172 responses to “The Candyass Republicans (9mar12 update)”

1. 

   Ryan Mount

   09 March 2012

   Seems to me, and this is a random thought, that the pro-mandated Healthcare crowd is jumbling together different parts of Section 8 of the Constitution; mixing the General Welfare clause with the Commerce (“among the several States”) Clause, with respect to Healthcare reform.
   I think the Commerce Clause issue is too embedded in judicial precedent, even though I believe that Congress was way over-stepped it Section 8 authority. But no one listens to me. A more interesting conversation, although it seems fraught with ambiguity, is to discuss what we mean by Section 8’s “and general welfare” assertion:
   “The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[sic] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
   Well, does the health care individual/organizational mandate “provide for the [snip] general Welfare”. (interesting that “Welfare” is a proper noun, and “defence” [sic] is not.)
   Further clouding this discussion, is a misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment with regards to Rush’s (and noted others) despicable speech. Other than being a douche bag, he’s really done nothing wrong. And all these petitions I see really aren’t going to have any effect unless the “Left” starts hitting the pavement with local advertisers. And what’s even funnier, I guess, is these protests undoubtedly are helping Rush’s ratings over the long term. A dent at first, but this guy has survived and thrived over much worse. (addiction/pills, viagra-driven Dominican Republic sex tours and numerous other slurs such as calling homeless people “human refuse.”)
   Yeah, he’s a great American. Not.

   LikeLike

2. 

   George Rebane

   09 March 2012

   SteveF 942am – yes, “toothpaste is difficult to get back into the tube”, but if we don’t stop squeezing that tube, somewhere along the line the toothpaste will run out for all. At that point our healthcare system (among others) will revert to what the Soviets could neither halt, sustain, and finally deliver. Some Europeans are trying to pull back from the abyss as they see their healthcare costs consume and ever larger percent of their GDPs (the operational definition of unsustainable).
   And that vicious circle is compounded because the wealth creators always leave or become non-investing rentiers, thereby reducing the growth and finally the level of GDP. To me and others of similar mind, this is the conundrum of trying to maintain the progressive and classically liberal mindsets under one roof. We intrinsically see different worlds and wind up squabbling ‘while Rome burns’.
   That wealth redistribution is required is no longer the question, as I have both written, broadcast, and spoken about (much to the distress of local Republicans and Tea Partiers). It is only under what social and economic order should how much of such redistribution be accomplished and to whom.
   The first rule in going toward such a solution is that ‘wealth creation must continue at levels to sustain redistribution’. My own criterion has the added codicil of also requiring a surplus to be created that allows the financing of ‘going to the stars’ – code name for overarching human enterprise that maintains and expands the spirit of Man.

   LikeLike

3. 

   Douglas Keachie

   09 March 2012

   Rush will survive, but hopefully not in Nevada County, except via KBFK. Dumping him could bring lots of positive attention to the area, and change its image from “Home of The Tea Party Patriots.” A trailer driven along local streets and parking lots, listing local advertisers who still support Rush, would probably do the trick. I’m envisioning something along the line of the “Animal House” “Deathmobile,” except this would be a “Slutmobile.”
   If the argument from the right is that “we need the station and it is dependent on the advertisers,” then it is incubent on them to honor whatever Rush is replaced with, and listen to that instead, to keep the rating up. I’d rather take our chances with something new and fresh, After 3 decades, like fish and guests after three days, Rush has gone rotten.
   Ever thought of what the right and left would do with a teacher who was caught suggesting, even in private, that a colleague, an administrator, a parent, or God forbid a student, was a slut? Torches and pitchforks and trash the credential as well as fire the teacher, that would be the mob instantly formed. Or say some teachers formed a pool to bet on which kid would get pregnant first? WHHOOOOOO-eeee! No, I have never do either, but I’ve heard rumors…

   LikeLike

4. 

   Douglas Keachie

   09 March 2012

   That was “done,”not “do.” This keyboard seems to get behind from time to time, and then miss characters.

   LikeLike

5. 

   Michael Anderson

   09 March 2012

   Keach, this trailer thing is an Extremely Bad Idea. It’s an unnecessarily polarizing over-reaction that plays right into the hand of Rush’s MO. Did you not see the Michelle Malkin quote that Russ posted above?? And your comparison to Rush and some hypothetical teacher using that word makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
   This country has real problems that need to be dealt with NOW and it just bewilders me that extremists on both the left and the right have chosen to wander off into the wilderness just because Rush Limbaugh called a woman a slut. It’s absolutely mind-boggling.
   I understand all about the hurt feelings, disrespect, oppression, and bad behavior. But for god’s sake folks, buck up and move on! If Ms. Fluke had been set upon by National Guard German Shepards then the truck sign would be an appropriate response.
   Finally, the truck sign does nothing to further the debate regarding whether contraception should be mandated under the PPACA. It’s a distraction, it’s polarizing, it’s bad behavior, and if I see that truck driving around I will be sure to pull over to give the driver a real piece of my mind.

   LikeLike

6. 

   Douglas Keachie

   09 March 2012

   Much easier to to it on Facebook, 700 people can share responsibility. What’s the matter, do we really need to tolerate Rush because he’s bring attention to local businesses? What sort of value system works that way? Have you no thought as to the possible improvements that might replace Rush? And what it would say about the quality of life up here? If advertisers here need Rush, and only Rush, to sell, then maybe we’ve found a new class of “sluts.” Time to step outside the box, and look at the overall quality of life up here. Currently locals include Yuba River Massage, Hanson Brothers, Wells Fargo, Utopian Stone. Rush is getting ads from a Superpac supporting newt. IHOP also advertising on Rush. Raley’s and Barsotti’s carrot juice. Progressive Insurance, let KNCO play their own ads for their other shows. That’s OK by me.

   LikeLike

7. 

   Steven Frisch

   09 March 2012

   Yeah….I am with Michael on this one. Boycotting advertisers is a distraction. Its your decision…as I stated above…but its a distraction. Plus, its one thing to tell KNCO you would like to see them flush Rush, and another thing to hurt local businesses advertising on KNCO, which is just about the only widely available local commercial radio station in western Nevada county. I’ll tell you this, when I owned a business I did not ask the political or ideological bent of the the people who walked through the door. I treated them all as guests.
   I would much rather see everyone moving the issue now to the critical question, “should women’s reproductive health, including contraception, be included as one of the coverages in the PPACA”. My resounding answer, based on existing rules and case law cited here extensively, is YES. Reproduction is a basic biological function and as such should be covered. If we want to create conscience objections there is a process to do that….that is what just failed to pass.

   LikeLike

8. 

   Douglas Keachie

   09 March 2012

   I don’t expect to have much effect, but I do feel strongly that you are both arguing for the Milo Minderbinder position, that the All Mighty Dollar Shall Rule. Maybe after a couple of local innocents get killed by the Patriot para-milatary groups, the types of groups that are egged on by Rush, then you’ll reconsider. As far as I’m concerned, Rush living in the county, and deliberately planting scotch broom wherever it will take root, is not a good thing, and not to be encouraged. I’ve always been ahead of my time, suspect I am on this issue as well.

   LikeLike

9. 

   George Rebane

   09 March 2012

   ?? The funding of “basic biological function(s) … should be covered” by government entitlements??

   LikeLike

10. 

    George Rebane

    09 March 2012

    DougK 1217pm – Have you or anyone else identified any “Patriot para-military groups” that we should be on the lookout for? And I wasn’t aware that another one of Rush’s many sins is the ‘egging on’ of such groups to kill local innocents. Perhaps you can point those of us in the back of the pack to a link so that we all can get informed – we all know that ‘forewarned is forearmed’.

    LikeLike

11. 

    Douglas Keachie

    09 March 2012

    Just saw story on CNN about huge increase in folks joining such groups, give it time.

    LikeLike

12. 

    Michael Anderson

    09 March 2012

    Keach wrote: “Maybe after a couple of local innocents get killed by the Patriot para-milatary groups, the types of groups that are egged on by Rush, then you’ll reconsider.”
    Yeah, and maybe when killer space robots start digging trenches in my yard I’ll need to whip up a chemical oxygen iodine laser to zap ’em.
    Keach wrote: “I’ve always been ahead of my time, suspect I am on this issue as well.”
    Nope, just paranoid.
    George slapped his forehead: “??The funding of ‘basic biological function(s)…should be covered’ by government entitlements??”
    Nope, nobody is saying that. What folks are saying is that the insurance companies should be regulated such that they provide a certain standard of coverage across the United States, which includes certain types of women’s health care including contraception; they are also saying that your employer doesn’t get to tell the insurance company what they can, and cannot, cover.
    I can’t believe we are even discussing this. Hey, I have an idea. None of my employees from now on are allowed to have comprehensive or collision insurance coverage on their automobiles, only liability. My religious precepts don’t allow for people to be able to replace their wrecked cars when they have sinned by getting into an accident, so tough shit. I’m the boss and you have to live your life the way I see fit.

    LikeLike

13. 

    George Rebane

    09 March 2012

    MichaelA 1249pm – please see SteveF’s 1158am.

    LikeLike

14. 

    Steven Frisch

    09 March 2012

    George, what I mean is that it is simply a biological fact of live that women have different reproductive organs than men. And, just as my potential testicular cancer should be covered, or theoretically Todd’s erectile dysfunction, a woman’s OBGYN care, including reproductive care should be covered. We would cover pregnancy right? Contraception is legal and prescribed or performed by doctors. Should be covered.
    By the way you do know that abortion is not covered right (even though I think it should be covered because its legal too)?Under the PPACA, insurers can still cover abortion, as long as only private funds are used to pay for such coverage.
    Here is a list of what’s covered.
    http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/

    LikeLike

15. 

    George Rebane

    09 March 2012

    SteveF 257pm – the issues are 1) where does it stop, and 2) since none of it is sustainable (e.g. SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, …), how come we’re considering adding on more when we can’t even pay for the existing stuff without getting the Chinese workers to pay for it.

    LikeLike

16. 

    Steven Frisch

    09 March 2012

    Boy George, if I wanted to completely eliminate the deficit I’m not sure I would start at health insurance…as a matter of fact I think I have laid out here previously how I would eliminate the deficit and it was quite conservative (except for eliminating the bush tax cuts and returning to a top marginal rate of 50%). I am basically with the Commission on Deficit Reduction–but here are some highlights
    1. Discretionary spending caps
    2. Tax reform by lowering corporate rates but broadening the base and increasing top marginal rates
    3. Cut subsidies (focused on ag and energy)
    4. Cut the military budget
    5. Index SS (and raise ceiling), Medicare, Medicaid and the prescription drug benefit
    6. Federal pension reform
    7. Index federal wages to a specific amount above the private marketplace–federal employees should not make 140% of comparable market rate employees (but reduce gradually through attrition) this is not a lot of money but it is symbolic 🙂
    8. Look realistically at what functions can be eliminated, collapsed, or remanded to the states
    9. Cap mortgage interest deductions at $500,000 on primary dwelling
    But the question of where it stops as far as coverage is concerned? is that what you are asking? I’m not sure that the PPACA will change how new technologies really get incorporated into the system..as new discoveries are made or new technologies advance and they are deemed safe by the FDA I would expect them to be added, including stuff like bionics, genetically altered or created organ, gene therapy..etc…when I said you can’t put it back in the tube this is actually what i was talking about—we are never going to stop innovating medically and we will always want to add new things.

    LikeLike

17. 

    Michael Anderson

    09 March 2012

    “MichaelA 1249pm – please see SteveF’s 1158am.”
    Private insurance, private insurance, private insurance! PPACA is hardly on the scale of Medicare. Those who are not covered by their place of employment, and who refuse to cover themselves, will be assessed a small tax. The cost of private insurance will then go down because there won’t be any more damn freeloaders in the ER getting heart transplants on my dime.
    You can’t drive on the road w/o liability insurance. And now you can’t walk on the street w/o health insurance. If you don’t like it, get thee to Letchworth.

    LikeLike

18. 

    George Rebane

    09 March 2012

    Somehow I don’t think that my 339pm #2 concern was addressed.
    In the ‘… Sandra Fluke’ discussion thread on the same topic, there in my 532pm I said –
    If the parties to the conflict here are only the insurance company, the employer, and the insured employee, then I have no problem with the three coming up with whatever arrangement they will. However, if one of the parties becomes the 800lbs gorilla of government dictating who must provide what coverage for what premiums paid for by whomever, then I have a problem.

    LikeLike

19. 

    George Rebane

    09 March 2012

    DougK 1217pm – A correspondent sent me a link about the kinds of Patriot para-military groups you may have had in mind.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw

    LikeLike

20. 

    Michael Anderson

    09 March 2012

    George, why is the employer involved at all? We need basic healthcare for ALL of our citizens in order to have a civilized society in the 21st century. Things change and I agree this is a new requirement. But there it is; we’re not going back.
    In America, the employer became involved in healthcare as a benefit first when coal miner’s unions in the first decades of the 20th century made it a requirement because the job was so dangerous. The need for health care back then was like the need for a computer in order to do an office job today. And then in the late 1940s and early 1950s, there was something of a labor shortage during the post-WWII economic expansion, coupled with wage and price controls, and businesses learned that they could use health care benefits as a perquisite to attract the best workers and get around those gov’t constraints.
    Times change. New needs arise. We are the last industrialized First World country on the planet to get universal health care. It’s embarrassing. PPACA brings the focus back to the triad of the health care provider, the health care consumer, and the insurance company. The employer is still involved for the legacy reasons I’ve outline above, but I expect that to go away by 2020 or so. Government provides the oversight, making sure the health care providers and the insurance companies follow certain rules that discourage corruption and increase efficiency.
    No black helicopters, no militias, no death panels, no “government takeover of health care.” Detractors of PPACA say that the quality of care will go down. That’s bullshit. Under this new system there is nothing to prevent you from hiring your own health care team to live in your house 24/7/365. It’s a free market, baby.

