Intellectual Dishonesty in the Face of Criticism
Oct 17th, 2009 by admin
Somebody call the Waaaaaaaaambluance. President Barack “All Talk” Obama, speaking in San Francisco yesterday:
Look. I know he’s having a bad time right now. The first stimulus numbers came in at over $500,000 per job created or “saved.” They had to admit that the deficit came in at $1.4 trillion, larger than the GDP of India. Their failure to clean up Wall Street in the wake of TARP and the fallout has created a new era of wealth on Wall Street. Maybe he’s trying to distract from the fact that another Goldman Sachs executive is now in a position of power in his Administration: CEO of ENFORCEMENT! And he’s 29! He’s getting ripped repeatedly by those on the left for his failure to act on issues that are important to them. And unemployment is high and getting higher.
The list goes on and on and on and on.
So I understand his need to distract from his myriad problems. But it is completely unacceptable for the President of the United States, Mr. Togtherness, Mr. Post-Partisan, to lay the blame for his problems at the feet of the opposition. What happened to our economy had as much to do with Bob Rubin as it did with Phil Gramm. Barney Frank & Chris Dodd’s (profitable) protection of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was as responsible for the mortgage meltdown as was the lax enforcement at the SEC. The Democratic Congress delivered TARP to the Bush Administration. (Recall that Congressional Republicans defeated it the first time around.)
I’m happy to lay the blame for the mess we’re in at the feet of our leaders in government — on both sides. The Bush administration and the GOP Congress DID participate heavily in causing this problem, and also in failing to cut spending when times were good. But the Democrats made their share of mistakes as well, and have made many this year. Attempting to paint a different picture is intellectually dishonest and unproductive, Mr. President. And shameful.
Also dishonest is playing into the meme that the GOP is “sitting on the sidelines.” The GOP has offered dozens of bills (some here). But unfortunately, you’re forced to stay on the sidelines if the coach won’t put you in the game. And when the President hasn’t met with the GOP leaders since May, it sounds to me like the mops only are given to the ‘right’ moppers.
At some point, Mr. President, you need to stop blaming others and start accepting responsibility for your actions since taking office: the failed stimulus, your failure to stem the tide of rising unemployment and your failure to deliver promised results to your base. Every one of those is on you. And forcing through a health care plan that addresses a very serious problem with the worst solution imaginable will only exacerbate your problems.
By the way, two months ago, you wanted to clean up the mess by yourself and you wanted the right to get out of the way.
Yes, Mr. President, you are wrong. And it is proper, responsible and correct to say so.
Obama touched a nerve, I see.
The GOP has offered dozens of bills (some here).
Same old dirty mopwater. We’re starting fresh.
So he’s intellectually dishonest and you’re intellectually lazy. The wish of the establishment Democrats here is that they can get away with assigning the “policies that got us into this” tag to any GOP initiative, regardless of the idea’s quality or freshness. It’s weak and pathetic and unproductive.
They don’t want to think about alternatives. They have a 50 year old playbook they haven’t finished. Nationalized health care, excessive environmental regulation, soak the rich, public money for abortions, national gay rights legislation, and forcing people to join unions.
Say what you want about the merits of these positions, they are nothing new. They are Johnson’s unfinished agenda.
I do have to say I liked the President’s spunk. It was appealing. A- on style, D+ on substance.
Our honorable President does not understand why I don’t want a socialist mop. It doesn’t clean up anything; it just pushes the mess around.
It gets old, don’t it?
We can argue about who is to blame for the mess we are in, the point is, we are in a very deep mess. Going back to practices that caused the mess to begin with seems irrational to me, yet the other side seems to say “NO” to everything but just that; moreover, they have the power to obstruct. So now what happens? I think what the Dems are trying to do is better than doing nothing, providing they are willing to adjust when it becomes obvious to do so!
watching history repeat:
http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/16/the-new-deal-made-them-right/print
See, this is what happens whenever the other side had an idea, “same old….” blah blah blah…
Enough!
Tort Reform has been tried at the state level in Texas and it worked to lower their costs and reduce defensive medicine. It lowers the cost to the physicians in malpractice premiums and ensures proper justice is paid to those with valid claims by reducing the number of invalid claims.
Single health insurance forms and electronic medical records have been proven to lower costs as well.
For anyone who understands the concept of “Supply and Demand” (I understand that’s difficult to grasp for some of the Communists we have here in Delaware)….Pooling state and even regionally would greatly reduce costs and increase the insurable.
