Obamas stake to get socialistic NHS system in the US!

[Lordstar]

fact of the matter is if the USA gets an NHS its still just another option so if you can afford helthcare of insurance you can still pick and choose. It just means the people too poor to afford either can get the treatment they deserve. its one of the reasons why I can still rationalize paying taxes. seems all politicans want to do is get fat off of it and not actually do any good with there job which leads me to the question why the fuck i should pay so much in the first place.

[antron]

Another good column today.

is there a problem in the world that the WSJ doesn't think can solved with lower taxes? look who they represent. it ain't us.

[BulletMagnet]

is there a problem in the world that any conservative institution doesn't claim can be solved with lower taxes?

Fixed. These people can't seriously believe their own hype, as the numbers simply don't add up (honestly, an able-minded elementary schooler could tell you that when you cut taxes, government revenue goes down, NOT up, among other things) - the fact of the matter is, since hard facts and figures play such a small part in our present discourse (and moreover, those who attempt to bring them to the forefront are criticized as "wonkish", "boring", and of course "elitist"), they can say (and keep saying) whatever they want, as long as it's to their own benefit (and regardless of to who else's detriment), because, unlike most other professions, they don't get fired or jailed (or even called out) for repeatedly lying in people's faces.

[neorichieb1971]

is there a problem in the world that any conservative institution doesn't claim can be solved with lower taxes?

Fixed. These people can't seriously believe their own hype, as the numbers simply don't add up (honestly, an able-minded elementary schooler could tell you that when you cut taxes, government revenue goes down, NOT up, among other things) - the fact of the matter is, since hard facts and figures play such a small part in our present discourse (and moreover, those who attempt to bring them to the forefront are criticized as "wonkish", "boring", and of course "elitist"), they can say (and keep saying) whatever they want, as long as it's to their own benefit (and regardless of to who else's detriment), because, unlike most other professions, they don't get fired or jailed (or even called out) for repeatedly lying in people's faces.

The media in the States is exactly the same. In most cases, the more worked up the media get over something, the more it carries out into the street. More often than not, the person on the street is blindly following their favorite news reporter without doing any further research. Which is why people outside of America get very confused on some Americans opinions.

Those reporters make literally millions of dollars a year, no matter what way they swing most things don't affect them at all.

[BulletMagnet]

Those reporters make literally millions of dollars a year, no matter what way they swing most things don't affect them at all.

Considering that most of them are owned by conservative-friendly corporate interests (yet are still almost without exception constantly accused of "liberal bias"), I'm not sure why anyone should be surprised by this, especially when the closest to an "intelligent liberal" voice we have on the air is a near-complete hack like Olbermann (basically the Bizarro version of most any Fox News commentator), or to a lesser extent Maddow. These people, :liberal" or not, are, by and large, NOT put on the air to inform anyone or otherwise further the debate - they are where they are because GE wants to jerk off that particular demographic (and thus keep the ad dollars rolling in) without actually empowering them to any real extent. And don't you dare get me STARTED on the Washington Post or NY Times (with the general exception of Krugman, who's able to speak to his readers as if they're more than six years old).

[antron]

CNN did a story about nikkos010
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/20/ ... .bad.info/

[DJ Incompetent]

I don't really trust news sources on these issues since a lot of money is being used to disinform what's really going on, so I don't really know how to approach this debate.

I ran into this http://www.slideshare.net/danroam/healt ... apkins-all and I'm wondering how accurate it is.

[Ed Oscuro]

I don't have a link this time 'cuz it was on NPR - that said there should be a page about it on the site.

Howard Dean was on and spoke in favor of a public option. He described the issue as "not a left or a right issue, but a common sense one." There was a specific economist mentioned whose name I don't recall. I'll look that up when I get a chance.

Also, was taking some pictures at the local museum and one of our former Representatives, Joe Schwarz, a doctor, was in a portrait group and somebody said "public option" instead of cheese...wasn't me...

WSJ link to the contrary, I believe I'm leaning towards the public option. That said I want to look at this some more. It probably would not be as efficient as some - but it would put the scare into some insurance companies through competition.

[BulletMagnet]

I ran into this http://www.slideshare.net/danroam/healt ... apkins-all and I'm wondering how accurate it is.

From what I know most of the summaries of the situation seem more or less accurate. The one thing I'd quibble with is the assertion that "no matter what sort of reform happens, I'll end up paying more" - if memory serves, most of the money needed to enact the farther-left reforms in particular will come from a) Finally making the rich pay their fair share in taxes instead of leaving it to the middle and lower classes, b) Taxing "Cadillac" plans as I mentioned in a previous post, and c) Quite simply taking the "for-profit" part of the equation out of the picture, and lowering administrative costs and inefficiency/waste in the process. Obviously everyone will have to pay more in SOME capacity, but the impressions I've gotten are that most of it will be coming from places whose current gains are largely ill-gotten or otherwise out of line to begin with - in short, as the guy himself says, there's no way we're going to get ripped off any more than we are already.

[The n00b]

I don't mean to name call. It's just hard to watch my fellow Americans make the biggest mistake since the Iraq War. Everything about the health reform bill represents at least a 90% improved over the craptastic system we have now. Most of the people opposing it though would rather listen to the health care propaganda than actually read the bill or try to inform themselves about anything. I refuse to think we might actually deserve our current health care system but it looks like yet another sign that this place is dissolving into a morass of corruption and selfish politics.

[neorichieb1971]

I don't mean to name call. It's just hard to watch my fellow Americans make the biggest mistake since the Iraq War. Everything about the health reform bill represents at least a 90% improved over the craptastic system we have now. Most of the people opposing it though would rather listen to the health care propaganda than actually read the bill or try to inform themselves about anything. I refuse to think we might actually deserve our current health care system but it looks like yet another sign that this place is dissolving into a morass of corruption and selfish politics.

I am not sure if I am way off here, but does Obama come across as someone that is in this for financial benefit? If I recall right, his vision on the Oprah Winfrey show was about change and reform (This was years ago). He didn't come across as someone that would bend for the system. His actions have shown thus far that he means business from my perspective. Of course change will affect alot of rich assholes who just want to ride their lives out for free without doing anything except moan about changes. You voted him in, now your moaning about his proposals. I don't get it.

[antron]

I don't mean to name call. It's just hard to watch my fellow Americans make the biggest mistake since the Iraq War. Everything about the health reform bill represents at least a 90% improved over the craptastic system we have now. Most of the people opposing it though would rather listen to the health care propaganda than actually read the bill or try to inform themselves about anything. I refuse to think we might actually deserve our current health care system but it looks like yet another sign that this place is dissolving into a morass of corruption and selfish politics.

I am not sure if I am way off here, but does Obama come across as someone that is in this for financial benefit? If I recall right, his vision on the Oprah Winfrey show was about change and reform (This was years ago). He didn't come across as someone that would bend for the system. His actions have shown thus far that he means business from my perspective. Of course change will affect alot of rich assholes who just want to ride their lives out for free without doing anything except moan about changes. You voted him in, now your moaning about his proposals. I don't get it.

I don't think he was saying that richie. He is just worried that the progress is breaking down.

[BulletMagnet]

You voted him in, now your moaning about his proposals. I don't get it.

I think it's safe to say that most of the people complaining about Obama's proposals didn't vote for him.

As far as how "authentic" he is, I'm not honestly sure what to think...while in many ways he's unquestionably a drastic improvement over Bush, whose lips were openly and firmly planted on the rear end of any corporate interest you'd care to name for all eight years he was in office, I also don't feel that Obama has taken due advantage of how tired so many people are of being at the near-complete mercy of those same corporatists. Maybe it's an over-reliance on the soundbite-friendly "bipartisan consensus" he's constantly going on about (which most anyone can see will never happen, as most conservatives will blindly oppose ANYthing he does that doesn't explicitly match what they already wanted...can you imagine the names that liberals would be called if they were that vitriolic about their opposition?), but he should have kicked the financial sector's sorry ass MUCH harder over the past few months (as in, "Get down on your knees, kiss my boots, and BEG me to regulate the hell out of you in exchange for me not throwing your carcasses in jail where they belong"), and should be kicking the insurance and pharmaceutical companies' sorry asses MUCH harder than he's doing now (as in, "You want competition and choice, huh? Well, you've got it, you bastards - here's a public option which does pretty much everything better than you've ever done it. Have fun"). I say let the conservatives bitch and moan - they accused us of being traitors and terrorist sympathizers for the past decade or more if we so much as made a peep of protest, and even now that they've been decisively booted out of office, they're STILL doing it, and I'm damn sick of it. They don't want to actually come up with any of their own ideas? Screw 'em, I want to finally see something get DONE around here.

