“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Monday, March 22, 2010

And Now for the Consequences

The rules changed. The country has changed. it did not just happen last night. It has been happening for years. Last night made it obvious. From here on out, it will only get worse.

911 disguised the change for some months. It was a blip in the slide. Flags appeared and for a season or two there was a sense of fraternity and common cause. You wanted to help, pull together and fight for our common values. It was a ground roots feeling, not a government edict.

That is over. I can see where this is going. There is a difference from being governed to being ruled. We willingly accept governance for the common good. I am repelled at the idea of being ruled for the good of others.

I do not accept that I owe a guarantee to a common outcome of luck and fortune demanded by a government statute. I do not owe the world of diversity anything and they do not deserve that which is mine. They can try and take it and I will do my best to see that they do not.

It will be harder than it was in the past stay under the radar. There are fewer places left not mapped, traced, vectored and monitored.

This is not an overreaction to the healtcare bill. This is a recognition that the takers have outflanked the makers.
Emboldened with a clear victory, they will continue to take more and more.

Victimization has morphed into triumphalism. Entitlements have out-trumped title.

Diversity has resulted in the inevitable divisions that tear apart the familiar past. A common sense of purpose and ideals have been replaced by a collectivist view of the future.

The health care victory will recharge the Democrats and the Left. They thrive on group think. The Right is naturally inclined to think for themselves and act alone.

There are far too many, including some on this blog, who believe that the parties Democrat and Republican are the same and the outcome of their governance without difference.

They are wrong, but their views are shared by too many who will sit on their hands until it is too late to stop what has begun. It is always that way. It will be the same this time.









203 comments:

  1. "The health care victory will recharge the Democrats and the Left. They thrive on group think. The Right is naturally inclined to think for themselves and act alone."

    Come again?

    ReplyDelete
  2. 32 Million Sick, and Poor people will soon have healthcare.

    The Country got better last night.

    Just like it did with the passage of Social Security, Medicare, The Pure Foods Act, The FDA, Medicaid, SCHIP, The Clean Water Act, Student Loans, and a myriad others.

    The Dems did good.

    The Republicans looked like fat, greedy, uncaring Oafs.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How will we ever pay for it? Well, I guess we can bring 150,000 troops home from the "oil wars." That'll just about pay for it.

    Poor, poor Exxon.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've seen the headlines this morning, dear host.

    And Frum is right.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85yMOPKR94M

    ReplyDelete
  5. Historic.

    Landmark.

    LA Times repeats the Historic in its own banner.

    I am trying to think of the last time the GOP got headlines like that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Trish, why in the world do you refuse to make clickable links?

    Why put up something that no one is going to read?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The GOP Never got headlines like that.

    The GOP is the part of un-historic. The Status Quo.

    It's okay; you've got to have the voice saying, "slow down, let's think about this." But, that voice will never make History.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm sorry. I'm supposed to do something for the Squirrel Haters and Dick Lovers?

    I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I love squirrel.

    Fried, biscuits, and gravy. A couple of eggs over easy. mmmmh.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And, I don't understand why you hate Dick. He shoots lawyers, not squirrels.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anybody that shoots lawyers can't be All bad.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'll have to rethink my position because the LA Times says it is historic.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dick is no laughing matter.

    True, he's gone. In a manner of speaking. He's a shriveled, maggot-ridden, heap of depravity.

    Until Republicans let go of that oozing, stinking, crawling pile of a man, they deserve every single bitter disappointment and misfortune - every failure - that comes their way. Every one.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well, that's sure specific about the bugs, what about the man?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The bill that was passed last night was not a "perfect" bill. In fact, it was, in some respects, downright awful. It did a lousy job with "Drugs," for instance. However, it did the "Big" thing it was supposed to do.

    It made Healthcare available to most (probably 98%) Americans.

    It is affordable; and, to not have passed it would have been "morally" repugnant. We will be a Stronger Country as a result.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "I'll have to rethink my position because the LA Times says it is historic."
    ---
    Now you're starting to get it!

    If the press carries the Dems water, what would be the point of counterpoint?

    Maggot infested institutions like talk radio already do that anyhow.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "It is affordable; and, to not have passed it would have been "morally" repugnant. We will be a Stronger Country as a result."

    I nominate Rufus for Bar Queen.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Got news for ya Bubba. Rufus don't give a fuck what you nominate him for.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Wasn't for Rufus, and his clan that chunk a rock you're sunbathing on would be speaking Japanese.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Medicare and Medicade are already actuarially bankrupt.

    ...but you don't believe in bankrupt, so we agree to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The clan fought for socialism?
    I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. They just made a lie of your argument last night, Dumbo, when they passed a 2.9% increase in medicare taxes.

    Quit listening to the "talking heads," and use yours for a change.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Damn right they fought for "Socialism."

    They fought for a country that had "Social Security," a Progressive Income Tax, a "Pure Food Act," and TVA.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You know what's "funny." I'm the only one on this blog that could, conceivably, have his "income" wiped out by the legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm not saying I will (I probably won't,) but it's always scary when the government starts messing around in your business.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "...what about the man?"

    He's a fucking awesome fisherman. And, really, what else do you need to know. Doug.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Historic...See that's where the problems sit with me. The President has now put two notches in historical moments. One being elected and two something that's been tried and failed...for how many years now?

    My feelings are that the President could give two shits about the American people and his goal is to make as many "historical moments" as possible. That's just my opinion.

    One of my pet peeves is the smug look someone gets for their victory. It drives me crazy and sends me the message that they got there for reasons other than devotion for the right cause.

    Health care reform may very well be a good thing but it very well may be the wrong thing, too. I don't know, we'll see. I learned a lot of things yesterday about the bill but one thing I don't understand is the fine people will get if they are not insured by 2014.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I stated on this blog from the very outset that participation would Have to be Mandated.

    You cannot guarantee coverage to the sick, if you don't have the participation of the "Well."

    It's the bedrock of ALL "Large Group" Coverage.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The bill will be the largest tax increase ever.

    It loads the states with obligations and was deemed unwanted and not necessary by 60% of the American people.

    The accounting for it is dishonest.

    The pact where employers pay for health care has been broken.

    I cannot understand why every employer will not start planning to eliminate the nuisance of health care.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "I'll have to rethink my position because..."

    You have been waiting for the deus ex machina since before the election.

    I've seen this before.

    And there isn't one.

    We all have our shit sandwiches to chew, now and again.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I can't see any reason in the world why healthcare should be linked to employment, anyway.

    All it ever was was a "dodge" to keep the upper earners from paying their alloted share of income taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  32. At the hazard of sounding far too rufus-like.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "I cannot understand why every employer will not start planning to eliminate the nuisance of health care."
    ---
    That's the plan.
    They all know the road leads to single payer.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Both teams get their turn at the plate. They usually get 8 years.

    The Pubs spent theirs on Tax Cuts for the Rich, and War for Oil.

    Now, the Dems are at bat. So far, one hit, one run.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "All it ever was was a "dodge" to keep the upper earners from paying their alloted share of income taxes."
    ---
    Wrong!
    It started as a dodge around wage controls.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Consequently, to attract good workers, employers got around wage restrictions by offering various benefits, such as health insurance, pension plans, paid holidays, etc., that were not subject to the government mandated wage ceilings. And this is how the employment based health insurance we have today was born.

    U.S. tax laws then further skewed the market in favor of an employment based health insurance system by allowing employers to get tax deductions for the expense of paying for such a benefit, yet not taxing employees for receiving it, and not allowing taxpayers to deduct the cost of insurance if they get it on their own. This effectively means that health insurance obtained through employment is not taxed, while health insurance obtained independently is.

    Therefore, market distortions that emerged as a result of government intervention in the free markets is the reason why we have employment dependent health now. What’s the typical socialist solution then? More government intervention! Just swell…
    "

    ReplyDelete
  37. I think that if you old assholes are alive in 10 years you'll be surprised. I can see where premiums might actually, in real terms, go down (after a possible initial bump up.)

    The "costs of acquisition" are extremely high in the Non-Large Group market. These will fall - possibly quite spectacularly.

    ReplyDelete
  38. When you implement

    “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,”

    magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.

    ReplyDelete
  39. We implemented the "Progressive" income tax almost a hundred years ago, and we've done pretty well, since.

    If you call becoming the most "Productive" Nation in the history of the Earth "doing pretty well."

    ReplyDelete
  40. Mon Mar 22, 08:48:00 AM EDT

    What patent BS, Rufus:
    Medicare's already proved it.
    ...as well as every other socialized system that tried to maintain quality.

    Other approaches are England - cheap and abhorrent quality.

    Canada, reasonable cost, rationing, limited high tech.

    etc

    ReplyDelete
  41. You see, Doug. Cliches, and platitudes don't trump "experiance," and "observation."

    ReplyDelete
  42. Rufie's Rosies see the future of Energy, but not Federal Budget, nor the citizens it effectuates.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Experience:
    Socialism has failed wherever it was tried.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Medicare proved that private health insurance couldn't cover "difficult" situations.

    We have Medicare because private health insurance wouldn't/couldn't cover the aged.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Whatever:
    It did the opposite of what you predict wrt to costs.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hell, Deuce, I have not understood why anyone would be an employer, for the last 20 years.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Cool. Your argument turns to shit, so you become a spellchekr.

    That'll get it.

    Fuckhead.

    ReplyDelete
  48. There Were No Costs for insurance for the aged, because there was no insurance for the aged, Dumfuck.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Doug, you a genuine shithead. Insurance companies cover "Pre-existing Conditions" all the time. It's called "Large Group" coverage.

    When you go to work for Boeing, or the State of Ms. they give you a booklet. It has your salary, your do's, and don'ts, and a copy of your insurance coverage. Period. No discussion. The company has taken the "risk" for ALL the employees on the condition that ALL Employees will be covered.

    This bill just turns the citizens of the United States into a "Super Large Group." General Motors on Steroids.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Boehner mentions that they dropped in a 300 page ammendment @ 3am!

    More of the same.

    Transparency, socialist style.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Large Group Coverage"
    would be to allow cross state business.
    Too Easy.

    ReplyDelete
  52. That would, obviously, have had to have been on the "reconciliation" bill. It ain't going anywhere, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Boehner is an asshole. Ranting, and raving, "THIS BILL WILL DESTROY THE COUNTRY."

    What fucking bullshit. I bet he'll still be able to afford his "greens fees;" whattaya wanna bet?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Right on!
    Vote Socialist!
    Vote "Pro Life" Democrat!
    Vote Stupak!

    ReplyDelete
  55. Can you cite a single instance in history of a successful Socialist Country?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Doug, you can sell virtually any piece of shit you can afford to get printed in some states. Other states, like NY, Il, and Ma say, "you're not selling that shit here."

    By the time all is said and done, a company that sells a policy that meets a certain standard will be able to sell that policy anywhere, I'd imagine.

    Son, the Pubs have been blowing an incredible amount of smoke up your ass.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Boehner, bad.
    Barrack, good.
    I'm learning.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Can you cite a single instance in history of a successful Socialist Country?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Can you point to a "successful" country? They've All fallen as far as I know. The oldest democracy is, I think, Iceland. It's a "socialist" country. We're the most successful "Large" country. We're pretty "Socialistic."

    Rome prospered when it was the most egalitarian. It fell when it was at its most "conservative."

    ReplyDelete
  60. Doug, you don't fucking understand. They're ALL piece of shit politicians. There Ain't no "Good Guys" there, Bubba.

    You just have to figure out "What's best for the Country, Now."

    ReplyDelete
  61. "Rome prospered when it was the most egalitarian. It fell when it was at it's most "conservative.""

    Yeah, and you recently claimed how much better blue states are than red.

    We'll try to remain somewhat polite over the next two years as we snicker about that one.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Consider California,
    Consider Texas.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Texas is responsible for half of recent job creation in the nation, or some such.

    ReplyDelete
  64. California leads the nation in the exodus of productive citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Doctor Price says they offered a bill with the Stupak language in it.

    Stupak then got up and read a speech written by Pelosi!!!

    ReplyDelete
  66. Stupak:
    Pro Life before he was Pro Abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I don't think that's right. The chart I saw recently showed Ca as being basically "balanced" in inflows/outflows.

    It doesn't matter anyway. All States have ebbs, and flows. A few years back Tx was an economic basketcase.

    All Ca needs is a couple of years of decent "governance." You keep wanting to "simplify" things to meet a Republican "Soundbyte." The Real world just don't work that way.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Stupak is a piece of shit politician. Just like Boehner, and Pelosi.

    A few years ago the Pubs got together and pushed through Dubya's Socialistic Medicare Drug Bill, and all the Dems voted against it.

    This time around it's a Dem President. Same story, different shirts. Geez, Bubba. Wake up.

    ReplyDelete
  69. 58. no mo uro:

    Doctors WILL leave, but in most cases, their leaving won’t take the form of an immediate shutting of doors. When socialized medicine swept Europe in the late 1800’s-mid 1900’s, many of the doctors did in fact leave the profession, the pattern was reasonably similar in each country.

    It will go something like this:

    1. Some of the older and most experienced docs will, in fact, simply shut down their practices. Probably around 5-10%. Many others (probably another 10%) will retire considerably earlier than they would have otherwise, probably as soon as their retirement is funded, instead of working another 10 years when they are at the peak of a lifetime of medical wisdom and are at their most useful to sick people. So not only are doctors going to be leaving, but they’re taking the best the profession has to offer with them. Proportionately, this is even worse than 20% of random doctors disappearing.

    2. Other docs will alter the business plans of their practice in ways that will be the equivalent of retiring, particularly if they already have plenty of money/investments saved. For instance, they will cut back the number of days they work, stop taking new patients, become non-insurance practices, become boutique practices, stop doing emergency medicine, get into cosmetic medicine, etc. In essence, this removal from the general treatment modality we’ve come to expect is the equivalent of the doctor retiring from full service.

    3. A certain percentage of current med students will drop out, realizing that they can never recoup the money or attain the standard of living in the fashion they imagined after 4 yrs of school and 3-10 years of internships/residencies due to the government setting their fees much lower than a free market would dictate. Except for the affirmative action students, med students are among the very brightest and hard working there are, and many will (correctly) see their talent wasted in a field where their income and opportunities and freedom are limited. There will be other places where they can apply their talents that will provide much greater opprtunities for elevating themselves. They WILL opt for those instead.

    4. For the same reason, a VERY LARGE percentage of the very highest quality potential med school candidates – particularly those who do not come from wealthy families – will never even apply to med school, knowing that it is a bad deal and that with their brains they can do much better elsewhere. This will cause less-qualified applicants to be accepted, meaning more students flunking out, or incompetent doctors graduating, the end result either way being fewer competent doctors.

    The final end game will be that kids from independently wealthy families who are extremely bright and have the desire to be doctors will do so, and pretty much everyone else applying to med school will be far less qualified than what we’ve become used to seeing – lesser kids who won’t mind accepting a much-reduced salary than current doctors and crushing debt because the ultimate income is still more money than their brains and talent would allow them to make anywhere else.

    The overall number of doctors will be less, not more, and many if not most of the new graduates will be less qualified and less competent. Also, take into account the fact that competition for other fields – engineering, business, law – will become much more acute, because people who otherwise weren’t competing for those spots and who are highly talented will now be vying for those areas.

    Is all of this mercenary? Some is, perhaps.

    Yet who can blame the doctor who sees his neighbors voting in a government which curtails the doc’s salary so the same neighbor can have lower health care costs and is outraged enough to leave his profession?

    Who could blame the doc for coming to the conclusion that the neighbor who would use the government as a bludgeon to force doctors to make less money so that said neighbor could have more doesn’t deserve high-quality health care, period?

    I know I couldn’t.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "showed Ca as being basically "balanced" in inflows/outflows."
    ---
    Yeah, wetback inflows balance professional outflows.

    Hopelessly ill-informed.

    ReplyDelete
  71. But my main point is the state of California's economy/budget.

    Disasterous.
    Just read how much spending was up over past decade, but don't recall.

    HIGH!

    ReplyDelete
  72. "California increased spending 95% over the past 10 years (federal spending went up 71% over the same period). To bail out California now seems unfair to fiscally prudent states.

    Was the economist Herb Stein wrong when he said that if something cannot go on forever, it won't?

    Medicaid grew 9.5% annually over the past 10 years. That's unsustainable. But if Congress opens the checkbook now, there will be no reform.
    "

    I agree Mark Sanford is a pathetic A-Hole, but not because of those observations of FACT.

    ReplyDelete
  73. 32 Million more innocent babies will die sooner thanks to "Healthcare"

    ReplyDelete
  74. (Mon Mar 22, 06:31:00 AM EDT)

    ReplyDelete
  75. "That's unsustainable."

    Rufie waves that off with a wave of his magic wand.

    Death panels, and rationed, lower quality care.

    ReplyDelete
  76. All insurance premiums grew at approx. 9%. Ca became unsustainable. Now, they're having to cut back. Thass wha happens in nature.

    Them Doctors ain't going nowhere. They make danged good money, and have tremendous social prestige. The only ones I've seen give it up are the ones that got caught pushing drugs (er, overprescribing painkillers.)

    And, usually, if you look closely you'll find that the ones that "no longer take medicare" are the ones that got caught double-billing. At least, according to a friend that's a Medical "Encoder."

    ReplyDelete
  77. Dearly departed encounters turbulence @ BC:

    60. peterike:

    Bob @33. "Only the singing I like. And the sharing of the peace."

    Ugh.
    Those were two things that, to me, signaled the demise of the Catholic church in America. The singing became insipid nonsense, treacly guitar-strum songs about helping the poor. Yikes.

    And the “peace be with you” nonsese. An overtly Commie agit-prop moment delivered right in the middle of the Mass. It was all downhill from there.

    Who aint a slave? Tell me that. — Herman Melville, “Moby Dick”

    ReplyDelete
  78. You've got "death panels," now, dumshit.

    And, how can you get lower quality than "NO Care?"

    ReplyDelete
  79. Have you EVER heard of someone who didn't get an abortion because they couldn't afford it?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Hey, Trish:
    re: Scumbag Cheney -

    Your hero, The General, Powell, endorsed the Marxist that is now POTUS, over one of his heros, a Pub-Traitor "Moderate."

    ...a minor thing, compared to standing by while another man is being sent to jail because of his silence.

    Scumbag racist traitor.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Suppose I were an Idiot, and a Politician - but, I repeat myself

    Samuel Clemens

    ReplyDelete
  82. rufus said...
    Have you EVER heard of someone who didn't get an abortion because they couldn't afford it?

    WHAT does that mean?

    ReplyDelete
  83. What I know:
    Giving billions to "Planned Parenthood"
    will increase abortions.

    ReplyDelete
  84. "The singing became insipid nonsense, treacly guitar-strum songs about helping the poor."

    There were so many panhandlers in my little neighborhood in Bogota. I figured I couldn't reasonably help every one. So after a time I adopted one guy - a one-eyed, would-be flower-peddler, probably fifty years old but looking much older.

    He was there in front of the Olimpica most Sunday evenings. And I gave him the equivalent each time of about ten bucks.

    What did he do with it?

    It never mattered to me.

    I really don't understand the gross indifference to the pain and suffering of others that seems to eat away at the GOP now.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I think I understand it. Times are tough, and they suspect they, themselves, might be to blame; so they deflect onto the "poor."

    Actually, times are tough partly because the rich, and the powerful screwed the pooch on housing; but, also, an ever-increasing portion of the blame is/will be "energy," specifically, Oil.

    ReplyDelete
  86. We've spent a $Trillion in Iraq. That's a pretty large chunk.

    We're, also, sending $800 Million Every Day out the door for oil that will, most assuredly, never see the inside of Rufus's pocket. That's $280 Billion/Yr.

    It's like a chronic pain. You "feel" it, but don't know what's causing it.

    ReplyDelete
  87. "I really don't understand the gross indifference to the pain and suffering of others that seems to eat away at the GOP now."
    ---

    I really don't understand the gross indifference to the pain and suffering that results from socialism.

    Every
    Time
    It's
    Tried

    ReplyDelete
  88. If you will remember, the "recession" actually started way before the "Crisis."

    The Recession started not too long after I started harping about "Peak" Oil.

    It must be "all my fault." :)

    ReplyDelete
  89. ...most of the pain and suffering in this country NOW is caused by bleeding heart liberal policies.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Pelosi's bleeding heart extravagently spends our money as she socks her multi-millions away.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Rufus:
    Right on Energy,
    Wrong on Socialism.

    ReplyDelete
  92. ...pardon my fair and balanced rationality.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Doug, what You call "socialism" is what most of us call "what works."

    You try to pretend that having a "safety net," financed by the wealthiest is the same thing as Soviet Communism. It's not, and you, constantly, claiming it is won't make it so.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Actually, I ended up adopting a rather largish number of individuals, in any number of ways.

    But just one panhandler.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Hey, Trish:
    Conservatives far outspend liberals in giving to charity.

    Keep trying,
    you may like it.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Nancy Pelosi hasn't had any "bleeding" parts since menopause. She's simply a power-mad politician that happens, this time, to be on the right side of history.

    We'll smack her around good, next time, when she'll be on the wrong side - ie Cap n Trade, and Immigration.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Never claimed it's like Russia, Rufie:
    Whatever you want to call the European mix of socialism and capitalism will do.

    It don't work.

    Neither do Hugo, Castro, and whoever is now in charge of Haiti.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Well, I dunno, Dougie. The Euros have gone a bit further than I would want, but They seem happy enough.

    Castro? Come on. Hugo? . . .

    I mean, hell, I could say Fox/Calderone - Mexico. What would it mean?

    ReplyDelete
  99. I think it's called a mixed economy.

    ReplyDelete
  100. "What would it mean?"
    ---
    It means our Marxist POTUS who you are now praising, kisses their ass, while apologizing for us.

    ReplyDelete
  101. "The Dems did good. "

    Man, did they ever!

    ReplyDelete
  102. The dog, bless her sweet heart, is legendary.

    ReplyDelete
  103. You still don' get it you dumb motherfucker. I'm not praising the man. I'm Praising the Product.

    ReplyDelete
  104. You keep trying to pretend there's a difference in those sorry sonofabitches, and I'm here to tell you there ain't.

    Some just happen to be right, "today."

    ReplyDelete
  105. But, if there's a "difference" explain to me how the Pubs were all for the Drug Plan, and the Dems were agin it, and then they flip-flopped when it came to the HC plan.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Explain how Obama excoriated Hillary when she said she favored "Mandates," and now he figgers we "gotta hav'em."

    ReplyDelete
  107. Explain to me, please, how we could "afford" the war in Iraq, but the same amount of money for healthcare In America will "Destroy the Country."

    ReplyDelete
  108. Well, Goddammit, Trish, Tell Me.

    I'm "Lost," and I wanna be "Found."

    ReplyDelete
  109. Yeah, it's the end of LAWKI. But somebody forgot to tell Mr. Market. Market Up - Healthcare Shares Flying


    naive bitches.

    ReplyDelete
  110. "We will be a Stronger Country as a result."

    Yeah, right.

    Because there's nothing like a good old-fashioned elitist government coup to make the Country Stronger. We used to live in a Representative Democracy governed by the will of the people. At least in name. Now all pretenses have been dropped. We bow to the decisions of our betters. Once upon a time, a message was delivered to King George that that was not acceptable. Think what you will about the benefits of universal health care, but is it worth the shredding of the constitution?

    I'm sure some think so. After all, it's just a piece of paper. Business as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  111. "We used to live in a Representative Democracy governed by the will of the people."

    ummm, Chach ole boy, what do you think "Representative Democracy" is if it isn't to mean electing representatives? Are you saying we used to conduct a poll of all the people to decide each issue, pass each law?

    ReplyDelete
  112. rat, among others, might enjoy this story:

    "Neil Reynolds
    What do bankers and the Wizard of Oz do? They tell stories


    This is the Bank of Canada's intellectual arrogance – not so much its assertion that central bankers saved the world from catastrophe in the meltdown of 2008 but rather its silence on the role of central bankers in causing the crisis.

    ..."

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/what-do-bankers-and-the-wizard-of-oz-do-they-tell-stories/article1504904/

    ReplyDelete
  113. I don't think that's right. The chart I saw recently showed Ca as being basically "balanced" in inflows/outflows.

    Inflows northbound.

    Outflows eastbound.

    Balanced. Nothing to see. Just move along.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Ash, if you believe that the will of the people was demonstrated on Sunday, you're dumber than Rufus.

    What was demonstrated on Sunday was the power of a coercive White House and a corrupt Congressional leadership.

    ReplyDelete
  115. It was, simply, representative democracy in action. The representatives did their thing.

    ReplyDelete
  116. I have a question for Rufus. What color is the "It's For the Poor and the Chirdren" koolaid that he's addicted to.

    Powerful stuff, whatever the color.

    I don't have to wait for the consequences of ObamaCare to reveal themselves. They already have in the case of my own and my family's medical care. Anyone who thinks things will just get better is in denial of basic principles.
    Rationing and bean counters overriding physicians being two specific areas.

    Here's a specific quote from a letter just received titled Notice of Denial of Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage:

    We denied this request because: the request did not meet the exception criteria. It is encouraged that you try 2 formulary alternatives for at least a period of 30 days each [list followed].

    What's unmentioned is that the M.D. neurologist in private practice had prescribed a particular drug that effectively protected the patient from seizures and enabled that patient to lead a normal life. The formulary was a joke. Trust me. The qualifications of the bean counter? I was told he was a registered pharmacist. They couldn't tell me when or where he graduated from medical school or where he completed his residency.

    ReplyDelete
  117. you are pissed because the socialist Medicare system won't pay for your drugs? Use your own cash then.

    ReplyDelete
  118. No, Ash.

    I wasn't pissed because your socialist system wouldn't pay for my prescriptions.

    I was quite happy with my own private insurance and medical arrangements until I turned 65 and came into the Medicare pool. Here's what happened in a nutshell: The private insurance notice said I could opt out of the Medicare coverage, but their benefits, if I did opt out, would be limited to their obligations if I was a Medicare patient. So the consequences are that I maintain the insurance plan for the Part D prescription coverage, pay the added Medicare premium, and in effect get lower benefits all around. I recently had to change primary care providers. I was very fortunate to find one that I like who is still taking new patients. His administrative staff outnumbers his medical staff by about 2 to 1. Don't try to tell me the evil insurance company is the problem. The insurance company is just doing what Congress and the government tell them they can do.

    The issue of the anti-seizure medication is not for me. What's interesting is that the same medicine has been approved for about 18 months with no problem. Now, out a clear blue sky, the patient cannot get the medicine needed, and his doctor is told by a pharmacist to put him back on medications that have been proven ineffective.

    Furthermore, Ash, Fuck you and your smarmy comments.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Nooo...he''s pissed because the system is suppose to work and it didn't.

    It's a bunch of red tape bullshit and critical time when our, oh so wonderful government, decides something is not right for you after months of being right, that we have to go through just to make things right.

    Socialized or not.

    ReplyDelete
  120. LT, has the patient taken the "alternate" medicines before?

    The VA does this. You don't get Nexium, you get ameprozole (which works just fine.) Also, you don't get Crestor, you get simvastatin (generic Zocor.) Which, also, works just fine, at least, for me.

    Anyway, if the drug has proven ineffective on that particular patient I'll bet you can get the other stuff. If that patient hasn't tried the alternative they're going to insist on trying it.

    ReplyDelete
  121. I was taking Crestor when I started using the VA. They put me on 20mg simvastatin. It didn't quite do as well as Crestor. They upped me to 80mg simvastatin, and it worked just fine (and saved the taxpayer a shitload of money.)

    ReplyDelete
  122. In my case, I'd say the system worked perfectly. I got the treatment I needed, and the American Taxpayers didn't pay an arm, and a leg.

    ReplyDelete
  123. The system will continue to deteriorate. Sunday's events will just accelerate the process.

    Many functional alternatives to ObamaCare have been proposed. Some sensible approaches described right here at the bar, including WiO's suggestion from a few days ago.

    Instead we get wholesale overhaul of a system that wasn't broken because of a politically contrived "crisis."

    Trust Rufus. There's nothing buried in those hundreds of pages of unread legislation that will have long term negative consequences. All will be wellness, health and prosperity will be the norm, now that the poor and the chirden are covered.

    Just ask the Canadians who've been coming to the states for treatment, or the lines of waitees in the UK, or the expanded crowds waiting for ER attention in Mass.

    ReplyDelete
  124. In Canada the socialized medical system pays very little toward prescription drugs. You pay private insurance companies for coverage. Private insurance companies will deny the use of some drugs depending on your plan. It is frustrating when the system functions like that but what can you expect? You certainly don't want socialized medical coverage to offer everyone a 'Cadillac plan' and insurance companies gotta protect their bottom line. How is any of this an indictment of Socialized medicine?

    ReplyDelete
  125. Now, goddammit, LT, if you're going to pretend to quote me, at least be accurate. I never said that this is a perfect bill.

    I would have done a Lot of things differently. Esp in the area of drugs.

    However,

    it will provide medical care to a whole lot of people that DO NOT Have Medical care, and it WON'T cost as much, or be as bad, as the right wing talking heads are hyperbolating it will.

    Some people Will find it a little more inconvenient than what they have Now.

    BUT,

    some people are "Inconveniently" Dying from lack of quality healthcare in the richest country on Earth. That's unacceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  126. In my case, I'd say the system worked perfectly.

    In your case it's because you are fortunate to be covered by VA.

    Your lofty posturing on what's good for the rest of the country needs to be weighed by that simple fact.

    You are personally unaffected, until your heroes in Washington get around to tampering with your vets' benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  127. You didn't answer my question. Has the patient tried the "alternate" treatment?

    ReplyDelete
  128. I am fortunate. Back in the early 80's I was self-employed, and had a very high deductible hc policy.

    I developed a hydrocoel, and decided I'd try the VA. They fixed it, and somehow I seem to have gotten "grandfathered in." I read later that they had changed their criteria, etc, and was surprised a few years ago, when, on a whim, I decided to see if I could still get coverage. I was hoping to get a co-pay on my drugs. I flew right through. Just one of those things, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Yes. For thirty years, in some cases. I said the formulary was a joke. You don't trust me? Maybe I should put you in touch with the neurologist.

    ReplyDelete
  130. LT, LT, LT. Son. It won't be the first time the assholes in Washington have tampered with ol Rufus's ass. Trust me on this one. The last day I considered this old ass "tamper-proof" was the first day of Boot Camp.

    LT, I have kids, and grandkids. They could easily find themselves w/o a job, and with a serious pre-existing condition.

    Hell, like I said, this deal goes the wrong way, and I could lose my income. I don't Think that will happen, but you never know.

    But, I still support this bill. I'm an old beat-up fart, and my kids have their lives in front of them. I support it for the kids. :)

    ReplyDelete
  131. I trust you. The post just wasn't clear on that point. In fact, I still don't understand. The patient used the "Alternative" drug for 30 Yrs?

    ReplyDelete
  132. I was hoping to get a co-pay on my drugs. I flew right through. Just one of those things, I guess.

    Your situation and mine are very similar, except in one key aspect.

    Timing.

    You'd already established your benefits prior to January, 2003, I would bet. If you hadn't, you'd have been summarily rejected unless you packed your belongings around in a shopping cart and lived on the streets. You would have received full benefits without copay if you were destitute. I don't have any grudge against VA or any of those receiving benefits. I was just late in applying, as was revealed when I was notified that there were irregularities between my financial situation and their means test criteria, after I'd been in the program for about a year. If I were to blame anyone, it is the politicians. I enjoyed it while I had it.

    ReplyDelete
  133. I think I lucked out in how I'm paid, also. ie very poorly. :)

    ReplyDelete
  134. yeah, evidently, using the VA for that hydrocoel "established" me in the system.

    ReplyDelete
  135. One of the alternative drugs on their formulary was Dilantin, a barbituate that was prescribed when the patient was an infant. The drug that was prescribed and denied, was a modern "miracle" drug, if you will, that covers a spectrum of relevant symptoms, including seizures. That's all I have to say.

    When pharmacists sucking the government's tit can overrule the prescriptions of MD's because their quarterly bureaucratic marching orders have changed what's approvable, we're already in the throes of those dark predictions of the wingnuts on the right.

    ReplyDelete
  136. 20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

    With House Democrats poised to pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.

    Of course, the overhaul is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. W More..e may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

    The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

    1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

    2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

    3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

    4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

    5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

    6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

    You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

    7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

    8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

    9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

    10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

    ReplyDelete
  137. 11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

    12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

    13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

    14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

    15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

    16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

    The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

    17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

    18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

    ReplyDelete
  138. 19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

    That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

    20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough

    ReplyDelete
  139. Well, I sure hope it works out for you, LT. I can see why you're mad. I would be too.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Thanks, Rufus.

    For what it's worth, I'm no less sympathetic to the needs of folks outside the insurance umbrella than you are.

    I just believe firmly that there are good alternatives to what's transpired, and we haven't seen the worst of it.

    I suspect we'll never agree on the means to achieve the outcomes we both hope for.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Changes will be made, LT. Nothing is written "in stone" in America.

    ReplyDelete
  142. I find it hard to believe that ACORN is disbanding.
    (to return under another name?)

    ReplyDelete
  143. 131. Delia:


    125. bob:

    “Look, Delia, women don’t have to get pregnant. It’s really mostly up to you.”

    ZOMG! I didn’t realize I could impregnate myself!

    The douche abides.

    I’m glad my husband got a vasectomy since he enjoys sex a lot more than I.

    Especially if I can get more and longer enjoyment out of eating a plate of well prepared Sushi than I can out of a few seconds in the sackola.

    You boyz act like giving birth and being pregnant is somehow ‘nothing’. Your ‘quickie’ might mean a woman’s ‘9 months’ of pain and misery. And some of ya men-folk, ya wonder why women look at sex as a ‘chore’? lol

    As much as abortion sickens me, men who self-serve in the sack are just as sickening. It takes TWO to make an ABORTION.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Raw fish, or sex.
    You decide.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Here's an Interesting little chart

    Basically, it shows that as prices rose production increased Until Production got to a little over 74 million bpd. Then, it didn't matter how high prices got you just couldn't get any more production.

    ReplyDelete
  146. [...]

    I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

    So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

    - David Frum




    Rush comes out today and asks, "Why did this happen?" Rush's answer is simple. It happened because we have a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. And while noting that the only cure is to elect more Republicans, he rather actively discourages anyone from looking back beyond the most recent elections in an attempt to understand why we have the Democratic majority that we do.

    It's all fine and good to investigate the past, Rush says, but really, what's the point?

    I really don't think that Rush, Hannity, Levin and Co. are particularly pleased with themselves or content with matters as they are. I think they do care about electoral and legislative victories. At the same time, I don't think they understand at all why the Party is in its current position.

    And as some strategist or other observed, it is because they don't that the Party's fortunes will continue to deteriorate.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Both Novozymes, and Dupont-Danisco have announced Game-changing Breakthroughs in "Enzyme" prices for cellulosic (switchgrass, corn cobs, poplar trees, etc.)

    We're talking production costs of approx. $2.00/gal. This is huge.

    I made this comment at another blog:

    figuring 700 gallons/acre it will take about 14,000 acres or 4.7 miles square to produce 10 Million gal of Cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass, poplar, etc. You could supplant some of this with agricultural waste (corn cobs/stover, wheat straw, etc.)

    Put one plant on the North end of the county, one on the South. Use about 4% of your most “marginal” land. 60 Billion Gal/yr. Doesn’t even include the 7 to 10 Million gal/yr for each county for municipal solid waste. Another 21 to 30 Billion gallon/yr for the U.S. as a whole.

    Plus, of course, the 15 Billion Gallons from Corn Ethanol. Brings you to 95 Billion gpy; add in some fuel efficiency for our vehicles, and we’ll be wondering what to do with all of our Domestically-produced oil.

    This is really, really easy.

    ReplyDelete
  148. And to repeat what I said earlier to dear host: Help Is NOT On The Way.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Looks like we may need to rebrand the EB as Beetlejuice or somesuch.

    ReplyDelete
  150. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, anywhere from a third to a half of all practicing doctors say they would leave their profession if the President's health care plan passes. As reported by CNS News, "a majority of physicians said health care reform would cause the quality of American medical care to 'deteriorate' and it could be the 'final straw' that sends a sizeable number" of their peers out of the field. Not only would these doctors leave their profession, but 63% would urge others to steer clear of it as well.

    Opposing Views: Up to Half of Doctors will Quit

    ReplyDelete
  151. Here's an email making the rounds:
    Subject: Retribution is less than 1 year away!

    Take a look at this and just remember elections in November 2010.

    1. U.S. House & Senate have voted themselves $4,700 and $5,300 raises.
    2. They voted to NOT give you a S.S. Cost of living raise in 2010 and 2011.
    3. Your Medicare premiums will go up $285.60 for the 2-years
    4. You will not get the 3% COLA: $660/yr.
    5. Your total 2-yr loss and cost is -$1,600 or -$3,200 for husband and wife.
    6. Over these same 2-years each Congress person will get $10,000
    7. Do you feel SCREWED?
    8. Will they have your cost of drugs - doctor fees - local taxes - food, etc., decrease?
    9. NO WAY.

    Congress received a raise and has better health and retirement benefits than you or I.

    Why should they care about you?
    You never did anything about it in the past. You obviously are too stupid or don't care. Do you really think that Nancy, Harry, Chris, Charlie, Barnie, et al, care about you?

    Send the message to these individuals --- “YOU'RE FIRED!”
    In 2010 you will have a chance to get rid of the sitting Congress: up to 1/3 of the Senate and 100% of the House!

    Make sure you're still mad in November 2010 and remind their replacements not to screw-up.

    It is ok to forward this to your sphere of influence if you are finally tired of the abuse. Maybe it's time for Amendment 28 to the Constitution..

    28th Amendment will be as follows:
    "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

    Let's get this passed around, folks - these people in Washington have brought this upon themselves! It's time for retribution. Let's take back America ..

    If you don't forward this to all your friends you're just part of the problem of national apathy.

    ReplyDelete
  152. There's a lot of anger out there amongst people who will vote.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Nothing like starting your day with someone @7:29 speaking a curse on you.

    :(

    ReplyDelete
  154. My next comment was:

    I’ve got to think that we’ll be able to “cookie-cutter” these cellulosic plants in for $3.00/gal per year, or about $30 Million for a 10 Million/yr facility. That brings our cost for the cellulosic facilities to around $180 Billion – or, about what we’re spending in the Afpaki/Gulf region, now. Except, it’s a ONE-TIME investment, not a Yearly investment.

    The Bad Part: This probably does NOT give Exxon the warm, and fuzzies.

    Nor does it give orgasms to the eco-armageddonists that want us to move back into the caves and slowly starve to death.

    ReplyDelete
  155. I think she secretly has the hots fer'im.

    ReplyDelete
  156. "Nothing like starting your day with someone @7:29 speaking a curse on you."

    Perhaps I needed to be more specific. I meant political failure. I wish no private reversal on anyone.

    But in addition to merely deserving political misfortune, that's what they're actually going to get.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Nothing like starting your day with someone @7:29 speaking a curse on you.

    One need only consider the source, from whose perspective Mark Levin is dismissed as the Joe Pesci of conservatives.

    Arrrgh.

    Enough! I have several separate tax returns to do. I let myself be easily distracted around tax time.

    ReplyDelete
  158. "...from whose perspective Mark Levin is dismissed as the Joe Pesci of conservatives."

    That's exactly what he is. And you can't convince me that that's not a considerable element of attraction for his listeners.

    He is Tommy DeVito in Goodfellas.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Back on topic: the consequences of the historic vote on hellcare.

    Two predictions:
    1. Higher taxes; probably a VAT.
    2. Deep cuts in the military.
    3. Of course, longer working lives and more austere retirements are a given regardless of the hellcare reform.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Oh, here's another prediction. This is the beginning of the end for health insurance companies. This is a giant step toward a single-payer system.

    ReplyDelete
  161. That jackass is Goodfellas was anything but attractive. No one shed a tear when he got whacked.

    ReplyDelete
  162. In any event, you have millions and millions of Americans who are under the everyday sway of these political entertainers who, guided by mundane self-interest or not, have contributed to the Republican Party's decline by encouraging an impossibly narrow view of things.

    "Ideological cocooning," as one person put it.

    ReplyDelete
  163. I just saw the movie again recently and finally recognized Lorraine Bracco. I had only known her for her work in The Sopranos.

    ReplyDelete
  164. "That jackass is Goodfellas was anything but attractive."

    Whit, the man is an outright jackass to his own callers.

    ReplyDelete
  165. I guess the reason I have no respect for the Rush Limbaughs, Mark Levins of the world is they are just bloviators.

    For ex: If they had "Read" the bill they would realize that it has one very important failing.

    The Bill CANNOT WORK as Written.

    And, here's why: The penalty for a man making $100,000.00/yr, and not carrying his $10,000.00 family health plan is $2,500.00.

    Well, if that man doesn't cancel his policy, and then apply again in the case that someone in his family does get very sick he's a fool. And, if he's making that kind of money he isn't a fool.


    Anyway, you're going to have many fewer people taking out health insurance than is being projected.

    ReplyDelete
  166. That's some good 魔术表演.

    ReplyDelete
  167. It doesn't matter whether it will work as written, the camel's nose is under the tent.

    ReplyDelete
  168. I think I have some George Dickel left in the cabinet... manana.

    ReplyDelete
  169. In the morning-after analyses, at least one prominent Republican commentator questioned his party's strategy of outright opposition to the health-care bill. David Frum, who was a speechwriter for former President George W. Bush, said the health care debate amounts to the party's "most crushing defeat" in four decades.

    ...

    But, said Axelrod: "I think the debate shifts now. The issue for those talking about repeal is whether they're going to look the small business people in the eye or the children and say this was horrible.

    I'm happy to have that debate."


    Frame Health-care Bill for the Midterms

    ReplyDelete
  170. But at a news conference, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton offered no details about what sanctions, if any, the bloc might impose. She said the specifics would be worked out later.

    "We are very concerned about what is happening in terms of broadcasting," said Catherine Ashton. "We have not yet moved further forward in terms of what further actions to take.

    ...

    Separately, Ashton condemned recent clashes in the West Bank between Palestinians and the Israeli military that left several people dead. She called for an investigation into the incidents.


    Censorship/Jamming

    ReplyDelete
  171. Well, at some point they will have to make the fine equivalent to what the health insurance policy would cost, and, maybe, even add on a little "criminal" penalty, to boot.

    THAT should be a hell of a debate.

    ReplyDelete
  172. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  173. The Centre for Public Policy Priorities in Austin, the Texan capital, says the bulk of those not covered are on low wages in jobs without health insurance and cannot afford the high premiums. "Part of the assumption is that there are still some who will chose to remain uninsured," said Anne Dunkelberg, associate director of the centre.

    ...

    But the state has deeper objections to the new law. The governor, Rick Perry, says Texas will launch a legal challenge to the legislation as unconstitutional and an infringement on personal liberty.

    "Unfortunately, the health care vote had more to do with expanding socialism on American soil than it does fixing our health care finance and delivery systems," said Perry. "The Obama health care bill undermines patient choice, personal responsibility, medical innovation and fiscal responsibility in America."


    Illegal Immigrants Excluded

    ReplyDelete
  174. "Well, at some point they will have to make the fine equivalent to what the health insurance policy would cost, and, maybe, even add on a little "criminal" penalty, to boot."

    Good god, Rufus.

    Although I didn't agree with you regarding your position on HC, I at least gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that yours was a principled (albeit ill-informed) position.

    But now you lost me.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  175. Well, Q, that wasn't a "value judgement." It was, simply, a statement of fact. No one (or, hardly anyone) will buy the health insurance.

    At that point it'll be too late to "scrap" the bill. They'll have to act. They all know this. Or, at least they should. I can't imagine how they wouldn't.

    Don't shoot the "messenger." I didn't write the bill.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Of course, this would have been a good thing for the pubs to bring up, and they didn't; so maybe they are that stupid. Who knows?

    ReplyDelete
  177. IRS to expand by $10 billion and 16K employees.

    Agents are needed to review new tax form to assure that your insurance policy meets the new government minimum coverage.

    IRS will have the responsibility to judge whether your policy meets the minimum standard and the authority issue fines and penalties.

    This is also probably the first step in starting to tax health benefits.

    The middle class takes it in the ass again.

    (But hey, 16,000 more government jobs)


    .

    ReplyDelete
  178. Well, either ALL health benefits should be paid for with before tax dollars, or ALL benefits should be paid for with AFTER tax dollars.

    As it is now, those with jobs at the right companies get their benefits with before tax dollars, and the unfortunate individual has to pay with After tax dollars.

    Theoretically, it should work out the same, but I believe you would have a hard time selling the "theory" to the guy shelling out with after tax dollars.

    ReplyDelete
  179. "Well, either ALL health benefits should be paid for with before tax dollars, or ALL benefits should be paid for with AFTER tax dollars."

    Now your drawing distinctions?

    That's funny. It reminds me of your oft repeated comment, "Well we'll all be paying $1500 extra a year. But it will be worth."

    You won't be paying shit. Neither will I. Hell, there's subsidies written into this thing up to $96k per year for a family of four.

    With the subsidies the average working stiff will be getting a small decrease in costs. That is as long as his employer pays for health care. But people who are working and have to buy their own insurance (you know, the people who need the most help) will be the ones who see their costs go up daramatically.

    And how long do you think companies will continue to pay for benefits now that this is passed?

    The people who will be paying for this are the "rich", the middle class that pays for their own insurance, non-union workers, and those with "cadilac policies" (sometime in the mythical future).


    .

    ReplyDelete
  180. I think you're partly right. It will be paid for by those making over, oh I don't know, $100,000.00?

    Those young people that haven't been carrying insurance will, obviously, see their costs go up.

    I think your older, self employed, might actually catch a break, here. They tend to have more pre existing conditions, and have more mechanisms set up for "gaming" the code.

    Basically, though, it'll be the "Rich." Well, they've had a pretty good run, overall. Time to pay the piper.

    ReplyDelete
  181. We should get some sort of prestigious prize. We've done figured out that if you're going to subsidize the poor you'll have to tax the rich. Where do I pick up my award. Hope it's an "open" bar.

    ReplyDelete
  182. I feel like a regular Paul Krugerand.

    ReplyDelete
  183. "We should get some sort of prestigious prize."

    You can keep my prize. The rich will get by. They always do. But I personally don't think I deserve a prize for favoring people who work for companies that pay for insurance over those who have to buy their own, for favoring one state over another, for favoring union workers over non-union workers, for ordering people to buy the government's idea of a minimum level health insurance from private companies as a price for being alive in the US.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  184. Correctly your article helped me terribly much in my college assignment. Hats off to you send, intention look ahead in the direction of more related articles promptly as its united of my pet topic to read.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses.

    ...

    A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business.

    Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.


    Health Insurance

    ReplyDelete
  186. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asserted Israel's "right to build" in Jerusalem, following a row with the US over plans for new homes in the city.

    ...

    In his speech to a convention of the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), Mr Netanyahu said that "the Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago and the Jewish people are building it today".

    ...

    In Monday's speech, Mr Netanyahu also said that "Iran's brazen bid to develop nuclear weapons... is the threat to the entire world".


    'Right to Build'

    ReplyDelete
  187. The man was arrested by police and the school was closed following the attack, which occurred early in the morning as pupils were arriving.

    Three children died at the scene and five others succumbed to their injuries in hospital.

    The five who survived were said to be in stable condition, the report said, without giving their ages or other details.


    Hacker Doctor

    ReplyDelete