The American Spectator

johan berger| 9.25.09 @ 2:04PM

If The One can squeeze in three more shows every Sunday from October thru February next year he may see his popularity down from fifty to thirty-five...nay even lower!!
Heck, what with the media and sundry scumbags donating to put US power 'to rest' for some time, Mr Obama may have the most power and the least popularity of all White House occupants, but who cares about the will of the people?
Sadly, the US was built on first rate ideas, but their followers were fewer than their underminers..

fred| 9.25.09 @ 3:05PM

is there some website we can DONATE to fund having this dope on TV everyday? well, maybe we dont even need one. he seems commited to plaster his face on the tv everyday without any addtional funding. obama's seppuku = exposure. the more we see, the more we know, the less we like. keep it up mr president. the impeachment trial starts Feb 2011.

Rick V.| 9.25.09 @ 3:10PM

He's still the ratings champ on Al Jazeera.

Darrell| 9.29.09 @ 1:56AM

At this rate the President will be more popular abroad than in the U.S. because of his policies. Soon, he plans to give our enemies our best defense secrets so they can use them against us. What a brilliant President he will never see the error of his ways, he is too arrogant for that.

Tim| 9.25.09 @ 4:22PM

"He thrust his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts"

LIberal Reader| 9.25.09 @ 5:47PM

New CBS / NY Times Poll finds that 65% of Americans FAVOR a PUBLIC OPTION while only 25% oppose it.

Now --

I know what most of you will say. A CBS poll can't be trusted because it's a part of the liberal conspiracy to destroy America. ANYTHING that challenges the ideological conclusions you've already chosen to accept -- of course -- is attributable to this evil conspiracy.

But I wonder: how much could this poll be distorting the truth? 10 point? 15 points?

It's still anything but clear -- I think you'd have to admit -- that a majority of Americans oppose a public option.

Favorability, Shmvlavorability.

Paul McGrath| 9.25.09 @ 6:28PM

Here's how the question was posed: If the public option would reduce health care costs for all Americans, reduce the deficit, cost nothing, and can I buy you a three-martini lunch, would you be in favor of it?

Liberal Reader| 9.25.09 @ 7:31PM

No, Paul, that is NOT how the question was posed, although I admit it is refreshing to find someone with even a meagre sense of irony posting around here.

But there is an important point in your post.

I think we OUGHT to have a conversation about what a best-case health care policy would be.

In other words, if this were utopia, if our resources were unlimited, would we choose to insure everyone via a public plan.

This would help clarify some of the philosophical issues and disentangle what our aspirations are from what we think might pragmatically be accomplished.

It is VERY important that we come to grips with a few essential facts:

Western Europe -- allies all -- provides virtually universal health care to its people and spends HALF per capita what we spend.

They do this because they are far less allergic to heavy taxation that we are.

So perhaps we cannot have France's system, which everyone agrees is the best in the world.

But what COULD we have?

We COULD have a system in which people had a CHOICE to be in the private market or in a public plan. That is essentially what Democrats are offering.

You can CHOOSE. You can stay with the private companies -- whose profits you cut into if you get sick -- or you can join a public option that is non-profit. It's success is based solely on the health outcomes it delivers.

Nobama| 9.25.09 @ 7:54PM

Stop lying, libtard loser. You are just embarrassing yourself.

tonypal| 9.25.09 @ 10:32PM

First off, not everyone agrees that France has the best system. Perhaps everyone you know agrees, but I'm guessing that's a pretty shallow gene pool.

As for that poll you cite, it really seems to contradict most of the other polls out there. Apart from that, I think you'll probably understand why the average TAS reader doesn't put much faith in anything coming from either CBS or the NY Times.

The reason most Americans have an "allergic reaction to heavy taxation" is because we labor under this quaint notion that we earn is the product of our time and labor, which is quite valuable to us. We believe that we know best how to spend our money. We believe that members of Congress, many of whom have never run a business or had to meet a payroll, unlike people such as myself, have absolutely no freakin' clue how to operate a small business, let alone something as massively complex as the healthcare delivery system. We believe that our liberty and freedom is inexorably linked to our right to retain the fruits of our labor, that confiscation of our earnings by government is a form of soft tyranny.

My challenge to you, if you're up to it, is to at long last provide the evidence that our esteemed members of Congress, in concert with Pres. Obama, have the necessary knowledge and experience to formulate a plan that will provide healthcare coverage for the entire US population. Make the case.

Deborah D| 9.26.09 @ 5:20AM

tonypal -- I noticed LR didn't bother to respond to your post. Must have been too much for him.

Orangeandblue| 9.26.09 @ 7:54AM

Americas has the best health system, period. How many people have you seen or heard of going to France for treatment? The problem is the present administration wants to control everything and to drive us so far into debt that our great grandchildren will never be able to pull us out. I believe this is not about health care, it's about control. It's about controlling taxpayers and the insurance business. I am astonished that there isn't enough intelligence in Washington to figure out how to insure 15 to 30 million citizens without wrecking the economy or my health insurance. I could do it in less than a week. I want the government out of my business and my pocketbook. I want the right to decide how I spend my hard earned money and I don't like the idea of Congress or the POTUS telling me I have to do this or else. But this reform is going to be pushed down our throats and it will never be rescinded. But say I'm wrong.....why aren't our elected officials willing to sign onto to the wonderful plan of health coverage?

Eric Dondero| 9.26.09 @ 7:28AM

Who cares whether or not Government Health Care is better, and provides coverage for more Americans. That's not the question.

The question is what is the most Moral system?

Government-run health care is based on force and coercion; you sticking a gun to my head and telling me that I have to fund someone else's coverage.

