It’s Health Care, Stupid!
BY: NCViking
Just how stupid do Democrats and the Obama administration think Americans are in this health care debate? Liberals believe that the American public must be enlightened by an elite ‘progressive’ few (typical), but what is interesting in this case is the blatant effort by the administration and their Hopenchange corporate shills to blatantly dumb-down the debate for a full-court-press ‘governmentization’ of the health care industry. There is a massive attempt by this administration, and a select few pundits on both sides, to spin the public out to the radical edges of the issue instead of showing what is very obvious: Obama’s Gov Co. proposal is well intentioned, but flawed and convoluted … and most importantly, we can’t afford it! The town hall protesters get this, even though the loony left media is doing it’s best to lump all opposing Americans to Obamacare in with the fringe.
I came across this interesting article at RealClearPolitics.com, home to my favorite columnist Charles Krauthammer, that critiques Obamacare and what we are being fed …
So just how stupid are we?
Stupid enough to think that a new $1 trillion health-care entitlement is just the thing to restore the country to fiscal health.
Stupid enough not to realize that it is through budget trickery — the taxes begin immediately, the spending is put off for a few years — that the program in the House shows “only” a $239 billion deficit over the first 10 years.
Stupid enough to think increased preventive care will save the government money, just because President Obama constantly repeats it despite all the studies to the contrary.
Stupid enough not to worry that Obama’s proposed superteam of technocrats operating outside normal political controls — the so-called Independent Medicare Advisory Council — will resort to rationing when costs spiral upward.
Stupid enough to consider it wise to use several billion dollars in cuts from Medicare to create an entitlement rather than to forestall Medicare’s own looming insolvency, now projected for 2017.
Stupid enough to believe that we’ll be able to keep our current health-care arrangements if we like them, even though the public option could throw tens of millions of people out of private insurance.
Stupid enough to credit Obama’s assurances that the Democrats’ reform isn’t about government intervention in the health-care system when — even without the public option — it all-but-nationalizes health insurance.
Stupid enough not to see through Obama’s sudden insistence on calling his plan “health-insurance reform” as empty, poll-tested phrase-making.
Stupid enough to consider Obama’s reform a good deal when its insurance regulations would increase premiums for most healthy people.
Stupid enough to think that the very real problem of people with pre-existing conditions locked out of the insurance market can’t be alleviated short of a 1,000-page bill reordering the entire health-care system.
Stupid enough to buy Obama’s cockamamie stories about unnecessary tonsillectomies and amputations — undertaken by greedy doctors to pad profits — driving health-care costs.
Stupid enough to get gulled by rhetoric attacking special interests when almost all the special interests are backing Obama’s plan for cowardly and self-interested reasons.
Stupid enough to consider new taxes on employment — imposed by the so-called employer mandate — a good idea during a weak economy with 9.4 percent unemployment.
Stupid enough to condemn ordinary people angry and frightened enough to show up at town-hall meetings in every corner of the country as the product of an “astroturfing” conspiracy.
Stupid enough to blame nefarious Republicans for the faltering public support for an expensive, ungainly and contradictory health-care program passed out of four congressional committees on strict party-line votes.
And stupid enough not to be offended at how contemptibly stupid they think we are.
Let’s not leave out: stupid enough to believe the government is not broke and can afford yet another budget-busting entitlement.
- Why Are We Still Listening to Ben Bernanke? - August 31st, 2010
- Favre Returns for One More Year - August 18th, 2010
- Mosque at Ground Zero and the First Amendment - August 18th, 2010
- NFL Predictions 2010 - August 10th, 2010
- Basil Marceaux ... Magnificent! - July 23rd, 2010
I’m with you bro ~
Stupid enough to think that the party who hasn’t fixed health care, and has no health care plan, somehow has an answer.
I am also with your entire notion of elitism ~
Which party is elitist, the party of the rich or the party who is helping to provide affordable health care ?
I am 100% with you on preventive medicine ~
Keep people fat, out of shape, and on diabetes medicine. Getting these people healthy won’t save a dime.
Your post is rather harsh on Dems. I know you can really dish it out, but can you take the same treatment? How about calling Bush stupid? How does that sound?
A common pattern in the posting on this blog is unfairness: you can insult, but take offense when you are at the receiving end of it.
I have stated before, R’s could be participating in drafting a better bill, but they have -once again- contributed nothing.
The current system works for me and my brethren who work and are citizens. No need to forcibly change the entire system, and I don’t want to pay a dime for illegal aliens’ healthcare (filthy Canadians…just kidding).
There are plenty of limousine liberals out there, Mike, so don’t try to play the class card here, we won’t fall for that disinformation.
The Dems are trying to use their smooth-talking mouthpiece and their liberal media partners to sneak this one by. Unfortunately for them, the American people are not falling for it.
Buzz, you rely on platitudes (trite and biased comments). Facts seem to challenge you.
Rescission is a significant problem for those who, within the current system hit significant care events. The Health Care industries have stated that they over 50% of rescind cases are arbitrary. In many cases they know that the cost and time of litigation outweighs the immediate value.
You yourself may fall eventually into this category if you are unlucky enough to require serious medical intervention before you are 65, even if you’ve paid your premiums to the same company for decades.
So reform is necessary. If nothing else, tort and contract compliance are minimum reforms.
If you had chosen to read HR 3200, or any part thereof (like factcheck.org), you would have discovered two things: one, the bill specifically excludes non-residents, and tow, fact check is critical of Obama’s claims. In a previous post you indicated that being uncomfortable “reading” anything that may not be sufficiently anti-Obama for your tastes.
I did not miss the fact that intertwined in your response was a fairly racist commentary. I got your number. Sad.
