The gathering of Tea Party sorts on Capitol Hill to hear Michele Bachmann and other Republican celebrities speak harshly about speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi appears as harmless as kite-flying, until you listen closely and hear the familiar obsessed sounds of cultists and cranks chanting, "Kill the bill! Kill the bill!"
From the podium, Minority Leader John Boehner and Minority Whip Eric Cantor contributed trite trash-talk about the pending health-care reform vote in the House, but it was left to the Wonder Woman of the Tea Party, Michele Bachmann (R-MN), to cry out the over-the-top rhetoric that was cheered regardless of its incoherence: "You came. And you came to your house. And you came for an emergency house call. Are they going to listen? Oh, yeah, oh, yeah, they're going to listen. It was Thomas Jefferson who said a revolution every now and then is a good thing. What do you think?"
The Bachmann star turn followed another Election Day in which the party out of power showed that it has fallen so far from reason that it can celebrate another loss of a House seat.
At noon on a workday in D.C., the 10,000 elderly, unemployed, retired curiosity-seekers, carrying creative signs such as "No!" were not a revolution, nor even the "rebellion" that Boehner claimed he saw. They were gray-haired props for more of the same posturing by what is left of the GOP on the Hill--a collection of clumsy self-promoters, talk show whiners, and impotent pols like Bachmann, as the GOP slips into the grave of a splinter party, undecipherable, unelectable, unmourned.... (more)
Crazy Bachmann continues to prove the fact (yes, fact) that she is completely bonkers, and Boner follows anyone and anything that will give his fake tan some attention. Exactly why I abondoned this rediculous party 10 years ago...they are being taken over by the mentally ill.
You hit the nail on the head. I left the party when Bush was elected. It was only too obvious where the party was headed and it was not something I could support. If Bush could get elected... Lord help us. It really made me miss Reagan. (Even with all of his flaws) (Bush Sr. wasn't nearly as bad as people made him out to be, to bad people forget that.)
I can't wait for the 2010 elections!!!
It is so much fun to watch the GOP eat itself !!!!
Hate, baby, hate !!!! is their new battle cry.
Oh, and a loss is really a win...
I wonder how all the concentration camp and Nazi imagery will will play to anyone other than the members of the tea bagger cult?
I often wonder how my grand parents would have felt seeing that type of imagery used for cheap political points when their relatives were marched into the gas chamber. I wonder ifthese tea baggers even care about the extreme disrespect they give to real people who watched their families annihilated before their eyes by the Nazis. Or are they all really that ignorant that those bodies piled up on their signs are not real people with families destroyed by the events of that time period.
Please GOP and Conservative Movement, eat yourself into oblivion!!!!
I've asked this question previously in similar forums but never got a serious response. Maybe this time...
If you actually read the health care reform language in the various bills before congress, who, outside of the insurance companies, could be opposed?
The alternative is to continue escalating premiums, continued use of the ER by the uninsured, larger profit by the insurance companies, more exclusion based on pre-existing conditions, etc.
The argument against reform is almost always based on lies. Government take-over is not in the bill. Death panels are not in the bill. Government funded abortions are not in the bill. Tax increases are not in the bill, well, except for the very wealthy.
Those opposed to reform are either unable to read and comprehend or they believe the likes of Palin, Bauchmann and Bohner over the facts.
The only logical explanation is that those opposed to reform are being paid by the insurance industry because they are the only entity that would benefit from health care reforms demise. And if those opposed to reform are NOT being paid by the insurance industry - they're getting screwed.
To respond to an earlier post relating to the economics of the health care plan I have been blessed with a degree in such. The economics of this Pelosi nightmare are mostly hidden in the language . If she can get it through, the "triggers" included will change the entire face of the plan within one year of implementation. This plan, as it is now, resembles nothing that was originally presented to the american people. Furthermore this plan affects most everything that happens daily in this country. Properly manipulated the economics of this nation can be controlled through it's implementation. I don't know that this administration intends to misuse the plan for any purpose other than healthcare. But I do know that there are much better approaches to the problem of the uninsured than this plan presents. Contrary to the belief and presentations of some of you all of the contributors to the posting here are not dummies. Far from it. You would do well to critique yourselves.
@crypto,
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_healthcareproposals_ 20090912.html
Using the Wall Street Journal as a reference I know is confusing but for the sake of brevity I've included the synopsis of the proposals as of November 3.
Your self described "degree in such", considered, would you please elaborate on the specifics of your informed opinion? Where are the hidden economics? How will the "triggers" change the entire face of the plan within one year? How will reform affect most everything that happens daily? How can the economics of this nation be controlled through reforms implementation?
Further, what would you propose to control health care costs, insure the uninsured and do away with the use of "pre-existing conditions" as a reason for denial of claims?
