Another way to tell Republicans and opponents of health care reform have lost their minds, or their hearts, or their conscience


Republicans and opponents of health care reform make Dave Barry look like the prophet Isaiah with greatly improved accuracy.  You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried, as Dave Barry often says.

I have the right to protection, pleads this innocent little boy, in a poster for the State of Arizona Crime Victims Services division of the Department of Public Safety.  The Heritage Foundation ridicules federal support for child abuse prevention programs as unnecessary federal intrusion.

Included in the massive health care reform bill is some extra money to help out states and communities that have had difficulty getting effective programs going to combat child abuse.  Pilot programs demonstrated that community health workers could provide a few parenting programs and dramatically reduce child abuse.

These are programs that prevent dead babies.

According to the text of H.R. 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act,” starting on page 838 is a description of a program under which states and communities can get money to fight child abuse, if they have large populations of poor families, where child abuse is a problem, and where anti-child abuse programs need more money.  That’s pretty straightforward, no?  [That's a hefty .pdf file, by the way -- more than 1,000 pages.]

Parenting instruction and help can be offered, in private settings, and in homes where struggling parents need help most.

Money goes to states that want it and can demonstrate a need.  Parenting help programs are purely voluntary under H.R. 3200.

Who supports child abuse?  Who would not support spending some of the money in health care reform to save the saddest cases, the children who are beaten or starved or psychologically abused?

Is it not true that the prevention of child abuse would contribute to better health care for less money?

This is politics, you know.  Non-thinking conservatives pull out the stops in their desire to drive the health bill to oblivion, claiming that these anti-child abuse sections are socialism, liberty-depriving, and a threat to the designated hitter rule.  (I only exaggerate a little on the third point.)

This isn’t stripping liberties is it, we want someone else coming into our homes and telling us how to raise our children and live our lives.

This is right out of the Book 1984. If you had not read it I suggest it.

“Right out of 1984?”  Isn’t this a violation of  Godwin’s Law?

The Heritage Foundation appears to have taken a turn to radicalism, now advocating against fighting child abuse, and calling anti-child abuse programs a “stealth agenda.”

Have the Heritage Foundation, and these other people, lost their collective minds? They complain about the provisions of this bill because — this is their words:

One troublesome provision calls for a home visitation program that would bring state workers into the homes of young families to improve “the well-being, health, and development of children”.

Well, heaven forbid we should improve the well-being, health and development of children!

It is fair to conclude from this report that the Heritage Foundation does not want to prevent dead babies.

Years ago, when Father Reagan presided over the Conservative Church, one of the Heritage Foundation favorite deacons, a guy named Al Regnery, was appointed to be assistant attorney general over programs dealing with youth — juvenile delinquents, drug users, etc.  His chief qualifications for the job included that he was a faithful aide to Nevada Sen. Paul Laxalt, and that he toed the party line on almost all issues, including shutting down federal funding for programs that might prevent juvenile delinquency, or treat it.

Republicans controlled the Judiciary Committee under Sen. Strom Thurmond, so Regnery’s confirmation was never doubted.  But as if to throw gasoline in the face of advocates of anti-delinquency programs, When Regnery drove up to the Senate office buildings for his nomination hearing, his car had a generally humorous bumper sticker.  “Have you hugged your kid today” showed on about 200 million of the 100 million cars in America at the time — it was a cliché.  To fight the cliché, Regnery had the anti-fuzzy bumper sticker, “Have you slugged your kid today.”

When the issue hit the news, Regnery backpedalled, and said it was just a joke sticker that he probably should have taken off his car under the circumstances, but he forgot — and Regnery disavowed the bumper sticker, as humorous or anything else.

Comes 2009, we discover that the Heritage Foundation wasn’t kidding — slugging your kid is acceptable behavior to them, and creating programs to fight child abuse, is evil — to the Heritage Foundation.

Ronald Reagan would be ashamed of them.  Somebody has to be ashamed — there appears to be no shame at Heritage Foundation offices.

One wouldn’t worry — surely common sense American citizens can see through these cheap deceptions —  except that Heritage has a massive public relations budget, and there is a corps of willing gullibles waiting to swallow as fact any fantasy Heritage dreams up — see this discussion board on ComCast, where the discussants accept Heritage claims at face value though anyone with even a dime-store excrement detector would be wary; or see this blogger who says he won’t let the feds “take away” his liberties (to beat his children, or the children of others?); or this forum, where some naif thinks the bill will create a federal behavior czarGlenn Beck, whose religion reveres children, can’t resist taking a cheap shot at Obama, even though doing so requires Beck to stand up for child abuse.

Beck falls into the worst category, spreading incredible falsehoods as if he understood the bill:

This doesn’t scare me! No way. Just the crazies like Winston Smith — you know, the main character from “1984.”

When did we go from being a nation that believed in hard work and picking yourself up by the bootstraps, to a nation that wants government to control everything from our light bulbs to our parenting techniques?

This bill has to be stopped.

Gee, Glenn — when did we go from a nation that thought government was for the people, as demonstrated by the Agricultural Extension Service, or the Air Traffic Control System, or the Tennessee Valley Authority, to a nation that fights to bring back Czarist Russian government in the U.S.?  Stopping this bill won’t resurrect Czar Nicholas, and it will kill at least a few hundred American kids.  Excuse me if I choose living American kids over fantasies of a new and oppressive monarchy.

These people are not journalists. Beck isn’t like Orwell — maybe more like Ezra Pound, in Italy.  These people are not commentators, or columnists.  These people are not editorial writers.  They are not, most of them, lobbyists who give out  information for money, having sold their souls away from the angels of serious public discourse.

They are crass propagandists. They should be regarded more like the guy Tom Lehrer warned us about, the old dope peddler in the park, who always has just a little bit of poison for the kids or anyone else.  (“Don’t worry; you won’t get hooked.”)

How many other provisions of the health reform act are being distorted by conservatives in a desperate attempt to keep President Obama from “looking good,” despite the costs to America’s children and families?

These attacks on the health reform bill fall out of the category of robust discussion.  They disgrace our polity, and they erode the dignity of our democratic system.

Please share the information on this bill:

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

Below the fold:  An example of the type of program Beck and Heritage call socialism, 1984-ish, and dangerous.

These services, described below at the website of the Dalhart, Texas, Police Department, are similar to or exactly the same as those funded under H.R. 3200.  Have Heritage Foundation people lost their minds, or their hearts, or their souls?  The material below is almost exactly as it is on the Dalhart PD website.

Child abuse is an ongoing and growing epidemic in the United States and the world.  No community, religion, ethnic, social or economic class is immune.  Child abuse is a crime that has life-long effects that will forever change a young child’s life.

Child abuse comes in many different forms.  Emotional, Physical, Medical, Mental and Sexual.  Every minute of every day a child is abused in some form by their parents, family members or friends.

Make children a priority in your life.  Help those who are unable to help themselves.

If you suspect child abuse is happening to a child please click the following link so that you can start the process of helping that child.  If the abuse is an emergency and in progress… call 911.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Here are several links regarding child abuse and how you can stay informed and help the innocent.

Cierra’s Law
The Shaken Baby Alliance
Prevent Child Abuse
National Children’s Alliance
Dallas Children’s Advocacy Center
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

Should we assume that the Heritage Foundation finds all of these programs to be unwarranted intrusions on Americans?  How much child abuse must we tolerate before Heritage gets a clue?

Read it for yourself.  Here is the section in question, from the text of H.R. 3200 (I apologize for the way the line numbers foul up the formatting — you can figure it out):

1 SEC. 1904. GRANTS TO STATES FOR QUALITY HOME VISITATION
PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG
3 CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHILDREN.
5 Part B of title IV of the Social Security Act (42
6 U.S.C. 621–629i) is amended by adding at the end the
7 following:
8 ‘‘Subpart 3—Support for Quality Home Visitation
9 Programs
10 ‘‘SEC. 440. HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES
11 WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EX12
PECTING CHILDREN.
13 ‘‘(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to im14
prove the well-being, health, and development of children
15 by enabling the establishment and expansion of high qual16
ity programs providing voluntary home visitation for fami17
lies with young children and families expecting children.
18 ‘‘(b) GRANT APPLICATION.—A State that desires to
19 receive a grant under this section shall submit to the Sec20
retary for approval, at such time and in such manner as
21 the Secretary may require, an application for the grant
22 that includes the following:
23 ‘‘(1) DESCRIPTION OF HOME VISITATION PRO24
GRAMS.—A description of the high quality programs
25 of home visitation for families with young children
26 and families expecting children that will be sup-

