forcing me to do something using the weight of fines and prison if I don't.
I have a single insurance policy against catastrophic medical bills. Other than that, me and my family of four kids and the Mrs. pay into an HSA and use it as needed.
THAT'S freedom. THAT'S personal liberty of the type the country was founded on. Did I just wave my daddy's trust fund and make so? No. Daddy don't have no trust fund. I worked hard, made sacrifices and good choices, got our doctors to agree to some pretty good rates and...wow...you wouldn't believe it...affordable health care that doesn't take money out of my neighbor's pocket.
Frankly, if nearly 60 Democrats are still angling to get this monstrosity passed after loosing nearly everything they bitched about...well, something doesn't smell quite right. Could be they just want the constitutional showdown that will prove they can't mandate that we buy something like this. That gives them the excuse to make it a taxed, government leviathan.
The scariest thing out of all of this, at least for me, is the fact that the Democrats wanted this all done by early August.
I mean think about it in light of all the issue which have come up since then.
They wanted to essentially nationalize roughly 1/6 of the private sector with next to no debate or deliberation.
If that doesn't send a chill down your spine I don't know what will.
Passed with flying colors in the 1990s at some point
IIRC, it was passed in '87 in the wake of Iran-Contra, went into effect in 88, and was repealed in 89.
The DemonRats are feeling the hot breath of a Rogue Facebook Poster on their necks. Heck, even the GOP insiders are running scared of that Rogue upsetting the tables of the money changers at the Temple of Earmarks. The Mayan Calendar may also have sensed the approaching day of Sarah Palin.
Who wants to be forced to buy shit insurance with the same high premiums ?
Ask your precious democrats. They are the ones writing these 2000+ page bills that cost 2 trillion dollars.
I blame pre-Christmas passage lust. It's just not that sexy.
I think Americans are so sick of the Congress and both parties, it may be a good time for the people to push for a change to part-time senators and reps.
Wasn't that the original intention of the Founding Fathers anyway?
I don't think they ever invisioned a permanent professional political class.
BINGO!
Any way to get a federal referendum proposing term limits?
Any way to repeal the 2008 presidential election?
2010 Hope and Change!
Coburn says Reid intends to vote on the bill on Christmas eve.
oh joy! We all get a lump of coal.
At least Reid will be out of a job come November.
We, on the other, will remain screwed.
I think it was wise for Obama to stay away. Any bill passed by the current congress is going to be an atrociously bad pork laden corruption threaded mess.
At this rate it will be an a progressive insane person that the Secret Service will have to save the President from. The traditional Americans see Obama as our skilled enemy whom we want defeated, while the progressives see him as a traitor to the revolution, and they want him punished as all traitors are punished by the Progressives.
I bet 0B+ma can't name 5 things this bill does, at least without Rahm's puppet arm moving the teleprompter script.
As long as there are Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and a Democrat in the Whitehouse, we will have divided government. We have always provided our own oposition.
You like divided government when Obama is President. You didn't like it when Bush was.
But you have some nerve talking about trust. You wouldn't trust government if your life depended on it. Unless Bush was president.
Too bad you couldn't have married George W! (He actually keeps a lower profile these days than Meade does, btw.)
AprilApple: "A motion to toss Obamacare back to the Senate Finance Committee has been tabled by a vote of 56 to 41. The amendment was offered by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R., Tex.) and Sen. John Thune (R., S.D.) The aim of the measure was not only to bring the bill back to committee but also to make sure that no new taxes or fees would be imposed until after the benefits of the bill began."
What are you quoting? A Google search for bits of this passage turns up no hits.
I think it was wise for Obama to stay away.
?!!
It does not matter how he attempts to keep a distance from it. It is ObamaCare and is identified with him and his party.
Bissage! You're killing me over here.
Posting the story right after the Catalans Party Poopers is like a non stick caramel treat, woods in the fire and Mad Men on the wall.
What did anyone think had changed since when Hillary tried this?
Also notice that people who aren't *for* whatever the heck random thing the Congress decides to spit out are *against* health care reform. They don't have other ideas, they're just against it.
There are always those who want to have universal government health care (not insurance) and that's what they want.
They aren't the majority.
A majority of people most certainly agree that changes ought to be made and certain inequities or negatives related to how health care is delivered in the US be fixed. Not everyone sees hospitals and doctors as the enemy. Not everyone has faith-issues supporting their belief that humans without profit motives are, by default, good and noble and that all profit motivation is automatically evil. Some people are actually *glad* that "Big Pharma" is *highly* motivated to jump through all of the hoops necessary to bring a new drug to market. Some people want to preserve that while addressing the hindrances to researching and producing new and affordable medicines.
But agreeing that there are problems and agreeing that the problems ought to be fixed and agreeing that there should be changes is not at all the same thing as demanding change for the sake of having "done something" or passed a bill to show how much the politicians care about the problem when there is exactly ZERO indication that anyone cares at all that the changes are good ones to make. Oh, we're just supposed to assume that whatever tree-killing tome produced will be mushy enough to be applied in whatever *good* ways that our political and government employees decide to morph it into later.
NO. NO. NO.
And it is NOT being against health reform or health care to say NO.
I'm always baffled by the whining about Lieberman, such as garage's recent post.
He's one of the 50. He doesn't owe anyone his vote but the people of Connecticut. And if he was so out of step with voters there, they had a perfectly good chance to kick him out three years ago and declined to do so.
I think if he put his vote up for referendum in the state of Connecticut, the bill would lose 45-55. It's a mess now. This is just not how to reform something as important and immense as health care.
I sort of agree with you Anne, but I would have wanted Obama to take a further step back, and convene a series of legitimate (i.e. not staged) town halls and focus groups with all the stakeholders, especially focusing on providers and users, and sort of wiki a health care bill via such meetings and the web. Come up with, say, 12 topics within the rubric of health care, and take up one each month. Then take six more months to let the public and experts comment on and revise a draft, and for Obama and his own people to do the same. Then submit THAT to Congress. It would have been much harder to oppose if he'd gotten grassroots as well as specialist buy-in via such a process.
Obama promised transparency, and I was excited about it, not just because it's a way to reduce special interest influence, but especially because it lets more people participate, regardless of how much campaign dough they gave out. There are a lot more intelligent people in America than the 535 in Congress. I thought Obama was going to find an innovative way to tap that native genius out there. Instead, he's going about this exactly like the worst of his predecessors.
