They said nothing as this guy...
...lied to them again...
...and again...
...and again...
They rubber stamped the absolute atrocious waste of billions of dollars of taxpayer monies by giving those involved another 4 years to continue the job.
So what has this group of Americans so fired up now? What has awakened the "Sleeping Giant," as they call it?
Health care for all Americans. The possibility of every American being able to get affordable medical care despite a pre-existing condition or despite not holding a job has got these folks furious beyond words. It's a travesty, they contend, and it moves the United States one step closer to being like Hitler's Nazi Germany, they say.
But it's more than that. From Pocahontas, Iowa...
Yeah, that "taking care of someone else" always seems to bother certain kinds of Americans. But torture is okay. And the lies from the President are okay, too, as long as he says he's "keeping them safe." Because it's all about them and what it means for their own, self-centered personal situation.Mr. Jensen, the mayor, said Mr. Obama received about 60% of the votes here in the 2008 presidential election. But Mr. Jensen estimated that 90% of this town of about 4,500 people were leaning against significant health-care reform because of the potential cost.
"People have worked hard here all their lives," Mr. Jensen said. "They see this as having to pay to take care of someone else."
Suburban Guerrilla had a great response to Mr. Jensen and everyone like him.
This raucous debate on health care is revealing the core values, principles and beliefs of many Americans. For me, it's too often a disappointment because what we're seeing manifested here from some is not a concern for the United States and all its citizens, but an "I got mine, you get yours" kind of mentality that leaves a large percentage of Americans behind.Mr. Jensen, I know what you mean. Why, I’ve been taking care of defense contractors all my life. And farmers, and oil companies, and a whole bunch of other special interests. For the past eight years, I’ve paid for a war that’s been nothing but a minus for this country.
I’m paying for kids to go to public schools that my kids stopped using 15 years ago. I pay for a fire department even though I’ve never had a fire, and I pay for police protection that I’ve rarely needed. I pay for roads I’ll probably never even see.
I’m also paying for the senior citizens in your town - you know, the ones who don’t want to pay for anyone else? They have that luxury because of people like me who are still paying for people like them. Without our Social Security taxes, your seniors would be in sad shape.
So it saddens me to hear the “every man for himself” attitude expressed by your townspeople. That’s simply not true. We’re all connected. Helping each other not only makes sense, it’s the right thing to do. And if the citizens of Pocohantas, Iowa don’t understand that, I’d have to say as mayor, you’re just not doing your job.
Love,
SG
No one understood this more than the late Senator Edward Kennedy, so it only seems fitting to end this post with this clip...
.
33 comments:
"taking care of someone else" is not the same as taking care of someone else
There's always been a little confusion about that.
He's drowning women in heaven now.
"I got mine, you get yours"
That is America, and what makes it great.
Most of the rest of the world is "I got mine, now give me yours or I'll shoot you."
Once Obamacare and Rahm Emmanuel's strong-arm tactics fail, the country can finally have an honest discussion about how to bring health care costs down.
P.S. Nice to see the liberal argument in full form: blame Bush and whine.
Blame Bush, KC? Where? I'm pointing the finger at those who had no problem supporting Bush and his policies taking care of people overseas but can't muster up the same support for their own fellow Americans back home.
They hate their President and want him to fail. They hate the government and it's "inefficiency." They can't stand helping out their fellow Americans.
Such fine Americans they are.
.
He's drowning women in heaven now.
George W. Bush is doing that? Because if that's a reference to Ted Kennedy, he's not even mentioned in the post.
Nice "SQUIRREL!" moment there.
Anonymous just revealed what he is made of.
You mean he isn't mentioned at the bottom of the post along with a video of him speaking?
Yeah, you're right DN, the video isn't visible on this computer. My mistake.
Nevertheless, anyone with any class would refrain from making snide comments about someone who just died for a cheap comeback. Even Michelle Malkin, someone not known for reticence, said "now is not the time." And the comeback "the liberals did it with [______]" sounds like kids in the back of the station wagon: "He started it."
We are made mostly of poop.
