-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Dead Terrorist Tamerlan Tsarnaev Channeled Islamic Videos
April 19, 2013 | 67 comments
The Spectacle Blog
News.
Last night, this story appeared on the AP.
The headline: GOP leader hopes to work with Obama on some issues
The reporter quoted Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate GOP Leader who was at his home in Louisville, Kentucky, as saying, among other things, this:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate’s top Republican says President Barack Obama and a more-Republican Congress could join to pass laws on trade and spending policy and make changes to the health care overhaul if the administration listens to voters on Election Day.
Then, further down, the story has these two paragraphs below. I have highlighted the interesting parts in bold print:
Speaking from his home in Louisville, Ky., McConnell said there are several areas of agreement that already exist between congressional Republicans and Obama that, theoretically, could pass quickly.
Those issues, he said, include an arcane tax reporting law on businesses that’s part of the unpopular health care overhaul. Even Obama wants the so-called 1099 provision changed so that businesses are not overburdened with paperwork.
What’s missing here?
Earlier in the day, we had a post about a report that Senator Bob Corker, the Tennessee Republican, had told a group of high-dollar GOP donors the following:
The junior senator from Tennessee told the gathering of donors not to worry about the incoming class of “crazier Republicans” because the majority of Senate Republicans, especially minority leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), had no intention of repealing the president’s health care bill. They instead planned to fix only the “bad parts” of the law, Corker reportedly told the group.
Senator McConnell’s office quickly sent us a denial, which we noted in a second post to be found here.
Then, last evening, the story took an interesting turn with the statement from Senator McConnell to the AP.
It gave the clear impression that the Senator, precisely as Senator Corker had been quoted, was going to fix the “bad parts” of ObamaCare — instead of pushing for outright repeal.
Clearly there is a considerable difference between repealing one section of ObamaCare — Section 1099 in this instance — and repealing the entire bill.
After some back and forth between The American Spectator and Senator McConnell’s office, the Senator himself was reached and this clarifying statement was issued:
While we were unable to block the Democrats from passing the health spending bill — the single worst piece of legislation that’s passed since I’ve been in the Senate — the Republican leadership in the House and Senate is committed to its repeal. While Democrats will filibuster our efforts, and if we’re successful the President will veto, I believe we should give them that opportunity. We should vote, again, for repeal. Americans have spoken out, loud and clear, and we heard them. Repeal is part of the Pledge to America, and the Republican leadership is united in that effort.
The problem with the McConnell statement to the Associated Press is not a small detail. It goes to the very heart of the issue.
There is no way on earth to achieve the conservative goal of small government, of limited government, if in fact ideological surrender is the end result of so-called “bipartisanship.”
To agree, in the name of “bipartisanship,” with President Obama that this, that, or the other specific section of ObamaCare should be repealed winds up inevitably giving the President the upper hand. Simply put: this White House will no sooner have signed off on a repeal of the aforementioned Section 1099 when it will be claiming compromise was had and the other 99% of the bill would only be repealed by — to borrow the phrase attributed to Senator Corker and which he now denies saying — the “crazier Republicans.”
Result? The bulk of ObamaCare will then be allowed to stand, politically untouchable.
As with the stimulus, Democrats must have 100% complete ownership of ObamaCare. Either it’s repealed in toto — or it is left to stand untouched as the monstrosity it is. If the GOP falls for any “bipartisanship” they will simply remove the intense pressure Democrats are already feeling on the issue — a pressure that is in the process of losing them the House and possibly the Senate.
Which is why, all last evening, alarm bells began to ring in conservative circles as Senator McConnell’s remarks to the AP made the rounds.
With the statement formally issued by McConnell last night, it appears this issue is — with considerable uneasiness — put to momentary rest for the next 12 days in the run-up to the election.
But it is very safe to safe McConnell and his colleagues in both the Senate and the House will be watched carefully for the first sign that their actions are even remotely hinting at accepting anything less than complete and total repeal of ObamaCare.
And if they can’t get a repeal past a presidential veto?
Then ObamaCare and its consequences will continue to sit as is — and Democrats will continue to reap the political liabilities they themselves created.
And, as Ronald Reagan once said when asked his goal in handling Cold War strategy he replied simply: “We win. They lose.”
Too much water has gone over the Big Government dam for conservatives to do anything other than follow Reagan’s strategy. Simply put:
Winning is a total repeal of ObamaCare. All at once.
Losing is anything less.
View all comments (71) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/21/mcconnell-ap-story-obamacare-r
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
ElicCrapton| 10.21.10 @ 8:39AM
"You waskawee Weepubwickans, how can I hypnotize you if you don't co-opewate?"
Simeon Cana| 10.21.10 @ 8:44AM
This is why the republicans have been branded as the party of 'No'. This is why disenchanted rightwingerst are voting for the teabaggers, annoyed with democratic policies, and republicans saying 'no' and suggesting nothing different.
Your 'victory' is a zero sum game: the Obamacare bill is revoked, and we are back with the same broken, disfunctional, expensive and unproductive system we had before Obamacare. So what is your proposal to fix our broekn health care system exactly? Or is just yelling no and getting your way (your definition of a 'win') sufficient?
And by the way, while we all agree there are huge problems with Obamacare, your 'complete repeal is the only win' seems like a somewhat schoolyard position. Are you going to claim that there is NOTHING whatsoever good in Obamacare? like perhaps the millions of people who are not going to die just because they are poor (as they would have before)?
Ryan| 10.21.10 @ 9:22AM
If you believe we have been "suggesting nothing different," then you have NOT been educating yourself on conservative proposals to help fix health care (which, btw, before Obamacare, worked for a majority of Americans - it was NOT broken). In a nutshell, here are a few proposals:
--HSA expansion
--Removal of state line restrictions, so we can shop elsewhere for coverage - which increases competition
--Allowing small businesses to pool together to get the discounts that big corps have.
Simeon Cana| 10.21.10 @ 9:38AM
I have been educating myself on Conservative proposals to fix helthcare, such few as actually exist, and they are woefully inadequate.
Of course US health care was broken, no sane person aware of the facts could possibly claim otherwise. Nobody can dispute that the Us paid more per-capita for health care than ANY other first world country, and yet received care at a level well below the standard of those same peer nations. By almost every metric US health care is worse than those of, say Canada or France: The us has lower life expectency, higher infant mortality rate, higher operative complication rate, higher post-operative infection rates, lower survival rates for most cancers... the list goes on. And yet we paid MORE per capita for that sub-standard care. That is the very definition of broken.
The three proposals listed would do nothing to redress that balance, they would not cover the million who get NO health care, nor the millions who go bankrupt due to health care. (In the US, almost 60% of personal bankrupcies are medical expense related)
major overhaul was the only way forward. sadly, Obama seems to have screwed it up for the most part, but being the continuous 'party of No' is not going to do anything to endead the republicans to the voters who realise that the previous status quo simply wasn't working.
Eric Cartman| 10.21.10 @ 9:55AM
As everyone agrees, only Liberal Socialist idiots who have their hands out for everything and want to expand the government gravy train for every lazy ass crackhead- even for illegal aliens -thought the health care system was broken. The majority agree that the only thing broken about the health care system was the past government mandates on insurance and hospitals that made it so expensive.
It is only when socialists demagogue the issue and worded pols in their propagandist ways that the American people said anything about health care. Now that Americans see what the Liberal Socialist scumbags mean are they voicing their true feelings, which is for repeal of Obamacare. As everyone knows and 70% of Americans agree, socialists Democrats are traitors who are destroying this country.
Ryan| 10.21.10 @ 10:04AM
1. The infant mortality rate is a non-starter. America counts it practically completely differently than any other nation - if a child takes a breathe in America, he was born alive. In some other nations, it can be weeks before the baby was counted as "alive" if he dies as an infant. Many of your other claims are either overstated (such as many cancer issues) .
2. A majority of Americans were satisfied with their health coverage - because we got a VERY good deal through our employers on insurance. My health coverage WORKS. There was NO REASON to change it for anyone who already had it - and now we, or our employer, are having to pay more to receive the same care.
3. I agree that there is an issue for the poor in America; however, the answer is NOT government-run health care, because it will still wind up being both substandard AND rationed. The answer is through employment and education and a free market, NOT government handouts. I AM a fan - to an extent - of high-risk pools for the poorest Americans; but to take tax dollars from those of us who are responsible to give to those who may not be is wrong. I'm not even against a sort of "safety net" a la medicare or medicaid - and many conservatives aren't - but the problem is that we reduce the standards of care for the rest of us if we are somehow tied into a system that is further controlled by the government.
Simeon Cana| 10.21.10 @ 10:39AM
1) That is actually a complete myth. I would love to know who made that up. All nations in Europe, Canad and the US use the WHO standard methodology for determining infant mortality. the ONLY difference is that a FEW nations in Europe dont count premature children born before 22 weeks, but as those numer, even in the US as a miniscule number, it changes nothing, AND most nations like Canada and the UK, do measure preemies anyways. There is no rationalising away the US' horrible infant mortality rates.
2) The majority of Americans were satisfied? Firstly, I question that claim. I suspect the majority of reasonably healthy, non-poor Americans were fairly satisfied, while the satisfaction would rrop dramatically among the millions not covered, the millions who had their insurance withdrawn when the bills piled up, the majority who declared bakrupcy due to medical bills. But even if your claim WERE true, so what? The majority of Soviets in the 1960s were happy with thweir system too. And for the same reason, because they didnt realise that the rest of the world actually had it much better. The international statistics do not lie: the US paid a lot more and got a lot less than all our peers.
3) While I on principle dont like big government or government-run anything, I do think it is deeply foolish to throw out the idea on purely ideological grounds. because, a 10 second examination will demonstrate that, of ALL those nations in the first world that pey LESS and get BETTER health care than the US does, every SINGLE one of them has some level of government run health care.
Faced with that fact, one simple cannot claim that government run health care can't work, or cant provide a high standard of care... because it does, everywhere. Period.
Eric Cartman| 10.21.10 @ 10:58AM
Everywhere government run health care has been tried, it is going broke and is lousy - everywhere. Period.
Simeon Cana| 10.21.10 @ 11:10AM
Sorry cartman, but you are quite simply, flat out wrong. No excuses or rationalisations, just wrong.
Government run health care consistently provides a higher standard of health care for almost every first world nation according to almost EVER measuarble metric, and they do so for less money per capita than the US spends on its broken system. I'm happy to provide WHO statistics and dozens of comparative studies on the subject if you like.
The US pays the MOST per capita of any first world nation on health care in its taxes, and gets an average standard of care worse (and in some cases, significantly worse) than almost all of our first world peers. The French and Canadians live longer than us, survive surgury and almost all forms of cancer better than us, get post-operative infections more rarely, have lower infant mortality rates... I can keep going. The quite simply have a superior standard of health care, and they pay less for it. Period.
Eric Cartman| 10.21.10 @ 11:18AM
That's just pure bullshit. Why did Canada's (America's snow hat) president come here for surgery if their system is so great? Who want's British teeth? Raise your hand! You're a lying sack of hospital waste.
Simeon cana| 10.21.10 @ 11:30AM
Its always fun when your debate opponent completely humiliates himself in public like this.
Firstly, Canada has a prime minister, not a president. You will learn that when you are old enough to attend high school civics.
Secondly, precicely which canadian prime Minster ever came to the US for Surgery? Well? I'm waiting.
Thirdly, continuing your education on the nature of reality, it may surprise you to know that Canada and the UK are not the same country. Again, you will learn this in High school.
Oh, and the steriotype of 'british teeth' comes from the fact that the UK took decades to introduce Fluoride into their water after the US did. That is not true of Canada.
You are not very good at being correct about anything, are you?
Eric Cartman| 10.21.10 @ 11:47AM
Firstly, I don't care if America's Snow Hat has a president, prime minister, or an Aga Kahn.
Secondly, the present Snow Hat Aga Khan did: http://biggovernment.com/publi.....alth-care/ Dumb ass.
c. Isn't it you who wants socialized medicine? Americas Snow Hat, UK? What's the diff?
IV. Everyone knows Liberal Assholes like you enjoy smelling their own farts, but you abuse the practice.
Fifthly, how come you didn't know about Snow Hat's Aga Kahn coming here? Not on the Media Mutters web site?
Simeon Cana| 10.21.10 @ 11:54AM
(laughter)
You are very good at exposing your own ignorance my young friend, I'm surprised you have the shame to even post anymore. Your selection is neither canada's president nor its prime minister (the relevance is that you didnt even know the difference. saying you 'dont care' about your own proven ignorance is hardly a defense) but a provincial premier of one of Canada's poorest provinces.
In your trend of demonstrating how staggeringly ignorant you are about reality, Canada and the UK are very different countries, with very different health care systems. perhaps when you get old enough to attend high school you will learn such complicated things as this.
As for your covering your proven ignorance with profanity and schoolyard name-calling, well, I think that pretty much speaks for itself.
You are a shameful disgrace to yourself, your family and your country. Go away.
Eric Cartman| 10.21.10 @ 12:03PM
OH! Well, that makes all the difference in the world! Well, my Socialist friend, I must repeat, I really don't care about the Snow Hat's political structure - it makes no difference to me. What is telling is that he came here instead of staying in Snow Hat for his heart surgery. As a great asshole said to me not long ago "I think that pretty much speaks for itself".
Simeon Cana| 10.21.10 @ 12:56PM
What difference it makes, little boy, is as a demonstration of your constant and stagering ignorance about basic knowedge matters. You dont care about the fact that you have been repeatedly proven flat-out wrong on your facts? You dont care that your ignorance about our closest neighbour beggars belief? No, I suppose you don't do you. You wear your lack of education and ignorance like a badge of honor.
The difference between the 'president' (LOL) of Canada and the premier of their newest and poorest province is enormous. Newfoundland is an economicly depressed rock 8 hours boat ride out into the Atlantic from the mainland. But of course, you didnt know any of that, did you little boy?
Stop embarassing yourself, please.
Eric Cartman| 10.21.10 @ 1:36PM
Oh, poor little socialist. Like the difference between the Snow Hat's premier of, what did you say, poorest province?, and its prime minister makes a difference. Does that make a difference? Do they pay him in aluminum cans? Id he so poor he can't afford Snow Hat health care? He chose to come here, Liberal Ahole. Your distractions are boring. And by the looks of it, you are losing the argument - even in Snow Hat land. Your bleating for your wet-dream health care is failing, and soon it will be taken apart bit by bit. Poor socialists, all your plans are coming apart :-)
Roger K| 10.21.10 @ 1:16PM
why have you been insulting canada in all your posts ever since the topic came up? its like you cant post about any other country without insulting it. i dont think there are any canadians here, so whats the point apart from showing what a whiny brat you are?
Eric Cartman| 10.21.10 @ 1:38PM
Awww. Sorry aboot that.
Roger K| 10.21.10 @ 2:11PM
dont apologize to me, i dont care. I was just wondering why you are acting like such a twat for no reason.
Ryan| 10.21.10 @ 11:22AM
1. You have overstated on the infant mortality rate. Sweden, France, Canada, Belgium, Australia, and others all have factors that don't count like in America. Do some reading - there are a LOT of differences, even if small, that affect the numbers.
2. Do a simple google search. Poll after poll showed that a majority Americans were satisfied - particularly those of us with employer-provided health care. There was NO REASON to change the system for a majority of Americans. Covering the "millions" who didn't have insurance doesn't require breaking the system toward further government control - which makes it more expensive for the rest of us AND takes more money out of our pocket.
3. I'm throwing it out on ideological grounds for two reasons. One, we didn't have a true free-market system in health care. Two, any sort of government-run health care in other nations has NOT been as good as those in the US are promoting them to be. Canadians come here for what they need when they can. UK is HIGHLY rationed care.
Many health issues aren't related to access to care, but education and lifestyle.
Simeon Cana| 10.21.10 @ 11:40AM
1) The US, Canada, france, and most of the rest of Europe have all used the *exact* same WHO designated methodology to determine infant mortality rates since the early 1990s.
2) If Americans were satisfied or not is irrelevant to me if it can be easily and factually demonstrated (and it can) that the US is paying more per capita than everyone else, and getting a lower standard of health care in return than everyone else. If we have a system that forces us to pay more and get less in return, we should try and fix it. Like I said, Americans might be satisfied, they might not, but their general level of 'satisfaction' with a statistically inferior system is irrelevant to me.
3) True, we didnt have a true free market. That does not change the fact that we should not be throwing out ANY options for improvement, especially when those options have been proven to work better, for less money, across the rest of the first world.
Canadians largely dont come to the US for health care, another myth (see Canadian National Population Health Survey study, 2008). In fact, the opposite is true, Americans more and more have been flooding to the US to take advantagte of their system, in particular subsidised medicines.
CountryClassKook| 10.21.10 @ 1:55PM
"If Americans were satisfied or not is irrelevant to me"
Exactly. You couldn't care less about liberty. You are a Marxist statist, or at best, a useful idiot. Perhaps you should move to Oh Canada and let us live our lives as we see fit.
Indiana Alex| 10.21.10 @ 11:41AM
The infant mortality rate is a complete red herring and an example of the fact that the socialists have no facts to back up their claim that "health care was broken.
The infant mortality rate is a direct consequence of the lifestyle of the mother for an overwhelming majority of cases.
That this is even brought up by these moronic robot repeaters to distract from the actual arguement should give everyone a "head's up" that there is definately something shovel ready about to be spewed.
Simeon Cana| 10.21.10 @ 11:50AM
That is quite an assertion. So the fact that the US infant mortality rate is almost doube that of some European countries, when all nations are using the same WHO imposed standards, is entirely due to the 'lifestyle of the mother'? Have you any justifcation or evidence for that claim? What lifestyle choice in the US among pregnant women is so much worse than our first world peers?
Secondly, even if your claim were true, which I dont immediately accept, it does not alter the rest of the medical metrics. Life expectency, post-operative infection rates, survival rates for most types of cancer (except breast cancer, oddly), and pretty much any other stat you care to name: all favor Canada over the US.
See for yourself, there have been over a dozen independent studies comparing the outcomes of the two systems over the past decade, all have been unanimous in their results...
hoads| 10.21.10 @ 12:01PM
3)almost 60% of personal bankrupcies are medical expense related
Total Myth--17% of personal bankruptcies are due to medical expenses:
http://content.healthaffairs.o.....l/25/2/w74
4) received care at a level well below the standard of those same peer nations.
Not true. 10 Surprising Facts About the US Healthcare System
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
You're immersed in left-winged propaganda. Proponents of government controlled healthcare have willfully and deceitfully degraded our healthcare system.
Indiana Alex| 10.21.10 @ 12:02PM
You've never heard of crack babies, you asshat? They are another result of your liberal "great society" that was supposed to eliminate poverty, but instead distroyed mostly the black, but also much of the rural white family structure, replacing it with dependence on the government, which is what Obamacare is all about.
You probably don't even believe your idiot arguements suggesting that handing "health care" over to government central planners is somehow going to decrease the rates of infant mortality, and prolong life expectancy in a society that lurches ever forward to bowing down before the all powerful state?
You are either a useful idiot, or a complete moron to ignore the FACT that free markets have made people throughout history richer and better off than ANY OTHER arraingement ever contemplated in human history.
People before your sorry mornonic ass have suggested that a few smart people in a room can make decisions better than billions of people making decisions in their own self interest can, and the people before you have been wrong as well.
Just like you, ass hat.
Simeon Cana| 10.21.10 @ 1:13PM
Gee Indiana, you seem to have the same proclivity as cartman towards flagrant lies, and towards throwing around juvinile profanity whenever you have no factual answer to provide. Do you and cartman attend the same nusury school?
Yes I have heard of crack babies you silly little boy. Now, please demonstrate to me that Crack babies are SO enormously common a problem in the US that they result in almost DOUBLE the infantmortality rate as some of our peers in Europe. Come on kid, I'm waiting. Obviously you dont understand the statistical impossibility of your comment, so I am waiting to see how you wiggle out of this. More profanity, I suspect.
I have never claimed that handing things over to the government would solve all problems, in fact you silly little child, if you would bother to READ before posting, you might notice I specifically said I cant stand Obamacare, and that I generally loathe goivernment intervention in any form. But I am unwilling to ideologically dismiss any options, especially when those options have proven to work better than ours, around the world.
Try to keep up kid.
Indiana Alex| 10.21.10 @ 1:19PM
What? Keep up with your spouting other people's failed ideas, and then contradicting yourself?
No thanks.
I'll go argue with my 12 year old when i feel like beating my head against the wall that much.
Asshat.
Simeon Cana| 10.21.10 @ 2:09PM
So in other words, you could not evidence your claim, realised how insipid it was and fled with your tail between your legs, cowering behind an assortment of juvinile insults again.
Unsurprising.
SDN| 11.4.10 @ 4:34PM
No, Simeon, they laid out the exact evidence accurately. Like every leftist, you are immune to facts. Unfortunately, the universe isn't socialist, which is why it fails whenever it's tried.
hoads| 10.21.10 @ 12:03PM
Degrading Healthcare
http://www.burrillreport.com/article-732.html
Myth: Government-controlled healthcare systems provide better access then the employer-sponsored system in the United States
Fact: In Canada, for instance, the Fraser Institute reported in December 2006 that Canadians wait an average of 17.8 weeks from general practitioners’ referrals to treatment by a specialist. Most provinces have a web site to calculate a patient’s wait time based on type of procedure and area. For example, at the time of publication, the wait for breast cancer surgery in South West Ontario could be as little as 24 days or as many as 110. According to another recent survey, nearly two-thirds of Canadian citizens and 85 percent of doctors agree that obtaining private insurance for services already covered under Canada’s single-payer system will result in shorter waiting times. As for the United Kingdom, only 51 percent of patients were able to receive hospital treatment their doctors recommended in 18 weeks or less, while 12 percent have waited over a year according to the Department of Health.
Myth: The United States is ranked 37th as a health system by the World Health Organization (WHO), below Canada, the United Kingdom and France.
Fact: In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked 191 countries based on data from 1997. The countries were evaluated by five factors, including the overall health of the population and distribution of health. In categories such as responsiveness and expenditures, the U.S. ranks number one, showing a commitment to deliver speedy healthcare to our citizens regardless of cost. Many factors such as obesity and smoking have lowered the health of Americans and, thus, lowered our ranking with WHO. Since 1997, the U.S. has made further improvements to the quality and accessibility of our healthcare, including the creation of
Medicare Part D.
hoads| 10.21.10 @ 12:11PM
The American Journal of Public Health delved into the bias reporting of infant mortality statistics:
http://ajph.aphapublications.o.....e47ea07385
International infant mortality statistics have caused concern in the United States, since the US ranking relative to other developed countries has declined since World War II. This paper suggests that there may be international differences in reporting of very-low-birthweight infants and perinatal deaths and that such reporting differences bias comparisons of national perinatal and infant mortality rates. Efforts must be made to adopt standard conventions for the inclusion of small, early infants and fetal deaths in rate calculations.
As did the International Journal of Epidemiology:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/.....f_ipsecsha
Conclusion. Differences in birth registration practices for infants weighing
Simeon Cana| 10.21.10 @ 1:21PM
You should read your own posts a litrle more carefully. The data you demonstrate is taken from the early 1980s, BEFORE the US and Europe adopted the standard WHO methodology for determining infant mortality. Sorry.
Nobama| 10.23.10 @ 2:45AM
You're wrong, nasty troll. The U.S. has the best health care system in the world if we can save it from the destruction of socialized ObamaCare.
hoads| 10.21.10 @ 12:00PM
"By almost every metric US health care is worse than those of, say Canada or France: The us has lower life expectency, higher infant mortality rate, higher operative complication rate, higher post-operative infection rates, lower survival rates for most cancers... the list goes on."
Maybe you should spend more time educating yourself on the U.S. healthcare system:
1) The us has lower life expectency
Except when you remove murder and accidental deaths the US has the highest life expectancy
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/20.....rs-us.html
2) lower survival rates for most cancers
The US has the highest CA survival rates for the most common cancers. The lowest? the UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....urope.html
Bruce Berger| 10.21.10 @ 1:18PM
Hoads,
Thank you for doing the research demonstrating that Simeon Cana has no clue about this subject, or probably more likely, is being intellectually dishonest.
Another important factor, that I have never seen quantified, but is almost certainly significant in the difference in medical expenditures between the US and other developed countries is that those other countries have a parasitic relationship with the US. By that I mean that by virtue of US citizens paying higher prices for medicines and medical technologies than the citizens of other countries, we are in essence subsidizing those people. Historically, we have been willing to do so because we are willing to bear the lion's share of the cost of medical innovation. The alternative of less innovation has not been palatable to us. However, assuming that healthcare professionals and capital providers need a specific level of return on their intellectual and/or monetary capital the only way we can pay less is for others to pay more so that the overall level of returns to the medical industry stay the same. Frankly, I am tired of helping to pay for the healthcare of some civil servant in Brussels. I don't mind subsidizing medicine in Africa, but it irritates me to no end to be doing so for Europe as well.
Again, I don't know the order of magnitude of this discrepancy, but it is not zero, and frankly it should be zero. I get particularly ticked off when some euro-weenie lectures me about how awful our healthcare system is, when I am helping to pay for his system.
Simeon Cana| 10.21.10 @ 1:34PM
I'm sorry, but that doesnt even make any sense. How are the US 'subsidising' medical technology purchases in other countries? Europe manufactures its one technologies by and large, and those they buy from the US they pay market prices for.
You are also behind the times on medical innovation. The US was the grand centre of all new medical advances, but now its far moe spread out. We get as much from germany and japan as we purchase.
Bruce Berger| 10.21.10 @ 1:42PM
When we pay higher prices for medicines than people in those other countries pay for those same medicines we are subsidizing them. There is no such thing as a "market price" in medicine when a national health service is on the other side of the bargaining table. A pharmaceutical company will sell medicines at a lower price than it captures in the US market provided that price is still in excess of its marginal cost of production. As we know, the marginal cost of a medicine is close to zero, but the fixed cost of developing a new, effective and safe medicine is extremely high. So the US pays enough to cover the fixed cost of innovation while the rest of the world gets to pay closer to the marginal cost.
Bruce Berger| 10.21.10 @ 1:47PM
PS It doesn't matter if the drug is manufactured by Pfizer (US company) or Novartis (European company), the relevant question is whose citizens are paying what prices. The US citizenry, but virtue of paying higher prices, is funding the innovation, at least disproportionately, whether that drug or device is made in the US, Germany or Japan.
Bruce Berger| 10.21.10 @ 5:31PM
Simeon,
Does it make sense now? If not, I suggest you re-take introductory economics, because anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics, and a dollop of common sense, would understand my argument.
CSC| 10.22.10 @ 10:22AM
Since your pro-ObamaCare propaganda has now been totally blown away by documented facts, why don't you take your trolling elsewhere? How long did you think your all-hat-no-cattle "factual" posturing would last on this site? FAIL.
Nobama| 10.23.10 @ 2:47AM
Kudos for shutting up the lying b!tch!
Jack Bauer| 11.4.10 @ 2:14PM
No cana do... "I have been educating myself on!
I see zero evidence of that crazy notion.
You own your own ignorance sir. Please do not blame conservatives for the things you don't know.
BILL COWAN| 10.21.10 @ 2:08PM
SIEMAN ... Repeal NObama care ??? HELL NO !!! REPEAL EVERYTHING THIS COMMIE/PINKO HAS EVER "PASSED" (EVEN HIS STINK'IN GAS !!!) ... SICK OF THE WHOLE COMMUNISTA ADMINISTRATION !!!
Robert| 10.21.10 @ 10:02PM
It is simple and yes we need to fix the health care and the only way is to allow the free market to govern it, this way competition from the whole world will drive the prices down for everyone!
tim| 10.24.10 @ 9:00AM
Your 'victory' is a zero sum game: the Obamacare bill is revoked, and we are back with the same broken, disfunctional, expensive and unproductive system we had before Obamacare. So what is your proposal to fix our broekn health care system exactly? Or is just yelling no and getting your way (your definition of a 'win') sufficient?"
its more dysfuntional and expensive with obama care than without obama cares going to tax us more buisnesses are going to hire less because insurance costs and taxes we already have a high unemployment rate. who is going to pay for there insurance?? the working tax payer of course and who wins the insurance companies they love this
and of course the senators and government workers cause they have there own insurace and pensions and dont pay as many taxes as we do because there exempt !!!
stuart horton| 11.4.10 @ 3:06PM
Great way to make a logical argument. Quote the disgraced and defeated laughing stock alan grayson. check the election results. americans are being hit with rising health care costs, unaffordable and extremely limited previous condition coverage, loss of medicare advantage plans, a 3.8% tax on all house sales, a $35 billion cut in medicare and who knows what else. We need to protect those legal americans who need healthcare, not deprive those who like their coverage. obama lied when he said americans would be able to keep their coverage, he lied about the cost and he lied when he said it would reduce the deficit. fortunately all but the shrinking fringe left sees through these lies and repudiates this behind closed doors produced partisan bill, of which nearly 60% of americans want repealed. liars generally are exposed and this is why both obama and obamacare have been repudiated. if liberals want to join in the new health care debate i suggest they get on the back of the bus.
Bostonian| 10.21.10 @ 8:58AM
The Republicans will not be able to repeal Obamacare in full before 2013 (and only then if they win the White House). I think the Republicans should try to remove as many pieces of it as they can before 2013, including the 1099 bill, but they must keep their eye on eventual full repeal.
Warrior | 10.21.10 @ 11:06AM
You missed the main point. To fix pieces of this mess will give the rest of it credibility. Also, if you take out some of the less palatable portions, you make the rest of it more palatable. Liberals have made this an ideological war and the only victory in war is the complete destruction or surrender of your enemy.
George S| 10.21.10 @ 12:10PM
I would agree with you somewhat, but under one condition: if and only if Republicans can delete all instances in the bill that states "...as the Secretary shall determine". But that will never happen because the whole point of the bill is to put government in the middle of the revenue stream between the citizens and their insurers. Then, the Secretary gets to "determine" where to steer the money instead of you. This is why the NHS and Canada ration care -- the government filter has other uses for the money it catches.
Repeal is the only solution.
Ryan| 10.21.10 @ 9:24AM
Though I absolutely agree with "repeal and replace," I do believe that it is a bit unrealistic at this point, and we really won't be able to do anything other than "tweaking" it until after the 2012 elections. Obama is simply going to veto a complete repeal, and we aren't going to have the votes to overturn it.
Curly Smith| 10.21.10 @ 9:30AM
It's difficult to tell what's actually going on here...
Is it the AP trying to disillusion Conservative voters by telling them that voting for the GOP is futile? Or, is the standard GOP practice of reforming dreadful and unworkable Democratic Policy into bad but workable bi-partisan legislation?
Health care is, as Simeon Cana points out, broken, dysfunctional, expensive and unproductive because of GOP reformation of horrendous Democratic Party initiatives. It's simple to trace the problems back to the root cause and all of our current problems have arisen from "reforms" of prior problems which were caused by "reforms" of prior problems which were (etc, etc, etc) back to the first government intrusion into the market. Health care won't be reformed until the government removes itself from the equation.
But, the AP story is good in that it forces the GOP to repeatedly take a stand and woe be unto the GOP if it strays into RINO-land.
Bob Miller| 10.21.10 @ 9:43AM
"Replace" should also mean replacing the Senate Republican leadership that has gone native in DC.
Sean| 10.21.10 @ 9:57AM
Let Obama Veto. That is how you make a bigger majority and take over both Congress and the Presidency. Let the Democrats own this mess. Repealing parts here and there will then give the Democrats cover and blame will go to the Republicans, but if the public sees Obama vetoing repeal then the issue sticks on them.
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 10.21.10 @ 10:46AM
But Sean, then The GOP won't get favorable state-run media coverage, get invites onto the Sunday shows, & enjoy their champagne at D.C. Beltway cocktail parties with a clear conscience! (sarcasm off). The GOP is the Party Of Stupid & they have EARNED that title (no sarcasm, just honest truth).
Alex| 10.21.10 @ 10:08AM
Repeal of the entire Obamacare is what we conservatives expect.
No amount of spinning or coming up new terms to describe surrender is going to cut it this time.
Maybe it is time for McConnell to step aside. Remember what happened to Lisa & Bennett.
Leaders lead instead of coming up excuses.
All Hail The Stupid Party!| 10.21.10 @ 10:55AM
Very well put Alex. Your words speak logic & wisdom. Unfortunately, this is The Stupid Party we're talking about here. They have survived only by making excuses for not doing their job. Anyone else would be fired for not doing their job & making excuses when confronted on it. The entire "leadership" of The Stupid Party should be fired immediately if they become the majority Party again. With all of the rampant stupidity they are putting on display this week that if is a big if! When dealing with The GOP, stupidity knows no bounds! Take care Alex & GOD bless!
Alex| 10.21.10 @ 11:08AM
Thanks.
Here is a friendly tip for all aides to the GOP leadership team. I know you guys are super smart - Still -
- Spare an hour and listen to Rush's opening monologues over the past couple of days to understand how ordinary Americans feel about compromise.
Obamacare fundamentally transforms more than a fifth of our economy. What about this can't you folks understand?
If you want to tinker around with this, why not go all the way and just join the Democrat party and proudly work to make it better?
Rod| 10.21.10 @ 10:12AM
The GOP lost the last 2 elections because GWB/Rove made them a liberal party. WE all know the Dems do progressive better. These guys still want to be the new left. They should study their party's history. The original liberal GOP was the Whig party. The new post Bush progressive GOP is going down the path of the Whig party. Sarah's new party will be the Ronnie party of the 21st century and in the 22 nd century the GOP will be as well remembered as the Whigs are today.
Why do Rove and his folk think we need 2 lefty parties? More important why has the GOP not learned from 06 + 08?!@#$!%!!?
All Hail The Stupid Party!| 10.21.10 @ 11:05AM
Rod, with The GOP, stupidity happens, just like @#$!%!! Logic & The Stupid Party do not mix. Also Tokyo Rove is irrelevant to conservatism as there isn't an ounce of conservatism in him.
Lesser Weevil| 10.21.10 @ 10:28AM
If the GOP leadership was serious about repeal, they would make it the centerpiece of the campaign. The obamanation is highly toxic, after all, and the Dems are fleeing from it in terror. Instead, it is swept into the background and when pressed, McConnell and friends make noises about, uh, yes, of course, we'll, um, repeal it... as soon as that's practical. It's easy to foresee what happens next. Iowahawk called it months ago.
Kyle| 10.21.10 @ 11:58AM
This is why relying on Republicans to defend the citizenry is so futile. What is the next thing the Republicans will lay down on, and let the Dems take over? The internet, housing, industry? The list could go on and on. At the end of the day, the Republicans either can't win legislative battles, or don't want to win them. This has been going on for years. The Gang of 14 was the first shot fired in this latest war on conservativism.
Alex| 10.21.10 @ 12:50PM
Jim DeMint tells Sean Hannity, “I don’t want to be in Washington another six years and watch the Republican Party betray the trust of the American people again.”
Accountable leaders like DeMint is what the situation demands.
Spicy Joker| 10.21.10 @ 1:10PM
It's time to FIRE Mitch McConnell.
Bruce Berger| 10.21.10 @ 1:27PM
Spicy Joker,
I am not as down on McConnell as you are. He held the caucus together amazingly well, particularly when Obama was flying high in the early days of his Presidency. I thought the Repubs would scurry off into the hills in fear, but for the most part they stood and fought, and were amazingly unified in doing so. He deserves credit for that.
MikeN| 10.21.10 @ 4:48PM
After the 2004 elections there was an unsuccessful attempt to take away Specter's Judiciary Committee chairmanship. Perhaps, McConnell should be dumped as step 1?
7d7| 10.21.10 @ 8:20PM
How about we take the safe route and dump McConnell as Senate majority leader?
Obama has given no indication he will move toward the center, and McConnell's inability to not judge Obama in the context of 1994 could prove fatal not only to his Party, but also the country.
We can't risk allowing Mitch McConnell to subvert the will of the American people because he can't move beyond the way he has grown accustomed to politics being done in DC.
Dump McConnell. Jim DeMint for Majority Leader.
Patriot| 10.22.10 @ 3:55AM
Great idea! DeMint for Majority Leader!
Les| 10.22.10 @ 4:53PM
Obamacare is about 90% of what the Republicans wanted in a government-mandated private insurance bill. I expect some of the taxes and the restrictions on the insurers will be removed. You guys are dreaming if you think the Republicans are opposed to health insurance reform. They only voted against it so they could run against it in the election. The insurers own both parties.
Nobama| 10.23.10 @ 2:51AM
It's not insurance reform, it's socialized medicine and we don't want it! Republicans don't want nationalized health care and you know it.
It doesn't matter if the clowns in DC want ObamaCare or not--we don't!