I’ll go one on one on any fact you’d like to discuss, so long as you keep off the insults. I know you can dish it out. Can you take it? We’ll find out.
What part of Buzz’s commentary was racist. Strong word to use flippantly.
The filthy Canadians, only he probably meant Mexicans. Whether Canadian, Mexicans or other, not very nice.
Are you reading the same post I am?
I think you are inferring into the comment. Being “not very nice” in your eyes is a far cry from racism. To say otherwise is malpractice.
Any illegal alien is just that, illegal. Whether they be Canadian, Mexican, etc. In other words, they should not have access to our medical system. I’m not going to infer on what Buzz commented about, but that is my stance. Probably close to what Buzz was getting at.
Your reply ignores the word “filthy.” Had he said illegals, your reply would have been appropriate.
The use of the word “filthy” changes the tone, meaning, and implications. Still think it’s not racist?
Oh, so sorry for the omission.
And no, I don’t think it’s racist. That word is thrown around like candy at a parade, present company included (that’s you). Let’s revisit the comment in question:
Maybe you should have included the “just kidding” comment since we have to include everything in replies.
I think you’re reaching for something to comment on. You’re better than that Mike.
I’ve never used the word filthy to describe any group or ethnicity. Not here, not ever.
It may be ok to say filthy conservatives, filthy Republicans, and filthy right wing bloggers, but it is plain not acceptable to say “filthy Canadians, just kidding.”
The “just kidding” part applies to the “filthy Canadians” to say (wink, nod) the other illegal aliens.
Take the feedback as it comes: it landed on these eyes as racist. It is still racist and it will continue to be racist no matter what dance in defense of Buzz you attempt.
Those filthy bloggers.
Mike,
Agreed.
This is a bad ‘talking points’ comment.
I heard on NPR yesterday that studies have shown preventative medicine actually costs more. Obviously PM is a good thing, but cost savings is not part of it.
Calling people stupid or believing people are is what liberals and Democrats typically do. Nowhere do I call Obama stupid, but show how HE and other Dems may believe that AMERICANS are. Republicans pushing death panel scare tactics are no better. Chuck has good analysis.
Everyone is quite used to Bush being compared to a dumb chimp.
Just whom am I insulting?
Agreed.
How about filthy left wing bloggers, filthy liberals, filthy democrats. Is that better? Balanced?
I still think you read too much into the glib comment. Nothing of what he said is racist any more than your comments. To coin this term on this post is not responsible on your part. You seem like a smart guy on many things and I’m surprised you took the “easy” way out on this one.
Also, I don’t dance. Well, there was that one time at college after a party, too many tequila shooters….
ACM…
Your comment is perfect. You took didn’t like it. It hit a nerve. It offended you. You felt the need to call left wing bloggers “filthy.”
I don’t think filthy should be applied to anyone, especially a nationality or ethnic group. When it is against Mexicans, as intended , it is racist.
I think by now you agree.
NCV…
I know a lot of people on both sides of the political divide. I know at least 6 congressmen by name, on both sides. They are not just in my state either.
Your generality about Dems and liberals, that they call or believe people stupid, is way off. I will tick off the above post point by point and show that Dems do not believe that at all. Quite the contrary.
Your post was harsh on Dens and insulting to my intelligence if not just plain insulting.
About preventive medicine…
The cost of preventive medicine depends on the time scale you use. On a short one or less than five year time scale, having extra staff to spend extra time doing preventive medicine is, as you would expect, costly.
If over a longer course of time it becomes less amputations due to diabetes, less drugs, and less heart procedures, very costly procedures that no longer have to be performed.
Preventive medicine cost gains are one part of a more complex formula of cost pressures.
Actually, it’s very hard to offend me and you are not the one that could do it. In fact, I don’t think I’ve been offended in 20 years. I was just making a point to balance the conversation. Glad you liked it.
In regards to preventative medicine, I don’t know how it would not reduce the overall healthcare costs. Live better, take better care of yourself, reduce obesity (and diabetes in the process) and the long term dependence on drugs will go down. Most Americans have no desire or want to live a healthy lifestyle – that’s a crux of the problem in my estimation. It sounds like we may be on the same page with this point.
Charles Krauthammer has a piece that on the current health care debate that does not dispute the facts and assertions made by Obama and supporters of the bill. His cerebral piece was to just call Dems stupid for believing that he, and by extension other Americans, would understand or debate their points. Or maybe Charles thought there Dems were stupid for believing that he would agree with them.
I can fix this for Charles by addressing each of his “concerns”:
- A “new $1 trillion health-care entitlement is just the thing to restore the country to fiscal health.”
The $1T is a five year figure. Obama has consistently projected costs at $239B/year. Still, this is a cost to the budget.
We also know that the cost of health care for every American is going up (at least for those who have health care). In the last 5 years alone, costs have risen 40-50%. For many these costs are subsidized by their employer. With costs rising so fast, companies may need to pass more of those costs to their employees. It is not unheard of for individuals to have to pay $200-$300/mo for their share of insurance. Five years from now, the costs you face may be $1,000/mo.
Obama has stated that he wants to control costs using efficiencies and rewarding care instead of procedures. Those will be huge factors in cost control that have received little attention. The reason they have is because these savings are real, and they are savings in every American’s pocket book.
Granted, we should take a show me attitude. But it is a step towards cost control.
Stupid to believe that Charlie would agree? If there was an engaged reasoned discussion we could fine tune cost controls, make them more effective.
- “it is through budget trickery — the taxes begin immediately, the spending is put off for a few years — that the program in the House shows “only” a $239 billion deficit over the first 10 years.”
Some of the plan provisions begin in 2011, so put off for a few years is misleading. This aspect of the plan was stated on the first day of the plan’s release, and it has been restated over and over. Not sure why Charles think someone is pulling the wool over his eyes, except maybe he wasn’t listening early enough. Just a guess.