1 ported by a grant made to the State under this sec2
tion, the outcomes the programs are intended to
3 achieve, and the evidence supporting the effective4
ness of the programs.
5 ‘‘(2) RESULTS OF NEEDS ASSESSMENT.—The
6 results of a statewide needs assessment that de7
scribes—
8 ‘‘(A) the number, quality, and capacity of
9 home visitation programs for families with
10 young children and families expecting children
11 in the State;
12 ‘‘(B) the number and types of families who
13 are receiving services under the programs;
14 ‘‘(C) the sources and amount of funding
15 provided to the programs;
16 ‘‘(D) the gaps in home visitation in the
17 State, including identification of communities
18 that are in high need of the services; and
19 ‘‘(E) training and technical assistance ac20
tivities designed to achieve or support the goals
21 of the programs.
22 ‘‘(3) ASSURANCES.—Assurances from the State
23 that—
24 ‘‘(A) in supporting home visitation pro25
grams using funds provided under this section,

1 the State shall identify and prioritize serving
2 communities that are in high need of such serv3
ices, especially communities with a high propor4
tion of low-income families or a high incidence
5 of child maltreatment;
6 ‘‘(B) the State will reserve 5 percent of the
7 grant funds for training and technical assist8
ance to the home visitation programs using
9 such funds;
10 ‘‘(C) in supporting home visitation pro11
grams using funds provided under this section,
12 the State will promote coordination and collabo13
ration with other home visitation programs (in14
cluding programs funded under title XIX) and
15 with other child and family services, health
16 services, income supports, and other related as17
sistance;
18 ‘‘(D) home visitation programs supported
19 using such funds will, when appropriate, pro20
vide referrals to other programs serving chil21
dren and families; and
22 ‘‘(E) the State will comply with subsection
23 (i), and cooperate with any evaluation con24
ducted under subsection (j).

Go read it for yourself, here.  Other official information about the bill, from the House Committee on Ways and Means, here.

142 Responses to Another way to tell Republicans and opponents of health care reform have lost their minds, or their hearts, or their conscience

  1. One of the easiest ways to recognize a crackpot is that they are incapable of being succinct.

    Like

  2. Nick Kelsier says:

    under rocket’s reasoning, since there is no one single organization of murders we can’t do anything about them. Same with rapists, pedophiles, burglars or anything else.

    After all..one can’t do anything about something unless that something is one single solitary group.

    Rocket, show me an insurance company that doesn’t act exactly like all the rest. Please.

    Like

  3. Ed Darrell says:

    I suggested that all Rocket has to do is face facts, and disavow the rant of the Heritage Foundation against child abuse prevention programs.

    He won’t:

    Once again Ed, you refuse to accept that no one is against fighting child abuse, not to mention that fighting child abuse is not what this topic is about. Its about Health Care.

    The denialism is strong in this one. Rocket, read the press release from Heritage Foundation. Read the section of the bill quoted.

    Key rule of denialism: Never let the facts sway you from your rant. Rocket reads it and won’t admit that the Heritage Foundation stupidly and shamefully, and with a high degree of malice, attacked the child abuse prevention program. Those who won’t face facts don’t get a right to imaginary claims, Rocket.

    For some reason you are mired in these little programs stuffed into other bills to get the bill passed. This has been exhaustively explained to you. It appears you will never get it.

    Read the Heritage Foundation rant. I’m not the malicious group attacking a good child abuse prevention program that decreases health costs and improves health care.

    Nor are we mired in it — this is just one glaring and shameful example of the cheap tricks opponents of health care reform use.

    The great mystery: What in God’s name possesses them to do it?

    As for you comment to Lady Why, how is it you still think health care can be characterized as a whole and thereby subscribe that it needs to be reformed?

    Focusing on the irrelevant there, Rocket. Regardless of whether health care is a monolithic system or not (it isn’t, nor is any proposal for a new monolith), we need reform.

    Health care
    1. Costs too much — more than double any other nation, triple many other nation’s per capita expenditures.
    2. Doesn’t get to millions of people who badly need it — one out of every seven U.S. citizens is not covered by a health plan; millions have no physicians or other health services close enough to be practical for delivery purposes
    3. Is unfairly maldistributed
    4. Thereby condemns millions to pain, suffering and premature death.

    Rocket covers his eyes so he won’t see, plugs his ears so he can’t hear the crying, and claims “it’s not a single system so there’s nothing we can do.”

    Bovine excrement, all the way around.

    Over and Over it has been explained to you that there is no “system” of health care. Health care is a phrase that encompasses all private health providers and insurance companies as a group term. Exactly the same way that all fitness clubs, sports gyms, weight rooms, boxing gyms, health spas and resorts can be grouped as “Health and Fitness system”. It is not a system, and your liberal word games are tiresome and it mimics our Congress.

    Right. The “football system” is really a bunch of different organizations, professional, educational, and amateur, so there’s nothing we can do about steroid abuse or neck injuries in the sport, either.

    You know, Rocket, that’s one of the stupidest claims possible. There are lots of “systems” that are fragmented, but which are subject to improvement from concerted action despite the fragmentation — air traffic, electrical distribution, food safety, etc.

    When you use such a stupid justification for inaction, or worse, to stand by incredibly false claims, I have a difficult time believing you don’t enjoy watching others suffer. There’s no rational explanation for your position or blindness.

    This topic is dead…

    No. There are still nearly 50 million people shut out of health care in the U.S. (illegal immigrants often get better care, oddly). Inflation of health care costs still cripples U.S. industry. Insurance failures sill contribute to 60% of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S., with ripple effects on home foreclosures and credit card debt.

    This is a major cancer on America’s future, and it’s a thriving cancer, Rocket. You can try to deny it, but it doesn’t care about your hallucinations. This is a problem that your denialism won’t make go away.

    Like

  4. Rocket says:

    “Then all you need to do is be clear. Repeat after me: “The Heritage Foundation was wrong to mischaracterize this anti-child abuse program so. They should apologize. I, Rocket, have no problem with supporting state programs that fight against child abuse.”

    You won’t say it.”

    —-Once again Ed, you refuse to accept that no one is against fighting child abuse, not to mention that fighting child abuse is not what this topic is about. Its about Health Care.

    For some reason you are mired in these little programs stuffed into other bills to get the bill passed. This has been exhaustively explained to you. It appears you will never get it.

    As for you comment to Lady Why, how is it you still think health care can be characterized as a whole and thereby subscribe that it needs to be reformed?

    Over and Over it has been explained to you that there is no “system” of health care. Health care is a phrase that encompasses all private health providers and insurance companies as a group term. Exactly the same way that all fitness clubs, sports gyms, weight rooms, boxing gyms, health spas and resorts can be grouped as “Health and Fitness system”. It is not a system, and your liberal word games are tiresome and it mimics our Congress.

    This topic is dead…

    Like

  5. Ed Darrell says:

    Ed, you and other politicians are so incredibly immature, “extreme” word game players that have learned how to “use” something good, to get something bad accepted. You are a user, just like the politicians in congress who do this very thing all the time.

    You use specific little parts of something to ridicule, demean, criticize, characterize, demoralize, and belittle others who oppose the BIG problem even when you have quietly stuffed a little something good inside as your “ace in the hole”.

    Show me a false claim from a supporter of the bill, particularly of the grotesque nature of the bizarre lies you’re defending here. You won’t even put your mouth on the false claims of the Heritage Foundation from the post that starts this thread. HF falsely impugns a good, proven, state-run child abuse prevention program. Can you defend such slanders?

    If this bill were so bad as you claim, why the exaggerated harms?

    Death panels? Palliative care is considered the apex of mercy and compassion. Living wills are considered the apex of wise planning to give dying people control over their own fates as they die. Palin calls these life-enhancing things “death panels?” Are you serious?

    And the claim that Dr. Stephen Hawking would be dead in a nation with a national health program like Britain’s?

    You defend these lies without blushing?

    Like

  6. Lady Why says:

    Rocket, I’m leaving Ed with you. Try to help the poor guy out. I can’t seem to say anything he understands. You say it so eloquently. Maybe you’ll have better luck.

    Ed, go read Rocket’s blog. It will do you a world of good.

    Like

  7. Ed Darrell says:

    Ed, you and other politicians are so incredibly immature, “extreme” word game players that have learned how to “use” something good, to get something bad accepted. You are a user, just like the politicians in congress who do this very thing all the time.

    Then all you need to do is be clear. Repeat after me: “The Heritage Foundation was wrong to mischaracterize this anti-child abuse program so. They should apologize. I, Rocket, have no problem with supporting state programs that fight against child abuse.”

    You won’t say it.

    Like

  8. Ed Darrell says:

    All in all, I want the control in the hands of the people and you want control in the hands of the government.

    Once again you demonstrate you don’t know what the bill does, or you don’t care to get it accurately.

    Who would control insurance companies under H.R. 3200? Insurance companies and stockholders. Who delivers services? Private doctors in their own private corporations, or other private companies. Would there be any expansion of government into those areas? No, except to provide insurance for the uninsured people who are not covered now.

    What government control?

    Imaginary and patently false claims against health care reform are not endearing.

    I gotta get back to meetings. Critical note to follow.

    Like

  9. Rocket says:

    Ed, Ed, Ed. Wow. As misguided and misplaced as your energy and enthusiasm is, I wish more people in the world had it.

    Unfortunately, 2Cents makes extremely easy to understand, logical and factual statements to which you have zero defense. Your whole semantic game makes you prime candidate for nothing.

    Lets break this down to a 5th grader level so it’s even easier to understand. I see 130+ responses to this post, of which a small handful have made simple, complete, logical, compassionate, mature, sense, all of which you have completely ignored, attacked and tried to dismember with typical unsupported statements derived from your anger.

    You really need a full understanding of how congress operates in order to make a decent stand on anything.

    The Breakdown (and I don’t mind repeating 2Cents until it sinks in):

    H.R 3200 can, should stand on its own merits. Why doesn’t it pushed through congress and approved on its own right? Are you ready?

    Because congressman “hold back” these “winners” that can stand on their own, and use them to inject into bills such as Obamacare in order to do exactly what you are doing here. Taking something really good, like H.R. 3200 and stuffing it into a bigger plan so that if anyone rejects or opposes the bigger plan they can say exactly what you are saying.

    “How can you not pass this bull[bill] when H.R. 3200 is in it and is so good?”

    “Are you saying you support child abuse?”

    “Obamacare has help to protect abused children in it, are you saying you want children to be abused?”

    Ed, you and other politicians are so incredibly immature, “extreme” word game players that have learned how to “use” something good, to get something bad accepted. You are a user, just like the politicians in congress who do this very thing all the time.

    You use specific little parts of something to ridicule, demean, criticize, characterize, demoralize, and belittle others who oppose the BIG problem even when you have quietly stuffed a little something good inside as your “ace in the hole”.

    Then you wrongfully accuse someone else of picking a tiny part of H.R.3200 and using it to support an argument. This in fact is what you are doing with Obamacare and that little H.R. 3200 that should be standing on its own outside of sweeping health care reform bills. And you were also corrected, 2Cents was not picking a small section of H.R 3200 to make a point. He made the point, you just didn’t get it and he “referenced” a small part of H.R.3200 to HELP you understand, and you still didn’t get it.

    Why?

    Because you are entrenched in your own tangle web you weave, you are staring at a tree while the forest burns down around you, you are dime while a dollar waits on you to get it.

    J. Kessler has to be thanked for fully supporting this very description of your actions and performing the very same circus act on Lady Why. Taking one small part of something and turning it into a game of “you didn’t say this that or the other thing so are you saying you are a baby killer?” what utter absurd immature nonsense.

    Ed, you have tried to write several posts with different topics about the same health care reform proposal because you have hit a wall of common sense, mature and calm rational thinkers.

    You are angry. You want something done for you (passing health care reform) and you aren’t getting what you want. IN fact President B.O. in his typical “both ways Obama” character is now considering yanking the bill completely.

    With that in mind, how about we get H.R. 3200 passed without stuffing it into something else they want passed. Let it stand on its own.

    And now you have a better understanding of how our congressmen operate. Greed, corruption, manipulation, double talk, word games, They are all about the new “catch phrase” and fear mongering.

    “OH MY GOD, If the people don;t pass this bill, people will die”

    And on the otherside, “OH MY GOD, if we pass this ill, people will die!”

    You saw it with the bail out plan, “If you don’t pass this bill, the economy will die”.

    “If you don’t pull out of the war on terrorism, soldiers will die!” and then more extreme catch phrases added like “needlessly”.

    I admire your passion and taking a stand on something, anything, but lets use some rational common sense and stop using “parties” and drawing lines and being extreme and childish and manipulative and accusatory.

    2cents, Lady Why, and others aren’t having a problem speaking rationally and calmly and with good common sense and have not pulled the “party” card out. Why can’t you?

    Like

  10. Lady Why says:

    Ed, your ‘conservatives defend child abuse’ argument is getting lame. I think I’ve already pointed out that it is those on the left that ACTUALLY ‘defend (I would add promote and protect) child abuse’ so we won’t beat that dead horse again.

    I think I finally see your problem. You believe the good intentions and morals of the men of history have been passed down to the corrupt, greedy, evil politicians of today. This is why you think they can be trusted with expanded government. Unfortunately that is not so.

    As John Adams said, “Because power corrupts, society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.” You surely don’t agree that happens in politics today. The higher the position, the LESS moral authority and character we see.

    While I’ve got Adams on my mind let’s not forget, “Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.” This is why we’re headed down the road to socialism.

    And, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    There you have it. This is why trusting our government to feed us, clothe us, give us shelter and provide our health care is not going to work. I dare say there is not a handful of politicians in Washington that would be considered by me or by themselves ‘moral and religious’.

    You, on the other hand, trust your government to be ‘moral and religious’. That will be to your detriment. The perfect solution is the strip the government down to its most basic functions as laid out in the Constitution they thwart and redefine daily. (fluid document and all that) I would give much more power to the states and even more power to the people. In a perfect world, the world the founders envisioned I dare say, this is how our representative republic would function. But, I’m pessimistic to think that’s a pipe dream. Too many people in Washington have too much power and greed to let that happen. You are so against conservatives and corporate America that you can’t see the evil corruption of your government. You think they can save the world. The government programs they do run are disasters! Medicare, SS and the Post Office are all going bankrupt. Do you like how FEMA handled Hurricane Katrina? Can’t you see they can’t cost effectively and efficiently run anything? I just don’t know how to get through to you, Ed.

    Ed, you said you didn’t defend Goldman Sachs. I quote from your own post:

    “LW, Goldman Sachs paid back the money they got from the bailout — the public profited $1.4 billion from the deal….You guys really won’t let Obama get credit for anything he does right, will you….1.4 million kids could be covered for $1,000/year with the profits from the Goldman Sachs deal — except your side won’t let the bill pass.”

    Is that not a defense of Goldman Sachs? Something Obama did right? Ha! Laughable. Your ‘saviors’ are up there pouring their printed money (which will devalue the dollar and drive up inflation… apparently you missed that in AP Economics) into the pockets of their business cronies and special interests buddies. You want to know why we’re on the verge of economic collapse? Speak to Barney Frank and his stifling of regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which he had a “personal” interest in, if you didn’t know) saying they were strong and needed no oversight. (There’s an example of conservatives calling for regulation… see we’re not against regulation when it’s constitutional and necessary) I think we ALL now know he is either an idiot or a liar (I vote both). And, you blame health insurance costs for our economic woes? Please. You want to give Barney Frank, who can’t even manage a mortgage company or two, a blank check with your health care?

    Lastly, I would like to know why the ideas put forth by Whole Foods CEO wouldn’t work. They haven’t been tried. Of course, they will not give trillions of dollars to the cronies in Washington so they can tell you what medical care you can and can’t have, but other than that, what don’t you like about it?

    Did you hear what Mr. Mackey said about his employees from England and Canada? Interesting perspective, no?

    All in all, I want the control in the hands of the people and you want control in the hands of the government. I want to take care of myself and you want the government to take care of you. I think that fundamental difference in ideology is going to make it impossible for us to agree on anything.

    Maybe it’s time to agree to disagree and pray for the best outcome to this whole mess.

    Like

  11. Ed Darrell says:

    Ed, what color is the sky in your world?

    Blue, except in August when it’s sorta brown from the wildfires to the west, or the blowing dust, and tougher than hell on asthmatics. Parkland’s emergency room fills with kids who can’t breathe and who lack health insurance to get a $41 bottle of pills that would keep them out of the emergency room.

    Oh, but you were just making conversation, right? You don’t really want the facts.

    I hardly know where to begin.

    Start by admitting that it was cheap and dishonest of Heritage Foundation and conservatives to go after child abuse programs. Come to reality. It’s a great place. And in August, the water is warm.

    You are really arguing that Madison, etc. were in favor of big government?

    No. Please reread. Madison was in favor of a government that could do the job — regulating interstate commerce is necessary. Remember the waters disputes between Maryland, Delaware and Virginia? How about New York and New Jersey?

    Have you ever read the Federalist Papers?

    Yes, and Madison’s diary, and Ketcham’s bio of Madison, and Washington’s diary and the correspondence between the two, and the saga of Hamilton. You really have forgotten everything about the Articles of Confederation, haven’t you.

    Short version for this purpose: Commerce between Virginia and Philadelphia could be waylaid as goods moved through Maryland. How to resolve disputes? In Maryland courts, Marylanders always won. In Virginia courts, Virginians always won. Customers in Philadelphia paid good money for no delivery (rather like the 50 million Americans for whom you pay $7,000 a year for health care that your insurance company works hard to see they don’t get).

