Oh I miss inflection, but (gasp) Common Ground???

Oh my dear, I am hurt that perhaps you think I do not pour over your every word.  I admit, there are times that I do not appreciate nuances and emphasis, typing is such a poor communication medium.  However, trust me that I am doing my best,  I put them on split screen, your post behind a word processing open document,, then I do the cut and paste thingamabob and off we are with my rebuttal. 

OK, I am not too big to apologize as you did not specifically call us Republicans, insurance companies or rich stockholders ‘evil”  I guess I assume that a  contemptuous sneer is present when you type these phrases are they are so often on TV and in commentary, and you are correct, I do think that most Democrats view stockholders and insurance companies as evil. I am pleased to hear you do not feel the same.  I won‘t make that assumption again ( ya know the saying, assuming makes an….)  So I will instead, try to concentrate more on the actual words and less on the inflection I hear when reading them.  So, formally, my deepest apologies, the perceived scorn was all imagined by me.  ( enough mea culpa?)  Unfortunately,  typing (for me) loses a large part of the message as vocals can provide critical nuance.  Well, we will do our best..

Lets move into the more exciting news,  I actually think we may (kinda) agree on something, the uninsured are a problem (regarding care and cost) and we are already paying for them.  Yes problem, but what is the answer?  Your position ( correct me if I am wrong) is that we have a moral obligation as a people to provide health care as a basic human right.  So this brings the larger ,Is health care a civil right?  Hmmm before I answer this,  lets move into another question,  what is healthcare?  Is it preventative medicine?  Is it critical care?  How about fertility treatment?  Treatment for gunshots as a result of drug activity?   What about obesity treatment?  Emergency room?  End of life care?  Physical therapy?  Dental?  Eye exams? Or about abortions?  You see I think it is easy to take the moral high ground and say, We need to provide healthcare for all, but as you delve into the particulars it is much harder to make decisions as to what should/can be provided, and at what cost.    This is the first question that ought to be tackled as many people obviously have great issues with providing ( if we are talking about those that financially are unable to pay for care) to others what they themselves may not have, or things that they feel are moral wrongs.  Then the next question should be what should we do about it as a people? And as a government?  I might be more than happy to provide catastrophic care policies,  maybe emergency care, pediatric well child, and even chronic care for long term conditions but I get a bit more hesitant on fertility treatments and certainly abortions.  Again, this is what I personally might support..  You get my point though yes?  This is a very difficult complex issue, and something which a ginormous 3,000 page bill could only make more muddled.

I have to admit that I do not necessarily thing that “health care” is a right.  (oh no, now I said it, what a terrible person I am) But I mean that in terms of a ‘civil right’ . Is it a moral obligation, OK yes, I can go with that more. Is it an indication that we are a just and compassionate country if we care for our own, YES, but a right , no.  In fact if we are going to hand over additional civil rights, I happen to think that food (or adequate nutrition) is more of a necessity in our country than health care.  Or how about housing?  I mean to me, these are more basic human rights than health care and millions of our  citizens are in desperate need of food and shelter.  According to NYT 49 million people are in jeopardy and housing: maybe as many as 4 million are homeless and millions other living in substandard housing. Habitat for humanity claims 95 million people have housing problems.  So where do we stop?  Do we?  Should we give everyone homes, jobs, food, and health care, provided by tax dollars?  Slippery slope that you can start sliding down if you are not careful, you land smack dab in the middle of socialism.

One final note we must use another time to discuss the billions spent in wars.  Constitutionally, we are obligated to spend money on defense of our borders and our country.  I am certain we agree about some things in this and disagree about others.  Regardless, I agree that it would be better if we spent less (far less) and used that savings to pay down our  ballooning deficits and debt and certainly by funding all of our unfunded liabilities THEN lets look at spending more on entitlements.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil

The price action of the insurance companies has been clear all along.  The insurance companies benefitted from the bill COMPARED TO the kick in the teeth they would have gotten before a deal was struck. That explains the December move in insurance stock prices. However they stand to benefit even more now that the bill is essentially dead.  That explains the move yesterday. As for today, there's a common aphorism in the market: 'buy the rumor, sell the news'. 

Nowhere do I drop 'evil' at the doorstep of rich shareholders or insurance companies.  I can only assume you believe all democrats (including me) feel this way and so inserted this yourself.  You'd be wrong.

In fact I would be the hypocrite of all time if I did believe this.  Look at my last posts fer' Chrissakes!  I said I would greedily invest in and become the 'evil' rich shareholder if it looked like the insurance companies have a competitive advantage! It makes me wonder if you're even reading my blogs or simply trolling them for leftist catchphrases to abuse. 

I have no problem if insurance companies get rich selling us insurance. I don't begrudge their right to refuse insurance to high-risk individuals.  They provide a service for profit and their customer base are paying, low-risk individuals.  In turn they provide employment to actuaries, preventing them from boring the rest of us to tears during normal business hours.  They're great corporate citizens in this regard.