- “increased preventive care will save the government money, just because President Obama constantly repeats it despite all the studies to the contrary.”
The non-smoking campaign is a preventive medicine; so is condom use. Both have reduced the rise and care of lung and HIV deaths, respectively. The individuals that are alive today thanks to those campaigns are by and large productive working tax paying adults. I posted above about the timeframe on preventive care.
Again engaged reasoned discussion could fine tune the discussion and eventual plan.
- “Obama’s proposed superteam of technocrats operating outside normal political controls — the so-called Independent Medicare Advisory Council — will resort to rationing when costs spiral upward.”
The idea is that doctors should define care, not Republicans or Democrats. Since the body will have no political pressures, they are unlikely to care about cost pressures.
Charles misses on the key factor of competition. The “public plan” will be one plan among many. If care was lousy under the “public plan” citizens would move to the next best plan.
One common complaint of current plans is that they exercise rescission, which is cost control by denial of care, or rationing. So rationing exists today in your plan. One common complaint of Medicare is that they do not ration. If Medicare doesn’t, what is the rationale for believe a body without political pressures, made up of doctors, would? Doesn’t make sense.
- “consider it wise to use several billion dollars in cuts from Medicare to create an entitlement rather than to forestall Medicare’s own looming insolvency, now projected for 2017.”
Notice the appreciation, recognition even, Charlie has for “cuts in Medicare.” Those projected cuts come from cost controls. If Medicare costs less, so will your insurance.
Maybe Charlie didn’t think we’d see that. Thanks Charlie.
- “to believe that we’ll be able to keep our current health-care arrangements if we like them, even though the public option could throw tens of millions of people out of private insurance.”
I thought that Charlie believed in competition. Competition will require companies to innovate costs savings other than rescission. One reason is that why pay for a plan that will eventually not pay when you need them the most. That is a question you should be asking today.
I don’t hear insurance companies claiming they’ll go broke and out of business. Part of the reason is because there will be new entrants into insurance and new standardized forms processing will substantially reduce costs.
- “assurances that the Democrats’ reform isn’t about government intervention in the health-care system when — even without the public option — it all-but-nationalizes health insurance.”
Again, participating in the conversation could help to write a bill we all want. Calling them stupid for believing that Charlie will agree isn’t the most obvious way to get that conversation started.
The only way that the public plan could kill private insurance is to substantially drop the cost of insurance. That would drive the projected deficit on costs way above the projected $239B. In fact, just slightly below market will cause deficits to go into the Trillions. For example, a $1000/yr below cost for 100 million Americans would cost $1T.
Clearly, there is no intention to create a below market plan.
Another point not to be missed is the fact that with their majorities, Democrats could push a single payer system if they wanted to. They don’t.
- “sudden insistence on calling his plan “health-insurance reform” as empty, poll-tested phrase-making.”
How would Charlie know? He’s just fishing.
- “consider Obama’s reform a good deal when its insurance regulations would increase premiums for most healthy people.”
See cost savings above.
- “enough to think that the very real problem of people with pre-existing conditions locked out of the insurance market can’t be alleviated short of a 1,000-page bill reordering the entire health-care system.”
Good of Charlie to recognize a major problem with the current system. If the entire plan was rescission control then we could probably do well with a much shorter bill.
Not so good of Charlie to throw this in when he knows (I would presume) that the bill does a great deal more, such as to cover the uninsured.
- “enough to buy Obama’s cockamamie stories about unnecessary tonsillectomies and amputations — undertaken by greedy doctors to pad profits — driving health-care cost.”
The plan makes substantial changes in reimbursements that reduce the number of procedures. Obama’s stories are verifiable, so Charlie’s use of the word cockamamie is out of place. Charlie should do some research on whether they are representative.
Skipping a few that aren’t relevant
- “astro-turfing”
99% of the “concerned citizens” are non-Obama voters as opposed to general across the board “ordinary” citizens.
- “to believe the government is not broke and can afford yet another budget-busting entitlement”
It would be great if both sides of the debate talked to each other (instead of at each other) and crafted a better plan. Calling the opposition stupid is considered a non-started. Charlie has drawn the line that he won’t participate in any discussion. Sad.
Since there are very good reasons for all of Charlie’s “arguments” I doubt that anyone in good conscious could call Dem motives stupid on intent. None of Charlie’s reasoning point to an intent to defraud, which is what he is implying.
In many cases above, Charlie’s arguments only partially tell the truth, so who is defrauding whom?
ACM, Mike likes to make assumptions about conservatives’ comments and true intentions, as well as try to twist what they say. Actually, my first girlfriend was a Latina and my best friend in the State of Illinois has the surname Lopez. I have several Canadian friends and I often rib them about coming across the border for better care in our ‘inferior’ medical care system. Mike, you must harbor some guilty racist thoughts to immediately think of me as a racist. Hmmm.
I agree that the current system needs some tweeks, but I know that the entire system doesn’t need to be scrapped.
Unfortunately, between this Dem fiasco (if it passes, and I assume that they will force it through) and the rest of their fiscal irresponsibility, I’m sure that I’ll be paying much higher taxes for the rest of my life.
Smaller government is always better.
Buzz, it is hardly an assumption when I quote what you say, and what you said, however intended, did not come across as a casual post-Canadian joke.
I will accept your reasoning and explanation.
Still remaining are the original issues: rescission, insuring the uninsured (which according to you are all either non-employed or non-citizens). What about those Americans?
Obama, on myths
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/22/obama.health.care/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
Only if somehow you twist the post into something it is not (see below).