[neorichieb1971]

Bloody hell, you sound patriotic and passionate about your words.

America doesn't want to give anything for free though. The same people who sit on their high chairs are the ones that are likely to be bailed out if they got in trouble. The hypocrisy is alarming and the one shouting the loudest isn't always right. I notice that when change is submitted before the forum of moaners they attack with a systematic stance. Surely if an NHS is on the agenda for the upmteenth time then its a "wanted" system by at least 30% of the population?

The current system works on the basis of trying to keep you out of hospital, in some cases when you actually do need a hospital. If thats the system that is accepted by the majority of people then so be it. I think Obama realizes that healthcare is an education and you can't be educated if your scared of using that insurance card.

It really is a question of what is the priority? The person or the $$?

[The n00b]

I don't mean to name call. It's just hard to watch my fellow Americans make the biggest mistake since the Iraq War. Everything about the health reform bill represents at least a 90% improved over the craptastic system we have now. Most of the people opposing it though would rather listen to the health care propaganda than actually read the bill or try to inform themselves about anything. I refuse to think we might actually deserve our current health care system but it looks like yet another sign that this place is dissolving into a morass of corruption and selfish politics.

I am not sure if I am way off here, but does Obama come across as someone that is in this for financial benefit? If I recall right, his vision on the Oprah Winfrey show was about change and reform (This was years ago). He didn't come across as someone that would bend for the system. His actions have shown thus far that he means business from my perspective. Of course change will affect alot of rich assholes who just want to ride their lives out for free without doing anything except moan about changes. You voted him in, now your moaning about his proposals. I don't get it.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I am very much in favor of the health care bill and Obama's attempts to clean out the corruption in infesting many parts of America. However, money talks and I am losing faith in his ability to affect change. The people he's fighting are just too powerful.

[antron]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I am very much in favor of the health care bill and Obama's attempts to clean out the corruption in infesting many parts of America. However, money talks and I am losing faith in his ability to affect change. The people he's fighting are just too powerful.

Obama personally doesn't seem worried at all. The other day on the radio he "guaranteed" its passage. Realize that this has been a dream of the D party for over 30 years. A few weeks ago I saw a speech by Ted Kennedy in the 70's that could have been made now; like it was the most important issue that could be, even back then. The party leaders may pay dearly next election over this, but I doubt they will regret it.

[BulletMagnet]

It really is a question of what is the priority? The person or the $$?

I suppose it goes without saying that property pretty much ALWAYS trumps people around here (see the Lilly Ledbetter decision for one particularly disgraceful recent example) - moreover, those in the best positions to take undue advantage of this fact, thanks in large part to Ayn Rand and her spawn, like to paint the situation as evidence of their moral superiority, and are actually not laughed out of the room. The amount of shameless, self-serving chutzpah on display is truly a sight to behold, let me tell you.

A few weeks ago I saw a speech by Ted Kennedy in the 70's that could have been made now; like it was the most important issue that could be, even back then.

A pessimist like myself would be more inclined to view this fact as a "we've been here before, and look where it got us" situation...the issue is indeed just as important as ever, but if nothing else has changed then we can be assured that it's still not enough to actually make it happen. I don't like the back-room meetings with the pharmaceutical industry, in particular - once again, considering how disgusted with their practices much of the country is, Obama should be leaning them over his lap and spanking them good, with the rest of us cheering him on.

The party leaders may pay dearly next election over this, but I doubt they will regret it.

I'm more eager to see the Republicans forced to filibuster and show their true colors, just as Bush vetoed the SCHIP expansion in favor of the economic interests of the tobacco companies.

[neorichieb1971]

Presidents who play with fire get assassinated don't they?

[Ed Oscuro]

Presidents who play with fire get assassinated don't they?

I think it a slur against the nation to suggest that people in "the establishment" offed JFK. I understand where it's coming from, however.

Unfortunately it's a slur my very own parents believe, so...

Anyway, the vast majority of Americans want health reform, don't believe in "death panels" etc. Unfortunately, as The n00b states, there's not a strong feeling that this translates into strong political cover for any particular politician working on the bill.

One thing that Howard Dean mentioned, which I think is critically important to the rationale for a public option, is this: A public option establishes a minimum for health insurers. The alternative, simply attempting to regulate insurers, would be much more complicated but not terribly effective - think of the economic crisis. Finding loopholes is what companies do; it's not un-American, it's just business. On the other hand, as another article I linked earlier points out, Medicare is an inexact comparison to the public option because its scope is different.

On the front of holding down costs: There's this worrying (in my view) trend that people are increasingly expecting smart businesspeople to take one on the chin and do tough jobs at bargain basement prices. Sure, making ten times more than an assembly line worker is probably more than enough, but getting into the business of legislating who makes what (instead of letting the market decide) is sticky business. Pro athletes, anyone?

[The n00b]

I'm also one of those people that believe JFK was assassinated by people in the government, possibly with the assistance of foreign intelligence services. He just made too many enemies and that combined with a rogue CIA at the time, might have greatly contributed to his downfall. There's just too much evidence to easily ignore.

This isn't that far fetched either in the weird history of the United States. Keep in mind that Bushie's grandfather and other wealthy industrialists actually tried to bring about a fascist regime in pre-World War 2 US. Luckily the marine general he contacted about his plan immediately went to the authorities.

Also I think executive salaries should stay in hands of a company's share holders. Isn't it their fault if they let costs get out of control anyway?

[Ex-Cyber]

It really is a question of what is the priority? The person or the $$?

I suppose it goes without saying that property pretty much ALWAYS trumps people around here (see the Lilly Ledbetter decision for one particularly disgraceful recent example) - moreover, those in the best positions to take undue advantage of this fact, thanks in large part to Ayn Rand and her spawn, like to paint the situation as evidence of their moral superiority, and are actually not laughed out of the room. The amount of shameless, self-serving chutzpah on display is truly a sight to behold, let me tell you.

Rand probably deserves some blame for these attitudes (with most direct relevance to the current situation via Alan Greenspan), but I think she was building on fairly deep cultural influences. The belief that there is an indelible distinction between the "great man" and the "common man" was woven through Western culture long before Rand was born, and I suspect that most of her writing is basically her struggle to justify 1920s America as morally superior to the Bolsheviks.

Presidents who play with fire get assassinated don't they?

It's not so much those who "play with fire" as those who happen to piss off people with violent and paranoid tendencies. There are all kinds of (pretty unconvincing) conspiracy theories around JFK, but it's fairly uncontroversial that Lincoln was shot by a Confederate spy who considered him a tyrant, and Garfield was shot by a somewhat nutty charlatan who thought he was responsible for Garfield's victory and thus owed a high-level position in the administration.

On the front of holding down costs: There's this worrying (in my view) trend that people are increasingly expecting smart businesspeople to take one on the chin and do tough jobs at bargain basement prices. Sure, making ten times more than an assembly line worker is probably more than enough, but getting into the business of legislating who makes what (instead of letting the market decide) is sticky business. Pro athletes, anyone?

Well, it's not entirely clear that there is a healthy market for major executives. There's a perverse web of conflicts of interest involved in determining the pay of top executives at major companies. I'm not intimately familiar with it, but suffice it to say that you shouldn't take it for granted that shareholders in general are represented by the process that produces these decisions.

[Ed Oscuro]

On the front of holding down costs: There's this worrying (in my view) trend that people are increasingly expecting smart businesspeople to take one on the chin and do tough jobs at bargain basement prices. Sure, making ten times more than an assembly line worker is probably more than enough, but getting into the business of legislating who makes what (instead of letting the market decide) is sticky business. Pro athletes, anyone?

Well, it's not entirely clear that there is a healthy market for major executives. There's a perverse web of conflicts of interest involved in determining the pay of top executives at major companies. I'm not intimately familiar with it, but suffice it to say that you shouldn't take it for granted that shareholders in general are represented by the process that produces these decisions.

That's very true. The sort of "populist uprising" rhetoric that calls for laws to cap salaries are obviously ridiculous to the point it is not serious. On the other hand, reining in executives is worthwhile - thankfully, recently there has been a wave of board reform that has members representing their shareholders rather than a rubber stamp for company executives. I think that if this trend continues things won't be as dire as they have been.

I find myself wondering if Ann Coulter didn't take inspiration for her mode of operation from Ayn Rand. I value Rand's contributions as far as they help me to rethink and defend why I believe what I do, economically, but one can tell from reading just a bit of her works that she was working against a lot of bad social influences. Bolshevism was just one - another was a rather unfounded and ill-defined humanism which she is at times right to point out can have ill effects - although I also think that she wildly exaggerated its effects in modern life, the military-industrial complex notwithstanding. Her introduction to "The Virtue of Selfishness" is attacking a lot of emotional baggage that we simply do not see in everyday life, and she emphasizes it to the point that it becomes a strawman for ignoring legitimate leftist concerns.

[BryanM]

Okay it's throughly dead now.

Sometimes I wonder if the demoncrats actually would ever do anything, if they had a majority for more than five minutes.

.....

Man I'm really going to be fucked as age savages me.

[BulletMagnet]

I also wish the media would actually call out the Republicans for filibustering (or threatening to filibuster) 3 out of every 4 bills they've encountered - if they were held to the same standards as the Dems on this front nobody would much care about the Mass. election results, as the Dems still have a greater majority than Bush ever did (while, as Jon Stewart put it, he did whatever the f*ck he wanted).

[neorichieb1971]

Starting wars is about the only change that gets the full nod in the US senate and the government.

I don't know why a president just doesn't come out and admit their hands are tied to the point of bleeding.

Capitalism will one day eat itself alive. People are inventing money to keep economies running and just like rain, even though some splatters on the ground, most of it goes down the drain/gutter.. And thats where the creepy shareholders are that run your country.

[Acid King]

Okay it's throughly dead now.

The Democrats could just have the House vote up/down on the Senate bill, but chances are slim that they'd actually be able to get the votes to pass it.

[Ed Oscuro]

demoncrats

Uh yeah, what bulletmagnet saith. Hurr let's be different just for the hell of it, we can do without health care to save the "small business owners" a few pieces of silver

[BryanM]

Okay. Um. Cap on corporation advertising for political stuff removed... taliban stimulous plan upcoming...?

Uh.

[evil_ash_xero]

Yeah, I like how we are basically losing health care reform at the same time they're removing the caps on corporations donations.

Things in this country just keep getting better and better. And you can blame the first one on the people. I'm really shocked that Mass. basically spit in the face of Ted Kennedy who served them for so long..basically killing one of his most dear causes.

And hell, people are getting mad at the Democrats for not being able to revive the economy yet. Well, the Republicans getting rid of so many regulations have let the companies set up shop in Asian countries, where the labor is CHEAP. I mean, you can't even get a fucking consumer help operator in the U.S.. I don't know if we're going to recover much, since so many jobs are gone. Gone for good. What are we going to replace them with? Even the green jobs theoretically will only replace so many.
Well, the American people will get mad at the Democrats for not fixing things, then throw the people who fucked everything up right back in. And they'll just shoot everything else further down the tube until people get sick of it, and the cycle continues until we're so far down the hole no one could save us. I'm moving to Canada. I like the weather.

This country surprises me all the time. Usually not in a good way. Ah, but we love our wars! Kill 'em all!

[BryanM]

Fucking hell why are we involved in so many coups.

people.

We're calling them sheeple now. A simple glossary of terms:

Sheeple: A seething mass of people/zombies. It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.

Demoncrat: A power hungry evil control freak whose ultimate motivation comes from scoring with college floozies.

Replican: A power hungry evil control freak whose ultimate motivation comes from blow and hookers. Sometimes gets confused and tries to replicate with a member of the same gender.