There goes the hypocrisy argument again. Someone call Garvin!
I think 10:50 pretty much proved the point of the post.
Rick-
"Bush and his policies taking care of people overseas"
Iraq and Afghanistan were not done out of charity. The point was to neutralize a threat to America. Bush started, and hopefully Obama will continue, to let the locals know that they will eventually have to stand on their own two feet and make significant contributions to fighting islamic terrorism and Iranian imperialism.
"They hate their President and want him to fail. They hate the government and it's "inefficiency.""
As they should. The President is not a King, he's not a god. He's a schmo like you or me, just the guy that's driving the bus. Sad to see so many liberals desirous of elevating the office beyond a managerial position. The government is inefficient and fails at most things it tries, and almost always at anything on a large scale. America was founded on a distrust of distant, centralized power. And more importantly, a distrust of Kings. Maybe you're willing to get on your knees for Obama, but the rest of us aren't. And if you think Bush was followed blindly, you're seriously misinformed.
"They can't stand helping out their fellow Americans."
Every study I have every read suggests that conservatives are actually more charitable than liberals.
Why are liberals so opposed to actually fixing problems? Why not figure out why health care has become so expensive? Then fix those problems and see where we stand. Conservatives have been offering these proposals for decades, and its been the liberals who have stonewalled against anything but a universal option. Where is tort reform? Why don't the Dems have the backbone to stand up to the trial lawyers guild?
@King of Cats,
What would you propose is the reason for health care becoming expensive? For the high costs, there's no one to blame but the corporations and special interests consistently lobbying Congress to vote against regulations.
The logical solution to that is to regulate the industry, make them cover those who aren't covered, and offer those same people a separate government option that won't deny them care or throw them under the bus with a plan they can't pay for.
(PS: This is the part where you call me a socialist for wanting universal health care.)
The government is inefficient and fails at most things it tries, and almost always at anything on a large scale.
You're right, King of Cats. The United States military is inefficient and fails at most things it tries. As does the Federal Aviation Administration -- how many planes crashed today? -- and NASA really didn't make it to the moon in less than ten years from the day the mission was stated. And to quote from a letter I got, "After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and OSHA, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it’s valuables thanks to the local police department.
I then log on to the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right."
Wow mustang bobby, you really are a communist. Don't you know the invisible hand of the free market would have given you all the labor and safety standards in the workplace and consumer protections and roads but much much more efficiently! We would've had 3 day weekends by now! And now, you really want to take my freedom away to have private insurance companies decide what medical treatment I receive!!! NOT ON MY WATCH!!! Seriously though; King of Cats... if consumers give up lawyers, will insurance corporations, or all corporations for that matter give up theirs??? What exactly does tort reform look like to you?
KC: Again, because apparently it doesn't sink in the first time: this post wasn't about Bush but about his supporters and those who made not a peep [probably because they were getting a "tax break"] while he burned through billons of dollars, month after month, year after year to take care of people 1/2 a world away, but yet when it comes to taking care of their neighbors and fellow Americans, they go Warp 5, claim Obama is a communist and want to overthrow our government.
It's insanely stupid and impossible to explain and that's why people such as yourself don't talk about it but instead bring up even more idiotic things like worshiping Obama and birth certificates and death panels.
Dave....
Спасибо, товарищ.
Abel-
"The logical solution to that is to regulate the industry, make them cover those who aren't covered, and offer those same people a separate government option that won't deny them care or throw them under the bus with a plan they can't pay for."
There is no logical connection between your plan and a reduction in the cost of medical care. Your plan is universal coverage, and yes, you are a socialist.
Mustang-
Your comments were already discussed by me here:
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2009/08/making_the_rounds.html
Dave-
Tort reform does not mean closing the courthouse to innocent victims. It may mean nationalizing malpractice insurance, it may mean caps on awards, it may mean national victims funds. There are many excellent discussions on it and the potential impact it could have on the cost of health care and the way doctors practice medicine.
