"...mega-nonprofit Blue Cross Blue Shield."

But, I thought all health insurance companies were evil greedy corporations?

I can't complain about their boon via Levin, that might mean my insurance won't skyrocket as much if this abomination passes.

What's the quote: "All of us are equal, but some are more equal than others." -- George Orwell, Animal Farm

We are so fucked.

Longshoremen (and women) make more than $100k a year... and they get a nice break. How nice is that for them?

There are special exemptions in income tax filings also-if you fill out your own taxes there is a special Railroad workers exemption.

Thanks Amy, I used this in my third e-mail to Senator Sherrod Brown. I asked him how he, as a senator representing residents of Ohio, could in good conscience support this unfairness.

So Lindsey Graham -- no far right-winger -- was on the Today show this morning ripping the bill up one side and down the other. He flatly stated that the bill has provisions that will bring about single payer. He didn't even talk about many of the exemptions, but I don't think an entire Today show would be long enough to spell them all out. Given the apparently incredible number of special deals and more-or-less arbitrary decisions about who will and won't be taxed, I wonder if there is an equal-protection case to be made against the bill.

My employer self-insures. I wonder what effect this bill is going to have on that.

Libertarians are well-trained to carp about national health insurance. And there are real flaws in the proposals, as well as some strengths. Carp away.

Meanwhile, we are spending money by the trillions on "national defense"--in an era in which no nation-state even has a military capable of invading the United States. Our force structure is about the same as when we faced a bona-fide military adversary, in the Soviet Union. They had a blue-water navy, air force, 2 million men in uniform, the world's largets flkeet of tanks, ICBMs etc.

We were told we had to spend so heavily to defeat the old SU. Okay, we did, and they folded. Good.

The old SU collapsed--and we keep spending the money. Now, we are told we have an $800 billion miitary budget to fight terrorists. A few punk terrorists!

We will spend $10 trillion on "national defense" in the next 10 years, a sum dwarfing national health insurance outlays. Having no real nation-state enemies left, we obsess about terrorists.

But hey, keep bashing national health insurance. You might save some dimes, while your dollars go down the Pentagon black hole.

Libertarians today look like trained monkeys, aping their betters in the plutocrat class. Maybe you will get some crumbs tossed your way.

Someone ask me about this next week, OK?

"BM:ED"

I shoulda gone on the record with that two days ago.

Back on topic---

Dear BS person (10490am), what makes you think insurance protects people? Isn't insurance just a billing arrangement? Why do you imagine that suddenly everyone is so tremendously concerned with everyone else's well-being such that they want to pay for it, no matter what the cost or obscurity of the care?

Is your need to think of yourself as a compassionate human being so desperate that you really need to do this? Do you daydream that there's been some grandiose change in human nature lately --perhaps since your own precious arrival on this planet-- such that this makes a lick of sense? Has adult life shown you any, ANY moral dilemma for which the solution is to forcibly spend OTHER people's money?

Do people like you?

So, Ms BS/Butthole o' the Universe/I-Holier/Etc., what you're trying to say is, since the defense budget is too large, complaining about a bill that will massively restructure a significant portion of the economy, while providing a lower level of service than much of the population is getting now, disrupting livelihoods and possibly lives, while costing the country more money than ever, is somehow inappropriate?

Carp away at the defense budget if you will, and I'll agree with you on a lot of points, but that's an entirely different topic. Calling the commenters trained monkeys won't make them wrong, or the health care plan any less odious.

There are special exemptions in income tax filings also-if you fill out your own taxes there is a special Railroad workers exemption.

Well, that doesn't surprise me. After all, this bill is such a choo-choo wreck.

What rpm said.

Old RPM:

In some regards, you are right.

I should rephrase: Those people who identify themsleves as "libertarians" in the public chattering classes are acting like trained monkeys, or useful idiots, in loudly bawling about every left-wing scheme, including national health insurance, while primly ignoring much larger, annual and growing boondoggles in agriculture and national defense.

An interesting question: The federal government controls nearly every aspect of agriculture, through an extensive apparatus of subsidies, production caps, soils programs, regulations of pesticides, quality controls, education programs, schools, research, etc. etc. etc. Even our rapidly growing ethanol program is little more than an ag subsidy in drag. On top of that, states have their own ag controls--for example, as we speak, certain-sized grapefruit (too small) in CA is kept off the market.

Yet our farmers are lionized, and our farms are said to be the envy of the world. Does goverment intrusion and control work? Why not--if agriculture is considered such a success?

And our Departtment of Defense, wholly a creature of the federal government, its budget totally controlled by Congress, it wholly beyond reproach.

But the feds cannot do health care. Right. Only food and defense.

Real libertarians do not parrot right-wing bawling.

So your whole point is to complain about a subgroup of self-professed libertarians who do not raise enough hell about farm subsidies or military spending? I think YOU are the only one proclaiming there is such a subgroup. Or would you simply prefer that we spent more time on this blog complaining about those government abuses that annoy you more than others?

This is just quibbling, BS. I've seen you post here (under other, generally uncreative, monikers), complaining about ag subsidies, and I don't disagree with you that they are terrible things! I watched 'King Korn,' and those subsidies struck me as being the root of the problem. (Also see 'Fast Food Nation' if you are so inclined.)

It's all part of the same heap 'o crap, as far as I'm concerned. But let's keep more shit from being added to the wagon before we tackle the shit that's already on the wagon - I believe that's what most libertarians would say, on the health care debate.

Speaking of right-wing bawling. Here in Iowa the Republicans stand to gain some seats in 2010. The first issue they want to tackle? Gay marriage. These assholes. A real opportunity to do something about the size and pervasiveness of government, and they pander to the god-botherers.

In related events, Sarah Palin's Facebook declaration of death panels for seniors has been voted "Lie of the Year."

Sarah Palin wins liar of the year? Why am I not surprised.

Pirate Joke:

Like I say, the right-wing says the federal government does an ace job of running and subsidizing agriculture, and a perfect job of national defense.

Not one dime is wasted in ag and defense, and more than a trillion of dollars is spent--every year!

We can trust the feds with defense and food, for sure, for sure. No whining in Alkon's column about that!

But, oh no, not health care.

The libertarians have become useful idiots for the right-wing by parrot-bawling national health care, cash-for-clunkers and all other left-wing boondoggles, while supporting all right-wing boondoggles, if only through complicit silence.

When I see libertarians take on ag and defense ossified lard, then I will pipe down. But they never will.

They are right-wing lap dogs. Republicans who want to smoke pot. Weenies.

When the heck did ag subsidies become a right-wing issue? As I recall, the Freedom to Farm act was passed by evil right-wingers and then signed into law by President Clinton. This was supposed to end ag subsidies. However, Senators and Congressmen turn into big pussies when thinking about the election bellwether state of Iowa, so the whole ball of wax started rolling again.

Not particularly right-wing or left-wing, just the usual, pathetic, scum-sucking, pandering, corporate-ring-kissing, farmer's-ass-kissing politics of electoral destruction.

The first issue they want to tackle? Gay marriage. These assholes. A real opportunity to do something about the size and pervasiveness of government, and they pander to the god-botherers.

Maine and California both defeated gay marriage by referendum, albeit narrowly. They are not exactly bastions of right-wing "god-bothering," considering the esteemed Senators Boxer, Feinstein, Collins, and Snowe seem to get routinely re-elected. Blacks apparently wouldn't stay on the liberal plantation in California: 70 percent of them voted against gay marriage, and some of them endured racist epithets shouted by supporters. I think Hispanics were solidly against as well.

Like it or not, the Iowa Republicans are running with an issue that will probably get them elected. Hopefully, they will also attempt to shrink the size of Iowa's government as well. I live in Maryland, where the state's Democrat government is basically adding insult to the injury from the Fed.

Down with ag subsidies (which ruin food production in third-world countries), down with the F-35 alternate engine and other useless defense pork, down with health care deform, down with everything.

On top of what Amy says, this guy is trying the Lujlp trick of telling other people what their beliefs are supposed to mean to them, only in politics instead of religion. It's a wordy, plodding rhetorical exercise with absolutely zero payoff.

That energy is better spent meeting and talking to people in real life who disagree with you.

Crid, crid, crid - I dont tell people what their beliefs mean to them.

The tell me what they belive and I explain why they are wrong.

Its like the people who claim to believe the bible is the literal word of god, but dont kill people as the bible commands them to.

I just point out, and I'll admit I can be a bit of an asshole about it, that they dont really believe what they claim to.

> Its like the people who claim to believe
> the bible is the literal word of god, but
> dont kill people as the bible commands them to

How is that NOT doin' their thankin' for them? How much do you want to quibble?

Crid, use your fucking brain.

Someone claims to believe the bible is literally gods word.

The bible commands use to kill homosexual, adulterers, and anyone who worships a different god.

Therefore if someone claims to believe in the bible 'literally' and fails to kill as commanded they are either lying about killing or lying about believing the commandments of the bible to be literal.

Either way they are lying about what they believe - I am not telling them what to believe, I am just pointing out they are liars about it

> use your fucking brain.

Loojy, I don't think you're smart enough, or decent enough, to say things like that to people.

> Someone claims to believe the bible
> is literally gods word

So you're pestering idiots. Are you proud?

There is no system of belief and no body of understanding, anywhere, of any kind, that doesn't have encourage judgment by the holder.

Anyone who gets out of third grade without learning enough about "Liars!" stop complaining about them need to go back and try it again. Welcome to adulthood.

Delete "have", it came from a glass of cab that was just sitting there when I got home.

> use your fucking brain.

Loojy, I don't think you're smart enough, or decent enough, to say things like that to people.

Decent? Couldnt say. Smart enough? Most definatly

> Someone claims to believe the bible
> is literally gods word

So you're pestering idiots. Are you proud?

As those 'idiots' comprise the majority of the american electorate and the majorty of the species, if I didnt pester the idiots I'd never interact with more than a dozen people or so

There is no system of belief and no body of understanding, anywhere, of any kind, that doesn't have encourage judgment by the holder.

Faith by defintion requires a lack of judgement.

In this corner, with the muave trunks, weighing in at 235 words per minute, The Cridster!

Cheers and stomping

And in this corner, with the chartreuse trunks, weighing in at 242 words per minute, The Loojenator!

Whistling and shouting

Watching you two go at it is a lot of fun!

The Loojenator!

Sounds like a filthy fast fireing flem flinger

> with the muave trunks

First of all, they're more of a gentle blue, with a very masculine cut and an athletic, eye-pleasing fit.

Second,

> Decent? Couldnt say.

Why the fuck not? Before you're going to ridicule people, shouldn't you firmly believe you're on sturdier ground than they are?

See the Hitch post (adjacent), or anything I ever wrote here. If you got into the atheism game to blow snot at people, you're making things too easy for yourself.

Hitchens is an entertainer, I don't mean that to belittle him, but to account for the fact that certain routines of his seems to appear over and over during his speeches and debates and appearances. (Justin Timberlake sings the same songs every night, too.) One of Hitchen's greatest hits was written by Marx:

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people....

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and cull the living flower.

Marx had some hideous ideas, but he didn't write that just to be be condescending to people (e.g., "if I didnt pester the idiots I'd never interact with more than a dozen people or so".) The point he's making is that life is just cocksuckingly dark. Everything you ever build or achieve, every friend you ever make and every love you ever hold will one day be violently. irrevocably taken from you, and that's if you're lucky enough to get some in the first place. This planet is harsh.

Religion relieves some of that pain. And you, to be blunt, probably don't.

Speaking only for myself, the worst thing about religion is the way people use it to express one of the worst parts of human nature, the part that wants to look down on people. (Sometimes disliking people for their skin color of their genitals or their feelings or their food just isn't enough.)

If all you can do with religion, from the outside, is use it make distance from people, you're no better than the most naive believer.

Goddam html.

BS, you bring up those exact same points in every single thread, regardless of whether or not they are on topic. Do you have anything original to say, or are you just the pathetic attention whore that we all think you are?

Decent is a subjective term crid not on objective one

"The point he's making is that life is just cocksuckingly dark. Everything you ever build or achieve, every friend you ever make and every love you ever hold will one day be violently. irrevocably taken from you, and that's if you're lucky enough to get some in the first place. This planet is harsh.

Religion relieves some of that pain. And you, to be blunt, probably don't."

Word.

> you bring up those exact same points
> in every single thread

And you read them every time.

But they never sink in. (Or do they? Can you tell us about the last time this came up?)

> Decent is a subjective term

1st - So?

2nd - Not really.

crid the first half of your post is to someone else.

1 - what do you mean so?

2 - yes it is subjective.
A few thousand yrs ago the decent thing to do after raping a woman was to pay her parents money.

A few hunndered yrs ago the decent thing to do was to torture heritics to death so their souls would go to heaven

A few decades ago the decent thing to do was marry a woman you got pregnant.

A few yrs ago to 19 arabs the decent thing to do was to maryter themselves by flying planes into buildings

Decent is a very subjective term, it isnt something objective like 'wet' or 'warm' it means different things to different people based on the morals and cultural values they were raised with

Er, Crid, I wasn't addressing you. I was addressing our resident sock puppet.

Well dammit, I've been making the same points for years, too!

Who's the sock puppet? Blog comment drama is the perfect Christmas gift: Always the right size, always the right color. These resentments can be privately treasured in a personal collection, or traded with others for even more holiday merriment!

> Decent is a very subjective term

You keep saying that and I keep replying so what. I want you to meet MY standards of decency. You and all the other people across the globe. Spread the word, OK? Look...

Religious people are in pain, almost by definition. First, because all people have pain. Secondly, because there's gotta be some absence of practical insight in your life before you start believing in supernatural forces.

And, like, you know they must have a kinda unspoken tolerance for irony. Anyone who swallows any chapters of such an inclusive system of belief has to be at peace with inconsistency. The best jazz bassists, lawyers, and computer programmers tend to be a little nutty, too.

And inconsistency isn't the worst thing in life. Like Lileks said about hypocrisy: Nobody complains about it as much as teenagers, who are impatient with complexity. But who would follow their example?

So, like, what are you harshing the believers for?

I don't fault you entirely for giving them a hard time. All the efforts Hitchens made along those lines during his book tour a couple of years ago were entertaining as Hell.

But if someone's first response to a person who believes in God is ridicule, than it starts to seem like the ridicule is more important to them than the troubling belief. Here in the States, we've kept the worst of it at bay for a very, very long time. The average religious believer in the United States is a wonder of modern practicality. To mock all of them indiscriminately is to cut off your nose to spite your face.

The American miracle wouldn't have happened without them.

My goal isnt ridicule, that just the tool I use.

My goal is education

Oh puh-leeze. No schoolteacher I've ever met, and I was born to one, ever took such lip-smacking pleasure at the prospect of "educating" others.

What can I say? I love my work

No... You love thinking other people are, essentially, going to Hell.

Ironic, ain't it?

I dont think there is a hell, though I must admit I kinda hope there is a god and once every one gets fucking bored with an eternity of telling god how nice he was to save us (from himself)I will lead a movment to finnish filming every tv show I liked that was ever cancelled