Arlen Specter single handedly with this audio clip reminded every Pennsylvania voter that he is old, pathetic and grumpy. Arlen has, as they say in Scotland, "not proven" that he is the man that Pennsy needs in Washington.
_____________________________
Toomey Widens Senate Race Polling Lead
myfoxphilly
Republican Pat Toomey is continuing to show well in early polling for the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate race, according to Rasmussen Reports polling .
The former congressman, who is not yet being challenged in the primary, holds a 49-percent-to-40-percent margin over Republican-turned-Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter.
And polling also shows Toomey has a 43-percent-to-35-percent lead over Democratic challenger, Congressman Joe Sestak.
Those leads have doubled over the span of a month.
In the Democratic primary battle, Specter is ahead of Sestak by 21 points.
According to Rasmussen, just 41 percent of Pennsylvania voters favor the health care reform legislation currently before Congress, while 57 percent are opposed. Those attitudes are similar to the national average.
Favorable and unfavorable ratings for each candidate by poll participants have changed little over the past several months, which leads the pollster to say Toomey's improving prospects are likely due more to the political environment than the candidates.
It would be good to see that old school Republican Federal Socialist get his ass creamed, in PA.
ReplyDeleteArlen is gelatinous scum.
ReplyDeleteThe Confederacy was a regional phenomonan, made all the weaker when emancipation was eventually brought forward as the cause of war.
Given the broad state legislative support for weakening the Federal government through the 10th Amendment, Mr. Obama faces a far more daunting task than Mr. Lincoln, without the moral ammunition enjoyed by Mr. Lincoln.
Nevertheless, all this dissatisfaction and voter discontent lacks the unifying agenda a viable third party would give it. Chaos and anarchy will not do.
...meanwhile...
ReplyDeleteStock futures falling; market set to resume slide [worldwide event]
...a house of cards built upon sand...
...strange...Those who just days ago were livid in their support of derelict veterans have nothing to say about Mr. Obama's plan to force the civilian sector to pay for the treatment of the wounds of SERVICE CONNECTED veterans.
ReplyDeleteMr. Obama's plans to gouge civilian health care insurers in this despicable maanner, as part of his grand strategy to nationalize health care, might be the reason for silence.
Apparently, some support our service members only when that support does not interfer with the accelerating trend toward socialism; i.e. these patriots will chose communism over the needs of our injured active duty military personnel, if it comes to a choice.
Personally, how the Government funds the medical needs of the service members is unimportant.
ReplyDeleteIf the Congress chooses to have the insurance companies pay for those treatments, as a part of their ability to do business in the various States, that so be it.
It is not something that the President can do, by decree.
So, until there is real legislation, there is nothing to discuss.
There are many ways for the Federal to skin a cat, that's what they do.
If it is in the best interest of the Federal Socialists of the United States, to have the costs of the military medical needs spread across the entire premium paying populous, as a hidden tax, then that's what they'll do.
It all is paid, by us, in the end, regardless of the method chosen.
...a writer said...
ReplyDelete"how the Government funds the medical needs of the service members is unimportant..."
Unbelievable...What is wrong with America?...hmmm...Consider the implications of the writer's comment above. Of course, it makes a difference, unless we decide on the CCCP model.
Absolutely correct, Rat.
ReplyDeleteNo Bathing Suits Allowed In Lobby
ReplyDeleteBut does it really make a difference?
Allen: Apparently, some support our service members only when that support does not interfer with the accelerating trend toward socialism
ReplyDeleteAllen, I am a US Navy veteran. The military is and always has been, of necessity, a socialist system. I never paid a dime for rent or food. My medical and dental was absolutely free. We had to report to work at exactly 7 AM every morning (except weekends, unless we had duty) and we were let go when the Master Chief said so. There was a grand bargain involved with living under this socialist system for one's contracted period of time. If one was wounded, say by being aboard the USS Stark when Saddam's Mirage fighter hit it with two Exocet missiles, then one's medical treatment was attended to for the remainder of one's life if need be. An all-volunteer service depends on how we treat the vets.
Lil,
ReplyDeleteI have some small knowledge of how the system works. Every effective military organization in the history of the world has been non-democratic. That is the way of it. Votes are not held to decide foreign policy or how the BX is stocked or whether an attack will be launched and how.
The United States owes care to her veterans - ALL veterans.
The question of how that service is funded is fundamental to our way of life - those things that make us uniquely American. Until the President's proposed plan of Monday, i.e. making private insurers responsible, the cost of care was borne by the people. In my opinion that should remain the case, although I am open to the possibility of privatizing VA.
Do you think a private insurance carrier is going to insure the health and/or life of an active duty service member scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan? How can the private sector bear the cost of such a policy? What service member could afford the premium of such an insurance policy?
What Mr. Obama proposed to service organizations is radical to the extreme, representing the abandonment of a sacred duty. Whether he has his way is neither here nor there. That he would suggest such a radical departure from historic practice does. What next? The collectivization of agriculture for the sake of ethanol production?
Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of U.S.
ReplyDeleteMr. Obama is favorably seen by the EU.
By the way, the very tall, elderly gentleman standing behind Mr. Obama in the photo is Paul Volker. He is advising Mr. Obama. He advised Mr. Carter, as well.
Allen: Votes are not held to decide foreign policy or how the BX is stocked or whether an attack will be launched and how.
ReplyDeleteAnd military personnel sign away some of their Constitutional rights when they enlist. You learn to salute and obey orders. There is no privacy. A submarine could not function otherwise. This is why a co-ed crew is problematic. And it's why I had a problem with Rumsfeld trying to make the military "go Galt". We in the civil service compete with Raytheon for torpedo work, and their race to maximize the bottom line results in some shoddy product, let me tell you.
What Mr. Obama proposed to service organizations is radical to the extreme, representing the abandonment of a sacred duty.
Agreed, and it becomes a plank for Palin or Romney to run on come 2012. I replied because you seemed to imply that our (EB barflies') silence was implicit acceptance of Obama's privatization of Veteran care on ideological grounds. Now that I re-read it, I'm still not quite sure what you meant.
Whit wrote:
ReplyDelete"The ruling centers more around freedom of speech and government censorship than it does corporations, Ash."
I am very sympathetic to the free-speech/anti-government censorship argument Whit. However the ruling seems to primarily concern the free speech of corporations. Now, one, is that equivalent to free speech for individuals and, two, is money spent equivalent to speech. Essentially the court has ruled that 'money is speech' and 'corporations are people'. Yes the ruling was specifically about the distribution of "Hillary the Movie" but SCOTUS rulings are about a particular case so that the principles can be applied to others.
So, the court has ruled that corporations are entitled to free speech protections and spending money to distribute their message is protected as well.
For you who like to read the Constitution narrowly, "Originalists" how does this ruling fit in to that view? It seems to be reading a lot into the Constitution that wasn't intended by the framers. I think it is worth debating whether "we the people", i.e. the government, can make laws regarding the running of elections (disclosure, campaign finance ect.) and it is worthy of debate whether we should limit corporate spending, or spending in general, but is this a matter for the SCOTUS to decide? A moot point because they have.
doug, you are angry at the wealth that the Elites have transferred to themselves. Don't you see how allowing the Elites, through the corporations they control (and the profits "we the people" provide them, are now further enabled to rig the game in their favor? We seem to be setting up a system where the political/moneyed elites have complete control of the system (i.e. they control both parties) and the only way to counter them will be a ground up pitchfork and torch revolution.
Why do Military folk and Congress folk deserve socialized medicine but not the rest of US?
ReplyDeleteIt's the end of the week...
ReplyDeleteObamacare is dead... The central plank of Obama is put down...
Air America just filed for Chapter 7 liquidation/bankruptcy
SCOTUS just tipped the apple cart about corporations being able to BUY advertising for political pov's (i guess msnbc, acorn & Soros will now have competition)
yep, hell of a week...
Now add into that...
Hugo Chavez losing his mind...
Iran turning down the uranium offer...
NIE coming out and saying it was wrong about Iran
UN disclosing it was wrong about the Himalayas and climate change, and now has put off all climate change deadlines...
yep... interesting week...
oh and not to forget, hamas murdered egyptian border guard and egypt calling for the perp's EXECUTION...
Lil,
ReplyDeleteI had no doubt about your genuine concern for veterans.
There are those who would sacrifice our veterans for the sake of seeing a nationalized health care bill, ala Obama and the Democrats.
Indeed, there are those who would throw American exceptionalism under the bus for the sake of their pet projects.
Having experienced first-hand the gross ineffeciency and cost of the current ad hoc and/or fiat system of delivering health care to "the poor", there is no question in my mind that a more humane and rational method is needed. I simply disagree that systemic communalism is the answer.
The data support my contention that many, many of "the poor" are social misfits. The publication of this reality does not imply (save by projection) that I would have them ill treated. But unless and until we, as a society, address the issue fully armed with the facts, the problem of "the poor" will remain intractable and perpetual.
What do we, Americans, gain by sacrificing our freedoms and another trillion dollars on another Great Society initative, if we end with the same result?
How can any serious person look at the abysmal performance of government and suggest that on the matter of health care government is the answer?
Re: Why do military folk deserve socialized medicine?
ReplyDeleteBecause they are not hiding in Canada, taking silly, gratuitous pot-shots at something which is none of their business.
allen wrote:
ReplyDelete"I simply disagree that systemic communalism is the answer. "
How then do you propose to "deliver(ing) health care to "the poor""?
All US civil servants also get full taxpayer paid medical care coverage don't they?
ReplyDeleteSo, Military folk, Congress folk, Civil service folk all get full socialized medical care but not the rest of US...
Allen: By the way, the very tall, elderly gentleman standing behind Mr. Obama in the photo is Paul Volker. He is advising Mr. Obama. He advised Mr. Carter, as well.
ReplyDeletePaul Volker was Fed chairman during Reagan's early years, he jacked up interest rates to rein in inflation, which led to the 1982-83 recession, but this set the stage for the economic rebound in 1984 which led to Reagan's sweep of 49 states and the prosperity of the 80s, 90's and 00's.
Allen: The data support my contention that many, many of "the poor" are social misfits. The publication of this reality does not imply (save by projection) that I would have them ill treated. But unless and until we, as a society, address the issue fully armed with the facts, the problem of "the poor" will remain intractable and perpetual.
ReplyDeleteG-d said, "For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land."
He is saying that the poor will always remain an intractable problem.
But being "poor" in America means driving your van to a freeway offramp, getting out and holding a sign that says, "Homeless vet, please help", and raking in a hundred bucks a day.
There are real poor in Haiti living in tents right now who would count themselves rich to have a van to sleep in, and a hundred bucks for gas and beer money every day.
Civil servants do not get "full" health care benefits, meaning we do not have one hundred percent of our portion of the cost picked up by the government.
ReplyDeleteI'm in a health care co-op called "Group Health", which would be a good model for a national health care system. It's kind of like a credit union. The patients and doctors both own the thing.
My girlfriend is in the same co-op. Her privately owned corporation picks up a greater share of her premium than the "socialist" Department of Defense picks up mine, and we have essentially similar health histories.
Lil,
ReplyDeleteRe: funding the poor
It has been the custom (some would say Divine mandate) that XXXX give at least 10% of after tax income to charity. I add that not all the money goes to XXXXXXX charities, because the text also calls for caring for "the stranger" (non-XXXX).
One wonders how much the proponents of the President's universal plan give to charity. Having no personal experience t draw from, I would guess it is easier to demand money from others than to spend one's own.
Allen: It has been the custom (some would say Divine mandate) that XXXX give at least 10% of after tax income to charity. I add that not all the money goes to XXXXXXX charities, because the text also calls for caring for "the stranger" (non-XXXX).
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of arousing WiO, I'm given to understand that the tribe of Levi took tithes according to the Law, because they had no land or inheritance, being the priestly subset of an already priestly people. And the tithes were applied to farmers and herdsmen against their increase. It was not applied to craftsmen such as, oh, a Jewish carpenter like my former boss ;-).
Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists, among other Christian sects, require strict "tithing" but the money goes to the Church. In all these cases, giving is mandated by law, it is not a matter of free will. So it resembles very much the revenue system that Obama is leaning on to finance his "reforms".
The difference between Obama and G-d is that G-d only wants 10%
Ash said...
ReplyDeleteWhy do Military folk and Congress folk deserve socialized medicine but not the rest of US?
Obviously, you have never been in the service.
The poor and homeless in America lined up at a soup kitchen in Washington DC, what good chance that one of the homeless, poor had his new blackberry at the ready...
ReplyDeleteSoup Kitchen Homeless in AMerica have blackberrys
I understand more so why the Military warrants socialized medicine (they put life and limb on the line and often suffer because of it, but not always) but the rest - i.e. Congress critters?
ReplyDelete"But being "poor" in America means driving your van to a freeway offramp, getting out and holding a sign that says, "Homeless vet, please help", and raking in a hundred bucks a day."
ReplyDeleteDamn, and I thought I was cynical.
.
My primary point being - don't we all deserve equal access to health care?
ReplyDeleteAllen said...
ReplyDelete"What do we, Americans, gain by sacrificing our freedoms and another trillion dollars on another Great Society initative, if we end with the same result?
How can any serious person look at the abysmal performance of government and suggest that on the matter of health care government is the answer?"
---
Only a Maroon could answer such a question.
Hopefully, Rufus will co-operate and contribute.
Ash said...
ReplyDelete"My primary point being - don't we all deserve equal access to health care?"
Why? And define deserve to be served? By what "merit" have you earned this?
Equal access to healthcare equals equal access to mediocre healthcare, as do all socialist schemes condemn the subjects to equal sloth and squalor.
ReplyDeleteThe merit of being alive. Medical care is rationed necessarily so the question then is how do you ration it and on what grounds.
ReplyDeleteI know you hate government running things except for the Military allen, but the private method is coming up short in the health care field for Americans (way more expensive with equal outcomes). It seems there should be a more rational method of allocating the resource then simply on a cash basis.
Lil,
ReplyDeleteThe text on the tithe is not altogether clear. Consequently, it has been long and much disputed. At this time, most observant XXXX follow an ancient tradition posited by the sages and give at least the 10%.
I suspect that you may see that 10% as a flat tax. I would not disagree. If so seen, it was up to Levi et al, not the monarch, to see to its equitable distribution.
What the text makes abundantly clear, repeatedly, is that XXXX are to be kind and generous to "the priest, the widow, the orphan and the stranger".
Ash,
ReplyDeleteWe have a difference of opinion on the ownership of the "asset".
"simply on a cash basis."
ReplyDelete---
Certainly!
The Centralized Federal Govt proves everyday it's superiority to free market capitalism, right, Ash?
...like the P.O. and DMV put Costco to shame, delivery of services-wise, right?
...as do the multitudes rushing the Canadian border for access to their "state of the art" healthcare.
ReplyDelete...more like state of the artful Socialists.
ReplyDeleteOnly those that can afford to pay rush to the border doug.
ReplyDeleteThe free market is often very good at efficient distribution but the numbers imply that it is not doing so with health care for Americans.
Insurance can be construed as a form of socialization - it distributes the costs across a portion of the population where some pay more than they receive in service and some pay less. The insurance companies charge a fee for running the game. They also weed out the higher risk cases. Military folk, who often are at higher risk as allen pointed out would not qualify for private health insurance yet we determine that they are worthy of being covered anyway. There are a lot of other higher risk people who are worthy of coverage but they don't receive coverage in the current scheme. You, doug, could one day be deemed one of those unworthy for care. Tough bully for you is the answer in your mind I presume?
No, tough bully for maroons like you, I KNOW.
ReplyDeleteVeterans should have "Cadillac" Healthcare Policies as part of their retirement.
ReplyDeleteand yes there are quite a few people who rush to Canada for State of the Art care. Foreigners don't get it for free though - neither do we for that matter but we don't pay for it on a user basis.
ReplyDeleteIf a Canadian dies due to their sorry "healthcare" system, it is a good thing, as long as his death is unconnected to his station in life.
ReplyDeleteIf a homeless person dies in the USA because of his reluctance to go to the ER, it is a crime against humanity/the capitalist system, right?
"and yes there are quite a few people who rush to Canada for State of the Art care."
ReplyDeleteUS Citizens are going to Canuckistan for Healthcare?
Please explain and describe.
no doug, but a system that requires homeless persons to seek health care through a trip to the emerg. increases the cost of that health care dramatically. There are far more efficient ways of providing health care to the 'poor'.
ReplyDeleteGovt intrusion increases the cost far more than any other factor.
ReplyDelete...just as Govt intrusion means that Canadians, on balance, do not have access to state of the art medicine.
Newsflash...
ReplyDeleteAmericans are rushing north of the border for healthcare "services". It was recently found out, by this reporter 1st hand, that in Canada massages with a happy ending, hand jobs and lapdances are all considered "health care" and thus Americans (with their Visa cards) are stampeding north to "get off"
I'm not trying to say the top Canadian Hospitals are better than the top US hospitals but there are a number of hospitals here that are ranked as some of the best in the world. The Hospital for Sick Kids in Toronto is one such hospital and folks come from around the world for treatment there though it has been established to primarily service Canadians. I have no idea of how many Americans have used that hospital, if any. I do remember stuff in the press talking about conjoined twins going there to be separated but I don't remember the details of where they came from.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if anyone mentioned this but I will always remember Paul Volker as the man who white washed the Oil for Food scandal for the UN.
ReplyDeletePeople seem to forget that the Gulf War sanctions against Saddam were breaking down and he was corrupting the UN and the world with oil bribes.
Many corporations in the US are small enough to be seen as businesses with flesh and flood owners rather tycoons of industry. Regardless, there is a danger to the republic control when the government and politicians control what is said and by whom.
ReplyDeleteno doug, but a system that requires homeless persons to seek health care through a trip to the emerg. increases the cost of that health care dramatically. There are far more efficient ways of providing health care to the 'poor'.
ReplyDeleteIt's a canard that the poor receive health care only through emergency rooms.