Rebane's Ruminations
February 2011
S M T W T F S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

My email this morning contained an “open letter” by local resident Michael Anderson to the Tea Party Patriot leadership.  It was published in Jeff Pelline’s blog and sent to me by the ‘duty reader’ of Jeff’s output.  Michael excoriates the policies and efforts of the TPP and the Republicans in Congress to roll back Obamacare.  Throughout his piece Michael asserts to the TPP leadership that “You lose by default”, although it is not clear, at least to me, what such a default might be.

In reading Michael’s well written apology for the latest leftwing attempt at nationalized healthcare, his arguments stood out as those we have heard for the last two years or more from that side of the aisle.  Nevertheless, I believe that the points Michael presents are the best that the left can muster, and has no alternative but to reiterate endlessly.  His letter is consistent even to the level of not recognizing ANY of the considered conservative responses and/or alternatives to adopting the path that the Europeans are now attempting to travel in the other direction, this as the unsustainability of their socialized medicine schemes becomes clear to even their most dedicated ideologues.

In the aftermath of the federal district court ruling on Obamacare, Michael’s outpouring is another crie de couer of the progressives in the land.  Considering where this monotone mantra appeared, its purpose is really to reconstitute and rally the left to continue their push toward socialized medicine.  The effort is difficult given how this partisan monstrosity was given birth in the dead of night against historically widespread opposition across the land.

Below is Michael’s italicized letter annotated with my comments in square brackets.

 


Dear Nevada County Tea Party Patriot leaders,

I realize that these early rulings are exciting, but the end game is with the Supreme Court. If the Supremes do the right thing, they will rule that the Commerce Clause and precedent rulings for “trade that was in the national interest” will win the day. [There is no evidence from either the fiscal or healthcare perspectives that Obamacare is in the national interest.  Cato Institute’s ‘Bad Medicine – A Guide to the Real Costs and Consequences of the New Health Care Law’ by Michael Tanner is one of many rigorous analyses outlining the details of this disaster.]

You lose by default.

It is very distressing to me that so much of your effort is stuck in overturning this bill, “Obamacare” as you call it. Presidents going back to FDR recognized that first world nations were trying to come to grips with health care policy, each nation trying to find the best way to deliver exemplary care at the most reasonable cost. [And none of them has yet to find a sustainable solution which has become clear as government after government runs out of money.  We already borrow 40% of every dollar we spend.]  Our hodge-podge model has become increasingly dysfunctional over the past 4 decades, and now we are at a crisis stage.  [Our healthcare system is only one of many areas of commerce our encroaching government has made hodge-podge.  The solution is to make it simpler, not cobble more bureaucracy on top of what now struggles under the heavy hand of government.]

Only the Democratic Party has made feeble attempts to fix this broken system (excepting Bush II’s Medicare bill, which actually just served to balloon the national debt).  [Bush’s attempt is another entitlement that “just” balloons national debt as do SS and Medicaid.  If that’s all it does, ‘just’ try to remove it.]  The conservatives, the Republicans, the play-it-safers, otherwise did almost nothing. Democrats tried a number of times to reform the system, with nothing to show for it but wounds and bruises. Finally, at an extreme political cost, the Democratic Party and President Obama passed a health care bill in 2010 that is actually more conservative than what President Nixon first proposed! How weird is that?  [Not sure what comparing one progressive’s failed attempt to another progressive’s success does to support the Obamacare argument here.]

You lose by default.

For those of us who have actually been keeping score, we are not really very interested in hearing what you have to say on this issue any more.  [That has been abundantly clear from the very beginning, and gives visible lie to the ingenuous kumbayah invitations heard lately.]  Maybe in a decade or so, your voice will gain some traction once again. [Thank you, that decade started last November.]  One way you could re-engage with the national dialogue is to actually work to improve “Obamacare” and make it a better bill as time goes on.  [According to all polls, opposition to Obamacare has made dialogue out of the autocratic monologue that ushered it in.] That’s actually why it was written to be improved over time, getting rid of of the stuff that doesn’t work and implementing what does work. But if your only goal is to go back to what we had before,  [Arguing that the 2K+ page bill that no legislator has read was “written to be improved” is beyond comprehension.  The bill is so unrealistic and fiscally toxic that to date over 700 ‘friends of Obama’ organizations have been excused from its implementation, and thousands more appeals are rolling in monthly.  And weekly we hear of more expensive and job killing tangles discovered as people on both sides of the aisle are taking the time to study that hernia pack.]

You lose by default.

One thing you may not be paying enough attention to is that politically, you are in the weeds. Your Tea Party Patriot demographic absolutely cannot support a so-called Forty Year Plan. It just isn’t going to work. Generation Y is the most liberal generation since the Great Depression, and you have an extremely small percentage of their numbers that you can count as Tea Party Patriots.  [Given the usual static picture of the world that is so accessible to progressives, this statement is true.  Fortunately, over time and with more information things change as we are now seeing in Europe.  The only thing the left has on its side, and it is considerable, are the legions of socially and economically propagandized students with no sellable skills that government monopoly schools have ‘graduated’ since the Great Society.  Today we have a workforce that is marginally able to compete on world markets.  State protectionism and its inevitable costs are all that the left can offer to a growing cadre of jobless who can only hope for more redistribution.]

I realize this message will not be received with the most open of arms, and I offer it only in the hopes that you will realize that you are working at cross purposes to your own stated goal. Repealing “Obamacare” will actually land all of us in a healthcare world that is worse than when President Obama was inaugurated.  [An appropriate ending to this appeal with earplugs firmly in place.  No one in the tea party movement or on the conservative side has proposed to just repeal Obamacare, the better alternatives to which are legion.  True dialogue on American healthcare reform will not start until the left gets beyond this simplistic and erroneous view of the more beneficial alternatives that are available to us as a nation.]

Posted in , , , ,

63 responses to “Healthcare on a Leftwing and a Prayer”

  1. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    When I read the left’s defense of Obamacare I can onl shake my head in grief. How could someone as smart as MA appears to be be so blind? The people of our country have rejuvenated my faith in the basic tenets of freedom. Obamacare is the antithesis of freedom. I have actually never agreed with the lefts initial premise that the government could tell a private business, the healthcare industry, what they can and can’t cover. We need to review that because for some reason the left has been able to force through government power the inner workings of offerings by a private business. The commerce clause is being used by the left to force their socialized agenda on every citizen. This strategy has now been exposed for the fraudulent methods it is. The healthcare insurance industry is a state by state, no across the lines business in America. How the left can then say the Commerce clause is relevant when there is no interstate commerce with the insurance is just another example of the left’s educational results of our people.

    Like

  2. Mikey McD Avatar

    It amazes me that progressives are still pushing for more government when government failures are smacking us in the face (skyrocketing government run debt, government run and failed social security system, failed government run medicare system, failed government run foreign policy, horribly run government education system, failed government run depart of energy, failed government run SEC..insert government agency here..) and still trust government to run more of our health care. I stopped trying to understand where a socialist’s faith in government comes from; cause it sure as hell ain’t from a good track record.

    Like

  3. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    George,
    Michael is correct, and clairvoyant.
    “You lose by default.”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU
    “…away from the fog of the controversy.”
    With stalwart determination he proclaimed….”All hail Nebulous…ness…ly!”

    Like

  4. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    George,
    I’m going to respond to your responses because I want to keep this dialogue rolling along for a bit. I think it’s worthwhile.
    I’ll send it to you in email and then you can choose to publish it or not. I think that would be better than if I post it here under the Comments section.
    I was a bit surprised when Jeff Pelline featured my admittedly rant-ish response to the Tea Party Patriots on his blog, but I’m glad he did because I think it has created a healthy meeting of the virtual minds.
    For the record, when I wrote that “we are not really very interested in hearing what you have to say on this issue any more”, I was only talking about the attempts to repeal or find unconstitutional the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). I didn’t do a very good job of making that clear.
    I wholeheartedly encourage all attempts to modify PPACA through ongoing legislation, and welcome the vigorous debate that will engender.
    Michael A.

    Like

  5. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    It has been deemed unconstitutional and it appears we are now going to have a constitutional crisis because Reid and Obama are thumbing their respective nose at the judiciary. Amazing.