Obama stated in an interview just the other day that he "has been involved all the time." This tar baby, which should be thrown out with the bathwater, will stick to your shoes like chewing gum.
And our great constitutional scholar in the White House will sign this obviously unconstitutional individual mandate, never mind that it is neither necessary nor proper to achieve full coverage -- there are other, less invasive, ways of getting there.
Plus, correctly accounted, the net price tag of this tar baby is $2.1 billion. I realize that's chump change in Washington these days, so why do they have to lie about it?
re: trusting government,
No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session.
Benjamin Franklin
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty
John Adams
former law student said...
"Blaming Obama is the new trend. ...
Obama gave the Congress an opportunity to excel. They failed to do the job -- it's too hard! -- so now they're looking to blame anyone but themselves. "Stop us, Daddy-O -- you know how useless we are!"
Obama is a fucking liar. That's the problem.
From the Washington Post: On the campaign trail, Barack Obama vowed to take on the drug industry by allowing Americans to import cheaper prescription medicine. "We'll tell the pharmaceutical companies 'thanks, but no, thanks' for the overpriced drugs -- drugs that cost twice as much here as they do in Europe and Canada," he said back then.
On Tuesday, the matter came to the Senate floor -- and President Obama forgot the "no, thanks" part. Siding with the pharmaceutical lobby, the administration successfully fought against the very idea Obama had championed.
I am pretty far over to the right. Thing is, I do not mind people who are really broke getting medical care. It would be easy and cheap. Do something about the malpractice mess. Have uniform state requirements and allow cross state purchase of insurance. A choice as to what is covered. Honest, I do not need pregnacy coverage, nor does my wife being how she's in her mid sixties.
Health Stamps like the Food Stamp program. If one is under a certain income, the stamps pay for all of the insurance policy, plus the co-pays. The next step up, the person or family pays ten percent of everything, then Twenty, etc.
These changes would cost less that the rounding errors on the earmarks in the new spending bill.
That, of course, is not what the Democrats want, even though hardly any Republican would vote against it. Why?
Ms. Althouse said "Obama kept his distance, which looks pretty smart now. "
If that statement is true, why are the bills commonly referred to as ObamaCare and not PelosiCare or ReidCare? Obama owns whatever health care "reform" comes out of Congress.
Obama kept his distance, which looks pretty smart now.
If I read Althouse correctly ;) Althouse seems to be saying that whatever happens with that monstrosity they're calling Health care reform, Obama will be counting on his charm and his charm alone to get him re-elected.
You can almost say that has been the plan all along.
I say Almost because when nothing plus nothing equals nothing is very difficult to latch on to anything with any appreciable certainty.
Obama is our Seinfeldian President.
But what if that dog won’t hunt?
That's a horse of a different color.
He's one of the 50. He doesn't owe anyone his vote but the people of Connecticut.
And "the people" in CT overwhelmingly are in favor of the public option, which he is opposed to. Just like people are in favor of Medicare buy in at age 55 by a 30 point margin, which he is opposed to. I've yet to see any poll, anywhere, in which the public option and Medicare buy in at 55 is not heavily approved.
So do you think Lieberman owes it to the people in CT to vote for the public option?
Obama's stimulus plan sucked and he signed it even though he could not be bothered to read it.
Now, Obama wants to plead "not my fault" with the piece of crap Obamacare bill?
As The Wonderful Bissage might say, that match won't light twice!
One of the problems about this and other issues is that there's no real debate. The MSM has no interest in a real debate, and neither does any national pundit or blogger that I know of.
The way to get a real debate is through the plan I've been pushing since Feb. 2007, but finding anyone else to help promote that plan is extremely difficult.
Instead, this is like living through Idiocracy, with things like tea partiers throwing tantrums instead of trying to do something effective.
Let the Democrat Party schism begin. Hopefully, this will lead to the rise of the New Party and the neutering of the Democrat Party as we know it.
I had to LOL over AJ Lynch's and PatinCA's comments about "the next congress" repealing this round of reform (should it pass) and passing... some fictitious, never spelled out Republican alternative.
Were either of you dupes AWAKE during the earlier part of this decade, when the Republican party had an uninterrupted reign over all branches of government? And all they managed to do address our catastrophe of a system was to pass a huge, unfunded entitlement.
It's hard to argue for the passage of this reform bill with people who clearly reject anything coming out of the CBO, and STILL talk about a "government takeover of health care" when there is literally NOTHING being taken over-- unless you count changes to Medicare, a government program, as a "takeover."
The CBO says the bill saves money in the long run and will mitigate out of control premiums for middle class people. The status quo is untenable. So I for one will be relieved when it passes.
That's a horse of a different color.
We mustn't look at our gifted horse in the mouth. he wears a teleprompter.
This has been done so badly. It isn't just that it wasn't sold, though that is also true. But the solutions provided by these bills didn't match the problems being solved. The idea was to bend the cost curve down. The result was that they were bent up by pretty much everything in these bills.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, Congress cannot cut costs, increase people covered, and what is coverage, and provide better health care, all at once. So, they have settled for slightly increasing the number covered and what is covered, sacrificing cost and overall coverage.
Obama and the Congressional Democrats might be in better shape right now, if they hadn't ruined their trust with the people by passing that "stimulus" bill early this year that was never designed to stimulate the economy, but rather, to enrich and payoff Democratic constituents, all in the name of (discredited) Keynesian economics.
So, in Act 3 (or so), they try another big switch on the American People, selling these bills as solving all of the world's problems. But then, the messy details came out, and the American people discover that they are getting another shell game. While they may agree with the theory of fixing the system, all they see are all the ways that their own health care will be curtailed, while they pay more and more for it.
And, really, that the only thing that really matters to the Democrats here is getting control over 1/6 or so of our economy, regardless of consequences.
The Democrats want to get this passed so that single payer can be enacted by regulation. All this is is enabling legislation that will allow the writing of the law by regulation. It doesn't matter what it says since the key is erecting the bureaucracy. Then, they will do it out of the sight of the voters.
By the way, it guts HSAs.
Also I'd like to point out that it is extremely in bad faith to suggest that some hypothetical common-sense alternative plan "that hardly any Republican would vote against" exists on THIS PLANET. Get a clue.
