> horrified, terrified, outraged and disgusted

I sincerely believe this could be a civilization-breaker. It has so many shades of hubris.... Let's try to count.

1. The abject authoritarianism.

2. The self-righteousness.

3. The origin in the hearts of people who don't actually create wealth.

4. (Maybe the biggest point), the assumption that this is all a zero-sum game, and therefore the wealth to do this must actually exist somewhere beyond their own imaginations. See here, go to 78 minutes and 30 seconds.

5. Their disregard for public (or even legal) process.

This is a failure by Democrats, but no government servant should take pride. This is above all a failure of human nature.

It will end really, really badly.

And don't let anyone tell you that this will bring back some righteous conservative response. If conservatives had been righteous, it wouldn't have happened.

Bad day.

... while we're all whining and wringing our hands, the Dems are preparing to bring the immigration amnesty bill out of mothballs, and pass it this summer.

Just in time to mint millions of new Latino voters who are almost guaranteed to vote Democrat.

Lovers of liberty are being outfoxed.

What an unmitigates mess. I only hope that Michael Flynn (the link above) is right, and the voters will actually manage to remember this in November.

If so, then there is little need to worry about Amnesty. Not much happens in the summer, and it ought to be possible to delay any vote until after the November elections.

On the other hand, if voters have their usual collective short-term memory, and the democrats are not severely punished in November, they will take this as confirmation of their policies - and an amnesty will only be the beginning.

I actually cried a little when I turned on Good Morning America this morning and saw that the bill had been passed. I won't be able to even think about our future without weeping a little.

It gets worse, folks. The single biggest "feature" of this shit sandwich?

The federal government, for the first time, has passed a law that tells an individual what they must do. OSHA is probably licking their lips in anticipation because now they can go after individuals instead of just employers.

This is a bad precedent, and it's going to get significantly worse.

But at least the trains will run on time, so we've got that going for us.

I have images of a futre "1984" running through my head. Overdramatic? I use to think so... Until this pices of shit legislation actually got passed. Now I can see that it is possible.

http://tiny.cc/gn7r7

The time is NOW. And I'm NOT kidding.

Quite frankly, I hope it's here to stay, and I think it will be. Health care could not stay as it was. There is nothing wrong with capitalism, but it simply doesn't work in the insurance business. When a system can obligate the subscribers to pay into it, reserving the right to cut you off at any time, under no obligation to repay you the funds you invested, then that's what they're going to do!

It is profitable for business to have people pay into it. It is unprofitable to have to pay out from it. It's really that simple, folks. Who couldn't see that this wouldn't happen.

And as for the lawsuits, the SCOTUS, the bulk of them being conservative appointees, will likely overturn this, unless they fear public backlash (which they will get, in spades). But there's nothing unconstitutional about this, folks. It's called a "tax," not forcing you to buy something. And the government's power to tax, according to our Constitution, is plenary. (I'll let you look it up.)

Crid, I was going to try to say nothing, but your O.P. is likely the dumbest thing I'm going to read for an entire year, not to mention the most ironic.

Maybe we can repeal the whole sorry mess after we vote those fools out of office.

I've always felt I had a charmed life as an American, and for the first time, I'm really afraid for this country.

The Goddess writes: I've always felt I had a charmed life as an American, and for the first time, I'm really afraid for this country.

I wish I could make you feel better about this, but I honestly don't understand the fear. Every industrialized nation (this one being the only exception) manages to pull this off. What is it that they can do so successfully, that is so utterly impossible for us?

Yes, they have their share of problems, but at least everyone's covered. I have no reservations whatsoever about shared risk/shared responsibility. What could be more of a shared risk than health? Who among us is immune to age, accident, disease, disability or being at fault when it befalls someone else?

The system as it was was not sustainable either. Insurance companies can obligate you to pay in for years and years, but reserve the right to cut you off at any time. And they do. That's the problem with running insurance like a "for-profit" business. It is not profitable for them to pay for you, so they won't do it. Perhaps that's why all insurance companies have this interesting department for the sole purpose of finding ways to deny you coverage!

We've heard a lot of B.S. about how if we just let them compete, the bad insurance companies will simply lose business. That hasn't happened. To stay competitive, you don't have to be "good," just better than your best competition.

And just what happens to those who were insured by these "bad companies" because they're the ones their employers had, when they discover that their insurance just cut them off because they now have an expensive medical.

Why of course, someone might naively believe. The remaining good insurance companies will just take these poor swindled patients under their tender wings and supply them with the insurance they need.

BULLSHIT!

You won't find an insurance company that will touch you with a fifty-foot-pole because of that convenient catch-all, "pre-existing condition." Get cancer, get AIDS, or some other condition that costs a ton of money, and you're fucked. Period.

Insurance companies can obligate you to pay in for years and years, but reserve the right to cut you off at any time.

Yet, every time someone claims to come up with an example, it turns out to be a misrepresentation. And people wonder why we don't believe them?

What I never understood was how one could expect a government agency to be more compassionate or more responsive than a private insurance company. Government agencies have no more motivation to pony up for an expensive procedure than a private insurer. Possibly they have less; who's going to fire them?

"It's called a "tax," not forcing you to buy something. And the government's power to tax, according to our Constitution, is plenary. (I'll let you look it up.)"

Except, it's not a tax. It's requiring an individual to purchase a service from a private company. And punishing them if they don't. I'm not sure what part of that says tax to you. Tax is monies paid to the government to support government programs.

Yes, sure, everyone in other (smaller, homogeneous, immigration-controlled) industrial countries are covered. Shitty coverage for all but the rulers. Whoo-pee! Ain't fairness great?? Sorry, I'd rather keep my good coverage the way it is and let other's worry about themselves. I make hard choices for our healthcare-we have no cell phones, base-model compact cars, don't vacation, don't eat out. I say others can make those choices too.

momof4: Except, it's not a tax. It's requiring an individual to purchase a service from a private company. And punishing them if they don't. I'm not sure what part of that says tax to you. Tax is monies paid to the government to support government programs.

Except that it is a tax. The government is not fining you for not buying insurance. It's providing the insurance that you will not or cannot provide for yourself. And it is requiring you to pay for it.

Hence it meets your definition of "monies paid to the government to support government programs."

We are well and truly fucked.

That is all.

It's delightful to see the teeth-gnashing of the wingers. Your team went all-in on the oppose everything strategy just like 1994, and almost won. But the huge risk of 100% opposition is that if you lose, you get nothing. It's also delightful to see the right wing acting as though a bill whose main components originated with the Heritage Foundation is the end of America. You people are nuts. Have fun at your tea bag rallies. I'm going to savor this one.

@Patrick - "Except that it is a tax. The government is not fining you for not buying insurance."

You lie. What happens if I don't want to buy insurance (or the "right" insurance)? I get fined, and then imprisoned if I persist.

"It's providing the insurance that you will not or cannot provide for yourself. And it is requiring you to pay for it."

What a load of crap. The vast majority of people in this country have health insurance. It's not perfect, but they've got it, and they're providing it for themselves. You're just making things up. Please stop it. This is a disaster for our health care system and for our country, and just because you're too blindly partisan, too ignorant or too stupid to see that doesn't mean you need to spread your lies.

I'm going to savor November 2010, and November 2012.

BTW, it's called insurance for a reason - it's the sharing of risk. By definition, you can't insure against a pre-existing condition.

Sum d0Uche - yes, enjoy it, savor it while you can. You're going to be out of power soon enough, and if you think we were "mean" or "unfair" before, just wait. The gloves are off, and we're sick and tired of bending over backwards for you prententious, unproductive cowards.

It's socialist thinking...Take from some to give to all... the "greater good" and all that. Since when has socialist government ever worked? Never. This bill is just one step closer to allowing our govt to become a nanny government a la 1984. They are basically telling the American people that we are too stupid to take care of ourselves so they have to do it for us. I want LESS government control over my life, not more. Once you start allowing the govt to decide these things for you, it opens up the door to allow them to decide other things for you. What's next? Are they going to start monitoring my food intake to ensure that I don't become obese? Are they going to start rewriting HIPPA laws now to make sure that no one is getting treatment that goes against this bill. Heaven forbid I should actualy CHOOSE my own doctor!
Healthcare is not a RIGHT. Do I think human beings should have access to hospitals and doctors? Sure, if possible, but it is not a constitutional right to have access to healthcare.
Besides, the only ones benefitting from it are the ones who aren't actually paying into it... The poor. I am not unsympathetic to the needs of the poor. I grew up poor; I understand what it is like, but that does not mean I am responsible for them. I busted my ass and paid for insurance out of my pocket when I didn't have it because it was important to me. I made sacrifices for it. It's called "personal responsiblity". Why am I paying for the medical costs of my neighbor who does nothing but lie on her back and collect welfare checks? How is she entitled to the same care as I am? Just because she is human? You know what? How about they outlaw welfare babies? I know I know... it's not PC to say that and it's against HER consitutional rights to have children. So in order not to offend, we shall just allow her to enjoy all the benefits of free healthcare and not have to actually contribute to it. Because she has a right to have an illigitimate child.. for free...

I can understand how people might think that this is a good idea, but it isn't. Canada and Europe have this type of healthcare program and they have already proven that the model just doesn't work. Their morality rates are lower than ours, their quality of care is low, and their govt is broke. I work in a healthcare company. I get to see first hand the effect that this will have on the millions of the already insured and Medicaid/Medicare recipiants. Quality of care will not increase, in fact, it will decrease. Privately insured patients will now have to possibly change their doctors, let go of thier current coverage, and start all over again because of these new "guidelines". It will get harder to see a specialist. They will have to wait months to see their own primary care physician (assuming they got to keep them) becuae the doctor will be under direct order by the gov to take more patients. Patients who won't be able to pay nonetheless. Medicaid/Medicare is already one of the worst govt run organizations in existance yet they want to model the entire system after it? They pay the bare minimum and allow the bare minimum of treatment. They will not pay for most procedures without the proper govt approval. You MUST get a referall to see a specialist and even then, they can still deny your payment because they feel the procedure is unneccesary. If they do pay, they pay $1000, maximum for it and the rest considered patient responsiblity. Yet, the patient never pays it becuase if they could afford to, they wouldn't be on Medicaid/Medicare to begin with. So, the hospital has "bad dedt" that they end up writing off at year end, and they bill the govt, and the govt wont pay it so the hospital is now in the red and they are still required by law to treat that patient who can't pay. It is a vicious cycle. If they wanted to reform something, they should have started with Medicaid/Medicare. They also need to lift the restrictions they have on insurance companies competing across state lines and let the consumers decide how the market fares. I hear the statements from the supporters of this bill say that won't work either but I think that solution is far better than the current legislation. When insurance agencies start losing money, they change. That is how business works. That would have been the most cost efficiant and simplist way to improve the quality of healthcare. Is it perfect? No. But far better than this fantasy that they envision where everyone is healthy and govt insurance pays all it's bills. Instead, they overhauled the whole thing. They basically fixed what wasn't broken on this mission to provide for "the greater good" which in reality is a very small percentage of the country.

I don't have a problem with govt assistance programs in theory. Everyone falls on hard times and needs help now and then. I am okay with paying a little tax for those programs that help people temporarily. However, that is what has gotten lost, the temporary part. This program is forever. And it is going to cost us more money than people realize, and where are they going to get that from? Not the poor see because they CAN'T pay into it. And certainly not the rich, because they get tax breaks and are exempt. So, you and I are footing the bill. The middle class American Pions will be writing the checks.

I wonder, will our govt officials also be "enjoying" these "quality" benefits that we will be forced to "enjoy"? What's good enough for the Goose is good enough for the Gander right? Probably not. Govt officials are never actaully subject to thier own legislation. It will become a two tiered system. One for them, and one for the rest of us. So, they force it on us, and tell us that this is a good thing, but their lives will go unchanged. It is hypocritical. I propose this. I think that those who voted for this bill should be the FIRST to put it into practice. If it is such a great thing, then they should lead by example.

I asked on an AOL message board, since so many are crying inconsolably about health care reform, what they thought should have been done, since the status quo is not an option.

Here's the best reply I've seen so far:

They should have started small . . . but made an impact, nonetheless:

(1) Regulation of health care industry;

(2) No pre-existing clauses FOR ANYONE, regardless of age, sex, or illness;

(3) Premium rates would be based on 5% of one's salary, including unemployment benefits, versus illness;

(4) Placed a cap on medical malpractice claims;

(5) Insurance companies can not drop a claimant, nor can they make you pay a higher premium to get you to drop it;

(6) All LEGAL Americans are required to pay for health insurance;

(7) An immigration officer will be stationed in all hospitals, and will deport illegals after they have been stablized.

Here's my thoughts on it. 1 needs to be elaborated on. 2 is nice idea. Good luck. 3 is also good. 4 is useless. Tort reform saving medical costs is a myth. I don't know why people cling to the idea that we need tort reform. It has not worked in the past, and we have no reason to believe it will work in the future. 5 is good.
6 is good. 7 on a scale of 10, I rate that with an 11.

Of course, if these things are so good and valuable and needed, why didn't Republicans do anything when they held all three branches of government?

Because they're in the back pockets of insurance companies, the only beneficiaries and I do mean only beneficiaries of the status quo.

If this reform is a monster, it is a monster of our own making, and we need to be responsible and realize that. Republicans would not have tried to save health care. They had the chance and instead decided to declare unnecessary wars. They love their campaign contributions from insurance companies too much.

Maybe, if this is such a nightmare, it's time we woke up from it. But this is not a call to revolution. (Flynne, you just keep on your call to revolution. I'll write you in prison when you're convicted of sedition.)

Patrick, how does this differ from a poll tax? Oh yeah, right, leftists passed it. That makes it OK then. If conservatives had passed such a mandate, that would be a poll tax, which would be raaaaaaaacist.

As for the rest: You're living in la-la land. Haven't you ever noticed that every single country with "socialized" medicine has an entirely separate system for the governing elites? Did it ever occur to you to wonder why so many of said elites actually come to the U.S. for their medical treatment? Face it, socialized medicine sucks. People die needlessly because of it, by the tens of thousands per year. Normally we don't notice because it's dispersed, but the French heat-wave thing of a few years ago was a great example.

Further: The skullduggery to which the Democrats went to pass this bill over the objections of nearly everyone is unprecedented. Bart Stupak is about to realize that he got pwned and his career in politics is over. A whole new range of extra-constitutional tricks for getting unpopular legislation passed has been revealed. Don't think for a minute that the Republicans haven't been watching and taking notes. Remember that when the GOP has the Presidency and two-thirds majorities in both houses after the 2012 election.

"It's providing the insurance that you will not or cannot provide for yourself. And it is requiring you to pay for it."

Bullshit. The government is providing nothing, except a lot of new customers for those big profit making businesses you hate. The gov't provides neither the money (we do) nor the insurance (businesses do) nor the care (drs do). All they're doing is bringing down force of law to make you participate. It is no different than if they forced everyone to purchase a car or pay a fine/go to jail. Would you be okey-dokey with that, and call it a tax? Doubt it.

Get a good map, and look just south of Texas. This is called the United States of Mexico. It is where you will need to go for medical care, just as Canadians have gone south to the USA.

