But two of the four didn't want to be saved.
Last Friday, KUOW's Gang of Four began by discussing Obama's health insurance plan. They did not begin well, since the host, Steve Scher, did not start with a substantive question, but instead began by asking the other three (Joni Balter of the Seattle Times, Michael Parks of Marple's Pacific Northwest Letter, and Eli Sanders of the Stranger) whether the citizens attending the townhall meetings on the plan were there as part of an "astroturf" campaign. In support of that possibility, Scher, showing a gift for choosing the most partisan columnists possible, cited Paul Krugman and our own Joel Connelly.
Balter took the bait, and told us that the demonstrations seem "so orchestrated". (Which explains, no doubt, the home-made signs held by opponents, and the professionally-printed signs held by supporters.)
Eli Sanders, who will not win last week's open-minded prize, went further. He was sure that the anti-Obama demonstrations were "profoundly un-American", that they were "stifling debate", that they "can't be taken seriously", and that those anti demonstrators are "honestly, idiots". (Oddly enough, a week or two before, Sanders had said that he liked leaders who "stomped on" opponents, assuming, of course, that those leaders were urban leftists, I suppose.) It is always a pleasure to hear from a professional journalist who respects people with different views.
After that diatribe, it was a pleasure to listen to Parks, who said that the subject was complex (no kidding!) and that he favored restricting end-of-life care. (Almost everyone who wants to reduce costs favors that, though most politicians are reluctant to say so.)
Steve Scher — who has, to the best of my knowledge, never studied polling — is certain that US polls showing that most people are satisfied with their own medical care must be wrong. He did not say whether he had sent this interesting conclusion to Gallup, Rasmussen, and other polling firms, so that they could correct their findings. Nor did he explain how he knew they were wrong, except that he, and people he knew, didn't feel that way. Perhaps he should get out more often. Or just listen to stations other than KUOW, from time to time.
(In general, US polls have found, again and again, that most people think their own coverage and care are good, but that we need reform nationally. Nothing paradoxical about that — but then I would say that, since that's my position.)
At this point, I was beginning to think that the hour would be wasted, but then "Andrew" called in. Andrew began by saying that the nation can't afford Obama's plan (an obvious point, but no one there, other than Parks, seemed to understand it). He then went on to describe his own plan, a combination health savings account and very high deductible ($2500) plan from Regence Blue Shield. According to Andrew, that plan costs him $152 a month. A conventional plan had cost him about $500 dollars a month, before he switched. After he meets the yearly deductible, the coverage is similar to that from an ordinary Blue Shield plan.
Now at this point, I thought that the Gang had two choices: They could be journalists, and ask Andrew to describe his plan more fully, or they could be Democratic party hacks, and attack him for even bringing up this idea. To his credit, Scher gave Andrew plenty of time to describe his plan and to defend his ideas, although Scher — who is not always the best interviewer — did not ask him many questions. Parks contributed a few rational points, from time to time, but did not, as I would have, ask Andrew for more details.
Balter and Sanders reacted as if they had just heard from a vampire, though they used Obama talking points, rather than a cross, to ward off the threat. Neither even seem to understand why some, including Andrew, might want more freedom (fewer government mandates) even at the cost of some economic inequality. Nor were they able to answer Andrew's point that it is better not to have people (that is, government bureaucrats) between a patient and a doctor.
After Andrew hung up, the rest of the discussion on health insurance was mostly wasted, with callers reciting stale Democratic talking points, and the Gang mostly agreeing with them.
Scher, who always tries to promote the work of his panel, asked Parks what the economic outlook was for this area. Parks, citing a Philadelphia federal reserve study, said the outlook was terrible.
After that cheerful note, the Gang had a brief discussion of the "cash-for-clunkers" program. Balter did not appear to understand that a more efficient stimulus, such as a temporary cut in social security taxes, would have been better. And Parks had to remind her, when she plugged electric cars, that the biggest source of electricity in this country is burning coal.
The program ended with a brief discussion of Clinton's trip to North Korea and the Sotomayor nomination. Balter, who was not having a good day, thought that the most important thing about the trip was that it showed that Clinton was back. (I would have thought that the most important thing was the effect on a nuclear-armed dictatorship, but I am not a professional journalist, so I am probably wrong about that.) And, of course, Steve Scher hopes that Hispanic voters will be moving away from the Republican party. (As they moved away from the Democratic party after the attacks on Miguel Estrada and Alberto Gonzales, perhaps?)
The program was entertaining, and, in spite of the best efforts of Balter and Sanders, instructive.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at August 13, 2009 05:08 PM | Email ThisExpecting anything better from them than lies, obfuscation, and manipulation is pure folly. Arguing with them is folly as well. They are going to support their plan come hell or high water, and sensible freedom loving people (conservatives and moderates) will defend their freedoms against it and do whatever is necessary to reject the Obama proposal. Accepting ANY PART of this plan is bad for America.
Hopefully Obamacare is dead this year.
Remove government from health care, tighten up regulation of our immigration laws, and Tort reform legislation will solve our problems.
This is not a matter of whether or not we have Obamacare but how long we must fight to defeat it. Most Americans will fight this to the end (whatever that has to be).
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on August 13, 2009 06:32 PMI wonder what these urnalists would do if they had to actually think for a change?
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 13, 2009 06:59 PMAs I have said before, I listen to it for somewhat the same reason that a pathologist studies diseased tissues. I am interested in how and why "mainstream" journalism is failing, and on the program the journalists are often more candid than they are in their writing.
This time, for instance, I wouldn't have written the program up if Balter and Sanders had not been so unwilling to hear what Andrew had to say. That showed something about both of them and, probably, about many other "mainstream" journalists.
Posted by: Jim Miller on August 13, 2009 08:11 PM1. The deductible is an annual calendar year deductible. If Andrew were to develop a chronic condition or an acute condition that required lengthy and expensive maintenance, he would have to pay the premiums, deductible, and copayments (up to $11,842 and rising) each year. Some young, single people could afford that -- for many others it would be a financial disaster.
It's not clear what happens if a major expense occurs near the end of the year and part of the treatment extends into the next year.
2. Most HSAs provide no prescription medication coverage. Others offer maybe $2000/year of coverage. There are many serious conditions that require prescription drug treatments that can cost thousands per month, so this represents a serious whole even if one is only looking for catastrophic or major medical coverage. (It really doesn't make sense to offer limited coverage for routine prescription costs in an otherwise high-deductible plan -- but for some reason, that's all that's available.)
3. HSA plans in Washington are not necessarily portable to other states. If Andrew should develop health problems and want to move to another state, he could find that he can't continue his coverage and he won't be able to purchase suitable coverage at a reasonable cost at his destination.
4. There are plenty of other exclusions which could add up to hefty medical bills -- limitations on ambulance service (no air evac coverage) and limitations on home medical equipment. These expenses can really add up with a serious illness or injury, so exclusions like this defeat the purpose of high-deductible medical insurance.
I'm all for high deductible plans designed to insure against financial catastrophe while leaving everyday expenses up to the consumer, but HSA plans today don't really provide that. Too bad Republicans aren't making useful suggestions about how to fix this instead of lying about government wanting to kill grandma...
Posted by: scottd on August 13, 2009 08:26 PMIn order to reform that system, McDermott feels, President Barack Obama will need to show steely nerve, and steady a Democratic-run Congress filled with "raw recruits who have never been through a big battle.""They're not taking any prisoners," McDermott said of health care opponents. "We know the opposition is not playing with anything approaching fairness or civility."
Joel appears to conflate those opposing a de facto government take over of our health care system to those opposed to ANY form of Health care whatsover.This may have just been an example of lazy reporting or careless editing by JC, but it speaks to the larger problem within the field of journalism in general today.
...and they wonder why the dead tree press version of this paper died?
Posted by: Rick D. on August 13, 2009 08:35 PMThere will be a special place in hell for Balter and Connelly.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 13, 2009 08:46 PMPoliticians who don't contribute a dime to our economy, can't be bothered by the public, and who behave far more like an oligarchy than representatives in a republic.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 13, 2009 08:53 PMLet me know if you have any substantive comments regarding the limitations I pointed out...
Posted by: scottd on August 13, 2009 09:01 PMI'm all for high deductible plans designed to insure against financial catastrophe while leaving everyday expenses up to the consumer, but HSA plans today don't really provide that. is utterly false.
I know because this is the exact plan I have. And this is exactly how I pay for my healthcare. They do provide exactly what Andrew says, and that's why we have them.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 13, 2009 09:07 PMAnd what makes you think that healthcare insurance is a right?
I haven't said that -- you're just making stuff up.
Posted by: scottd on August 13, 2009 09:22 PMI personally think individuals who go and buy the high deductible stuff ought to have some better options and some tax perks that kick in when catastrophe does strike. I'd rather reward people who solve this stuff on their own than people who turn to the government to solve their problems.
Government has uncompensated mandates on health care facilities to provide emergency care to anyone without regard to the patients ability to cover expenses. These expenses are then distributed by the health care facilities to paying customers to cover the cost of the mandate. This requires only the covered patients to unfairly pay the expenses of uncovered patient needs and dramatically increases overall health care service costs. An alternative government funding of mandates on health care facilities needs serious consideration to reduce costs to paying individuals. The government then should reserve the right to recoup those expenses from nonpaying economically capable individuals with punitive penalties and thus encourage individuals to step up to their responsibilities to cover their own expenses.
Doctors and healthcare facilities routinely charge uncovered individuals for services at a rate much greater than they would accept from an insurance company, HMO or other collective. This is grossly unfair to the rights of individuals and must be corrected in any revision to the health care system.
It has been reported that doctors may pay $250K a year for medical malpractice insurance. Health care facilities are burdened at even greater rates. Passing these expenses on to only the patients served seems to be inequitable under the tort laws currently in place. If society is unwilling to cap malpractice penalties with tort reform, alternatives to distribute expenses across a greater societal base would also seem appropriate.
These are a few of my thoughts on the health care issue. I would like to see a more quantitative discussion of issues. It does not require a thousand pages of law to address any of the issues I have defined. Each of the issues could be addressed in individual laws rather than a mind boggling comprehensive overhaul of the whole health care system.
Posted by: George on August 13, 2009 09:50 PMI too have a high deductible plan with an HSA. I also purchase a prescription supplement that offers $20/prescription copays (or the cost of the prescription, whichever is lower).
I use the interest in my HSA to pay for twice-annual dental cleanings.
I don't think you really know what an HSA is, and that - for individuals - it can be combined with a wide variety of insurance plans and supplements as needed.
But no matter, if the Pelosi/Obama/Reid triumvirate manage to push through HR 3200 these plans will be eliminated, and you won't have to worry about trying to follow these things. And Jeff and Andrew and I will have to go find new coverage. Oops, rather we'll have to go join the public plan, and start costing the Government thousands of dollars a year each.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 13, 2009 10:36 PMrick, yer analogies are false and repeated ad nauseum. can you do any better? or are you just a glenn beck broken record?
Posted by: mike on August 13, 2009 10:52 PMin fact, i have no problem w/ reverting tax rates back to what they were under your ubergoober reagan.
but then again, i'm not an anti-government moron hellbent on ruining this coutnry.
AML,
the problem isn't a leaky roof. the problem is there is no roof, the foundation has eroded. the walls are swiss cheese. the floors are deflecting so much not even a rat can walk on them. in other words, the house is f*cked and needs to be demolished and rebuilt.
Posted by: mike on August 14, 2009 12:10 AMYet you can't explain why, mike. The reason you can't do this is...they're correct to any clear minded individual not regurgitating White House talking points.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 14, 2009 05:44 AMA patient-centered health-care reform begins with individual ownership of insurance policies and leverages Health Savings Accounts, a low-premium, high-deductible alternative to traditional insurance that includes a tax-advantaged savings account. It allows people to purchase insurance policies across state lines and reduces the number of mandated benefits insurers are required to cover. It reallocates the majority of Medicaid spending into a simple voucher for low-income individuals to purchase their own insurance. And it reduces the cost of medical procedures by reforming tort liability laws.
This is exactly the combination that Dan, Andrew and I have. And it works for us now, even in a poorly defined and heavily regulated HMO market. It would work much better if there were a private and competitive nationwide healthcare insurance market, much like we have for auto insurance.
But the Obama droids here insist that their talking points outweigh sound and obvious economics. They talk about holes, which are nothing more than people who are unwilling to pull their own weight. We already have a system whereby no one is turned away for emergency medical care. And we can continue to have that system, and better more affordable insurance, if we don't go down the road of a single-payer, or soon to be single-payer government run mess.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 14, 2009 07:37 AMPlease explain how adding tens of millions of new consumers of Government health insurance will lower the absolute dollars the Government will pay, especially given than Medicare has grown 34% faster in costs than private insurance over the long run.
Go ahead, make the fiscal case for the Government takeover of health insurance.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 14, 2009 07:41 AMLiberals are generally unwilling to listen to differing points of view. Notice how they appear utterly stunned that the public is reacting negatively to Obama's plan. Liberals simply don't know how to react. A "journalist" such as Balter probably only knows other liberals, works in a building full of liberals, and vacations in places liberals congregate. They look down their noses at most of America, failing to realize that liberals actually only represent about 30% of the population.
It's like that old joke about the New York woman who was astonished when Nixon won the Presidency. How could that possibly be she wondered? No one she knew had voted for him.
For the record, my wife and I have a similar Regence Blue Shield plan to Andrew's. We pay $271 a month.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 14, 2009 07:50 AMAs Rick @ 9 wrote, "They're not taking any prisoners," McDermott said of health care opponents. "We know the opposition is not playing with anything approaching fairness or civility."
Taking Prisoners?
Those average citizens (my folks who won WWII)who are now called mobsters for asking questions and expressing concerns about their own vital rights at town meetings
will be treated the same way as patients once they are brought FULLY within the ambit of "Liberal" (Health Care) power.
It had better not be. This plan and those who have placed it before us need to be rebuked in the most decisive possible way.
Any government that decides to impose this debacle on our families in the name (only) of health care, will experience a revolt the likes of which it has never seen.
BTW McDermott speaks of "taking no prisoners," there's a little Freudian irony for you.
Posted by: Not Amused by Liberals on August 14, 2009 08:09 AMI would like to see a more quantitative discussion of issues.
Good luck with that. You won't find that here OR in the national debate. People seem more interested in attacking the political leanings of their opponents rather than actually solving problems.
I've tossed a few concepts and policy ideas around these forums but the conversations always turn into the same old, tired sniping among the same posters. It's just a microcosm of the national scene, so I should not put the blame here so much as chalk it up to the political climate. Maybe I'm just naive.
Posted by: Eyago on August 14, 2009 08:20 AMThe numbers have been analyzed and reviewed by both sides (each in their own ways) ad nauseam, and they are utterly irrelevant.
Have some sense of perspective about the real issue here.
What could numbers possibly have to do with individual Freedom?
Would you surrender your individual freedom to choose options for your life in exchange for free health care?
Admiral Howe enticed John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and John Jay to stop the revolution in just that way. Should they have accepted?
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on August 14, 2009 08:37 AMThe issue is absolutely individual freedom. But there are inequities in the current health care system that also need to be addressed and corrected without impinging on individual freedom. Mandates by government on individuals or institutions to address these inequities is the collectivist's tyrannical approach to solving societal problems. Incentivized motivation of individuals and institutions to accept their own responsibilities is a capitalist's approach to maintain some semblance of a reasonable level of freedom. To dismiss the collectivist approach without countering with equally or more effective concepts that reinforce societal values is subject to being ignored, particularly by our ill-informed and lazy representatives in Congress.
Posted by: George Campbell on August 14, 2009 09:37 AMAt the heart of this debate is the simplistic emotionally driven premise that Americans have a right to health care.
They do not.
Thank God and our founding fathers that through capitalism, America has lead the world in the field of health care.
Liberal/Socialists are nothing better than scavengers who pretend that a sleeping public is a corpse that should be devoured instead of awakened.
Now that the public is awakened to the risk, the scavengers accuse their victims of being mobsters for simply defending their own hides.
Care to elaborate on this bizarre statement?
"Steve Scher - who has, to the best of my knowledge, never studied polling"
Do you know Scher beyond listening to him on the radio?
How much knowledge of Scher do you have?
Have you studied polling Jim?
Where have you studied polling Jim?
What subject areas of polling should Scher study to bring his level of knowledge of polling to yours Jim?
It's your last 2 sentences that I think contribute to the whole sniping atmosphere that prevents any real meaningful discussions - not that liberals don't do exactly the same thing. Now mind you, I am quite in agreement with most conservative positions and I am getting less and less liberal every day, but I don't think the vast majority of liberals are "nothing better than scavengers".
There is a stark philosophical difference between the left and the right on the most effective way for society to manage itself. Liberals believe that utopia will be achieved when everyone has equal results (though at the same time trying desperately to highlight the very differences of each and every aspect of humanity from sexuality, race, gender, and a whole host of other things.) As a result, they tend to favor answers that look to guarantee that everyone gets a similar piece of the pie while rejecting any arguments to the contrary as coming from the greedy and racist who hate the under-privileged. We then devolve into a name-calling diatribe of unproductive rhetoric.
Still, there is more middle ground than one might believe if we stop and address the actual problems that exist, provided we actually discuss the problems that exist, and thus weigh the pros and cons of various "solutions" might entail. We have a tendency to dance at the periphery of those ideas while attacking the basic ideology of our opponents causing any rational part of our arguments to be drowned out.
There are plenty of problems for which there is both a rational statist and libertarian solution, and discussing the issue without denigrating the person who has a higher degree of compassion for the down-trodden or the person whose spirit of independence and freedom is their driving force will allow us (in my probably naive way of thinking) to weigh more critically the solutions that meet both sets of values: A safety net for the truly needy with a high degree of freedom to choose one's own plan.
That is what I would like to see happen every once in awhile in these forums.
Posted by: eyago on August 14, 2009 10:25 AMAs though Steve Scher's bona fides concerning polling are important in any way.
MikeMB, follows the liberal maxim, "when losing the argument, change the subject."
Hey BS, what if we conceded (for the sake of argument) that Steve Scher is a master polling Puba. What then?
Also, a link about the state of Oregon making a mistake (as you claim) with regards to to Mrs. Wagner would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Posted by: Gary on August 14, 2009 10:34 AMI have never heard him use any of the technical terms that some one familiar with polling would use, such as sample size, or confidence interval.
As for me, I did all the course work for a PhD in political science at the University of Rochester, but never finished my dissertation. That course work included, among other things, considerable study of polling techniques.
From time to time, I criticize errors by polling organizations, including Gallup and Pew, on my main site.
I hope that answers your questions.
Posted by: Jim Miller on August 14, 2009 10:41 AMIf you have an in depth understanding of polling, you are aware that health care is a very difficult area to poll the public, and that slight variations in the poll's questions can significantly skew the results.
As you may know interpretation of any/all polls regarding health care is subjective. Scher's interpretation may be different from yours (or mine), but it is certainly not a crazy outlier that demands questioning his credentials.
All serious analysts see and understand the ambivalence of the public on the issue - Scher's opinion is consistent in this regard.
I've had HSAs from two different sources that paid ALL prescription costs up to the max that I contributed to the plan.
Posted by: Mr. Conservative on August 14, 2009 11:19 AMonly some people can't 'pull their own weight'
fortunately, we live in a civilized society, not some a** backwards, selfish distopia you seem to prefer.
jeff, there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of tax breaks. even republicans do it all the time.
shanghai, the purpose of universal health care isn't to 'lower the absolute dollars the Government will pay' especially as the purpose of government isn't to not spend money. why do you think that's the case?
wrt 'Medicare has grown 34% faster in costs than private insurance over the long run.'
well, no kidding. private insurance CHERRY PICKS who it covers, denies coverage to high-cost patients and punts them to medicare/medicaid, caters to a younger and healthier population. that you don't seem to understand this isn't really a surprise.
gary, private insurance wasn't gouging the public as much at that point. there is a price to longevity
Posted by: mike on August 14, 2009 11:33 AMThanks for the response.
However, no one will lose anything worth while in life by accurately describing liberals as they are. You discuss a " stark philosophical difference between the left and the right on the most effective way for society to manage itself. and go on to describe the two variants writing that "Liberals believe that utopia will be achieved when everyone has equal results." I accept this premise, and assert that it forecloses any meaningful middle ground because it is an utter (explicit) falsehood about the nature of life itself.
Utopian thinking is foolish and counter-productive. Our Constitution guarantees rights that are unalienable. Discussing problems and weighing pros and cons of various "solutions" that alienate those individual rights is not moderation but political suicide. Eyago, there is no middle ground here. Half of individual freedom is not freedom.
Any presumption that liberals are more compassionate than conservatives is silly and stupid on its face. Liberals who wish to exhibit their supposed high-minded charity are free to help the poor out of their own pocket. Those who believe they are under-taxed are free to give more. Conservatives are busy capitalizing businesses where the poor may come to work and earn their own living.
The current discussion about health care is not about a "safety net," we already have health care "safety net" that has gone berserk providing health care to illegal aliens and others including many who do not need care.
I equate liberals with scavengers because it is an apt analogy. They are attempting to destroy the economy through huge indebtedness and then devour the corpse with socialism in the false promise that something can come from nothing. Only liberals are stupid enough to miss the realization that individual freedom is the heart of production and wealth, not government control. They are trying to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
Whatever your leanings (liberal or conservative) you need to come to terms that there is no middle ground here.
No matter what laws are created, so long as you live, you can never compromise your individual freedom to anyone. Only keep or lose it.
The simple unvarnished truth is that they cannot reconcile it (at least not honestly) because it is irreconcilable. They might be able to provide service to all (in varying degrees of quantity and quality), or they can reduce or contain the burgeoning costs of health care et al, but it is impossible to do both....unless you are a liar who intends to do neither.
Just like the deceitful marketeer who claims that he doesn't mind selling at a loss "Because I'll make it up in volume", the proposals promoted by hussein and the obamination administration cannot and will not deliver as promised.
And we all know it.
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 14, 2009 11:49 AMThe funny thing about absolutists and nihilists is the funny circular logic balls they get caught up in when attempting to argue their unsupportable claims.
along with this nugget
They [liberals] are attempting to destroy the economy through huge indebtedness
because ginormous spending increases from the bush administration actually did this, only the huge indebtedness was transferred to the backs of the poor, who were apparently trying to make a living in the conservative-led businesses that don't give a damn about health care, worker's rights, etc etc. meaning, they don't give a crap about their workers, just the money their workers are making them. awesome.
Posted by: mike on August 14, 2009 11:59 AMAre you an employer?
Posted by: Amused by Braindead Liberals on August 14, 2009 12:02 PMFunny. A statement in substitution for an argument accusing me of making unsupportable claims.
What circular logic balls?
Show me where we I am supposedly arguing unsupportable claims.
Posted by: Amused by Braindead Liberals on August 14, 2009 12:06 PMMedicare and Social Security are going broke.
I think a better window on how liberals "control costs" is public education. Is public education not constantly "underfunded" despite continually increased funding? Every single year Democrats cry for more school funding.
No rational person could possibly believe the same would not happen with nationalized healthcare. Of course it would.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 14, 2009 12:08 PMI've had HSAs from two different sources that paid ALL prescription costs up to the max that I contributed to the plan.
Mr C @48: I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear. I was referring to the high-deductible insurance plans that are paired with the HSA.
It's true that you can use all of the money you contribute to your own account to pay for prescription drugs -- but that's not insurance against a catastrophic illness or injury. Drug theraphies for some cancers or maintenance following transplant surgery can cost thousands of dollars per month. As far as I know, there are no HSA/High-deductible plans in Washington state that will cover this kind of expense -- although I would be happy to be corrected on this point.
The whole point of using an HSA in combination with high-deductible health insurance is to allow folks to handle routine costs themselves while insuring against lower probability events or developments that could wipe them out financially. HSA/HDHI plans offer some coverage that is useful for covering catastrophic hospitalization events, but they leave a large gap if your treatment requires expensive drug therapy or if you develop a chronic condition that requires large, ongoing expenses year after year.
Posted by: scottd on August 14, 2009 12:08 PMapparently you don't read your own scribbles...
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 14, 2009 12:14 PMRight. Because of course you can't see it.
Try again!
I equate liberals with scavengers because it is an apt analogy.
Still can't see it, can you? No surprise.
Posted by: Amused by Absolutists on August 14, 2009 12:18 PMmike I realize that you could go on and on and say almost nothing worth reading and your post at #54 proves it.
"ginormous spending increases from the bush administration actually did this,"
I was not in favor of the excessive spending during the Bush Administration, but what in the world does this have to do with the spending policies of our current administration?
This shallow evasive tactic proves nothing.
"[poor liberals] apparently trying to make a living in the conservative-led businesses that don't give a damn about health care[who] don't give a crap about their workers, just the money their workers are making them?"
What liberal run businesses are out there forgoing profits for health care . . . None.
This silly half-baked liberal aphorism proves nothing.
My point is . . . clearly you have no point.
Only cheap liberal tactics.
They are "ginormously amusing" though.
Thanks
Posted by: Ginormously Amused by Braindead Liberals on August 14, 2009 12:23 PMplease tell me where i have or haven't said i'm not lobbying my congressperson for anything? and it's not adding a trilliong dollars to debt. you really seem confused and should stop lying. maybe stop listening to hypocritical blowhards like beck, rush, et al. hey, do you know you're taking marching orders from a drug addict and an alcoholic?
congress has every right to pass taxes. if you don't like it, you can not pay and suffer the consequences. or leave. or elect more republicans into office that won't increase spending (riiiiight)
amused,
were you out on the streets protesting spending increases? were you writing letters to the editor? were you writing letters to your congressperson? can you prove to me you weren't for bush's increases? this proves to me you are a merely a partisan hypocrite. a ginormous one, if you will.
Posted by: mike on August 14, 2009 12:29 PMOf course mike, you are quite free to believe whatever you like.
Nevertheless, your liberal projections prove nothing except that you have no rational arguments and are therefore quite desperate to find a way to smear me instead. It didn't work.
The truth is that liberal Obamunists as part of the Cloward-Piven strategy are attempting to destroy the economy through huge indebtedness and socialization of America. This has nothing to do with Bush or sunspots or Prester-John. The ridiculous Obama health care proposal is part of the socialization of America.
Thanks for your very thoughtful and highly persuasive rebuttals of my assertions.
Posted by: Amused by Braindead Liberals on August 14, 2009 12:55 PMi don't think you really know what the cloward-piven strategy was, you've just heard beck say it on his show a few times.
Posted by: mike on August 14, 2009 01:03 PMmaybe this is why reason and reality are so hard for you.
steve scher didn't say that was a 'fact'
he said he was convinced that the polls are wrong. this happens a lot, especially w/ gallup and rasmussen, as they tend to not have consistent and balanced samples.
You really are desperate.
Posted by: Amused by Braindead Liberals on August 14, 2009 01:10 PMnice projecting there,mike. I'll break it down for you in simpler terms you can understand:
Scher makes a statement having zero facts to back it up which is supposed to ,for the KUOW listener, counter a professional polling organizations findings. Whom again is lacking in reason and reality?
Posted by: Rick D. on August 14, 2009 01:15 PMMaybe in a "utopian" conservative world you might be correct, but things aren't quite that black and white. :)
However, no one will lose anything worth while in life by accurately describing liberals as they are.
I do not think your description is accurate for most liberals any more than the invectives they throw our way are accurate. You ascribe motives and intent in a way that is not true. While I might agree with the end results of their positions, I do not think they are as intentional in those results as you do. For the most part, they disagree with the conclusion you make at best or believe any negatives are outweighed by the positives at worst. No different that what "our side" believes about them.
..."Liberals believe that utopia will be achieved when everyone has equal results." I accept this premise, and assert that it forecloses any meaningful middle ground because it is an utter (explicit) falsehood about the nature of life itself.
Middle ground is found (or minds changed maybe) when inaccurate assumptions of nefarious "intent" are dispensed with and people have rational discussions of the pros and cons of various ideas.
Utopian thinking is foolish and counter-productive. Our Constitution guarantees rights that are unalienable. Discussing problems and weighing pros and cons of various "solutions" that alienate those individual rights is not moderation but political suicide.
No one said anything about abrogating rights per se, but in reality it has been done and will be done because we do not live in a utopian world where freedom is entirely unbounded.
Eyago, there is no middle ground here. Half of individual freedom is not freedom.
Please consider the middle ground our founders made when they chose to NOT emancipate the slaves upon our founding. It was a middle ground that allowed some freedom but not all of it. One might consider other laws and restrictions willing accepted on behalf of a more ordered society. Eminent Domain can be considered one such. I am not a legal scholar so I don't have other generally accepted laws at the top of my mind.
Any presumption that liberals are more compassionate than conservatives is silly and stupid on its face.
Which is why I did not presume it. :)
I simply stated that they are guided by their compassion. Because of that they are quite willing to paint conservatives as un-compassionate. I agree that it is not compassionate to have an abled-bodied person become a freeloader. It takes away from those who do work as a form of theft and it robs the person of their self respect and some of their own freedom. Our arguments with liberals should be centered around those ideas and not simply devolve into "you are racist" "you are a leech" type arguments. Neither is an accurate description of the other.
Liberals who wish to exhibit their supposed high-minded charity are free to help the poor out of their own pocket. Those who believe they are under-taxed are free to give more.
Exactly. Charity is not charity if you are taking it out of someone else's pocket.
The current discussion about health care is not about a "safety net," we already have health care "safety net" that has gone berserk providing health care to illegal aliens and others including many who do not need care.
It's one thing to be able to get emergency treatment for a trauma, it's another to be placed into insurmountable debt due to a catastrophic illness or to be denied coverage due to no fault of your own. To disregard those issues is to earn the "un-compassionate" label.
I equate liberals with scavengers because it is an apt analogy. They are attempting to destroy the economy through huge indebtedness and then devour the corpse with socialism in the false promise that something can come from nothing.
That may be the result as you see it, but it is not the intent of the liberal who rejects your conclusion, and you cannot change their mind simply by mis-characterizing their position any more than you would give THEM any credence when they mis-characterize yours.
Whatever your leanings (liberal or conservative) you need to come to terms that there is no middle ground here.
No matter what laws are created, so long as you live, you can never compromise your individual freedom to anyone. Only keep or lose it.
I do not agree that it is so black and white. I do not agree that we can solve problems without giving up freedoms and I do not agree even if we DO give up some freedoms that it is wrong to do so, necessarily. But we will never get to that point where we can see the true cost/benefit analysis if we do not first start with an analysis of the problems and solutions without invective. It is a sad thing to watch the name calling that goes on while real problems are ignored due to ideological intractableness (if I can make up a word).
Disclaimer: This is not a post to attack you but rather to just bring up the whole issue that has been bubbling under the surface for me for years. You are just providing the fuel. :) I think all posters should give this consideration given the (low) level of discourse that occurred since your post to me.
Posted by: Eyago on August 14, 2009 01:31 PMSpecial thanks to the liberals (especially mike & mikeBS,) for proving my thesis correct.
Hopefully Obamacare is dead this year once and for all, . . . and if its proponents continue to respond to the legitimate questions and objections put forth, with hateful bigoted and profoundly stupid tactics like those posted here by liberals and discussed nationally by their leaders, it will signal the end of Obamunism.
The bad news for the liberals is they now find themselves in a very deep hole. They've insulted two-thirds of voters with their accusations of mob behavior, and racism. Nice work. The plummeting poll numbers can't be making them happy campers.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 14, 2009 02:05 PMshanghai, the purpose of universal health care isn't to 'lower the absolute dollars the Government will pay' especially as the purpose of government isn't to not spend money. why do you think that's the case?
I see. Government's purpose, then is to spend money? Really?
How much budget deficit is acceptable? How much debt is acceptable?
wrt 'Medicare has grown 34% faster in costs than private insurance over the long run.'
well, no kidding.
I see. Yet you've claimed that Medicare is so superior because its costs only increased 3% on average, and thus we should use it as a basis for our national plan, because its been slower to increase than private insurance.
Now you are saying the opposite.
Do you just make stuff up to suit whatever your position is? Do you like to just make up facts? The lies really aren't becoming, Mike. And you're getting mired in a veritable tar pit of them, sinking faster and faster!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 14, 2009 02:57 PMI respectfully but firmly disagree.
You wrote, "No one said anything about abrogating rights per se, but in reality it has been done and will be done because we do not live in a utopian world where freedom is entirely unbounded."
Individual rights to freedoms including property ownership is not a product of any utopia and I never spoke of "unbounded" freedom. While no one explicitly said anything here about abrogating rights per se, it is the unspoken (or little spoken of) reality that the Obama Health Care proposal will abrogate our rights per se. Today I have the right to purchase or not purchase health care where ever I wish, and under the ObamaCare plan I will lose that freedom. The U.S.Government does not have the Constitutional right or authority to institute ObamaCare. NO ONE is forced to take Medicare or Social Security either but if they were it would not be acceptable.
"I simply stated that they [liberals] are guided by their compassion"
Liberals are not guided by compassion but ignorance and hubris. It is false pride on the highest order paid for with sweat from the brows of others. They are possessive of the outward manifestation (symbol) of compassion but absent whenever real compassion is needed. Giving away someone else's money to institute prosperity is thievery dressed as compassion. Saving and investing capital, starting and running a business, employing people, and making a payroll and contributing to charities are compassionate actions. Liberals (by definition) feed off others and are the most selfish hypocritical people in our society.
"[y]ou cannot change their mind simply by mis-characterizing their position any more than you would give THEM any credence when they mis-characterize yours."
I am not mis-characterizing their position, and I have long since abandoned the idea of changing liberals' minds. They prove beyond any doubt that they are (like small unguided children) incapable of fair reasoning and prone to destructive behavior. I have contempt for what they think of my demonstrated superiority in return. We do not have to compromise or get along with each other, they can lose, and it is my goal that they do so.
"I do not agree that we can solve problems without giving up freedoms and I do not agree even if we DO give up some freedoms that it is wrong to do so, necessarily."
Then with all due respect, you are lost. Without individual freedom very little good can or will ever happen for you. "WE" have lost enough individual freedom in America as it is. The only good things you inherited in your life stemmed directly from the sacrifice of those who fought and died for individual freedom. If you are willing to give it up I am profoundly sorry for you, but I will not give up mine. If you expect me to give up SOME of mine in (compromise) for the sake of convergence of ideological views, don't hold your breath because it is never going to happen. Therein lays the "ideological intractableness" as you put it. Thank God in heaven for that type of intractableness because without it we would be far worse off as people.
Freedom is not negotiable. To a typical liberal my insistence that my freedom is not negotiable is unreasonable, but the fact that we would ever need to discuss my freedom presupposes that anyone has any right to compromise it for any reason. My freedom is not up for grabs and I will never give it up to anyone without a fight to the death.
Oddly enough this liberal squishiness about freedom is both why extremists hate them so much and why liberals are so willing to kiss extremist's asses and compromise our freedoms. In concert, this combination is likely to kill many many more Americans.
Thanks for your comments but I disagree profoundly with your conclusions. This ideological intractableness will almost certainly resolve only with a violent war. There are some things worth it and individual freedom is one of them. Liberals will not fare well, but either way we will all get hurt. I choose that path where I have the best chance to win the individual freedom I deserve
Thanks
He preached we need the stimulus bill right now because it was a true emergency and that if it was not passed the United States would have a terrible economic problem but no one read the contents of the stimulus bill before it passed.
He preached that we need to pass the Health Care Reform bill before the August vacation period and that it had to be passed again without anyone reading the contents.
Luckily - the bill did not pass before the vacation period and people are finally understanding what Obama really wants to do with the United States.
Obama and Congress needs to present all of the proposed changes to our medical system in a detailed document that is understandable (HR 3200 is not understandable) and in multiple TV shows (Obama's ten discussion points on health care are not an acceptable document!). All of those changes need to be fully discussed with all of the voters and changes made per the voters discussions as to what health care changes are needed that are affordable.
That process would be the transparency needed to start meeting Obama's campaign promises.
Posted by: Tim on August 14, 2009 03:08 PMas soon as intractableness can be made into a real word,
or resolution comes to mean violent war,
but other than that almost certainly.
Regarding proposed changes to our medical system, you wrote that "That process would be the transparency needed to start meeting Obama's campaign promises."
Inadvertently through his own dishonesty Obama has already been quite transparent about what the Democrats want.
The dubious achievement of that portion of his health care campaign promise is quite enough.
"I can't cover another 46 million people for free,"
I don't exactly know how he expects them to pay for it.
you inability to read is showing again.
i said during recent decades, medicare averaged 3% increases, whereas private insurance was @ 6%. never did i say in the entirety of medicare's existence. but to speak of the cost increases, one must look at the increasing number of seniors on medicare (fact) and the cherrypicking of private insurance (fact), which if was folded into private insurance, would see even greater increases than they've seen in the last decades. as with republicans and voter rolls, if you purge those that won't vote for you, you stand a better chance at winning. thank god that failed this last election.
i never said government's purpose was to spend money. government does spend money, but that's not its purpose.
and apparently a lot of debt is tolerable and acceptable, as you seem to have had no qualms w/ the huge debt increases under previous republican administrations.
you're the ones looking more desperate these days. believe me, 2/3 of the electorate is ashamed and appalled at the lack of tact an embarrassing behavior of teabaggin minions. at this rate, the greens will hold a majority over the incredibly shrinking republican base.
Posted by: mike on August 14, 2009 03:39 PMI'm very much curious to hear what specifically you find inaccurate in Amused's description of liberals. Acknowledging that there is almost always an exception to the rule, Amused's description is deadly accurate to me and even borne out by the lefty commenters at Soundpolitics quite well.
You know Eyago, my mama always told me "birds in the nest agree" as an aphorism toward basic civility, but mama hadn't met the neo-libs when she said it.
For the better than ten years now I have seen my community overrun by the most shallow and venal crap-weasels ever. They are in a headlong race to turn this country into an open toilet. I tried to dialog with them, and reason with them, and to negotiate with them, and found that they aren't interested. What they are interested in is us surrendering to them. What they are interested in is the sort of "compromise" that really means "do it my way".
So those days are behind me.
When you see assholes like this "mike" character and watch the way he behaves, and then realize that our elected representatives are behaving the same way, how can you not come away with the recognition that there is a fundamental fracture in our basic civil discourse? We are coming to a crossroads of sorts where we will return to basic civility one way or the other. It won't come from playing nicey-nice and turning the other cheek (been there - done that - have the scars to show for it). It will come from insisting on respect even if you have to beat it into them. I submit to you that you are entitled to make yourself subservient to them all you want, but I for one ain't interested.
You're an alright guy (person?) Eyago. I wish you well. Oh, and keep your powder dry.
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 14, 2009 03:41 PMThanks.
How are illegal aliens changed for health insurance today?
Well Mike, I think the poll numbers disagree with you. You might also note the fall in mainstream TV news ratings while Fox is gaining. You're in real trouble here and insulting decent people is not going to help your cause.
Most poeple that disagree with Obama's rush to enact healthcare without discussion are wondering why they are being called nazis,racists, and "teabaggers". That includes a great deal of the people who voted for Obama.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 14, 2009 03:54 PMNot.
Posted by: Amused by Braindead Liberals on August 14, 2009 03:54 PMFor the better than ten years now I have seen my community overrun by the most shallow and venal crap-weasels ever
i see, so you've noticed the lack of civility on the right since, i dunno, the mid 90s as well? the hypocritical, do as i say not as i do approach? agreed. the ridiculous right is on a downhill slide. even britain's conservatives are clamoring to say how asinine the republicans look right now. there may be a god after all!
Posted by: mike on August 14, 2009 03:55 PMonly i'm not, nor are the democrats. and you are taking some serious liberties calling those that would disrupt civility as decent
and teabaggers aren't in support of healthcare - they also aren't in support of a functioning economy, goverment or community. it's a collective of neo-anarchist whiners.
and do you mean the poll numbers that show support for republican senate and house members are even lower than pelosi? that is seriously hilarious.
Posted by: mike on August 14, 2009 03:59 PMMy question is not how illegals pay for insurance now, but how those who don't have it will pay for it after your bill becomes law.
Posted by: Gary on August 14, 2009 04:00 PMi said during recent decades, medicare averaged 3% increases, whereas private insurance was @ 6%.
Yes, you've said it. And you haven't provided anything to back up your statement. Can you share with us where you got that little factoid? Because what I have found says you're all wet.
i never said government's purpose was to spend money.
Yes, you did in post 49:
especially as the purpose of government isn't to not spend money
Was post 49 in error?
and apparently a lot of debt is tolerable and acceptable, as you seem to have had no qualms w/ the huge debt increases under previous republican administrations.
False. In fact, I've been quite vocal about the treasonous deficits racked up by the previous Congresses (note: it's Congress that makes the budget, not the President). And I'm extremely vocal about the order-of-magnitude in deficits that the new Democrat Congress has created.
You can learn more here, where it is extremely obvious that GOP control of Congress leads to falling deficits; Democrat control of either or both chambers results in rising deficits.
But you are dodging the question, again. What level of debt do you think is acceptable? What deficit level is appropriate? I personally believe both should be zero. What do you think?
believe me, 2/3 of the electorate is ashamed and appalled at the lack of tact an embarrassing behavior of teabaggin minions. at this rate, the greens will hold a majority over the incredibly shrinking republican base.
Sources, please? Because polls say the public opposes health insurance reform, and a strong majority support the tea parties.
So, other than your rantings, do you have anything to back up your claims? Do you simply make statements and assume they are in fact true by virtue of your desire?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 14, 2009 04:04 PMThey don't like health care? mike, is your real name Joel?
I would much rather it just fail so we can go on to getting rid of Obama and the Democrats.
Posted by: Amused by Braindead Liberals on August 14, 2009 04:06 PMYou have a source for your info? Because I am reasonably sure WellPoint, Aetna, Cigna, etc... are not providing free health insurance to anybody.
So, if an illegal alien has health insurance he is being charged for it like the rest of us (i.e paid by his employer, private policy).
Regarding "my bill", can you please cite where in what bill it says that illegal aliens shall be entitled to publicly paid for health insurance?
thanks.
That's a lie on both counts. Over on Pudge's thread you labeled anyone that was opposed to this HR 3200 boondoggle as "racist morons" just today. You and the democrats are all playing the 'race baiting' game and pretty much throwing everything but the kitchen sink into your dishonest debate tactics.
That, my friend, is called desperation.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 14, 2009 04:09 PMSo... will illegals be *denied* all medical treatment because they don't have health insurance, or will the same tax applied to uninsured Americans also be applied to them?
And how?
Posted by: Gary on August 14, 2009 04:11 PMExactly the same thing Jim pointed out quoting Eli Sanders of the Gang of Four; "He was sure that the anti-Obama demonstrations were "profoundly un-American", that they were "stifling debate", that they "can't be taken seriously", and that those anti demonstrators are "honestly, idiots".
Sounds much like what you said above, Mike.
Funny isn't it how you never hear that from the press when leftists interrupt Republicans or disrupt conservative speakers on college campuses. Nah, that's different!
What you're not getting Mike is that honest, hard working Americans are being insulted here and they've finally had enough. As a woman said at one of the town halls the other day, "you've awakened a sleeping giant".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 14, 2009 04:14 PMdo you mean the poll numbers that show support for republican senate and house members are even lower than pelosi? that is seriously hilarious.
Source please? And right now, the GOP leads in the generic congressional ballot.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 14, 2009 04:14 PMWhat the heck are you talking about!
"entitled to publicly paid for health insurance?" What is that supposed to mean?
Set the bong aside and at least try to make some sense.
Posted by: Amused by Braindead Liberals on August 14, 2009 04:16 PM"It's in HR3200"
No, an entitlement to health insurance for illegal aliens is not in HR 3200.
Gary, you are either woefully misinformed or just trolling for an argument. I'm not interested.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 14, 2009 04:25 PMHow will HR3200 make people in this country illegally buy mandatory health insurance?
Posted by: Gary on August 14, 2009 04:32 PM"How will HR3200 make people in this country illegally buy mandatory health insurance?"
It won't.
It doesn't attempt to.
Nor does HR 3200 attempt to make people drive at the speed limit, make children say 'please' and 'thank-you' or mandate we all 'do unto others...'.
Perhaps you can awaken the sleeping giant and get HR 3200 to solve everything? :-D
Have a good weekend, everyone. (And a tip: Sunday might be a good day to visit Mt. Rainier -- but be sure to check the "now" cast before you go.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on August 14, 2009 04:44 PM