But what does Obama want?
posted at 8:57 am on March 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
My friend Kevin McCullough offers some red meat in his weekly syndicated column by reversing the Rush controversy. Forget what a radio talk show host wants; does Barack Obama want America to fail? Does the new President want to use a series of crises to fundamentally change the nature of America? Kevin thinks so:
President Obama knows the history of recessions and how Americans get out of them. He knows, for example, that if he gave back to the American family in just pure cash handouts what he is instead planning on taxing them (with interest) in the days to come, that the number would loom between $25,000-$65,000 per family, for every family in America.
But pretending to be doing something about the problem is only half the strategy for Obama. He truly intends to see socialized health care, and European styled labor agreements become reality in America. He knows the consequences of doing such things, he’s seen all the projections and what the outcomes would be, but he’s doing it anyway.
But there is one tiny problem standing in his way to getting there–”We The People!”
He knows that in order to be forced down paths that we don’t wish to go, the only way he gets us to change our mind is to create abject suffering and misery.
Then in Venezuelan styled cries for help, he can promise to take America to a better place economically, a place of greater care, a place of true serenity. A place like Venezuela.
I’m not sure I’d say that Obama wants America to fail, as much as I’d credit this to a belief that America had already failed. Obama is a typical liberal ideologue who thinks that America has failed in the sense of equality of result. He sees inequities and thinks that government exists to eliminate all of them. My guess is that he’s aiming much more for France than Venezuela, but neither are particularly palatable destinations for a national economy. Obama seems to see our entire 230-year history as a long crisis that his statist policies will end.
What we’re seeing is the policy playbook of the Left. We predicted this all along, while the media hailed Obama as some sort of centrist without a shred of evidence for that. He has a long history, though, of alliances with the Left, and it comes as no shock that Obama has shown his true colors in the first days of his presidency. Massive government spending, reductions in defense, and preparation for nationalization of health care, banks, and other private industries fit well as a pattern with those policy goals.
Eventually, this agenda will sour Americans on Obama, and according to Rasmussen, that process may have already started. His approval ratings have begun to slide, now at 56% after spending most of the last few months in the high 60s or above. The difference between those who strongly approve and strongly disapprove has dropped to 8 points. Obama has scored as high as 30 points on that measure, and its quick drop has to have a few people at the White House wondering how much farther Obama can afford to go. Bill Clinton lost Congress in his first mid-terms even while remaining personally popular, and the GOP will have a good shot of at least winning back the House.
Kevin and I will talk more about this on today’s Ed Morrissey Show at 3 pm ET.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
The three points of Che Guevara style revolutions:
1. Welfare
2. Universal health care
3. Gun control
Phase 1 is in place and has resisted reform whenever it has been attempted; 2 is now being shoved ahead and 3 is in the docks.
Obama’s specialty from the beginning of his career has always been how to obtain grants from tax payer funded government programs in the name of welfare projects – education, housing, voter registration – and then pass the money on to his cronies, who in turn kick back money to him by campaign donations.
“Barack knows what it means to live in a country that is controlled by RICH WHITE PEOPLE…” – Jeremiah Wright. This is what he intends to change. In the twisted ideology being fed to inner city school children by the likes of Ayers and Klonsky, Black liberation = enslavement of whites. This indoctrination doesn’t happen in charter schools, which is btw behind the clandestine attempt to nix the voucher programs for students in D.C.
Much more here: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511
Ed, you need to understand more about Black Liberation Theology and James Cone. Obama’s brain has been marinated in that for decades.
rishika on March 9, 2009 at 10:01 AM
I think it’s hard to say that the Dow dropped because investors are panic selling out of fears of an Obama tax increase.
Outlander on March 9, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Turn it around, propose massive tax cuts across the board and see what happens with the stock market, consumer confidence, the credit crunch, the housing market, etc.
All Ogabe talks about is tax increases, economists are parsing his numbers and finding they don’t, they can’t, match what his programs entail. Taxing only those who make $250k a year, even if you took everything they earn, won’t provide enough funds to cover Ogabe’s spending.
Bishop on March 9, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Time to give a nationwide address – one of those reassuring, mellifluous productions that will right the wrong thinking and induce Kathleen Parker and David Brooks to adorn him with slobbering prose.
whitetop on March 9, 2009 at 10:01 AM
No, it is not hard to say. It may be hard to admit, but the truth is that the only thing that keeps the markets floating is faith. Investors, big and small have little faith that their financial interests will be well served with Obama in charge. It make no difference if that perception is accurate or not. It just is. How much of your paycheck this week are you investing in, say automotive, insurance, banks, energy? How about treasury bonds? None? and why is that? Because you just don’t think it makes sense, just like the folks who are making that same decision with their investment funds.
MikeA on March 9, 2009 at 10:03 AM
On health care, that would suck. For example, I recently went to a hospital emergency room with excruciating abdominal pain. A quick MRI proved the hypothesis: kidney stone. In Canada, you wait 6 months for an MRI, and even then you’re only allowed it if you are deemed worthy.
I’ve lived in two “social democracies”, and let me tell you something that will come as a surprise to lefties: there are still poor people; there are still losers; there’s still crime; there are still people without adequate health care no matter how much money is wasted on them. So instead the focus turns to grinding down the achievers until they have nothing to work for, no reason to produce. Then the social programs dwindle and become more and more byzantine and less and less useful while the politicians keep blithering on about what wonderful work they’re doing “for the children, the sick, the disadvantaged”. Pretty soon the infrastructure starts to crumble and decay, and mediocrity rules. Nobody can get any service, product selection dwindles (except for the ruling class, of course, who get all their stuff imported from countries with functioning economies). It’s not pretty.
mr.blacksheep on March 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM
I’m sure you’re used to it by now, but I’m betting these socialist trolls will call you a reactionary, selfish fascist for the sin of wanting to keep your own money when there are so many people without health insurance. In their pea brains, that is the ultimate sin.