    Like

  6. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    12-2 really?
    1 of the 2 represents 25 states attorneys general making the score 26 to 12, nice spin but no altitude Michael.
    Do you really think the Feds have the right to make you buy something just because you’re alive, or send you to jail if you don’t?

    Like

  7. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    D. King wrote: “Do you really think the Feds have the right to make you buy something just because you’re alive, or send you to jail if you don’t?”
    They already make me “buy” Medicare and Social Security. If you’re going to repeal or find unconstitutional PPACA then you should be working to get rid of these 2 as well, on the same grounds.

    Like

  8. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    MA you are mixing apples and oranges. The history of the process is when a federal judge rules such as Vinson has, the law is deemed null and void and set aside. The Obama/Reid strategy is thumbing their nose at this. Besides, the 26 states and the separate ruling against Obamacare in Virginia (total 27) demand the process of putting the Obamacare rule making on hold. Regarding SS and Medicare. Yes you are probably one of those people who would belittle and point a nasty finger at those that would agree SS and Medicare are also unconstitutional so it would seem you are trying to have it both ways.

    Like

  9. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    “They already make me “buy” Medicare and Social Security. If you’re going to repeal or find unconstitutional PPACA then you should be working to get rid of these 2 as well, on the same grounds.”
    Please answer the question.
    Do you really think the Feds have the right to make you buy something just because you’re alive, or send you to jail if you don’t?

    Like

  10. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    D. King wrote: “Do you really think the Feds have the right to make you buy something just because you’re alive, or send you to jail if you don’t?”
    This is a very narrow question that you ask. Do the Feds have the right to make me “buy” the roads that I drive on? Do the Feds have the right to make me “buy” the 737 US military bases overseas? (China has 0, BTW.) My answer is, “yes, I think the Feds have the right to make me buy roads, and send me to jail if I don’t.”
    Here’s a nice narrow question for you: What’s the difference between an insurance exchange and an interstate freeway?

    Like

  11. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    So Todd and D. King Should we or should we not repeal Medicare and Social Security on Constitutional grounds?

    Like

  12. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    No, let’s repeal the military. LOL What is interesting to me about your question of repeal is the lack of recognition you give us that have paid a gazillion bucks into those systems. Maybe you could say, are you for repeal and the return, with interest, all the money you have paid into those systems. Then maybe you would be taken more seriously. BTW, my dad died at age 62 from pancreatic cancer. He received five checks from SS. Then they asked for the fifth check back. He paid into the system for fifty years. Seems they made a profit on him eh? Oh and he had private health insurance, never used medicare.

    Like

  13. Mikey McD Avatar
    Mikey McD

    Q: What’s the difference between an insurance exchange and an interstate freeway?
    A: You are not forced to pay for and use an interstate freeway, an interstate freeway does not erase the existence of all other roads and byways (decrease choice), an interstate freeway does not insure the indebtedness of both current and future generations, an interstate freeway does not create dependence on nanny government…

    Like

  14. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Okay
    Todd, are you for repeal and the return, with interest, all the money that has paid into those systems.

    Like

  15. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    Ah Yes, the difference between “buy” and “tax”.
    I’m sure a mind blowing enigma for ya.

    Like

  16. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    D. King
    Actually I appreciate the honesty and consistency of your opinion. You’re not a hit and run guy. I think the Libertarian view is essential in any discussion of the future of our country. Of course you realize that it’s a small minority that shares such a fundamentalist Libertarian viewpoint. As I’ve stated before Ron Paul emerged as the most influential independent voice in the last election. As we have seen in these pages before, most Tea Party types don’t have the stomach for deep Libertarian mantras. I actually applaud you and, even though we may disagree on fundamental issues I respect the dialogue.

    Like

  17. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    “I’m sure a mind blowing enigma for ya.”
    OK, we’re doing well. We’re on the right track. Let’s keep going.
    Next question: If I live at the top of a mountain in the remote corner of north-eastern California–such that the only way for me to get food is to drive my pickup truck–does the state of California have the right to make me buy auto insurance, or send me to jail if I don’t?
    I already know your answer, but I’d like to see it anyway. Thanks.

    Like

  18. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    You should live here with Auntie Em, then you won’t need a truck.
    http://tinyurl.com/4hpzacz
    Oh sorry, and therefore no insurance.

    Like

  19. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    D. King –
    Nope, that wasn’t the answer. The answer was “yes.” If you check out judicial findings on federalism and the Commerce Clause starting at the beginning of the 20th century, you see an inexorable rise in federal rights usurping states rights. Your original question was already decided about mid-20th century. That’s the main reason many people all over the political map find the activist movements to repeal and/or find PPACA unconstitutional so frustrating. It’s an unnecessary do-over of 20th-century precedent that does nothing to address the complex social and political systems that are emerging in the 21st century.
    Mikey –
    “You are not forced to pay for and use an interstate freeway…”
    You don’t have to use it but you pay for it at the gas pump regardless.
    “…an interstate freeway does not erase the existence of all other roads and byways (decrease choice)”
    A single-payer system might decrease choice, but that’s not PPACA. And an insurance exchange could potentially increase choice, just as anti-monopoly regulations increase choice in any kind of market.
    “…an interstate freeway does not insure the indebtedness of both current and future generations”
    Rhetoric. OMB says PPACA will reduce the deficit.
    “…an interstate freeway does not create dependence on nanny government…”
    Rhetoric. The insurance brokers I’ve talked to aren’t worried about nanny gov’t and PPACA.

    Like

  20. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Apples and oranges MA. The freeway is a misnomer since it has the word free in it wouldn;t you say? The freeway like every road can have people traveling on it by foot (no insurance), a animal (maybe a license) and a vehicle (a license probably). The Obamacare said whether you travel the freeway or not you are gonna pay Uncle Sam. No choice there.

    Like

  21. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    O.K. Michael,
    This is the first time in the history of this country we are being taxed to be alive.
    If you save a million dollars for retirement, which you have already paid taxes on and decide to stop working, you could have lived on that money for rest of your life (B.O.) before Obama. Now, you are being forced to spend your savings on government edicts (a back door to tax, savings principle). Get it? This has been talked about for years. They would like to do the same with business wealth savings. Just listen to them! Businesses are not hiring because of uncertainty and that will be used to get at their wealth, also talked about for years. The patent laws are being trashed as well, why, same reason; it’s property. Can you say redistribution; can you spell that? Not a very nice legacy to leave the kids.

    Like

  22. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    He is a socialist, your logic is falling on deaf ears.

    Like

  23. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    M A, you lose big time here. There is no Constitutional grounds for the govt to require a citizen to buy a good from a company in order to remain a free person. I do not have to buy car insurance, gasoline or anything you have or can mention from a private company to remain in good legal standing. SS and Medicare are taxes that the govt has been authorised to levy on the citizens of this country. BO promised us repeatedly this was not a tax. He called the naysayers liars. Then his lawyers went to court and said it was a tax. The courts pointed out that: 1 – BO can’t have it both ways and 2 – BO himself said when he was running that there would be no Fed mandate to buy insurance. The labor unions that begged for this law are now being exempted from it. There is so much to this monster that has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with the govt moving towards what BO has repeatedly stated was his goal of single payer govt run health care. The stupid lie about how it will reduce the deficit rests solely with forcing doctors and hospitals to care for patients below a cost that would allow the providers to stay in business. There have been lots of laws proposed by R’s that would have reduced health care costs, but the Dems have fought them tooth and nail.

    Like

  24. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Todd
    Any response on to the question you asked me to ask you?
    ” Maybe you could say, are you for repeal and the return, with interest, all the money you have paid into those systems.”
    I was originally asking if you supported the repeal of Medicare and Social Security

    Like

  25. Barry Pruett Avatar

    The car insurance analogy…apples and oranges.
    Car insurance requirements for liability are a state action. If a state required you to purchase health insurance, I think (though I have not done the research) they can do that.
    The issue is can the federal government? The federal government is only allowed to do those things that the Constitution specifically enumerates.
    Congress is relying upon the commerce clause to force people to affirmatively do something. That is stretching the commerce caluse way too far. This issue will be a 5-4 decision in favor of a limited reading of the commerce clause.
    Though it should be a 5-3 decision, but Kagan has decided that despite arguing these cases as solicitor general that she need not recuse herself.