The problem (well, a problem among many) lies in the 30-50 million uninsured that can't pay or are deemed to be too high-risk for the insurers to take on profitably. I for one think that covering basic health insurance (through subsidies, fine) for these individuals is a worthy use of tax dollars.  We spent hundreds of millions of our tax money for quake relief in Haiti because millions have no recourse but to die in the street without our help. It's obvious we had to act when we saw thousands afflicted in one place, suffering at one time.  Yet over time, millions of uninsured, one by one, scattered across the country, face a similar fate: they'll require urgent, emergency medical care they cannot afford. I'm proud of our government response in Haiti, as well as all the charitable contributions from the private sector.  I'd be similarly proud of our response to those uninsured that need our help.

If there is a free-market solution that substantially reduces the number of uninsured, then I'm open to it.  Perhaps one was proposed and I missed it (not being facetious, I'm not the most informed person when it comes to all the proposed legislation).  Letting insurers operate across state lines and tort reform may help reduce costs for people that can already obtain insurance, and I'm open to hearing more from Republicans on both of these issues.  But bottom line: Even with these reforms, for profit insurance companies still have two basic requirements to get a policy: money and health.  And that rules out millions and millions of people in the U.S.

For the Good of All

Funny thing, The stock market went DOWN today and before you think that may be due to other forces, please know that hospital stocks went down and insurance stocks were mixed,     SO, after the results of the election were known,  the insurance stocks did not soar.  Interestingly, following the passing of the Senate version of the bill last Dec, stocks soared also, note this exchange from last month,

On Sunday's  Meet The Press, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough was asked a simple question about health care: What has President Obama achieved? His answer: "He has made a lot of people with insurance stock a lot richer."
"This [bill] is great for insurance companies," he explained. "They were going to reform the system [but] neither side wanted to take on the insurance companies. Neither side wanted to get rid of anti-trust exemptions. Neither side really pushed hard to allow you or me or anybody here to buy across state lines. And as Howard Dean said -- and this is a devastating fact -- insurance companies' stocks reached [52-week] highs on Friday after this so called reform bill got its 60th vote. So David Axelrod, who I love and respect, but David Axelrod kept saying 'we took on the insurance companies, this is real reform, they're against it.' Really? I don't think so."

However, I do not think that the insurance Companies love this bill, on the contrary I think that they would love to have things stay the same BUT they also were anticipating increasing their rolls if it did pass.  Obama sought their input and had them ON BOARD.  To try to make it out that they were not complicit in mandating that every man woman and child buy from their companies is just dishonest.  You really think they thought this would be a bad thing?  Ha ha  ( I got a bridge in Alaska to sell you).

    Now I have 2 major points to make.  First regarding our economy.  Our economy is not a free market economy (especially  in regard to health care ) so the “enlightened self- interest” comments goes only so far..  Now I am not an economist and my understanding of things are entirely self taught so bear with me.  We have  a mixed economy and there is heavy  intervention in the health industry from the federal and state governments.  Frankly, I think we would actually be better off it was a free market economy Insurance companies can’t help but have some power over individual markets as the government does not allow for true competition.  States regulate and in some areas only one or two companies hold the whole shebang,  How can you create market forces in that type of atmosphere?  The people are only able to buy one or the other and both probably offer only one or two  rigidly controlled policy that mandates so many benefits (whether needed or not).  How can that work?  If companies were allowed to sell across the country and offer different plans for different customers then we could have a good result where the market forces would prevent any one company from taking advantage of their customers, those customers would be able to find other companies to sell to them if the prices got to high.  (I acknowledge that some people would need subsidies to purchase their own policies but by having them purchase and take ownership they then become involved in making decisions and keeping some companies in business and others run them out of business). True competition (and I do not mean from the government) is missing.

    OK my second point is regarding this idea that insurance companies are inherently evil.  They make money, yes they do, ooohhhh .   They earn money for their “rich stockholders”  Hmmm….Yup they do,  and I am certain that not all the shareholders are “rich”  but must admit that you actually must have money to buy stock.  The profit margins for insurance companies range from 2-4 %  depending on who you are looking at, this does not seem (to me) to be some kind of an obscene amount.  It is easy to point out, (like many do to the oil industries also)  “Oh, look at the BILLIONS they made in profit“,  but fail to realize this is not a large amount when looking at their overall gross or expenditures.  Anyway, I don’t want to get in over my head, but count me in for companies in business to make money, lets allow them to compete in a fair manner and let ‘em go..  Don’t  you think that doctors or hospitals (well maybe not the Catholic ones) or medical device people ALL make money off of us? (in fact Johnson and Johnson profit margin is 20%!). Guess what they do, they exploit our illnesses and accidents and actually make money!!!. Why are the insurance companies the bad ones?  If we hate them do much lets get rid of them and do direct pay to the providers?  Maybe only have catastrophic care policies for hospitalization.  Fine with me but lets not castigate one aspect of health care  and pretend that everyone else is in it for the goodness of mankind.