I critique myself daily. I fully understand how the insurance industry works today and I have read three (3) of the proposals in their entirety. I don't any longer because by the time I read one it has changes. But I trust the opposition to delineate any changes that might be perceived as negatives. And, up until this point, the opposition only refers to interpretations of language I disagree with and in some cases have been proven to be faulty interpretations.
Please, enlighten me.
Good question. Someone just wrote a book about that. Can't recall who. The only real fiscal conservatives I know of are the real Libertarians, but they are really just fooling themselves if they think any Republican, except maybe Ron Paul, is fiscally conservative. And Ron Paul has quite a bit of baggage. There are moderates in both parties. This is where people should focus. But unfortunately, the focus on moderates, by both parties, is mostly negative.
Even by the not-too-high standards of TDB, this Batchelor article is astoundingly low. Merely stupid in the past, with this article he veers across the median to the lanes of the certifiably insane.
Just one example. Twenty thousand Americans responded to Bachman's call for people ("people" is a word Batchelor never uses, but instead calls the protestors "sorts" and other dehumanizing terms) to come to the House and buttonhole their representatives about one of the many different Democrat health care bills. He says the following statement by Bachman in her address to the crowd is "incoherent". It's not incoherent to anyone with an IQ above 70 and not delusionally psychotic. I challenge everyone here to read this statement and agree with Bachman that it is "incoherent":
"You came. And you came to your house. And you came for an emergency house call. Are they going to listen? Oh, yeah, oh, yeah, they're going to listen. It was Thomas Jefferson who said a revolution every now and then is a good thing. What do you think?"
"You came." Is that incoherent? Do you think a reasonable person could easily figure out who she meant by "You" and what she meant by "came"? I think a reasonable person could.
"And you came to your house." If the listener has discerned who she meant by "you" and "came", that just leaves "And", "to", and "your house". Can anyone here say that the meaning of those words, in part or in sum, are incoherent?
"And you came for an emergency house call." This was the eve of what was suppose to be an imminent House vote on a trillion dollar bill. (For some reason(s), the vote keeps getting delayed.) Would any reasonable person in the crowd have a bit of difficulty understanding what Bachman means here?
"Are they going to listen?" Apparently, Batchelor interprets this to mean "Is Batchelor going to listen?" and concludes, rightly so, that the answer is "No". But even that psychopathic misinterpretation of the statement doesn't make it incoherent.
"Oh, yeah, oh, yeah, they're going to listen." Again, even if she said, as it apparently sounds to Batchelor, "Oh, yeah, oh, yeah, Bachelor's going to listen", it's still not incoherent.
"It was Thomas Jefferson who said a revolution every now and then is a good thing." (Jefferson was praising Shay's Rebellion, a 1787 farmers revolt against high debt and taxes in Massachusetts, when he said, "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion.... What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion?") Again, where is the incoherence except in Batchelor's semantical reasoning?
"What do you think?" Ah, so it is in Bachman's final words that we may at last have found the source of Batchelor's angst. He thinks she asked, "What does Batchelor think?" and he answers "with incoherence".
All and all, TDB, this article reaches a new low.
P.S. You could at least teach Batchelor the difference between "vulgar" and "obscene". (Though asking him to distinguish "profane" would, I admit, be too much.)
Capital police estimated the crown to be about 4,000. But Fake News lies to you, so their powerful owners and advertisers can deny you affordable health care and you believe it. Now that's just downright stupid and self-destructive. Let's not forget which morons got us into this hole we're in...the republicans. Why would we want to give them power again? It's insane.
It's so easy right now to look at the melee on the right and discount it as pure political theater of the most absurdly ridiculous kind. It's a freaking puppet show. These people can't be serious. Sure, they're angry -- but they're also a minority, out of power and reduced to throwing tantrums.
Grown-ups need to worry about them about as much as you'd worry about a furious five-year-old threatening to hold her breath until she turned blue.
Unfortunately, all the noise and bluster actually obscures the danger.
These people are as serious as a lynch mob, and have already taken the first steps toward becoming one. And they're going to walk taller and louder and prouder now that their bumbling efforts at civil disobedience are being committed with the full sanction and support of the country's most powerful people, who are cynically using them in a last-ditch effort to save their own places of profit and prestige.
We've arrived. We are now parked on the exact spot where our best experts tell us full-blown fascism is born. Every day that the conservatives in Congress, the right-wing talking heads, and their noisy minions are allowed to hold up our ability to govern the country is another day we're slowly creeping across the final line beyond which, history tells us, no country has ever been able to return"
Sarah Robinson, Campaign for America's Future 8/7/09
With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy....
If you think that the GOP, with 40 Senators and 177 Representatives, can "hold up the ability for Democrats to govern this country" ... you MIGHT be a loonie leftie!
The real intraparty war in this country isn't where one party has a problem with ONE congressional candidate -- the real war is in the party that can't convince SCORES of its own party members in Congress to support its legislation!