Republicans are for the status quo in health care.
By the way, it guts HSAs.
Can't have any untaxed money out there, now, can we?
"He doesn't owe anyone his vote but the people of Connecticut."
"So do you think Lieberman owes it to the people in CT to vote for the public option?"
You're both wrong. Lieberman owes his vote to nothing but the U.S. Constitution.
Of course, that isn't the basis of his objection; he simply thinks the public option is fiscally unsound. So he's doing the right thing if not for quite the right reason.
But senators -- especially senators! -- don't "owe their vote" to their constituencies. Some of you should brush up on the whole republic/democracy thing.
As an aside: It's kind of weird how flabbergasted the left has seemed the past few days by Lieberman's stance. Weird because he hasn't disguised his intentions, at all.
I know this is from Thanksgiving Day, but it's still a bit strange how few have seemed aware of it:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125900412679261049.html
Republicans are for the status quo in health care.
For the majority of Americans the status quo in health care is a healthy one.
It's hard to argue for the passage of this reform bill with people who clearly reject anything coming out of the CBO, and STILL talk about a "government takeover of health care" when there is literally NOTHING being taken over-- unless you count changes to Medicare, a government program, as a "takeover."
The CBO says the bill saves money in the long run and will mitigate out of control premiums for middle class people. The status quo is untenable. So I for one will be relieved when it passes.
I have an extraordinarily hard time believing this, unless you think that gaming the system is legitimate, to the extent of comparing tax and premium increases for a decade against expenses of maybe six years, and ignoring that those Medicare cuts are just not going to happen (or pushing the filling of those cuts into another bill).
And how the heck can the bills mitigate or reduce premium increases? By mandating limited age ratings? Eliminating health underwriting? Eliminating pre-existing conditions? Forcing those who don't need insurance into paying insurance? Eliminating high-deductible policies, such as those used with HSAs?
Which, exactly of those policies will bring insurance premiums under control?
The CBO says the bill saves money in the long run and will mitigate out of control premiums for middle class people.
I don't believe you. Make some citations. Link some evidence. Othewise, I think you are pulling it out of your ass.
Also...which bill. The one last month, last week, last night, this morning? The thing is morphing all over the place and no one has any idea of what the final piece of monstrosity will be.
Put up.
Congressional Democrats turn on Obama
Snowe, Stupak, Lieberman...
I am quite surprised to learn that those three individuals actually turn Obama on.
In this era of easy hook-ups in VIP rooms, carefully arranged by...arrangers...I would have thought that far younger and attractive people would turn on Obama.
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong here but I recall that YOU voted for Mr.Obama.
Apart from having some serious second thoughts (mayhaps you might have had some first thoughts beforehand as an alternative), why are you defending Obama in this fiasco?
This is ALL Obama's fault right down to the last un-dotted 'I' and the last uncrossed 'T'.
He at one point, had the popularity to DEMAND a revision to health care in the USA, and a personal mandate to kick some a** in order to get it done.
And what did he do with this historical opportunity ?
He voted present and left the work to Pelosi and Reid. He deserves ALL the blame for this fiasco.
ALL THE BLAME. And my guess is that he will get it.
As a small business owner, I have already alerted my employees (about 100) that I will be passing along the cost of any healthcare, to them.
I am not going to pass it to my clients, and will not incur it for myself.
That only leaves me with Option C, the employees. One asked me if this would include her car insurance (which she doesn't have right now). Another told me the president is not going to allow people like me (her employer) to charge her for insurance. She insists it's going to be "free" to her.
Hopefully I can stay in business long enough to find out how it turns out.
Googling: "The CBO says the bill saves money in the long run"
Turns up no results.
Of course, that isn't the basis of his objection; he simply thinks the public option is fiscally unsound. So he's doing the right thing if not for quite the right reason.
And your bullshit detector doesn't blip once at the fact that him and his wife are taking humongous sums of money from the insurance industry? He, for election coffers, she as the "senior counselor" of "health care and pharmaceuticals practice" at Hill & Knowlton? C'mon.
The CBO says the bill saves money in the long run
If we can foretell with any kind of certitude what is going to happen in the long run then pray tell why is unemployment in double digits and why is our debt ceiling nearing seventh haven?
When has government saved money in the long run? short run any time?
Printing is not saving!
"Were either of you dupes AWAKE during the earlier part of this decade..."
You mean that period when the American free market medical and pharmaceutical industries made some of the biggest advances in techniques and drug therapies in history? When the other nations of the world fell far behind in the innovation produced by these miracle factories? When the evil insurance companies funded a system that people from around the world came to have their lives saved after the nationalized systems of their own counties told them to go to hell?
Yea, I was here, being cured of cancer by that system at a cost of $500K to my insurance company who never even hesitated for a second to pay for it and never increased my premium anywhere near where Obamacare intends to take it day one.
The status quo is a life saving miracle and cheap for what you get, which is medical care for 100% of American paid for by all but 30 million of us. Most importantly it allows competition. That could be improved, but not by this anti-market stinking pile.
Garage, did you see this headline?
"Howard Dean: Health Care Bill 'Bigger Bailout for the Insurance Industry Than AIG'"
So....shouldn't Lieberman be supporting the bill?
And your bullshit detector doesn't blip once at the fact that him and his wife are taking humongous sums of money from the insurance industry? He, for election coffers, she as the 'senior counselor' of 'health care and pharmaceuticals practice' at Hill & Knowlton? C'mon."
This isn't germane to my point (beyond the fact that it too would indicate a motivation other than the U.S. Constitution).
So why are you raising a stink with me about something that ultimately is irrelevant to my point? You're contesting something that my argument doesn't even hinge on.
This is why 99.9% of web discussions go off the rails. Too many people don't know how to follow an argument.
Actually, the answer to my last question is that the way that the Democrats intend to bring the cost of health care down is through rationing. By those "Death Panels" that they think it so unfair to mention. Ultimately, we are talking Canadian or British style Death Panels. But in the short run, limiting procedures, such as yearly mammograms and PAP smears, CAT scans, etc. through their comparative effectiveness boards, etc.
He tried to win support... but almost everything he said was a lie and evasion.
The only good things about the various democratic plans are easy insurance for those without it (a sort of defacto universal coverage)... but we could do that without many of the bad things in the democrats various plans...