 

OK. One last point, Scott Brown made an excellent point today when correcting the newswoman when she expressed surprise that he called Vicki Kennedy and how could he call and talk to the widow of Ted Kennedy when he is responsible for defeating Ted Kennedy’s legacy and current Health care reform ( implying that was arrogant and presumptuous) and he said something to the effect  “I am for Health Care Reform, just not the reform that is currently in Congress”  I have high hopes for True BI-PARTISIAN health care reform, something in which we will all benefit from.  I hope you see that as well soon.  ( and I certainly will be thrilled to tell you, “I told you so”)

cheers and I am still basking in the glory that one feels when they are FINALLY validated!

KABOOM

 

Did you hear the Democrats entire leftist agenda exploding?  did ya?

Steve, sorry I will have to address all your post and accusations  tomorrow as I am too busy tonight celebrating the joy that I feel over the death knell for Obamacare.  If Massachusetts ( my Goodness, could it be any better?  how do you spin this away? ) can reject Obamacare and the one party rule and all the crap that is being pushed on the American people, well.... perhaps I am not so far out on the fringe after all.  There are decent Democrats that feel this process and Washington arrogance needs to be addressed and now the Senate will be forced to come to the center and include all (even those evil self centered Republicans).  Balance has been given (however small a margin).Our country is Center Right and if Obama is wise he will take a hard tack to center, else this will be a Republican controlled Congress in the fall.

YIPPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

Market reaction to Mass. Election

Here's the lead story for Marketwach.com today: (excerpt from http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-gain-as-health-stocks-rally-2010-01-19?dist=afterbell)

"The stock market hit a new 15-month high Tuesday, spurred by the biggest jump in health-care shares since the summer as traders bet on the outcome of a Senate race with big implications for proposed health-insurance reforms."

Sue, as much as you want to believe that insurance companies & big pharma love this bill, the reality is they would prefer NO BILL!  Today's stock market action clearly shows this.  Looks like these stocks are soaring in lockstep with Mr. Browns election chances!

In addition, here is a comment from a Wall Street insider, in the same article:
------------------------
"Not only could today's race turn out favorably, but the signal here is that we could also be headed for November elections that would cause some real gridlock" if the balance between Democrats and Republicans tips further in Republicans' favor, said Peter Cardillo, chief market economist at Avalon Partners in New York.

"From the market's standpoint, that would be exactly what the doctor ordered."
------------------------
So please, please, please, don't try and tell me that big business is on the side of the Democrats on this bill or anything related to healthcare in general.  It's so clearly NOT the case.

With this in mind, I stand by call to invest in healthcare stocks if the Republicans are in charge of healthcare reform.  Looking at the market action and comments, I'm not the only one who sees this as an obvious and rational course of action.

And lastly, I only saw two digs on Republicans in my last blog.  Here they are with some clarification:

"So if I were looking at this issue solely in terms of 'enlightened self-interest' I would have to vote no.  But then I was never one to look at these types of problems like an accountant or a Republican."
--All I meant here was that Republicans have traditionally espoused free-market thinking, in which the market works best when everyone acts in accordance to their own enlightened self-interest.  Enlightened self-interest means, in effect, acting on behalf of others because doing so will help yourself.  If that is not a central conservative economic tenet, then I have thoroughly misunderstood people like Thomas Sowell, who seem to live by this.

"Because, as I see it, the only people who will benefit from a Republican healthcare solution are the insurance companies and their rich shareholders."
-- As indicated by today's market action in response to the Mass. election.

None of this, for the record, reflects my thoughts toward you personally.  I disagree with you, but I in no way find you disagreeable.  We are family, after all!

Something is not always better than nothing

    I am surprised, well maybe not, at your cynicism and stereotyping of Republicans, and I will do my best to not take it personally that you have basically said I, as a Republican, only care about my own self interest.  That is supremely unfair, not to mention, not true.  Interesting how you seem to attack the motives  and personal characteristics of republicans in a rather mean spirited manner as we debate these things.  I try not to disparage you for your thoughts and positions in a personal way.  Further, I do not believe that I have ever done anything to give you an indication that I am a self serving person, but perhaps I have.  I wonder, what do you really think of me?  Ah well,  I will thicken my skin.

I disagree that Health Care is dead if this deal does not go through, in fact I believe it has served as  a catalyst to get people talking about what needs to occur.  I have, for many years, been complaining and decrying the out of control health care costs that are happening.  Perfect example,  I have had 4 babies.  Each approximately 2 years apart (give or take a month), each pregnancy was almost identical, each hospitalization was 2 days long, normal delivery, similar experiences, drugs, monitoring, etc. etc. etc.  ( maybe Ben, the first, there was a bit more intervention as there were a few hairy moments in the final moments of delivery whereby numerous doctors and nurses ( say 12 extra people) were called in to assist but the last 3  were same hospital and everything.  Perry has been with the same company and we have had the same insurance for all 4 babies.  My first  child the out of pocket expense (total) cost me $25.00 ( for everything); my second, it was around $350.00 ;  Jenny, my third, costs were $3200.00; and Nate ran us around $7100.00 .  That is a problem.  SO, before you jump into the belief that Republicans want to keep the status quo; let me reassure you, that is not the case.  Most intelligent and knowledgeable people recognize and want to address the problems that are  in our health care system.

