It could happen here

There will be opposition. The progressive leftist vision of America that the Democratic Party is attempting to force onto Americans will be resisted. Obama’s attempt to transform America into Jeremiah Wright’s America is not something that most Americans view favorably.

Houston Tea Party rally draws more than 10,000

More than 10,000 people turned out Monday night for a North Houston Tea Party Patriots gathering to protest proposed health care reform and what they called big government spending and overzealous government leadership, according to preliminary attendance figures. ~chron.com


This kind of grassroots opposition to the Obama-Pelosi-Reid government is ridiculed, insulted, dismissed, impugned, and maligned but it can't be ignored and it is likely to grow as the left grows impatient to implement it's policies in the face of it.

Democrats are not very tolerant of opposition or criticism. Witness the White House war against Fox News. Isolate dissent. This is evidence of an inability to tolerate opposing views. Obama's Attorney General is described as having, "walked up to former DC Councilman Kevin Chavous at an event and told him to pull an ad criticizing the administration for its opposition to the DC school voucher program."

Obama, as President, has so far advanced more vigorous campaigns to eradicate Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Fox News than they have against the Taliban in Afghanistan. After campaigning on uniting America it appears that what he meant was that he would do so by eliminating all his domestic opposition. Unity means no dissent.

There are signs here that point to a dangerous proclivity.

The desire for government monopoly is a dangerous one. And make no mistake, it is government monopoly which is desired by the left. Whether it is always the primary motivation or merely the believed means to an end government monopoly is the solution that progressive policies are designed to implement.

"This isn't about 'I can't stand Barack Obama' — this is about 'I can't stand a government that will tread on me,'" said Houston radio talk show host and TV anchor Joe “Pags” Pagliarulo to a rousing burst of applause from the audience.

"Taxes are going up because we have to pay for health care for people who are here illegally," Pagliarulo said. "We have to pay for health care for people who don't want health care ... We've got a government that's run amok — we've got a government that doesn't care about you or me. It cares about power, it cares about control." ~chron.com




Posted by Eric Simonson at November 4, 2009 12:46 AM
Comments
Comment #290224

Eric,
Hi, I have been waiting for you to post, but I wish you would make it easier than just saying “No Obama” as you work hard to support the Conservative Movement in America. For why I realize that Mandated Employer Based HealthCare may not be your cup of tea. Can you tell me another way that the Average American can pay for the Health and Medical Care they need as they serve “We the Corporation?”

For why I do believe that Every American should be able to retain the Civil Right to be Self-Insured. Even this Unlearned Unbridled Anti-Authoritarian Child of the 70’s by Freewill and Self-Nature cannot argue that Americas’ Community Hospitals, Medical Facilities, and Rest Homes keep losing money in favor of the Health Insurance Corporations making profits.

Because if it is a matter of seeking Political Fairness in reaching a compromise between Labor and Management than shouldn’t the Loyal Opposition to Americas’ Status Quo be talking about what needs to be in the Healthcare Reform Bill so American Doctors and Patients can once again have the Home Visits enjoyed by Americas’ Forefathers and Ancestors.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 4, 2009 2:11 AM
Comment #290225

It’s amazing how many people have turned one person pointing out the obvious fact that Fox isn’t objective into a war.

I guess we know now why the GOP was so eager to go to war in Iraq; they thought it meant just that people would be saying uncomfortable truths about them.

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 4, 2009 8:20 AM
Comment #290226

OMG, Rush Limbaugh was actually mocked?

This has got to stop.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 4, 2009 8:40 AM
Comment #290228

Good post Eric. I read it out loud to my wife. What we are seeing is typical Chicago style politics. In Chicago, as in many countries controlled by dictators, the ruling party simply brow beats and threatens any opposition to shut up, and in those areas most people submit. In America, it is much different: the more bullying done, the more the American people fight back. Chicago is not like the rest of America because they have been living under these corrupt, gangster style politicians for generations. IMO, the freedom we have experienced in America, and the cornerstone success as a nation, has been the 1st Amendment of our Bill of Rights: freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It has always been my belief, that democracy will NEVER be successful in the Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and many others middle-east countries for the simple reason, they WILL NOT tolerate freedom of religion. Without freedom of religion, there can be no freedom of speech. You have correctly pointed out that there is a concerted effort to stifle freedom of speech. If the liberals cannot answer the questions that are asked, their next move is to shut down the “asking of questions”. There are attacks on Glenn Beck as well as many others. I have watched Glenn Beck and listened to him many times and I can say, he questions both Democrats and Republicans equally. He does not lift up one party over another. I have heard him say, he would vote for a Democrat, if the Democrat believed the constitution, the bill of rights, less taxes, and smaller government. But liberals don’t want the questions asked, because questions require answers. So, it is just easier to force people to shut up. The second part of this foundation of our 1st Amendment rights is freedom of religion. Ever since the 60’s there has been a concerted effort by those on the left to shut down any reference to God. A personal belief in God instills morality and personal responsibility in people. Morality and personal responsibility is a kick in the face of the liberal agenda. It causes Americans to look differently at abortion, homosexuality, legalization of drugs, and many other vices. These vices are the cornerstones of the liberal agenda. They cry freedom of speech, but they mean only freedom for them and not all.

There will be all kinds of spin from the left, but as I watched Frank Luntz, last night, with an equally divided focus group of democrats and republicans: there was interesting results. Almost all raised their hands and said they were in opposition of the direction Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are taking us. Next, they were most concerned about the economy and jobs. The economy, because we have so much debt and there is no sign that they are willing to cut spending. Every time Obama, Pelosi, and Reid speak, they are spending more money and we don’t have the money.

Henry Schlatman said:

“…Health Insurance Corporations making profits.”

I might ask you Henry, “why are companies in business?” Are they in business to loose profits? The only corporation in business to loose money is the federal government. The only corporations that continue to loose money are those financed by the federal government. This attack on insurance companies is a flat out lie. There are many, many companies whose profit margin is much higher than insurance companies. The liberals always have to have an enemy. It was big oil companies a year ago. Let me ask you, are big oil companies still making profits? If they are, why aren’t we talking about them now, why are we discussing the big profits of insurance companies? Could it be because liberals need an enemy to rally the American people around, just for the purpose of passing a massive healthcare bill? Does anyone in this country feel manipulated? Why don’t we discuss the BILLION dollar profits that Al Gore stands to make when cap and tax is passed. This is a man that wants Americans to ride bikes or walk, when he flies around in his golf stream jet and SUV’s; or the man that wants you to use eco-light bulbs that are more dangerous to the environment, while he spends more money lighting his mansion in one month, than 30 families would spend in a year. Typical liberal theology, do as we say and not as we do.

I hope to God, that the American people are waking up and beginning to understand these radical changes will destroy our freedoms. Yesterday’s election is a message.

Posted by: propitiation at November 4, 2009 9:36 AM
Comment #290229

What year is this and is Joe McCarthy still dead?

Let’s all recite the new pledge of allegiance: I pledge allegiance, under god, to the flag, under god, of the United, under god, States, under god, of America, under god, and to the Republic, under god, for which is stands, under god, one nation, under god, indivisible, under god, with liberty, under god, and justice, under god, for all, under god.

But I like Red Skelton’s version better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZBTyTWOZCM

Posted by: ohrealy at November 4, 2009 10:36 AM
Comment #290230

With only 1 in 5 Americans identifying themselves as Republican, why would any of the other 4 in 5 listen to a Republican supporter for their view of what the Obama administration is doing and about? Just plain illogical. Republicans by definition, must paint Jesus Christ as the anti-Christ if Jesus happens to be the Democrat in the White House.

Jesus isn’t the Democrat in the W.H. of course, but that does not dilute the point that regardless of what positive things the Obama admin. may accomplish and sign into law, like health care protection for Americans, the Republicans are obligated by their superordinate goal of defeating Obama in 2012, to paint all Obama actions as negative, regardless of how positive they may actually be.

And Obama will have health care reform under his belt in the 2010 elections which the majority of Americans required of this administration. Which negates all speculations as to meaning of yesterday’s election results. There are no coattails in an off-year election and off year elections reflect better than any other, the maxim that politics is local centered around the issues utmost in the minds of voters on election day.

One does have to give the GOP credit however for insuring delays and obfuscation to the Democrat’s legislative agenda, which slows the pace of the gains they make with the moderate middle class Americans. Though it quickly becomes obvious that moderate middle class Americans are denied the benefits of that agenda by Republican’s Just Say No tactics.

There is however one piece of clarity coming from yesterday’s elections, the anti-incumbent sentiment and voting booth behavior of Americans is growing like never before. As Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy bumper and window stickers appear more prevalent throughout most of America, Democrats will lose seats in 2010 for this, and no other reason. That is a reality younger voters must assimilate without being discouraged to vote if Democratic turnout in 2010 is to be what Democrats hope for.

The anti-incumbent sentiment growth however speaks to the lack of faith in both party’s actions and methodologies in Wa. D.C. and that, could be prove to be the revolutionary trend on election that our nation needs to right its course.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 4, 2009 11:11 AM
Comment #290231

North Houston is nearly all white and way above middle class in income. Not surprising the Tea Baggers held their demonstration there. WASPS will veil their white only agenda behind many other names, but, the cameras of the D.C. Tea Bagger demonstration and all others will reflect the one agenda that unites them all, their skin color. Understandable in light of American history and sociological studies of minority political behavior to defend against the majority. For all their complaints about ACORN, the remarkable fact is that the illegal practices of ACORN were all invented and practiced by the white groups like the KKK long before ACORN was even a concept. No great surprise that some within ACORN felt that turnabout would be fair play.

Such actions need to be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in order to protect and defend our Constitutional provisions for democratically elected government and equal enforcement of the law without regard for race, religion or gender.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 4, 2009 11:19 AM
Comment #290232

You are raising false issues. No one is waging war on Faux News - the White House did not strip them of press credentials or deny them access. They just called them out for what they are. That isn’t a war. That is just pointing out the obvious. The quote you ended with is telling. “Taxes are going up because we have to pay for health care for people who are here illegally.” A false accusation as we already pay for illegal immigrants to receive health care in the most expensive way possible, emergency rooms.

Calling the Dems not very tolerant of criticism is a joke compared to the last 8 years of paying radio hosts to falsify news reports (Armstrong Williams), hiring a male prostitute to ask softball questions in White House press conferences, screening attendees at events to prevent any opposition from being voiced, outing CIA agents because of things her husband said, and having their own news network at their disposal to trumpet Bush’s policies. Waging war on Limbaugh? lol - that drug addict is the one who said he hopes Obama and, by proxy, America fails. Beck? He called Obama a racist (pot calling the kettle …) Laughable.

Posted by: tcsned at November 4, 2009 11:29 AM
Comment #290233
the White House did not strip them of press credentials or deny them access. They just called them out for what they are.

Right, so offering the other news agencies a chance to talk to the new ‘pay czar’ and being rebuked by the heads of all of the other news agencies chiefs isn’t a big deal?

There is a difference between someone saying something about Fox news and THE PRESIDENT saying something about the news media. It wasn’t right when Bush did it to individual reporters and attempting late in his term to attack CNN and it is definately not ok when Obama does it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 4, 2009 12:14 PM
Comment #290236

I did not know about the “pay Czar” thing and that isn’t right. However, why anyone would give this network the time of day is beyond me. They are not a news organization while they do employ some reporters. They are an opinion and propaganda organization that has organized anti-Obama rallies, runs slanted news stories, and for 8 years they carried the water for the Bush administration. They are a bad joke. How does any of this add up to credibility? Why shouldn’t the president say something? He’s the one they are working against. He has been a lot nicer than I would have been. Just putting the word “News” in your logo does not a news organization make.

Posted by: tcsned at November 4, 2009 2:29 PM
Comment #290237

David;

I think you misunderstand what is going on in the country. It doesn’t matter if 1 in 4 people are Republicans or whether 4 out of 5 are Republicans. What matters is how many are conservative. According to Rasmussen Polls, 40% of voting Americans are conservative, 35% are moderate, and only 20% are liberal. As a registered independent, I’m sure I represent many other voters. I was once a registered republican and I supported the Republican Party, but when the Republican Party no longer represented my beliefs, I no longer supported them. I have been able to move beyond party affiliation and vote for the person and the issues. I consider myself as one of those 2 out of 5 who are conservative. Now I must ask this question, based on your logic, why would I have to or want to listen to a liberal who only represents 1 in 5? I would also consider that illogical.

I don’t think we are going to see “vote out incumbents”; I believe we are going to see “vote in conservatives”. Of course that remains to be seen, but judging from yesterdays results, it is possible. The democrats were absolutely whipped in VA and NJ and NY 23rd was no victory for Democrats. Hoffman ran as a conservative against a Democrat and a liberal Republican. He entered late, did not have the funds, was a 3rd party candidate, with no political experience, and was hammered not only by the DNC, but also the RNC. He was 30 points down 2 weeks before the election and not only drove the liberal Republican out but also received almost half of the vote. I consider that very victorious.

As to the “Tea Baggers”, they represent a cross section of the political spectrum. They are Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. I believe it is disingenuous to accuse them of being “white racist”. This sounds like the MSM newsperson who likened the gun toting supporter at the town hall meeting as a racist red neck. But when the truth came out, it turned out he was a black man who attended the town hall meeting.

Tcsned:

You are the only one who believes the administration has not declared war against Fox News. That is exactly what they have done, and it is a mistake. I suggest you have never watched Glenn Beck or listened to Rush Limbaugh. The remarks you make are simply liberal talking points. If you watch Glenn Beck; I am sure you are familiar with the questions that Beck asks, and perhaps you could answer those questions. Or perhaps you could quote some of the qustions he asks. You don’t have to quote them word for word; just quote enough to let us know you listen to him.

Posted by: propitiation at November 4, 2009 2:35 PM
Comment #290239

The North Houston and Woodlands area suburbs are pretty damn conservative to start with, a fact that I’ve got personal, lifelong experience with as a resident. So I know firsthand that Eric’s sentiments in this article are incorrect. A rally drawing ten thousand teabaggers in North Houston, while nothing to sniff at, is as improbable in my neck of the woods as people going to church on Sunday.

Democrats are not very tolerant of opposition or criticism. Witness the White House war against Fox News.

The Tea Partisans went into townhalls, shouted down people they disagreed with, booed to keep people from hearing what the politicians had to say, and generally did their best to intimidate and defame liberals. And FOXNews has helped enable this BS, by providing legitimacy to arguments that deserved none, and a soapbox for the most extreme of the far right to express their views.

Which, given current White House Policy, will continue to be expressed anyways, despite their harmful effect on the national discourse.

There won’t be any censorship. The Obama Administration just won’t be lending credibility that much to people who claim things like he’s opening up concentration camps for Republicans, who pass up few opportunities to slime him with further defamation.

Bush cordoned off protestors. He excluded all but supporters from his public events. He Saran wrapped his White House and his Vice President sued to keep White House visitor records secret.

Records this White House has made public, and which FOXNews folks are making hay out of.

The Republicans want to claim what is convenient to them. They want to drag Obama down. They want to have another in a long line of second chances to vindicate policies that catastrophically failed last year.

And they don’t want to have to admit that they’ve lost crediblity and prestige beyond the Party.

Yesterday, despite their gains in the Governors mansions, the Republicans lost a House seat that they’d had since the civil war. They put forward the most far right tea partier they could find, and he was rejected by a wide margin.