Some of the best hospitals in the world are in Mexico. ABC in Mexico City is where the old money rich folks go, and they pay for and receive the best care there. I am alive today because of ABC hospital. There is a good hospital in Guadalajara which is where many Canadians go. Another one in Puebla.

The big mistake these fiends are making is they assume all doctors will keep on practicing medicine. This is an insane opinion. Any doctor who learns he would make more money as an electronic technician is gone on the spot.

They will cease practice. They will emigrate.

Of course, at the same time, if/when we get desperate enough, we will start importing more foreign doctors. Now, to take the boards, a foreign doctor first has to pass a fluency test in English, then go to the Embassy to take the boards in English. That will be the first casualty of the fallout from the new rules. And, if things get bad enough, perhaps the boards themselves will be next.

These utter fools made the same mistake most women of this nation made when passing marriage and divorce laws that men don't like. They assume you can make any change you want, and everyone will still act the same. This is pure b.s.

You are right when you say the so-called Republican legislators are no better. RINO John McCain has proposed a bill which will let the FDA take control of our vitamins and supplements. RINO Kaye Hutchinson supports it. So does RINO Senator Cornyn.

These stupid bastards want total and complete control of every part of our lives, under the guise of protecting us poor, stupid sinners from ourselves.

Like Elvis sang, It's now or never, folks.

So, all you liberals, how is that change working out for you now?

What is great about this whole thing is that there will be a point of realization when you all start saying "wait, wait a minute...I have to pay for this whether I use it or not? No, that's not what I wanted, I wanted it free! That's not fair!"

What is sad about the whole thing is that my taxes will go up to pay for health care for liberal arts majors and Women's Studies majors who can't get a job anywhere.

@Patrick: "If this reform is a monster, it is a monster of our own making, and we need to be responsible and realize that."

I'll give you that, for sure, but maybe not for the same reasons. It's not like the insurance companies are profit bonanzas. Look at this WSJ article from August of last year. In particular:

Returns on assets, a key measure of profitability, are typically pretty modest too. According to analysis by FactSet, WellPoint's ROA has averaged 5.8% over the past five years, Aetna's, 4.2%. Those were, remember, supposedly boom years. UnitedHealth was higher, at 9.6%, but fell to 6.4% in 2008. These are reasonable, but hardly spectacular, results. By comparison, Wal-Mart averaged a 9.2% return on its assets and Dell, Inc. 12.4%.

So maybe the insurance industry is the big villain in all this, but I can't imagine them not flinging cash hither and yon to cushion the blow on them whatever happens. What I can't imagine them being happy about is being forced to compete more openly with eachother, or offering the same products in different parts of the country, which is what I've heard quite a few people in the parts advocating.

A week or so ago, another horror story from UK. A 21 or so year old boy died of thirst. He kept asking for a drink of water, and the nurses told him to behave himself. The second day he called the cops for help. They came and the nurses told the cops he was just combative so the cops went away. Even his own mother when she visited believed he was just being difficult and did not interfere. The third day he died, and it was shown he died of thirst. The authorities are treating it as an unlawful death investigation.

The wonderful nursed were too important to give a kid a f*****g glass of water in three days????

There is a crucial difference between the US and other socialist nations. We have around 300 million or so firearms in private hands. There is a limit just how much abuse and arrogance the government complex can push across the table.

The Founders were smart people and they were well aware of the totalitarian mentality of people in power, which is exactly why they put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

IN WWII, Hitler admitted he was not going to invade Switzerland, because they were too well armed. Even that scumbag figured out not to mess with a well armed people.

Obamacare is top down command and control, a bureaucratic nightmare that will consume every aspect of Individual choice on a number of things. Don't believe the lies from the Commie/Marxist regime about the supposed savings, blah, blah, blah; government run healthcare will be the endgame. Every American lost a good bit of Freedom last night, and screw everyone that clings to the notion of the common good, that's a shit sandwich that tastes just like it sounds.

Reform? Funny how all insurance companies stocks just went up. Follow the money - Patrick, the useful idiot will be belly aching later.

As someone who has worked in insurance for over 11 years, I am telling you right now this is a disaster.

And to address one more ignorant statement by Patrick, Insurance Companies do not cancel you if you get sick. THAT IS ILLEGAL, and a complete and total talking point from the leftist propaganda machine geared at mushy-non-thinkers who will continue to repeat it until other mushy-non-thinkers believe it and repeat it (and so on..)

People get canceled after getting sick only when LYING about a pre-existing condition. That is material misrepresentation in ANY contractual agreement - and will ALWAYS void a contract. Nothing new - that rule has been around for sometime now.

Love it how Patrick becomes the resident expert on whatever topic is on here ... What is it that you do Patrick,,,for a living? There must be something you actually have experiential knowledge of - because it ain't this.

"And now, when the little cooler arrives and he has to come in at 3 am to do a transplant, do you know how much he gets if it's a Medicare job? $30/hr."

Wow. I make more than that managing a computer network, and no one's life is at risk.

That's gotta suck.

"But the huge risk of 100% opposition is that if you lose, you get nothing."

Yes, except Democrats joined the GOP in opposing this. As one wag noted, the only bipartisan thing about this bill was the OPPOSITION!

Moreover, in a land with elections, the opposition did get something: an issue for the 2010 and 2012 elections.

See you then!

I wish I understood the whole thing, but its so complicated that I don't get it at all... what'd they finally decide, everyone will be forced to buy insurance? Not sure how that's socialism... seems like it helps the insurance capitalists more than anyone. But again, I've no idea. I can't tell you if I am for it or against it. It has gone through too many twists and turns for me to say. I'm left feeling overwhelmed.

And only Republicans get payoffs from insurance companies? Horseshit! It's on both sides, but anyone who doesn't have their head jammed in a toilet will know that the biggest supporters of the democratic party are the large insurance companies and wall street - if you don't see it like this, you aren't looking very hard.

"Obama's opening gambit to dramatically expand the health-care system has attracted surprising notes of support from insurers, hospitals and other players in the powerful medical lobby who are set to participate in an unusual White House summit on the issue this afternoon. The lure for the industry is the prospect of tens of millions of new customers: If Obama succeeds in fulfilling his pledge to cover many more Americans, those newly insured people will get checkups, purchase medicine, undergo physical therapy and get surgeries they cannot afford today."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/04/AR2009030403938.html

It's the health care insurers that were in on this from the get go. Check out the list of insurance executives and lobbyists that were in close door meetings last year with Obama - fashioning this legislation and getting a piece of the pie (INCREASED MEMBERSHIP).

In the short term they will win, when it is no longer profitable - they will restructure their business models to become all third party administrators with the Government as the insurer (ahhemm, I mean the TAX PAYER). Taking a cut for their services with NO risk out of their own pockets.

It is absolutely astounding to me how people can think this is providing us with any meaningful reform.

Next up - amnesty for more immigrants not paying into this system with a mass exodus of doctors out .

Welcome to the USSA!

(Yes, I am pissed)

"IN WWII, Hitler admitted he was not going to invade Switzerland, because they were too well armed."

This is likely the quote you are thinking of:

"Japan would never invade the United States. We would find a rifle behind every blade of grass." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Gun rights activists and sympathizers take this as a real world quote by a military man serving a totalitarian regime which demonstrates the fearsomeness of an armed civilian population to those who would otherwise attack them.

momof4:Bullshit. The government is providing nothing, except a lot of new customers for those big profit making businesses you hate. The gov't provides neither the money (we do) nor the insurance (businesses do) nor the care (drs do). All they're doing is bringing down force of law to make you participate. It is no different than if they forced everyone to purchase a car or pay a fine/go to jail. Would you be okey-dokey with that, and call it a tax? Doubt it.

Bullshit, yourself! It's right here. Surprise me, some of you. READ IT!

I'll help you out, since it's a monster of a document. It's in Section 401. And you'll never guess what it's called! "TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE!"

Well, would you look at that? A TAX! Not a fine, not a penalty, not imprisonment! A TAX!

The only penalties and fines imposed are the same ones imposed upon those who don't pay any other type of tax. You know, like refusing to pay your income tax? How they can fine you and jail you for refusing to pay it? Yes, that applies here, too. They are not going to fine you or put you in prison for not having acceptable health insurance. They're going to tax you at 2.5%. Refuse to pay that tax? Unless you qualify for an exemption, yes, they can fine you and imprison you.

Some of you have let fearmongers do your thinking for you and have swallowed a ton of bullshit.

Oh, one more quote from article linked above:

"Keeping the major players on board could be crucial to Obama's success. The health-care sector is one of the mightiest political forces in Washington, spending nearly $1 billion on lobbying and contributing $162 million to candidates of both parties over the past two years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Obama's presidential campaign received nearly $19 million from health-care companies and their employees."

Patrick, you do not have a clue what you are talking about. It's embarrassing, really.

I see Boner, the orange-skinned man is on tee-vee...ah, he left, and a real human came on. One Nancy Pelosi...to a standing ovation, no less.

So Patrick, you're fine and dandy with allowing the government to imprison US citizens for not buying a service? Because that's all this is. Just because they call it a tax, doesn't make it so. It's a fine, leading to jail time, all because someone refuses to buy a product from a private vendor.

I think you've swallowed a lot of bullshit, and now that you're forced to defend it you're finding you don't really like how it tastes.

tomas: So Patrick, you're fine and dandy with allowing the government to imprison US citizens for not buying a service? Because that's all this is. Just because they call it a tax, doesn't make it so. It's a fine, leading to jail time, all because someone refuses to buy a product from a private vendor.

I have two words for you: read it.

I have shown you on the bill, SECTION 401, where it plainly says that Americans who don't have acceptable health care will be taxed. And the only fines and jail time associated with this tax are the same ones imposed for not paying any other tax.

And those of you making the claim regarding fines and imprisonment for not having insurance have shown me...what? Where is it? I posted a link to the bill. If there are fines and imprisonments attached to not having health insurance, surely some of these fearmongers have actually mentioned where the proviso is in this bill. They wouldn't just...make things up to scare people, now would they?

Of course not. So, where is it? Which section? I'll look it up right now.

In the meantime, go away. I'm watching John Boehner the orange-skinned man making his futile last-ditch appeal on youtube. Watching him get all worked up is hilarious. He should come with a public service announcement when he appears on tee-vee. "Do not adjust your color. The man you see really is orange."

I wonder why he's orange. Suppose he's on a low-carb diet?

No... too much spray tan.

You're still not answering the question, Patrick. Do you think it's a-ok for the government to FORCE citizens to purchase a service from a private company and fine them if they don't? Because I don't give a rat's ass what they call it, charging it only to people who do not buy insurance is a damn fine.

And if you do, then you're okay with the government fining you if you don't have cable tv, or cell phone coverage, or a car, or any number of other things. And even you aren't that dumb.

Momof4: You're still not answering the question, Patrick. Do you think it's a-ok for the government to FORCE citizens to purchase a service from a private company and fine them if they don't? Because I don't give a rat's ass what they call it, charging it only to people who do not buy insurance is a damn fine.

And if you do, then you're okay with the government fining you if you don't have cable tv, or cell phone coverage, or a car, or any number of other things. And even you aren't that dumb.

Hi, Mom. I must be dumber than you realize, because I'm A-OK with them imposing a tax on those who don't have health insurance. Because existing laws do require them to get emergency care, even if they can't pay for it, and if they don't have insurance, then they should pay extra.

I'm also okay with taxes, hell, even fines and imprisonment for people who drive without car insurance. Seems like an appropriate comparison to me.

And if you don't like the idea of paying extra taxes for not having private insurance, you can blame the Republicans. They're the ones who killed the public option.

I sincerely believe this could be a civilization-breaker.

Dude, really?

Most people who have health insurance in the US have it through their employers. Most medium to large companies are 'self-pay', i.e. the company pays the insurance company a fee to the insurance company to do the paperwork and negotiate prices with the health care providers, but every dollar the insurance company pays out is paid by the company you work for.

When health care reform was first being discussed, the company I work for brought in people from a company that they use for negotiations with insurance companies to talk to us. They said that
1. health care providers overcharge uninsured people by a large margin - i.e. if it actually costs the health care provider $10,000 to provide a service, they will charge the uninsured $20,000.
2 medicare does not pay as much as it costs the health care provider - for that $10,000 cost service, medicare would pay maybe $8000.
3. insurance companies negotiate prices with the providers - for the same procedure, the insurance company would pay maybe $14,000.
4. Overcharging the insurance companies is how health care providers stay in business, because they will not be paid by the uninsured and they don't cover costs with medicare.

Trauma centers are disappearing from poor areas of large cities because of the large number of uninsured people there - they simply can't stay in business.

As long as we have a society that believes that we can't refuse health care to people in serious need of medical attention, regardless of their ability to pay, those that do have the ability to pay will be forced to subsidize health care, one way or another. If government makes it so the health care providers aren't well compensated, we will see an exodus of people from health care. If government is the sole determiner of what should be treated, then look for health care to be limited to what provides that most 'bang for the buck' - i.e. An ambulance service that can save 200 lives/year on $4,000,000 will be available while cancer treatments that save 20 lives for the same amount won't be. You'll get more flexibility if the government keeps it's hands off - which means that if you can come up with the $, or convince someone else to, you can get the less cost effective treatments.

Please note that my numbers are made up to illustrate my points, so don't don't respond to this saying some BS like 'it takes 12.5 million a year to run an ambulance'.

Patrick, you can be snide and insulting all you want, it doesn't make you right.

You claim that there are no fines or jail time associated with not buying health care insurance, and then in the very next paragraph you say:

"And the only fines and jail time associated with this tax are the same ones imposed for not paying any other tax."

You're blatantly contradicting yourself in the same post.

"I'm also okay with taxes, hell, even fines and imprisonment for people who drive without car insurance. Seems like an appropriate comparison to me."

This is a ridiculous and false comparison. Nobody is forcing you to drive a car. If you can't afford the cost of owning and operating a car, you don't buy one. Your comparison equates "driving a car" with "living," and assumes that people are making a choice about whether or not to live.

This new health care bill is a huge step backwards for gay rights. Now the government can, in the name of saving money, regulate all sorts of behaviors that increase health care costs down the line, such as risky sex. Not sure what kind of sex is risky? The Christian Coalition will gladly define it for you, bipartisanly, in exchange for additional restrictions on abortion, and you can be sure that that definition will disproportionately affect sexually active gay people.

The gay rights movement has made tremendous progress in recent decades establishing that what happens behind closed doors between consenting adults is no business of the state's to regulate. Well, so much for that idea.

Tom, I don't think you understand. There are no fines or penalties imposed for not having insurance in this new health care reform. There is a tax, however.

Failure to pay this tax can result in fines and imprisonment. Just like failing to pay income tax or any other tax.

And as for the car insurance comparison, no one's forcing you to have health insurance, either, but if you don't you'll be paying for it in taxes.

I sincerely believe this could be a civilization-breaker.

Dude, really?

What's a civilization breaker is out of control deficit spending, e.g. California or Greece. When there is some outside agency able to bail you out, they can continue, but when there isn't, they collapse. Our civilization requires our transportation network to function, which requires our economy to function. One possible scenario: the US government defaults on its debts, so the dollar becomes worthless, so we can't buy oil, so we couldn't run trucks to distribute food to cities, so cities run out of food. Riots and cannibalism would follow.

This health care bill contributes to out of control deficit spending, because we can't afford it.

Here's an article that lists 20 ways in which the health care bill takes away our freedoms.

http://ow.ly/1pk50

> Dude, really?

Yes. The best-rewarded, best-achieving culture in human history has weird, cowardly, authoritarian, technocratic, zero-sum ideas about "health care".

That's all fucked up.

"Tom, I don't think you understand. There are no fines or penalties imposed for not having insurance in this new health care reform. There is a tax, however.

Failure to pay this tax can result in fines and imprisonment. Just like failing to pay income tax or any other tax.

And as for the car insurance comparison, no one's forcing you to have health insurance, either, but if you don't you'll be paying for it in taxes."

You can argue semantics all you want, but you're only fooling yourself.

"Tom, I don't think you understand. There are no fines or penalties imposed for not having insurance in this new health care reform. There is a tax, however."

Hey, dumbass, a tax that is levied solely on people who choose not to buy health insurance (from private, for-profit companies, mind you) is a FINE. We don't "tax" people for choosing not to buy cable. We don't "tax" people for choosing to buy used clothing instead of new. It's NOT a tax, and calling it one doens't make it so. No matter how many times you repeat yourself here.

"We don't "tax" people for choosing not to buy cable. We don't "tax" people for choosing to buy used clothing instead of new."

Mom, PLEASE, stop giving them ideas!!

Patrick is the latest poster child for newspeak.

We shall not use the word fine, we shall use the word tax.

He has a dark heart and a narcissistic soul.

Say, 16,000 IRS jobs have now been created to enforce all this new legislation he holds so dear - Since he can be so easily compromised without nary a spec of empathy for others - he may have a future career opportunity awaiting him.

He's off to a rockin' start.

Momof4 is right, the tax is a fine. They'd originally acknowledged that it's a fine, but now describe it as a tax.

You're being charges for something you didn't do, buy insurance, not a product, income, or activity. The latter can be subject to taxes, the former is called fine.

For instance if you're stopped for driving without a license, you're fined - your fees aren't described as taxes.

Not sure what's more disgusting, this "Patrick" character's willingness to ignore the truth about the fine/tax, or the fact that regardless of what he's calling it, he's perfectly fine with the whole idea of the government levying taxes/fines for not buying a consumer good.

It's a tax, because it's imposed like a tax, not a fine. You pay it with your income tax, and it's 2.5% on top. Fines, you don't have that kind of luxury.

I'm not ignoring the truth about the tax, I'm telling it, and I'm actually backing it up with evidence.

You guys are stumbling all over yourselves. You got busted for forwarding a fabrication about the "fines and imprisonment" and now that you're wiping the egg off your faces, you're trying to play a clever little game of semantics, pretending that the "fine" was just your own interpretation of what the bill itself calls a tax.

Where's the clever spin on the imprisonment that you were claiming would happen, Tomas?

Patrick, please stop. We've heard your argument by now. No matter how many times you offer it, it always amounts to:

"It's not a fine because we're calling it a tax."

And you have the nerve to accuse others of playing semantics?

And what, pray tell, makes your "tax" any more acceptable than if it was called a fine? It's still the same thing, a punishment enforced by the government, for not buying a consumer product. How is that okay?

Ask any good lawyer if you can find one. It is an old legal principle that changing the name of something does not change it. Calling a penalty a tax does not change it to a tax.

http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/medicus-media-survey-reveals-impact-health-reform

Here is a January survey which says 1/3 of doctors claim they will attempt to cease practice if the bill passes. The writer says if even 15% of them actually do it, which is believable, when you couple in the need for 20% more doctors by 2018, it will be nearly impossible to find a doctor to wait on you at all.

Doctors talk. US doctors can get jobs in many places in the world, places like Switzerland, or UAE. They do not need to quit practice, just relocate.

the whole idea of the government levying taxes/fines for not buying a consumer good.

It's not just the matter of not buying a consumer good, though. If people were refusing health insurance and then refusing health care as well, it would just be a matter of dealing with the stench of rotting bodies when ambulances leave them to rot in the street.

But people refusing health insurance rarely refuse care when they are shot, in car accident, having heart attacks, etc. And I don't particularly want to be part of a society that would refuse them help.

Right now, we are paying for these people to have access to medical care. I'd like to see the fine, tax, whatever you want to call it, fall where it belongs.

I forgot to add my usual comment. Any time you make changes, great changes, and assume everyone will act the same, you are headed for a fall. Whether you are talking changing marriage and divorce laws and expect men to marry just the same, or change medical care bills and expect doctors to act the same.

I'd like to see the fine, tax, whatever you want to call it, fall where it belongs.

a) You're assuming the fines will go to pay for their healthcare. Is that true? I'd expect the govt to treat it simply as income, as they would any other fine.

b) You'd have an argument if the only increased costs were to the uninsured. But this plan is likely to cost all of us, in increased premiums and eventually, in a lowering of the standard of care.

Jake writes: Patrick, please stop. We've heard your argument by now.

The next time you get fined for something, ask if you can just submit it with your income taxes. That's what the uninsured will be doing. Also fines are a flat amount, regardless of the level of your affluence. If you get fined for jaywalking, and it's a 24 dollar fine, it's the same 24 dollars regardless of how much you make. The tax for not having insurance is 2.5% of your income.

When was the last time you got fined based on a percentage of your income?

You are playing a game of semantics. It's a tax because it's handled precisely like a tax, and it's based on a percentage, like a tax.

Fines just don't do that. But you're so determined to defend the unsupported lies that the insurance companies have been peddling, you're simply too embarrassed to admit you've been had. There are no fines and no imprisonment for not having insurance. There is a tax for it. And like all taxes that appear in law, it includes the penalties for not paying it. The fines and penalties for not paying the "uninsured tax" is not specific to this tax. It simply incorporates the existing language of fines and penalties for failure to pay taxes to this law.

I'm really very nice once you get to know me.

"It's a tax, because it's imposed like a tax, not a fine. You pay it with your income tax, and it's 2.5% on top. Fines, you don't have that kind of luxury. "

Patrick, so you're assuming that they won't raise that percentage rate of your income taxes, ever? Ultimately, the government is imposing you buy a good as a requisite of being a citizen. If you don't, you pay a fine and possibly face jail. This is just the first step towards single payer, gov. run healthcare.

Again, I say to the pro gov. healthcare folks, my body, my choice. Get your damn dirty hands off my body, federal/state government.

Republican David Frum on how Republican's shot themselves in the foot re: healthcare:
http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

Sio Patrick, so you're assuming that they won't raise that percentage rate of your income taxes, ever?

Didn't say that. The whole point of my post is to point out that it is a tax, not a fine. And pointing out the considerable differences between the way fines are handled vs. taxes.

People are just being stupid, insisting that it's really just a game of semantics the government is playing in calling this supposed fine a "tax." No, it's not. On the contrary, the games of semantics are being played by those who insist that it's a fine. They simply swallowed the B.S. from insurance companies about how they're going to "fine you and put you in jail" for not having insurance, so now they're trying to save face by claiming that they were referring to the tax the whole time, which is really a fine...yeah, right.

It's the end of the world!
Oh, Dow up 40. Business still going on outside my window, and in China.

We are still spending $14 billion a pop for new aircraft carriers, and we are in for $1-2 trillion on Iraqistan. And counting.

But it is the end of the world! The very end! This time we mean it! Nationalized (partly) health care!!

Soon we might have health care on par with a France or Israel.

It is the end of the world! Boo-hoo-hoo.

Soon we might have health care on par with a France or Israel.

I don't know anything about French health care, but I do know a bit about Israel's, and I can say that while it's quite good, it doesn't approach ours. I know many people, some members of my own family, who when they had real trouble traveled to the States for treatment.

Patrick -

It is a penalty called a tax. The Federal Government doesn't have the power to fine an individual for something, so they have to call it an income tax to slide in under the 16th amendment.

Sometimes I think you're just ignorant on purpose.

The federal government requiring everyone to purchase insurance has effectively put a price on living. You are now required to pay some fee (to be determined by an unelected government bureaucrat) for the privilege of living.

And although the healthcare stocks are up today, they will be down soon enough. Once investors have gotten a chance to ingest this whole thing and realize that it's a trap and all the insurers will be forced to operate at a loss (remember, they don't set the premiums, the government does) it's game over.

Those calling it socialized medicine are wrong.

It's textbook fascism.

Courtesy of Barack Mussolini.

@kishke - That's the point. Obama and his fellow travelers don't believe that we're better than anyone else, so we ought not have anything better than anyone else.

So he's gonna bring us down to where he thinks we belong.

I'm still insured for now. At some point, my policy will be canceled because it doesn't meet the minimum requirements, and the policy that will be made available to me is probably going to be 5-10 times more expensive. In other words, less than the cost of the fine, which I can further manage by working less.

I'll be cutting my work (and therefore income) down to the absolute bare minimum I need to survive. I'll make sure that at the end of the year I don't owe any income taxes, or no more than some tiny token amount.

They want money? Fuck 'em. Can't get blood from a stone.

franko: David Frum is universally regarded by both conservatives and libertarians as pathetic. His basic philosophy is, "If you don't go along with what the leftists want you to do, you won't get to hang with the cool kids!" Both the Republican partisans and the Tea Party independents laugh at him.

Patrick, I'd like you to show me which part of the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to levy a poll tax. Because that's what this is -- a tax for merely existing.

I think I'll send Jim DeMint an email to make fun of him. He said that healthcare was going to be Obama's "Waterloo."

I guess he should have clarified that Obama was going to be Wellington at this Waterloo.

Patrick -

You just don't get it, do you? You really don't get it.

The Democratic Party signed its suicide note in blood last night. They will lose the Senate, and probably the house too.

The progressives are all crowing about how they've finally got America on the path to Universal Health Care. What they haven't realized yet is that not only is it not going to happen, but outside of their little enclaves, no "Progressive" is going to win elective office for a long time.

It's only a matter of time before the choice becomes repeal or default. Because the revenue they planned from all the new taxes isn't going to materialize.

It's hard to imagine repeal being successful. As Frum argues, even if the GOP wins enough seats to make it possible, will Obama sign it into law? Doubtful.

Well, pick your poison.

According to 2000 study by the World Health Organization (WHO), Israel has the 28th best health care in the world. The study cited its universal treatment, but also pointed out long waits and high taxes. The United States was ranked 37th; the study lauded its responsiveness but criticized its high costs.

Cousin Dave, the government's power to tax is plenary.

Brian, we'll just see about that. And I'm not a democrat anyway.

From the World Health Organization--here is the entire ranking.....until No. 37, the USA.

But remember, we are the best at everything.....

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America

As I said earlier, I find the new health care plan confusing. Having said that, to say it signals the end of freedom and America is a bit silly. It's a tax. Might work out for America, might not, but at the end of the day, taxes suck, but they don't signal the end of freedom.

This is funny.

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

Oh, so when you're outvoted in government, you spite the American people when you don't get your way?

And how the hell would that be different from what the Republicans have been doing for the last 14 months?

"It's hard to imagine repeal being successful. As Frum argues, even if the GOP wins enough seats to make it possible, will Obama sign it into law? Doubtful."

Impeachment.

> It is the end of the world! Boo-hoo-hoo.

Rapier wit? We've been waiting....

> Those calling it socialized medicine are wrong.

The rest of the country is now officially responsible for your health care. Isn't that what you wanted, Brian? Eventually, your providers will get their money.

> The Democratic Party signed its suicide
> note in blood last night.

Theatrical, grandiose. Even if some elections go conservative next time, it's silly to infer that this didn't represent the thinking and desires of a lot of very bright and articulate –if naive and authoritarian– people. It's not like people slept through this: Liberals said 'We're going to do something very bad'. And then they did it. And many if not most people are OK with it. No matter how fascist it is (and I think it's pretty fuckin' fascist), you shouldn't pretend the this is some unforeseen, unimaginable event.

Even if there is some remarkable backlash against liberal thinking, which is highly unlikely, it's too goddamn late. America has gone soft in the head, but even softer in the heart. The muscle can't move the oxygen to the cortex anymore, and even when it does, there's no activity to consume it.

As I said earlier, I find the new health care plan confusing. Having said that, to say it signals the end of freedom and America is a bit silly. It's a tax. Might work out for America, might not, but at the end of the day, taxes suck, but they don't signal the end of freedom."

NicholeK - please, enlighten us more about Global Warming as well. It's a bit confusing to me too...have you read any good news lately on your religion?

> Impeachment.

Black markets would (and probably will) be less trouble for most people. There will be more dignity in living off the grid.

> here is the entire ranking.

For what?

That is how WHO ranks health care quality by country. Maybe it is biased--I am sure any ranking is biased. Some would say that any ranking in anything that does not have the USA at the top is biased.

But the system we have is 37th by this ranking.

Not so fast, BOTU,

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125608054324397621.html), that study was flawed in many ways:

"It's a very notorious ranking," says Mark Pearson, head of health for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the 30-member, Paris-based organization of the world's largest economies. "Health analysts don't like to talk about it in polite company. It's one of those things that we wish would go away."

Conan, like a fucking brother, saves me the trouble of looking up the stats on the preceding 36 nations... Quality of life, longevity, education of medical professionals, etc. I kinda figured that there was reason BOTU didn't include a link....

Rapier! Rapier!

Hey, Patrick - try these semantics on for size, from that noted far-right wing wire service, the Associated Press, in an article currently featured on the front page at Yahoo and elsewhere:

• Most Americans will be required to carry health insurance, either through an employer, a government program or by buying their own. Those who refuse will face fines from the IRS.

See that pesky little word there in the last line?

"FINES"

You can see it for yourself here: http://tinyurl.com/lptzme

By the way, is there a nation on BOTU's list that wouldn't expect the armed forces of the United States to defend their borders if attacked?

Those people are OURS. Their safety and longevity and all the rest have been guaranteed through arthritis in the knuckles of the American taxpayer.

Don't kid yourself. Never kid yourself.

Jenny, it's an article. Newsflash, but reporters aren't always honest and their perspectives aren't always neutral.

I will go by what the bill says, not by what some idiot at the associated press says the bill says, especially one who swallowed the latest line of propaganda from the insurance companies who are willing to do anything to protect their interests.

What are you going to go by? What's actually on the bill, or what someone tells you is on the bill, especially since they can't point the section which supports their claims.

And no one's answered my questions...so I'll ask them again.

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU HAD A PAY A FINE THAT WAS BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME? MOST FINES I'VE SEEN ARE PRETTY MUCH SET. WHETHER YOU MAKE 35,000 A YEAR OR 3.5 MILLION, THE FINE FOR LITTERING IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.

Question number two.

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU WERE ABLE TO PAY A FINE AND SEND IT IN WITH YOUR INCOME TAXES? MOST OF THE FINES I SEE CAN'T BE SENT WITH YOUR TAX RETURNS AND THEY HAVE A SET NUMBER OF DAYS IN WHICH YOU CAN PAY IT. YOU MAY NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF WAITING UNTIL APRIL FIFTEETH!

It's a tax, folks. The bill itself says so. You want to argue that fines and imprisonment are a possibility for not having insurance, I'd like to see which section it's in. Can anyone show me where it is?

Didn't think so.

Hee. I just love that you're bending over backwards and resorting to scary bold faced all-caps to insist that the Democrats have just passed a brand new tax, one that increases in direct proportion to a person's wealth, and is paid if that person refuses to give money to insurance companies. Nice government you've elected.

"It's a tax, because it's imposed like a tax, not a fine. You pay it with your income tax, and it's 2.5% on top. Fines, you don't have that kind of luxury."

Actually, we're about to here in texas. Don't want the poor paying too much for breaking the law, so fines will be geared to income. Yippee.

"The United States was ranked 37th; the study lauded its responsiveness but criticized its high costs."

Gee, I think I'll take being in debt to pay for my treatment that I get asap over dying while waiting on the "free" medical care. Personally. But hey, I like making my own choices. It's why I couldn't wait to be an adult, after all.

Patrick, you are missing the point. The government is forcing you to either purchase a product, or face a fine, or tax, that you currently do not pay. I find it incredible that nobody will challenge that single aspect of this bill all the way to the supreme court, as individuals are being singled out for special fees. This bill is a joke. It should have been debated line by line in public, but no, it was rushed thru behind closed doors. Again, somebody please tell me how it "reforms" health care? Absolute travesty.

Israel has the 28th best health care in the world. The study cited its universal treatment, but also pointed out long waits and high taxes. The United States was ranked 37th; the study lauded its responsiveness but criticized its high costs.

Spare me that ridiculous WHO stat, BOTU. A few days ago, I skimmed that incredibly boring WHO paper you cite. Suffice to say that the US is preceded in their list by such luminaries of health care as Morroco, Colombia, Greece, Dominica, Costa Rica and Saudi Arabia. It’s a well-kept secret that sick people from all over the world fly to Morroco for superb care.

No doubt part of the reason behind these ridiculous rankings is that the WHO researchers give equal weight in their measurement to “health” and “fairness in financing," by which they mean that poorer households should not pay a greater percentage of their discretionary income for health care than do more wealthy households. It’s immediately obvious how that criterion alone entirely screws up the rankings. If good health care means that Bill Gates pays a million times more for an aspirin than Joe Schmo, the US is obviously not going to cut it.

But of course, good health care has nothing to do with such socialistic outcomes, and has everything to do with receiving the best care possible at the best possible price. The US does very well at the former, which is why the world beats a track to our door for health care, and would do very well at the latter too with some simple reforms, such delinking insurance from the workplace, allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, and so on.

For whoever's interested, the paper is found here:

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

April 15 is less than a month away, folks. If you haven't already filed your Federal Income Fine, you better get on the stick. The IRS can impose taxes and penalties, including imprisonment, for failure to pay.

(The preceding was posted for the benefit of morons who think the terms "taxes" and "fines" are interchangeable.)

Ron, be more specific. Taxes single people out for a special fees all the time. Got a nice car? Then in some states, you have a luxury tax.

not at a federal level patrick

Hmm. The committee staff who wrote the bill appear to have exempted themselves from its requirements.

http://newledger.com/2010/03/exempted-from-obamacare-senior-staff-who-wrote-the-bill/

and I chose to buy a car to invoke a luxury tax when I could just buy a hyundai

Milton Friedman's favorite form of taxation was a progressive consumption tax. Just telling it like it is.

As for the WHO study, is said it probably was biased, and any ranking would be. You can dream up your own way of ranking, if you wish, or provide another list. Just make sure America is at the top.

As for the WHO study, is said it probably was biased, and any ranking would be.

The problem is not that it is biased, but that it is ranking something other than health care, as I pointed out.

The reason this "tax" is sent in with your income taxes instead of being levied at the point and time of violation is because it's not a "one-time when you get caught" thing like a jaywalking ticket or a speeding ticket or a fishing license violation.

The total "tax" is pro-rated for that part of the year in which you do not have "acceptable health care coverage."

You'll have to prove on your taxes every year that you had "acceptable health care coverage" for the entire year to avoid paying any portion of the 2.5% tax.

Sum d00d: It's also delightful to see the right wing acting as though a bill whose main components originated with the Heritage Foundation is the end of America.

I assume that you're talking about Romneycare? The "Heritage" Foundation's support of that colossal disaster was a major boner.

> Just make sure America is at the top.

Right. So this is all about your mechanical hatred of your own country, right? You think contrarianism doesn't require judgment, you just have to dance backwards, moonwalking your way to paradise.

You rapier you....

Socialism, fascism, communism, totalitarianism, the end of our civilization! Over a middle of the road health care bill quite similar to Republican proposals of the mid-90s. Oh, the horrors of ending recission, lifetime minimums, and moving the U.S. toward near-universal health insurance. And if You don't want it, WAH! You have to pay something anyway since we don't just up and let the ininsured die. It's so unfair :( Obama is MussoHitler for doing what ge said he would when running for president. Our only salvation is to take up arms and fall in line behind Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck (if only he'd cry a bit less).

I think Whatever and sumdo00d and BOTU are all the same guy, not wanting to defend the twisted rhetoric from their earlier guises. Much would explained. A great deal would be explained.

Milton Friedman chose that as the least bad option.

Any form of taxation where the individual pays the federal government directly is bad.

@BOTU: The WHO comparison stats are worse than useless on pretty much everything. When people start yammering on about life expectancy and infant mortality, they use the officially reported numbers from all the countries. The problem is that no two countries define those terms the same way.

The one thing we do know is that in every single socialized medicine scheme outcomes tend to be worse, lead times tend to be longer, medical technology lags. The costs are hidden, so there's no real way to quantify the cash outlay.

Given that, why the fuck would we want to try it here? I mean, that's like taking up smoking to prevent cancer, drinking to avoid a hangover, or fucking to avoid pregnancy.

And when you consider that our government is even more incompetent than most of the European governments the outcome is guaranteed to be even worse.

>Right. So this is all about your mechanical hatred of your >own country, right?

I can't speak for others but it looks more like he's mocking right wingers' insistence that America is #1 at everything all the time and if you feel otherwise you hate America. You did a nice job proving him right :P

I just don't get those who support this healthcare boondoggle. And it infuriates me that these idiots are quick to make fun of us for being hysterical about it. Damned right I'm hysterical! This administration is nibbling away at our (relative) freedom from government controls. If they pass this bill for amnesty and legalizing a bunch of illegal aliens, what chance does the Republican party have in November? We need some leadership for a change that can be a rock star and a rabid dog at the same time. We should remind the illegals why they came to this country. They came to work! Didn't they take all of the jobs noone here wanted anyway? Sorry I'm so emotional. My future healthcare is going to involve faith healing because that's all that's left while waiting in line.

Look, troll, I don't give a fuck if Republicans or Heritage supported it in the 90s, THEY WERE WRONG.

This bill is NOT middle of the road. It ultimately puts government in charge of medical decisions.

And in case you haven't been paying attention, MassCare has failed. Massachusetts cannot afford to meet its obligations under the plan, and insurance rates are going through the roof -- EXACTLY AS PREDICTED BY PEOPLE WHO KNOW THAT A LITTLE SOCIALISM WORKS AS WELL AS "I'LL ONLY PUT IT IN A LITTLE".

Socialism fails every time it is tried. Since fascism is simply socialism wearing a corporatism mask, it is doomed to fail.

And it's going to fuck a lot of people up the ass in the process.

Naw.... That name, "sum d00d", has the same detachment as Whatever and BOTU. Same guy. And if not, it doesn't matter. Same mentality.

I made a few leaps in my previous post-sorry it's disjointed. But yeah, the economy is tanking, 10%+ unemployment is the new normal. The global warming nut jobs will block the rest of us from using our fireplaces to heat our homes. I see a lot of things coming that will cause the middle class to become dependent on the government so that we will continue to keep them in office. If we are taxed into poverty, how are we going to go to Singapore for healthcare? The dems just need to take these steps incrementally and before you know it, the masses will have finally figured out what happened. Healthcare was a first step. BO is not stupid, he's calculating.

To kishke and franko: I would cheerfully vote to re-open the donut hole, end parental coverage for 25-year-old people who live in Mom's basement, etc., because this would be much better than becoming even bigger tools of our Chinese debt-holders.

David Frum's point that the "Heritage" Foundation came up with some of the ideas in the bill simply means that the "Heritage" Foundation cannot always be right.

As I understand it, the United States is ranked 37th in distribution of health care, but NUMBER ONE in quality.

Brian, you say socialism fails at everything, but every developed country in the world has some sort of single-payer health care in which every single one of their citizens has decent health care. What we are doing isn't socialism, leaves most of what we currently have intact, doesn't quite get everyone covered, but does make instant improvements in a variety of areas and long-term improvements in many others. Personally, I'd prefer we go with true single payer, and perhaps we'll get there someday.

But why I'm here trolling today is that this legislation passed, despite the lies spouted by its opponents, the utter intransigence of the Republican minority who set out to destroy Obama's presidency before he ever took office, and the idiot tea baggers who were whipped up into frothy, lunatic displays by the right wing noise machine. Despite all of that, you guys lost and it is sweet.

> but every developed country in the world
> has some sort of single-payer health care
> in which every single one of their
> citizens has decent health care.

WHAT???????

You know what disgusts me, Mr. d00d? Your smug jubilation at the destruction of America.

You say every developed country has single-payer in which every citizen gets decent health care. This is a patent lie, you know it, I know it, and everyone who voted for this clusterfuck knows it.

What we are doing IS fascism, because it only APPEARS to leave what we currently have intact. What it in fact does it force the entire medical industry to dance to the tune of Bureaucrat du jour if they want to continue existing as a going concern.

I'm guessing you support true single payer because you don't work, or at least don't earn a whole lot. But I can tell you that those of us in the small business world are going to be crushed by this. The tax burden is going to cost a lot of people their homes. It's going to cost a lot of people their jobs.

So you are gloating that your golden boy used lies, subterfuge, and the most divisive rhetoric ever unleashed upon the American people to pass something that is completely against the founding principles of this nation.

People like you are why I officially hate everyone who has an Obama sticker on their car. I will change lanes to avoid those cars so I don't get any stupid on me.

I hope you find yourself dying of dehydration in a government run hospital because the nurses can't be bothered to give you a glass of water.

In support of Brian (March 22, 2010 6:18 PM)

Massachusetts Romney/Obama Care

Democrat Timothy Cahill is Massachusetts state treasurer:

[edited] Implementing the MA health insurance reform nationwide will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years. Our experiment has nearly bankrupted MA. Only federal aid is sustaining our law. We’re being propped up so that Obama can drive a similar plan through Congress.

WHAT???????

Yes. Everybody else that is a civilized developed country has universal health care. Who lacks it? It may not be what the wealthiest here can get, or those who work for the the most rapacious unions, but it's equivalent to what most Americans gets. And it's a damn sight better than what the millions without get.

And I don't give a crap about your previous statement about them expecting our military aid. Fuck that shit. We don't owe anyone defense but us, and we could save huge - and put healthy, capable young people to much more productive activities - if we didn't decide that we needed to have a global military empire.

I'm guessing you support true single payer because you don't work, or at least don't earn a whole lot.

I earn a low six-figure salary. For a very small business. When my wife is added in, we approach $200,000. She works for a small business, too. We have a decent amount of retirement savings, but we're note wealthy.

I support true single payer because I think that decent health care should be assured people. Since, as I mentioned in a previous post, we don't let people when they show up at the emergency room with no ability to pay. If we did that, then maybe I'd be more of a fan of more libertarian-type reforms.

I hope you find yourself dying of dehydration in a government run hospital because the nurses can't be bothered to give you a glass of water.

I hope you live a long and healthy life. But it doesn't mean I don't think you're an angry man with a very warped view of what is going on in the world.

"Since, as I mentioned in a previous post, we don't let people when they show up at the emergency room with no ability to pay."

eh?

sure we do, most places it's law that you can't turn people away from an emergency room. what're you talking about?

sorry... had to go look it up:
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

Try again.

Meant: we don't let them die if they show up and can't pay. Sorry for the typo. If we let people die for lack of payment then more libertarian health care proposals begin to make sense.

Mr. d00d - you do realize that by 2014 you'll be paying over $100,000 in taxes, yes? And you're cool with that?

You're damn right I'm angry. Because for every minute I work for me, I work another one to pay off a government that is rapacious beyond description. A government run by people who have stated in no uncertain terms that they hate me and everyone like me. They hate you too. Still like them calling the shots on your medical care?

We spend more per student on education than any nation on Earth and get some of the worst outcomes. You think the government that manages that could possibly do well with health care?

And you better make sure you keep yourself and your wife REALLY healthy, because getting medical service ten years hence is gonna require a plane ticket.

if we didn't decide that we needed to have a global military empire.

I had to single out this little piece of ignorance.

Understand that we have never been imperial. We stationed troops in Europe after WWII because we were sick of getting pulled into Europe's wars. Our "global military empire" as you so arrogantly put it is the only reason that Western Europe was able to play with socialism while the USSR was breathing down their necks.

Without us, they would have been swallowed up and sucked behind the iron curtain one by one.

And when we have to dismantle our military to pay for health care, there will be nobody left to protect them. And Putin's getting the band back together.

You're in a daydream.

> We don't owe anyone defense but us,
> and we could save huge - and put healthy,
> capable young people to much more productive
> activities - if we didn't decide that we needed
> to have a global military empire.

This is abject lunacy. First, that ours is a military empire... In fact, it's the sheltering force that allows all your petty little nations to entertain socialist fantasies of health care. But that bit about our "healthy, capable young people to much more productive activities" is especially dreamy, a scenario I've never heard before... That's a real opium-ish extension of the fantasy.

This is exactly why I think you're actually the other commenter, maybe Whatever or BOTU. This is very much like when Whatever said "gay soldiers serve openly and effectively in just about every country in the world", without being able to name a single such nation.

Liberals often daydream of a lazy, cuddly paradise that some nasty person is hiding from them. Maybe that person is Dad, or maybe that person is Cheney, but they're just sure that magical land is out there, even if they can't name it specifically.

> every developed country in the world
> has some sort of single-payer health care
> in which every single one of their
> citizens has decent health care.

Not that it's a health care that you'd want in your own life, or you'd move to that magical paradise.

And again, even if you did, you'd no doubt be in a nation sheltered by American taxpayers and military might, which is how these socialist fantasies can be started (if not sustained).

In my favorite analogy, you're like the breadwinning father in the household who wants to quit his job at the company and move into the room above the garage with his 24-year-old son, to smoke dope and play video games. A mortgage is SUCH a pain in the ass....

> I support true single payer because I
> think that decent health care should
> be assured people.

When they're willing to pay for it, it almost always is.

Without us, they would have been swallowed up and sucked behind the iron curtain one by one.

dood probably thinks it's bad that they weren't. Imagine the great health care they missed out on!

If things go right I will be paying a lot more than 100k in taxes annually by 2014. I'm OK with that. I expect to be earning more and I expect tax rates to return to something closer to normal from their currently historic lows. Again, by the standards of other mature developed economies with decent social safety nets, our taxes are unsustainably low.

You've got that precisely backwards, d00d.

I'm quite sick of carrying freeloaders on my back. We don't have a safety net, we've got a fucking hammock.

You might be willing to spend more of your time working for someone else's benefit (and at the point of a gun, no less), but I'm not.

If we don't find some way to get the government consuming less than 10% of GDP and carrying no debt, our nation WILL collapse. The instant that our currency is no longer desired, the gravy train stops.

I love how both Crid and Brian somehow think that these statements are not contradictory:

1. America is not an empire
2. Dozens of other countries' security is entirely at our pleasure

You can have one of these but not the other.

We currently own the following foreign countries and (no matter what the degree of folly nor who is governing) will have thousands upon thousands of troops there for the foreseeable future:

1. Iraq
2. Afghanistan

We can't force them to do our bidding outright, but we have a big stake in:

3. Israel (even thought they've been very naughty of late and deserve some discipline)
4. Pakistan
5. South Korea
6. Saudi Arabia

We have massive permanent bases in many European countries. We antagonize Russia with our support of breakaway states like Georgia. Just because we don't tax them directly doesn't make this not an empire. You're crazy to think otherwise. We have the largest global empire ever. .

But fuck it, we can't afford it anymore and it needs to stop. These places need to step the fuck up and handle their own shit. Ron Paul is right about foreign policy. It's time for us to take our troops home and secure our own borders.

I'm quite sick of carrying freeloaders on my back. We don't have a safety net, we've got a fucking hammock

Unless where you live is really different than where I live, I don' think so. The welfare reforms passed by Clinton and Gingrich really have done a lot to cut costs and incentivize work. Taxes are lower now than they pretty much have ever been since an income tax was imposed.

You may personally not like your current tax rate nor the social safety net it provides but unless you expect to be able to return to the pre-New Deal era, you're stuck with it in some form.

But where you are right is that we need to do something to keep the debt under control. I think defense is a great place to start, as is means testing Social Security and Medicare.

In my favorite analogy, you're like the breadwinning father in the household who wants to quit his job at the company and move into the room above the garage with his 24-year-old son, to smoke dope and play video games.

Your favorite analogy is shit. But I'll start there, and say our present situation is much more analogous to a dad who has been spending so much time fucking with his neighbors about the conditions of their yards and their children's misbehavior that he has failed to notice that his yard is full of weeds, his kids are dirty and undisciplined, and he's got termites. If that dad doesn't quit fucking with the neighbors and take care of his own shit soon, he's fucked.

> If that dad doesn't quit fucking
> with the neighbors

It's more that he keeps the drug dealers from fucking with his children or those of his neighbors: I admire him for that. When he stops doing that, EVERYONE's fucked, including the good-for-nuthin' video gamer above the garage, whose bogus leisure you aspire to.

Also:

> 1. America is not an empire

> 2. Dozens of other countries' security is
> entirely at our pleasure

While I don't subscribe to #2 in that wording, it's close enough for purposes of this discussion, and those comments are not contradictory.

I'm guessing you're not a man who works with his hands.

>whose bogus leisure you aspire to.

Bogus leisure in Crid's world: tending to one's yard and home, washing up one's children, and providing them loving and attentive discipline.

Meaningful important stuff: ignoring all of that and messing with other people.

Just making sure that is crystal clear.

those comments are not contradictory.

Wrong. How can another place be free of our control when they depend upon us for their security needs?

I'm guessing you're not a man who works with his hands.

I did when I was in my 20s. I'm a decent rough carpenter and a competent electrician, but I can plumb circles around just about anyone. And I don't say that just to make a joke about my pipe laying skills.

Hey heard this and I am hoping someone else can find something because either my Google-fu is broken or I was lied to...

I was told that in Washington State that some time ago...like the mid 90's... they had a law about insurance companies having to offer insurance to those who have pre-existing conditions and that it had to be repealed within a few years because it was making premiums skyrocket.

Anyone? Maybe some one who lives there?

they had a law about insurance companies having to offer insurance to those who have pre-existing conditions and that it had to be repealed within a few years because it was making premiums skyrocket.

Seems plausible to me. One important reason that the current bill has a mandate is to incentivize people to buy insurance ASAP, because otherwise, the fact that they can't be denied for pre-existing conditions creates and incentive not to buy insurance until something goes really wrong.

> How can another place be free of our
> control when

Are these the terms of adolescent individuation? Are teenage nations resentful of Mom and Dad for the fresh food and dry bed?

> when they depend upon us for
> their security needs?

How many are eager to take on that expense and, y'know, war-making capacity? Last I heard, the French weren't even floating a carrier, though they'd spent a few billion trying to. Again, America gets the job done, allowing these less-competent nations to think quite highly of themselves.

> Just making sure that is crystal clear

Obama does that a lot: "But let me make one thing perfectly clear", says the professor of law... As if anyone were ever stopping him from taking a stand and, um, saying something. And he has that shiny teleprompter, too.

And he has that shiny teleprompter, too.

I would have thought his ably handling questions from the entire Republican caucus teleprompter-free for what? An hour or more straight, with nothing written on his hand even, would dispel this. Apparently not!

Again, America gets the job done, allowing these less-competent nations to think quite highly of themselves.

Not our job. To adopt your parlance, these nations need to grow up. We can't afford it anymore, nor is there enough good for us in it to do it.

We are in an era in which Europe is being eclipsed as the secondary economic power, and the populous and aspirational powers of India and China are ascendant. People sweat Russia, but they are too much of a mess, and too dependent upon resource exploitation to be a long-term threat. China and India are it. And we will not be able to preserve our unprecedented hegemony in this century for much longer. The world is moving from an odd unipolarity in which we were the only big power after the collapse of the Soviet Union, to one in which we we will have two serious rivals in Asia - economically.

But conventional military thinking of the sort that appears to concern you will be wrong. We're too interdependent with our rivals for military force to be an especially useful tool. Instead, we'll all need to team up to be good at assassinating terrorists. But aircraft carriers and subs are very likely to be of greatly decreasing utility unless China decides it wants to try to get in an arms race with its biggest trading partner.

> Just making sure that is crystal clear

Reiterating things helps remember them. Especially in today's media consumption climate, undivided attention is rare.

You clearly care less about what is going on inside the U.S. than how we project power elsewhere. It's not necessarily an invalid perpective. But I think it's wrong.

> Instead, we'll all need to team up to be
> good at assassinating terrorists

Promise me then, you'll shed no more tears over Guantanamo or secret prisons in Europe or other CIA skulduggery... That's the world you dream of, right? "Assassinations". Beautiful.

> Reiterating things helps remember them.

All the really effective leaders agree in today's challenging, dynamic media environment, it's important to stay on-message,

> You clearly care less about what is
> going on inside the U.S. than how we
> project power elsewhere

Nothing of the sort could be clear to you, but the matters aren't wholly unrelated.

The facts are pretty simple here. When the gov't gets involved, demand and pricing can no longer be determined because the only way to do that is with the profit mechanism.

In the U.S., the gov't asks hospitals, doctors, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies etc. what demand and pricing are. Anyone that believes that these hospitals, docs, insurance cos, and pharmas don't take advantage of this are dreaming. So the gov't inflates the money supply and pays them. Every single new entitlement has always led to massive inflation in the healthcare sector.

In other countries, such as Canada, the gov't rations. Right now, it takes 6 months to get a knee surgery in Canada. Within 15 years, it will probably take 6 months to get heart surgery.

There is only one solution. Get the gov't out of healthcare right now. End the subsidies, the CON laws, the corporatism, etc. But most importantly, end the deficits. Without them, prices would constantly be falling and healthcare (along with everything else) would become affordable. Continue along this route and we're all going under - except for the government - which will simply pay you your benefits in depreciated dollars.

Mr. dood seems to think there's an endless supply of OPM. And just like BOTU (I think crid might be on to something here) also thinks that if only we'd stop spending money on the military, close the borders, and go the isolationist route favored by insane xenophobe Ron Paul we could have all kinds of government mandated goodies.

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

The problem with fascism is you can't keep up the facade when the whole economy collapses.

If the economy slows down enough, you'll see most people uninsured and the government getting fuck-all for their little fine.

And then we get to see what happens when the US goes into default. Should be interesting.

Promise me then, you'll shed no more tears over Guantanamo or secret prisons in Europe or other CIA skulduggery... That's the world you dream of, right? "Assassinations". Beautiful.

Guantanamo is a bad idea. Terrible for PR, needs to be shut down. Assassinations of terrorists, though, I'm OK with that. Got no problems whatsoever with incinerating terrorists who think they're safe hiding out in the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Mr. dood seems to think there's an endless supply of OPM

I think nothing of the sort. I favor returning our taxes to the levels of the Clinton years, which were not exactly onerous. I favor providing basic medical care to all - since we just passed it, let's say via the Obamacare plan. Down the road, we'll need to do some horse trading to means test social security and medicare to keep them solvent. Right now, the biggest line items in the Federal Budget are those obligations, defense spending, and debt service. If we want to ensure our solvency, we should go after the biggest line items. Unfortunately, those things are quite popular, so making the needed adjustments in them will require great political skill. I don't see anyone who's got it.

Thinks that if only we'd stop spending money on the military, close the borders, and go the isolationist route favored by insane xenophobe Ron Paul we could have all kinds of government mandated goodies.

Yes, I think it's time for us to give a more non-interventionist foreign policy a shot. Because we are bankrupting ourselves trying to maintain global hegemony. And for what? A corrupt, pseudo-state in Iraq and an utterly failed state in Afghanistan, both of which will require copious amounts of our treasure and the continued deaths of our young men and women for the foreseeable future. We give Israel billions in aid and they thumb their noses at us at every opportunity. All of these actions enrage the Arab world - even our allies like Turkey have distanced themselves from us.

Many right wing foreign policy thinkers still lament shuttering the ridiculous missile defense system that antagonized Russia while defending Europe against a non-existent threat. These people would have had us support Georgia in its conflict against Russia - literally risking war with one of the only real military powers left over a disputed piece of a breakaway state.

And yet, despite the disastrous results of our interventionism and power projection, you're still hungry for more! How can this be.

Despite what anyone says, we are never leaving those places.

And then we get to see what happens when the US goes into default. Should be interesting.

I think I recall Insta-douche suggesting this a while ago. You cannot possibly want this. That you think it speaks volumes of your ignorance about economics. You want a gold standard, too? Any other fiscal craziness you think smart?

I said nothing about a gold standard. You're the one who supports Ron Paul. I think he's a crank and an imbecile.

I don't WANT the US to default. It's just the obvious end result because hyperinflation is politically untenable.

You want isolationism. You do understand that isolationism is what got us World War II, yes?

Turkey's backing away from us has precisely zero to do with Israel and everything to do with (1) the fact that they elected an anti-western Islamist government and (2) Pelosi has been antagonizing them repeatedly with her resolution to condemn Turkey for not acknowledging the Armenian Genocide.

Your last post sums it up nicely - you're mostly a Paul-bot. Isolationist, anti Israel, xenophobic. Where you and he differ is in your support for fascism. You want to cough up 50% of your income to support complete strangers? Go right ahead. Don't point a gun at my head to force me to do the same. I'm at the point where I couldn't afford to have a family even if I wanted one, and my taxes are only going to go higher.

Funny how you never see any of these "I'm ok with high taxes" people voluntarily paying over half their income. The IRS does take donations, you know.

Your last post sums it up nicely - you're mostly a Paul-bot. Isolationist, anti Israel, xenophobic.

I'm most certainly not a Paul-bot. I think that he is on to something with respect to foreign policy, and that our nation would be better off if we'd quit trying to police the world and meddle so thoroughly in the affairs of people we neither understand nor have meaningful interests in. I also think that he is right that we need to control our borders more effectively. He's a crank when it comes to economic theory, though.

I am not anti-Israel. However, I think their present radical right-wing government and its settlement policies are insane, and are pushing them irrevocably toward another bloody intifada that will further diminish any prospects for peace result in the deaths of hundreds of Israelis and many thousands of Palestinians. They went out of their way to disrespect V.P. Biden on his recent visit there, and have rejected out of hand our requests to stop building illegal settlements. To acknowledge these facts is not to be anti-Israel. I submit that a friend is obliged to point out when he sees his friend doing dumb things. Israel is doing dumb things. (To give credit, I'm paraphrasing someone with these last two sentences. Tom Friedman, maybe?)

Turkey's backing away from us has everything to do with the invasion of Iraq which presaged the election of the pro-Islamic government.

Funny how you never see any of these "I'm ok with high taxes" people voluntarily paying over half their income. The IRS does take donations, you know.

Sorry, we're all in this together. One person throwing an extra few bucks into the coffers doesn't get the job done.

> Got no problems whatsoever with
> incinerating terrorists

This is why I think you're the commenter Whatever or Cheezburg. There's this undercurrent of violent fantasy that's so familiar...

Amy's magic may be powerful and tentacled in it's appeal– I've often been amused at the way she attracts a new, weeping anti-circumcision zombie every sixth months. But it would be a real surprise if she could pull in a smartass lefty with exactly your psychological profile so consistently. At some point, we'd want the UCLA sociology department to step in an explain how she does it.

> You cannot possibly want this.

He doesn't have to want it; he doesn't have to want any of the $10 trillion delights this president is bringing to us.

I'm about violent fantasies? You're the one who thinks military adventurism throughout the globe is a good policy. Get a grip dude.

"Last I heard, the French weren't even floating a carrier, though they'd spent a few billion trying to. Again, America gets the job done, allowing these less-competent nations to think quite highly of themselves."

Is this something for Americans to be proud of? America is like the nerd in school who does the jocks' homework for them. Then they take his lunch money and laugh at his funny uncivilized ways. It is in many ways just like the welfare programs we hate here at home, in terms of the people pulling the wagon and the people riding in it. Brian is right - we don't have a safety net, we have a hammock.

I'm not going to start riding in the wagon, but I am done pulling the wagon. I don't care what happens to the people sitting in it. My little home is paid off, and I am not saddled with kids or any debts. My plan for the next few decades is to not work any more than the bare minimum it takes to keep food in the fridge and the lights on. Working hard to accumulate wealth is a dream of the past. At first, coming to this realization felt like despairing or giving up. But after I thought about it some more, it was also very liberating. Since there is no longer any reason to work so hard ... hey! There's no longer any reason to work so hard! Mazel tov!

I know, nobody cares what I do, and I doubt the government will miss my meager contribution to the income tax fund very much. But I am quietly backing away from the whole mess in my own way. I have this strange feeling I will not be the only one.

brian: I said nothing about a gold standard. You're the one who supports Ron Paul. I think he's a crank and an imbecile.

Hi, Brian. Some things I like about Ron Paul. He shares the burden of the American people more than a lot of our elected representatives. He does not avail himself of the ridiculously fabulous health care avaiable to our elected reps. Nor does he avail himself of the overdone pay and tax breaks that our Senate votes for themselves. He returns a portion of his check to Department of the Treasury.

On the other hand, some of the stuff that comes out on the newsletter that bears his name is positively disgusting. Such as this delightful comment regarding the L.A. riots, "order was restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

Ugh.

Of course, the gentlemen denies all responsibility. What the hell? It's YOUR newsletter, Ron.

Nice to hear from you, Brian. Hope things are going well for you.

d00d just doesn't get it. This is America. You weren't supposed to be guaranteed anything but opportunity.

Forcibly extracting money from those who have successfully leveraged opportunity to subsidize those who can not or will not do the same is morally repugnant.

If I choose to help others, that's on me. You do not have the right to make that decision on my behalf. We used to call that robbery. We used to hang men for it.

Now we call them "Senator".

Nice to be heard from, Patrick.

But what you call "meddling" I call "protecting the national interest."

There is enough criticism to go around over the tactics used during the cold war, but when we're talking about national (and international) survival, the ends justify the means. Defeating the Soviet Union was too important for us to sit on our hands while Kruschev marched across Asia.

If Johnson had been more interested in winning the war in Viet Nam than in finding a way out of it so he could spend the money on domestic entitlements to create more dependents, then maybe the cold war could have ended twenty years earlier, and we'd already have pulled our bases from Europe.

Think of all the money we could have saved on the arms race if we'd had a president truly dedicated to destroying the Soviet Union in 1967. Twenty years of lost opportunity. Lots more than we're ever gonna pay for this health-care scam.

d00d gets it just fine, Brian. I think you don't. We elect representatives and senators based upon the policies they advocate. Following elections, those elected members of Congress then attempt to pass laws to put those policies into law. If both houses of Congress pass a law, it then goes to the desk of the President to be signed or vetoed. If the President signs it, it becomes the law of the land, and changes things. In this way, what America is or is not is malleable.

If you do not like what America is becoming, go work to make sure people who advocate policies more agreeable to you win the election. Because in the last election, people who support policies you disagreed with strongly won a massive majority. And then went about doing what they said they were going to do. No one should be shocked by this. Democrats have been wanting some form of universal health care for half a century or more. However, LBJ courageously passed civil rights legislation and destroyed his party's old coalition for a couple of generations. It took a while to get back to the point where something like this could happen.

The shock and the outrage is ludicrous. A comparable thing would be for liberals to be shocked if a massive Republican majority plus a compliant Supreme Court got Roe v. Wade overturned. We shouldn't be shocked if that happened, you guys have been promising to do that years and that opposition to Roe is an absolute litmus test for any Republican Supreme Court appointee (Given the radicalism of the Roberts court, I do not think this is terribly unlikely if another conservative gets appointed).

This is politics. Not thievery.

However, LBJ courageously passed civil rights legislation and destroyed his party's old coalition for a couple of generations.

LBJ had massive amounts of help from Republicans in doing that. In fact, without Everett Dirksen and several other Republicans, the civil rights bill of 1964 would not have passed. Democrats (including Robert Byrd) were filibustering it.

Democrats do themselves a disservice when they imagine that they passed these landmark bills without bipartisan support. They begin to think of themselves as lone crusaders rather than consensus lawmakers.

> Is this something for Americans to be proud of?

Yes.

> I am quietly backing away from the
> whole mess in my own way.

First of all, it's too late. Go to about 4:30 :

The top one percent of American earners pay forty percent of the income taxes. The top five percent pay sixty percent of the income taxes. The bottom fifty percent of American earners pay three percent of the income taxes. When this administration gets in place all of its tax preferences, sixty percent of the American people –a large majority— will pay either no income taxes or less than five percent of their income. Now, that is a majority that has zero incentive any longer to restrain the growth of a government they are not paying for. —George Will, CPAC 2010

Secondly, you're only offering to back away from the mouth of the funnel; you're still planning to enjoy the steady stream of treats from the other end. Accepting the protections and comforts of western civilization without contributing isn't honest behavior.

> This is politics. Not thievery.

Obama doesn't know the difference... He's never earned a dime in his whole life.

Conan, I totally agree with you. Those big bills - civil rights, Medicare - were not pure partisan bills. But LBJ did push for civil rights knowing that he was doing something that would shatter the old Democratic coalition.

Ah— Here it is as convenient text.

d00d: This is politics. Not thievery.

Crid: Obama doesn't know the difference... He's never earned a dime in his whole life.

Crid,
How so? Didn't he earn as a lawyer/ teaching law?

He didn't work in private practice, and he was never a teacher or professor - he was a lecturer. And they were told to make a job for him.

Literally everything Obama has had in his entire 46 year life has been handed to him.

d00d: if the American people overwhelmingly wanted universal health care, then why did so many millions of them come out to oppose it? And why are Obama's favorables now below 50%? Hint: the American people didn't vote for progressive socialism, they were duped into thinking they were voting for a moderate.

> How so? Didn't he earn as a
> lawyer/ teaching law?

Did he ever bill a client (or school or institution) who wasn't paying with tax dollars?

This man has never generated wealth. He's never created value, and I don't think he thinks it can be done. He sincerely believes that he's just here to spread around the wealth that other people have... (Note that I said "have", not "earn". He doesn't actually think any of the ones who have wealth created it, either.)

I think at this point in human history, zero-sum thinking is as --if not more-- dangerous and reprehensible than anti-science creationism... It may well be uglier than sharia.

Note that these kinds of foolishness quite often cluster.

Those big bills - civil rights, Medicare - were not pure partisan bills.

But Democrats seem to be convinced that they were.

And this big one is. Democrats are deluding themselves by thinking that they passed Medicare, welfare, Social Security, and civil rights all by themselves. And that those programs lasted this long despite being partisan. They lasted because they were bipartisan. Obamacare is totally partisan and will not last because of it. It was a foolish and hubristic maneuver.

Democrats neither invited Republicans to the planning table nor cared to hear any of their ideas. So, the Dems got a totally partisan bill which Republicans will work to dismantle. At the first significant Democratic minority, this bill is toast.

Had they invited Republicans into the planning of this bill, they would not have gotten everything they wanted, but they would have gotten a bill that could survive a Democratic minority.

And, they may have gotten a bill that would provide near-universal coverage without bankrupting our grandchildren.

why did so many millions of them come out to oppose it

The frothy, over-the-top insanity of the rhetoric used against the bill, the ineptitude of Obama and especially Pelosi and Reid in making the case for the bill, and the general economic insecurity caused by the recession. Once the bill starts to kick in, my money is that people will like it.

Obama's favorables now below 50%

He pushed hard, against a ridiculous onslaught of lies, misinformation, and lockstep opposition by Republicans. In the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

But this is the reason we don't have direct democracy. It enables politicians to enact things that are good ideas despite being temporarily unpopular.

And, they may have gotten a bill that would provide near-universal coverage without bankrupting our grandchildren.

Your error is in presuming that this was not their intent.

Democrats neither invited Republicans to the planning table nor cared to hear any of their ideas.

Not true. Pure right wing talking point. Much of the bill was Republican ideas. This is just wrong; the bill is very much like what Republicans offered in 1994. It is very much like what Snowe requested in the Senate Finance Committee.

Republicans opposed it our of pure political calculation. They planned to make it Obama's Waterloo before they even knew what was in it. Had they agreed to support it, they could have gotten tort reform, across-state-line sales of insurance and a bunch of other things they want. But they opposed it in lockstep from the get-go, just like they have done with just about every Obama initiative.

Republicans have completely given up negotiating anything in good faith, and their actions have hurt our nation deeply because they have ensured that the Senate is no longer a functioning legislative body. If Democrats need to use parliamentary tricks to overpower them, fine. We need to get business done. Fuck them.

>>Did he ever bill a client (or school or institution) who wasn't paying with tax dollars?
This man has never generated wealth.

Crid,
Ok. Thanks. I see what YOU mean now, by "he's never earned a dime in his whole life".

(Though I imagine he "generated" some wealth for his publishers.)

"But LBJ did push for civil rights knowing that he was doing something that would shatter the old Democratic coalition."

d00d, out of all the stuff you've posted here, this is the one bit I thought was interesting. LBJ did indeed believe that he was shattering the Democratic coalition that had held pretty much since the Civil War. And for a while, it looked like he was right, with George Wallace going off to run a third-party candidacy in 1968.

But in '72, Wallace came back. And his views were already changing by that point. By the time he stood for his last election, as Alabama govenor in 1982, he was pretty much a mainstream post-war liberal/populist, and he brought most of the old coalition with him. That coalition didn't break up for good until 1994, and that was as much Bill Clinton's fault as anybody's. (Although an argument can be made that it was inevitable, regardless of what Clinton did or didn't do.)

Once the bill starts to kick in, my money is that people will like it.

I seriously doubt it. Because once the bill starts to kick in, the first thing the people will notice is that their paycheck has shrunk, and their money doesn't seem to go quite as far.

He pushed hard, against a ridiculous onslaught of lies, misinformation, and lockstep opposition by Republicans.

Name three lies please.

In the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

A Democrat created recession. You forgot that part.

In a way, yes. We don't have a direct democracy because it leads to mob rule and allows people to do the worst sorts of things to their fellow citizens.

Kind of like what Congress just did.

Much of the bill was Republican ideas. This is just wrong; the bill is very much like what Republicans offered in 1994.

Got a link? Because the Republicans are not likely to have offered a massive government takeover or further profit-killing mandates. Especially in 1994 with Gingrich at the helm.

Unless by "Republican ideas" you mean "Hillary Clinton ideas". And she's never been mistaken for a Republican.

Cousin Dave: Further: The skullduggery to which the Democrats went to pass this bill over the objections of nearly everyone is unprecedented. Bart Stupak is about to realize that he got pwned and his career in politics is over. A whole new range of extra-constitutional tricks for getting unpopular legislation passed has been revealed. Don't think for a minute that the Republicans haven't been watching and taking notes. Remember that when the GOP has the Presidency and two-thirds majorities in both houses after the 2012 election.

Hey, Cousin Dave. I was going to let this go, but I decided I should address it.

"taking notes"??? Dude, which party do you think has the PhD and taught the class when it comes to "deem and pass"? The GOP has used this tactic 35 times in one single session!

And genuinely sorry to hear you're so upset with me. I actually think you're one of the better posters here. Posters like you and Conan raise the level of discourse.

But in '72, Wallace came back.

I'm guessing a lot of the voters never did, though.

A Democrat created recession

LOL Whut?

Name three lies please.

Death panels, this is a government takeover of health care, illegal immigrants will be covered.

Got a link? Because the Republicans are not likely to have offered a massive government takeover or further profit-killing mandates.

Yes, yes, I do:

In 1993, at the height of President Bill Clinton's health care reform initiative, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., along with 19 other Republicans and two Democrats, put forth a bill which was considered the major GOP proposal. One of the co-sponsors was then-Sen. Dave Durenberger, R-Minn. The bill, just like the Democratic version, never passed. But in a sense, it's been revived this year.

In fact, the key provisions in the Chafee bill may seem familiar, as they bear a strong resemblance to those in the current Democratic Senate bill, and now in President Barack Obama's proposal. A mandate that individuals buy insurance, subsidies for the poor to buy insurance and the requirement that insurers offer a standard benefits package and refrain from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions were all in the 1993 GOP bill.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Checking-In-With/Durenberger-1993-gop-bill-q-and-a.aspx

A Democrat created recession

LOL Whut?

Democrats passed the CRA in 1979. Democrats expanded it in 1996. Democrat affiliated pressure groups sued banks and used the CRA and FDIC to force banks to lend money to people who would never pay it back. Democrats forced Fannie and Freddie to buy these loans.

If none of that had happened there would never have been a derivatives market created to try and cover all this high risk paper.

Name three lies please.

Death panels, this is a government takeover of health care, illegal immigrants will be covered.

You're right. Death panels were in the bailout bill (Comparative Effectiveness Research and its affiliated bureaucracy), but it takes effect in the bailout because the government sets the coverages and rates. Denying a procedure because the Bureau says it's too expensive relative to Quality Adjusted Life Years is a death panel. No other way to say it.

This IS a government takeover of healthcare, just indirectly. They are now telling the insurance companies how to run their business, which indirectly tells the doctors how to run their practices based upon what they will and will not pay for.

And it will cover illegal immigrants because there's no requirement to prove eligibility or citizenship. The law does not explicitly exclude them, so they are covered.

I've concluded that you're either a fool or an idiot. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment and settle on fool.

There's no authority given to the comparative effectiveness panels, they do research and offer recommendations that need not be followed. Try not listening to Palin. She can barely read her hand.

The government tells lots of businesses what they can and can't do. This is nothing new.

You gotta have a SSN to apply for a job, insurance policy, or pay taxes. While this does nothing more than other businesses to exclude illegals, they've got to be in the system otherwise to qualify.

Fail, fail, and fail.

I've concluded that you're either a fool or an idiot. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment and settle on fool.

Likewise. Have a great day.

I stand corrected, somewhat.

I certainly would have been against the Republican program in 1994 (which was almost certainly offered as a "moderate" response to Hillarycare) for the same reasons.

But Obamacare goes so much further than that short list you have there. It starts by making the insurance companies insolvent by forcing them to take on infinite risk. It only gets worse from there.

And that was spearheaded by a Republican from Rhode Island - who are only slightly less liberal and statist than Democrats. Not to mention that his SON took his seat which he lost to a Democrat who was more conservative than he was. The same Lincoln Chafee that supported Obama for president.

So don't try to tell me that CONSERVATIVES supported this shit sandwich before, we didn't.

> I see what YOU mean now

Shoulda been clearer. Sorry. All sorts of wealth has moved through his fingers; he's brought none of it into being. It's that zero-sum thing again. Even with demonstrations as clear as the one on Sunday, it's hard to remember that others still don't see this.

To my way of thinking, even the publishing profits are somewhat tainted... Had he not had the life and work experience given to him by such an inexplicably generous society, no one would care to read his story.

Some of us still don't.

There's no authority given to the comparative effectiveness panels, they do research and offer recommendations that need not be followed.

But government recommendations often become the standard and variations from them must be explained to justify continued funding.

For example, there was no actual federal law that said the speed limit had to be 55mph. However, states that did not follow that recommendation lost highway funding. So, the nationwide speed limit became 55mph.

While "death panels" was clearly hyperbole, the fear of government interference in the doctor-patient relationship that the phrase represented was real and deserved to be addressed with discussion rather than mocking derision.

>>>While "death panels" was clearly hyperbole, the fear of government interference in the doctor-patient relationship that the phrase represented was real and deserved to be addressed with discussion rather than mocking derision.

Hey, hey, hey - just a minute, Conan.

You've made some excellent historical arguments in this thread, so what's this about?

You cannot redeem totally cynical fear-mongering on the basis that the cynical picked a clever target!

Many people expressed concern about the government panel proposed early in the healthcare debate. Palin gave it the "death panel" nickname, but in doing so she encapsulated a real fear that was being blown off and not addressed by Democrats.

Because it was Palin who had become the front man in this argument, Dems thought it was easy to tell people to ignore her and that she's just fear-mongering. But the fear existed before Palin coined the phrase. And with that phrase, she struck a nerve, especially with older people who were concerned about losing out on treatment if some sort of rationed or weighted care was implemented.

That real fear deserved to be addressed rather than blown off with a cavalier "Palin's a nut" attitude.

>>Because it was Palin who had become the front man in this argument, Dems thought it was easy to tell people to ignore her and that she's just fear-mongering.

Conan,
The Dems were, therefore, perfectly correct to argue that Palin should be disregarded when she spoke of death panels, and to point out that indeed she was the source of this cynical fear-mongering.

It doesn't matter whether the argument was "easy" or not. It was the correct argument.

Otherwise any campaigning politician can make any slick and baseless cheap shot - and claim that were merely airing general stuff that probably worries all of us in the wee, small hours!

And the electorate learns nothing about the real aim of the policy in question.

Also, Conan,
You can stick "death" in front of just about ANY rival campaign issue - and discover you've apparently encapsulated a real fear!

Cynically arguing that the spokesperson for a group of citizens expressing their concerns is "fear-mongering" instead of answering the very real fear being expressed was wrong. It was a straw man argument and not the correct argument.

Palin may have used hyperbole, but it was not a cheap shot. It very succinctly and very effectively encapsulated the concerns of a large portion of the population. Sarah Palin was not the source of these fears. She did not monger them. Those fears had already been expressed many times by the time she put "death panels" on her Facebook page.

A government efficiency panel could very well have ended up setting the standard menu of health care options and until the Dems explained how the recommendations of this panel were not going to be allowed to become official policy, many people (especially older ones) were scared they'd be denied life-saving treatment if what was then proposed as the health care bill had passed.

Answering people's fears would have been the correct argument. If the answers are solid, then Palin becomes a lone nut case (like a "truther" or one of those Obama birth certificate nuts). Attacking her directly instead gave her credibility and made people wonder why no one was answering the questions about the panel. The Dems' attack on her "death panels" comment as fear mongering was the best thing that could have happened to her politically.

Otherwise any campaigning politician can make any slick and baseless cheap shot - and claim that were merely airing general stuff that probably worries all of us in the wee, small hours! ... And the electorate learns nothing about the real aim of the policy in question.

Was this your first American election? 'cause that's pretty much the boilerplate for an American election. Don't give details and smear your opponent.

- In your guts, you know he's nuts.
- Change we can believe in.
- A chicken in every pot.
- Hey, hey, LBJ. How many kids did you kill today?
- Ma, Ma, where's my Pa? Gone to the White House, ha ha.
- I propose a New Deal.
- You shall not crucify this country on a cross of gold.
- Morning in America.
- It's the economy, stupid.
- Stay the course.

You can stick "death" in front of just about ANY rival campaign issue - and discover you've apparently encapsulated a real fear!

Probably. As a society, death is our second greatest fear. Behind public speaking. Don't get that one. If I'm at a funeral, I'd rather be giving the eulogy than lying in the box.

But, if "death " is a real and widely enough spread fear, you'd better address it rather than attack the messenger.

That should be "death /insert rival campaign issue here/"

Conan: Palin may have used hyperbole, but it was not a cheap shot. It very succinctly and very effectively encapsulated the concerns of a large portion of the population. Sarah Palin was not the source of these fears. She did not monger them. Those fears had already been expressed many times by the time she put "death panels" on her Facebook page.

Perpetuating a lie still makes one a liar. Palin's complicity is not mitigated because someone repeated it before she did. That argument didn't work for the Nazi prison guards, either. And as for her motives in voicing the concerns of a large segment of the population, you credit her with waaaaaaaaaaay too much intelligence.

She did not use hyperbole. She lied. She had a responsibility as governor and vice-presidential candidate to separate fact from fiction. McCain certainly did, when he refuted rumors that Obama was an Arab and a Muslim.

To suggest that Palin should somehow be excused is rather patronizingly suggesting that she should be held to a lower standard. Sorry, but Caribou Barbie was the one who decided to play with the big boys, so she's going to get the hard pitches. We're not going to throw nice easy plump little underhand tosses for poor Sarah, so she can make contact and jump up and down when she reaches first base while her mother cheers her on.

You actually insult her by holding her to a lower standard. If someone adopted that attitude toward me, I would tell them in no uncertain terms where to go and how to get there.

I'm not holding Palin to a lower standard. The Democrats are - and by doing so, are legitimizing her. They blow her off as "Caribou Barbie" instead of addressing her arguments.

The fears that the government panel would de facto set the amount and type of health care one could receive were real fears - and have not been addressed even today. Rationing of care under government health care is still a major fear of many people (especially the elderly). But instead of addressing the fears, the Dems throw out words like "fear mongering" and "Caribou Barbie" because the spokesperson for those fears is an easy target.

It's not like Jenny McCarthy and her anti-vaccination crusade. All thinking people regard her as an idiot. McCarthy has no medical experience to bolster her claim of expertise. Palin was a well-respected governor and mayor before she entered the gristmill that is national politics. She's got some actual experience running something (more experience than Obama had when he was running for president).

Palin brought up some legitimate concerns, albeit wrapped up in hyperbole (note "hyperbole" not "fear mongering"). And the Dems would have been better off addressing those concerns than laughing at her.

By blowing her off instead of showing her up, they handed her a strand of political legitimacy. They could have answered the concerns and shown her to be a political novice twisting in the wind. Instead, they handed her an issue and a cause.

>>Was this your first American election? 'cause that's pretty much the boilerplate for an American election. Don't give details and smear your opponent.

No, it's not* - and I even know what goes into hotdogs too, Conan!

I am familiar with the 'spread fear then smear' gambit, I was just genuinely surprised to find you defending the death panel story in this way after the fact.

*though I have tons to learn still - that's fair.

And as for her motives in voicing the concerns of a large segment of the population, you credit her with waaaaaaaaaaay too much intelligence.

I never speculated what her motive was. The spokesperson part was the end result, but perhaps not what motivated her to get into the argument.

She had a responsibility as governor and vice-presidential candidate to separate fact from fiction.

She was not a governor or a candidate when the "death panels" kerfuffle began.

And, Patrick, when have we ever depended upon governors and political candidates to separate fact from fiction?

>>And, Patrick, when have we ever depended upon governors and political candidates to separate fact from fiction?

Conan,
You may have missed it - but Patrick did at least supply one example in his earlier comment...
...">i>McCain certainly did, when he refuted rumors that Obama was an Arab and a Muslim."

By blowing her off instead of showing her up, they handed her a strand of political legitimacy. They could have answered the concerns and shown her to be a political novice twisting in the wind. Instead, they handed her an issue and a cause.

Palin has a natural constituency among this country's white, uneducated, small-town evangelicals. They believe what she says regardless of whether it's been demonstrated to be false; in fact, they love her even more for it because she glories in it and thumbs her nose at the "librul media" and elites who mock her. (Witness the "Hi Mom" she wrote on her hand after the Tea Bag convention fiasco when she couldn't remember 4 basic points in an interview where she was handed the questions in advance).

To her fan base, it is impossible to discredit her; every attack, every slip up, every time she reveals just how ignorant she is, it's all further evidence of the conspiracy to defeat her. They are immune to facts. They are also the most angry and fearful of the nation's people; because they tend to be poorly educated, low skilled and rural, they are experiencing tremendous economic insecurity right now (and, I suspect, for the long term). These people are also the Republican base in many important primary states. I'd have to say she's the likeliest 2012 Republican presidential candidate for that reason.

shorter Sum d00d: You'd all support universal health care if you were only a little more intelligent.

Conan: Palin brought up some legitimate concerns, albeit wrapped up in hyperbole (note "hyperbole" not "fear mongering"). And the Dems would have been better off addressing those concerns than laughing at her.

I have to say, Conan, you keep claiming that Palin indulged in "hyperbole" as if it's an okay thing to do. "Hyperbole" is not just exaggeration, let me remind you; it's exaggeration of obscene proportions. As a literary device, hyperbole has its uses, but in political discourse, the distinction between hyperbole and lying is flat-out meaningless. To cling to hyperbole as if it's not lying is ludicrous.

And let me remind you, also, Biden did face Palin in the vice-presidential debates, and predictably defeated her quite handily. Have no worries, Palin was exposed as the novice she is. To say nothing of the embarrassment she made of herself with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric.

To suggest that she's never been taken seriously, and only "blown off" is to suggest that these things never happened. Every time Palin had been treated like a serious candidate, the results have been disastrous...for her.

She has been shown up. Biden did it (easily), Gibson did it (without meaning to), and she did it to herself on Couric. And to suggest that she has political legitimacy is wishful thinking. Yes, she has a contingent of loyal followers...and from what I've seen of them at her book signings, they're every bit as embarrassing as she is. But what of it? Is her base so impressive that I should be worried? If you or I ran for President, even we would have a base of some sort.

Conan: And, Patrick, when have we ever depended upon governors and political candidates to separate fact from fiction?

A pox be on McCain, then, since he took all that time to explain to his voters that Obama was not a Muslim, not an Arab, and born in this country.

I don't expect politicians to separate fact from fiction for the benefit of the voters. On the contrary, secretiveness often wins the game. However, I do expect them to know the difference, at least. Then they'll be in a position to distort it.

No Brian, shorter d00d: More people would support HCR if so many people didn't make a habit of hyperbolic and insane distortions about what it is and does.

Some people would oppose it for ideological reasons, regardless of whether it objectively does good things for our country as a whole. I assume you, Amy, Crid, and several others on this thread fall into that group.

And Sarah Palin and her supporters are kinda dumb.

No, d00d, there is no government program that has ever done what it was supposed to do within budget, done it well, or done it in a timely fashion.

There is no evidence that the "reform" package offered will do anything to improve availability, cost, or delivery of medical services in the United States. In fact, all experience with similar "reforms" in other countries point to precisely the opposite happening.

If opposing something because it's never been shown to work is "ideological grounds", then I'm proud to be an ideologue.

When your doctor retires because he can't afford to stay in business when the medicare rates get cut and the insurance companies start cutting payments to meet federal premium mandates, come see me. So I can laugh in your face.

Sum d00d: No Brian, shorter d00d: More people would support HCR if so many people didn't make a habit of hyperbolic and insane distortions about what it is and does.

Some already have. If you read the thread, some have made the bogus claims that you'll be fined and jailed if you don't have health insurance.

When I pointed out that the penalty assigned to not having insurance was a tax, not fines or jail time, and the references to fines and jail time referred to the penalties leveled for not paying that tax (which is the exact same penalty written in the same language as the penalties assigned for failure to pay other taxes), we saw some nimble backpedaling that would have impressed Gene Kelly. They claimed that the tax was the fine that they were referring to all the time...of course, the jail time mysteriously disappeared.

"Hyperbole" is not just exaggeration, let me remind you; it's exaggeration of obscene proportions. As a literary device, hyperbole has its uses, but in political discourse, the distinction between hyperbole and lying is flat-out meaningless. To cling to hyperbole as if it's not lying is ludicrous.

Obscene proportions? Patrick, you're getting carried away with your Palin-hate.

From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: hy·per·bo·le
Pronunciation: \hī-ˈpər-bə-(ˌ)lē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek hyperbolē excess, hyperbole, hyperbola, from hyperballein to exceed, from hyper- + ballein to throw — more at devil
Date: 15th century
: extravagant exaggeration (as “mile-high ice-cream cones”)

From Wikipedia:
Hyperbole ... is a rhetorical device in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.
Hyperbole is used to create emphasis.

No "obscene proportions" there either.

Political discourse is full of hyperbole. Republicans are not really racist baby killers. Democrats are not evil communists (well, not most of them). Hyperbole in politics can be taken to obscene extremes and too often is. But in Palin's case it was not.

Section 1233 of the House's original healthcare bill (HR 3200) authorized advanced care planning sessions for the elderly every five years (more often if there is a significant change of life circumstances like admission to a care facility).

A bureaucratic panel discussing how much care you should receive in your old age is a bit Orwellian and, to many, smacks of the first steps toward healthcare rationing. And no one on the Democratic side of the aisle explained publicly how this section of the proposed bill would be prevented from eventually leading to the perhaps unintended consequences of healthcare rationing.

Palin's exact comment about Section 1233 was, "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."

I'd have to say she's the likeliest 2012 Republican presidential candidate for that reason. - sumd00d

I doubt it. No matter how many times the Democrats keep handing her a strand of political legitimacy with their condescension, she's nowhere near ready for prime time.

She blew interviews with Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. Neither of those two could be considered hostile interviewers.

Although she's been a successful and respected governor and mayor, she does not seem to have very good extemporaneous speaking abilities. If she's going to be a serious national candidate, she'll need those. I think a term in a deliberative national body, like the House or the Senate, would do her a lot of good. Or maybe joining Toastmasters.

brian: No, d00d, there is no government program that has ever done what it was supposed to do within budget, done it well, or done it in a timely fashion.

So, every government program that has ever existed should be done away with, and we should never make another government program.

And there have been plenty of government programs that have been done well, thanks. Hell, I thought rural electrification was done superbly.

As for things done timely, FEMA does pretty well...except when Bush is president. All other times, it's great.

It's now an empirical question I suppose.

Sorry, Conan. You posted your own defeat. Your definition is "extravagant exaggerations" and gives the example of “mile-high ice-cream cones." You don't consider that an exaggeration of obscene proportions? Really? It's not an exaggeration of obscene proportions to describe an ice cream cone as being 5,280 feet high?

Perhaps you think it's only a slight exaggeration, that the ice cream cone was only 4500 hundred feet, not a mile at all.

From dictionary.com

–nounRhetoric.
1.obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2.an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

You don't consider the idea of waiting "an eternity" to be an exaggeration of obscene proportions? Don't exaggerate. It was only 338 billion years, not an eternity.

Also, there was nothing "intentional" about Palin's overstatements. She was not engaging in rhetorical device designed to make a point. She was engaging in willful fabrication.

I think I email her a summons to present Trig to Washington so they can make a determination regarding his fitness to live. Such an innocent little exaggeration...tee-hee.

I wonder what she was exaggerating with that. What was this supposed panel really going to do with Trig? Not kill him, perhaps, but merely wound him? Break his legs, maybe?

An exaggeration, hyperbolic or not, has a basis somewhere in fact. When you call an ice cream cone "mile-high" your indicating that it's pretty tall as ice cream cones go, but mile-high can only be an obscene overstatement.

Sarah Palin's suggestion that Trig was going to be placed on the chopping block was no exaggeration. It was a deliberate and malicious lie. There is no basis in fact for this.

Thanks for playing, Conan, but your post was a flop...and that's no exaggeration.

Although she's been a successful and respected governor and mayor, she does not seem to have very good extemporaneous speaking abilities.

Understatement of the year?

Regardless, I just think she's got the most devoted following among names people know, Romney is toast because he passed the Mass version of Obamacare, Pawlenty is just too damned dull, Obama cleverly co-opted Huntsman, Huckabee is hated by the economic conservatives, and the Republican nominating process makes it much easier to wrap things up with a few early wins. Maybe Paul Ryan emerges as the anti-Obama... but I don't see who beats Palin right now.

You don't consider the idea of waiting "an eternity" to be an exaggeration of obscene proportions.

Only if I have to endlessly debate with you the entire time. Your patronizing attitude (even when you're wrong) is amazing to watch, but a chore to endure.

And, no, I don't consider a mile high ice cream cone an obscene exaggeration. I like ice cream, but I don't honestly believe I'm going to get 5,280 feet of it piled into a cone.

Obscene hyperbole is calling someone no better than a slaveholder because they oppose the expansion of affirmative action. It's calling someone a mass murderer because they don't agree with you on abortion.

I don't personally believe in the context of her statement that Palin went that far.

The unintended consequence of government review panels that Palin was voicing concern about was that those who will have only limited productivity or livelihood in society (the old, the lame, the severely retarded etc.) may have their healthcare rationed.

Sarah Palin's suggestion that Trig was going to be placed on the chopping block was no exaggeration. It was a deliberate and malicious lie. There is no basis in fact for this.

Again, what about possible unintended consequences of government panels promoting efficient delivery of health care?

For example, what if Trig develops heart trouble and needs a very expensive operation and a lifetime of medication and constant supervision. He will never be a net contributor to society due to his Down's. Therefore, the panel may decide his quality of life remaining is low and ability to contribute to society is nil. It may then recommend withholding the very expensive treatment in favor of providing it to someone else who may have a higher quality of life and contribute productively to society. That would be a death sentence for Trig - hence the hyperbolic "death panel."

Nothing about government goons dropping by to break his legs.

By the way, you were not engaging in hyperbole. You were engaging reductio ad absurdum. And, no, that's not a Harry Potter spell.

" ... many people (especially older ones) were scared they'd be denied life-saving treatment if what was then proposed as the health care bill had passed."

Because apparently they didn't have the means to pay for it themselves.

Here is a bit of what I was asking about:

In 1993, Lowry and the Legislature enacted the nation's most sweeping law to control health care costs and guarantee coverage for everyone. Then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was spearheading the Clinton administration's controversial universal coverage effort, called the Washington state legislation a "model for the nation."

In 1995, the Legislature repealed most of the law.

from http://www.healthcaremaryland.org/node/65

No, Conan. What is amazing is your inability to admit you're wrong. And yes, it is very amazing. It's as if statements that prove you're incorrect don't even exist to you, like there's some pathology that prevents your mind from registering them. And I've seen it before.

"For example," "for example," "for example"...in other words, you have no factual basis for assuming Palin's malicious lie is not a lie at all, so you must rely on a hypothetical situation.

That fallacy also has a name. It's called "Hypothesis Contrary to Fact." Basically it means you start with a situation that is not true and attempt to draw supportable conclusions from it.

"If not for Madame Curie, the world would not know of radium" is an example. Really? No one else could have discovered it?

Palin not only demonstrates willful and malicious mendacity, but she also demonstrates that fascinating incuriousness reminiscent of George W. Bush. She obviously made no effort to find out what was involved in health care reform, or what would happen should the situation arise...and neither did you, by the way. But that didn't stop her from assuming some horror story and speaking of it as if it were fact. The Sarah Palin quote you supplied is proof of this.

She doesn't know. She doesn't want to know. She wants to create a worst-possible scenario and smear with it.

It's not only dishonest but also irresponsible. And your efforts to dismiss it as harmless hyperbole will not change that.

Patrick, you haven't "proven" that I'm incorrect. You've merely repeated each time more emphatically that Palin's a liar and an idiot.

We disagree. Get over it.

====================

Understatement of the year?

Definitely a contender.

The Republicans seemed to have a pretty strong bench a year ago, with Sanford, Palin, Jindahl, Pawlenty, and Romney. But it seems to have imploded.

Sanford is done. He should have been impeached. He left town with no way for anyone to contact him without putting the Lt. Gov. in charge. How was that not dereliction of duty?

Pawlenty is dull. And he's still got almost no national name recognition.

Jindahl seems to have disappeared into a swamp somewhere. As a healthcare expert, it would seem the last few months would have been a good time for him to weigh in, but he's been MIA. We'll see if that works for him.

Romney not only has the Massachusetts version of Obamacare as a potential stumbling block, but his Mormonism makes it tough for him to get by the evangelical wing of the party in the primaries.

Palin's still not ready for prime time. She's a weak debater and poor extemporaneous speaker. She has a loyal following (almost rabid) but will need a broader appeal to win the nomination.

Conan, you seem really well-informed. Your assessment above regarding the Republican field seems right on.

Fair or not, the unfortunate semblance between Jindahl's performance post Obama's first SOTU speech and Kenneth on 30 Rock ended his presidential ambitions.

My one point of difference is that I think Palin's weaknesses aren't sufficient to hold her back in the primaries, but she would get pwned pretty quickly later on. If she has some insights into her talents and the political world, she'll stick to the cozy comforts of Fox punditry and avoid the national electorate. Mastery of a prepped speech does not a presidential candidate make (I do not think she will do this, thought). And no matter the mockery of Obama and the teleprompter, his ability to do policy in-depth and ad-hoc is in a completely different realm, as the Republicans discovered during Q&A at their retreat.

When I survey the Republican field, it makes Obama grabbing Huntsman (sane, polished, accomplished, etc.) for his China guy seem all the more slick as both a nod to the quality members of opposition party, and as a way to neutralize a potentially serious opponent in 2012. Not to mention, getting a kickass ambassador in the meanwhile.

Republicans better hope Ryan can step up, cause I don't see anyone else. Unless they want to go with Jeb. But I can't see the U.S. going for another Bush so soon.

BTW, I think one ray of light for health care opponents is the Supreme Court. Given the radicalism of the Roberts Court, with its willingness to disregard precedent in service of conservative political expedience (a la the Citizens United travesty), they may overturn health care despite its complete consistency with late 20th century Commerce Clause jurisprudence. So maybe you conservatives can count on judicial activism to save you when legislative obstructionism fails. But don't ever claim purity on this again.

Conan, the real problem is, you haven't proven you're correct, your impressions to the contrary. Your entire argument depends upon hypotheticals that you seem to think are plausible. And based upon this, you seem to think Palin's malicious and irresponsible rumormongering is justifiable.

It is not. There are an infinite number of hypothetical situations that can be created and justified because the originators seem to believe in them or at least want to believe in them. Birthers and truthers are a case in point. Do they then become defensible because of this? They do not. You get over it.

I'll amend my last statement about Palin, though. She isn't merely incurious. She's anticurious. Her problem isn't just that she doesn't know anything about the proposed health care reform, and doesn't want to know. The problem is she's adamantly opposed to knowing. She'd likely resist if someone "in the know" tried to inform her that she's mistaken, or at least unsupported by evidence (which she is). Is there a section to the proposed bill that even suggests the possibility of what she's hysterically screaming about? No one seems to know of one. Yet it's okay to speculate, and insist such baseless rumors are the reality.

Somehow, you seem to think this tactic is justifiable. In fact, you're defending it as laudable.

Okay, I think I'll start accusing the next Republican candidate of child molestation. Apparently, it's now justifiable to pull bullshit ex nihilo and claim it's factual. Why not? And it's not like it's without precedent. Karl Rove did the same thing to Mark Kennedy when managing the campaign of Harold See.

I will agree with your assessments of the Republican fair-haired boys of yesteryear. At this point, the Republicans would actually do better to put the remaining names in a hat and draw one. They would be just as easily primped for a run at the White House as Jindal (not Jindahl), and certainly more easily than Romney, for the reasons you cite. It is unfortunate that his religion is such an impediment, but it is. Even without Massachusetts health care, his Mormonism alone seems insurmountable.

"Palin is not ready for prime time"? Optimistic, aren't you? You seem to believe that one day she will be.

they may overturn health care despite its complete consistency with late 20th century Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Never mind that "late 20th century Commerce Clause jurisprudence" is completely and utterly wrong. I can't think of a single major decision that invoked the Commerce Clause that was correct in the last 30 years.

If you consider the Roberts court "radical" then what the fuck was the Warren court?

Get your head out of your ass. The Constitution was never intended to be anally raped to turn this country into a federal despotism. The federal government is supposed to be weak.

Interesting side observation -

Of all the people who publicly hate on Sarah Palin, the ones who heap the largest scorn upon her are gay men, followed very closely by liberal women.

>>Of all the people who publicly hate on Sarah Palin, the ones who heap the largest scorn upon her are gay men, followed very closely by liberal women.

But don't forget her daughter's baby papa Levi Keith Johnston, brian.

(Johnston is, of course, in neither of your "interesting side observation" categories.)

And he's nowhere near as vicious as Andrew Sullivan who maintains to this day that Trig is not Sarah's baby.

Johnston was involuntarily thrust into the public spotlight and couldn't handle it. And he was paid to lash out at the people who brought him there.

brian: Interesting side observation -

Of all the people who publicly hate on Sarah Palin, the ones who heap the largest scorn upon her are gay men, followed very closely by liberal women.

Interesting side observation. There is exactly one openly gay man on this blog (that I know of), and only one openly gay man that has commented on Sarah Palin this thread.

Nonetheless, you feel you that this actually means something?

Holy sweeping generalization, Batman!

I don't like malicious-minded rumormongers, Brian, particularly when the good of this nation is at stake. If that qualifies as "heaping large scorn," guilty as charged.

But let's not try any backdoor inferences about gay men because of one, okay? Thanks.

Yeah, Patrick, because this is like the ONLY website I read.

Get over yourself. You aren't important enough.

I don't like malicious-minded rumormongers, Brian, particularly when the good of this nation is at stake. If that qualifies as "heaping large scorn," guilty as charged.

Do you honestly think we would have been worse off with McCain/Palin than with Obama/"Big Fucking Deal"?

Were you paying attention at all to the campaign against her? I still run in to people who are convinced that she said she could see Russia from her porch.

So if you don't like malicious-minded rumormongers, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE WRONG FUCKING SIDE OF THE AISLE, YOU MYOPIC FREAK!

brian: Do you honestly think we would have been worse off with McCain/Palin than with Obama/"Big Fucking Deal"?

Actually, both candidates sucked. I voted for McCain because he's the lesser of the two evils. Next question?

brian: Were you paying attention at all to the campaign against her? I still run in to people who are convinced that she said she could see Russia from her porch.

So if you don't like malicious-minded rumormongers, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE WRONG FUCKING SIDE OF THE AISLE, YOU MYOPIC FREAK!

So, when I object to malicious-minded rumormongering, I should place a distortion of Sarah Palin's accurate (but pointless) statement that Russia is visible from one of the Diomede Islands (the name, however, escaped her at the time) on a par with a willful distortion intended to sabotage the health care plan designed for the good of the American people?

The "Russia from my house" comment comes from the Tina Fey/Amy Poehler SNL skit. Tina Fey bears an uncanny resemblance. The mistake is silly, but hardly worth getting upset over.

the health care plan designed for the good of the American people?

The fact that you can say this with a straight face scares me. Anyone who believes this is either delusional, stupid, or suicidal. Which one are you?

The mistake is silly, but hardly worth getting upset over.

The outcome of an election was determined by people who believed in it. It's not only worth getting upset over, it's worth imposing restrictions on voting rights over.

brian: The outcome of an election was determined by people who believed in it. It's not only worth getting upset over, it's worth imposing restrictions on voting rights over.

Really? The election was actually decided by people who thought Sarah Palin said that she could see Russia from her house? You know of people who were going to vote for McCain, but changed their minds because they believed Sarah Palin said this?

There's a survey that shows a significant number of voters changing their minds over this statement misattributed to Sarah Palin? And this number was actually large enough to change the outcome of this election? Wow!

As for restricting voting rights...you're living in the wrong country. You have little room to accuse anyone of being a socialist (or anything else that similarly values the freedom that America enjoys) with statements like that.

I know plenty of people who didn't vote for McCain because of Palin. When queried as to what they disliked about Palin, the bulk of them replied with reasons based upon things that she either didn't do or didn't say.

So yeah, I think at least a small part of it is directly attributable to the media's continued lies about Palin in support of their golden boy.

It didn't help the McCain was looking to throw the election, but it would have been much closer if people didn't believe that she'd banned books in Alaska, etc.

And when this nation was founded, voting rights were restricted. Only those who had a stake (i.e. property) could vote. We need to return to a system where those who are merely recipients of government largesse no longer have a say in how much money is to be stolen from the productive classes to finance their leisure.

One wonders how many people withheld their votes for Obama because they thought 1) He's a Muslim or 2) He wasn't born in this country.

Smear is a two way street. And when it comes to dirty tricks, Republicans have a huge advantage. They've had Karl Rove, Lee Atwater and Richard Nixon. To say nothing of talk radio being a virtual propaganda mill for Republicans who think they're conservatives.

Patrick -

Anyone who believed that about Obama wasn't going to vote for him anyway, and they weren't gonna vote for McCain either.

They were just looking for a convenient excuse to stay home. If Hillary had won the Democrat nomination they would have stayed home because of her cankles.

For the record, I didn't vote for Obama because (a) he's a Democrat and (b) he's a Chicago Machine Democrat.

For the record, I didn't vote for Obama because (a) he's a Democrat and (b) he's a Chicago Machine Democrat.

From what I've read since I've been here, Brian, I'm not sure what prominent politician would pass your standards of conservative orthodoxy. Tom Coburn?

Is there anyone you could enthusiastically support? I'm really not being an ass here, just curious. There's no one whose beliefs I'd enthusiastically support. There are some policies I support, but politicians fail pretty miserably once the parameters get widened beyond relatively narrow policy goals.

and they weren't gonna vote for McCain either.

You sound sane, and then get crazy. C'mon, the birther vote had to have been nearly 100% McCain. Except for a few nuts (Orly!) who were all about Hillary and couldn't understand why she was getting trounced by this newcomer who should have been bringing her husband coffee.

brian: Anyone who believed that about Obama wasn't going to vote for him anyway, and they weren't gonna vote for McCain either.

Oh, I see. Implausible smears about Sarah Palin actually turn the tide of the election, but implausible smears about Obama didn't change a thing.

I'm with Sum d00d on this one. "You sound sane, and then get crazy."

As for things done timely, FEMA does pretty well...except when Bush is president. All other times, it's great.

I don't know that FEMA's the best example of a government agency that works well. It's not all sunshine and kittens with FEMA. FEMA has been criticized (sometimes unfairly, but often fairly) in every major disaster to which it has responded.

To Floridians in the aftermath of Andrew in August of '92, FEMA was a curseword. Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) called the agency "a bunch of bureaucratic jackasses" after Hugo hit South Carolina in September of '89.

As you can see by the dates of those disasters, ineptitude was not introduced to the agency by the Bush administration.

[Notice how Bush-haters conveniently leave out the significant role that the incompetence of Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen "And we're going to pray that the impact will soften" Blanco also played in the Katrina foul-up.]

FEMA might, however, be a good example of the unintended consequences that accompany divorcing risk from decisions. According to the Cato Institute's Handbook for Congress, FEMA's disaster responses only encourage risky behavior: "Any time there is a natural disaster FEMA is trotted out as an example of how well government programs work. In reality, by using taxpayer dollars to provide disaster relief and subsidized insurance, FEMA itself encourages Americans to build in disaster-prone areas and makes the rest of us pick up the tab for those risk decisions. In a well-functioning private marketplace, individuals who chose to build houses in flood plains or hurricane zones would bear the cost of the increased risk through higher insurance premiums. FEMA's activities undermine that process. Americans should not be forced to pay the cost of rebuilding oceanfront summer homes."

Is it actuallythat incorrect to put Jobs in the same category as Napoleon? If whatever deserves a comparison to Napoleon-it's Jobs. Consider this advert by Stanley Kubrick (on Napoleon): "He was one of those rare men who move arts and mold the destiny of their own times and of generations to come." The reason Jobs is revered so trigger-happy is because he's not merely a great inventor or man of affairs or even creator, but a man of action-the likes to which we haven't seen since the years of Caesar and Napoleon. This may appear as facile, but think about the good of the great manpower in cognition and then compare them to what Jobs does in his life. Quite possibly the greatest tool builder of all time. No bantamfeat even in the temple of mankind.