"I think the big mistake was skipping the step of winning public support for a particular plan."
Carve that puppy on a granite tombstone.
I think now folks get to see what a career "voting present" really means. Ok, I oppose the governmentaliztion of healthcare, or anything else, in general, but what I really HATE about this process is that Obama and his cronies on the Hill (Reid, Schumer et al) don't even seem to really care what is in the Bill as long as government is expanded. At least Pelosi is a doctrinaire leftist, but the rest are just statists and BS artists who will make up the details later.
Ok, so I am from Canada and I DESPISE the system there and want no part of it here, but the one thing you can say for it is that it does control costs, generally via rationing, endless postponements of surgeries, stifling innovation and generally letting people be sick and croak. Oh, and since the government is the payor, the Canadian system is blowing massive holes in all the Provincial budgets, crowding out such things as education, infrastructure and law enforcement, but it does keep the percentage of GDP spend on medicine down.
But Obamacare won't even do that - you'll still have the private insurers making money (now under the wing of big government, and you'll still have the tort lawyers raking in the stupid awards and causing defensive medicine, but now you'll have all the rationing and other bad stuff as well. It is literally the absolute worst of both worlds.
This bill and everything about the way it has been handled is why Bambi's approval is below 45% and dropping.
Demos are getting scared because a lot of people in "safe" districts are feeling threatened and they know people will not take it well if this mess passes.
traditionalguy said...
The DemonRats are feeling the hot breath of a Rogue Facebook Poster on their necks. Heck, even the GOP insiders are running scared of that Rogue upsetting the tables of the money changers at the Temple of Earmarks. The Mayan Calendar may also have sensed the approaching day of Sarah Palin.
You betcha. With 2 words (death panels), she took control of the debate and the Demos were toast.
John Stodder said...
I'm always baffled by the whining about Lieberman, such as garage's recent post.
Lefties love traitors, unless they betray the World Socialist Revolution.
A used car salesman has more integrity than someone who says the government will save money.
wv - trafti - the government in charge of traffic, distribution and payment of prescription drugs
"Were either of you dupes AWAKE during the earlier part of this decade, when the Republican party had an uninterrupted reign over all branches of government? And all they managed to do address our catastrophe of a system was to pass a huge, unfunded entitlement."
And were you AWAKE when the consequence of that was that the Republicans lost the majority?
And your bullshit detector doesn't blip once at the fact that him and his wife are taking humongous sums of money from the insurance industry?
Hey, the insurance industry employs a lot of people in Connecticut. Liebs is just doing his part to save or create jobs in his state...that's the way politics works. If you don't like him, why not nominate a charismatic progressive like, say, Ned Lamont to run against him?
As a small business owner, I have already alerted my employees (about 100) that I will be passing along the cost of any healthcare, to them.
I am not going to pass it to my clients, and will not incur it for myself
As a Director of a Public Utility/Special District, our Board has decided the same. Right now we pay 100% of premiums for employees and dependents. We are soon switching to a program where the employees will have to pay 20% of premiums. You would think that we were taking away their ice cream or puppy. The current cost of insurance for a family is almost $1400 a month. A MONTH! EACH!!!
The next step is to switch to a high deductible plan with lower premiums or better yet an employer driven plan with super high deductible and the employer (we) pick up a good portion of the deductible through a trust type of arrangement. This keeps the premiums low and the cost to us lower than the original plan.
The next step after that is, if Obama does pass the public option. We are going to opt that direction and cancel our group insurance. Paying a penalty of 8% of payroll would be a relief to what we have now. We could even justify giving the employees a raise and employ more people.
If the employees don't like it.....they can take a hike. There are 10 people lined up for every one employed right now.
We certainly aren't going to raise the costs to the tax payers and rate payers to provide more cadillac insurance to the employees. Many of the constituants can't afford to provide for insurance for themselves and are on fixed incomes. Our job as a Board is to provide for the rate payers, keep costs down and provide a service, just as your job as a business owner is to provide for your clients and keep your business going.
All of this is what happens when idiots who have never been in business or dealth with real world issues make up the rules. They don't have a clue what they are doing and are completely destroying the economy.
Republicans are for the status quo in health care.
Nice libtard talking point, but the reality is that they have repeatedly proposed alternatives, that, amazingly enough, get scored by the CBO as actually saving money, and doing so without the sort of games played by the Democrats, as pointed out by me above.
The congress is telling you that they will take over a private industry and do it better and cheaper.
It is just embarrassing to admit that you believe them. That is always promised and has never been delivered. In fact it has always turned out just the opposite. What does it mean when you still accept it anyway?
What does it mean when you still accept it anyway?
They call that behavior alcoholism.
Another told me the president is not going to allow people like me (her employer) to charge her for insurance. She insists it's going to be "free" to her.
I don't know about your State, but where I am employers (unless they have a collective barganing agreement) are not required top provide insurance at this time. Your employees might be surprised when/if you just tell them that you have dropped the coverage.
If the Obama plan has the same provisions that it did last I heard. Employers could just pay an 8% of payroll penalty if they didn't provide coverage. 8% is a bargin.
"You betcha. With 2 words (death panels), she took control of the debate and the Demos were toast."
Honestly?
I don't think this was a result of Palin using the term "death panels" anywhere near as much as the fact that, geez... Obama?, felt it necessary to answer her personally and directly. The affect was to legitimize her criticism and give a whole lot of people the opportunity to point out that "death panels" referred to inevitable rationing of health care by government appointees and not whatever the heck it was first misrepresented as.
"And were you AWAKE when the consequence of that was that the Republicans lost the majority?"
I'd like to think your implication is correct: that Republicans have seen the light and would repeal this monstrosity if given the chance.
But the problem is that Republicans haven't spent the past six months making the philosophical case. The arguments have nearly all been practical in nature: the bill will do X to the economy, and this provision will cause thing Y to cost more, and health care quality will diminish in manner Z.
So long as they fail to make the simple moral case -- this is outside the government's purview, because it infringes liberty -- then they may not have given themselves the right sort of leverage needed to later squelch it. They've put themselves in a position where they'll be expected, by the Montagne Montaignes of the world, to deliver an "alternative." Because they won't have properly squelched the idea that congress should be fiddling with "health care" in the first place.
So long as Republicans keep ceding the left's basic premises, they'll be stuck in this position, and freedom will keep losing to democracy.