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/congressional-budget-expert-says-preventive-care-will-raise-not-cut-costs.html
First: Chuck did not write the article, Rich Lowry is the author.
Second: He believes Dems think AMERICANS are stupid. He is not calling Democrats stupid. You are twisting it.
The government can’t afford it.
The government can’t afford it. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cbo-healthcare-bill-exceeds-1-trillion-2009-06-15.html
IMAC: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gingrich16-2009aug16,0,310602.story
I have no problems with appropriate reform efforts. I am not sure how adding a government option to unfairly compete in the marketplace is even necessary, especially when there are thousands of options out there. Besides, the government can’t afford it.
Medicare underpays 80-85 cents on the dollar, I would not be surprised if this option did the same, as well as artificially set market prices.
This is not a fact. Not all Dems would be on board for a single payer system.
Please verify this. If you can’t, this is generalization at its worst – something you often ridicule.
Again, besides the fact it wasn’t ‘Charlie’ who wrote the article, the author is critical of Democrats in that these Dems believe AMERICANS are stupid. You love to twist.
I agree – I would love some better options to what we are being served. Also, head-to-head debate of facts instead of platitudes, spin and misinformation would be good.
Bottom line: The author of the article is providing an analysis. You may believe it is harsh, but nothing you have written disputes what he has said.
You twist a lot of what is said at this blog into something it is not. The ‘filthy Canadians’ as racist garbage is a good example (one of many). Buzz could have easily pulled this same crap on you. As an example only: fact is he did not say anything about Mexicans – YOU inferred Mexicans are somehow filthy, not him. How do you know Buzz feels this way? You don’t – you projected it. The fact is he said nothing of the sort. So in essence, YOU are racist by injecting it into the debate. NOTE: I don’t believe this at all, by the way. If anything is ’stupid’, this stuff is. Neither assumption is relevant or appropriate to the debate, so it should be dropped.
I did not misrepresent Rick’s piece.
Democrats provided a straight up plan, described how it would work, identified the taxes necessary to make it work, and put it up for debate. The plan is detailed. There is nothing hidden about it.
Conservative, if represented by the opinions expressed by you gents and Rick, live in a cloistered world where all Dems are evil, conniving and worst of all, to your left. Horror.
What is interesting about Rick’s post is that not a single of his “rebuttals” actually point to anything stupid, other than his premise and ad nausaeum repetition.
I knew Rick’s take on the subject. It’s as plain as day. You described it as “how stupid do Democrats … think Americans are in this health care debate.”
Here is what I said of Rick’s piece and why it does not, in any way, misrepresent his premise:
In order for anyone to believe that Dems believe that the American public is stupid, they would have to believe that Americans will just accept the legislation as is without asking questions.
In order for Americans not to ask questions, they would have to agree with the statements made by Obama or Dems.
Another way of stating Rick’s premise would therefore be “do Dems think that Americans would agree with their health care proposal.”
Do Dems think all Americans would agree with their proposals? I think any reasonable Dem would say Republicans by and large would work to defeat the proposal. They would also say that conservatives fall into two groups, those bitterly opposed to it (mostly because of the lies being perpetrated about it), and those who genuinely want to debate and work with it.
So what I said was “His cerebral piece was to just call Dems stupid for believing that he, and by extension other Americans, would understand or debate their points. Or maybe Charles thought there Dems were stupid for believing that he would agree with them.”
That is 100% accurate, and I stick by it. Except, as you noted, it’s Rick’s piece.
As for the Town Hall polls, I cannot publish the link to the poll. When it is public I will. There is an Aug 7 piece in the NYT that gives you a flavor.
At Town Halls (you should go to one if you haven’t. Most are about over) there are people from all sides. There are people who will tell you that they need health care; there are people who hold signs about whatever lie of the day. A vast number just want to listen.
People who go in as conservatives stay conservative. The same can be said about progressives. The minds that are changed are those in the middle. It is impressive to see a person come in with concerns over what they heard and leave reassured that their worst fears were false. More than one has told me they need to listen less to talk radio than before.
I did say that “99% of the “concerned citizens” are non-Obama voters as opposed to general across the board “ordinary” citizens.”
My use of the term “concerned citizens” was specific: conservative bloggers like to use the term “concerned citizens” to describe all protesters against health care. Of the protesters against health care, 99% are anti-Obama.
“Filthy Canadians” is the latest talk media code word for illegal aliens. It may be the Buzz originated this term because he has Canadian friends who just love to be called filthy. I stand by my point that it comes across as racist.
Your diatribe against who is Racist for pointing out the obvious is just a diatribe. Readers will decide.
Dang, I knew I missed the memo on the new code word for illegal aliens! I’ll remember that when I’m up in Canada this fall.
Thanks Mike!
ACM…
Thank you for agreeing to 100% of my reply above. I welcome you to the libertarian center and look forward to many years of your support.
We have to stick together.
Mike..
Sometimes you are very hard to figure out. I realize you have no real sense of humor, so it’s always hard to distinguish smart ass comments. I’ll take this one as one of those times.
Last time I checked, the libertarian point of view is less government. I don’t think you fit that bill from your comments. I’m just sayin…..
ACM…
I do have a sense of humor, that’s why I pulled your chain in agreeing with me. If you took it seriously, well, all I can say is that your humor differs from mine. Yours is more like (“I’m agreeing with yooooo”), mine is more (pulling your chain).
Libertarians are specifically interested in personal Liberty. Row v Wade is a typical pro-Libertarian point (stay out a couple’s decision). So is same sex marriage. I favor regulations that level the playing field. On maters of economics, I want an entrepreneurial society that favors small businesses. On TARP is a loan that has to be repaid, so while I wouldn’t ordinarily like it, as a loan I can see it’s need.
