The American Spectator

Robbins Mitchell| 6.11.09 @ 6:43AM

Well,Obozo's entire life seems to be a put up job...why should he have any trouble pretending he can spin straw into gold on the economy,health care,'global warming', or cloning unicorns for that matter?....there will never be any shortage of people he can chump with his teleprompter skills...he's already amply demonstrated that.

Marcell| 6.11.09 @ 7:22AM

I don't support government ran health care, & there is a way to stop the Democrats, but I wont tell you for free.

I know one thing for sure is that many of the talking points the Repubs are using is so weak that many of the Democrats can't help but to support universal health care.

Melvin| 6.11.09 @ 7:48AM

I'll ya what. I'll whole heartedly support this health care bill if politicians do one thing. That they will have to use for themselves and their families the exact same health care that the rest of us will have to use with no exceptions.
When Nancy Pelosi is sitting on the bench next to me waiting six months to a year for her botox treatments then I'll support this bill.

Denver Todd| 6.11.09 @ 8:41AM

I don't want to take away from the point of this article, but the pine tree thing in CO is a huge problem. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of square miles of dead trees ready to go up in smoke or weaken a mountainside, and yet there has been little mitigation so far.

Bob| 6.11.09 @ 9:11AM

Philip, what is your source on the 8% unemployment claim? I remember Romer on TV at the beginning of the year saying that it will get into the double digits. You also should be truthful that unemployment is a lagging indicator following recovery at a 6 month to a year period. Most Republicans didn't even think there was going to be a recession when Obama was talking about 8%.

That said, if you have actually read the economic analysis of the administration, you'd note that the 30% potential savings due to regionality is a hype. The fact is that almost all of these higher costs exist in the population centers where the cost of living is higher, crime is higher, and ghettos are located. So the government's calculation of cost reductions uses untrue assumptions.

What bothers me is that both sides are using ideology rather than analysis to determine outcomes here. The fact is that we won't be able to reduce health care costs -- and we must for competitive reasons -- without some level of rationing. The Republican alternatives are even worse than the Democrat ones as money will be spent for absolutely no benefit.

The U.S. needs a plan based upon our free market dynamics. People with more money should be able to buy better plans, i.e., a tiered system. The government should be involved in baseline coverage only for those who cannot afford a plan. These baseline plans would include preventative medicine as well as emergency care. All procedures would be based on lowest cost and no optional procedures would be allowed. I have been advocating this type of tiered system for some time now. Let Americans be Americans for a change.

Now that 8% unemployment ploy you used was a cheap shot. Let's dig deeper next time.

Joe B| 6.11.09 @ 9:31AM

Medicine would be far better, more widely available, and much cheaper if we had tort reform. So how come nobody is talking about this?

I strongly advocate a heavily graduated income tax for lawyers.

Dustoff| 6.11.09 @ 9:35AM

You noticed there is talk of what Doc's should make, but nothing about what a lawyer should get.

Typical dem's.

Robert Rosencrans| 6.11.09 @ 9:38AM

While the Democrats herald cost savings, there won't be any, merely huge cost increases and a decline in the quality of health care.

Get set for DMV style customer service and long lines for everything. People with hang nails will be treated with the same level of service as those with strokes. Time will no longer be of the essence.

Your disease will be treated with the same lack of speed as everyone else's disease.

This will also destroy the private health care plans for about 90% of the public. As soon as it is passed, corporate America will ditch their programs and throw the American public into a never ending mass of confusion known as pubic health care. It won't take long before many doctors don't accept it and you will have to travel for miles to see anyone resembling a doctor.

Yesterday on C-Span Howard Dean was lying his ass off about his version of public health care. I was surprised to see C-Span let him get away with it. One caller asked Dean about why his wife did not accept Medicare because the reimbursements were so low. Howard Dean replied that his wife did accept them, which was a lie. Just one of many Howard Dean is peddling in his pursuit of medical insanity.

Here's the story:
http://www.cedartownstd.com/pages/full_story?page_label=full_story&id=2606747&article;-Gingrey voices opposition to government-run health care plan =&widget=push&open;=&
As Vermont's governor, Dean aggressively pursued expansions of government-run health insurance—and bragged that doing so "was very cheap to do." Unfortunately for beneficiaries on state-run Medicaid and children's health insurance, that "cheap" coverage often came at a very steep price. Low reimbursement rates mean that few doctors actually participate in the government-run plan, so patients can't see their personal physician—and may not be able to see any physician when they need one.

In Vermont, one of those physicians whom Medicaid beneficiaries couldn't visit was Judith Steinberg—Howard Dean's wife. In 1998, low reimbursement rates—coupled with the impact of additional regulations her husband signed into law—prompted Dr. Steinberg to end participation in the state's largest Medicaid-managed care program. As a result, the residents of Shelburne in Vermont's largest Medicaid plan lost access to the only primary care provider in town who would accept their insurance.

I don't fault Dr. Steinberg for her decision—it may well have been the only rational business decision for her to make. But for Governor Dean to claim that a government-run plan won't be "inferior" is to ignore his wife's experience, and that of the many beneficiaries who lost access to their physician due to Medicaid bureaucracy and poor coverage. My fear is that creating a government-run health insurance plan wouldn't guarantee quality care by physicians—in fact, it will not guarantee care at all.

The quality of care in a government-run health plan may seem irrelevant to those individuals who are happy with the coverage they currently have—after all, President Obama promised during his campaign that, "If you like the plan you have, you can keep it." But most individuals don't really have their own health coverage—they get it from their employers. And if the coverage provided in the government-run plan is cheaper than what employers are paying now, logic suggests that employers will drop their current plans and place their workers in the government plan.

Estimates from independent actuaries at the Lewin Group suggest that well over half of all Americans currently with employer-sponsored health coverage—nearly 120 million individuals—would lose their current coverage due to the creation of a government-run health plan. And the change in coverage would not be a "choice"—according to Lewin studies, employers would drop their plan options, dumping employees into the government-run health plan to save money.

So the end result of the "perfect" plan supported by Governor Dean would be most people losing the coverage they have, while ending up on a government-run plan that dominates the healthcare marketplace. Physicians would be forced to accept the government's low reimbursement rates—but my experience, to say nothing of Dr. Steinberg's, strongly suggests that many will not. Some baby boomer doctors may view a move to government-run health insurance as a reason for them to take early retirement. Some physicians may refuse all insurance entirely, relying solely on a "cash-and-carry" approach to treating patients. Other physicians may be forced to lay off staff to compensate for a sharp drop-off in income. And other would-be physicians may decide not to practice at all—forsaking medical school for other careers that could be more rewarding and less bureaucratic than government-dictated medicine.

dagny tagart| 6.11.09 @ 9:43AM

Marcel
I have a thought on how you might want us to pay you. When the ONE PARTY STATE gives us government health care we will all have the one time opportunity to short some of the health care companies (UHC, Wellpoint etc). The RNC can leverage their funds for this action. Just like Soros did by shorting the pound, voila we will have money for advertising to the drones.

Hey, and don't tell me that these "private" health care companies can be profitable while competing with a large government health care system. Insurance companies make PROFIT (such a profane word to liberals) by risk probabilities not adminsitration of claims.

Bob, here's to more unemployment when health insurance company employees loose their jobs. But I guess that's good. These people can be hired by the government insurance company.

Bob| 6.11.09 @ 10:17AM

Dagny -- the number of people who process health insurance claims will INCREASE over time under ANY plan. The only question is where they will work. Besides, the number of people that actually work in group health insurance is relatively small for an industry.

As to your profitability claims versus a government system, I don't believe that will be a problem. The problem is government mandates for pre-existing conditions and full coverage. Those two items alone will double or triple the cost of private insurance and is the main reason why the government program will cost so much. If we as Republicans fight the mandates issue, there is no way that the government plan will cost less. I used to work in group insurance industry and understand the actuarial dynamics here.

Son Of Sam| 6.11.09 @ 10:22AM

Hmmmm, lemme see: the cost of health care is becoming more expensive, so what we need to do is have the federal government take it over. In the "long run", that'll make it cheaper, somehow, someday, soooommmmmeeeWHERE, over the rainbow.

But first, the federal government needs another TRILLION dollars. To make health care "more affordable". Which they're going to get by taxing everything from Gatorade to your health care benefits. A trillion dollar down payment to save money sometime in the future: wasn't that how Medicare got started? And the "war on poverty"? Yup, and we've seen what brilliant success stories those have been.

Only a Kool Aid chugging idiot believes any of this insanity.

stay strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com

Geoff| 6.11.09 @ 10:31AM

The discussion about healthcare continues to revolve around paying for it when it should be about healthcare itself. The healthcare system has turned from healing to controling illness. Case in point. If you have high blood pressure you get a pill not a strick diet a control of the problem. The problem is that healing problems is not on the scope of work any longer and individuals healthcare needs continue to rise because they have controled healthcare that requires continued visits instead of healing someone and getting them out of the hospital. The pharma industries have become the dr's and control the way healthcare is administrated and we are way off track. We need to get back to healing people and getting them out of the healthcare system so those that are really sick have services available. The longer we keep allowing people to live with a growing list of illnesses and continued care needs we continue to grow the healthcare system. If we could heal someones aliment with diet instead of thousands of dollars of drugs would we all be better off?

Old Texican| 6.11.09 @ 10:59AM

I am not here to chat, or as a "hobby".

I am trying to help all of us focus...

Nationalized healthcare is simply a huge "power lever" for the Obama crowd. Everything else is muddying the water.

Robert,
thank you again for breaking the various consequences out so clearly.
But Folks,
We must not stop short of the logical conclusions.
Somehow, each of us must do everything we can to stop this abomination. We must!

The old saying goes: "If you got your health, you got everything". This government knows that!

They are trying to get our health!
(and they will have our everything.)

macdaddy| 6.11.09 @ 11:23AM

Here ya' go, Bob. Relaesed by Obama's very own Christina Romer. Read it and weep.

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Michael Tomlinson| 6.11.09 @ 12:08PM

BO = BS

JP| 6.11.09 @ 12:22PM

"I used to work in group insurance industry and understand the actuarial dynamics here. "

Bob,
I thought you were a retired AIG funds manager. And I thought I had an atypical career.

Bram| 6.11.09 @ 12:55PM

Joe B - Maybe because the President, VP, most of the Cabinet, and most of Congress are lawyers?

L. Ross| 6.11.09 @ 12:55PM

I frankly don't know what can be done, as long as we have unelected judges deciding that we must provide top flight health care to illegal immigrants who don't pay taxes or purchase health insurance. If we nationalized health care, I suspect it would provide an even more powerful magnet for illegal immigration than the one we already have. We cannot afford to feed, clothe, house, heal, and educate every third world national who manages to stumble into this country.

dagny taggart| 6.11.09 @ 12:59PM

Bob
If you want lower health care costs the only way to do it is to allow the free market to work and for providers and health insurance companies to compete on prices. This requires mandatory price disclosures of provider prices. This also requires vehicles such as MSAs combined with high deductible catastrophic plans. Poorer people could be covered by some sort of voucher plan.
The most important way however to have high quality health care is to allow capitalism to work and the GDP to grow. Tax revenue is directly related to GDP. This concept is always lost on liberals.
Equality must never take precedence over quality.

Marcell| 6.11.09 @ 2:55PM

I am kind of entertained by the Republicans being all over the map concerning this issue. Maybe it's because the Republicans don't have a teleprompter who knows exactly what to say.

Q: What is the teleprompter?

A: People like myself with a proven record on knowing how to win debates & elections.

=)

***************
THE RUNDOWN

Health Care Fight Divides Democrats
By Ben Pershing

The traditional narrative for any big Washington policy fight is typically Democrats vs. Republicans, or occasionally, "change" vs. "more of the same." But the increasingly heated debate over health care reform isn't quite breaking down along those lines yet, as the primary battles today are happening within the Democratic party.

The contours of a health care bill, particularly whether it should include a public plan or "option," Politico writes, "has touched off an increasingly fierce Democratic civil war on Capitol Hill." It appears likely there will be some sort of public option. Nancy Pelosi said on MSNBC Wednesday that no bill would pass the House without one, though the American Medical Association is opposed to the idea. The current debate is focused mostly on how the new health care system would work, and not as much on what will be an equally contentious issue -- who's going to pay for it. "To date, interest groups remain reluctant to appear intransigent and risk getting shut out of negotiations," the Los Angeles Times notes, but that will change soon as funding plans get clearer on the Hill.

President Obama will be in Green Bay this afternoon to hold a town hall meeting on health care. (Will he get a question on Brett Favre? Can he invoke some sort of emergency powers to force Favre to stay retired? We digress.) The event, Ceci Connolly writes, is designed to spotlight the Wisconsin town's smart health care practices and how other cities could become more effective and efficient by adopting similar strategies. On the other end of the spectrum, experts continue pointing at McAllen, Texas, as an illustration of how health care shouldn't work, following Atul Gawande's story on the subject in The New Yorker that has been the talk of the health care commentariat for several days. Ezra Klein jokes (we think) that "all health-care-related commentary must now, by law, include a reference" to Gawande's story.

JeffW| 6.11.09 @ 3:56PM

Marcell,
I would be careful if I were you. All of that patting yourself on the back is going to cause you orthopedic problems. And once the goverment takes over health care it will take you forever to get a appointment for it.

Everly Waverly| 6.11.09 @ 4:04PM

Isn't this a real hoot, "My background is foreign policy and the constitution." The constitution my ass!!!! What more proof is there that Joe Biden is a useless career politician, in fact he's more suited as an appropriately adorned schmuck exiting a clown car in the center ring at your annual visit by the circus. Oh, by-the-way, he exits 3rd...

Marcell| 6.11.09 @ 4:06PM

Here is how you win the healthcare debate

The battle over socialized health care can easily be won by those who disagree with it by focusing on one point & missing all of the right-wing psychobabble.

The most important aspect of the debate is the rising cost of health care & how the trillion dollar price tag will quadruple in the future.

Government health care would make sense, if this were some sort of a kingdom where a politician could have a life time appointment, but the way our government is set up makes it difficult for those in charge to control the price of healthcare year after year.

If you look at the history of health care you will notice that the price for health care has gone up rampantly each year. That means that tax payers will eventually be forced to pay more taxes for health care or be forced to have less than adequate services in the future.

There is also a question of how the average person would respond to free health care. In the 1970's people were bogging down the medical rooms for a typical cold. Not only that, corruption ran amuck because people were going to the doctor for more corrupt reasons such as just to play the system for prescription medication that they & many others were addicted too.

I personally don't see the numbers adding up & it has nothing to do with the spin about Obama's stimulus package.

In conclusion, if you focus on one issue & not play all the word games most conservatives play trying to degrade Obama, you will be taken serious enough to get the support needed to at least sustain a filibuster in the Senate.

Warrior| 6.11.09 @ 4:28PM

Two quick reductions to medical expenditures. Illegal aliens showing up in emergency rooms get treated on a medical bus as they are being deported. Tort reforms that limit frivolous lawsuits. After this we can attack the billions of dollars of fraud in Medicare/Medicaid.

Old Texican| 6.11.09 @ 4:32PM

Marcell
You had better go to work for the communists.
You couldn't sell fire to a freezing Eskimo in the real world. (Grin)
You could not win a debate in Jr. highschool...oh you can? good.
Trust me...get a gubmint job.

Old Texican| 6.11.09 @ 4:34PM

...Oh bye the way, Marcell;

We don't HAVE to win the debate...we just refuse to send them the money.

Pointer| 6.11.09 @ 4:35PM

Not to be insensitive or anything, but is Senator Ted Kennedy really playing any role with the health care legislation? I seem to remember that he was going downhill fast because of his cancer. Just look what happended to him the day President Obama was sworn into office.

daboss| 6.11.09 @ 4:47PM

Does no one care if the proposal from either party is constitutional?

Old Texican| 6.11.09 @ 5:15PM

daboss:
Sadly, it looks as if your specific question will be answered by LOTS of burnt gun powder.

Marcell| 6.11.09 @ 6:34PM

Old Texican| 6.11.09 @ 4:34PM

Marcell
You had better go to work for the communists.
You couldn't sell fire to a freezing Eskimo in the real world. (Grin)
You could not win a debate in Jr. highschool...oh you can? good.
Trust me...get a gubmint job.

*****************

Yeah right.

My intellectual blade is sharp enough to see how the Republicans seem to not be getting traction because they have not put together a cohesive message in respond to Obama's teleprompter.

While the teleprompter is knocking wholes in the Republican Party talking points & causing dismay within your rank & files, many of you are getting further lost in the forest because you are surrounded by too many trees & yes men to see the forest.

I also don't need manipulative spin to inspire me to know what to say to motivate your base; all I need is for one to show me the money to inspire me to navigate the political waters on your behalf.

As I watch so call conservative genius after conservative genius use my crumbs to create talking points ie. "Lib Leadership and Double Standards By Quin Hillyer," I must inform you that I have far more agressive & inspiring ideals & angles, not spin to win in the arena of ideas.

Old Texican, if I were new to this & that concerning politics you would be able to demoralize me with your brain storms, but I have verbally beat major players up that will make your kind look like the smashed heads on the bottom of an indian totam pole. So, it behooves me to talk show me the money when I got the desperately needed goods you need to win the debate.