Removing employer mandates due to individual pooling, providing tax incentives directly to the individuals and allowing larger tax incentives for those who choose to hand out “Caddilac Plans” would increase wages, open up new positions and increase the number of people insured as well as the overall quality of insurance recieved.
Socialized medicine has been tried in Massachussetts and it fails to cover everyone, has bankrupted the state and has denied care to those who needed it on the basis of costs.
Socialized medicine has been tried in Massachussetts and it fails to cover everyone, has bankrupted the state and has denied care to those who needed it on the basis of costs.
Of course. Socialized medicine will never work if you refuse to tax the rich enough to pay for it.
Maybe the MA system would break even if they cut the private insurance bagmen out of their vigorish.
Corporate-centered tort reforms: 0.5% savings (maybe).
Keeping our American legal rights: Priceless.
somebody elses mess????
How long has Nancy been in congress? (or Reid, Bohner, Dodd, Franks etc)
“Socialized medicine has been tried in Massachussetts and it fails to cover everyone, has bankrupted the state and has denied care to those who needed it on the basis of costs.”
In reality, none of that is true. The plans are all private-sector. It mandates that people buy coverage, so it does cover everyone. The state of Massachusetts is not bankrupt, and denial of care is done by private insurers just as it is in every other state.
The positives in Massachusetts are that 100s of thousands of people are now covered, and the changes made in the last few years to the original plan have driven costs up so high that the state is looking at ways to reduce the number of mandates, since it’s now subsidizing the payments.
If a state like Massachusetts can see the need for reduced mandates, then so can every other state, and a big health care problem will be solved.
“Corporate-centered tort reforms: 0.5% savings (maybe).
Keeping our American legal rights: Priceless.” – noman
Really?
It is estimated that $830 Billion per year is spent on unnecessary care. Malpractice/Tort reform and an increased focus on quality of care over quantity of care would reduce this number by half.
“Of course. Socialized medicine will never work if you refuse to tax the rich enough to pay for it.
Maybe the MA system would break even if they cut the private insurance bagmen out of their vigorish.”
And the TRUTH comes out folks…tax success to benefit society…There has been a tremendous focus on “Huge” insurance and pharma company profits yet the facts don’t support the claims. A 2007 report featured in an article in News Journal last month, about the rising costs of healthcare found that the entire private insurance industry (AETNA, BCBS, United Health, etc.) made $30 Billion in profits. The same report found that GE (makers of many of the medical devices used today) alone earned $22.2 Billion over the same period. If we’re going to cap insurance company profits, should we not do so to GE who makes nearly as much as the entire insurance industry?
Even if we took every penny of after tax profits from the insurance companies, thereby shredding our Constitution and killing the entire industry it wouldn’t lower healthcare costs by more than 2% which is 3%-7% less than the lowest estimates of capping malpractice lawsuit payouts alone.
In fact, we could take every penny from the WORLDS millionaires and above and not DENT the INTEREST on our current debt. The truth is that there is no WAY to pay for this. Paying for this is IMPOSSIBLE. Either the left is too stupid to figure this out (I don’t believe that is the case with many of them) or worse they WANT to collapse not only the U.S. economy but the entire world’s economy. Which category do you call home noman?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/05doctors.html
“Now in Massachusetts, in an unintended consequence of universal coverage, the imbalance is being exacerbated by the state’s new law requiring residents to have health insurance.
Since last year, when the landmark law took effect, about 340,000 of Massachusetts’ estimated 600,000 uninsured have gained coverage. Many are now searching for doctors and scheduling appointments for long-deferred care.
Here in western Massachusetts, Dr. Atkinson’s bustling 3,000-patient practice, which was closed to new patients for several years, has taken on 50 newcomers since she hired a part-time nurse practitioner in November. About a third were newly insured, Dr. Atkinson said. Just north of here in Athol, the doctors at North Quabbin Family Physicians are now seeing four to six new patients a day, up from one or two a year ago.
Dr. Patricia A. Sereno, state president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said an influx of the newly insured to her practice in Malden, just north of Boston, had stretched her daily caseload to as many as 22 to 25 patients, from 18 to 20 a year ago. To fit them in, Dr. Sereno limits the number of 45-minute physicals she schedules each day, thereby doubling the wait for an exam to three months.
“It’s a recipe for disaster,” Dr. Sereno said. “It’s great that people have access to health care, but now we’ve got to find a way to give them access to preventive services. The point of this legislation was not to get people episodic care.”
Whether there is a national shortage of primary care providers is a matter of considerable debate. Some researchers contend the United States has too many doctors, driving overutilization of the system.
But there is little dispute that the general practice of medicine is under strain at a time when there is bipartisan consensus that better prevention and chronic disease management would not only improve health but also help control costs. With its population aging, the country will need 40 percent more primary care doctors by 2020, according to the American College of Physicians, which represents 125,000 internists, and the 94,000-member American Academy of Family Physicians. Community health centers, bolstered by increases in federal financing during the Bush years, are having particular difficulty finding doctors.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/us/16hospital.html
“A hospital that serves thousands of indigent Massachusetts residents sued the state on Wednesday, charging that its costly universal health care law is forcing the hospital to cover too much of the expense of caring for the poor.
The hospital, Boston Medical Center, faces a $38 million deficit for the fiscal year ending in September, its first loss in five years. The suit says the hospital will lose more than $100 million next year because the state has lowered Medicaid reimbursement rates and stopped paying Boston Medical “reasonable costs” for treating other poor patients.”
Just a year after the universal coverage law passed, The New York Times reported, state insurers were already jacking up rates to twice the national average. According to Dr. Paul Hsieh, a physician and founding member of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine, 43 mandatory benefits — including those that many people did not want or need, such as invitro fertilization — raised the costs of coverage for Massachusetts residents by as much as 56 percent, depending upon an individual’s income status. So much for “affordable” health care.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Universal_coverage_First_look_at_the_disaster_in_Massachusetts_011109.html#
“Small businesses with more than 10 employees were required to provide health insurance or pay an extra fee to subsidize uninsured low-income residents, yet the overall costs of the program increased more than $400 million — 85 percent higher than original projections. To make up the difference, payments to health care providers were slashed, so many doctors and dentists in Massachusetts began refusing to take on new patients. In the state with the highest physician/patient ratio in the nation, some people now have to wait more than a year for a simple physical exam.”
I’ll wait while you drool reading the articles…two by your bastion of liberalism that all say the same thing…UHC is DOOMED!
Even if we took every penny of after tax profits from the insurance companies
It is not only the private insurance profits that are imposing excess costs on our current system; it is their much greater operating costs which do not get declared as profit.
In any case, all the public-option plans (and even the single-payer plans if you can find one), leave private insurance companies 100% free to develop and market insurance to anybody they want.
Even if we took every penny of after tax profits from the insurance companies, thereby shredding our Constitution and killing the entire industry it wouldn’t lower healthcare costs by more than 2% which is 3%-7% less than the lowest estimates of capping malpractice lawsuit payouts alone.
Wrong:
If you are willing to shred the jury system and our right to our day in court simply to get a 0.5% savings… the idea that we can save 2% by killing off the insurance industry is sounding pretty good. Especially considering that, after we killed it off, we’d all have health coverage.
See, we are up to a 2.5% savings already! Ain’t bipartisanship grand!
“If you are willing to shred the jury system and our right to our day in court simply to get a 0.5% savings… the idea that we can save 2% by killing off the insurance industry is sounding pretty good. Especially considering that, after we killed it off, we’d all have health coverage.”
Like they do in England where care is rationed and the country is going further and further into bankruptcy? Where the cancer death rates are 2-3 times as high as they are here? Where the wait times exceed 6 months to see primary care physicians?
There’s no Constitutional right to bring false lawsuits against people. In fact there is a built in safeguard against that. It’s called the “False Claims Act”. First passed in 1863 during the Civil War to punish widespread corruption and fraud in the sale of supplies and provisions to the Union government, this law was rarely used until it was amended in 1986 by Congress to expand its reach. Under the FCA any person who “knowingly” submits or causes another to submit false claims or records for payment of government funds is liable for significant damages and penalties.
http://commongood.org/society-reading-cgpubs-opeds-13.html
“Suing is not a unilateral right of freedom, like free speech or a property right. Those hallowed constitutional rights — the safeguards of our freedom — protect us against government power. Suing, by contrast, is a use of government power against another free citizen, coming down to that fateful verdict when the full power of government may compel the defendant to pay millions. Being sued is like being indicted for a crime, except that the penalty is money.” …. “Setting limits on lawsuits is not an infringement of freedom, but a critical tool of freedom. Otherwise one angry person, by legal threats, can bully everyone else. Limiting lawsuits is also a critical tool of social policy. For example, Americans cannot sue utility companies for damage sustained from blackouts, because legislatures long ago prohibited such suits to keep utility bills from skyrocketing. Limiting lawsuits over terrorist attacks is essential to mobilize all resources for our national security.”
“Wrong:
CBO now estimates, on the basis of an analysis incorporating the results of recent research, that if a package of proposals such as those described above was enacted, it would reduce total national health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion
in 2009). ” – noman
You’re assuming (quite ridiculously) that I can believe anything the CBO puts out. Ok I’ll tell you what. Their projections on the cost of Medicare/Medicaid were off by 9 times the actual number so let me apply that to your math….that’s 4.5% or $99 Billion Dollars. Well worth us reforming the legal system to ensure that lawsuits brought against the Doctors and Nurses who are out there saving lives daily are legitimate.
Under the FCA any person who “knowingly” submits or causes another to submit false claims or records for payment of government funds is liable for significant damages and penalties.
Sounds like all the protection we need.
But I think the medical industry is more worried about the true claims than the false claims.
You’ll never see tort reform; the Socialist-Democrats are in the hip pocket of the trial lawyers (and the UAW, and the NEA, etc.).
Of course, the Republicans aren’t immune either; it’s the political class in general. Our politics are a reflection of our culture, and we’re in the garbage; just look at any television show, ‘modern’ art, music, Hollywood, politically-correct educational fads and so on. The masses will be satisfied as long as they’re provided with recreation; sex, drugs, sports, music and movies- in short, ‘entertainment.’ This is why many will tolerate a Fascist like Obama. Let the government do anything, as long as basic ‘needs’ are satisfied. This was predicted, with alarming prescience, particularly by Huxley (Brave New World Revisited) and Lewis (The Abolition of Man), among others.
The result will be the end of true freedom, and eventually, economic doom. Some day man may, in the words of secularist W.T. Stace, ‘again take his place among the lower animals.’ In some inner-cities, he already has.
Some day man may, in the words of secularist W.T. Stace, ‘again take his place among the lower animals.’ In some inner-cities, he already has.
That is an awfully pointy hat atop your big tent.
Stop the racist bastards.
“You’ll never see tort reform; the Socialist-Democrats are in the hip pocket of the trial lawyers (and the UAW, and the NEA, etc.).
Of course, the Republicans aren’t immune either; it’s the political class in general.” – Rick
Because they’re all former or current lawyers themselves.
“Some day man may, in the words of secularist W.T. Stace, ‘again take his place among the lower animals.’ In some inner-cities, he already has.
That is an awfully pointy hat atop your big tent.
Stop the racist bastards.” – noman
For your reference…since I’m sick of you leftist morons ignoring the FACT that YOUR PARTY was the basis of racist sentiment in our nation………….
The first Klan was founded in 1865 by Tennessee veterans of the Confederate Army. Groups spread throughout the South. Its purpose was to restore white supremacy in the aftermath of the American Civil War. The Klan resisted Reconstruction by assaulting, murdering and intimidating freedmen and white Republicans.
Historian Elaine Frantz Parsons commented on the make up of the membership:
Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic, was that they called themselves, or were called, Klansmen.
Historian Eric Foner observed:
In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.
OK, I would like to offer a fow compromise plans:
Compromise #1:
Citizens give up their right to full jury awards (which is what enables them to come to court with a lawyer in the first place). So most citizens will be unable to afford a lawyer to take medical providers to court. Fine.
And in return, corporations give up their right to spend shareholder dollars on attorney fees.
No lawyers, just mano a mano, crippled plaintiff against jowly CEO in front of the jury.
Deal?
Compromise #2:
All rights to sue for civil damages for malpractice are removed, and in return, criminal penalties for malpractice are implemented.
Any takers?
The first Klan was founded in 1865 by Tennessee veterans of the Confederate Army. Groups spread throughout the South.
It is no coincidence that today the South is the Republican base.
Director D. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation glorified the original Klan. His film was based on the book and play The Clansman and the book The Leopard’s Spots, both by Thomas Dixon, Jr.. Dixon said his purpose was “to revolutionize northern sentiment by a presentation of history that would transform every man in my audience into a good Democrat!”
The Birth of a Nation included extensive quotations from Woodrow Wilson’s History of the American People, as if to give it a stronger basis. After seeing the film in a special White House screening, Wilson allegedly said, “It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.” Given Wilson’s views on race and the Klan, his statement was taken as supportive of the film. In later correspondence with Griffith, Wilson confirmed his enthusiasm. Wilson’s remarks immediately became controversial. Wilson tried to remain aloof, but finally, on April 30, he issued a non-denial denial (“an on-the-record statement, usually made by a politician, repudiating a journalist’s story, but in such a way as to leave open the possibility that it is actually true.”).