And your bullshit detector doesn't blip once at the fact that him and his wife are taking humongous sums of money from the insurance industry? He, for election coffers, she as the "senior counselor" of "health care and pharmaceuticals practice" at Hill & Knowlton? C'mon.
Pretty much any major politician who has been around D.C. for any length of time has his non-voting constituents. The libtard wackos, those from Moveon.org and ACORN, who put Obama into the White House and were decisive in giving the the Democrats such large majorities in both Houses (and, in particular, getting several Senate seats for them through ACORN electoral fraud) have a much bigger presence at the table than does Joe Lieberman and the insurance companies.
I am suggesting that it is purest hypocrisy to condemn Sen. Lieberman for exactly the same sort of thing that is so prevalent among so many other politicians who are as prominent as he. What about Dodd and the banking industry? Schumer and Wall Street? Obama and Daley? They are all bought. But you seem to think that some being bought by the other side is bad, while being bought by your side is just fine.
So why are you raising a stink with me about something that ultimately is irrelevant to my point? You're contesting something that my argument doesn't even hinge on..
Was not trying raise a stink with you, [honestly] but I disagreed with your point that Lieberman's opposition to the two main points of the Dems bill was because he thought is was fiscally unsound. His opposition isn't based on any real data available, and he goes on TV day after day and never gets asked a tough question on where his stance is arrived from. Sorry, this guy makes my blood boil.
But you seem to think that some being bought by the other side is bad, while being bought by your side is just fine..
Not true, I've called out almost exclusively Democrats on this blog, and virtually no Republicans. You fail.
Someone needs to give Obamacare the blue pill.
DBQ,
$1400/month seems expensive. At my company it's just over $200 per person and that's a Cadillac plan in California for a small group.
To me $2500 - $3000 a year to assure you can pay to save your life or fix all the stuff that can happen to your body is pretty good. Best of all that is paid by me for me. It even covers a portion of the uninsured people who are the whole justification for this power play. I just don't find the status quo bad, except for a few things like portability and prior condition which can be fixed.
I do think your organization is paying too much. We use Aetna BTW.
The Democrats are cloaking their FDR-style power grab in the soft words of the Mommy Party: "You say you hate me now, but really, you'll thank me later".
Because citizens are stupid, like children, and do not know what's good for them. So Democrats are going to make you eat a gulletful of vegetables.
For some reason I haven't followed any of this. I just don't give a shit, is that so wrong?
Someone by the name of Jan left a gift of tennis balls with my doorman today, wrapped in Christmas paper. I have no idea who Jan is. I am a little creeped out because she/he obviously knows the rare clumbers like tennis balls. Who's Jan? Did I do him? There have been late nights where I walk the rare clumbers and some busboy is coming home from working in Harvard Square at Henrietta's Table or Harvest who I have done in a bush. Maybe it was one of them.
Okay, who put the turd in the punchbowl ?
"Someone needs to give Obamacare the blue pill."
I never get these "Matrix" references. They pop up in all sorts of contexts, and they always confuse me. Mainly because it's been a decade since I've seen the movie, and I barely remember the basic plot, let alone what the "blue" and "red" pill each specifically did.
(Useless tangent: I am bewildered in general that so many people remember so much about movies. I can barely recall details the day after I see a film, let alone remember this stuff years later and use it make analogies. It's like it just sticks with certain people somehow. Am I alone here?)
The arguments for ObamaCare here today are very weak.. anemic in fact.
One was from Sri Lanka, can't remember his name, doubt it was Jan though.
Another was from Nepal-his name was Christiam-I call him Chrisbomb.
I am burning Mountain Dew incense as I am masquing at this moment.
" let alone what the "blue" and "red" pill each specifically did."
It's a mixed cultural metaphor, and does not require any knowledge of red or blue pill effects.
It points instead to the Obama comment "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking a painkiller", i.e. go off and die and save us the money we would have spent on surgery, Grandma.
When I decided to hang out a shingle, I deliberately did so in an industry where I could make a very good living with NO employees. I'm a life insurance agent. I sell life insurance, long term care, annuities, health and disability insurance. Primarily targeting owners of small businesses, and incidentally their employees.
I'm out there on a daily basis talking with business owners about solving their problems, protecting their businesses, wealth, families, and workers. Putting pen to paper and figuring out a way to make things happen, in the REAL world.
I'd love to create jobs for some good people I know. But not while this crew of idiots is in charge.
In order for me to start taking on staff, my business owner clients are going to have to do well enough to start funding their own pension plans, take care of funding their buy-sell agreements, provide for long term care for themselves and their employees, open retirement accounts, and in general realize some free cash flow and get ahead.
Until my business owner clients feel comfortable expanding and taking money out of their businesses for themselves, I won't be hiring a soul.
How's that for a multiplier effect, libtards?
There is also a guy I want to do who works at Boston Dog, where I get the rare clumbers fancy expensive, low fat baked items.
He is hot. He is young but has gray hair. I don't know if he dies it gray or if he is premature gray. Either way the contrast is quite intoxicating.
"So long as Republicans keep ceding the left's basic premises, they'll be stuck in this position, and freedom will keep losing to democracy."
That was the most disheartening thing about it. The Republicans are acting like Democrats so their "constituents" and their "base" either stay home and don't give money to campaigns or work on campaigns even if they voted party line in the end, because people are disgusted with the spending and Washington in general and the *lesson* taken away from the Democrat wins is to be more like Democrats?
And then those who are pushing the Republicans to be more fiscally conservative (where they failed so utterly to do so under Bush) and small government and pro-freedom get accused of wanting to institute ideological tests WHILE AT THE SAME TIME having to listen to the "enlightened" sorts explain how the party needs to stop being constrained by the conservative "base" or they will never win again.
A few are listening to the Tea Party protests and after a few early smack-downs when they thought they could ride that wave without accountability or censure, seem to be getting the message of who is supposed to follow who.
So... I think there is at least a wee bit of hope, even if it's not a sure thing.
I think the talk about who is in who's pocket is useless. It's the US congress; they do that stuff on all sides.
What matters is the who votes for what and who you vote for as a result of that. Their motivation is irrelevant since you can't really know it anyway. We simply need to vote out people who suck, period. Congress has approval in the 20s, but gets reelected in the high 90s. We are at fault and need to take action starting in 2010. Nothing else matters. We can eliminate corruption, stupidity and laziness with a simple ink dot. We get the opportunity often but rarely use it. As always it's up to us.