The Democrats have split their own party and ... somehow in their severely demented minds ... it's all the Republicans' fault! It would be hilarious if not for the fact that these morons will be in power for at least 14 more months.
@Romeo
Like many other democrats I am frustrated by the inability of our party to "man-up" and pass single payer health care. Like many other democrats I'm concerned that the big tent includes some closet republicans. But your Foxworthy imitation (even with the disclaimer) does little to make the point you intended to make. Conservatives were responsible for a solid, 140 year stranglehold, republican house district going democratic.
The real intraparty war in this country is being waged in the republican party and you can make accusations and comparisons all you want but to my knowledge there hasn't been one house seat lost to the republicans because of any alleged, democratic, intraparty war.
Contrarily, blue dog democrats are, I repeat, ARE democrats.
Are conservatives republican?
After UnitedHealth Group paid fines of $1.4 billion for various frauds, they fired CEO William McGuire. McGuire took with him a golden parachute of $1.1 billion, the largest in the history of corporate America.
Stephen J. Hemsley, CEO of UnitedHealth Group, has made over $750 million in salary, bonuses, and other income in the last 4 years.
Ins. Co. & CEO With 2007 Total CEO Compensation:
* Aetna Ronald A. Williams: $23,045,834
* Cigna H. Edward Hanway: $25,839,777
* Coventry Dale B. Wolf : $14,869,823
* Health Net Jay M. Gellert: $3,686,230
* Humana Michael McCallister: $10,312,557
* U.Health Grp Stephen J. Hemsley: $13,164,529
* WellPoint Angela Braly (2007): $9,094,271
L. Glasscock (2006): $23,886,169
Ins. Co. & CEO With 2008 Total CEO Compensation:
* Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112
* Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
* Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
* Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
* Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
* U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
* Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212
MEDICAL WOES LEAD TO MORE BANKRUPTCIES
As recently as 1981, only 8% of families filing for bankruptcy did so in the aftermath of a serious medical problem.
By contrast, a 2001 study found that illness or medical bills contributed to about half of bankruptcies.
And in 2007, 62.1% of all bankruptcies were caused by medical debt.
SOURCE: American Journal of Medicine study
Here's a statistic bound to stiffen the resolve of health care reformers: The number of yearly U.S. deaths linked to lack of health insurance is now thought to be nearly 45,000 -- about 2.5 times more than previous estimates seven years ago.
That means one person dies every 12 minutes. Why the jump? The study in the American Journal of Public Health points to an increase in the number of uninsured -- at least 46 million today -- and a fraying medical safety net.
The Harvard University-based researchers say uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts.
In 1993, that number was just 25 percent. "The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors and baseline health," says lead author Andrew Wilper, who worked at Harvard Medical School when the study was done. "We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes and heart disease -- but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications."
The party of NO.. foolish Republicans voting against their own best interests.. ranting and screaming in opposistion to reforming health care in this country.
Then again.. they have proven over and over they are really Stupid.
The Tea Baggers are suicidally stupid. They're being used by the Republican Party and are demonstrating on behalf of the health insurance companies that overcharge them, cherry pick them for coverage, and deny claims if the company can think up a "pre-existing condition."
These people are so stupid, they should be on suicide-watch.
"yearning for America to fail like them"
Brilliant!!! and scarily true
Please, JB, tell us, are you writing this column for your own amusement as you flush out the loony and downright disgusting comments of the left or do you really believe the stuff you write for the BEAST???? Is it just a gig to you and you need an angle?
Your criticisms of the GOP may or may not be valid but your vitriolic prose in the BEAST does not persuade anyone to alter his/her views either way especially when it demeans well meaning, tax paying citizens.
JB - Are you suffering from Stockholm Syndrome or what? Is someone holding a gun to your head as you write this stuff in the BEAST? I echo jee's sentiments. I am flummoxed. I cannot accept that what you write for the BEAST is a serious effort. How can you continue to demean... I give up! You, Spencer, GT... - all of you are right. Obama, Pelosi and her goose-stepping Dems are the greatest thing to come along since sliced bread. All else pales in comparison. I hope you all enjoy the next 'One Hundred Years of Solitude' in the '...Time of Cholera'.
Maybe JB is just exploring the burned-out landscape of these corrupt parties, in consideration of the establishment of a SERIOUS third party. The Dems are on a corrupt, socialist trajectory, and the Repubs are floundering and gutted and equally corrupt. There is no viable leadership in the Republican Party. And even if credible Republican leaders would emerge, the left-leaning, Democrat-invested press would obscure or destroy them. The trouble is that both parties contain extremists (socialists on one side, religious fundamentalists on the other), but the media focuses ONLY on the extremists of one side.
Please allow me to clarify: The media focus only on EXPOSING the extremists of one side.
There is still such a thing as reality- believe it or not
WHAT DO YOU CALL A PERSON WHO'S FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE, STRONG ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SOCIALLY LIBERAL?
A person without a party.
FWIW--My wife attended Bachman's 'news conference" with a bus load of like-minded pissed off folks from this part of NJ. JB's article doesn't quite describe the crowd there as I understand it and from the copious pix she took and the videos I saw.
JB, you don''t get out much, a self-proclaimed non-viewer of TV. who knows your sources for your description of the crowd. Your are simply not informed. Read too much Daily Beast I guess.
Frankly, John, I can't tell what your POV is re the Republican Party, conservative and libertarians. You obviously see some faults, inconsistencies beyond the ken of us plebs. So we get a snarky, insinuated, unnecessarily subtle, ironic diatribe that says nothing in particular but does succeed is ingratiating yourself to the DB crowd. Toss them some red meat?
I admire you in many ways but your treatment of this issue is arcane. If you've got a real analysis of the conservative cause and strategy, pls share it with us. Bachman's impromptu rally was directed at the Pelosi heathcare evisceration bill and why not, it is a disaster to the healthcare system and probably the economy as a whole. What's the problem with regular people, like my wife, going to harass the dopes inside the House.
I'm not too keen on the current state of the party either but I fail to see how drive-by fun-making of those injured in a train wreck does much. The party may be a mess but the alternative (Democratic Party) is no choice at all.
Strap 'em on and take a friggin stand.
Michele Bachman is a Hottie,, true dat...
That said, Republicans are a like a ricketty ol' plane trying to take flight... comprised of spare parts from other planes, fuel from a too-old tank, left in the ground too long.. engine sputtering... and they don't quite know what kind of plane they are... jet? prop? large and accomodating/comfortable.. small and speacialized.. etc, etc..
Repubs are indeed trying to figger out who they are. My beef with JB is that he uses this as fodder for comedy and proof that Repubs are at present, dolts, when writing for the Beast. Sorta like the mean kid using the unsure-of-himself kid, in an effort to be be part of the "in" crowd.
JB is 90% the best of the best in my book... But this bashing/humiliating on the Beast in an endeavor to whip up postings, is a pretty in your face 10%... it feels bigger than that.
Endnote ~ Conservatives do not suffer the identity crisis of the Republicans. We know who we are... We're just not sure if anyone is going to follow us.
Exactly! C'est moi.
Unless and until the Repubs determine that they stand for fiscal conservatism and strong national defense--and NOT for fundamentalist ideology that calls for government involvement in such private matters as abortion and gay marriage--the Republican Party will not be viable into the 21st century.
But perhaps what we're really talking about here IS the need to have a TRUE Conservative Party - in the sense of small, stay-out-of-citizens'-personal-lives type government.
Thanks you, John. NOw we can get somewhere.
I tend to agree with your platform. What I want yo to consider is that a lot of those in the 9/12 and 11/5 crowds do too.
Not all Republicans are born again Christians, (I'm sure not), blindly against abortion (I find it appauling but essentially a settled matter of law and social norms), the gay issue seems so easy to settly via unions (reserving the "marriage" trademark for heteros). And I do conclude that the Rep party is self-marginalizing as long as it is captive to these beliefs. I guess that makes me a Giuliani Republican.
But what I also believe is that the 9/12ers, 11/5ers, teaparty goers are not about those peripheral social issues; both were about fiscal conservatism, constitutional boundaries, crony capitalism, and Marxism-lite that is (perhaps unknowingly ?) being perpetrated in DC by the Pelosi.Reid/Obama wing of the Dem party. I would be just as alarmed if we were being subjected to forced tithing to the christian church, abortion prosecutions, denial of any form of union to gays, etc.
This doesn't make me an Independent (whatever that is) or a middle of the roader.
Obvioulsly the Rep Party has not reached the point where a person or coalition can step forward successfully with such an agenda. But just like the blue dogs must feel about the move on.org crowd, where else will they go?
If the regular contributors of the Daily Beast had been around in 1776, we'd all still be drinking tea and eating crumpets and prancing around in leggings speaking about how sad it is the Sun has set on our empire ....
I was never prouder of the Republican Party than I was yesterday - I watched about 6 hours of the debates including the snarl at the beginning between Dingell and the Repubs. Hilarious. (Yet I think Dingell did a decent job. I was especially impressed with the way he stopped without saying another word when his time ran out at the end - he lives by his own rules.)
Another highlight to me was John Boehner making absolute mincemeat out of Charlie Rangell. Boehner for POTUS in 2012 ..... I don't know about JB, but to me, Boehner represents exactly what the Republican Party should stand for - thoughtful, tough, no-nonsense leadership with zero tolerance for BS.
