"We needed the media to hold people like me to account," Bush told TODAY'S Matt Lauer. "Power can be very addictive and it can be corrosive, and it’s important for the media to call to account people who abuse their power.... It’s kind of hard to tell others to have an independent free press when we’re not willing to have one ourselves," he said.And, on immigration: "I am for an immigration policy that is welcoming and upholds the law."
Bush also addressed the controversy over Trump advisers and the role they may have played in the scandal involving Russian hackers who tried to intervene in the election.... “I think we all need answers,” he said, noting that he was not a lawyer so, “I’m not sure the right avenue to take.”...
He seems so gentle and modest. If he has any actual opinions on these subjects, he's completely hiding them. And yet I'm sure many people think what he's saying accords with what they think. He's speaking the language of traditional American politics — the language Trump eschews. Me, I'm a proponent of clear speech. But Bush is being civil and diplomatic and continuing to follow his policy of not trying to cling to presidential power.
What a nice man. And yet they called him Bushitler.
By they way, he did the show not to dump on Trump but to publicize his book of paintings of military veterans.
Posts
310 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 310 of 310Drago, you say that Obamacare was "designed" not (A) "to get people covered", but (B) to "lay the foundation for a total govt takeover of healthcare".
I'm wondering, is there any health reform plan that would satisfy condition (A) -- of getting people covered -- that you wouldn't accuse of "laying the foundation for a total takeover of healthcare"?
passerby: "Drago, you say that Obamacare was "designed" not (A) "to get people covered", but (B) to "lay the foundation for a total govt takeover of healthcare".
I'm wondering, is there any health reform plan that would satisfy condition (A) -- of getting people covered -- that you wouldn't accuse of "laying the foundation for a total takeover of healthcare"?"
Yes.
For instance, if a plan was offered that resulted in more people being covered while simultaneously not laying the foundation for a govt total takeover of healthcare.
What a fascinating array of healthcare reform ideas we're seeing now from the Althousians!
So many ideas, and so little time...
And does everybody also presume that that I will reject those ideas, and defend Obamacare? I hope not. I'm not sure that I care, but this is yet another case of the old default prejudices kicking in. Simply because I doubt Trump and criticize his methods, the instant presumption is that I must be an Obamabot.
Brando said...
You omitted the key criticism: reality. We don't have to limit ourselves to conjecture about motivations. We can also analyze later events and note they conflict with his hallucinations. Our repulsion went better than anyone expected. This means [accepting his assertions arguendo] we orchestrated an invasion and succeeded beyond our expectations right up to the point where we stopped the invasion. Then we returned to Kuwait and didn't use the opportunity to establish the supremacy Cook claims was the entire goal of the invasion.
The Gulf War ending and aftermath is completely inconsistent with his characterization of the leadup.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "What a fascinating array of healthcare reform ideas we're seeing now from the Althousians!"
It is considered "bad form" to lecture others on their healthcare opinions moving forward when one hasn't demonstrated the capacity to understand the As-Is condition.
Carry on "lifelong republican" Chuck!
But in the future, just cut out the middleman and link us directly to your source material at DailyKos or wherever.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "And does everybody also presume that that I will reject those ideas, and defend Obamacare?"
Yes, for in politics past performance is most certainly a strong indicator of future results.
Rick: "The Gulf War ending and aftermath is completely inconsistent with his characterization of the leadup."
Which is why the left and their "lifelong republican" allies must rewrite history each and everyday.
You can't control the future narrative if you don't take care to put a stranglehold on the past.
The view from the far left on the Dubya interview is interesting. This from Digby Parton:
Ok, first of all, look at those erudite, complete sentences. My God:
"... power can be very addictive and it can be corrosive and it’s important for the media to call to account people who abuse their power, whether it be here or elsewhere."
They always used to compare him to Winston Churchill and I thought it was daft. But compared to what we have now, he really is.
The Rand Paul plan has good features. Employer sponsored plan beneficiaries will resist giving up the full coverage low deductible plans they have. That was why the McCain plan in 2008 taxed them and used the money to subsidize others.
The negative about employer plans is "job lock" and that might be a wedge into the solution.
The French solution to the pre-existing condition problem is to cover just the condition with a government program but all other illness goes through the usual system. Instead of being "uninsurable" as now, they would be covered for the condition, like diabetes or cancer, but would need insurance and be insurable for other illness unrelated.
One big problem is that all these Democrat plans are devised by academics who have little or no contact with real healthcare delivery.
There is much more cash paid primary care now than before Obamacare because there are so many more people uninsured now.
That is a low cost resource,
Michael K said...
The Rand Paul plan has good features. Employer sponsored plan beneficiaries will resist giving up the full coverage low deductible plans they have. That was why the McCain plan in 2008 taxed them and used the money to subsidize others.
The negative about employer plans is "job lock" and that might be a wedge into the solution.
The French solution to the pre-existing condition problem is to cover just the condition with a government program but all other illness goes through the usual system. Instead of being "uninsurable" as now, they would be covered for the condition, like diabetes or cancer, but would need insurance and be insurable for other illness unrelated.
One big problem is that all these Democrat plans are devised by academics who have little or no contact with real healthcare delivery.
There is much more cash paid primary care now than before Obamacare because there are so many more people uninsured now.
That is a low cost resource,
This is how a good discussion starts. Recognizing all the hard parts. I'll bet that I'd agree with you on 90%+, of a prototype plan that you supported, Michael K. Like you (I think?!?), I have a lot of admiration for Rand Paul's health insurance and tax reforms; they guy has got balls. I'd be quite happy if Senator Paul actually went even further in decoupling the tax code from employer-sponsored health insurance. But that just isn't a political reality, I'm sorry to admit.
"How much has the US treasury received in payments for Iraqi oil?"
It's not about the US treasury receiving payments for Iraqi oil, it's about the US government using it's military might in service to the profits-seeking of the oil interests. (Few remember the secret meeting held in Cheney's office at the White House, early in the term, prior to 9/11, with heads of several oil companies. No information has ever been revealed as to the what was discussed at the meeting, and for a time the White House and the participants denied that any such meeting ever took place.)
This is what we do...we serve the financial and corporate elites. Look at General Smedley Butler, who, in the 1930s, delared "war is a racket" (by which the US military is used a muscle for the corporate interests).
"They always used to compare him to Winston Churchill and I thought it was daft."
G Bush was (almost) always very well spoken, even in impromptu situations.
Heck, even Churchill had his bad days.
He was, however, very poorly reported on. Or rather, he was deliberately reported on in a very hostile manner by an openly antagonistic press, which was owned by and aligned with those opposed to many if not all of his policies. But both sides went along with a pretense, ever fraying, of mutual interests, mutual identity, and "civility".
