Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > December > 11 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USHealth care as an economic issue
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Another half million Americans are freshly out of work, joining the roughly 10 million that had already been pushed into unemployment. A lot of them are freshly out of health insurance as well.
Health-care costs for employees and retirees are also part of the reason that U.S. industry in general and automakers in particular have a hard time competing with overseas industry.
Given all that, President-elect Obama is apparently intent on pushing major health-care reform, in part as an economic issue. It makes a lot of sense. But you also get the sense that Obama is trying to do an awful lot of very big things in a very short timespan.
WASHINGTON — Calling an overhaul of the health care system a basic element of his administration’s economic recovery programs, President-elect Barack Obama on Thursday presented former Senator Tom Daschle as his choice to become secretary of health and human services and to lead efforts to secure “affordable, accessible health care for every single American.”
Mr. Obama, noting that more than 45 million people have no health insurance, said, “The runaway cost of health care is punishing families and businesses across the country.”
A major health care initiative “has to be intimately woven into our overall economic recovery plan,” Mr. Obama said, adding: “It’s not something that we can put off because we are in an emergency. This is part of the emergency.”
Mr. Daschle echoed that sense of urgency. “Our growing costs are unsustainable,” he said, “and the plight of the uninsured is unconscionable.”
Mr. Daschle brings a kind of moral passion to the campaign for universal coverage. Health care, he says, is rationed on “the worst possible criteria: one’s ability to pay or one’s health condition.”
At the heart of the health care system, Mr. Daschle wants to establish a Federal Health Board, an independent entity like the Federal Reserve. The board would make coverage decisions for federal health programs. It would, he says, “reduce or deny payment for new drugs and procedures that aren’t as effective as current ones.”
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
By AJC/DNC Management
December 11, 2008 7:17 PM | Link to this
The board would make coverage decisions for federal health programs. It would, he says, “reduce or deny payment for new drugs and procedures that aren’t as effective as current ones.”
Buh bye America, Land of the Free.
Wait till they figure out that they can save money by denying coverage to those who are too old and have “outlived their usefulness” to the State.
Be careful of what you wish for.
By Ray
December 11, 2008 7:24 PM | Link to this
Refreshing to see government once again run by those who actually care about the people, by those who walk the walk of proud Americans.
Pray to God we survive the final weeks of the current gas bag living in the White House. What a waste.
By getalife
December 11, 2008 7:29 PM | Link to this
Good for them.
I think they will still take care of you Andy.
By "The Corporal"
December 11, 2008 7:36 PM | Link to this
Quote - “Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell”.
And one reason health care costs are up is because attorneys are allowed to sue doctors at will. Their liability insurance is unreal. Fewer and fewer even want to practice medicine. And which party is responsible for that?
Where is John Edwards when we need him.
By david wayne osedach, san diego/ U.S.A.
December 11, 2008 7:36 PM | Link to this
I lived in England for three years where they have National Health Insurance. It is deducted from your paycheck like Social Security and affords health services, hospitals and medicine for all. When I had to use it it worked for me. There is no reason we can’t have something similar here.
By GOP is gone
December 11, 2008 7:37 PM | Link to this
That cannot be our Rayist can it?
By GOP is gone
December 11, 2008 7:41 PM | Link to this
David,
May I ask what percentage was deducted from your check?
By AJC/DNC Management
December 11, 2008 7:43 PM | Link to this
Damn, Corporal, you just brought up a good point.
If the government takes over health care they will be slaying one of the trial lawyer’s fatted cows.
Karma.
Same goes with the automakers.
Can we get the government to buy up supermarket floors?
Geez, there will be no more energy left in America, hence no gasoline, there goes collision claims.
Man, this might not be so bad after all.
By fed up
December 11, 2008 8:02 PM | Link to this
I’m not sure this is going to be a good idea. I don’t hear such good things about this type of program in other countries….long waits for specialists, for surgeries and like someone else posted if you get old do you get the care you really need. I’d be interested in knowing what the true figure is on the uninsured is it really 45 million or does that number include illegal immigrants?
By AJC/DNC Management
December 11, 2008 8:16 PM | Link to this
How you like that, al-Gitmo?
By Big brother
December 11, 2008 8:26 PM | Link to this
the number oft-quoted, 45-50 million uninsured is totally false. If you subtract the following numbers: illegal aliens who are illegally in America, the number of people who are not aware that they qualify for state aid (i.e. the number of people who are too stupid to know that they qualify for Medicaid), the number of young people who CHOOSE NOT to have health insurance b/c they don’t think it’s worth it—the actual number is around 15 million—still alot, but not near what the media makes it out to be.
I work in a doctors office, a young man came for follow up after an emergency appendectomy performed by my physician at the local hospital. He said he couldn’t pay his surgeons bill b/c of no insurance. He said he worked as a waiter and had no money. He had a smart phone at his hip, thereby guaranteeing he probably had high speed internet and cable tv. He also had a LA Fitness card key on his key chain. If you add internet access, smartphone bill, cable bill, and gym bill, that adds up to well more than $200/mo—yet he couldn’t AFFORD health insurance but could afford those other necessities(er, luxuries).
