Althouse: "Now is not the time to search for nonexistent loopholes that preserve a broken system."

March 30, 2010

"Now is not the time to search for nonexistent loopholes that preserve a broken system."

Writes Kathleen Sebelius, cowing the insurance companies into foregoing the use of a loophole that existed in the text the Democrats hastily scribbled.

225 comments:

1 – 200 of 225 Newer› Newest»

AllenS said...: It's the existent loopholes that are a problem, not the nonexistent ones. This is a big fucking deal.; 3/30/10, 10:05 AM
ricpic said...: We weren't broken until they fixed us, and how.

wv: azinfula, as in "Azinfula, Hussein!"; 3/30/10, 10:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Why would a search for non-existent loopholes be a problem?

I mean ... do these fucking morons even listen to themselves speak?

Now is the time to read the bill, now that it's passed, like Nancy Pelosi told us we needed to do.

Nancy told us we needed to pass the bill to find out what's in it.

It's passed now.

We're finding out what's in it.

Kathleen Sebelious needs to shut her fucking stupid piehole.; 3/30/10, 10:08 AM
Scott said...: The Uglycrats, rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic again.; 3/30/10, 10:09 AM
cold pizza said...: If the loopholes are "non-existent," what does she have to be worried about? I'd say, "search all you want, suckers! All your base are belong to us!" -cp

wv: docated: i done gone to thar hosp'tal and got doc-ated.; 3/30/10, 10:11 AM
PatHMV said...: How DARE they obey the law!; 3/30/10, 10:16 AM
PatHMV said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/30/10, 10:16 AM
Michael said...: I for one would always encourage the opposition to search for nonexistent loopholes.

Speaking of nonexistent loopholes, what fun it is going to be to see H. Waxman fume at the evil CEOs who are taking ObamaCare-related write downs because of Sarbanes-Oxley, accounting rules and the Securities and Exchange Commission. HAHAHAHA; 3/30/10, 10:25 AM
avwh said...: "You can't be a law-abiding citizen unless you obey what we MEANT to write in the law, NOT what the law we wrote actually says, stupid!"

Can't we fire them all and start over?; 3/30/10, 10:27 AM
jayne_cobb said...: Perhaps it's just the fact that I'm young but I still find this all out assault on a private industry to be rather jarring.

I mean this industry employs tens of thousands of people and yet the administration goes out of its way to vilify and destroy it. They're kinder to the tobacco industry than those in insurance.; 3/30/10, 10:27 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: Wow. After the Democrats referred to all the insurance companies as evil and said they wanted to control them... now they think they can cow the companies into something.

How pathetic.

Obamacare is a disaster. ccording to Gallup 2/3rds believe its going to raise the cost of health care, while a majorty think the bill was a mistake.

If the dislike of Obamacare persists into November, Dems will get wiped out in the election.; 3/30/10, 10:29 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Jayne:

Demonizing capitalists is what Obama does best. He has found a career he loves.

Btw- I saw Sebelius on the news last night- she looks sickly or something. Even though she is a former lobbyist, I don't think she is good at or enjoys the lying she has to do every day.; 3/30/10, 10:31 AM
Fred4Pres said...: Because Kathleen has an even more broken system to work you into! But it is new! Think of it as an adventure into the unknown.; 3/30/10, 10:33 AM
LouisAntoine said...: Does anyone here have a kid with a pre-existing condition? I'd like to know what such a person thinks about this.; 3/30/10, 10:34 AM
The Drill SGT said...: avwh said...
"You can't be a law-abiding citizen unless you obey what we MEANT to write in the law, NOT what the law we wrote actually says, stupid!"

Seems like the article demonstrates what avwh says:

Indeed, House and Senate staffers on two committees that wrote the legislation said last week it stopped short of an ironclad guarantee. House leaders later issued a statement saying their intent in writing the legislation was to provide full protection.

I always thought that when one party draws up a contract or a law that contains an ambiguity, that interpretation of it, should be in favor of the non-drafter.

In plain English.

They F'd up!; 3/30/10, 10:38 AM
David said...: This is no joke.

Congress passes a law and the President signs it. The President and Congressional leaders say the law means "X."

Someone reads the law, which clearly says "X-Y+Z."

The Executive Branch uses regulatory threats to cause the companies subject to the law to comply with X.

This is an astonishing abuse of executive power, and most people seem not to give a damn.

The companies subject to the law are too afraid of federal power to do anything but cave.

This is very, very bad.; 3/30/10, 10:38 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: "Now is not the time to search for nonexistent loopholes that preserve a broken system."

More strong language from our 'civil servants'.

"Stop driving Toyotas",

"The time for discussion is over"; 3/30/10, 10:38 AM
Pastafarian said...: Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party.

I've always wanted to type that into some discussion where it made some sense. Now if I could just find a fox and a brown dog...; 3/30/10, 10:39 AM
David said...: Hey, Drill Sgt. There's NO ambiguity here. They are just changing the law by threat.; 3/30/10, 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: These are the people David Frum wanted us to compromise with.; 3/30/10, 10:42 AM
TWM said...: "Does anyone here have a kid with a pre-existing condition? I'd like to know what such a person thinks about this."

Why exactly? Of course a parent is going to want an insurance company to cover their kid - no surprise there.; 3/30/10, 10:43 AM
John Burgess said...: "Don't do as I say, do as I meant to say."

BTW, I'm offering mind-reading courses, only $1K for an exhaustive 8-hr session.; 3/30/10, 10:46 AM
LouisAntoine said...: Ah yes TRO. I forgot empathy is not really your "thing" on the right. But you concede that people in the situation of having coverage denied to their kid with a preexisting condition, the legal wrangling is moot and this legislation is a positive development. That's all I am really interested in, too.; 3/30/10, 10:46 AM
AF said...: How dare the Obama administration "cow" the insurance industry into providing health insurance to sick kids?!

#!$@#!$ socialist! And dictatorial hypocrite too! He never told us he was going to do that when we elected him!; 3/30/10, 10:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Hard cases make for bad law, therefore people who favor bad law want us to look only at hard cases.; 3/30/10, 10:47 AM
rhhardin said...: There may be an umbra that covers the loophole.; 3/30/10, 10:48 AM
Tobias said...: If now is not the time, when will?

I'm from Kansas and have to say Sebelius appeared a competent governor, but now she's just embarrassing.; 3/30/10, 10:50 AM
LouisAntoine said...: If the big HCR bill hadn't passed, does anyone in their right mind think that a small bill requiring insurance companies to cover kids with preexisting conditions would have gotten voted on? Would a Republican congress ever pass such a bill?; 3/30/10, 10:50 AM
Brian O'Connell said...: From TFA: "After battling President Barack Obama's health care overhaul the better part of a year, the insurance industry said Monday it won't try to block his efforts to fix a potentially embarrassing glitch in the new law."

The way I remember it is that Obama cut a deal with them relatively early on, and the ins companies have been relatively quite since. No Thelma and Louise ads. (Uh, yeah.) And it was the same with pharma.

The idea of the Dems fightin against Big Evil is a fiction created entirely by the Dems. Big News buying into it is absurd.; 3/30/10, 10:52 AM
Will said...: Read Sebelius's letter. There is no ambiguity. Additionally, the dept. will issue regulations, as is their right and is entirely usual, more specifically describing what is meant by this and other provisions in the law. It is a disingenuous premise to refer to "a loophole that existed in the text." Althouse sounds like an industry apologist.; 3/30/10, 10:52 AM
Shanna said...: Does anyone here have a kid with a pre-existing condition? I'd like to know what such a person thinks about this.

I don’t, but doesn’t it just make the democrats look like idiots for NOT writing it into the law, if that was what they wanted? They wrote the thing…I don’t want them to come crying to me if they didn’t read it before they voted.

If the big HCR bill hadn't passed, does anyone in their right mind think that a small bill requiring insurance companies to cover kids with preexisting conditions would have gotten voted on?

I think something that covered children with pre-existing conditions, even if they were covered by the government, rather than forcing that on insurance companies, may have had bipartisan support if it were done properly and funded. That's not what we got. The democrats passed a whole giant bill and managed to make that problem worse. Good job, idiots.; 3/30/10, 10:53 AM
LouisAntoine said...: If by worse you mean they fixed the problem, then yes.; 3/30/10, 10:58 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Perhaps it's just the fact that I'm young but I still find this all out assault on a private industry to be rather jarring.

Well if you listened to liberal democrats long enough it wouldn't be so jarring. They like to demagogue these business like Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance as some kind of faceless entity rather than the employer of hundreds of thousands of people.