Which is one reason Trump does as he does. You have two sides, whose interests are now fundamentally opposed and irreconcilable. Those aligned with one or the other no longer have any cover, nor much need of any cover. There can no longer be pretense. Ones life is the others death, and vice versa. And in a total war there are no scruples. That is the current understanding.
Therefore anything and everything is ammunition in the fight, even opinions of G Bush.
"US government using it's military might in service to the profits-seeking of the oil interests."
But if it was ever so intended, this worked very poorly, as the Iraqi state collects oil revenues and hires oilfield operators that are not US oil majors.
And as we see, there are oil interests and there are oil interests.
In a condition of surplus they do not agree, they clash.
"Look at General Smedley Butler, who, in the 1930s, delared "war is a racket" (by which the US military is used a muscle for the corporate interests)."
Sometimes. But the problem with Smedley Butler was that the US interests he thought he was defending were minor. US investments in Central America/the Caribbean, and especially where the Marines were sent (other than Cuba and Panama), were trivial. It was all a nice-to-have bonus but a lousy purpose.
The real US interest in those days was the Panama Canal.
I've provided these links numerous times, but it never seems to sink in.
Yes, Freder, you did. However, you missed my later comment to Robert Cook's comment in which I said:
The UN is not a world government. It's basically a dictator's club, and the U.S. is not bound to its edicts, despite the whining and crying of the members of that club. If it's in the U.S. interest to invade Iraq, which according to U.S. laws it was, then I couldn't give a single rat's ass what the UN charter says.
Cookie the conspiracy nut: "(Few remember the secret meeting held in Cheney's office at the White House, early in the term, prior to 9/11, with heads of several oil companies. No information has ever been revealed as to the what was discussed at the meeting, and for a time the White House and the participants denied that any such meeting ever took place.)"
Cookie is an idiot.
Here is the list of those that met with Cheney's super secret task force over the course of several months early in 2001: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/cheney_energy_task_force.html
snip: "Energy Task Force Meetings Participants
Vice President Cheney's energy task force had a busy spring in 2001. While drafting a national energy policy, the group, chaired by Cheney, met with approximately 300 groups and individuals, ranging from the American Petroleum Institute to Defenders of Wildlife. Below, a list of individuals and organizations who met with the energy task force, as detailed in a document provided to The Post by a former White House official."
Wow.
Some "secret". It's a cast of thousands.
Go ahead and look at the attendees and the dates these meetings take place and you will establish without doubt that Cook is a lunatic.
And oh, what about all the "secret decisions" being made in those meetings?
None.
All Bush administration recommendations were included in the bill that went through the entire legislative process.
Up next: Cookie comes out against the US Constitution because too many Americans are involved in writing and passing legislation!!
My understanding is that most Iraqi oil field service are done by the French, And French companies buy a lot of the oil. ISIS sells the rest through Turkey.
Of course, the good news is that our European Union "betters" figure they better crack down even harder on free speech in Europe lest more "Brexit" type folks figure out what's really in their best interest!
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5605b21292ac4232a6b50724e410a53e/eu-lawmakers-unusual-move-pull-plug-racist-talk
It's always easier if you can simply label any opinions and ideas that are not lefty approved as "hate speech".
Hey, that sounds familiar to us here in America, doesn't it?....
Michael K: "My understanding is that most Iraqi oil field service are done by the French, And French companies buy a lot of the oil. ISIS sells the rest through Turkey."
You are violating the Lefty Rule that "America Bad And Do Bad Things! If Bad Thing Happen Then America Bad!".
Cheney made an evil plan with the oil industry and suddenly we are energy independent.
Chuck said...
I'm not going to defend Obamacare. You and I both know that first and foremost and above all, Obamacare was designed to get people covered. Controlling costs was an afterthought if it was ever even a thought.
Absolute garbage. It was first and foremost meant to put the government in charge of making health care choices for everyone and giving taxpayer money to insurance companies by the trainload.
You can't be serious about this ruse.
Western Oil interests have obtained lucrative contracts in Iraq.
That's NOT an example of the U.S. "Taking over Iraqi oil fields". Not even close, for that matter.
So, there's "nothing wrong" with invading a sovereign country, toppling their government, and destabilizing their country in order for us to establish a base in the Middle East from which we can operate in the region? Just think how we'd characterize it if the Russians did that.
Hey, it's a cruel world. If a country believes it is in its best safety interest to invade a sovereign country and topple their government, then that's what that country should do. Once again - I make no apologies. I know you're one of those people who believes the U.S. is imperialistic, so you'll probably knee-jerk at this next statement: If Russia were to do this, it wouldn't be because its in their best safety interest - they'd do it because its in their best geopolitical interest. Yes, I believe our interests are not only more important, but more moral.
As for "destabilizing their country" - that's just your editorial. That country was already destabilized, and it would only have been a matter of time before either Saddam was toppled or another war would have wiped them out. The country became destabilized because Obama pulled out U.S. troops as quickly as he could.
Once again - I make no apologies for this. My interest is the United States first, everyone else second.
Absolute garbage. It was first and foremost meant to put the government in charge of making health care choices for everyone and giving taxpayer money to insurance companies by the trainload.
The same lefties, in this same thread, are arguing that Bush was not honest about his Iraq intentions, and ALSO arguing that it was perfectly OK for Obama to not be honest about Obamacare's intentions.
Ironic, that...
I Callahan: "The same lefties, in this same thread, are arguing that Bush was not honest about his Iraq intentions, and ALSO arguing that it was perfectly OK for Obama to not be honest about Obamacare's intentions.
Ironic, that..."
Fen's Law as far as the eye can see....
Yes, he's a very nice man. It's part of what did him in.
I would like Trump to invite all the former presidents to a weekend at Mar-a-Lago. Poppy wouldn't be able to make it, of course, but I bet the rest would go. The president/ex-president club is small and exclusive. The only way to truly understand the magnitude of responsibility is to have actually experienced it and no matter how they feel about one another, they all understand that. I'll bet they'd have fun. They could play a couple of rounds of golf (does Jimmy play?), smoke cigars, sip snifters of Vintage Armagnac, bitch about Congress and the media, compare notes on things they're not allowed to talk about in public. And what a great photo op. I think the country would love it.
" I think the country would love it."
Half the country would freak out. Guess which half ?
SukieTawdry said...
I would like Trump to invite all the former presidents to a weekend at Mar-a-Lago. Poppy wouldn't be able to make it, of course, but I bet the rest would go. The president/ex-president club is small and exclusive. The only way to truly understand the magnitude of responsibility is to have actually experienced it and no matter how they feel about one another, they all understand that. I'll bet they'd have fun. They could play a couple of rounds of golf (does Jimmy play?), smoke cigars, sip snifters of Vintage Armagnac, bitch about Congress and the media, compare notes on things they're not allowed to talk about in public. And what a great photo op. I think the country would love it.