On the other hand, I see Republicans as looking into everyone’s bedroom and letting them die due to poorly regulated health care insurance companies. I favor infrastructure spending instead of war spending.
I see health care reform as very strongly favoring small businesses, which in turn very strongly favors individualism and entrepreneurship.
I see this blog as a carbon copy of the latest Republican, right-wing position with a little bit of personal perspective. Show me where you guys differ.
Glad I read your comment correctly. Your sense of humor is so dry that it blows away before you write the words. Hence my comment. And no, I didn’t take it seriously – I just never know when you are gracing us with your witty repartee.
Sounds oxymoronic to want more government involvement to achieve personal liberty.
Should be a states issue. Bad law from the get go.
Ever heard of civil unions? Would work fine without all the strife from those opposing same sex marriages.
Great, we agree on something, but I don’t agree that we need massive government programs to get there. TARP is and was unnecessary. Bush bought the farm on that one along with most of the Congress.
I think we’ve all explained this until we’re blue in the face. We’re all independent thinkers that have long held beliefs. If you feel this blog is a cc of the GOP, then that’s your cross to bear.
ACM…
Roe v Wade is not a law. It’s a constitutional decision. You either believe in privacy guarantees in the constitution or you don’t.
Civil unions are not the same as a marriage. Under civil unions, a partner cannot enter the same hospital room as a spouse. Again, this is you, or conservatives, trying to legislate. CU don’t affect me personally, but it is a hot topic and a good example of the difference between you and I in terms of politics.
All of the banks shutting down sounds like a bad idea. You are opposed to TARP not because you understand the economic issues. You are opposed because of the opposition of other conservatives. You can explain until you are blue all over, but unless you use reason and not parrot other conservatives I will not be convinced.
Same goes with RvW or sxs marriage. There is no reason you oppose these, except you and other conservatives believe it. You may have a biblical point of view and we can discuss it from that point.
I do not want more government. You just threw that one out there just to see if I would catch it. Maybe it’s in reference to health care. Actually what I want is not represented in the Obama plan. My opposition is to the nonsense that conservatives spit out.
Mike,
1,100 pages of gov-ldygook and Obama and proponents have in some cases misrepresented it to the public in order to sell it (spin). This is what the article is about. Pundits opposed to it have done the same, which I point out in the post.
No we don’t, that is just your caricature of us.
Pretzel-like, twisted reasoning.
The author believes average Americans are not dumb enough to buy the platitudes and misrepresentations used to describe the plan, though Obama and proponents seem to think we are since this is how it is being packaged and sold. He listed why he believes this – it’s as simple as that.
You would only state this if you believe it to be personal against Obama. Its not. How about “99% are anti Obama/liberal-big Gov Co. policies, and anti congressional corruption.”
I have never heard this and quite frankly believe it ridiculous to accuse someone of racism from that. Official statement: NOBODY at TGI is racist in any way, shape or form. Racism is an ugly, horrible and hateful thing, and is not Conservative. Please keep invalid inference of it out of the debate. Thanks.
Maybe I will weigh in as well.
Being mostly a libertarian (small “l”) does not mean that I do not believe in the rule of law. Look to the Constitution and its original meaning. Did James Madison and the other founders believe that their words would open up marriage? Did the Congress in the mid-1860’s believe that by giving blacks the same civil rights under the Constitution (via 13th-15th Amendments) as whites that they were giving a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy?
My points of view are irrelevant to these issues. Did the Supremes make up these rights out of whole cloth? As Justice Scalia has said, if you believe in something, pass a law… don’t use the courts to twist previous opinions to mean what you want. ACM is right, Roe v. Wade was terrible law.
From an Originalist’s point of view. I believe in judges following the law and not making it up based upon changing passions of the public. That is what Congress is for.
Should gay marriage be permitted? In my opinion, yes, in some form. Civil Unions seem to be a good compromise in that it theoretically offers all the benefits of marriage without the name. Some places this is true, in others it may not be (such as visitation and inheritance). Gay marriage is different from traditional marriage in that marriage was the foundation in many cultural and moral values. Gay marriage encapsulates many of these (stability, commitment, etc.) but is missing a key one (procreation). That is a tradition that many zealots (on both sides) refuse to compromise. Do straight marriages fail or no produce kids? Sure. It is not a 100% thing. Like I said, I don’t have a problem with gay marriage, but I am also not foolish to claim it is exactly the same as traditional marriage. All that said, the people should take to the ballot box and vote it in.
But libertarians are more than abortion and doin’ it with whom and the way you want… there is also that sticky side of limited government. Libertarians do NOT support the large scale government intervention in any issue. They believe in the market, that individuals can take responsibility for their own actions. They see government as a necessary evil to provide an environment for personal liberty and freedom. They do NOT believe in leveling the playing field (redistribution, graduated taxes), but rather in a set of rules that are fair to all. Local people make decisions better than central government.
No libertarian worth their weight would subscribe to a massive government overhaul or public option. They would laugh at the notion that a government option is there to keep insurance companies honest and provide competition. They would believe that an open market place with very limited but meaningful regulation would allow consumers to be able to make the best choices and bring down costs.
Viking’s comment on Medicare reimbursement is illuminating. When the government is underpaying, that does not mean that is a fair price. That is made up in greater costs to private insurers. So what will happen with the public option? Probably the same thing. The government run program will under pay and force private insurers out of business by either lowering or eliminating their profit margins, or forcing the rates so high that no one will pay for it. This will cause employers to dump their people out of the private plans and into the government plan. If the public option continues to underpay, less doctors will spend years of their life training for a public service job that pays so little.
If there is anyone I want to be well paid, it is my doctors and my airline pilot.