If they think they can win the rest of the country by rejecting the rest of the country’s politics, and living in their own parallel world of FOXNews spin, they are mistaken. They cannot live on reversing the lines taken against Bush to use on Obama. Not the least of the problems with trying to do that long term, is that Obama is not going to be enough of a failure to fit into Bush’s shoes.

The Republicans can’t push the brakes on the Obama adminstration forever, and provide no alternatives. Sooner or later, something will give, and Obama will get the grist he needs to mill out a new course for America.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 4, 2009 3:11 PM
Comment #290240

Fresh from their success with Hoffman and NY-23…

Republicans are going to hobble their leading candidate in their primary.

And over here, they’re going to pick a far-right California politician over a successful high-profile Business woman in a California election.

Good idea. Motivation and turnout is not enough if you take the moderates people will vote for and replace them with fanatics they won’t give the time of day to.

The Republicans are so intent on vindicating their politics that they’re going to put the nation’s tolerance for and patience with them to the test. With party identification at twenty percent, just how is that going to work?

Look at NY-23’s results before you start arguing that 40% ideology identification numbers mean everybody’s rooting for the far right. It will be the races on the margins that matter, and the Republicans are going to waste any discontent they create with the Democrats by putting people that the folks are guaranteed to like even less out to face them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 4, 2009 3:18 PM
Comment #290245

I don’t have any use for those two, why would I waste my energy listening to that dreck? I have seen some of the outrageous things they have both done and said. Though I am sure that the insane things they say are just a small fraction of their shows. Like Beck asking Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison on November 14, 2006, “prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.” Or how about this gem?

This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture….I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people, I’m saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist.
July 28, 2009 on his Fox show. I did see that one too.

I have watched Faux News as I have a bandmate live with me briefly and it was his news of choice. Now I have a more than full time career and two small kids. I have no time to waste watching those two clowns. It’s all I can do to squeeze in a hour of Morning Joe (though a conservative, I like his show for the most part) in the mornings before it’s Blues Clues or Wow Wow Wubzy :)

The rest I read from respected news organizations not blogs or agenda driven sources as I am more than capable of forming an educated opinion from actual facts.

Posted by: tcsned at November 4, 2009 3:55 PM
Comment #290247

oh yeah, I also saw Glenn Beck going off on how Rockefeller Square was a tribute to Mussolini.

Posted by: tcsned at November 4, 2009 3:57 PM
Comment #290249

I read an interesting piece in today’s NY Times;

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/how-biofuel-leaked-into-the-house-health-bill/?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema5

Here is just a short part of that article with my comment to follow;

“A package of last-minute changes to the Democrats’ health care bill made public on Tuesday night included a curious tax provision related to the production of biofuels, including ethanol. By changing some of the rules related to tax credits for biofuel manufacturers, the provision would raise about $24 billion in additional tax revenue from the biofuel companies over 10 years. So what do biofuel producers have to do with health care? Actually, nothing. The change was all about the money.”

As I recall, it was only a few years ago that the dems decided to subsidize biofuel with tax credits to urge more production. Nearly everyone understands that we subsidize what we wish to encourage and tax that which we wish to discourage.

Now, the dems in the house want to reduce the subsidy by $24 billion over ten years which represents a tax increase. Of course, the biofuel industry will add this tax to the cost of their product which will eventually be paid by every American who purchases fuel for their car or truck.

What I fail to understand is how the dems could punish something which, until only recently, was one of their favorite rallying crys…namely, GREEN TECH.

But then, the liberal wing of this great party, the dems, have taken total control and needing money to pay for their God-awful Health Care bill, will even resort to stealing from that which they promote. They have no conscience, no loyalty, no scruples, and no allegiance to the American public outside their small clique.

They have just thumbed their noses at all those who thought these liberals were really serious about so-called MMGW.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 4, 2009 4:27 PM
Comment #290250

Eric,

If the United States did not illegally attack and get bogged down in a war against Iraq that has cost us billions upon billions of dollars do you think we might have enough of the surplus left by Clinton to fund Healthcare reform?
If the Bush administration had not deregulated the banking industry for eight years allowing free reign to the wealthy wall street elite (see Berney Madoff)to practice the type of capitalism the Republicans love that has bankrupted the nation forcing tax payers to pay corporate welfare to keep economy afloat would we have enough of the Clinton surplus to spend a little on healthcare reform?
I love the illegal alien comment that get’s thrown in to further enrage the right wing mouth foaming bigots of your party but scare tactics directed at misinformed limitedly educated “patriots” is seen as silly to the rest of us.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at November 4, 2009 4:57 PM
Comment #290251

Just a little factchecking…

If the United States did not illegally attack and get bogged down in a war against Iraq that has cost us billions upon billions of dollars do you think we might have enough of the surplus left by Clinton to fund Healthcare reform?

a) The war was no more illegal than Clinton’s, were you protesting and fighting against Clinton for them as well?

b) There was no Clinton surplus.

If the Bush administration had not deregulated the banking industry for eight years allowing free reign to the wealthy wall street elite (see Berney Madoff)to practice the type of capitalism the Republicans love that has bankrupted the nation forcing tax payers to pay corporate welfare to keep economy afloat would we have enough of the Clinton surplus to spend a little on healthcare reform?

a) Madoff’s actions were already illegal, making them more illegal would have done what? Regulators never figured out what Madoff was doing, he had to go to THEM.

b) The ‘deregulation’ was not the reason why we are in a financial situation atm. Irresponsible market manipulation by the federal government is.

c) There was no Clinton surplus

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 4, 2009 5:06 PM
Comment #290253

Rhinehold,

Do you honestly believe that the deregulation of the financial institutions across the country by the republicans for eight years had nothing to do with the financial collapse of recent times?

The Clinton surplus is a myth I suppose that has been debunked by Limbaugh and Colter?

Come on man. Be serious.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at November 4, 2009 5:13 PM
Comment #290255
Do you honestly believe that the deregulation of the financial institutions across the country by the republicans for eight years had nothing to do with the financial collapse of recent times?

www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html

Exactly which ‘deregulations’ by Bush had the effect you are claiming? Get specific please.

The Clinton surplus is a myth I suppose that has been debunked by Limbaugh and Colter?

www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

First of all, the debt increased 18 billion dollars during the one year that Clinton claimed a 236 billion dollar surplus. That’s called ‘cooking the books’. Not any different than Bush hiding the money spent on Iraq.

Second, the claimed surplus was for the 7th year of the Clinton presidency, when Republicans were the ones responsible for spending tax dollars per the constitution. The 8th year ended with a deficit according to even Clinton’s numbers, which I’ve already shown were suspect (as most presidents are) to begin with.

Come on man. Be serious.

I am very serious.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 4, 2009 5:20 PM
Comment #290256

Royal Flush-
A subsidy, as I recall it, is money given to you by the government. It is the most perverse of fiscal doubletalk to call spending fewer tax dollars on a given industry a “tax increase.”

They are doing better at this point than the Republicans did in their “reform”, where they managed to make Medicare even more expensive for the taxpayer, without finding any new sources of revenue.

Democrats want to spend a certain amount for healthcare. They’re looking to find the money to do that. You’re blaming them for making the effort the GOP did not, and you look to punish them for what your people were not willing to punish the current Republican leadership for.

The Republicans are once again passing the buck on the fiscal scandals of their majority, hoping to get back into the position to do more damage, it would seem.

Rhinehold-
Flat Wrong.

1) Housing market fails.

2) Bad regulation and worse misbehavior on the part of the financial companies, ensures that the pile of derivatives and Securities based on that market become of indeterminate value, paralyzing the market.

3) Credit Markets of other kinds are frozen as well.

4) Businesses cannot bridge expenses, tax revenues go down, business shut down, causing unemployment…

5) which further pulls down the economy, and starts a vicious feedback cycle with further unemployment.

The ****storm showed up before government intervened. In fact, it showed up because government refused to intervene, and let the crisis become critical with the fall of Lehman Brothers, and the failure to pass bailout legislation in a timely fashion.

Additionally, on the Madoff matter, the SEC had plenty of opportunity to intervene, plenty of times when people came to them with evidence.

But the Republicans? The Libertarians? For them, the SEC is a limit on the free market, and as such, it was allowed to rot under Bush, and to a lesser degree under Clinton.

Additionally, Bush let the deficit skyrocket. However you debate things were going under Clinton, they got objectively worse under Bush. Clinton kept the deficit under control, Bush did not.

You folks have to quit trying to shape the facts to fit your agenda. Truth of the matter is, nobody’s philosophy is always applicable. Even Greenspan admitted he screwed up, and that guy learned at the feet of Ayn Rand.

This stuff of yours is not factchecking, so much as ideological opposition to the notion that you couldn’t just leave the market alone and let things play out for the better.

But the real world market and its financial company counterpart went separate ways in a rather violent way, because the laws that would have enforced greater parity between the two were chunked in favor of “free market” style regulation and enforcement. The market was expected to fix itself.

Trouble is, once a problem gets big enough, once the disconnect between the market of goods and services and the market in financial instruments derived from them becomes great enough, the correction becomes excessively destructive in terms of secondary consequences, and businesses and individuals who were doing things the right way get punished with everybody else.

Markets need rules to prevent these disconnects, to make sure that the market follows real world supply and demand, and doesn’t get overinflated by trickery.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 4, 2009 5:45 PM
Comment #290258
Flat Wrong.

Um, NOPE.

1) Housing market fails.

That’s where you start? You ignore WHY the housing market failed? Do you often start reading books in the middle as well?

2) Bad regulation and worse misbehavior on the part of the financial companies, ensures that the pile of derivatives and Securities based on that market become of indeterminate value, paralyzing the market.

Exactly which regulations were relaxed by the Bush administration in these areas, Stephen? What ‘bad behavior’ exactly?

And WHY was the ‘based on the market’ value used in this case?

Oh yeah, the federal government, in an overreaction to Enron, along with SOX which is preventing public IPOs today, forced these companies to record them as such. A temporary alleviation of this rule, which would have caused the US to go bankrupt had they been in place during the S&L crisis, and was called for in September of last year, would have UN-paralyzed the market almost immediately, causing credit to flow again. Which it actually started doing once the Democrats, who were in charge of this during the 2008 collapse, finally decided to do so in March of 2009.

After the elections.

Which they won based on the ‘failed’ markets.

That they could have helped…

The ****storm showed up before government intervened. In fact, it showed up because government refused to intervene, and let the crisis become critical with the fall of Lehman Brothers, and the failure to pass bailout legislation in a timely fashion.

No, Stephen, the ****storm was a direct result of the governmental intervention into a slagging economy in the early part of the decade, the FED dropping interest rates down to almost 0, artificially filling up the ballooning housing market in a way that meant a crash of the housing market was inevitable. The monied interests just needed to get their profits up long enough and get out before it did.

Additionally, on the Madoff matter, the SEC had plenty of opportunity to intervene, plenty of times when people came to them with evidence.

Opportunity, but didn’t see it as an issue. The ‘evidence’ was not enough to spring them into action. Inept regulation is not the same thing as de-regulation.

But the Republicans? The Libertarians? For them, the SEC is a limit on the free market, and as such, it was allowed to rot under Bush, and to a lesser degree under Clinton.

The Republicans? Perhaps, but I cannot speak for them. Libertarians? No. Anarcho-Capitalists who call themselves Libertarians? yup.

You see, having a truly ‘free’ market requires that the market be free from corruption, manipulation, etc. That can’t happen without the Federal government doing its job and monitoring it. Libertarians understand this. We just want the government to stop MANIPULATING the market. Oversee it to make sure it is free from fraud or monopolistic manipulations, that’s the government’s role. Had it been doing that at any time in the past 50 years instead of all of the things it shouldn’t have been doing, perhaps we wouldn’t have these issues.

Additionally, Bush let the deficit skyrocket.

Yes, he did.

However you debate things were going under Clinton

I countered a false statement of the Clinton Surplus that never existed.

they got objectively worse under Bush

I never said that they didn’t. They are also getting even WORSE under Obama. But you don’t mention that either…

Clinton kept the deficit under control, Bush did not.

By stealing from the Social Security funds. Not a real ‘noble’ thing to do, is it? And something that our current president can’t do because that surplus is now GONE.

Oh, and we got a boon because of the dot com which turned out to be much like the housing market in 2006… Not only was that not of his doing, it backfired on him in his last year as president when that collapsed as did the housing market in 2008.

Of course, because of SOX now we will never see such a ‘boon’ again, so that will help cement that legacy as well.

BTW, in which year did the spending of the federal government go down during Clinton? Or not increase faster than inflation? He didn’t keep the deficit ‘under control’, he continued spending and was blessed with an increase in taxes. Had that tax income dried up, as it did in FY2001, the deficits would have still increased in a very ugly fashion.

Please list for me the exact things that Clinton did to ‘keep the deficit under control’?

You folks

You can shove your ‘you folks’, Stephen. It is getting old. And insulting.

have to quit trying to shape the facts to fit your agenda. Truth of the matter is, nobody’s philosophy is always applicable. Even Greenspan admitted he screwed up, and that guy learned at the feet of Ayn Rand.

So, Greenspan is now a Libertarian, Stephen? Just because you say you are something, that makes it true? A Libertarian would never have manipulated the market the way Greenspan did or Bernake does. Can we call them LINOs now?

But the real world market and its financial company counterpart went separate ways in a rather violent way, because the laws that would have enforced greater parity between the two were chunked in favor of “free market” style regulation and enforcement. The market was expected to fix itself.

Stephen, the FACT is that we have not had a ‘free market’ in the United States for decades… What you call ‘free market’ is anything that is not under complete governmental control. We are living in a Corpratist state, not a Capitalist one…

Trouble is, once a problem gets big enough, once the disconnect between the market of goods and services and the market in financial instruments derived from them becomes great enough, the correction becomes excessively destructive in terms of secondary consequences, and businesses and individuals who were doing things the right way get punished with everybody else.

And the problem was made big enough by GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION into the markets.

Markets need rules to prevent these disconnects, to make sure that the market follows real world supply and demand, and doesn’t get overinflated by trickery.

Yes, they do. They ALSO need people not putting rules into place that cause the problem to get worse, as we saw happen last year with Mark To Market regulations that caused the problem to become bigger than it should have been.

You have yet been able to point to anything that the Bush administration did (remember, Glass Stegal was not the Bush administration, even though it wasn’t the cause and actually helped the problem from getting worse) that was ‘deregulation’ that caused the problem Stephen. Please tell me, which law, act, EO, anything did the Bush administration do, along the lines of ‘deregulation’, that caused our problems?

Did the Bush adminsitration push for market manipulation to get the economy artificially growing so he could win a second term? YES. Did the Bush administration push for rules and laws that helped get his financial backers for those elections more money? YES. Did the Bush administration remove laws that were put into place to regulate markets…?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 4, 2009 6:21 PM
Comment #290259

Mr. Daugherty writes; “It is the most perverse of fiscal doubletalk to call spending fewer tax dollars on a given industry a “tax increase.”

Really…I recall the dems saying just that when repubs called for smaller increases in some programs. A smaller increase in the growth of a program was called “gutting”.

Logic tells me Mr. Daugherty, that when government takes a larger tax bite out of a company’s profit that is a “tax increase”. You may call it “fiscal doubletalk”, but that doesn’t make it so.

My point, which you failed to address, is why have the libs in congress thrown away what was one of their favorite ploys to rob Americans of their wealth…namely, spending huge amounts on ethanol? I believe I may find previous posts of yours supporting such action. Have you also now changed your mind as the libs in the house apparently have?

What formerly liberal sacred cow will be sacrificed next at the altar of national health care? I suggest to you that members of your party will be very disappointed at this new direction of wasteful spending. I wonder what ALGORE will think of such thievery?

Reality tells me that many of the proposed cuts and much of the money stolen from other programs will be replaced as soon as the health bill passes. Libs believe the American voting public is too dumb to see it and those with “entitleitis” simply won’t give a dam.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 4, 2009 6:21 PM
Comment #290260

propitiation,

Even using Rasmussen’s poll which is NOT representative, 60% of Americans are liberal or moderate, with only 40% conservative.

The more telling poll is yesterday’s election in which more than half of all Progressive candidates on the ballots in the U.S. won, and 3 races are still too close to call.

This wishful thinking that after electing Democrats and Obama in 2008, the people have whiplashed toward conservativism, defies both history, logic, and the polls. The NY race is also modestly telling, pit a Democrat against two Republicans, one conservative and one moderate, and the Democrat wins.

The conservatives are attempting to take the GOP over as their weapon of choice as happened in 1994. But, Americans rebuked conservatives Contract On America resoundingly in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Conservatives btw, are also divided between fiscal conservatives and social moderates, and social conservatives and nothing else matters and everything else is a weapon to be spun and converted by Fundamentalist Right Evangelical Christians, or (FREC’s).

That civil war over the control of the GOP, will continue to alienate enough independents to insure Republicans remain the minority Party for decades to come in one or both Houses of Congress.

The handwriting is on the wall, Democrats will not retain their full majority status after 2010 or 2012 due to the health anti-incumbent movement and sentiment making its presence felt as in yesterday’s elections. But, Republicans will not gain a majority control of government for a very, very long time, which is also the history of the Party for very structural reasons having to do with race and economic views which are and will remain in the minority as long as America has a large dominant middle class in the work force.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 4, 2009 7:11 PM
Comment #290262

Nice spin Mr. Remer…I wonder who will buy it. I love the way you spin the poll by writing;

“Even using Rasmussen’s poll which is NOT representative, 60% of Americans are liberal or moderate, with only 40% conservative.”

Of the 60% you claim, only 20% are liberal…one half the conservative number.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 4, 2009 7:40 PM
Comment #290265

Why isn’t Rasmussen’s poll representative again?

It just sounds like a statement of fact and I must have missed where that was established as such…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 4, 2009 7:57 PM
Comment #290267

“Obama, as President, has so far advanced more vigorous campaigns to eradicate Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Fox News than they have against the Taliban in Afghanistan.”

Maybe that is because Limbaugh Beck and Faux are more of a threat to America than the taliban in Afghanistan. It seem the Obama administration is on the right track here, if what you mean by “advanced more vigorous campaigns to eradicate” is in the real world calling Faux and Beck nonsense for what it is, IMHO Eric, and what you should be questioning is why previous administrations did not call them out for what they are.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 4, 2009 8:37 PM
Comment #290268

What I love is seeing one person say things like “no, really we aren’t after the pundits, it’s the news organizations” just to have someone else come along and point to Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and the O.

You have to wonder what is really sticking in the craw of some of the people who hate a private news organization so much…

Oh well, I’ll just get back to watching CNN reporters shout down people they are interviewing and fact-checking SNL skits. You know, real news.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 4, 2009 8:43 PM
Comment #290270

How is there even an argument here regarding the WH’s refusal to send administrative personnel on to the Fox Network? What a joke! Two of the network’s most prominent personalities make nightly accusations that the President is out to destroy America, is a Marxist, a Socialist (do they even know what that is?), etc.

So the administration refuses to recognize the network as a legitimate news organization. Duh.

Fox can make their living off of the zealously uninformed and/or ill-informed fan(atics). Ask me how I know… I come from a family of them. Not one of them can argue their way out of a paper bag… but they can accuse and pass on false information and half truths with the best of them. My sister is in fact a ‘truther’. Sheesh. Her hell is having to live an angry life when she has it pretty good. I find that true with many of the Fox fans.

Posted by: LibRick at November 4, 2009 10:00 PM
Comment #290271

I don’t even know where to begin:

j2t2:

“Maybe that is because Limbaugh Beck and Faux are more of a threat to America than the taliban in Afghanistan.”

So, we trash the Bill of Rights. I even believe you have the right to free speech. But, in one fast act, you have denied first amendment rights to anyone who disagrees with you. This is scary, if that’s what you really believe.

David Remer:

And just what is wrong with Rasmussen Polls? So you spin the poll results to make liberals look larger than life, nice try. Liberals still only make up 20% of voters. Now, what’s really interesting is that Independents, who make up the 35% of moderate voters, voted 2 to 1 for Republicans in NJ and VA. Which means that on one end you have 40% conservative voters and on the other end of the spectrum, you have 20% Liberal voters, and in the middle you have 35% moderate voters. Are we clear so far? The moderates swing from one side of the spectrum to the other during elections, depending on how the feel and who they support. In the 2008 election, they swung toward the left in support of Obama, who ran as a moderate, but since then they have discovered Obama is not a moderate. It turns out he is a liberal of liberals and those controlling the congress are more liberal than he. So, yesterday, the moderates (who are independents) swung back the other direction and in essence, have rejected the liberal agenda of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. Those independents have been lost to the Democrats, and with so much interest in what the liberals are trying to pass in the dark of night, it will be a long time before they ever go back to the Democrats.

“This wishful thinking that after electing Democrats and Obama in 2008, the people have whiplashed toward conservativism, defies both history, logic, and the polls.”

You sound like you might know what you are talking about, until you made this next statement: “The handwriting is on the wall, Democrats will not retain their full majority status after 2010 or 2012 due to the health anti-incumbent movement and sentiment making its presence felt as in yesterday’s elections.”

Perhaps you can explain how it is wishful thinking to think independents are moving toward conservatism, and yet by your own statement you said the handwriting is on the wall that Democrats will be beat in 2010 and 2012, and you even said it happened in yesterdays election.

“The NY race is also modestly telling, pit a Democrat against two Republicans, one conservative and one moderate, and the Democrat wins.”

You cannot come to such conclusions about NY. First of all, the Republican was more liberal than the Democrat. There was no moderate candidate. If anything, conservatives won, because of the insurmountable obstacles in Hoffman’s campaign. I will restate what I said earlier, “Hoffman ran as a conservative against a Democrat and a liberal Republican. He entered late, did not have the funds, was a 3rd party candidate, with no political experience, and was hammered not only by the DNC, but also the RNC. He was 30 points down 2 weeks before the election and not only drove the liberal Republican out but also received almost half of the vote.”

Spin it how you want, but this will have an effect on Democrats in red states.

Posted by: propitiation at November 4, 2009 10:01 PM
Comment #290272

Propitiation,
Why Corporations are in business to make money, they are not in business to screw their customers, not pay their bills or create a condition that harms other businesses.

In fact, if the Health Insurance Companies was forced to pay their policy holders bills in full within 30 days of recieving billing information and not allowed to overide the Doctors’ Advice I do believe that they would be broke as the banks we just bailed out.

Now, as far as the Oil Companies. Give me justification on why they rose gas prices to over $4.00/gal. and made it unprofitable for most Corporations to make their Goods and Products or ship them for sell to the American Consumer. What was their stated motive to Congress?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 4, 2009 10:08 PM
Comment #290273


Eric, you do progressives a great disservice by implying that the current healthcare reform bills going through Congress are progressive. I would lable them Nationalist Capitalist.

Do you realize that there only two progressives in the U.S. Senate and that only one of them is a Democrat.

There are about 40 progressives in the House, about thirty if you don’t count the liberals disguised as progressives like Pelosi and Frank.

Just last week, Pelosi shafted the progressive caucaus with her corporate friendly reform bill.

Do you really think the Republicans could have gotten their NAFTA and their Communist Chinese Trade Agreement without the full cooperation of the liberal Democrats?

Do you really think the Republicans could have facilitated the exportation of millions of middle class jobs and the importation of millions of illegal low wage workers without the full cooperation of the liberal Democrats?

Stephen D., the three amigos of the derivatives market deregulation were Robert Rubin, Larry Summers and Alan Greenspan.

(Any attempt to regulate the derivatives market will result in an immediate and catastrophic collapse of the U. S. economy.)

All three made statements simmilar to the above in 97, when they testified at a Congressional hearing in a successful attempt to crush an effort to regulate the derivatives market.

Posted by: jlw at November 4, 2009 10:08 PM
Comment #290274

Propitiation wrote: “So, we trash the Bill of Rights. I even believe you have the right to free speech. But, in one fast act, you have denied first amendment rights to anyone who disagrees with you. This is scary, if that’s what you really believe.”

You equate the WH’s refusal to be interviewed on Fox News to denying them the right to free speech? Wow. This is why I quit arguing with the right.

Posted by: LibRick at November 4, 2009 10:14 PM
Comment #290277

This is laughable. Where were you when Bush/Cheney et.al. manipulated press conferences and town hall meetings, beat up on the NY Times (endlessly), joked about reporters being a—h——, refused to call on reporters they deemed unfriendly, and insinuated that those opposed to their positions (that included me were UnAmerican).

Crying Wolf.

Posted by: LibRick at November 4, 2009 11:14 PM
Comment #290278

LibRick,

I was defending you from being called UnAmerican.

Where were you when Pelosi called me UnAmerican after I defended you?

Oh yeah, standing right behind her.

I have been going to Tea Parties for over a decade, yet your party continues to call those who go to those protests ‘UnAmerican’ and enemies of the state…

Which is a fine screw you to those of us in the Libertarian party who defended the Democrats when the Republicans did the same to them.

I guess standing up for principles really does get you kicked in the nuts.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 5, 2009 12:26 AM
Comment #290279

Rhinehold,
What do you think when even the Radio and Media Pundits are trying to keep them from seeing that it is the Independents and Moderates from All Walks of Life that deliver the vote to Americas’ Elected Officials.

Hopefully the true leaders of the Tea Parties will explain that point to the likes of Rush, Hannity, and Palin. For having already lived through a Civil Fight between Dick Arny and Newt, I do believe that the Voices lost in the Wilderness need to be heard on how they see America solving healthcare, energy, and the economy.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 5, 2009 2:19 AM
Comment #290281

propitiation,

“Hoffman ran as a conservative against a Democrat and a liberal Republican. He entered late, did not have the funds, was a 3rd party candidate, with no political experience……”

He had the support of Mike Gallagher, Fred Thompson, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, Hugh Hewitt…..

There was a nationwide radio campaign to raise funds for his cause, and he still fell short because the one thing he lacked was that which is actually required to get the job.

Even with all of that support he didn’t get enough votes.

Spin it any way you want, Hoffman cost the Republicans a seat in Congress that they had held for 100 years.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 5, 2009 8:03 AM
Comment #290282

propitation,

Oh and BTW, it wasn’t that long ago that Limbaugh, on his radio program, called for the disbanding of the Democrats. He wanted the entire party destroyed, and he wanted only one Democrat kept alive and hanging around in a museum as a reminder.

You see, I DO listen to Rush Limbaugh, and have since the early ’90s.

However, listening to him, and agreeing with his bilious blathering are two entirely different things.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 5, 2009 8:33 AM
Comment #290283

david

“Even using Rasmussen’s poll which is NOT representative, 60% of Americans are liberal or moderate, with only 40% conservative.”

i like this version better.

even using the rasmussen which is NOT representative, 80% of americans are conservative, or moderate, with only 20% liberal.

Posted by: dbs at November 5, 2009 9:55 AM
Comment #290285


So that must mean that most the moderates vote for liberals. That number will surely increase as conservatives continue their attempts to drive moderate Republicans out of the party.

Posted by: jlw at November 5, 2009 11:00 AM
Comment #290292

dbs-
The Republicans are not a predominately moderate party, as the Democrats are. I know Republicans like to identify Democrats as always liberal, but self-identified Liberals do not make up the bulk of the party. Moderates do.

So when we see large number for the Moderates, its fair to add many of those to the Democratic column. Also fair is to recall that quite a few folks who self identify as conservative are also Democrats.

Also fair to ask is whether conservative means pure conservative, as the tea partisans would like to believe, or whether it means conservative with a mix of moderate and/or liberal positions.

Rhinehold-
I’ve gotten into the reasons before. You blame it on a push to provide more low-income people with homes. But the excess of that, by itself, would have been halted by the market itself, had the proper regulation been in place concerning predatory lending and credit practices, capitalization requirements for the non-bank lenders, and the use of derivatives to launder the risk out of the system.

If capital requirements had been there for the banks, they would have limited their exposure out of their own self interest, making fewer loans, but choosing better. If it hadn’t been so easy to convert risky loans into profitable (though fatally compromised) mortgage securities and CDOs, then the market would have naturally discouraged irresponsible lending.

And if we had discouraged predatory lending practices, and enforced such laws in good faith, the fuel for the dodgy derivatives and other things of that kind would have been cut off.

The connection between the real estate market and Wall Street cannot be understood properly until you realize that their dysfunctions went hand in hand.

Until you realize that this was a willing enterprise on their part, that they would have engaged in whether the government was pushing for something there or not.

Until you realize that they made money off of this, and were happy to.

Exactly which regulations were relaxed by the Bush administration in these areas, Stephen? What ‘bad behavior’ exactly?

I love it when you talk like you’re being skeptical. In the middle of this decade, the Bush administration used a law from about the Civil War era to pre-empt predatory lending laws. Earlier in the decade, Bush signed into law a financial modernization act that more or less prohibited regulation of derivatives.

Derivatives, which are literally financial instruments that are derivative of a market transaction (like the price of tea in China, the price of wheat in Iowa, the price of apples in New York, the price of real estate on Wall Street, etc) It can be an agreement to buy at a certain price, or an option to buy at a certain price. Or it can be a swap, a kind of insurance policy which you pay into, which pays off in case the value of an item goes outside a certain range.

Or it can be a security derived from the future proceeds of a mortgage, which can be traded around like you would a bond for a corporation.

As for accounting, they were using the mark to market accounting BEFORE Enron. In fact, its abuses were part of that particular scandal. As for IPOs? I seem to remember plenty being pulled off. But if that is really a problem, there are ways to reform the law, not trash it in the vain hopes that people won’t try what they did with Enron.

One thing to keep in mind about your magic alleviation. It does keep the companies from having to deal with the relative price of their asset in the future. The downside of that, though, is that they’re in a position to more or less make up numbers. We need better accounting regulation than that, smarter, or we will be right back where we started. That waiver is no final solution.

As for who had Congress at the time? The housing market already started hitting the wall long before the early part of 2007, as this as this piece by an American Enterprise Institute writer written in March of 2007 demonstrates.

The Dominoes were already falling. The market was already failing. This didn’t happen all at once, though. The collapse of the market took place over the course of the years before.

The place where responsibility for the policies that cause this lie with those who created the conditions for the increasing foreclosures and market saturation that preceded this. Unless the Democrats went back in time, ala Sam Beckett in Quantum Leap and jumped into the Republican Congress’s bodies, there’s no way Democrats could be responsible for the crisis. It had already started before they were even inaugurated as the majority- and a majority hindered at that by record breaking obstruction from the Republicans, and George W. Bush as president.

No, Stephen, the ****storm was a direct result of the governmental intervention into a slagging economy in the early part of the decade, the FED dropping interest rates down to almost 0, artificially filling up the ballooning housing market in a way that meant a crash of the housing market was inevitable. The monied interests just needed to get their profits up long enough and get out before it did.

Are you talking about Sarbanes Oxley? You’re kind of being vague here.

The reason the economy went down then was the massive overestimate of the wealth of many companies, not to mention the shock of 9/11. But there was also a reduced confidence factor present, the result of insufficient reform.

If you ask me, kludgy reform is as bad as no reform at all sometimes, because ultimately, that can encourage dodgy accountability, as everybody agrees the law is too complex to enforce. No, I want things simple so people have no excuse.

The Republicans? Perhaps, but I cannot speak for them. Libertarians? No. Anarcho-Capitalists who call themselves Libertarians? yup.

You have a problem with your spokesmen and spokeswomen, then, because I’ve rarely heard from Libertarians who like such regulation. Any time you hear from CATO, it seems, they’re pushing another free-market reform.

The truth of the matter is, Governments, by their nature, set the standards and the forms for the market, and have for centuries. Goods have to be held to certain standards, business practices and services, too. People will write laws for this because markets are not by their nature moral things. They’re social things. If everybody decides together that they’re going to cheat customers a certain way, or if it grants a competitive advantage, a dysfunctional practice can endure despite the fact their customers hate it. That’s why the FDA and the USDA were born.

I don’t believe government should be heavy-handed under normal circumstances. I also believe, though, that unless you keep things stable from the get-go, preventing known market misbehaviors from occurring, you will have to be heavy-handed a lot more often.

Oh, and we got a boon because of the dot com which turned out to be much like the housing market in 2006… Not only was that not of his doing, it backfired on him in his last year as president when that collapsed as did the housing market in 2008.

No, sorry. Not the same thing. For once thing, that was a minor market correction. It mattered more for the stock market than anything else. It’s the later debacle in 2001 that caused the average person more harm. There, with Gramm Leach Bliley, is Clinton’s real screwup.

Financial institutions were firewalled off from one another for a reason. Though my administration doesn’t yet support breaking up that stuff, I do, and hope they come around, because the singular problem is having so much of our financial sector vulnerable to the problems of one another, and tangled up in conflicts of interest.

Sarbanes Oxley did not prevent hundreds of IPOs from taking place during the intervening years between 2001 and 2008. 2008, I think, saw fewer because the market was already in a downturn before the fall of Lehman Brothers kicked it into a free-fall. The investment banks necessary for those IPOs were already in big trouble. the events of late 2008 just was a string of exclamation points on what was already a very lousy economic year for them.

He didn’t keep the deficit ‘under control’, he continued spending and was blessed with an increase in taxes. Had that tax income dried up, as it did in FY2001, the deficits would have still increased in a very ugly fashion.

Taxes don’t just go up or go down on their own. Clinton deliberately increased taxes. When the revenues came in from the booming market, those higher rates created higher yields of revenue. Bush deliberately decreased taxes Even when his economy was doing better, the decreased rates insured that at best, he would have a lighter deficit.

But at the same time, we have to consider that both had the option of pushing greater spending, but Clinton maintained relative stability in his spending, while Bush just piled it on.

Stephen, the FACT is that we have not had a ‘free market’ in the United States for decades… What you call ‘free market’ is anything that is not under complete governmental control. We are living in a Corpratist state, not a Capitalist one…

Capitalist, corporatist? If you take the classic meaning of capitalists, which is to say, those with the means of production, there’s no difference.

And the problem was made big enough by GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION into the markets.

Still on that? Rhinehold, you realize that the sum total of that law was making sure that people were making the money they were claiming to be making? I don’t see how that contributed to what was essentially the complete confusion on the value of certain kinds of assets that drove the current collapse.

You offer a suspect, but the suspect seems to be irrelevant to the crime.

Royal Flush-

Logic tells me Mr. Daugherty, that when government takes a larger tax bite out of a company’s profit that is a “tax increase”. You may call it “fiscal doubletalk”, but that doesn’t make it so.

It quacks like a duck: the government provides an incentive to a company that it wouldn’t have under regular free market conditions. It walks like a duck: a company gets a reward for behaving a certain way. It looks like a duck: money goes to the corporation out of taxpayer dollars.

It’s a subsidy, engineered through tax policy. That this is the preferred method Republicans use for corporate welfare is part of the reason the tax code is so complicated.

My point, which you failed to address, is why have the libs in congress thrown away what was one of their favorite ploys to rob Americans of their wealth…namely, spending huge amounts on ethanol?

Well, Obama did talk about setting aside programs that did not work. Ethanol is not likely the best source until you can get a reliable supply without it competing with growing food.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 5, 2009 2:49 PM
Comment #290293

Henry,

There are so many things wrong with these healthcare plans that it would be better to reject it all outright.

If I were a supporter of a public option I would oppose this latest bill. It doesn’t cover the uninsured. It mandated that they get covered or be fined. That doesn’t even make sense. Unless your goal, with this bill, is not to cover the uninsured.

Posted by: eric at November 5, 2009 2:52 PM
Comment #290298

Eric,
After a bill goes through the Senate and House, there will be a process of reconciliation between the two bills. This will be the best hope will be a plan which allows states to institute single payer universal health care. It is a far better approach. Canada instituted their program this way. One province after another implemented it, until the entire nation had universal health care. If US states are allowed to go this route, the ones with single payer will have an enormous competitive advantage. Preventing this stte by state approach will be the primary goal of corporations. The GOP is opposing the rights of states to offer this approach.

Posted by: phx8 at November 5, 2009 3:38 PM
Comment #290302

In Dist 23-NY the Rep or Dem candidate was the same as voting for a Dem

Those who cannot afford insurance now will not be able to afford it under any government plan.

When asked what part of the Constitution authorized the house health plan, Pelozi responded, “Are you serious?” And that explains the whole mess. The Congressional health plans are un-Constitutional, period.

Posted by: Tom Humes at November 5, 2009 4:11 PM
Comment #290317

“So, we trash the Bill of Rights. I even believe you have the right to free speech. But, in one fast act, you have denied first amendment rights to anyone who disagrees with you. This is scary, if that’s what you really believe.”

Props there you go putting words/actions into my mouth again. In order to have any semblance of an intelligent discussion I think you may need to re-read what I had posted earlier and what it was in reference to. Then perhaps you will not be so quick with the nonsense.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 5, 2009 9:34 PM
Comment #290318

Tom,
“Those who cannot afford insurance now will not be able to afford it under any government plan.”

No. The US is the only wealthy country in the world which does not provide universal health. The only one. The US is the only country which depends upon private insurance to cover a large part of the population. We are the only wealthy country that sees people bankrupted by medical problems. The only one. We rank at the bottom among wealthy countries by most measurements of health care. We spend more than other countries on health care, yet achieve less. According to a Harvard study, 44,000 Americans die each year due to lack of health care. Another more conservative study puts the number at only 20,000 Anericans dead.

It is essentially a moral question.

20,000 Americans dead.

Universal health care is most certainly constitutional. In fact, I can think of few functions more worthy of governmental action.

Posted by: phx8 at November 5, 2009 9:59 PM
Comment #290319
The US is the only wealthy country in the world which does not provide universal health. The only one.

The US is the only wealthy country that structured their government to accept that rights are not given by the government but exist outside of it. And that personal, individual liberty was the basis of that government.

We rank at the bottom among wealthy countries by most measurements of health care.

Incorrect, we actually rank #1 by most measurements of health care.

It is essentially a moral question.

Yes it is. Is it moral to put a gun to someone’s head and force him to work more hours in order to pay the health insurance (not healthcare) of another?

Universal health care is most certainly constitutional.

We have universal healthcare… No one in the US can be denied access to emergency care.

As for universal Health Insurance, it most certainly is not constitutional. Please detail where the power to institute a universal health insurance system is given to the federal government in the constitution.

In fact, I can think of few functions more worthy of governmental action.

I can think of many.

20,000 Americans dead.

400,000 die each year because of tobacco use, 300,00 because of weight. Why aren’t you calling for these to be outlawed first?

Or is this just the first step?

How many people die each year because of a lack of food? Or clean water? We attempt to fix these problems as well, but it still exists…

Why is that? Answer that question and we’ll examine why the same will be the case with health insurance.

Though, you know, maybe once we have universal healthcare, no on will die in the US!

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 5, 2009 10:17 PM
Comment #290320

BTW, those rates were worldwide, not just US. The US rates are still higher than the questionable determination of ‘no healthcare’.

Does the survey figure the number of people who didn’t have health insurance because they wanted cable and cell phones instead? Just curious…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 5, 2009 10:34 PM
Comment #290324

Stephen,

Believe what you want, I’m done as I pointed out in another thread. You don’t want to listen so it is really a huge waste of my time.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 5, 2009 11:42 PM
Comment #290325

Rhinehold,
“Does the survey figure the number of people who didn’t have health insurance because they wanted cable and cell phones instead?”

And that is why the issue of health care is essentially a moral question. People do foolish things all the time. They should be responsible for the consequences of their actions. And yet, the one thing all people share is a certain end, one that may involve suffering. If a person foolishly spends their money rather than saving it for a medical issue, do they deserve to die a painful death? Furthermore, for those who have the misfortune to not die quickly, the long term nature of a terminal illness will almost certainly exceed the cost of a cell phone or cable. What then?

Some would say money is more important than caring for one another, that it is all about “Me the People.” Heh. When asked, “Am I my brother’s keeper,” some would say the Constitution means we have no obligations to our fellow human beings, despite the commonality of our final fate.

Virtually no society encourages its citizens to treat one another in such a callous fashion. Part of the reason that it is “We the People” rather than “Me the People” is that we band together to pool resources, cooperate, and care for one another. Virtually every society, from a tribe to a city state to a nation, provides medical care in some form or another.

In the US, we happen to be a wealthy country with the resources to ensure people do not starve, or die for lack of shelter, or perish from polluted water or unsanitary conditions. We have the resources to provide all people with medical care. It is essentially a moral question. What is our obligation?

Posted by: phx8 at November 6, 2009 12:34 AM
Comment #290326

phx8,

You fall into the trap of thinking that if we don’t have a law making it so, no one will care for their fellow man.

The reality is that we DO need to take care of each other. But that assistance should be given, not taken. THAT is the real moral question, phx8. Are we going to continue telling people that their helping of others is done because they fear being jailed or because it is soemthing they should feel obligated to do?

What does that tell our children?

If I were having trouble, I would want the help that is offered to me to be free of coersion. To not be taken from people who are having trouble themselves. I would rather die, yes.

That is why I will not be accepting SS. It is why I do not accept anything from the government from the result of my disabled veteran status. I can still take care of myself and I do not want forced assistance from others. I believe this to be a very big moral question, just much more in depth than some think it is.

This goes to the real heart of the problem.

You think it is more moral to put a gun to someone’s head and make them help another against their will? I don’t.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 6, 2009 1:14 AM
Comment #290327

BTW, you want to set up non-governmental CO-OPs that would provide health insurance to those who cannot afford it? I’ll be the first in line to help.

The minute you put the force of government behind it, once you start cocking guns…

That is, to someone like myself you abhors the use of violence against others, very immoral.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 6, 2009 1:15 AM
Comment #290328

Oh, and I should note that I also work hard to help those who need it voluntarily. I have started organizations and lead that effort quite vigorously…

Just wanted to repeat that because invariably I get called ‘selfish’ by those who want to use force to make people help one another when I reject that notion. I could see this discussion slipping in that direction as well.

If you want to call me ‘immoral’ because I don’t think we should be forcing people to provide charity to others? Well, that’s your decision I suppose.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 6, 2009 1:18 AM
Comment #290336

The attendance at the Tea Party yesterday has been reported at between 20 and 40 thousand participants. Pretty good for an event that took a week to put together, virtually by internet and word of mouth. I think conservatives have finally figured out, the “squeeky wheel gets the oil”. A sleeping giant has been awakened and we are sick of 20% of liberal Americans telling the rest of America what to do.

I checked the online letters sent to my congressman (democrat) and both senators (1 democrat, 1 republican) and they ran 80% against the healthcare bill. There were thousands of letters sent to the senators and hundreds sent to the congressman.

Unemployment has now hit 10.2%, a far cry from who BHO promised would happen if he had a stimulous package. It is predicted that this unemployment will continue to rise through next year, and I might say predicted by BHO himself. Does anyone think “it’s the ecomomy stupid”? Yet, we have liberal politicians (doing the bidding of Pelosi, Reid, and BHO), voting to continue to spend more money we don’t have. A bill that starts taxing right away, but doesn’t go into effect for another 4 years, shows me it is about taxing americans and not passing real healthcare.

Democrats and liberal republicans are in real touble in 2010.

Posted by: propitiation at November 6, 2009 9:20 AM
Comment #290338

Eric,
Why Government can’t cover everybody, doesn’t the 2-4% of the Uninsured give an Enterprising American the Opportunity to find a Commercial Way to deliver those Goods and Serves?

For doesn’t True Competition in healthcare start when the Patients no longer need a Doctor or Insurance Company what they need to do in order to stay Healthy. Getting there is another question.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 6, 2009 9:57 AM
Comment #290339

Propitiation, and the majority of those lobbied their own Republican/Conservative representatives, who already stand opposed to health care reform with any meaningful value for our future.

One Democrat was asked if he was visited. He said: Yes, he got 3 visitors from opponents and they had a frank exchange of data and views. He also said his office received nearly 1 hundred phone calls during the same period in support of the passage of the health care reform. 3 vs. 100.

Then there are the numbers. Even your reported inflated numbers divided by the population of 330 million, represents only 9 to minus 5th power, or an extremely small fraction of demonstrators compared to the more than 50% of the population who expect and require that health care reform pass.

As to the bills themselves, they are far from perfect precisely because our Constitution requires compromised legislation between differing factions with different priorities. If it passes, and that is not yet assured, it will represent the best that our form of government is able to produce at this time, and will mean 37 million uninsured will become insured over the next 10 years, that the taxpayers will incur very much if any new debt to their future taxes as a result, and that over time the the reform will reduce the deficit that would otherwise be created. These are all facts as reported by the CBO which your side touted when their report on earlier versions were negative. So be careful of the hypocrisy of citing CBO and the rejecting CBO evaluations for specious purposes.

America’s and American’s future will be improved by the passage of health care reform. It will not be improved anywhere near to the extent that was theoretically possible. The demonstrator’s haven’t read the bill, don’t know what is in it, and recite one-sided views and misinformation which corporate vested and special interests have provided them as ammunition to fuel their anti-government visceral hostilities toward government in general, which for all intents and purposes can be described as libertarian at best, and anarchist for the more extreme elements.

Then of course, there is that all-white component of the tea baggers, which reasserts itself everytime they congregate like it did when the KKK did. Just can’t be ignored.

America has serious challenges, and holding to the status quo will not address them. The Tea Baggers are afraid of change, despite their availing themselves of government programs they would have opposed when passed into law years or decades ago. This cognitive dissonance on the part of the tea baggers no doubt accounts for their heightened sense of anxiety, animated and prejudiced views, signs, and activities.