Screw them! Let them pay for it their own G*d-damned selves. You have no right to force me to help someone else with my Tax Dollars.

Daisy| 9.25.09 @ 7:04PM

Ha ha ha ha ha!!! The CBS/NYT poll's respondents were weighted: democrats 42%--republicans 25%--independents 33%--AND adults were polled rather than likely voters. It also had Obama's approvals at 56%--that's more than the number of Americans who voted for the clown! Believe that turkey at your own peril, dumbazz democrats.

What a FREAKIN' JOKE--just like you liberal loser!

Liberal Reader| 9.25.09 @ 8:37PM

You KNOW that those percentages are right, since OBAMA has been elected, TONS of people have been turning to the DEMOCRATIC party!

Daisy| 9.25.09 @ 9:02PM

You do Stand Up, LibReader? I sure hope so, because if you're not a comedian, you need psychotropic drugs, STAT!!

Rik d| 9.25.09 @ 7:38PM

How's it looken for the Klan Rally ?

Nobama| 9.25.09 @ 7:51PM

Why don't you tell us, especially since you loser democrats started the KKK.

Yes, your butt does look big in that white sheet, nitwit.

ConservativeWanderer| 9.25.09 @ 8:52PM

Ask Senator Robert Carlyle Byrd, Rik... he's the only member of Congress who was ever a member of the Klan.

By the way, what party does he belong to?

Bill| 9.25.09 @ 7:53PM

Once a pitcher looses speed and control he is finished! The usurper needs to be sent back down to the farm team in Illinois where he belongs!
Maybe, his personal trainer Ayers could help him!

Bill| 9.25.09 @ 7:58PM

Liberal Reader,
Polls are like ugly girlfriends .If she's yours you can dress her up, put makeup on her , and and try and fool everyone as to what is really underneath.
But, eventually once the make up is gone everyone sees what she really is...UGLY!

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 8:08PM

Bill, LibReader doesn't swing that way. Just so you know not to offend the little fairy.

He's not much of a looker anyway.

ConservativeWanderer| 9.25.09 @ 9:04PM

Uh... Toddard... how is it that you know so much about the sexual preferences of LR/Jeremiah?

S.L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 10:08PM

All I can say is "Don't ask, Don't tell" ConWanderer.

Read between the lines, okay?

ConservativeWanderer| 9.25.09 @ 11:12PM

You actually can't comprehend a rhetorical question, can you?

Explains a lot of your political positions.

S. L. Toddard| 9.25.09 @ 11:41PM

What can I say? I'm an idiot, it's true.

I took a truth pill tonight, so I have to be honest: Enjoy it while you can because tomorrow I'll be a filthy lying troll once more.

S.L. Toddard| 9.26.09 @ 10:48AM

Conservative Wanderer - these nonsensical posts were not mine. The troll who calls himself Nobama or Johnno - who, incidentally, actually paid money to an identity-search site to find my identity - often posts under my username, usually with a homoerotic bent or with pro-Nazi statements, to try to make me look bad (as though I could possibly be *less* popular than I am here already). I cannot prove that to you, though the webmaster can tell these posts are not from my IP, and also you can consider why I would post ridiculous nonsense like this only to come back and disavow it the next day.

This troll is quite obsessed with me, working furiously - actually paying out *money* - to investigate my identity, and then - like a psychotic in a stalker move - actually *assuming* my identity and pretending to be me in some sort of perverse, fantasy-fulfillment role-playing.

Anyhow, I apologize for what was said in my name. You can expect it to happen again. If the posts read like they were written by a mentally handicapped teenager then you know it's him. If they read like they were written by a smug, obnoxious, self-satisfied paleoconservative know-it-all, then it's me.

Have yourself a good day.

L, L & L| 9.26.09 @ 2:29PM

Toddard’s got a stalker? Now that’s friggin’ funny,!! So who was I yelling at last time I was here? It doesn't matter I guess, I stand by my insults to him.

Lisa| 9.26.09 @ 3:20PM

S.L. Toddard wishes he had a stalker; the loser liberal troll is just trying to get attention. How embarrassing.

Obviously, the dolt has mommy issues.

S.L. Toddard| 9.26.09 @ 3:45PM

"Toddard’s got a stalker? Now that’s friggin’ funny,!!"

I find it more sad than funny, to be honest.

Nobama| 9.27.09 @ 3:16AM

Makes me laugh!

Liberal Reader| 9.25.09 @ 9:29PM

So let me see if I understand.

American Spectator has a place where people can post their views on political issues.

I post my thoughts on health care reform. I'm not Abe Lincoln; I'm not Albert Einstein. I'm just a person who has his point of view.

I post it.

And then -- what?

You real manly men have a discussion about whether or not I'm gay?

Well. We all know what it means when a man makes gay jokes. We all know that the party that professes an anti-gay agenda has so many closeted fags in it, it doesn't know what to do.

Let's set that aside.

Are you guys capable of serious, ideas-based discussion of anything, or are you just a bunch of retards?

ConservativeWanderer| 9.25.09 @ 9:52PM

Yes, we are.

You are not.

Your past history here--in all your various sock-puppet, f-bomb dropping incarnations--has proven that beyond all doubt.

Nobama| 9.25.09 @ 10:10PM

Great comment!

ConservativeWanderer| 9.25.09 @ 9:54PM

Just to clarify... we are capable of serious discussion, and you are not capable of serious discussion, LibReader-Jeremiah

Liberal Reader| 9.26.09 @ 12:26AM

Conservative Wanderer --
I followed your link to your website. You seem to plagiarize a great deal.
Do you do that because you're lazy or just not very bright?

ConservativeWanderer| 9.26.09 @ 10:06AM

Two points, you son of a misbegotten troll.

(1) You're descending into attacks on a non-related topic immediately after complaining that no one here will engage in serious discussion with you? How's that giant California redwood tree in your eye feel?

(2) If you'd bothered to look, you'd notice that lately, most of the blogging has been by another blogger, not the humble founder of the humble blog. There's a couple of reasons for this, one of which being he can blog from his work and I can't, so frequently he's already hit an issue by the time I get home. Now, if you wanna complain about his "plagiarism," you're free to drop a comment there... but be warned, we have a lot stronger anti-troll measures than they employ here at AmSpec.

Paul McGrath| 9.25.09 @ 10:51PM

Hello Mr. Liberal Reader,

My first problem with the Obama plan, the public-option thing, is that it will give government too much power. Think about this: every dime, every CENT, that currently goes to your doctor, your health-care insurer, your co-pays--everything--will FIRST go to the government. And this is where it will be decided on whom to spend it. Who will get it first? Who will get priority? You? Me? Your mother? Union members? Democrats? Republicans? The elderly? The youthful? The poor? Black people? White people? Women? Who?

Oh, you may trust the benevolent Obama and his oh-so-thoughtful and caring administration, but what happens three or seven years from now when someone like the evil Bush becomes president? You can be sure that all of those health dollars will go to rich, white people. Is this what you want?

Seriously, do you really want your government--whether it be ruled by either party--to have this much power?

Liberal Reader| 9.25.09 @ 11:36PM

Actually, Paul, I think it would be foolish to dismiss your concerns. They are reasonable and well expressed.

And there can be NO question that a major component in the strength and success of this country is the skepticism Americans have for government.

I'll tell you flat out: I don't have a air-tight refutation for all or even some of these concerns. You're right: government benisons give government power that it perhaps should not have.

The question is this: is it so much better for private insurance companies to have that power?

I'm very comfortable with the idea of medical PROVIDERS making good money. Highly skilled doctors and scientists who discover new drugs ought to be rewarded for the good work they do.

But I'm puzzled when I think about why an insurance company should make so much profit. To use capitalist terminology: where's the "value added"?

Why should my medical care DEPEND upon someone who views his profits as being diminished if he pays my bills?

It doesn't seem to make sense. I think that if there were a non-profit third party, administered or watched over by the government, I wouldn't mind being part of it.

ConservativeWanderer| 9.26.09 @ 10:14AM

Okay, Jeremiah, I'll try, once again, to have a serious discussion with you, if only to prove how incapable of it you are.

The question is this: is it so much better for private insurance companies to have that power?

There are checks and balances in the current system, two of which stand out.

(1) There are, by reliable reports (I haven't counted them myself) around 1,000 health insurance companies in this nation. In other words, if you don't like one company's policies, you can switch to another one, there's plenty of options already.

A government-run "public option," sir, would inevitably force out competitors, because the government would also be the one setting the rules for the marketplace (in fact, it already is--you should see the pile of regulations insurers already have to follow). This is akin to letting one sports team--say, the San Francisco Giants--dictate the rules of the game to all the other teams, at the same time it is competing with them, and with the ability to change the rules at any time if it sees an advantage to itself in it.

So, your "public option" would logically quickly become the "only option," which is no doubt what a rabid lefty like you wants--but then where is your "right to choose" another insurer? Gone, that's where it is.

(2) Health insurance companies are also subject to lawsuit. However, in the leading "reform" bill, HR 3200, there's a provision that specifically exempts the "public option" from being sued.

Therefore, these two simple examples show quite clearly that the government has the great potential to be have far harsher policies than private firms, because the government system will be insulated from those mechanisms that force private firms to respond to customers' concerns.

Now, are you going to respond reasonably, or attack me again, as you already have in this thread?

Liberal Reader| 9.26.09 @ 12:53PM

Wanderer --

I attack you? Did you miss where you accused me of being gay simply because I support a public option, along with a majority of Americans?

I have no doubt the "public option" would invite problems.

But consider what you yourself have written: there are over 1000 health insurance companies, and still the costs SKYROCKET.

Look: we have tried the free market solution. It left out that gravely ill poor and the elderly, naturally, since no one looking to make a profit would "bet" on them: so, we created Medicare and Medicaid. True, these programs have problems, but that's because they are designed to care for the most vulnerable people in our society -- the very people that the market simply cannot help.

Now it turns out that the market does not accommodate the middle class, which is quickly being priced out. You might have health insurance NOW, but in 10 years, after prices have doubled yet again, it may very well be gone.

Health care costs are a MORAL HAZARD. They don't reward people for acting sensibly and working hard. They reward ONLY those in a position to profit from DENYING people care they need. It is totally and completely INSANE.

Furthermore, health care costs are putting this country at a competitive disadvantage. Our allies -- the other wealthy democracies of the world -- ALL afford their people universal coverage and end up spending HALF what we spend.

Sweden, the right's eternal bogeyman, manufactures the Volvo more cheaply and efficiently than GM or Ford manufactures its cars. When all is said and done, American manufacturing is being destroyed by health care costs.

We could do it better and cheaper if we cut OUT the 900 billion a year that gets funneled out of the system every year to pay dividends, marketing costs, and, most outrageously, the COST OF DENYING PEOPLE COVERAGE -- which is annually in the BILLIONS.

ConservativeWanderer| 9.26.09 @ 1:14PM

Jeremiah:

Yes, you attacked and insulted me... you suggested I was either lazy or intellectually deficient in an earlier comment... if you've forgotten already, see your comment on 9/26 at 12:26 am. I have not seen an apology nor even an explanation to that comment yet, Jeremiah... which is an interesting piece of data in and of itself.

Now, we have a system in which 85% of the people are satisfied. In fact, we have close to universal coverage. Those uninsured people your side likes to talk about fall mostly into a few categories... those here in violation of the law, those who are temporarily uninsured because of a lapse in employment, and those who could purchase coverage but do not for whatever reason, among others.

In short, what you are attempting to do is to reshape the entire system to take care of a very very small minority of the long-term uninsured or uninsurable. That's equivalent to tearing down your entire house and rebuilding it when all that was really needed was to change a light bulb.

And the American people have caught on. Despite that flawed, highly skewed poll you posted and so vociferously defended to Daisy earlier, the town halls and tea parties show that the people don't want to completely gut the old system in order to fix the problems with it.

Sure, you and the Obamacrats can shove it through with procedural tricks if you really want to... but if you do, the tea parties and town halls will seem tame compared to what will happen then. And before you get your high dudgeon on, I am neither inciting to nor condoning violence... though I am sure you will conveniently forget that when it comes time to attack me again as you did in your earlier comment.

Liberal Reader| 9.26.09 @ 1:51PM

Amazing that you don't seem capable of responding to a single point I've made. I think my argument is fairly measured and temperate. I'm not claiming a public option would restore the Golden Age and cause the lion to lay down with the lamb. I am, however, really curious: what's the option to that option? It's just more corporate give-aways.

ConservativeWanderer| 9.26.09 @ 2:31PM

And you, sir, can't seem to respond to my points. So, if you're going to dish out opprobrium, at least save a heaping portion for yourself.

Besides, I did respond. You said:

Look: we have tried the free market solution. It left out that gravely ill poor and the elderly, naturally, since no one looking to make a profit would "bet" on them: so, we created Medicare and Medicaid.

I responded in detail, above.

Clearly, you need to learn to read, and while you're at it, read your own screeds as well.

Have you embarrassed yourself enough in this thread yet, or will you continue to spin?

Liberal Reader| 9.26.09 @ 3:00PM

Your analogy goes like this:

The Medicare / Medicaid system is to the overall health care system as a lightbulb is to a house.

This analogy is very flawed.

The Medicare / Medicaid system is huge -- more akin to a wing of the house than a lightbulb. Furthermore, skyrocketing health costs are breaking the budgets for these programs.

But I didn't bring them up to suggest THEY were the reason we need health care reform.

We need health care reform because the MIDDLE CLASS is increasingly incapable of affording coverage.

It's lunacy to have a system that increases in cost 100% every 10 years, and that is what we have now.

The fantasy that somehow letting the market have it's way will drive costs down is proven wrong every day.

The fact is, medical care doesn't function like other commodities. Most necessities can be accommodated well by the market; health care, partly because of technological advances, cannot.

Look:

Nearly everyone agrees that allowing companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions is wrong. Republicans and Democrats AGREE on this point.

So -- the Congress is considering outlawing the practice.

However, once you outlaw this practice it would be UNFAIR to allow people to choose not to buy health insurance, since people could simply game the system by waiting until they get sick to buy insurance.

This introduces MANDATES.

So, you have the ugly, gruesome proposition of the Congress of the United States MANDATING that Americans BUY a product from a FOR PROFIT entity. It's staggering and monstrous.

However, if you have a public, non-profit option with full subsidies for the poor, you can have mandates that prevent unfair practices while at the same time giving the for-profit sector a fighting chance.

But it won't be a GIVE AWAY, which is what Republicans are right now endorsing: it will ONLY be a fighting chance.

That is to say, if private health care is such a great idea -- it's going to have to PROVE it with good health outcomes at affordable rates for the FIRST TIME ever.

ConservativeWanderer| 9.26.09 @ 3:12PM

No, my point, which you appear to be utterly incapable of comprehending, is not that Medicare/Medicaid is analogous to a burnt out light bulb.

My point is that the overall problem of the uninsured is analogous to a burnt out light bulb.

Now, because you seem to have such difficulty grasping simple concepts, I am going to leave it at that until and unless you demonstrate that you comprehend that single point.

Liberal Reader| 9.26.09 @ 10:44PM

To hell with the lightbulb, Conservative. God damn!

I'm talking about the HOUSE.

The HOUSE is NOT STANDING on its own. It's being PROPPED up with popsicle sticks, and a HURRICANE is coming.

I don't know what else to do with your analogy.

The fact is that the market does NOT accommodate those served by Medicare and Medicaid (about FORTY freaking percent of all medical spending); it also does NOT accommodate a huge number of uninsured people; it ALSO does NOT accommodate a large and GROWING number of the INSURED, who are being dropped and disqualified at alarming rates. And why? Well, it has nothing to do with taxes or B. Hussein Obama, that's why!

The HURRICANE is coming, Wanderer, in the form of medical costs that threaten to topple the house. THAT's why Democrats are trying to do something to strengthen the HOUSE (i.e. the medical care "system").

ConservativeWanderer| 9.27.09 @ 8:52AM

There goes the profanity again. Happens every time you start to lose an argument, Jeremiah.

The house is still standing, Jeremiah. 85% of people are happy with the health insurance they have... since you're the one so fascinated with polls, you should know that one... unless you're deliberately ignoring it because it goes against what you choose to believe.

Now, you've still not proven to my satisfaction that you comprehend my earlier point, and once again you're dragging a red herring across the trail, so I am not gonna go any further at this point, as per my earlier statement.

Warrior| 9.25.09 @ 10:55PM

Hey LR: At least the new HIV vaccine looks promising. I wonder if any country with a single payer or socialized system can brag about the advancements they are making in medicine? Oops...these only seem to come from the greedy American companies who only are interested in profit.

SLT| 9.25.09 @ 11:44PM

I bet LibReader is relieved about that HIV vaccine!

Not a moment too soon; right, troll?

Liberal Reader| 9.26.09 @ 12:33AM

SLT --

You're a man of true Christian charity. Congratulations. You made the world a better place today.

S.L. Toddard| 9.26.09 @ 10:51AM

ConWanderer - please note here that Nobama/Johnno is posting as both myself and LR.

Liberal Reader| 9.26.09 @ 12:07PM

S.L. Toddard, what are you talking about? I have written all of those comments posted under my name. Tinfoil hat time.

Speak for yourself.

S.L. Toddard| 9.26.09 @ 1:58PM

Woops! Sorry, LR. Just please note that the person you were speaking to here that said "I bet LibReader is relieved about that HIV vaccine!" was not me.

S.L. Toddard| 9.26.09 @ 2:08PM

Is this you, too?

http://spectator.org/blog/2009.....ent_138710

Liberal Reader| 9.26.09 @ 3:36PM

Dude! You've got way too much time on your hands; and obviously, you don't have many friends.

Chill out, you're starting to look very needy.

S.L. Toddard| 9.26.09 @ 3:41PM

This is rather baffling.

Johnno| 9.27.09 @ 3:23AM

EXACTLY, dumbass! ROTFLMAO!

Liberal Reader| 9.26.09 @ 10:47PM

Fuck off, dimwit.

If you had any sense, you'd look this stuff up. It was FRANCE that LED THE WAY on AIDS research for two decades, while Americans in their dunder-headed ignorance figured it was just God's way of punishing fags.

FRANCE came up with the first tests and some of the first drugs.

JESUS, I'm so sick of ignorant people.

S.L. Toddard| 9.27.09 @ 3:21AM

Dang, Liberal Reader!! You shouldn't talk about YOUR people that way. Have some self-respect, son. Self-hatred is a terrible thing; have you consulted professional help?

I strongly suggest you do so.

S.L. Toddard| 9.27.09 @ 4:36PM

Again, not me.

S.L. Toddard| 9.27.09 @ 8:42PM

Sad but true: I've got a fetish for sock-puppetry.

Any attention is good attention for me.

ConservativeWanderer| 9.27.09 @ 11:11AM

And there goes Liberal "F-Bomb" Reader again, in the same thread where earlier (see comment on 9/25/09 @ 9:29 pm, he said:

Are you guys capable of serious, ideas-based discussion of anything, or are you just a bunch of retards?

Yeah, Liberal "Man Of Many Names" Reader, the F-bomb is a real good way to promote "serious, ideas-based discussions."

And you wonder why no one here takes you seriously?

Liberal Reader| 9.27.09 @ 2:27PM

The word "fuck" does not cancel everything else that is said. It's a word and sometimes it's a GOOD word, as when we encounter troglydites who think it's funny to make AIDS jokes. What can one say when faced with mean ignoramuses like this but, fuck OFF, man!

ConservativeWanderer| 9.27.09 @ 2:48PM

I wasn't complaining about the word per se, but rather your obvious cluelessness about why people don't take you seriously.

Alas, the cluelessness continues.

Liberal Reader| 9.27.09 @ 3:44PM

There are three appeals in rhetoric: the emotional, or pathos; the logical, or logos; and the appeal based on character, or ethos.

There is just NO point in making an ethical appeal on an anonymous online thread.

The only hope is that you can provoke people into spirited discussion with some tenuous connection to reality. The problem is when people ONLY engage in name-calling or the sorts of puerile accusations you and your friends were engaging in above.

The problem with this sort of behavior is not at all ethical, in the end.

The problem is that it is BORING.

Now, I've made many, many attempts to make an argument about why I think the public option is a good idea.

Aside from responding by accusing me of being gay and having AIDS, I see only a few substantial responses -- which I responded to in kind.

ConservativeWanderer| 9.27.09 @ 3:49PM

Yep, the cluelessness definitely continues.

ConservativeWanderer| 9.27.09 @ 3:02PM

Oh, changing your name--again--won't help. There are certain elements of your style that stick out like a sore thumb.

But I ain't gonna tell you which ones.

S.L. Toddard| 9.27.09 @ 8:40PM

ConWanderer, notice every time you beat the troll at an argument he lets loose with an F-Bomb? Every friggin' time.

Consider Jeremiah's F-Bombs squeals of his own defeat; libturd can't help himself.

Mighty sensitive about his gayness, isn't he? Loud and proud just aren't his deal, I guess.

Got my Gaydar up, LibReader/Jeremiah, and it lights up like a Christmas tree when you're the topic of conversation. Just so you know.

tonypal| 9.25.09 @ 10:34PM

Liberal Reader:

First off, not everyone agrees that France has the best system. Perhaps everyone you know agrees, but I'm guessing that's a pretty shallow gene pool.

As for that poll you cite, it really seems to contradict most of the other polls out there. Apart from that, I think you'll probably understand why the average TAS reader doesn't put much faith in anything coming from either CBS or the NY Times.

The reason most Americans have an "allergic reaction to heavy taxation" is because we labor under this quaint notion that we earn is the product of our time and labor, which is quite valuable to us. We believe that we know best how to spend our money. We believe that members of Congress, many of whom have never run a business or had to meet a payroll, unlike people such as myself, have absolutely no freakin' clue how to operate a small business, let alone something as massively complex as the healthcare delivery system. We believe that our liberty and freedom is inexorably linked to our right to retain the fruits of our labor, that confiscation of our earnings by government is a form of soft tyranny.

My challenge to you, if you're up to it, is to at long last provide the evidence that our esteemed members of Congress, in concert with Pres. Obama, have the necessary knowledge and experience to formulate a plan that will provide healthcare coverage for the entire US population. Make the case.