& to act as if the 1 to 3 trillion dollar cost that will surely rise by large numbers each year has no affect on the issue is kind of crazy. It is not like Republicans aren't trying to claim that Obama the big spender as a political strategy, a strategy I realized in December before they, the right even knew how to respond.

Now as I do my research & realize that I can't find any articles attacking the 1 to 3 trillion dollar cost for goverment health care that is suppose to be cheaper than what most are paying today, it won't take rocket science to figure out where the idea came from tomorrow.

Marcell| 6.11.09 @ 6:44PM

Here is an oldie but goodie:

OBAMA THE BIG SPENDERS...

By: Marcell ... ME!!
Posted: 11/26/08

Barack Obama will soon be releasing the numbers for his 2009 budget proposal. It's considered to be the budget buster to end all budget busters and that may not necesarily be the best thing to do.

Austan Goolsbee was one of President-Elect Obama's closest economic advisors during his 08 campaign. He described Obama's plan on CBS's Face The Nation in this way:

"It's going to be a number big enough that when they spell it out it looks like 'OOOH!!' with so many zeros in it."

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has said that the proposal will cost between $500 and $700 billion dollars. During Obama's campaign, he was proposing 125 to $150 billion but his team now believes that the economy has gotten drastically worse. I hope Obama doesn't fall in the same trap door that former Gov. Gray Davis fell into when he attempted to help California's power companies when we were having blackouts.

Even though Gray Davis was helping Californians through a crisis, the Republicans saw a political opportunity and convinced voters to recall him.

On Oct 7, 2003, Davis was recalled with 55.4% of the votes in favor of the recall, and Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected to replace him as governor.

Most Americans aren't like the majority of voters in the Golden State, and the Republican Party is not on the verge of being extinct like the dinosaurs who call themselves Californian Republicans. Just think, California Democrats have spent more money than a drunken sailor, yet they still managed to keep their jobs and a majority in Sacramento. Most conservatives see the citizens of the Golden State as politically correct, free loaders, who are like bloodsuckers in the wallets of the producers i.e. the conservatives.

The conservative rhetoric seems to have some weight, because every time Gov. Schwarzenegger propose cuts in social programs, the administrators and recipients of those programs make big noise in the news.

Here are a few examples:

On Nov. 24, 2008, Lt. Gov. John Garamendi led a protest against the Governors' proposed cut in funds for public schools and health services to help meet an $11.2 billion budget deficit.

In February, hundreds of senior citizens and disabled people protested the proposed budget cuts to life sustaining services and income.

In May, many of Pasadena's parents, students, teachers, office staff, administrators, school board members, and concerned residents protested in front of every one of their schools.

In June, a coalition of California health care groups protested Schwarzenegger's proposed budget cuts, arguing they "would swell the number of uninsured people by 1 million by the end of his term," according to a story in the Los Angeles Times.

Protests like those would be met with glee in most red states and districts. While I neither support or disagree with the protest, I understand California is teetering on bankruptcy because we tend to blindly support most of the good sounding initiatives and legislation that our politicos promote.

I also know that a future big government spending Obama administration will assure the Democrats minority status in 2010 if his projected budget is passed.

Many are marketing Obama's plan as something similar to Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) New Deal, but I don't see it that way. Here is a list of a few programs FDR created when he was President:

Federal Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance. Unemployment benefits, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare). Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid). State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

I expect the Republican Machine to sit on the sideline like vultures as Democrats throw federal dollars at every liberal idea they can imagine. And by the end of 2009, Obama's big government ideals will dwarf President Bush's out of sight, out of mind, and out-of- cash spending. At that point, they will give Obama the same treatment they gave Gov. Davis.

They will become a silent but deadly blade slicing away at Obama with more vigor than those used to reject the Bush administration.

But if Obama uses his first term to advocate American made products to the world by not selling us out to the highest foreign bidder, like many, if most, of Washington politicians. He will be a real advocate for the middle class by using his bully pulpit to influence business owners that what is good for middle income earners is good for the country.

Right now, it seems that your typical conservative thinkers are in the pockets of multination foreign owned businesses that are located in America. All Obama has to do is steal a page out of former President Bill Clinton's play book and stand firmly in the middle of the road, while conservative go out of their way to tarnish their pro-American image.

Once he does what he has to do to bail out the valuable industries that created this strong middleclass he will be set to be on the road to success. But what about the stock market losses?

Just think of the logic surrounding the buying and selling stock: Buy low and sell high.

The market is just correcting itself because it has been over-inflated by CEO's and stock market. Analysts are trying to manipulate consumers into purchasing their goods and services at an high price.

The bad news is many employees may lose their jobs, but the good news is the price of goods should be dropping soon. Once the market has settled and business owners have restructured their businesses the bargain shopping will begin.

I really hope the Obama insiders take a close look at California legislature's big spending habits and do the opposite.

If Obama is successful in his first two years, he will be allowed to reach into his liberal bag of hopes and dreams and make them a part of America's future.

Marc Jeric| 6.11.09 @ 7:29PM

Finally "Bob" above proposed a real reform for our health care system - and that is TORT REFORM!!! The total cost of health care is $2.7 billion/year; almost $1 billion is caused by malpractice insurance, unnecessary defensive tests, legal defense costs, huge awards by ignorant juries - and the fact that in this country, among all the other countries, you can sue anybody and, if losing, just walk away. Everywhere else the loser automatically must pay all the costs, direct and indirect, of the defendent and the courts. An so we have here 1,100,000 lawyer hyenas whereas Germany, Japan, and Great Britain have only 35,000 together.

John II| 6.11.09 @ 10:01PM

Another keynote in all this fascinating response. The Democrats now represent blood-sucking "service" industries: lawyers, teachers, journalists, entertainment types, gasbag verbalists, big-business honchos (whose "taxes" are always passed on to the consumer), and such.

