Arrogance

Dodd hopes Kennedy death will quell health care reform discontent

How dare these peasants resist the dying wish of the Greatest Democrat ever?

Why can't they figure out that the reason people are yelling, is that the Democrats aren't listening?

Let the man rest in peace.

Denny is Being Targeted

A coalition of "environmental" groups plan to take out ads against Cong. Rehberg for opposing Cap and Tax. Since my daughter works for the Missoulian, I think that this is wonderful. The Missoulian gets money, and the "environmental" groups tick everyone off.

It's win-win.

I Went to LITW

and remembered why it's a waste of time to go there.

Enemies Foreign AND Domestic

Okay, this is red meat, but I do love the Constitutional Scholars who have taken the oath.

Why ObamaCare's Failure Will Be Good For Democrats

While some think that the failure of ObamaCare is going to cost Democrats their majority, I disagree. Instead of the usual Democrat versus Republican debate, the current debate is Democrat versus Democrat with some very angry independents watching from the sidelines. Should ObamaCare pass, the costs are going to be explosive, and once people see what the impact is on their choices of health care, it is going to end the Democrats as any kind of serious power in Washington. Sure, they will have their enclaves where the true believers will pretend that they are still in control of the country. But the Democratic Party is going to be punished for their arrogance.
Suppose instead that ObamaCare does fail, then what happens? The first thing is that the Democrats will revert to their usual bogeyman: The Republicans. Sure the Republicans are a minority, but truth matters less than perception when it comes to the news. The Democrats will be able to say the Republicans are the reason that all of these people are uninsured because of their greed and their insurance overlords. The hard Left, who are advocating for a single payer system or nothing will never blame the Democrats, instead they will also be joining the chorus of blaming Republicans, mostly because it is such fun for them.
Sure, the facts are that the Republicans are totally inconsequential in the debate, but facts are not necessary when it comes to such an emotional issue. Plus, the Republicans will probably try to claim credit even though they are so marginalized because it gives them a sense of heft that they lack at the moment.
With the failure of ObamaCare, we will all go back to the status quo ante, the Democrats blaming the Republicans, and the Republicans pretending they are in control.
Win-Win for the major parties, and we are the losers. But the real beneficiaries of the failure of ObamaCare are going to be the Blue Dog Democrats. They can claim fiscal responsibility, while at the same time blaming the Republicans.
And so, the charade continues.

Appellations

Presidents often become the recipients of nicknames. Nixon was "Tricky Dick." Reagan was "The Gipper" to those on the Right, and "An Amiable Dunce" to those on the Left. Bill Clinton will be forever remembered as "Slick Willy" and George Bush was "W" for the Right and "Stoopid" to those on the Left.
But for a nickname to stick, it needs to have some elements of mental shorthand that resonate with broad public perception. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Barak Obama, "The Marxist Metrosexual."


Priceless.

True Sentiment

Official I Am Sorry I Voted For Obama Website

Shared via AddThis

Simple Enough Question

Dave Budge at Electric City has a series of questions that are as interesting as any answer that they might yield. I figure I would add one more: Since the Congress critters are covered under an umbrella of insurance companies, and since they won't use the same health care reform that they are going to stick us with, why not just open enrollment in the Federal Personnel Health plan to everyone?

Oh, that's right, it would raise their rates.

Individuals and the State

The most amazing aspect of the Obama Presidency to me, is the regression from the indviduality that was just beginning to boom. By this, I mean that Obama seems to be intent on returning us to a collective relationship just when individual entrepreneurship was just taking off.
Under Obama, we are being grouped into ever larger collectives, identified by our perceived needs, at least as viewed from Washington. Need a job? You need to go work for Government Motors. Need health care? It's impossible for you to get it on your own, and you need some sort of interference by a bureaucrat to see a doctor. Want to express your opinion? Only those approved opinions are going to be allowed. Check with your SEIU thugs, or your local ACORN community organizer to determine what your opinion will be.
But just a year ago, I was marveling at the ability of individuals to exploit niches in the economy and develop their own businesses. A young stud who left the Public Defender's Office where I work, opened his own practice recently. He has the capability to take credit card payments over his computer, something I could not do when I opened my practice. What this means is that he has the ability to provide for fee services to more people than I could, and still make a living.
We have a lawn service that is run out of the guy's house who advertises on the Internet. He does a good job and can even accept payment over the Internet. Other people locally are selling all over the world through the Internet. What is going to happen to them when we get Obamacare?
Without employer paid health insurance, they will still have a mandate to pay an additional 8% on top of the income tax, self employed tax, FICA and the other taxes that are required by government fiat. This will reduce the possibility of a startup business from making it through the first three years which is the usual measure of whether or not a business will be successful.
As a result, more people will be constrained from beginning businesses that will make my life easier and better. They are going to be kept from exercising their innovation and the country as a whole will suffer from this lack of development.
Less small businesses, more government control, and Obama says that he doesn't want to return to the "failed policies of the past." I guess he wants to try out the failed policies of East Germany, just to make sure that it doesn't work.

The Coming Global Winter

Human beings are exceedingly simplistic and fail to understand anything that is not facile and in accordance with our expectations. Remember all the arguments for global warming essentially being "that if they are wrong, what harm could it do?" Outside of condemning large swaths of humanity to remain in poverty for their desire to be "carbon neutral," there is the issue that we may be dooming a large number of poor people on this planet to death. But there may be a bigger problem than CO2 sequstration.
What if, instead of global warming, we had solar induced global cooling? The thing that the global warming crowd never really understood, is that warming by 5 degrees celsius is better than a cooling of 5 degrees celsius. If global warming were to occur, we could drive up to Saskatchewan and pick our oranges from their groves. But a cooling environment would result in a significant reduction in arable farm land, and with it a greater risk of mass starvation.
If we are to go through another Maunder Minimum, we may be less prepared than the people who survived it 350 years ago. Our society has become so complex in that technology is of higher value than knowing how to start a fire in the middle of a snowstorm. But knowing how to set code will not keep you from freezing to death when the sun cools.
Jeez we are dumb.

German version of the Tea Party

Gregg had a post with a comment showing a link that I followed to find this: (It's in German, but the sentiment is pretty easy to understand.)

Apparently, they have the same ideals as the Tea Partiers, more individual freedom and less government. Seems like the fundamental human desire to be free is not just an American phenomenon.

I must admit, I kind of like the name though. "The Pirate Party."

UPDATE: From the comments below, I just found out that there is a US Pirate Party. Check them out.

UPDATE 2 Instalanche! Welcome, and take a look at the other conservative bloggers on the left under Dextrafeed.

One Brits view of the NHS

This is not just a rag against socialized medicine. It's instead, a fair analysis of the two systems that needs to be covered while we debate our own version of ObamaCare.

Read the whole thing.

"I am a fan of disruptors."

Sometimes.

ObamaCare and Waterloo

Senator DeMint had once claimed that failure of ObamaCare would be Obama's Waterloo. He has since been pilloried for making that statement and has gradually withdrawn into the shadows. But I think that an honest assessment would show him to be wrong anyway. Failure of ObamaCare or even its passage under a "recision" method is more akin to Napoleon entering Moscow, only to find it abandoned, and no one there to surrender to him. Another example would be Lee at Gettysburg, in that what started out as Lee's final blow to destroy the Union Army degenerated into a slugfest that Lee was finally forced to withdraw from,and was the last major incursion into the North for the rest of the war. Both of these cases were the high mark of what finally ended up being a doomed enterprise.
The Democrats need to conduct an honest assessment of why they are not successful if they wish to remain the power in control, although I do not believe that they are capable of doing so. The major reason is that they have fooled themselves, and this lack of honesty prevents them from making an accurate assessment of who they are. One of their faults, is that they believed their own propaganda that after the 2008 elections, conservatism had been finally vanquished. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that while Republicans may have been discredited, liberalism is still outnumbered by almost 2-1. If the Democrats were smart, they would recognize that they are operating from a tenuous position and only act carefully so as not to antagonize their constituents. They would not be trying to minimize or ignore the real outrage that is being shown at the Town Hall meetings across the country.
Instead, they see a solid majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. This means that the public is well aware of the unlimited power they are capable of, and Americans are not sure that they like it.
The real lessons to be learned from the 2006 and 08 elections is that the public rejected the arrogance of Republicans. The lesson the Democrats will learn at this rate in 2010 is that their version of arrogance is no different.

Who Loves Ya Baby?

Rasmussen has a report out about trust on the issues that is an interesting read. Two things jump out at me: 1st, that the Republicans lead on all but two issues,; 2nd they are tied with Democrats on Iraq and still lag significantly on Government ethics.
Lagging behind Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, and too many others to spend time recounting? The Republicans have a severe image problem that they are going to have to fix if they want to have any chance after the Democrats commit Hari-Kari in November of 2010.

Abuse of Power by the Government

Okay, that is redundant, but I wanted to post this article from The Agitator in its entirety, because it is just more evidence that we are not the sovereigns of the country, but the subjects of those in power.

Discretion
Monday, August 10th, 2009

…there doesn’t seem to be much at work in this story.

When Donald Ross’s sister passed, more than 100 people attended her funeral mass in Spokane.

The burial was scheduled for a nearby cemetery, but Ross and his family only made it a quarter of a mile when flashing lights forced them to the side of the road.

“Harold, his (my husband’s) brother, said, ‘You pulled us out of a funeral procession,’” said wife Shirley Ross.

But the deputy kept them there, writing up five citations because the driver and the passengers were not wearing a seat belts…

Those five tickets took 12 minutes to write. By the time Ross and his family members got back on the road, the burial was over.

The police department has apologized and reprimanded the officer. Just kidding!

…the sheriff’s department says [the deputy] had every right.

“We’re out here trying to prevent funerals, not disrupt them,” said Dave Reagan of Spokane County Sheriff’s Office.

Police officers don’t have rights, they have powers. And the fact that they have them doesn’t mean they always have to use them, even in those situations where the law allows them. Seems to me that making a woman miss her brother’s burial in order to write her a ticket—not for endangering others, but for not buckling her own seat belt—would be one of those times when some discretion might be in order.

Thanks to reader Judy for the tip.

I've Been Robbed

Actually, it just goes to show that the solution to the problem is not ObamaCare. But earlier, I had posted this where I suggested some methods to alleviate the problem with providing health insurance. Then some guy goes and puts this article in the Wall Street Journal with many of the same points that I made. I could say that mine were the first suggestions, but it is obvious to anyone who thinks (Not you Mark) that there are workable solutions that don't require government run health care.

An Example of those Hate Mongering Town Hall Protesters

The "Angry Mobs" ™ protesting Obamacare have gone just too far as shown in this news article:

When Obama visited Portland, Ore., for a fundraiser, protesters stalked his motorcade, assailed his limousine and stoned a car containing his advisers. Chanting "Obama is a terrorist!", the demonstrators bullied passers-by, including gay softball players and a wheelchair-bound grandfather with multiple sclerosis.
One protester even brandished a sign that seemed to advocate Obama's assassination. The man held a large photo of Obama that had been doctored to show a gun barrel pressed against his temple.
"OBAMA: WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE," read the placard, which had an X over the word "ALIVE."
Another poster showed Obama's face with the words: "F--- YOU, MOTHERF---ER!"
A third sign urged motorists to "HONK IF YOU HATE OBAMA." A fourth declared: "CHRISTIAN FASCISM," with a swastika in place of the letter S in each word.
Although reporters from numerous national news organizations were traveling with Obama and witnessed the protest, none reported that protesters were shrieking at Republican donors epithets like "Slut!" "Whore!" and "Fascists!"
Frank Dulcich, president and CEO of Pacific Seafood Group, had a cup of liquid thrown into his face, and then was surrounded by a group of menacing protesters, including several who wore masks. Donald Tykeson, 75, who had multiple sclerosis and was confined to a wheelchair, was blocked by a thug who threatened him.
Protesters slashed the tires of several state patrol cruisers and leapt onto an occupied police car, slamming the hood and blocking the windshield with placards. A female police officer was knocked to the street by advancing protesters, badly injuring her wrist.
The angry protest grew so violent that the Secret Service was forced to take the highly unusual step of using a backup route for Obama's motorcade because the primary route had been compromised by protesters, one of whom pounded his fist on the president's moving limousine.
All the while, angry demonstrators brandished signs with incendiary rhetoric, such as "9/11 - YOU LET IT HAPPEN, SHRUB," and "OBAMA: BASTARD CHILD OF THE SUPREME COURT." One sign read: "IMPEACH THE COURT-APPOINTED JUNTA AND THE FASCIST, EGOMANIACAL, BLOOD-SWILLING BEAST!"

Okay, it wasn't that hard to figure out that I just substituted Obama for Bush from this article. I could argue that this is just another example of the cover given to Obama versus what is given to Republicans, but what would be the point. The Media and the Left have zero credibility when they claim that they are "Shock-ed, Shock-ed" that anyone would use these sort of tactics.

Stupid Republicans

I am enjoying the self destruction of the Democrats, but then I find out that the Republicans haven't learned a single thing. I do think that Denny is doing an acceptable job and replacing him with MacDonald would be a tremendous mistake, even if it is highly unlikely that he would succeed.
But the whole basis for the Tea Party protest and the Town Hall protests are about the tone deaf representatives who go to Washington and start to bribe each other with our money. If they can't figure out that it's wrong, they don't deserve to serve, and need to be removed.

"Fixing" the Debate

We have two parallel and yet different discussions going forward about "Health Care Reform." One is about Health Insurance, and the other about Health Care.
Most of the debate has been about the greedy insurance bastards who are ripping us all off by reading actuarial tables and figuring out the probability of whether or not their company will still be in business in a few years. They are abetted in this scheme by the Insurance Commissioners of the several States who invent rules to control and oversee them. For instance, in the 1970s, we in Montana passed unisex laws for insurance for cars and for health. As a result, young males paid less in car insurance than young females, and more (if they bought it at all) for health insurance than they would have otherwise paid. It was a good idea at the time, but nobody reasoned it all the way out. As a result, Montanans pay more for both health and car insurance than many other states.
One of the proposals being put forward is the "public option" plan that would provide coverage to anyone without restrictions on pre-existing conditions for a reasonable cost. Seems imminently reasonable doesn't it? But what if you go with the public option and are paying only half of what you were paying before to a private insurer. You feel good about your wise decision until your wife finds a lump in her breast. You go to the doctor that you have always had, but she tells you that she won't treat your wife because the reimbursements are too low and she loses money on your insurance.
That's alright you say, there are other doctors, so you start to call around and all refuse your coverage, except for the guy who just had his license restored after being suspended for malpractice. You have health insurance, but if the doctors don't want to take it you don't have health care.
You start to realize how unfair the system is, so you start to demand that doctors accept your coverage. Unless you are willing to repeal the XIII Amendment to the Constitution, there is no way that you can force doctors to take your case. If the government puts caps on how much anyone can charge for care, you will find a large number of doctors dropping out completely and a rise in black market medicine without the necessary oversight and controls. So, that doesn't work either.
So you see, health insurance is not the same as health care. But what are we to do about it?
I have been kicking around some ideas for awhile, such as requiring doctors to post their fee schedule so that consumers can make informed choices. Doctors who are very experienced will be able to command a higher fee than less experienced ones, but it will be the patient who decides which doctor to use. Next, do away with employer provided health care coverage. If you are given something for free (ostensibly) you don't have much regard for its value. As such, you are willing to expend it on every little thing because the cost of the copay is so small. If you are someone who never goes to the doctor until ten minutes before you die, your employer was paying the same for you as someone who went every week for every little sniffle. If you are in control of where and how much money is spent on health care, you might use it only when you needed it, and not for every sniffle or cough.
Another suggestion I would like to see is to reactivate the Armed Services Medical School. This was shut down due to pressure from the AMA, but if we were to give people who wanted to be doctors a free tuition plus a GS-16 pay scale on the condition that they would have to serve for 20 years in underserved areas in the National Health Service, it would be a heck of a lot cheaper than trying to remake the health industry into Obama's image. By reducing the number of indigent who go to private practitioners and going to the above NHS doctors, doctors would no longer have to pad the bills paid for by insurance in order to cover the indigent. Win Win all the way around.

Obama's Thugocracy in Action

Having tried to demonize ordinary Americans by calling them Nazis, Brooks Brother's Brigade, Astroturf and other derogatory names, Obama's followers are now going in for direct action:

A supporter of health care reform, left, who did not want to give her name, pushes forward to rip a sign out of Kris McLay's hands outside the Stout Street Clinic visited by Nancy Pelosi. (THE DENVER POST | RJ SANGOSTI)

I love my country, even though there are periods I am not proud of: Slavery; Extermination of Native people; Anti-Sedition laws of WWI; the internment of Japanese Americans; and the McCarthy era. I always hoped that if I was confronted by such shameful actions I would stand up against it.

It's time to stand people!

Obama as the Joker Poster

is unacceptable. Let's face it as

Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson is calling the depiction, politically mean spirited and dangerous.

"Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery," says Hutchinson, "it is mean-spirited and dangerous."

I mean, just look at what is being portrayed:







Oops, sorry, I mean this one





My bad, I mean this one:





Darn, this is hard, what with all of the outrage about Obama's poster. I mean, really, is this that bad?

Y'all Better Shut Up!

Apparently, if you are a concerned citizen who thinks that the explosion in deficit spending over the last six months is a disaster for our Nation and children, you would be well served to keep it to yourself. Otherwise, you will be accused of being a part of:

angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country.

None of us can think for ourselves apparently according to the Democratic National Committee. So you better leave all of your Congress critters alone, because you have no legitimate grounds to complain. Sure, they don't even pretend to read the bills they vote for, but they are assured by their staffs, so it must be okay. And don't even think about writing an email or a letter to the editor against this expenditure, because you will be reported to the White House.
I know that some of you will turn to the famous Hillary quote in your defense:

As Hillary Clinton famously yelled, “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, ‘WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!’”

but you don't understand, it's only one way. It's okay for fascists to use fascistic tactics to shut down other fascists.
It's just not okay for you.

Why the "Birthers" Need to Quit

Joe Biden, President of the United States.

Think about it.

Mark T's Dishonest Posting

Mark left one of his patented tirades over at ECW, in response to Dave's comment about his lack of reading comprehension in regards to an earlier comment about World Health Organization study that Mark cites to. I know this seems convoluted, but it follows his usual pattern of first ignoring the original post in order to argue what he wants, and then he either makes up stuff, or quotes partisan and unreliable sources in his post without any qualms.
Actually, while Mark is amusing as he continues his endless stream of faux data in order to support his arguments it can lead to problems with the limits of debate. The problem with allowing such false information is that weaker minds are susceptible to the ruse and resistant to the truth. The old "a lie can get half way around the world before the truth get's its boot in the stirrup" certainly fits here.
First, let's start with his 52 million uninsured. Used to be the number was 47 million, but I assume a 5 million increase is helpful to creating the kind of panic Mark and Obama need to pass this God Awful bill, even though Obama just uses the 47 number. Even then, the numbers have been shown to be quite different than portrayed. For example, about 43% have incomes above 250% of the poverty level and choose not to buy insurance. There are 13 million who are illegal aliens and won't be covered under any plan currently being discussed. Throw in the numbers of people who are between jobs with coverage, but who regain coverage under the new employer and the number of chronically uninsured is less than 10 million. A very good statistical analysis of who is uninsured is found here.
But how could I be so callous about 10 million people, you might ask? Again the problem is one of ilnumeracy. There are approximately 306 million people living in American right now. 10 million seems like a large number until you figure out it is approximately 3.5% of the total population. So, let's go ahead and wreck the whole system and raise taxes on our grandchildren for the rest of their productive lives in order to feel good about ourselves.
Mark's next exaggerated assertion is that there are a million medical bankruptcies every year. A million sounds huge, and it would be if it were true.

As Megan McArdle points out, the report’s figures indicate that the number of medical bankruptcies dropped from almost 671,000 in 2001, to only 502,000 in 2007. That’s a drop of over 25% in six years.

Heavens, that is a heck of a lot less than a million every year. Now why would Mark use the inflated number? Could it be that he is wrong? Certainly he could be mistaken, but he is inevitably wrong on the high side. Could it be that he is deliberately distorting the data? Hard to say. But consistent errors are more indicative of an agenda than an argument.
Further on in his post, Mark uses the same tactic of old, that where he has been proved wrong and he resorts to "that's not what I said" when he changes the argument from health insurance to health coverage for everyone. Although if you look at the O'Neill study cited above, you will find that the uninsured get health care at a not unreasonable rate. For instance in screening for PSA, 55% of insured men have had one. But 36% of uninsured men have had one as well. Not bad for no insurance. Women, who seem to take more attention to their health than men get mammograms at a rate of 91.26% for insured women and 76% for uninsured women. And the list goes on. See O'Neill Table 9.
Predictably, Mark again shifts the argument to his pet peeve of medicine being for profit. I had pointed out to him that Blue Cross is a non-profit and would seem to fit his demand, but he rejected it out of hand because they are a "not-for-profit" organization instead. This distinction is significant under the tax code, but otherwise is a distinction without a difference. As I am sure that Mark knows.
Mark's next set of made up numbers come from the supposed fraud of Medicare and Medicaid to the tune of $100-$500 Billion per year that could be saved by sending everyone to jail. $500 Billion is a lot of money, especially when Medicaid and Medicare total around $700 billion. Couldn't be more evidence of exaggeration now, could it? Now, these sorts of mistakes could be a product of misinformation that Mark relies on. But as noted by Dave, the use of misleading statistics doesn't enhance the argument in your favor.
While I believe that Mark is passionate in his endeavor to cover everyone with Canadian style coverage, he also ignores the problems with those "solutions." Honestly, if it was as easy as everyone says, why wouldn't it be done by now? Could it be that the chimera of the easy solution is just that? Could it be that rational people don't want to jump off of a cliff without knowing that the proposed reforms would work? Or could it even be that we can't even agree on what exactly the problem is at the moment, thanks in part to erroneous information that is clogging the argument?