After Trump spent months on a vicious if not unhinged assault on Obama's American birthright? And then an entire campaign impugning everything else about him?
After Trump trashtalked about inviting Paula Jones and Juanita Broaderick to a GOP candidates' debate?
After Trump asserted that George W. Bush and his senior staff all knew that there were no WMD in Iraq, and proceeded to lie the United States into an invasion?
And after Trump rolled out his all-purpose insult for Jimmy Carter? You know which one that is? How about: “He is the single best thing to ever happen to Jimmy Carter because a lot of people are no longer looking at Jimmy Carter as our worst president...”
Your basic idea, of a collegial body of former Presidents sounds so nice. Without the colossally insulting, ignorant and personally repugnant Donald J. Trump, it could be.
"Your basic idea, of a collegial body of former Presidents sounds so nice. Without the colossally insulting, ignorant and personally repugnant Donald J. Trump, it could be."
True, mainly. Collegiality is dead. There no longer is any basis for it. Most conflicts now are open, and interests are seen, in the brightly lit circumstances, to be in opposition. There is no benefit for anyone, much less Trumps side, to pretend that there is anything but enmity.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Without the colossally insulting, ignorant and personally repugnant Donald J. Trump, it could be."
Has Trump ever trafficked in ugly and completely unsubstantiated rumors about a 10 year old like you?
Achilles said...
Chuck said...
"I'm not going to defend Obamacare. You and I both know that first and foremost and above all, Obamacare was designed to get people covered. Controlling costs was an afterthought if it was ever even a thought."
Absolute garbage. It was first and foremost meant to put the government in charge of making health care choices for everyone and giving taxpayer money to insurance companies by the trainload.
You can't be serious about this ruse.
My miscalculation here was in not recognizing the depth to which far-right conspiratorial thinking and the profound personal loathing of Barack Obama has infected some in TrumpWorld.
Bill Clinton probably would not be interested unless there were nymphets included.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "And then an entire campaign impugning everything else about him?"
Wow.
The mask is really slipping today with our resident "lifelong republican".
Chuck: "My miscalculation here was in not recognizing the depth to which far-right conspiratorial thinking and the profound personal loathing of Barack Obama has infected some in TrumpWorld."
Wow again.
The mask is completely off now.
I don't loathe Obama as you describe it. I thought he was an empty suit and said so in early 2008.
I later saw Rev Wright and Bill Ayres roles and learned more about him.
Chuck, you are sounding like a Democrat there.
Michael K: "Chuck, you are sounding like a Democrat there."
No. Chuckie is sounding like a leftist there.
Unexpectedly!
passerby said...
I'm wondering, is there any health reform plan that would satisfy condition (A) -- of getting people covered -- that you wouldn't accuse of "laying the foundation for a total takeover of healthcare"?
Voluntary charity.
Crazy idea, huh?
Drago said...
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Without the colossally insulting, ignorant and personally repugnant Donald J. Trump, it could be."
Has Trump ever trafficked in ugly and completely unsubstantiated rumors about a 10 year old like you?
Awww, there you go again. And because I am not going to let that cheap shot against me go unchecked, I am going to remind all of the readers here -- in bold type -- that Drago is referring to the fact that I have in the past linked to stories, including the one just below found at Forbes.com, that the Trump family has hired Hulk Hogan's lawyer to take down a YouTube video suggesting that Barron Trump was not an ill-behaved child but rather that he fits into the Autism spectrum.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/12/06/melania-trump-threatens-to-sue-autistic-man-over-youtube-video/#64c867a3a24a
And so now, for no good reason at all (aside from the perfectly good self-defense of my own reputation) this becomes the umpteenth time that new readers are exposed to the combined notion of "Barron Trump and autism." Spurring more Google searches of "Barron Trump and autism." See what happens when you do that.
Another winning day for you, Drago. Congrats.
"Hey, it's a cruel world. If a country believes it is in its best safety interest to invade a sovereign country and topple their government, then that's what that country should do. Once again - I make no apologies. I know you're one of those people who believes the U.S. is imperialistic, so you'll probably knee-jerk at this next statement: If Russia were to do this, it wouldn't be because its in their best safety interest - they'd do it because its in their best geopolitical interest. Yes, I believe our interests are not only more important, but more moral."
Quite a self-serving belief, with no basis. At least you're honest that you don't believe in any constraints on American use of power.
Chuck, who is so called, is lying.
Film at 11.
Chuck said...
My miscalculation here was in not recognizing the depth to which far-right conspiratorial thinking and the profound personal loathing of Barack Obama has infected some in TrumpWorld.
Far-right. Teabaggers. Conspiratorial thinking. 10 year olds you think have autism.
You are trying to hide it. And failing. You are not here in good faith.
My miscalculation here was in not recognizing the depth to which far-right conspiratorial thinking and the profound personal loathing of Barack Obama has infected some in TrumpWorld. .
Exaggerate much?
I have no personal loathing of President Obama. Personally, he seems like an engaging, articulate, highly successful man. I profoundly disagree with his approach to politics and his policy prescriptions, but no conspiratorial thinking and no personal animus.
President Obama believes that the government should be used to "help" the less fortunate. But in the process of "helping" the less fortunate, the government often destroys the middle class.
My overall thought is that the private sector, small businessman, small entrepreneur are the engines that make America work. They create jobs and opportunities. Neither President Obama, nor the Democrats understand this.
At least you're honest that you don't believe in any constraints on American use of power.
I assume you have read any military history.
Achilles said...
You are not here in good faith.
If you quit feeding him he'd go away.
Chuck said...
My miscalculation here was in not recognizing the depth to which far-right conspiratorial thinking and the profound personal loathing of Barack Obama has infected some in TrumpWorld.
You will be able to keep your doctor.
You will be able to keep your plan.
Your health insurance costs will go down by $2500 per year.
Obama clearly acted in bad faith. So are you.
Drago said...
Michael K: "Chuck, you are sounding like a Democrat there."
No. Chuckie is sounding like a leftist there.
Unexpectedly!
Lulz. How many Democrats have said how much they loved Justice Scalia's dissents in Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell? And that Judge Gorsuch is a great nominee? And that Jeff Sessions is a great pick for AG? And that Betsy DeVos is a great choice for Dept. of Ed.? How many "leftists" are fans of Mitch McConnell? And who volunteer for their state Republican Party? And who have defended tort reform measures passed by Republicans in state and federal courts?