So where could costs be eliminated? We have exchanged ideas on this in the past so I will not rehash, but I will say that the Democratic plans do not seriously look at tort reform, the reason why most defensive medicine is practiced.
One final thing, as I stated in my post the other day (disappointed not more read and commented on it), many on the GOP side do have a plan. It is rightfully ignored by all (the media, Dem Congress, and Dem President) because they are in no position to pass their plan. Those plans are full of good ideas, it is just no one will take the time to read through these if they have no chance of being introduced.
I haven’t read your entire reply. However, for now, the following stands out:
“cloistered… just your caricature of us.”
Well then, it’s either Dems are all evil, or you live in a cloistered world. There are simply no other alternatives.
Here is what you’ve said about Dems: “believe Americans are stupid” and “calling people stupid or believing people are is what liberals and Democrats typically do.”
According to you, all of them, or most of them. I doubt that Dems believe Americans are stupid. In fact, the most often noted comment I heard from Dems during the Bush’s years was when are Americans going to wake up to the misdeeds of the Bush Administration. Answer: 2006.
So, since Dems don’t believe Americans are stupid, and since only you happen to believe it, then there is no conclusion but that you live in a cloistered world.
“gov-ldygook”
You haven’t read HR 3200. If you just glanced at it you’d realize that it is incredibly easy to read. It is, as I have said, straight-up. Unless you read it, you have no credibility in writing about it. All you can do is mumbo-jumbo about it – which is all you have done to date.
“Another way of stating Rick’s premise would therefore be “do Dems think that Americans would agree with their health care proposal.””
I notice that you did not contest my conclusion. If my conclusion was incorrect, you would have argued that it was incorrect. I like the fact that you agree.
“99% of those who rally against are anti-Obama”
Again, I think you agree with me. I wasn’t using it as anti the personal Obama. They are anti-Obama in the sense that they would never vote for Obama, for various reasons.
I disagree on your proposed stretch to include anti congressional corruption. Almost none would vote out a Republican congressperson. The demographics of the anti-health care participants is identical to the demographics of McCain/Palin voters, 99%. There is no change in the fabric of opinion.
“filthy”
Sure, if you suddenly believe that Buzz has been calling his Canadian friends filthy for a long time, as he claims.
What is this fanatical, quasi-religious examination of my political position? I have stated that many of you have a single left/right dimension to politics. The only way to explain it is that perhaps a center libertarian upsets your world view.
on gay rights and marriage
Marriage is not defined by procreation. Otherwise we would have to divorce everyone who couldn’t (and in some cases won’t) have children.
There are many same sex couples that have procreated. They have previous marriages or relationships. Any couple, regardless of how it is composed, can have children by insemination, proxy, or adoption.
Marriage has two clear meanings. There is the historical coupling (love, commitment) and there are the property, support rights. The state can only legislate the latter.
You gents don’t want to call it “marriage” just to preserve the label. The argument that “200 or 2000 years ago nobody thought this up, so can’t have it now” is pretty daft.
Row v Wade
Your use of the word “law” is based on the principle that justices have legislated instead of interpreted. It is just a rhetorical argument of no intrinsic value.
I could argue that you are confusing the 13th and 14th Amendments. The 13th nullified slavery and made former slaves citizens.
The 14th transferred power to the Federal government that had been reserved by the States. Unless you understand the power of the 14th Amendment, you cannot understand States rights. States do not have the rights that you are thought in elementary school history or civics.
The 14th is broad and only section 1 applies to R/W. It states that “… No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Limited Government
Your view of “limited government” is tied to a notion of states rights as perceived in the late 18th century, a sort of pre-14th Amendment view, where states are republics and delegate few rights to the national government. Under that view, no one could pass a law mandating what your local community or at worst case the state could teach, or how to protect wild life, or countless other local issues.
My view of limited government is quite different. It is based on economic efficiency. I want a child who goes to school in one part of the country to be able to move to another part and be competitive. They should have had access to the same material. They need to have read the same set of books and know the same history.
I do not doubt that some of you know libertarians who also believe in states rights. I would say many conservatives, except for their interest in who sleeps with whom, also have some libertarian views.
Quasi-religious? You state in reply after reply how you are a libertarian. Now you say you are a centrist libertarian. I am sorry that libertarian views upset your self image, but these are positions of the Libertarian Party, and by the definition of libertarianism. Your description of yourself is oxymoronic.
You have pretty much proven our point that you don’t read our responses, or choose to assign a meaning to it that does not apply to the words. I said that I am fine with Gay Marriage, but you can not stipulate that thousands of years of tradition may have any validity. In fact, you dismiss it out of hand. Marriage as a institution was not created for love… hardly. That is a new definition. It was created to bring two people together, to create stability, transfer property, retain honor, and to produce offspring. You may not like it, but that is what it was. Adding love was fine because it did not really change the definition, except to give the participant a greater choice in the matter.
Same sex couples can not procreate… they can take procreation from a pervious relationship, they can adopt, or they can artificially procreate. None of these are bad things, but they hardly are traditional practices.
Gay marriage is not founded anywhere in the intentions of our Framers who gave us foundation to our laws. They also provided local control through Federalism. Gay Marriage should be supported if laws are created to change it… not for judges to take a law that had nothing to do with gay marriage and apply it to it.
Justices legislate when they interpret more into the meaning of a law than it was meant. The 14th Amendment was passed not to provide future cover for abortion and other controversial social positions, but to provide the necessary civil rights to a population of people recently freed. The Justices who interpret a completely unrelated policy against another created 110 years earlier, and cite it as the text that says “abortion should be legal” is making it up. Saying that argument has no intrinsic value because you either can not or refuse to debate it is poor debating.
You could argue that, but you would be wrong.