The Republicans now represent doers--principally small businessmen, who account for 70 percent of American employment and productivity but barely 20 percent of the electorate. The rest of Republican political support comes from folks who have enough moral imagination to suppose that their kids may someday be small businessmen.

The lawyers and other verbalists who support conservative Republicans are, as a class, probably the most interesting voters in the country. The least interesting are the super-rich who support liberal Democrats.

Just a thought.

Pauley| 6.11.09 @ 10:33PM

Yeah, bad news for all the poor, dumb schmucks losing their jobs. With unemployment already at 9.4% and sky-rocketing, I wouldn't be too smug, Marcell.

Americans frown on double digit unemployment and interest rate hikes.

Looks like that teleprompter is starting to short out.

Pauley| 6.11.09 @ 11:06PM

Yeah, sure--I want to entrust my life to the political party who considers Tiller a martyr. Democrats = Party of Death.

Marcell| 6.11.09 @ 11:35PM

You may not like my news sources, but at least it is accurate unlike the right-wing opinions.

How to fix health care

June 11: President Barack Obama has been pushing for health care reform but what will his plan look like when finished? A Hardball panel debates.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/31269158#31269158

Richard Baker| 6.11.09 @ 11:57PM

Marcell:
Since you liberals won't accept any evidence but that which Obama feeds you, how would you know if any counter-information/knowledge is correct? Be specific as to what those who disagree with you have wrong, not just broad brush insults.
Oh yes, Marcell, where will you go to be free if any government reduces or eliminates our Liberty and Freedom as Americans? I suggest you read Mr. Jefferson regarding tyranny and Liberty.

Mike| 6.12.09 @ 1:11AM

Enjoy your freedom to post here while you can. The new Internet Czar knows your IP address, and if you think political targets do not exist in an enlightened America, just tune in CBS...I know, sounds really conspiritory, and with the latest events anyone who's a questioner of the status DemProFormaYouAnAMe will receive derisive and derogatory intolerance dogma as per the moral level as was voted upon last Novenber.
Anyone who's Nevillian enough to even for a minute think you can reason with anyone who thinks they are entitled to life on this planet, is just nuts.....

Pauley| 6.12.09 @ 2:01AM

How do you know your figures are accurate, Marcell? Because you said so? You're just another boneheaded troll flitting through the internet--you don't impress. Windbag.

Mike, you need help. Your tinfoil hat is fitting particularly tight tonight. Your post doesn't make sense.

Marcell| 6.12.09 @ 2:49AM

Marcell:

Since you liberals won't accept any evidence but that which Obama feeds you, how would you know if any counter-information/knowledge is correct? Be specific as to what those who disagree with you have wrong, not just broad brush insults.

Oh yes, Marcell, where will you go to be free if any government reduces or eliminates our Liberty and Freedom as Americans? I suggest you read Mr. Jefferson regarding tyranny and Liberty.

*************************

I have learned practically everything I know from over 15 years of reading & researching Republican talking points. I get most of my news from Republican sources & what seems to happen is a multitude of things. I google, watch press conferences, listen to both sides, watch senate & house hearings on CSPAN or msnbc will give sound info to refrute the Repubs spin. But, what I don't do is just let others do my research for me.

What I do is be fare to both sides like a juror & allow one side or the other to prove or disprove a point.

Most of the conservative talking points are based on opinions instead of hard news, so when you turn on your favorite Repug like Glen Beck or Sean Hannity all you are getting is conservative spin not news.

It seems that a typical conservative can watch the old Hannity & Colmes show & get the facts from Colmes while Hannity will choose to respectfully disagree based on his opinion & you will follow Hannity's perspective because he says he is a conservative & you feel he is fighting on your behalf even if he is wrong.

I'd rather for the person who is supposed to be fighting on my behalf to have a record of getting it right than have some knit-wit saying anything to disagree. Just think you don't find many conservatives knocking wholes in many of the Democrats talking points like Dems to them, but it was like that in the 1990s.

I wrote that last paragragh that way because most of todays conservatives complaints are shallow, but they were making solid points in the 1990s.

Both the Health care debate & the judicial appointments are done deals yet the conservative base wants their media to fight that losing battle that gives them no other option but to stretch the truth.

Let alone not many of the conservatives have the integrity to admit that Bu$h & Cheney made some horrible mistakes. Instead they try to spin & make a soft complaint that Bu$h wasn't a conservative. I can remember debating on talk radio in 2000 & claiming that Bu$h was a liberal based on the fact that I didn't just get my info from right-wing sources as many if not most of you choose to, & they were livid with me because I uttered the truth; I had the facts to back my point that Bu$h was pandering big government to Latinos & your favorite conservative news sources was purposely ignoring the pandering.

Sarah Palin & her bridge to nowhere speeches got raving reviews from conservatives, & if it weren't for the liberals in the press pointing out the facts, she would have gotten away with that lie, because it was obvious you didn't care if she was telling the truth or not.

So, don't think I do what you do best, listen to my so called side & call it truth because I want them to win. I, like most Dems will distance themselves from those who play the games you like to see played on your side of the MSM.

My best example was when Jessie Jackson tried to fight for those kids who were having a gang fight in the bleachers of a football game. When the whole story came out, Jackson ended up fighting that battle with very little support, because the Dems as well as many of the black people wouldn't just blindly follow Jacksons lead like conservatives do for Dick Cheney.

Finally, I use to believe that the one thing conservatives & I had in common was our love for our country, but you lost that positive image when you were willing to give up our civil liberties & allow Bu$h & Cheney to break all sorts of laws.

Marcell| 6.12.09 @ 4:21AM

If you take a close look at my old news blog you will realize that I am a person who is really in relentless pursue of the truth.

http://thepoliticoinsider.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-01-25T11:14:00-08:00&max;-results=7

Marcell| 6.12.09 @ 11:58AM

The Repugs don't want you to believe that there are moderate Democrats, but how do you think the Democratic Party got their majority in 05.