But when you believe that the State is the end all be all of our lives, such rhetoric sounds perfectly reasonable.; 3/30/10, 11:01 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Does anyone here have a kid with a pre-existing condition? I'd like to know what such a person thinks about this.

Then that person doesn't need insurance. They need a pre-paid health plan.; 3/30/10, 11:02 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I dream of an America where someone, while testifying on camera to Congress, calls out a pisant like Henry Waxman.; 3/30/10, 11:03 AM
Big Mike said...: There's a reason why the presidency is called the "Bully Pulpit."; 3/30/10, 11:04 AM
jayne_cobb said...: HD,

I'm used to the demagoguery.

It's the taking of actions that they know will destroy over 30,000 jobs that I'm not accustomed to.; 3/30/10, 11:09 AM
sinotexian said...: I'm pretty sure it's the job of insurance companies to strive to make the largest profit possible, not to do what Madam Secretary wants them to do.; 3/30/10, 11:10 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: Corporate cowards. The insurance industry should have insisted on a fix to clarify the language. They are being bullied by Sebelius, who keeps threatening them. They are being bullied by Obama's empty rhetoric.

It is a shame.; 3/30/10, 11:17 AM
Calypso Facto said...: MM: Many Republican health insurance reform plans DID contain language to ensure people with pre-existing conditions could get assistance paying medical bills. So yes, there was bipartisan support for the concept. The opposition comes from the method used to achieve it and the bundling with $2 trillion in additional spending.

Paul Ryan's concept was to let state-based high-risk pools or direct payments address the problem (like in Wisconsin's soon-to-be Federally steamrolled plan).

While there may be broad support for some portions, the fact that the media centerpiece of the reform bill doesn't say what Democrats thought it said is just delicious (also pathetic and outrageous) confirmation that they had no friggin idea what was in the legislation they just rammed through.; 3/30/10, 11:18 AM
Nora said...: I wonder, does MM always buys a cow for a glass of milk, or only when the party demnads him to do so.; 3/30/10, 11:19 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: If the big HCR bill hadn't passed, does anyone in their right mind think that a small bill requiring insurance companies to cover kids with preexisting conditions would have gotten voted on? Would a Republican congress ever pass such a bill?

Well since we haven’t had a GOP Congress since 2007 it’s hard to speculate on what would have happened in an alternate universe.

Then again the big HCR bill wasn’t about providing health care to begin with. It was about another big State power grab. Period. Some useful incremental fixes could have been made that didn’t require the cutting down of a small rain forest to produce a useful bill. For example; Many states have what is known as a residual insurance market for property/casualty. That means if you have a really shitty claims history with your homeowner’s insurance (or you house is just a complete POS) that no commercial insurer will cover, you can go to the residual market and purchase a policy to cover your home. A similar program could easily be instituted. In fact, the Schip program was created which would provide coverage for uninsured childrens and the only eligibility determination was income.

The number of chronically ill people, particularly kids, isn’t all that high that a much cheaper and more effective bill could have been done but that means the State wouldn’t have all this power either so here we are.; 3/30/10, 11:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Remember, to the brain-dead left in America: when a private health insurance company raises rates on their policies, that can only be due to their abject greed and complete indifference to the suffering masses who have to pay that increase.

But when the government raises taxes to cover the giant sucking black hole that is medicare and medicaid, that can only be the essence of compassion and concern.

Keep that straight: private company needs more cash: bad. Government needs more cash: good.

And this is the insanity that the left tries to pass off as wisdom.; 3/30/10, 11:22 AM
Chip Ahoy said...: You know, now is not the time for you bastards to read this bill to find out what's in it. And if you do, I'd prefer you notify me privately on whatever it is you find in there. Cowing. How apt.; 3/30/10, 11:23 AM
Alex said...: Yes! More policy via sob stories. Let em starve.; 3/30/10, 11:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Read the fricking legislation Democrats. In court, you can be sure all loopholes Democrats like will be supported 100 percent by the Government and Democrats. BTW: how are we to determine which parts of the law are loopholes to be ignored, should we just allow the Democrats to decide and tell us? Really? Is that the normal procedure? Just let a select group of politicians determine the meaning of the law.; 3/30/10, 11:29 AM
Unknown said...: If the loophole exists, it's legal. For a pack of lawyers, they certainly have no respect for it. But then, the last pack of Demo lawyers, from Arkinsaw, didn't either.

AJ Lynch said...

...

Btw- I saw Sebelius on the news last night- she looks sickly or something. Even though she is a former lobbyist, I don't think she is good at or enjoys the lying she has to do every day.

She has no problem with lying, but, back in Kansas, she did this stuff behind closed doors. I don't think she likes being seen doing it.

Montagne Montaigne said...

Does anyone here have a kid with a pre-existing condition? I'd like to know what such a person thinks about this.

Since those morons didn't include it in the original bill, until the latest fix passes, it's irrelevant.

PS Nobody is listening, Montagne/Freder/Loafing/Alpha whoever you are today; 3/30/10, 11:34 AM
Alex said...: Let's just do away with all welfare and safety nets. Make those kids pull themselves up by their bootstraps!; 3/30/10, 11:34 AM
Alex said...: If Republicans want to argue legalities for the insurance industries vs Democrat sob stories, good luck with that! We'll see who wins in November!; 3/30/10, 11:36 AM
Pastafarian said...: Alex and Montagne: Is it really "insurance" if you're already sick?

I've had this hypothetical ignored in these comments before, but I'll try it once more: Suppose I own a house, but have no home owner's insurance. Can I wait until it's on fire to go out and purchase that insurance? And can I pay the same premiums as everyone else?

You wouldn't discriminate against me because of this pre-existing condition (my house ablaze), would you? You discriminating bastards you.

Oh, wait -- maybe I should state that my 6 year old daughter owns the house. Maybe that would help you decide.; 3/30/10, 11:43 AM
David said...: Trolls and Liberal Shills:

The issue is not whether coverage of children with pre-existing conditions is a good idea. I happen to think it is, as long as the cost of doing so is spread among all policyholders and not imposed on the insurer.

The issue is respect for law.

You should not pass one law, and then enforce a different one by blunt threats.

The abuse of power is stunning. So is the revelation of how much power they have gained. The insurance companies are so afraid they will cave to this outrageous pressure.; 3/30/10, 11:43 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Alex:

I say take it one step further- take away their bootstraps too!; 3/30/10, 11:44 AM
vet66 said...: This was predictable. It is laughable and the Hon. Sibilious is in the unenviable position of standing in front of the carnival mirror that is Obama Health Care.

Dance Sebilious, Dance.; 3/30/10, 11:44 AM
Pastafarian said...: You know, I heard about a grocery store that wouldn't provide free food to hungry children.

Sons of bitches.

They wanted filthy money in exchange for food, for hungry children. I say we string up the lot of them. Try running against hungry children this November, Rethuglicans.; 3/30/10, 11:45 AM
Alex said...: I say take it one step further- take away their bootstraps too!

My god you conservatives are utterly depraved! I'm shocked and saddened. I think I'll organize a prayer breakfast.; 3/30/10, 11:47 AM
Alex said...: Is it really "insurance" if you're already sick?

Keep riding that dead horse. The American people want all children with medical care. Nobody cares about profits for the insurance companies, especially by denying the CHILDRUN.; 3/30/10, 11:48 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I hope some one, somewhere is going through this bill page by page. Taking hard notes. Then exposing all the contradictions, conflicts, frauds, and constitutional problems.

Well I can assure that the health insurance industry already has. Mainly because unlike Congress, the legislation will directly effect them and how they operate.

Whatever one's opinion on the legislation, considering the ramifications of this bill and the changes it is putting on everyone in this country there is zero justification for any congress person to have not read it front to back before voting on it.; 3/30/10, 11:56 AM
Pastafarian said...: Alex: "Nobody cares about profits for the insurance companies..."

Or where the money actually comes from -- how we actually pay for everyone's free ponies. And how much those free ponies remove the incentive for people to actually work.

You know, Alex, Montagne, there was a time when I felt the same as you. We're the wealthiest nation in the world; why can't we just feed the hungry, and house the homeless?

I called that time "adolescence". I also listened to Billy Squire, and masturbated like it was my job.

Then a funny thing happened: I grew up. For whatever reason, it appears as though you're stuck in the seventh grade. Maybe you were cocooned away in the womb of academia, or your mothers' basements, and you never had to grow up. It's a shame, and not just for we who will have to pay for your adolescent fantasies of socialist utopia -- but for you, too.; 3/30/10, 11:57 AM
Anonymous said...: When people tell us that the Secretary of HHS gets to decide what is or is not the law, perhaps we should just nod and smile blandly. In a few years, the Secretary of HHS is likely to be a Republican.; 3/30/10, 12:09 PM
LouisAntoine said...: Hey Pasta, how come "the real world" where your condescending ass lives apparently excludes all other industrialized nations, which have universal health coverage?; 3/30/10, 12:18 PM
Rialby said...: I'm pretty sure it's the job of insurance companies to strive to make the largest profit possible,

Actually that's the job of any company otherwise you're not long for solvency.