"The UN is not a world government. It's basically a dictator's club, and the U.S. is not bound to its edicts, despite the whining and crying of the members of that club. If it's in the U.S. interest to invade Iraq, which according to U.S. laws it was, then I couldn't give a single rat's ass what the UN charter says."
More evidence you don't believe America should behave with any constraint. However, according to the Constitution, we are bound by the UN Charter, which, by our having signed it, became the law of the land. We have violated our own law, thereby, in invading Iraq without UN Security Council approval. We're no different, then, than any other aggressive nation who invades other countries for conquest and rape of resources, nations we routinely denounce as "rogue" nations.
Again, at least you're honest in your support of American aggression and murder.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "And so now, for no good reason at all (aside from the perfectly good self-defense of my own reputation) this becomes the umpteenth time that new readers are exposed to the combined notion of "****** ***** and ******."
Anyone can read upthread and see I mentioned no names or conditions.
But somehow, UNEXPECTEDLY, you "just happened" to work those specifics into this thread.
The word despicable comes to mind.
Achilles said...
Chuck said...
"My miscalculation here was in not recognizing the depth to which far-right conspiratorial thinking and the profound personal loathing of Barack Obama has infected some in TrumpWorld."
You will be able to keep your doctor.
You will be able to keep your plan.
Your health insurance costs will go down by $2500 per year.
Obama clearly acted in bad faith. So are you.
What the hell is that supposed to mean, to me? Count how many times in this very Comments thread I have written something to the effect of, "I am not defending Obamcare." I count four, I think.
What a bunch of crackpots some of you are.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Lulz. How many Democrats have said how much they loved Justice Scalia's dissents in Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell? And that Judge Gorsuch is a great nominee? And that Jeff Sessions is a great pick for AG? And that Betsy DeVos is a great choice for Dept. of Ed.? How many "leftists" are fans of Mitch McConnell? And who volunteer for their state Republican Party? And who have defended tort reform measures passed by Republicans in state and federal courts?"
No one believes that you actually believe any of that.
It's just more of your "lifelong republican" street cred building effort to allow you maneuvering room.
"lifelong republican" Chuck (with his usual schtick): "What the hell is that supposed to mean, to me? Count how many times in this very Comments thread I have written something to the effect of, "I am not defending Obamcare." I count four, I think."
LOL
Yes of course, you aren't "defending Obamacare"! Why not at all! Perish the thought!
You are just attacking anyone who is attacking Obamacare! That's all!
Same old same old with our "lifelong republican"!
UNEXPECTEDLY!
Drago said...
...
Anyone can read upthread and see I mentioned no names or conditions.
But somehow, UNEXPECTEDLY, you "just happened" to work those specifics into this thread.
The word despicable comes to mind.
I told you before; every time to try to defame me with an otherwise unspecified "attack on a 10 year-old," I am going to make the story clear to all readers, with names and .urls.
I promise you; I'll do it every fucking time to try to play this game, sport.
You hateful piece of shit.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "You hateful piece of shit"
A comment more appropriately directed at those who traffick in hurtful rumors about young children.
"Again, at least you're honest in your support of American aggression and murder."
Cookie, be consistent. I assume you agree with my daughter's long ago 7th grade class that convicted Harry Truman of war crimes because he dropped the atomic bomb.
Drago said...
So now "Lifelong republican" Chuckie is all about claiming it's a conspiracy theory to note that Obamacare could not possibly survive as written.
Where exactly did I make that claim, you strange, crazy, obsessive troll?
Your behavior is of the charts. If it were my blog, you'd be taking a Comments vacation.
Up above, I generally agreed with Dr. Michael K and some of his thoughts about a replacement. A Rand Paul replacement.
You are the living embodiment of what I have observed so many times on this blog; the obsessive need on the part of some Trump supporters to make me into a "leftist" or "Democrat", in response to my criticism of Trump. Criticisms, I hasten to add, which are almost never answered directly on the merits. And criticisms which are routinely of Trump personally, and which are never criticisms of conservative or Republican politics.
Give it up, Chuck.
"Real health reform would look something like France"
That's funny doc Mike.
Have you seen what they pay docs?
FTR, I do like the way that France has many folks pay out of pocket, and then, if it's applicable, get reimbursed by gov dough. Making folks feel what stuff costs is good, even if they don't end up picking up all of the tab themselves, because of reimbursement.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: Where exactly did I make that claim, you strange, crazy, obsessive troll?"
Shermie, set the Way Back Machine for about 90 minutes (yes, just 90 minutes)
Todd commented: "Sorry, that is a reference to facts not in evidence. There is NO proof that "that first and foremost and above all, Obamacare was designed to get people covered". Many could and do argue in good faith that the first and foremost goal of ObamaCare was to enable the Government to take full and complete ownership of the healthcare area for all Americans. If that actually resulted in any additional peoples being covered, that was an OK side-affect."
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "I forgot about the Althouse readership, and to tailor my comments to the audience. And so in addition to what you mentioned, I forgot to include the Trilateral Commission's role in the ACA, and the cost of the black helicopters, the geosynchronous orbiting satellites, and the Chemtrails."
2/27/17, 3:00 PM
And note, that was just 90 minutes ago or so in this very thread.
Thanks for the laugh Chuck. I'll be you are one hell of a lawyer....and "lifelong republican".
"lifelong republican" Chuck apparently believes he can make up for dropping the mask a bit today by ratcheting up the rhetoric and threats.
It's an interesting tactic.
Something tells me GWBush would be a little less than "non-committal" in his denunciation of threats of physical violence and rumor mongering about little kids.
Chuck, please take note.
the obsessive need on the part of some Trump supporters
It's kind of weird to see chuck referencing an "obsessive need" in a context implying such a focus is some kind of flaw. Self awareness is not a strong suit.
Rick: "Self awareness is not a strong suit."
Indeed.
Chuck typed, mindlessly:
"We could also import more doctors on H1-B, J-1 and Q-1 visas. More doctors, from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan and Libya. Those, uh seven countries, among many others. Ya know?"
Oh sure, AS IF those countries don't need the doctors they have.
AS IF they are trained as well as American doctors, and have experience with and access to the best of equipment---just like Cuba's doctors....right?
Wanna import lots of Cuban doctors, Chuck? Wanna let the left-behind Cubans fend for themselves, Chuck...?
Chuck's representation of Obama's intentions which are good:
I'm not going to defend Obamacare. You and I both know that first and foremost and above all, Obamacare was designed to get people covered. Controlling costs was an afterthought if it was ever even a thought.
Chuck's representation of us teabaggers intentions:
I forgot about the Althouse readership, and to tailor my comments to the audience. And so in addition to what you mentioned, I forgot to include the Trilateral Commission's role in the ACA, and the cost of the black helicopters, the geosynchronous orbiting satellites, and the Chemtrails.
