What up mah' socialist!

Really? I mean REALLY??!
Let's examine shall we?
France - led by white Sarkozy
Germany - led by white Merkel
UK - led by so-white-he's-translucent Brown (whose name is ironic, but not descriptive of anything other than the stuff he shovels constantly)

Pretty sure Sweden is run by a white person, and I think if you pick
A socialist-leaning country on this planet today, chances are HIGH it's majority white; lazy, entitled, as innovative as a bedazzler but white.

All the really skeeeeeery socialists were really communists or facists ALSO, but guess what? Also white!
- Stalin
- Hitler
- Mussolini
Etc...

Castro isn't black either.

So exactly what am I missing here??

More makeup on farm animals

What color lipstick will they use this time?

B

y MICHAEL O. LEAVITT

Responding to a building wave of opposition to the "public option," the Obama administration is now signaling that it may dress up government health care in yet another set of clothes. This time, it will be called a health insurance "co-op." Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) is floating the idea, Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) has offered his initial support, and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) has listed three conditions it needs to meet.

Mr. Schumer's conditions are a national structure, federal financing, and a ban on federal appointees who have ties to the insurance industry. This "co-op" would be federally controlled, federally funded, and federally staffed. Expressing his opposition to smaller organizations and his demand for a national "co-op," Mr. Schumer says, "It has to have clout; it has to be large." He adds, "There would at least be one national model that could go all over the country," which would require "a large infusion of federal dollars."

I'm quite familiar with real co-ops. As a teenager, I filled my family's tractor with fuel purchased at a farmer's co-op, which was organized by local people to solve a common problem. My family got its electricity from a rural electric co-op. I was later a director of an "insurance reciprocal," a form of a co-op. Co-ops are a part of American culture: people uniting to solve common problems. What the Democrats are proposing bears little resemblance to this.

The Democrats are insisting that their version of a "co-op" wouldn't be government-run health care, but I ran Medicare and Medicaid as secretary of Health and Human Services, and I know this isn't true. When Washington provides the money, names the directors and ultimately pays the bills, government controls health care. Lobbyists will lobby, Congress will respond, and bureaucrats will decide who gets care, what drugs are prescribed, what procedures are covered, and how much money providers can charge. This is true for Medicare, it's true for Medicaid, and it would be true of Mr. Conrad's "co-ops."

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is from Iowa farm country. He knows co-ops, and hopefully he also knows a plan for a government takeover when he sees it. He's said he's against a "public option," no matter what it's called. Yet Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, describing what he wants out of "co-op" legislation, spoke plainly, as reported by Politico earlier this summer, when he said, "It's got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objective of the public option."

View Full Image
Leavitt
Associated Press
Leavitt
Leavitt

Our health-care system needs real reform. We need to abolish the unfair tax that favors employer-sponsored insurance over self-purchased insurance. We need to foster a more vibrant private market with greater competition and choice. We need to make prices transparent and give consumers more freedom to pursue health-care value.

Every American needs to have access to affordable health insurance. But we don't need a "public option" that would jeopardize the employer-provided insurance of millions—an option that employers would be able to choose at their employees' expense. And we don't need the government running a bunch of so-called "co-ops," rationing care at taxpayers' expense.

The Democrats are getting worried that the Trojan Horse they have offered in the form of a "public option" has been spotted for what it is. So now they are looking for a new way to get government-run health care through the gates.

Let none of us be co-opted by their latest ploy.

Mr. Leavitt, former secretary of Health and Human Services (2005-2009), has served as the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and as governor of Utah (1993-2003).

Four half-truths on healthcare

iMore brilliance from Vinny on healthcare reform

I don’t know if you know this or not, but the insurance industries are regulated both on the state and the federal level. While the President would have you believe that this “reform” plan will usher in a new era of insurance company oversight. My question with this is the same as my question about Medicare: why not do it now?

Get on the regulating agencies and state regulators to do their damn jobs! If insurance companies are as out of control as we’re being led to believe, then it’s because the people responsible for oversight are failing. Miserably. Maybe it’s time to reform that!

Insurance companies don’t operate in an unregulated bubble, despite what our President would have you believe. If they’re harming consumers, punish them! If they’re profiteering on people’s pain, punish them! Regulate them with the same boldness and swiftness that the FCC went after Apple for not approving an App for the iPhone! Pretend it’s Microsoft, and that they must be stopped!

Read the whole thing. Now.