Rick-
By fighting a war on terror on foreign soil, Americans are being taken care of. You disagree because you fail to appreciate the threat. Keep in mind our Glorious Leader Obama has not significantly altered our military posture in Iraq or Afghanistan from Bush, nor does it seem that he has any plans to. In fact, he has broadened the scope to include Pakistan, although your Glorious CNN likes to keep that quiet lest you begin to think your Glorious leader is not the Dove you thought you elected. You're not criticizing our Glorious Leader are you?
You prove my point time after time, KC. You gots nuthin'.
Hey, that rag of yours needs updating. You're spending way too much time over here.
.
Well, King of Cats, what I meant to imply, and now regret as you weren't able to infer it, was that by regulation of the industry, prices can be brought down. Reform includes updating computers, researching better medicine, and getting people healthy before their sick- those are basic tenets that would reduce cost, and they are generally included in the bill.
However, before going on, I'll defer to a rather well-spoken congressman: "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table."
they're**
However, before going on, I'll defer to a rather well-spoken congressman: "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table."
I prefer what Winston Churchill once said, "I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."
A much more classier way of saying it indeed, MB. Thanks.
Seriously though...
Tort reform does not mean closing the courthouse to innocent victims. It may mean nationalizing malpractice insurance, it may mean caps on awards, it may mean national victims funds. There are many excellent discussions on it and the potential impact it could have on the cost of health care and the way doctors practice medicine.
Nationalize malpractice insurance? but not health care insurance??? What's the logic here? Is this really the reason health care is in the state it is in today? Because of frivolous lawsuits?
Abel-
"updating computers, researching better medicine, and getting people healthy before their sick- those are basic tenets that would reduce cost, "
Agreed. A bill limited to incentives to those ends has a high probability of passing. Incentives like tax deductions for certain preventative care visits. Deductions for doctors and hospitals that go electronic.
David-
"Nationalize malpractice insurance? but not health care insurance??? What's the logic here? "
It's much cheaper. Two major components of health care cost are the doctor and hospital insurance overheads. Certain specialties are facing 5 and 6 figure annual premiums. A federal malpractice insurance would hurt private insurers, but could potentially make malpractice insurance much cheaper. It would also give the federal government a hook into the doctor's practice, such as requiring electronic records in the office in order to qualify.
"Is this really the reason health care is in the state it is in today? Because of frivolous lawsuits?"
Economists debate this point heavily. They all agree it is a major component of cost. Its not just the lawsuits, but the incentives for doctors the lawsuits create: unnecessary tests and generally defensive medicine. The debatable point is to what degree. Several doctors I've talked to indicate a belief that they could charge 80% less if they didn't have such massive insurance overhead, and could only prescribe the tests the patient actually needed. Particularly emergency room docs. Granted, my anecdotal evidence is not a formal economic study, but they are out there if you look.
Its even more interesting if you talk to veterinarians. They are terrified of the emerging trend to allow pet owners to sue for emotional distress. Compared to humans, animals (especially in South Florida) have access to excellent care at a fraction of the cost. Particularly for shared maladies like broken bones, minor surgeries, etc. Why? Because vets are terrified of lawsuits.
And its not just frivolous lawsuits. The question we as a society must ask is whether it really should be the doctor that pays the price for a mistake, even if that doctor is otherwise excellent. If we nationalized malpractice insurance, we could reach a national consensus on how many strikes a doctor gets before he's no longer eligible for the program, which might put him out of business if that were warranted.
As I say, the economic studies are out there, but heavily suppressed by special interest groups, primarily the trial lawyers guild. In the end, the med-mal lawyers are the ones who get rich. John Edwards is a perfect example. Take a look at some of the more critical biographies of him. Men of his ilk have far greater influence over the practice of medicine than even the ABA.
AMA.
Barbara O'Brian has been writing excellent posts on the lack of empirical evidence to support the AMA's claims, which go back to their opposition to Medicare in the 60s.
Here's an example:
http://tinyurl.com/n9g72z
A brief but albeit necessary interlude, to call bullshi*t on the Mustang's constant trotting out of the military as a shining example of government efficiency.
For the government to be run as efficiently as the military, it would have to be run by the military. The would result in a very long line of objecters, which I can only surmise the Mustang would be somewhere near the front of.
So let's just stop this cacophonous use of the military in this way. Please.
This is one of those times where you may have to swallow inefficiency, so long as you can support the goal.
Carry on.
And, nonee, I call bullsh*t on your claim that I am "constantly trotting" that example out. I think this was the first time I used it. If you can cite other examples, please do so.
My apologies, it was Gus.
And you're both wrong to use it.
So there.
/sheepish grin/
Tort reform will be the upcoming week's Republican meme, after losing ground in the healthcare polls. It's an old Republican goal, it makes them look somewhat reasonable and when the new scarecrows --death panels! rationing! socialism!-- fail, it's time to trot out the old one --bloodsucking trial lawyers! King of Cats got the memo early.
But it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Contrary to KOC's "they all agree it is a major component of cost", it's highly debatable to what extent insurance malpractice plays a role. Studies have shown that states with caps on malpractice -Ohio, Missouri-- have not seen a significant reduction on either lawsuits or premiums.
There are also several fallacies in the argument. For example, defensive medicine (ordering extra tests to cover the doctor's ass) explains the extra procedures but not why their high costs. In a recent article in The Atlantic --highly recommended btw-- the author called several providers to quote an MRI. The lowest was $1,200. When you consider that's $1,200 for a procedure that takes 30 minutes of a technician's time done with a 20-year old technology in a fully amortized piece of equipment, the price is definitely out of whack with the actual cost. Explain that, Mr. Tort Reform.
Even the CBO, while reporting on the rise of both premiums and awards, concludes that:
"Several studies have found that various types of restrictions on malpractice liability can indeed reduce total awards and thereby lead to lower premiums for malpractice insurance. By themselves, however, such changes do not affect economic efficiency: they modify the distribution of gains and losses to individuals and groups but do not create benefits or costs for society as a whole. The evidence for indirect effects on efficiency--through changes in defensive medicine, the availability of medical care, or the extent of malpractice--is at best ambiguous."
Links:
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS137490+27-May-2009+PRN20090527
http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care
Nonee,
Typically, I make the case that the VA provides world-leading health care...and that is not run by the Dept. of Interior. I stand by that and I invite you to look at some of the research
http://www.ajmc.com/media/pdf/AJMCnovPrt2Perlin828to836.pdf
But, I'm happy to step up and say that the military is an effective example of government. I'd take the US Military over Blackwater any day of the week. And to the charge that the whole government would need to be run by the military for that example to be meaningful...well, I call BS.
NM, to be clear, this is not me making a case that there is something special about the US Military (or VA) that makes it run particularly well. I am making a case that says that an organization that is run, not with capitalistic motivations, but instead geared toward the the public good can be effective and, yes, even better than for-profit entities.
I think that there are many, many other instances of effective/productive work provided to us by government (Fire/Rescue, University System, DOT - state and fed). But you know what...some people just refuse, in the face of facts, to change their minds. That's wrong.
But, hey, the guvmint, all guvmint, is eeeevil, right?
-g
Mr Tort Reform? Cat got your tongue?
Good points, Gus. I'm not anti-gov't. But I'm not blind to the inherent inefficiencies in government. There are some examples of effective and productive services that government provides, many of which can only be provided by government (I don't dig Blackwater either). But government is not efficient by most standards. being productive/effective is externally driven, while being efficient is internally driven. they are not the same thing.
Governments don't make widgets. That is, they don't contribute to the flow of commerce in a strict sense. If it has a "product" at all, it would be regulation. And like the private corporation who secures its survival by selling more widgets, government falls into the trap of producing more regulation to secure its own survival. There is a point beyond which regulation is effective, same as there is a point beyond which making more widgets outstrips the necessity for widgets. Regulation, like the government that spawns it, is not an evil in and of itself.
I think discussion of profit motive or absence thereof is pretty pointless, IMO. Plenty of people with profit motive in government. It's why inspector generals and independent prosecutors exist.
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.