Obama is not wearing well. It took me six years to get sick of hearing George Bush. After one year of Obama I have to force myself to listen, and rarely worth having listened after I did.
This smug marxist had to have a staffer rent a car for him a few years ago, but that big mighty fine 747 he sports around in, paid for by the people driving those old pickups, has gone to Obama's head.
Attscking a man who drives a pick-up is not only ignorant, but in politics, plain ol' stupid.
Deuce:That big mighty fine 747 he sports around in, paid for by the people driving those old pickups, has gone to Obama's head. Attacking a man who drives a pick-up is not only ignorant, but in politics, plain ol' stupid.
I presume that Brown is driving a Ford truck and not a Government Motors POS. In this household we are Fordonlyites.
ABC Empathizes with White House: Coakley Loss ‘Shakespearean,’ ‘Tragedy of Greek Proportions'. Stephanopoulos agrees with Barney Frank, if Brown wins, socialized medicine dies.
Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, and 80-year-old man marries an 11-year-old girl and France accuses the US of occupying Haiti.
If the Democrats can get close enough to throw the election into doubt and force recounts, the interim Senator remains in office and health care can be rammed through (the House can just accept the Senate bill with no debate). That's their only option right now, so gravediggers are working overtime in MA to "get out the vote".
If Brown wins, the Dem spin will be that the MA. election was not about HCR but pocketbook issues of the recession.
Personally, I think it was about both and much more. Just as the Tea Parties are about more than just the two issues. The country (the whole whirled for that matter) is in trouble. People are frustrated and angry. There's a bad vibe, everywhere, even here.
My, my, where to start with allen, the man who perpetually talks out of both sides of his mouth…
Let’s start with a brief deconstruction his controversial post:
Blogger allen said...
“ rufus,
Re: Israeli health care system
Rufus, I did not broach the question of Israel's health care delivery system. Frankly, it is irrelevant to the discussion; albeit, it does provide ample opportunity for barely disguised bashing.”
No, allen, it is not irrelevant to the discussion at all. The simple fact that the US health care system costs substantially more per capita (like 2x) than comparable universal health care systems but shows equal outcomes is directly to the point of the discussion.
Blogger allen said...
“My arguments address the current state of health care and the additional burden you would thoughtlessly place upon it. While the Emperor can name his horse a senator, a horse is a horse, of course, of course. Well, a government bureaucrat is not a physician anymore than a horse is a senator. And unlike horses, doctors can't begin to race at three years of age.
I wrote "thoughtlessly" because, while you assure us that all will be well, you have not provided a persuasive argument other than anecdotally pointing to other countries about which you know next to nothing and, of course, "the poor".”
Here Allen clearly states that ‘adding the poor’ will be a burden. It’ll have a cost. He then proceeds on to tell us what he thinks of the poor and why they are not worth the burden on the rest of us:
Blogger allen said...
“Have you any idea at all about how many of "the poor" need to be permanently institutionalized, under humane custodial care? One of "the poor", just yesterday near Atlanta, jumped to his death from a bridge onto the interstate. I see them everyday, sometimes outside the VA medical center (smoking) carrying their little bags of medication, to be sold or bartered when they get back home, under the overpass.
Addressing further "the poor", you do know that millions of these are children, the progeny of totally dysfunctional couplings? Will you advocate the sterilization of "undesirable" adults? Certainly, that would reduce substantially "the poor" of the future, don't you agree?”
Allen tells us his concern is the poor burdening the health care system and he graphically describes the horrors the poor can wreak and he (trying to be funny?) offers us a Swiftian “Modest Proposal”. Does his satire work? Is it coherent? No, but hey, he fancies himself an educated man who loves his own wit. He then goes on to say that it isn't the cost, it isn't the burden that bothers him but rather:
“For me this is not an issue of cost, per se. Instead, my concern is the further degradation of the system by intrusive bureaucrats. Indeed, on principle alone, I oppose the further socialization of America.
For goodness sake, aren't you even a little bit concerned about the explosive growth of government involvement in your life? Recall: It was the Federal government, in its infinite wisdom, which has brought this country to its current sorry state. And you would have me believe that it will do better with universal health care. One wonders when you will advocate collectivization of agriculture. I ANTICIPATE such a call following the next cycle of droughts, such as those of the 30’s and 50’s.
Israel has had both collective agriculture and medicine. Slowly, it is weaning itself from the mystique of "one for all and all for one".”
So now, after telling us it is the burden of the poor he is concerned with he turns around and says, no, it isn’t the burden of the poor but rather the intrusive bureaucrats that he is concerned about. Now, he conveniently ignores the role currently played by bureaucrats – the bureaucrats that work for the private companies that preside over health care and he raises the bugaboo of government bureaucrats who in their “infinite wisdom, which has (have) brought this country to its current sorry state.” Can you see how he is arguing out of both sides of his mouth here? Allen says that the current system will be made worse because the government bureaucrats will be involved and this is bad because the current system is bad because the government bureaucrats made things the way they are now. It is circular. It is nonsense and he negates his cost concerns so he actually says nothing in the end.
And then he tops it off today with the post:
allen said...
"This is what we will get with national health care:
Veterans groups are angry after President Barack Obama told them Monday that he means to go ahead with a proposal to have treatment for service-connected injuries charged to veterans' private insurance plans."
More nonsense from allen – ‘look out, look out, if you get national health care Obama will make private insurance plans pay for stuff.’
That is what is called (among Allen's educated circles) an "Argumentum ad Hominum," Whit. Your "argument" against Ash is that his argument is in some way aligned with MY argument, and that I have, at some time in the past, made anti-Zionist arguments.
Ergo: Your argument is an "argument against the Man." An Argumentum ad Hominem.
Ash said Nothing about Zionism. Ash was joining in the "Healthcare" Debate.
In two days of arguing my side of the healthcare debate I have said nothing about "Zionism."
rufus said... Well, you just couldn't take a compliment for the team, could you, you idiot Wanker?
I've never been around Jews much; but, if the rest of them are like you and Allen I can see why they're so hated.
Unfreakin'believable.
Man, take some meds...
I am so HATED cause I am a smart ass?
Rufus, pull that stick out of your ass it's clouding your brain...
Your pointed and loaded remarks YESTERDAY and TODAY set me up to BE a SMART ASS...
Maybe what you fail to understand is simple...
You have a blind hatred for Jews, Zionists and Israel, maybe not as intense as the Rodent, but from the hundreds of posts you make it's message is clear...
Come on Rufus, maybe you need to crack open that wallet of yours and buy a ticket to Israel via El Al and spend a week there on vacation...
LEARN BABY LEARN...
You might surprise yourself and become a FAN...
yeah I know that would be out of your comfort zone...
But it's trick us ZIONISTS and ZOG members know all to well..
Most Israel bashers never have been...
Once there are there?
we infect them...
and unleashed in the inner higher human you fight to surpress...
The simple fact that the US health care system costs substantially more per capita (like 2x) than comparable universal health care systems but shows equal outcomes is directly to the point of the discussion.
The US spends twice as much as socialised medicine, a good bit of it to subsidize domestically those without insurance and other countries with price controls and government mandated rationing.