What you can not understand is that law, passed by folks in the 1860’s never intended for their words to apply to a person’s right to slaughter the life growing inside of them. The words and the meaning are important. If you can not derive the meaning from the words, then you need to consult the writings that dictate the intentions of the author. That would mean that I could read anything into anything I wanted.
My view of limited government is different than that of a libertarian. Their opinion would come from a document like this:
That is fine, a fine view. It just isn’t libertarian.
Look, the web is littered with examples of libertarians calling for individual control. The bigger the government, the greater the concern. Here is one from the Maryland Libertarians:
http://www.mdlibertarian.com/2009/07/states-rights-vs-obama-texas.html
Yes, we are ones that only worship at the alter of Palin so she can deliver us from the illegitimate Evil One.
I have not read it all, but have browsed it quite a bit. “Gov-ldygook” meaning mucky, red tape bureaucracy. See its first use in the latest CARS post for clarifying context.
What conclusion? I certainly contested your misrepresentation of the meaning of his article. As for his individual beliefs on each item? I’ll let yours stand as counterpoint. We can discuss each one in another comment string, or you can comment under the source article so he can defend them.
Some not all; and I would venture to guess that some also voted for him and are having buyer’s remorse. This of course is a guess and generalization, like yours is.
You believe filthy to mean physically dirty Mexicans in some racist twist of meaning, yet I saw it as meaning corrupt, breaking the law, as in calling some dirty politician a filthy b*stard. And it was obvious and noted (when written) to be in complete jest. Also, Buzz claims the comment was not racist and reiterated that he is not a racist. I take Buzz at his word and believe him. I am not surprised that you do not.
WCW…
oxymoronic? A little too full of yourself.
First, I am not a member nor do I support the Libertarian Party. Your view of the world is substantially limited that, even more cloistered than I presumed, if your view is limited to that party’s platform.
dismissing thousands of years of tradition…
Yup. We used to kill someone for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Tradition means nothing.
It was created to bring two people together, to create stability, transfer property, retain honor, and to produce offspring.
Yup, all of that. So couples that adopt are out and can’t marry? What about barren couples?
There are many couples that cannot procreate, so that wasn’t a requirement. Instead I believe that you meant care for any off-springs, which would cover everyone.
You could just define marriage as a man and a woman period, instead of all of your gobbly-goop, but you didn’t.
So there you have: your own definition applies nicely to gays. Glad you are on-board.
14th Amendment
A principle of law is that any right not delegated to the government belongs to the people. The 14th does not prohibit abortion or countless other things. Therefore, that power belongs to the people.
It is within “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens.”
libertarian
I can quote conservatives that want to teach evolution. That wouldn’t make you a liberal or some oddity. There are many people who have different views. I have no idea, and no interest in looking up A9. Again, you have a very limited view of anything that is not left or right. Sad.
NCV…
You are slow and have been unable to keep up, or you are twisting it. Here is an exact quote of what I said:
Buzz, it is hardly an assumption when I quote what you say, and what you said, however intended, did not come across as a casual post-Canadian joke.
I will accept your reasoning and explanation.
Still remaining are the original issues: rescission, insuring the uninsured (which according to you are all either non-employed or non-citizens). What about those Americans?
Yeah, he’s got filthy friends for sure
Yes, because this: “Sure, if you suddenly believe that Buzz has been calling his Canadian friends filthy for a long time, as he claims.” certainly says you accept it.
Silly, slow and filthy me.
Hardly… As you know, oxymoronic here only means that the terms centrist and libertarian do not belong together. The joke is always military intelligence (har-dee-har), but the military men I know are pretty brainy indeed. This one might be just too hot of a popsicle to understand.
Yes, I label myself as something and then reject all the principles that make up the label. If I were to claim to be Progressive, but then say that I am a pro-life, state’s rights, bible “thumping” individual who thinks that Social Security should be privatize, you would have all the right in the world to say, “HUH?” Collectively, you make us say that daily with your use of the “libertarian” moniker. The Libertarian and libertarian are much different than the Democrat and the democrat. The libertarian view is pretty close to the party definition. Democrat and Republican are less descriptive.
Yup, taking it to the nth extreme… nice way to not prove your point. Traditions are the glue of a society. We have passed tdown traditions from generation to generation forever. Christmas means nothing? Our Constitution means nothing? Thou shall not steal means nothing? You’re better than that.
I never said that Mike. I also did not say that flying monkeys can not have children with humans, but that does not mean that I was implying it. The traditional purpose of marriage was what I said. You can’t argue with that.
Never said that either. Your form of debating uses a crude technique of grossly exaggerating or making up things that we say or mean. I have seen you much more reasoned than this before.
Because if I did, you would say that it is a “simple minded, cloistered way of looking that world from a right-wing, closed minded blog who takes his orders from the RNC and Rush Limbaugh, who are not different from each other.” I can not make you happy either way.
I have been on board for a while, I just don’t like the simpleton approach of dismissing those who oppose gay marriage as bigots and unthinking heathens.
The Constitution states that any right not delegated to the Federal Government lies with the States. The Constitution was to limit the reach of the federal government, not give it to justices.
It was never the intention of Congress or the President passing this amendment to make abortion on demand legal, or whatever made up right is next. Laws are passed for specific purposes. For example, repealing the amendment prohibiting alcohol should not in the future open the door to legal cannibalism just because of language in the amendment did not specifically prohibit or draw attention to it.
I have a pretty good idea of what is left and what is right. I also have a pretty good handle on what a libertarian is, even if it is inconvenient to you. I can call myself Superman and my house the Fortress of Solitude, but that does not make me part of the Justice League or able to fly. I someone tells me this, it does not mean they have a limited view, it just means they have their head on straight.
Don’t be sad.