    Like

  26. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    As Truman said, “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” I just want you all to know that I’m liking the heat just fine, I’m finding this discussion to be very enjoyable. Thanks to everyone for taking the time to participate.
    Todd wrote: “Apples and oranges MA.”
    Conservatives are the ones always saying that taxes, fees, and other mandated gov’t obligations are all the same–a tax. I happen to agree with that opinion.
    D. King wrote: “Can you say redistribution; can you spell that?”
    I can say it and I can spell it too. The moment I pay a penny of sales tax for my purchase, my wealth is being distributed. What we are talking about here is only about degrees, and where lies taxation’s angle of repose.
    Scott O. wrote: “M A, you lose big time here.”
    Well, that’s your subjective assessment and I accept it for what it is. However, I don’t lose by default because I supported PPACA and it passed. I may “lose big time” but you lose by default. I invite you to point me to those comprehensive health care initiatives put forth by Republicans during the past 40 years that were defeated by Dems fighting “tooth and nail.”
    Barry wrote: “Congress is relying upon the commerce clause to force people to affirmatively do something. That is stretching the commerce clause way too far. This issue will be a 5-4 decision in favor of a limited reading of the commerce clause.”
    Thanks for chiming in Barry. This is what I have been wanting to discuss since the Tea Party Patriots first sent out their caustic call for repeal. I happen to disagree with your prediction, and I am saddened that the pro-repeal crew are not putting their efforts into reforming the bill instead of killing it. It took us almost a century to get to this point, and the whole thing will unravel if the entire bill is tossed.
    I am also saddened that this entire mess is being placed on Kennedy’s head. My hope is that he will be so irritated at having watched the acrimony in this country since WWII that he will default his decision to the politicians who were actually able to git ‘r done.

    Like

  27. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    Oh, and a hat tip to Paul Emery for approaching this discussion from a bit of a different angle. Libertarianism, capitalism, socialism, freedom, liberty, yum yum, them’r good cookies.
    Here’s a homework assignment for everyone who’s interested. Read this carefully, then post your book report for all to see.
    http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html

    Like

  28. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    “It took us almost a century to get to this point, and the whole thing will unravel if the entire bill is tossed.”
    I do empathize Michael. But, you can always go live with Jorgy in Norway and smell dead fish all winter.
    Here, this will cheer you up.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-Nl40FSR2o

    Like

  29. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    Sorry “D. King,” I’m going to have to give your book report a C-. A youtube video is kinda just phoning it in, doncha think?
    I am of Norwegian descent, but I have no interest in living in Norway. I’m a 5th generation Pacific Coast pioneer, with paperwork, so I get grumpy when recent newcomers to this wonderful land come here and try to rewrite the rules.
    Sure would like to know what the “D.” in D. King stands for. Enlighten me.

    Like

  30. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    “…so I get grumpy when recent newcomers to this wonderful land come here and try to rewrite the rules.”
    Yeah, illegal aliens piss me off too.
    and D. stands for Dave.

    Like

  31. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    Thanks Dave.

    Like

  32. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    I guess I am a bit confused by MA comments. From the conservatives viewpoint, Obamacare is socialism and unconstitutional. From reading MA’s screeds it appears he believes it is not socialism and is constitutional? As a fifth generation American MA complains about the rules being changed and yet takes a position the free enterprise system cannot be trusted to pay for his lobotomy and only Obamacare can? LOL. BTW, Norway is five million people, all white and born and raised under socialism. I am confused as well because MA complains about the ethnic makeup being to white in Nevada County.There is no comparison to the USA I can find. I think there is a disconnect within the cranium and perhaps a review of one’s personal philosophy is in order.

    Like

  33. Mikey McD Avatar

    Michael, unless all your answers are extreme sarcasm then you have lost any credibility you may have had.
    To promote that Obamacare will decrease the deficit (without drastically raising taxes) is immoral. To cite my facts as rhetoric and then quote some broker you know to refute my facts is ridiculous. Your faith in government is obnoxious (thankfully not contagious).
    I am one of the 200,000,000+ Americans whom love our health insurance, health care provider, the treatments and cures provided by capitalism, the freedom to choose our treatments, the freedom to choose our deductibles, freedom to choose our Dr., etc who would be penalized via anymore government control of health care. I am also one of the millions who do not believe health care to be a right afforded to one man at the expense (at the barrel of a gun) of another man. I would never ask the government to enslave you to provide for me. Free the markets, free the man.

    Like

  34. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    MA – you lose on your contention that the govt can force us to buy a good from a company. You didn’t even try to refute my arguments. You hang your whole argument on the fact that the Dems rammed through and signed into law a mess they can’t even read or understand. The fact that they passed it into law doesn’t make it good or reasonable or Constitutional or even effective as measured against what they claimed it would do. The fact that the unions that spent millions to get it passed are now bailing out should tell you something. And Michael, I said “There have been lots of laws proposed by R’s that would have reduced health care costs, but the Dems have fought them tooth and nail.” If you are going to challenge that, please stay on track and don’t change it into something I didn’t say. I don’t want “comprehensive health care initiatives put forth by Republicans” AKA – govt run health care. I want common sense laws to reduce the cost of health care. Tort reform would be a nice start. Dems have been solidly against that. I do like the conversation going on here as it shows the difference in core beliefs of governance.

    Like

  35. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Thanks Michael for the Norway story. Of course to most of the readers of this blog the lure of Socialism is much like being lured into the vampires bite, sweet at the time but soon you’ll become a slave to the master. Having lived and worked in Scandinavia from time to time I can recall the well-being of the people. I’m not sure it’s our way but it sure works for those countries and any health care solution we propose should applaud those systems as being successful and well regarded by it’s citizens.
    But the night is near and, as we will see by the responses to my pitch the monsters are lurking ready to pounce and Norway will soon drift into totalitarian darkness.

    Like

  36. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    So you are a fan of socialism Paul?

    Like

  37. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    Paul,
    Vampire references?
    You think this is funny….yeah…well lookie here!!!
    This is only Scary.
    http://tinyurl.com/4gs73we
    This…This is Horrifying!
    http://tinyurl.com/4wbgd5n
    🙂

    Like

  38. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    King
    Good one.
    Todd
    Did you read the article on Denmark that Michael provided a link to? It might give a common reference to my response.

    Like

  39. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Todd
    The article was on Norway. Am I a fan of Socialism? It depends on the agreed definition which we haven’t settled on. As far as the Marxist definition no. I do believe there are certain services for the common good that are best provided by a state controlled systems. Examples are military, police, fire, schools, parks, highways, regulations and enforcement regarding air traffic, fish and game,air and water quality etc. I can go on and on and we may agree or disagree on each example. If you call that socialism I guess I’m a fan. I have come to support some kind of national health care system based on European models that I guess you would consider to be socialistic.

    Like

  40. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    No Paul I don’t call those things socialism. U call them a society. Socialism is when the government comes and takes my money and gives it to others to make us all the same. Simple.

    Like

  41. Dixon Cruickshank Avatar
    Dixon Cruickshank

    I just read all this and haven’t followed along before
    1 – the Fla judge basically said the commerce clause can not be used on the basis of something someone might do, on that basis what else might I do – maybe
    2 the premise of Obamacare is to eliminate the healthcare industry – plain and simple, single payor – that just wouldn’t fly but they certainly tried. They could only get this through although they don’t even know what it says.
    ,elimination would have to come later – per Nancy
    3 It would lower the defict if the DR’s would only work for minimum wage or maybe 24K a year.
    4 Nobody even knows what it says yet, nobody read it and still most haven’t – finding new stuff every day – who actually wrote it? 2700 pages? probably the unions that want out – good for you but not for us.
    We had the greatest healthcare system in the world, does it need help – yep

    Like

  42. George Rebane Avatar

    ‘Who is a Socialist?’ was my effort to answer the question, clarify my use of the label, and suggest its understanding in these pages. Subsequently there appeared a longer essay in the op-ed pages of the WSJ that followed my development to a tee. I failed to bookmark it and am now searching for it as a corroborating reference.
    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/07/who-is-a-socialist.html
    And ‘The Nuts and Bolts of the ObamaCare Ruling’ (2feb11 WSJ) is an excellent summary of the Florida US District Court’s ruling, and the tactics that the administration had to dance around in order to attempt a justification for endrunning the Constitution. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703445904576117913097891574.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0
    BTW, even the liberal NPR regularly uses ‘Obamacare’ as the more succinct and neutral label for the cynically named ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’. When Congress attaches such appellations, you can be sure that the underlying legislation is anything but or exactly the opposite of what is propagandized to the sheeple – the PPACA has vindicated that practice.
    Please note also that in the interval the liberals have hiked the ‘people without healthcare’ to 50 million from the originally tortured number of 40 million which included over 30 million who choose not to buy available healthcare. Recall that in the final analysis, even the Democrats accepted CBO’s assessment that the country has only 9 million people who want more healthcare but cannot afford it.

    Like

  43. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    George
    This is from the official report from the 2009 census showing that the number of uninsured is indeed over 50 million. Is the US Census the Liberal culprit who hiked the numbers?
    “Meanwhile, the number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 46.3 million in 2008 to 50.7 million in 2009, while the percentage increased from 15.4 percent to 16.7 percent over the same period.
    These findings are contained in the report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009. The following results for the nation were compiled from information collected in the 2010 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC):”

    Like

  44. George Rebane Avatar

    Then let’s believe the US Census by all means, but also let’s not confuse “people without health insurance coverage” with either those who wish such coverage or seek it without being able to afford it. The 50.7 million number is partitioned into several sub-populations, and I would then venture that the current recession has caused the 9 million number to also rise. Nevertheless, the fundamental arguments against Obamacare as a reaction to all this do not change.
    Counter to what the liberal leadership promised, we have instead the situation where the more people and organizations discover what’s in Obamacare, there more they want to be exempt from its diktats.

    Like

  45. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    I’m not sure things are moving in that direction as Obama’s approval ratings are climbing and are now in the double digits, except Fox of course, and that implies support for his programs. The burden will be on the opposition to come up with acceptable alternatives, something they showed no inclination in doing previously. http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm
    Anyway If I was polled I’d probably show up as a negative in favor of a plan similar to the Danish system which I will describe as soon as I have time. You’ll find that all’s not rotten in Denmark

    Like

  46. George Rebane Avatar

    Paul, your continuing refusal to acknowledge the Republican alternatives suggested from the gitgo is an example of the leftwing chorus (a la Saul Alinsky) that harms the comity of our nation and stops/diverts/misdirects the public dialogue.

    Like

  47. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    It’s a little hard to take the Republicans seriously on this since they did nothing during the years they could have shown leadership. Are these bold new ideas? Where were these ideas in 2004 when they had control of everything and could have made it happen or at least tried. It’s like asking for religion on your last breath. It’s only after the Dems proposed passed what we now have that they gave a damn, That said I’ll hold my nose and give it a look but after I indulge in my favorite Danish pastry.

    Like

  48. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    A couple of things. The Reid/Pelosi machine kept using the 40+ million figure all through heir hegemonic push. When that was broken down, it was discovered, GASP!, that 20 million were young people who didn’t want it, 12 million were illegals and the remainder of around 10 million were the real uninsured as described by the left. We said let us leave our great system alone and just concentrate on the ten million. But nooo. The liberals shoved aside 290 million of us who liked our healthcare to pander to the ten million. That is why they got their asses handed to them in November.
    Regarding your allegation the R’s did nothing. You must read a very limited set of liberal documents Paul. I watched every single R proposal get filibustered during the Bush years by the Democrats in the Senate. I then got to watch as Pelosi and Reid locked the doors to keep out the R’s when the Obamacare was being created. You as a journalist must be amazed that you have missed so much.
    BTW, I responded to a comment on my blog with a real life example of our healthcare system. Check it out.

    Like

  49. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Here we go again. Todd please point me to those examples of Democratic filibusters. I need to be refreshed because I have no recollection. It should be pretty simple. Senate Bills, House bills dates etc. You seem to have the information but you never share details.

    Like

Leave a comment