Obamacare does nothing to control the outrageous malpractice premiums or the subsidization of our wonderful neighbors to the north or in Western Europe.
I was kind of hoping they might get the Senate Bill through. It's not the way, exactly, that I would have done it, but it seemed like it could work.
I, also, can't keep myself from pulling for Scott Brown (although he's not NEARLY as "Conservative" as some of you might wish.)
Interesting day. I'm afraid all the media coverage might have awakened the Dems in Mass. They're expecting a Monster Turnout. That probably isn't good for the Pub. We'll see.
He rode motorcycles with Elvis, and moon lighted as a body guard for him pre-Memphis Mafia.
I used to "play" in the back yard of Graceland as a kid, while the grownups were holding court in the house. As an 8 year old I once kicked Elvis' Stutz Bearcat out of gear and ran it into a hedge. Got the ass tore up over that one. Remember it well.
It also gave young Gag many "get out of jail free" cards as a wayward teen.
ELECTION DAY IN MASSACHUSETTS.... It's a phrase you've read so many times over the last two weeks, you probably roll your eyes when you see it: special elections are notoriously hard to poll. A few months ago in New York's 23rd, nearly all of the final polls showed Doug Hoffman leading. He ended up losing by three.
The "polls can be wrong" adage notwithstanding, when it comes to the statewide special election in Massachusetts today, every available piece of evidence points to Scott Brown (R) defeating Martha Coakley (D). In the seven statewide polls conducted since Thursday, Coakley doesn't lead in any of them. What's more, Suffolk surveyed three bellwether counties in Massachusetts over the weekend, and Brown's leads ranged from 14 to 17 points.
Nate Silver presented his case late yesterday.
"The FiveThirtyEight Senate Forecasting Model, which correctly predicted the outcome of all 35 Senate races in 2008, now regards Republican Scott Brown as a 74 percent favorite to win the Senate seat in Massachusetts on the basis of new polling from ARG, Research 2000 and InsiderAdvantage which show worsening numbers for Brown's opponent, Martha Coakley. We have traditionally categorized races in which one side has between a 60 and 80 percent chance of winning as "leaning" toward that candidate, and so that is how we categorize this race now: Lean GOP. [...]
" Coakley's odds are substantially worse than they appeared to be 24 hours ago, when there were fewer credible polls to evaluate and there appeared to be some chance that her numbers were bottoming out and perhaps reversing. However, the ARG and Research 2000 polls both show clear and recent trends against her. Indeed the model, which was optimized for regular rather than special elections, may be too slow to incorporate new information and may understate the magnitude of the trend toward Brown."
[...]
Benen goes on to say that the unexpected (in the form of a GOTV surge) does sometimes happen.
"So you can just take your fine day and shove it up your ass, mister."
Your well wishes are always appreciated :)
...any thoughts on the President's plan to have private insurance carriers cover the cost of treating our service connected veterans? The boosters of UNIVERSAL health care are conspicuous by their absence on such a salient issue. That often happens when no opportunity for bashing/venting/projecting presents itself.
I am not really familiar with the ins and outs of HCR. Been away from domestic policy for awhile. Mostly.
I do, though, suggest for anyone that Tyler Cowen is as thoughtful and entertaining a read as one is likely to find on the whole enchilada. And there're always the guys and gals at Cato (their blog Cato Unbound is better than the Corner) who're quite practiced at uncovering the booby traps and treacherous crevasses in this type of legislation.
If Brown should win and that precipitates the failure of the Health Care Bill then I think it highly unlikely that any US politician will touch the 'third rail' issue again and the dysfunctional system will continue to grow wildly out of control to detriment of the USA.
I find it funny that allen is still banging that Obama wants private insurers to foot some of the Veteran's health costs. It does help highlight the absurdity of the level of debate down there. Obama pushed hard for a public option to help mitigate cost increases which got turfed and when he tries to get private insurers to actually belly up and pay for some of what they've insured the same folk scream about privates encroaching on public's realm. Allen is still talking out of both sides of his mouth...
Trish, I had a good day up here in snowy Massachusetts, I got to pull the lever for Scott this morning.
…
(although he's not NEARLY as "Conservative" as some of you might wish.)
Rufus, in these parts he's right up there with Genghis Khan.
There is such a national spotlight on the election now, that if the Dems try some tricky dribbling to delay his certification, it will make for an even more troubling mid-term.
Whit, I'm not sure what subsidization of the Europeans and Canadians you are referring to but those health care numbers break it out on a PER CAPITA basis which necessarily includes those indigent folk you complain about getting health care. Even then the cost PER CAPITA is strikingly higher in the USA for very similar outcomes. Those are very damning numbers.
To find the numbers google can be your friend. Here is one study examining cost vs. outcomes:
Whit:Idleness is the devil's workshop and I have done enough mischief for one day.
The devil's workshop has card checks.
chachapoya:There is such a national spotlight on the election now, that if the Dems try some tricky dribbling to delay his certification, it will make for an even more troubling mid-term.
The key timeline isn't when he's seated in the Senate, but when the election is certified. At that point, the interim Senator cannot vote, and Obama goes to 59 votes. Or 58 if Lieberman puts a moist finger into the wind. Welcome to the Elephant Bar.
BOSTON—In a conversation with National Review Online, former president Bill Clinton defended his appearance today at a rally for Democrat Martha Coakley while Haiti is recovering from Tuesday’s earthquake. When I told him that some had been critical of his decision to stump for Coakley while hundreds of thousands are still trapped under rubble, he responded with annoyance: “Who?” he challenged, “who is criticizing me? It’s your problem if you can’t see how these things aren’t mutually exclusive.” Electing Coakley, he said, will “help lead to good governance” that will support Haiti while it rebuilds. When Congressman Ed Markey told Clinton that I worked for National Review, Clinton concluded with this: “See, it's you guys who are saying this stuff, I don't hear it.” With that, he jumped in his SUV, on his way to Worcester for another rally. Haiti, it seems, can wait.
The 2010 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs will be about $133,726,656,000. VA runs 153 hospitals, 52 domiciliary residential rehabilitation treatment programs [yes, that’s rehab], 135 nursing homes, and 1,140 outpatient clinics.
The Congress charges this budget with funding pensions for NON-SERVICE CONNECTED veterans and dependants. The number of such folk is given as 490,956, having an average per capita cost of $12,247, yielding a total expenditure of $6,012,738,132 (that's six billion and change). These NON-SERVICE CONNECTED veterans may use the facilities listed above, occasionally paying a very modest fee if insured.
Like me, the Congress recognizes the problem of [HOMELESSNESS] among veterans. Consequently, the Department expects to spend $2,721,934,000 on medical treatment for homeless veterans and $500,283,000 on homeless programs.
Or he wants to show us that expenditures by the Federals prove there is a need for those expenditures.
He also wants to validate the moral authority of the Federal government, except as it relates to the US position on Israel prior to and along with Mr Mitchell's 2000 Report and his subsequent findings, since becoming the US envoy to the area.
I'm amused by the fact that everyone is crossing their fingers, and jumping up and down on one foot pulling for a guy that's more Liberal on Healthcare than I am.
Scott Brown says in his speeches that "Everyone Deserves" healthcare. Even I don't go that far.
I merely assert that it's to the benefit of our country for us not to be the only major, industrialized country in the world that doesn't make healthcare available to all.
Basically, what Brown is running on is, "Mass already has their healthcare in order, and they don't want to pay for the rest of the country to get it."
It's a "reasoned" argument, and one that I would expect my Senator to make if I lived in Mass. But, take note, NOWHERE in any of his speeches does he even idly mention the "possibility" of rolling back Mass's healthcare law.
Whit in the context of the debate we are having - whether health care insurance should be provided to all Americans he certainly did say that:
"Allen's major point was that the category of people that we call the "poor" encompasses many people who do not necessarily deserve our sympathy or support. The stereotype of the poor is that they are hard working, decent people who, through no fault of their own, have fallen on hard times.
If this definition was entirely true or even mostly true I would, at least, be emotionally drawn to your attraction to socialized health care. But, the truth is, that the "poor" also encompass most of the criminal class (which includes drug addicts) and the very mentally ill."
Note he says they "do not necessarily deserve our sympathy or support" i.e. they don't deserve subsidized health care. Now Victor could come out here and say that he does support subsidizing these folks, the "underclass" as he calls them but I don't think he will because he doesn't think they deserve it.
"If it's the end of health care, it's the end of the Democratic majority."
That's Paul Begala from a few moments ago on CNN when asked whether a Brown win meant the end of health care reform. So true. It really is nothing to fear but fear itself. The Dems have no choice but to finish the job. No choice.
And I strongly suspect that means the House has to pass the senate bill.
Just as the decent hard working poor tend to produce children with similar values so, too, do the mentally ill and the criminal class produce more of the same. While this observation may seem commonplace, I bring it up because socialized medicine will not substantially address the suffering and discontent of the underclass.
Whit, the question is "should we provide universal health care"? Universal means to all Americans in this case. He says no, they don't necessarily deserve it, especially, and I quote him directly "the criminal class (which includes drug addicts) and the very mentally ill." He then uses this subset of the "poor" to justify his objection to providing subsidized health care to all the poor.
Look, Linear, health care insurance is to allow individuals to seek medical treatment and the fact that subsidized insurance won't "substantially address the suffering and discontent of the underclass" is neither here nor there in the debate. To say that because it won't alleviate the suffering of the underclass is a reason to not provide health insurance to the underclass, is silly. It does not follow, it is a non-sequitur.
I'm sorry, instead of saying it is "silly" I should ask what relevance does the fact that "socialized medicine will not substantially address the suffering and discontent of the underclass." have with respect to providing health care insurance to the poor?
I honestly believe that Americans want health care coverage for everyone, but resent those that will game the system as is done with worker's compensation, food stamps and unemployment.
The "poor" have everything to gain (but, they're not overly reliable voters.)
The lower middle class (non-business owners) are ambivalent. They know they could be at risk if they lose their jobs (and health insurance,) and they know the tab will mostly be picked up by the "wealthy." The "Upper" middle class (many are business owners) are very much opposed. It's going to cost them money they don't want to spend. THEY will, actually, Feel It.
The Wealthier know they are going to pay for it, but they know they can afford it, and are pretty much "voting their conscience."
"The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) says the nation's homeless veterans are mostly males (four percent are females). The vast majority are single, most come from poor, disadvantaged communities, 45 percent suffer from mental illness, and half have substance abuse problems."
"Although accurate numbers are impossible to come by -- no one keeps national records on homeless veterans -- the VA estimates that 131,000 veterans are homeless on any given night. And approximately twice that many experience homelessness over the course of a year. Conservatively, one out of every three homeless men who is sleeping in a doorway, alley or box in our cities and rural communities has put on a uniform and served this country."
I would not have an apology from rufus or any of the others here like him. The man is what he is, as is his right. I do not take him seriously or personally.
The decent hardworking poor deserve our sympathy and support. That support should come from increased opportunity and, if need be, private charity.
The criminal class do not deserve our support or sympathy.
The very mentally ill must be institutionalized both for their protection and society's protection.
Socialism is evil. It is the greatest evil civilized man has ever had to encounter. It is the politics of slavery and compulsion. Socialized health care will eventually take control of our lives, regulating every facet of society under the pretext of the government knowing what's best for us.
If it is in society's best interest to help the decent hardworking poor then we should target them specifically.
We need not take away the freedom of 300 million people and corrupt the balance of powers to satisfy our compassionate instincts.
And just what is the object of our compassionate instincts? I say it is to reduce suffering and discontent.
Others say it is not. If this is true, then what is the object?
I say it "the will to power", that lust to dominate the strong and successful by weaklings to compensate for their impotence.
LT:Better include eliminating the gaming of the system by the tort lawyers. There'll be no affordable medical care until they are dealt with.
Unfortunately, they write big campaign checks for Congressmen on both sides. There will be not tort reform until we take money out of politics with public financing of elections. It might cost a bit more up front, but save us a lot more on the other side of the election.
Viktor, rufus showed yesterday the cause of his angst and that of millions like him: "ALL" doctors have big houses (so he thinks...pardon, Viktor...so he emotes) This confirms your hypothesis.
"Sigmund Freud first used the concept of projection in a letter to his friend Fleiss in 1895...Essentially, it refers to an unconcious process by which one represses painful mental content - thoughts, emotions, intentions - and assigns them to others, and then criticizes others for possessing them."
"You might want to dig up ol' Louis, and his babe, Antoinette, and ask them how that whole "Weak lusting for Power" - Guillotine thing worked out."
Tue Jan 19, 08:32:00 PM EST
I'm not sure what Louis and Marie Antoinette have to do with this.
However, in an attempt at further clarification: in referring to strength and weakness I am referring to psychological rather than physical attributes.
BTW, Rufus, my comment was not aimed at you but I'm sure you can guess who it was aimed at.
Viktor Silo:I say it "the will to power", that lust to dominate the strong and successful by weaklings to compensate for their impotence.
43.4 percent of Americans now pay zero or negative federal income taxes. Negative taxes means they are the recipient of a transfer of wealth from producers to non-producers, such as the "Earned Income Credit" which is a G note for each child.
Since Congress likes to use the tax code for social engineering, expect to see a "distress homeowners credit" and an "underemployed workers credit" and a "descendants of persons historically forced into involuntary servitude credit" make its way into the tax code.
Someday very soon that figure of net tax recipients will cross over the line and become 51%. At that point, our Republic is doomed.
"I honestly believe that Americans want health care coverage for everyone, "
It is just that sentiment that animates the Universal coverage in Canada.
In Canada the primary focus of today's debate is two traced - 1.)whether you should have a two tier system - one that offers basic care for all and another where you can use your personal wherewithal to get 'better' care. and 2.) to what extent do you extend the system to provide care (i.e. how much is too much? There are some mighty expensive drugs which have dubious value?)
At the fundamental level - is a Congressman entitled to better care than a 'regular american'? Is a vet entitled to better care? Does a rich person deserve better care?
In any case it is a complex debate but 'down there' we seem to be stuck at the lowest level - 'do all Americans deserve health insurance?'
Brown has opened up a six point lead with 29% of the results in. That puts him outside of the gray zone where ACORN and the shenanigans with uncounted ballots they "find" (like we had here in Washington in the 2004 gubernatorial race) can make a difference. Too bad I don't watch TV, I'd love to see the look of shock on the face of Olbermann, he who said Brown was an "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude-model."
Okay, so he is an ex-nude model, but the other stuff is a stretch!
Drudge reports the concession, AP calls it, it's all over. Welcome Senator-elect Brown, our 41st Republican. This was a race with national implications. It was fun live-blogging it, and good practice for November 2.
Obama is not wearing well. It took me six years to get sick of hearing George Bush. After one year of Obama I have to force myself to listen, and rarely worth having listened after I did.
ReplyDeleteThis smug marxist had to have a staffer rent a car for him a few years ago, but that big mighty fine 747 he sports around in, paid for by the people driving those old pickups, has gone to Obama's head.
Attscking a man who drives a pick-up is not only ignorant, but in politics, plain ol' stupid.
Deuce: That big mighty fine 747 he sports around in, paid for by the people driving those old pickups, has gone to Obama's head. Attacking a man who drives a pick-up is not only ignorant, but in politics, plain ol' stupid.
ReplyDeleteI presume that Brown is driving a Ford truck and not a Government Motors POS. In this household we are Fordonlyites.
ABC Empathizes with White House: Coakley Loss ‘Shakespearean,’ ‘Tragedy of Greek Proportions'. Stephanopoulos agrees with Barney Frank, if Brown wins, socialized medicine dies.
Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, and 80-year-old man marries an 11-year-old girl and France accuses the US of occupying Haiti.
If the Democrats can get close enough to throw the election into doubt and force recounts, the interim Senator remains in office and health care can be rammed through (the House can just accept the Senate bill with no debate). That's their only option right now, so gravediggers are working overtime in MA to "get out the vote".
ReplyDeleteOne can but hope that the election of Mr. Brown will put to rest (temporarily) the proposed health care bill.
ReplyDeleteWhether his election will halt America's flirtation with socialism/communism is something else.
Newsflash...
ReplyDeleteStaff at MSMBC are in free fall..
I am laughing my ass off.
This is what we will get with national health care:
ReplyDeleteVeterans groups are angry after President Barack Obama told them Monday that he means to go ahead with a proposal to have treatment for service-connected injuries charged to veterans' private insurance plans.
Chris Matthews looks as if his parents were just killed in a horrible car crash.
ReplyDeleteObama donned an apron yesterday. That's a good look for our first female president as he tries to forget there's a war on terrorism.
Meanwhile even Chile returns to the right; a conservative billionaire entreprenuer defeats the ruling leftist coalition.
rufus
ReplyDeleteand his want of Israeli universal health care...
Well, there you go; just another example of lousy, inefficient, Socialized Health Care.
ReplyDeleteAnd, Kudos to the Israelis. Excellent job. Very Impressive.
We shouldn't be hearing much about Katrina anymore.
ReplyDeleteJust turned on the telly. CNN and MSNBC are doing their parts to smear Brown and sway the election toward their candidate.
ReplyDeleterufus said...
ReplyDeleteWell, there you go; just another example of lousy, inefficient, Socialized Health Care.
No that's an example of Israel and it's people...
Notice there are no Russian or Chinese field hospitals set up...
Notice the lack of Haitian American DOCTORS mobilizing to help their homeland?
Notice the lack of Palestinian and Arab field hospitals...
Rufus, it's aint the "socialized medicine of the Israel" that causes Israelis to be prepared and willing to help save lives across the globe...
It's who they are...
If Brown wins, the Dem spin will be that the MA. election was not about HCR but pocketbook issues of the recession.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think it was about both and much more. Just as the Tea Parties are about more than just the two issues. The country (the whole whirled for that matter) is in trouble. People are frustrated and angry. There's a bad vibe, everywhere, even here.
Picking on Dennis Blair. MmMmMm.
ReplyDeleteAt least everyone else had the decency to shrug and continue on with yesterday's pie fight.
So. Allen is enjoying nice weather. What're you, special or somethin', allen?
It's perpetual twilight and growing colder again up here in the Republic of Roethlisberger.
So you can just take your fine day and shove it up your ass, mister.
See what I mean?
ReplyDelete:0
My, my, where to start with allen, the man who perpetually talks out of both sides of his mouth…
ReplyDeleteLet’s start with a brief deconstruction his controversial post:
Blogger allen said...
“ rufus,
Re: Israeli health care system
Rufus, I did not broach the question of Israel's health care delivery system. Frankly, it is irrelevant to the discussion; albeit, it does provide ample opportunity for barely disguised bashing.”
No, allen, it is not irrelevant to the discussion at all. The simple fact that the US health care system costs substantially more per capita (like 2x) than comparable universal health care systems but shows equal outcomes is directly to the point of the discussion.
Blogger allen said...
“My arguments address the current state of health care and the additional burden you would thoughtlessly place upon it. While the Emperor can name his horse a senator, a horse is a horse, of course, of course. Well, a government bureaucrat is not a physician anymore than a horse is a senator. And unlike horses, doctors can't begin to race at three years of age.
I wrote "thoughtlessly" because, while you assure us that all will be well, you have not provided a persuasive argument other than anecdotally pointing to other countries about which you know next to nothing and, of course, "the poor".”
Here Allen clearly states that ‘adding the poor’ will be a burden. It’ll have a cost. He then proceeds on to tell us what he thinks of the poor and why they are not worth the burden on the rest of us:
Blogger allen said...
“Have you any idea at all about how many of "the poor" need to be permanently institutionalized, under humane custodial care? One of "the poor", just yesterday near Atlanta, jumped to his death from a bridge onto the interstate. I see them everyday, sometimes outside the VA medical center (smoking) carrying their little bags of medication, to be sold or bartered when they get back home, under the overpass.
Addressing further "the poor", you do know that millions of these are children, the progeny of totally dysfunctional couplings? Will you advocate the sterilization of "undesirable" adults? Certainly, that would reduce substantially "the poor" of the future, don't you agree?”
Allen tells us his concern is the poor burdening the health care system and he graphically describes the horrors the poor can wreak and he (trying to be funny?) offers us a Swiftian “Modest Proposal”. Does his satire work? Is it coherent? No, but hey, he fancies himself an educated man who loves his own wit. He then goes on to say that it isn't the cost, it isn't the burden that bothers him but rather:
see next post
Blogger allen said...
ReplyDelete“For me this is not an issue of cost, per se. Instead, my concern is the further degradation of the system by intrusive bureaucrats. Indeed, on principle alone, I oppose the further socialization of America.
For goodness sake, aren't you even a little bit concerned about the explosive growth of government involvement in your life? Recall: It was the Federal government, in its infinite wisdom, which has brought this country to its current sorry state. And you would have me believe that it will do better with universal health care. One wonders when you will advocate collectivization of agriculture. I ANTICIPATE such a call following the next cycle of droughts, such as those of the 30’s and 50’s.
Israel has had both collective agriculture and medicine. Slowly, it is weaning itself from the mystique of "one for all and all for one".”
So now, after telling us it is the burden of the poor he is concerned with he turns around and says, no, it isn’t the burden of the poor but rather the intrusive bureaucrats that he is concerned about. Now, he conveniently ignores the role currently played by bureaucrats – the bureaucrats that work for the private companies that preside over health care and he raises the bugaboo of government bureaucrats who in their “infinite wisdom, which has (have) brought this country to its current sorry state.” Can you see how he is arguing out of both sides of his mouth here? Allen says that the current system will be made worse because the government bureaucrats will be involved and this is bad because the current system is bad because the government bureaucrats made things the way they are now. It is circular. It is nonsense and he negates his cost concerns so he actually says nothing in the end.
And then he tops it off today with the post:
allen said...
"This is what we will get with national health care:
Veterans groups are angry after President Barack Obama told them Monday that he means to go ahead with a proposal to have treatment for service-connected injuries charged to veterans' private insurance plans."
More nonsense from allen – ‘look out, look out, if you get national health care Obama will make private insurance plans pay for stuff.’
What a load of crap.
Well, you just couldn't take a compliment for the team, could you, you idiot Wanker?
ReplyDeleteI've never been around Jews much; but, if the rest of them are like you and Allen I can see why they're so hated.
Unfreakin'believable.
Not to pile on, but it is 70 degrees in North Texas today, very nice!
ReplyDeleteAnd I believe it is raining on Rat.
The left has allied with the antizionists.
ReplyDelete"Not to pile on..."
ReplyDeleteAnyone else (sneeringly) having. a. nice. day?
Anyone?
Anyone?
I hope not.
That is what is called (among Allen's educated circles) an "Argumentum ad Hominum," Whit. Your "argument" against Ash is that his argument is in some way aligned with MY argument, and that I have, at some time in the past, made anti-Zionist arguments.
ReplyDeleteErgo: Your argument is an "argument against the Man." An Argumentum ad Hominem.
Ash said Nothing about Zionism. Ash was joining in the "Healthcare" Debate.
In two days of arguing my side of the healthcare debate I have said nothing about "Zionism."
In fact, YOU are the first to use the word.
rufus said...
ReplyDeleteWell, you just couldn't take a compliment for the team, could you, you idiot Wanker?
I've never been around Jews much; but, if the rest of them are like you and Allen I can see why they're so hated.
Unfreakin'believable.
Man, take some meds...
I am so HATED cause I am a smart ass?
Rufus, pull that stick out of your ass it's clouding your brain...
Your pointed and loaded remarks YESTERDAY and TODAY set me up to BE a SMART ASS...
Maybe what you fail to understand is simple...
You have a blind hatred for Jews, Zionists and Israel, maybe not as intense as the Rodent, but from the hundreds of posts you make it's message is clear...
Come on Rufus, maybe you need to crack open that wallet of yours and buy a ticket to Israel via El Al and spend a week there on vacation...
LEARN BABY LEARN...
You might surprise yourself and become a FAN...
yeah I know that would be out of your comfort zone...
But it's trick us ZIONISTS and ZOG members know all to well..
Most Israel bashers never have been...
Once there are there?
we infect them...
and unleashed in the inner higher human you fight to surpress...
Trish, not to worry, rain's a comin'
ReplyDeleteRufus,
ReplyDeletethis is for you... Release your inner self, you will be happier
The simple fact that the US health care system costs substantially more per capita (like 2x) than comparable universal health care systems but shows equal outcomes is directly to the point of the discussion.
ReplyDeleteThe US spends twice as much as socialised medicine, a good bit of it to subsidize domestically those without insurance and other countries with price controls and government mandated rationing.
Obamacare does nothing to control the outrageous malpractice premiums or the subsidization of our wonderful neighbors to the north or in Western Europe.
I have absolutely no doubt that there are hundreds of thousands of wonderful, Delightful people in Israel.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, "THEY" don't post on this blog.
Once a week I have to drive through Memphis. If I survive that, I sure as hell ain't going to buy a ticket to the "Middle East."
Good to hear, Gag. Good to hear.
ReplyDeleteMisery loves meteorological solidarity.
Rufus
ReplyDeletethat hurt. Memphis be my home town.
I was kind of hoping they might get the Senate Bill through. It's not the way, exactly, that I would have done it, but it seemed like it could work.
ReplyDeleteI, also, can't keep myself from pulling for Scott Brown (although he's not NEARLY as "Conservative" as some of you might wish.)
Interesting day. I'm afraid all the media coverage might have awakened the Dems in Mass. They're expecting a Monster Turnout. That probably isn't good for the Pub. We'll see.
Just a little "levity," Gag. I like Memphis just fine. :)
ReplyDeleteRufus
ReplyDeleteMy dad was a uniformed cop in the late fifties and a detective in the 60s and 70s in Memphis.
He survived the race riots, the assassination, and even the Tiller brothers.
I feel your pain.
Wow, your father was certainly on the front line, Gag.
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm going to lay my "painful" old ass back down. This 5 hrs of sleep is for the birds.
ReplyDeleteLet me know who wins. :)
Whit, yes he was, but it wasn't all bad.
ReplyDeleteHe rode motorcycles with Elvis, and moon lighted as a body guard for him pre-Memphis Mafia.
I used to "play" in the back yard of Graceland as a kid, while the grownups were holding court in the house. As an 8 year old I once kicked Elvis' Stutz Bearcat out of gear and ran it into a hedge. Got the ass tore up over that one. Remember it well.
It also gave young Gag many "get out of jail free" cards as a wayward teen.
Life was good!
Steve Benen:
ReplyDeleteELECTION DAY IN MASSACHUSETTS.... It's a phrase you've read so many times over the last two weeks, you probably roll your eyes when you see it: special elections are notoriously hard to poll. A few months ago in New York's 23rd, nearly all of the final polls showed Doug Hoffman leading. He ended up losing by three.
The "polls can be wrong" adage notwithstanding, when it comes to the statewide special election in Massachusetts today, every available piece of evidence points to Scott Brown (R) defeating Martha Coakley (D). In the seven statewide polls conducted since Thursday, Coakley doesn't lead in any of them. What's more, Suffolk surveyed three bellwether counties in Massachusetts over the weekend, and Brown's leads ranged from 14 to 17 points.
Nate Silver presented his case late yesterday.
"The FiveThirtyEight Senate Forecasting Model, which correctly predicted the outcome of all 35 Senate races in 2008, now regards Republican Scott Brown as a 74 percent favorite to win the Senate seat in Massachusetts on the basis of new polling from ARG, Research 2000 and InsiderAdvantage which show worsening numbers for Brown's opponent, Martha Coakley. We have traditionally categorized races in which one side has between a 60 and 80 percent chance of winning as "leaning" toward that candidate, and so that is how we categorize this race now: Lean GOP. [...]
" Coakley's odds are substantially worse than they appeared to be 24 hours ago, when there were fewer credible polls to evaluate and there appeared to be some chance that her numbers were bottoming out and perhaps reversing. However, the ARG and Research 2000 polls both show clear and recent trends against her. Indeed the model, which was optimized for regular rather than special elections, may be too slow to incorporate new information and may understate the magnitude of the trend toward Brown."
[...]
Benen goes on to say that the unexpected (in the form of a GOTV surge) does sometimes happen.
He wisely concludes: Don't count on it this time.
It also gave young Gag many "get out of jail free" cards as a wayward teen.
ReplyDelete- Gag
: )
However.
ReplyDeleteThere exists according to Madame Speaker a Plan B and Plan C for HCR.
And they really, really, really need it done before SOTU - which is not being pushed into February.
The big question is whether the Dems will be able to hold the line if Brown wins.
ReplyDeleteHow stupid or suicidal are the Dems is another way of asking the question.
Dems already on the hot seat or the so called "blue dogs" may be like rats jumping ship.
A Brown win could make the next few months extremely entertaining in a reality TV sort of way.
ReplyDeleteWe can hope and wish and pray that all the pompous poseurs will get their comeuppance.
Which means...
ReplyDeletePassing the Senate version on to the Oval Office through the House.
Revisions carried separately in a later bill.
Which means...
House members cannot bolt after a Brown win, but rather are going to have to chew the big shit sandwich now and in November.
Idleness is the devil's workshop and I have done enough mischief for one day.
ReplyDeleteApologies to all that I may have offended.
Will check in on the mayhem later.
trish said...
ReplyDelete"So you can just take your fine day and shove it up your ass, mister."
Your well wishes are always appreciated :)
...any thoughts on the President's plan to have private insurance carriers cover the cost of treating our service connected veterans? The boosters of UNIVERSAL health care are conspicuous by their absence on such a salient issue. That often happens when no opportunity for bashing/venting/projecting presents itself.
whit,
ReplyDeleteI with you...indeed, I am at work now...Have a great day...later, my friend
Allen,
ReplyDeleteI am not really familiar with the ins and outs of HCR. Been away from domestic policy for awhile. Mostly.
I do, though, suggest for anyone that Tyler Cowen is as thoughtful and entertaining a read as one is likely to find on the whole enchilada. And there're always the guys and gals at Cato (their blog Cato Unbound is better than the Corner) who're quite practiced at uncovering the booby traps and treacherous crevasses in this type of legislation.
FWIW.
I only know that Hugo Chavez is descending further into a paranoid dementia.
ReplyDeleteWhich isn't very useful on the topic of HCR, is it?
If Brown should win and that precipitates the failure of the Health Care Bill then I think it highly unlikely that any US politician will touch the 'third rail' issue again and the dysfunctional system will continue to grow wildly out of control to detriment of the USA.
ReplyDeleteI find it funny that allen is still banging that Obama wants private insurers to foot some of the Veteran's health costs. It does help highlight the absurdity of the level of debate down there. Obama pushed hard for a public option to help mitigate cost increases which got turfed and when he tries to get private insurers to actually belly up and pay for some of what they've insured the same folk scream about privates encroaching on public's realm. Allen is still talking out of both sides of his mouth...
Trish, I had a good day up here in snowy Massachusetts, I got to pull the lever for Scott this morning.
ReplyDelete…
(although he's not NEARLY as "Conservative" as some of you might wish.)
Rufus, in these parts he's right up there with Genghis Khan.
There is such a national spotlight on the election now, that if the Dems try some tricky dribbling to delay his certification, it will make for an even more troubling mid-term.
Whit, I'm not sure what subsidization of the Europeans and Canadians you are referring to but those health care numbers break it out on a PER CAPITA basis which necessarily includes those indigent folk you complain about getting health care. Even then the cost PER CAPITA is strikingly higher in the USA for very similar outcomes. Those are very damning numbers.
ReplyDeleteTo find the numbers google can be your friend. Here is one study examining cost vs. outcomes:
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
"If Brown should win and that precipitates the failure of the Health Care Bill..."
ReplyDeleteSeems to me they're prepared to lose the Ted seat and git 'er done come hell and high water both. (And on that note, Rahm's the midterm sacrifice.)
They're eating the bullet in November regardless. I agree with Marshall that they absolutely have to deliver THIS ONE THING.
I guess they'll just weather the filibuster somehow? I presume, with a simple majority, they could find some way of overcoming it...
ReplyDeletechachapoya,
ReplyDeleteMarried into a loooong line of Connecticut Republicans. An odd lot, to be sure, but there you have it.
Dear host is right that it's not as surprising as it seems.
Lame Duck Obama...
ReplyDeleteI like the ring of that....
Looks like the Massachusetts Democratic Party is 'getting out the vote', doin' what they do best.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.electionjournal.org/2010/01/19/video-why-is-this-woman-handing-out-blank-absentee-ballots/
Whit: Idleness is the devil's workshop and I have done enough mischief for one day.
ReplyDeleteThe devil's workshop has card checks.
chachapoya: There is such a national spotlight on the election now, that if the Dems try some tricky dribbling to delay his certification, it will make for an even more troubling mid-term.
The key timeline isn't when he's seated in the Senate, but when the election is certified. At that point, the interim Senator cannot vote, and Obama goes to 59 votes. Or 58 if Lieberman puts a moist finger into the wind. Welcome to the Elephant Bar.
Gag Reflex: Not to pile on, but it is 70 degrees in North Texas today, very nice!
ReplyDelete54 in Seattle, 50 overnight. In Seattle. In January. Nice.
Mid 60's and kind of damp.
ReplyDeleteA truly fabulous day in the desert, they say it may stay like this for a few more days.
Sun just broke through the clouds.
Light drizzle and occasional showers.
NRO: Bill Clinton: If We Elect Scott Brown, the Earthquake Wins
ReplyDeleteBOSTON—In a conversation with National Review Online, former president Bill Clinton defended his appearance today at a rally for Democrat Martha Coakley while Haiti is recovering from Tuesday’s earthquake. When I told him that some had been critical of his decision to stump for Coakley while hundreds of thousands are still trapped under rubble, he responded with annoyance: “Who?” he challenged, “who is criticizing me? It’s your problem if you can’t see how these things aren’t mutually exclusive.” Electing Coakley, he said, will “help lead to good governance” that will support Haiti while it rebuilds. When Congressman Ed Markey told Clinton that I worked for National Review, Clinton concluded with this: “See, it's you guys who are saying this stuff, I don't hear it.” With that, he jumped in his SUV, on his way to Worcester for another rally. Haiti, it seems, can wait.
The 2010 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs will be about $133,726,656,000. VA runs 153 hospitals, 52 domiciliary residential rehabilitation treatment programs [yes, that’s rehab], 135 nursing homes, and 1,140 outpatient clinics.
ReplyDeleteThe Congress charges this budget with funding pensions for NON-SERVICE CONNECTED veterans and dependants. The number of such folk is given as 490,956, having an average per capita cost of $12,247, yielding a total expenditure of $6,012,738,132 (that's six billion and change). These NON-SERVICE CONNECTED veterans may use the facilities listed above, occasionally paying a very modest fee if insured.
Like me, the Congress recognizes the problem of [HOMELESSNESS] among veterans. Consequently, the Department expects to spend $2,721,934,000 on medical treatment for homeless veterans and $500,283,000 on homeless programs.
Title II
My next post will address the cost to the taxpayer of chemical and alcohol dependence among veterans.
What is your point allen? Are you arguing that homeless and/or drug dependent vets don't deserve health care?
ReplyDeleteOr that FOX News is not a reputable source?
ReplyDeleteallen, you are starting to sound like some of those private insurers "oh, you are sick, well we won't cover you anymore".
ReplyDeleteOr he wants to show us that expenditures by the Federals prove there is a need for those expenditures.
ReplyDeleteHe also wants to validate the moral authority of the Federal government, except as it relates to the US position on Israel prior to and along with Mr Mitchell's 2000 Report and his subsequent findings, since becoming the US envoy to the area.
Rufus:
ReplyDeleteI have addressed your comment to me back at the post "Brown Set to Beat Coakley in Massachusetts."
I'm amused by the fact that everyone is crossing their fingers, and jumping up and down on one foot pulling for a guy that's more Liberal on Healthcare than I am.
ReplyDeleteScott Brown says in his speeches that "Everyone Deserves" healthcare. Even I don't go that far.
I merely assert that it's to the benefit of our country for us not to be the only major, industrialized country in the world that doesn't make healthcare available to all.
Basically, what Brown is running on is, "Mass already has their healthcare in order, and they don't want to pay for the rest of the country to get it."
ReplyDeleteIt's a "reasoned" argument, and one that I would expect my Senator to make if I lived in Mass. But, take note, NOWHERE in any of his speeches does he even idly mention the "possibility" of rolling back Mass's healthcare law.
Think about it.
Rufus:
ReplyDeleteI have addressed your comment to me back at the post "Brown Set to Beat Coakley in Massachusetts."
# 237 is a thoughtful and well reasoned comment, Viktor.
Well put.
denying subsidized health care to a person whom is mentally ill because they are mentally ill is a "well-reasoned argument" in your book linear?
ReplyDeleteTaken in total, the comment is well reasoned, Ash.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your point, I counter that subsidized mental health care to needy patients has already been diminished by the system you defend.
It will only get worse under the proposed HCR.
Victor did not say that Ash. I think you better go back and reread his comment. And I will make easier for you. Link to Victors' comment
ReplyDeleteWhit in the context of the debate we are having - whether health care insurance should be provided to all Americans he certainly did say that:
ReplyDelete"Allen's major point was that the category of people that we call the "poor" encompasses many people who do not necessarily deserve our sympathy or support. The stereotype of the poor is that they are hard working, decent people who, through no fault of their own, have fallen on hard times.
If this definition was entirely true or even mostly true I would, at least, be emotionally drawn to your attraction to socialized health care. But, the truth is, that the "poor" also encompass most of the criminal class (which includes drug addicts) and the very mentally ill."
Note he says they "do not necessarily deserve our sympathy or support" i.e. they don't deserve subsidized health care. Now Victor could come out here and say that he does support subsidizing these folks, the "underclass" as he calls them but I don't think he will because he doesn't think they deserve it.
"If it's the end of health care, it's the end of the Democratic majority."
ReplyDeleteThat's Paul Begala from a few moments ago on CNN when asked whether a Brown win meant the end of health care reform. So true. It really is nothing to fear but fear itself. The Dems have no choice but to finish the job. No choice.
And I strongly suspect that means the House has to pass the senate bill.
--Josh Marshal
I beg your pardon, saying they don't
ReplyDelete"necessarily deserve it" isn't the same as advocating withholding it.
You're cherry picking, Ash.
ReplyDeleteWhat Viktor said:
Just as the decent hard working poor tend to produce children with similar values so, too, do the mentally ill and the criminal class produce more of the same. While this observation may seem commonplace, I bring it up because socialized medicine will not substantially address the suffering and discontent of the underclass.
You left out the important part.
.
Whit, the question is "should we provide universal health care"? Universal means to all Americans in this case. He says no, they don't necessarily deserve it, especially, and I quote him directly "the criminal class (which includes drug addicts) and the very mentally ill." He then uses this subset of the "poor" to justify his objection to providing subsidized health care to all the poor.
ReplyDeletewhich is a non sequitur Linear. The purpose of Universal Health care is not to alleviate the suffering and discontent of the underclass.
ReplyDeletewhich is a non sequitur Linear. The purpose of Universal Health care is not to alleviate the suffering and discontent of the underclass.
ReplyDeleteAll who've criticized your commentary over the ages appear to be vindicated by that last comment, Ash.
You are FOS. Really and truly.
.
Adieu, Ash.
ReplyDelete.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLook, Linear, health care insurance is to allow individuals to seek medical treatment and the fact that subsidized insurance won't "substantially address the suffering and discontent of the underclass" is neither here nor there in the debate. To say that because it won't alleviate the suffering of the underclass is a reason to not provide health insurance to the underclass, is silly. It does not follow, it is a non-sequitur.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, instead of saying it is "silly" I should ask what relevance does the fact that "socialized medicine will not substantially address the suffering and discontent of the underclass." have with respect to providing health care insurance to the poor?
ReplyDeleteI honestly believe that Americans want health care coverage for everyone, but resent those that will game the system as is done with worker's compensation, food stamps and unemployment.
ReplyDeleteAddress that issue and we have a program.
BTW, it's not just "for the poor."
ReplyDeleteEqually, it's for those with "pre-existing conditions."
Middle-Class with "Pre-existing Conditions" isn't much different than being "Poor with Pre-existing Conditions."
Everybody's "Voting" their pocketbook, Deuce.
ReplyDeleteThe "poor" have everything to gain (but, they're not overly reliable voters.)
The lower middle class (non-business owners) are ambivalent. They know they could be at risk if they lose their jobs (and health insurance,) and they know the tab will mostly be picked up by the "wealthy." The "Upper" middle class (many are business owners) are very much opposed. It's going to cost them money they don't want to spend. THEY will, actually, Feel It.
The Wealthier know they are going to pay for it, but they know they can afford it, and are pretty much "voting their conscience."
The "Interesting" question is, "What happens if Brown Wins, and THIS bill really is dead?"
ReplyDeleteI got news for you folks. It won't make any difference. The Republicans don't want to Ever lose another election, like 2008, on "Healthcare."
Look for "Medicaid, SCHIP, and other government programs to be quietly expanded. It's as sure as betting on the Sun coming up in the East.
The money, over the longer run, is going to come out about the same.
Frank Luntz is having a hell of at time coming up with Democrats for his 8:15 PM Eastern "Focus Group."
ReplyDeleteThey keep calling up and cancelling. Seems they're "embarrassed," or something. hmmm
Prescription Drug Abuse Increasing Among US Troops
ReplyDeleteU.S. troops admit abusing prescription drugs
Bill Introduced to Help War Veterans Seek Treatment for Drug Addiction
Who are homeless veterans?
"The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) says the nation's homeless veterans are mostly males (four percent are females). The vast majority are single, most come from poor, disadvantaged communities, 45 percent suffer from mental illness, and half have substance abuse problems."
"Although accurate numbers are impossible to come by -- no one keeps national records on homeless veterans -- the VA estimates that 131,000 veterans are homeless on any given night. And approximately twice that many experience homelessness over the course of a year. Conservatively, one out of every three homeless men who is sleeping in a doorway, alley or box in our cities and rural communities has put on a uniform and served this country."
What Deuce said....
ReplyDeleteviktor silo,
ReplyDeleteYour comment #237 was well done. Thank you!
I would not have an apology from rufus or any of the others here like him. The man is what he is, as is his right. I do not take him seriously or personally.
Address that issue and we have a program.
ReplyDeleteBetter include eliminating the gaming of the system by the tort lawyers. There'll be no affordable medical care until they are dealt with.
You are, Allen, in my opinion, a Racist, a eugenicist, a liar, and a "supremist." You will get no apology from me.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, before, I feel dirty just knowing you're on the same internet.
If you will not address me, I will not address you. I promise.
I aint voting my pocket book...
ReplyDeleteI supported Brown to shoot a shot across the bow of Obama...
PERIOD
it aint money honey...
It's national security, it's policy around the globe...
lame duck obama
ReplyDeleteget used to it (hopefully)
Running vote tally at Talking Points Memo
ReplyDelete4% in 52 - 47 Brown
Just so there is no misunderstanding:
ReplyDeleteThe decent hardworking poor deserve our sympathy and support. That support should come from increased opportunity and, if need be, private charity.
The criminal class do not deserve our support or sympathy.
The very mentally ill must be institutionalized both for their protection and society's protection.
Socialism is evil. It is the greatest evil civilized man has ever had to encounter. It is the politics of slavery and compulsion. Socialized health care will eventually take control of our lives, regulating every facet of society under the pretext of the government knowing what's best for us.
If it is in society's best interest to help the decent hardworking poor then we should target them specifically.
We need not take away the freedom of 300 million people and corrupt the balance of powers to satisfy our compassionate instincts.
And just what is the object of our compassionate instincts? I say it is to reduce suffering and discontent.
Others say it is not. If this is true, then what is the object?
I say it "the will to power", that lust to dominate the strong and successful by weaklings to compensate for their impotence.
7% in Brown 51 - 48
ReplyDeleteLT: Better include eliminating the gaming of the system by the tort lawyers. There'll be no affordable medical care until they are dealt with.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, they write big campaign checks for Congressmen on both sides. There will be not tort reform until we take money out of politics with public financing of elections. It might cost a bit more up front, but save us a lot more on the other side of the election.
You might want to dig up ol' Louis, and his babe, Antoinette, and ask them how that whole "Weak lusting for Power" - Guillotine thing worked out.
ReplyDelete8% in Brown 52 - 47
ReplyDeletefufus,
ReplyDeleteYou silly little woman: you have twice now addressed me, despite your promise to the contrary.
You act like the girlfriend who won't go away.
And when you are not addressing me, you are talking about me (see last thread, if you were too drunk to remember).
Get a life, for Pete's sake!
11% in Brown 53 - 46
ReplyDeleteThis deal is done.
Earthquake time.
Look up the thread and see who used whose name first jerk.
ReplyDeleteviktor silo,
ReplyDeleteViktor, rufus showed yesterday the cause of his angst and that of millions like him: "ALL" doctors have big houses (so he thinks...pardon, Viktor...so he emotes) This confirms your hypothesis.
Good luck with that one Asshole.
ReplyDeleteRe: projection
ReplyDelete"Sigmund Freud first used the concept of projection in a letter to his friend Fleiss in 1895...Essentially, it refers to an unconcious process by which one represses painful mental content - thoughts, emotions, intentions - and assigns them to others, and then criticizes others for possessing them."
rufus,
ReplyDeleteI am NOT the one who swore off conversing; you were.
See: Re: projection above.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, they write big campaign checks for Congressmen on both sides.
I don't have the numbers.
My BET is that D's contribute 4 to 5 times as much, or more, than the R's. I would like to see the numbers if anyone has them.
rufus said:
ReplyDelete"You might want to dig up ol' Louis, and his babe, Antoinette, and ask them how that whole "Weak lusting for Power" - Guillotine thing worked out."
Tue Jan 19, 08:32:00 PM EST
I'm not sure what Louis and Marie Antoinette have to do with this.
However, in an attempt at further clarification: in referring to strength and weakness I am referring to psychological rather than physical attributes.
BTW, Rufus, my comment was not aimed at you but I'm sure you can guess who it was aimed at.
Viktor Silo: I say it "the will to power", that lust to dominate the strong and successful by weaklings to compensate for their impotence.
ReplyDelete43.4 percent of Americans now pay zero or negative federal income taxes. Negative taxes means they are the recipient of a transfer of wealth from producers to non-producers, such as the "Earned Income Credit" which is a G note for each child.
Since Congress likes to use the tax code for social engineering, expect to see a "distress homeowners credit" and an "underemployed workers credit" and a "descendants of persons historically forced into involuntary servitude credit" make its way into the tax code.
Someday very soon that figure of net tax recipients will cross over the line and become 51%. At that point, our Republic is doomed.
Allen: (on Rufus) You silly little woman: you have twice now addressed me, despite your promise to the contrary.
ReplyDeleteI see no reason to insult women.
Blogger Deuce said...
ReplyDelete"I honestly believe that Americans want health care coverage for everyone, "
It is just that sentiment that animates the Universal coverage in Canada.
In Canada the primary focus of today's debate is two traced - 1.)whether you should have a two tier system - one that offers basic care for all and another where you can use your personal wherewithal to get 'better' care. and 2.) to what extent do you extend the system to provide care (i.e. how much is too much? There are some mighty expensive drugs which have dubious value?)
At the fundamental level - is a Congressman entitled to better care than a 'regular american'? Is a vet entitled to better care? Does a rich person deserve better care?
In any case it is a complex debate but 'down there' we seem to be stuck at the lowest level - 'do all Americans deserve health insurance?'
T, you're conveniently leaving out Soc Sec, and Medicare Taxes.
ReplyDeleteBrown has opened up a six point lead with 29% of the results in. That puts him outside of the gray zone where ACORN and the shenanigans with uncounted ballots they "find" (like we had here in Washington in the 2004 gubernatorial race) can make a difference. Too bad I don't watch TV, I'd love to see the look of shock on the face of Olbermann, he who said Brown was an "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude-model."
ReplyDeleteOkay, so he is an ex-nude model, but the other stuff is a stretch!
Old age and medical insurance plans don't count as taxes...you get that back. The government merely makes them mandatory.
ReplyDelete60% in Brown 53 - 46
ReplyDeleteTell that to the guy that's trying to support a wife, and kids on $350.00/week, and is having $60.00 or so taken out in FICA.
ReplyDeleteStimulus Package
ReplyDeleteObama is now 0-4 in going somewhere and putting his credibility on the line. Any more Donks want "O" to fly out there put in a good word for ya?
ReplyDeletePeople in Cleveland are shocked. They haven't seen a Brown dominate in years.
ReplyDeleteFox News called it for Brown. I expect MSNBC will be hanging on for a while longer.
ReplyDeleteaye sam, that appears to be where America is heading...
ReplyDelete...stick that tea bag over yer nose....errr, in the envelop and revel in revolution.
Can Obama possibly try and still do an end run and force health care?
ReplyDeleteThe Republicans can't be that lucky. Can they?
Coke Zero Concedes (9:13 pm)
ReplyDeleteBrown won. new post is up!
ReplyDeleteLilith said...
ReplyDelete"I see no reason to insult women."
:)
Drudge reports the concession, AP calls it, it's all over. Welcome Senator-elect Brown, our 41st Republican. This was a race with national implications. It was fun live-blogging it, and good practice for November 2.
ReplyDeleteThanks lil and all.
ReplyDelete