In some states, such as Alabama, the KKK worked for political and social reform. The state’s Klansmen were among the foremost advocates of better public schools, effective prohibition enforcement, expanded road construction, and other “progressive” political measures. Although there are numerous KKK groups, the media and popular discourse generally refer to the Klan for expediency. The ACLU has provided legal support to various factions of the KKK in defense of their First Amendment rights to hold public rallies, parades, and marches, and their right to field political candidates.
Evan – if your best example was filmed in black-and-white, this debate is over.
“OK, I would like to offer a fow compromise plans:” – noman
Neither of your “compromises” are worth more than this comment…Try Again…this time act like you have a brain inside that thick skull…
“The first Klan was founded in 1865 by Tennessee veterans of the Confederate Army. Groups spread throughout the South.
It is no coincidence that today the South is the Republican base.” – noman
awww….Noman can’t find a hole in my theory that Democrats are the racist group so he’ll attack geography….ok….let’s try this out…
In a book John Holdren (Obama appointed) co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.
Ezekiel Emanuel, the top healthcare adviser at Obama’s Budget Office and brother of his chief of staff, believes it is “obvious” that people with Alzheimer’s or other forms of dementia (estimated as one of three people who live beyond the age of 65) should be denied health-care, since they are “irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.” An essay published in the Hastings Center Report (Nov-Dec 1996) by Emanuel, Norman Daniels and Bruce Jennings, says in part:
“This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity – those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberation – are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg first advocated taxpayer funding of abortions and followed it up by saying she backs Roe to eliminate “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong,” Ginsburg said.
Let’s not also forget that the practice of Eugenics, arguably the most racist thought ever concieved (Remember, Hitler was a passionate Eugenicist) is a field inhabited almost entirely by those who lean politically left.
John Holdren
Both Emanuel’s
Cass Sunstein
Van Jones
Carol Browner
Woodrow Wilson
FDR
Teddy Roosevelt (technically a “Republican” but really just more Progressive dirt that trickled into the GOP in the early part of the 1900′s)…(and no, I didn’t vote for the guy who says old Teddy is his favorite president)
“Evan – if your best example was filmed in black-and-white, this debate is over.” -noman
Listen Al Gore, the debate’s duration is not your decision unless you would like to concede the point.
Okay, but can I take a bathroom break?
Go for it, I’m going to go eat, I look forward to some kind of facts, or (I may die before this happens) the admittal that the race card is being played unfairly and that criticizing the President does not mean you’re racist.
Remember, he told the world to look at the people he surrounds himself with to learn who he is…
Van Jones (Racist/Socialist/Truther)
Carol Browner (Socialist)
John Holdren (Eugenecist)
Mark Lloyd (Loves Hugo Chavez for his takeover of airwaves)
Anita Dunn (Loves Mao Tse Tung)
etc….
etc….
Get a grip Evan. I said Rick was racist for his coded comments equating inner-city residents with lower animals. Do you have a problem with that?
I then took it further and commented that the GOP coalition depends on attitudes like Rick’s, and that those attitudes tarnish the GOP (e.g. puts a pointy hat on the big tent).
Holdren and Ezekiel, whatever past comments you have dug up, are not saying those things today (unlike Rick). They are distractions and will likely be underneath the bus before long. I would rather find somebody else qualified to do their jobs.
In any event, the Democratic Party does not in the least rely on the unfortunate comments of Holdren and Emanuel for its electoral success.
For the GOP however, Rick’s POV is a fractional but essential part of its coalition, based (as you point out) not only in the South but wherever their brand of racism lives.
http://negroartist.com/civil%20rights%20imagery/images/Black%20civil%20rights%20demonstrator%20attacked%20by%20a%20dog%20in%20Birmingham,%20Alabama%201963_jpg.jpg
the guys with the clubs and dogs are Democrats.
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-platform/files/2009/10/wallace.jpg
the guys in the doorway are Democrats making sure black children can’t go to school with white children.
but I’m sure jimcrowenoman has a reason why they were all secretly republicans.
That is an awfully pointy hat atop your big tent...norman
Typical ‘liberal’ response; gibberish.
Don’t forget that the ‘liberal’ icon, JFK, abandoned the Civil Rights Act of 1957-58 (finally approved in ’64) because he knew he need the support of the racists in his party to get the ’60 nomination. Now that’s having your priorities straight.