But can you stop bullets or run faster than a locamotive???
Meanwhile, back at the The Great Illuminator….
Archie, you know I can. More than bullets, I can stop children just by threatening to take their Wii away.
Thanks ACM!
14th Amendment
It is interesting that you chafe at my use of “we used to stone people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath” yet easily and freely take the argument to its absurd end by stating “repealing the amendment prohibiting alcohol … open the door to legal cannibalism.”
You have yet to make a case why abortion should be prohibited. It is not everyone’s definition that life begins at conception.
The 14th Amendment has a very specific legal intent that was distinct and apart from termination of slavery. On the surface, it prohibits states from providing some of its citizens with greater or lesser power, such as the right to vote. It was a redefinition on Federal power.
The 14th falls under an evolving category of due process decisions that prohibits a role of the government in private matters. It cannot mandate what you watch, listen to, or read. These are not specific in the constitution but are understood as belonging to a category of freedoms.
These freedoms also include what you do with your body, and abortion fits. Far from being a stretch, the 14th has been used to clarify personal freedoms for quite some time. To undo Roe v Wade it is necessary to undo or replace the concept of personal freedoms as it has evolved in the 19th and 20th centuries. You may think of it as an isolated “law.” The history of the court is deeper, more complex, and quite interesting, but it is hardly legislation.
Libertarians
I know quite a few people politically. The libertarians that I know are neither left nor right and reject those labels as meaningful politically, at least for them. None are members of the Libertarian Party. All would reject party.
Some are quite left leaning; many more are right leaning.
We live in a highly complex world. Those complexities are not given well to “less” government. I would challenge anyone to define less government and that it would cost less.
Some, such as yourselves, tend to mean less government as less Federal government. I personally see no “economic efficiency.” I see it costing a great deal more.
We have covered this ground before in previous posts.
Oh, I did not chafe… I noticed how you had drawn a ridiculous conclusion (“Tradition means nothing”), and decided to point it out. Your example above proves my point perfectly. I was taking it to the absurd end to show that you had gone to the absurd end. Thank you for agreeing with me on this.
Science proves that life begins at conception. I don’t have to believe it, but then that would be like saying I don’t believe that there are computers. As far is making the case, I think I did a pretty good job in a previous discussion, but others have done a fabulous job defending the child in the womb. I am far from eloquent in their presence.
The 14th Amendment was adopted specifically because of the end of slavery, not in spite of it. It has been interpreted by “progressive” courts to mean that a mother can terminate the life of the baby inside of her, which was never the intention of the legislation. Find me one writing, one opinion, one person who was a contemporary of the bill who anticipated freedom of abortion as result of the 14th Amendment, and I will take everything back I have said.
Of course, and it is a stretch that those developing the language anticipated abortion.
Ahhh… we have found the word “evolve”. The law evolving is such a subjective term. I can interpret the law anyway I want, as long as I feel that is the right way to interpret. It does not matter what the law was meant to protect (civil rights of blacks), it just matters that I can turn it into a law that helps me accomplish what I want to accomplish.
Then you disagree with many, many learned scholars, included Justice Ginsberg who found the rationale for the decision flawed. She agreed with the outcome, but found the argument weak.
Agreed. I am dropping it.
WCW…
It is no legal surprise and my entry with the word evolve did not suddenly draw light to the fact that the law has evolved. From Drew Scott to Brown, the law has been evolving.
My point, and your reply indicates that you missed the essence of the material, was that there is a body of law around privacy that predates the 14th Amendment and continues forward to this date. Roe v Wade is not a single legislative moment in time for the court.
Your description of Ginsburg’s comments on Roe v Wade began with “disagree with many learned scholars, included Justice Ginsberg.” Your statement is (wildly) incorrect.
Ginsburg acknowledges, as a matter of known fact, that Roe v Wade was determined on the issue of privacy rights. No contest. What Ginsburg goes on to say is that the justices would have been able to make a more secure and less controversial decision if they had based it on a woman’s equal rights.
Both arguments are a continued evolution of the definition of rights under the constitution, and neither can be legislated or sent to the States.
My point on the 14th is that it gives the Federal government power over the States. Roe v Wade could probably never be sent back to the States for consideration.
The states that ratified the 14th weren’t thinking of abortion rights anymore than they were thinking of Brown v Topeka. But they clearly staked out several legal positions: federal rights over states, privacy over government, and equal protection under the law.
Now it would seem you want to undo some or all of those.
As for the science of birth, the first few stages after conception create a protective tissue that wraps the embryo. It takes several stages more before it creates cells that are able to differentiate into a human.
There are at least 5 different definitions of when a sperm/egg become life, including delivery, being able to sustain itself even if pre-birth, first heart beat, cells that can differentiate a human, and of course conception. It is impossible to say science defines life at conception without defining what you mean and why it is life.
It is, if everything goes right, a self reproducing entity. I suspect that you have deeper feelings for your anti abortion stance than either states rights or just a self reproducing organism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc
Interesting comments.
Buzz,
I have a question for you about your own health insurance. The question is motivated by the interesting link you posted.
The question is, what would happen to you, or a member of your family, if one of you contracts a serious illness and at some time during the treatment you wind up getting laid off?
Let’s assume you get another job shortly thereafter. Best of all cases. What would happen to coverage?
Trackbacks
The Buzz » Blog Archive » It’s Health Care, Stupid! | the Great Illuminator
Leave your response!
Our Growing Debt
Countdown Timer
in 26 months, 0 weeks, 3 days, 0 hours, 45 minutes, 11 seconds
Latest Illuminations
Subscribe to Posts
Categories
Authors
Archives
Center Links
Conservative Links
Great Forums
Liberal Links
The Great Illuminator
Most Commented
Tags