I do think your organization is paying too much. We use Aetna BTW.
Public Utility. We were on the Cal PERS plan until I pointed out that we didn't need to be. We could opt out and go to something else. We are switching to Anthem Blue Shield.
The public plan is SO EXPENSIVE and the PERS Retirement, which we will wear like a ball and chain for the rest of the District's life, is incredibly expensive. Between employee contributions, current contributions and to make up for past unfunded liabilities we are paying almost 30% of payroll. This explains why California and other States and Unionized companies are going bankrupt and why things cost you the consumer so much money.
"His position isn't based on any real data available, and he goes on TV day after day and never gets asked a tough question"
Welcome to my world. My information brokers get a tingle up their leg whenever they hear Obama speak.
So. How many months till the Dems trot out their fake assasination attempt to rally the country? It follows:
1) Projection. Dems always demonize the Right as facist. And of course, any opposition to Dem policy must be based on "racism". If Joe "is causing the death of millions for selfish paypack" its just a matter of time before "you oppose Universal Health Care because you hate minorities. And the poor. And puggy dogs too.
2) Telegraphing. Dems always accuse us of what they are about to do. Demonizing the opposition pushes the "outrage" envelope, giving Dems maneuver space to do slighlty lessers evils than they accuse the opposition of.
3) Alinsky. Dems believe the ends justify the means.
And if you think thats over the top, please see: Congress, 2008-2010. Isn't it obvious by now that this government is more interested in consolidating power than, ya know, governing?
I'm wondering if our volunteer "police" will be wearing ACORN arm bands.
I think your mind is wandering a bit too much.
And were you AWAKE when the consequence of that was that the Republicans lost the majority?
For one thing, after six years of impotent Republican dithering, reform of Fannie and Freddie passed Congress and was signed into law.
Everybody hates flip-floppers. Lieberman thought letting the AARP set buying into Medicare was a fabulous idea a couple of months ago. Now he sees it as the end of life as we know it.
Eliminating all tort liability for doctors and hospitals will save, at most, three percent of health care costs as defensive medicine is failed out. A worthy goal, but I would not cross the street to save 3% on anything. Allowing health insurers to violate states' laws is an odd position for conservatives, or for anyone who believes that states are the laboratories of democracy.
Synova said...
...
And then those who are pushing the Republicans to be more fiscally conservative (where they failed so utterly to do so under Bush) and small government and pro-freedom get accused of wanting to institute ideological tests WHILE AT THE SAME TIME having to listen to the "enlightened" sorts explain how the party needs to stop being constrained by the conservative "base" or they will never win again.
Don't confuse RINOs with Republicans. True, Dubya did everything he could to encourage RINOs vs. true Republicans (e.g., Toomey against Specter), but a lot of people, like Michael Bloomberg, with an R after their name are Lefties running in a situation where they wouldn't stand a chance running as a Demo. The Republican Party is still out there and, now that the Rockefeller types have so discredited themselves, as well as turning themselves into an endangered species, the voting public just may be of a mind to listen.
@ Jason.
Heya. /WAVE
I'm a life agent also for over 20 years and am in pretty much the same line of work as you. Dealing with business owners and wealthy retirees.
Mostly however I am a Financial Planner and use the life part as part of the over all plans. Investment Advisor Representative with securities licenses...Series 6, 63, 7 65 and 24 that I don't use anymore. CFP too. So I do all of their invesments as well as the risk managment.
Only one employee but she is a contracted part time employee so I don't have to mess with employment issues for my own business.
I'd love to create jobs for some good people I know. But not while this crew of idiots is in charge.
It is a lot different viewpoint from our area isn't it?
Don't confuse RINOs with Republicans.
Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy.
If they're not "real" Republicans, kick them out of the party.
I'm a life agent also for over 20 years and am in pretty much the same line of work as you.
Making people sweat? Sucking up vast quantities of money while paying little in return?
After 70 years, my grandmother got her premiums back. I'm going to take my share and buy a nice lunch.
FLS said:
"I would not walk across the street to save 3%".
FLS, a 3% saving in health care costs is $80 Billion a year.It would enable us to give $2,000 each to40 million of the alleged uninsured to help them buy their own insurance [but you said in a later comment, you don't believe in insurance?]
wv= illogi [refers to the average liberal's grasp of facts].
John said...I sort of agree with you Anne, but I would have wanted Obama to take a further step back, and convene a series of legitimate (i.e. not staged) town halls and focus groups with all the stakeholders, especially focusing on providers and users, and sort of wiki a health care bill via such meetings and the web.
You mean like the Obama promise to do things like health care in front of C-SPAN?
another Obama promise that has expired.
Making people sweat? Sucking up vast quantities of money while paying little in return?
Absolutly. That's exactly how I've managed to stay in business for 20 some years and tricked my clients into referring their friends and family to me as clients.
/rolls eyes
/puts fls into the 'too stupid to help' bin
DBQ said...If the Obama plan has the same provisions that it did last I heard. Employers could just pay an 8% of payroll penalty if they didn't provide coverage. 8% is a bargin.
In our small business, I think our costs amount to 16% of payroll. If the Obama plan passes, many current small businesses will look at the huge jump in premium costs driven by the gold plated policy floor and the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions and will dump their plans and save gazillons by paying only 8%. that in turn will drive up taxpayer costs far above the CBO estimates.
For those of us without health care from our employer....a sudden 8 percent fee will at best cause a paycut and at worst force layoffs.
I can't eat health insurance if I am unemployed....but I can buy it if I am employed.
get the gov't out of ALL of it.
Right now we pay 100% of premiums for employees and dependents.
Which always ticked me off when I was working because as an unmarried person, I was not getting the same benefits as the married employees were.
As a taxpayer/ratepayer, why should I pay more for some employees than I do for others?
This really exposes preening tools like Russ "I vote my liberal principles" Feingold......it is not brave to be a single protest vote on things like the Patriot Act. It is brave to say "I won't vote for this without a public option, because that is my core principle on this issue."
"Someone needs to give Obamacare the blue pill."