    Now did Republicans raise it as a centerpiece or push for it while in power? No, but times are different and the issue is front and center and the desire is out there from the American people and I think that we can come up with a plan that will address the problem.  You state that no bill is better than the status quo, but what if this bill increases health costs?   What if this bill reduces choices and coverage for the majority of people. What if this bill creates a more pronounced ‘class’ system of care, where by only the rich will be able to get the best services? ( you may state that happens now but I  think this bill could make it more pronounced) What if this bill fails to insure all the uninsured?  Even you can acknowledge there are many scenarios whereby this bill IS worse than the status quo.  

    I think if this bill gets squashed ( and I am fervently praying for the Tuesday election to do this) then this does not mean that everything is done for.  It simply means that if Democrats are serious, they must address the concerns, and listen to the majority of America and what must happen is that the Democrats and the Republicans will then have to  come together and make laws that will fix the problems.  Perhaps this can also be done in a less sweeping and more  piecemeal fashion, instead on one giant unproven experiment, lets address and perhaps tackle the issues in separate bills. ( no more 2500 page monstrosities)  Doing things in a more cooperative, open,  process, where each piece can be examined and solutions discussed. And certainly if you have more broad support you will have less, deal making, and corruption.  I think most people recognize that there are real problems with the spiraling costs that are happening in our country.    Look at increasing coverage as one piece.  Look at improving services as another, look at reducing costs as a third, etc.

I find it fascinating that you have turned a blind eye to the fact that insurance companies and Big Pharma are all in bed with the DEMOCRATS with this bill.  You think that the insurance companies are  not making out like bandits with this new bill?  Why has their stock soared with news of this moving through and passing in the Senate.  Insurance companies stand to make millions and millions with this plan, after all we are now MANDATED to purchase private insurance ( even Rush Limbaugh who can privately pay for it)
Yet you claim this is a Republican tactic.  Not one republican has been able to influence this bill in any significant manner, though Olympia Snowe stuck in for a long time trying,  Dems own it lock stock and barrel so if it does pass I think you ought to invest with those insurance companies but you can thank the Dems .

For the record here are a few of my thoughts on health care reform, feel free to attack them:

• Medical care services need to be paid for by people, not insurance companies,  this creates a separation from what is being bought and like anything else, people can make better decisions if they are doing the buying, not insurance companies or the government.
• Tort reform MUST be a part of this plan.  I was speaking to a neurologist at Chuck E Cheese ( a fellow Homeschooler) who, after clarifying she was WAY off record, told me 80% of her tests are run to cover herself against future lawsuits.  Anecdotal fro sure but in our litigious society people ring the malpractice bell like they are playing the lottery.  I mean Obstetricians, in MD, can be sued for any problem the child can have up to the age of 18.  My current OB/GYN is defending herself against a lawsuit of a 13 yr old who has ADHD.  Her insurance has risen 300% recently and tons are closing up shop.
• Catastrophic care policies ought to be promoted ( maybe mandated) to eliminate bankruptcies due to medical illness.
• Insurance companies need to be able to truly compete to be able to reduce costs and improve service.  When there are so many restrictions as to what can be sold in one state vs. another, there IS no competition,  Government can never provide competition as they have an unfair playing field.
• I agree we are already paying for care for the uninsured, lets figure out how to get them insured. There will be people who are chronically ill and need subsidies for all their care, and some that need supplements to afford coverage.  We do need to help these people but that should be a small segment of the population. Many, many people CHOOSE to not have coverage and instead buy cars, or go on vacation or get a bigger house,  Like taxes everyone should pay SOMETHING, even if it is only a few dollars, because then they get invested in the choices and services and coverage they have/ need.   When things are given to people there is an absence of responsibility , and a dependency that is created,  For many people the incentive to stay dependant overwhelms the ability to become self-sufficient.    I feel very very strongly about this people need a hand-up  NOT a hand out. 
• People need to take a more proactive role in managing their own health.  Paying for medical conditions and problems that are  a result of lifestyle choices should not fall on the shoulders of everyone.  If you choose to smoke and weigh 100lbs more that you should, I shouldn’t have to completely support you medical bills.  Sorry if that sounds self serving but we need to promote responsibility.

SO there you have it,  This issue is not black and white and is so very complex, even the few ideas I have put forth create numerous questions and decisions.  Does something need to happen, YES!!!  This bill is not it, and is much, much worse than nothing.

Cheers,  I will so look forward to another discussion if Scott Brown pulls off the biggest miracle since Cana.

I vote yes.

Am I for or against this healthcare bill?

I'm for it.  Unenthusiastically.  I consider it to be like chemo for the healthcare industry: the medicine makes you sick, but doing nothing will kill you.