In fact, I'm going to send Boehner a signed letter on company letterhead thanking him for making a noble last stand at preserving the Constitution.
I think the Republicans made one tactical error yesterday. I think they should have waited until most of the Dems had voted NAY on the Tupak Amendment and then submitted about 40 NAY votes on it themselves. Granted the right to life groups would have targeted them for it, but I think it would have prevented the passage of the health bill itself. It was clear that the Dems would not have had 218 votes without the Tupak Amendment in the bill. Can someone please explain to me why it would not have been good, sound, even principled politics for the Repubs to torpedo the Tupak Amendment (even though they believed in it) on the grounds that it was their best shot at preventing passage of the final bill?
The Republicans know that HealthScare reform is going to pass in some fashion. Most everyone in Congress knows that the current trends of ever increasing and unrealistic expenditures in all aspects of the industry are unsustainable.
They have handed this off to the Democrats and made them go it alone while they choose to promote a policy of screaming incoherently. They all acknowledge that there is an emergency, yet, they have decided to stand in the foyer and stare through the swinging doors, believing the safest political ploy for them is to just not get involved. It is unconscionable for them to not get involved in this.
What a group... of mealy mouthed cowards. Not a leader found in one of them.
They believe in more moderate and incremental reforms than the Dems do, that's all. Your way of framing the debate makes the Democrats winners before the battle even starts.
In my opinion, the bill the House just passed would do nothing to hold down healthcare costs. I've stated a very simple fact on this website a few times before and you (and many others) continue to overlook it: The passage of Medicare in 1965 was what triggered the double-digit healthcare inflation that eventually led to the current situation where the cost is beyond the means of many people. The more government gets involved, the more costs will go up. It's true that tax policy may appear to make coverage more affordable for those making below the poverty level, but all it's doing is spreading those costs over the rest of the population. In other words, it's another entitlement program, that does little if nothing to hold the input costs down, and in fact, probably guarantees that they'll go up even faster than they otherwise would have.
As long as there's virtually unlimited demand for the latest technology, for designer drug cocktails, for having seniors on a whole array of drugs that they become addicted to and must have every month, and as long as people are discouraged from even questioning the price of these services, you'll have a limited (controlled) supply of services and a virtually inelastic demand curve. The House bill would do nothing to correct this situation.
Also, I'd like to remind you that we already have two programs (Social Security and Medicare) that will experience serious funding shortfalls in the not-so-distant future. Wouldn't it make more sense to figure out a way to fully fund those programs before we start a new one?
Above all, do no harm.
I like listening to John Batchelor normally. I was very surprised that he would write such an article. I was at the Rally in Washington on Thursday. There were people of all ages there. The speakers were great. It doesn't look like the last days of the Republicans - John, you must have heard of the Republican wins in NY, NJ and Virginia on election day. New York and New Jersey formerly very blue states.
Wake up America, your freedom is being taken away bit by bit. This health care bill will have the government in control of 17% of our economy. The government already controls GM, insurance companies, banks, mortgage companies etc. We're getting to look more and more like the former Soviet Union.
Spencer, the conservatives have not handed this off to the Democrats. They do have a plan and it won't bankrupt this country. Some ideas are to cover the people who can't afford it (actually only about 12 million) and allow the others who are happy with their insurance to keep it. If your car has a flat tire, you don't have to trash the whole car. To reduce insurance costs, open up competition for health insurance companies across state lines and have tort reform.
Have you guys heard of all the Marxist Revolutionaries and Maoists that Obama has appointed as his czars? If you haven't let me know and I'll send you a list of about 10 I know about. If you have, why would you trust any legislation coming out of this corrupt government?
Rosalie, welcome and thanks for the post. I'm afraid some of us are a bit jaded here. We're like that prison joke where one of the inmates says "Number 22!" and everyone laughs. A new prisoner decides to try it... "Number 22!" he shouts. Nobody laughs, not even a chuckle. "What happened?" he asks? "You told it wrong ....."
Anyway, in the present situation, Spencer is well aware of what's going on. He also knows that I work in the health care business and that I'll be out of a job if the House bill passes in its current form, and he also knows I like Boehner and the Republicans. I assume he's bored and probably has a couple of other unknown gripes with me (most recently I gave him caca about using a pseudonym, that might be part of it.) So it's late Sunday night and he decides to give me a poke in the ribs through the bar of my hamster cage and see if I'll try to bite.
"funny how all 3500 of them are white!"
Obama's half white. It's the white, socialist, Marxist half of the President that the demonstrators detest.
Actually, there were over 20,000 demonstrators at the Capitol that day, who came there on very short notice. As for your Captain Obvious statement about the color of their noses, I'll point something else that's equally obvious, especially if you have two functioning hemispheres of your brain:
The black noses that would normally love to voice their disgust openly with Obama and his crypto-socialist agenda have to be extremely circumspect about doing so lest racist halfwits like you smear them with the dreaded term "Uncle Tom." I don't blame them for being careful and for keeping quiet.