I never get these "Matrix" references. They pop up in all sorts of contexts, and they always confuse me. Mainly because it's been a decade since I've seen the movie, and I barely remember the basic plot, let alone what the "blue" and "red" pill each specifically did.
I don't think this was a Matrix reference. Earlier this year, Obama had the first of what were a series of underwhelming prime-time speeches and press conferences to plug his "broad principles" on health care. His vision of health care seemed to be that there was a red pill that was more expensive than a blue pill that did the same thing, and that what his plan would do is make sure we stopped paying for the red pill.
I could almost hear, from coast to coast, the independent Obama voters' collective spit-take when he said that. He seemed like an unusually articulate simpleton.
"If they're not "real" Republicans, kick them out of the party."
If only I had a dime for every time I've read someone saying how the Republicans need to get rid of the Christian right-wing Southern social conservative base or whatever other descriptive terms are used for those who are too conservative, one way or another, for polite company... get rid of Palin and those like her... get rid of Limbaugh... get rid of Beck... and shun those racist Tea Party terrorists... And sometimes it's even from columnists who claim to be Republican or sympathetic, and sometimes it's from "right-wing" bloggers.
The accusation that it's the people who mention "RINO" who are behind the purity drive is pretty thin.
Mostly because those complaining about RINOs don't generally care if the Republican party goes right under and is never seen again, they want someone to represent *them*, and the ones who want to kick out the Christianists and other too-conservative sorts, to preserve the Republican Party by making them electable as Democrats-lite, want to preserve the Republican Party.
DBQ said...Right now we pay 100% of premiums for employees and dependents.
which is why California is going bankrupt. How many firms in CA pay 100% of premiums for entire families?
Red pill/Blue pill.
"I don't think this was a Matrix reference."
I don't think it was meant to be when Obama said it. I don't know *what* he was thinking when he said it. Maybe he was trying to make a clever political comment about "red" and "blue"... do you want what the Republicans have or what the Democrats offer?
Because if he *didn't* get the Matrix reference I can't think of any other reason to use "red pill or blue pill" and if he *did* get the Matrix reference it was a *stupid* phrase to use. (And doesn't he employ frat boys to write his speeches?)
Which always ticked me off when I was working because as an unmarried person, I was not getting the same benefits as the married employees were.
This is why I thought the proposal to make the premiums that the employer pays taxable to the employee.
That way people will be more aware of just how expensive their plan is: how much is is costing their employer. The employees might be more inclined to go to a higher deductible less expensive plan when they have some responsibility. But, liberals don't want people to have responsibility. They want people to be dependents on government largess.
Plus it would be fair to everyone to pay taxes on the amount of benefits they are receiving.
Which always ticked me off when I was working because as an unmarried person, I was not getting the same benefits as the married employees were.
Yeah,
try being in the Army as a single soldier. Your married buddies get paid more, get to live off post while you are told to live on post, and when it comes to holidays, you get stuck with the "duty"
err. I mean I thought the proposal was a good one.
Proofreading can be your friend.
making people sweat? Collecting tons of money while giving little in return?
fls... Ever walk into a widow's home, a week after her 28 year old husband was killed in a wreck, looked her two baby girlsin the eye, and then handed mom a checkbook worth a million dollars?
No?
Then shut the fuck up, twit. Adults are talking here.
Every once in a while we get a little glimpse into the soul of fls. And boy, is it ugly in there.
former law student said...
Don't confuse RINOs with Republicans.
Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy.
If they're not "real" Republicans, kick them out of the party.
That's EXACTLY what's going on in the Republican Party, as you well know. I'm sure you've heard of the 10 point fitness test for Republican candidates.
for those interested, http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/23/rnc-members-circulating-10-point-purity-test-for-candidates/
The RINOs always come back with, "You can't make the party win with such a narrow base", the stuff they've used the last 2 election cycles as they went down to defeat.
Real Republicans are sick of losing and they know how to win. RINOs just want to be RINOcrats.
See what I mean about the Projection.
Hyperbole that the GOP has a litmus test for loyalty to the party.
VS
Fact that the only Congress Critter banished from his party is Joe Lieberman.
The Dems aren't even done with him yet - they're going after his wife. And some lefty here has the audacity to blather about the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
Hey Garage, your brownshirt thugs are already beating up people in the streets [SEIU] and biting off their fingers [MoveOn]. Would you guys at least do us the courtesy of placing the ACORN logo over the heart when designing the new browshirts? Makes a nice target.
I think it was wise for Obama to stay away. Any bill passed by the current congress is going to be an atrociously bad pork laden corruption threaded mess.
I dunno. It depends on what he could have come up with. Personally I think it would have had a much better chance of passing if he'd introduced a complete bill with his full support early on.
Sure, Congress would have larded it up a bit, but not having a bill early on allowed opponents to take the most unpopular aspects of all the proposals floating around Congress and calling them "Obamacare".
Now, politically what has happened probably works out better for Obama, since he can disown everything and just wag his finger at Congressional Republicans. But that's not how you get laws enacted.
Pretty soon, the Democrats will pass a ham sandwich and call it health care reform.
Would you guys at least do us the courtesy of placing the ACORN logo over the heart when designing the new browshirts? Makes a nice target.
You're not well.
Pretty soon, the Democrats will pass a ham sandwich and call it health care reform.
At least a ham sandwich has some redeeming value and tastes better than the crap they are trying to cram down our throats now.
I believe that the Obamacare health care debacle is done. It is now hated on all sides.
The knell of doom for Obama was tonight when Olberman (of all people) began bad mouthing it. When you lose your leg humping slobbering chihuahua Olberdorf....you have really lost it.
But you see, for liberals it's always enough just to claim there's a problem and say "Here's the fix." They shouldn't have to actually define and prove the problem, let alone give good reasons why the proposed fix would work (and not create even more problems.
Because it's all about feeling self-righteous and grabbing power over other people and their money, not actually solving real problems.
The People stand somewhat beyond the precipice, and have just begun that famous flurry of flying feet made so famous by Wiley E. Coyote on the countless occasions he tried to make it back to the cliff he had just run off of...
Barak Obama, just over a year in his presidency, inadvertently let truth past his lips, and the People BELIEVED.
Precipice, indeed, Mr. I Won.
Some people still think you have some sort of plan for a bright American future.
The rest of us see you for what you are - a sad campus commie, the natural product of a freak show Left upbringing and an adult life spent being continuously lauded for no more than showing up, being acceptably urbane and non threatening, and uttering the correct scripted lines.
George, Abe, Teddy and Ronnie are chuckling over their bridge game about now. But it is a sad chuckle. You used to have to go to Italy or Mexico to see this kind of political theater.
No more.
At this point, I don't think it matters what's in the bill. Obama is losing the trust of the people. I think they are starting to suspect the truth: that all of these MegaBills--the stimulus, Obamacare, Cap & Trade--are simply cover for spending their money and growing government. And financing the democrat party, of course.
I honestly think that Obama may have good intentions with these initiatives; that his naivete and lack of executive experience are to blame. But Axelrod and Emanuel... no way. I believe that, for them, these huge spending bills are aimed at making the whole country like Chicago: a place where no one but a democrat can ever be elected. It's just a guess, and I hope it's not true.
Ditto with cap 'n trade or with stimulating jobs into existence... etc, etc......
In all the cases above, pixie dust and Neverland plus all sorts of other things your lyin' eyes are tricking you into believing are the key element.
P.T. Barnum was right, and with the present population, make that a sucker a second.......!
Would you guys at least do us the courtesy of placing the ACORN logo over the heart when designing the new browshirts? Makes a nice target.
Heir Garage Mahal: "You're not well."
Oh I'm fine. Aim small, miss small.
Your the one staring down at your shoelaces while your own party beats people in the streets. Have you been fitted for your brownshirt yet?
Or will you be one of those who claim "if only we had known what they were doing to the Jews". Because I'm betting your mindset is really not so different from the "good" German citizen who insisted they never noticed what was going on right in front of their eyes.
About Lieberman... wasn't there a book written, once upon a time, about American politicians -- United States Senators, primarily, with some congressmen and governors thrown in for good measure -- who consulted their personal consciences and went against what their colleagues and constituents were calling for?
"Descriptions of... "... no, that wasn't it. Some sort of article name. Oh yes. Profiles.
"Profiles in..." Oh, what was that again?
Cheap blue pill = Viagra once it goes off patent.
Obama just wants everybody to have a boner and maybe that will distract them from how he's destroying the country.
It's a joy to watch this go down in flames. Now for the Copenhagen show.
@Fen: "...the "good" German citizen who insisted they never noticed what was going on right in front of their eyes."
To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle..
"The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."
Googling: "The CBO says the bill saves money in the long run"
Turns up no results.
Here 'tis at CBO site. Links to a 27 page PDF doc.
At the Heritage Foundation site Health Care Reform Cost Estimates: What is the Track Record?
Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.
Obama kept his distance from Obamacare? Maybe they should have named it something else.
Guys, one of my best friends in college had been a life insurance agent for ten years, and told me all about the process of making a sale. The most important thing was to know when to stop talking, and simply let the prospect sweat over what would happen to his family if he was hit by a bus.
fls... Ever walk into a widow's home, a week after her 28 year old husband was killed in a wreck, looked her two baby girlsin the eye, and then handed mom a checkbook worth a million dollars?
No, but this would be a great part of your sales pitch, right before the "prospect sweats" moment. How often does this happen to you?
Other reasons I am jaded with insurance: My grandparents' insurance man, a neighbor, switched their policy provider every few years to get the new premium bonus. Being trusting, my grandparents didn't suspect he was milking them for extra cash for years.
Finally, having used my grandparents' money for free for a half-century, the insurance company's now-tiny death benefit that must have seemed so substantial in the 30s, now looked like a sick joke.
Would you guys at least do us the courtesy of placing the ACORN logo over the heart when designing the new browshirts?
Completely inapropos. ACORN tries to register the Nazis' untermenschen to vote, and tries to get them housed. The brown shirts fit other people, not ACORN.
In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.
Did they allow for inflation? I ask because in 1990 I was making ten times the average for my profession in 1967.
Oh, you had a college friend who was an agent who told you about how he made sales, and that makes you an expert on the uses of the life insurance contract, including buy-sell funding, wealth protection, estate planning, executive bonus arrangements, accumulation, supplemental retirement income plans, final expense payments, disability waiver protection, and the lot, huh?
All hail the expert.
Christ, you're an idiot.
Jason profits from clients' greed as well as their fear, so that makes it all right.
"Finally, having used my grandparents' money for free for a half-century, the insurance company's now-tiny death benefit that must have seemed so substantial in the 30s, now looked like a sick joke."
Yea, I guess it would have been better if they would have just died younger so the insurance company got screwed. That would be better huh? And you scoff at "death panels". You already have the mind set to create such a thing.
So FLS has met an unethical insurance agent and wants to tar an entire industry with it and that is justified in his/her eyes.
Yet, when we make a similar observation about the science process being politically corrupted by the lies and distortions on AGW, we get lectures about it from FLS.
Go Figure.
My grandparents' insurance man, a neighbor, switched their policy provider every few years to get the new premium bonus.
Maybe during the Depression this happened, but I doubt it. You can't just switch policy providers for life insurance. The people have to be medically tested each time and there are rules and regulations against "twisting" in place now. So unless your Grandparents were dumber than a bag of hammers, I think you are exagerating or out an out lying.
Insurance companies will drop the agent like a hot rock if they suspect this is happening.
Jason and I profit by helping people with Insurance structuring and in my case Insurance AND Investments to make their lives and the lives of their heirs better, to reduce taxes, to accumulate wealth, to increase business profitablility, to protect their employees, and create retirement income.
Sorry if you think there is something wrong or evil with that. Do you expect people to work for free? Do you have any idea what it takes to get and keep the licenses and credentials that we must have to run our businesses. I would challenge you to take the CFP test and see just how smart you think you are.
Did they allow for inflation? I ask because in 1990 I was making ten times the average for my profession in 1967.
One hopes that when making projections 32 years out they aren't so witless as to not consider changing demographics, technological advances as well as inflation.
Oops, but I forgot........this is the government we are discussing.
I swear... how can someone be a "former law student" and have a all the worldliness and fund of information of a 14-year old punk.
Hey, FLS... I guess you flunked out of your estate planning and business succession classes? Or you just never made it that far?
Let us know when your voice changes, Mmmmkay? Now go on back down to the basement and rejoin the spit-wad throwing libtards at the kiddie table. Grown-ups are talking.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा