Healthcare Roundup
by Hal_10000
A few notes, rather than flooding the zone:
After Specter and Sebelius were ambushed by healthcare opponents, the Democrats are planning their public events more carefully. Many liberal blogs are screaming about how the tea-partiers and other groups are organizing to flood these town hall meeting with protesters, even accusing them of astroturfing for insurance companies (because we all know that no one takes conservative positions unless they are paid off). Even if true, why is an organized spontaneous protest any less legitimate than the bullshit choreographed townhall meetings? Did they miss that part of “petition for redress of grievances”? Or are we only allowed to air liberal grievances?
Bainbridge has some great commentary on a push to try to force our Congress to take the “public option”. I see his point, but I fear that forcing Congress into the public option will only make their carefree spending worse. In any case, Pelosi immediately destroyed that idea. The first question posed at any town hall meeting on healthcare should be, “Why aren’t you guys taking the public option?” Call these fucking hypocrites out!
Rasmussen has a hilarious poll out. Last year, only 30% of Americans rated their healthcare as good or excellent. It’s up 20 points now that they’re in danger of losing it. You don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.
The UK is forcing patients with back pain to live with it. Even worse, they’re encouraging them to do acupuncture. It’s only a matter of time until the NHS is paying guys to swing dead chickens over painful joints. It’s gotta be cheaper than cortisone.
I’ll also be posting, at some point, a response to Sullivan’s article supporting healthcare reform. I’ll update this post when I’m done with it.
Update: My response to Sullivan’s recent column is here (warning: contains descriptions of Barack Obama that somewhat positive). I also recommend reading a great post from Marc Ambinder about how the attempts to get the insurance companies to accept reform in return for insurance mandates has been destroyed by the Democrats’ insistence on finding someone—the insurance companies—to demonize.
They never learn, do they?
As I note in the Sullivan response, I would not be opposed to federal regulation of insurance companies (mated with breaking down inter-state competition barriers). The insurance companies have become so powerful—and the state insurance commissioners so feckless—that the consumer has little power. Federal regulation might bring some of the worst insurance companies to heel and force them to honor their damned contracts.
Update: Bainbridge again, pointing out that the rowdy protests against Obamacare are not exactly unprecedented. I’ve noticed that the liberals denouncing these protests seem to have very rose-tinted memories of past liberal protests. Trust me, guys. You weren’t as civil as you think.
Comments
Rann, I think a big part of the problem with this country is the need to demonize the opposition (see above on the demonization of the insurance companies). I can respect and even like people I disagree with. Before that post, I’d had a conversation with a friend who described Obama as “evil”—an absurd hyperbole that’s becoming more and more common and marginalizing conservative further and further.
It’s true, I don’t think Obama is the anti-christ bent on destroying America. I just think he’s wrong (and utterly beholden to liberal special interests). There are lots of people I like who belong nowhere near power.
And being like Clinton would be a positive thing if you care about the budget. Clinton increased spending far less than Bush. And notice that description was preconditioned on a Republican Congress.
Moreover, you missed the point I was making. I think part of the problem with Obama’s supporters—*especially* Sullivan—is that they like Obama and therefore are too sympathetic to his policies, assuming that “Hey, it’s Obama! He’s smart and shit. He wouldn’t fuck us!”. My point is that it’s fine to like Obama—that doesn’t give him a pass when he proposes misguided or destructive policy. That doesn’t mean his motives are pure as driven snow. Sometimes the “urbane” “eloquent” and “pragmatic” people—those are common adjectives for Obama --- are just dead fucking wrong. And this is one of those times.
Obama is the anti-christ bent on destroying America.
That pretty much sums things up....
The thing is, I disagree with your idea that Obama isn’t the enemy, just the opposition.
While that’s certainly possible with many people, and true of others, I don’t think that can be or should be the case with Obama. He is the enemy, and to take the least mature-sounding but most blunt and direct reasoning for that, he started it.
Obama’s position and that of those who work under and for him has not been that of the opposition risen to power, respectful and concerned, it has been one of attack and demonization. He’s basically tried to have as many of his opposition as he can manage either classified as terror suspects or, at the very least, labeled as “possible targets for recruitment”.
You don’t have to be pure evil yourself to put into motion or sign off on evil things. Obama may not be evil, but he is corrupt, he is immature, he is a socialist, and he is a horrible President. And he regards the people that made that video, the people that run rightist blogs, and the tea party goers, and all the rest as his enemies, whether we regard him as merely the opposition or not.
Keeping to the philosophy of “They are not the enemy, they are merely opponents” when the other side clearly regards you as the enemy is what leaves you open and vulnerable to attack. They will take your respect and lenience and hang you with it, and we should know that by now, because that philosophy is the one that led us to thinking for a long time that Muslim religious extremists weren’t all THAT dangerous, just go along with what they say and you’ll be sent back to the States in a day or two.
And while I doubt Obama has any plans to fly Air Force One into the Pentagon, he will certainly take the lenience of treating him as merely the respected opposition and he will hang you with it. It’s time to see “I will be your President too” for the threat it was, rather than the promise of fairness it seemed like at the time.
Yes, I’ll agree that I probably missed the point of the whole message, because I was distracted by the equivocating on Obama’s behalf. I think that happens a lot with your messages, and you probably don’t really intend it but that’s sort of the result of the stance you’ve taken.
You think a lot of people are being too hard on him, especially with the “evil” and “anti-Christ” and “birther” stuff. Fair enough, those are silly arguments. But I really don’t think you’re being hard enough on him, when you ignore his blatant insults and immaturity to say he sometimes seems like “the only grownup in Washington”, or his various other glaring personality flaws and such to talk about what a nice guy he is.
People are angry at what he’s doing, and they should be. They should probably be angrier than they are. If you don’t want to join in the greater heights of the fury, that’s understandable, but I think you’re going to get your points across better if maybe you self-edit a little more on the stuff that winds up in his defense or taking shots at his deriders. I don’t think anyone’s going to accuse you of being an extreme right goosestepper just because you didn’t take a few sentences in a post to get lost in those big honest-seeming eyes, and if they do I really don’t think they’re someone whose opinion you need to worry about too much.
I don’t think Obama is the anti-christ bent on destroying America. I just think he’s wrong (and utterly beholden to liberal special interests).
Seconded…
The thing is, I disagree with your idea that Obama isn’t the enemy, just the opposition.
While that’s certainly possible with many people, and true of others, I don’t think that can be or should be the case with Obama. He is the enemy, and to take the least mature-sounding but most blunt and direct reasoning for that, he started it.
Obama’s position and that of those who work under and for him has not been that of the opposition risen to power, respectful and concerned, it has been one of attack and demonization. He’s basically tried to have as many of his opposition as he can manage either classified as terror suspects or, at the very least, labeled as “possible targets for recruitment”.
You don’t have to be pure evil yourself to put into motion or sign off on evil things. Obama may not be evil, but he is corrupt, he is immature, he is a socialist, and he is a horrible President. And he regards the people that made that video, the people that run rightist blogs, and the tea party goers, and all the rest as his enemies, whether we regard him as merely the opposition or not.
Keeping to the philosophy of “They are not the enemy, they are merely opponents” when the other side clearly regards you as the enemy is what leaves you open and vulnerable to attack. They will take your respect and lenience and hang you with it, and we should know that by now, because that philosophy is the one that led us to thinking for a long time that Muslim religious extremists weren’t all THAT dangerous, just go along with what they say and you’ll be sent back to the States in a day or two.
And while I doubt Obama has any plans to fly Air Force One into the Pentagon, he will certainly take the lenience of treating him as merely the respected opposition and he will hang you with it. It’s time to see “I will be your President too” for the threat it was, rather than the promise of fairness it seemed like at the time.
Yes, I’ll agree that I probably missed the point of the whole message, because I was distracted by the equivocating on Obama’s behalf. I think that happens a lot with your messages, and you probably don’t really intend it but that’s sort of the result of the stance you’ve taken.
You think a lot of people are being too hard on him, especially with the “evil” and “anti-Christ” and “birther” stuff. Fair enough, those are silly arguments. But I really don’t think you’re being hard enough on him, when you ignore his blatant insults and immaturity to say he sometimes seems like “the only grownup in Washington”, or his various other glaring personality flaws and such to talk about what a nice guy he is.
People are angry at what he’s doing, and they should be. They should probably be angrier than they are. If you don’t want to join in the greater heights of the fury, that’s understandable, but I think you’re going to get your points across better if maybe you self-edit a little more on the stuff that winds up in his defense or taking shots at his deriders. I don’t think anyone’s going to accuse you of being an extreme right goosestepper just because you didn’t take a few sentences in a post to get lost in those big honest-seeming eyes, and if they do I really don’t think they’re someone whose opinion you need to worry about too much.
THIS.
Bingo, JimK.
To add one more difference between the Clintons and Obama: the Clintons were executing a power-grab. They said all the right things and did it well. Obama is trying to create a movement. He’s not in a power-grab, he’s a true believer in all liberal policies. He’s trying to parlay his effective cult of personality into an unstoppable move toward his socialist view of a superior government. Further, this is obvious.
With this going on, yes, he’s the enemy.
Insipid got it: Obama is a true believer. He isn’t doing what he is doing just to increase his or his party’s power, that’s just icing on the cake, but he is actually hell bent or remaking America. Unfortunately what he wants to remake it into seems to be the exact same promised Utopia that the people of the USSR, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, and North Korea were promised. We all know what they ended up getting.
This concept that some elite and ideologically indoctrinated person or group of persons can fix all the world’s problems and make collectivism work, is frightening to me. The reason collectivism fails on a scale larger than family or tribe is because of nature 101: survival of the fittest. Anyone willing to ignore that to me is just as crazy as someone that ignores real science for any other religious reason. Collectivism is a religious movement. And they love to claim it is based on Christian values, but it is not. Christ hated government – in that time kings - because they always thought themselves as, or behaved as if they were, some kind of gods.
And they love to claim it is based on Christian values, but it is not. Christ hated government – in that time kings - because they always thought themselves as, or behaved as if they were, some kind of gods.
It perhaps is based on Christian values. However, Christ himself believed in separating church and state-not for the sake of the state, but the church.
Anyway, Animal Farm had it right. The flaw to communism is that the pigs eventually stand upright, drink, sleep in a bed, and wear clothes. And whip you.
Insipid got it: Obama is a true believer. He isn’t doing what he is doing just to increase his or his party’s power, that’s just icing on the cake, but he is actually hell bent or remaking America. Unfortunately what he wants to remake it into seems to be the exact same promised Utopia that the people of the USSR, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, and North Korea were promised. We all know what they ended up getting.
Exactly. Obama is convinced that socialism can work and that HE AND HIS SELECT FOLLOWERS (and I don’t mean the casual democrat - I mean his cabinet and administration) can make it work in America. But to do so he knows he needs to wipe out capitalism first. He knows he can’t do it in one fell swoop, as that would lead to backlash. He knows that to get there he needs to go gradually and he is doing just that. I know it seems like he has rushed every one of his legislative agendas through (probably faster than even he thought he could - and I am sure that feeds his ego even more), but believe me, he has much bigger goals.
The scariest part is that Obama does not believe in equality - he believes he and his followers are superior and are destined to be the new ruling class. That is why they will be exempt from Obamacare. That is why the best physicians in the country will be set aside for him and his congressional cronies. That is why none of the laws that he and his cronies pass will actually apply to themselves (wouldn’t be surprised if there is a carve out in the Cap and Tax legislation just for the president and Congress members).
Next entry: The gloves are coming off..
Previous entry: The Best of Lee: Nominations
Server Drive
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 4391
Total Logged in members: 2
Total guests: 100
Total anonymous users: 0
Smithwick,
working_man,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
I got an idea!
(28 total, Last @ 09:39)
working_man: This has been one of the more interesting comment wars at RTFTLC that I have seen in quite some time. Now, having been in dustups with doggie in the past I must admit that I doubted both his credentials and claims as to profession. During one of those dustups he…
I got an idea!
(28 total, Last @ 08:45)
AlexinCT: Alex, with all due respect, pay attention. he probaly is a doctor, given what Yankee dug up. I responded to him before I read that post by Yankee. I have dealt with people claiming to be anything from climate experts, to doctors, to military personnel that, when questioned, gave away…
I got an idea!
(28 total, Last @ 07:55)
InsipiD: Join Date August 30, 2004 06:47 AM That is almost 6 years. Then you should know better. That's longer than I've been on here. Send a personal email to someone on this board whilst waving your dick in their face...I'm sorry, but that would get you outed anywhere, and…
I got an idea!
(28 total, Last @ 07:24)
dog: Harley, Join Date August 30, 2004 06:47 AM That is almost 6 years.
I got an idea!
(28 total, Last @ 07:13)
Loud: This you, dawg? This isn't a threat. Merely advice. Don't be a complete dumbass on the interwebs and include your credentials in the signature.
Last 30 Comments
"Somewhat positive”? Pretty much the first thing you say about him is that you like him. You describe him being like Clinton as a positive thing.
And then this:
Mr. “I Won” is an adult? Yeah, okay, whatever Hal. Jesus. At least you didn’t post it here. And you wonder why we continue to call you an Obama supporter. It’s not because you occasionally don’t condemn him as the anti-Christ, it’s because you support Obama.
You can’t pull this half-assed crap of “Gee, I really really like Obama, I just don’t like his policies, his party, or the things he advocates.” Aside from being nonsensical, it has nothing to do with anything.
No one gives a shit if you think Obama’s an alright guy. He could be the nicest, sweetest, funniest, friendliest dude alive, and it doesn’t change the fact that he’s bending the country over and going twinkie-house on its tender little asshole. It’s not his job to be a nice guy, it’s his job to be President, and it’s a job he’s absolutely and completely terrible at. He is much worse at it than Bush.
The fact that you seem to feel the need to work some Obama-appeasement into every message comes off as if you’re either image-spinning or pandering, and neither one reflects very well on you. You’re either trying to be nice towards Obama to show you’re not one of THOSE conservatives, the icky mean nasty naughty kind, or you’re sucking up to the kind of readers who say “Sure, I like conservatives, just so long as they support liberal ideas, praise liberal politicians, and vote in a liberal way.”
What was served in that article by spending a few paragraphs getting out the Yes We Can prayer mat and kneeling in the direction of DC? What did it even have to do with anything? What was your thought process when you were writing that?
Were you trying to piss off those of us who don’t like him, on a personal level or not? Were you trying to appease those that do? Were you trying to build your image? I mean, at least explain where the reflex comes from to tack on a minimum of “i like that obama, he fux economies and isn’t afraid of anything” in any post where he comes up?
I mean, at least you managed to keep the post where you sniff his divine brown buttocks off the main site, but you were still basically daring everyone to read and comment anyway with the smarmy little disclaimer.