************************

Centrist Dems Raise Big Concerns

By: Patrick O'Connor and Carrie Budoff Brown
June 12, 2009 04:17 AM EST

A coalition of more than 100 moderate House Democrats is hoping to unify as they attempt to limit the size and scope of a government-sponsored health insurance option — a key sticking point as health reform enters a delicate phase of negotiations.

Members of the New Democrat Coalition have organized a meeting with their counterparts in the Blue Dog Coalition on Friday morning in a bid to show some strength in numbers as they haggle with party leaders and the three chairmen drafting the bill.

The discussion will focus on the so-called public option in health care. Moderates want to ensure that that government-backed health care plan doesn’t undermine the private market. The group is targeting Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.), Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who are writing the House health care bill.

“The committees don’t really understand where their members are,” said one senior Democratic aide. “A lot of moderates really do have problems right now. How you define a level playing field with the public option is very critical.”

Moderates are a key constituency for Pelosi and her No. 2, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), as the House prepares its version of a landmark overhaul of the country’s health care system.

All told, members of the New Dems and the Blue Dogs combine for 102 votes — more than one-third of the entire Democratic Caucus — so they could have a serious impact on health care. Few expect the group to remain that cohesive, but a shared set of principles will give the bulk of both caucuses something to rally around.

“There’s a good chance that the leadership will listen to its moderates and actually come up with a bill [that], while not as moderate as the Senate, will not have the excess of [Calif. Rep.] Pete Stark and the Waxman’s,” said one Democratic lobbyist close to both groups.

Members of the New Democrat Coalition could also help persuade Blue Dogs to embrace some form of the public health insurance option. The Blue Dogs are now pushing for a system that would only trigger a public option if everything else fails.

“There’s not a whole lot of support” for a trigger, said Wisconsin Rep. Ron Kind, a leader of the New Dems. “We feel much more comfortable with a four-year look-back.”

“If they’re going to unite in agreement on a public plan, it will not be with a trigger,” the Democratic lobbyist said. “The New Dems are not going to go that far to the right.”

In a letter to the speaker earlier this week, New Democrat leaders asked her to make sure the public option pays for itself through premiums and co-payments and doesn’t receive any money through tax revenue, congressional appropriations or the Medicare reimbursement process, according to a letter they sent the speaker earlier this week. They also want to make sure the public health care option is based on Medicare reimbursement rates and doesn’t compel doctors or hospitals to participate because they already participate in Medicare.

Health care, Congress, Democrats, New Democrat Coalition, Blue Dogs, While various House caucuses struggle with the public option, the American Medical Association caused a brief panic Thursday by coming out against the most liberal structure of a public insurance option — one that would pay Medicare rates or compel physicians to accept patients from a new government program. It did, however, say it remained open to other options that are not run by the government and can compete on a level playing field.

Dr. Jack Lewin, chief executive officer of the American College of Cardiology, said in an interview that his group remains open to a public option but that lawmakers must move beyond it if it means Congress cannot pass a bill.

“I would say the public plan is the secondary issue and not the primary issue at the moment,” Lewin said. “Let’s take the time to really consider it. Maybe it takes a year to figure out the workings of it. ... Let’s get reform done and not have this block the process.”

In the Senate, key committees continue to struggle for a compromise on the public plan. An alternative offered by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) gained some traction Thursday among senators on the Senate Finance Committee, although an agreement remained out of reach.

Some Republicans, including Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, expressed interest in the idea because, according to early outlines of the plan, it could provide competition without giving government a heavy role. Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said he was “inclined” to support the proposal but needed to work out many details.

“I am inclined, and I think the committee is inclined, toward it,” Baucus said. “But it’s got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option, even though” it’s not public.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has served as a bridge with the more liberal members of the caucus, argued during a closed-door Finance Committee meeting that any co-op plan needed to include three features: a national structure, startup capital from the government and a prohibition against naming any federal appointees with ties to the insurance industry.

“Those are the bare minimums,” Schumer said. “We are trying to bridge the gap here. I don’t know if we can. We are making a good effort. I am in touch with many of the groups and colleagues who support the public option. The bottom line is we are not going to support anything that won’t be an independent model that puts the consumer ahead of profitability.

“If anyone thinks, ‘Oh, we are 90 percent of the way there’ — not close,” Schumer added.

As moderates prepare for their Friday gathering, they’ll have to deal with multiple fissures.

Only about half the Blue Dogs signed on to their letter calling for public plan as the last-gasp option. And some New Democrats who oppose a public plan are upset leaders gave away the farm by laying down public option principles. Others in the caucus supportive of the public plan could get behind a more liberal option.

But all sides seem to acknowledge that their leadership is willing to work with them.

“What we’re hearing is encouraging,” said Kind, a leader of the New Democrat Coalition.

“The leadership has been incredibly helpful in reaching out to all of us,” one member of the New Democrats said Thursday. “We want to be helpful in keeping everyone together. We think we can help the leadership on this.”

Chris Frates contributed to this story.

Richard Baker| 6.12.09 @ 12:00PM

Marcell:
Read the Founding documents. You might actually learn something. They are, 1. Declaration of Independence, 2. Constitution, 3. The Federalist Papers, which explain #1 and #2. Being a political junkie says that you understand manipulative politics and not the fundamentals.

Marcell| 6.12.09 @ 12:02PM

There is a total difference between that hard news story I just posted & the conservative opinions where most of you get your info .

Richard Baker| 6.12.09 @ 12:18PM

Marcell:
Do read the sources I mentioned. That is the wellspring for my beliefs. When someone reflects them, I listen. When they don't, I stop listening. Being a political dilettante is not the same as listening to Washington, Jefferson or George Mason. You know, those who created the country you bitch about.

Marcell| 6.12.09 @ 12:23PM

Hi Richard Baker

One thing a person learns hanging around a bunch of conservatives is to read & understand the founding documents. The problem I have is that the founding documents for conservatives seem to be more like pawns used to control the masses.

Conservatives seem to be well versed in the constitution but they also seem to be political idiots when they expect us to take them serious as they ignore all the things they have learned about the constitution in support of The Bu$h Crime Family.

The glue that holds this country together is the respect for the rule of law & Bu$h & Cheney seemed to could care less obout the rule of law.

Here is my favorite:

FEDERALIST No. 10
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed10.htm

Marcell| 6.12.09 @ 12:28PM

Richard Baker

Please post the links to the info you would like me to read, & I would love & enjoy reading the info.

Richard Baker| 6.12.09 @ 12:30PM

Have YOU read them? Forget the transient nature of politics. Have YOU read them? If not, then where is the SUBSTANCE of your argument?

Marcell| 6.12.09 @ 1:16PM

Founding Fathers: The Threat of Tyranny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osFKsmjwe6g

ds80| 6.12.09 @ 5:15PM

So the Porkulus Bill would save or create 4 million jobs over two years. Ok. If that's the reasoning being used, then these are the FACTS:

(1) In his 8 years as President, George W. Bush saved or created 135.5 million jobs.

(2) In his not yet 5 months as President, Obama has LOST 2.6 million jobs.

------------------

Marcell: "the founding documents for conservatives seem to be more like pawns used to control the masses".

Hmmm ....

"created equal"
"unalienable rights"
"Life, liberty"

"establish justice"
"common defense"

"Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Please explain, "control the masses"

Marcell| 6.12.09 @ 6:05PM

How to Stop Socialized Health Care
Five arguments Republicans must make.
By KARL ROVE

It was a sobering breakfast with one of the smartest Republicans on Capitol Hill. We can fix a lot of bad stuff President Barack Obama might do, he told me. But if Mr. Obama signs into law a "public option," government-run insurance program as part of health-care reform we won't be able to undo the damage.

I'd go the Republican member of Congress one further: If Democrats enact a public-option health-insurance program, America is on the way to becoming a European-style welfare state. To prevent this from happening, there are five arguments Republicans must make.

The first is it's unnecessary. Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans. That's competition enough. The results of robust private competition to provide the Medicare drug benefit underscore this. When it was approved, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $74 billion a year by 2008. Nearly 100 providers deliver the drug benefit, competing on better benefits, more choices, and lower prices. So the actual cost was $44 billion in 2008 -- nearly 41% less than predicted. No government plan was needed to guarantee competition's benefits.

Second, a public option will undercut private insurers and pass the tab to taxpayers and health providers just as it does in existing government-run programs. For example, Medicare pays hospitals 71% and doctors 81% of what private insurers pay.

Who covers the rest? Government passes the bill for the outstanding balance to providers and families not covered by government programs. This cost-shifting amounts to a forced subsidy. Families pay about $1,800 more a year for someone else's health care as a result, according to a recent study by Milliman Inc. It's also why many doctors limit how many Medicare patients they take: They can afford only so much charity care.

Fixing prices at less than market rates will continue under any public option. Sen. Edward Kennedy's proposal, for example, has Washington paying providers what Medicare does plus 10%. That will lead to health providers offering less care.

Third, government-run health insurance would crater the private insurance market, forcing most Americans onto the government plan. The Lewin Group estimates 70% of people with private insurance -- 120 million Americans -- will quickly lose what they now get from private companies and be forced onto the government-run rolls as businesses decide it is more cost-effective for them to drop coverage. They'd be happy to shift some of the expense -- and all of the administration headaches -- to Washington. And once the private insurance market has been dismantled it will be gone.

Fourth, the public option is far too expensive. The cost of Medicare -- the purest form of a government-run "public choice" for seniors -- will start exceeding its payroll-tax "trust fund" in 2017. The Obama administration estimates its health reforms will cost as much as $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. It is no coincidence the Obama budget nearly triples the national debt over that same period.

Medicare and Medicaid cost much more than estimated when they were adopted. One reason is there's no competition for these government-run insurance programs. In the same way, Americans can expect a public option to cost far more than the Obama administration's rosy estimates.

Fifth, the public option puts government firmly in the middle of the relationship between patients and their doctors. If you think insurance companies are bad, imagine what happens when government is the insurance carrier, with little or no competition and no concern you'll change to another company.

In other words, the public option is just phony. It's a bait-and-switch tactic meant to reassure people that the president's goals are less radical than they are. Mr. Obama's real aim, as some candid Democrats admit, is a single-payer, government-run health-care system.

Health care desperately needs far-reaching reforms that put patients and their doctors in charge, bring the benefits of competition and market forces to bear, and ensure access to affordable and portable health care for every American. Republicans have plans to achieve this, and they must make their case for reform in every available forum.

Defeating the public option should be a top priority for the GOP this year. Otherwise, our nation will be changed in damaging ways almost impossible to reverse.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Marcell| 6.12.09 @ 6:14PM

Please explain, "control the masses"

**************

Guard against imposters of pretended patriotism.
George Washington

Richard Baker| 6.12.09 @ 9:31PM

Marcell:
If you don't know where the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers can be found then I feel sorry for you. Pathetic.

Missy| 6.12.09 @ 10:06PM

Oh, Marcell can find the documents, Mr. Baker--he just wants to subvert them because they get in the way of his Marxist designs.

You know--with all those penumbras and such.

Marcell| 6.13.09 @ 12:11AM

Wow!!

I am going to be nice this time.

Missy| 6.13.09 @ 4:03AM

You had no choice, clown--you got your Marxist clock cleaned.

Richard Baker| 6.13.09 @ 11:13AM

Missy:
Those who espouse "Marxist/Communist" ideas have no clue as to what they mean in everyday life. Remember, the Berlin Wall wasn't built to keep the West out, it was built to keep the East IN.

Missy| 6.14.09 @ 3:34AM

I don't know, Mr. Baker--I think some of these clowns believe they will have power. I think they know exactly what they're doing. Traitors.

Hopesome| 6.14.09 @ 9:49AM

The 'arms war' and the so called 'lets get into space war' are brought into play at the expense of the health and therefore wealth of any nation.

People are the biggest asset any nation can have, therefore, they should come first before you start 'arming them or aiming them (into space!)

Now we have a 'arms and space' war what do we do.

Well for one thing you can promote peace and not war, which will help make us all begin to feel a whole lot better, and then instead of heading of into space use that which you have abandoned in the rural.

Pauley| 6.14.09 @ 9:05PM

Hopesome, why don't you aim your peace sermons toward Iran or North Korea? I mean, their people are the biggest asset they have, too. Right?

Do they promote peace over war?

Too bad both of those countries starve, torture and bully their people-- UNLIKE the USA.

You know?

Hopesome| 6.15.09 @ 3:48AM

Pauley

I do believe that recently some of the American soilders were jailed for torture whilst serving in Iraq.

Not to say what goes on behind the closed doors of other so called detention centres.

If you continue to torture your fellow man then don't dare pick up a bible.

The bullet and the bible is the two faces of the american people.

Iran and the rest of us are confused by the duplicity of your nature.

Richard Baker| 6.15.09 @ 11:01AM

Missy:
The liberal mind believes in street theater. During Vietnam these anti-war folks engaged in street theater to protest the draft and the war. When the draft went away, so did the street theater. Reality doesn't much agree with these folks. That's why their "arguments" quickly degenerate into cursing and venom. It all too often resembles the screaming and yelling one sees on a recess playground when disagreements occur over using the slide, swingset, or other pieces of apparatus.

Richard Baker| 6.15.09 @ 7:44PM

Hopesome:
The bullet and the bible ARE the two faces of the American people. Remember, this country was founded by Christians with guns, as G. Gordon Liddy has said. Right on, right on!

Missy| 6.16.09 @ 12:05AM

Yes, Mr. Baker--you're right of course. That's why I enjoy torturing the little monsters and playing with their minds (That is, what little they have left after years of heavy drug abuse). Insults and more insults--that is my motto.

The Holy Bible and bullets--a perfect recipe for freedom--both fight tyranny.

Hey, Hopesome--looks like the Iranian people aren't confused about the evil nature of their government, huh? See any bloody riots in my country? Nope--because we're awesome, that's why. Buzz off, loser.

Hopesome| 6.16.09 @ 6:30AM

Missy

PRIDE COMES ALWAYS BEFORE A FALL

Americas belief in its self leaves little room for a lord.

Yet in your determination to be 'the boss' you were never deserted by him.

The biggest bullet is the Fathers.

BE VERY AWARE THAT HE KNOWS HOW TO DRAW YOUR VENOM AND FIRE.

TOUCHE MY FRIEND.

Hopesome| 6.16.09 @ 6:43AM

Mr Baker

My point exactly.

If you preach of the Fathers love for your country you shouldn't need a bullet or bomb for does he not and is he not more capable than any enemy.

Obviously you have a problem with practicing what you preach!

Obviously you are in unbelief as to his 'knowing of you and yours' plus the universal hope that brings Americas to the forefront of power.

No Sir there is only room for one power and its not either Americas self belief nor Irans hope of its religions, or chinas hope of buying and selling the lot of us.

Power of the Most High you see, when it comes to man, is dictate, evaluate, emulate, emancipate! generate, infiltrate, and excentuate.

UNCONDITIONAL LOVE DOES NOT EXIST IN MAN

YOU AMERICANS ARE SO 'BLIND'

Richard Baker| 6.16.09 @ 3:06PM

Hopesome:
Remember, Utopia is always around the last corner.

Hopesome| 6.16.09 @ 4:06PM

Mr Baker

Utopia is of man's desires not the Fathers.

When you reach his heart then he is your Utopia

The problem is your fellow Americans like to preach a great deal make the prophet/profits therein and thereof and then have the audacity to tell the rest of us how to behave. Mr Baker you are no match for a hope that is in and of and above man and his deaires when you reach that place then only will you be able to converse on my levels of authority and understanding and opinions Mr Baker are for those who 'fail' in the actions yet wallow in the conversing of them.

May Britain send her geetings to you and thank you for entertaining one of its people with your banters. Next time do be more prepared when you enter a war of words.

arash farhad| 10.3.09 @ 8:19AM

Obama works very well on health projects. Last time report was issued by travel clinic london. In this report they mentioned all the budget and the worked which was done ob health facilities by Obama.

jessjane| 10.19.09 @ 9:40AM

I like Obama policies and I respect them but last time when I was gone to the hospital for DNA testing of my mother. My friend told me that this test is very pricey and it was right.

zuna jean| 10.19.09 @ 9:45AM

You are right. I am from New York and I was also checked up my DNA. Its tests are really pricey in America but DNA testing in Thailand is very cheap. Even every type of tests and treatments are cheap in Thailand. Many celebrities are also gone for plastic surgery.

poptropica | 4.8.10 @ 10:31PM

thanks you very much for your information
Poptropica
Poptropica

health-on-line| 4.26.10 @ 5:54AM

Totally agree with Melvin - if this is such a brilliant idea then the politicians should back it by showing us they have the same health care in place.

Gerom| 5.10.10 @ 6:56AM

Members of the New Democrat Coalition have designed a gathering with their counterparts in the Blue Dog Coalition 1Y0-259 exam on weekday farewell in a effort to exhibit several capableness in drawing as they dicker with RH202 exam band body and the threesome chairmen craft the bill. The communicating be going to pore on the so-called open choice in upbeat care. Moderates poverty to secure that that government-backed upbeat tending organisation doesn’t counteract the clannish market. The assemble is targeting Education and Labor Committee Chairman martyr playwright (D-Calif.), Ways and Means Committee Chairman physicist Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman speechmaker Waxman (D-Calif.), who are composition the House upbeat tending bill.