    Virginia’s title to the Chesapeake went to the tideline of Maryland; Marylanders wanted to fish the waters. Madison was tasked to resolve that dispute, and because such resolution was essential to Washington’s grander vision of a united nation of prosperous people, Washington worked with him. Hamilton, meanwhile, was tasked to figure out a solution to the New York/New Jersey fight over control of New York Harbor and the Hudson. Washington brought them together, told them that there would be nothing but chaos and poverty unless the disputes were resolved and mechanisms put in place to prevent future disputes or resolve them (federal courts, ultimately), and suggested they get the 2nd Continental Congress to approve a convention to fix the problem.

    How much more history do you need?

    This sort of interstate commerce issue is exactly why we have the Constitution. Did you miss those weeks in AP U.S. history?

    That takes me back to your defense of Goldman Sachs. Wow.

    I didn’t defend Goldman Sachs. Your failure, or refusal, to read what I write is a serious issue. You want things to be different than they are, so a simplistic solution works. Ronald Reagan knew your views well when he warned that for every problem we have there is a solution that is really quite simple, and wrong. You’ve found that solution for this issue.

    The rest of us rather like keeping the U.S. around for another 200 years. Let’s shoot to break the longevity record of the Roman Republic, eh? It would be a good and noble thing.

    You have worked in Congress on Constitutional issues? Wow. Maybe that’s why we’re in the heap of hurt we are in now.

    Healthcare mostly. That’s why we survived this long.

    You’ve never bothered to study these issues? That’s why we’re in this fix. In 1994 you probably thought Hillary Clinton’s plans were terrible. You thought that we could survive with health care cost inflation at double the rate of other inflation. You didn’t foresee that the rate would be five times the rate of other inflation. You had insurance from yours or your father’s employer, and you didn’t realize that you were one paycheck from poverty.

    Worse, you still haven’t figured it out. You think you have insurance to cover your needs. You’ve never looked at the price of COBRA coverage and wondered how you’d deal if you lost your job.

    We often get the government we deserve as a people. Often, we get stupid government. That’s because we have people who stupidly pursue not smart policies.

    I have given you a line by line criticism that merely scratches the surface of all that is wrong with this bill.

    Sometime I’d like to get back to it. You claim that programs we’ve relied on for 40 years will lead to disaster because they’ll raise Stalin from the grave. The line-by-line critique demonstrates nothing other than complete unfamiliarity with health care in America, the health problems Americans have, and an unwillingness to make things better.

    Remember Madison? He said that our government is fit only for moral people. Those views are immoral, IMHO.

    I have bent over backwards to offer examples, citations, references, others that share the same opinion, others that offer better ideas (did you read the Whole Foods CEO’s ideas I just sent you?) ad nauseam.

    Haven’t got there yet — I read his column, and he’s out of touch with reality on many points (I mean, his ex-employees who like him call him “nuts”). The frat house that the editorial page of the WSJ has become — has been since before Jude Wanniski — is a sad, silly echo of the powerful public forum it once was, don’t you think?

    In any case, he offers nothing to check health care cost inflation. Cost shifting is a major cause of that inflation, and cost shifting is a creature wholly of having 50 million people uninsured.

    We’ve noted that you defend the most bureaucratic and wasteful system in the world. Ironically, you claim that a smaller bureaucracy that doesn’t waste is a problem in any change. The phony Euripides was right. What you’ve done to tick off the gods I can’t imagine — but it may have something to do with defending the unholy order of the current system and the falsehoods invented solely to perpetuate it.

    The storm clouds are gathering. Please don’t stand too close to the health care system, or me.

    You. just. don’t. get. it.

    More accurately, I won’t take that sort of stuff from people. I won’t stand for false claims and solutions that won’t work — haven’t worked and got us into this mess.

    Do you really want the economic collapse of the nation?

    We clearly aren’t communicating. I will have to rest in the hope that most Americans have a better grasp on this issue and will defeat this bill and all the others like it sure to come along over the next four years.

    I can’t reason with unreasonable.

    I’m tempted to say your last sentence is two words too long, and inaccurate thereby.

    You’ve got lots of reasons, but there are difficulties in your logic chain, and Reason suffers as a result.

    Our current health care system carts the U.S. to bankruptcy — Rocket on the other thread thinks the fractured nature is charming, and defies any fix or need to fix. What an odd view.

    An army of uninsured people drive up costs when they eventually get health care in and expensive, last-ditch delivery. A vast, expensive, private bureaucracy designed to keep them from getting health care at all chews up $25 out of every $100 we spend on health care (it’s a bit of a SWAG, but only a bit). (What’s the national total? At $7,000/capita annually, and 300 million people, that’s a total of $2,100,000,000,000. $2.1 trilliion on health care. 25% of that is $525,000,000,000. The system you defend wastes $525 billion annually in an ultimately futile attempt to keep people out of the health care system at all — and you think that’s good?)

    Where is there reason in such waste?

    Like

  12. Lady Why says:

    Ed, what color is the sky in your world? I hardly know where to begin. You are really arguing that Madison, etc. were in favor of big government? Have you ever read the Federalist Papers? That takes me back to your defense of Goldman Sachs. Wow. You have worked in Congress on Constitutional issues? Wow. Maybe that’s why we’re in the heap of hurt we are in now.

    I have given you a line by line criticism that merely scratches the surface of all that is wrong with this bill. I have bent over backwards to offer examples, citations, references, others that share the same opinion, others that offer better ideas (did you read the Whole Foods CEO’s ideas I just sent you?) ad nauseam.

    You. just. don’t. get. it.

    We clearly aren’t communicating. I will have to rest in the hope that most Americans have a better grasp on this issue and will defeat this bill and all the others like it sure to come along over the next four years.

    I can’t reason with unreasonable.

    Like

  13. Ed Darrell says:

    LW said:

    First of all, I’m not sure how you pulled health care out of the hat of interstate commerce.

    It’s simple, really. Medicines move in interstate commerce. Medical devices move in interstate commerce. Even the delivery of care moves in interstate commerce with large delivery organizations like the old Humana, or Tenet, or even the old LDS Hospital system in Utah, Idaho and Wyoming.

    Health insurance provided by employers is most often regulated by federal law under ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, largely with justification from the commerce clause. Federal legislation on health insurance also includes COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) and HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), too — federal regulation in these areas is solid law. No one seriously argues that Congress shouldn’t work in health insurance and employee benefits.

    You keep forgetting that I worked these issues with Congress for several years, and then for major corporations. Unlike most opponents of health care reform, I don’t have to invent whole cloth reasons to tell whole cloth tales instead of what the facts are.

    Most insurance companies do business within their own state. How is that “Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

    See the explanation above. Also, look to history. Especially in the case of large, national and international companies who provide benefits to national and international union employees, this is an old area of federal jurisdiction.

    Under your broad interpretation, me selling tomatoes to my neighbors at the local farmers’ market is interstate commerce and subject to the regulation of the federal government.

    Well, that could be, if tomatoes were part of a national program to boost the price of tomatoes and save the farms of tomato farmers from foreclosures. The high water mark of the interstate commerce clause is one of my favorite cases for the twists and turns, and easy summary, Wickard vs. Filburn, which answered once and for all the old question of whether Congress could regulate between a farmer and his chickens what the chickens eat. No doubt you’ll find the case an encroachment of federal jurisdiction over the states, but it saved tens of thousands of farms and farmers, and made the U.S. the world’s greatest wheat producer and exporter.

    Such regulation grows out of the general charge given to the government in the Preamble to the Constitution, under such ideas as “promote the general welfare, provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” No matter how much Republicans and conservatives hate to do it, Congress tries to make sure we secure liberty for our posterity, and ourselves, too.

    I really thought you’d pull the ole ‘necessary and proper’ clause out as your justification. But, interstate commerce? Ok then.

    You said it yourself, government has done more and more to usurp the Constitution and ‘dipped more and more into regulation’… though I would argue it hasn’t been with great reserve. This is where Americans need to stand up, put the federal government back in its rightful place and inform Washington they work for us, we are not their indentured servants.

    This is what Santayana meant warning that those who don’t know history are condemned to repeat it. We tried it that way, under the Articles of Confederation. It didn’t work. All business suffered. Consumers suffered. Prosperity was prevented, we underwent a recession, etc., etc.

    So Hamilton and Madison, with the other 53 participating delegates, created a system in which the federal government would create the regulatory framework to make commerce fly, to that prosperity would be so great that the nation could be an international leader. They based the Constitution on models including Jefferson’s work in Virginia.

    This is the foundation of free enterprise in the modern world. That you fail to understand how it works doesn’t mean that we should extend that failure to health care.

    Back to the original point of this whole thread. Health care has some problems.

    It’s one of the major forces driving our economy down the toilet. Much more than “some problems.”

    Yes. They could use some repair. Yes. Obama’s plan is an abysmal failure in the making.

    But, were it anywhere near as lousy as you claim based on false notions, it would still be a vast improvement over the current state of affairs.

    Moreover, Obama hasn’t even started in on it yet. We’re talking plans drawn up by Congress, based on more than 40 years of hearings on the issues.

    If you’ll reject that collected wisdom, I suppose there is no limit to the good ideas and nation-saving plans you’d reject, is there?

    I mean, were there real problems, critics wouldn’t have to lie so boldly about what H.R. 3200 actually does. Child abuse prevention is a good idea. Encouraging wills, living wills and durable powers of attorney for end-of-life situations is wise policy and good health care. That critics of health reform would invent fantastic lies about these programs doesn’t say anything good about the critics, or the case against health care reform.

    Yes. I know we both agree on the first two points. Why can’t we agree this plan is a BAD plan and force the government, if they are going to overstep their bounds and delve into our nation’s health care, to AT LEAST come up with a GOOD plan that actually FIXES something?

    H.R. 3200 tackles a lot of issues, and is a good bill. We can’t agree on things if you continue to ignore the facts to the point that you won’t even acknowledge you’re ignoring them.

    Even you can’t sit there with a straight face and tell me THIS plan is a good one and will fix anything.

    Just did. Are you seriously defending the fantastic lies told against this bill? There isn’t a single valid criticism.

    Oh, yeah — Stephen Hawking. Turns out he isn’t American at all (who thought they could get away with that whopper?), and that he is covered by the British National Health Service — and now he’s pissed off at the lies, and he’s made it clear that he thinks his life continues only because of the British NHS’s fantastic work. He stops just short of saying he wonders why you hate ALS victims, but it’s impossible to miss his drift.

    Will you just accept anything this president does unquestioning? Sad.

    This president hasn’t done anything other than urge Congress to come up with its best ideas.

    Is there no lie you won’t accept and repeat just to try to derail Obama, even though it sacrifices your nation? How tragic and corrupt.

    Like

  14. Lady Why says:

    For your consideration:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

    (Ed, especially note the part about repealing laws that prohibit interstate commerce since you were confused about that earlier)

    Like

  15. Lady Why says:

    Ed, finally an actual issue we can debate! It’s refreshing to see!

    You, however, are wrong. I’m sure you knew I’d disagree.

    First of all, I’m not sure how you pulled health care out of the hat of interstate commerce. Most insurance companies do business within their own state. How is that “Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” Under your broad interpretation, me selling tomatoes to my neighbors at the local farmers’ market is interstate commerce and subject to the regulation of the federal government.

    I really thought you’d pull the ole ‘necessary and proper’ clause out as your justification. But, interstate commerce? Ok then.

    You said it yourself, government has done more and more to usurp the Constitution and ‘dipped more and more into regulation’… though I would argue it hasn’t been with great reserve. This is where Americans need to stand up, put the federal government back in its rightful place and inform Washington they work for us, we are not their indentured servants.

    Back to the original point of this whole thread. Health care has some problems. Yes. They could use some repair. Yes. Obama’s plan is an abysmal failure in the making. Yes. I know we both agree on the first two points. Why can’t we agree this plan is a BAD plan and force the government, if they are going to overstep their bounds and delve into our nation’s health care, to AT LEAST come up with a GOOD plan that actually FIXES something? Even you can’t sit there with a straight face and tell me THIS plan is a good one and will fix anything. Will you just accept anything this president does unquestioning? Sad.

    Like

  16. Ed Darrell says:

    Nick, got a link or a citation to this one?

    In a international study it was found that the United States ranks 38th in health care. France is number one. And Canada and Britain are in between.

    Like

  17. Ed Darrell says:

    I’m quite familiar with the Constitution, LW, and happy to see that you’re reading it.

    The power to regulate health care comes to Congress in that section you quote, specifically:

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    and here:

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    The auto industry is absolutely in interstate commerce. Banking is interstate, too. So is health care.

    Traditionally we’ve tried to make sure the market does the regulating, and federal intervention is to keep the marketplace fair — hence the origin of the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts.

    As our society and commerce become more and more intertwined and more and more interstate, the federal government has with great reserve dipped into more regulation in order to protect consumers and keep things fair.

    Surely you do not mean that individuals should have no protection against trusts, monopolies, and industries who would prey on consumers if they could.

    Like

  18. Lady Why says:

    Nick,

    Such meanness. And, from someone who claims to be so loving and compassionate toward all his fellow man… unless we disagree with you or are unborn, of course. Hypocrisy, much?

    You clearly need a lesson in the Constitution, and I, being such an actual loving and compassionate citizen of these United States, am happy to give it to you. The founding fathers, contrary to your erroneous belief, wanted a limited central government. That only makes sense considering they were breaking out from under the tyranny of England at the time, don’t you agree? They penned the Constitution with that in mind.

    Here is the Constitution relating to the power of the federal government…

    Article I, Section 8, specifically lists the following powers granted to Congress:

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    As you can see, regulating the auto industry, the banking industry and/or the health care industry are not on the list.

    You really need to stop listening to the hate mongers that do nothing but call names, stir up hate and spout rhetoric. What you need to do is actually read the health care bill (several times because it’s changing regularly) and read the Constitution. Then decide for yourself. Thinking for yourself is a good thing, no matter what Obama tells you to the contrary.

    Like

  19. Nick Kelsier says:

    Lady writes:
    Guess what, the politicians that you think are so big hearted and are not at ALL self-serving are also not going to bring down costs! Do you know how much this scheme is going to cost you? WAY more than you are paying out now!!

    No, I don’t think that politicians are so big hearted and I don’t think that at times they aren’t self serving.

    But the fact remains, Lady, whether you want to admit it or not that the only health care those 50+ million people now have is emergency care. And that is 3 to 5 times more expensive then regular health care. They are going bankrupt trying to pay for it and when they can’t it is you and I that have to pay for them. So we are paying already in the form of higher insurance premiums. Providing them health care so that they don’t have to just resort on the emergency rooms is cheaper. Because emergency care is vastly more expensive. And the insurance companies have no reason to voluntarily fix that since all those uninsured people mean they get to charge you more money. And the fact remains that no one has an appeal process with the insurance companies. They hold all the cards and can do as they please. The only thing that can check them..that can balance them..is the government.

    Where you get this idiotic belief that it wouldn’t be cheaper here when it’s cheaper in Canada, Britian, France and the rest of the industrialized world I have no clue. But you’re not even dealing with reality. In a international study it was found that the United States ranks 38th in health care. France is number one. And Canada and Britain are in between. We are supposedly the most powerful and the richest country on the planet. And we aren’t even taking care of our own. And in a fit of moral depravity you don’t give a damn and in a further fit of moral depravity you won’t lift a finger to help. And you’re throwing a colossal hissy fit when the rest of us try to help. Guess what, Lady, you and your so called “libertarians” barely register as a minority in this country. We should listen to you why exactly?

    And your so called libertarianism and “conservatism” is a fraud. It’s fake. If this was happening to you, Lady, you’d run to the government so fast your head would spin. We both know you’re not going to decline Medicare or Social Security despite your supposed claims you don’t like it. So lets be honest here. What is really going on here is that you are trying to justify massive greed.

    If all the insurance companies are doing the same thing..if they are all doing the same stupid practices like cutting people off insurance for stupid reaons, if they’re cutting people off insurance to pad their profits, if they’re all taking money from people and then leaving it to whim whether they are going to help those people there is no free market when it comes to health insurance. It’s already dead. Because a free market demands that the consumers have some ability to affect the providers. For at least the last 30 years the insurance companies have been doing the same thing, for at least the last 30 years people have been losing their insurance, for at least the last 30 years health care costs and insurance premiums have been skyrocketing. Have the insurance companies done anything to fix any of that? No. Because it would cost them money, money that they’d rather pay to their fat cat executives. Has the free market fixed the problems? No. Because your side of the political fence has so gamed the system that the common person has no choice but to be bent over and screwed.

    To quote William Safire..you know..an actual conservative this is what a conservative is: “a defender of the status quo who, when change becomes necessary in tested institutions or practices, prefers that it come slowly and in moderation.” The difference between that definition and you..the difference between that definition and the other so called “conservatives” that run around is simple. You don’t want any change period. A real conservative recognizes that sometimes change is necessary. Even my dad who’s been a conservative Republican all his life recognizes that something needs to change with regards to health care in this country.

    Well guess what..the health care system is broken. And there you sit wanting to maintain a broken system just because you think the companies in this country own this country. Sorry no..the people do. And it is the government’s responsibility to protect the people. The insurance companies are not a sacred cow and there is nothing in the US Constitution that prevents the US government from fixing a system that needs fixing. There is no requirement in the US Constitution that says the government has to absolutely guarantee, in this case, the health insurance industry massive profits or even it’s existance if they are acting in such flagrant defiance of what’s good for the people of this country.

    Despite your libretarian delusion to the contrary, the US Constitution was designed to set up a strong central government. Because the founding fathers tried a weak one in Articles of Confederation and found out it didn’t work.

    Senator Goldwater, in “The Conscience of a Majority” defined the conscience of the conservative as “pricked by anyone who debase the dignity of the individual human being.” John Dehn asked him years later about that and Goldwater said he should have written “that the conservative conscience is pricked by anyone or any action that debases human dignity.” Dehn asked him then “Doesn’t poverty debase human dignity?” He replied “Of course it does” and then went on to say that if family, friends and private charity can not handle the job then the government must. Goldwater is considered one of the founding fathers of the conservative movement that grew out of the World War 2 era.

    Meaning, lady, that Goldwater is more than likely spinning in his grave because of “conservatives” like you. He considered the modern day conservatives like Falwell, Robertson, W. Bush, Rove, Cheney to be not real conservatives. I doubt he’d have a different opinion about you.

    *The Safire and Goldwater quotes come from “Conservatives without Conscience” by John Dehn. I’m sure you know who John Dehn is. Also one of the founding fathers of the conservative movement that grew out of the WW2 era.

    This country is going bankrupt because of the spiraling health care costs/crisis in this country. You need to choose, Lady. Whether you’re going to be loyal to your country…or to your political party.

    But know this if the problem isn’t fixed and soon..when you or someone you love loses their health insurance and then goes bankrupt trying to pay for their health care or if they die it will be because you couldn’t be bothered to raise a hand and help. And on that day, Lady, I will be laughing in your face. And that day will come, Lady, that beyond anything else I guarantee you.

    Like

  20. Lady Why says:

    Ed, fighting child abuse is not socialism, granting the government free access to my private residence and my children without just cause is socialism and also happens to be unconstitutional. (See Amendment 4 of our Constitution for more details)

    So many of your conclusions are false so let’s address a few of them with the facts. Here is a good article with a break down of the costs the current health care plan. Note specifically that some small businesses will be driven out of business by the tax penalties which will further damage the economy. Consider also the tax imposed on your current health care benefits which will be a big hardship to the middle class:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/10/business/main5230656.shtml

    You see how their stimulus package is being wasted and NOT doing the things they said it would do? Why do you think they’ll do any better with something as important as your health?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/joeBiden/idUSTRE55212620090603

    Here are some more things you need to read to see where the REAL problems are in our economic collapse:

    http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/new-hard-evidence-of-continuing-debt-collapse-3-34207

    http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/five-economic-storms-raging-now-2-33662?ref=patrick.net

    http://www.goldmansachs666.com/

    http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/obama-punishes-responsible-parties/13548?ref=patrick.net

    http://mises.org/story/3273

    And, here is a good review of your guys’ contribution to our economic woes.

    http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/04/did-democrats-cause-recession.html

    As you can see, health care costs are not even on the radar when looking at the major causes of our current problems. If we want to start passing blame on our economic collapse, let’s take a long hard look at the Democrats in Congress. (don’t even get me started on Barney Frank and his ‘alliances’ with Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae!) So, after the bumbled everything else they’ve touched, let’s give them the entire health care industry? No thanks.

    Like

  21. Ed Darrell says:

    Guess what, the politicians that you think are so big hearted and are not at ALL self-serving are also not going to bring down costs! Do you know how much this scheme is going to cost you? WAY more than you are paying out now!!

    Excuse me, but coming from the same people who falsely claimed that fighting child abuse was “socialism,” who falsely claimed that having a living will was “a death panel,” and who falsely and bizarrely claimed that if Dr. Stephen Hawking was under Britain’s National Health Service, he’d be dead, I’m not about to grant credence to such a claim now.

    You can’t be wrong on all the facts, and then right on the conclusion. That’s not the way this stuff works.

    And if the critics of the legislation were right on any of the facts, why would they go about inventing such whopping lies? They’re trying to scare you, LW, to keep you from thinking.

    What would you do with an extra $4,000 — four people in your family? Make that $16,000 a year? That’s the difference in cost between your health plan today and Britain’s National Health Service costs, the health care system to which Dr. Hawking says he owes his long and brilliant life.

    Like

  22. Ed Darrell says:

    60% of personal bankruptcies are due to medical expenses, including those to people who have insurance which proves inadequate in time of crisis.

    In many if not most of those bankruptcies, there is a home foreclosure.

    Bankruptcies and home foreclosures are the root of the current economic troubles.

    Contrary to your assertion, LW, the health care crisis played an enormous role in pushing our economy over the edge. When Obama says we need to fix this problem to solve our long-term economic problems, this is part of what he’s talking about.

    The other part is the enormous cost, period. Americans now pay, as a nation, $7,000 per year per person for health care. That is more than double any other nation, nearly triple of most industrialized nations. Compare the U.S. per capita expenditures with Singapore’s $1,228. Singapore is not a poor nation, nor is its medical care slouchy in any way.

    We’re getting ripped off, and our economy can’t take it any more.

    Nick don’t you see that our economy is pretty darn close to collapse now and it has nothing to do with health care? Don’t you see that the politicians and greed mongers that have driven it to the verge of collapse are the ones you want to hand over your health care decisions to?

    It’s the craven politicians who will do anything to give Obama the Napoleon end of Waterloo, the Sarah Palins, the Newt Gingriches, the Jim Demints, who have driven our nation to the verge of collapse. It’s those idiots yelling at Congressmen — against their own interests.

    Anyone who has health insurance through their employer can be out on the street tomorrow. 14,000 people a week lose their health insurance — 2,000 people a day.

    H.R. 3200 and any proposal in the Senate leave health care decisions in the hands of people, and their physicians. But it’s designed to make sure that health care is available.

    LW, you don’t mean to, I’m sure: But you’re part of the problem, driving our nation to collapse.

    Look at the facts. We need health care reform now. We’ve needed it for 20 years. If a foreign nation did to our economy what the lack of health care reform has done, we’d declare war and fight.

    Just because critics are not foreign nationals doesn’t make them right, and it doesn’t mean we should roll over and let them flush the nation down the toilet.

    Like

  23. Lady Why says:

    Nick don’t you see that our economy is pretty darn close to collapse now and it has nothing to do with health care? Don’t you see that the politicians and greed mongers that have driven it to the verge of collapse are the ones you want to hand over your health care decisions to?

    Guess what, the politicians that you think are so big hearted and are not at ALL self-serving are also not going to bring down costs! Do you know how much this scheme is going to cost you? WAY more than you are paying out now!!

    How about we think of a better plan that will actually WORK! There’s an idea!

    Like

  24. Nick Kelsier says:

    And it doesn’t concern you that health care is 1/6th of our economy, Lady? Does the term “eggs in one basket” mean anything to you? Because soon health care will be 1/5th of our economy..then 1/4th then 1/3rd. After all..it’s not like the health insurance industry has any actual incentive to rein in costs. All those people who don’t have health insurance bring the industry in massive amounts of money thanks to their charging you and the rest of us higher and higher premiums to pay for the emergency care of those that don’t have health insurance. Meaning that what you will have is a sector of the economy, Lady, that costs so much that it can bankrupt the country. What do you think that’s going to do to the free market you so want to protect?

    What caused the collapse of the Soviet Union if not economics, Lady?

    Like

  25. Lady Why says:

    Yes, it was ‘my side of the fence’ saying that if the automakers couldn’t hack it, let them go bankrupt. Free markets self correct. In the case of government run health care, there would be no competition because the government would drive them out of business. You can’t have the guy making the rules in the game. It’s a conflict of interest. Economics 101. It’s much the same as the government, on behalf of Goldman Sachs, driving Lehman Bros. out of business. There was unfair influence of the market. If an insurance company is poorly run and losing money through the nose, by all means let them go bankrupt. Again, a free market is self correcting.

    Yes, I pay a lot for the uninsured. I’d pay less if there was just tort reform. ‘Your guys’ certainly are not for that, now are they? Why? Where are their philanthropic natures on that legislation? What’s holding them back but their greed and power. Follow the money trail and see for yourself.

    You think you’re going to pay LESS under the government plan. Nick, you truly are naive. Not only are you going to pay more, your quality of care is going to plummet. Pay more, get less. Why is this a good idea?

    Nick. Please. The US health care system is the best in the world. You surely must know that. Go to England and get a triple bypass then come back and tell us what kind of care you received. Why do all the world leaders come here for medical care? Why does Canada ship the cases they can’t handle to the US? Why is the Mayo Clinic the top facility for disorders that can’t be treated anywhere else?

    I have given you references, citations and sources for everything I’ve said. I’ve even given you line by line of the bill to help you understand what you are getting. You and ‘your side’ are the ones that have no facts, no citations and clearly no real knowledge of what socialized medicine is or will be like for us. You really ought to stop drinking the Obama Kool-Aid, wake up and do some research . Thinking for yourself is a good thing. Ask me how I know.

    Like

  26. Nick Kelsier says:

    Lady says:
    than the government taking over and running 1/6 of our economy destroying the free market system and lowering the quality of our health care.

    It isn’t going to destroy the free market system no matter what you think. As I said before, American health insurance companies do business in “socialized medicine” Canada. If you don’t think they could find a way to survive even if the government takes on a bigger role in a health care system it’s already part of..wasn’t it your side of the political fence who were saying that GM and Chrysler and Ford should be allowed to die? Wasn’t it your side of the fence saying that is what the free market system does? That if a company can’t survive it should be allowed to die? Then why is the insurance industry the sacred cow to you?

    Secondly, if you haven’t been paying attention you are already paying for everyone’s health care. When people who don’t have health insurance need medical care they go to emergency care..which costs more. And when they can’t pay for it you do. In the form of higher taxes and higher insurance premiums. You are already paying for it, Lady, so why in God’s name are you objecting to a plan that lowers the amount you pay?

    And it won’t destroy health care in this country. All the countries in the world that have better health care then the United States have you what nitwittingly described as “socialized medicine.” That includes Britain, Canada and France. It isn’t them that will destroy health care in this country, Lady, it is the health insurance companies that will destroy it if they either aren’t brought to heel by the government or if there is no government run health care alternative to play competitor.

    You are spouting imaginary fears that have no basis in reality.

    Like

  27. Lady Why says:

    Nick, no, I do not think there are any mothers having late term abortions because their health is in danger. I know plenty of women that have had to deliver their babies early due to grave health issues for the mother. In every case, every attempt has always been made to save the baby. If a mother’s health is in danger late in a pregnancy, the baby is delivered and given every opportunity to live. Name one reason why a woman would choose to have her baby’s head stabbed with scissors as it is being born so that it will surely die because the mother’s life is endangered by the pregnancy. Asinine argument there.

    As I’ve said all along, I do not support the government running health care. I’m not always opposed (nor do I always support) government programs that pay for insurance for citizens. I am far more likely to support a program that pays for insurance rather than the government taking over and running 1/6 of our economy destroying the free market system and lowering the quality of our health care.

    I would love for you to stop calling me a hypocrite and instead showing me examples of my hypocrisy. I’d love to see where I’m being at all hypocritical. What I’m trying to do is stop a bill that will make a flawed health care system much worse. I want our nation’s health care to be the best and be accessible by all who CHOOSE to use it. How is that being a hypocrite?

    Finally some real questions! Here goes:

    1) Because they only way to fix the health care system that will actually do some good and improve things is to allow the free market system to work. Want health care to work? Then consumers have to set the prices as they do in every other free market industry. Consumers do not set the price in health care, insurance companies and legislators do. Want something that will immediately drop the cost of health insurance? Tort reform. Malpractice insurance is one of the big factors that is driving up the cost of health insurance in this country. Tort reform where the loser pays will cut down on frivolous lawsuits and drive health care costs down without any major ‘revamping’ of the system. Why don’t they do this, you ask? Because the law writers in this country are all lawyers and the politicians (Republicans and DEMOCRATS alike) receive most of their financial contributions from the tort bar. There’s a huge fix right there that won’t bankrupt our children’s future, give the government 1/6 control over our economy and lower our standard of health care to that of England and Canada.

    2)Why DO you have to wait six months for surgery? Are you in the US? In our country, needed surgeries are given whether a patient can pay or not.

    3)Why did your best friend’s mom go home after one day of surgery? Maybe because she no longer needed hospital care? A dear friend of ours just had carotid artery surgery and he went home the next day. He’s fine.

    4)Why should 50 million people have no health insurance? First of all, I question your numbers but, for the sake of argument, let’s say you’re correct. You do realize that under Obama’s plan ten years from now there will still be 17 million uninsured Americans, right? How is that “fair”? Once again, I will remind you that I have said the system has its problems. I just question the solution you and ‘your side’ are putting forward. I think there’s a better way. (see answer to question 1 for a good beginning)

    5, 6, & 7)They shouldn’t but they are because of malpractice insurance costs, politicians lining their pockets and the inability of consumers to set pricing due to lobbyists, special interest, and those that line the pockets of the Democrats you love so much as well as Republicans. And, you want these folks in charge of your health? I don’t!

    8) Once again, the military health care is not government RUN health care, it is government PAID FOR health care. You don’t think Ted Kennedy went to a government doctor for his brain tumor, do you? No, he had the best care America has to offer because we the taxpayers pay for his PRIVATELY RUN insurance which gave him access to a PRIVATELY RUN hospital and team of doctors.

    I’ve said I’d happily decline SS and Medicare especially if I get to quit paying into it! I also said they will both be bankrupt by the time I’m eligible anyway.

    Now on to socialism… I’m glad to see you found a definition you could live with.

    1)You haven’t seen Obama trying advocate number 1? How about Government… er, General Motors now owned by us collectively. How about the bailouts of Goldman Sachs to the driving out of business of Lehman Brothers? How about the attempt to take control of 1/6 of our economy. All three fall under the first definition.

    2)Just gave you three examples.

    3)Has said he would like to do it. Ever seen the ‘Joe the Plumber’ clip? Ever heard Obama talk about ‘redistribution of wealth’? Ever heard Obama say he believes in a single payer system? Ever read Obama’s books?? I agree he hasn’t brought them to fruition yet and I pray he never will but he’s made his beliefs and goals painfully clear.

    How exactly is ‘our side’ trying to destroy the middle class? All of that is falling to ‘your side’, my friend. There will be one and only one ‘class’ if the Democrats get their way.

    Again with the name calling. Really. It doesn’t bode well for ‘your side’ not to be civil and respectful.

    Like

  28. Lady Why says:

    Ed, if you’d like to know which states provide coverage to children here is a list:

    http://www.healthinsurancefinders.com/healthinsurance/schip.html

    I oppose it nationally because, as I’ve said, it’s not the federal government’s job to provide health care to its citizens. If the states want to bring aboard various welfare and insurance programs, so be it. Let the states’ citizens vote and decide what they need and want. 10th amendment and all that.

    I’ll also add that in my state, the All Kids program is not a ‘government run health care’ but a ‘government PAID FOR health care’. The participants get the benefit of Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance coverage. It’s not socialized health care but is similar to what the federal government provides for its employees.

    Like

  29. Nick Kelsier says:

    Ed, don’t forget that the right wing actively opposed the last reauthorization of the CHIP program.

    And Tim Pawlenty, my state’s republican governor, has all but killed the state program that provides health care to children of poor families in this state.

    As I said before, Libertarianism is nothing but the eternal quest to morally justify “I have mine, **** you.”

    Like

  30. Nick Kelsier says:

    Gee, didnt say he isn’t pro-choice. I just said he can’t do anything about Roe vs Wade even if he was pro-life. Reading into things again are you?

    And as for old arguments, sorry considering that you say nothing but old arguments whether it be abortion or health care you’re not in a position to chide.

    And you’re so worked up about late term abortion despite the fact that 1: there’s only one doctor in the entire country that does it and 2: gee…you don’t think that 99% of the women who get late term abortions are doing it because the pregnancy is endangering their health? Do you really think that a woman is going to wait nearly 9 months to get an abortion otherwise?

    You say: As for care for children that don’t have health insurance, my state – as do many others – have government run health care for all children through age 18 whether their parents have insurance or not. And, our Republican governor is the one who got it through. You not only know nothing of what you speak but your argument doesn’t hold water.

    And yet you don’t support the federal government doing the same? Nor do you support the government giving the parents health insurance if they need it? What is this with you? Can’t stop being a hypocrite for 5 minutes?

    As for the questions..lets see. Here goes: Why should we trust the free market and the health insurance industry to fix the problems with them when they haven’t done so in 20 years? Why should I have to wait 6 months for a surgery at the order of my health insurance company? Why did my best friend’s mom’s health insurance company kick her out of the hospital less then a day after having a tumor removed? Why should 50 million people have no health insurance? WHy should businesses see their health insurance costs skyrocket just to feed the health insurance industry more money? Why should individuals and families? Why should millions of people go bankrupt trying to pay for their health care? And why, if you don’t want “socialized medicine” do you not say that you oppose government run health care for our military, the people in government and when are you going to say that you will refuse to take medicare and social security?

    As for your definition of socialism from the dictionary lets check that out. This is the three definitions from dictionary.com:

    1: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
    2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
    3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

    Lets see..I have not seen Obama or the Democrats advocate number one. Nor can you point to any examples therof. And as for number 3…nope..Obama and the Democrats haven’t done that either. However you and yours on the right wing sure are trying to lead us down Marx’s path since your side is actively trying to destroy the middle class.

    Sorry, despite your delusion to the contrary..the government providing health care is not socialism no matter what you in your insanity say.

    Like

  31. Ed Darrell says:

    As for care for children that don’t have health insurance, my state – as do many others – have government run health care for all children through age 18 whether their parents have insurance or not. And, our Republican governor is the one who got it through. You not only know nothing of what you speak but your argument doesn’t hold water.

    California doesn’t have such a plan. Texas doesn’t have such a plan. New York doesn’t. The three most populous states don’t cover all children.

    As I followed the CHIP reauthorization, I don’t recall that any state had stepped up to do what the feds failed to. What state do you live in? What’s the name of the plan?

    Can you name any other state that covers all children through age 18?

    If it works in your state, why do you oppose doing this nationally? If it doesn’t work, why don’t you offer examples?

    Like

  32. Lady Why says:

    Nick, Nick, Nick… these arguments are so old and tired. Really? You’re going to tell me that Obama is not an abortion proponent because he can’t overturn Roe vs. Wade? He COULD vote to support legislation that prohibits late term abortion. Didn’t do it. He COULD vote in support of legislation that protects and provides care for aborted babies that happen to LIVE. (Hey, there’s conservative legislation that is trying to protect children by giving health care? Who knew?) Didn’t do it. He could have supported legislation requiring minors to have parental consent before an abortion (Oh my goodness! More conservatives trying to protect children while ‘your guy’ is hanging them out to dry! A pattern perhaps?) Didn’t do it.

    You might want to take a look at ‘your guy’ and his record and then come back and tell me who are the ones murdering children and who are the ones trying to protect them.

    As for care for children that don’t have health insurance, my state – as do many others – have government run health care for all children through age 18 whether their parents have insurance or not. And, our Republican governor is the one who got it through. You not only know nothing of what you speak but your argument doesn’t hold water.

    If there is just one doctor performing late term abortions, that’s one doctor too many.

    The death penalty is a just punishment of the guilty for their crime. Abortion is the unjust murder of the innocent. How can you compare the two?

    No, I do not want the government telling women what to do with their babies (hmmm, might abortion be a form of ‘child abuse’? You know, that thing ‘your side’ is decrying the conservatives don’t acknowledge?), I want the government to stop using MY MONEY to pay for the murder of those babies. Is that too much to ask? (By the way, I never classified myself as a Libertarian. I don’t really fit in a box.)

    Which question do you say I never answered? I’ll do like I did with James and copy and paste my answers for you because I answer questions. Throw them at me and you’ll get an answer, which is more than I can say for my many unanswered questions!

    Again, with the tired old argument that I haven’t defined socialism. I QUOTED IT STRAIGHT FROM THE DICTIONARY! How much clearer can I be? ‘My side’ is sending us to socialism? I’d like a citation, source, or reference for that please. I care FAR more for my country and the people in it than any liberal (generally speaking) ever could. I want to see my country prosper, adhere to the mandates of the Constitution as our founding fathers set it up so that every citizen of the United States of America is free to walk in liberty not stifled under tyranny. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness… ever heard of that? Ever READ the Constitution? If so, please tell me how the policies being promoted by ‘your side’ fit. I’d love to hear an answer that is educated and thoughtful rather than inflammatory and filled with name calling.

    I say you, Nick, and ‘your side’ care far more about being right than about the fate of this nation and its inhabitants.

    I’d also like to hear your definition of socialism (since it obviously differs with my ‘right wing’ Webster’s)

    I would say you liberals are a bunch of ‘idiots’ (your word, not mine) and have been defrauded by the liberal big-government machine. You need to wake up, do your research and start thinking for yourself.

    Like

  33. Nick Kelsier says:

    Oh and I love your thinking, Lady, that Obama somehow has the authority to ignore a US Supreme Court decision. Or did you forget that it was the US Supreme Court who ruled abortion legal? And you’re also ignoring the fact that Obama’s position is that things should be done to lower the number of abortions while still keeping it legal. You know..like trying to relieve poverty and such.

    The “pro-life” crowd is nothing but a bunch of idiots being defrauded by the Republican and Libertarian parties.

    And you’re also ignoring the fact that even if Roe vs Wade was overturned abortion wouldn’t *poof* go away. But what you would have is both babies and their mothers dying to illegal abortions. But you really don’t care about them then.

    Like

  34. Nick Kelsier says:

    lady, do you know how many doctors provide late term abortions in this country?

    One. Exactly one. There used to be two but a right wing extremist nutjob shot the other one.

    And sorry, your side doesn’t get to chide left wingers about abortion when you, and I’m using this term since you used the term “socialist”, fascists support the death penalty and stupid wars in countries we never should have invaded in the first place. nor does your side give a damn about the children after they are born since you’re not willing to pay for health care for people who don’t have it. What? You think that when parents don’t have health care the children do? Sorry, no.

    You say you’re an libertarian..and yet you want the government to tell women what to or not do with their bodies. Whoah is that hypocritical.

    Oh and in case you didn’t notice it. You never answered my question either, you never have. Plus there is the fact that the rising health care costs in this country are driving other buisnesses out of providing health care for their employees and also is costing our country and our economy far too much. But no no..you’d rather stick to your asinine political ideology then fix things. Because you somehow trust the insurance industry and the free market when neither one has fixed the problems in the last 20+ years.

    You worry about “socialism” lady but it is your side that will drive us to actual socialism. And all because you can’t realize that you’re not always right. And that what you want isn’t always the right thing.

    Let me know when you want to bother to care more about this country and the people in it then you care about your ideology.

    You can’t even define socialism.

    Like

  35. Lady Why says:

    Ursa, could you give me a citation, reference or source showing me there was EVER a time when “conservatives” denied the existence of child abuse? I’d also like to know which media outlets you classify as “professional or liberal”.

    Over 30 years later and the “right wingers” are still against protecting children? Not to be inflammatory but I believe it is the LIBERAL DEMOCRAT LEFT-WING (dare I say socialist?) president who SUPPORTS murdering babies in the womb to the point of partially birthing them and stirring their brains with a stick. I’m sorry, who was it you said is against protecting children?

    Like

  36. Lady Why says:

    Just when I thought I had left you all speechless! I’m glad to see the conversation coming back to life. Nick, both you and James are waiting six months for surgeries? What a coincidence. I would really like to know more details on why you are being asked to wait. In all my years and in all the people who I know or have ever known, never once has anyone not received a surgery that they needed whether they had insurance or not. There must be more to your stories.

    I don’t know why you think I’m distorting, stretching, misquoting or in any other way not correctly giving the definition of socialism. I quoted it verbatim from the Webster’s Dictionary. (you don’t think Webster’s has a right wing slant, do you?) The definition is what it is. I don’t know how else to give it to you.

    Again, I will state that it is not the job of the government to provide health care to its people. There are programs in place to provide health care, food and housing for the needy. You want to talk about a government program that needs some reform? Let’s talk welfare reform! Now that’s some reform I could get behind!

    Nick, if you think Canadian health care is so great, hop on the next plane to Canada! You’ll be waiting a good deal longer than six months for your surgery but you’ll have your government health care. I give you the example of the Canadian mother of quadruplets again. Details are in one of the many comments below. Other than that, I think I’ve answered all your questions already. Everyone seems to keep jumping back on the bandwagon of lumping all of us who are THINKING through this issue as evil baby killers. I would love to meet a THINKING health care reform proponent that can discuss the issue in an informed, educated and unemotional way.

    Are there any of you out there that can tell me why health care reform is a good thing, how will we pay for it (specifically!) and why we should implement an eventual single payer system (as Obama has said he wants to do) when it is so inadequate every where else it currently exists?

    Like

  37. Nick Kelsier says:

    Right, Lady. Like anyone suing the insurance companies has a real chance going against a company with hundreds of attorneys and all the money in the world to spend.

    And you are stretching the definition of socialism. You are trying to pretend that if the government gets in the health care business..oh wait it already is..that somehow we will become the next Soviet Union. If somehow the insurance companies can survive and do business in Canada they can survive it here. Especially since they already are surviving the fact that the government is already involved in the health care business.

    Now you still not have given not given any valid reason why 50 million people should remain without health care, why 5 million people should go bankrupt yearly trying to pay for their health care bills and why people should see their health care bills continue to go through the roof.

    Nor have you given a valid reason why I should wait 6 months for a surgery that I need.

    So now you answer the questions, lady.

    Like

  38. ursa major says:

    Ah, this brings back memories. I remember when (not so many years ago) When the existence of child abuse was often denied by conservatives, child abuse laws were attacked for preventing parents from doing whatever they wished to their property children and only professional or liberal media could be counted on to publish information on the subject. Over 30 years later and the right wingers are still against protecting children.

    Like

  39. Lady Why says:

    I’m stretching the definition of socialism? How so? I’d love to hear even ONE example of how I have stretched the definition.

    If insurance companies violate their contracts with their customers, their customers have the right to sue them. When the government health care “screws over” their forced participants, you will NOT have that right or the ability. (Note Page 124 lines 24-25 of the bill)

    Unfortunately I already know I don’t get my way. Obama’s in the White House, isn’t he? Believe me, if I were in charge, the world would be an entirely different place where the Constitution is the highest law of the land, elected officials are under proper checks and balances, everyone is expected to take personal responsibility and everyone can exercise their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don’t think you would like my world very much, James.

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,278 other followers

%d bloggers like this: