Obama: Healthcare reform now or never: The Swamp

Posted May 28, 2009 8:30 PM

by Mark Silva at 1:55 pm and updated at 8:20 pm EDT

The word from Air Force One, returning today from a West Coast party fundraising event, was that President Barack Obama put out an airborne telephone call to a coalition of supporters widely known as the permanent campaign.

The message: Start mobilizing for healthcare reform.

Because if Congress does not deliver on the promise this year, the president told supporters in a conference call, it will not happen.

"If we don't get it done this year, we're not going to get it done," Obama told supporters by air-phone.

The president's political organization, Organizing for America, plans a nationwide June 6 kickoff of house parties and other events to pressure lawmakers and demonstrate support for heath reform. The president was returning from a celebrity-studded Beverly Hills fundraiser, where the Democratic National Committee raised more than $3 million, when he talked about all this with his base of supporters.

At the Organizing for America Web-site, which features the video above, the president spells out three principles for healthcare reform: "Reduce Costs: Rising health care costs are crushing the budgets of governments, businesses, individuals and families and they must be brought under control. Guarantee Choice: Americans must have the freedom to keep whatever doctor and health care plan they have, or to select a new doctor or health care plan if they choose. Ensure Affordable Care for All: All Americans must have quality and affordable health care.''

The Democratic National Committee this evening also distributed a transcript of the conference call that Obama held with Mitch Stewart, of Organizing for America, and some of the president's supporters in that airborne conversation today, and you can also hear that healthcare conversation here in the Swamp:

VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT

POTUS: Hey Mitch

MITCH STEWART: Hello Mr. President, how are you?

POTUS: I'm good how are you?

MITCH STEWART: We're doing well. You are talking to your best volunteers here both from the campaign and the folks that are going to lead the charge on our healthcare reform campaign this summer.

POTUS: Well listen, it is great to talk to everybody and I just want to start out by saying thanks, to everybody. Everybody who's made phone calls and knocked on doors and registered voters and dug deep because you guys were hungry for new ideas and new leadership and a new kind of politics. And you had the confidence that we could reclaim a sense of responsibility in Washington, instead of an economy built on huge inequalities and fumbles, we could restore a sense of fairness and responsibility in our economy and build a new foundation for lasting growth. You believed that we had to keep ourselves safe, but we had to be true to our ideals as well and that's the kind of change you believed in, that's the trust you placed in me, that's the reason I'm president and that's something I'll never forget. Just because you were with me during the campaign, you've been with us over the last several months as we've started to make some progress.

We passed an economic recover act, partly because of the economic recovery house meetings you hosted and attended, they were invaluable to get the message out about my plans to rebuild the economy. Hundreds of thousands of pledges in support of my budget were collected by all of you and delivered to members of Congress and that helped send a message that Americans coast-to-coast, were committed to making long term investments in energy and healthcare and education that would lead to new jobs and new industries and a better competitive edge for America. We passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we passed the budget plan, but now we're moving to one of our biggest priorities, something that all of us who are on the phone have been talking about since the earliest moments of this campaign and that's finally achieving the reform that ensures quality affordable healthcare for all Americans. You know what's at stake, you know we need reforms.

Healthcare costs are crushing families, businesses, government budgets. Americans now spend more on health care than on housing or food. Costs have doubled in the last decade. It by far represents the biggest threat to our long term fiscal situation in Washington. More importantly, businesses and families are just getting hammered each and every day, and it makes it harder for businesses to expand, or raise wages, or compete. Millions of Americans have lost their healthcare. And I've heard these stories from many of you, who have, either in email or other forms, told us what's happening in your lives. People like Anna Peters in Minneapolis. She wrote to OFA about her mother in law Lynn. Lynn and her husband Jack worked hard, they saved diligently, they built a solid nest-egg, but when Jack passed away and Lynn suffered a stroke, Anna tells they had no choice but to dig into Lynn's savings. And at this point Anna's fighting daily against insurance coverage that's threatening to cut of her health insurance and watching their life savings dissipate just on healthcare costs. You've got Lisa Smith and Jennifer Davis who wrote OFA about how the cost of healthcare is prohibitive and only in emergences can they afford to go to a Doctor.

So we need healthcare reform legislation that works, that preserves what works about healthcare, but fixes the things that are broken. And I think the status quo is unacceptable and that we've got to get it done this year. If we don't get it done this year we're not going to get it done. And to do that we're going to need all of you to mobilize. We've got to have you knocking on doors, making calls, educating your neighbors. I truly believe that with your help we can reduce costs for families, businesses and government. We can protect people's choice of doctors and hospitals and health plans and we can assure affordable, quality, health insurance for all Americans. This is our big chance to prove that the movement that you started during the campaign isn't over, we're just getting started. And I'm grateful for all of you for staying involved and continuing to organize for America. So I know people have some questions out there, Mitch do you want me to call on the questions or are you going to call for me?

MITCH STEWART: The first question, sir, is from Mary Alice in Grand Rapids Michigan. Mary Alice, are you on the phone?

MARY ALICE: Yes, I am. Thank you, Mr. President for your strong leadership--

POTUS: Hi, Mary Allen.

MARY ALICE: Hi, Mr. President. I am Mary Alice Williams from Grand Rapids Michigan. Part of an OFA team member-- group, that turned that turned our county blue for the first time since 1968, so we are ready to go to war. My question is: As volunteers for Organizing For America, what do you need us to do in order to grow this grassroots movement to create community and to bolster our "change" agenda.

POTUS: Well, you need to do what you already doing, Mary Alice, and thats-- we need you to stay involved. The election in November--that did not bring about change, it just gave us an opportunity for change. So now, we are really going to have to remobilize, we have all had a chance to catch our breath after election and we have gotten a lot of things done during our first four months, but healthcare--that's a big push. And so we are going to need you guys to reach out to your friends and neighbors about the work that OFA is doing in your community and we need you to support our agenda for change. So on June 6th you can host a kickoff event to help launch our campaign for healthcare reform. You can get a special video message that I recorded, then work in your community to make sure healthcare reform is talked about, discussed, that we are refuting arguments as to why we can't drive down costs and improve quality.

That is really the most important we can do to mobilize people in local communities, block by block, neighbor by neighbor, one conversation at a time, so that they understand that healthcare reform can happen. And when that happens I promise that politicians take notice, members of Congress take notice. Some of you are in already Democratic districts where your elected officials are strong allies, but some of you are in districts or in states that where, right now, politicians are resistant to bringing about change, and you need to help to mobilize these communities to say it is not acceptable to preserve the status quo. And if you want more information about how to get involved then just go to the Organizing for America website, the OFA website on www.barackobama.com. Alright?

MARY ALICE: Thank you, Mr. President.

MITCH STEWART: Alright, Thank you sir. Bonnie from Portland, are you on?

BONNIE BLYTHE: Yes, I am.

POTUS: Hi Bonnie.

BONNIE BLYTHE: Hi, Mr. President. Thank you so much. I am humbled by this opportunity and your campaign was one of the most inspiring things of my life and the fact that you are here talking and listening to us and remembering us and employing us just reinforces that so, I am humbled Mr. President, Thank you so much.

POTUS: I appreciate you. Thank you

BONNIE BLYTHE: My question is--my son just graduated from college this past winter and he is burdened with college loans and cannot afford healthcare. What would you like to see be made available for young people who are burdened with student loan debt?

POTUS: Well, you know, this is something that I have personal experience in, so I know how tough it is. One of the things we are trying to do is to alleviate the pressure off of young people like your son. So the recovery act that we signed not only makes higher education more affordable by increasing Pell Grants, but it also creates what we are calling the American Opportunity Tax Credit which gives millions of students who need some help paying their tuition bills. And this year my administration will implement an income based repayment plan for student loans that will provide an option to repay outstanding debt with a monthly rate that is affordable for individual students especially if they are experiencing financial hardship. I am also dedicated to simplifying the student loan aid application process to make it easier for students to understand the financial aid procedures. To fund these programs, all we need to do is eliminate the middle man in the current student loan program, where you've got banks and other intermediaries that are getting their--the loan is guaranteed to be repaid by the federal government, but they are taking fees off the top as well, costing us tens of billions of dollars that could go to providing relief to young people that are going to school. The other issues around health care for young people, one of the proposals I made during the campaign, was that we ensure that young people could stay on health insurance up to the age of 25, during that transition period between college and getting a job that has steady health care. That is something that we would like to potentially include in any health care reform package.

MITCH STEWART: Great, thank you Mr. President.

POTUS: Alright.

MITCH STEWART: And we have one last question

POTUS: We have one more time

MS: Yep, for Leanne in Birmingham, AL. Leanne are you on?

LEANNE TOWNSEND: I'm on, Hi Mr. President, it's such an honor and I have to say hello for my daughter drew

POTUS: Ok, well tell Drew I say hi.

LEANNE TOWNSEND: I will tell her. My question is, in a state as conservative as Alabama what do you think is the most important goal that we can accomplish to further our country?

POTUS: Well, first of all there are a whole lot of states that folks said were conservative like North Carolina and Virginia that we ended up turning blue this election and if we keep organizing and working and talking to people, especially people who historically haven't voted like young people. A lot of times we can bring them back for some positive changes.

There are some issues that we're dealing with that are huge. Two wars, fiscal and financial crisis, the deepest recession in 70 years and what I think that the American people want, even in the most conservative communities, is they want action they don't want Washington to stop delaying and deferring action. I think that's not a red state or blue state thing, its an American recognition that Washington needs to get up with the times.

So, inaction on health care leads to unsustainable rises in costs everywhere, not just in CA where I am flying back from, but in Alabama. If we want to cut our deficits and a lot conservative communities are rightly concerned about all the national debts that accumulated over the last 8 years, and frankly the additional cost that we are bearing of trying to clean up this economic recession that we've got. The most important thing we can do to close our budget gap is to reign in health care cost, its going to be absolutely critical

As we proved during the campaign, change comes from bottom up it only happens when people in their individual communities are out there talking, persuading,g presenting facts, giving people information. That's true on health care, that's true on energy, its true on education, its true whether you are in AL or MA Grassroots work makes the difference primarily because people trust their neighbors, friends and co workers more than they trust some talking head on TV. Especially these days when commentaries on TV, everybody just seems to be screaming at each other. Having that tone to reasonably have to case for why change is needed that is going to work everywhere. I know that is what you guys did during the campaign. That's why I was successful and I know that's why we can keep on being successful.

Thanks to all of you. And Mitch, I know you have a few more things to say but I wanted to say thanks to you as well. You did a great job during the campaign and you continue to do a great job now.

MITCH STEWART: Thank you, sir. And thank you for joining us, we really appreciate it.

POTUS: Alright, I had a great time. Bye bye, guys.

Comments

Even Republicans agree that there are problems with getting health care in America. They see the crisis when people can not get the medical care that they need. But they have no answer except more of the same.

They say they see the crisis when bureaucrats put themselves between you and your doctor as the insurance companies often do. But they have no solution except to vilify government.

They say no government program works without fraud, waste and abuse but they want you to trust a corporation with overpaid executives who want to make profits rather than provide you with care that takes away from their bottom line.

They like corporations which have no oversight and can hide fraud waste and corruption until the whole system collapses like the big banks did.

They won't admit that Social security works as do the fire departments, air controllers, and many other fine programs, especially when there is enough oversight and inspectors. The federal programs that have major problems are those that have been privatized. That should be a clue that private corporations, with their profit motive, may not put your needs first.

Republicans say they want a common sense approach that keeps health care patient-centered but they want to leave your health care in the hands of the private insurers and HMOs that too often limit choice to their own "panel of providers" and refuse to allow your doctor to decide on what treatment is best. Medicare, the government managed payment system, does not limit your choice; you can even go out of state.

But the Republican proposed system has failed to provide health care to a large part of the American people. They wouldn't cover older people so people demanded and got Medicare. Of course they wouldn't cover poor people because that wouldn't pay so the government had to step up to the plate with Medicaid. And it was too expensive to take care of the treatments for end stage renal disease so the government had to step in and cover them under Medicare. The same went for the permanently disabled so they were added in to Medicare. So many children had no care so SCHIP was added to cave some children who parents could not get them covered.

Now the Republican favored private insurance corporations and HMOs are refusing to cover anyone with what these companies call preexisting conditions which means anything any company wants it to mean: there is no oversight of private businesses.

Republicans always bring up the bogy man of government regulations; if only there were none all would be fine. (That worked real well for the Banks and mortgage companies didn't it?)

The secret is that health care insurance companies are the least regulated of big businesses. The vast majority of private insurance for health care is sold through the employer. Thus they fall under ERISA, the federal law that preempts all the State insurance regulation and substitutes practically nothing. (Insurance was added to the Employees Retirement and Insurance Security Act at the last minute but no real regulation was added.) The Republican excuse of too much government regulation causing insurance system's problems simply fails.

The unregulated private insurance corporations and HMOs have failed in covering Americans. They have sloughed off onto the government the elderly, the very poor, the disabled, the sick, veterans and those children whose parents can't get or afford any insurance.

Of the rest of America the insurance companies refuse many families completely for "preexisting conditions" and those few allowed are usually priced right out of the market.

Insurance companies also don't serve those with jobs that don't provide subsidized insurance plans, those without jobs, period, and those who are healthy but can't afford to pay $8 - 14,000 a year.

The private companies have failed. They were put on notice in 1992 that Americans needed a different way. They have had 18 YEARS to fix what they could. They have done nothing but increase premiums, paperwork and increase interference with doctors making decisions with you about your care.

They also have increased their spending on lobbyists and campaign donations. They can not even find one thing that they have done to improve care, reduce expenses or decrease their bureaucratic meddling with patient-doctor relations to brag about.

The other thing that has increased has been the pay for insurance and pharmaceutical company CEOs and other top management. The companies rank in the top echelons of all CEO pay scales according to Forbes surveys.

One company recently made one little change in its system and saved $120 million dollars each and every year. Yet they will not promise to slow the RATE OF INCREASE by 2% a year.

Insurance companies want a public, government plan. They just don't want you to be able to chose if you want to be in it. They want a government paid plan for the old, the poor, the disabled, injured veterans, Native Americans living on a reservation, and anyone with any preexisting condition who is not employed by a company with subsidized health insurance benefits.

That's the Republican Insurance company's plan. They tell you who goes into the government plan and everyone else MUST buy into one of their plans. Is that the free market system they are trying to sell you? Or is just another bail out of greedy companies whose mismanagement has just about killed the health care system?

The Republican answer to the crisis in health care is "Stay the course."

That is impossible.

Posted by: Quit listening to Rush | May 28, 2009 2:33 PM

With the Republican smear-the-public-option campaign---designed by Wingnut mouth-breather Frank Luntz---in full swing, here's a handy, crystal-clear rebuttal you can print out and leave on windshields and utility poles (and even in emergency rooms!) across America:

5 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION

1. Choice, choice, choice. If the public health insurance option passes, Americans will be able to choose between their current insurance and a high-quality, government-run plan similar to Medicare. If you like your current care, you can keep it. If you don't—or don't have any—you can get the public insurance plan.

2. It will be high-quality coverage with a choice of doctors. Government-run plans have a track record of innovating to improve quality, because they're not just focused on short-term profits. And if you choose the public plan, you'll still get to choose your doctor and hospital.

3. We'll all save a bunch of money. The public health insurance option won't have to spend money on things like CEO bonuses, shareholder dividends, or excessive advertising, so it'll cost a lot less. Plus, the private plans will have to lower their rates and provide better value to compete, so people who keep their current insurance will save, too.

4. It will always be there for you and your family. A for-profit insurer can close, move out of the area, or just kick you off their insurance rolls. The public health insurance option will always be available to provide you with the health security you need.

5. And it's a key part of universal health care. No longer will sick people or folks in rural communities, or low-income Americans be forced to go without coverage. The public health insurance plan will be available and accessible to everyone. And for those struggling to make ends meet, the premiums will be subsidized by the government.

It might not hurt to give your senators a jingle and ask 'em which they embrace more: campaign contributions from the big insurance lobby and Frank Luntz's Republican propaganda, or historic legislation that will enhance their legacy and make them heroes among their constituents for improving the health and well-being of all Americans. Be patient---sadly, it could take some of 'em a while to decide.

Posted by: Speaking Truth to Power | May 28, 2009 2:41 PM

Don't let the special interest scare you. The truth about healthcare reform:
http://www.aarpmagazine.org/health/8_myths_about_health_care_reform.html

Posted by: dt☢ | May 28, 2009 2:43 PM

Listen up! Obama, the general population does not want "Government Health Care" period, I would like nothing better to see that everyone in America can receive the healthcare they need. But this can be done without shoving your healthcare solution down everyones throats, First and foremost you can start with the courts and stop the ridiculous court settlements given out by stupid juries. That amount someone can receive should have a cap on them. Next, all medical forms should be generic, that in of its self would cut costs by the millions of dollars, Finally for those that have poor or no health insurance I believe the government can give them a helping hand.

Posted by: Paul | May 28, 2009 2:44 PM

Further to my original comment, my doctor who was an internist gave up his practice because of the high cost of medical insurance!. His cost was over $400,000.00 per year. Yet he was never sued, but he had to pay it any way. This I believe is a result of the high payouts given by the courts and juries.

Posted by: Paul | May 28, 2009 2:48 PM

I love that Republicans like Paul think that the reason for our healthcare problems is that insurance companies charge too much for Malpractice insurance, yet they want to leave those very same companies in charge of our healthcare system. They argue for government regulation of our Constitutionally mandated juries, rather than regulating the insurance companies.

Posted by: Mike | May 28, 2009 3:14 PM

Listen up! Obama, the general population does not want "Government Health Care" period,
Posted by: Paul | May 28, 2009 2:44 PM
******************

People in Canada and England can go to ANY doctor or hospital. Unlike here in the US with insurance, it can sometimes be very hard to find ones that take certain insurance plans.. also, in-network doctors are increasingly forced to sign complex secret agreements "gag clauses" in which they give up the ability to recommend things like therapies that the insurance company doesn't like to pay for.

Only people who have dealt with these insurance companies realize just how aggressive they are about cost shifting and how badly that effects people's lives. You can go for years in a limbo, going to doctors but never getting better, because they wont approve the tests or treatments you need, just the bare minimum.. And they make you fight for that.

Don't let the Republican party sell us out to the Big Insurance Industry the way they already have with Big Oil!

Posted by: former Republican | May 28, 2009 3:16 PM

Paul-- I call bs on the $400,000 figure. My father-in-law complained of his $60,000 in premiums, which is substantial, but 400 grand for an internist?

figure.http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/malprDact.htm

Posted by: dt☢ | May 28, 2009 3:21 PM

So Paul, how much should a 8 year old child left paralyzed from the neck down by a doctor's gross negligence be awarded by a jury?

Posted by: Nel | May 28, 2009 3:36 PM

Members of Congress have government run healthcare!
It's way past time they sacrificed for the good of the country. In case they haven't noticed, this country and 90% of the people in it are broke. We can't afford to pay a freaking middleman for mandated insuranced instead of healthcare. Everybody needs to make this the line in the sand.

Posted by: Penny | May 28, 2009 3:45 PM

No more bail-outs, no more government control of business, no to any more spending on health care, not to tax increases. Stop spending, stop printing money, stop driving this Country into poverty. Yes to cutting back on government, cutting entitlement programs, sending illegal aliens home.

Once you balance the budget and have a legitimate plan and cost for health care reform I will listen.

Posted by: Pete | May 28, 2009 3:47 PM

The debate over how to provide healthcare in the United States is mired in lots of muddled thinking. The Republicans are apparently planning to kill the current Democratic effort at healthcare reform the same way they did the last one: by scaring people with the specter of government bureaucrats making our healthcare choices for us.

But why is having government bureaucrats make healthcare decisions worse than having private insurance-company bureaucrats make those decisions? This is foolish.

There are two very important differences between government bureaucrats and private bureaucrats. First, I’m not naïve about the responsiveness of government bureaucrats ("guts of a government mule"), but they do at least in principle have a responsibility to do right by the general public that private bureaucrats totally lack. It is possible to shame public bureaucrats in ways that it is impossible to shame private bureaucrats.

Second, public bureaucrats do not have to worry about profit. We all know, of course, that according to the Republican party line, that that’s a bad thing because profit motive provides discipline to offer the best services at the lowest cost. But as everyone who studies the issue will tell you, in the United States we spend far more than anyone else in the world for worse outcomes. Our current system is private AND grossly inefficient. Just standardizing billing procedures among insurance companies would probably save billions.

As will the President’s plan to start relying on –gasp – empirical research to determine which are the most effective treatments and focus our energies and efforts on those. The Republicans have already denounced this idea as an evil plot to deprive Americans of their god-given right to "choice." This is foolish. As if ordinary people can make intelligent choices about healthcare without professional advice. We’re talking about a population that is busy undermining the long-term effectiveness of one of our most effective, valuable medical inventions ever, antibiotics, by demanding them from their doctors for colds and flu that antibiotics won’t cure. I want doctors to start refusing people the "choice" to have antibiotics just because they want them.

As for getting to choose your doctor, what good does that do when your insurance company won’t pay for what your doctor prescribes?

Posted by: InBloom | May 28, 2009 3:52 PM

More free Swamp pub for their man Obama.....

Who will undoubtedly do to "health care" what he has already done to Chrysler and GM, to the deficit, to the housing industry, to jobs.....

As Obama truly observed, "You ain't seen nothing yet..."

Posted by: Dissent is Patriotic | May 28, 2009 4:32 PM

Who do you want making your healthcare decisions? A Republican backed bean counter on the 14th floor of some giant insurance company or your doctor? Right now, the bean counter is making that decision, based on what's good for his big insurance company, not what's good for you.

These big insurance companies need some checks and balances, just like the banking industry needs some regulation. Republicans think everything is working just fine the way it is. They thought the same thing about AIG. And we know how that turned out.

Posted by: floccinaucinihilipilification | May 28, 2009 4:59 PM

More free Swamp pub for their man Obama.....

Who will undoubtedly do to "health care" what he has already done to Chrysler and GM, to the deficit, to the housing industry, to jobs.....As Obama truly observed, "You ain't seen nothing yet..."

Posted by: Dissent is Patriotic | May 28, 2009 4:32 PM
****************

RNC Brucie,
Shoudn't you be over at Freeper Republic today with the rest of the deadenders, crying in your beers about the demise of your beloved Republican party?
.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/05/gop-is-shrinking-across-every.html

Posted by: civil war guy | May 28, 2009 5:10 PM

QUICK! Before everything goes bust!

Posted by: Harold Reimann | May 28, 2009 5:18 PM

If we Americans lose our job, we can either cough up the cash for COBRA when our finances are strained, or go without medical care.

I have to laugh when the right-wing noise machine talks about "long waits" in the Canadian system, of course neglecting to mention that those waits are for non-emergency care. Let's starting talking about the waiting time and quality of care for the 50 million Americans without health insurance.

Posted by: Lark Dorsey | May 28, 2009 5:56 PM

Today's GOP is being given an absurd amount of deference and every imaginable opportunity to present their views through the corporate media's mouthpiece. It's as though they still hold power in some sort of bizarro fifth, sixth and seventh branches of government that only manifest, ghost-like, before the eyes of Beltway columnists.

And yet despite being offered the chance to go toe-to-toe with Dem ideas (a chance we were never given), they flail utterly. We just saw Rob Portman, the GOP's annointed candidate for Senate in Ohio, have this to say on healthcare:

"I" don’t think there is a Republican alternative at this point.
-Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/republican-senate-candidate-admits-gop-has-no-position-on-health-care/

Remember the Republican Party, detailing their "budget" to the American people?

"It’s just a bunch of numbers."
-John Boehner (R-Ohio)
.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/budget-heads-to-floor-fight/

And yet it wasn't even that, it was childs play!
Ah, the GOP - they never miss an opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot.

Posted by: Hank Hill | May 28, 2009 6:52 PM

What this country needs is 'HEALTH CARE FOR ALL' OR 'NO HEALTH CARE FOR ANYONE'. It is time for national health care for all, it is time to do away with health insurance, which is a joke! HEALTH CARE FOR ALL OR NO HEALTH CARE FOR ANYONE, which means that the taxpayer will no longer support health care or pensions for teachers, postal workers, police, firemen, any government worker, including all of the people in the militarly, and our elected officials, the only ones entitled to health care by the taxpayer would be in our prisons, people whom we are responsible for. IF WE THE PEOPLE DON'T GET NATIONAL HEALTH CARE, THEN WE TAKE AWAY PUBLIC PENSIONS AND PUBLIC HEALTH CARE. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. GET RID OF THE THIEVES THAT RUN OUR INSURANCE INDUSTRY!!! whiteagle38

Posted by: R. Juneau | May 28, 2009 8:52 PM

Republicans have lots of ideas, and lots of ideas in operation. Don't kid yourselves!

Perpetual warfare.

Burgeoning Security State. (It keeps us "safe"!)

Military tribunals. (Keeps us safe. Due process sucks!)

Forced feeding of Gitmo prisoners and continuing brutalization of same. (Keeps us safe too! We like beatings!)

Finishing the good works in Iraq. It keeps us safe, dontcha know! We like helping too!

Bringing more peace and good works to the people of Af/Pak. Keeps us safe. Makes us feel strong. Support the troops!

Prepping the zeitgeist landscape to Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran! (That John McCain: such a tunester. So prescient. Nothings off the table here. Tap your feet, everyone!)

Insuring perpetual Insurance industry profits (over efficient universal single-payer healthcare financing). Hold that line, Washington!

Huge multi-trillion transfers of hard-earned taxpayer wealth into the financial/banking/grift/leech sector, the true culmination of Reagonomics.

So we find Republican ideas not only in play, but dominating the political landscape in these United States of America.

Don't kid yourselves, we have GREAT idea's....uh.....wait a minute......nevermind.

Posted by: Repubs are losers | May 28, 2009 9:41 PM

I'll vote for Never if it means more gov't involvement.

Quit listening - some gov't programs like fire departments work fine. Most gov't programs like the post office, Amtrak, and social security do not. Tghe problmes with banks and mortgage companies was over-regulation, not under regulation.

Speaking - if their is a choice between a gov't and employer health care package, the employer will just dump his package onto the gov't and let it be the gov'ts problem. Why should teh employer deal with health care benefits when its not their core business? We won't save money since the taxes will be raised accross the board to pay for this or benefits will be rationed as is happening in Europe and Canada. Also, the gov't right now cannot run Medicare successfully as that ponzi scheme is about to collapse under its financial debt. What the private companies pay in bonuses and pay to shareholders in profits, the gov't would easily cover in graft, corruption, and inefficiencies.

As BO stated a few days ago in a C-Span interview "we are out of money", how does he expect to pay for taking over 1/6 of the economy?

dt, Like AARP is an unbiased source? They lean way left.

Posted by: Terry | May 28, 2009 10:17 PM

Ignoring the numbskulled economics of this for a minute ---Can anyone suppporting the massive theft of wealth and liberty that Obama care program will require post the any reference from the US constitution that provides a legal basis for Universal Health care?? Take your time...

Posted by: heartburn | May 28, 2009 10:56 PM

I'll vote for Never if it means more gov't involvement.

Quit listening - some gov't programs like fire departments work fine. Most gov't programs like the post office, Amtrak, and social security do not. Tghe problmes with banks and mortgage companies was over-regulation, not under regulation
Posted by: Terry | May 28, 2009 10:17 PM
*********************

Mary,
Not surprising coming from a deadender like you. You're more than happy to let big insurance companies continue to screw the middle-class and the poor, just as you were more than happy to sit back and watch the BushCo Criminals warmonger in Iraq, torture innocents and give tax cuts to the richest 2%, big corporations (this includes the Giant Insurance Industry) and big oil...

Anotherwords (unless you're a multi-millionaire) you're admitting that you're dumb enough to vote (Republican) against your own well being. And judging from the comments that you leave on here all the time, that doesn't surprise me much.

Posted by: you | May 28, 2009 11:30 PM

Let's face it...Obama will bankrupt this country with his healthcare [socialist] reform.

Does anyone ask...where is this money going to come from?

Yep! The earning middle class will be taxed at a higher rate so Obama can give it to the earn-nots.

In his first four months he's already cost this country trillions with nothing to show for it.... except high unemployment, government takeovers of G.M and Chrysler
and 3000 car dealers being shut down....THE WORST president EVER!

Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | May 29, 2009 12:09 AM

Terry,

AARP leans way left? What a crock. Older americans are more conservative than the general public. It doesn't make sense that this large group is served by a "way left" organization. You Pugs lose all your credibility when you put this silly label on any group or organization with a dissenting opinion.

Problems with banks and mortgages was "overregulation"---that's rich, trickle boy. No one can turn logic on its head like you delusional pugs.

Posted by: dt☢ | May 29, 2009 1:05 AM

* * * * *
Posted by: Quit listening to Rush | May 28, 2009 2:33 PM
.
Read carefully. There is a distinction between answers and solutions. Both Democrats and Republicans have answers. Unfortunately, neither have solutions. Your critique of the Republicans’ lack of answers fails to suggest how Democrats have any ideas that might approximate solutions. In reality, they don’t.
.
Government control, which you appear to advocate, is not an answer - unless, of course, you want a health care system to last only 10 to 15 years. The government is broke, and the future looks bleaker. The health care programs funded by the federal government will be bankrupt in very short order. The Social Security system is also going to take the federal government to the bottom of a financial abyss as soon as all the baby boomers come to retirement age and seek to draw upon the SS system for benefits. By then there will be fewer workers paying payroll taxes, in which case all the federal government’s SS markers will all come due. All of this will then prove to be what naysayers have been claiming all along: these programs are unsustainable as currently configured. The inability to structure a durable and reliable system of health care or social security seems to be inherent in the federal government. It has proven its untrustworthiness too often. This might actually be caused by the fact the federal government was not designed, and is ill suited, to administer large scale social welfare programs. There is also a distinct lack of expertise among the ranks of the feds, not to mention the existence of perverse pressure from special interest groups. Wherever there is plunder, the vultures will congregate.
.
You are, however, painfully correct in asserting that insurance companies are poor guardians of the health care needs of the entire nation. Given that, today, only about 39 cents out of every dollar paid in health care insurance ever makes it to doctors, hospitals or medical suppliers, describing health insurance companies and HMOs as inefficient is an extreme understatement. Without any regulation whatsoever, forcing everyone into the arms of an insurance carrier or HMO will not guarantee any particular quality of health care, and it will not guarantee that insurance will remain affordable. The Massachusetts experiment with insurance and HMO control is now beginning to show that insurance hasn’t become any more affordable (or desirable), and that shortages and substandard care are all too common. Thus, the “big” insurance/HMO scheme might well guarantee only our further victimization. It may just guarantee that all the game animals (us) are driven into the hunters’ nets.
.
It’s time to think outside the solutions championed by the politicians. As Albert Einstein said (and I paraphrase), “Problems cannot be solved at the same level of consciousness that created them.” Many of the problems we now have were created by insurance companies and the federal and state governments changing the dynamics of the health care industry. Pre-insurance and pre-government-intervention models existed which, when allowed to work, offered affordable, quality health care. Imagine a system of health care delivery that is responsible for its own finances - so that more health care dollars actually make it to health care providers. The Kaiser ship building company started doing that during World War II for the benefit of its workers. Perhaps fostering the growth of self-contained HMOs (like Kaiser-Permanente), and discouraging insurance companies and other HMOs from maintaining exorbitant overhead, might bring the kind of efficiency and affordability that is currently lacking. However you cut it, though, there will need to be greater restructuring in all of the relations for any system to work as desired.

Posted by: John W. | May 29, 2009 4:55 AM

Terry......AARP leans left?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Posted by: bill r. | May 29, 2009 8:14 AM

benefits will be rationed as is happening in Europe and Canada.

Posted by: Terry | May 28, 2009 10:17 PM

Um, Terry, could you give me an example of Canadian benefits being rationed due to universal health care??

And Hertburn, can you reference from the US constitution that provides a legal basis for Public schools, Social Security, Medicare, Amtrak, sales tax, IRS, Star Wars project, faith based initiatives, AK-7 ownership, etc etc etc??? Didnt think so. So whats your point?? MORONS!

Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | May 29, 2009 8:42 AM

Scot - So we agree that spending our money to pay for others health care (national health care) is unconstitutional.

Posted by: heartburn | May 29, 2009 9:05 AM

:"self-contained HMOs (like Kaiser-Permanente)"

The very definition of the lack of choice in healthcare. Stay within our system or you get nothing. The HMO will decide what provcedures you may get, who will do the procedure, What tests the doctor may perform, how long the doctor may allow you to stay in the hospital. The patient has no voice at all. The doctor little more. Sign over your right to sue a negligent doctor. All decisions will be made by the management of the HMO, for the benefit of the HMO.

Posted by: Richard | May 29, 2009 9:12 AM

* * * * *
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | May 29, 2009 8:42 AM
.
Scot,
.
You should read Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791, 2005 SCC 35, in which the Canadian Supreme Court stated (per Deschamps, J.), “The evidence shows that, in the case of certain surgical procedures, the delays that are the necessary result of waiting lists increase the patient’s risk of mortality or the risk that his or her injuries will become irreparable. The evidence also shows that many patients on non‑urgent waiting lists are in pain and cannot fully enjoy any real quality of life. The right to life and to personal inviolability is therefore affected by the waiting times.” In the opinion of McLachlin C.J. and Major and Bastarache JJ., in the same case, it was noted that “…delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care. The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital health care result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness.”
.
You were saying?
.
And then you have the unmitigated audacity to call heartburn a “MORON” for challenging people to find a constitutional basis for a universal health care system. Frankly, your response is retarded. You arrogant retort suggests that he would likewise be unable to “reference from the US constitution” the parts “that provides a legal basis for Public schools, Social Security, Medicare, Amtrak, sales tax, IRS, Star Wars project, faith based initiatives, AK-7 ownership, etc etc etc???” Well, Scot, the fact that you didn’t know that much of this stuff is directly sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution doesn’t reflect well on you. Sales tax and the IRS are justified by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 and the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Sales tax and Public Schools are separately justified, respectively, as valid exercises of state taxation and public welfare powers which need no sanction in the federal Constitution. The possession of “AK-[4]7” can be justified by reference to the Second Amendment. The Star Wars project can be viewed as a law “necessary and proper” to fulfill the federal government’s duty to provide a national defense, which is part and parcel of its explicit powers to provide an army, a navy, to declare war, and to regulate the military forces - all of which are found in Article I, section 8. Be careful in the standard by which you judge others to be a “moron.” It might just apply to you.
.
Now I agree that Medicare, Amtrak and faith-based initiatives aren’t supported by the text of the Constitution. But that doesn’t make you right or heartburn wrong. The federal government was designed to function as a “limited” government with enumerated powers. The fact that framers spelled out the federal government’s powers in the Constitution is, itself, evidence they did not intend the federal government to transcend them. After all, why bother to spell out the powers of the federal government if the federal government isn’t limited to the powers so specified? A canon of statutory/constitutional construction specifies that the positive enumeration of one thing (or a number of things) in a law carries with it the negative implication that those things not enumerated are excluded from the operation of the law. (This rule figured largely in the early case of Marbury v. Madison. I suggest you read it.) The powers not given were, thus, not to be exercised. Lest any doubt persist, the Tenth Amendment specifically states that powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States and/or the People. That makes explicit the limitations already discernable from the structure of the Constitution. In which case, heartburn raised a valid argument by pointing out the absence of any textual support in the Constitution for a universal health care system. Those who wrote the Constitution, as well as those who ratified it, had no intention of allowing the federal government to super-size itself simply through the artifice of spending money. If the federal government could re-define itself simply by spending money, then all the implicit and explicit limitations in the Constitution were but vain attempts at creating a limited government.
.
You were saying?

Posted by: John W. | May 29, 2009 11:39 AM

Now I agree that Medicare, Amtrak and faith-based initiatives aren’t supported by the text of the Constitution. But that doesn’t make you right or heartburn wrong. The federal government was designed to function as a “limited” government with enumerated powers. The fact that framers spelled out the federal government’s powers in the Constitution
Posted by: John W. | May 29, 2009 11:39 AM
******************

Dubya,
Libertarianism: is a term used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty[2] and minimize or abolish the state.[

Anarchism: is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable.

One seeks to eliminate government to increase personal freedoms and the other believes all government is unneeded.

Who is in charge under a true libertarianism or a true anarchy.

Answer - No one.

The only difference between the 2, is that the libertarians are free market Reaganites too.

In an anarchy, you have no gov and no economy, and you live like pirates with no trading partners.

What exactly is the difference?

If it was up to Johnny "W", the government "response" to a disaster like Katrina really would have been considered a "Heckuva Job", in fact "W's" gov would have let even more people die.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

Johnny W, when Ron Paul decides to drop his personal government run healthcare plan "for the good of the country" maybe I'll start listening to nuts like you but until then - forget it.

PS - get a job you loser.

Posted by: unemployed lawyer | May 29, 2009 1:17 PM

I'm a dem and don't want my work benefits taxed for national health care--especially health care to people who aren't American citizens. There are other ways. First, eliminate ALL medical insurance/ diagnostic/pharma lobbyists and see where the sticks fall. After that, use common sense and cut the medical/diagnostic/ big pharm fat. Why spend more $$$ on prisoners than on law abiding citizens? Why continue to medically treat people who are not in our country legally? Why not send the medical bills of illegals to their own slacking government? Make a law that people have proof of medical insurance before entering our country--that would be one way to know who is here. Why isn't the Department of AMERICAN Security all over this? (Pretty sure The Netherlands already does this.) Why continue to be the world's biggest sucker? If all of this were addressed--we'd be in much better shape to discuss national health care. Look out--our president, House and Senate will probably pass a health bill as thieving and uncontrolled as the first TARP under Bush and Cheney--and that third dirty-fingers person--Drama Queen Paulson who waited until 12 weeks before Bush/Cheney left office to tell the nation that the sky had fallen. Funny how all the big connected banks had the very same problems and they all had different CEOs and boards.

Posted by: Vivian | May 29, 2009 1:29 PM

* * * * *
Posted by: Richard | May 29, 2009 9:12 AM
.
You are not completely wrong in your contempt for Kaiser-Permanente. My own experiences with it were the same or similar to that which you described. However, if you noticed, I said that perhaps we should encourage HMOs “like” Kaiser-Permanente. I said nothing about encouraging HMOs that are identical in MO to Kaiser. The value of such a system, within limits, is that it excludes the needless overhead incurred by an insurance company, thereby allowing more bang for buck. Further adjustments can be made to the kinds of services provided. My point was to suggest that we should start with an efficient model, and then change it as necessary to adapt to our needs without sacrificing the features that make it efficient.

Posted by: John W. | May 29, 2009 1:32 PM

Scot - So we agree that spending our money to pay for others health care (national health care) is unconstitutional.

Posted by: heartburn | May 29, 2009 9:05 AM

No i do not agree. National Health care is neither constitutional nor unconstitutional.. its a matter of conscience and compassion.. the two emotions most missing from your party which is why you guys lost!

John, um, your comment regarding Quebec( which is not all of Canada by the way) is dated from 2005! And private health care has been available in Canada for several years now. Canadians have a choice of private or public health care. Private is quicker and more expensive and public is longer and free!
You were saying??

And also, tell me, how many Americans die each year from lack of any healthcare, proper health care, malpractice and insurance fraud etc??? You were saying??

Im sorry I am not a constitutional scholar but Heartburns and your argument has nothing to do with th eissue at hand. So what that Unuiversal Healthcare isnt in the constitution so isnt many other laws and services provided by the government. And if you think the federal governments role is supposed to be less then what it is.. tell me MORON, where were you when Bush created the largest government in history?? You were saying???

Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | May 29, 2009 2:54 PM

John W, there is no lack of HMOs like KP, we don't need to encourage more. Most operate in the same way. It is the nature of the HMO system that I described, not just KP. Eliminate those features and you eliminate the means by which HMOs make themselves "efficient".

Posted by: Richard | May 29, 2009 3:04 PM

* * * * *
Posted by: unemployed lawyer | May 29, 2009 1:17 PM
.
1. You have been gravely misinformed with regard to Libertarianism. The vast majority of Libertarians in America are “minarchists” rather than “anarchists.” Libertarians, for the most part, do not believe in the total absence of government. They believe personal government is the best; that voluntary private agreements are the next best way to arrange one’s social affairs; and that external governments, while not favored, are necessary to address certain statewide and national problems and, thus, tolerable when confined to their appropriate roles. As a political theory, main-stream Libertarianism is virtually indistinguishable from the Classical Liberalism of those who fought the Revolution and framed the Constitution.
.
2. In the case of Katrina, Libertarians believe the municipal and state governments had the primary responsibility to address the immediate needs of the community. In fact, entirely apart from Libertarian ideology, local and state governments have always had the primary and historical responsibility to care for the immediate health, welfare and safety of their citizens. Unfortunately, many local governments in areas affected by Katrina entirely dropped the ball and then elected to blame the federal government for their own shortcomings; and,
.
3. I have a job, you ignoramus. Quit stalking me.

Posted by: John W. | May 29, 2009 3:05 PM

3. I have a job, you ignoramus. Quit stalking me.

Posted by: John W. | May 29, 2009 3:05 PM
*************

"W",
Until you nuts actually start walking the walk with all of your BS anti government talk, and your leaders like Ron Paul vow to drop all of their government benefits (like healthcare) for the "good of the country", you and him, are full of crap.

Government doesn't work under your teams leadership because you hate government....and it's much more beneficial $$$ for your leadership when they can sell us out to the highest bidders like Halliburton, Blackerwater and the Giant Insurance Industry and get the kickback money while everyone else gets screwed.

The middle-class and the poor are tired of your kind of crap, "W", (do you even look at poll numbers?) and they are going to have healthcare whether you anti-government nuts like it or not.

Ron Paul's America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

Quit collecting unemployment and get a job you loser.

Posted by: unemployed lawyer | May 29, 2009 3:41 PM

John W is right. The City of New Orleans, even though 70% underwater, should have provided for all their own needs in the aftermath of Katrina. The State of Lousiana, even though there entire costal region was devastated, and their largest city was entirely out of commission, should have been able to handle all of their own needs without the evil of Federal Government influence. Like all good liberatrians those people on the rooftops should have built thier own helicopters to airlift themselves to safety. A city and state run on Libertarian principals would have turned back all aid and defended the people right to starve and drown by force if needed. Disband FEMA. There should be no Federal aid in natural disasters, no matter how severe. If the cities and states can't handle it, tough. The Founders clearly intended for the people to die while the Federal government did nothing at all to help in those circumstances. The only fault of the Federal Government in Katrina was to help at all.

Posted by: Brownie, the Libertarian hero | May 29, 2009 3:57 PM

How Texas should look...in the mind of John W:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCLz7XQOIOQ

Posted by: unemployed lawyer | May 29, 2009 4:15 PM

John W, the founders also intended for the State Militias to be the major source of military force and protection for the United States. Do your libertarian principles lead you to believe that the US military should be radically downsized to a small core, and that we return to depending on the National Guard for the majority of our defense, as the founders clearly intended, to avoid the danger that a large standing army is to a Republic?

Posted by: Lou | May 29, 2009 4:16 PM

* * * * *
Posted by: Brownie, the Libertarian hero | May 29, 2009 3:57 PM
.
Your snarky response isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. The City of New Orleans and the State Government of Louisiana had at their disposal a large amount of resources that could have substantially ameliorated the situation before it got to crisis proportions. But, no, instead of using the existing resources to evacuate people to safety while the streets were still passable, the State and municipal governments hesitated and, eventually, ended up doing nothing. The Governor hesitated instead of declaring a state of emergency, marshalling an emergency response, or coordinating matters with the federal government. Metro busses in N.O. were found underwater where they were last parked. (Hmm. Use them to drive people out of the city and save metro assets at the same time? What an idea! Nah!!.) Instead of exercising any personal initiative and leadership skills, Ray Nagin pulled the chicken switch and found his way to a high and dry room on the eighth floor of some hotel to wait the whole thing out. There was a total lack of leadership at the local and state level that resulted in a lot of needless suffering and loss.
.
FEMA is not a first response agency. If you read the NRF documentation, you will see that the entire game plan depends heavily upon the readiness of local and State governments, along with private agencies and NGOs, to act as first responders in the case of any emergency or disaster. Here, read it yourself: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-core.pdf

Posted by: John W. | May 29, 2009 4:46 PM

Actually John W, you are wrong. Gov. Blanco declared a State of Emergency 3 days before landfall,. She requested a Federal State of Emergency 2 days before landfall. 1 day before landfall Mayor Nagin issued a mandatory evacuation order.

Was their response perfect? Hardly. No one disputes that. However it was nothing like the fiction that you present, in an effort to dispute the obvious failures of the federal response.

I would recommend that you read "The Great Deluge" by Douglas Brinkley. He does an excellent job of explaining the chain of events, and pulls no punches when it comes to finding fault regardless or level of government or partisan affliation. It's a good antidote to the misinformation that you seem to believe to be fact.

Posted by: Lou | May 29, 2009 5:25 PM

Your snarky response isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. The City of New Orleans and the State Government of Louisiana had at their disposal a large amount of resources that could have substantially ameliorated the situation before it got to crisis proportions
Posted by: John W. | May 29, 2009 4:46 PM
****************

"W",
Maybe someday your dreams will come true. Every boy and girl will find an AK47 under their Christmas tree and every family will have an Abrams Tank in their driveway.....and if anyone happens to get hurt - Tough Luck Pal.

But until that day comes, your kind are nothing more than a fringe far right wing minority in this country and for good reason.

"The Bush administration demoted the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from a cabinet-level agency to a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), led by appointees who proved unprepared for the destructive 2005 hurricane season. After Hurricane Andrew hit Florida in 1992, emergency management took on a new importance in the federal government, and James Lee Witt, the director of FEMA during the Clinton administration, was widely credited with reinvigorating the troubled agency. Witt had previous experience in disaster management; Michael D. Brown, President George W. Bush’s pick for the job in 2003, did not, nor did other key members of FEMA’s top management after 2000. Under Brown, the federal agency’s connections with its state and local partners faded, undermining coordination on preparedness and response projects. When Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck the Gulf Coast in 2005, the response from DHS and FEMA was, by many accounts, slow and disorganized. Victims stranded in their houses drowned as the flood waters rose, and evacuees languished in the Louisiana Superdome."
.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/broken_government/articles/entry/1007/

Posted by: unemployed lawyer | May 29, 2009 5:40 PM

Posted by: heartburn | May 29, 2009 9:05 AM

Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | May 29, 2009 2:54 PM

Scot- You make my argument--the fact that there is no power given- or not given- to the federal governament to deliver national health care. Because of this the government is legally prohibited from doing so...
--
So in your befuddled cloudy sing song way of thinking you really believe that it makes sense to commit to an unending entitlement program that will cost TRILLIONS of dollars, that we not only can't afford, that we would need to borrow or print massive amounts of money to fund.
-
All this with no other mandate than "its a matter of conscience and compassion"??
-
To your other bug eyed comment;
----"And also, tell me, how many Americans die each year from lack of any healthcare, proper health care, malpractice and insurance fraud etc??? You were saying??"

---

Almost everyone in the US has almost unlimited access to the best health care, prescription drugs, and preventative medicine in the world.
Nobody in the US- including illegal immigrants can be denied treatment for illness or injury regardless of ability to pay- thats a law that makes sense..
-
So ignoring the -again, numbskulled, economics of this- what do you think health care will look for the majority of americans when the government is providing it to you?

And BTW- you call me a moron again I will have to take you off of my Christmas card mailing list... you are warned.

Posted by: heartburn | May 29, 2009 5:43 PM

I find it laughable the way John W lectures people about "stalking him" and yet the first thing he does when he gets on a thread is to start "stalking" all of the previous posters comments and rebutting them with his insane Libertarian fairytales.

Posted by: unemployed lawyer | May 29, 2009 5:47 PM

Lou,
.
There are a lot of sources, official and unofficial, that dispute the facts you have presented. Even if we assume the truth of the facts as you stated them, Blanco’s and Nagin’s efforts were still deficient. They were all late on their efforts. And in situations like that, acting too late is nearly as bad as not acting at all.
.
Two to three days for a declaration of emergency, as you suggest, wasn’t enough time to get the goods on the spot. Some sources claim that Blanco hesitated, and should have declared a state of emergency earlier. Supposedly, even the federal government had been breathing down her neck to move faster. So, even if your alternate scenario is true, it doesn’t deprive my conclusion of its force that she didn’t act responsibly and in a timely manner to provide for an adequate response.
.
The same is true of Nagin. One day is simply not enough time to evacuate New Orleans of all those who didn’t respond to the prior, non-mandatory evacuation order. The city government knew from prior experiences with Hurricane Ivan that one day wasn’t going to do it. That little exercise with Ivan was a dismal failure, and taught them they needed a better evacuation plan. They never developed a better one in time for Katrina, in which case all too many people were left high and not so dry. Furthermore, it is still true that neither Nagin nor Blanco brought to bear all of the available state resources they could have to avert damage, death and suffering. There WERE metro busses left unused, and discovered underwater, that could have helped people to safety had they been deployed in a timely manner. Again, one day wasn’t enough. And, yes, after things went spinning out of hand, Nagin did retire to an elevated hotel room to sit out the storm. That’s not what I call leadership either.
.
Furthermore, Lou, I am not in the game of protecting the then-existing Republican administration, or defending the failure of the federal response. I have no fond attachment to them. My point was simply to illustrate that there was plenty of blame to go around, and the local and state officials deserved more of it. Your alternate factual scenario, if true, does not detract from the point.

Posted by: John W. | May 29, 2009 6:45 PM

* * * * *
Posted by: unemployed lawyer | May 29, 2009 3:41 PM
.
You are one seriously confused puppy if you think that Libertarians favored the war in Iraq, the hiring of Haliburton or Blackwater, or that they favor the aggressive foreign policy of the federal government. We would prefer that the federal government pull the plug on most of our foreign military outposts, unwind our foreign military entanglements and begin a policy of friendship and neutral commerce with the whole world. That’s even more than the Democrats are willing to do for the cause of peace. I guess you missed the Republican debates where Congressman Paul, a part-time Libertarian, made the case for doing things that way. He caught a lot of flack from the other Republican candidates for his anti-war and alleged anti-militaristic positions.
.
And how dare you accuse me of taking unemployment. I have never done such a thing. I am happily self-employed. In which case, unlike you, I don’t need to.

Posted by: John W. | May 29, 2009 6:49 PM

Scot,
.
You mean the system under consideration in Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791, 2005 SCC 35, wasn’t a public health care plan that was universal in Quebec? It had to be because the law under review prohibited any private health care coverage. And does the case not speak of Canadians having their health care benefits being rationed, and even denied? It sure does. Isn’t that what you asked Terry for an example of? It sure is. You lose, Bozo.
.
And then you say stuff like “National Health care is neither constitutional nor unconstitutional.. its a matter of conscience and compassion...” No, Scot, if we end up with a national health care system based on an act of Congress, it will be due to either a constitutional or an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power. It cannot be “neither.” Laws that do not conform to the limits of the Constitution are unconstitutional. (That is something else the case of Marbury v. Madison established. You really ought to read it sometime, instead of wallowing in your ignorance.) We are a nation of laws, not warm, fuzzy feelings. If those who operated the federal government thought the way you do, we would have had suffered more tyranny by now. To some people, it would be “a matter of conscience and compassion” to execute criminals without a trial to spare victims and their families the pain of a public hearing. And, why not do it that way if the explicit limitations in the Constitution could be swept away by invoking conscience and compassion? There would be no evil or tyranny the government could not theoretically perpetrate with such paper-thin conventions.
.
It makes a real difference when the government proposes to do something that isn’t authorized by the Constitution. It constitutes a theft of power and a disruption of the checks and balances that make sure we remain free from mobocracy (of the type you appear to prefer). It also reflects a definite contempt for the fundamental law of the land. The honest way to deal with questions of power in our federal system is to debate the need to give more power to the federal government to deal with the exigencies of our time. That would open the issue in every state, every legislature, and every public forum to all sides of the question. If the people and states then determined the feds ought to have more power, the remedy would then be to amend the Constitution to give the federal government the explicit power to handle the situation.
.
And where was I when George W. Bush was growing the federal government? I was sitting here furious, and hating every second of it. George W. Bush was a traitor to the cause of small government, fiscal responsibility and accountability; and he spent no small amount of time alienating those with libertarian leanings in the Republican Party. That’s why I didn’t vote for him when he ran for his second term. That’s also why I voted for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate, instead of John McCain. That’s also why I have re-registered as a Libertarian.
.
And you called me a moron? In your case, that’s the epitome of the pot trying to call the kettle black. You can’t win an argument in a toe-to-toe confrontation, so you resort to name calling. Worse yet, you are always at the rudest and most arrogant and obnoxious when your ignorance is at its pinnacle.

Posted by: John W. | May 29, 2009 6:52 PM

John W's idea of the ideal govenment:

"Why FEMA failed - Ideologically opposed to a strong federal role in disaster relief and obsessed with terrorism, the Bush administration let a once-admired agency fall apart."

"Indeed, the White House's new response to the political disaster prompted by Katrina -- one in which officials are attempting to blame authorities in Louisiana, rather than in Washington, for the slow aid -- underscores the Bush philosophy. According to Haddow, instead of working with local officials to try to minimize the impacts of an impending storm, the White House has decided its best strategy is to keep its distance from people on the ground. That way if anything goes wrong, the White House can "attack, attack, attack."

"We began to see some of these attacks over the weekend. Sunday's Washington Post cited an anonymous Bush administration official who explained that one reason that the federal government didn't intervene more quickly in Louisiana was because Kathleen Blanco, the state's Democratic governor, failed to declare a state of emergency there, a necessary step for federal help to flow. An article in Newsweek repeats the same claim."

"But there's a problem with the White House's excuse: It's patently false. As Josh Marshall points out, Blanco declared a state of emergency on Aug. 26 -- a day before Bush declared a federal emergency in Louisiana. (You can see Blanco's official declaration in PDF format here; the Washington Post has corrected its article.) On Aug. 28 -- the day before Katrina made landfall -- Blanco followed her declaration with an official letter (PDF) to Bush that requested all manner of emergency supplies her state would need for the aftermath."

"Haddow says that these requests should have been enough -- more than enough -- to prompt a full-scale federal response. Under the Clinton administration's FEMA, with Witt as the head, a storm of Katrina's magnitude would have prompted federal and state officials to actually meet in order to coordinate their response. "You were all working together to anticipate needs," Haddow says. "You're all sitting in the same room when the things happened -- the Midwest flood, the Northridge quake, the Oklahoma City bombing and all the disasters we responded to. We were in the same room together and nobody had to point fingers."
.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/09/07/fema/index.html

Posted by: unemployed lawyer | May 29, 2009 7:02 PM

dts and Billy,

Yes - AARP leans left. Google "AARP Political Agenda" and see what pops up.

http://www.60plus.org/about-aarp.asp

Teabagging Scottie,

That's too easy.

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/032609-us-headed-toward-canada-style-health-care-rationing

http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/001831.php

http://www.nationalcenter.org/2006/02/nlpc-aarp-funding-is-wasteful-and.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1558422/posts

Unemployed lawyer - reading that I can understand the name.

Posted by: Terry | May 29, 2009 8:02 PM

The way government should work in the minds of wingnut cretins like Johnny W, heartburn and Terry (Mary):

"To assist with the recovery and disposition of the victims of Katrina, FEMA has hired Kenyon Worldwide Disaster Management, a Houston-based company which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Service Corporation International (SCI), another Houston-based corporation, which bills itself as the "dominant leader in the North American death care industry."

"SCI is not only closely associated with the president (which is not surprising since the company is based in Houston), they were also at the center of what is probably the best-known scandal during Bush's six years as governor of Texas: the so-called 'funeralgate' case."

"What's more, Joe Allbaugh -- President Bush's Chief of Staff in Texas and later his first FEMA Director -- was the central figure in that scandal, or at least the guy whose job it was to take care of the mess SCI had gotten into."
.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_09_04.php#006415

Posted by: unemployed lawyer | May 29, 2009 9:04 PM

Here's an idea Johnny W, if you're so put upon because middle-class and poor people in this country want a government run healthcare plan, why don't you leave?....Oh, wait a minute, there's hardly any other countries out there who don't have a government plan? Oh well, looks like you're stuck here, "W". :-(

Maybe we should get rid of all the government run systems like the postal service, libraries, national defense, police and fire services, national parks, parks and recreation, public education too?

WASHINGTON (CNN) – "A new national poll indicates that most Americans are receptive to having more government influence over their health care in return for lower costs and more coverage."

"Sixty-three percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Friday said they would favor an increase in the federal government's influence over their own health-care plans in an attempt to lower costs and provide coverage to more Americans; 36 percent were opposed."

"The poll also suggests that slightly more than six out of 10 think the government should guarantee health care for all Americans, with 38 percent opposed."
.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/29/cnn-poll-americans-ok-with-more-government-influence-in-return-for-lower-health-care-costs/

Posted by: unemployed lawyer | May 29, 2009 9:50 PM

* * * * *
Posted by: Lou | May 29, 2009 4:16 PM
.
Lou,
.
That’s a very interesting post regarding the founding fathers’ views on a standing army versus a militia. You are correct that many of the founding fathers believed exactly as you said. The only problem is that this view never quite made it into the Constitution. George Mason participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, but refused to sign the Constitution when completed. He cited, as one of his objections to it, the fact that it had no declaration against the danger of standing armies in time of peace. A similar objection was expressed by the delegates at the Virginia ratification convention.
.
And, indeed, the Constitution states no prohibition against maintaining standing armies. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15-16 of the U.S. Constitution give Congress the power to “provide for calling forth the Militia . . .” and to govern and regulate the same, especially those units “employed in the Service of the United States . . .” However, separate and apart from the provisions regarding the Militia, the Constitution also gives Congress the power to “raise and support Armies” (id, Cl. 12) and to “provide and maintain a Navy” (id., Cl. 13). Thus, a fair reading of the Constitution shows the Framers did not intend to use militias to the exclusion of standing armies, or vice versa. It shows, instead, that they intended to give the government the flexibility and power to use both systems.

Madison and Hamilton defended this arrangement on the grounds that: 1) we need unlimited power to raise armies, and not simply use militias, because we must be able to meet the force of an enemy that accepts no limits; 2) the existence of state militias gives us a sufficient check against the potential abuse of a standing army; 3) Congress has the power to disband armies by voting against further funding for them; and 4) to garrison western outposts we need a full time army, even if it isn’t a big. (The Federalist Papers, Nos. 24, 25, 41, & 46.) One should also take note that, when proposing the first series of amendments to the Constitution, Madison made no attempt to address Mason’s complaint against standing armies except for what he proposed in the Second and Third Amendments. In short, using militias to the exclusion of standing armies was not the clear intent of the Constitution’s authors.
.
I wouldn’t favor disbanding the Armed Forces in favor of militias because we need a core of professionally trained and experienced personnel to properly defend us. Where I disagree with the current arrangement is in the fact that we really don’t have organized or trained state militias. National Guard units are not militia units. We should re-develop and re-deploy state militias, especially because security and the ability to respond to disaster have become crucial. That is how I would change things.

Posted by: John W. | May 29, 2009 9:57 PM

Unemployed lawyer that lives in parents' basement - aka John E,

The way the go'vt DOES work - over-priced and underperforms - see Amtrak, Post Office, Cook County, City of Chicago, ...

Posted by: Terry | May 29, 2009 11:24 PM

* * * * *
Posted by: unemployed lawyer | May 29, 2009 9:50 PM
.
You know, I would be ashamed to be you, to believe in anything in which you believed, or to advocate anything you seek. Anyone who could happily live off the labor of other people, as you appear to be, is nothing more than a self-debased parasite. Have you no shame at all?
.
Unfortunately, I suspect you are just a symptom of the times, in that people have been taught that it’s good to be dependent upon government much the way a child clings to his or her mother. Freedom, self-sufficiency and independent thought do not appear to be valued any more. The rugged individualist is quickly turning into the stuff of mythology. And then some people actually have the gall to wonder out loud why our education system is turning into the worst in the Western Hemisphere. The answer is plain enough to see: People who aren’t in the practice of exercising their brains can’t learn.
.
But I’m still curious. When are they going to collect your spine? You certainly don’t need it to live with a mind-set like yours.
.
And - BTW - I don’t follow people around the Swamp to pick on them. I interact with those who happen to be here if I find their writing interesting, provocative, funny, stupid, or so on. You however, specifically follow me around. You do not show up in the avatar of “unemployed lawyer” unless I post something. So, yes, you are stalking me - whereas I do not stalk others. I have to admit though, every time I interact with you I seem to detect that malodorous scent of JohnEEE-Boy.

Posted by: John W. | May 29, 2009 11:34 PM

Terry,
You discredited AARP as being biased and then you post a link to freerepublic? Ha ha ha ha ha!

Americans for Prosperity offered financial rewards for those organizing national tea parties--no right-wing agenda there.

The NationalCenterOrg.--another wing-nut "think tank", a sampling of their unbiased headlines:

Outrage of the Day: Obama's Hypocrisy on Lobbying
*

Outrage of the Day: Senate Majority Leader Calls Chief Justice a Liar
*

Outrage of the Day: Obama Raised Cash for Never-to-Be-Run Senate Race After Leaving Senate

*
Outrage of the Day: The Terrible Health Care Canadians and Britons
*
These guys make Freepers look moderate

Lets look as 60+ org: (Sourcewatch)
*
The 60 Plus Association describes itself as a "non-partisan seniors advocacy group with a free enterprise, less government, less taxes approach." They list their main issues as the "death tax" (estate tax), energy, health care and Social Security. [1] 60 Plus is registered as a 501(c)(4) non-profit with the Internal Revenue Service. [2]
However, a 2003 report in the AARP Bulletin called 60 Plus a front group for the pharmaceutical industry. 60 Plus, along with Senior Coalition and United Seniors Association, "claim to speak for millions of older Americans, although as recently as 2001 none of the three listed any revenue from membership dues on their tax returns." The article added: "virtually all of their largest contributions in recent years have come from the same source -- the nation's pharmaceutical industry."
*
Nice try, Terry. More hacks for special interest groups.