"The study in the American Journal of Public Health points to an increase in the number of uninsured -- at least 46 million today -- and a fraying medical safety net."
Bull. The 46 million number has been debunked by the Wall Street Journal (and other media sources) many times. Even Zerobama changed his mind in a recent speech in which he said that there were about "30 million" uninsured (not "46 million") though that number is also exaggerated.
According to the WSJ, you can lop off the first 10 million as illegal aliens. The next 10 million are people earning 75K or more who simply choose not to get health insurance. Another 10 million are younger people earning about 50K who believe, no doubt, that they will live forever if they take their vitamins, and who also choose not to get health insurance. So that's already 30 million people fewer than the big Zero in the White House and all the lemmings who follow him keep harping on. The first 10 million are here illegally and should not be turned into an entitlement class; the next 20 million are people who freely choose not to get insurance though they could certainly afford it if they wanted it.
You want to make health insurance more affordable for the remaining 16 million people who want insurance but find they can't afford it? Then get government OUT of the insurance business and out of the healthcare business in general. Repeal all laws that cartelize the insurance industry in each state: abolish state insurance commissions; permit interstate buying and selling of health insurance policies; abolish "mandates." The latter are simply a way to redistribute wealth and have done nothing except drive up insurance rates. Combine this with tort reform and you have a non-bureaucratic, non-coercive, non-governmental way to bring in market competition and lower prices.
There is no healthcare insurance "crisis" even with today's lack of competition -- it's completely manufactured by the left (just as the BS of "global warming" is completely manufactured -- heck, even John Batchelor is beginning to talk truth about global cooling despite years of repeating the mantra about warming). The way government takeovers of an industry work is like this: first, government breaks your legs; then they hand you a pair of crutches and say "Look how humane we are! What would you do without us?"
The "medical safety net" you refer to above is not "insurance" as properly understood. You and your sources are equivocating on the word "insurance" and moving between the two meanings without alerting your audience. Properly understood, "insurance" refers to a risk pool. By that definition, the higher the risk, the higher the rate. Period. If you don't wish to pay the rate, don't buy insurance. The pool is coalesced among people of the same risk class. The second meaning of the word "insurance" -- the meaning you and your sources are equivocating on -- is the idea of a "social safety net", i.e., universal welfare. Universal welfare is simply socialism, and socialism spells the death of an economy. At least be honest about what you're advocating.
"Further, what would you propose to control health care costs, insure the uninsured and do away with the use of "pre-existing conditions" as a reason for denial of claims?"
Control health care costs:
The same mechanisms that control computer hardware and software costs: competition. Have computers decreased in price? Yes. Have they gotten better in quality? Yes. Did government intervene in order to "keep Apple and Microsoft honest"? No. Apple keeps Microsoft honest and Microsoft keeps Apple honest. Turns out that's all you need (oh, yeah. You also need government to keep OUT of the computer industry).
Insure the uninsured:
You equivocate on the term "uninsured." There are the "uninsured" who can darn well afford insurance if they wanted it but they CHOOSE FREELY not to purchase insurance. That's according to the Wall Street Journal. We should do absolutely nothing to force those who freely choose not to purchase insurance to do so.
The other "uninsured" are those who want to purchase insurance but cannot afford to do so. They stand to gain by the first reply above: bring in competition by ending state insurance commissions and federal mandates - which force insurance companies to pool people of vastly different risk classes in order to "cross subsidize" one group against the other. This is nothing but redistribution of wealth for purely political purposes. It also raises insurance rates and incentivizes people who would like insurance but believe themselves to be in a low risk group to drop out of the risk class entirely. As more people drop out, insurance premiums have to rise. Get government mandates out of the insurance industry and you'll see rates fall. The economics of this are not complicated and are not mysterious. This is purely a political problem created by politicians for political purposes.
Doing away with pre-existing claims as a reason for denial of claims:
Pre-existing condition, high-risk-pools already exist and many insurance companies already have them. Obviously, you pay more for that. Why don't you just be honest what you're talking about. You want universal WELFARE for people regardless of their risk class; not INSURANCE. In general, you can't have a risk pool for pre-existing conditions for this reason: if someone tries to sell me fire insurance for my home and I turn it down as unnecessary, and if my house then burns down, should I then be able to go back to the insurance company and say "I need that insurance now, but I want it to be retroactive." The house has already burned down-- that's the "pre-existing condition."
