Via RedState
Ya know, when a far left Marxist ideologue loses Air America, it’s bad. When that far left Marxist ideologue is President Barack Obama, losing Air America must really suck.
Ouch.
The President is learning just how hard it is to play both sides of the fence, talk out of both sides of your mouth and keep all your stories straight. So far, Obama's "all things to all people" style of 'leadership' has resulted in the president being a non-entity. The President is merely a cardboard figure that is trotted out to add gravitas to nothingness.
I am actually with the the Left on this. I sincerely believe that the people who got Barack Obama elected deserve better. The people who gave us this president have been screwed over on Gitmo, gay marriage, gays in the military, Iraq, Afghanistan, on and on. Admittedly, I'm not exactly crying over Obama's disingenuousness, but I would rather deal with the Devil that I know than a wisp of conflicting ideas.
Obama is trying to deflect criticism by wrapping his natural tendencies in a shroud of populism. As a result, nobody is being served.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
When The Past Is The Present: What Would James Madison Say?
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow."-- James Madison, Federalist no. 62, February 27, 1788
Read it again and take a moment to let it soak in. Two hundred and twenty-one years ago, James Madison described our situation today.
Today we elect people who represent themselves via special interest dollars in spite of the wishes of their constituents.
Today we have bills that impact 300 million citizens that exceed ONE THOUSAND PAGES that our elected representatives did not write and do not read. The bills are intentionally incoherent with the thought of implement now, figure out later.
When our Founding Fathers gave us a form of government based on individual liberty they intimately knew the personal suffocation of tyranny. They imagined that each branch of government would watch over the other and that "We, the People" would look over all three.
We have reached a turning point in our national life. Our choice is between the self-governance envisioned by our fore-bearers or a reliance upon a central government.
"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."-- James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788
Read it again and take a moment to let it soak in. Two hundred and twenty-one years ago, James Madison described our situation today.
Today we elect people who represent themselves via special interest dollars in spite of the wishes of their constituents.
Today we have bills that impact 300 million citizens that exceed ONE THOUSAND PAGES that our elected representatives did not write and do not read. The bills are intentionally incoherent with the thought of implement now, figure out later.
When our Founding Fathers gave us a form of government based on individual liberty they intimately knew the personal suffocation of tyranny. They imagined that each branch of government would watch over the other and that "We, the People" would look over all three.
We have reached a turning point in our national life. Our choice is between the self-governance envisioned by our fore-bearers or a reliance upon a central government.
"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."-- James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788
Congress Is "Investigating" Health Insurance Companies
Mark Steyn writing at The Corner:
HUAC (The Healthcare UnAmerican Activities Committee)
Doctor O's enforcers decide it's time to get heavy with the insurance companies:
Letters sent to 52 insurance companies by Democratic leaders demand extensive documents for an examination of ‘extensive compensation and other business practices in the health insurance industry...”
By Sept. 4, the firms are supposed to supply detailed compensation data for board members and top executives, as well as a “table listing all conferences, retreats, or other events held outside company facilities from January 1, 2007, to the present that were paid for, reimbursed, or subsidized in whole or in part by your company.”
You first. How come the compensations and perks of a vice-president in a private company are to be subject to greater public forensic examination than those of Dodd or Rangel?
They're supposed to be representatives not rulers. George III couldn't have got away with a letter like that.
Well, Obama the One shouldn’t get away with it either. What authority does the Congress have to investigate private companies who, as far as I am aware, have committed no crime?
In what has become a never ending re-branding of ObamaCare, the latest labeling is Health Insurance Reform. Nancy Pelosi, in her typical understated fashion, said this of the insurance industry:
“They are the villains in this,” Pelosi said of private insurers. “They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening. And the public has to know that. They can disguise their arguments any way they want, but the fact is that they don’t want the competition.”
Yes, well, a pox on those villainous insurance companies. After all, ONLY eighty-three percent of Americans rate the quality of healthcare they receive as excellent or good.
Waxman & Co. issued the letters in order to hassle, embarrass and punish insurance companies for their opposition to ObamaCare. In turn, the insurance companies should answer with a unanimous “Screw you.”
Further discussion at:
Memeorandum
RedState
Hugh Hewitt
HUAC (The Healthcare UnAmerican Activities Committee)
Doctor O's enforcers decide it's time to get heavy with the insurance companies:
Letters sent to 52 insurance companies by Democratic leaders demand extensive documents for an examination of ‘extensive compensation and other business practices in the health insurance industry...”
By Sept. 4, the firms are supposed to supply detailed compensation data for board members and top executives, as well as a “table listing all conferences, retreats, or other events held outside company facilities from January 1, 2007, to the present that were paid for, reimbursed, or subsidized in whole or in part by your company.”
You first. How come the compensations and perks of a vice-president in a private company are to be subject to greater public forensic examination than those of Dodd or Rangel?
They're supposed to be representatives not rulers. George III couldn't have got away with a letter like that.
Well, Obama the One shouldn’t get away with it either. What authority does the Congress have to investigate private companies who, as far as I am aware, have committed no crime?
In what has become a never ending re-branding of ObamaCare, the latest labeling is Health Insurance Reform. Nancy Pelosi, in her typical understated fashion, said this of the insurance industry:
“They are the villains in this,” Pelosi said of private insurers. “They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening. And the public has to know that. They can disguise their arguments any way they want, but the fact is that they don’t want the competition.”
Yes, well, a pox on those villainous insurance companies. After all, ONLY eighty-three percent of Americans rate the quality of healthcare they receive as excellent or good.
Waxman & Co. issued the letters in order to hassle, embarrass and punish insurance companies for their opposition to ObamaCare. In turn, the insurance companies should answer with a unanimous “Screw you.”
Further discussion at:
Memeorandum
RedState
Hugh Hewitt
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Oops! They Did It Again!
The Orlando townhall wasn’t open to the public, either. There seems be a lot of that going around. JammieWearingFool reports:
We noted Monday that Florida Democrat Alan Grayson was holding his town hall meeting inside a local union headquarters with the union laughably claiming they weren't involved.Well, apparently things got pretty testy last night.
Some people waited for hours and never got inside a town hall meeting for health care reform, held in downtown Orlando and hosted by Congressman Alan Grayson.
Before the public meeting began at 7:45 p.m., the Democratic Executive Committee gathered for a special question and answer session with the congressman. While they were asked to give up their seats at the conclusion of the session, not all of them left.
Outside were dozens of angry people who thought they would have a chance to be heard.
Well now, what could possibly go wrong when a congressman schedules a public meeting inside a union hall? Let’s think. Hmm…
Out of the mere 125 seats available for the public in a city the size of Orlando, only thirty people were allowed in after they had waited for hours in the Florida sun for hours because the hall had been prefilled before the doors were even opened. Sound familiar?
November, 2010 folks. November, 2010.
We noted Monday that Florida Democrat Alan Grayson was holding his town hall meeting inside a local union headquarters with the union laughably claiming they weren't involved.Well, apparently things got pretty testy last night.
Some people waited for hours and never got inside a town hall meeting for health care reform, held in downtown Orlando and hosted by Congressman Alan Grayson.
Before the public meeting began at 7:45 p.m., the Democratic Executive Committee gathered for a special question and answer session with the congressman. While they were asked to give up their seats at the conclusion of the session, not all of them left.
Outside were dozens of angry people who thought they would have a chance to be heard.
Well now, what could possibly go wrong when a congressman schedules a public meeting inside a union hall? Let’s think. Hmm…
Out of the mere 125 seats available for the public in a city the size of Orlando, only thirty people were allowed in after they had waited for hours in the Florida sun for hours because the hall had been prefilled before the doors were even opened. Sound familiar?
November, 2010 folks. November, 2010.
Sadly, "Incompetence" Is The Least Of The President's Problems
Via Memeorandum
Writing in the LA Times, Jonah Goldberg opines on Why 'Obama-care' is failing. Being a kinder person than I, Goldberg chalks it up to incompetence:
Imagine if President George W. Bush, in his effort to partially privatize Social Security, had insisted that the "time for talking is over." Picture, if you will, the Bush White House asking Americans to turn in their e-mails, in the pursuit of "fishy" dissent. Conjure a scenario under which then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) derided critics as "evil-mongers" the way Harry Reid (D-Nev.) recently described town hall protesters. Or if then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) had called vocal critics "un-American" the way Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) did last week, or if White House strategist Karl Rove had been Sir Spam-a-lot instead of David Axelrod.
Now I'm not asking you, dear reader, to do this so that you might be able to see through the glare of Obama's halo or the outlines of the media's staggering double standard when it comes to covering this White House. Rather it is to grasp that the Obama administration has been astoundingly incompetent.
I agree that the Administration’s handling of health care has been monumentally incompetent, however, I would argue that it is incompetence borne from dishonesty and ego.
Barack Obama is not a humble man. He believes that if he says it, it makes it so. He believes the “One” hype and that his personal charisma is enough to guarantee consensus. In the real world, it takes more than an upturned chin to convince a country to overthrow its health care system.
On the other hand, Obama is smart enough to know that if he presents the public option honestly that it will not fly. It is fundamentally dishonest to say that under a public plan:
To imagine that the American public would willing swallow that swill is hubris on steroids.
Goldberg correctly points out that there is no single coherent health care bill. The entire fiasco has been “Amateur Night at the White House.” But Obama was banking that his glow would blind the public to the lack of details until it was too late.
Writing in the LA Times, Jonah Goldberg opines on Why 'Obama-care' is failing. Being a kinder person than I, Goldberg chalks it up to incompetence:
Imagine if President George W. Bush, in his effort to partially privatize Social Security, had insisted that the "time for talking is over." Picture, if you will, the Bush White House asking Americans to turn in their e-mails, in the pursuit of "fishy" dissent. Conjure a scenario under which then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) derided critics as "evil-mongers" the way Harry Reid (D-Nev.) recently described town hall protesters. Or if then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) had called vocal critics "un-American" the way Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) did last week, or if White House strategist Karl Rove had been Sir Spam-a-lot instead of David Axelrod.
Now I'm not asking you, dear reader, to do this so that you might be able to see through the glare of Obama's halo or the outlines of the media's staggering double standard when it comes to covering this White House. Rather it is to grasp that the Obama administration has been astoundingly incompetent.
I agree that the Administration’s handling of health care has been monumentally incompetent, however, I would argue that it is incompetence borne from dishonesty and ego.
Barack Obama is not a humble man. He believes that if he says it, it makes it so. He believes the “One” hype and that his personal charisma is enough to guarantee consensus. In the real world, it takes more than an upturned chin to convince a country to overthrow its health care system.
On the other hand, Obama is smart enough to know that if he presents the public option honestly that it will not fly. It is fundamentally dishonest to say that under a public plan:
* You can keep your private insurance
* You can keep your doctor
* You will see NO change in your current care
* You will save money
* There will be no rationing
To imagine that the American public would willing swallow that swill is hubris on steroids.
Goldberg correctly points out that there is no single coherent health care bill. The entire fiasco has been “Amateur Night at the White House.” But Obama was banking that his glow would blind the public to the lack of details until it was too late.
Health Care: Who Decides What Is "Fair"?
It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. —President Barack Obama in a New York Times interview on how costly medical decisions should be made.
The people behind the long table do not know what they've become. The drug of power has been sugared over in their mouths with a flavoring of righteousness. Someone has to make these decisions, they tell their friends at dinner parties. It's all very difficult for us. But you can see it in their eyes: It isn't really difficult at all. It feels good to them to be the ones who decide.
"Well, we have your doctor's recommendation," says the chairwoman in a friendly tone. She peers over the top of her glasses as she pages through your file.
You have to clear your throat before you can answer. "He says the operation is my only chance."
"But not really very much of a chance, is it?" she says sympathetically. Over time, she's become expert at sounding sympathetic.
"Seventy percent!" you object.
"Seventy percent chance of survival for five years—five years at the outside—and even that only amounts to about 18 months in QALYs: quality-adjusted life years."
"But without this procedure, I'll be dead before Christmas."
Andrew Klavin: What death by bureaucratic fiat might look like.
When resources are limited, choices must be made. The debate over health care reform centers over who should make those choices.
The difference between cancer survival rates in the US and Canada aren't the result of poorly trained doctors in Canada. No one would suggest that Canadian doctors are less professional or less caring. In Canada, limited medical dollars must be allocated where they can do the greatest good. In the US, those decisions are made by individuals and families involved.
Klavin points out that for those in favor of a government takeover of health care the mantra is "fairness." Like it or not, we are not a country built on "fairness." We are risk takers and individualists. We still be believe that each of us controls our own destiny. Government control form stifles individual initiative.
In a system built on individuality there will be winners and losers. Under a government system there are winners and losers as well. Who would you rather trust with your fate, yourself or a bureaucrat?
The people behind the long table do not know what they've become. The drug of power has been sugared over in their mouths with a flavoring of righteousness. Someone has to make these decisions, they tell their friends at dinner parties. It's all very difficult for us. But you can see it in their eyes: It isn't really difficult at all. It feels good to them to be the ones who decide.
"Well, we have your doctor's recommendation," says the chairwoman in a friendly tone. She peers over the top of her glasses as she pages through your file.
You have to clear your throat before you can answer. "He says the operation is my only chance."
"But not really very much of a chance, is it?" she says sympathetically. Over time, she's become expert at sounding sympathetic.
"Seventy percent!" you object.
"Seventy percent chance of survival for five years—five years at the outside—and even that only amounts to about 18 months in QALYs: quality-adjusted life years."
"But without this procedure, I'll be dead before Christmas."
Andrew Klavin: What death by bureaucratic fiat might look like.
When resources are limited, choices must be made. The debate over health care reform centers over who should make those choices.
The difference between cancer survival rates in the US and Canada aren't the result of poorly trained doctors in Canada. No one would suggest that Canadian doctors are less professional or less caring. In Canada, limited medical dollars must be allocated where they can do the greatest good. In the US, those decisions are made by individuals and families involved.
Klavin points out that for those in favor of a government takeover of health care the mantra is "fairness." Like it or not, we are not a country built on "fairness." We are risk takers and individualists. We still be believe that each of us controls our own destiny. Government control form stifles individual initiative.
In a system built on individuality there will be winners and losers. Under a government system there are winners and losers as well. Who would you rather trust with your fate, yourself or a bureaucrat?
Monday, August 17, 2009
A Bit Of Thievery
The Daley Gator stole it from The Other McCain and now I am stealing it from both of them.
Oh, oh! Mobster alert!
Why Are Elitists So Dumb?
Rationing and Rationality in the National Review has set off quite the little web war. Stacy McCain thinks that Rich Lowry should be fired:
Accusing Sarah Palin (and her supporters) of "hysteria" over health care?
Once again, as I said two weeks ago, National Review contributes more evidence for the prosecution in the continuing case of Why Rich Lowry Should Have Been Fired No Later Than 2001.
Riehl World View:
NRO: Palin Is Hysterical
I suppose the boy Editor will eventually argue, "Well, it was only her words, you see". As if the childish looking dupe could ever pull off a decent Buckley imitation.
What is it going to take for conservatives to finally accept that William F. is dead, the heirs to the throne, with too few exceptions, are a bunch of 2nd and 3rd generation elitist brats who belong to the Inside the Beltway set? They are not a part of the conservative movement that must re-define American politics, just as Reagan did, if there is to be anything like conservatism going forward in the nation's political discourse.
And from Andrew McCarthy:
I did indeed say, "few people worried about death panels think the process will be anything so crude" as what the editorial describes as "deciding whose life has sufficient value to be saved." From this, you conclude that, "in other words," I agree with the editorial that the death panels won't be "literal death panels." That's just wrong. I most certainly do not agree that the editorial's narrow description of a death panel's function — namely, "deciding whose life has sufficient value to be saved" — establishes the "literal" definition of what a death panel is.
I am getting the feeling that Rich Lowry is what my mother calls “an educated idiot.” He really shouldn’t write about things that he obviously knows nothing of. Nobody is saying that there will be a government team whose sole purpose will be to travel from hospital to hospital pulling the plug on Grannie. However, it is reasonable that a public option will lead to rationing. Rationing will lead to certain care being allowed or disallowed. As a result of these decisions, under a government plan some people will not receive treatment which could reasonably result in death.
Let me break it down. Let’s say that I earn forty thousand dollars a year. Based on the resources at my disposal I make decisions, ration, my housing, food intake, vehicle usage and my medical care. I can choose not to ration and live off of my credit cards but at some point the deficit in my budget will catch up with me.
The government has no real money of its own. Therefore, its resources are limited and it must make decisions, ration, how those resources are spent. When medical dollars are limited, it is reasonable that available dollars will be spent on the most productive members of society. That is reality and denying it is either delusional or disingenuous.
Sarah Palin was right. Is that simple enough for you Mr. Lowry?
Accusing Sarah Palin (and her supporters) of "hysteria" over health care?
Once again, as I said two weeks ago, National Review contributes more evidence for the prosecution in the continuing case of Why Rich Lowry Should Have Been Fired No Later Than 2001.
Riehl World View:
NRO: Palin Is Hysterical
I suppose the boy Editor will eventually argue, "Well, it was only her words, you see". As if the childish looking dupe could ever pull off a decent Buckley imitation.
What is it going to take for conservatives to finally accept that William F. is dead, the heirs to the throne, with too few exceptions, are a bunch of 2nd and 3rd generation elitist brats who belong to the Inside the Beltway set? They are not a part of the conservative movement that must re-define American politics, just as Reagan did, if there is to be anything like conservatism going forward in the nation's political discourse.
And from Andrew McCarthy:
I did indeed say, "few people worried about death panels think the process will be anything so crude" as what the editorial describes as "deciding whose life has sufficient value to be saved." From this, you conclude that, "in other words," I agree with the editorial that the death panels won't be "literal death panels." That's just wrong. I most certainly do not agree that the editorial's narrow description of a death panel's function — namely, "deciding whose life has sufficient value to be saved" — establishes the "literal" definition of what a death panel is.
I am getting the feeling that Rich Lowry is what my mother calls “an educated idiot.” He really shouldn’t write about things that he obviously knows nothing of. Nobody is saying that there will be a government team whose sole purpose will be to travel from hospital to hospital pulling the plug on Grannie. However, it is reasonable that a public option will lead to rationing. Rationing will lead to certain care being allowed or disallowed. As a result of these decisions, under a government plan some people will not receive treatment which could reasonably result in death.
Let me break it down. Let’s say that I earn forty thousand dollars a year. Based on the resources at my disposal I make decisions, ration, my housing, food intake, vehicle usage and my medical care. I can choose not to ration and live off of my credit cards but at some point the deficit in my budget will catch up with me.
The government has no real money of its own. Therefore, its resources are limited and it must make decisions, ration, how those resources are spent. When medical dollars are limited, it is reasonable that available dollars will be spent on the most productive members of society. That is reality and denying it is either delusional or disingenuous.
Sarah Palin was right. Is that simple enough for you Mr. Lowry?
What Happens To The "Fishy" People Now? UPDATED
Via Memeorandum:
Well there you go. I no more get Certified Fishy than the White House figures out that asking people to rat out their neighbors might not be good idea. From Politico:
Following a furor over how the data would be used, the White House has shut down an electronic tip box — flag@whitehouse.gov — that was set up to receive information on “fishy” claims about President Barack Obama’s health plan.
E-mails to that address now bounce back with the message: “The e-mail address you just sent a message to is no longer in service. We are now accepting your feedback about health insurance reform via http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck.”
At the time the “fishy” program was instituted, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insisted that the White House was merely trying to dispel misinformation circulating about ObamaCare and that the White House would not be keeping any names that were gathered through the program.
In other words, the White House played it off say, “move along, nothing to see here.” Like so much that comes out of the White House, the public didn’t buy it.
The question remains, whether the program is active or not, what will the Administration do with the names it has collected?
Well there you go. I no more get Certified Fishy than the White House figures out that asking people to rat out their neighbors might not be good idea. From Politico:
Following a furor over how the data would be used, the White House has shut down an electronic tip box — flag@whitehouse.gov — that was set up to receive information on “fishy” claims about President Barack Obama’s health plan.
E-mails to that address now bounce back with the message: “The e-mail address you just sent a message to is no longer in service. We are now accepting your feedback about health insurance reform via http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck.”
At the time the “fishy” program was instituted, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insisted that the White House was merely trying to dispel misinformation circulating about ObamaCare and that the White House would not be keeping any names that were gathered through the program.
In other words, the White House played it off say, “move along, nothing to see here.” Like so much that comes out of the White House, the public didn’t buy it.
The question remains, whether the program is active or not, what will the Administration do with the names it has collected?
UPDATE:
From Prof. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection:
But once landing at the contact form, you are cautioned: "Please refrain from submitting any individual's personal information, including their email address, without their permission."
So the White House still is asking people to report information to it, and if someone just happened to include her neighbor's name and e-mail address, well that would just be an unintended consequence.
So is the White House still running its fishy flag operation? Depends on what the meaning of "flag" is.
The Riehl World:
I can't recall ever seeing such a disconnect between a WH occupant's words and deeds as much as we see with Obama. I find it very troubling, frankly. It's as if he goes out of his way to give you reasons to not trust him. Hmm. I suppose he just can't help himself, somehow. Serious question: Do you find him to be a genuinely troubling man, or is it just politics generating such feelings for some?
So, it looks like the Internet Snitch Brigade has closed up shop — and you can no longer flag yourself at flag@whitehouse.gov.
But the health care czar’s office (background here) and Obama Chicago crony Valerie Jarrett’s staff (background here) are hard at work pumping out O-care propaganda — and still collecting e-mail addresses — at the government-funded website “Reality Check.”
The White House spammers haven’t been thrown under the bus. They’re just taking a potty break.
Fool Me Once Shame On Me, Fool Me Twice...UPDATED
Memeorandum is lit up with "the public option is dead" tripe. Right. As Michelle Malkin says, "distrust and verify." The Left and the Administration have made it clear that they want a public option and if they have to re-package it and put a bright shiny ribbon on it to push the public option through, so be it.
It appears that the latest misnomer is "co-op." By any name, any system that is funded by tax dollars is a public option. Any system directed by the administration is a public option. Any system that does not guarantee tort reform is a public option.
This "trial balloon" is meant to draw the public's attention away from the devil in the details. This is an attempt to quell the noise at town halls and Tea Parties while preserving the public option, albeit in a more subtle (sneaky) form.
The President has hung his hat on the public option. Don't be fooled in to believing that he is willing to walk away from it now.
Update:
Dan Riehl at the Riehl World View isn't buying the idea that the public option is dead:
The media won't watch them. There are no public watchdogs on the prowl, except perhaps for some few politicians on the Right. It's time to be vigilant, to remain engaged. And I wouldn't count on much respite between now and 2010 if we're lucky. That could be out last chance to restore any sanity to our government, again. Unchecked, by 2012, too much may have already slipped beyond the people's control.
And it isn't only Obama we have to be concerned about. The GOP has its governmentalists, too. And they'd like nothing better than to be a part of a Washington, DC that gets to tell everybody just what to do and when. It's time to tamp down that tendency inside a faction of the GOP, too.
It appears that the latest misnomer is "co-op." By any name, any system that is funded by tax dollars is a public option. Any system directed by the administration is a public option. Any system that does not guarantee tort reform is a public option.
This "trial balloon" is meant to draw the public's attention away from the devil in the details. This is an attempt to quell the noise at town halls and Tea Parties while preserving the public option, albeit in a more subtle (sneaky) form.
The President has hung his hat on the public option. Don't be fooled in to believing that he is willing to walk away from it now.
Update:
Dan Riehl at the Riehl World View isn't buying the idea that the public option is dead:
The media won't watch them. There are no public watchdogs on the prowl, except perhaps for some few politicians on the Right. It's time to be vigilant, to remain engaged. And I wouldn't count on much respite between now and 2010 if we're lucky. That could be out last chance to restore any sanity to our government, again. Unchecked, by 2012, too much may have already slipped beyond the people's control.
And it isn't only Obama we have to be concerned about. The GOP has its governmentalists, too. And they'd like nothing better than to be a part of a Washington, DC that gets to tell everybody just what to do and when. It's time to tamp down that tendency inside a faction of the GOP, too.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Althouse On Our National "Conversation"
Via Instapundit:
Ann Althouse lends her voice to our national "conversation":
"I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place."
Conversation? Man, "conversation" has become one of those Orwellian words. There it is in Obama's NYT interview, where he's saying something that invites the relabeling that Sarah Palin so effectively slapped on it — "death panels."
Where is the room for "conversation" in this "debate"? If one side, mine, believes that the government has no business being invovled in health care and does not trust the government to be involved in health care and the other side believes that the government is the answer to all things great and small, there is precious little wiggle room.
We are told to believe that it means what it didn't seem to mean when HE said it and if we would just trust and act with sufficient speed the truth will be made clear in all good time. Oddly, those who would say that the previous sentence makes no sense are those who understand the Words of the One. Oddly, those who would ask us to accept The Change on faith, are those who often mock the Scriptures. And suddenly, irony is no longer funny.
Althouse:
Obama's final fillip:
Oh, come on! But this post is already too long, and it's about the rhetorical use of "conversation." "This isn’t about politics" is at least as common and at least as disingenuous, but we'll have to have our conversation about this isn’t about politics some other day.
Amen.
Ann Althouse lends her voice to our national "conversation":
"I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place."
Conversation? Man, "conversation" has become one of those Orwellian words. There it is in Obama's NYT interview, where he's saying something that invites the relabeling that Sarah Palin so effectively slapped on it — "death panels."
Where is the room for "conversation" in this "debate"? If one side, mine, believes that the government has no business being invovled in health care and does not trust the government to be involved in health care and the other side believes that the government is the answer to all things great and small, there is precious little wiggle room.
It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions justConversations! Damn! As if the government does not have power! Oh, but it's "not determinative," you say. It's just "some guidance." He said that, see? Ugh! Spare me! We're right to be afraid now, while the man is burbling about conversation. You know damned well he's about to say and now the time for conversation is over, and we must pass legislation. Before, he was all quick, shut up, it's an emergency, pass the legislation. People freaked, so then he deemed the period of freakage part of the conversation, and there, it has occurred, and now: shut up, pass the legislation.
through the normal political channels. And that's part of why you have to have
some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I
think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that's part of what I
suspect you'll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that
are taking place on the Hill right now.
We are told to believe that it means what it didn't seem to mean when HE said it and if we would just trust and act with sufficient speed the truth will be made clear in all good time. Oddly, those who would say that the previous sentence makes no sense are those who understand the Words of the One. Oddly, those who would ask us to accept The Change on faith, are those who often mock the Scriptures. And suddenly, irony is no longer funny.
Althouse:
Obama's final fillip:
In the end, this isn’t about politics.
Oh, come on! But this post is already too long, and it's about the rhetorical use of "conversation." "This isn’t about politics" is at least as common and at least as disingenuous, but we'll have to have our conversation about this isn’t about politics some other day.
Amen.
The President Misses His Own Point In the FedEX, UPS, Post Office Analogy
Somebody in the administration should sit the President down and explain to him the unintended consequences of making a really bad analogy. Yesterday he committed a doozie when he said:
[I]f the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about -- if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems.
Michael Turk at The Next Right, points out the fallacy of the analogy:
So that raises the next point of failure in his argument. It's not like FedEx and UPS were doing it first, and the government created a new mail delivery vehicle to force FedEx and UPS to lower their costs. FedEx and UPS, to the contrary, sprung up in response to a near complete failure of the government option. They arose from the ashes of countless lost packages, and inefficient government bungling. They recognized a market for reliable package delivery.
What on Earth would cause the President to point out yet another failed government program as a reason to support a government takeover of health care? As a supposedly smart person is he really so unaware of the meanings of his own words?
Read Turk's entire post here.
[I]f the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about -- if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems.
Michael Turk at The Next Right, points out the fallacy of the analogy:
So that raises the next point of failure in his argument. It's not like FedEx and UPS were doing it first, and the government created a new mail delivery vehicle to force FedEx and UPS to lower their costs. FedEx and UPS, to the contrary, sprung up in response to a near complete failure of the government option. They arose from the ashes of countless lost packages, and inefficient government bungling. They recognized a market for reliable package delivery.
What on Earth would cause the President to point out yet another failed government program as a reason to support a government takeover of health care? As a supposedly smart person is he really so unaware of the meanings of his own words?
Read Turk's entire post here.
GEICO's Response
I sent my insurance company, GEICO, an email regarding their decision to pull their advertising from the Glenn Beck show at the behest of the group Color of Change, founded by convicted felon and White House Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones. GEICO's decision not to respond to me speaks to my worth to them as a customer. Duly noted. However, they did send out a response to some customers and I came across one at Bear Creek Ledger, which reads in part:
Thank you, first of all for your business and also for your interest in this matter.
This week we took action to move our marketing messages from the Glenn Beck show and you are wondering why. Well, you deserve an answer. If the inflammatory nature of the comments on a program overshadows our message and causes GEICO to be drawn into a national debate, we are likely to reconsider where we place our marketing messages, which is what we did.
GEICO delivers very important messages through its major marketing campaigns: we’re saving customers’ dollars, we’re easy to do business with, we’re looking out for our policyholders. That’s what we hope the public hears and sees and focuses on. As a company, we do not take positions on controversial issues. As an advertiser, while a national debate on issues can be healthy and appropriate, we don’t see ourselves in the role of taking part in those debates.
"As an advertiser, while a national debate on issues can be healthy and appropriate, we don’t see ourselves in the role of taking part in those debates." Well, by pulling their advertising aren't they clearly "taking part in those debates"? Effectively, they are taking sides.
My policy will renew shortly. I have a good driving record and an excellent credit score. I don't need GEICO. I would be willing to bet that there are alot of people like me who can, and will, take their business elsewhere. I am sorry that Color of Change thrust GEICO in to a position that they clearly did not want to be in, but I am more sorry that GEICO decided to cave without any thought to the customers who support them.
Read the entire back and forth at Bear Creek Ledger here.
Thank you, first of all for your business and also for your interest in this matter.
This week we took action to move our marketing messages from the Glenn Beck show and you are wondering why. Well, you deserve an answer. If the inflammatory nature of the comments on a program overshadows our message and causes GEICO to be drawn into a national debate, we are likely to reconsider where we place our marketing messages, which is what we did.
GEICO delivers very important messages through its major marketing campaigns: we’re saving customers’ dollars, we’re easy to do business with, we’re looking out for our policyholders. That’s what we hope the public hears and sees and focuses on. As a company, we do not take positions on controversial issues. As an advertiser, while a national debate on issues can be healthy and appropriate, we don’t see ourselves in the role of taking part in those debates.
"As an advertiser, while a national debate on issues can be healthy and appropriate, we don’t see ourselves in the role of taking part in those debates." Well, by pulling their advertising aren't they clearly "taking part in those debates"? Effectively, they are taking sides.
My policy will renew shortly. I have a good driving record and an excellent credit score. I don't need GEICO. I would be willing to bet that there are alot of people like me who can, and will, take their business elsewhere. I am sorry that Color of Change thrust GEICO in to a position that they clearly did not want to be in, but I am more sorry that GEICO decided to cave without any thought to the customers who support them.
Read the entire back and forth at Bear Creek Ledger here.
Hot Topic Of The Day: Astroturfing
GatorDoug has an ex plainer of "astroturfing" via Jimmie at The Sundries Shack:
A little history is in order. The term AstroTurfing came about to describe efforts to make a protest look like it came from the grassroots (i.e. unorganized groups of ordinary folks who’ve come together in more or less an impromptu manner). It became commonplace in the last election when professional AstroTurfer David Axelrod became a top adviser to the Obama campaign. Jim Treacher was the first to really dig into Axelrod’s operation and you can get a good chunk of background on what he was doing in this post.
Basically, astroturfing is taking a real issue and ginning it up with fake plants, for example paying people to turn out in support of ObamaCare.
Currently, the Left, led by the father of AstroTurfing, David Axelrod, is accusing the Right of planting faux opposition at the health care town halls. Having been to both a Tea Party and a town hall I find the accusation laughable and more than a bit desperate. For instance, did my local 912 Project group put out info about my local union sponsored town hall? Absolutely. Did they bus in an angry mob in matching tee shirts and professionally made signs? Um, no, that was the other side.
I get that the Left needs to downplay the passion of the grassroots movement against ObamaCare. As the polls show that ObamaCare is tanking, they know that admitting that ordinary citizens are coming out in droves to oppose the government takeover of health care would be the final nail in the coffin. What they don't seem to get is that they are energizing the anti-ObamaCare folks with each falsehood they put out.
Let them keep talking about astroturfing, thugs, mobs, Nazis, etc. It is the gift that just keeps giving.
A little history is in order. The term AstroTurfing came about to describe efforts to make a protest look like it came from the grassroots (i.e. unorganized groups of ordinary folks who’ve come together in more or less an impromptu manner). It became commonplace in the last election when professional AstroTurfer David Axelrod became a top adviser to the Obama campaign. Jim Treacher was the first to really dig into Axelrod’s operation and you can get a good chunk of background on what he was doing in this post.
Basically, astroturfing is taking a real issue and ginning it up with fake plants, for example paying people to turn out in support of ObamaCare.
Currently, the Left, led by the father of AstroTurfing, David Axelrod, is accusing the Right of planting faux opposition at the health care town halls. Having been to both a Tea Party and a town hall I find the accusation laughable and more than a bit desperate. For instance, did my local 912 Project group put out info about my local union sponsored town hall? Absolutely. Did they bus in an angry mob in matching tee shirts and professionally made signs? Um, no, that was the other side.
I get that the Left needs to downplay the passion of the grassroots movement against ObamaCare. As the polls show that ObamaCare is tanking, they know that admitting that ordinary citizens are coming out in droves to oppose the government takeover of health care would be the final nail in the coffin. What they don't seem to get is that they are energizing the anti-ObamaCare folks with each falsehood they put out.
Let them keep talking about astroturfing, thugs, mobs, Nazis, etc. It is the gift that just keeps giving.
Are Lawyers Calling The Shots On Health Care Reform?
Via Memeorandum:
In a New York Times op-ed, our Cheerleader in Chief once again sings the praises of a government takeover of our health care. Actually, a better analogy for Obama might be the circus barker. “Come on in folks! Get your seat to THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH! Just as the barker promises that the audience will experience amazing feats the president is making promises that sound too good to be true.
The president says that we are going to cover an additional 46 million people and cut costs without rationing. Now that is an amazing feat! Funny, not everything that would result in savings is on the table. Nowhere in any of the proposed bills are there provisions that would cap payouts on malpractice suits or put an end to frivolous lawsuits that cost billions in legal fees, lost productivity and increased tests and procedures that are performed defensively. According to Dr. Marc Siegel, forty percent of all malpractice suits are illegitimate, yet these “costs” have been completely ignored.
The American Thinker wrote in March of 2008 that the Democratic Party has become The Lawyer’s Party. There can not be meaningful health care reform without addressing the problem of frivolous malpractice suits. In turn, there will not be a meaningful discussion on frivolous malpractice suits so long as the president and his party are riding around in the pocket of the lawyers who bankroll their every move and if health care is any indication, influence their every decision.
If the president and his party really care about reform, and are not just using this as a power grab, then they should put everything on the table.
In a New York Times op-ed, our Cheerleader in Chief once again sings the praises of a government takeover of our health care. Actually, a better analogy for Obama might be the circus barker. “Come on in folks! Get your seat to THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH! Just as the barker promises that the audience will experience amazing feats the president is making promises that sound too good to be true.
The president says that we are going to cover an additional 46 million people and cut costs without rationing. Now that is an amazing feat! Funny, not everything that would result in savings is on the table. Nowhere in any of the proposed bills are there provisions that would cap payouts on malpractice suits or put an end to frivolous lawsuits that cost billions in legal fees, lost productivity and increased tests and procedures that are performed defensively. According to Dr. Marc Siegel, forty percent of all malpractice suits are illegitimate, yet these “costs” have been completely ignored.
The American Thinker wrote in March of 2008 that the Democratic Party has become The Lawyer’s Party. There can not be meaningful health care reform without addressing the problem of frivolous malpractice suits. In turn, there will not be a meaningful discussion on frivolous malpractice suits so long as the president and his party are riding around in the pocket of the lawyers who bankroll their every move and if health care is any indication, influence their every decision.
If the president and his party really care about reform, and are not just using this as a power grab, then they should put everything on the table.
The Difference Between a "Prop" and an "Example"
We spend the first couple decades of our lives collecting experiences. The people we evidentially become is a mish mash of those experiences.
I have mentioned my parents, particularly my father, when writing about health care. I don’t want the government involved in health care in general, but when it comes to certain provisions in the bill it is my parents that make this fight personal for me. So do I use my father as a “prop” when I write on the subject?
I ask because both Prof. William Jacobson and Jim Treacher have written today on Pres. Obama’s grandmother as a prop. Prof. Jacobson takes the position that we all use personal experiences to explain our positions and that Obama’s grandmother is no more a prop than Trig, Sarah Palin’s son is a prop. Treacher on the other hand, points out that Obama trots his grandmother out when ever he needs to make a point.
Both pieces are really about hypocrisy. Jacobson concentrates on the hypocrisy of the Left who have eviscerated Sarah Palin for not keeping her son Trig out of public view (though can you imagine the reaction the Left would have had if Palin had kept her son under wraps?). Treacher points out Obama’s own hypocrisy.
By envoking his grandmother, Obama has shown the inconsistencies in his own position and unintentionally added fuel to the fire. His “typical white person” comment started the ball rolling back in the campaign. He threw another log on the fire when he said:
"I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost," Obama said in the interview. "I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she's my grandmother."
Obama said "you just get into some very difficult moral issues" when considering whether "to give my grandmother, or everybody else's aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they're terminally ill."
Like it or not, Obama words when combined with the writings of his chosen advisors, caused the public to believe that older people would be denied treatment. The implication of his words; it is not morally justified to spend on an elderly person.
Yesterday Obama spoke of his grandmother again and honestly, ticked me off:
"I just lost my grandmother last year. I know what it's like to watch somebody you love, who's aging, deteriorate and have to struggle with that," an impassioned Obama told a crowd as he spoke of Madelyn Payne Dunham. He took issue with "the notion that somehow I ran for public office or members of Congress are in this so they can go around pulling the plug on grandma."
That remark was cheap. Up until then, Obama had used his grandmother as an example. In that remark, his grandmother was a prop.
I haven’t heard anyone say that Obama ran for office to have the opportunity to pull the plug on anyone. It was a gratuitous slap at the legitimate concerns of millions of Americans and beneath the dignity of the President of the United States. I’ll let Jim Treacher have the last word:
And thus, we have a new definition of chutzpah: A President of the United States who complains about the expense of alleviating his dying grandmother's suffering, and who then uses her death as evidence of his compassion.
You may not have run for office specifically to pull the plug on grandma, Mr. President, but you're obviously not going to let her get in your way.
A bit of sarcasm from Dan Riehl:
Update: Well, due to the extreme criticism from the "Laura killed her high school sweetheart, Cheney shot his friend, Bushitler" Left - I felt I should update and bump this post. I'm sorry if my sarcasm regarding the pillow reference came across as too unkind. I am certain Obama is a kind man. Consequently, I don't actually believe he would "smother" his Grandma with a pillow.
I imagine his compassion would compel him to use a plastic bag. But as that is so environmentally unsound, I didn't want to even suggest it in case it might damage his reputation among the faithful, so many of them being Green and all.
I have mentioned my parents, particularly my father, when writing about health care. I don’t want the government involved in health care in general, but when it comes to certain provisions in the bill it is my parents that make this fight personal for me. So do I use my father as a “prop” when I write on the subject?
I ask because both Prof. William Jacobson and Jim Treacher have written today on Pres. Obama’s grandmother as a prop. Prof. Jacobson takes the position that we all use personal experiences to explain our positions and that Obama’s grandmother is no more a prop than Trig, Sarah Palin’s son is a prop. Treacher on the other hand, points out that Obama trots his grandmother out when ever he needs to make a point.
Both pieces are really about hypocrisy. Jacobson concentrates on the hypocrisy of the Left who have eviscerated Sarah Palin for not keeping her son Trig out of public view (though can you imagine the reaction the Left would have had if Palin had kept her son under wraps?). Treacher points out Obama’s own hypocrisy.
By envoking his grandmother, Obama has shown the inconsistencies in his own position and unintentionally added fuel to the fire. His “typical white person” comment started the ball rolling back in the campaign. He threw another log on the fire when he said:
"I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost," Obama said in the interview. "I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she's my grandmother."
Obama said "you just get into some very difficult moral issues" when considering whether "to give my grandmother, or everybody else's aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they're terminally ill."
Like it or not, Obama words when combined with the writings of his chosen advisors, caused the public to believe that older people would be denied treatment. The implication of his words; it is not morally justified to spend on an elderly person.
Yesterday Obama spoke of his grandmother again and honestly, ticked me off:
"I just lost my grandmother last year. I know what it's like to watch somebody you love, who's aging, deteriorate and have to struggle with that," an impassioned Obama told a crowd as he spoke of Madelyn Payne Dunham. He took issue with "the notion that somehow I ran for public office or members of Congress are in this so they can go around pulling the plug on grandma."
That remark was cheap. Up until then, Obama had used his grandmother as an example. In that remark, his grandmother was a prop.
I haven’t heard anyone say that Obama ran for office to have the opportunity to pull the plug on anyone. It was a gratuitous slap at the legitimate concerns of millions of Americans and beneath the dignity of the President of the United States. I’ll let Jim Treacher have the last word:
And thus, we have a new definition of chutzpah: A President of the United States who complains about the expense of alleviating his dying grandmother's suffering, and who then uses her death as evidence of his compassion.
You may not have run for office specifically to pull the plug on grandma, Mr. President, but you're obviously not going to let her get in your way.
A bit of sarcasm from Dan Riehl:
Update: Well, due to the extreme criticism from the "Laura killed her high school sweetheart, Cheney shot his friend, Bushitler" Left - I felt I should update and bump this post. I'm sorry if my sarcasm regarding the pillow reference came across as too unkind. I am certain Obama is a kind man. Consequently, I don't actually believe he would "smother" his Grandma with a pillow.
I imagine his compassion would compel him to use a plastic bag. But as that is so environmentally unsound, I didn't want to even suggest it in case it might damage his reputation among the faithful, so many of them being Green and all.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Disabled Woman Assaulted Health Care Town Hall
Via Gateway Pundit:
A handicapped woman is physically assaulted at a town hall by Acorn/union thugs and yet there are no arrests and no MSM coverage. The woman, Kimberly King, had been positioned by police close to the dais at a town hall held in Alhambra. The meeting was scheduled to begin at 5:00 p.m. but was delayed until 7:00 p.m. Ms. King, who requires a walker, was assisted by a friend to the ladies room at about 5:30. When she returned to her seat, several women carrying ACORN signs were blocking her seat. Both she and her husband asked the women to allow her back to her seat but they refused. King tried to shove her way past the women when one of them stomped on her foot.
It is inconceivable that anyone would assault a woman wearing a neck brace and using a walker. That a disabled person would be attacked at a health care meeting is beyond ironic.
Further information can be found at:
American Power
Memeorandum
A handicapped woman is physically assaulted at a town hall by Acorn/union thugs and yet there are no arrests and no MSM coverage. The woman, Kimberly King, had been positioned by police close to the dais at a town hall held in Alhambra. The meeting was scheduled to begin at 5:00 p.m. but was delayed until 7:00 p.m. Ms. King, who requires a walker, was assisted by a friend to the ladies room at about 5:30. When she returned to her seat, several women carrying ACORN signs were blocking her seat. Both she and her husband asked the women to allow her back to her seat but they refused. King tried to shove her way past the women when one of them stomped on her foot.
It is inconceivable that anyone would assault a woman wearing a neck brace and using a walker. That a disabled person would be attacked at a health care meeting is beyond ironic.
Further information can be found at:
American Power
Memeorandum
Robert Reich Is Right On ObamaCare, But He Got It All Wrong-UPDATED
Via Instapundit:
In How To Fight Health Care Fearmongers And Demagogues, Robert Reich writes:
Why are these meetings brimming with so much anger? Because Republican Astroturfers have joined the same old right-wing broadcast demagogues that have been spewing hate and fear for years, to create a tempest.
But why are they getting away with it? Why aren't progressives—indeed, why aren't ordinary citizens—taking the meetings back?
Mainly because there's still no healthcare plan. All we have are some initial markups from several congressional committees, which differ from one another in significant ways. The White House's is waiting to see what emerges from the House and Senate before insisting on what it wants, maybe in conference committee.
Who are these “ordinary citizens” that Reich speaks of if not those people expressing deep anger and frustration over the government take over of their health care? Does Reich simply dismiss the citizens taking part in the town halls because he is disdainful of anyone who differs with him?
Reich is correct about one thing; HR 3200 is an incoherent mess, unreadable, incomprehensible and open to interpretation in any number of ways. Prime example:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1905 of the Social Secu7
rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections
8 1701(a)(2) and 1711(a), is amended—
9 (1) in subsection (a)—
10 (A) in paragraph (27), by striking ‘‘and’’
11 at the end;
12 (B) by redesignating paragraph (28) as
13 paragraph (29); and
14 (C) by inserting after paragraph (27) the
15 following new paragraph:
16 ‘‘(28) nurse home visitation services (as defined
17 in subsection (aa)); and’’; and.
18 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub19
section:
20 ‘‘(aa) The term ‘nurse home visitation services’
21 means home visits by trained nurses to families with a
22 first-time pregnant woman, or a child (under 2 years of
23 age), who is eligible for medical assistance under this title,
24 but only, to the extent determined by the Secretary based
769
1 upon evidence, that such services are effective in one or
2 more of the following:
3 ‘‘(1) Improving maternal or child health and
4 pregnancy outcomes or increasing birth intervals between pregnancies.
What the Hell does that say? As a conservative I read this section and wonder why the government will be going to people homes to increase birth intervals between pregnancies and how these “increased intervals” will be achieved. Will nurses be making home visits to ensure women take The Pill each day? Will they check that condoms ‘are in place’ prior to each sexual encounter? And why is any of this any of this the government’s business?
I wouldn’t be surprised if ‘progressives’ such as Reich have an entirely different interpretation. I also wonder if they might interpret it differently under a different administration, but that is neither here nor there at this point.
At the risk of repeating myself, again, much of the outrage over government health care is the direct result of the public’s distrust of government in general and this administration in particular. Couple the public’s distrust with the gobbledygook in HR 3200 and you have a recipe for disaster.
Therefore, I agree with Reich’s call for more clarity on the part of the administration. On an issue this important, the administration should say what it means and means what it says. However, were the administration to be honest about its designs on health care, it would surely be the death of a disastrous plan.
UPDATE:
Glenn Renolds, aka Instapundit writes:
Remember how Bush was supposed to be the idiot who went into Iraq without a plan, while Obama was supposed to be the cool methodical one? But Reich is admitting that despite all the Administration hoopla, there’s still no plan. Or, possibly, that the White House has a plan, but won’t tell us what it is. And yet the people who don’t want to see a bill — some bill, doing who-knows-what — rammed through in the dead of night are somehow the ones who are ignorant and being manipulated. Right.
Carol, No Sheeples Here:
I believe there are three things at work here. The first is voters perceive a Trojan horse has been rolled into Washington, something to which Reich has unwittingly referred.
The second is that outraged Americans are also keenly aware that the IRS will be the new health care enforcer. The House and Senate versions of the bill require that information about household members and their health care coverage be reported to the IRS.
Finally, “the side that lost” remembers how “the side that won” has people like Peggy Joseph who believes Barack Obama will pay for her gas, mortgage, and who knows what else.
A scary thought from Legal Insurrection:
People often joke that government-run health care will have the efficiency of the motor vehicle department, and the compassion of the Internal Revenue Service. This joke will become reality if present Democratic health restructuring proposals are enacted.
Under both the House and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee bills released to the public, the Internal Revenue Service will play a key role in monitoring and enforcing health care mandates against individual taxpayers. Yet the introduction of the IRS into the health care system has received scant attention.
I used the DMV/IRS analogy yesterday with great success. Thank you Prof. Jacobson!
More at Memorandum
In How To Fight Health Care Fearmongers And Demagogues, Robert Reich writes:
Why are these meetings brimming with so much anger? Because Republican Astroturfers have joined the same old right-wing broadcast demagogues that have been spewing hate and fear for years, to create a tempest.
But why are they getting away with it? Why aren't progressives—indeed, why aren't ordinary citizens—taking the meetings back?
Mainly because there's still no healthcare plan. All we have are some initial markups from several congressional committees, which differ from one another in significant ways. The White House's is waiting to see what emerges from the House and Senate before insisting on what it wants, maybe in conference committee.
Who are these “ordinary citizens” that Reich speaks of if not those people expressing deep anger and frustration over the government take over of their health care? Does Reich simply dismiss the citizens taking part in the town halls because he is disdainful of anyone who differs with him?
Reich is correct about one thing; HR 3200 is an incoherent mess, unreadable, incomprehensible and open to interpretation in any number of ways. Prime example:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1905 of the Social Secu7
rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections
8 1701(a)(2) and 1711(a), is amended—
9 (1) in subsection (a)—
10 (A) in paragraph (27), by striking ‘‘and’’
11 at the end;
12 (B) by redesignating paragraph (28) as
13 paragraph (29); and
14 (C) by inserting after paragraph (27) the
15 following new paragraph:
16 ‘‘(28) nurse home visitation services (as defined
17 in subsection (aa)); and’’; and.
18 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub19
section:
20 ‘‘(aa) The term ‘nurse home visitation services’
21 means home visits by trained nurses to families with a
22 first-time pregnant woman, or a child (under 2 years of
23 age), who is eligible for medical assistance under this title,
24 but only, to the extent determined by the Secretary based
769
1 upon evidence, that such services are effective in one or
2 more of the following:
3 ‘‘(1) Improving maternal or child health and
4 pregnancy outcomes or increasing birth intervals between pregnancies.
What the Hell does that say? As a conservative I read this section and wonder why the government will be going to people homes to increase birth intervals between pregnancies and how these “increased intervals” will be achieved. Will nurses be making home visits to ensure women take The Pill each day? Will they check that condoms ‘are in place’ prior to each sexual encounter? And why is any of this any of this the government’s business?
I wouldn’t be surprised if ‘progressives’ such as Reich have an entirely different interpretation. I also wonder if they might interpret it differently under a different administration, but that is neither here nor there at this point.
At the risk of repeating myself, again, much of the outrage over government health care is the direct result of the public’s distrust of government in general and this administration in particular. Couple the public’s distrust with the gobbledygook in HR 3200 and you have a recipe for disaster.
Therefore, I agree with Reich’s call for more clarity on the part of the administration. On an issue this important, the administration should say what it means and means what it says. However, were the administration to be honest about its designs on health care, it would surely be the death of a disastrous plan.
UPDATE:
Glenn Renolds, aka Instapundit writes:
Remember how Bush was supposed to be the idiot who went into Iraq without a plan, while Obama was supposed to be the cool methodical one? But Reich is admitting that despite all the Administration hoopla, there’s still no plan. Or, possibly, that the White House has a plan, but won’t tell us what it is. And yet the people who don’t want to see a bill — some bill, doing who-knows-what — rammed through in the dead of night are somehow the ones who are ignorant and being manipulated. Right.
Carol, No Sheeples Here:
I believe there are three things at work here. The first is voters perceive a Trojan horse has been rolled into Washington, something to which Reich has unwittingly referred.
The second is that outraged Americans are also keenly aware that the IRS will be the new health care enforcer. The House and Senate versions of the bill require that information about household members and their health care coverage be reported to the IRS.
Finally, “the side that lost” remembers how “the side that won” has people like Peggy Joseph who believes Barack Obama will pay for her gas, mortgage, and who knows what else.
A scary thought from Legal Insurrection:
People often joke that government-run health care will have the efficiency of the motor vehicle department, and the compassion of the Internal Revenue Service. This joke will become reality if present Democratic health restructuring proposals are enacted.
Under both the House and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee bills released to the public, the Internal Revenue Service will play a key role in monitoring and enforcing health care mandates against individual taxpayers. Yet the introduction of the IRS into the health care system has received scant attention.
I used the DMV/IRS analogy yesterday with great success. Thank you Prof. Jacobson!
More at Memorandum
Friday, August 14, 2009
"Sarah Palin Drove The Conversation, And She Won"
Sean Hannity just said those words on his show. Think about it. Sarah Palin said, "Death Panel" and the Left went nuts. Go to Memeorandum right now and you'll find the bile in full flow from The New York Times and Swampland who are ridiculing Conservatives for killing the section in the health care that referred to "end of life" provisions, but it wasn't just conservatives but a broad section of America that believed Sarah Palin when she talked about death panels and disbelieved the administration when they blew off citizen's concerns. Sarah Palin won.
On the one hand Obama said:
THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.
On the other hand Sarah Palin took the comments of the President and others. in context, and said:
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
The very people who have demonized Sarah Palin since the day it was announced that she would be John McCain's running mate heard her words and hit "the net" running. But Sarah Palin won. She stood by her words while the Left tried to claim that the President and other's words were taken out of context.
Sarah Palin won. It is a matter of trust.
On the one hand Obama said:
THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.
On the other hand Sarah Palin took the comments of the President and others. in context, and said:
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
The very people who have demonized Sarah Palin since the day it was announced that she would be John McCain's running mate heard her words and hit "the net" running. But Sarah Palin won. She stood by her words while the Left tried to claim that the President and other's words were taken out of context.
Sarah Palin won. It is a matter of trust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)