Insurance company shareholders should launch a class-action lawsuit against them for failing to comply with the law. Any action that an executive takes that's done as a favor to a politician that runs contrary to their prime directive - increasing shareholder value - is likely a violation of their agreement.; 3/30/10, 12:27 PM
jeff said...: "Hey Pasta, how come "the real world" where your condescending ass lives apparently excludes all other industrialized nations, which have universal health coverage?"

I'm guessing that somehow you think all those other countries health policies make them utopia, right? Problem is that all those other countries also reside in the real world and have very real world problems with those policies. Now maybe if you jacked taxes up to around 60-70% for everyone, everything would be "free". Is that what you are going for?; 3/30/10, 12:31 PM
LouisAntoine said...: Nope. Just universal health coverage. And taking profit motive out of health care to the furthest extent possible. Health is not a commodity.; 3/30/10, 12:34 PM
dbp said...: If now is not the time to search for nonexistent loopholes, does this imply that there is some other time when one should do such searching?

Anyway, as has been pointed out; if the loopholes are nonexistent, then who cares if you engage in a fruitless search for them?; 3/30/10, 12:35 PM
Caroline said...: how come "the real world" where your condescending ass lives apparently excludes all other industrialized nations, which have universal health coverage?

Many of those countries had Uncle Sam covering their defense spending for decades, so they could afford their socialist utopias. Let's see how it all works out now that NATO is worthless, and the US is too broke to afford even a BB gun.; 3/30/10, 12:36 PM
Anonymous said...: So does Sebelious mean that now is the time to search for existing loopholes?; 3/30/10, 12:37 PM
jeff said...: "Nope. Just universal health coverage. And taking profit motive out of health care to the furthest extent possible. Health is not a commodity."

Which doesn't exist anywhere. Take the profit motive out of anything and you get less and lower quality of it. And JUST universal health coverage? Who pays the Drs? The techs, the hospitals, the drug companies, the medical innovation? You can not just pass a law and deem everything free.; 3/30/10, 12:38 PM
Caroline said...: The issue is respect for law.
You should not pass one law, and then enforce a different one by blunt threats.

You're right. This is the heart of the issue. But rule of law apparently means jack shit to the Dems.; 3/30/10, 12:39 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Just universal health coverage. And taking profit motive out of health care to the furthest extent possible. Health is not a commodity.

That explains Medicare's pending insolvency in less than a decade.

Let's see how it all works out now that NATO is worthless, and the US is too broke to afford even a BB gun.

Actually NATO is worthless and the US is broke. When you're running a $1.5 trillion deficit you're beyond broke.

NATO should be dissolved since anytime it would need to be activated the heavy lifting always ends up on our shoulders while Britain can play the spotter. Everyone else is manning the copy machine in the rear. That's if they even show up.; 3/30/10, 12:40 PM
LouisAntoine said...: Ahhhhh the burdens of empire... y'all make me laugh so hard.; 3/30/10, 12:45 PM
Parker Smith said...: Is health care a civil right?

Screw 'insurance' - is health CARE a civil right?; 3/30/10, 12:47 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Nowhere else to put this so I will put it here. There's been a long-running conversation with conservatives here who deny that anything is racist (if done or said by a conservative).

So, here is one of the guys who was involved in swiftboating John Kerry. Is THIS racist?

“You know, we just got through (electing) a politician who can run his mouth at Mach 1, a black one, and now we have a Hispanic who can run his mouth at Mach 1,” Day said. “You look at their track records and they’re both pretty gritty. Charlie has not got a gritty track record.”

Day confirmed he was speaking of Obama and Rubio.

“You’ve got the black one with the reading thing. He can go as fast as the speed of light and has no idea what he’s saying,” Day said. “I put Rubio in that same category, except I don’t know if he’s using one of those readers.” .

Ya think?; 3/30/10, 12:48 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Ahhhhh the burdens of empire... y'all make me laugh so hard.

I wonder if anyone else remembers back during the 2000 election when Bush was making noise about pulling many of our troops back home and ending our 'nation building' programs. Remember the shit storm that created about abandoning our allies and our leadership role?

Obviously Mony doesn't.

Lord knows if it was up to me, we'd be out of NATO and Japan and the ROK are more than capable of defending themselves from the peace loving peoples of Chine and North Korea. Also the next time some 3rd world hellhole needs a US aircraft carrier for humanitarian aid, the UN would be receiving an invoice for the costs.

Yes the burdens of empire indeed.; 3/30/10, 12:50 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: There's been a long-running conversation with conservatives here who deny that anything is racist (if done or said by a conservative).

Who said that? I thought this was a racist statement.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," Ferraro told California's "Daily Breeze" newspaper. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

liberal Democrat Geraldine Ferraro; 3/30/10, 12:54 PM
garage mahal said...: I'm much more inclined to trust an insurance rep that gets paid to deny my claims than SOME GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRAT. Sure, you can say "well, the insurance companies are ALREADY between you and doctor, aren't they? Don't they already make life and decisions everyday?" Then I say, "well, yeah, but what we need to do is deregulate them completely, and cut taxes!, then things would probably be better". I just know why I get so many puzzled looks after that.; 3/30/10, 12:56 PM
Shanna said...: There is an old saying, you can have it good and you can have it cheap. Pick one.

This is the exact conversation I had at work last week. You can’t say you’re going to cover more people, with better care, for less money. That’s nonsense.; 3/30/10, 12:57 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: So, here is one of the guys who was involved in swiftboating John Kerry.

Actually Alpha, Bill Clinton would have said that a few years ago, Obama would have been getting Kerry his coffee.

ya think?; 3/30/10, 12:57 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: As far as this loophole, the issue is that insurers decided they could avoid the requirement by not covering children with insurance in the first place. .

Some people, say those possessing a shred of common decency, would say that's a despicable idea. Decent people may not imagine it, but immoral executives do.

Then there's Althouse. She has not a word of criticism for this and can find no fault with insurers threatening to exclude children from health insurance. She just takes the partisan cheap shot, like any other hack.

I say draft up a new bill focused only on this and dare the Republicans to fight for the health insurance industry "right" to deny health care to children. Move it now.

By no means take their word on anything.; 3/30/10, 12:59 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I just know why I get so many puzzled looks after that.

More likely from your perpetual foaming mouth.

I'm starting to wonder if there is a hay shortage with all the strawmen liberals erect.; 3/30/10, 12:59 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Althouse was also catapulting the big business propaganda that the health care bill will cost them money.

Turns out that's kind of true but only because a Bush Republican loophole allowing A) a subsidy on top of B) the ability of businesses to write off the same subsidy was closed. So this wasteful loophole has been corrected.

Some businesses are writing off several years of this in one year and then went crying to the press about their big hit, as if it was an annual cost.

Thank God for Harry Waxman. He has invited these CEO's to come talk to his committee and explain themselves.

Althouse, of course, misleads her readers with her hackery. She spends too much time watching Pox News.; 3/30/10, 1:03 PM
Der Hahn said...: the text the Democrats hastily scribbled.

cough*BullShite*cough

Minute Man Maguire has two looooong posts up pretty conclusively proving (via various Democrat press releases and statements for the media) that the staffers writing the bill and the press releases were on the same page since at least last December, and only someone as insurance-illiterate as Barry Obama would have misunderstood the provision.; 3/30/10, 1:03 PM
Brian O'Connell said...: "Hey Pasta, how come "the real world" where your condescending ass lives apparently excludes all other industrialized nations, which have universal health coverage?"

Appeal to the majority. Most countries don't have the First Amendment protections we have. What does that suggest we do?; 3/30/10, 1:04 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Hoosier Daddy and I agree on this:

Who said that? I thought this was a racist statement.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," Ferraro told California's "Daily Breeze" newspaper. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

liberal Democrat Geraldine Ferraro .

No argument from me on that one. It was a racist statement that she should have been embarassed by.

Kind of "the white man can't catch a break in this country" stuff.; 3/30/10, 1:06 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: So, Hoosier Daddy, maybe we're on a row. Do you agree with my take that the statement I posted at 12:28ish, from one Col. Bud Day, a Medal of Honor winner and former McCain POW cellmate, was racist?

Here it is again:

“You know, we just got through (electing) a politician who can run his mouth at Mach 1, a black one, and now we have a Hispanic who can run his mouth at Mach 1,” Day said. “You look at their track records and they’re both pretty gritty. Charlie has not got a gritty track record.”

Day confirmed he was speaking of Obama and Rubio.

“You’ve got the black one with the reading thing. He can go as fast as the speed of light and has no idea what he’s saying,” Day said. “I put Rubio in that same category, except I don’t know if he’s using one of those readers.” .

Can you criticize one of your own?; 3/30/10, 1:09 PM
garage mahal said...: No argument from me on that one. It was a racist statement that she should have been embarassed by.

Disagree. Geraldine Ferraro proves there is no racism in America! Especially coming from conservatives, because Ferraro is a Democrat.; 3/30/10, 1:10 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Oops. Meant to post the link to the story on Col Bud Day's comment in endorsing Charlie Crist.

What's the call, conservatives? Is that a racist statement?; 3/30/10, 1:11 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: No argument from me on that one. It was a racist statement that she should have been embarassed by.

Glad to see you acknowledge that liberals are racists too.

But you know what Alpha, she wasn't embarrased by it. In point of fact she was shocked, shocked to think she was making a racist statement. Now what makes you think that a liberal democrat could say such a thing and not think it's racist?

Let me clue you in: Cause liberals tend to be racists with smiles and the best of intentions about 'those people' who 'need the benevolent care' of enlightened liberals like Ferraro. Then you have Bill Clinton, another liberal who just let the mask slip off a bit too much.

Must hurt when such prominent folks tarnish your image.; 3/30/10, 1:14 PM
Sofa King said...: Health is not a commodity.

No, health is a qualitative state. Health care on the other hand, *is* a commodity and no amount of pony-wishing and foot-stamping will make it otherwise.; 3/30/10, 1:17 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Hoosier Daddy, you are ducking the question on Col Bud Day and his comment about "a politician who can run his mouth at Mach 1, a black one, and now we have a Hispanic who can run his mouth at Mach 1"

In your opinion were his remarks racist?; 3/30/10, 1:21 PM
garage mahal said...: What's the call, conservatives? Is that a racist statement?

Robert Byrd!; 3/30/10, 1:23 PM
prairie wind said...: When people tell us that the Secretary of HHS gets to decide what is or is not the law, perhaps we should just nod and smile blandly. In a few years, the Secretary of HHS is likely to be a Republican.

Good point...one not made frequently or loudly enough. For the Bush haters: Would you trust the Bush administration to run health insurance, to make decisions about your healthcare? As Paul Z said, at some point, the balance of power will change and someone you deeply distrust will be making the regulations.

As for the Bud Day statement, I don't see racism in it. Maybe Bud is a racist; I don't know. I don't think it is racist to describe a black man as "black" or a Hispanic man as "Hispanic." Or to say that the black man can read quickly. I don't know why we worry so much about whether someone is racist or not.; 3/30/10, 1:23 PM
Brian O'Connell said...: Ferraro's statement wasn't racist. She was accusing a lot of the public of thinking racially. C'mon, some percentage of Obama's appeal in 2008 was his African descent. It's not racist to point that out.

And now that the novelty of a black president is mostly over, people are realizing that who he actually is as a politician might be the more important thing.; 3/30/10, 1:24 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Alpha,
You re such an immature, puerile, child. Harry Waxman is the new Joe McCarthy. McCarthyism is back. As to the rest of your so called racist drivel- the Democrats, progressives, and leftists like you are the racists. Pure, unadulterated haters.

How else do you explain the war on poverty which was a war to keep people poor? How else do you explain housing projects- the 20th century slave hovels? How else do you explain the mass destuction of the great Black middle class?

The only racists here are you, Jeremy, and your NIMBY ilk. You people are truly despicable, detestable, deplorable, and disgusting.

You are also gullible. You swallow every thing someone tells you without thinking. Just like the President who signs bills without reading.; 3/30/10, 1:24 PM
Unknown said...: Montagne Montaigne said...

Hey Pasta, how come "the real world" where your condescending ass lives apparently excludes all other industrialized nations, which have universal health coverage?

It may have something to do with the fact that they're all on the verge of fiscal collapse.

Health is not a commodity.

Right up there with, "We are the change we've been waiting for." Those pre-digested platitudes don't go down as well when thrown at people who think.

BTW, the commodity is insurance.; 3/30/10, 1:27 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Peter, I take it by your emotional temper tantrum of an answer that you can find nothing racist in this statement:

“You know, we just got through (electing) a politician who can run his mouth at Mach 1, a black one, and now we have a Hispanic who can run his mouth at Mach 1,” Day said. “You look at their track records and they’re both pretty gritty. Charlie has not got a gritty track record.”

Day confirmed he was speaking of Obama and Rubio.

“You’ve got the black one with the reading thing. He can go as fast as the speed of light and has no idea what he’s saying,” Day said. “I put Rubio in that same category, except I don’t know if he’s using one of those readers.” .

Indeed you are a shining beacon of fair mindedness and maturity. Very clearly you are an expert on what is and is not racism.

And that was sarcasm.; 3/30/10, 1:28 PM
Chennaul said...: Alpha-

What political office does Bud Day-hold?

Can you tell me?; 3/30/10, 1:29 PM
prairie wind said...: To clarify: I don't care if Bud Day or my next door neighbor are racists. I do care if the government makes policy based on the idea that people of a particular race are unable to care for themselves. Policy based on race is bad policy. (When did "Hispanic" become a race?)

Thanks Sofa King, for clearing up the difference between health and health care. Words do matter...not that the Democrats think that the words in the health insurance reform legislation matter very much.; 3/30/10, 1:29 PM
Paul said...: Geraldine Ferraro was right though. Liberal racism and white guilt was what got that "clean and articulate" black man elected. The same mediocrity as a white man wouldn't have gotten a second look.

Face it. Affirmative action is racism, and it's reached around and kicked us but good this time.; 3/30/10, 1:30 PM
Alex said...: It may have something to do with the fact that they're all on the verge of fiscal collapse.

Prove it. Only Greece is.; 3/30/10, 1:32 PM
themightypuck said...: @edutcher. I doubt Germany is on the verge of fiscal collapse. Time will tell I suppose.; 3/30/10, 1:33 PM
Chennaul said...: Wow-

Bud Day endorsed Charlie Crist...

Interesting.

I love how the media over focuses on the republican inter-murals-even NRO.

Isn't anyone interested in Blanche Lincoln's primary?; 3/30/10, 1:33 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Hoosier Daddy? Any racism in the Bud Day statement?

chirp, chirp.

Your conservative brethren seem to think there is no problem in picking candidates by skin color.; 3/30/10, 1:33 PM
Jeremy said...: "Healthcare reform: What's in it for our seniors?"

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chernof30-2010mar30,0,2890631.story; 3/30/10, 1:34 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: I don't know if Bud Day holds any office or just is active in campaigns.

Either way it does not affect the fact that he is making an appeal on the basis of race for others to support his candidate.

His words are racist and the defense of racism is, itself, racist.; 3/30/10, 1:35 PM
Paul said...: Now that I think about it Barak "White people's greed runs a world in need" Obama is clearly a racist but I don't see any of you punkass liberal hypocrites denouncing him.; 3/30/10, 1:35 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Isn't anyone interested in Blanche Lincoln's primary? .

"look! Over there!"; 3/30/10, 1:35 PM
garage mahal said...: Obama lost the white vote to McCain, by a pretty impressive 12% margin. This proves Obama is a racist.; 3/30/10, 1:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, Alpha, we shouldn't rely on law, we should rely on, what did you say, common decency and morality.

And we'll all be fine, right?

Even if nobody has common decency and hasn't been taught morality.

Alpha, you're a lefty, probably even a believer in the absolute science of AGW, so tell me this:

where in the science (you're a believer, remember) - where in the science of Darwin is there anything called common decency and morality?

There is no such thing.

Or do you think it is common decency for the zebra to not get eaten by the lion?

Or maybe you think it would be decent of the zebra to stand still so the lion doesn't have to run so much?; 3/30/10, 1:37 PM
Jeremy said...: Paul - "Affirmative action is racism..."

Can we all assume you're not a person of color?

If so...it's easy for YOU to say...white man.

And to imply affirmative action is the reason we have elected President Obama is racist...but of course, you already know that.; 3/30/10, 1:38 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Frankly, I did not appreciate the extent of racism until trying to talk to conservatives here. Based on experiences, such as that here, I am convinced that it is a much greater problem than I ever imagined.; 3/30/10, 1:38 PM
Alex said...: Why am I not shocked that the lefties are crying racism 24/7 now? They have nothing else...; 3/30/10, 1:39 PM
bagoh20 said...: "Does anyone here have a kid with a pre-existing condition? I'd like to know what such a person thinks about this."