The way you help those with pre-existing conditions is not by destroying the insurance industry. You help them by bringing in market forces -- CAPITALISM -- into the healthcare industry. For example, instead of regulations that restrict the number of physicians, repeal the regulations and let more physicians get trained and into practice. There are restrictions on the opening up of medical schools (thus restricting the number who can enter medical training); there are restrictions against doctors moving freely between states without time-consuming licensing procedures (these regulations are NOT imposed to "keep the quality of medical care high." In fact, they have no effect at all on the quality of medical care. These restrictions are imposed in order to keep the supply of doctors artificially scarce and thus to keep the cost of medical care high. A lot more people would like to be medical doctors than are allowed to be.)
Regulated health care (whether "single-payer" or not) is a failure in Canada, the UK, and in all countries in which it has been tried. It will fail in the US if it is implemented -- same cause, same effect. It must lead to rationing as an attempt to contain costs -- but "cost" can take many forms, not just money. Rationing might reduce money-cost but it increases time-cost: you wait, and you wait, and you wait, and you wait, and no matter how much money you wave in front of a receptionist at a "free" clinic, you can't move ahead in line or find more available (albeit more expensive) medical attention: the medical attention doesn't exist. In the former Soviet Union, medical care was so scarce, doctors were commanded to spend no more than about 7 minutes with each patient, and about 4 of those minutes were spent doing necessary paperwork. What this led to was a big disincentive on the part of the population to seek medical attention for those occasions when it normally would have sought it. Even in a non-communist country like Switzerland, a recent government takeover of healthcare in order to "contain costs" has led to a stoppage of innovation by government decree -- you can't contain costs if medical technology is constantly changing and improving. Apparently, the left thinks this is a good thing.
You can count on this: in all countries that have government takeovers of healthcare, the politicians and their flunkies most certainly do not get in line behind everyone else and wait, and wait, and wait. They will get "primo" medical attention, even if the new drugs and the new procedures are denied to everyone else. They can not only choose THEIR doctor; they can choose YOUR doctor -- while you get put on a waiting list.
How about this: conservatives will support any "health care reform" concocted by morons like Pelosi and Reid . . . so long as the legislation mandates every member of Congress to abide by their own legislation.
"I like listening to John Batchelor normally. I was very surprised that he would write such an article."
I'm not surprised. Batchelor is pretty good when interviewing authors about their books; aside from that, however, he's a pure RINO -- Republican In Name Only. He's not really a conservative. Thankfully, someone at WABC must have told him not to keep reminding his listeners that he went to Princeton, because a few years ago, he used to do so on almost every show. He's an old-fashioned "blue-blood" GOP. He's not conservative; he's not Libertarian; he's not a "classical liberal" (though he sometimes has a spokesman from "Cafe Hayek"). He recently appeared on a short video clip at Pajamas TV (www.pjtv.com) commenting negatively on the Tea Party movement. Politics for Batchelor is a matter of being "polite." Politics, however, is not polite and has never been so. People's lives are at stake -- that's not the time for them to be polite.
NoNoNo Lou... wasn't my comment solely about the lack of Republican candor?
You slight me with your suggestion that I in someway know that you will be out of a job if reform passes. I don't believe that and I don't believe that you believe that either.
I have made my stance clear on this issue. The answer, as far as I'm concerned, lies in all parties acting responsibly and coherently while confronting these issues.
That a simple honest remark is manipulated to cast aspersions is ridiculous and symptomatic of these times...
Republicans have become trite cry babies.
You don't have the facts straight-
While health insurance rates increased 200% from 2000 through 2008, the profits reported by the top companies realized gains of 400% during the same period.
When adjusted to include all subsets of companies writing health insurance policies, profits were up 250%
I don't think I ever mentioned "conservatives."
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” Joseph Goebbels
Spencer,
The only thing I can say for certain about what you mean, is that however I interpret your marks, you invariably claim that I've misinterpreted them and that they meant something else. Makes for extremely difficult communications.
You backtracked from calling the Republicans "mealy-mouthed cowards, without any leadership" in your first message, to simply referring to their "lack of candor" in the second.
Let me add that to my file SpencerTranslater.dbx. Next time you say "mealy-mouthed cowards, without any leadership" my macro will translate it as "lack of candor" and I'll be able to better respond to it.
After about a thousand years I should have enough of a file accumulated to be able to make sense out of what you're saying.
typo first sentence: your remarks
That guy Goebbels you're quoting, is he the one who shot his wife and then himself in the head, after they murdered their 5 children? Anita Dunn would be proud of you!!
You don't give JB enough credit. His show and his website have become the hub for critical conservative thinking and strategy. If you don't believe that to be the case, why waste your time posting all those messages on this thread?
I haven't quite figured out why JB writes those awful missives on the Daily Beast. I am fairly certain that he doesn't believe them or take them seriously. It probably takes him 10 minutes to shoot one of them off and send it to DB, while his show takes him probably 80 hours a week to prep and deliver. It doesn't make sense that he'd lie for 80 hours and tell the truth for 10 minutes; it's got to be the other way around.
Thanks Lou and Economic Freeedom.
Economic Freedom - I will use your blog and send it to all my friends and relatives who think this bill "will help the poor." It is great.
Thanks for the heads up on JB - Lou and Economic Freedom.
To Spencer - I heard that the health insurance companies only make a profit of 2%
Have to go to work (taking an "obscene profit break") - no time to respond now.
Yeh right, Lou... I don't believe you have any trouble understanding what I write. You may not agree or like it, but, you shouldn't have any trouble interpreting it.
And you know that Goebbels would be proud of the machine rolled out by the lobby-
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” Joseph Goebbels
But you just gone done telling me in the previous message ("NONONONO Lou!") that I hadn't understood what you'd written. Now you say you're sure I DO understand what you mean. I'm not sure I understand - did I not understand what you claim I understand now, or did I actually understand what you understood me to misunderstand previously? Please clarify.
Also, you took a pass at explaining how "mealy-mouth cowards with no leadership" morphed down to "lacking in candor" to suit your purposes. I don't blame you - even Bill Clinton himself would have a tough time explaining that one.
Everything I've read has indicated that the insurance industry has played along with the Dems (at their own peril). In fact, I wish the insurance lobby had been a bit stronger like they were in 1994, maybe we wouldn't have gotten to this perilous point otherwise.
Finally, what's that stupid rule where they say now if someone invokes Hitler, the thread has gone past the point of no return? Is it your plan to circumvent that rule by simply substituting Goebbels for Hitler?
"Finally, what's that stupid rule where they say now if someone invokes Hitler, the thread has gone past the point of no return?"
You refer to ">Godwin's Law, closely related to the phrase reductio ad Hitlerum that I used in the Ft. Hood thread.
From last night you wrote to Rosa:
"Anyway, in the present situation, Spencer is well aware of what's going on. He also knows that I work in the health care business and that I'll be out of a job if the House bill passes in its current form, and he also knows I like Boehner and the Republicans. I assume he's bored and probably has a couple of other unknown gripes with me (most recently I gave him caca about using a pseudonym, that might be part of it.) So it's late Sunday night and he decides to give me a poke in the ribs through the bar of my hamster cage and see if I'll try to bite."
I replied this AM:
NoNoNo Lou... wasn't my comment solely about the lack of Republican candor?
You slight me with your suggestion that I in someway know that you will be out of a job if reform passes. I don't believe that and I don't believe that you believe that either.
I have made my stance clear on this issue. The answer, as far as I'm concerned, lies in all parties acting responsibly and coherently while confronting these issues.
That a simple honest remark is manipulated to cast aspersions is ridiculous and symptomatic of these times...
Republicans have become trite cry babies.
From Politifact today:
"Not a government takeover of health care. The Democratic plans would leave the current system of private insurance in place while increasing regulation for insurance companies, requiring everyone to buy health insurance, and providing more subsidies for low-income people. One aspect still up in the air is the public option, a health insurance plan that would be run by the government. People could choose whether to enroll in the public option. (An estimated 12 million would, according to the Congressional Budget Office.) But Republicans have consistently portrayed the entire plan as government-run. When Sen. Tom Coburn said that under Obama's plan, "all the health care in this country is eventually going to be run by the government," we rated it False."
I don't like it-
I've always said people should pay for their own routine care and purchase some kind of catastrophic coverage through a provider. And I have consistently said that the industry should lead the way in reducing costs
Still, I watch the debate
This pseudonym thing you keep harping on-
What about all the other obvious ones in this forum?
I don't care and I don't necessarily believe anyone that says they are commenting under their own name...
Spencer,
This is getting really tedious. Must be even moreso to the readers who have to sort through it. I'm done with this, let's let it drop.
If I may make a suggestion, Hitlerium would have a better ring to it than Hitlerum, since it would put the stress on a long vowel rather than a short one.
You'll have to take it up with Leo Strauss, since he coined the phrase. I just work here.
He's the one who founded the jeans company?
Actually, he designed *Noble Lie Stretch Pants*, now available in desert camo style. They are especially favored by Neocons, who crave that tough-guy martial look but are often *too pudgy* to squeeze into a regular military uniform.
Hi,
Lou, that was Levi Strauss, or were you just kidding.
Spencer, read the bill. You won't be able to keep your private insurance. I know it was on page 16 of HR 3200. I don't know what page it is on on the new bill, but I know it's there.
If you want to get private health insurance after the first day of the first year - when this takes effect, you can't. If your present insurance changes in any way - rate or whatever, you can no longer keep it.
That's why it is a government takeover.
Did you know that if you decide to opt out of the health plan you will have to pay a stiff fine. If you don't pay the fine, you will go to jail for 5 or 6 years. That sounds very democratic........
Why do you think so many people show up in Washington? Are you ready to join us next time? Anyone else with second thoughts?