Then, they’ll start plying you with sob stories about people without health care going bankrupt, blah, blah, blah.
It’s all so damn tiresome to listen to.
venividivici on March 9, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Sorry i’m a little short on sympathy at this time as i don’t like paying for people who are to lazy to help themselves.And i’m not refering to people who truely need help.
heshtesh on March 9, 2009 at 10:04 AM
His Approval Index has dropped even further today, to 6 points. That’s the lowest ever.
IrishEi on March 9, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Ronald Reagon was older than Obarma during his terms and he could run circles around Obama.
becki51758 on March 9, 2009 at 9:44 AM
It’s pitiful, pathetic.
*Sniff sniff*…”Ogabe isn’t getting enough sleep, we’re really concerned about him”…as if being President of the United States and defacto leader of the free world is a 9-5 job with weekends off.
The doof actually believed it was going to be thrice-weekly parties, visiting the world on Air Force One and just sort of being the “cool” guy waves his hands every now and then while someone else does the heavy lifting.
Bishop on March 9, 2009 at 10:07 AM
What I am seeing in Obama’s behaviour is a man who has some deep seated issues with his white mother.
Dreadnought223 on March 9, 2009 at 10:07 AM
I happen to think that you are all giving Obama too much credit. He simply wishes to destroy that which he hates – the West. To him, the West is responsible for all the ills of his kind, and destruction of the West will salve his rage. The use of Socialism to achieve this end is merely the tool nearest to hand.
His mother taught him well.
OldEnglish on March 9, 2009 at 10:09 AM
The doof actually believed it was going to be thrice-weekly parties, visiting the world on Air Force One and just sort of being the “cool” guy waves his hands every now and then while someone else does the heavy lifting.
Bishop on March 9, 2009 at 10:07 AM
I think the term is reality SUCKS!
heshtesh on March 9, 2009 at 10:10 AM
It’s no surprise that a guy who’s never actually had a job with any accountability wouldn’t know what it entailed.
mr.blacksheep on March 9, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Hacks,
You seem like a person with a level of intelligence to understand “what’s wrong” with the current system. Here’s my sincere question for you: Given the complete history of any massive U.S. government controlled and operated social-care programs, (primarily social security and medicare that are either underfunded or going broke soon), how do you propose to condone or permit our government to take on another? Their track record speaks for itself–the bureaucracy has always eaten up the process while the already overburdened taxpayer do not have the recources to pay for it. Yes, healtcare cost are crippling everyone, but if we put this into our government’s hands, they might as well pass out wheelchairs.
Rovin on March 9, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Speaking of polls,here is one (saw this over the weekend): Carter’s approval about this time in his presidency was a whopping 70% (!)…and Reagan’s in the 50%(56-57% I believe). Funny things, polls.
runner on March 9, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Mon. 3/2, AM – visit to family MD with abdominal discomfort and weight loss. Blood work performed.
Mon. 3/2, PM – seen by gastroenterologist.
Tues. 3/3 – endoscopy of esophagus and stomach.
Thurs. 3/5 – CT of abdomen.
Fri. 3/6, AM – follow up with GI doc, review of all test results.
Fri. 3/6, PM – admitted to hospital.
Fri., Sat., Sun., 3/6-8 – chest x-ray, echocardiogram, stress test, blood work, consults with nephrologist, cardiologist, internist, and surgeon.
Mon., 3/9 – colonoscopy, follow up consults (3 so far).
Tues., 3/10 – surgery scheduled for total gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma.
This, dear Ernesto, is what has happened just this past week to my 88 year old mother.
You tell me what other country in the world would offer their most senior citizens such remarkable, expedient and compassionate care!
Go to hell with your damned socialized medicine.
IrishEi on March 9, 2009 at 10:18 AM
My theory too. He wants to set his agenda irreversibly in place before the 2010 elections.
petefrt on March 9, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Ok, now let’s see how our fearless leader is doing. The Chinese challenged one of our ships at sea; Korea is threatening war; Iran is about to build a nuclear bomb; Putin told him to get bent; he treated the British prime minister like trailer trash, and, every time he opens his mouth the economy gets worse. In the meantime, he’s raping the treasury and giving billions of dollars of free stuff to his parasitic constituents and left wing supporters and at the same time attempting to raise our taxes. He must be brilliant because no one of average intelligence could screw things up this bad in less than two months.
rplat on March 9, 2009 at 10:25 AM
“One of the key aspects of a free society is the independence of the medical profession from the state.” – Melanie Phillips
Read more of her latest article – When Doctors are ordered to kill
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=650
Government health care = destruction of free society
rishika on March 9, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Ed,
Good post but you left something out. both President Obama and his wife are also coming at this from a matter of race. Reading Michelle’s theis in college one can see the pattern forming. Race is a major factor in this make no mistake. Do not forget for one minute the famous quote of Obama: white man’s greed runs a world in need. This may have also had something to do with the way Obama treated the british PM. I say before this is all done we will as a nation be sharply divided over race. the democrates have played the race card for decades. They will stroke those passions in the coming years. The AG has already started. it will not be good and sadly I see the work of a generation to bring torlance and a color blind society about wasted.
unseen on March 9, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Ed, I think you are a bit too generous with wiggle room for Obama’s intentions.
I have posted this before but I’ll do it again.
http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/what-obama-is-reading/
Putting together all the pieces of his past, ideology, associates and the like, I’m not sure how anyone can assume he seeks for anything other than the destruction of this country! I’m baffled at that thought.