You are a pathetic troll with bad intentions.
I think the whole Obamacare battle is a ruse to keep everyone focused on the wrong shiny object. Making sure everyone is covered does nothing to make health care more affordable for you and I and especially for the nation. Obamacare was supposed to bring down the cost of healthcare overall, right?
Who spends more on lobbying than oil & gas, defense, and aerospace combined? The Healthcare lobby.
I think Tucker Carlson had the right guy on last week. Steven Weissman, former hospital CEO. "We don't have an insurance problem, we have a healthcare pricing problem"
Watch the video and tell me that it doesn't make sense.
Have you ever tried to get an answer for how much anything healthcare related is going to cost you? I have, and it's frustrating as hell. Fact is, you can't know and they won't tell you. They will ask you who your insurance provider is though.
And shit, we gotta raise the debt ceiling in a couple of weeks anyway....
Carry on
@ Drago
Chuck, so called, has assured you that if you defame him he will repeat his attacks on a 10 year old boy. It seems an odd defense to defamation. But Chuck is a legal beagle of some self-repute.
Chuck said...
That's interesting. I won't even argue against it. So you'd like more federal dollars devoted to education of doctors, nurses and healthcare technicians and related professionals? Okay.
Deliberately misconstruing again...
We could also import more doctors on H1-B, J-1 and Q-1 visas. More doctors, from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan and Libya. Those, uh seven countries, among many others. Ya know?
The left is a joke. They can't discuss anything in good faith. Chuck is a perfect example of just how soulless the left is at this point.
Thank you for providing this object lesson Chuck.
Birkel: "@ Drago
Chuck, so called, has assured you that if you defame him he will repeat his attacks on a 10 year old boy. It seems an odd defense to defamation. But Chuck is a legal beagle of some self-repute."
At first I feared he would simply "taunt me a second time" and accuse me of smelling of elderberries.
But then he threatened to unleash the power of his fully armed and operational ".urls".
And the ground quaked......
W. is a nice man. He would no doubt be a great guy to have a beer smoke a cigar with--if he did such things. Trump, on the other hand, is a pompous asshole. But I wonder if it doesn't take an asshole to accomplish the things Trump seems on the road to accomplishing--to my immense satisfaction.
Omar Bradley probably would have been an interesting guy to have a beer with. Patton, not so much. He, too, seems to have been an asshole. But Patton was the indispensable general. Thank God we had him.
@mockturtle said...
Rand Paul has a pretty good plan. It might require some tweaking but it's on the right track.
What's to tweek? This proposal is simple and straightforward, returns medical insurance back to the realm of the underwriter where health and age affect rates. No restrictions apply to what must be covered in a policy, so older folks can elect out of childbirth and birth control coverage, for example.
Somehow we forgot that the federal law in place for a long time has guaranteed no-cost medical treatment for indigents at any public medical facility. Let us return to 2008 with some positive additions to put competition back into insurance and health care.
We don't need to make winners and losers the dominant consideration in another government-sponsored health care fiasco.
A few weeks after ObamaCare became sentient, like Skynet, I received a letter from my insurance company informing that my plan would be terminated in August of that year.
A few weeks!
But I wasn't at all surprised. I knew that was going to happen. I knew that what Obama said was a lie. And I was right.
"Have you ever tried to get an answer for how much anything healthcare related is going to cost you?"
This is an insurance problem. California had a law that said no one could charge for medical services who did not have a medical license.
I'm sure you are questioning such a doctor-centric law, Believe it or not it protected patients.
I was on the California Medical Association's legislative commission when a bill came up, by an Orange county Democrat state Senator, to allow corporations to hire doctors and charge for their services. This was called "The Corporate Practice of Medicine," and many agreed that it would cut costs.
I readily admit that we caused some of the problem ourselves. Back in the 1950s, doctors were pretty much dependent on market forces. They drove Buicks, not Cadillacs, and their children went to public school. My parents had close friends who were an orthopedic surgeon and his wife, a former OR nurse. She used to resent going to social gatherings and see people there who owed her husband thousands of dollars that they were in in hurray to pay.
Medicare and private insurance made a huge difference in doctors' lives. Many abused it. I have a whole chapter about this in my medical history book.
However, the "corporate practice of medicine" laws placed doctors as serfs to the insurance and Medicare Feudal lords.
One thing that Obamacare with its sky high deductibles has done is revive the cash practice of many physicians who serve people who cannot afford insurance. This makes HSAs far more useful because for many years physicians could not charge a lower fee for cash than fir an insurance company that might pay 20% of the charges,
It will be interesting to see how reform goes.
Patton, not so much. He, too, seems to have been an asshole. But Patton was the indispensable general. Thank God we had him.
Yup.
Eisenhower, in private, was a short tempered martinet. He was a better president than a general.
Sherman knew he had no place in politics.
I forgot about the Althouse readership, and to tailor my comments to the audience. And so in addition to what you mentioned, I forgot to include the Trilateral Commission's role in the ACA, and the cost of the black helicopters, the geosynchronous orbiting satellites, and the Chemtrails.
Chuck, with all due respect, you just don't do sarcasm particularly well. But OTOH you're not bad on projection.
"...President Cruz, or a President Rubio, or a President Kasich..."
Three things that will never happen, Chuck.
"...whole lotta mostly-white working class men, many of them on Medicare (and so Obamacare doesn't much matter) or mostly employed with employer-supplied insurance (and so not in any exchange) and no tax consequences of Obamacare on either account. Yet they want Obamacare abolished, like six years ago. Sure, some of them are mad about rising healthcare premiums and co-insurance requirments and deductibles. All of which were rapidly increasing before the ACA."
Chuck complained earlier in the thread that people considered him to be a liberal. Repeating the above DNC talking points may be the reason.
Think pink fur, sunglasses.
"I forgot about the Althouse readership, and to tailor my comments to the audience. And so in addition to what you mentioned, I forgot to include the Trilateral Commission's role in the ACA, and the cost of the black helicopters, the geosynchronous orbiting satellites, and the Chemtrails."
Your comments haven't revealed much in composition or rhetoric, Chuck. Second quintile in public schools with a pedestrian IQ. You're very common.
Omar Bradley probably would have been an interesting guy to have a beer with. Patton, not so much. He, too, seems to have been an asshole. But Patton was the indispensable general. Thank God we had him.
Actually, it's the other way around. Bradley was a stiff, from a dirt-poor Bible-thumping backwoods family in northern Missouri, a real American Gothic type. Patton, on the other hand, was a hard-drinking, hard-riding, profane, roistering former cavalryman from a wealthy, aristocratic Virginia family. One of his favorite drinking and polo-playing pals was Terry de La Mesa Allen, commander of the elite 1st Infantry Division (Big Red One) in the North Africa and Sicily campaigns. One night in Sicily, according to a Big Red One officer I personally knew, he visited Allen in the division's camp and the two got roaring drunk together. Among other drunken shenanigans that night they pissed on the tent of one Allen's senior officers whom they didn't much like.
This was not the only occasion that Patton and Allen got drunk together, and they did so in the midst of the hard-fought campaign for Sicily. Bradley hated Patton, not least because Old Blood and Guts was profane and a drinker and a loud-mouth showboater. Also Bradley resented Patton for his wealth and his aristocratic insouciance.
Simply put, he could not stand Patton because of the latter's outre personality. He felt the same about Terry Allen. He heard all about the pissing-on-the-tent incident and was incensed, but he kept quiet about, biding his time. When the multiple "slapping incidents" (so-called) occurred he took the opportunity to sack Patton. At the same time he sacked Allen, supposedly because Big Red One soldiers had repeatedly displayed undisciplined hell-raising behavior in the rear areas and because the division had been poorly handled in the Sicily campaign. Bradley was actually right on both counts but even so Allen was one of the U.S. Army's best field commanders and the Big Red One was one of its best combat divisions.
Both Patton and returned to high command in the Northwest Europe campaign and proved their worth in spades. Bradley did not want them back but Eisenhower overruled his objections.
Anyway, you would have much more fun drinking with Patton, and with Allen. Bradley would probably have read Bible passages to you over cups of tea.
I have posted this several times -
Employment cost trends (growth) vs wages and salaries
https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=EC_ectbrief
Employment costs are mostly mandated benefits, mostly health insurance.
From 1Q2010-1Q2015 these cost increases far exceeded wages&salaries growth.
This is the clearest trendline effect I can see on the economic effect of ACA (Obamacare).
What the ACA (Obamacare) did was inflate employment costs far beyond wage growth - arguably suppressing wage growth, and most likely employment, during this period. Eventually the increased costs of coverage under ACA were absorbed and employment costs increases are more in line with wage growth.
But, note, this is a chart of change rates only. Actual wage&salaries growth is still below historical averages. Certainly still nowhere near what would be expected in a "recovery".
Terry Allen was sent to the states but he was back on D Day with the 4th ID and Teddy Roosevelt Jr, who had also been sacked by Bradley who had good press with Ernie Pyle., was his ADC. Roosevelt was the gay who said, "we'll start the war from here," when they were landed on the wrong beach, Roosevelt died of an MI a few days later and is buried at the Normandy military cemetery.
Bradley was an asshole who was far over rated and still is by historians.
Patton sailed his own sailboat to Hawaii in the the 1930s.
"Anyway, you would have much more fun drinking with Patton, and with Allen. Bradley would probably have read Bible passages to you over cups of tea."
Excellent analysis. Bradley is probably my least favorite Top level General of WW 2. I think he was the victim of the peter principle was promoted too high too fast. Ike seemed to love him because he was a good nuts-and-bolts General who knew all about logistics and tactics and wouldn't do anything crazy or politically incorrect. Unfortunately, he was, as Patton characterized him "a complete mediocrity". He comes off great in the movie "Patton" because he was th technical adviser.
buwaya: "What the ACA (Obamacare) did was inflate employment costs far beyond wage growth - arguably suppressing wage growth, and most likely employment, during this period."
Recall that Pelosi called Obamacare a great job creator (4 Million overall and 400,000 immediately).
Every single thing the dems (and some "lifelong republicans") claimed about Obamacare was a lie.
Nancy's "little" fib: http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/04/flashback-nancy-pelosi-said-obamacare-will-create-4-million-jobs
"Patton sailed his own sailboat to Hawaii in the the 1930s."
Really? I didn't know that. I know he was a great athlete and love to play Polo.
Ike was a better president. His stroke as president was precipitated by an episode of rage when he was called off the golf course for something he considered minor.
He genial "I Like Ike" manner was a pose.
The "Broad Front Strategy" was not very effective and Patton believed it added a half million casualties and 6 months to the war.
I'm not sure he is right but the Falaise Gap was a fiasco by Bradley and Monty.
I was once staying in a hotel in Palm Springs (the Arawan Gardens) at a medical meeting when Bradley decided he wanted the whole hotel for his entourage and we all had to move.
Michael K:
I wouldn't categorize Eisenhower as a martinet. He was the commander in chief of all the Allied forces in Northwest Europe, a combined force of unprecedented and unimaginable power, size, and complexity. He was under equally unprecedented and unimaginable pressure to oversee the organization of those armies, manage them (and their difficult commanders), formulate and execute a war-winning strategy, destroy Wehrmacht forces in the West without losing too many of his own soldiers in the process, and contain the Red Army and prevent it from advancing into Western Europe. He had to be a diplomat, statesman, and military strategist and tactician. It was Eisenhower who insisted upon the "broad front" strategy that was necessary for defeating German forces in the West; when he gave Montgomery permission for a narrow-thrust (Operation Market-Garden) and it failed, for reasons Eisenhower foresaw, the wisdom of his broad-front strategy became manifest. Eisenhower's armies absolutely had to succeed in driving into Germany and Czechoslovakia in the spring of 1945, otherwise the Red Army would have driven into Western Europe. The Western Allies did indeed achieve this objective, due to Eisenhower's management of the war in the West, and in doing so prevented Western Europe from becoming a Soviet satrapy. Eisenhower's forces probably could have driven to Berlin and taken the city before the Red Army's arrival but political decisions were made above his pay-grade to let the Soviets capture the German capital.
All of which is to say: sure, Ike was probably something of dictator, although not a martinet, a term which implies that the individual to whom it is applied is a poseur. I like to think of Ike as pro-consul in the best sense of the world, e.g. in the tradition of a Publius Scipio.
If Eisenhower had been chief of staff of USAFFE in 1940-41 that outfit wouldn't have been as screwed up as it actually was. Its tactical commanders were competent enough, but its HQ and logistics operations were Keystone Kops.
Patton was really a fascinating fellow. I've probably read more about him than about anyone else. What little I've read about Omar Bradley was uninspiring, though he may have been a good enough general. Patton, Montgomery and Rommel, while quite different in their styles and strategies, had ego and flamboyance in common. As with Napoleon, these traits can be assets in leadership roles.
Patton's schooner is famous.
In 1939 then Colonel General George S. Patton had a 63’5″ John Alden designed schooner built for himself and his wife. Another world war was looming on the horizon and Patton said that he planned to sail the schooner, “When the war is over, and if I survive.” He named the schooner “When and If.“ Ironically, Patton survived the fighting but died in a traffic accident just as the war ended.
If Eisenhower had been chief of staff of USAFFE in 1940-41 that outfit wouldn't have been as screwed up as it actually was.
Yes, Eisenhower was a superb staff officer.
The combination is rare. Sherman was probably the only one I know of in American history. He had been a banker as a civilian.
You're wrong about the broad-front strategy being ineffective. The Market-Garden fiasco was proof that a broad-front approach was the only practicable strategy for defeating the Wehrmacht in the West. In the late summer and autumn of 1944 the Germans transferred the bulk of their best and best-equipped panzer divisions to the West because they knew that they lacked strategic depth in that theater and for that reason had to stop the Western Allies or lose the war before Christmas. They understood that they could trade time for space in the east and elected to do so. Had the Allies tried a narrow-front advance in the West and the Germans would have done what they did best, counterattacking at the shoulders and/or neck of a narrow Allied thrust and then enveloping the Allied forces Cannae-style in the pocket thus formed to fight (and likely win) a battle of annihilation against the trapped Allied forces. And don't tell me that Allied airpower, however formidable, would have prevented the Germans from performing the operational maneuvering and execution of a double pincers movement against the Allies. It wouldn't have because: the concentration of Allied airpower over the narrow front would have worked against them, allowing a still powerful (in fact, recovering and growing) Luftwaffe fighter force to concentrate in turn and disrupt Allied attempts to provide meaningful and consistent air support for their ground forces.
In Market-Garden the Germans carried out a battle of annihilation on a small scale. They tried the same thing on a large scale in the Ardennes in December 1944 and nearly pulled it off. If bad weather had continued, neutralizing Allied air power, they probably would have gotten across the Meuse -- and then there would have been hell to pay in the form of a severe check to the Western Allies' operations, and the opportunity for a counterattack in the East. At the very least the Allied advance would have stalled on the German frontier and the Red Army, when it took Berlin, would have kept going into the West.
Dear God, people see what they want to see, and bring their own prejudices to their interpretation of what W. had to say.
W did not compliment the press on the job it's doing or vouch for its integrity, and Trump has never said there should not be an independent media.
I do agree that Ike was one of our best presidents. His "hidden hand presidency" was a tremendous success, in both the domestic and foreign policy spheres. His chief opponent, Adlai Stevenson, was an elitist poseur and dilettante. As one might expect the East Coast Ivy League Democratic establishment types loved him, because they loved his patrician airs and attitude of superiority and entitlement. He was an empty suit and Khruschev, a wily and ruthless killer, would have run roughshod over him.
St. George wrote: The idea that we were going to create "free societies" in those nations as we did in Japan and Germany which both had democratic traditions, shows an absence of understanding of Muslim nations.
Poorly reasoned. Sorry...
A close study of both Germany and Japan before the end of WWII yields little to support a claim of "democratic traditions". While it is true that Imperial Germany had a parliamentary body known as the Reichstag, the actual government, the chancellery and the various ministries, were not responsible to Reichstag or the people. They were appointed by and served at the pleasure of the German Emperor. The Reichstag did have a small degree of control through the power of the purse, however the Crown could and did impose it own tariffs and taxes. This is why Germany was able to build the second largest navy in the world between 1889 and the outbreak of WWI in spite of opposition from the socialist-dominated Reichstag.
The Emperor Meiji based his government closely on the the Prussian/Imperial model, and like their model Japan had its equivalent to the German Reichstag called the Imperial Diet. Just as in Germany the Diet had virtually no control of the government. In point of fact the Japanese Cabinet was even less democratic than the German Chancellery. Accord to the Constitution of 1889 the Army and Navy Ministries were under the direct control of the armed forces — the Army minister was a serving general officer and the Navy minister was a serving admiral. Both the Japanese Army and the IJN could at any time collapse a disagreeable government by having it minister resign and then refusing to appoint an replacement.
Germany did have a brief experience of representative democracy between 1919 and 1933. However during that span of fourteen years only about seven could be considered successful. From 1919 to 1922 the Weimar Republic hardly functioned at all. Democracy was paralyzed once again in 1929 an remained virtually powerless to influence social and economic conditions in Germany until the Enabling Acts of 1933 killed German democracy completely.
Seven years is hardly a tradition.
Patton competed in the 1912 Olympic pentathlon.
Government take-over of health care will not satisfy coverage - it will force the tax payer to pay for another bottomless pit.
Michael K:
The insurance industry is regulated by the government, right?
Their profits, or specifically their margins, are capped by law.
Doctors and practices are licensed by the State. The availability of services is also regulated by the State.
It seems that the insurance industry is in a situation analogous to the mortgage industry, as the health care product is analogous to real estate, with some important caveats. In the latter case, financialization spiked assets prices, which spiked credit issuance, which resulted in a runaway condition that became progressively unmanageable. This was forced in part or in whole (at least from its inception) with ostensibly good intentions.
Would you say that the health care product is overpriced?
The insurance industry's practices may not be the cause, but rather the effect of government regulation and a dysfunctional domestic and global market, and progressively unhealthy practices, poor education, excessive (and unmeasured) immigration), and increased longevity of the population (e.g. American) that they serve.
Have you unwound all of the major and minor proximate and ancillary causes that contribute to unaffordable and unavailable health care?
That's not the point. I'm not trying to convince anybody. I'm not trying to help. I don't want to build anything; at least not with the Trump Administration. I want separation from Trump. So that Republicans have plausible deniability when it all comes apart.
Trump hasn't even seen the hard part(s) yet. A budget. A healthcare reform bill. An all-consuming international crisis.
I must say that I did like Governor Kasich's analogy last weekend; Trump is the pilot of a plane in which Kasich is a passenger. So, he's rooting for the pilot.
So Trump's the pilot but you'd prefer to jump out of the plane. Ok, good luck.
You want to make sure everyone knows you don't support Trump, don't want to be associated with him, want some separation from him? WE GET THAT. That's what I'm telling you, Chuck, we all get it.
What would you call it when someone keeps repeating the same point, ad nauseum, long after everyone understands? Are there complimentary terms for that, Chuck, or are they mostly insulting or abusive words?
It was bad when there was some possibility you didn't realize you were doing that...it's kinda worse knowing it's on purpose.
Oh well, everyone needs a hobby I guess.
Quaestor:
Good points.
Japan did make a reasonably meaningful stab at democracy, but the "government by assassination" phenomenon put the kibosh on their efforts. The military simply had too much power and would not be gainsaid in its will and drive to achieve and maintain power. Many Japanese did not like where the military was taking the nation but they efforts to change course proved fruitless.
What both Germany and Japan (and, by extension, the victorious Allies) had going for them were highly literate populations and cultural traditions that placed a premium on personal and corporate/collective industriousness and productivity. This are the real criteria for establishing and maintaining consensual government (and an open economy, rule of law, etc.). Case in point: the German side of my Irish-German family. They were a small part of the enormous German diaspora that flooded America in the 18th and 19th centuries. My German great-grandparents came in part from Saxony which was ruled by a king and dominated by aristocrats. They were petit-bourgeois and literate. The German people back then were collectively the most literate and best-educated population in the world, even at the lower levels. My Saxon great-grandparents had been inculcated with Enlightenment ideals and when the revolutions of 1848 failed they packed up and left the Fatherland. They hated aristocracy and kings and Prussians and, like most Germans who came to America, they took to democracy like ducks to water, even though they had never experienced it the Fatherland.
The other side of my German family came from the Swiss canton of St. Gallen, where the populace had practiced direct democracy since time immemorial, probably going back to the Heldenzeit, before the Volkswanderungen, when the Germanic peoples were still roaming around the Pontic Steppe with their Indo-European cousins.
> Look at General Smedley Butler, who, in the 1930s, delared "war is a racket" (by which the US military is used a muscle for the corporate interests).
I get confused when people say the US fought in Iraq for oil interests
Which of these are "American Corporate Interests" as the Iraq war initiated for?
http://www.iraq-businessnews.com/list-of-international-oil-companies-in-iraq/
China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC)
China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC)
Dragon Oil
Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation (EGPC)
Eni
ExxonMobil
Gazprom
Inpex
Japan Petroleum Exploration Company (Japex)
Kogas (Korea Gas Corporation)
Kuwait Energy (KEC)
Lukoil
Occidental Petroleum
Pakistan Petroleum
Pertamina
PetroChina
Petronas
Premier Oil
Shell
Total
Türkiye Petrolleri Anonim Ortaklığı (TPAO)
ExxonMobil, you say? is that the "US company"?
http://csimarket.com/stocks/segments_geo.php?code=XOM
Non-US - $245 G
US - $148G
Since Exxon partners with state run oil companies who hold the reserves, is Exxon a US company or a foreign company with holding in the US?
Maybe you meant Royal Dutch Shell was the US interest?
At least we know the Civil War was fought to free the slaves: that is why Union soldiers volunteered.
I thought Dubya was elected by people fearful of being forced to listen to Al Gore.
Not for his insights....
Have you unwound all of the major and minor proximate and ancillary causes that contribute to unaffordable and unavailable health care?
No, but I have a stab at it in the "Economics of Medicine" chapter in my book.
What is going on since corporate practice of medicine is the standard is that insurance companies and Medicare negotiate reimbursement rates with other corporate entities, like hospital chains and large groups of doctors, which since Obamacare, have been largely owned by the hospitals. Hospitals were enthusiastic about Obamacare. The hospital where I practiced for 30 years bought up all the doctors' practices. The doctors are all employees and under the control of the hospital. A doctor friend of mine who has been in practice 30 years cannot admit a sick patient to the hospital without the approval of a salaried ER doc who is probably three years out of training.
Doctors are mostly acting like bureaucrats now. I talk to young docs and they hate their practice. Medicine used to be fun. YOu know what happens when medicine, or any other profession, becomes a drudge? Productivity goes down.
Young doctors don't work as hard as we did, for the most part. In some academic centers, it is still fun because they are still well paid and are superstars. The chief of surgery at USC is paid $7 million a year.
It's a long story but older docs are dropping out or going the cash route, which is still fun if your kids are educated and your house paid for.
Michael is right about medicine being practiced on the corporate model. When health care became an 'industry' the costs skyrocketed. A hospital used to have an administrator. Now it has a CEO, CFO, COO, etc. and countless VPs. In 2002 a certain hospital CEO in a medium-sized city made 1.4M/year. It's not the physicians, nurses or cleaning staff who are getting rich.
I was on the local planning commission a few years ago when the hospital wanted to expand. They wanted a special meeting with the planning commission and I agreed to attend. When I was in practice it had one administrator with a couple of heads of services like food and plant maintenance. The meeting with the planning commission was surreal. There were 30 young men and women with formal presentations that went on for hours. A monster bureaucracy had grown up since I retired. Of course, the hospital was now "nonprofit" and owned by an order of nuns. They had hired a CEO from Pepsi-Cola.
Michael K said...
I was on the local planning commission a few years ago when the hospital wanted to expand. They wanted a special meeting with the planning commission and I agreed to attend. When I was in practice it had one administrator with a couple of heads of services like food and plant maintenance. The meeting with the planning commission was surreal. There were 30 young men and women with formal presentations that went on for hours. A monster bureaucracy had grown up since I retired. Of course, the hospital was now "nonprofit" and owned by an order of nuns. They had hired a CEO from Pepsi-Cola.
If I had to choose The Winning Comment of the Thread, this might be it.
The solution to the health acre cost problem might be a bit like Trump's plans for EPA.
Chop off about 10,000 heads, so to speak.
Michael K said...
The solution to the health acre cost problem might be a bit like Trump's plans for EPA.
Chop off about 10,000 heads, so to speak.
But Michael, even Trump now understands that it isn't that simple.
“It’s an unbelievably complex subject. Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated.” ~ President Trump, yesterday.
Pretty much everybody who was serious about the subject knew from the moment that they got serious about the subject, that it was "unbelievably complex."
"Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated.”
Oh, it's complicated but those 10,000 heads won't be missed and it is a wonderful opportunity.
Bush is giving Trump the back of his hand. I voted for W twice, but am sorely disappointed with him and his father. Their animus towards Trump reflects their anger at how Trump manhandled Jeb, the GOP's Hillary... the heir apparent to the White House. That W would attack Trump after eight years of being attacked by Obama and the Dems and not responding... that the Bushes would befriend Clinton, the man who called Bush 41 an adulterer and 'stupid,' is just an astounding display of weakness.
W was a better president than he's given credit for, but he ultimately had a failed presidency, as the country rejected his leadership and his direction in the 2006 midterms and never looked back. This is all his own doing. He didn't fight the slander around Katrina, or the Iraq War, or the War on Terror... so he let his political enemies define him. This is exactly what led to Trump; the GOP voters wanted someone who would actually fight. McCain suspended his campaign and Obama stomped him; Romney refused to stand up to Candy Crowley, and Obama stomped him. No one stomps on Trump and gets away with it. Instead, Trump stomps, often preemptively, and as a result his opponents are afraid of him because he hits back and sometimes hits first. Good for him.
Post a Comment