For me, personally, as in what's best solely for Mr. Sweet and family, this bill costs me money and I get no real benefit from it, because I'm healthy, insured, employed, and fairly well off.  So if I were looking at this issue solely in terms of 'enlightened self-interest' I would have to vote no.  But then I was never one to look at these types of problems like an accountant or a Republican.

Why, then, do I give this watered down milquetoast bill a reluctant thumbs up?

1)IT'S BETTER THAN NOTHING:  The realistic alternative before us is pass this bill or pass nothing for a long, long time.  And this bill, warts and all, is still better than doing nothing. Not because it helps democrats get elected and stay in power, which I doubt will be the case in any event. It's because the current system is so flawed, so broken, that even this piece of crap bill improves it. This bill is costly, unnecessarily inefficient, watered down, and in many areas does more harm than good.  Guilty as charged.  But it's STILL an improvement.

2) IT MAKES ECONOMIC SENSE: All those uninsured today are still gonna need healthcare.  When they do, who pays?  Currently, we do.  And we pay a lot. It shows up as extra taxes to pay for county hospitals.  The welfare costs are driven up as the uninsured move to the streets to pay for their unplanned medical bills and the astronomical cost of drugs.  It is a drag on the economy when totally preventable illnesses keep people in hospital beds instead of punching a timecard and earning a paycheck.  Add these not-so-hidden taxes up and it would not surprise me one bit to see they actually cost us more than paying to cover the uninsured outright.

3) IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO, DESPITE THE COST: Even without the economic argument given above I would still be for this bill.  It's simply wrong to continue to let the insurance companies dictate who gets coverage based on the risk to the companies profit margin.  Let me be clear: It's NOT wrong for insurance companies to decide who they cover or not (this is where I part company with the democrats and how they structured this bill.) They are for-profit companies; they can refuse anyone they want if they think it hurts their shareholders. It IS wrong that we as a people do not provide an alternative to those who have been turned down by the insurance companies. In a country that pays for two wars simultaneously and homeland security at any cost there is no moral justification for denying health insurance to millions by claiming we can't afford it. 

Since this is a political blog, I'll end with a POLITICAL COMMENT:  What will be the future of healthcare reform, democrat or republican led, if this bill is defeated? The democrats will clearly be too weakened to mount another assault on this issue, so I doubt any reform will come from them. And the republicans?  Well let's just say that if healthcare is left to the conservatives I'll be investing in insurance, Republican style. I'll buy stock in the insurance companies and use the profit to pay for my medical bills if I'm ever turned down by them.  If I'm blessed with continued good health then I'll donate the excess to those with pre-existing conditions who don't have the luxury of having capital to invest.  Because, as I see it, the only people who will benefit from a Republican healthcare solution are the insurance companies and their rich shareholders. 

We the People

Not being a complete idiot, I do realize that this bill has not actually passed, my earlier references were to the passing in the various chambers.  Actually, I am quite surprised at your assertion that it may be possible that some Republicans will end up voting for this.   Also, I am not certain that no one has changed their minds either, we haven’t heard it but like you said, the final vote has not happened.  The Democrats have convinced their people that NOT passing it would be politically worse than passing it, that is why they are passing it ( not for their original reasons)   Does this make sense to you?  How can that be the reason we are going to make this enormous change in our society, economy and  health care?  Were going to do this to be less politically damaging to the democrats?  This is reason to support this bill as a democrat? (Or do you believe this bill will increase coverage reduce care, improve and increase services and reduce our deficit as claimed?)    How about what is best for our country?  How about something that might actually help keep people from going bankrupt if they get sick ( catastrophic care politics) How about reforms that will really bring costs down?  ( TORT REFORM and interstate competition, free market competition, providing a variety of plans to choose what works for each person as opposed to mandated coverage for everything in every policy), What about increasing personal responsibility so people can have control and be involved in the decisions? ( make health care be paid for by people themselves, not insurance companies and fine, give subsidies to people to let them purchase for themselves instead of being a nanny state and purchasing for them).  What about addressing looming doctor shortage if they actually do the things they are planning? I feel like I could go on and on. 

So to a more, ummm, intimate question regarding this bill.  Specifically whether you , Steve Sweet, support this bill, (yes I understand we do not have a final bill, and there are some differences between the senate and house, but I hope you will not use that to not answer).

I agree the watering down of this bill removes any and all pretense to achieve its original purposes ( at least from a left view; as from a right (and correct ) view it never did anyway.  Thus, I have a hard time wondering how anyone can actually support it, and why they are continuing forward.  You use a lot of statements reporting that the majority of people support free universal health care.  I suspect if you asked people if they ought to have free universal housing, they would also enthusiastically back that.  Or free universal food,  or how about free universal gold bricks.  Who could not support that?   Ultimately, someone has to pay for these things ( and it cannot be done simply by taxing those evil rich people) and polls show that when people find out it may be THEM that has to pay for it, their support drops off dramatically.  Those same people also acknowledge ( overwhelmingly) that we as a nation can not afford this (especially at this time).
The fact remains this bill is hugely unpopular and no poll shows that majority of the  people support it, and I guess many of them ( not only republicans) have representatives in Congress, why are those Dems not representing the views of their constituents?  That fact alone should be enough to go back to the drawing board. I agree we have a looming problem with health care costs and availability.  This bill will do NOTHING to help those problems.  Something does need to be done it improve the issues but the hardest question is how do we do these things and not turn our country into a socialist or communist one, which dooms us for generations.

and finally:

GO SCOTTIE THE HOTTIE!!  SAVE US ON TUESDAY!!! 