The problem is that it’s so disturbing that it’s hard to swallow!
katy on March 9, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Are those programs unsustainable or were policy choices made that has caused them to become vulnerable. Imagine, instead of tax cuts, we had used the Clinton surplus to shore up social security and medicaire? Sure, the Bush tax policies lead to economic growth and wealth creation, nearly all of which has now been wiped away and the problem of the uninsured has grown, not fallen. The problem of debt has grown, not fallen and the jobs that these policies were meant to create are shedding by the month. Did changes need to be made to the programs, oh of course. But I don’t understand a logic where beauracratic ineffeciency is WORSE than tens of thousands more Americans going into bankruptcy because of healthcare. Or worse, allowing their illnesses to go untreated lowering life expectancy and decreasing an individuals ability to contribute to the economy via productivity.
This is a simple truth that will keep Obama’s poll numbers high for quite a while. Americans do not believe that history began on January 20th 2009. The proof is, quite literally, in the pudding. Supply side economics delivered growth, but it wasn’t sustainable growth. Wall street favorable policy (combined with slavish media coverage, thanks CNBC!) increased people’s retirement accounts…if you were lucky enough to cash out last year and not this year. How can this be a model for America’s future? Entitlement programs are a hassle, but they’ve never lead to the kind of wealth destruction, unemployment and economic destabilization that speculative “free” markets have in this country.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 9, 2009 at 10:30 AM
This man does not lead, he still uses campaign speeches to try and sell his programs. Sadly, the people who fell for his one word campaign of “Change” are still listening. The question early on should have been, “change from what, to what”? His slip of the tongue to redistribute the wealth should have resonated with everyone. At least Chavez was more transparent in his actions. The big O continues to use fear tactics and set himself up as the only Messiah qualified to deal with the problem.
hillbilly on March 9, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Just trying to accomplish what Charlie Manson couldn’t, HELTER SKELTER!
“Far out man”
B. Dohrn
thomasaur on March 9, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Exactly!
scalleywag on March 9, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Hope your mother’s surgery goes well.
Snowed In on March 9, 2009 at 10:42 AM
I think there may be something to the idea that Obama seeks to punish America for her past sins, from racism to exploitation of workers. Obama as a half-assed Dark Avenger eager to crack the whip in the name of justice. That might work in a comic strip but not in the real world.
Reality will be tugging on his cape very soon.
RandyChandler on March 9, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Seriously, how many people do you know have been turned away for medical attention. I’ve seen destitute people with no insurance or medicare go to a hospital and get the highest quality care available. Yet, I have great insurance and I’d be the one more likely to declare bankruptcy if a catostropic illness hits me.
scalleywag on March 9, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Perhaps if he would stop campaigning, stop having those parties and maybe laying off his date nights, he may have more energy. If not, then I recommend some B vitamins.
becki51758 on March 9, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Clinton’s last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. Subtracting Bush’s tax cuts – $38 billion, still gives us a Clinton budget deficit of $95.29 billion.
What surplus are you talking about, clueless one ?
runner on March 9, 2009 at 10:50 AM
You’ve “seen” this happen. When, where? Circumstances, illness? People say this kind of thing all the time, but I suspect it’s just one of those truisms. Are you in the healthcare industry?
DeathToMediaHacks on March 9, 2009 at 10:50 AM
“Obama is a typical liberal ideologue ”
No he isn’t.
He’s the front-man for an oligarchy that wants total power for themselves. And they have figured out that it only costs about $500 a vote to get it.
Obama probably is an ideologue as well, but he isn’t in power because of that. He is in power because the oligarchy bought it. With the press as useful idiots.
notagool on March 9, 2009 at 10:51 AM
I doubt his plans are that nefarious and thought out. The crash and burn of the econonmy, both present and to come, are probably exactly like the dust-up with the British PM. He just doesn’t know WTF he’s doing.
Spider79 on March 9, 2009 at 10:52 AM
B vitamins are most likely not covered by his HMO. Obviously, we must therefore nationalize everything so that the government can give them to him for free!
Snowed In on March 9, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Just like when Charlie Gibson pointed out to Obama that raising the capital gains tax would reduce tax revenues, Obama said, well, he’s going to do it anyway, because it’s the fair thing to do. In Obama’s world, what is “fair” trumps what is good for the country. Figure that one out.
A friend told me he thinks Obama is deliberately tanking the stock market, and suggests Obama is relying on the support of “white guilt” to achieve his plans. Poor people don’t have 401Ks and stocks, because society holds them down. What does Obama want? Everyone to be equal. Equality over success. Then, of course, no one will feel bad about themselves. Gotta keep everyone’s self-esteem up.
Paul-Cincy on March 9, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Same here…Ive seen it in the local hospitals in my town(Tyrone, PA) and in Altoona. My mother had breast cancer and needed oxygen. She only had Medicare and lived on Social Security. He cancer meds alone cost over $300.00 a month, her oxygen a bit less. Medicare didnt cover her meds or oxygen, but local pharmacies ran her a tab.;
…for the 15 yrs she fought her cancer. One she never paid after she died.
No..I dont work in health care.
becki51758 on March 9, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Will those of us with conservative views weren’t fooled, but the rest of the world has been hoodwinked by this man.
vcferlita on March 9, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Thanks, Snowed. She’s got a lot of spunk in spite of her years.
I just thank God we’re Americans. My friend’s Dad waited 23 months for bypass surgery in Scotland–and he was only 62 at the time.
That’s exactly right.
I was–14 years in the E.D. Scalleyway is on the money. No one—NO ONE—was ever denied anything and all received the same quality care. We didn’t call in a separate list of specialists for the poor. It’s the liberal caterwauling about “no health care” that is “just one of those truisms.”
IrishEi on March 9, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Of course Obama doesn’t want America to fail. His problem is that he’s trying to put a square peg into a round hole.