    LikeLike

21. 

    Douglas Keachie

    09 March 2012

    Nope, that’s a fine group in the video. Very different from NeoNazi skinheads, of Idaho and closer.

    LikeLike

22. 

    Douglas Keachie

    09 March 2012

    These kinds of folks, George, I would imagine they would have issues with Jews as well as blacks. http://people.missouristate.edu/michaelcarlie/storage/white_supremacist_groups.htm

    LikeLike

23. 

    Douglas Keachie

    09 March 2012

    As for healthcare, look to Kaiser for leadership. If I am not mistaken, the original hospital well predates the HMO, back into the 1880’s or so. Kaiser realized he needed healthy workers, and took it over. Later on he extended it to those outside his company. http://museumca.org/exhibit/exhi_kaiser.html

    LikeLike

24. 

    Michael Anderson

    09 March 2012

    What will finally come to a blessed end, thanks to PPACA, are the long lines of people sitting in the ERs of hospitals across the land, receiving general health care services at a premium price. For free, on my dime.
    I pay top dollar for private health care insurance, and I have a high deductible to make it somewhat affordable. I needed a prescription to take care of a sudden bout of pneumonia last summer–my kids had contracted it earlier in the week, I knew exactly what it was, I knew exactly what drug I needed, but because by the time I needed the drugs Yubadocs was closed, I had to go to the SNMH ER. I spent less than two hours there and finally got my prescription after a lot of nonsense and rigamarole. I was the only one, out of about 12 other patients I saw in the ER that evening, who had health insurance. My bill? How does $2,500 sound?
    Because of my deductible, that came right out of my bottom line. The fact that I pay for health care insurance for myself and my family under the current system makes me a sucker. This is the most retarded health care system on the planet. I’ll bet the people in Afghanistan have a better system, at least they can still get a doctor to take a look at them for a coupla bottles of goat milk.
    I’m a boomer and I know lots of older folks who were lucky enough to enjoy the fruits of the post WWII expansion. Regardless of whether they are public or private employees, they are enjoying their golden years on my dime. Sorry George, I’m pretty pissed off about this and I’m tired of carrying everyone’s healthcare water.
    Everybody needs to pay. I’m tired of feeling like a mining deposit, with denizens of all stripes trying to hit my mother load.
    Are you starting to get the picture, George?

    LikeLike

25. 

    Michael Anderson

    09 March 2012

    Oh, and I should also mention that if I hadn’t have had health insurance coverage, my less than two-hour visit to the SNMH ER would have been $3,800. I received my happy adjustment document from Blue Shield telling me how grateful I should be that they “went to bat for me” to lower the rates.
    What a crock of shit. I would rather deal with Tony Soprano. At least with Tony I know the organized crime is nothing personal.

    LikeLike

26. 

    Douglas Keachie

    09 March 2012

    We have double coverage, I carry my wife on my side, because SFUSD has a retirees plan that can include spouses. We figure that any day now, they will only allow those who already have it to continue it, so we dare not take her off. Her current employment covers us both as well, but the dual coverage doesn’t alway work that way. THey weasel like crazy, and to make matters worse, twice now, once with Doctor Barnes, and now again with Dr Hicks, they’ve dropped out of being in network, but we only find out about it AFTER we go in for stuff that should be fuly covered and then we get a big bill out of the blue. There ought to be a law that says MD’s must notify patients when they go out of network, before the patient comes in and has no choice.
    A quote: The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun.
    R. Buckminster Fuller
    Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/r_buckminster_fuller_2.html#ixzz1ogdnQWvL

    LikeLike

27. 

    Scott Obermuller

    09 March 2012

    re Michael A’s 8:31 _ Ha ha ha hahahaha – “I’m pretty pissed off about this and I’m tired of carrying everyone’s healthcare water.” Waaaaaay late to the party my friend. The leaches have and are hosing your wallet for decades and NOW you’re pissed off? What happened? Just fell off the turnip truck and looked around at reality? General Motor execs just got bonuses they won’t tell you the amount of because you’re paying it. They just admitted the local govt in DC blew almost a billion dollars of your money and mine and they have absolutely nothing to show for it. The city govt in Detroit paid 11 million dollars to provide clothes for folks to have clothes for a job interview. They clothed 2 people!!!! 11 million for 2 suits they could have gotten at the thrift store for 20 bucks. That’s only one program from one city. And there are thousands and thousands of these programs. The govt has been screwing you and anyone else that produces value and has been handing the money to cheats, slackers and slime balls for a looooong time and NOW you’re mad? Do you save your hard earned money? FOOL!!! The govt is debasing that money as we speak. Stealing value from every dollar you saved every minute of every day. On purpose. Deliberately. Have been for decades but now really ramping up big time. At least at the ER you got to live. I think 2500 is steep too, but at least you got to live. You are being conned and ripped off so much worse every day, and you get nothing. I have no clue why you are so mad at some one who saved your life. Do you even know why the hospitals charge so much? Because they have to treat all the folks that the govt sends to them and the govt makes them treat these folks and then the govt won’t reimburse the hospitals at anything close to what it costs them. And the govt supports a system of tort liability that layers tens of billions onto the system so lawyers can get pig stinking rich every time some one in that hospital even thinks they made an error. Obama and the Dems flatly refused to to do anything about it. How would you like to run a business like that? Don’t blame the hospitals or the insurance companies. It’s the govt, my friend. The funniest part is you now think that folks that don’t have the money to buy a condom should magically have the money to pay for their own health care? You are joking, aren’t you? They don’t have any income – how will they pay? They won’t. You and I will. They will buy a boat load of sugary crap with food stamps and develop diabetes and you and I will have to pay. That’s Obama care in a nut shell. Pretty cool, huh? Now you can go back to being pissed off because you and millions of others have once again been gamed by a politician. But don’t get too mad, because it’s going to get worse. You don’t want to be back at the ER having a stroke.

    LikeLike

28. 

    Michael Anderson

    09 March 2012

    Wow Scott, that was a world class rant. As a fellow ranter, I bow to you.
    I just read your rant again, and I wouldn’t even have deleted it after a second review. If you care, that is high praise from me.
    Getting down to the parts that are negotiable, we seem to have a fundamental disconnect about the role of government. I would like to spend some time in that area, but I am not sure how to proceed.
    Ideas?

    LikeLike

29. 

    George Rebane

    09 March 2012

    We had a start of a thread here on RR about a year ago about the role of government that I think involved Paul Emery. I invited someone/anyone to propose a minimal function set for government which we would then apportion to the federal, state, and local levels. And also fill in the specifics of what each function entailed from its participants – govt viz individual, corporation, church, NGO, … . I’d like someone other than me to write it up, and I’ll make it into a byline post that we could then dissect.

    LikeLike

30. 

    Douglas Keachie

    09 March 2012

    If we didn’t have an inside track, we’d fly to Mexico, have a nice weekend, pickup the meds, and fly home for less than $1200.

    LikeLike

31. 

    Todd Juvinall

    10 March 2012

    ScottO, what a great rant! You have hit the nail on the head and spelled out the frustration of the taxpayers. I went to the ER after I was attacked and broke my back. My insurance covered the costs and they saved me. I am grateful and I suppose being able to walk and not be paralyses has a value?
    The fact the insurance rates are so high at ER is quite simple. In each policy is a built in charge to pay for the uninsured who are mandated by government to be served. So, the hospital, whether for or non profit is required to treat people and get little if any reimbursement from the mandater, the government. What to do, what to do? Oh, we will charge Michael A and his insurance company a hidden (actually not so hidden) add on fee to pay for those without money who we must treat under penalty of jail.
    How we have let the government mandate that private insurance must treat whatever they deem important is beyond me. If they want things treated and treated cost effectively (like at the ER), then they should let the free market compete for the business (or bring back county hospitals). After all, it is called INSURANCE! So if everyone in the insurance business only wanted to treat able bodied healthy people, some other company would see an opportunity and treat others they felt they could make money on. The rest, those without insurance would be treated by churches, non-profits or a direct government subsidy (county hospital) (after being properly voted on and proven Constitutional). But what we have is a ridiculous system with a bit of competition for our dollars and a gazillion mandates, uncompensated.

    LikeLike

32. 

    Ryan Mount

    10 March 2012

    Ew. Bill O actually has a good point, regarding the update George. Thanks for sharing that. Yikes, I might agree with him. The whole Title 10 thing is interesting as well. $9? Not free, but pretty cheap.
    But that cat is out of the bag, and Limbaugh’s crass comments have really injured the GOP’s hopes at least for now. We can continue to debate the church/state and/or individual mandate thing, but as any lawyer will tell you, it doesn’t matter if an objection is sustained as it’s already stuck in the jury’s mind. Perhaps this is Obama’s Daisy Commercial/Moment? But instead of thermonuclear war, we have a much hotter issue: swing/independent women’s votes.

    LikeLike

33. 

    Steven Frisch

    10 March 2012

    I’d say it is pretty clear that Todd has not read the SCOTUS briefs on the Commerce Clause challenge to PPACA. I would recommend everyone with a strong opinion read them. They will be a real eye opener for both sides.
    Ryan, right again.
    I can see the Daisy commercial already–interspersed shots of President Obama talking about health care coverage for women and whoever the Republican candidate is critiquing contraception, waffling in public and kowtowing to Rush.
    Its worth 5% at a minimum.

    LikeLike

34. 

    Todd Juvinall

    10 March 2012

    What does my comment have to do with the Supreme Court? Tell us.

    LikeLike

35. 

    Steven Frisch

    11 March 2012

    You know, sometimes you just can’t make this stuff up. The one of the named lead plaintiff’s in the Florida case going to the SCOTUS later this month recently filed for bankruptcy, including on her medical bills. So, in short, because she does not have health insurance, every other insured party in the country is going to pay more. On average an insured party in the US pays $1000 more per year for health insurance to cover the uninsured.
    http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-healthcare-plaintiff-20120309,0,6657163.story

    LikeLike

36. 

    Michael Anderson

    11 March 2012

    Steve F. wrote: “On average an insured party in the US pays $1000 more per year for health insurance to cover the uninsured.”
    Exactly Steve, this is my biggest problem with our current system. If we mandate coverage, and then slowly remove that coverage out from under the employer mandate, all kinds of positive things start to happen:
    1) Employees will no longer be stuck in dead-end jobs just because they are afraid of losing health care coverage.
    2) Small business employers who cannot afford to insure their employees will no longer have to worry about their workers getting sick and being unable to afford to see a doctor.
    3) A basic level of care will be guaranteed for all US citizens, and additional insurance coverage for more expansive care will still be available to those who can, and wish to, pay for it.
    4) The US labor market will suddenly become much more competitive with the rest of the world’s labor markets because health care will no longer be a factor in the compensation equation for American labor.
    Michael A.

    LikeLike

37. 

    Steven Frisch

    12 March 2012

    Michael, you just hit the nail on the head. The argument that the Administration has been making is that universal health care makes the American work force more productive, more mobile, more innovative and more competitive, and by doing so helps reduce the cost of health care for everyone. In addition, by covering the 50 million uninsured, and creating an 8% maximum payroll deduction to pay for coverage for those whose employer does not provide coverage, (which you would think these guys would support since it is a tax on the poor to benefit the middle and upper classes) you suck about $200 billion per year out of the health care cost structure.
    Instead, under the current system, we (the ratepayers) get to pay for Ms. Brown’s health care. The same Ms. Brown who has the time, inclination and wherewithal to join a suit against PPACA, where she is making the case that she should not have to pay, while we pick up the cost. Remind again how this is “conservative”.
    In short, conservatives are supporting a system where those who can afford to pay subsidize the costs of those who can not afford to pay and the insurance companies get to keep 50 million higher risk people off their books in order to prop up their profits.

    LikeLike

38. 

    billy T

    12 March 2012

    Steve, you made some valid points and no new ground is covered. Obama said it would save billions in the long run, but it ain’t looking like it from here. Looks costly. Obamacare is an evolving bill as the phrase “to be determined by the Health Secretary” or like phrases appear over 1,100 times. Why are waivers being granted if it does not cause hardship? Bottom line is that if this was not crammed down our throats “whether we like it or not” it might have gained more traction. Nancy did not help the cause with her infamous quote “we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it”. That just adds to the distrust that this was written by lawyers in some smokey back room. Then finding out that Mutual of Obama got exempted to get the Nebraska senator’s vote, which got rescinded after it was hit with the light of day. Too many things have not hit the light of day. Latest polls show the bill is vastly unpopular and even a majority of Democrats oppose the bill. Then we need 10,000 IRS agents to slam us if we do not buy something. Why the Candyass Republicans don’t make this a top campaign issue is beyond me. Then the issue of the individual mandate which forces me to participate in economic activity. Sure, trust government to run things like Amtrak, which loses over 300 clams on every ticket sold on the LA to Memphis trip, or Fannie Mae or the PO or loans to Solyndra, ad infinitum.

    LikeLike

39. 

    billy T

    12 March 2012

    opps, I meant LA to New Orleans (nawlense) and over 400 bucks lost per trip. My sincere and gravling Candy Ass apologies for my unspeakable mistake.

    LikeLike

40. 

    Steven Frisch

    12 March 2012

    Billy……the way a law is passed…which I would argue the Republicans could have affected if they had negotiated which I wish they had because there were several ideas of theirs that I liked, like cross state portability and being able to purchase insurance across state lines…is not really relevant. If the law was passed illegally that is what the challenge would have been to its constitutionality…it was passed by a majority votes of the House and Senate and signed by the President. That makes it law. If you want to protest that…be my guest…protest it and be prepared to suffer the consequences….just as the thousands of people who are still protesting income tax do. If you want to challenge its constitutionality under the CC clause, be my guest, that is exactly what is happening.
    Almost every piece of major legislation has direction for some agency or department to implement it. The point that this one points to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to do it is not unique, as a matter of fact it was the very restriction on how it could be implemented that the Blunt amendment was intended to affect. AND IT LOST.
    And as to the individual mandate, I am really wondering what makes one think that individual mandate is any less constitutional than the mandate for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, payroll taxes, or anything else. They are all collected under the same principle…that the Commerce Clause authorizes government to collect them.
    We have processes and systems to deal with the legality of these things. No one here has been advocating that those should be overridden in any way. We have been saying “go for it”. But be prepared to lose.
    The new ground covered is pretty clear to me…in the absence of universal health care those who do have health coverage are paying for those who do not, through their emergency care and critical care…the PPACA rationalizes the system so everyone pays something thus reducing costs. Its really that simple.

    LikeLike

41. 

    billy T

    12 March 2012

    Yep, Mr. Frisch, we first have to wait until the Supreme Court rules on it on a few short months. Until then all is just belly-aching (myself being the biggest whiner). At that point I will accept the decision, but may not like it. We are a nation of laws and even the brightest and most book learned among us cannot agree what the Supremes will do. For arguments sake, there are 50 state insurance commissions and not one wants to give up their power to dictate. For arguments sake, the argument that the taxpayers cost for ER will go down when the uninsured have Universal Health Insurance. Not so in Massachusetts. As waiting times to see your doc has increased dramatically, those with insurance say screw it and go to ER. This is the result of giving everybody a doc, and there are not enough docs to see everybody in a timely manner of such as under a month and a some change. You are sick, have insurance now and the doc says see ya April 19th. Nope, I am heading up to ER. Kinda sounds similar to England or other civilized countries. At least England has been importing thousands of foreign docs to handle their managed care. Apology #2: Darn, I just can’t get my fingers to do what my tiny brain tells it to do. I meant Amtrak loses 400 clams PER passenger on the LA to NO trip, not a mere 400 per trip. I am a victim here. Dr. Rebane should have my caught my error and removed it immediately. Its not my fault! This is so unfair.

    LikeLike

42. 

    Gregory

    12 March 2012

    Obamacare only passed both houses because of hard ball partisan politics by Democrats led by Pelosi who only owned both houses because voters in ’08 decided Republicans were at fault for the meltdown, an error which began to be corrected in ’10. If Pelosi wanted bipartisan support, she would have included Republicans in for substantive formative discussions. Instead, she got bipartisan opposition and only a minimal majority after having to buy off many of her own party to get it passed.
    Republicans may well own the House, Senate and the Presidency in Jan ’13 and will probably also misunderstand their mandate and overreach.

    LikeLike

43. 

    Gregory

    12 March 2012

    “And as to the individual mandate, I am really wondering what makes one think that individual mandate is any less constitutional than the mandate for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, payroll taxes, or anything else. They are all collected under the same principle…that the Commerce Clause authorizes government to collect them.” -Frisch
    I am gobsmacked that Frisch does not understand the difference between a tax and a mandate to buy something from a third party.

    LikeLike

44. 

    Todd Juvinall

    12 March 2012

    Trying to stay current. KNCO decided to keep Rush Limbaugh on and it has generated sever pouting by liberals. Here is a comment from a liberal woman complaining abut the “war on women” while demeaning men. You just can’t make this stuff up.
    “Kate, on March 12, 2012 at 3:22 pm said:
    KNCO: Old Panting Dogs, Fresh Outta New Tricks. So… back to the wingnut blowhard’s 4 inch “shaming wand” and the war on women and girls. I guess angry ole dudes need somewhere to go too…right over to KNCO.
    Kate
    So if we men who love and care for our fermales are conducting a “war” on them, what is Kate’s problem then?

    LikeLike

45. 

    billy T

    12 March 2012

    Glad Rush is back to fill the void. Haven’t heard its all Bush’s fault for a little while and nature abhors a vacuum. Now the Rush is back, the libbies can all gather together and chant “Down with Rush, Down with Rush!” Ah, all its well in the world again, the equilibrium has restored itself. Now when some Neo-Con points out the civil speech of the left after calling Bush a little Hilter and stupid for 8 straight years, they can justify everything by saying “Rush, Rush, Rush!”. When they go bananas cause there was one single poster with a Hilter mustache drawn on Obama’s pic at one single Tea Party rally among hundreds of rallies, well its all Rush’s fault. This is perfect. It makes everything Bill Mahr said yesterday about Rick Santorum’s children A-OK. Making fun of Todd and Sarah Paline’s down syndrome baby is perfectly justified now because of Rush. Yes, I can relax now that things are back to normal. As far as Kate’s little rant in The Union about a 4″ inch “shaming wand”, I will cut her some slack and actually feel sorry for her. Being stuck with 4 inches may left her a wee bit upset. Kate isn’t all that bad once you get past the used stuff.

    LikeLike

46. 

    Gregory

    12 March 2012

    Right on cue, the 60th vote on Obamacare in the Senate, the one that provided cloture, the one and only Arlen Specter, is now whining that Obama and the Dems reneged on their promises to him when he fled the Republican Party:
    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/215379-specter-says-obama-ditched-him-after-he-provided-60th-vote-to-pass-health-law
    The moral of the story would seem to be if you are amoral and planning on selling out your party and professed ideals, wait until the checks clear before you hand over your goods.

    LikeLike

47. 

    Brad Croul

    12 March 2012

    GeorgeR seems have missed the true reason Republicans are acting like Candy Asses. It is not that they don’t confront Obama and tell him to, “suck it up, this is what free speech sounds like”. Rather, it is what George Will describes below,
    ABC’s George Will told me Sunday on “This Week” that GOP leaders have steered clear of harshly denouncing Limbaugh’s comments because “Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”
    “[House Speaker John] Boehner comes out and says Rush’s language was inappropriate. Using the salad fork for your entrée, that’s inappropriate. Not this stuff,” Will said. “And it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”
    ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd said the Republicans’ apprehension to say anything negative about the conservative big hitter is based on the “myth” that Limbaugh influences a large number of Republican voters.
    “I think the problem is the Republican leaders, Mitt Romney and the other candidates, don’t have the courage to say what they say in quiet, which, they think Rush Limbaugh is a buffoon,” Dowd said. ”They think he is like a clown coming out of a small car at a circus. It’s great he is entertaining and all that. But nobody takes him seriously.”
    Free speech is still alive and well and Limbaugh is still a buffoon.

    LikeLike

48. 

    Douglas Keachie

    12 March 2012

    Too Bad, KNCO missed the chance to try out some really creative program, and be local as well. What I would say to them and their Russ-enthralled advertisers is the same thing they say to us.
    “BUY LOCAL!”
    Give Todd Juvenal, George Rebane, and Russ Steele the timeslot in alternation, or as the first talk show trio. They would do just fine. If they are low on material, they could excerpt all the other Rtwing talk shows and have local callers get a chance to respond to the national issues. It would be a lickspittle gobsmacking hoot! Especially if Jeff Pelline controlled the slider, the device that decides how much volume, if any, to give the host vs the caller. And let Jeff Ackerman take the alternate days.

    LikeLike

49. 

    Gregory

    13 March 2012

    I recall a CSPAN presentation of William Bennett giving an introductory talk to an incoming freshman class, perhaps the group who swept in on Gingrich’s coattails and the Contract with America. Bennett had a story to illustrate how ideas get loose…
    Bennett got a call from Rush Limbaugh, what’s up, what do you think the country needs? Bennett tells him the country needs a modern day version of the Council of Trent. “What does that mean?” So Bennett explains some history to Limbaugh.
    Limbaugh then does a segment on his program. ‘What the country needs is a modern day version of the Council of Trent. You probably don’t know what that means, so let me tell you…’
    George Will then calls Bennett. “What do you think the country needs?”. Bennett says “we need a modern day version of the Council of Trent” to which Will says. “Oh, you’ve been listening to Limbaugh”.
    Will is the definitive candyass Republican.

    LikeLike

50. 

    Douglas Keachie

    13 March 2012

    “Bennett got a call from Rush Limbaugh, what’s up, what do you think the country needs? Bennett tells him the country needs a modern day version of the Council of Trent. “What does that mean?” So Bennett explains some history to Limbaugh.
    Limbaugh then does a segment on his program. ‘What the country needs is a modern day version of the Council of Trent. You probably don’t know what that means, so let me tell you…’
    George Will then calls Bennett. “What do you think the country needs?”. Bennett says “we need a modern day version of the Council of Trent” to which Will says. “Oh, you’ve been listening to Limbaugh”.”
    So, just out of the total blue, George Will calls Bennett with that exact question? Cute story, rings my improbability bell moderately well.

    LikeLike