More Healthcare Scrutiny

She lied, you say --- prove it without perjuring yourself.  Do that and you'll be invited to join Sarah and Glenn on Fox.  Just kidding.  You'll be invited for saying it, whether you can prove it or not.

You decry the quick vote as a lack of scrutiny?  Tell me, would the vote had been any different had the senate bill been scrutinized for an extra day? Or a week or month? Don't think so! The vote would have been exactly the same. Not convinced?  Well, it's been about 3 weeks now that the Senate bill's been out and scrutinized.  Has anyone changed their mind or regretted their vote? Republicans reject the proposals in the bill on principle.  Reading the fine print was not going to change their minds.  The democrats, on the other hand, largely agreed in principle but differed on details.  They met for weeks ironing out those details.  Did they need more time? No, they knew what was in the bill because they wrote it themselves and sat in on all the meetings! If the democrats are guilty of anything in rushing this through the senate it is simply this: EFFICIENCY.  To their credit they got the senate bill passed without wasting their time trying to convince the unconvinceable.

You keep hammering that this bill was not scrutinized before passed.  This would of course be true if Congress has actually passed the final bill.  The house and senate bills are not the final product, only steps along the path.  If the final bill becomes law before the public is aware of what Congress is proposing, then yes, shame on us all. 

The contrasts you made between the Healthcare bill to Medicare and Prescription drugs are bogus. First off, as discussed, there is no final healthcare bill yet to contrast with the Medicare and Prescription Drug bills! Second, there were a number of Congressmen who had cried bloody murder while they were in the process of making those Medicare and Prescription drug bills before there was consensus on the final versions of each.  That is no different that what we have seen to date in the healthcare bill.  Third, there were all manner of closed door meetings, compromises made & deals struck during the making of Medicare and Prescription Drugs. So far the Healthcare bill process is no different.  That's not a crime or a shame: even a moment of reflection should be enough to convince you that some closed door meetings are essential during the trial and error of reaching a consensus in a large group.  Closed door meetings and deal striking can be a breeding ground for corruption, but they (the meetings, not the corruption :)  are necessary in the process of negotiation and compromise.  I would guess that blaming Democrats for having them speaks more to conservative mistrust of Democrats than in the process of bill making itself.  I doubt seriously that closed door meetings and deal striking and consensus building on a Republican bill, driven by conservative principles, would be at all objectionable to Republicans.

Lastly, weeks and months of debate and effort went into developing a consensus within Congress on healthcare, just as occurred in Medicare & Prescription drugs.  The only difference is that this time the Republicans have stood firm in their opposition to a principle that the majority of people back: we as a nation will benefit by giving as many people as we can access to affordable healthcare.  It's no surprise that all Republican congressmen see in it the destruction of the free market and socialized medicine.  This is as it should be: they represent their constituents, the majority of whom feel likewise.  So they did not join in this process of making this bill and now make every attempt to derail it.  I've got no problem with that.  But a healthy majority of Congress, backed by a majority of their constituents, agree with this principle and DO see the debate in those terms.  What makes the current incarnations of this bill unpopular with this majority is not the principle of having near universal, affordable healthcare.  It is rather that the bills are watered down to the point that they are only marginally effective in providing access to affordable healthcare.  And why is it so watered down?  Because the Congressmen writing and re-writing these bills have been listening and responding to criticism of the proposals they have made.  So here's what has me baffled: how have the public, press, and Republican congressmen for months been able to scrutinize and spew detailed criticism of these proposals if they have been kept such a secret by the Democrats all this time?  This could only happen if Democrats have been, oh, what's the word...TRANSPARENT.

I totally get Republicans objecting to this Healthcare bill on principle.  There's no hypocrisy or dishonesty in that, and they should be vocal in their opposition (they are the opposition party, after all).  But Republicans who decry the processes and procedures of how this bill is being made really ought to think twice before lobbing stones from their glass towers.

A Lying Shame

Regardless of how things ”have been done in the past”  the “hope and change” and the promise of “the most ethical congress ever” ( Interesting that out of all 19 investigations into ethics violations since the Democrats took over in 2007 there have been ZERO findings of fault) were touted as the new way. 
So lying- Yes
As for the most scrutiny to the health bill, I disagree, there has certainly been great discourse , lots of manipulation and twisting, secrecy, special deals and frustration, but not scrutiny.  I mean when the bill is only out for 30 hours before a vote (with weekend votes and 1am votes and Christmas eve votes) and it is 2,500 pagers, how can there possibly be any real scrutiny?  It is only AFTER it has passed and the bill can actually be read that all these gems are trickling out, it is then we discover the bribery and special favors to “buy votes”.  I mean every other huge social program that has been passed by Congress has been done so with weeks of debate and ultimately bipartisan support for the bill whether it was Medicare or the Prescription Drug process.  The Democrats new line is that once people get to know this bill they will like it.  This is absurd!  Why rush to pass it then explain it,  Explain it first!  Finally, if this bill HAS been so well explained, and scrutinized then why should the politicians not listen to the people,   ALL the polls show it to be unpopular. Why are the Dems going to pass it?  It is all politics,  they think this is the lesser of 2 evils ( for their survival), the whole purpose of the bill  ( to insure Americans drive down costs and increase benefits for all ) is a farce and it has become a political must to pass anything no matter the damage to our country, economy etc.  I am disgusted with this process and I find it hard to believe that many Democrats are proud of the bill and, more specifically, this process.  It sets a new and dangerous precedent and what will stop the Republicans form pushing bills like this that are so massive and that permanently  reshape 1/6th of our economy in the future?  Nothing, because the Dems have shown them the way and if nothing else, all those pols love power and control.  Shame on us all.

Behind closed doors

I see your point: democrats called for transparency and yet there are still closed door meetings and secret deals.  No argument from me that those meetings are ongoing and are certain to continue.  They have been part and parcel of the democratic process for 200+ years.  Like it or not this is how hamburger is made, and it's certainly not pretty.  In fact it's downright sleazy.

I don't go so far as to say Pelosi is lying her vapid stretched head off. She is a politician and was therefore careful in her statements.  She did not specify what form transparency will take; she (purposefully) left some wiggle room in her statements.  Did she lie? Debatable, but not provable.  I will say that, regarding democrats' calls for transparency, their actions have not nearly lived up to their rhetoric.

At the same time, has there not been the most intense scrutiny over every aspect of these bills and this legislative process?  Point to the last time we as a nation had this level of detailed debate over any bill in the last 20-30 years?  It is quite clear that all that public debate has influenced both bills immensely, and continues to do so.  We may not watch these closed door meetings on TV, but yet every congressman in those meetings feels the not-so-gentle prodding of millions of outspoken Americans at their back. Every congressman knows they are being watched and judged; their re-election chances hang in the balance.  They know that every agreement they make behind closed doors will see the light of day when the doors are opened.  They know they will be held accountable for those agreements, good or bad.  In that sense we are indeed behind those closed doors, whether or not a videocam is recording the events for us to see.

Please help me Understand

It is one thing that Congress is ramming this Health Care Reform bill through with backroom deals, bribery, and pay-offs (which are being defended as business as usual- WHO CARES IF IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN DONE THIS WAY, should it be OK for this to happen? the fact that is HAS happened before ought to be a source of shame not defense) and under the cover of 1am votes, huddled in conference in Pelosi and Reid offices. But then to turn around and take the high road and claim that this is the most transparent and open process. I mean at what point will someone stand up and yell, "YOU LIE" ?
Oh yeah, that happened and he was hung out to dry as out of line. ( incidentally we now know Obama's plan is for amnesty so that illegal's will first get legal before getting their health care coverage.. , so technically I guess he didn't lie about that, as for abortion funding.... but I digress)
AT ANY RATE:
someone please read these two posts and help me see how she is not lying her vapid stretched face off.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/74389-pelosi-responds-to-c-span-there-has-never-been-a-more-open-process
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/04/democratic-leaders-plan-secret-health-reform-deliberations.html

Talk about a Slippery Slope

I had to go back to be sure that I did not write, as you assert, that I felt there should be no laws regulating gun use on the grounds that it would prevent stupid (and in the process, I believe, labeling me insane, not very nice Steve.  Lets play nice and keep to policy and topic shall we? )  My exact words ( a few posts ago)were:

“Believe it or not, I actually am OK with having some (read that word strongly - SOME) regulation/registration and/or licensing”

 

  Additionally, I think that my assertions regarding the legislation are in regard to the futile attempt to prevent any and all gun problems, but nowhere did I claim that there should be no laws or anything in place.  More, it is the disparate laws depending on locale and the continuing push ( especially after some nut with a gun is splashed across the newspapers)  to put more and more restrictions in place to try to prevent tragedies, but in truth, all it does is restrict or make legal ownership more difficult.  Does it prevent some bad things from occurring? Undoubtedly there are terrible events which are avoided BUT it also creates an infringements of personal rights, and these laws need to be scrutinized and enacted with extreme care.  There will always be crazies with guns (hopefully not many) just as there will always be drunks with cars, no matter the laws. And so we find that there is some agreement between us in this.  (and if you are going to attack my positions, be sure to have them correct.)

As to constitutional rights, it does not matter if you disagree with ‘my’ interpretation, that remains the interpretation which is followed. Gun ownership remains a right of all people  ( a right you can lose with illegal actions) but is protected (at least at this time), even for the blind.

Finally, I always find it amusing how passionately people on the left will defend individual rights and Constitutional amendments ( and even going so far as to create them like ‘the right to marriage’) as long as it is not the right to keep and bear arms.  Just a few pages ago you were quite voracious in your arguments about due process rights and how infringing on them ( despite the potential prevention of tragedies) was too immoral and a slippery slope.  Yet in this breath, you argue that it is fine to infringe on the rights of people if you (or perhaps whoever may be in power) do not believe that person is able to participate in those rights.  According to that logic, maybe children and the mentally retarded shouldn’t get equal rights because they can’t fully understand that concept and further cannot participate and contribute equally to our society.  Maybe only poor people should be able to exercise the 8th amendment right to not having unreasonable bail or fines, after all shouldn’t those fat cat bankers pay more?- we already do that percentage wise with taxes.  Or maybe those who are the worst of the worst criminals ( like men who rape babies) ought to not get the protection of the 8th amendment, after all, they deserve a terrible and cruel punishment.   See how hard it becomes when you pick and choose who and what deserves the rights afforded in the Constitution? Maybe it is just better to let the rights that the Constitution spells out to be given to all until the time that they do something to lose those rights.  Else it becomes a particularly slippery slope.

 

And finally, Day care providers, what do you think of the (forced) unionization of them in Michigan?

On the merits of trying to legislate stupid...

When my wife and I were looking suitable day care for our son a few years back, we interviewed a prospective candidate.  During the interview, I noticed that there were bottles of bleach and other cleaning supplies under the kitchen table, well within reach of any curious child.  Before I could even register shock, I saw a broken piece of glass at my feet, a few inches away from toddlers crawling nearby.  So I picked up the glass, pointed to the poison, and asked the day care worker how this could possibly be safe.  Her response, and I quote: "I train all the kids in my day care not to pick up anything off the ground.  They know they'll get in trouble if they do!" I know, you can't make this shit up!

As this shocking example shows, some attempts to legislate stupid boggle the mind.  Telling a toddler not to pick up anything on the floor and expecting compliance is, in a word, insane.

But are all attempts to legislate stupid equally ineffective, equally pointless? What about drunk driving laws?  What are drunk driving laws if not a blatant attempt to legislate stupid?  And while these laws will never keep all drunks off the road, they have deterred enough stupidity, saved enough lives, to justify their effectiveness and continued existence a thousand times over.

I recognize your point that unlike driving, gun ownership is a right, not a privilege, so therefore must not be infringed upon.  I disagree, given that I have a different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (see previous posts).  But to suggest that we shouldn't limit or regulate gun use on the grounds that it'll never keep criminals from getting guns, never prevent stupid gun use? That is, in a word, insane.

Careful where you aim…

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I think that the founding fathers specifically wrote this amendment  to allow for the People to always have the right to own guns period.   If the need arises, they will be able to organize to form Militias if need be, to secure a free State, this can be necessary  in the case of a tyrannical government.

I, for one happen to like the way Penn and Teller explain it:

(((and if you have the time they have an excellent show called ‘Penn and Teller Bullshit’ where they explore various areas of life. Their show on gun control is quite good ( and funny ). Do a You Tube Search and you can easily find it.)))

However, I find, no where in the constitution where these rights are limited to age or training or anything else (else we’d be able to prevent those idiots with no brains, like Keith Olbelman, to not exercise their rights to free speech).  There is no language limiting this right to free white men (which is what it would be if they had wanted to include such language. I am kinda thinking that perhaps everyone ought to know how to use a gun and learn about gun safety, it ought to be taught in school (or homeschool, which coincidentally we do). 

Again all the limits and regulations will never stop stupid or illegal gun use, (and to use your old analogy- anymore than car license and regulations and stuff will stop stupid or illegal car use)

The criminals get them illegally and the children get them from their parents.   And the blind?  I think that
The International Blind Sport Federation  (click for link) might take issue  to find out that they are not allowed to keep, nor bear arms nor defend their rights against a tyrannical government. (but you can ask them.)

Oh, By the way,  Happy New Year!

Oh, one more funny clip that highlights the benefits of an armed society:

Health care next?

How to interpret 2nd amendment?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now it's not up to me to interpret this amendment (that's for the Supreme Court, per our Constitution).  But could the following be a reasonable interpretation?

The right of people to keep and bear arms for the stated purpose of maintaining a well regulated Militia shall not be infringed, being necessary to the security of a free state.

With this interpretation a person that is not capable of being part of a well regulated Militia has no reason to own or use a gun.  That obviously includes criminals, children, the blind, and anyone that is not trained to use a gun safely.  Hence the obvious licensing and registration to prevent such people from owning a gun.

I would have to think on it more, but if it were up to me (and really, we can all be thankful that it's not!) this would be the interpretation that makes most sense.

Out of curiosity, how do you interpret the 2nd Amendment?