In sum, they should be listened to, but, then so should the other 329 million in America, as we acknowledge that there is NO SOLUTION to our health crisis that millions would NOT OPPOSE. Which puts the Tea Baggers into proper perspective.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2009 9:58 AM
Comment #290344

“We have the resources to provide all people with medical care.”

We have the resources to provide all of our people with good health, which is what we actually need to do instead of arguing about who gets in line first at a doctor’s office. Everyone who graduates from high school in this country should be living a healthy active lifestyle, not sitting in front of televisions and computers, so that their behavior ends up being controlled by others.

Posted by: ohrealy at November 6, 2009 11:25 AM
Comment #290345

Rhinehold,
Giving back to other people & helping is a great thing, and that’s a great thing and deserves respect.

There are a lot of things people can do without, and there is no reason government should provide it, especially when providing means taking money in the form of taxation. When it comes to health care, it is not something we can do without. As I said, we do not all necessarily need cable or cell phones, but we do share common needs as humans- food, water, shelter, and so on- and that need includes health care, because ultimately we all are in the same boat, and health care can save us when the need is most desperate.

I’m not interested in a public option, or some ridiculous giveaway to health care corporations, which is where I’m afraid this whole thing is going. I want to see single payer universal health care. Providing portability and preventing recission are good starts, but there is a more important goal to be achieved, there are successful model around the world, models practiced by other free and thriving democracies, and there is no reason we cannot do the same.

Posted by: phx8 at November 6, 2009 11:26 AM
Comment #290346

Its as simply as this, conservatives, republican or otherwise, do not want Obama and the democrates to win on this one. The adamantly oppose “public options” there will be no acceptable compromise unless the majority democrats bend to their will. Memories are short since a year ago health care reform was not some fine print slipped into Obama’s platform and he was elected with a majority supporting him. Tea party people know they dont have the votes to oppose this measure but still think the majority should not follow through on what they were elected to do. I’m sure many will pull out polls that say “a majority of Americans do not support health care reform with a public option” but polls are polls and elections represent the real opinions of Americans.

Posted by: The other Paul at November 6, 2009 11:50 AM
Comment #290348

We have the resources to provide all people with medical care. It is essentially a moral question. What is our obligation?
Posted by: phx8 at November 6, 2009 12:34 AM

Is that really a good argument phx8? What resources are you speaking about? Certainly not government surplus financial resources…we have none. You do realize that about $500 billion in supposed funds to pay for this health bill comes from reductions in Medicare. Is that the proper definition of a “resource”?

The untaxed wealth of our nation is a resource and if you are implying higher taxes you are correct.

If you are referring to the current numbers of medical professionals as a resource you are correct. However, you imply that we have the readily available medical resources to accommodate an additional 35 million patients in our doctors offices, clinics, and hospitals. Surely you can understand that we don’t have nearly the resources necessary.

You ask the question; “What is our obligation?” The use of the word “our” can imply either the nation or each of us individually. To make national health care an obligation of the nation means that we must find “new rights” in our constitution. The constitution is all about “individual rights” so a new collective right to health care will have to be manufactured.

Should the liberal congress be successful in manufacturing these new rights, certainly it will be challenged in the US Supreme Court. I don’t know what that outcome would be. But, if successful, there would be no end to new rights being found by liberals. An endless parade of new rights and an endless round of new and additional taxes would follow to pay for them. Can you imagine where this would end?

And finally, you write; “It is essentially a moral question.”

Really? Please tell me from where the nation draws its definition of morality?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 6, 2009 12:09 PM
Comment #290349

Royal Flush, we do have the resources IF we reprioritize our spending and cut a lot of it on the lower rungs of a priority list.

That, however, is not how Congress is structured to function. Congress is structured in such a fashion politically as to insure all those required to pass a bill get something they personally want to enhance their reelection chances next time round. This kind of compromise and barter for votes between the two parties and their own internal factions, may work well to prevent infringement of rights generally, but, is a prescription for disaster as we have seen, when dealing with fiscal budgeting matters.

What is required is an entirely different set of rules proscribing the budgeting process, one which diminishes or eliminates, the incentives to override the nation’s needs for the politician’s desires for constituent suppport of their own reelection bid. A good first step in that direction would be one purpose, one bill. No more attaching of riders to an appropriations bill as a bargaining chip having to do with other legislation. Example, one Republican attached an amendment to the appropriations bill recently calling for the classification of Guantanamo prisoners as soldiers of war, requiring their trial by military tribunal instead of civilian criminal courts. This practice has got to stop.

Another good second step would be a rule that publicized on the internet, the authors of every amendment with a summary of the amendment to any Spending Bill within 24 hours. This would give voters and constituents the opportunity to respond to such politicians in a timely and effective manner.

More difficult, but, theoretically possible, would be new rules requiring Senators to truly represent the interests of their State AND THE NATION, instead of their Party’s political constituents in their State or District. The House was designed to represent Representative’s political constituency back home. That was NEVER the intent of the design of the Senate, the more deliberative body, charged with deliberating the nation’s interests as well as their State’s.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2009 12:33 PM
Comment #290354


Within my living memory (I’m age 68), most Americans had no medical insurance. Even large medical bills were paid off over a period of months or years, just as we buy big-ticket items like cars or houses.

It was during WWII with wage freezes that employer provided health insurance came into being as a way to compete for and keep workers. Somewhere between then and today, liberals have discovered that health care is a constitutional right.

I would ask my liberal friends to point me to the amendment to our constitution that illuminates this right. Please tell me from where this so-called right, that didn’t exist for over 200 years, was discovered.

If we rush headlong into government control of our lives every time something is not ideal, then we are not going to remain a free people very long.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 6, 2009 2:09 PM
Comment #290355

I’m Canadian and boy are we oppressed up here. I can feel the freedom being sucked from my body right into my medicare card in my wallet. I never realized that guranteed health care coverage was really me being a controlled by my government.

Posted by: The other Paul at November 6, 2009 3:01 PM
Comment #290357

Royal Flush,
I’m not sure I would say Americans have a “right” to health care. Along the same lines, I’m not sure we have a right to drinking water, food, clean air, sanitary conditions, interstate highways, or much of anything else. However, the preamble of the Constitution clearly says “We the people… to promote the general welfare…” and so on. The federal government can and should address such issues.

Posted by: phx8 at November 6, 2009 4:05 PM
Comment #290358

The Other Paul said” “I’m Canadian and boy are we oppressed up here.”

A minority feel that way in Canada, but, Canadian polls show far greater approval ratings of Parliament and policy issues there than can be found in the United States.

Just a little truth introduced into an otherwise illogical statement that The Other Paul somehow represents the majority opinion in Canada, which of course, his does not.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2009 4:15 PM
Comment #290359

Hi David Remer,
This was meant as joke as anyone who feels oppressed up here in Canada is probably in prison.

Posted by: THe other Paul at November 6, 2009 4:20 PM
Comment #290360

Royal Flush wrote: “Within my living memory (I’m age 68), most Americans had no medical insurance. Even large medical bills were paid off over a period of months or years, just as we buy big-ticket items like cars or houses.”

Then you are old enough to ALSO remember than in our young days, our parents could still barter for medical care in rural areas, and in urban areas the cost of health care (before the inflation in it took off for the ends of the universe) was a very small percentage of the family’s income budget. Not so today, where health insurance premiums can cost the lower middle class as much as a third of their entire income if they are within what is deemed a high risk group.

Let’s also not forget that the health insurance companies have seen their profits rise over 400% in the last decade, and they were very profitable before this profit inflation occurred. The raping of the consumers for an elitist group of power investors and exec’s with enormous lobbyist strings attached to the public’s representatives, has simply got to be halted, or America is destined for bankruptcy at both the national and middle class levels.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2009 4:21 PM
Comment #290361

My point (a sarcastic one at that) was that this utter fear of socialing health care is a fanatical fear of the right in the U.S.
Many other countries also have citizens with conservative or right wing views but somehow they don’t equate national health care as a government takeover intent on oppressing their citizens cooked up by the left to control people’s lives.

Posted by: The other Paul at November 6, 2009 4:23 PM
Comment #290362

Royal Flush offered the following entirely false and illogical argument: “It was during WWII with wage freezes that employer provided health insurance came into being as a way to compete for and keep workers. Somewhere between then and today, liberals have discovered that health care is a constitutional right.”

First, if it were a Right as in the Bill of Rights, it would be enforced by the Courts, not the legislative Congress and executive branch.

Second, precisely because health care IS NOT A RIGHT, it is in the province of the people and their representatives to decide if legislation should make universal health care the law of the land, entirely sidestepping the issue of whether it is a Constitutional right or not.

Long time since civics class, eh?

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2009 4:25 PM
Comment #290373

Mr. Remer wrote; “Let’s also not forget that the health insurance companies have seen their profits rise over 400% in the last decade, and they were very profitable before this profit inflation occurred.”

Let’s assume that is true, you make a case for more competition not government take over of the industry. Your logic would seem to indicate that at some point our government must limit the profit of private industry that is acting within established law. WOW…where did you find that concept in our constitution? Are you saying capitalism is OK as long as it doesn’t succeed beyond the limits some government bureaucrat sets? Making too much profit to share with the owners (American stockholders) is un-American?

I believe I could find numerous industries with the same or better profits. You also try to make the case that it is insurance companies and their profit that has increased the cost of health care. I am certain that you realize that government already provides over 50% of our health care and has that reduced the costs? Is it logical to assume that when government controls 100% of health care…then, and only then, will we see costs come down? My answer is yes…costs would come down because of rationing, much lower quality of care, fewer medical devices, and lack of cutting edge prescription drugs. Take a look at the countries that embrace socialized medicine and you will find all four of those I mentioned.

The other Paul writes; “Many other countries also have citizens with conservative or right wing views but somehow they don’t equate national health care as a government takeover intent on oppressing their citizens cooked up by the left to control people’s lives.”

Paul, since you live in Canada you and your country were not established with our constitution. What you call,

“this utter fear of socialing health care is a fanatical fear of the right in the U.S.”

is not fear, but an understanding of our founding documents and where such liberal and social thinking leads. It is the road to hell as history has well shown.

Mr. Remer wrote; “Second, precisely because health care IS NOT A RIGHT, it is in the province of the people and their representatives to decide if legislation should make universal health care the law of the land, entirely sidestepping the issue of whether it is a Constitutional right or not.”

Well, you got the first part right…health care is not a right. Hopefully, liberals will take your lead on this.

And, you really stepped in it with your second point. Saying legislation establishing a law sidesteps the constitution is a direct refutation of our judicial branch of government. I can’t believe you really meant that. Could you possibly think of a few laws enacted by congress that have been overturned by our Supreme Court?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 6, 2009 6:45 PM
Comment #290374

Canadians are troublemakers, sneaking across the border under cover of snow and taking our jobs. We need to build a wall, to match the wall on the south side, ‘cause those deadly palestinians might sneak across and commit terrorists acts at an army base. We certainly don’t have to be concerned about anyone born in Virginia and graduated from VTech. They’re Americans!

Posted by: ohrealy at November 6, 2009 6:46 PM
Comment #290377

Sorry ohrealy…I fail to see the humor in your post. Every American is saddened by what happened yesterday.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 6, 2009 7:15 PM
Comment #290389

Royal Flush,
In answering your question “I would ask my liberal friends to point me to the amendment to our constitution that illuminates this right. Please tell me from where this so-called right, that didn’t exist for over 200 years, was discovered” I do belioeve that one of the fundamental Responibilities of every American is to pay for their own Bills.

Now, how we achieve this method is a matter of question on how well Commerce and Industry can meet their obligation to the American Public.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 7, 2009 5:30 AM
Comment #290393

Education isn’t a constitutional right either. But we benefited greatly as a nation by creating a universal, publicly funded educational system. We led the world in that regard. It gave our nation a tremendous competitive edge. It is now time for us to catch up with the rest of the world in developing a universal, publicly funded health care system.

Posted by: Rich at November 7, 2009 6:53 AM
Comment #290395

Eric
Ansolutly right. The sooner we can round up Beck and Limbaugh and the rest of that traitorious scum and put them in re-education camps the better and enough of this pussy footing around with FOX. Its high time to just send in the troops and sieze the whole thing and everyone involved.Then we can go forward with our secret agenda to take away everyones guns and property and force abortions and homosexuality on everyone and make white girls go out with blacks and outlaw prayer and….the list goes on. What a wonderful world it will be.

Posted by: bills at November 7, 2009 7:22 AM
Comment #290398

You can reference whatever founding document u like but that still doesn’t justify why the U.S. Doesn’t provide health care for all citizens. The rest of the first world figured this no brained out ages ago. And we aren’t covered by your constitution because we wanted it that way. Good thing too otherwise I might not have health care today. Instead we would be fighting invisible KGB ghosts and debating about weather climate change exists.

Posted by: The other Paul at November 7, 2009 8:51 AM
Comment #290399

And how again does liberal and social lead us to this so called “hell”. I guess you’ll be providing some sources for that claim. I know it didn’t lead to hell in Canada, it’s too cold.

Posted by: The other Paul at November 7, 2009 8:55 AM
Comment #290407

“We led the world in that regard. It gave our nation a tremendous competitive edge. It is now time for us to catch up with the rest of the world in developing a universal, publicly funded health care system.”
Posted by: Rich at November 7, 2009 06:53 AM

Pick one or the other Rich…we lead the world, or we follow the world.

It is true our founders wished to provide for the public education and placed great value upon that and we follow their lead even today, though in a much different manner than they intended.

Please direct me to the founders provision for health care.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 7, 2009 12:38 PM
Comment #290412

The Other Paul wrote; “…that still doesn’t justify why the U.S. Doesn’t provide health care for all citizens.”

Dismissing our constitution Paul finds justification for national health care for the US from somewhere else. I would ask Paul…what would that be? Oh, wait…I know, it feels good. If one digs deep enough into liberal logic one almost always finds at its root a necessity to “feel good” about something done at the expense of others.

Is not this psychotic need to feel good at the base of all socialism? If Paul and like thinking liberals in the US must satisfy this craving, let them do so with their own money and resources.

It was the norm for most of our country’s history for its people to be charitable to others in need on an individual basis. The new liberal collective thought is no longer that charity begins at home but in the halls of Washington.

Not satisfied with the trillions the nation has spent on the war on poverty (with poverty winning), the war on ignorance (with ignorance winning) we must now spend even more trillions to ensure equal health care.

Poverty figures continue to rise, the drop-out rate of students continues to rise, and with over 50% of all health care in this nation provided by government, health care costs continue to rise. Does anyone in addition to me recognize a pattern here?

It was not without reason that our founders designed and demanded, in their documents, a federal government with very limited and precise powers. The founders recognized that individual freedom, and that only, ensured our liberty. Not big government, not big government social programs, not cradle to grave socialism, but individual freedom is the ticket to liberty and all the benefits derived from being free.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 7, 2009 1:18 PM
Comment #290420

I thought I’d help Eric along in his campaign:

http://history1900s.about.com/library/photos/blywwiip200.htm

http://www.zazzle.com/it_can_happen_here_ww1_propaganda_tshirt-235308587846840958

Take it from an old hippie, if you think the sixties weren’t that great, you’ll hate the 40’s

Posted by: gergle at November 7, 2009 4:21 PM
Comment #290423
there is no reason government should provide it, especially when providing means taking money in the form of taxation.

No reason? The fact that you are taking the sweat from a person’s work at gunpoint isn’t enough?

Tell me, why not just take it all and provide back to a person everything that they need? Why give anyone that decision whether they want to help anyone else or not when we can just make that decision for them about everything?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 7, 2009 5:36 PM
Comment #290424
Education isn’t a constitutional right either. But we benefited greatly as a nation by creating a universal, publicly funded educational system. We led the world in that regard. It gave our nation a tremendous competitive edge. It is now time for us to catch up with the rest of the world in developing a universal, publicly funded health care system.

Well, the federal government got involved in our educational system in the 1970s. Since that time the test scores from the public system have gone down…

Are you sure you want to state something that isn’t factual as a fact to build upon?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 7, 2009 5:38 PM
Comment #290428

one year ago I spent 11 days in the hospital. I died three times and was brought back to life by the excellent doctors and staff. The bill came to $77,000. It cost me only $500 out of pocket. That is because I had good insurance. Others can get that same coverage. It cost me $38 a month. I had pre-existing conditions when I got the insurance and the company knew it.
This and for other reasons I am apposed to the mandatory health reform being voted on in the House today. This us not health reform. It is a power grab by the national government. If the Congress was truly for health care reform they would allow us to participate in the gold plan.
Of course we are the outsiders all the way.
I think the government has gone far too in doing things for people because “we don’t know enough to do for ourselves what needs to be done”.

Posted by: Tom Humes at November 7, 2009 6:44 PM
Comment #290429

Rheinhold, Royal Flush,

I was attempting to make a simple point: the fact that universal health care is not an enumerated right in our Constitution does not mean that it would be unconstitutional to so provide. I cited as an example the development of the publicly funded, universal education system in the US. There has never been a Supreme Court case to my knowledge declaring the use of tax funds (federal, state, local), legally required participation, etc. as unconstitutional.

To me, there is no question that health is as important and necessary as education to the well being of a nation. I don’t really care whether it is a centrally administered system or a decentralized system like Canada’s. I just think that it is time to move forward on this issue. We are the only industrialized nation on earth that does’nt assure its citizens universal health care.

Posted by: Rich at November 7, 2009 7:13 PM
Comment #290430
the fact that universal health care is not an enumerated right in our Constitution does not mean that it would be unconstitutional to so provide.

Actually, because it isn’t a power granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution, it does mean it is unconstitutional to provide.

If you want to change that, a constitutional amendment should passed.

The fact that it won’t means that our government was overthrown decades ago. We have a different one now, which is ok for many people… Apparently you are one of them.

However, even this neo-government still will not allow forcing us citizens to have to purchase health insurance, that would still be unconstitutional…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 7, 2009 7:45 PM
Comment #290431

BTW, I wil would point you to

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416623109362480.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

www.civilianism.com/gate/2009/09/the-health-care-purchase-requirement-is-unconstitutional/

Oh, and

“Our tenet ever was… that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.” —Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 7, 2009 7:54 PM
Comment #290436

Rhinehold:

“The great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers.” —Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806. ME 3:423

Of course he also said the following about Negroe Slaves:

“They secrete less by the kidneys and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odor. They seem to require less sleep… . They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. In general their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labor. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to whites; in reason, much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless and anomalous… . The Indians will astonish you with strokes of the most sublime oratory; such as prove their reason and sentiment strong, and their imagination glowing and elevated. But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration… .

…..and worse.

Jefferson while his contributions stand out to the formation of the US, is a study in contradictions and self serving motives.

The problem with “thumping the Bible” (Thanks to bills) as a substitute for pragmatic and reasoned thought is it leads us over all sorts of cliffs.

As I have pointed out before, even Jefferson “ignored” the Constitution when he thought it was the right thing to do.

Posted by: gergle at November 7, 2009 10:01 PM
Comment #290437

BTW, this is awesome news! (/sarcasm)

Additional Funding- For the purpose of carrying out this section, in addition to any other amounts authorized to be appropriated for such purpose, there are authorized to be appropriated, out of any monies in the Public Health Investment Fund, the following:

`(1) For fiscal year 2011, $1,000,000,000.

`(2) For fiscal year 2012, $1,500,000,000.

`(3) For fiscal year 2013, $2,500,000,000.

`(4) For fiscal year 2014, $3,000,000,000.

`(5) For fiscal year 2015, $4,000,000,000.’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 8, 2009 3:38 AM
Comment #290438

Rats, wrong cut & paste…

SEC. 501. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 8, 2009 3:51 AM
Comment #290439
`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

`(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

`(b) Limitations-

`(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.

So, sweet, no need for health insurance now… just pay the tax, which has to be less than the average premium, and keep living like a slob. Then, before I need some ‘covered’ electives, just get the insurance for a period of time, have the work done, then drop it again!

It’s awesome!

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 8, 2009 4:27 AM
Comment #290443

The Other Paul,
Why I can’t say nothing about the other governments of the world wanting to be seen as the King paying for their Subjects Healthcare, in America it has always been a Personal Respomibility to take care of your own Health and Medical Needs.

And why the Left and Right can cry all they want about the Healthcare System thought up by Our Parents and Grandparents in the 1940’s (i.e. Employer Based Health Insurance) I have yet to hear a single Pundit from the Democratic and Republican Leadership explain a better way for “We the Corporation” to ensure a Healthy Workforce.

Now, granted the House of Representatives did not pass the most prefect healthcare bill (Pre-Paid); nevertheless, seeing that Members of Congress could not withstand the ever growning cost of 20th Century Medical Procedures. I do believe that reforming the Health and Medical Systems to meet the requirements of the 21st Century will expose why Americas’ Founding Fathers thought enough to provide Free Medical Libaries.

For in answering Mr. Rhinehold, If healthcare insurance companies only pay for medical procedures and a Healtier America is what we seek than shouldn’t We redefine what is a Health Procedure and what is a Medical Procedure? Because who is to say a broken arm is not a health problem, but a medical problem.

Certainly to the Patient and their Employer the limitation of work caused by the broken arm is a health problem. Especially since once set by the doctor only time will heal the broken bone and return the Patient/Employee back to being fully productive. Yet, under the 20th Century Healthcare System the insurance company will only pay the medical bill if we agree to call it a medical condition.

And as far as taxes, who is to pay for the Community Hospitals, Medical Facilities, and Rest Homes. In fact, who needs these buildings our parents put so much stock in the 20th Century? Surely as we move into the 21st Century the backrooms and backyards used by Our Ancestors 100years ago are good enough for the doctors and patients. LOL

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 8, 2009 10:03 AM
Comment #290457

Rhinehold-
The Founding fathers didn’t even agree on everything, so selectively appealing to them will only get you so far, because you can always talk to a Federalist or somebody else who feels your interpretation is wrong.

The constitution was compromise between different American political factions, and in the end, it wasn’t even a compromise that everybody could agree on the interpretation of. Which makes the supreme court and its ability to settle disputes a good idea, in the scheme of things.

That Judicial branch decides constitutionality, enacts judicial review. The legislature can philosophize about the matter, but their judgment, aside from approving the proposal of an occasional constitutional Amendment to the states, does not determine what is constitutional.

If Medicare or other such government healthcare programs were known to be in imminent danger of being determined unconstitutional by the court, then perhaps concerns by folks about the constitutionality of government healthcare could be seen as prudence.

But in the absence of such court decisions, no such alarm is materially justified. A person presented with the argument could argue that your opinions on the constitution do not bear on the matter. You could argue that the courts should consider it unconstitutional, be well entitled to your opinion. But the judgment of what is and is not constitutional is left in the binding sense to the supreme court, and anybody wanting to get a serious answer to that question would be well advised to start there.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 8, 2009 3:42 PM
Comment #290477

That’s just silly. For real facts go to http://intelligenceproject.webs.com/

Posted by: Aaron Hughes at November 9, 2009 7:20 AM
Comment #290481

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j8GOiUlCCnhCsRp1Xvs94KDJh8owD9BR9GPG0

Isn’t this typical of the left; instead of recognizing the Fort Hood attack for what it is, a Muslim terrorist attack, the head of our Homeland Security is concerned about retaliation against Muslims. This takes us back to when American people were placed on terrorists’ lists in Missouri. It is politically incorrect to call our enemies terrorists, but it’s ok to throw insinuations against American citizens. What proof does Napolitano have of retaliation, or is this just another smoke screen to throw attention off Obama’s socialist agenda? And she gives this speech in a Muslim nation>>>

Posted by: dembs at November 9, 2009 8:23 AM
Comment #290484

dembs,

“Isn’t this typical of the left; instead of recognizing the Fort Hood attack for what it is, a Muslim terrorist attack,…”

So what you’re saying is that you know everything possible there is to know about what happened at Fort Hood.
Or, are you extrapolating from the sketchy details, and projecting your opinion as “the facts”.

Were you aware that after Sept 11th, when Janet Napolitano was Attorney General of Arizona, there were murders committed in Arizona simply because the victims looked like what the murderer thought Muslims should look like?

Hopefully, Napolitano’s words will cause someone to actually think before they do something stupid.

But I’m not holding my breath…

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 9, 2009 8:51 AM
Comment #290486

Royal Flush

from most of the news reports i’ve seen the insurance industries profit margin is quoted as running an average of 2.5% to 4%, hardly a windfall. i guess it’s hard to push a gov’t takeover without first finding a demon.

Posted by: dbs at November 9, 2009 8:59 AM
Comment #290493

dbs,

4% of a billion dollars isn’t much to ask for is it?

Could you loan me that amount?

Posted by: gergle at November 9, 2009 11:19 AM
Comment #290507

dbs…thanks for the info. Someone above was talking about 400% profits.

You are correct about finding demons to promote a program as witness the demonization of our coal and oil industry, our pharmaceutical companies, wall street, banks, auto manufacturers, and others.

While some in these industries are truly scoundrels, one can hardly paint entire industries with the same brush.

The MMGW proponents (I believe they now call it (climate change) even attack our livestock and poultry industry for flatulence. I believe “Crap and Trade” is all but dead right now and thank God for those responsible for killing it. It appears that the supposed common scientific consensus came apart at the seams.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2009 2:13 PM
Comment #290508

Royal Flush and DBS,

dbs offers what he reports “he has seen” as an average of 2.5% to 4% profit increase. That percentage is only year over year for 2007 through 2009. Prior to 2007, the average was 6% year. But, this is a very different measure, being year over year increases, as opposed to MY reporting of the fact that in 10 years, health insurance industry profit amount rose over 400%.

Do either of you understand compounding interest and the effect it has on total dollar amounts over time? Apparently not.

Royal Flush jumps in with support without questioning the sources or bases for such statistics, for no apparent reason other than he liked the sound of dbs’ nebulous claim.

The fact however, does not change that from 2000-2007, the annual profit dollar amount of America’s top 15 health-insurance companies increased from $3.5 billion to $15 billion.

OK, let’s see now, 15 divided by 3.5 equals more than 400%.

One should never mix Republican partisans and math. The result will all too often be flawed and fallacious in favor of their ideology. I counted two pages of GOOGLE results jumping all over the Republicans discount of the Democrat’s claim of 400% profit increase, to include news sources like MSNBC and KansasCity.Com. Which just goes to show journalists don’t understand math and statistics, either.

The total industry actual dollar amount rose over 400%. That is a very different measure than by what percentage of previous year’s profits a corporation’s profit margins rose, an average of about 6% per year.

Here’s another fact: “The 50 largest nonprofit hospitals or hospital systems made a combined net income increase (profit) of $4.27 billion in 2006, nearly eight times more than five years earlier.”

Many factors play into the difference in profit dollar amounts between 2000 and 2007, including U.S. dollar inflation, market share acquisitions through mergers and which were numerous.

What this tells us is, that health insurance companies balanced profits with net positive good health care for their customers prior to GW Bush being elected. But, after Bush’s election, profit outweighed helping their customers with health care issues as a motive, as evidenced by the dramatic increase in profit dollar amounts (which were not funneled back into covering more people or more health care delivery but, into executive and shareholder pay increases, dividends, and shareholder accounts).

Prior to the election of GW Bush and Republicans to the majority, health insurers didn’t expect to earn the same profit margin as a beer company, because they were in the business of providing health care for which there was always greater demand than available premium contributors. They sought to help the greatest number of consumers with the highest quality insurance while still earning modest but reliable, low risk profits for their shareholders. After Republicans came to power, profits became the priority as a green light to oligopoly, unlimited profits, and less competition was signaled as OK by the Republicans. Whence came the dramatic inflation in health care premiums partly due to the 400 % increase in health insurers profits from before Bush’s election.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 9, 2009 2:58 PM
Comment #290519

In 1966, Medicare and Medicaid made up 1% of total government spending. Today, that figure is 20% and rising fast.

At this rate, Medicare will be broke by 2017, and any expansion of government-run healthcare will bring about the bankruptcy sooner. Unless of course …

Taxes are raised much higher
Healthcare is rationed
Quality of healthcare is lowered

Get ready for all of the above. Because that’s exactly what they have in Canada, Britain, France, and every other country with a government-run healthcare system.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2009 8:09 PM
Comment #290536

RF said: “…unless Taxes are raised much higher”

They are being raised, both in the health care reform bill and by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.

Health Care is ALWAYS rationed. What do you think refusing policies for pre-existing conditions and cancelling policies for claims that have become too expensive for the private insurers is? I will tell you. Rationing.

Do private insurers pay for bonus free cosmetic surgery to any of their customers who ask for it? Of course not. It is rationing, and this particular form of rationing, of non-essential and purely cosmetic procedures is both ethical and warranted by the economics of health care.

The Reform legislation does away with abusive forms of rationing which can either kill, or make patients sicker by denying them coverage for necessary and essential treatment for illness and injury or certain defects, and replaces them with structural incentives to ration health care via healthier patients, reducing their utilization of health care delivery services for more expensive treatments, due to their healthier condition. Sounds like a sound approach to me. Pay for health maintenance to reduce catastrophic sickness or injury expenses. Very sound strategy.

How does one order up lower quality health care? One way is to diminish or eliminate the punitive damages from law suits against those who deliver low quality health care that results in malpractice and malfeasance. That is a Republican idea. There are other far better ways to bring about tort reform, than eliminating negative consequences for those harm others under the pretense of helping them. RF.

You forgot to mention RF that the majority of citizens in all those other countries you mention give their health care systems far higher approval ratings than Americans give theirs. Could it be that these other nations are willing to pay for what they get in the way of health insurance, and acknowledge the reality that there is no such thing as a sustainable health care system that does not ration, and that your opinion that their health care quality is lowered is just plain false, especially when increasing numbers of Americans are seeking health care in some of those other countries at lower expense?

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2009 6:37 AM
Comment #290537

RF, Medicare will be broke when legally required claims are no longer paid. What did Republicans do to address Medicare going broke? Oh, yeah, they dramatically increased its benefits (Rx) and costs, while cutting taxes and revenues.

And Republicans weakened and gutted staff and resources needed to fight Medicare Fraud, waste, and abuse, apparently in the hopes of fostering its demise along with the Rx Drug plan which was not paid for by offsetting tax increases nor spending cuts.

Democrats are at least tackling these issues with an eye to paying for them and preventing them from going broke. Though I can’t commend, so far, their arithmetic, which by my reckoning will result in deficits being added to the national debt in the first 7 years of the program, at least. That said, CBO’s estimates on the reform’s reducing deficits beyond those first 7 years do make sense.

It is a difficult position to be in having done nothing, to criticize those who try to do something. That is the situation for Republicans and health care reform. Many Republican voters are now ashamed to even admit they are Republican voters to pollsters. That’s how difficult the position has become.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2009 6:46 AM
Comment #290538

david

what i was refering to was not the increase, but the profit margin. 2.5 to 4 cents on the dollar. it was reported on the news, and i don’t remember the source quoted.

“as opposed to MY reporting of the fact that in 10 years, health insurance industry profit amount rose over 400%.”

increase by 4 times the amount of policies written over a ten year period with about the same profit margin, and yes you will come up with a 400% increase. if i write 100 policies, and ten years later i am writing 400 policies, and my profit margin is the same, you could say my profits rose 400%, but that would be misleading. as uaual the insurance industry is just another boogie man used by the left to justify taking over a private industry in the name of the greater good. baloney.

Posted by: dbs at November 10, 2009 7:25 AM
Comment #290541

DRR said,

“dbs offers what he reports “he has seen” as an average of 2.5% to 4% profit increase. That percentage is only year over year for 2007 through 2009. Prior to 2007, the average was 6% year. But, this is a very different measure, being year over year increases, as opposed to MY reporting of the fact that in 10 years, health insurance industry profit amount rose over 400%.”

I’m just some stupe conservative out here in flyover land, but would the increased age of the baby boomers have anything to do with the profit margin? I mean, as they get older, they need more health care. So the amount paid out by insurance companies 10 years ago would not be the same that is paid out today. Therefore, the profit margin would be higher 10 years ago and less today, right.

#2, why do liberals constantly bring up the Bush administration? We are almost a year into Obama’s administration; when does he take responsibility for what is happening. I am an independent and I did not support Bush, but I’m getting kind of tired hearing about Bush. He’s not the president and he lives in Texas. Obama and a democratic controlled congress live in DC, they are at the helm. The democrats have had TORT, STIMULOUS, and BULLY PULPIT, and things continue to get worse. Our country is broke, the dollar is falling, unemployment is continuing to rise, banks and small business is continuing to fail, and all the left can do is blame Bush.

I might also say to you, either you don’t know the facts or your lying. Medicare and Social Security ARE going broke. Spin it all you want, but the social programs of the left are broken. There is no “Locked Box” (Gore’s favorite word) and payments are coming out of the general fund every month.

Anything passed by Democrats, is about taxes and increasing the amount of revenue to the government. Politicians are not concerned about NOW, they figure, buy the time it hits the fan, they will be retired or dead. America is headed for the fan, or we are circling the bowl, whichever you want to use. The result will be the same. I can’t believe the left is so stupid to believe, spending, taxing, and restricting our rights is going to help a nation to prosperity. Unless, the goal is to break our economy and destroy our nation? This question was asked the other day, why aren’t the oil companies demonized anymore? A year or two ago, they were the enemy. Are they not still making profits? The price of oil climbing again, heating oil is skyrocketing, what about those poor people in the northeast, isn’t any worried about how they will heat their homes this year? Maybe we are not talking about the increase in oil prices because the price is going up as the value of the dollar goes down? I believe our problems are much bigger than 2 parties arguing with each other.

Let me just ask this question of all of you liberals: Do you want America to fail, do you want our economy to collapse, do you want us to become nothing more than a 3rd world nation, and do you believe it’s not fair for America to be successful and other nations to fail?


Posted by: dembs at November 10, 2009 8:29 AM
Comment #290545
Today OFA supporters in congressional districts represented by Republican Members of Congress who voted “No” last night received an email from OFA director Mitch Stewart lauding the “220 courageous representatives voted in favor of reform, moving it forward.”‬‪ ‬‪

“Unfortunately, your representative,” Stewart says in the email, which names the Member of Congress, “caved to intense pressure from insurance industry lobbyists and voted against health reform.”‬‪ ‬‪

A Democratic official says the email is not being sent to constituents of the 39 Democratic Members of Congress who voted against the measure Saturday night.

No hypocrisy here, move along please….

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 10, 2009 11:41 AM
Comment #290550

Criminals Bilk Medicare of Billions Each Year from bulletin.aarp.org

“Medicare loses billions of dollars to fraud each year. “Those billions of dollars,” said Eric Holder, U.S. attorney general, “represent health care dollars” that could be spent on medicine or care or hospital visits, “but instead are wasted on greed.”

Yet Congress has denied Medicare the money officials say it needs to truly police itself. Four years ago, as fraud began spinning out of control, lawmakers ignored Medicare’s request for $300 million to fight these crimes—even though the agency’s Office of Inspector General says that every dollar spent protecting the program returns $17.”

Posted by: ohrealy at November 10, 2009 12:29 PM
Comment #290558

Mr. Remer writes; “Health Care is ALWAYS rationed. What do you think refusing policies for pre-existing conditions and cancelling policies for claims that have become too expensive for the private insurers is? I will tell you. Rationing.

Balderdash…(I luv that word) to that nonsense. Only government provided health insurance is rationed. I am on Medicare and my care is limited (rationed) to what some government bureaucrat decides I should have as well as the deductions and copays I pay. I pay the same premium for the same coverage that all who qualify pay. I can not choose my coverage or premium. And, I am limited in my choice of doctors. They must be Medicare approved and willing to accept what Medicare pays.

Private insurance is not rationed. One may choose the most expensive coverage (the auto workers union has the very best) or just catastrophic coverage as found in HSA’s depending upon the size of one’s wallet.

Medicaid, CHIPS, VA and other forms of government insurance are also all rationed.

True rationing of health care will be experienced by all Americans should we ever have national health insurance with no private options. Government already provides over 50% of all health care delivery in the US and has not caused prices to come down, but rather, go up.

When national health care becomes mandatory for all Americans we will experience not only rationing, but a severe reduction of the quality of care and a huge increase in the cost of the care. And, not having a national health policy will be a criminal offense with jail or prison time as punishment.

The only way Pukelosi could gather 220 votes on the bill just passed was by eliminating any coverage for abortions. Leading Dems have already proclaimed that in the final reconciliation (should one occur) abortion funding will be put back in. This will cost the party the votes of many social conservative dems and I doubt it will pass again with that inclusion.

Dems insist that every American with a government policy pay for abortion in their premiums. I don’t see that passing and ever becoming law in my lifetime.

Mr. Remer decrys the underwriting process used by all insurance companies for any type of insurance. Without underwriting, it is not insurance. How can one insure against a peril that has already happened? Can you insure your home after it has burned down or blown away? Can you insure your automobile immediately after the accident? Would Mr. Remer suggest that all those who buy auto, home, life or other type of insurance pay the same premium regardless of the low or high risk they present. Would he suggest that a person with multiple accidents and driving violations pay the same as the careful driver? Would he suggest that the person with a serious life threatening disease be allowed, by government fiat, to purchase life insurance for the same premium as the young and healthy? I doubt it. And yet, when it comes to health insurance we are to believe that this is the special case that deserves special treatment.

Only government provided health care comes with no underwriting for health. It does come with a form of underwriting that is based upon age (Medicare) income (Medicaid) CHIPS (income) VA (having served in the military) Now, we don’t call that underwriting but is serves the same purpose. It denies coverage to those who don’t qualify. Call it rationing or call it underwriting…it exists and will continue to exist.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 10, 2009 4:22 PM
Comment #290581

Royal Flush said:

“Would Mr. Remer suggest that all those who buy auto, home, life or other type of insurance pay the same premium regardless of the low or high risk they present. Would he suggest that a person with multiple accidents and driving violations pay the same as the careful driver? Would he suggest that the person with a serious life threatening disease be allowed, by government fiat, to purchase life insurance for the same premium as the young and healthy?”

Yes, he would, if it was a mandate from the government, to purchase government insurance.

Which brings me to this question, if liberals in government are planning to destroy private insurance, will they also sell auto, life, and house insurance? Shouldn’t we be discussing the evil profits that insurance companies are make from auto/house/life insurance?

Posted by: propitiation at November 10, 2009 11:12 PM
Comment #290602

Royal Flush argued:

Mr. Remer writes; “Health Care is ALWAYS rationed. What do you think refusing policies for pre-existing conditions and cancelling policies for claims that have become too expensive for the private insurers is? I will tell you. Rationing.


Balderdash…(I luv that word) to that nonsense. Only government provided health insurance is rationed.

Thank you for demonstrating that well used conservative tactic of discounting reality and burying one’s head in the sand to preserve one’s flawed ideological point of view.

Fact is, pre-existing condition exclusions and cancellation of policies whose claims become expensive, is health care rationing. You are entitled to your opinion, but the facts and dictionary definitions for the English language remain stubbornly erect against such assaults upon them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 11, 2009 11:28 AM
Comment #290604

ohrealy, excellent comments and true enough that billions have been fraudulently and wastefully stolen from taxpayers under Medicare during the Bush administration years.

Which is precisely why Obama has said those billions must be saved from the criminals going forward. It will be very telling what the final health care reform bill contains to address this all too real problem, and whether Obama’s demands for recovering such billions going forward is actually contained in the final legislation in the form of beefing up enforcement.

Enforcement is the province of the Executive Branch’s Attorney General’s Office, and it is clear that if the Health Care Reform bill passes, it will be incumbent upon Obama to insure his next budget includes the funds to enforce a crackdown on Medicare Fraud, and the OIG’s budget beefed up to insure a crackdown on the Waste and Abuse of Medicare funds, which are the tax payer’s dollars.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 11, 2009 11:35 AM
Comment #290608

Mr. Remer wrote; “Enforcement is the province of the Executive Branch’s Attorney General’s Office, and it is clear that if the Health Care Reform bill passes, it will be incumbent upon Obama to insure his next budget includes the funds to enforce a crackdown on Medicare Fraud, and the OIG’s budget beefed up to insure a crackdown on the Waste and Abuse of Medicare funds, which are the tax payer’s dollars.”

According to what I read into this statement the failure to control fraud in Medicare (and Medicaid I presume) is lack of money for enforcement of existing laws. With a “beefed” up budget we can eliminate fraud.

Now I understand. We have lacked the funding to control fraud in government entitlement programs. Isn’t that always the liberal answer to a problem…lack of money.

Liberals enact entitlement programs, the programs become infested with fraud, liberals need more money to control the fraud. New entitlement programs are proposed, the money for the new programs are to be partially funded by eliminating the waste and fraud in the previous programs….and so on and so. It’s a never ending circle with the dog always chasing its tail.

The key for liberals it seems is the silly logic that we can pay for new liberal entitlement programs by eliminating waste and fraud in the previous liberal entitlement programs. And, of course, they always wish to throw in a little tax increase to cover the shortfall.

It reminds me a little of the letters I get from Bank of America. They encourage me to spend more with their credit card so they can reward me with a kickback.

SPEND MORE TO SAVE MORE

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2009 12:27 PM
Comment #290612

DRR:

“Enforcement is the province of the Executive Branch’s Attorney General’s Office”

If law enforcement is under the control of the president’s Attorney General’s office, then why hasn’t the AG’s office already been investigating the fraud and abuse? Isn’t the AG’s office already funded. If they need more money, perhaps Obama could just give it from his personal “STASH”. This is what blacks in Detroit believe; that Obama is going to give them money from his personal stash, hahaha.

I might say, Royal Flush, there is no logic in the way liberals think. We must spend money to save money. Or perhaps, we must stimulate the economy, by spending billions of tax payer dollars, and creating more government jobs which in turn stimulates the economy, duh. In the mean time we are all circling the pot and Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have their fingers on the flusher handle.

Royal Flush:

I just re-read your post and noticed you said, “The key for liberals it seems is the silly logic”.

I got hammered in the blue column for saying liberals have no logic. I am so glad to see someone agrees with me. I have always heard that men look at life through the eye of logic and women through the eye of emotion. I am not calling liberals “girly-men”, but they do look at the world through emotion and not logic.

Posted by: propitiation at November 11, 2009 1:38 PM
Comment #290613

“I am not calling liberals “girly-men”, but they do look at the world through emotion and not logic.”
Posted by: propitiation at November 11, 2009 01:38 PM

Yes indeed, I believe that also. I have stated numerous times on Watchblog that if you dig deep enough into the liberal psyche you will nearly always find at its base a need to “feel good” by spending others people’s money and proclaiming that collective rights trump individual rights.

Not satisfied with the guarantee of individual rights that are found in the constitution, they manufacture societal rights or collective rights to salve their undeveloped sense of self-worth.

I have read numerous reports which compare charitable giving by political persuasion. Liberals always score in the lowest percentile of individual charitable giving. With that understanding of their propensity to be charitable one can understand that to fulfill an innate desire to be charitable and help the less fortunate they want to force others to do what they themselves won’t.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2009 1:57 PM
Comment #290619

Royal Flush:

I agree with you completely, and I have seen the same stats on charitable giving. But I had never thought of it as a physiological problem. To fulfill their own inadequacies dealing with charity, they choose instead to spend other people’s money. It really shows the lack of compassion and charity on their part; replaced by stinginess and materialism. And yet they present themselves as the defender of the underdog. I call this the epitome of hypocrisy.

I must say, I love the opportunity to use liberal language (big words), and I didn’t even have a dictionary in my hand while typing:)

Posted by: propitiation at November 11, 2009 2:46 PM
Comment #290621

How can the government subsidize the purchase of medical services without driving up prices? Econ 101 teaches — without controversy — that when demand goes up, if other things remain equal, price goes up. The politicians want to have their cake and eat it, too.

How can the government promise lower medical costs without restricting choices? Medicare already does that. Once the planners’ mandatory insurance pushes prices to new heights, they must put even tougher limits on what we may buy — or their budget will be even deeper in the red than it already is. As economist Thomas Sowell points out, government cannot really reduce costs. All it can do is disguise and shift costs (through taxation) and refuse to pay for some services (rationing).

How does government “create choice” by imposing uniformity on insurers? Uniformity limits choice. Under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s bill and the Senate versions, government would dictate to all insurers what their “minimum” coverage policy must include. Truly basic high-deductible, low-cost catastrophic policies tailored to individual needs would be forbidden.

How does it “create choice” by making insurance companies compete against a privileged government-sponsored program? The so-called government option, let’s call it Fannie Med, would have implicit government backing and therefore little market discipline. The resulting environment of conformity and government power is not what most Americans mean by choice and competition.

Advocates of government control want you to believe that the serious shortcomings of our medical and insurance system are failures of the free market. But that’s impossible because our market is not free. Each state operates a cozy medical and insurance cartel that restricts competition through licensing and keeps prices higher than they would be in a genuine free market. But the planners won’t talk about that. After all, if government is the problem in the first place, how can they justify a government takeover?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2009 3:09 PM
Comment #290640

RF
How can the government subsidize the purchase of medical services without driving up prices?

Good question.They do it negotiating prices and taking advantage of scale. It works. That is why Americans go to Canada to purchase drugs. It may be conter-intuitive to those steeped in the fallacious economic models of the right, but it works and works in every other industrial democracy in the world.Open your eyes.

Posted by: bills at November 11, 2009 9:53 PM
Comment #290642

Eric
Another one of your silly “the sky is falling “post.We do not get FOX where I am but I understand it is amuzing to watch FOX Business attempt to ignore and dismiss the broad and deep stock market rally occuring under Obama. Fact is that ecomonies do demonstrably better under liberal leadership. This is math, not idealogy. That is why conservative economist make a point of simply refusing to aknowlege the huge post war gains. They cannot accept that under a financial regime of high government regulation,high union participation and high marginal tax rates the American standard of living doubled in a single generation. Its blindness. If the facts do not fit your world view,just make up your own.That is the bases of the totalitarianism you claim to fear. If it does come to the US it will be from the right and will no doubt be waving a flag.


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

Posted by: bills at November 11, 2009 10:52 PM
Comment #290650

Royal Flush:

“How can the government subsidize the purchase of medical services without driving up prices?”

The short answer is they can’t, but Royal you have heard the old saying, “follow the money”. The take over of 17% of our national income has nothing to do with healthcare. Pelosi, Reid, and Obama could care less about how Americans receive healthcare. It’s all about control. If this healthcare bill passes as liberals want, it will guarantee democrats control of the government for decades to come. Once passed, and the population is put on another government program, it would be impossible to wean them off. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are failures and they cost taxpayers millions, but they are here to stay. If these government programs were in the private sector, they would have gone belly up years ago. So the answer to your question is “No” and the real motive is control, through money and power.

Bills:

It is disingenuous to compare the negotiated price of drugs with the cost of healthcare. Yes, drug prices are negotiated in Canada, but the pharmaceutical industry R&D is also subsidized by federal money. Once the drug is developed and up and running, the company can produce as much as needed. The initial cost is R&D. With healthcare it is different. There are literally thousands of companies providing goods and services, as part of our healthcare system. To cut the costs of healthcare is to cut the profits of thousands of companies, and there comes a point when the companies will say, “I don’t need this” and they will cease to exist. As the services are cut, there is of necessity going to be rationing of healthcare. The left loves to talk about the European and Canadian example of universal healthcare, but there is rationing in both of these systems. I have been to Canada many times and I have a good friend whose son became a doctor. He had to promise his mother he would stay in Canada, because most doctors want to come to America, where they can make a living. If this healthcare system passes and government gains control, there will be a decrease of healthcare workers, simply because a person who can become a doctor or nurse has the ability to be educated for another career not controlled by the government. If you really want meaningful healthcare reform why not TORT, or allowing competition with insurance companies? Wouldn’t it be wiser to attempt a small move like this and see what effect it has, before attempting a complete overhaul of our healthcare system, without fully understanding the fallout?

Concerning your attacks on FOX news; by your admission, you do not get or watch FOX news. Therefore, I must come to the conclusion, your argument is based on hearsay and even that would not be allowed in a court of law. Secondly, your link for proof is from the opinion poll of the liberal NYT. Very feeble evidence. I watch FOX news and the business news, and I have never seen anything but fair and balanced. If they present a conservative view, they ALWAYS present a liberal view. I noticed Obama has agreed to an interview with Major Garrett of FOX, http://drudgereport.com/.

Could it be, that Obama must allow himself to be interviewed by FOX if he wants to get his message out? If FOX is so evil, why are they the highest rated cable news channel?

Posted by: propitiation at November 12, 2009 8:32 AM
Comment #290660

Bills wrote; “It may be conter-intuitive to those steeped in the fallacious economic models of the right, but it works and works in every other industrial democracy in the world.Open your eyes.”

I wrote; “Econ 101 teaches — without controversy — that when demand goes up, if other things remain equal, price goes up. The politicians want to have their cake and eat it, too.”

Really Bills, I don’t know how much more simple I can make it. Increased demand increases price. What will government proposed health care introduce into this well known and accepted economic principle to change the outcome?

Bills says the introduction of; “…negotiating prices and taking advantage of scale” will do it.

Negotiating prices almost always results in either rationing or lowering of quality.

Advantage of scale has merit and begs the question; From where will we draw the extra doctors, hospital beds, clinics, and such to fulfill the demands of an additional 35 million patients?

The reality is Bills, in countries that have national health care the opposite is true. Patients face long waiting periods for medical procedures, there is a shortage of cutting edge medical devises such as CAT SCANS and MRI’s to name a few. Patients are denied the newest and most effective pharmaceuticals by the government plan and are forbidden to buy these life-saving drugs with their own money.

A show of hands in any gathering of Americans would quickly dispel any notion that Americans want “one size fits all” medical care.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 12, 2009 12:33 PM
Comment #290661

Royal Flush,

So it is your contention that simply involving the government means there will be more sick people?

35 million more sick people?

Are you anticipating the G-men injecting 35 million with swine flu?

That is the logical conclusion of your Econ 101 musings, apparently. I suggest you may need a refresher course in Econ 101.

Perhaps one with a bit more realistic leanings may suggest some marginal up tick in earlier treatment of conditions, rather than emergency room use, by those delaying what they cannot afford to treat.

This is the fallacy of the Republican group think. They think they somehow get a free ride by letting the poor wait until they need an emergency room. They don’t. We are paying for it now with the world’s most expensive health care system. This is what is so moronic about advocating the status quo.

Posted by: gergle at November 12, 2009 12:56 PM
Comment #290665

Krugman? :P He’s already shown himself willing to sell his soul for the cause…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 12, 2009 1:27 PM
Comment #290666

gergle wrote; “So it is your contention that simply involving the government means there will be more sick people?

35 million more sick people?

Are you anticipating the G-men injecting 35 million with swine flu?”

Sorry gergle…I don’t address silly questions. Should you actually respond to what I wrote I will be glad to discuss it with you.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 12, 2009 1:53 PM
Comment #290680

RF & Prop
Their are a varity of national health care delivery systems. Some work better than others.Some are better funded than others. What they all have in common is they are all substantially cheaper than the non-system we have and people are as a WHOLE getting better health care.Long lines? We have those. Lack of “cutting edge”. For those without health coverage, that problem exist here also. Prop,We also spend a good deal of tax money financing reasearch ad often allow drug companies use of the results.

A look at infant mortality rates and life expectancy indicates that we are not getting what we pay for. These numbers do not translate directly, as I am sure RH will point out,but they do indicate a problem. Why is it that the richest country in the world has an infant mortality rate nearly as bad as Latvia? We can do better.The countries we are refering to are democracies. If their citizens had wanted to regress back to our rotten non-system they would have voted to do so a long time ago. They are not stupid. The problems they incounter in their systems bring forth calls for improvment, not abandonment.


Prop.
If you look at the provided link you will find other links from less committed sources.
Ratings have little to do with quality,BTW,especially in regards to journalism. I wish we got PBS. The News Hour is real journalism. The draw back to them is they go into detail so deep that they simply do not have time for a lot of topics. The good thing about that is that they do not waste time with interviews of Michael Jackson’s doctors gardener or more reports of upper caste bimbos still missing in Aruba. Of course, some on the right might regard them as too liberal because they understand that sometimes things are complicated and they use big words but they are carefully unbiased.

Posted by: bills at November 12, 2009 10:22 PM
Comment #290683
people are as a WHOLE getting better health care.

No, they aren’t. Even a look at the WHO information, critically, will tell you that in the are of actual healthcare, we are receiving the best in the world.

A look at infant mortality rates and life expectancy indicates that we are not getting what we pay for. These numbers do not translate directly, as I am sure RH will point out,but they do indicate a problem. Why is it that the richest country in the world has an infant mortality rate nearly as bad as Latvia?

Yes, you are right, I will point out that you are not making a valid comparison, because we actually have lower rates because we have better care, meaning we can save children born even earlier than other countries so they get counted when we can’t save them.

And you KNOW that and still offer it up as a reason to change our system that works very well (as I pointed out, best in the world) instead of modifying the system to take care of the problems we have.

And in the process suggesting laws that are clearly unconstitutional and are a slap in the face of the ideals that THIS country was founded upon. You know, you should see the things that other countries have to put up with in the area of privacy that would make most American’s skin crawl… Just because ‘they’ do something doesn’t mean ‘we’ should, that’s a horrible argument for doing anything, as your parents most likely tried to point out for you when you were a kid by asking you if you would jump off of a bridge if someone else did…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 13, 2009 12:14 AM
Comment #290684
I wish we got PBS.

BTW, while I like the News Hour, little can be trusted on PBS because of their acceptance of advertising and their beholding to them. Especially the likes of ADM and Monsanto, to name a few…

And yes, even the head of PBS marketing has admitted that they accept ‘advertising’ (she used the word) when they take on underwriting and grants.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 13, 2009 12:17 AM
Comment #290687

Rhinehold, at least underwriters make up a smaller share of PBS’s revenue than the commercial networks. The most dominant source of funding at PBS had been and (hopefully) will continue to be viewers like you (and me!).

If you have complaints about underwriters, then you can write to the PBS ombundsman.

Nevertheless it is always true that using a single source for all of one’s news needs is a bad idea. Diversity is the key to balance.

Posted by: Warped Reality at November 13, 2009 1:37 AM
Comment #290688

RH
I used the infant mortality figures because they are indicative of a problem. Your refutation of that number makes no sense. Because we are capable of saving more babies but don’t do it is niether here nor there. The number of dead infants per capita is higher in the US than it should be.True,those that can afford the MAO Clinic get great care. Most cannot. At any rate ,significant health care delivery reform is a fait accomplie at this point. Its not the system I would have preferred but it should work for the most part. Once Americans see for themselves that there is not boogyman involved there will be no way we will go back to the non-system we have been suffering under. Time to start gathering mis-information to oppose the next needed reform regarding energy policy.

Posted by: bills at November 13, 2009 5:43 AM
Comment #290692

bills:

You have mentioned infant mortality twice in the last two posts. In fact, you go on to say:

“Because we are capable of saving more babies but don’t do it is niether here nor there. The number of dead infants per capita is higher in the US than it should be.”

Let me ask a few questions:

1. Are you really concerned about the death of babies or are you just wasting air by talking about it?

2. If you really are concerned about babies mortality rates, do you support partial birth abortion of babies?

3. Do your baby mortality rates also include those who die by abortion?

Typical liberal, let’s all save the whales and trees, and just kill defenceless babies; as we cut them into little pieces and pull them from the womb. This is called partial birth abortion. Is there something sick and ironic about this call from the left for national healthcare, so we can save the babies? There is no depth of sickness that a liberal won’t travel to, in order to accomplish their agenda.

Posted by: dembs at November 13, 2009 7:56 AM
Comment #290704

Ok bills, let me try this again…

First,

web.archive.org/web/20060613215626/http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/03/16/sections/commentary/orange_grove/article_443950.php

has a good explanation that I am going to summarize but you can check that out for some more detail.

Basically, the reason that the US rates are higher than most other countries is that we actually report these things accurately.

According to WHO, countries are supposed to report any signs of life from a baby as a ‘live birth’. But most countries, except the US, do not. For example, Switzerland does not count any baby born that is less than 30 cm.

By not counting those ‘live births’ as such because of reasons that have a higher rate of dying, their mortality rates are better.

Also, other countries are also not as equipped to determine signs of live in a premature baby as the US is because of our technology and because we have been able to save babies at a much earlier development age than others…

Since the United States generally uses the WHO definition of live birth, in their 2004 book “Lives at Risk,” economist John Goodman and his colleagues conclude, “Taking into account such data-reporting differences, the rates of low- birth-weight babies born in America are about the same as other developed countries” in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Likewise, infant mortality rates, adjusted for the distribution of newborns by weight, are about the same.

American advances in medical treatment now make it possible to save babies who would have surely died only a few decades ago. Until recently, very low birth-weight babies - less than 3 pounds - almost always died. Now, some of these babies survive. Whilesuch vulnerable babies may live with advanced medical assistance and technology, low birth-weight babies (weighing less than 5.5 pounds) recently had an infant mortality rate 20 times higher than heavier babies, according to WHO. Ironically, U.S. doctors’ ability to save babies’ lives causes higher infant mortality numbers here than would be the case with less advanced treatment.

Because of varying standards, international comparisons of infant mortality rates are improperly used to create myths about how the United States should allocate local or national resources.

If we want to lower our infant mortality rate so it compares better with that of other countries, maybe we should align our rules with theirs to better determine the actual extent of the alleged “problem.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 13, 2009 10:44 AM
Comment #290717

“facts do not fit your world view, just make up your own.” That’s the point of the whole “conservative” movement for thirty years, starting at the college newspaper level. Decide on your conclusion, and then find the “facts” that support it. I was explaining this method of writing to a professor from Cambridge 36 years ago and he got very angry at me for suggesting that anyone could do such a thing.

PBS can be as troubling as any news source, with ADM and the Koch family sponsoring, but at least they have genuine reporters instead of semi-literate newsreaders who don’t even know the meaning of the words they are reading.

Posted by: ohrealy at November 13, 2009 1:21 PM
Comment #290719

ohrealy, actually there is nothing wrong with starting with your conclusion based on a particular model, PROVIDED one does 2 very important things. First, make sure the sources you do choose to support your conclusion are reputable and repeatable by other researchers - that is the heart of the empirical methodology. And second, make sure you have surveyed opposing research for validity and reliability, and do not discount them if their results are valid and reliable (statistical definitions).

Failure to do those two things will result in one’s writing losing credibility eventually for the writer by the majority, and thus compromise the writer’s desire to inform and persuade, which is afterall, the goal of every writer, whether scientific, religious, or cultural.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 13, 2009 1:30 PM
Comment #290720

“the writer’s desire to inform and persuade, which is afterall, the goal of every writer, whether scientific, religious, or cultural.”

Not if he’s trying to inform a group of people who can be persuaded based on what they already consider to be authoritative and play the same old tired word games with any opposing views.

Posted by: ohrealy` at November 13, 2009 1:40 PM
Comment #290739

bills wrote; “…the MAO Clinic get great care…”

Was that a typo or a slam of the Mayo Clinic? If a slam…could you explain why? Thanks

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 13, 2009 6:34 PM
Comment #290742

News Flash:

William Jefferson, former congressman from Louisiana was just sentenced to 13 years in prison. I’m sure all of you liberals who were defended him in the past are experiencing depression at this time. Now all we have to do is get Franks, Dodd, and Rangel. There is a God and the rule of law triumphs.

Posted by: dembs at November 13, 2009 6:47 PM
Comment #290792

Royal Flush,

Advantage of scale has merit and begs the question; From where will we draw the extra doctors, hospital beds, clinics, and such to fulfill the demands of an additional 35 million patients?

I’ll ask you once again. You presume 35 million new “patients”, therefore, I would assume you think there would suddenly appear 35 million new “sick” people requiring doctors, hospital beds, clinics, and such. Is that clearer to you as to what you actually said? Why do you make such a presumption?

If 35 million more people are covered by health insurance does not mean 35 million people will show up at the doctor’s office. It’s a stupid, silly conclusion. My question wasn’t silly, your presumption was. My extension of your dumb logic was only a mirror that you correctly saw as I intended it.

You appear to love being sarcastic. To be sarcastic, one shouldn’t draw stupid conclusions or make silly prognostications.

Crap is still crap whether it be royally flushed or just a common swirl in the loo.

Posted by: gergle at November 14, 2009 11:01 PM
Post a comment