In sum, Reagan’s implication that government is inherently bad or incompetent compared to the private sector is, well, incredibly stupid – and dangerous.

If it were not so scary that this person actually believes the government is efficient, it would be laughable

NoFanofLibs on July 15, 2009 at 3:40 PM

uh…man, this is depressing. I don’t know where to start, I feel like balling up in a corner and repeating “Find a happy place” over and over. Wow…there are people running around that actually believe this. *sigh*…”profit” is evil? *sigh* Where do you start with a person like this?

Businesses in their natural state strive toward efficiency, to maximize profits…unless government gets involved that is! Businesses/corporations can veer from morality in the persuit of efficiency, but that IS the reason for laws, and should not be an excuse to limit choice or should I call it liberty?

It didn’t take long to run into an “uh-oh” moment when reading the House’s “health care for all Americans” bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.
…

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1501&status=article&id=332548165656854
/.

If it were not so scary that this person actually believes the government is efficient, it would be laughable

NoFanofLibs on July 15, 2009 at 3:40 PM

That was pretty surreal. It reads like the antimatter version of me.

You know what will happen if it fails.

#1: the failure won’t matter because Democrats had good intentions when they passed it.

#2: anyone who points out the failure is a racist/sexist/genderist/homophobic/classist who doesn’t want people to get medical care.

#3: we’ll fix the problem by increasing the funding.

BD57 on July 15, 2009 at 12:08 PM

So if one is a timecist, we can point out it’s a failure??

I just get a “canned” letter that never addresses what I write them about. Any suggestions?

Don’t feel like the lone ranger – I get exactly the same preplanned response.

would we rather that need be met by an entity – government – which we created specifically to serve our needs and which is accountable to us?

Someone needs to take the koolaid away from this writer – it’s gone straight to the head where the brain was suppose to be. How can anyone think a government who gets less than $.35 of every welfare dollar to the recipient, who steals from the social security fund to the point of bankruptcy, who funds billions of dollars in to saving a marsh mouse when unemployment is at 9.5%, who purchases outlandish things for even more outlandish prices………. to anything better than a business?

Oh, and may we refer him to the private corporations running prisons efficiently like Corrections Corporations of America (CCA)?

If it fails, the Obamunists will blame it on “the forces in Washington who benefit from the staus quo” or some such demagogic nonsense. They will also find some way to blame Bush of course.

And the media propagandists will dutifully play along.

What groups are out there?

Obviously written by some moron that’s never been inside a DMV.

elduende on July 15, 2009 at 3:43 PM

FIFY

In the end, when things get bad, he will argue that he did not write them and did not fully approve of their structure…it was Congress’s fault. Watch.

NickelAndDime on July 15, 2009 at 3:03 PM

He may try it, but not even he will be able to get away with that cynical a stunt.

Responsibility always stops with the president. If he tries to fix the blame for these programs on someone else, his popularity will immediately fall 10 to 20 points.

Looks more efficient to me

NoFanofLibs on July 15, 2009 at 3:40 PM

Obviously written by some moron that’s never been inside a DMV.

The ridiculous idea that private corporations inherently do things better than government can

Ronald Reagan, perhaps more than anyone else, helped to establish the myth that the private sector is inherently better than government at just about everything. He summarized the right wing philosophy in a sound bite when he joked “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

That joke and the ideology behind it is stupid beyond belief. Yet Ronald Reagan sold that ideology to millions of Americans, rode it to victory in two presidential elections, and helped turn American politics sharply to the right for decades to come.

Think about it. What is government and what are corporations? Government is us the people. It is the vehicle by which the American people have arranged to serve their needs. Without government we have anarchy and the rule of the jungle, as opposed to the rule of law. The purpose of a corporation, on the other hand, is to make a profit. If we as a people have a need that has to be met, such as the provision of water or health care, and all other things being equal, would we rather that need be met by an entity – government – which we created specifically to serve our needs and which is accountable to us? Or would we rather that need be met by an entity – a corporation – that was created to make a profit? In sum, Reagan’s implication that government is inherently bad or incompetent compared to the private sector is, well, incredibly stupid – and dangerous.

If it were not so scary that this person actually believes the government is efficient, it would be laughable

Doctor Zero on July 15, 2009 at 3:24 PM

Boy ain’t that the truth. Just look at the platforms of the center right parties in Europe. The ascendant Tories in the UK for example, are emasculated when it comes to this issue. They call for “reforming” the Health Service and eliminating “waste” but not privatizing or eliminating the socialist boondogle…

Accordingly, it seems increasingly likely that Obama will take whatever he can get on healthcare, declare victory, and try to move on without answering too many questions about the result. While the Left hopes to hand the the moderates a fait accompli, the moderates may already be figuring out that they hold the upper hand.

I think it’s going to take absolutely savage opposition to make the Democrats give up on some kind of universal health care plan. This is it – the ultimate political prize. It will permanently alter the relationship between citizens and their government.

Look at the huge political gravity well surrounding Social Security… this would be ten times as huge. Nationalized health care would not only provide a huge amout of leverage on its own – it would also become a useful weapon against virtually every other conservative or libertarian policy. Nationalized health care would spell the end of tax cuts, for one thing. It would also provide the justification for never-ending expansion of government power over private lives, because everything that could affect your health would become the government’s business.

This is just too big for the Left to back down on, when they’re closer than they’ve ever gotten. It will take a really terrifying groundswell of public opinion to frighten the Democrats out of slapping down the ace that completes the Royal Flush of statism.

What if Obamacare fails?

Don’t you mean, ‘What when Obamacare fails?’

Careful. It’s almost as though you want Obama to fail!!1!

Lehosh on July 15, 2009 at 3:02 PM

Guilty. Actually its worse than that, I want him to fail spectacularly.

In the end, when things get bad, he will argue that he did not write them and did not fully approve of their structure…it was Congress’s fault. Watch.

NickelAndDime on July 15, 2009 at 3:03 PM
—-
I suspect this is the game plan.

The question is what the game after 2010 looks like – if the house flips (don’t think the senate *can* flip, although the Dems may lose their magic 60) do we get another Clinton triangulation-game?

Mew

For Obama to fail now would be even worse, as Bill Clinton could make Hillary the scapegoat, whereas there is no obvious fall guy or gal today.

Au contraire, Karl . He has an ace in the hole that that folks rarely call out. Stimulus, Cap & Trade, HealthCare… he voted “present”, remained the Campaigner In Chief for these initiatives, and let Congress write them all, proposing hardly any details.

In the end, when things get bad, he will argue that he did not write them and did not fully approve of their structure…it was Congress’s fault. Watch.

It makes the nation ungovernable for him and the Congress.

elduende on July 15, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Careful. It’s almost as though you want Obama to fail!!1!

House Members Being Hammered Over Waxman-Markey [Iain Murray]

I’m hearing that the popular reaction to the passage of the Waxman-Markey electricity tax bill in the House has blown House members away. The public outrage is really hurting those who voted for it, and that’s why the bill has been “parked” (as the Blair government used to say) in the Senate. Very good sign. We need that sort of public pressure to defeat this monstrosity, and similarly for the health-care plans. If these two overreaches go down, Obama’s political capital will be spent. How often has a president become a lame duck by his own actions within a year of taking office?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

I say if it can’t be defeated we should force the vote along party lines it will polarize the nation beyond anything Obama ever dreamed. It makes the nation ungovernable for him and the Congress.

jwolf on July 15, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Obama’s overall numbers are okay, but one thing most on Capitol Hill know how to do is track polling trends. Obama is losing independents daily. And pols know that those numbers are likely to continue to get worse until people see the unemployment numbers going down — which most think won’t happen until sometime next year. A Rep. or Senator in a swing district or state — especially one who has already taken some unpopular votes for party unity — is getting queasier every day about the prospect of voting on Obamacare.

Another indicator is the frustration of Lefties like Jane Hamsher:

Give Carolyn Maloney credit: she says what everyone else is thinking. The health care bill that comes out of the Senate is going to be sh**ty, and she wants to be able to vote for it.

Expectations are getting managed.

Define success

lorien1973 on July 15, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Horrible, squalid, and even deadly, but mostly at the margins (people who, ironically, the program is meant to protect) and not in enough numbers to penetrate Obama’s Ministry of Information.

The clip of the crash and burn teleprompter is the perfect analogy of Teh One.

I believe Obama’s poll numbers are lot weaker than they appear in these public polls.

There are a lot of people who will never admit to a pollster that they have lost faith in Obama. On the other hand, their enthusiasm has dropped to the point that they are a lot less likely to make the effort to vote this next time.