Liberal Reader| 9.25.09 @ 11:44PM

tonypal --

Like Paul, you seem a reasonable fellow, and you also make points that I frankly don't have an argument against.

France is recognized by many studies as delivering the best health care in the world. You may not agree, and that's your right, but I wonder what you base your disagreement on.

The stronger part of your argument comes later, when you argue that in America we might be willing to sacrifice many good things for the "liberty" we get by having lower tax rates than countries like France.

I think it's important to be honest: by having lower tax rates, we get something good (e.g. more individual autonomy); however, we also LOSE some things that are good.

If you are in the middle class, chances are about 10% of your total health care expenditures -- somewhere around 1500 dollars a year -- go to paying for services rendered to people without health care.

It's not a tax, but it hardly matters: you pay it, or, more likely, it simply is taken from the money your employer might have paid you.

In the past 10 years, as Republicans brought us a second Golden Age with the largest tax cuts in modern history, your health care costs have gone up 100%.

One hundred freaking percent, tonypal, in TEN freaking years.

That's WAY over the rate of normal inflation. And what can you do about it? It's no different from a tax.

The market just doesn't control these costs the way it can control costs of other commodities. I don't see how we can avoid some government involvement.

Rick B| 9.26.09 @ 7:45AM

Health costs have gone up 100 freakin' per cent in the past 10 years?
In 1993- 16 years ago- HillaryCare was an attempt to take over 1/7th of the nation's economy - look it up.
Now, ObamaCare attempts to take over 1/6th of the nation's economy. Yet, health care costs have gone up 100 freakin' per cent!???
Somebody's playing fast and loose with the statistics. I smell a DemocRAT!

tonypal| 9.26.09 @ 9:23AM

First off, what is the connection between tax cuts and rising health care costs. They're two distinct things, one having nothing to do with the other.

Second, you didn't answer my question regarding the competency of Congress to craft legislation to run the healthcare delivery system. That's the critical question that someone on the left must answer for those of us who remain, shall we say, skeptical.

Liberal Reader| 9.26.09 @ 11:04AM

tonypal --

To your first point, tax cuts may have had nothing to do with the gigantic increases in health care costs. But very evidently they didn't HELP either. Just "giving people back their money" doesn't necessarily improve market efficiencies. Just like markets work better when government prevents monopolies, I would argue that the medical "markets" would work better with some kind of regulation.

As to your second point. Your second point is one of those points I admit having no good response to. Frankly, the Congress is something I'd prefer not to have to trust with the operation of a lemonade stand. It's our government, though. The Congress, bumbling and silly as it is, is what happens when you have democratically elected representatives of the people rather than a Philosopher King governing the people. If what they do doesn't work, the people can throw them out of office.

If Congress establishes laws that do not result in a better medical care system, I think I can promise you members will suffer. But then again, they might not.

Like the man said, death and taxes are the only sure things.

Nobama| 9.26.09 @ 12:05AM

LibReader speak with Death Panel tongue--don't believe the troll.

Bob| 9.26.09 @ 8:45AM

As usual for AmSpec posts, this blog lacks intellectual heft, accuracy, and perspective. Here is a 2004 analysis of Reagan's approval ratings.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118.....eview.aspx

He suffered a poor economy, just like Obama, during the first part of his presidency and his approval ratings dropped to 43%. This was not his fault, but he was blamed for it just like Obama.

Daisy, you are correct about the weightings, but they are based on the current breakdown of party registration and if you knew anything about testing methodologies, you'd know that you must balance the sample to approximate national numbers if you want any accuracy. The issue here is how few registered Republicans exist. The responses and blogs you find here help explain why the vast majority of the U.S. population don't want to associate themselves with Republicans. The party continues to lose "RINO's" like me who believe in limited government and individual responsibility but are turned off by religious zealots and a party devoid of solutions. I find it sad to see how many of you lack the ability to analyze data properly and only do it through the lens of ideology rather than a search for the truth.

Regarding the health care issue, I've said many times that the issue is cost. We cannot afford to pay 17% of GDP for health care as a country and be economically sound and competitive. When we lose a manufacturing base, we lose the ability to support a middle class who can support the economy. We must get this cost down to 10-12% or our children will not have a future. I was an insurance executive and know there are significant profits in that business. We must bring competition to the marketplace or we will end up with Medicare for everyone. The public option will not do that because it has a different insurance census that will not be comparable to private plans and thus is not true competition. Individual insurance must be available and competitive nationally, not by state, just like individual life insurance and must be supported by large groups of people. We absolutely need tort reform.

But if our elected representatives cannot lower this cost because they won't work together, and the only way to lower costs is a single-payer plan by extending Medicare, we will not have a choice from an economic perspective but to accept it. If we do not, our children and grandchildren will not have a future.

Truth to Power| 9.26.09 @ 12:12PM

"The party continues to lose "RINO's" like me ..."

We only wish we could lose Economist 3/5 Bob. Not his vote (we never had that) but just his presence. His economic forecasts and knowledge of the constitution demonstrate his Harvard education. A lot of money went into him being so stupid. He seems more like a used car salesman than an insurance executive but maybe they have something in common.

"The responses and blogs you find here help explain why the vast majority of the U.S. population don't want to associate themselves with Republicans."

Economist 3/5 Bob can't seem to quit though. He wants to associate with this site and always to defend President Obama in some indirect way. He can't imagine how gutless this appears. He weakly defends then gives some unoriginal health care thoughts. It never occurs to him that if he wanted tort reform or a private sector reform that voting for President Obama was a very bad idea. Economist 3/5 Bob and his fellow trolls hope that this kind of banter will undermine conservative confidence. Its not working.

"But if our elected representatives cannot lower this cost because they won't work together, ..."

The Democrats hold the cards. Nobody will even associate with us but Economist 3/5 Bob seems to want something out of Republicans. What a phony argument. The people that he voted for will decide. All we can do is threaten an electoral response in 2010. Many Democrats seem to be nervous about that. Maybe they know something that the Harvard educated Economist 3/5 Bob doesn't know. Or maybe he is just a troll.

Julie| 9.26.09 @ 1:18PM

Truth: LOL! Great post; keep 'em coming--especially when they're at Bob's expense.

Mary Louise| 9.26.09 @ 2:54PM

Look at this cinematogra hy! Madonna Mia che Manicomio!

This is the what happens when liberalism and moral anarchy fornicate:

“It is an ethos that aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand, and moral anarchy on the other. It cannot win, but it can make us all losers."

That quote is Irving Kristol’s as is the following:

***"The real trouble," he wrote in surveying American society for another jewel of an essay, a 1972 piece called "About Equality,"

is not sociological or economic at all. It is that the "middling" nature of a bourgeois society falls short of corresponding adequately to the full range of man's spiritual nature, which makes more than middling demands upon the universe, and demands more than middling answers.... [The critics of bourgeois society] may speak about "equality"; they may even be obsessed with statistics about equality; but it is a religious vacuum--a lack of meaning in their own lives, and the absence of a sense of larger purpose in their society--that terrifies them and provokes them to "alienation" and unappeasable indignation. It is not too much to say that it is the death of God, not the emergence of any new social or economic trends, that haunts bourgeois society. And this problem is far beyond the competence of politics to deal with.***

Switching gears here, necessarily:

***But those Fridays off were meant to be used productively, reading and writing. Interns were expected to publish--if not in the PI then elsewhere, and if not for literary glory then because it was the only way of paying the rent. Getting a piece into the hallowed precincts of Norman Podhoretz's Commentary (where Norman's deputy Neal Kozodoy policed the pages with a legendary editorial ferocity) was a particular coup for those who managed it; so too was any appearance in Bob Tyrrell's American Spectator or Bob Bartley's Wall Street Journal. Writing and publishing as Irving expected his interns to do also meant making more connections in the wider world, of course. It was this fact, and not the sinister imaginings of subsequent critics of some neoconservative "cabal," that helped Irving's apprentices end up where they did.***

How can you place a value on a teacher like Mr. Kristol? You can’t. Money/wage has absolutely nothing to do with it.

On a basic level the Nuns were my Mr. Kristol. Money had nothing to do with it. They were paid very little. They were not half-educated and their capacity for work was enormous. Once in a while detention meant cleaning the Convent. There was nothing to clean, they were immaculate. But at the end of your time in the box they’d sit you down at kitchen table, give you some milk and maybe a cookie and review why you were there. Very fond memories for me.

Today’s teachers are not underpaid. They may be overworked in that they have to wear the hats only a parent can and should wear, but liberalism ushered in the moral anarchy. It can’t stand up for the Law because it’s hostile to God.

It’s one thing to be a grand sinner and to be brought back from the brink. You need people like that; they bring meat back with them. What you don’t need are anti-nomian pit-bosses -like Mark Sanford for some equal time here- who think they’re King David and ben ben ben Maria, Bathsheba.

Mary Louise| 9.26.09 @ 3:17PM

The great Mark Steyn. He's great on radio, too.

***Barack Obama is not to blame for whichever vagary of United Nations protocol resulted in the president of the United States being the warm-up act for the Lunatic-for-Life in charge of Libya. But it is a pitiful reflection upon the state of the last superpower that, when it comes to the transnational mush drooled by the leader of the free world or the conspiracist ramblings of a terrorist pseudo-Bedouin running a one-man psycho-cult of a basket-case state, it's more or less a toss-up as to which of them is more unreal. To be sure, Col. Moammar Gadhafi peddled his thoughts on the laboratory origins of swine flu and the Zionist plot behind the Kennedy assassination.

But, on the other hand, President Obama said: "No nation can or should try to dominate another nation."

Pardon me? Did a professional speechwriter write that? Or did you outsource it to a starry-eyed runner-up in the Miss America pageant?***

Mary Louise...

Yes, Mr. Barker?

If you win the title how would you put it to its best use?

Mr. Barker, ti lo giuro: "I want to and would help Old People; are you being Served?"

Mary Louise| 9.26.09 @ 3:30PM

Apologies, I forgot to link Steyn.

Mary Louise| 9.26.09 @ 11:37PM

It's nonsense to posit that the government, which skewed the market as it pretended it could penetrate without consequence, is now the only body that can turn that around.

It didn't offer Medicare, it demanded it. To argue that the government can redress this either economically or morally gives sophistry a bad name. And the shifting mode of argument let's you know it's about ideology, power and control.

To add debt to an already broken system. To further infantilize a population that you will eventually have to tell we can't treat you anymore; you have no appeal; your doctor is our employee; we aren't your insurance company, we are your Father Benefactor; you do know what that means, don't you, is so very less American, as Hannan put it.

To The People:

You will buy this insurance or you will pay by penalty or jail time . We don't want to be in your bedroom. But we absolutely will be in the examining room with your doctor. We will (try) to protect from the consequences of promiscuous Sodomy, but not of Alzheimer's, we can't afford to abandon the first interest group, the second, let's face it, isn't much of one.

We are a Nation of millions upon millions more than France or Canada or Britian. We will adjust our system accordingly. You cannot sue us, we are the Total Federal Government. Ahistorical, yes. Totally powerful? You betcha! You will have no avenue of redress, and you will not complain.

Democrats/Liberals: Their ideas "can't win but they can make losers of us all." That's what makes so many Americans distrust them. They're parasitic and destructive. They're the Total Society with the worst sort of clericalism and none of the beauty.

Mary Louise| 9.27.09 @ 1:03AM

gives sophistry a bad name.

Should read good name instead of bad.

Bill| 9.27.09 @ 5:14PM

Actually, the free market solution LR speaks off is a free market system in a VERY limited state. Actaully only within ones state.You are only allowed to purchase from companies within your state of residence. Example, Maryland has two companies from which to choose. these companies know that they are the only ones for Marylander's to choose from too! What do you think happens?
Now if you want a truly free market system open up the restrictions where you can purchase across state lines? Fairness and Competition! What is preached by Obama and the Democrats every day!
1400 insurance companies to choose from, and when that happens what do think comes next? Reduced premium costs, due to competition!
Add tort reform which is a driving factor in the high costs of medical care, and enforce the coverage of those with pre-existing conditions and
pressure pharmaceutical companies to reduce prices, and you have the makings of a health care system that will work for EVERY ONE, without trashing the majority of the system that does work!

Liberal Reader| 9.27.09 @ 6:06PM

Bill --

Why do you think you are not now able to buy insurance across state lines?

The reason is that NO STATE will give up its right to regulate medical insurance activity that affects its citizens. Any state the would contemplate such an abdication of its responsibility -- and, just to repeat, NO STATE would even consider it -- would not be worth preservation.

Give it a moment's consideration and you'll understand why. It is the states that have to clean up the mess after the fraud, after the abuse, after the hucksterism and cronyism -- after, when all is said and done, the profiteering that pits insurance providers AGAINST their clients.

Bill, face it. That half-assed proposal that Boner and Mitchell are peddling around Washington is offered in extremely bad faith. It is the ESSENCE of cynical politics. It won't happen, and it won't happen because it's a truly shitty idea.

S.L. Toddard| 9.27.09 @ 8:49PM

Wrong again, buttface! It's a great idea and the reason it might not pass is because of fascist liberals like Nazi Pelousy who crave power and control over all else. Powermongering losers.

Gotta shut that damn Gaydar machine off!!

Liberal Reader| 9.27.09 @ 8:52PM

Whoever you are, you're an idiot. Notice that you don't make a single reasonable point. It's all Nazi name calling and similar boorishness. You're a fucking idiot, and it's a miracle a country that produces so many like you is capable of self government.

Just An American| 9.27.09 @ 9:29PM

Whenever I make a pompous little prick like you wet himself in anger, I've won. Fool, I absolutely abhor braindead, supercilious twits like you.

Your gluttonous powermongering sickens me. You liberals have created a HUGE well of ill-will, Jeremiah: Do you honestly think there will be peace in our country after you vultures have picked every last bit of meat off the bones of your fellow Americans? Do you?

You won't be satisfied until only a carcass is left of our beautiful nation. Liberals like you are full of hate, envy and resentment--that's why you live to destroy.

You are an ugly human being.

ConservativeWanderer| 9.27.09 @ 10:46PM

Well, I see at least two instances of reductio ad Hitlerum here, so I imagine that any further chances of reasonable debate in this thread are gone.

Liberal Reader| 9.27.09 @ 11:00PM

Two? He referred, as is become common on the right, to "Nazi" Pelosi, and I called him on it.

As members of a reactionary fringe movement filled with xenophobes and racists, you guys are weirdly comfortable calling others Nazis.

Those who live in glass houses.

STILL --

A day has past, and no really good arguments have been made against the public option, which I have advocated and explained repeatedly on this thread.

You guys have -- as usual -- called me a fascist, a Nazi, a pervert. You've accused me of being gay and having aids.

BUT: you have not refuted a single point I've made.

You are the sort of people who take Glenn Beck seriously. I know that's a low blow. But I'm just calling it like I see it.

Johnno| 9.27.09 @ 11:52PM

Glenn Beck is right, moron: If he weren't Van Jones and Yosi Sergant would still be working for Obama, and defunded ACORN would still be facilitating child sexual slavery. Pervert.

Cite one Glenn Beck error. You can't because he's an honest man and he tells the truth. He's going after the freak, Cass Sunstein and that Marxist ass at the FCC next. Just watch.

Glenn Beck is an American hero--you and your ilk are a disgrace.

Liberal Reader| 9.28.09 @ 1:01AM

Glenn Beck is an American hero -- just like Daniel Boone and Tom Sawyer.

Well, O.K. Johnno. To serve the larger interests of mainstreaming the mentally handicapped, I'm just going to concede this one.

Johnno| 9.28.09 @ 3:13AM

Cite ONE Glenn Beck error, troll.

You can't because they're aren't any--you braindead beasts would have already crucified him otherwise. He's got your leftist number and he's got power, too; no wonder you fear him. He's a real threat to your Marxist takeover plans.

Go Glenn Go!

Johnno| 9.28.09 @ 3:28AM

I see Beck as a present day John Paul Jones, "I have not yet begun to fight!"

That's the American spirit that resonates in the hearts of REAL Americans. Tawdry Fascist Liberals like you, Jeremiah, wouldn't understand: You've forgotten the vision and the greatness of your forefathers; you've sold your worthless soul to power-mad Marxists.

ConservativeWanderer| 9.28.09 @ 8:13AM

Uh, Jeremiah...

Just because you stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and sing lalalalalalalala! at the top of your voice to avoid seeing the successful refutations of your points does not mean they haven't been refuted.

You do a great ostrich impression... just keep your head in the sand.

Johnno| 9.27.09 @ 11:56PM

ConWanderer, you're kidding yourself if you think you can debate trolls like Jeremiah. The A-Hole is a sociopathic propagandist, pure and simple.

He's got no conscience; this is all a game to losers like Jeremiah.