Americans don’t want want to pay for what they NEED, just what they WANT!!!
Also, for all those singing praises for the British healthcare system, did you read the 12/3/08 NY Times article on chemotherapy? If you have metastatic cancer, you are only allowed $22K for any chemo drugs that might extend your life. That’s what the Health Service has determined your life is worth. Can you say RATIONING??? Be careful what you wish for.
By fed up
December 11, 2008 8:35 PM | Link to this
Big Brother You’re absolutely right about American’s don’t want to pay for what they need just want they want. As far as the NY Times article I haven’t seen that but I had a very good friend who passed away from cancer 2 years ago this month and I believe that one of his meds (some type of chemo pill) cost over $2K per pill with a cap of 22K he wouldn’t have had that med for even one year. This national health care doesn’t sound so great to me. Ditto on that “be careful what you wish for”.
By TimMo
December 11, 2008 8:53 PM | Link to this
There is no doubt that our healthcare industry needs repair. The current system can work, however, betrayal of public trust in the system from supposed “public” hospitals needs to stop. Many of these hospitals in the State of Georgia abuse their not-for-profit status. In little ‘ole Albany (right in the middle of one of the poorest Congressional districts in the U.S) is a hospital that holds in excess of $200 million in reserves (most of it invested on Wall Street), while it’s CEO hauls in approx. $900,000 per year in salary and benefits. Take a look at the Georgia Watch website to get the complete story on 4 “not-for-profit” hospitals in the state. It will explain in detail what is happening around the country in a much better way than time and space allow here.
By Big brother
December 11, 2008 9:06 PM | Link to this
TimMo, why do you denegrate the Albany CEO who makes $900K year when that is near the amount of income reported by by Obama in 2007? Remember, the Obama who believes in “service and sacrifice” to the nation. Is he ENTITLED to his money and the CEO not? Aren’t they both “serving” the public?
By ByteMe
December 11, 2008 9:20 PM | Link to this
I think I mind “big brother” less than I mind the idea that my wife — who had cancer over 10 years ago and is completely cured — can only get health insurance through an employer. Insurance firms are unwilling to cover her as an individual. If she’s out of work or wants to start her own business, she cannot get coverage.
And I think that the ideas batted around by Obama are not the best ones. I think the best idea is this:
Health insurance as bankruptcy protection.
A large number of bankruptcies happen not because people are spending beyond their means, but because people get really sick, lose their job, and can’t afford to pay their medical bills. Those bills eventually DO get paid by the rest of us in higher insurance premiums.
So here’s what I propose: every person in this country automatically gets health coverage via a POS plan with a $10K family deductible and no lifetime limit. $50 co-pay to go to the doctor, $200 co-pay for emergency services. It’ll be managed as a state pool — like the “high risk pool” most states already have — and insurance companies can make money by handling the logistics, just as they do now.
Businesses are free to offer supplemental health policies (like HSA’s, etc.) to reduce the high deductible or to add additional coverage for vision/dental/whatever.
The plan will be paid out of payroll taxes. Businesses are already paying out the wazzoo for health coverage for their employees; this would actually be cheaper, because employer-offered health plans include additional costs that can be eliminated (the commissions paid to the broker selling the plan).
Businesses could completely drop their coverage or add to this plan, but this basic plan is available to all, regardless of whether they are employed and without regard to pre-existing conditions.
In other words: same basic system, different way to pay for it and wider coverage. Insurance companies will be fine with this, there’s still money to be made with the plan and with selling supplemental plans. Doctors will get paid the same way they are now. Patients can use whatever doctor they want, just like most plans now. No change…
… except people won’t have to worry about losing their “bankruptcy protection” if they leave their job.
By ByteMe
December 11, 2008 9:24 PM | Link to this
Ok, that was really long, but if you like the idea, call your congress-critter and tell them that you want to see something like that instead of “socialized medicine” or whatever is the buzzword of the day.
By AJC/DNC Management
December 11, 2008 9:26 PM | Link to this
“You’re wasting your time,” Emanuel said. “I’m not going to say a word to you. I’m going to do this with my children. Dont do that. I’m a father. I have two kids. I’m not going to do it.”
Asked, “Can’t you do both?” Emanuel replied, “I’m not as capable as you. I’m going to be a father. I’m allowed to be a father,” and he pushed the reporter’s digital recorder away.
Thugs, hacks, criminals and something I’m not allowed to say but public servants?
Hah.
We’ve entered a new error, for sure.
Blagojevch was caught on tape saying that he wanted the Obama advisor in question to know what Blagojevich wanted in exchange for the Jarrett appointment.
Blagojevich said, “He asks me for the fifth CD thing, I want it to be in his head.” Emanuel represents the 5th Congressional District in Illinois.
By TimMo
December 11, 2008 9:28 PM | Link to this
Listen, I’m not an Obama fan (didn’t vote for him). I don’t know what Obama’s income was last year, don’t really care. This forum is about healthcare reform and I totally agree with you…45 mil is not the right number. Also, understand that I am not in favor of socialized medicine or national healthcare. I am in favor of smaller govt, not larger. Everything the govt gets involved wiht is disaster. Nationalized healthcare is NOT the answer.
I run a small business in South Georgia. We provide healthcare insurance for our employees at a cost of approx $6,000 per year each. The reason that those premiums are so high is the same reason that the cancer medication that you mentioned costs $2,000 each. Log on to www.georgiawatch.com and get back to me.
By sunshine and thunder
December 11, 2008 9:43 PM | Link to this
BYTE ME
Your plan has third party payer written all over it.
No thanks.
The only health plan that will work is one that allows people to pick their own coverage, deduct the premiums and be responsible for the cost of the service in some way.
The government has already ruined health care in America. Just imagine what it could do if it completely controlled it.
In the words of P.J. O’Rourke: “If you think health care is expensive now wait until it’s free.”
Tort reform is the first item that should be on any health care reform agenda. It won’t be.
Democrats.
By Big brother
December 11, 2008 9:49 PM | Link to this
Byte me, I think we think much more alike than you might imagine. Glad to hear your wife is well btw. I LOVE HSA’s. It promotes RESPONSIBLITY for one’s health. It also means maybe you’ll think twice before asking for a prescription for the latest heartburn pill instead of taking some OTC drug b/c YOU have to pay for it thru the high deductible! Maybe you’ll think twice before you overeat(obesity,diabetes), overdrink (liver failure), smoke (lung cancer, heart attacks), drugs (you get the point). Darn, maybe it might get you to EXERCISE!!! The McDonald’s $1 value meals are evil incarnate. Everything on their menu should be taxed to at least $10. Excess profits from those sales (you know some idiots will STILL eat) should be used to subsidize farmers who grow health fruits and vegetable so that they can be sold at a nominal price at the store.
As for your point about getting individual policies, I completely agree. There is no reason that your wife can’t join a state pool. In that regard the insurance companies are villains, although they will argue that they will be forced by mandates to cover everything under the sun
By rd
December 11, 2008 9:53 PM | Link to this
People have the mistaken impression that if they get healthcare from the government, it will be like the current private health insurance that other people have. For some reason, they believe that they will have unlimited access to healthcare and virtually no cost to themselves. Wake up people. Look at the U.K. Look at Canada. Look what happened when Hawaii tried to cover everyone. Look at current Medicare. Realize that you will have limited access to doctors, you will wait very long to see any kind of a specialist, and your treatment options will be limited to the cheapest available treatment.
If you believe that government healthcare is wonderful, start asking a few Medicare recipients. Start asking a few doctors. Ask a veteran. Realize that people in nearly every goverment supplied healthcare system suffer long wait periods for specialists and virtually never get cutting edge treatment. . Can’t walk and need a hip or knee replacement? tough…. its not medically necessary. Need a CT scan because you have cancer? Wait 5 months while your cancer kills you.
Government healthcare is not private healthcare, and you will not recieve the healthcare that you are expecting.
By Rob
December 11, 2008 10:18 PM | Link to this
I spent the first 30 years of my life in the UK and NEVER had to wait, deneyed drugs or any other of these myths. You forget most people have private insuarance supplied by employers as well, at prices they can afford.(But of course right wing radio convienently forgets to mention this) What else do you believe? It always rains and they drink tea at 4pm? America is 47th worst country in the world for mortality (WHO). Let America shoe the rest of the world how to apply universal healthcare well. I am terrified of getting old in this country and being droped to die or deneyed coverage.
By ByteMe
December 11, 2008 10:26 PM | Link to this
Sunshine: who the heck pays for your health insurance now?? Likely your employer. With all the limits they want to pay for. With what I’m proposing, there’s a baseline of health coverage everyone can get that’s clearly not free to use and bankruptcy protection. And it’s run by the states and managed by the insurance companies.
What exactly do you have that’s better and protects everyone from bankruptcy?
And how exactly has government “ruined” health care? By allowing it to be widely available? By mandating certain minimum coverage like birth control? By providing Medicare for older people? Why do you hate the government so much? Government is us.
By Big brother
December 11, 2008 10:27 PM | Link to this
Rob, Please, just please read the following articles in the NY Times (no right wing news outfit mind you) before you keep spewing this garbage of how much better it is in Europe about healthcare. If you still think it’s so great there, please go back and give up your coverage to someone here
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html?_r=1&em
www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/world/europe/21britain.html
By ByteMe
December 11, 2008 10:38 PM | Link to this
Big bro: Britain’s response seems reasonable and in keeping with what I’m proposing. You have to pay your way if you want something outside the norm. If you can’t, you’re no worse off than you would be now with typical US coverages.
BTW, thanks for the kind words about my wife. Her current employer is my company and we have a small group policy that costs about 30% more than individual policies would cost (we priced them out before finding out they wouldn’t cover her as an individual, but they would as part of my company’s group policy). But if I didn’t own my own company and have her work for it, she couldn’t start her own small business and still be covered by someone. Stupid situation.
By JR
December 11, 2008 11:02 PM | Link to this
Rob, One thing you sure didn’t get in the UK was an education.
By Big brother
December 11, 2008 11:05 PM | Link to this
Byte me, so under your proposed plan a rich person can get medication to extend their life for 6 more months and a poor person can’t? I’m not necessarily disagreeing with that concept. Throughout history the rich have ALWAYS had better healthcare, food, housing, etc; but it will get alot of these “we should all be equal” communists’ panties all in a wad. I agree tough decisions need to be made in medicine, but do I really want some red-tape government bureaucrat to do that? I suppose it may not be worse than some evil insurance bureaucrat doing that now, but maybe it could be worse. Just look at the VA Healthsystem. I used to work there. Trust me, if that is the model for govt healthcare system, I want NO PART OF IT. Talk about a nightmare!!!
Also, in the second article, if the patient decided to pay for the experimental medicine out of her own pocket, then the National Health Service in Britiain that “Rob” so loves, would DENY THE REST of her care—what the f*!! This is what you universalists want???
By "The Corporal"
December 11, 2008 11:11 PM | Link to this
I’m whispering ………
P.S. to ByteMe:
We have to be very careful even though you are a liberal and Jay likes you. He doesn’t like anyone using Bible verses on his blog. He will censor us if he finds out so let’s do this quietly.
Also, I’m a Southern Baptist Deacon and have taught Sunday School for 40 years so read your lesson and be prepared !
By getalife
December 11, 2008 11:19 PM | Link to this
“NEW YORK (Reuters) - Jim Rogers, one of the world’s most prominent international investors, on Thursday called most of the largest U.S. banks “totally bankrupt,” and said government efforts to fix the sector are wrongheaded.”
Socialism is here.
By RB from Gwinnett
December 11, 2008 11:22 PM | Link to this
The problem with all of this is that people want $10K per year in health benefits for $10 and they don’t have the understanding that their friends and neighbors have to make up the difference. As an example, they may have high blood pressure and require frequent doctor visits and medication, but they want to pay the same premiums as someone who is totally healthy and never goes to the doctor. Why? Where does this mentatlity come from?
I’d like to see catastrophy insurance offered. You pay for EVERYTHING unless it’s above a certain level. Runny nose, stitches, strep, etc. pay 100%. That eliminates the doctor’s office having to file insurance claim forms etc and eliminates insurance co. employees processing them. Cost out of the system. Open heart surgury? Insurance kicks in.
By ByteMe
December 11, 2008 11:23 PM | Link to this
Big bro: what my plan is is a floor, not a ceiling. Sounds like Britain has a ceiling. My Dad uses the VA, and yes, it’s both good and awful, but that’s because we seriously underfund the medical care our vets need. On the other hand, he’s 82 and no insurance company in the world would touch his medical problems otherwise.
Corporal: haven’t seen the edict on Bible verses. Perhaps he just got tired of the more random ones being thrown out there to support extreme positions like supporting slavery, stoning adulterers or calling gay people an “abomination”.
By ByteMe
December 11, 2008 11:25 PM | Link to this
RB: welcome to my plan. See above.
By Bob Eubanks
December 11, 2008 11:27 PM | Link to this
What is the health care crisis, you buy insurance, you use it. Pay your bills……….losers
By ByteMe
December 11, 2008 11:31 PM | Link to this
Bob E: see my comment at 9:20. What if you cannot just “buy insurance” because the companies refuse to sell it to you for no good reason other than you don’t fit into their risk models?
By ByteMe
December 11, 2008 11:34 PM | Link to this
Corporal: and if by referring to me as a “liberal”, you mean that in the sense that I look forward at would could be and embrace it… yep! Conservatives spend way too much time looking backwards, lusting after what will never return. Like the 1950’s.
By Big brother
December 11, 2008 11:38 PM | Link to this
RB, love your ideas. I agree with those principals. But the other major factor here is a person’s behaviors. Should the government sponsored ins company pay for “catastrophic” medical care say for the super obese who has been told numerous times by his doc to diet and exercise but won’t and now needs heart surgery? Should they pay for the liver transplant for the alcoholic who won’t quit drinking? How about that kid with the appendicitis who came to my doctors office. He probably felt he was young and invincible and didn’t “need” nor could “afford” insurance but “could afford” a smartphone, gym membership, dsl, and cable.
By getalife
December 11, 2008 11:38 PM | Link to this
“The collapse came after bipartisan talks on the auto rescue broke down over GOP demands that the United Auto Workers union agree to steep wage cuts by 2009 to bring their pay into line with Japanese carmakers.”
Banks collapse, auto collapse, things are looking real bad.
No jobs to buy anything especially health care.
Socialize it like everything else.
There is your plan.
By Bob Eubanks
December 11, 2008 11:43 PM | Link to this
President Bush, I paid $1.47 for gas today, thank you. I know few will say so. You will be remembered as a fair, strong and just man. A far cry for the crook you replaced or the thug following you. He has not been sworn in yet and the scandals are starting, you have to know he was going to get half the money the gov. was asking for his seat. What is going to happen when the FBI goes to the AG with the evidence to lock up the pres. elect?
By Red
December 11, 2008 11:46 PM | Link to this
Since Obama is going to bloat the money supply dramatically anyway, he might as well have us go for broke and reform healthcare while he’s at it. The great Obama bungee jump; it’s gonna be exhilarating and life changing, or we’re gonna end up a disgusting bloody mess at the bottom of the canyon.
By Bob Eubanks
December 11, 2008 11:47 PM | Link to this
the idea is you do not wait until you are 45 and in poor health to go buy insurance. If you are covered from day one you have no “pre-existing” problems.
By Big brother
December 11, 2008 11:50 PM | Link to this
Actually Byte-me, the VA system is not “seriously underfunded”. It’s only “underfunded” in government terms. When I was working there, there were actually MORE paper pushing bureaucrats than actual caregivers. If you took the hundreds of billions of dollars spent by the govt propping up the VA’s across the country, shut them down, you could give them the “gold plated” policies those b******* in Congress enjoy—with money left to spare.
At the VA, these paper-pushers are a self perpetuating lot. More policies, more papers, more red-tape—ah hah!—need more positions to fill up those new regs we just made up. Oh, just get rid of another nurse and let the rest pick up the slack. That’s the government mentality.
btw, your dad is 82, he should be eligible for Medicare
By Big brother
December 11, 2008 11:57 PM | Link to this
Wow, I’m a newbie to this blog. But when did “baaastards” start getting censored. Awfully fundamentalist of Jay, don’t ya think? I thought he was an enlighted liberal?
By AmVet
December 12, 2008 12:03 AM | Link to this
Ask a veteran.
rd, the care I’ve receive via the VA, here in Atlanta, is top notch. A ten on a scale of ten.
They saved my life, and if not for my military service I would likely be bankrupt.
Every vet has a different story, for sure, but don’t believe the hype that Northside or Piedmont or any other hospital is better just because it is not government run…
By Big brother
December 12, 2008 12:30 AM | Link to this
AmVet, happy to hear you got such great care there. As I said before, I work for a group of surgeons locally. We’ve had 2 patients in the past month who had full benefits at the same VA you’re referring to who came to us b/c of their horrifying experiences. Luckily, they both had Medicare to cover 80% and were willing to pay the remaining 20% out of pocket b/c as one said “I wouldn’t let them operate on my dog much less myself”. I apologize if I offended you or the caregivers, most of whom I do believe do there very best. But having worked there (not this particular VA) I know firsthand how incredibly frustrating to work in a TOTALLY dysfunctional system. In my experience, like most government bureuocracies, the innumerable middle manager pencil pushers are more interested in forms, regulations, pathways, approvals, etc than giving the clinicians the tools to actually care for the patients.
By Swami Dave
December 12, 2008 12:59 AM | Link to this
At core, it is a problem that has no good solution.
There has to be a cost component born by the recepient of a product or service; otherwise by divorcing the receipt from the responsiblity to pay eliminates all incentive for the beneficiary to limit use and control cost. In any “universal” plan, the costs for those currently uninsured either gets added onto the costs already born by those in the market or, if costs are declared “fixed”, then it creates an artifical shortage (and rationing) as demand increases with no equivalent increase in funding.
Under model A (increased cost to those already in the market) - those who are already paying for current insurance plans see their costs rise while getting no benefit of increased value for their higher expenditure. In the case of employers who are providing insurance (or a portion of it) for their employees, their costs rise exponentially while their employees get no additional benefit. The end result being that it is likely that more employers do not include health insurance in their benefit packages (thereby exacerbating the problem).
Under model B (constraining costs while expanding the pool of beneficiaries) - the costs to those currently covered may be static, but the quality and availability of care is diminished. Again, the relative cost / value of medical care and insurance for them is worse.
These types of collectivist (“spread the wealth”….actually “spread the misery”) schemes only serve to increase costs on those already paying while diminishing the value that they receive for their expenditures.
America does not need to keep adding more boxcars onto the already overburdened economic engines who are driving our economy; it needs more of these boxcars who are currently sitting around complaining about how they should be pulled to become engines! We need policies that create engines not reward dependency among the boxcars.
-Swami Dave
By AJC/DNC Management
December 12, 2008 6:06 AM | Link to this
Here’s a good example of why Republicans don’t win elections anymore-
Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said the state’s climate law will stimulate the economy, said Thursday that California is providing a road map for the rest of the country.-Urinal/PMS
The democrats come up with ignorant ideas meant to cripple the economy and to keep from taking the heat, they scare up some moron RINO and send them out like a canary in the mineshaft.
And guess who gets the shaft?
And who would listen to anyone from Kalifornia in the first place, land of the fruits and nuts, 2 billion dollars in the hole?
By AJC/DNC Management
December 12, 2008 6:12 AM | Link to this
Now luckobich can say he “criticized” obama, GFH.
~~~~~~
Snow in NO and Houston, the coldest year on record since 1992 and what do the libs have to offer-
Emissions cause warming in U.S., researchers say-“The continent as a whole is warming, mostly as a result of the energy sources we are using,” William J. Brennan, acting administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said at a briefing on the nation’s climate since 1951.-Urinal/PMS
Pick your own convenient date and then whine about human beings, blah, blah, blah.
Meanwhile, ignore the two dollar thermometer.
By GodHatesTrash
December 12, 2008 6:15 AM | Link to this
California will secede soon.
Don’t worry, they’ll let you kkklowns have Bakersfield.
By AJC/DNC Management
December 12, 2008 6:18 AM | Link to this
Poznan, Poland —- Mexico announced a plan Thursday to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 using solar power, wind and other clean technologies —- making it one of the few developing countries to set a specific emissions reduction target.-Urinal/PMS
De plan, boss, de plan!
Yeah, they plan on sending all their citizens to democrat led America.
Duh.
By AJC/DNC Management
December 12, 2008 6:33 AM | Link to this
Oh poor Peggy Noonan is disgusted by her new political party-
I am not including our newly famous Blago. Rarely has there been such a case in which the sin is perfectly represented by the physical presence of the sinner. I had never seen him until the news this week, and there he was, a lipless, dull-featured, wig-wearing moron with a foul-mouthed harridan of a wife.
You are one of them now Hun, enjoy!
By GodHatesTrash
December 12, 2008 6:41 AM | Link to this
Turn that frown upside down, RightWingnuts…
You intelligent decent folks might like it too…
By Joey
December 12, 2008 6:46 AM | Link to this
Prior to entering into the Healthcare Business our Federal Government should be required to fix all the other areas that the Feds have attempted to operate effectively and efficiently, but have failed. Several of them have healthcare elements.
Veterans Administration, including the Veterans Hospital system; Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Education, FEMA, Military Hospitals and this is just the short list.
By GodHatesTrash
December 12, 2008 6:56 AM | Link to this
You know, I’m always ragging on southern culture, but then I see something like this from Greenville SC that makes me think I’m wrong. It took an amazingly advanced mind to come up with this idea…
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 12, 2008 7:33 AM | Link to this
“I’m a Southern Baptist Deacon”
That explains a lot.
By J Moore
December 12, 2008 7:36 AM | Link to this
Like the auto industry which has a $ 30 per hour disadvantage to its foreign competition, the US social model is also flawed. We have 40-50 percent of the American population which pay no taxes and actually drain resources from every area of government; however, are allow to vote as if they were “real” tax-paying citizens. No one, especially Jay or Cynthia wants to talk about that; although, our founding fathers foresaw that as a major problem. This is a formula for imminent destruction and, if not changed, will doom us all into a Bosnian-type situation where taxes I think were in the 70-80 percent range. Finally, more and more people quit working at all. In response, the government made it illegal to quit their jobs OR leave the country! Are we far away from that? We must rethink who is allowed to vote. The inmates are running the asylum.
By J Moore
December 12, 2008 7:37 AM | Link to this
Like the auto industry which has a $ 30 per hour disadvantage to its foreign competition, the US social model is also flawed. We have 40-50 percent of the American population which pay no taxes and actually drain resources from every area of government; however, are allow to vote as if they were “real” tax-paying citizens. No one, especially Jay or Cynthia wants to talk about that; although, our founding fathers foresaw that as a major problem. This is a formula for imminent destruction and, if not changed, will doom us all into a Bosnian-type situation where taxes I think were in the 70-80 percent range. Finally, more and more people quit working at all. In response, the government made it illegal to quit their jobs OR leave the country! Are we far away from that? We must rethink who is allowed to vote. The inmates are running the asylum.
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 12, 2008 7:44 AM | Link to this
Honestly, all I care about is that any healthcare plan put forward by Obama make it more likely that we’ll see a publicly funded single payer plan that would phase out dependency on a private for-profit health insurance base sometime, oh, before my kid graduates high school.
All the rest is noise and distraction, although much of the noise and distraction makes for interesting analysis.
By Peadawg
December 12, 2008 7:51 AM | Link to this
Thank goodness the bailout didn’t pass! All these handouts are getting old!
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 12, 2008 8:00 AM | Link to this
“We must rethink who is allowed to vote.”
Let me guess—you’re a big Neal Boortz fan, right?
By J Moore
December 12, 2008 8:08 AM | Link to this
I don’t even know who Neal Boortz is; however, I know this country will tear itself apart if taxation is not fair. As I said the model is broken. Democracy is based upon almost everyone paying their fair share. As it is, minorities and illegals pay nothing but line up for the benefits.
By tcoach
December 12, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this
Are the people who smoke, are obese, drink, or do not exercise going to be taxed more or have more of their income pulled as a way of balancing the treatment. Those of us who choose to take care of our bodies should not be responsible for those who do not.
By Sam
December 12, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 12, 2008 8:00 AM | Link to this
“We must rethink who is allowed to vote.”
Let me guess—you’re a big Neal Boortz fan, right?
He’s also an idiot. Boortz does his thinking for him and he just regurgitates recycled Boortz dung.
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 12, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
Sam, I don’t know—I’m willing to take our J Moore at his word, that he doesn’t know Boortz.
I do find the acceptability of such memes as
a) half of Americans “pay no tax”
and
b) lots of people who now have the right to vote should be disenfranchised
pretty hideous. The first one’s an outright lie; the second one, which draws on the first, is morally bankrupt.
By CommunistAJC
December 12, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this
A Little Blago for Everybody
by Jonah Goldberg
There are so many things to love about the Rod Blagojevich scandal it’s hard to know where to begin.
Wait. That’s not right. There are so many bleeping things to love about this bleeping-bleep Blagojevich scandal it’s hard to know where to begin.
For starters, the folks at the Chicago Tribune are Christmas Pony Happy because Blago tried to strong-arm Trib ownership to fire members of the editorial board. Instead, Trib editors will get to have a big tailgate party outside Blago’s cell window.
Newspaper people love that sort of thing.
For the more historically minded, it’s a time for nostalgia. The past comes alive as Chicago’s grand tradition of corruption is sustained for another generation. As the Chicago Tribune once wrote, “corruption has been as much a part of the landscape as corn, soybeans and skyscrapers.” According to the Chicago Sun-Times, as of 2006, when Blago’s predecessor, George Ryan, was sent to prison for racketeering, 79 elected officials had been convicted of corruption in the past 30 years. Among the perps: 27 aldermen, 19 judges, 15 state legislators, three governors, two congressmen, one mayor, two turtledoves and a partridge in a stolen pear tree. Especially in this holiday season, it’s so very important to keep traditions alive for the kids. In a sense, Blago did it for the children.
For partisans, there’s the schadenfreude that comes with watching the Democrats — self-proclaimed anti-corruption zealots in recent years — explain why Blagojevich shouldn’t be lumped in with Congressmen Charlie Rangel (cut himself sweetheart deals), William Jefferson ($90,000 in his freezer) and Tim Mahoney (tried to bribe an aide he was sleeping with not to sue him; and you thought romance was dead) as part of a new Democratic “culture of corruption” storyline.
There’s the enormous I-should-have-had-a-V8! moment as the mainstream press collectively thwacks itself in the forehead, realizing it blew it again. The New York Times — which, according to Wall Street analysts, is weeks from holding editorial board meetings in a refrigerator box — created the journalistic equivalent of CSI-Wasilla to study every follicle and fiber in Sarah Palin’s background, all the while treating Obama’s Chicago like one of those fairy-tale lands depicted in posters that adorn little girls’ bedroom walls. See there, Suzie? That’s a Pegasus. That’s a pink unicorn. And that’s a beautiful sunflower giving birth to a fully grown Barack Obama, the greatest president ever and the only man in history to be able to pick up manure from the clean end.
Obviously the list doesn’t end there. Blago’s hair not only appears bulletproof but seems to confirm reports that he is the human model for Playmobil action figures.
And you can’t leave out the supporting cast. Mrs. Blago curses like the inmate working the cafeteria at a women’s prison who replies with an f-bomb to anyone objecting to a leaden ladle-thwack of unidentifiable green mush on their lunch tray.
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., himself the son of a shakedown artist, is alleged to have offered (through a minion) a half-million bucks for Barack Obama’s vacant senate seat. Jackson replaced former Rep. Mel Reynolds, who went to jail for getting jiggy with a 16-year-old campaign staffer and stayed in jail because of various fraud convictions. Reynolds, in turn, was the “reformer” who had replaced Rep. Gus Savage, the thug-congressman who groped a Peace Corps volunteer in Zaire while on a “fact-finding” trip. Savage held off Reynolds’ attempts to replace him for several years by claiming Reynolds was financed by “racist Jews.”
Man, what isn’t there to love about Chicago politics?
It would be premature, not to mention un-festive, to discard any of these delicious immoral morsels from this cornucopia of corrupt crapulence. Fortunately, there’s no need to single out just one fragrance from this miasma of malfeasance or one dish from this smorgasbord of smut.
But, there is a nice moral to the story here. For the last several years, we’ve heard a lot about “new politics.” We are going to start fresh and put aside the old politics and the old ways. So far, it looks like Obama did nothing wrong, and I hope that remains the case. But it’s worth remembering that there really isn’t any such thing as a “new politics.” Politics is eternal because human nature is unchanging. Even Barack Obama, hero-saint light-worker Jedi Knight Messiah that he is, came from a political culture that would not be unrecognizable to Caligula.
Hopefully, Obama will take away from this the humility that comes with realizing we are all — even The One — built from the crooked timber of humanity. Hence the genius of the Founders who built a government that took our imperfection into account. As James Madison said, If men were bleeping angels …
By Dave
December 12, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
By J Moore
December 12, 2008 8:08 AM | Link to this
I don’t even know who Neal Boortz is; however, I know this country will tear itself apart if taxation is not fair. As I said the model is broken. Democracy is based upon almost everyone paying their fair share. As it is, minorities and illegals pay nothing but line up for the benefits
So when you lose your job and drop several rungs of tax bracket and can no longer pay “your fair share”, you should just be SOL. Shut out. No bennies, nothing. No pay no play right? In your case I totally agree, you heartless, selfish bleepedy bleep. You get nothing when you don’t pay your “fair share”. Great idea. Now ESAD!
By Mishap
December 12, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
Apparently few people on this board understand the concept of insurance.
If everyone were fully responsible for themselves…insurance would not work. There would be no risk mitigation, no need for premiums, etc. Insurance premiums are not a savings acct from which you get back what you put in. Every month you pay and don’t get sick, that money pays for someone else’s treatment (as well as the insurance firms’ CEO bonus). For those of you advocating healthy living as the end all, good luck should a congenital defect find you at a moment between jobs or some other unpreventable disease. Imagine trying to save for a quadruple bypass or chemo just on a couple hundred a month that you normally drop on health insurance premiums.
Of course in the event of an uninsured sick person, hospitals still treat b/c that’s the humane thing that our society has decided. The problem is doctor’s et al don’t work for free every time someone w/o insurance walks in. So those unpaid debts are absorbed by every time you walk in for a nasty cold and a $50 copay on a 5 min $400 trip. In effect the insured already pay for the uninsured.
The real problem is the gap between the truly destitute and those on the fringe. Those who have any assets don’t get adequate protection from bankruptcy in the event of major medical issues and their hold onto medical insurance is as tenuous as their hold onto their jobs.
So we have two simple solutions. Stop treating every uninsured person and let evolution takes its course. Or make insurance one of the basic tenets of society and make it one of the first costs a person contributes to after basic food/shelter. Sick people dying in the streets might not help home values very much unfortunately.
For everyone claiming markets are efficient…yes they are on a market good. Double the price on a dvd and people buy 1/2 as many dvds. Double the price on a cancer drug and people sell their homes to pay for it. It’s called inelastic demand which is something that doesn’t exactly lend itself to a perfect market solution.
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 12, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
Commie, why are you copy/pasting Doughy Pantload’s column in its entirety here?
You realize that NRO has to panhandle for donations these days to stay afloat, and that Jonah will sic Mommie’s lawyers on anyone who violates copyright laws flagrantly as you just did?
By The Ghetto Prophet
December 12, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this
lol- LET THE GOVERNMENT HANDLE OUR HEALTH CARE! LOL! IT WILL BECOME ANOTHER DEDUCTION ON WORKING AMERICANS CHECK. WHO GIVES A “F” THOSE WHO PUT BARACK INSANE IN OFFICE LOVE GOVERNMENT CONTROL. BACK TO THE STREETS I GO!
By Matt
December 12, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this
DB, Actually, if you check the IRS website, you will find that there are a grand total of 110 million americans who have federal taxes withheld from their income. Of these 110 million americans, 70 Million recieve a refund of less than what they pay into the system, effectively paying taxes. Now, these statistics are misleading, as many of these non-tax paying americans include students, children, and the elderly (who generally don’t pay taxes).
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 12, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this
But Matt, that’s more misleading than even you (laudably) acknowledge, and it’s been brought up time and again. Given the way that the Social Security Trust fund is being used to fund ongoing costs, it’s fair to say that anyone earning wages is, in fact, paying federal taxes.
And if the beef is with stuff like EIC and suchlike, this concept of returning tax credits to poorer Americans has been embraced by Republicans in the past. I don’t know why this has, suddenly this year, become controversial.
It’s difficult to see the newfound outrage among some on the right over the people who “pay no tax” as anything but contrived.
And besides, even people who are paid off the books invariably contribute plenty in sales taxes, user fees, rent to property owners who turn around and do pay taxes… you get the idea.
By Swami Dave
December 12, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this
Mishap:
I would agree with one of your contentions specifically that the vast majority of people do not understand the concept of insurance. Yes, most do not understand that the intent is not for each payor into the pool to receive benefit equal to the amount that input. However, the existence of a pool into which one has paid is much easier to tap for services that one would not pay if they were using their own expendible money. It is a normal human emotion to feel frustration that your money is being perpetually collected to pay for my expenses.
Any “universal” model only exacerbates this already frustrating situation by introducing additional beneficiaries into the pool whose costs will have to be absorbed by those already paying. It is further compounded since those receiving benefits with no responsiblity for the cost have no incentive whatsoever to control their expenditures.
With more beneficiaries in the pool (many of which are getting coverage as a “entitlement” paid by the others already paying), the entire system will crumble onto itself.
a) those getting the “entitlement” with no responsiblity for the costs will consume as much as they want since THEY aren’t paying the bills
b) those who are paying the bills & are healthy will be seeing their costs increase for no increase in their benefit. they will simply increase their elective use of the benefits (try to get services that they would not have paid for on their own) to “get more” since they are “paying more”.
c) those who are truly in medical need will be competing for services within what becomes a more crowded group of people demanding service. The only way to increase supply under such a model would be the increase price (cost), which further burdens those already paying.
As I stated earlier, the only valid solution is for individuals to take more responsiblity in answering the challenges in their own lives instead of expecting “society” to treat them as adult “wards” who are free to make their own decisions, but are not expected to shoulder the responsiblity for them.
-Swami Dave
By J Moore
December 12, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this
so, I was right as usual. What else is new?