-
A Plea to the New Republican Majority
September 22, 2010 | 19 comments
-
Another Federal Giveaway to Unions
September 2, 2010 | 2 comments
-
Federal Rate Review?
March 4, 2010 | 19 comments
-
Redistricting
January 25, 2010 | 5 comments
-
They Still Don’t Get It
January 17, 2010 | 20 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Martin Feldstein, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that, “ObamaCare is all about rationing.”
He says, “The White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report in June explaining the Obama administration’s goal of reducing projected health spending by 30% over the next two decades. That reduction would be achieved by eliminating “high cost, low-value treatments,” by “implementing a set of performance measures that all providers would adopt,” and by “directly targeting individual providers … (and other) high-end outliers.” In other words, using a British-style NICE board to determine what services are cost effective, and disallow those that are not.
Now, you can be for this or against this, but it is disingenuous to argue that Palin was completely wrong in warning about this cost-based rationing. What kind of democratic process is it that asks the American people to accept this approach, while pretending this is not what the administration is trying to do?
Americans may decide that such rationing is worthwhile, but they should not be fooled into thinking it is the only way to control costs. Mr. Feldstein points out one alternative. He writes, “The rising cost of medical treatments would not be such a large burden on future budgets if the government reduced its share in the financing of health services. Raising the existing Medicare and Medicaid deductibles and coinsurance would slow the growth of these programs without resorting to rationing. Physicians and their patients would continue to decide which tests and other services they believe are worth the cost.”
If the people were allowed to vote on which approach they would prefer, I wonder which would win?
View all comments (96) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Greg Scandlen
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/08/22/palin-was-not-wrong-part-two
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Public Nuisances
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Sarah Palin’s Rack
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bob| 8.22.09 @ 10:12AM
Well, Greg, it seems as though you've not read the bills. Palin was precisely wrong. You are ASSUMING that there is rationing in these bills, but there is no rationing. In fact, most of the objective analysts (not commentators) say that the problem with these bills is that they mandate high end plans and will therefore cost significantly more. In fact, there is little in these bills that would lower costs. The ASSUMPTION of rationing is just not in these bills -- so you, and Palin, are just making this up.
But when it comes to the overall issue, you are precisely right. We cannot cut health care costs in the future without some sort of rationing. Furthermore, I agree that the best way to ration is to let people pay for their own care. Then it would be up to the individual to decide to spend their own money on expensive end-of-life alternatives or not. Middle class people would die in larger percentages than rich people -- but that is the heart of individuality and capitalism. In fact, if you believe that this is morally wrong, then you believe that health care is a right, not a privilege. Think about it.
Higher deductibles and having the individual pay more of the bill is an excellent solution. So is providing a "health care bank account" so people can budget their health care expenses.
As you rightly infer, the only good solution to rationing is to let individuals make their own decisions on whether to spend their hard earned money on health care and end-of-life issues.
yeswecan| 8.22.09 @ 10:23AM
Well this should not be to hard to decide.We either let the government talk us into dying by refusing to give us health care under the Obamacide death plan or choose for ourselves.Hmmm?I will choose the latter.Mr. Blunt from Mo wrote an amendment to the Health Plan that said all government employees (sen.,reps.,ect.)would recieve the same care as the people.Ofcourse it was rejected .Does that tell you anything?
Liberal Reader| 8.22.09 @ 10:44AM
Scandlen --
I suppose the way you oversimplify the issue is clever, but it's ultimately unproductive.
Medicare, right now, pays for end of life counseling and has for over twenty years. True, end of life counseling is sensitive; true, we wouldn't want bean counters doing it; true, it is puzzling why a provision dedicated to "bending the curve" of costs was place -- by a REPUBLICAN -- in this legislation.
But it's not about death panels. It's just not.
Democrats will make "war" on Medicare on the day Republicans make "war" on golf, capital gains tax cuts, and religious hypocrisy. It's not in the DNA of Democrats to do this: we CREATED Medicare, against the objections of Republicans who said it would destroy American capitalism.
Well, that was -- obviously -- bullshit, and when Republicans said Social Security would turn us into a Soviet satellite, that was bullshit too.
Here's the problem: Democrats need to dump all arguments based in accounting. The truth is, to cover everyone, we're going to need to spend more money. But, it's the RIGHT thing to do. Every wealthy democracy in the world EXCEPT the United States has some kind of provision for universal coverage.
Lincoln said the government should do what people can't do for themselves: the market just doesn't create conditions for universal health coverage. People get sick; people are poor; and yes, people are sometimes stupid, lazy, irresponsible, luckless, and foolish. People get addicted to drugs; people lose their jobs; people do bad things. None of this means any one of these people shouldn't be able to seek medical treatment if they need it.
In the end, the private system the great Invisible Hand has given us doesn't work; and, it's getting worse. Premiums have DOUBLED in the last 10 years and are expected to do so again in the next 10: I suppose you can try to blame that on Obama, but you'd be foolish to try. The insurance companies feel the end coming, and there just trying to take us for all that they can until we come to our senses.
Liberal Reader| 8.22.09 @ 10:47AM
correction: and THEY ARE just trying to take us for all that they can...
Liberal Reader| 8.22.09 @ 10:52AM
Name me ONE modern democracy that has found a free market solution to health costs.
Just ONE.
ONE country that leaves the care of people up to a free market.
If this were the solution you people say it is, you should have dozens of examples to rattle off. We're not the only country in the world that participates in capitalist markets, you know.
So, who? Name a country. Show me an example. It hasn't worked here yet. Republicans have been telling us since TRUMAN was in office that the market would magically take care of everything.
The result? 14,000 people losing coverage every day. 1,000,000 people going bankrupt every year as a result of medical costs. 100% increase in premiums over the past 10 years. 20 million people with insurance who still can't afford primary care because of high co-pays.
The way we're doing it makes no sense.
Unless someone can explain it to me.
Liberal Reader| 8.22.09 @ 10:58AM
If you are in the middle class right now, chances are about 25% of your actual earnings are going towards health care. You don't see it, because you probably have coverage through employment; but it IS coming out of your total compensation.
That number is expected to climb to 50% in the next 10 years.
Do any of you see this as sustainable?
If not, ask yourselves, WHAT did the Republicans do about it? They've been in control of DC for most of the last decade, as costs doubled.
Liberal Reader| 8.22.09 @ 11:00AM
...and before anyone chirps up "tort reform," keep this in mind:
6% of claims against doctors succeed. SIX PERCENT.
The total costs for lawsuits are less than 1% of what we spend on medical costs in this country. LESS than 1%. Treatment for diabetes alone is something like 15%, just to give you an idea.
Nobama| 8.22.09 @ 11:03AM
Trolls are out and especially shrill today: Wonder why and what's the matter?
Perhaps it's because your Dear Leader is tanking in the polls, or Obama's hiked the 10 year deficit to $9 TRILLION! and counting: Even your true believers on Air America are calling Obama a fascist. What a shame if a civil war breaks out among you democrats.
In the words of Obama's holy man, Jeremiah Wright, (all your fascist liberal) "chickens have come home to roost." Hahaha.
Bob| 8.22.09 @ 11:18AM
Liberal -- the issue is health care expense -- and none of the Democrat's plans really address this in a realistic way. We cannot continue to spend 16% of GDP on health care and be competitive with other countries in the production and distribution of goods and services. Without lowering this cost, we will continue to lose jobs and health care expenses will rise dramatically with fewer people paying for it.
The ONLY solution to solving this problem is rationing. No one wants to discuss this issue, but we need to put this country on a health care budget. Therein lies the ideological solution. Either we ration health care individually which means if you can't afford the care, you don't get it, or we have panels deciding on rationing. Rationing is currently being done by insurance companies, but instead of cutting costs, they simply raise rates giving the people who have health insurance great programs (but leaving out people who don't have it).
That brings us to the moral issue. If you believe health care is a right, government should provide it. If you believe it is a privilege, then government should stay out of the equation.
We have succeeded in this country through individualism and private enterprise. That is why we dominate the world's powers. Our solution then, should be based on these principles, and not on a collective system.
I know this sounds ruthless to those that cannot afford expensive care, but this solution would also lead to a more productive and lower cost society that could create a huge number of jobs. In the end, getting people to work is far more important because then they will be able to afford food, shelter, and yes, healthcare. Providing a solution that doesn't contribute to the nature of our success will simply make us less competitive in the world economy.
That said, I would not object to a more rational Medicaid approach that provides catastrophic and preventative care to those that cannot afford a private plan.
The uniquely American solution is to let people ration their own care -- especially on end-of-life issues. If they can't afford it, or don't want to pay for it, they may die. That is an outgrowth of our country's modus operandi. But this will also lead to more jobs and greater economic growth and will put food in children's stomachs and roofs over their heads with increased employment.
You cannot convince those of us who believe in capitalism and that health care is a privilege that our country should provide unlimited health care for everyone.
Liberal Reader| 8.22.09 @ 11:51AM
Bob --
Health care seems inherently disruptive of the very things that make the free market such a good thing.
Here's what I "get" about the beauties of a free market:
People strive, create, and take risks relatively uninhibited by government agencies, committees, etc. Markets create a kind of free play that harnesses creativity and generates tremendous wealth. It allows individuals the opportunity to choose and seek out those things that will make them happy.
If I want a BMW, which I do, but I'm too poor to buy one, which I am, I have choices: I can forgo spending on things not as important to me; I can work harder; I can seek a better job.
No one need pity me because I don't have a BMW. I've made choices that make such a purchase impossible for me -- at least for now. The next guy has a BMW, a good for him. No sane person views any of this as tragic or even remotely troubling.
But what if I get sick and can't afford a doctor? The "free market" solutions seem to suggest that this is not really a different situation than my BMW woes.
If I go to a doctor and say "treat me for free," it's like walking onto a BMW lot and driving off without paying for thing.
I know there's charity; I know there's laws about emergency rooms, etc. But these just begin to support my point:
Don't we REALLY believe -- setting politics and economics aside -- that taking care of the sick, despite their ability to pay, despite their irresponsibility, laziness, or any other circumstances, is the right thing to do?
And if it is, why not do it?
Why not just make medical care free? As a birthright, you are covered, no matter where you live, whether you have a job, or anything else. You can see a doctor if you need to, just because you're an American citizen.
Liberal Readere| 8.22.09 @ 12:00PM
Also --
Free markets allow me to choose -- as a consumer -- when to buy things and when not to.
The BMW can wait. I have a bike, a Honda, a bus, for now: I can get around. The BMW is just something I want my friends to see me driving around in, anyway.
But if I get cancer? How can I plan for it? If insurance refuses to cover me, what do I do?
I don't really have a "choice" about medical treatment. I can't act rationally.
The solution of the free market is that I die. The Invisible Hand is a DEATH PANEL.
Mike| 8.22.09 @ 12:26PM
obama and the Democrats are their own death panel as they condem the most innocent Americans to death and ask the taxpayers to pay for it. As they cry to save polar bears who are in no peril they have no problem killing innocent babies. It's called the right to kill or abortion on demand!!
Bob| 8.22.09 @ 12:35PM
Liberal -- you've CHOSEN to deem health care a right while I see it as a privilege. But there are other life sustaining items as well that are a privilege. We cannot survive without food. Should you be able to get food free? What about shelter? What if you live in a neighborhood with gangs?
Like I've said many time before, I am a huge proponent of individual choice and personal responsibility. That even extends to being pro-choice and supporting gay marriage. That's why I support higher education and will not vote for idiots like Palin. People need to make smart decisions. I feel the same way about health care. It is your decision, and it is NOT a right.
Recently I needed a tooth implant. My dental insurance will not cover it. I got a CT scan, went to three dental specialists, and made a decision on quality of service versus cost. Would I have done that if insurance paid for it? Not on your life. I would have chosen the best person with no regard for cost.
Again, rationing does not work without limits -- and I'd rather set the limits for myself than have either insurance or government panels do it for me. Giving minimal care to those who cannot afford health care makes sense to me because rather than overloading unscheduled emergency rooms, we can more rationally control those costs with preventative medicine and controlled solutions.
I cannot buy onto your belief that health care is a right which will lead to higher unemployment and less food and shelter for children. It is a trade-off which I believe, in the longer run, will work better for our type of democracy.
Liberal Reader| 8.22.09 @ 12:51PM
I have to go now. My ACORN organizer called and we have a healthcare town hall to disrupt, but first I need to stop by the welfare and unemployment office to pick up my checks. I wish the govt would pay for my internet access, the library is a long bus ride away.
Anne| 8.22.09 @ 1:36PM
Dear Liberal Reader, congratulations! You've been getting attention! Surely your mission is now complete. But oh, would you please take your profanity with you? As smart as you may be, using curse words only makes you sound less educated.
Pingback| 8.22.09 @ 1:59PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Palin was not Wrong, Part Two | AlternativeInsu links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Liberal Reader| 8.22.09 @ 2:41PM
Bob --
I was careful NOT to say health care is a right.
But do I have a "right" to live in a country that explores outer space?
Do I have a "right" to public universities that are among the best in the world?
Do I have a "right" to Social Security?
I think that we get too persnickety about these things. Just because something isn't a positive "right," doesn't mean we shouldn't create a government program to support it.
What I'm asking about is our preferences. My guess is that if you could just for a moment set aside practical considerations of politics and economics and ask, "Would it be better if the United States had universal health coverage of some kind?" most people would answer "Yes."
So what is it that gets in the way?
Switzerland has universal coverage provided by private insurers. (This is largely the plan followed by MA.)
Maybe that's the way for us to go.
BUT --
I read Am. Spec. because I'm willing to be convinced.
I keep asking, "How would a free market system work, if it's not what we have now?"
How would it? What model would we follow, since no other comprable nation on earth does it?
No one here seems to be able to explain how a free market solution would work, and -- naturally - no Republicans are offering alternatives either.
Liberal Reader| 8.22.09 @ 2:45PM
Bob --
You yourself concede that the poor require "minimal care." But what is minimal care, and why, while we're giving it, shouldn't they be afforded proper care?
If they deserve the one, is cost the only reason we say they don't deserve the other?
****By 2010 we will have spent TWO TRILLION dollars in Iraq.****
Let's just keep in mind our priorities.
Curtis Rasmussen| 8.22.09 @ 2:57PM
Rationing in an acronym: QALY
The Quality Adjusted Life Year will place a government defined value on your life from 0 (near dead?) to 1(highly valuable taxpaying slave).
Age and health will factor in with the chance of receiving treatment increasing as your number approaches 1. Your treatment could be delayed to push someone else with a higher QALY to the front of the line. If the government feels that your treatment does not provide value to society, then your treatment will be denied.
If I can't get the treatment that I need or have to wait in line to get it because the goverment actuarial tables dictate that others get the treatment before me, then the plan ends up rationing my healthcare.
I guarantee you worthless, brain-dead, bottom feeding trolls will be the first to croak under the plan.
Mary Louise| 8.22.09 @ 3:28PM
"Rebellion against tyrants is Obedience to God," said our Benjamin Franklin.
Liberals can't win the health care argument using morality derived from either a secular or religious perspective. It's poetic justice to see Obama reach for the God lever; it will sway no one who isn't already in his choir. And it's sure to leave a greasy after-taste.
This issue is at the heart and soul of what it means to be a conservative. To appreciate and hold in high regard personal responsibility and dignity. Anyone can exercise personal responsibility, and a dignified person will have no desire to take resources that are not his and to debase all to his level, should it be an unfortunate one. Bright peasants who are given the chance to climb out of a pit of misery understand this very well.
As Kirk points out in The Conservative Mind, an aristocracy is going to rule, and there are half-educated, merit-free aristocrats. They're in office right now. No pedigree of service is part of their DNA. They've established no companies that have clothed and fed and educated so many ordinary Americans. An ever-expanding mediocrity is the only thing they will produce. They're ideologues, par excellence and there isn't a polymath to be found anywhere in their creepy cabal.
Palin has been very good. Her first tweet using the term death panels had the term in quotes, indicating hyperbole. Against a demagogue you have to volley in kind; there's no way around it. She's also likely to bring the issue of Tort Reform to the fore.
At our Town Hall meeting (we have a huge, dynamic and wonderful Medical Center here) Tort Reform was not treated as incidental to the debate. It was great to be among physicians who are true intellectuals, and not the half-educated sort we're saddled with in Washington.
Palin's approval is likely to go down before it rises again, if it will or can. But this is how she earns her stripes. If she can let go of that chip on her shoulder and assimilate what she needs to, she'll be in good shape. The chip is there for a reason; it began w/the Liberal dregs and Sully crawling up her vagina and camping out there. But it behooves her not to embrace the role of victim. Whether she wants to hold public office again or not, I can't say. It's got to be fun and rewarding to Tweet and have the president have to address it. Godspeed to her and her family.
My advice to her is to view the Couric interview, and learn what she needs to from it. Even Mayor Koch said that if Couric had thrown the SC question at him he might not have been able to answer the question off the top of his head, as the question of impact had been phrased. All she really needed to do was to be herself and not try to game it. To say something along these lines:
**"Katie, I'm the Governor of quite an eclectic State. Supreme Court decisions will certainly be important should I be granted the honor of the Vice-Presidency, but they're an area of expertise that allows for time and deliberative study, unlike, say, a pressing matter of National Security. To be sure, study would have to proceed that as well, but I'm sure you understand what I'm driving at. In that regard my understanding of Energy and the need for our independence from sources of enmity is quite a bit more relevant and as such quite valuable. But as I said, should I be granted the privilege of assuming the Office, I can assure you I will take the responsibility of all that entails seriously.
And Katie, what of Barack Obama? He's totally without experience. What job has he ever held that has been a true test of mettle? You might be interested in putting a few questions to my husband regarding the mettle it takes to establish and sustain a small business.
And what of Biden and the moronic comment about FDR appearing on Television? If the great Senator McCain had said anything similar you would have wondered, in print, ad infinitum and ad nauseum, if dementia had set in."
Lastly, Katie, 57 States? 57 States? I’d say that was left-of-the bell curve but I wouldn’t want to be accused of being a racist. I’ll save that for Biden. Look at the cow you and yours birthed when Qualye misspelled potato. To say you're the "affable Eva Braun" might be a bit over the top, but surely you can do a better job than your Colleagues in the industry have been doing. You're supposed to be independent, live up to that charge. The integrity of the Press is vital to a well functioning democracy.**
I can't remember where I read it, but someone wrote recently that the first time the North saved the Country and the second time the South will. Amen! May those Southern White Boys (and Black, however few) reign righteous this time in the fight for the preservation of true liberty. Did I ever mention I really like White Boys: Oversized, oversexed and over here!" Yes indeed!
As Rush said, once Health Care is nationalized we will all become budget items.
Viva il Sud e il sudore, and non dimenticare che il lupo socialista perde il pelo però non il vizio
Greg Scandlen| 8.22.09 @ 3:33PM
Folks,
As far as I am concerned this has next to nothing to do with end-of-life counseling. I'm all for it, though I don't think a physician is the best choice of counselor for this. What do they know about durable powers of attorney?
Rationing comes from three things, two of which are already law (due to the stimulus bill).
1. Health Information Technology that is intended to wire up every patient and every doctor into a national "interoperable" data base.
2. Comparative Effectiveness Research, that will use tha data base to determine cost-effective "standardized" treatment protocols.
3. Pay-for-performance requirements on paying physicians. Those who comply with the CER standards will be paid well. Those who violate them will not.
THIS is rationing, and it is based on a cost effectiveness standard similar to what the UK is doing with its NICE agency.
Mary Louise| 8.22.09 @ 3:35PM
Do pardon the length of my last post. I try to condense, I really do.
Liberal Reader| 8.22.09 @ 3:41PM
Mary Louise,
You've rehearsed here a variety of bromides that are endlessly repeated on the radio. While I guess I commend you for your ability to learn by rote, I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing.
That you can discuss Palin's "tweet" with a straight face is surely a danger sign.
Setting this aside, do you think the government should abolish Medicare?
After all, Medicare is a single payer system. It IS, in fact, a kind of socialism.
So is Social Security. Should that be abolished too?
And how about Medicaid? No bleeding heart liberal program bleeds like this one. YOUR tax dollars are appropriated from you by the government to care for the weakest, most infirm and most vulnerable in our midst.
It is, when looked at properly, a socialistic program.
Do we do away with it?
If yes, then what becomes of people too weak, too old, too infirm, too crazy, too lazy, too screwed up to participate in the market?
If the market is about competition, what happens to the losers?
If you think SOME care should be provided to the have-nots, then how much and who decides?
The government?
I'd like to hear some clear "conservative" answers on these issues.
Do Republicans, at the end of the day, support the two most popular social programs in our history (Medicare and Social Security)? If not, why don't they say something.
If they do, how do they justify their socialistic tendencies?
Mary Louise| 8.22.09 @ 3:53PM
____ ___, Jeremiah; long and hard, dry and deep. I neither respect nor like you. They're principles not bromides you _______ little twit.
Look at your own "bromides" that you ejaculate in your never-ending Wank Fests, beginning with Jeremiah, continuing with Tom Pain, progressing on to Murphy and ending with the Liberal Reader who can't even keep his solipsistic bromides straight. One post, it's I really don't understand all this health care business, but I know, bla, bla, bla. Second post, I'm not in favor of a single payer. Third post, a Single Payer is the only moral choice. Fourth and rimshot, I'm not here for debate, you guys are now just an anthropological study for me, because I'm so half-educated and smart I can dish out polished jive with the best of those in my group.
Hey, choirboy, wolves don't study men, men study wolves,. You miserable, disingenous whelp.
PALIN 2012| 8.22.09 @ 3:54PM
Mary Louise, Sarah Palin doesn't have a chip on her shoulder: You are the one who won't let go of the past by repeating all of the Katie Couric BS.
Sarah's a winner--she's already moved on. She's calling for tort reform now--the Arctic Fox must be driving liberals crazy! LOL
Screw REPUB AND DEMO Beltway insider elitists: We don't give a crap what they think or say.
GO SARAH 2012
Nobama| 8.22.09 @ 3:58PM
Kudos, Mary Louise--you nailed the little creep, Jeremiah. The Axelrod Astroturfer is an ar$e and not as clever as he thinks he is.
Mary Louise| 8.22.09 @ 4:09PM
Palin 2012; it's not going to happen, by the way. But for goodness sake look disinterestedly at the situation. Perhaps chip on shoulder isn't the best expression to use. But I'll tell you this, she needs to completely forgo mentioning any slights, no matter who or what comes at her. As Charles McCord says: "You don't come off the porch and play with the big dogs dressed up like a bone."
I grew up with all brothers. I love men, of course, that's always been a little bit of my problem. :) But if you're going to gain respect, no excuses. My Nuns taught me that.
Nobama, thanks. Keep up your own work here.
P.S. It seems that maybe I can condense when I really want to. :)
C4P| 8.22.09 @ 4:13PM
Real smart troll boy. All of the government programs you've listed are either going broke or are already broke.
So, why in the heck would we want to create another massive, huge, prodigious, ginormous and sure to go broke soon Government program WITH DEATH PANELS?
Only an idiot or a liberal (I repeat myself) would think this certain folly is a good idea.
Besides, I don't want amoral liberal creeps like you deciding if I and my loved ones should live or die. Fat chance in hell that's ever going to happen, babe.
Greg Scandlen| 8.22.09 @ 4:25PM
BTW,
I have a hard time getting through these long-winded responses, because I get stopped by factual errors. Liberal Reader, for example, throws out this --
"The result? 14,000 people losing coverage every day. 1,000,000 people going bankrupt every year as a result of medical costs. 100% increase in premiums over the past 10 years. 20 million people with insurance who still can't afford primary care because of high co-pays."
Really? Curious that the TOTAL number of bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2007 was 822,590 (http://www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/2008/bankrupt_newstat_f2table_dec2007.xls ), and the population with the greatest growth in bankruptcy rates are those covered by the much-vaunted Medicare program. Since 1991, bankruptcies have actually decreased for people below age 65, but increased 125% for those between 65 and 75 and increased 433% for those over age 75. (http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/consume/2008_11_debt.pdf)
Wouldn't it be nice if we could at least get our facts straight before we try to impose our ideas on the world?
Liberal Reader| 8.22.09 @ 4:26PM
Mary Louise --
Your response to mine is interesting, I guess, but you don't answer the simple question I put to you:
According to conservative "principles" (if you like), how can you support Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid?
A "pure" conservative would seem behooved to reject these programs. THEN, he'd be forced to go to Florida and try to explain them.
You people can talk badly about Medicare and Social Security all you want; the fact is, they are very, very popular. W tried to privatize them and he was driven off like a mangy dog.
So -- you either support them or you don't. Let's hear it.
By the way, I never said I was opposed to single payer. I said I was opposed to social medicine; there's a HUGE difference. I also said that I'd be satisfied with a bill that didn't include the "public option" (which is something different yet again).
I did -- and here you are correct -- say that observing this debate was more interesting than participating in it, simply because so many people are so ill-informed about the issues.
While we're at it, do you believe the president is a citizen of this country?
If you do, you're actually in a minority of conservatives.
65% of Fox viewers question that the president is a citizen. (This is close to the 63% of Fox viewers who believe Iraq attacked us on 9.11.) Are you one of this majority?
You see how difficult it is to argue with people who believe that anyone who differs with them is a "fascist," a "Nazi," a "communist," or a "traitor."
How am I supposed to respond? The people using these words don't even know what they mean.
The debasement of public discourse, the Palinification of our national debate, is, I'm pretty well convinced, irreversible, largely because of the squalors of cable news.
Palin 2012| 8.22.09 @ 4:30PM
Mary Louise, I agree with you about whining in general, I just haven't heard Palin whining about anything lately--have I missed something?
Her "Death Panel" comment was brilliant and timed perfectly: It drove the health care debate for a while and put the democrats on their heels.
Now Sarah's calling for tort reform--and of course we know there HAS to be tort reform to get medical costs down. Democrats hate tort reform because they are ambulance chaser @ss kissers.
I like men a lot, too. Most men--not trolls like Jeremiah the punk.
Do you remember the order of the nuns who were your teachers? The nuns at my grade school were Irish who had just come to the US. Strict young lasses they were! I loved them, though.
Liberal Reader | 8.22.09 @ 4:32PM
Scandlen --
I've linked here to the article with the figures I've cited.
Bankruptcies this year are up almost 45% from last, remember. I may have slightly overstated the number; it may be closer to three quarters of a million. But other sources have estimated a million.
Nobama| 8.22.09 @ 4:39PM
LR/Jeremiah, you're lying again. 65% of Conservatives are not birthers, and you know it.
I've read the number of republican birthers roughly equals the number of democrat truthers (around 30% or so). So, screw you and your snotty arrogance; Mary Louise is WAY TOO SMART for you. She's too nice and too classy for you, too, Libtard.
Go away, Jeremiah; go brown nose your boss Axelrod some more.
Nobama| 8.22.09 @ 4:41PM
Of course bankruptcies have skyrocketed, troll--what else do you expect when 3,000,000 people have lost their jobs since Obama became president? Duh!
Nobama| 8.22.09 @ 4:45PM
"The squalors of cable news," Jeremiah? You mean Rachel Madcow and Keith Overbite of MESSNBC? They are squalid for sure, so is "Tingles" Matthews.
Liberal Reader| 8.22.09 @ 5:00PM
Nobama --
You're a jackass, but I'll respond.
I didn't say 65% of conservatives; I said 65% of Fox viewers. A recent poll suggested a simple majority (i.e. slightly more than 50%) of conservatives "questioned" the president's citizenship.
Now, the question of truthers.
I can see why you'd like to simply split the difference and say "truthers" are liberal crazies and "birthers" conservative.
It's not that simple. There's likely a great deal of overlap. The "truther" contingent was far less a part of the national debate, at any rate. NO credentialed journalist gave it any serious consideration.
I certainly didn't either. Although part of the problem is that there was -- as there often is -- a grain of truth in the "truther" argument.
Bush was advised to take seriously the Al Quaeda threat and all evidence suggests that he did not until after 9.11. This leads some people to be skeptical about how much in fact he knew.
It is ridiculous to imagine any president knowingly permitting an attack against the US. But I think the issues are more complicated than you present them.
As for the rest of what you've written: you need somehow to get an imagination. You're a frightful bore.
Mary Louise| 8.22.09 @ 5:01PM
Your post to me was filled with straw men and faulty "constructed categories." My synopsis of who you are is accurate, and "debate" with you is futile. Jeremiah, you're the one who said I was a Nazi, and now you want to elevate the conversation? You accuse of Rush of trying to "tacitly" foment violence. How does anyone have a conversation with you? You wail like a frustrated, bi-polar teenager.
And your go to bromide of do you believe he's a citizen, can best be answered this way: the leap you have to make when addressing individuals who have never posted anything concerning his citizenship is of the same piece as those in your "anthropological study" group.
You show us where you carried on as you're carrying on here on Liberal sites during the Bush period. You want to prescribe language when it suits your purposes. We will have none of that, and you'd better get used to that.
And don't make America into some virgin whose been busted by cable news. Jefferson said of Adams that he was a hermaphrodictic freak, who was neither man enough for the job or woman enough to know when to back away. Not an exact quote, but pretty close.
The defect may be mine here, but I'm not really interested in having a conversation with you. I've said what I wanted to say. As I said, I neither respect nor like you, and time in conversation is much better spent with those of good faith and good will.
This could, of course, be a defect of mine, but you're like a dish of rigatoni, no matter how long you cook that pasta it still refuses to go down.
You practice what you preach, and lead a life you could live out in the open and some respect might rebound. But nobody could pull the Jeremiah, Tom Paine, Murphy and now Liberal Reader bit in the open, in the flesh to people's faces.
Oh, and your conflation of health care, sosh security (as Gephardt pronounced it) and medicare is half-learned, half-educated. Medicare is single payer and primary but not sole payer for most seasoned citizens. Social security may have been a power grab but it never ran the risk of resorting to politics to decide who may become a "useless eater," and who may not. And we, as citizens, work within the confines of any given epoch or moment to defend what is vital to defend.
Your rally cry of this is to help the middle class is a bromide.
I'll leave you to your principles and straw men, Jeremiah and to contemplate what a flaming hypocrite you are.
Mary Louise| 8.22.09 @ 5:14PM
Palin '12, the order was the Sisters of Mercy. Irish too. Honestly, if you would have brought a gun into class even the elderly nuns would have pistol whipped you with your own weapon. And if your parents tried to cry foul, they would have pistol whipped them too. They were tough, but I'm very glad for that. I had a 6th grade Nun, Sister Josepha who was the first person in authority to believe in me outside of my parents. She used to keep me after class and have me translate American speeches into Italian. Looking back, she probably was trying to make a leader of me. They were real feminists in that they encouraged excellence and high spirit in their girls.
By the way, what I write about Palin is filled with good-will towards her, and I hope you can see that.
I want to see her achieve what she wants to achieve. And you're absolutely right in that her "death panels" comment was great. Mark (can't think of his last name) he's McCain chief speech writer (wrote her speech for the convention as well) said of her, "what she knows you can't teach," and he's right. What she needs to learn, she can and the best way to do it is as she's doing it right now. As I said her approval numbers are likely down now, but that comes with being willing to bruise and be bruised. You're never going to escape that, but the time to do it is long before your run.
I wish her the best, and I hope you know that.
Palin 2012| 8.22.09 @ 5:27PM
No problem about Sarah, Mary Louise; she will rise or fall on her own merits. That's as it should be, right?
My mom was more afraid of the nuns than I! No recourse there. But I was a good student, loved to learn and enjoyed Catholic school (not all of my siblings feel the same way!), so I feel blessed that my parents sent me to private schools. The education was a privilege!
Nobama| 8.22.09 @ 5:40PM
Jeremiah, you also told Mary Louise if she believes Obama is a citizen she's in the minority among Conservatives. 50%, 60%, 65%--not much difference among them. Your number is still wrong.
Well, the "recent" poll that I read stated that 30% of Republicans are birthers, about the same number as idiotic truthers--so guess who I'm going to believe, troll?
Screw yourself and the stupid astroturf troll group to which you belong, Jeremiah.
ConservativeWanderer | 8.22.09 @ 7:05PM
Sheesh, I wander away for a few days and see what happens? Jeremiah got himself shredded again and I didn't get a chance to help.
Good job. :)
Liberal Reader| 8.22.09 @ 7:49PM
Vive Ralph Nader! Vive La Revolution!
Shredded? I don't think so, Wanderer. Just shrieked at by a couple of hysterical women.
ConservativeWanderer | 8.22.09 @ 7:52PM
...and once again, Jeremiah shows just how clueless he is. Shredded and he doesn't even realize it.
By the way, we all know who you are, Jeremiah, you might as well drop the "Liberal Reader" name. After all, you respond whenever we call you Jeremiah, so your "dodge" is about as effective as your debating skills.
Hot Con| 8.22.09 @ 7:54PM
Spoken like a true liberal beta male! Ah, the sweet stink of liberal estrogen.
Hot Con| 8.22.09 @ 7:57PM
My post was meant for the liberal stinker, Jeremiah. :)
ConservativeWanderer | 8.22.09 @ 8:32PM
No worries, Hot Con... I realized that, even if Jeremiah wouldn't have.
I bet he's complaining to his Mommy on DailyKOS right now.
Liberal Reader| 8.22.09 @ 8:39PM
Oh .... am I complaining to my Mommy?
Jesus, Conservative, you're not the brightest bulb on the tree, are you?
And what's it to you which moniker I employ?
Now --
It's true when a liberal posts here a bunch of people start typing unkind things in response.
That doesn't mean he's being shredded ... It just means he's being shouted down.
DON'T BE A BETA BOY!| 8.22.09 @ 8:57PM
Poor, widdle Jeremiah: He whines and cries about a few verbal brickbats tossed in his direction, yet ignores the disgusting F-Bombs and other assorted nasties that he's hurled at us.
Really, Jeremiah/Marcell/Sybil (in honor of sweet Basil)--I expected more of you.
ConservativeWanderer | 8.22.09 @ 8:57PM
You complain about people "typing unkind things" after accusing me of not being the brightest bulb?
Remove the plank from your own eye before complaining about the mote in mine, 'kay?
Liberal Reader| 8.22.09 @ 9:02PM
As I read Palin's face book communiques on health care, I'm struck by the total, complete debasement of political discourse it represents.
Here is the Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States of America writing about a very important issue via a social networking site for school girls!
And I don't care -- right now -- about the poor sentence construction, the impoverished diction, or the general awkward use of language in these demented missives. I'm just talking about the forum itself.
Why can't this woman write an Op-Ed piece for a grown-up publication? It doesn't have to be the Post or the Times. (Although both of those papers would gladly publish an essay by her.)
It could be for the Journal or the Spectator. Anything.
I'm not one of these people who thinks Palin is stupid. I'm generally impressed by her. Her speaking style is winning, at least.
I think, however, she has contempt for people who talk about ideas in a reasonable way. She relished her role as attack dog in the McCain campaign, firing away accusations that her running mate never would say. She likes snarky remarks and emotionalism in general; if she's not attacking, she's complaining about her victimization at the hands of "the elitists" (i.e. those who can read).
If you support Palin, you should go to the library and get some of Reagan's writings. In those documents, he proved himself to be more than just an able speaker; he was also a deep and really interesting thinker. (He was also not the paragon of "conservative" virtues he's made out to be today.)
You all worship Reagan, and I presume you at least know how to respect conservative thinkers like William F. Buckley.
Do you not feel yourselves falling?
Palin 2012| 8.22.09 @ 9:44PM
Geeez Louise, Jeremiah; President "Smooth Move" Obama can't even tell his daughters a simple bedtime story without using a teleprompter, and don't get me started about gaffe-prone, plagiarist extraordinaire Joe Blow Biden.
It's painfully obvious these two jokers aren't the smartest piglets at the trough and they're actually our President and Vice-President right now!
Falling? We hit the pavement HARD last November.
ConservativeWanderer | 8.22.09 @ 10:18PM
Jeremiah shows his ignorance again--he is so ignorant he doesn't even realize how ignorant he is!
Reagan had many sharp lines he used, including calling the Soviet Union an Evil Empire. Lefties hated that one, and probably still do.
As for WFB, if you think he was all kind words, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I've got a book of his correspondence with people, and the title is taken from one of the letters; it's called, "Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription!"
Quit getting your history and biography from MS-National-Barack-Channel and do some real research for a change.
ConservativeWanderer | 8.22.09 @ 10:23PM
By the way, lest you think about accusing me of a falsehood regarding the title of the WFB book I referred to earlier, here it is on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Cancel-Y.....465002439/
Liberal Reader| 8.22.09 @ 10:39PM
What?
No one's calling me a Nazi?
Something must be wrong. Maybe next week.
Vive Norman Mailer!
Vive Bernie Sanders!
Vive La Revolution!
Gomer Pyle| 8.22.09 @ 10:53PM
Wow! I stumbled onto these posts and must say the thoughtfulness and sharp-tongued wagging is like watching a ping-pong match between champions. The written volleys do provide quite a trove of information you don't hear anywhere else. My sympathies lie with the conservative side, but I have room to try and understand a reasonable liberal argument. Try is the operative word there though. If it wasn't for the insatiable lust for power and control and slam-dunking any conservative who stands in the way, I might have more empathy for the liberal position. Carry on.
C4P| 8.22.09 @ 11:19PM
Jeremiah, you must re-read Mary Louise's posts of 8/22 @ 3:53 and 5:01 P.M.
I've seen you take some beatings here at AmSpec the last few months, but these two are real barn-burners!
That little Catholic girl can dish the heat big time: And she sounds so damn smart while she's doing it! I gotta give it up for the Italiana--and I thank God she's on MY side. Bet she's really pretty, too.
There should be a comment Hall of Fame at AmSpec--I'd nominate ML's two posts right off.
ML called you a flaming hypocrite, but I know what she was really calling you. Care to give us a little guess?
Richard Baker| 8.23.09 @ 12:37AM
I am amazed at the impassioned pleas of those above who attack Palin's message by advocating that enslavement isn't all that bad. Sarah Palin writes regarding Freedom which is what our glorious government finds objectionable. I say to her critics, if your foe is committing suicide then get out of the way and let the proceedings commence. Liberty and Freedom are not negotiable. Tyranny deserves disrespect.
Lisa Faith| 8.23.09 @ 9:12AM
The comment the uninvited liberal made about Sara Palin being on Face Book shows just how uninformed and ignorant she is. The average age of Face Book members is in Sara's age. I cannot believe any one would support Obama's Health care reform. It would take a fool to not understand that Palin was talking about the fact that health care will be rationed if this bill passes. People from Canada has testified before congress how bad the one pay health care is. The President over the health care in Canada stated it was a death sentence. THERE IS NO MONEY LEFT. If there is no money than it does not take very much logic to see that medical treatments will not be paid for. This plan will pay for Doctor visits. One will have an option to pay for a seperate insurance to cover meds., or to pay an ambulance. I would never wish harm to anyone,but the fools that push for this and if it passes, I hope that they and their families are the first to experience the ration. I pray you have no grandmother or toddler. The democrats heard the horror stories from Europe and Canada and still decided that they did not care about tax payers health, that neither them nor their families would dare be on such coverage, just the lower people, the tax payers and the liberals that voted them in. I bet when those old democrats in office see all those liberals supporting a health reform that they would not touch themselves, they must really think gee we have a lot of dumb ass supporters out there. The laugh is on all of you liberals. You need to change your name from liberal to socials. There is nothing in you that stands for liberty. I want the government to help the uninsured, the poor. Not the free loaders that choose to buy a new car or such instead of Insurance. That stupid cash for clunkers will be paid by way of taxes. People went in debt for a car when jobs are being lost every day just because they heard that the government would give them 4500.00 for their clunker. Poor people drive clunkers. I laughed because at the end of the year car dealers have car sales with 0% interest. It adds up to far more than the 4500.00. What will they drive in six months and the car has been taken back due to being unemployed. Obama is sinking jobs everyday. And now that its over and America is more in debt what will GM. do for money? Bush was blamed for the foreclosures, Who will be at fault when you lose that new car, Obama is worshipped too much to be at fault. And to any argument that the new car will save gas and the planet, If democrats can buy two jets at the cost og two hundred and fifty million that cost fifty seven hundred an hour to fly, than I dont need to worry about getting a car that gets me five more miles on a gallon of gas. As far as global warming, it is all a lie. I know that all the pollution being made will not make it to the ozone layer, it will stick to the bottom of all those jets. Al Gore got very rich off his lies, and this was all started for an excuse to pass the cap and trade bill. It was reported this morning that the white house did hire a company to spam E-mails. Socialism is marching closer each day.
Josh Buckner | 8.23.09 @ 10:25AM
Palin's equivocation:
"low-value treatments" = the patient is low-value (such as the elderly and children w/ disabilities)
"low-value" actually refers to the effectiveness of the treatment.
Do you see the sleight of hand there?
Also, raising medicare/aid deductibles is a form of rationing. That being said, raising the deductible on treatments deemed to be high-cost/low-value doesn't sound like a bad idea for cutting costs.
Liberal Reader | 8.23.09 @ 10:34AM
Lisa.
Reading your post, I'm not sure if you're a liberal who is trying to make fun of "conservative" posters, or if you're writing in earnest. Don't worry: it happens a lot when I read posts around here. You're not alone.
If you are in ernest, if you aren't performing a rather cruel parody, then I'd urge you to do two things:
First, stick to a single topic. You range far afield from health care, and it makes you sound a little nutty. The "pollution being maid" may not "make it to the ozone layer," but I think maybe you need to read up some on that issue before commenting much more.
Second, know something about the topic you are commenting about. You may admire Palin, but don't follow her example by simply yammering whatever comes to mind on a topic. For example, you write the "cash for clunkers" program was "paid by way of taxes," as though that were something that was being covered up. That program was part of a stimulus package that spent tax dollars to stimulate the economy. The fact that it is paid for by tax dollars is not really being debated.
Now, you write that people in Canada and England are outraged by their health care systems. This is not true. Every study, every report, every finding is that people by and large are very satisfied in those countries AND -- more importantly -- would never want to exchange what they have for what we have.
In fact, no one does. Think about this: NOT ONE wealthy democracy (Western Europe, Britain, Canada, Japan, Taiwan) has ever moved from social medicine to our free market system. Those countries are getting better results while paying half as much per person. There are no death panels in France; Japan does not euthanize its elderly.
Why would you be so put out if you never needed to worry about health care costs or coverage again?
Tenn Slim| 8.23.09 @ 10:37AM
My Opine
I use Medicare, Tricare, both US Guvmnt entities. I pay for Medicare monthly. I earned Tricare.
Now. I KNOW there is waste and incorrect billing and an unending maze of cost structures to extract monies from both of these programs.
So. Lets focus on the Cost Structure, details, items by items, using Proactive Analysis techniques. Lets put Cost Accounts to work, to lay out the maze, do proper Methodology analysis on the programs. Make COMMON SENSE changes that will REDUCE the costs and move forward.
DONT. Impose a agenda, angst driven drivel from the aging 60s hippies, that are still trying to find themselves. This path leads to chaos, which, obviously, is where the Radical Left prefers to be. Therein, as the ancient texts say, we can all do our own thing.....
end
Semper Fi
Curtis Rasmussen| 8.23.09 @ 11:48AM
Lib Reader is employing the typical lib troll uberspeak. They get absolutely no respect in real life so they come here to patronize, fulfilling some twisted personal fantasy. Tom Pain(e), is that you?
As a minority I have frequently received preferential treatment from libs whether I wanted it or NOT, from biased admissions to college to affirmative action hirings to patronizing, outright racial prejudice from smug leftists who feel that the black man in America would be nowhere without them.
There is a dangerous correlation to healthcare. Once again, the socialist leftist smug fathers want to forcibly treat the entire nation to this elitist notion that they know what's best for you and they only have the best intentions at heart. This time they add the real threat of compromising your life and forcing you to pay for it.
Lib troll will be in for a rude awakening when his wall of delusional arrogance cracks from the realization that he is not the elite as he waits in line with the rest of us.
Liberal Reader| 8.23.09 @ 12:56PM
Im tired of all of you. You're ignorant, uninformed and rednecks. I am so superior in intellect that it is not even a contest.
Missy| 8.23.09 @ 1:10PM
Poor Jeremiah--dude just can't catch a break. Too bad, troll.
Palin 2012| 8.23.09 @ 1:29PM
LR/Jeremiah, I'll call you a Nazi if it will make you feel better. Heck, I'll lay a fascist liberal on you if it'll raise your spirits.
Anything to help out a dear friend.
Mary Louise| 8.23.09 @ 1:29PM
C4P, I’m glad we’re on the same side too, and your support and defense of Sarah Palin is much appreciated and admired.
Taking the fight to modern liberals is long overdue, and the health care debate is the perfect place to begin in earnest. Even the delicate sensibilities of the “independents” are not strained by the participants at the Town Hall gatherings because they’re smart enough to recognize the immense folly that this administration is poised to perpetrate upon everyone but themselves. And the argument that no one in Europe has gone to free-market solutions, is half-witted as most of the continent developed no constitutional foundation like ours, or has had the difficulty, as Paglia pointed out, of the size, breadth and diversity of our population. No one of sound mind is expected to find that either “an argument or an understanding.”
What becomes our continuing responsibility is to channel the energy released by the drive to preserve our liberty over our own lives for the betterment of that 59% (Reagan) maker. The rest? Impenetrable or inutile, you choose.
One thing we should keep at heart is the absolute necessity to send the egregiously base philosophy that says “never waste a good crisis" straight back to the pit of hell from whence it came. And, if we’re true conservatives we’ll hold all leaders and statesmen to that standard, regardless of party affiliation.
Every era has to adjust to its own circumstances. There’s no escaping that. The conservative position here is to demand ordered, well-thought out reformation, if necessary, acknowledging what problems or difficult situations can be ameliorated, and what problems can only be addressed by both private and public virtue. And to be unafraid in presenting these truths. I can’t remember if it was Hayek or Mises who said that no matter the incursions of socialism, a Nation must fight the onslaught using the conservative position I just described. Society, (sociology is no science like physics, historicism, a blind and inferior locus, drives it) is in an almost perpetual stage of adolescence and the growing pains that accompany it. Buggy to car, acquiring knowledge to managing it; these transitions naturally produce a certain instability but they cannot be avoided. The best thing to do is what Reagan did: give people a reason to believe in themselves and reject the strumpet’s call to rest comfortably at the table the petty tyrant has laid out for you. Trying to shape society into a mature, responsible adult takes discipline, patience and rejection of any philosophy that proposes a path of least resistance. None of this is a call to self-righteous preaching, it’s a call to evoke and cultivate an attachment to the gift of God that is Common Sense. It really is a gift; it’s a gift of sagacity, at the heart of which is the capacity for honest, accurate, disinterested deliberation to the best of our ability.
Here’s what Burke had to say in the Reflections on applying simple, philosophically and morally abstract, unmoored solutions to the always complex problems of men. This is also taken from Kirk’s Conservative Mind, which is definitely foundational if not exhaustive. Just what Kirk would approve of and appreciate. Democracy for the dead, and all of that.
**The revolutionary [French] thinkers, Burke wrote in the Reflections detested that complexity in a state which really is men’s chief safeguard against arbitrary action and oppression. The opposed and conflicting interests within a nation “interpose a salutary check to all precipitate resolutions. They render deliberation a matter, not of choice, but of necessity; they make all change a subject of compromise which necessarily begets moderation; they produce temperaments preventing the sore evil of harsh, crude, unqualified reformations, and rendering all the headlong exertions of arbitrary power, in the few or in the many forever impracticable…Burke and Adams shuddered at either the manifestation of this infatuation with simplicity -France of 1789, or France of 1797. The progress from Gironde to the Directory was natural and inevitable; for, in the words again of Burke, “When I hear the simplicity of contrivance aimed at, and boasted of, in any new political constitution, I am at no loss to decide that the artificers are grossly ignorant of their trade and totally ignorant of their duty.” Man being complex, his government cannot be simple. The humanitarian theorists who contrive projects of ingenious simplicity must arrive, before long, at the crowning simplicity of despotism.”**
The inclusion of French in brackets is mine. The emphasis in bold is mine too. I ask you, isn’t that a perfect description of the situation we‘re up against right now?
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.23.09 @ 1:49PM
Folks
Isn't it pretty obvious to all of you by now.
Liberal Reader.....IS ONLY A CONDUIT...a construct.
Pay attention to him and you know the communist's entire game plan.
Forewarned is forearmed.
Ole Bob now...I have not quite figured out if he is just a prissy liar, or if he gets so little validation for his so-called life each day that he is forced to play games here.
Oh well.
T.E.A.M. AMERICA IS PUTTING ON IT'S CLEATS TO HIT THE FIELD. PLEASE STAY TUNED!
Best regards
Liberal Reader| 8.23.09 @ 2:00PM
Mary Louise --
I'm not sure Burke is a "conservative" in the Glenn Beck tradition. I'll have to get out my copy of Enquiry Into the Sublime again, just to be sure.
Vive Rousseau!
Vive Fraternite!
Vive La Revolution!
Mary Louise| 8.23.09 @ 2:20PM
Yeah, what you wrote is relevant to what I wrote. You little, self-aggrandizing twit.
Why don't you make good on you're promise to be tired of us. We know you'll be back. You must have no real life to have to dwell among your inferiors. We know, "you're so much cooler online!:
You're lucky there's no real economy which would force the half-educated like you into the type of professoriate in which one opines as he places his hands into his pockets: "Prunes? Prunes? When did I buy prunes?"
What happened to Keep the Apidistra Flying, Comrades? Did you forgetChump!
Mary Louise| 8.23.09 @ 2:25PM
Sorry for errors. I hate 'em, don't you? You're promise should read your. No colon (descending or otherwise) following online. Question mark after forget. Two spaces preceding Chump!
Liberal Reader| 8.23.09 @ 2:46PM
Mary Louise --
You perceive hostility where none exists.
Do I "look down" on Glenn Beck? Oh, yes. He's a fool, obviously.
Do I "look down" on you? No. Absolutely not.
However, I think the issue with Burke is very interesting.
Burke, like Johnson, was very suspicious of capitalism, the religion of "conservatives" today.
In fact, the origins of conservatism in England were very closely tied to a horror of free markets: the way markets disrupted communities, tore the social fabric, ignored the weak and the infirm, encouraged consumption (otherwise known as vice), and made men work too many hours.
The essence of conservatism was maintaining ties with the past, with family, and with communities -- all of which capitalism works against.
I just think it's funny when followers of our time's rodeo-clown conservatism -- Rush Limbaugh crowd -- quote people like Burke. Burke would have had none of that nonsense, believe me.
Liberal Reader| 8.23.09 @ 2:59PM
Mary --
One last thing. Errors really aren't any big deal.
Et se tornando a l'amorosa vita
per farvi al bel desio volger le spalle
trovaste per la via fossati o poggi,
fu per mostrar quanto e spinoso calle
et quanto alpestra et dura la salita
onde al vero valor conven ch' uom poggi.
Palin 2012| 8.23.09 @ 3:27PM
No hostility on your part, Jeremiah? Really?
Your use of "Rodeo Clown" to describe "Rush Limbaugh crowd" Conservatives was pejorative, but I beg to disagree.
Rodeo Clowns are also known as bullfighters or rodeo protection athletes. They courageously place themselves between a 2000 lb charging bull and a fallen cowboy. Their job is essential to the survival of the cowboy and is so dangerous it often results in serious injury or even death.
Insult Limbaugh all you want but underneath his jocular facade he's deadly serious and seriously effective. And you Liberal stooges know it.
Shallow schmuck.
Mary Louise| 8.23.09 @ 3:54PM
No there's no hostility when you're calling people rednecks. Are you on some sort of medication or are you a binge drinker or something?
Lay off the condescending "believe me" prattle, Jeremiah. You're no expert on Burke. I can tell by the comments you've made citing him.
I'm no expert either. I wasn't linking him to anyone or anything other than my own assimilation of what I have read of his and know of him. So your throwing Beck and Limbaugh -whom you both accuse of "tacitly" fomenting violence- into the mix is completely gratuitous and lame. You'd better heal yourself if you want any real respect.
A very large part of Burkean conservatism was a distrust of an abstract, theoretical and radical science of politics. Economics, like the "crunchy cons," was not his interest or strength.
Without capitalism no possibility to help "the people" is even possible. Burke and Kirk are not exhaustive, they are aids, because time marches on and additional, indispensable knowledge is acquired.
Burke is not that easily classified or categorized, but he most likely would not be a party to democrat or socialist machinations. Instead, it's very likely that with the only liberty encouraged by each being sexual liberty, he would have detested them. Machinations that have helped to destroy that primitive Church known as the Family.
Burke, Adams, Kirk believed not just in "ties with the past" but more accurately, believed in a continuum. Not a veneration of the past and its fathers, necessarily, but an appreciation and gratitude for what they'd mastered and accomplished.
There is no replacement for capitalism; you've admitted as much yourself. And the free market system, circumscribed by civil law, has been around since the beginning of time. A good example is the perfume used to anoint Jesus' feet and the indignation that aroused in Judas, to whom Jesus replied, "the poor you will always have with you."
I've a tremendously good, basic education thanks to the Nuns and my parents. Stop pestering me with your biases. Go, learn and then come back and deal with your fellow man as you would have him deal with you.
You have nothing of substance, really, to add to the conversation because when pressed you retreat to your solipsism. You're not going to tell conservatives who we are. Instead, go instruct your fellow liberals as you're wont to do here. Or go find that place you asked about where conservatives discuss the topics with the prescribed language and rhetoric you prefer.
You may begin with good intentions, but with each iteration you end as a royal bore.
Palin 2012| 8.23.09 @ 3:54PM
Capitalism works AGAINST the family, Jeremiah?
Hmmmm.
What about the families and communities in Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China, Communist North Korea and Castro's Cuba?
Considering the number of deaths of millions of babies due to forced abortions, the millions of Germans, Russians, North Koreans and Chinese who've died from brutal forced labor in prison camps, the millions of Russians, North Koreans and Chinese who've died from forced starvation due to intentional famines, the millions who have died in ALL fascist and Communist countries as a result of terrible torture and abuse, I think I'll stick to our precious Capitalist system, thank you.
Capitalism isn't perfect because WE aren't--but it's far and away the absolutely BEST economic and social system on earth.
Get off our backs, Jeremiah; we reject your dark, anti-liberty view of life.
Mary Louise| 8.23.09 @ 4:00PM
Last post, I think. I've got work to do.
trovaste per la via fossati o poggi
Probably not worth much, I know, but I think I'm starting to like you a bit more. It is the Lord's Day, after all. Agnostic though my mind may be, my heart is not that attached to it. May it always be so.
Liberal Reader| 8.23.09 @ 4:10PM
Mary --
It's funny that people seize on that remark by Jesus and completely ignore dozens of other things he said and did that do not encourage a quietistic shrug when it comes to poverty.
Beck, Limbaugh, Levin have all engaged in the same kind of inflammatory rhetoric that led to the Oklahoma City bombing. More recently, the shootings in PA of three police officers and the shooting at the Holocaust Museum (by a confirmed Birther) were inspired by right wing talk radio.
Calling Democrats "nazis," "traitors," "fascists," and so on, will eventually incite the less stable among you to violence. Jesus, Mary, last week they were gathering near where the president was speaking carrying semi-automatic rifles!
They sense the taste for lynching that has been reborn among the resentful and anxious white folk. The idea that white privilege no longer attaches to the White House is driving them crazy.
clinger| 8.23.09 @ 4:55PM
The [liberal reader] has made only one verifiable claim in this whole discussion.
" I can't act rationally "
The rest seams to eminate from her lower orafice.
C4P| 8.23.09 @ 6:09PM
LR/J, the guy carrying the semi automatic was a pro Obama black guy. Toad.
You liberals are always violent--it's just a personality disorder with you morons.
Lisa | 8.23.09 @ 6:54PM
Liberal reader, I admit my comment on issues were scattered,but you have to admit Obama comes up with some dumb ass idea weekly on how to sink the economy. The money he is wasting will not help the economy. That was a theory from a British economist John Keynes. It has never worked. If you are so smart, you should know that. No I am not a liberal. I dont want a welfare handout from the government as some do. I want to pay for my own insurance. And yes I am very up to date with the facts of this crap about global warming. I am very proud to follow Palin. I like the way she has sceard the hell out of all you socialist. She makes you all feel insecure and that is why you try to trash her. About your comment of the man with the automatic rifle- it was a black man that had staged bringing the gun to speak with and get comments from others. Youre not all that smart, but hey, I feel it is my duty being a child of God to ignore your foolish comments. I have to ask you how your life got so low that you want to hang out on this site with us Americans that believe in freedom. I mean since you refer to yourself as being so much more intelligent, why do you keep wanting to visit and chat with us. Will your fellow liberal buddies not talk to you, or did you try to convince them to of your highly profound intelligence. GO HOME. I would think by now that you could see that we do not like you.
Mary Louise| 8.23.09 @ 7:16PM
Jeremiah the leaps you make are your Achilles heel. There is nothing I've heard from Limbaugh that fits your warped view of present things conservative. Glenn I don't listen to very often, and Mark Levin almost never. I like both Glenn and Mark. They may not be your cup of tea, but from the little that I have been exposed to each man, I can't believe they're guilty of what you accuse them of. They're merely dishing out, in kind, what has been dished out to conservatives for these last few decades.
Rush was not responsible in any way for the OCB. Liddy, whom I admire and like a lot, still not responsible, but his on air comment about aiming for the heads of BATF agents could at least be pointed to as over the top. But they had shot a woman in cold blood, while holding her baby. And Liddy, who would carry no water for Randy Weaver, could not abide such a breach of justice. And neither could Gerry Spence, who despite his distaste for Weaver, believed he had a right to be defended and won that case for him. Senator Thompson did a wonderful job of portraying him in the film that was produced on the subject.
It's not funny that I seize on that incident w/Jesus. It's necessary as a counter weight to the egregious misuse of Jesus' majestic Sermon On The Mount, to suit political ends. Jesus, especially if He's God, transcends all attempts at linking him or his approval to any status quo. His blessing and acceptance of the Centurion is unlikely to have freed him from the reponsibility of putting down an insurrection, should his Procurator or military superior have demanded it. If he's not God, then he's a finer Buddha who even Obama has confessed to finding "ambiguous." And the sacrilege of putting the Sermon to that use, recently, lies in the burying of all of this. The covering of His Name. The denial that we are a Christian Nation.
There's nothing "quietistic" about the demand of applying the golden rule free from coercion. Once coercion is involved the voluntary nature and day to day dealings of man with man is dissolved, and the rule along with it.
And what Jesus demands of the rich, I think he demands of the poor. No theft, no sloth, sexual purity, etc. He lets loose in Mark about all fornication and envy and evil emanating from the heart. In other words, his poor; lepers, outcasts for little other reason than station of birth or condition, such as Legion, are a different sort of poor than the "poor" of the United States and Europe. In the US, the overweight, condescended to poor are not even a people with grace and wit enough to be grateful to the taxpayer who subsidizes their defects and mistakes.
My parents were poor with no recourse to escape their poverty because of the awful economic conditions of Italy in the early 20th Century. My grandparents, even poorer. My parents and grandparents rarely went to bed hungry, but they were all skinny. Dinner could be bread and spit. Romantic agrarianism of the Jeffersonian sort is more fantasy than anything else.
My father's side, once rich and landed and Roman, had fallen, like the D’Urbervilles, on harder times and was more likely to be pretentious and exigent. My mother's side is the hardier and naturally aristocratic side, in character and looks, their poverty and lack of lands notwithstanding. My maternal grandfather came to the US in 1903 at 15 years of age. He had to go back to Italy because there was no longer any work for him, and his sponsoring family could not provide for him as they had children of their own. He bemoaned that fact to his dying day.
Palin 2012| 8.23.09 @ 9:23PM
Casting our pearls before swine becomes rather tedious after a while--do you agree, Mary Louise?
Surely, the little pig is not worth it. ;p
My middle name is Louise, too! I never hear that name anymore.
Palin 2012| 8.23.09 @ 9:34PM
LT/Jeremiah; you know, Lisa has a point. If you're so friggin' smart (like you ALWAYS tell us) why don't you get the hint and go away?
We haven't exactly been oblique about our dislike for you.
Mary Louise| 8.23.09 @ 9:42PM
Palin 12, I do. He hasn't merited the good will of people here. But you never know what drives a man or woman, and I can't shake the call to remember that. Besides, I don't mind pumping out some heat, but I'd like that to be accompanied by some light. If not for the sake of the person I'm conversing with, for the sake of readers who will be exposed to the depth of conservatism. Light is good.
Louise isn't really my middle name. Mary Louise is my first name. My Mom doesn't call me Mary Louise though, she calls me Maria Luisa and shortens it to Maria Lui when she's calling to me in a hurry.
All the best to you, ____ Louise!
Pingback| 8.23.09 @ 10:37PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Palin was not Wrong, Pa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Palin 2012| 8.23.09 @ 11:07PM
Mary Louise, how is your mom? Has she been ill? If so, I pray that she is well now.
John Gregory| 8.24.09 @ 12:20AM
This has been an entertaining thread. It looks like the usual suspects got all "wee-weed" up when they read Sarah Palin's name.
Great job Mary Louise and Palin 2012.
Mary Louise| 8.24.09 @ 5:59AM
Palin, my Mom had surgery a few months back and is slowly on the mend, thank God. Thanks for your prayer and thinking of her.
Michael Huppman | 8.24.09 @ 8:41AM
Let's be truthful, rationing happens today sans health care reform. Noone seems to disagree that health care costs too much in this country, however noone wants to take steps to control costs and ensure all Americans have access to affordable health care.
By the way, if the "mavericks" were in the White House, do you feel they would have allowed the cut the of wasteful spending of the F-22? Nope.
NOBAMACARE| 8.24.09 @ 3:37PM
We can help the 15% of Americans who are uninsured without destroying the health care coverage of the other 85%.
ObamaCare is not about health care coverage, it's about liberal government power and control. Say NO to ObamaCare.