I think the Democrats are idiots for not making a law covering it and in the process of this failure screwing up the rest of our miraculous health care system.

I'm unhappy that in the process of failing to start the barbecue, they also burned down the house anyway.

But you like it, so where does that put you, evil or just dumb?; 3/30/10, 1:40 PM
Chennaul said...: He's an 85 year old veteran of the Viet Cong torture camps.

Yes he describes the race of Obama and Rubio and somehow thinks that fast reading abilities are a strike against them.; 3/30/10, 1:40 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Quayle, you dishonest fuck. You are painting my words as the 100% OPPOSITE of what I said:

Yes, Alpha, we shouldn't rely on law, we should rely on, what did you say, common decency and morality. .

What I said:

I say draft up a new bill focused only on this and dare the Republicans to fight for the health insurance industry "right" to deny health care to children. Move it now.

By no means take their word on anything. .

Draft and pass a law means to "rely on law."

Are you a complete dipshit or a liar? Or just a dipshit liar?; 3/30/10, 1:40 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: What assholes and racists.; 3/30/10, 1:41 PM
Chennaul said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/30/10, 1:42 PM
Paul said...: "Obama lost the white vote to McCain, by a pretty impressive 12% margin. This proves Obama is a racist."

No you dumb fuck his own words prove it as quoted above as well as his "Grandmother is a typical white person" statement.

Switch "white" with "black" in either of those statements and see how it looks.

And I guarantee I spend more time with more black people than anyone of you white liberal punks. I am often the only white face in the place at my gig and I defy anyone of you libs screaming "racism" because you have no logical arguments, just straw men, to make the same claim.; 3/30/10, 1:44 PM
Chennaul said...: Wait....

what the hell was the topic again?

Non-existent loopholes are racist?

All your loopholes are racist they belong to Alpha!

PWNED-

Wait I'm a racist-all pawns are either black or white...; 3/30/10, 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Given the rich harvest from the cry of racism and sexism, one can hardly blame the left for instinctively trying to milk as much more out of it as they can.

But I know I'm not a racist or sexist, and frankly I couldn't care less if a dissolute lefty said I was.

So keep obsessively pressing that button, lefty - none of us regular folks are worried about it any more.

You've cried wolf a few thousand too many times now for us to even notice when you say it.; 3/30/10, 1:45 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Hoosier Daddy, you are ducking the question on Col Bud Day and his comment about "a politician who can run his mouth at Mach 1, a black one, and now we have a Hispanic who can run his mouth at Mach 1"

In your opinion were his remarks racist?

I suppose if pointing out someone’s ethic background in the course of making a comment about them is considered racist then yeah I’ll have to agree.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove though. Racism isn’t confined to a specific ideology or political platform as I thoroughly demonstrated by showing the racism in Clinton and Ferraro. But hey if pointing at the racists on the conservative side while your side is just as infected with them counts as some political touchdown then by all means go for it.; 3/30/10, 1:46 PM
Paul said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/30/10, 1:47 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Or to say that the black man can read quickly.

Or is clean and articulate. A real story book man you know.

I wonder what Alpha thinks of his VP who celebrated the fact that you can't walk in a 7-11 without hearing an Indian accent. Nothing like reinforcing that sterotype.; 3/30/10, 1:48 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: This just in: Moronic internet troll AlphaLiberal attempts to smear MOH-winner and all-around great American Col Bud Day as a racist. News at 11.

*Turns off TV and goes to bed*; 3/30/10, 1:49 PM
garage mahal said...: No you dumb fuck his own words prove it as quoted above as well as his "Grandmother is a typical white person" statement.

Ah, those weren't Obama's words "as quoted above". You might to fact check that one.; 3/30/10, 1:49 PM
Chennaul said...: People who are really worried that they might be racist probably register as Democrats.

It's all about keeping up appearances.

In fact Alpha is the racist he wants to tar everyone that is Republican by one racist comment made by one person.; 3/30/10, 1:50 PM
garage mahal said...: *want to; 3/30/10, 1:50 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Either way it does not affect the fact that he is making an appeal on the basis of race for others to support his candidate.

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States

I mean seriously Alpha, you are making this too easy. It's like letting a 3rd grader throw a slow pitch.; 3/30/10, 1:51 PM
Chennaul said...: Plus whatever the hell Harry Reid ruminated on about Obama.

You know, Harry Reid the Democrat Senate majority leader.; 3/30/10, 1:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Alpha lib:, you said, "Some people, say those possessing a shred of common decency, would say that's a despicable idea. Decent people may not imagine it, but immoral executives do."

Right. And an executive's reaction couldn't possibly have anything to do with actuarial science, and the business problem of prior insurance rates being set under one set of assumptions and parameters and then having the assumptions and parameters changed right out from under you by government fiat.

No, that couldn't be the executive's thought process since being executive they are ipso facto immoral, according to your world view.

And I note your rapid retreat to ad hominem argument, once your ability to debate logically on the merits apparently ran out.

Score another one for the conservatives:
Quayle: 1
AlphaLib: 0; 3/30/10, 1:54 PM
Michael said...: Alpha Liberal: The companies are taking write downs because they are required by law to take write downs. It is an accounting rule, not a political statement. As an investor you want to know the value of assets on the books of the companies you invest in and the Congress of the U.S. passed Sarbannes Oxley to make sure that these charges are taken on a timely basis. Or are accounting rules like other Democrat rules?; 3/30/10, 1:54 PM
Alex said...: BTW, anyone who says "you dumb fuck" has automatically lost the argument.; 3/30/10, 1:56 PM
Shanna said...: Isn't anyone interested in Blanche Lincoln's primary?

I dislike the goober democrat who is running against her, but there are too many republicans right now, and the party here is too disorganized, to see what’s going to come out of that side of it.; 3/30/10, 1:57 PM
Paul said...: Obama, in his own words.

From Dreams of My Father: "I ceased to advertise my mother's [white] race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."

From Dreams of My Father: "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."

From Dreams of My Father: "There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white."

From Dreams of My Father: "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."

Like I said, switch white and black and see how it looks you smug hypocrites.; 3/30/10, 1:57 PM
Jeremy said...: Paul said..."Now that I think about it Barak "White people's greed runs a world in need" Obama is clearly a racist but I don't see any of you punkass liberal hypocrites denouncing him."

Are you saying President Obama said that...?

I think it was Wright, and here's the entire quote:

"It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere…That’s the world! On which hope sits!"; 3/30/10, 2:00 PM
bagoh20 said...: "And to imply affirmative action is the reason we have elected President Obama is racist...but of course, you already know that."

Nearly every Obama voter I know, gave his race as a main reason, if not THE main reason, for voting for him. In addition, most who voted against him, like me, still liked the idea of a black president, just not a good enough reason to vote for him.

There is no doubt that if he was white, the media, McCain and the voters would have been much harder on him and would have demanded the holes in his resume be filled in. He still might have won, but ignoring the advantage of his race in the year 2008 is dishonest.; 3/30/10, 2:01 PM
Jeremy said...: Allen - "This is a big fucking deal."

It really is, and if you read the article entitled "Healthcare reform: What's in it for our seniors?" in the L.A. Times you'll see just how important it will be or already is...for YOU.; 3/30/10, 2:01 PM
X said...: Ferraro was really just saying that Obama was not experienced enough to be President and benefitting from a sort of affirmative action, all true, but a pretty unselfaware statement for her to make considering her resume in 1984.; 3/30/10, 2:02 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I think it was Wright, and here's the entire quote:

I'm sure Obama wasn't present for that sermon.; 3/30/10, 2:03 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Nope. Just universal health coverage. And taking profit motive out of health care to the furthest extent possible. Health is not a commodity.

I think someone here is living in another dimension where government employees are all hard working munificent saints and companies trying to earn filthy lucre are just plain evil. On the other hand, MM here seems never to have dealt with the DMV, IRS, etc.

The reality is that the government cannot, over an extended period of time, do anywhere near an efficient or good job at supplying any good or service. The only reason that the military works, kinda, is that we have periodic wars where people die, and bad leaders eventually get replaced as a result. Those countries that don't go to war on a periodic basis have militaries as bad as their post offices.

Why is this inevitably true, regardless of the great intent of those implementing and running those government bureaucracies? One reason is that because their constituencies are political, they are myriad and diffuse. The result, inevitably, is that since government bureaucracies have multiple goals and responsibilities, in the end, they are responsible and accountable to only themselves.; 3/30/10, 2:04 PM
Brian O'Connell said...: Bud Day's remarks sound possibly racist. But I'm not sure.

It seems as if there's a context there that the story omits- the same as Geraldine Ferraro's in fact. And that is that you've got these telegenic minority candidates who aren't vetted to the same extent as white candidates would be. At least, I can easily place the quotes attributed to him within that context. I'm just more likely to assume that the problem is with the reporting rather than with the subject.

As far as national news, I've seen very little focus on Rubio's background. I don't know if Rubio's being a Hispanic is a big deal in Florida or not.

So if Bud Day is just naming races with no point to make, then that would be racist. I have very little reason to believe that that's actually the case.; 3/30/10, 2:05 PM
Chennaul said...: Shanna-

Ya it looks like that primary between Blanche Lincoln and Halter might be just as tight-but for some reason the MSM only wants to focus on the Republican fights.

Blanche Lincoln (D) 44
Bill Halter (D) 31
Undecided 25

DailyKos Poll

That's statistically as close as the Rubio/ Crist primary.; 3/30/10, 2:07 PM
AllenS said...: This is a big fucking deal.; 3/30/10, 2:08 PM
Anonymous said...: "...So if Bud Day is just naming races with no point to make, then that would be racist."

I say let's send Al Sharpton to take back his CMH and have Jermiah Wright kick him out of the country.; 3/30/10, 2:09 PM
Jeremy said...: bagoh20 - "Nearly every Obama voter I know, gave his race as a main reason, if not THE main reason, for voting for him."

That's ridiculous. President Obama got 69,456,897 votes...and you think, based on your silly statement, that you think he got 10,000,000 MORE votes than McCain and Princess Sarah...because he was black??

And if that's the case...where the fuck are all of the black Republicans hiding out?

Unless I'm missing someone, currently, there are NO Black Republicans in either the House or the Senate.

Americans ONLY like black Democrats?

I have no idea who you know or would get such a response from, but it certainly wasn't what was illustrated in the 1,000's of polls conducted before and during the campaign and election.

I think you're full of shit and just trying to suck up to your fellow tea baggers here at The Queen's wing nut site.; 3/30/10, 2:10 PM
Jeremy said...: AllenS said..."This is a big fucking deal."

Take some time away from the standard bitching and whining and do yourself a favor...read the article.; 3/30/10, 2:12 PM
AllenS said...: This is a big fucking deal.; 3/30/10, 2:12 PM
AllenS said...: Nonexistent loopholes are a big fucking deal.; 3/30/10, 2:14 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: The only reason that the military works, kinda, is that we have periodic wars where people die, and bad leaders eventually get replaced as a result.

Well there aren't unions either. I'd have to disagree with war culling the bad ones. Our military has generally performed exceptionally since the founding of the Republic with some stumbles here and there but overall because the military, unlike say, the Department of Transportation operates on a system of meritocracy.

Then you have it as an all volunteer force where camraderie and esprit de corps goes a long way where you don't see that in an IRS office.

Government is not efficient simply because it has little incentive to innovate. If IBM didn't it goes out of business, if Uncle Sam doesn't, life goes on.; 3/30/10, 2:16 PM
Jeremy said...: Bruce - "The reality is that the government cannot, over an extended period of time, do anywhere near an efficient or good job at supplying any good or service."

That's just the usual right wing tripe we can hear every day from Beck, Hannity and other wing nuts...who, by the way have massive health coverage via their employers...free of charge. (And you can bet your ass they'll ALL take full advantage of Medicare, Medicaid or anything else the "government" handles when necessary.)

But if "government" is so inefficient, how do you explain every industrialized democracy on the planet providing health care for their citizens? And why are we so far down the line in effectiveness, but right at the very top in cost?

And why are we allowing the "government" to run the military? Or the state and local police forces?

Wing nut drivel.; 3/30/10, 2:16 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: That's ridiculous. President Obama got 69,456,897 votes...and you think, based on your silly statement, that you think he got 10,000,000 MORE votes than McCain and Princess Sarah...because he was black??

Joe Biden thought so.

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States; 3/30/10, 2:17 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: But if "government" is so inefficient, how do you explain every industrialized democracy on the planet providing health care for their citizens?

Providing a service and providing it efficiently are two different things.

For example, I can dig you a basement using a pick and shovel. Bruce can do it with a backhoe.

I'll leave it to you to figure which way is more efficient.; 3/30/10, 2:20 PM
AllenS said...: This is a big fucking deal.; 3/30/10, 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: "Our military has generally performed exceptionally since the founding of the Republic with some stumbles here and there but overall because the military, unlike say, the Department of Transportation operates on a system of meritocracy."

"In other armies when the officers get killed their troops run away and their armies collapse. In our Army we shoot our officers first and then proceed to victory."

That's what my Drill Sergeant told me so it must be true.; 3/30/10, 2:22 PM
Michael said...: Jeremy: Let's try another angle. Is there anything that you think the Government doesn't do better than the private sector? Anything at all. Name something.; 3/30/10, 2:25 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Here is another great thing that someone snuck into the new law (from volokh.com):

Today the Supreme Court held 7–2 in an opinion by Justice Stevens that 31 U.S.C. 3730(e)(4)(A), a provision of the False Claims Act that bars qui tam actions that are based upon the public disclosure of allegations of fraud against the government in (among other things) “a congressional, administrative, or [GAO] report, hearing, audit, or investigation,” includes state and local administrative hearings, audits, or investigations, and not just federal ones. But tucked away in a footnote is notice that the holding of the case (Graham County Soil & Water Conservation District v. United States ex rel Wilson, 08–304), will have limited application going forward:

On March 23, 2010, the President signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 111–148, 124 Stat. 119. Section 10104(j)(2) of this legislation replaces the prior version of 31 U.S.C. §3730(e)(4) with new language. The legislation makes no mention of retroactivity, which would be necessary for its application to pending cases given that it eliminates petitioners’ claimed defense to a qui tam suit. See Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U. S. 939, 948 (1997).

The health care reform law changes the relevant text to provide for dismissal of a qui tam action based on a public disclosures “in a congressional, [GAO], or other Federal report, hearing, audit, or investigation.” Thus, it essentially overrules today’s decision. The amendment also eliminates the old language, under which a court would not have jurisdiction over a case based on a public disclosure, to simply state that a court shall dismiss an action, unless opposed by the Government, if substantially the same allegations were publicly disclosed.; 3/30/10, 2:25 PM
Jeremy said...: Allen - I notice by your bio that you're 63.

Are you planning on forgoing your Medicare and Medicaid coverage?

I mean...there have top be some kind of "loopholes" in that nasty government sponsored coverage.

*Just kidding...we BOTH know you'll take FULL advantage of every dollar provided.

It's just more fun to bitch and whine about it...right?; 3/30/10, 2:26 PM
AllenS said...: This is a big fucking deal.; 3/30/10, 2:27 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Are you planning on forgoing your Medicare and Medicaid coverage?

Jeremy,

AllenS will get either one or the other but not both. They're two completely different programs.

I mean...there have top be some kind of "loopholes" in that nasty government sponsored coverage.

Actually there are in the form of Medicare only covers 80% which means that most seniors must go out to purchase supplemental insurance in order to cover that which Medicare doesn't.

Just like the French medical system.; 3/30/10, 2:30 PM
jeff said...: "Are you planning on forgoing your Medicare and Medicaid coverage?"
Soon as you get me back all I have put into it. Same thing with SS. Get me a check for every dime I put into it and I will walk away from it too. Are you somehow under the impression that gov handles Medicare, Medicaid and SS efficiently?; 3/30/10, 2:31 PM
AllenS said...: I'm not poor, I won't need Medicaid. When I turn 65 I'll use the Medicare. After all I've been paying taxes since 1963. This is a big fucking deal.; 3/30/10, 2:31 PM
Shanna said...: "It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere…That’s the world! On which hope sits!"

Do you really think that the full quote makes Wright sound better? Really? In fact, I think he’s doing the same thing AL’s good buddy Day did, mentioning race when there is really no reason, except he IS making a judgment based on race. (also, I'm not sure why wright thinks only white people go on cruises. Should I introduce him to my coworkers? Or maybe he thinks only white people own cruiselines?)

madawaskan, here is what the “25 undecided” are thinking about that race. Blanche needs to go, but damn this Halter guy is a doofus…wonder if any of the 15 people running on the republican side will be any good.; 3/30/10, 2:32 PM
AllenS said...: On the second Wednesday of each month, I get a Social Security check for $1469. This is a big fucking deal.; 3/30/10, 2:33 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: "Our military has generally performed exceptionally since the founding of the Republic with some stumbles here and there but overall because the military, unlike say, the Department of Transportation operates on a system of meritocracy."

Actually, I would suggest that it does not, at least initially in any conflict. Lincoln went through a number of generals before he found Grant (and Sherman) who could actually fight. We saw that in WWII in North Africa, likely Korea, Vietnam under Westmoreland, and Iraq before Petreus.

What seems to inevitably happen is that during peace times, the officers at the top (field grade on up) are political. They do well with Congress and their superiors, but less well fighting. Then, when we go to war, they fail, killing American troops as a result. Then, they are replaced by the officers who can fight.

I would suggest that it is the troops dying without winning, the squandering of American lives, that is what forces the military to change during war time. And that somewhat forces a large bureaucracy to be effective, at least for a short period of time.; 3/30/10, 2:37 PM
bagoh20 said...: "I have no idea who you know or would get such a response from, but it certainly wasn't what was illustrated in the 1,000's of polls conducted before and during the campaign and election."

You are being willfully ignorant. If you watched TV or read anything, the pride of having a Black President was ubiquitous. You know that people felt great about that, yet you pretend like it didn't matter immensely. Like, I said, and I think it's telling, even those who voted against him felt that. You know that it's a weak reason for electing someone and that's why you need to pretend it was not central, which it was, unless you think it was his extensive resume of leadership and bipartisanship or maybe it was the nice pants crease that worked for your circle of friends.; 3/30/10, 2:38 PM
Jeremy said...: Michael said..."Jeremy: Let's try another angle. Is there anything that you think the Government doesn't do better than the private sector? Anything at all. Name something."

Once again, you try to make it sound as if I'm saying something I am not.

I've NEVER said government handles ALL matters better than the private sector.

I've personally owned and operated a number of businesses over the years that the government would have screwed up royally, for a variety of reasons...but that doesn't mean the government is an abject failure on all fronts.

I believe in free enterprise, capitalism and everything they bring to the table, but when a country has 300 million citizens, 50 states, 1,000's of cities, and of course, freedom to travel anywhere in the country without having to prove proof of citizenship to cross borders...leaving specific responsibilities and services to the private sector would be literally impossible to control.

Between state to state and city to city regulations governing everything from safety to health concerns...oh, wait...would there there be ANY regulations in this privately run enterprise you suggest? Where would the laws of the land be generated? Google? Microsoft? Who would run the courts?

And of course, we'd have to have a private military, and national police force, right? No FBI, CIA, State Police, local cops...the ABC Corporation could handle all that.
The next Katrina can forget about the National Guard, we'll just throw together a group of paid helpers to clean up that mess.

And don't concern yourself with the inspection of food. The DEF Corporation will handle all of that...and why not? They'll own and handle all of the production, imports, and distribution...so there's no doubt we could trust them for what's best.

And hey...let's make YOU the CEO.; 3/30/10, 2:39 PM
Unknown said...: Jeremy said...

But if "government" is so inefficient, how do you explain every industrialized democracy on the planet providing health care for their citizens? And why are we so far down the line in effectiveness, but right at the very top in cost?

Once again, every one of those governments is on the verge of fiscal collapse, even as we speak. That it's taken this long is due to the fact that each has relied on the protection of the US Army for the last 65 years, which obviated the need for any kind of defense on their part.

And why are we allowing the "government" to run the military?

A silly little thing called the Constitution.

Allen - I notice by your bio that you're 63.

Are you planning on forgoing your Medicare and Medicaid coverage?

I mean...there have top be some kind of "loopholes" in that nasty government sponsored coverage.

According to the Feds, it will be bankrupt by then, so nobody will be using it.

That is, of course, if the Demos don't stick to their promise and cut the Hell out of it to fund ZeroCare.; 3/30/10, 2:41 PM
Jeremy said...: AllenS said..."On the second Wednesday of each month, I get a Social Security check for $1469. This is a big fucking deal."

And you probably deserve it, Al...you did contribute.

But you didn't answer my question:

Will you, based on your hatred of "government," be forgoing your Medicare, Medicaid or other "government" provided services?

If this health reform bill offers up services and coverage you don't have right now...will you be telling them to shove it?

Anybody want to take a wild guess what Al will be doing?; 3/30/10, 2:42 PM
Michael said...: Jeremy: Let's try one final time. Name, actually name, one thing that the Government cannot do better than the private sector. N a m e o n e.; 3/30/10, 2:42 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Actually, I would suggest that it does not, at least initially in any conflict.

Well yes and no. No war or battle is alike and yes there is going to be a learning curve that has to be overcome (new enemy, new tactics, logistics etc). That being said, whether or not the army survives long enough to hit that curve says a lot about its fighting abilities.; 3/30/10, 2:44 PM
Alex said...: Once again, every one of those governments is on the verge of fiscal collapse, even as we speak.

I notice Jeremy won't answer this point. Are those European governments on the verge of fiscal collapse or not? Or is that another neocon lie Jeremy?; 3/30/10, 2:46 PM
AllenS said...: I don't hate the government you dumb assed motherfucker. Back when I worked for the government (Army) I paid into Social Security in 1967, a sum of $73.22. That was on a yearly wage of $1663.73. Go fuck yourself.; 3/30/10, 2:46 PM
jeff said...: "Anybody want to take a wild guess what Al will be doing?"
So it is your position that he should opt out of a system that he was compelled to participate in against his will, because he feels the government shouldn't take over health care, and just consider all those thousands of dollars his gift to the federal government. Brilliant.; 3/30/10, 2:47 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Will you, based on your hatred of "government," be forgoing your Medicare, Medicaid or other "government" provided services?

Did AllenS say he hated the government?

Can you point to the actual written words?

I'll wait.; 3/30/10, 2:47 PM
Jeremy said...: edutcher said..."Once again, every one of those governments is on the verge of fiscal collapse, even as we speak."

That's partially true, but I'm glad you threw in that "fiscal" thing.

The "governments" themselves aren't on the verge of collapse...the "governments" of each state and locality is struggling to survive the economic crisis we and the rest of the world is dealing with.

When governments themselves "collapse," we have much bigger problems than we see right now.

This is an economic crisis...the United States is not "collapsing."

Our GDP is about 10 trillion dollars MORE than the closest country to us and, just as we have in the past, we'll survive.

Or...are you with Michael and think we should turn things over to those wonderful private corporation who do their best to make sure our best interests are at heart?

*Oh, and by the way: Why not take the time to read up on what we were facing during Ronnie The Saint's first term in office. The parallels (although this recession is much, much bigger) are quite striking...and that includes unemployment, debt and spending.; 3/30/10, 2:49 PM
Anonymous said...: I think Shanna's 1:53 comment was spot on; the statement that Alpha pointed out was not racist in itself, but it was racial enough to make me a little uncomfortable, because, why should I care what race either is?

My grandfather (a life-long, deadset Dem voter, BTW), who is a few years younger than the colonel if what I read earlier about him being 85 is correct, is the same way. I don't think he actually holds anything against blacks, but he's weirdly apt to point them out, for ex, if he sees an interracial couple, he has to comment on "chocolate and vanilla," or, if you're talking about a person, he will randomly ask whether that person is black. Once I saw him go off on a rant about how Philladelphia was changed "after the blacks came in."

I generally consider him racist, though not particularly harmful about it. He's generally known for inapprorpriate comments, so it's just another thing to laugh off about him. So, yeah, the statement would be a little disconcerting (not KKK disconcerting) if he had any real power. But he doesn't, so I'm not all that worried about it.

As for Geraldine Ferraro and Clinton, I don't think either was racist. Ferraro was pointing out other's racism. Clinton's stmt had no context, but it seems a lot more likely that it was ageist and experience-ist than racist. (as in, he was pointing out that Obama was closer to the gofers getting coffee than someone ready to be president).
- Lyssa; 3/30/10, 2:49 PM
Michael said...: Jeremy: One thing I can tell you the Government is very bad at and that is clearly drafting a health bill to provide insurance to children with preexisting conditions. They seem to have failed to do that one simple thing they had promised to do with this bill. Pathetic, wouldn't you say?; 3/30/10, 2:50 PM
garage mahal said...: So Medicare isn't really socialism if you pay into. Forced to, in fact. Good to know! That almost sounds like the new health care bill.; 3/30/10, 2:52 PM
bagoh20 said...: "Are you planning on forgoing your Medicare and Medicaid coverage?"

If there was some other way of getting back the thousands of tax dollars extracted from me over my lifetime and what future citizens will pay for me, I would prefer that, so I could go out and purchase coverage that would be superior and have some left over.

My parents use this government system and it is nowhere near as nice as my private coverage. It stingy and often a pain in the ass. In addition, it rips off the doctors who are saving their lives. Nice system. Lets put everyone in it.

After you have already taxed me, it's kinds stupid to expect me to forgo what is mine. I would prefer it stayed with me all along. I could have rolled that money over and employed people who would then do the same. It's called creating wealth and the government never does it. They only reduce it.; 3/30/10, 2:52 PM
Michael said...: Jeremy: Listen, dipshit, I never said that everything should be turned over to the private sector. Read my comments on this or any other post on this blog and you will not find me saying such a thing. On top of being a complete embarrassment you don't even take the trouble to read what others write.; 3/30/10, 2:53 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Thank God for Harry Waxman. He has invited these CEO's to come talk to his committee and explain themselves.

There is nothing to explain.

Sarbanes Oxley and the SEC(remember Enron) require that the companies make the impact of the events public IMMEDIATELY

"Accounting basics: when a company experiences what accountants call “a material adverse impact” on its expected future earnings, and those changes affect an item that is already on the balance sheet, the company is required to record the negative impact–”to take the charge against earnings”–as soon as it knows that the change is reasonably likely to occur."

They are required to do this for complete disclosure for the stock holders.....SEC and Sarbanes Oxley...to prevent hiding information as was done in Enron.

Do you WANT them to hide the unpleasant news from unsuspecting stockholders????

The CEO's are merely complying with the law as written and signed by Waxman. What a maroon.

When you get a liablity in accounting, you book it on the Balance Sheet when you obtain the liability even if you don't have to actually pay the debt for some time in the future.

Basic accounting and basic business practices.

Something completly foreign to the idiots in Congress.; 3/30/10, 2:53 PM
Jeremy said...: Hoosier Daddy said..."Can you point to the actual written words?"

Gee Corn Cob you got me there. Without doing some research I guess I can't provide you with those exact words...and I even broke one of my cardinal rules by using the term "hate" versus many other, less strident descriptions.

Allen probably loves the government, thinks President Obama and Congress are doing a great job...and visits this site for no other reason than to tout the terrific job everybody is doing.

And when he says; "On the second Wednesday of each month, I get a Social Security check for $1469. This is a big fucking deal."

He's just saying he appreciates everything the government has provided.

But, hey...maybe you could provide any of his comments that reflect a love of "government."

*Oh, and I have absolutely no idea what he means by this:

"I worked for the government (Army) I paid into Social Security in 1967, a sum of $73.22. That was on a yearly wage of $1663.73."; 3/30/10, 3:02 PM
Michael said...: Dust Bunny Queen: You are spot on in your description of the requirement to report charge offs or write downs. The liberal commentators on this blog will view accounting as another nefarious trick of the right to steal money from the poor. Or should I say from the poor sick children? The fact is that the writers of this bill did not take into account the reporting requirements of public companies and the fact that it surprised them should not come as a surprise.; 3/30/10, 3:04 PM
bagoh20 said...: This bill is a perfect example of how well government does things, and this is something they actually are experienced at. Imagine how well the will do with the actual delivery of health care someday. Something they know nothing about. We have failed lawyers, best known for their ability to talk bullshit, acting as our doctors now. What could possibly go wrong?

I would prefer doctors to lawyers in congress. They understand the the limits of their training much better.; 3/30/10, 3:06 PM
Jeremy said...: Michael - Are you having some kind of seizure? Low on those meds again? Are you hanging with Petey or Al or Corn Cob?

Just take a few minutes to get yourself under control...and tell us all of the things our government handles or oversees right now...that you think the private sector should take over.

And leave out the postal service and prisons, because that's old news.; 3/30/10, 3:07 PM
Jeremy said...: Bag-O-Wind - "Imagine how well the will do with the actual delivery of health care someday. Something they know nothing about."

You must be referring to Medicare and Medicaid and the Veteran's Administration.

Right?; 3/30/10, 3:08 PM
Jeremy said...: Michael - "The liberal commentators on this blog will view accounting as another nefarious trick of the right to steal money from the poor."

Back on that nasty government thing, huh?

Care to read up on Ronnie "The Saint" Reagan's "accounting" problems during his tenure?

You know...the guy who's remembered for dramatically cutting taxes...only to realize he could bankrupt the country...and had to go back and raise them at least four times?; 3/30/10, 3:11 PM
Fen said...: I welcome AlphaTard in his newly found recognition that the Congressional Black Caucus and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are racist.

Now, if only he would extend his outrage to the most racist demographic in America: blacks.; 3/30/10, 3:12 PM
Chennaul said...: Shanna

here is what the “25 undecided” are thinking about that race. Blanche needs to go, but damn this Halter guy is a doofus…wonder if any of the 15 people running on the republican side will be any good.

LOL!

**********

Bruce Hayden said:

The only reason that the military works, kinda, is that we have periodic wars where people die, and bad leaders eventually get replaced as a result. Those countries that don't go to war on a periodic basis have militaries as bad as their post offices.

Ugh-ask any veteran the bravest and best died.

At least that's what my father says-a veteran of WW II with the Bloody Buckets-Battle of the Bulge, and then Vietnam.; 3/30/10, 3:15 PM
Shanna said...: I don't think he actually holds anything against blacks, but he's weirdly apt to point them out

My grandmother came to DC to visit me and we were at the capital and she just randomly said “there are a lot of Orientals here”. I was like, what are you talking about? But, she didn’t mean anything and it wasn’t a negative comment, it was just a statement. I do give out an old people pass, at about 75/80, for weird comments like that. They just grew up in a different time and if it’s not terrible, then I let it go (this pass does not extent to congress).; 3/30/10, 3:15 PM
Fen said...: Its hysterical to see the usual libtard hypocrites up in arms about a loophole. They certainly didn't have a problem with loopholes when Pelosi wanted to use one to ram the bill through Congress.; 3/30/10, 3:16 PM
Chennaul said...: And "bad leaders" are really not on the front.

You probably need to re-calibrate your "theory".; 3/30/10, 3:17 PM
Chennaul said...: Well an older relative of mine-btw-"Liberal" told our waiter-

"Sorry I don't speak Mexican."

You know, the ever hip Canadian Liberal.; 3/30/10, 3:19 PM
Jeremy said...: Michael - Where are all of the "government" responsibilities and services you're handing over to the private sector?

You talk and talk...but never come through with anything of substance.

Give us the list.; 3/30/10, 3:21 PM
Chennaul said...: I think "loopholes" are part of the Democratic Party platform.

And "loophole finders" aka lawyers are their biggest donors.; 3/30/10, 3:21 PM
Jeremy said...: Fen said..."Its hysterical to see the usual libtard hypocrites up in arms about a loophole. They certainly didn't have a problem with loopholes when Pelosi wanted to use one to ram the bill through Congress."

And this after eight years of Bush and the biggest expansion of government, a massive deficit, an 800 billion dollar bailout via George...?

Yeah, right.

And I love that "ram through" routine.

The Republicans controlled Congress for 12 of the last 14 years and could have fashioned any kind of bill they wanted.

Why didn't they?; 3/30/10, 3:25 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Medicare isn't a really socialist program IMO. It levy's the exact same tax % on everyone's earnings.

And everyone gets the same exact govt benefits at age 65. So I don't see the same socialist-level amount of wealth -re-distribution that is inherent in ObamaScare.

If ObamaScare had been devised in a similarly equitable way, the folks would not be so upset.; 3/30/10, 3:31 PM
Michael said...: Jeremy: "Michael - "The liberal commentators on this blog will view accounting as another nefarious trick of the right to steal money from the poor."

"Back on that nasty government thing, huh?"

No, Jeremy, you idiot, I am citing a law, the Sarbannes Oxley law.

"Care to read up on Ronnie "The Saint" Reagan's "accounting" problems during his tenure?

You know...the guy who's remembered for dramatically cutting taxes...only to realize he could bankrupt the country...and had to go back and raise them at least four times?"

What has this got to do with accounting for the cost of ObamaCare? You are out to lunch. You be-clown yourself. Again.; 3/30/10, 3:31 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I will add Americans are sick and tired of the endless number of expensive, liberal social justice programs which never seem to really fix anything.; 3/30/10, 3:33 PM
Michael said...: Jeremy: Get somebody to show you how to cut and paste and then cut and paste a comment of mine that says what you allege I have said relative to the Government. You might need two hands for the cut and paste operation so take your hand off your dick while you do it.; 3/30/10, 3:36 PM
Jeremy said...: Michael - Where are all of the "government" responsibilities and services you're handing over to the private sector?

You talk and talk...but never come through with anything of substance.

Give us the list.; 3/30/10, 3:37 PM