Posted by: dt☢ | May 30, 2009 12:08 AM

John W, so was Blanco supposed to be Psychic and predict where a hurricane will strike more than three days out? Come on, be real. That''s simply not reasonable. I assume, however, you are even more upset with Governor Barbour of Mississippi, who didn't declare an emergency in his state until the day after Blanco did. I assume you just forgot to condemn him in your original post, and that you weren't just taking partisan shots at democrats.

All my facts are documented in the public record. If you have proof otherwise, I'd love to see your sources.

Let's talk about those buses John. You know why those busses were there? There was no one to drive them. You know why? When people started getting told to evacuate, the bus drivers did just that. They packed up their families, put them in the car, and left. They aren't first responders. They took no oath to protect the public. They aren't firemen, they aren't cops. They are bus drivers, when the time came to evacuate, they went off with most everyone else who could. I think it's expecting a bit much from a bunch of bus drivers to abandon their families in a time of impending disaster, don't you John? Then who was to drive the busses John? The true first responders, cops, fire, national guard, they were all swamped with other duties.

Seriously, don't think like a partisan about this. Be realistic. Think about what was really happening. Think how fast it was happening. Thjink about how widespread an area it was happening to. I think if you do, you'll see things in a bit of a different light.

As for the standing army discussion, I'll quote Madison, since he made his views amazingly clear upon his inauguration as President:

"to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics — that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe."

I never claimed a stnding army was unconstitutiinal. Rather, I stated that the Founders clearly wanted a very small standing army, and for out defense to largely depend on the state militia. As a staunch strict constructionalist, and libertarian, I would have thought you would support those views and would be appalled at our extremely large standing army. Apparently not.

Posted by: Lou | May 30, 2009 1:03 AM

"The way the go'vt DOES work - over-priced and underperforms - see Amtrak, Post Office, Cook County, City of Chicago, ...
Posted by: Terry | May 29, 2009 11:24 PM"

Funny you should mention Amtrak.

The entire Republican contingent from a certain intermountain state are furiously pushing for the reinstatement of Amtrak service to their capitol city.

This, after working for 30 years to kill Amtrak.

Posted by: SpudLand | May 30, 2009 12:33 PM

* * * * *
Posted by: Lou | May 30, 2009 1:03 AM
.
Lou,
.
A. Regarding the “milita vs. army” issue:
.
1. I am an originalist; not a strict constructionist. Originalists apply the standard rules of statutory construction. That is, the words of an enactment, be it a statute or constitution, are to be construed according to their normal import and meaning when enacted, except with regard to those portions changed by later amendment. In the latter case, the amended portions take on a new meaning as amended, and retain their original meaning in the portions untouched by the amendment. Strict constructionists, on the other hand, give words a narrow sweep of meaning, and often for reasons external to a statute or constitution itself. Strict construction is appropriate only when construing disfavored laws, such as tax laws and those which impose forfeitures. Thomas Jefferson, for example, was a strict constructionist with regard to the Constitution because he believed the exercise of federal power should be disfavored. I don’t particularly agree with that view. If limited to the natural import of its words, the Constitution confers benefits and not burdens.
.
2. When one speaks of “construction” it is in reference to a statute or the Constitution, but not to history. I am satisfied with the constitutionality of a situation if the words of the Constitution support it, even if it doesn’t conform to historical belief. In which case, I am satisfied that the state of affairs regarding the military meets constitutional muster, except for the desuetude of the militia system.
.
3. Furthermore, one’s sense of history ought to change when the world changes over time. The world has become more dangerous since 1787. There are countries out there with larger armies and designs. It was the existence of such external threats that caused the original compromise allowing for both armies and militias. I believe, as Madison did, that the army should remain large enough to meet that external threat. I would be in favor of downsizing the army if I believed it was too big to meet the threats we face. I doubt that is true right now, given that it is at the point of exhaustion from trying to meet the challenges asked of it by the government over the last six years.
.
4. I do, however, believe we should close our foreign bases and bring our men and women home. The bases represent an impediment to peace because some countries view them as a threat. Furthermore, we have no legitimate role as the world’s police. Even JFK said we should not seek “a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.” He was right. Such is not the basis of a sustainable peace. If, in turn, closing our bases leaves us with a surplus army, then I would also favor its reduction.
.
B. Now with regard to Katrina:
.
1. It took no psychic powers for Blanco to know that Katrina was headed for Louisiana a lot sooner than she acted. Katrina struck Florida five days before landfall in Louisiana. Everyone (except Gov. Blanco) knew it was headed there after it hit Florida. That’s when the warnings for the gulf-coast states started. And yes, Governor Barbour dropped the ball too. The difference is that people in Mississippi acted with greater stoicism, and didn’t blame everyone but themselves for their own lack of preparedness.
.
2. And, yes, let’s talk about those busses. New Orleans got caught flatfooted because it didn’t have an adequate evacuation plan. Those in charge of the City of New Orleans knew their existing evacuation plan was defective. There was a conscious awareness of this fact after Hurricane Ivan hit in 2004. It was the existing, defective plan that did not provide in advance for others to man the busses in case the city needed to be evacuated. This is not something that should have been left to the last minute or even the last day. It should have been dealt with shortly after Hurricane Ivan revealed the defects in the existing plan. So, no, I don’t suspect it would have been a good idea to leave the bus-driving to police, firemen or other first responders. And, perhaps, it might not have been a good idea to force that task on the everyday Muni bus drivers. But it was incumbent upon them to get SOMEONE to take up the slack.
.
3. This is not partisanship. It involves questions of responsibility and effectiveness. I would have the same criticism for the Louisiana leadership regardless of whether they were Republicans, Communists, Fascists, or Libertarians instead of Democrats. And yes, the federal government is actually more blameworthy in the matter than some think. The feds knew the levee system was in trouble if a hurricane the size of Katrina came along. (Then again, the local government knew it because the feds told them.) The Army Corps of Engineers was also responsible for having constructed the levee system. With that much at stake, and the likelihood that a hurricane the size of Katrina would eventually arrive, one would also suspect that more effort should have been made to strengthen the levees before disaster struck.

Posted by: John W. | May 30, 2009 2:12 PM

Republican Corporate-Sponsored Patients United Now - Insurance lobbying group funded with GOP dollars is trying to kill the national healthcare plan for middle-class and poor Americans:

"After orchestrating and funding the so-called Tea Parties movement, Americans for Prosperity — a nationwide front group founded and funded by the right-wing polluter Koch Industries — is launching an ad campaign characterizing President Obama’s effort to reform the health care system as a government take-over that will ration care and care and deny treatments."

"Americans for Prosperity is notorious for its fake grassroots efforts, funneling millions of dollars into conservative campaigns designed to undermine Democratic initiatives. As Lee Fang put it, “AFP is a professional AstroTurf machine”

- Hosted ‘Drill Baby, Drill’ rallies around the country.

- Financed Joe the Plumber’s tour against the Employees’ Free Choice Act and other anti-EFCA rallies.

- Started NoStimulus.com, “a grassroots website that we hope will be a focal point for the widespread frustration ordinary Americans feel at the runaway government growth that we see during good economic times and bad.”

"Now, operating under the name Patients United Now, Americans for Prosperity — which is mostly funded by large multinational corporations — is masquerading as an organic grassroots movement outraged over the Presidents health care proposals"

"The effort provides cover or ‘grassroots clout’ for conservative politicians and activists to oppose the President’s health care initiative. But this collection of trumped-up charges, outright lies and complete fabrications makes little headway in critiquing the President’s actual proposal."

"Just like all other peddlers of the “government take-over” critique — Frank Luntz, Conservatives for Patients Rights, Betsy McCaughey, and Sally Pipes — the goal is to define Obama’s proposal in their terms rather than to engage in a debate about health care or offer real solutions to the crisis. As Frank Luntz admitted to the New York Times, “we don’t know what he is proposing".
.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/05/27/pun/

Posted by: Elephant Herder | May 30, 2009 4:26 PM

VIDEO REPORT: Who Is Rick Scott And What Type Of Health Care System Is He Advocating?

"This Sunday, the front group Conservatives for Patients’ Rights will be airing a 30-minute documentary with “horror stories” aimed at chipping away public support for reforming our health care system. Ironically, the leader and financier of the organization, private health care executive Rick Scott, is actually credited with transforming the American health care system into the profit above-all-else culture that is currently plaguing America."
.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/29/video-report-who-is-rick-scott-and-what-type-of-health-care-system-is-he-advocating/

Posted by: Elephant Herder | May 30, 2009 4:32 PM

Right in the preamble to the constitution are the words; "...and promote the general welfare..."

Nowhere in the constitution is there mention of the economic system, other than property rights are protected.

Nowhere is trickle down economics ordained.

Nowhere is a private health care system endorsed.

Posted by: C.Morris | May 30, 2009 7:46 PM

dts,

If the AARP described itself as partisan, they could lose any preferential tax treatment. BTW, how many refernces to AARP as a conservative organization did you find?

Spudland,

Not sure what you are referring to, but if it is true, on the face of it I disagree - that's just pouring more money down the drain.

Reamer - Go try that with a few of your San Fran friends

Posted by: Terry | May 30, 2009 7:58 PM

Johnny W,
The fact that you and Terri consider yourself "rugged individualists" is so laughable that I just exhaled half of my beer through my nose.

Why don't you move to Somalia? They don't have any sort of government there. Heck, you could blow up buildings and pretend that you're an AK47 wielding Pirate and stuff. You'd fit right in with the natives.

PS - Take Terri with you. She needs to start doing something other than playing on her moms computer all day long.

Posted by: unemployed lawyer | May 30, 2009 8:56 PM

Half the people over 50 that I know belong to AARP, Repubs, Dems, Indies. Only in the right wing world of Flush Limburger is the AARP a liberal organization.

Posted by: C.Morris | May 30, 2009 9:13 PM

CBS/NYT poll shows people want government-run health care:
.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/02/nytcbs_poll_shows_people_love_socialized_medicine.php

Long story short, President Obama has his reasons for adopting a health care reform agenda that, while ambitious, is less ambitious than this. But there’s no reason for him or anyone else to be particularly terrified of conservative mouth-breathers like Johnny W and Terri characterizing their vision as socialism or government takeover or whatever else it is they like to say.

Posted by: unemployed lawyer | May 30, 2009 9:25 PM

CBS/NYT poll shows people want government-run health care:
.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/02/nytcbs_poll_shows_people_love_socialized_medicine.php

Posted by: unemployed lawyer | May 30, 2009 9:29 PM

“Nowhere in the constitution is there mention of the economic system, other than property rights are protected.”
* * * * *
Posted by: C.Morris | May 30, 2009 7:46 PM
.
I think you may have overlooked all the language in the Constitution dealing with “commerce.” You know, as in:
.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, that says Congress shall have the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes …”
.
Article I, Section 9, Clauses 6 & 7, which provide that, “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State” and “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”
.
-and -
.
Article I, Section 10, Clauses 1 & 2 which, in relevant part, provide that, “No State shall … pass … any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts …” or “without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: …”
.
“Commerce,” when the Constitution was ratified, consisted of selling, buying, and bartering merchandise, as well as transporting for these purposes. In other words, it comprehended “trade.” Furthermore, the federal and state governments may have purchased goods, but they were not engaged in trade. In which case, the commerce to which the Constitution refers is a reference only PRIVATE trade. The prohibition against State impairment of contract obligations was likewise meant, in part, to keep states from interfering with the flow of economic benefit between private parties. Further, as you aptly pointed out, the Constitution protects private property from arbitrary confiscation or loss.
.
Trade of private property between private individuals on the basis of voluntary contracts is the basic foundation of a free market economy. Thus, while the Constitution may not exactly prescribe any particular economic system, it surely defends and regulates a free market economy on a national scale. (Of course, leave it to Democrats to invoke the Commerce Clause as a basis for regulating everything but commerce!)

Posted by: John W. | May 31, 2009 4:03 AM

Unemployed Lawyer - John E,

I have the means to live pretty much where I chose, why would I want Somolia?

Reason to be afraid of gov't run health care? The current gov't run healthcare - Medicare - is going bankrupt. Reason enough to be afriad?

CM,

Most people join AARP for the discounts.

Posted by: Terry | May 31, 2009 8:50 AM

Terry,
Take note, Laissez-Faire economics was a disaster because of greedy. selfish types like yourself. There is hope for the future, though.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/business/30oath.html?em

Posted by: dt☢ | May 31, 2009 12:57 PM

dts,

Its greedy capitalist like me that make the the lifestyle you enjoy possible.

Are Steve Jobs and Bill Gates greedy capitalist? You bet. w/o the profit motive, how hard do you think they would work?

Warren Buffet a greedy capitalist? You betcha.

Its greddy capitist that give our gov't the tax money they need.

See what happens when the capitlist system suffers, the gov't suffers

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/101xx/doc10114/05-2009-MBR.htm

I hate to bust your myth about President Bush and the lack of regulation during the past 8 years, but regulations actually incraesed during the last 8 years

http://www.reason.com/news/show/130328.html

We all know what the flatliners want to do:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/07/howard-dean-says-america-has-had-enough-capitalism/

And when the gov't over-regulates, capitalist have less incentive to succeed and gov't receives less revenue.

Posted by: Terry | May 31, 2009 2:52 PM

Reason to be afraid of gov't run health care? The current gov't run healthcare - Medicare - is going bankrupt. Reason enough to be afriad?
Posted by: Terry | May 31, 2009 8:50 AM
*************

Terri,
Yes it is, thanks to eight straight years of deregulated cowboy trickledown voodoo economics from your beloved Repug "leadership". Thank god we were able to keep you nutjobs from privatizing Social Security like you wanted too.

Have you called all of your GOPer congressional members to ask which of them don't use their government run congressional health plan?

I want all of them on record to state publicly that they aren't ever again going to use their government based single payer health plan .. and then I further want them to state which health care savings account they are going with.

PS - girlfriend, you can call me whatever name you want too, just make sure you call.

Posted by: unemployed lawyer | May 31, 2009 5:20 PM

Its greedy capitalist like me that make the the lifestyle you enjoy possible.Its greddy capitist that give our gov't the tax money they need.And when the gov't over-regulates, capitalist have less incentive to succeed and gov't receives less revenue.

Posted by: Terry | May 31, 2009 2:52 PM
****************

Really girlfriend?

Is that why off shore tax shelters became so popular doing the BushCo reign of terror? Was that for the benefit of the "little people" too?
.
http://rallbritton.blogspot.com/2009/05/disclose-donors-who-gave-100-million-in.html
.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Tax_page/Offshore_Thing.html
.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121798030763715107.html

It sure was nice of you to post highlights from your tax day teabagger party on youtube, Terri
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTU2He2BIc0

Posted by: unemployed lawyer | May 31, 2009 7:31 PM

* * * * *
Yes it is, thanks to eight straight years of deregulated cowboy trickledown voodoo economics from your beloved Repug "leadership". Thank god we were able to keep you nutjobs from privatizing Social Security like you wanted too.
* * * * *
Now you are writing stupid stuff. Medicare is failing because of its own design flaws, and not because of anything George Bush or his administration did.
.
Like Social Security, Congress set up Medicare so that Congress could use any of the money paid into the trust fund on other things. It’s a pay as you go system (a.k.a. a ponzi scheme), just like Social Security. Money does not accumulate in the trust fund; just IOUs. And since there is no accumulation of money, it’s going to run dry because there will soon be more people drawing Medicare benefits than paying into it. An ounce of prudence would have counseled against being able to use the money for other things. There should have been a lock-box system on it (and SS too) to prevent diversion of the funds for other purposes. But, no, the Democrats in the ‘60’s who controlled Congress (during Johnson’s “great society”) wrote the Medicare legislation without any lock-box guarantees. So now it’s going to die of its own birth defects.
.
You have a serious problem with reality if you have to blame everything on Bush (but, I guess we already knew that, didn’t we?). The impending Medicare failure is the product of Democrat incompetence in Congress. And, yes, we do have something to fear from having the same group formulate a national health care system. How are we to know they won’t set up yet another ponzi scheme with a new health care plan, which allows them to steal the money paid into it for yet other purposes? They’ve done it twice before, and they’ve never tried to fix it. How can we trust them not to do it again?

Posted by: John W. | May 31, 2009 8:02 PM

Trickled-On,

Why were off-shore tax shelters and incorporating in other companies popular during the Bush years? The US had the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the free world. Corporations first obligation is to maximize profits for their shareholders, not feed the gov't trough.

Ramblings from Hillary don't cut it for intellgent economi thinking.

Since you have no clue on what trickle-down economics is, please explain how the 2003 tax cuts caused the recession of 2008-09. I don't if you can since there was no effect. The tax cuts helped create the 5th longest economic expansion in US history.

As far as privatizing SocSec, why would anyone want to privatize a Ponzi scheme that paid less than a 2% annual return?

Congressmen are entitled to their health insurance, just as Obama is entitled to his, since it is part of their employer based compenmsation package. When you get a job, you may understand this. This is much different than the gov't providing health care to all of its citizens.

Posted by: Terry | May 31, 2009 8:57 PM

Congressmen are entitled to their health insurance, just as Obama is entitled to his, since it is part of their employer based compenmsation package. When you get a job, you may understand this. This is much different than the gov't providing health care to all of its citizens.

Posted by: Terry | May 31, 2009 8:57 PM
********************************************************

Terri,
Congress people are no more entitled to government run healthcare than that single mother who works at Mickey D's with you is.

********************************************************

You have a serious problem with reality if you have to blame everything on Bush (but, I guess we already knew that, didn’t we?). The impending Medicare failure is the product of Democrat incompetence in Congress.
Posted by: John W. | May 31, 2009 8:02 PM
********************************************************

Johnny "W",
We're still going to be cleaning up the mess that your beloved BushCo made 30-40 years from now. You can't win elections anymore because your entire philosophy of government has failed on a grand scale. You're not fooling anyone anymore, W.

The reason you are so out of touch is the same reason all of the GOP/Republican/Libertarians, or whatever the hell you want to call yourselves, are. YOU CAN'T CHANGE WITH THE TIMES. You are stuck in a time warp where you think that it's still 1950 or something (don't feel bad, Terri is too). You are so lost in your so-called "conservative principles" that you can't even be bothered to look up and notice that the rest of the country is laughing in your face. I understand Terri being like that, he's a sociopath. I also understand that you're old and change is scary for you but that still does not excuse your coming on here and browbeating everyone with your Libertarian fairytales and expecting people to take you seriously, and then writing chapter long diatribes when people don't agree with you. I feel sorry for you, I really do.

Posted by: unemployed lawyer | May 31, 2009 11:16 PM

* * * * *
Posted by: unemployed lawyer | May 31, 2009 11:16 PM
.
I find you irritating because you can’t seem to address any of the issues presented. Apparently, you can’t answer any of the points I raise, so you simply attack me and suggest that my viewpoint is out of touch.
.
Listen, and listen well. I am not crazy, I am not out of touch, and I do not support any policies that may be considered the domain of a “right-wing” fringe. I never have. I am sorry you don’t know what Libertarians are, or the ways in which they agree with, or differ from, mainstream Republicans. I will tell you, though: They do differ. Libertarians believe in peace, global trade with all nations, economic freedom, individual liberty, and the minimal amount of government necessary to accomplish these goals and protect people from outside threats and from predations within.
.
I believe that whatever government we have (which I hope will become more minimalist) must be based on reasoned and sensible policies. I showed you why Social Security and Medicare are two examples of programs that lack the basic reasonableness and sensibility that must be a natural part of any government activity. To reiterate: They have built-in structural defects that prevent them from staying afloat. Indeed, I cannot conceive of how any large scale programs like those could ever survive when the government is permitted to take away its funding and move it to other projects. That’s insane.
.
So, what I need you to do is explain to me: How or why should I trust the architects of these monstrosities to come up with an efficient, accountable and sanely operated health care system? This is an honest question. If you can’t answer it, just tell me. If you insist on attacking me in lieu of a rational answer, I will know that you are incapable of defending your own positions and that I should simply ignore you from now on.

Posted by: John W. | June 1, 2009 10:51 AM

defending your own positions and that I should simply ignore you from now on.

Posted by: John W. | June 1, 2009 10:51 AM
******************

"W",
Go ahead and have the last word, I know how much it means to your self esteem.

Posted by: unemployed lawyer | June 1, 2009 2:46 PM

Unemployed,

"Congress people are no more entitled to government run healthcare than that single mother who works at Mickey D's with you is." Is the gov't the single mother's EMPLOYER or is McDonalds? Does the gov't give the mother her paycheck?

When you go to your next shift at MickeyD's, ask your shift supervisor how it works. Even though she is 18, she might be able to explain it to you.

Posted by: Terry | June 1, 2009 7:53 PM

Where is the constitutional authority for any of this stuff? The Federal Government has no business in Health Care. Insurance is a State Issue.

Are we still a constitutional Republic or are we a Marxist dictatorship?

Posted by: Johnnyb | June 15, 2009 2:46 PM