Healthcare is not Health

How American Health Care Killed My Father - The Atlantic (September 2009)

It is sickeningly clear that our policy-makers and President haven't spent any time talking to people like this or even thinking about the root of our healthcare problems. It's terrifing actually considering they are to blame for where we are today, at least as much as the other eeeevil villains usually cited.

Not-so-little-boy says "The Emperor is Nekkid!"

Vinny
has a brilliant post about Obama's healthcare plans. Lately I think it, he writes it.

Forget the post office analogy

Look, I oppose Obamacare as represented by the three bills circulating currently, but even I'm getting weary of hearing opponents toss out the tired old "They can't even run the Post Office!" criticism of government's ability to "run" things. If the big argument against "government controlled" healthcare is that they suck at running things, or that the quality of the product they turn out is sub-par, or that it's too expensive, or most accurately, ALL OF THE ABOVE, why not look at the largest, most expensive, most VITAL "single-payer" system we have in this country besides healthcare.

The government can't even run the damn SCHOOLS!

Oh, I realize people don't want to touch that subject, it's tantamount to saying people's kids are stupid and getting dumber by the day because most are trapped in that system. every time you even hint at voucher programs or some other form of privatization of the system, people act like you're trying to instigate "white flight" or leave minority kids or poor kids behind, or like you're just saying that average American kids are dolts because they come out of this system. It's a touchy subject.

But just because it's touchy for politicians doesn't mean we shouldn't be talking about it out there in the blogosphere. We sure do talk about the crap-ass jobs schools are doing when the subject IS education, so why not now? Let's look at the particulars shall we?

Public schools educate MOST kids in this country and it's a "universal" system in that every American (and non-American, even illegal) kid walking around of school age in this country is "entitled" to a "free" K-12 education in this country. Not sure exactly where in the Constitution it ever said that, but no matter, it's the law of the land today, so here we are. And I would even argue that it's probably a good idea in a democracy to take steps as a government to ensure that you do have a literate society because people who can't read can't (or rather, shouldn't) vote.

Now I know the federal gov't doesn't pick up the whole tab, or even most of it, the states and localities do (thank GOD for small favors) but the fed DOES set standards and make laws that require those states and localities to meet those national standards in order to get the federal contribution, and in order for them not to come in and tell you you're running a school that violates someone's civil rights. So in essence, the fed "runs" public schools about as much as they'd "run" healthcare if universal single-payer were passed. Even in Canada the system is provincial, and I'm betting we'd have the same thing here too, so the analogy fits fine.

More particulars:
As of 2006, we were spending about 4.7% of GDP on public k-12 education in this country. In layman's terms: a "CRAPLOAD" of money.

16% of our students are dropping out and that number is CLIMBING despite us pouring more and MORE money into the system annually.

The federal government has steadily increased its involvement in the formulation of policy and curriculum of our public schools, despite questionable authority to do so (that's putting it mildly).

To summarize: We have a public system, run by the government--federal at the macro-level and state and local at the micro-level, but "gov't run" nonetheless, with a cabinet level position dedicated to "running" it and ensuring it be a permanent entitlement for our citizenry. This system costs more and more each year despite turning out less and less quality and FAILING UTTERLY in its mission at every increasing rates. And we the people are told that we need to spend MORE to make it better, we need to reward bad teachers and unions who coddle them and politicians who profit from coddling them and students who don't care and parents who don't take responsibility and if we DARE to argue that this is wrong or there are better ways, we are a) racist
b) unpatriotic
c) classist
d) selfish
e) all of the above

Sound familiar?? What are we being told now about healthcare?

But no one points to the schools. No one talks about how No Child Left Behind has nearly crippled good teachers and students and has completely left behind the "gifted" amongst our children (those who might be the ones to invent our next great energy source, or figure out a way to bring peace to the Middle East, or just write a screenplay that doesn't bore us to tears). And no one highlights the obvious flaws in asking the same government that can't do any better with education despite constantly asking for more and more and MORE money, to take over ANOTHER 1/6 of the US economy.

Teachers are far less expensive to train and to hire than doctors and nurses, they work fewer hours and have more time for continuing education and research, as stressful as their jobs are, they aren't LITERALLY dealing with life and death issues in their classrooms every day, nor are they at risk of being sued if they make a mistake or even if they just fail to teach a kid anything remotely useful. As much paperwork as they have to do, it pales by comparison to what doctors must do just to get reimbursed for Medicare as it is, and they get summers and weekends off. If the government still has trouble hiring and keeping GOOD (never mind excellent) teachers, how do you think they'll do when doctors and nurses are on salary to them as well?

The only logical answer is that they have purposely run our schools so poorly in hopes that we really are stupid enough to "buy" that having them run healthcare too would SAVE us money, never mind that it would "improve" quality of or access to care.

I'll tell you what, the day there are no high school dropouts in America I'll consider supporting them as viable candidates to run my healthcare, but until then, no thanks. Next time someone tosses out "they can't even run the Post Office," do them one better and remind them about the bang up job the government does "running" our schools. If that doesn't scare the piss out of them, nothing will.

What's good enough for us isn't good enough for them

Well well well! How very INTERESTING. The Republicans voted for the amendment, gee, wonder why
the Dems didn't? What's good enough for us isn't good enough for them (again?)

What does this tell you about that public option they say will be "as good or better" than what we have today? Either they haven't a clue how good the care we already have IS, or they think it's slightly better than a shit sandwich, and that's good enough for us to keep because why else would they be reassuring us we'll be able to keep it even if they get their public option passed?

Do these people seriously believe we are THAT DUMB??? (Well, maybe, they don't send their kids to the same schools as us plebes either).

I'm having visions of special hospitals and doctors for "party leaders" reminiscent of the former Soviet Union. Why is that? Hmmm...I wonder.....?

How about "soak the rich DEMOCRATS" first?

At what point will Obama supporters and fans of the so-called "public option" sit up and take notice? The numbers do NOT add up.

This whole issue makes me want to stop liberals mid-talking point to ask the following:

What is your goal?
1) "coverage" for everyone? (coverage which, btw, does NOT guarantee CARE, you can be "covered" and not find a doctor who'll see you, just ask Medicare/Medicaid patients, ahem)

2) lowered costs for everyone?

3) a gov't run single-payer system "just cuz" you think it's everyone's God-given right in a so-called "RICH" country to have "free" healthcare provided for and paid for by the state, at any price?

There *might* be other options, but I can't think of any right off the bat, and clearly #s 1 and 2 do NOT line up right now. At all. Under ANY Of the bills passing through committee (never mind the bill already passed in the House).

And if number 1 is your answer and you would argue that it's a "national security issue" that all Americans (correction, all PEOPLE occupying American soil) be given health insurance, even if they can't afford it and/or forced to buy it if they can, why? What possible gain is there to be had from FORCING everyone into a third-party-payer system (whether it be gov't or an insurance company)? Why the extra layer?

I keep coming to one conclusion: Americans have no idea how to sacrifice today for what they might need tomorrow. We are not savers anymore. We have no "rainy day" fund in the bank or in a jar in the pantry or top of the fridge. Unlike our grandparents who didn't have insurance, we look at the cost of a doctor visit in HORROR!! "Heavens to Mergatroid!" We say. "How can I possibly come up with $250 TODAY, right now, just b/c junior is sick and needs ABX? Mon Dieux! How in the name of Jesus on the River could I possibly be expected to come up with the cost of Junior's well-visit for shots? EEK! I don't keep that kind of cash around!"

Mind you, we somehow manage if the car dies or the a/c goes out or if we finally get so angry at TWC that we decide on the fly to switch to Direct TV. We somehow manage to spend more than $3 a piece on a COFFEE drink, and having a TV in every room of your house these days is pretty much a given (and cable boxes on each one too). Cell phones? Got 'em. Game boys? Got them too. Closets full of cheap clothes and shoes? Yup, gotta have them! Blueberries in December and Oranges in July? You betcha!

Just don't tell us we *might* need to spend a few thou a year on doctor visits or an ER trip for some stitches, EGADS! Who has that kind of money??

My POINT is, as we learned in the other thread, many of the "uninsured" are so b/c to them, having "insurance" is a losing proposition! They are HEALTHY, they are not wealthy. Spending (and it is "spending" don't use it, you lose it) $6,000 a year for a family on insurance (or in my case, closer to $12,000) is just NOT smart! Is it a gamble? Sure, but I'd bet you dollars to donuts most of the people doing this are doing it knowing that it is, and prepared to do what it takes to work things out to pay big bills if they come. They don't NEED "everything but the kitchen sink" insurance. They WOULD like catastrophic insurance I bet, but for young healthy people this ought to be relatively inexpensive. The odds of you getting hit by a bus or getting cancer at age 30 are still relatively LOW, low enough that such a policy shouldn't be anywhere NEAR the full $6-12 thousand a year! And if you eschew drugs (as I do and as man people do who don't have chronic conditions) all the more reason you don't see the need for comprehensive coverage. It's like owning your car outright and taking damn good care of it. How would you like it if the gov't FORCED you to carry collision insurance b/c, well, if you totaled it, you MIGHT not be able to afford a new one? The analogy ain't perfect, but it's fair enough.

The only reason to FORCE everyone to carry insurance (and therefore to make "universal coverage" a goal) is to benefit FINANCIALLY from the healthy people in the risk pool! The theory is they won't USE what they've paid for, and other sicker people will benefit from their dollars in the pool. Now if you TAX these people more to boot (let's say they own a small biz with more than $250K in payroll, i.e., MOST small biz btw), you stealing from them and depriving them of their liberty on TWO fronts. You're not taxing them for the cost of THEIR insurance or the cost of other services they use (roads, schools, etc...), you're taxing them b/c they have and someone else does NOT. Bad enough to take from those who don't really have it in the form of an insurance mandate (which Obama IS open to/allowing right now), but to take from those who do have ALSO, people who are choosing to pay in as it is? Talk about a slap in the face.

Now I can hear what people are saying "OK FINE, but if they get hurt, who's gonna pay? They better not just show up at the ER!" Why? Illegal aliens do. Legal aliens do. So what? The issue isn't whether they USE the ER it's whether they end up PAYING for those services, and if they're not paying NOW, it's likely b/c they are uninsured AND told this is someone else's fault. Change the rhetoric, tell them they will be charged and will be put on a payment plan and will NOT get the gov't to pick up the cost unless they actually qualify as POOR, and they will. I'm pretty confident of it. In fact, I'd be willing to bet they already have "rainy day" funds for just this purpose, but they are saving at their pace and convenience, not at OURS. No one else owes it to ME to stay healthy unless they're using MY money to pay for their sickness. And I don't hear any of the same people pushing for this plan decrying the way Medicaid is used or how many obese people there are on it, or how many smokers or consumers of HFCS or women who have a lot of children sign up for an duse it (never mind don't sign up but expect it to pay ANYWAY).

So why soak the "rich?" And why force those in the middle class who might be more responsible than those who are "insured" to pay for something they don't want or need? It stops being the human protection of a "right" when the person you're "protecting" doesn't WANT your protection.

Didnt he say "words matter"?

Well I kind of thought so, and I said as much on camera at a support Iran rally on Friday.

My baby is one already?!

How did this happen?

If you want to save the New York Times

I just read this piece in the Telegraph UK, and it hit me: THIS is how you save the New York Times!

The "Paper of Record" is losing about 2700 readers a WEEK, and yet they print nothing but friendly news about the administration, right? Meanwhile, papers like the Telegraph and other British media are ATTRACTING readers by the thousands weekly, as are the WSJ, Washington Times and Examiner, and I think we all know how Fox News is faring these days. Their ratings consistently CREAM the competition.

So it's simple really! All Pinch has to do is PRINT THE TRUTH. There you go. Print something, anything really, critical of the President that isn't written by an obvious "token" conservative voice on the Op/Ed pages, do a front-page feature on the stimulus money that ISN'T being spent and hasn't helped, or human interest stories on the countless small business owners (Chrysler dealers included) who are going OUT of business daily in spite of Dear Leader's policies. Then contrast that with the Holy One's rhetoric and show him for what he is!

Of course this would require having an owner and editors and writers who a) have integrity and b) want to remain in business, but don't say I didn't suggest anything!

I just BET if they were to do this, people would be snapping up the Times EVERY SINGLE DAY, just to see what they'd say next! First they'd buy it out of curiosity, then they'd buy it for the information which would, for the first time in YEARS, resemble "reporting," and finally they'd buy it out of a sense of duty to keep alive the "free press" itself.

Of course if they did do this, I'd be glancing at the windows constantly waiting for the pigs to fly by.

No, really, please do take a rest, for the love of God, a LONG one!

Obama: "We Can't Rest On Our Laurels "

No really, please do. I beg of you. Please take a fist-full of Ambien, down a bottle of Nyquil and DON'T call us in the morning. We'd all be better off, promise. If you really love the country, you'll take a LOOOOOOONG nap. We'll wake you if North Korea goes postal, but just to get the launch codes, otherwise we'll muddle through.

I mean after all, how can you possibly top what you've already "accomplished" in these past 125+ days? Just look at this list compiled by commenter proreason at Sweetness and Light, it's stunning really, quite an achievement to ruin a country in a mere 6 months!

Mortgage delinquencies are at a record high. Unemployment (if accurately measured) is about 20%. The GDP is down over 6%. The value of private homes on average nationally are down 30% or more. The national debt has doubled in 4 months. Private Banking no longer exists. Private Auto business no longer exists. 700 small business were just shut down for political reasons. The Stock Market has possibly been destroyed forever. At the very least, the risk is extreme. Business funding through Bond sales has been destroyed. Inflation is poised to go through the roof. Seniors have had their lifetime savings reduced by 40 to 50%. Contract law is being flagrantly violated by the federal government. Tax cheats control the government. No administration has ever had as many failed cabinet nominees. Thousands of high-level government positions remain unfilled. Tax receipts are down 36% Credit companies are closing accounts right and left and jacking rates through the roof. The president and first lady urge college graduates to avoid private business. Gay Rights lunatics destroy a 20-year old woman because she believes marriage is sacred. A supreme court nominee has already acted in defiance of a judge’s oath of office. North Korea has tested nukes and missles. Iran is laughing at the US. We have dismantled the methods that kept us free from Terrorism for 7 years. CIA operatives have been humiliated for defending the country. Congress is filled with criminals. Europe laughs at US requests. China could break the US in a minute by refusing to buy our debt. The Moron sent Airforce One on a joy ride over NYC. The administration will not defend a single policy of its predecessor. Military funding is being cut. An attempt was made to make veterans pay for their own war-realated medical care. The president abuses his power by attacting talk-show hosts. The president’s chief of staff conspires with the media to destroy political opponents.

But you don't want to rest on your laurels??

The only item on the list that doesn't bother me that much is what happened to Carrie Prejean, I mean she put herself out there, Obama had nothing to do with it (and I disagree with her and she came off like an idiot, but I digress). The rest is spot-on!

Take a bow, rest assured your communist father would be very proud of you (and so, with your primary neurosis thus defeated, perhaps you could hold off on nailing those last few nails in our nation's coffin? Really, he'd love you, probably bow at your feet, OK? Satisfied? Now go rest.

Just admit he was RIGHT about a few things

I don't get it. If it was the *wrong* thing to do to detain terror "suspects" at GITMO, shouldn't it be relatively easy to do the right thing? Or is it perhaps NOT so easy, and is this perhaps why Bush did what he did?

Are people seriously buying this crap about how it's Bush's fault that it's "haaaaard" to get rid of GITMO? Didn't he face the same issues? Where to put them, how to treat them (as criminals or prisoners of war), where to send them if they were found guilty after trials, but not so guilty they could be locked up for life (and their countries of origin didn't want them back)...

Yeah Barack, if it's so easy, where's your plan??

Admit it, Bush was--if not right--between the same rock and hard place as you, he didn't create these problems.

Navarette channels Deb

If you want to know what I think of the torture memo/picture mess.

If I could write that well, that's what I'd have written.

Nuff said.

Let the shit-storm commence.

So we'll be "safer" than zero attacks?

Can someone please explain to me how the Obama government knows we were made "less safe" because we used waterboarding? How do they KNOW it was a recruiting technique? Because those trustworthy Al Qaeda guys said so?

Maybe I'm nuts, but I'm guessing people who want to attack you without risk of suffering any discomfort if they're captured would tell you that the methods you use are a reason they attack you! So you stop using those methods and yay for them! Now they get to recruit saying "Don't worry, you can kill the infidel and nothing worse than being subjected to a few hours of the Barney theme song will happen to you!"

And do we honestly believe they will treat our people better because we're going to treat their people better? REALLY?

You know what I want to see released? I want to see the memos released showing who in the Congress was briefed on the fact that these techniques were deemed legal, and when they knew, and what they said. I want to see who said nothing then or approved of it as well, who might now be changing their tune? Don't we have a right to know this TOO?

I see no upside to any of this. None. And now they say we're safer? SAFER HOW? Al Qaeda has not been able to successfully attack us in 8 years. How much safer can you get than THAT? I really don't care if AQ is able to recruit thousands more, as long as we can stop them from doing what they want to do--either by killing or capturing them--that's really all that matters, and I don't think for one second that there's anything we can do that would cause the would-be terrorist to say "Oh, well, those people don't torture, they're cool, I'm going to cancel my reservation at camp Behead-An-Infidel."

Please. Spare me.