SoulGlo on March 9, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Which is incredibly kind of them. But is an example of a unique situation where acts of individual kindness defied the economic realities of your mother’s situation. Perhaps, had she recently moved to another place it is infinitely less likely that local pharmacists would have been kind to her. How long was your mother in that town, was she a particularly pleasant person, was she well known by people, was it a small town? I ask because I think it’s much more likely that a person who may not have been well liked, was kind of a pill (no pun intended) would not have that same courtesy extended to her. But the economic impact of the less pleasant persons inability to pay for her cancer meds would have sent ripples through her children/siblings income hurting their ability to spend.
And this is what tends to happen in these debates, people have charming anectdotal stories of healthcare miracles. And those stories are great. But they don’t really respond to the systemic thing at hand. And, not to be cruel, but you’re essentially saying “my mom had a good experience and that’s all that matters.” I take a broader view. It is not pharmaceutical policy to “be nice” to cancer patients, the majority of people (including Obama’s own mom) are haggling with the insurance industry on their deathbeds.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 9, 2009 at 11:03 AM
And the costs were what, eaten into the hospitable budget? Eventually billed to family members. Made up by state funding. Was this a private hospital did it have an endowment for this kind of thing. I mean you people are supposedly on the right yes? And now you’re claiming that healthcare is basically free for anyone who “needs” it?
DeathToMediaHacks on March 9, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Link, please.
Or is this just another one of your “truisms?”
IrishEi on March 9, 2009 at 11:07 AM
It wasnt just my mother. The hospital in my town always treated folks without health care. I thought that was a law that they cant deny anyone medical care that shows up there.
There is also things like..free clinics in many large cities. I thought we were talking about folks who didnt have health care coverage. If insurance industry is haggling people on their deathbed…..that is the insurance companies fault. They need regulation. I also think health care costs would not be so high if there were limits on filing malpractice suits. The insurance alone is why doctors charge such high prices.
btw….Im not saying my mother had a good experience and that is all that matters. They did this for quite a few of the elderly.
becki51758 on March 9, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Obama said it was his intent to fundamentally change America and I took him at his word. Kevin ought to do a word search of Obama’s speeches and see how many times he made that promise. Of course, it was perceived by the brainwashed that he was speaking about that hopenchange thingy.
Of course, just like he said that the rise in gasoline to $4/gal was predictable he just didn’t think it would happen so fast. Just like he said he would pass regulatory legislation that would put coal production and use out of business. Just like he said that he would not increase oil production in order to force green energy.
Texas Gal on March 9, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Sorry I should have phrased that differently. It is much more likely that someone will be haggling with insurance companies over meds/procedures than it is for a hospital or meds provider to hand them out for free.
First of all, have you been to one? Not pretty. But regardless of that fact there are limits to what you can get done at a free clinic. You certainly can’t get surgical procedures done or critical dental care outside of basic cleanings. And while there are check ups you’re not going to get the kind of regular checkups/blood work that catches things like cancer in their early stages and if you’re diagnosed with cancer you’re not going to get chemo cycles, you’re not going to get chemo cycles or any of the other expensive procedures/treatments that go along with many serious illness. You’re living in a bit of a healthcare fantasy land if you think the solution is the local “free clinic.”
Well now we are getting somewhere. What kinds of regulations, things like Obama’s plan to prevent insurance companies from excluding people for pre-existing conditions? Is that “socialized medicine” cause it’s part of his plan.
I agree, but how is that acheived. Tort reform, in theory, is a good idea except that medical malpractice does happen and people should be compensated for it. I am VERY skeptical of the need to pay punitive damages for emotional/mental pain and suffering. I do think that if someone has been prevented from their livlihood they should have to pay for future wages though. All that said it’s not the only answer.
I’m sure they did and I wasn’t trying to be malicious. Just trying to get you to recognize that even if 10 people had this experience in your town it’s NOT the norm and it’s not the kind of thing encouraged by our current healthcare system.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 9, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Clinton’s last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. Subtracting Bush’s tax cuts – $38 billion, still gives us a Clinton budget deficit of $95.29 billion.
What surplus are you talking about, clueless one ?
runner on March 9, 2009 at 10:50 AM
And don’t forget how Clinton got the surplus in the first place. The gov decided to refi our debt from 30 year T-bills to 10 year and lower. A 30year T-bill carries more interest than a 10-year so The surplus was a result of lower interest payments. We now in this crisis hopefully see how stupid that was. Now we have to go back to the credit markets and not only finance the present debt but we have to refi ALL of the 12 Trillion debt. i.e it all comes due soon.
This is what no one is talking about. This means to continue to get money for our debt interest rates will have to go way up. The difference between a 3% interest rate and a 6% interest rate might not seem big but when you are financing 12Trillion it adds up to 100′s of billions in addtionaly cost. So that $800 billion stimulus will cost more a lot more by the time it is all said and done.
So Clinton got a surplus by refi our debt. Bush took that savings and gave it back to the people. and congress continued to spend the money they no longer had. Thus the debt expanded. If bush would not have given the tax cuts the congress would have spent it either way.
In effect our gov has been a subprime interest only payor since Clinton. We only pay the interest on the debt and never pay down that debt in fact we continue to add to it. Like making the min payment on a credit card. It works as long as you don’t hit your credit limit. the worrying think is we have no idea what our credit limit is. It depends on getting people to continue to buy our debt. As soon as we no longer can find someone to lend us money the interest rates will explode and the federal budget will go from 33% going towards interest to as high as 66% or more.
which means medicare ss and defense will have to be cut by more than half.
unseen on March 9, 2009 at 11:22 AM
The Catholic Church provides billions of dollars worth of free hospital care to the poor, along with Protestant Churches and Jewish Churches.
Maybe the left needs to think about that the next time they try to muzzle religion.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 11:25 AM
The Catholic Church provides billions of dollars worth of free hospital care to the poor, along with Protestant Churches and Jewish Churches.
Maybe the left needs to think about that the next time they try to muzzle religion.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 11:25 AM
not for long. Obama’s policy supporting the Freedom of choice act which would require all hospitals to perform abortions will cause the religious hostpitals esp the Catholic ones to close. And I wouldn’t blame them one bit.
unseen on March 9, 2009 at 11:31 AM
American taxpayer to The Messiah:
“What, no K-Y either?”
Mark Garnett on March 9, 2009 at 11:36 AM
A very timely article and short video from American Thinker, especially for you, dtmh.
Millions and millions of dollars spent on medical care for people who have no insurance whatsoever. In fact, they don’t even have citizenship. Fancy that.
Oh, and you asked in a previous post who pays for all this “free” care, dtmh. We all do.
IrishEi on March 9, 2009 at 11:52 AM
AARP claims that 1.7% of the population goes bankrupt from medical bills/yr. Out of 300 million people! Please. You cannot save everyone. I would say that is a good number.
Medicare & Medicaid make it so that no one is refused care. You cannot be turned away from an ER. It is the law in all 50 states. So don’t tell me that we have soooo many unisured. They are indeed insured and we all pay for them already.
I have one word for anyone whining about the unisured.
Octomom.
JAM on March 9, 2009 at 11:52 AM
When I first made this following point is was more in jest than reality, but I think it bears repeating. “beauracratic ineffeciency” can be devistating particularly in something as important as healthcare. To reiterate I wouldn’t want my healthcare to be as efficient as the Post Office, compassionate as the IRS or as easily accessable as the DMV. These are government run agencies high on beauracracy and anyone who doesn’t cringe at the thought of your trips to the doctors’ offices being like trips or dealings with these agencies hasn’t dealt with them enough.
There IS such a thing worse than 10k people going bankrupt trying to deal with healthcare, and that’s 10′s of millions of people getting crap healthcare. Besides, when you go bankrupt you qualify for medicaid which is “free” healthcare. No, it’s not the best solution, and there are many reasons why health care is so expensive, frivolous lawsuits driving up malpractice insurance (funny how government wants to emulate England’s healthcare, but not their legal system which forces losers of lawsuits to pay court costs reducing significantly frivolous lawsuits), illegal aliens receiving “free” medical care of the most expensive kind, the ED visits, and insurance companies who overcharge for their plans and underpay the providers of health care.
That’s not even counting the (sadly) inevitable dishonest health care providers committing fraud.
But even this system which is partially broken cannot be fixed by the complete destruction of socializing it. Be very wary of the doctor who choses to fix a broken ankle by amputating your leg at the hip.
DrAllecon on March 9, 2009 at 11:54 AM
+100
IrishEi on March 9, 2009 at 11:56 AM
OT:
Watching the DOW tumble as the Teleprompident speaks.
He never, never looks into the camera. Looks left, looks right. That’s where his crib notes are.
IrishEi on March 9, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Or as Rudy Giuliani said at the GOP convention: “There’s good change, and there’s bad change.” We’re seeing the bad change.
I lived in France from 1984 through 1995, during the 14 years of Socialist President Mitterrand’s administration. During that time, the unemployment rate never dropped below 10%, and it was over 25% among young people graduating high school and college. Mitterrand nationalized many industries, including several banks and the Renault auto company, and the country was paralyzed by frequent strikes by government workers, to whom the French Constitution gives the absolute right to strike. If a conservative President or Prime Minister (Sarkozy now, Chirac in the past) tries to change things, labor unions, leftist students, and rent-a-rioters descend into the streets, smashing windows, burning cars, and bringing the country to its knees, forcing the government to cave to obtain “peace”.
France does have a government health-care plan, called “Social Security”, which costs about 10% of an employee’s salary, which pays most “major medical” expenses, but only covers doctor’s visits and pharmaceuticals to 30 to 60%. Many employers offer parallel private insurance (“Mutuelle”) to cover the rest, and of course “Mutuelle” costs about 40% of the Government program.
France also imposed a mandatory maximum 35-hour work week on lower classes of employees, in the interest of forcing companies to hire more workers. The problem is, since it’s very rare these days to have 7 employees in a single company doing exactly the same work so that an 8th employee can pick up the slack, it’s usually higher-paid employees who pick up the slack and work 50 and 60 hours a week, unpaid overtime.
Since most of Europe now has a single currency, France’s labor policy makes most of its exports uncompetitive on the market, and many jobs are exported, mostly to Ireland and Eastern Europe who have more pro-business fiscal policy. Lots of France’s best and brightest college graduates start small businesses…in the UK.
France might not be as bad as Venezuela, but even if it’s a nice place to visit, you wouldn’t want to WORK there.
Steve Z on March 9, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Sorry, DTMH it is you who does not know the history of America. Every point mentioned in your first post was in keeping with the principles of the America the founders envisioned. While the implementation of the Constitution was not perfect, all the elements were there that led to the changes in American life you mention. But, and this is where you are wrong, each and everyone of those were true reform that corrected wrongs, yet remained true to the principles.
The second statement by you is where you and your liberal friends are wrong and why there is such anger and fear by the conservatives regarding this man and his presidency.
It takes a willing suspension of understanding the founding principles and documents of this country to support what he wants to do and what the ruling class in this country have done for the past few decades. These ideas are at their very core unAmerican.
Jvette on March 9, 2009 at 12:06 PM
DTMH, before your first ever vote for a Dem, who were you voting for?
DarkCurrent on March 9, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Nader in 2000, no one in 2004, the choices were just too ridiculously awful. All green party ticket all the time in local/state wide elections if possible. I did vote for Democrats for judgeships.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 9, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Of course.
Why not the Socialist New Party? That’s right. You did that this past Nov…
JAM on March 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Wait a minute. They envisioned it, but being founders didn’t choose to enact it? How odd. If you’re making a new nation, and you have pretty much no restrictions on how that’s done, why would you leave so much of what you wanted to happen out of the founding documents? If you wanted an end to slavery, enact women and african american citizenship and universal suffrage wouldn’t you just do it?
No, the founders created the country they wanted and it was up to others to challenge that vision. Now what I think you mean is that our founders were hypocritical. They used concepts of equality before the law to justify their claim to 100% of the profits of indentured and slave labor in the colonies (while most colonials lived and worked single family farms the founders were, to a man, elites), but ignored those claims when it came to the citizens they ruled over. This doesn’t mean they weren’t great men. Hypocrisy is an incredibly common failing, but it does mean they don’t get credit for later advancements in society. The founders didn’t invent the Enlightenment era concepts of equality that became the ideological groundwork for the womens workers and black civil rights movement, they just articulated them in a local concept. More importantly, because those movements were primarily created and run by non-elites, the founders had no hand in creating a legacy of community organized social protest from the ground up. Again, this does not mean they are bad guys, but to suggest all the social movements in this country owe their existence to the “vision” of the founders suggests a seriously superficial reading of history of this country and the social movements we’re discussing.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 9, 2009 at 12:20 PM
All due repsect, but “all green party ticket all the time…” would appear to be a symptom of extreme brainwashing. Greenies tend to be fullblown zealots, do they not? Distantly related to Moonie types. Can’t reason with them.
RandyChandler on March 9, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Seems you’ve managed to maintain some intellectual consistency, though I believe Nader was on the ballot in 2004. Why not be intellectually honest and vote Socialist? Is there some way in which the nakedly candid socialist parties are unacceptable to you?
DarkCurrent on March 9, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Okay, here’s two more for ya.
My husband between jobs and with no insurance was diagnosed with lymphocytic lymphoma, a non-Hodgekins leukemia. He spent 30 days in the hospital, had surgery to remove a tumor and spent 16 months on a 3 week on, 1 week off chemotherapy routine which cost, at the time between $1,500 and $2,000.
The state picked up the entire tab.
My niece, pregnant with twins, unemployed and unmarried went into pre-mature labor. Both girls were delivered and required extensive medical care, including heart surgery for one to repair a defect. Sadly, one baby did not survive but the other after two months in neo-natal intensive care did.
She is now a sweet 5 year old. The state picked up the entire tab.
Now, I realize that the state means the taxpayers. I know that we are already paying for the health care of the poor. I don’t have a problem with that.
Having the government control health care does not mean that suddenly everyone will receive the very best care with the most up to date medicines and procedures. People will be turned away because they are too old, or too young or something is too expensive. Eventually people will be denied care because of their lifestyle and health habits. And don’t even get me started on the number of physicians who will be foreign trained. Read Walter Williams current piece about this subject. Read and learn, if you can.
Nationalized health care is just another tired utopian pipe dream of the “compassionate” left.
Jvette on March 9, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Well by 2004 I realized that Nader on a Presidential level was dumb and indulgent, you can’t build a party starting at the top you have to build it starting on local elections and then state wide legilsature and upwards. I also wanted 2004 to be really low turnout just so everyone would recognize the douche/crap sandwich choice we were offered by our national parties.
All the card carrying socialists I know (shocker, I’m actually not in one of those organizations) vote green if they participate in electoral politics alone. Any true socialist would tell you though they don’t believe in the election cycle, rather they think it’s more important to organize the working class for social protest/supporting strikers, creating alternative news outlets etc. etc. If the working class is organized, they’d say, then they’ll start supporting parties that are more friendly to their class position, i.e. the greens. If you’re wondering why I’m not in a socialist organisation it’s because I’m consistently annoyed by the backbiting and sniping agains tother socialist groups that occurs. SDS doesn’t like ISO, none of them like the American CP (and frankly, neither do I). Some groups are super anti-zionist others are less so and that causes dumb internal firing squads. Blah blah blah, my argument has always been you agree on 96% of things and if you got your act together you could get a decent chunk of the legislature in big cities and deep blue states. But they don’t.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 9, 2009 at 12:28 PM
You’re a professor of history. You should understand that the USA would never have been formed in the first place if everyone at the constitutional convention had insisted on getting everything they wanted immediately.
DarkCurrent on March 9, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Then what on earth is the beef here?
OK….but you just described that very same process happening in your state. And then the rest of your post says “but eventually it won’t work.” But the empirical evidence from your very own life says that it DOES work and IS working in your state. Why exactly wouldn’t it work on a larger basis?
DeathToMediaHacks on March 9, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Good to see you admit your mistakes freely, since it looks like you’re going to have to be admitting a gross one soon.
Boiling down the rest, it appears you are a socialist who believed (rightly so in my view) that Obama was the best hope for a socialist victory in this last election cycle. Is that right?
DarkCurrent on March 9, 2009 at 12:34 PM
You’re talking about the slave question right. Because women’s rights weren’t really on the table, neither was a question of universal citizenship. Universal male suffrage and slavery were on the table…but the “debate” was perfunctory at best, the lionshare of wealth came out of slave holding states.
I don’t deny there were anti-slavery voices within the constitutional convention and not even everyone there was a slave owner. But the vast majority were, why would they create a set of documents that undercut their bottom line. Either Adam Smith matters or he doesnt right? Jefferson of course is our best example of that. Did he “envision” a world without slaves? Maybe. Did he “do” anything about it…no, he really didn’t. It took people with a different kind of courage and bravery to bring about that change and I find it kind of insulting you want to take those people’s willingness to look at the founding and say “no, not good enough” and transform it into “well the founders wanted it that way all along…like…secretly or something.”
DeathToMediaHacks on March 9, 2009 at 12:35 PM
I don’t know what YOU mean by socialist. Obama is the candidate most in line with my views. I’d probably vote for the Social Democrats in most W. European nations. I don’t think we can overturn capitalism. I’d just like a little less boom and bust cycles. A little more stability in growth, even if it means slower growth. And a general raising of the standard of living for those at the bottom (the least of these), a serious federal investment in new forms of energy and for the government to not tell me who I can/can’t marry, and what I can/can’t put into my body. If that’s socialist, then fine.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 9, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Again you are wrong. The founders understood that everything they wanted could not be established in the beginning. Many of them opposed slavery, even while owning them, and would have ended it if they could. The constitution is full of compromise language and yet has the provisions for the changes that came along. Yes, they made mistakes, they were not perfect men but the republic they produced was and still is the greatest governing body ever created. Just as they were revolutionary in their actions at the time, so too were the driving forces behind woman’s suffrage, civil rights leaders and union organizers. All of this was done under the frame work of amendments that the fathers allowed, knowing that though the principles were sound, the reality was not perfect. Just as the break with England came only after years of abuse at the hands of King George III, the perfection of this union has been a constant work in progress. But, what liberals want to is to totally change the fundamentals. As I have said to you before, if you want to live under socialist fascism, there are places you can go. Americans who believe in the freedom, both to succeed and to fail, granted us under the constitution have no where else to find the system of government under which we want to live.
Jvette on March 9, 2009 at 12:43 PM
An example of what I mean by socialist is the country I’m posting from, which is a single-party state ruled by a (nominally) communist government. They still claim to be socialist, but are rapidly introducing capitalism. Standards of living are rising quickly now that common sense has taken hold. I invite you to visit, look around, talk to the people on the street about their views of how an economy functions. You won’t find many socialists off camera.
DarkCurrent on March 9, 2009 at 12:47 PM
And you expect people to be persuaded by that. I recognize that compromise is something we all do, but…is this the kind of thing you’d compromise on?
No one disputes that. And that’s EXACTLY the point. They weren’t perfect, to paraphrase the President, the Union had to be perfected. But if that’s your main point, we agree. But MY argument is that we can’t credit the founders with the advances that happened later. Compromise is pragmatic, but it’s not really brave. In fact it’s done to reduce the opportunity for principled stands, not affirm them. It took different people, a century later to be truly brave enough to stand up and say NO to slavery. That they would not compromise. Those people did not do it because of the founders, they did it because of their own willingness to organize around a cause and push it to the breaking point. The founders had a cause they believed in that much, it was called independence. But slavery wasn’t their cause (neither was womens rights or any of the other movements I mentioned) so they don’t get to take credit for it. Those movements were, in part, a repudiation of the founders willingness to compromise on those issues. Compromise WASNT’ an option for the generations that served to perfect the founders mistakes.
How so?
DeathToMediaHacks on March 9, 2009 at 12:51 PM
I’m not for one party rule or for a communist government. So under your definition the answer to the question is no.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 9, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Quite simply, it is not nationalized health care. See, when I want to have a procedure done, or need to be seen by a doctor, I can have done or see any doctor I choose. As long as my insurance covers it, or I am willing to pay for it, my health care is my choice. I control it. I pay for it. No one can deny me or force me to make choices I don’t want.
When the government controls it, they will get to decide the who, what, when, where, how and if of my medical care. The next step is to shut down behavioral habits that the government deems subversive to my health. Failing that, they can deny me care based on those factors.
I firmly believe in catastrophic care for those without insurance. I believe that doctors should give a portion of their time to giving free basic care to children without insurance. I referred you once to Dr. Ben Carson as an example of how I would like to see the medical community respond to health care in this country. Obviously you did not take the time to research.
Lastly, America remains the greatest developer of medical practices, medicines and technology. Foreigners come from all over the world to receive care here. Why, the free market has produced the greatest advances in modern history. Do you know the one field which Americans leave this country to seek treatment in? Plastic surgery. Why? The free market.
Jvette on March 9, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Freeing slaves and eventual racial equality were worthwhile goals. I’ve still got my doubts about women’s suffrage though… can any man make a strong case that that turned out to be a smart idea? (half joking, but just half)
DarkCurrent on March 9, 2009 at 1:00 PM
There is nothing wrong with your coming life. Do not attempt to adjust your income. I will control your income. If I wish to make you richer, I will lift up your income. If I wish to make you poorer, I will crush you with taxes. Do not attempt to live your own life. I will control your life. If I wish I can reduce your life to a living Hell, or sharpen it to Heavenly wonderfulness. I will control your ups. I will control your downs. For the next
four eight twelve sixteen twenty twenty four twenty eight thirty twothirty six years, sit quietly and obediently and I will control all that you see, hear and feel. You are about to experience theclawawe andmiserymystery which reaches from the innerdeliriummind to THE OBAMA SOCIALIST NATION UNLIMITED.- The One
MB4 on March 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Be honest, have you read Obama’s healthcare proposal?
DeathToMediaHacks on March 9, 2009 at 1:04 PM
You should still come to visit. I think it’d be an eye-opener. I’d really be very interested in your thoughts during and after such a visit.
Btw, (if still remembered) when I called you “gandu” a few weeks back, that was a mild term in the local dialect here, not what you’ll find in the Urban Dictionary. Still, from what I’ve learned since it wasn’t entirely inappropriate ;)
DarkCurrent on March 9, 2009 at 1:07 PM
An unemployed friend of mine had a major heart attack, went to the hospital and got bypass surgery. They knew full well he wasn’t covered and he bragged about how the whole thing cost him nothing. I, on the other hand, the insured one, was told at the same hospital that I couldn’t have an ultrasound done unless I paid the deductible up front, which was $250. I tried to make payment arrangements and was told that wasn’t their policy. I ended up going home without it.
scalleywag on March 9, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Jvette on March 9, 2009 at 1:12 PM
I’d love to read it. Is it up online?
scalleywag on March 9, 2009 at 1:13 PM
It’s a zero-sum game and you’re losing. Stop being so productive and responsible and you might still have a chance.
DarkCurrent on March 9, 2009 at 1:18 PM
I’m starting to wonder, Ed. Try a google search on Cloward-Piven Strategy. So far the Dems have been following that game plan pretty closely.
Maurice Strong, in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit said: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Engineered crisis as a means to an end is not a new idea.
iurockhead on March 9, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Be honest, have you read Obama’s healthcare proposal?DeathToMediaHacks on March 9, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Jvette on March 9, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Okay, that’s twice that has happened to me. I don’t recall hitting the strike out button, yet there it is in my entire post. Hope you can read it with all the lines in it.
Jvette on March 9, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Uh what country is it again?
I can’t really respond if your argument is “I don’t believe it’s real.” The proposal is what it is. You can either talk about its merits or not. But to say “I don’t think it will happen.” Isn’t really an argument.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 9, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Makes you feel that way sometimes. Even though I’m very fortunate to have the coverage I have with my employer, God forbid I lose my job and have to rely on a DMV type health care service. I don’t believe that system would be real kind to middle aged women. Someone mentioned Octomom, that’s another perfect example of how people are already getting coverage for all kinds of things. What are you going to do, turn away a woman about to have 8 kids? Show me a state that would have done that.
scalleywag on March 9, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Did you preview and still get this result?
DarkCurrent on March 9, 2009 at 1:29 PM
HAHA, that happened to me the other day and I didn’t even noticed there was a strike button!
scalleywag on March 9, 2009 at 1:31 PM
I am saying that your Dear One lies, hides his true agenda behind nice phrases and ideas while doing the opposite. Nationalized health care, like nationalized education, welfare, housing and everything else centralized under the federal government will not work.
I know he pretends that his is a method of making available to every American the same health plan he and Congress have.
Pipe dream. It will end up being single payer, daddy care whereby those who dole out the bucks get to control your lifestyle as they threaten to withhold care that you don’t deserve, especially if you are too old, or too fat, or smoke too much, or maybe sleep with the wrong people(unless of course you’re a gay man with HIV/AIDS).
One more fundamental thing the libs would like to undermine, the secret ballot.
Jvette on March 9, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Did you preview and still get this result?
DarkCurrent on March 9, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Jvette on March 9, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Where I live she would have been very lucky if they just turned her away. All I can say under current circumstance.
DarkCurrent on March 9, 2009 at 1:36 PM
I didn’t say that I don’t think it will happen. I said that I don’t believe a word out of his mouth. I have no doubt this lib administration, congress and media will manage to ruin lots of things in this country before they’re done.
BTW, I love how you put those phrases in quotes as if that is what I said. A totally liberal misdirection.
Jvette on March 9, 2009 at 1:39 PM
If you locked Obama, Axelrod and Emmanuel in a room and gave them truth serum and ask them if in 2012 US growth would be zero or mildly negative and unemployment would be 12% to 15% but there would be universal healthcare, unions would represent a majority of workers, there would be a strict carbon regulation regime, the government would control the bounds of political discourse, there would be a real european style welfare state and BO would be re-elected, would they take the deal? Hell to the motherloving yes.
Everyone acts like Obama looks at the tanking market and economy as some kind of bug. I think he views it as a feature. Obama and his advisors think they can blame any failings of the economy on Bush and use the “crisis” to enact their programs.
“Progressives” value universal government benefits, income equality and central government control. Further, growth in the Progressive view, is it creates environmental damage and generally comes at the expense of the less fortunate.
Obama is not troubled at all by the economy, at least until he can’t blame it on Bush anymore, and with what amounts to a state run media, I doubt he is too worried about that happening anytime soon. The problem is that our economy propped up these EU socialists for years. We’re in a deflationary cycle now. If the geniuses running our monetary policy don’t suck the money back out with perfect timing, we’ll have inflation. My guess is deflation for a few years followed by massive inflation, maybe hyperinflation, which is what Schiff is saying.
chunderroad on March 9, 2009 at 1:40 PM
I could see this coming. My experience in the black community was very educational. Horizontal descrimination and biggotry runs deep there. Many are convinced that blacks lack the intellectual where-with-all to keep up with the white man, so they seek artificial advantages.
The problem is, welfare and affirmative action only reinforces their beliefs of intellectual deficit because many have seen no economic or cultural progress even with the extra advantages the government provides.
If Obama wants to help poor Blacks, he should set them free from the shackles of government dependency.
saiga on March 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM
I’m in software development (probably worked on your OS and browser). I can assure you old computers do NOT have minds of their own. It’s your fingers.
DarkCurrent on March 9, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Exactly and they are also unsustainable.
Take France. Top tourist destination in the world, they make hundreds of billions off of productive citizens traveling to their country, to support a welfare state.
If we all become welfare states, who is going to have enough cash to go to France for two weeks in the summer? Not US citizens.
They also don’t have to pay anywhere approaching the full cost for national defense (courtesy of Uncle Sugar). What would they do if Bammy’s pacifist vision of the world is realized?
The demographics of their population is to the point where the natives will be outnumbered by angry, resentful, unskilled Muslim immigrants within the next few decades.
Not a country I want to emulate.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »