Health insurance is for when you don’t have anything wrong but if something unexpected happened that was expensive it would help you pay the high bill. If you are already sick and have high costs then maybe the the government will help you pay the bill but then that’s not insurance its social wellfare. So why doesn’t the government limit itself to social welfare and leave insurance alone?
Private health insurance is a monopolyrunning a betting house where you wiin if you get sick. But not too sick or they cut theor loses.
It is gambling, and makes sense only if you are concerned about being bankrupted, which means it makes no sense for 93% of the US population to have health insurance because only about 7% of the population has enough assets to bet against getting sick.
Hope is not a plan, especially when the hopes are revised downward every year since 1998 for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter lately referred to as Lightining II. The NAVAIR Lightning II is: too expensive, too late and too shoddy. It don’t work. The sellers (Lockheed) cannot deliver articles to test and if there were airplanes to fly either at Pax River or Edwards AFB they would break so much the test points would only show that the quality and reliability is terrible. The F-35 program is in violation of the Nunn Mc Curdy Act which requires to pentagon to “fess up” when a procurement exceeds a defined cost increase, so the 15 March edition of Aviation Week (and related aerospace propoaganda) reported. In my experience it has gotten worse as time and corporate welfare progress to change the militarist state in th US. The new weapon system designs are so poor, late and unproducible that supply issues (better referred to as supplier ineptitude) are blamed but engineering faults cause the materiel issues!! Someone needs to peel this onion. Let’s see what congress does with Nunn Mc Curdy for this flying dog.
Hope is not a plan, especially when the hopes are revised downward every year since 1998 for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter lately referred to as Lightining II. The NAVAIR Lightning II is: too expensive, too late and too shoddy.
It don’t work. The sellers (Lockheed) cannot deliver articles to test and if there were airplanes to fly either at Pax River or Edwards AFB they would break so much the test points would only show that the quality and reliability is terrible.
The F-35 program is in violation of the Nunn Mc Curdy Act which requires to pentagon to “fess up” when a procurement exceeds a defined cost increase, so the 15 March edition of Aviation Week (and related aerospace propoaganda) reported.
In my experience it has gotten worse as time and corporate welfare progress to change the militarist state in th US. The new weapon system designs are so poor, late and unproducible that supply issues (better referred to as supplier ineptitude) are blamed but engineering faults cause the materiel issues!!
Someone needs to peel this onion.
Let’s see what congress does with Nunn Mc Curdy for this flying dog.
Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure’s sweeping and radical aims – the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases, higher premiums, state-sanctioned rationing, longer waiting lines, the erosion of the quality of medical care and the creation of a huge, permanent administrative bureaucracy. Rather, the most alarming aspect is the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to achieve their progressive, anti-capitalist agenda. Obamacare is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the public, more than 60 percent of independents and almost all Republicans and conservatives. It has badly fractured the country, dangerously polarizing it along ideological and racial lines. Even a majority of Democrats in the House are deeply reluctant to support it. Numerous states – from Idaho to Virginia to Texas – have said they will sue the federal government should Obamacare become law. They will declare themselves exempt from its provisions, tying up the legislation in the courts for years to come. Mr. Obama is willing to devour his presidency, his party’s congressional majority and – most disturbing – our democratic institutional safeguards to enact it. He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country’s stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia. The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime – a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy. It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government – meeting the threshold of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” If it’s enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.
And so it ends, with a health-care vote expected this weekend. I wonder at what point the administration will realize it wasn’t worth it—worth the discord, worth the diminution in popularity and prestige, worth the deepening of the great divide. What has been lost is so vivid, what has been gained so amorphous, blurry and likely illusory. Memo to future presidents: Never stake your entire survival on the painful passing of a bad bill. Never take the country down the road to Demon Pass. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704207504575130081383279888.html
Obama keeps pulling out examples of people that had their healthcare dropped after they bacame sick. It seems to me then he should be arguing only to create a government subsidy to help pay for these people’s above average healthcare expenditures and Obama provides no logical reason why the government should gain influence over everyone elses healthcare spending.
And Obama is being a bit dishonest here. Where are his examples of someone that got a severe case of cancer and their health insurance paid their costs as one would hope and expect. I have several databases full with these cases so I don’t need to search the country to find anecdotes like he’s doing. Therefore, his presentation is an sppeal to fear, off the point, and grossly misleading
Sammy, We’re hearing a great deal about how the Health Care Reform legislation will have ruinous financial consequences for the country and many individuals. Frankly I don’t know if that’s true or false. I do know that quoting Peggy Noonan on any political issue is like asking a whore about the value of sex. The answer is bound to be self serving. Where was Ms Noonan and the many fiscally concerned hacks we’re hearing from now when Georgie Boy was pissing away a trillioin dollars a year in Iraq? Where are they today concerning Obama’s continuing to piss away the Treasury in both Iraq and Afghanistan? It would appear that the only concern regarding the deficit is who may be on the receiving end of that deficit spending. Spending big bucks on health care is anathema to the very same ass holes who can’t seem to get enough spent on guns and ammo. Does that not strike you as strange?
I don’t happen to think that the health care legislation before the Congress is all that good. The most important reform, a public optiion as it is being called, has been abandoned. There are a plethora of amendments that do little other than cater to the fears of the public and the avarice of health insurance corporations and big pharma. But to scream only about the cost is bullshit to the nth degree. Big government is A OK when it comes to corporate welfare and warfare, but anything that might benefit working people is suddenly to costly. It’s bull shit, just ordinary political bull shit.
He has within him the possibility to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy, which need changing; his rise will serve as a practical rebuke to the past five years, which need rebuking; his victory would provide a fresh start in a nation in which a fresh start would come as a national relief. He climbed steep stairs, born off the continent with no father to guide, a dreamy, abandoning mother, mixed race, no connections. He rose with guts and gifts. He is steady, calm, and, in terms of the execution of his political ascent, still the primary and almost only area in which his executive abilities can be discerned, he shows good judgment in terms of whom to hire and consult, what steps to take and moves to make. We witnessed from him this year something unique in American politics: He took down a political machine without raising his voice.
***Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure’s sweeping and radical aims – the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases,***
Considering that the US has the least cost effective health care system on the planet, why would anyone who is not a perfect fool think that transforming it is a bad idea?
How big of a political blunder will be the health care bill?
How big of a mistake will the Obama election be?
If you are a Dem politician, your career appears to be doomed. The midterms will be catastrophic. All for what even its supporters admit: ” I don’t happen to think that the health care legislation before the Congress is all that good.” (See Jack, above.)
The biggest mistake is Obama’s intransigence. Healthcare reform was/is within his reach by just scrapping this bill and starting over. The entire nation would accept and maybe even respect his judgment.
The ramifications of continuing on the current path are still to be determined, but there can be no good results for Dems, Dem politicians, and the country in general.
So, that leaves is with one question. Why? For someone supposed to be such an adroit politician, he is far from it. Political hack and avid idealoque is what most voters see.
What has been lost? Trust. Who have lost the most? Dems. But, the list of losers grows daily, and the full fall out is still to be felt.
What say you if some politicians actually put principle, even if made unpopular by the insurance monopoly propaganda psywar machine, before the impression the mob has been fed by FOX News?
Trust? If you listen to FOX News and the teabaggers who needs the “trust” those propagandists spread?
How big of a political blunder will be the health care bill?
You mean in the same way that passing the Civil Rights Act and Medicare led to political losses for the Democrats in 1966? And just like then, the forces of reaction and ignorance are lying and trying to hold back progress.
If you are a Dem politician, your career appears to be doomed. The midterms will be catastrophic. It will certainly be bad for some, but it will be bad mostly because of the economy. Once enacted the bill will become very popular. That’s the way it was with Social Security (remember, the GOP ran on repealing SS and they got clobbered). That’s the way it was with Medicare. That’s even the way it was with Medicare Part D, which Democrats opposed. I hope the Republicans run on the “Repeal It” slogan in 2010 and especially in 2012. But you and I know they won’t.
The GOP has a long run problem. They have to do better than just do well in 2010; they have to do spectacularly well. They will have to win both Houses of Congress and by fairly wide margins because the demographics and issues do not line up well for the GOP over the next several election cycles. The Republicans have become wedded to a shrinking and (literally) dying political base. 2010 is about as good as it’s going to get for Republicans for a very long time, so they better win huge if they want to remain relevant. This is pretty much a make or break election for the GOP. And I think they know that, which is one reason they are becoming so desperate and willing to tell the most outrageous whoppers.
What has been lost? Trust.
You’re right. Obama went into this thing wanting to trust the GOP and they proved that they are liars. In fact, some GOP leaders even bragged to their base supporters about how they played Obama for a fool by pretending to want to cooperate on the healthcare bill but they were in fact only stalling for time until the August recess. Sorry, CoRev, but those liars were caught on YouTube telling their wingnut teabag supporters exactly that. So trust has been lost. Obama no longer trusts the GOP, which is what many Democrats were warning him about early on.
The biggest mistake is Obama’s intransigence. Healthcare reform was/is within his reach by just scrapping this bill and starting over. The entire nation would accept and maybe even respect his judgment.
And this little gem just continues the stream of lies. The GOP made it plain last winter that they were never going to accept any healthcare reform because the issue for them was never healthcare…it was always about trying to bring down Obama’s Presidency. They even said so in some internal memos that leaked at the time. Even Sen. DeMint admitted that it was all about bringing about Obama’s “Waterloo.” And the GOP’s lead guy on healthcare even admitted that he would have vote against the bill even if he got everything in it that he wanted. And of course Grassley initially denied this, but then had to try and explain it away when confronted by the YouTube evidence. So he’s just a liar and not to be […]
Why do you even bother reading or listening to Peggy Noonan. I think her appeal to some is that she uses this oh-so-earnest tone in her voice, but when you tune out the voice tones and pay attention to the words you find that she says the most banal things imaginable. She’s a conservative emoter. The good feeling nonsense that she said about Obama is almost identical to the good feeling nonsense that she said about George Bush. Her only claim to fame is that she wrote some sappy line about astronauts slipping the surly bounds of earth and touching the face of God. It was a Hallmark card line written for a Hallmark card moment. It’s not a claim to political wisdom. If I see her as a guest on This Week, I almost always turn it off.
1. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure’s sweeping and radical aims – the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy
Alas, if it were only true, but it’s not. The healthcare bill represents about 0.7% of the US GDP. I know that conservatives are math challenged, but even you should know that 0.7% is really not even close to one-sixth. What the healthcare bill does it try and make sure that one-sixth of the economy doesn’t become one-fifth and then one-fourth of the economy, which is where it’s headed if we don’t begin to get healthcare costs under control. The Obama plan is a very small step in that direction…it will shrink healthcare costs by about three-quarters of one percent of GDP over the long run. It’s a start.
Obamacare is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the public, more than 60 percent of independents and almost all Republicans and conservatives.
The cartoon version of the plan is opposed by the public. But when you ask the public about the three main pieces of the plan, then there is overwhelming support. In fact, a large majority want a public option, so for many the problem with the plan is that it doesn’t go far enough.
Numerous states – from Idaho to Virginia to Texas – have said they will sue the federal government should Obamacare become law.
Opinions no doubt informed by folks with a teabagger’s understanding of the constitution. A lot of state Attorneys General are making those noises, but the overwhelming opinion of constitutional scholars is that such a suit would be a waste of state AG resources. They would simply lose because the SCOTUS has already ruled on this kind of thing in the past.
He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country’s stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.
So what did that make Richard Nixon, whose healthcare plan was far more left wing? Look, the far right are the only “reckless ideologues” out there right now. And don’t forget, when pressed on the specific features of the bill, even the GOP leadership agrees with most of the individual pieces as a matter of public policy. The GOP just doesn’t want it to pass because they don’t want Obama to have any legislative success. This fight is not about healthcare anymore, it’s about the naked ambitions of McConnell and Boehner.
The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder;
I agree that it would be a strategic blunder, but your constitutional arguments are without merit. The SCOTUS has already ruled on this matter over a 100 years ago and a bill is presumed to have passed legitimately by each House if the Speaker certifies the result for the House of Representatives and either the Vice-President or Senate Pro Tempore certifies the results for the Senate. The Constitution allows each chamber to set its own rules on how bills get certified as having been passed. And don’t forget, one of the idiots who is pushing this very argument about the bill being illegitimate is the same congressman who stood up at one of those GOP/Teabagger rallies last fall and said he would quote from the Constitution and proceeded to quote from the Declaration. Teabaggers…Ignorance is thy name.
Just curious sammy. Have you ever taken a ConLaw class in a credentialed law school?
2slugs, this logic mysifies me: “ The Republicans have become wedded to a shrinking and (literally) dying political base. 2010 is about as good as it’s going to get for Republicans for a very long time, so they better win huge if they want to remain relevant.”
We are on the leading edge of the boomers joining that ?shrinking and dying? political base. Boomers have perturbed the economics, politics and nearly all other things US during their lives. Are you implying that this same generation will not perturb politics or their effect is already over? Dunno, doen’t make sense to me.
Moreover, taking a whack at this same generation in the HC bill is a wise thing? Dunno, doen’t make sense to me.
As to your Repub memo talking point we now have a totally different poltical situation. Then, it was Repub politicians fighting the bill alone. Now, we have 2/3s or more of the voting population disgusted with the Dem attempts to pass this very bad bill. That’s why I say this adroit politician, aint!
As to future political actions, after the Repubs take control of the next Congress, if the HC bill is passed, they will just attach riders that chip away at the worst featrures of “Dem/Obama” HC bill on each Obama desired future bill. Each appropriation bill will then use reconciliation to take these actions even further. Four years (two Congresses) should be adequate to get the bill into a form the voters can accept.
If Dems fight it then they become the party of NO!
There is very real chance that due to the loss in trust of their judgement, that they may have lost political influence for a long time. Dems lost their way due to over reach, and subservience to idealogy. An idealogy not shared by the general populace. But the real mstake is in not listening to the voters.
I won’t describe the variety of mistakes in the bill itself. They will become apparent at passage. Just look at the alignment of states taking action against it, then consider how can this adroit politician have made such a colossal political mistake?
If you want a bottom line, I think it will be that the Republican Party will be thanking him/Libs/progressives for overplaying his hand for a generation. YMMV.
I’ve changed my bumper sticker from “Repeal It” to “Vote all Dems out.”
So why doesn’t the government limit itself to social welfare and leave insurance alone?
So is this a vote for expanding socialized medicine? And under your proposal, if the govt pays for all of your healthcare if you don’t have health insurance, why would anyone ever buy health insurance? Sounds like it’s time to review the rationale for Obama’s healthcare plan…which is by now more like Hillary Clinton’s 2008 plan rather than Obama’s 2008 plan. In any event:
1. Expanding the availability of health insurance is required both as a moral issue and as a practical issue for bringing down health insurance premiums for those that already have insurance. So we want to make health insurance universal. Even the GOP agrees with that goal.
2. If you create a separate risk pool made up of only high risk people with pre-existing conditions, then the premiums become unaffordable and the program descends into a financial death spiral. So in order to bring down the average cost you have to include healthy people in the pool. That means you have to make insurance mandatory. This will bring in a lot of healthy, young adults currently without healthcare.
3. If you make health insurance mandatory, then you have to provide some kind of subsidy for those who cannot afford it. And the main reason most young, healthy people don’t have insurance is that they can’t afford it. So you need a govt subsidy if you are going to make it mandatory.
4. To fund the govt subsidy the Obama plan is to cut out the most spectacularly useless and indefensible parts of Medicare Advantage and to tax “Cadillac plans”. Just about all academic economists agree that not only will these two things more than pay for the subsidy (they will actually generate a small surplus), but those two things are also critical for the long run bending of the healthcare cost curve. “Cadillac plans” are major drivers of healthcare costs because they effectively shift the demand curve to the right.
Those are the pillars of Obama’s healthcare reform. They are all necessary conditions for reforming healthcare if at the same time you want to preserve the basically private nature of health insurance. So if you oppose this approach, then you’re either going to have come down supporting something like Canadian single payer, or the British single provider, or no reform at all. The Obama plan is the least radical path to healthcare reform…provided that you’re really interested in healthcare reform and not just winning clueless teabagger votes in November.
It seems to me then he should be arguing only to create a government subsidy to help pay for these people’s above average healthcare expenditures and Obama provides no logical reason why the government should gain influence over everyone elses healthcare spending.
That would mean increasing taxes to pay for the subsidy. And just providing a subsidy does not help in bending the cost curve. In fact, it makes it worse because it creates an “income shift” in the demand curve for healthcare. Look at the way the Obama plan gets the revenue to susidize mandatory insurance. It does so in a way that not only reduces the deficit, but actually tends to shift the demand curve to the left, which lowers costs for everyone.
The elderly and to some extent the boomers are opposed to the bill today, but that’s mainly because they are confused and afraid about any change. Once the bill is passed and they see that the world hasn’t ended and is in fact a little bit better, then a lot of the anxiety will melt away. That’s exactly the same thing you saw with Medicare Part D. And history books tell us that it was the elderly who opposed Social Security in 1937…until it happened and then they turned on the GOP when the GOP ran on a “repeal it” platform.
When I’m talking about the long run prospects for the GOP, I’m talking about demographics. It’s literally true that the hardest support for the GOP is with the very group that is shrinking and dying. Look at teabaggers. They are overhwhelmingly white and at least middle-aged and frequently retired. Think about the usual red meat issues that motivate these voters. These are issues that not only don’t motivate younger voters, but actually alienate younger voters. And by wide margins. And the fastest growing ethnic groups are strongly aligned with the Democratic party, not the Republicans…that’s why Karl Rove wanted immigration reform even though it alienated the GOP base. Rove at least understood the numbers and warned Bush that the GOP would be a footnote in history if the GOP didn’t attract Hispanic voters. One of the rules of thumb in Poli Sci is that if a young voter supports a political party for three consecutive elections, that voter will likely vote the same way for the rest of his or her life. That’s a problem when the emerging demographics support the Democrats by margines of 2:1 and 3:1. The GOP has become a regional party of the Old Confederacy, and that’s about all. Interestingly, Menzie Chinn has a piece that breaks down the regional “for” an “against” the healthcare bill among academic economists. There is a strong regioinal bias.
As to your Repub memo talking point we now have a totally different poltical situation. Then, it was Repub politicians fighting the bill alone. Now, we have 2/3s or more of the voting population disgusted with the Dem attempts to pass this very bad bill.
The reason they fought the bill was because they didn’t want Obama to have any legislative successes. That was the point of the internal memos. The strategy was to make up lies in order to inflame things, which is exactly what they did. Remember the “death panel” lies from last summer? That was completely manufactured out of internal GOP focus groups.
As I told sammy, the two-thirds opposition is to the cartoon version of the bill, not what’s actually in the bill. Most people like what’s in the bill when you poll on the separate features. And most people even want a public option. And a lot of the opposition to the bill is because it doesn’t go far enough. Look, I don’t like the bill, but I support it because it is a big improvement over the current situation. You gotta start somewhere and this bill is a good place to start.
BTW, if it passes the House on Sunday and the GOP tries to block the fixes to the “Cornhusker Deal” and the “Louisianna Purchase”, does that mean the GOP is telling voters that they support those political bribes? Why shouldn’t we expect Democratic politicians to start running ads showing the GOP defending those things. Then let the GOP explain why they were against the the Cornhusker Deal before they were for it. Turnabout is fair play.
Obama is just hiding the tax hike as an unfunded mandate on health insurance companies. Therefore, they will raise premiums and the rise will be the tax. Forcing everyone to buy health insurance at prices much higher than cost is another backhanded tax. Obama care is all about increasing taxes and as I see does nothing to bend the cost curve. You can’t bend the cost curve by focusing on insurance companies.
ILSM, saying this: “….made unpopular by the insurance monopoly propaganda psywar machine,” just shows your ignorance over the bill. The one industry that will gain, substantially, is the insurance industry.
You continuously rant about the defense industry, but ignore the others that feed at the trough. Why?
2slugs, mouthing the dem talking points here: ‘Once enacted the bill will become very popular. ‘ Shows an interesting, whistling by the graveyard, ignorance of the bill. Once enacted there will be an immediate tax increase, insurance rate increase, and a large number of Drs claiming to no longer take medicare patients. On the plus side there will be some marginal improvement for access to healthcare for those with prior conditions.
Actual implementation of the benefits are delayed for nearly four years. Four years while the bill is gradually improved, but not yet implemented. If the Repubs improve and implement the improvment, who gets credit? Not likely Dems because they have been tarred with the badness of this abortion.
I think Obama’s plan is arbitrary. If someone has a Cadillac plan this should not be a problem to anyone. For me i would value a cadillac plan the same way a person that never dives would value a cadillac. But some people want these plans and Obama has no place telling them they are wrong, other than his being arbritrary.
Increasing availability of health insurance is not a moral issue. Providing access to healthcare treatment is, but we already do this so again Obama’s plan seems pointless on the merits and what you have left is a power grab.
If you make health insurance mandatory, then you have to provide some kind of subsidy for those who cannot afford it.
You can only do this by overcharging and swindling those you force to buy insurance. By by morality.
You know perfectly well that the reason the GOP is fighting healthcare reform is precisely because it will be very popular once enacted. They know that once it’s on the books there is no chance that they will be able to repeal it. That’s been the history of all landmark legislation.
Many of the benefits will kick in tomorrow afternoon when Obama signs the bill if it passes the House. For example, effective tomorrow it will be illegal to deny coverage to children as a result of a pre-existing condition. That’s important to a lot of families. Effective tommorow parents will be able to keep their kids on their own health plans up to age 26. That’s important for families with young adults who are just now trying to enter the labor force in a depressed economy. And there are other benefits that will phase in. The full package of benefits won’t come for 4 years, but that doesn’t mean all benefits will be delayed four years. And if you and the GOP want to try and accelerate that benefit schedule, then I’m sure the Democrats would be happy to oblige. But that’s not what you want, so please don’t annoy us with the crocodile tears about how bad it is that the full package of benefits won’t kick in for four years.
If the Republicans improve the bill I will look for pigs to fly.
I explained how the Obama healthcare plan expands health insurance coverage, how it will be funded and how it will bend the cost curve by shifting the demand curve to the left. If there is one thing that almost every academic health economist agrees on, it’s that Cadillac insurance plans are big drivers in pushing up healthcare costs for everyone.
I agree that you have to get beyond just health insurance companies. A lot of their costs are simply costs that originate in Big Pharam (another GOP constituency), Big Hospital (another GOP constituency), Big Medicine & the AMA (both GOP constituencies), and Big Medical Engineering & Testing (also big GOP constituencies). Those are the ultimate sources of rising healthcare costs and that’s the part where Obama tries to bend the curve. That’s why the Administration wants to cut back the egregious parts of Medicare Advantage. That’s why the Administration wants to cut back on Cadillac plans that drive up medical costs. That’s why the original bill allowed reimbursement of doctors’ fees for end-of-life discussions with families. That’s why Obama took up Sen. Coburn’s suggestion to have undercover agents ferret out corruption by doctors and hospitals…notice that you didn’t see Sen. McConnell and Rep. Boehner jump up to support Coburn on that idea!!!
I explained how the Obama healthcare plan expands health insurance coverage, how it will be funded and how it will bend the cost curve by shifting the demand curve to the left. If there is one thing that almost every academic health economist agrees on, it’s that Cadillac insurance plans are big drivers in pushing up healthcare costs for everyone.
I agree that you have to get beyond just health insurance companies. A lot of their costs are simply costs that originate in Big Pharma (another GOP constituency), Big Hospital (another GOP constituency), Big Medicine & the AMA (both GOP constituencies), and Big Medical Engineering & Testing (also big GOP constituencies). Those are the ultimate sources of rising healthcare costs and that’s the part where Obama tries to bend the curve. That’s why the Administration wants to cut back the egregious parts of Medicare Advantage. That’s why the Administration wants to cut back on Cadillac plans that drive up medical costs. That’s why the original bill allowed reimbursement of doctors’ fees for end-of-life discussions with families. That’s why Obama took up Sen. Coburn’s suggestion to have undercover agents ferret out corruption by doctors and hospitals…notice that you didn’t see Sen. McConnell and Rep. Boehner jump up to support Coburn on that idea!!!
Sammy — while you are concerned about foreign policy under Obama I would just point out to you that under Obama we have done more damage to al Quada over the past few months in Pakistan than bush did in six years of his misdirected war in Iraq that helped al Quada more than it hurt them.
By the way, could you tell me how the US is better off or more secure because of the lives and fortune we are spending in Iraq. Wouldn’t we be much better off in these resources had been spent on Afghanistan where there actually was some al Quada forces.
With removal of Saddam our efforts against Al Quida would be a total failure. Its like petty street crime in New York and the chaos it creates that sets the environment for more serious crime. Saddam created chaos in the Middle East with his invasion of two countries, funding Islamic terrorists, gassing his own people, and actively seeking to build nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Without his removal the war on terror would be a mockery and the terrorist would still be jumpy through their fiery hola hoops rather than cowering in caves.
I support Obama’s use of drones yet at a civilian to terrorist kill ratio of 10 to 1 Obama may be the first person to both win the Nobel Peace Prize and be charged as a war criminal for killing civilians. On the number of stikes this is a function new drone models becoming available for strikes. It has nothing at all to do with Obama being bold and decisive.
I am somewhat unaware that the insurance industry wants this bill, I know Kucinich is going along holding his nose, but please enligthen me on what about the bill is loved by the insurance guys who are funding the opposition.
Or am I wrong the insurers are buying ads to get the thing passed.
As to others aside from the militarists: I have no time to do service about the militarist welfare state which is such a huge target. No tome for DoT, NASA or DoE corporate welfare.
Any response to F-35 entering Nunn Mc Curdy breech?
I would comment about the ignorant blither in Aviation Week about Northrop Grumman cutting and running from Airbus recognizing that militarist welfare for Toulouse RF won’t fly.
In particular, when McCain and Lott have lost their edge to torture Boeing along with the taxpayers………….
ILSM, ?young? retiree???? Maybe a new retiree, but i seriously doubt you’re all that young. :>)
As to the funding of opposition, there is no evidence of your claims. Last summer lefty blogs made such claims, especially about the tea Parties and the Townhall attendance, but my own experience is just the opposite. if anything the Unions and Acorn were active in appearing at the Townhalls.
The rest of your post is just your regular blather that I no longer have interest.
Cantie, you forgot that other factor, capture of a couple of key Taliban leaders, and then NOT SUBMITTING them to US civilian justice.
Spencer, we have done more damage to Taliban leadership than Al Quaida. Get your talking points straight.
The big mistake was the Taliban and Al Quaida attempt to take over major portions of Pakistan. They poked the wrong elephant, and now that elephant is after them instead tacit support.
2slugs said: “ If there is one thing that almost every academic health economist agrees on, it’s that Cadillac insurance plans are big drivers in pushing up healthcare costs for everyone.”
And nearly every practicing Dr says it is the defensive medicine they are forced to practice. Trust an academician on 2slugs word they are saying what he says, or the multiple interviews, comments and articles from Drs. I trust the Drs.
Then 2slugs claims, “…big Pharma(another GOP constituency), Big Hospital (another GOP constituency), Big Medicine & the AMA (both GOP constituencies), and Big Medical Engineering & Testing (also big GOP constituencies).” while the real word is that they (all of them) have been involved with writing the Dem version of the bill. So, do we again wonder at 2slugs claim of allegiance? Not me. He’s wrong.
And nearly every practicing Dr says it is the defensive medicine they are forced to practice.
Yes, that’s what they say. But that’s not what the data say. This issue has been studied and studied and studied again. I’ve posted some of those studies. You’re wrong. And if you understood anything about econonmics you would know why doctors’ claims are wrong. And doctors are not economists. If you had a medical problem, then I wouldn’t advise consulting with an economist. And if you have an economic problem, then why would you listen to a doctor.
The big mistake was the Taliban and Al Quaida attempt to take over major portions of Pakistan. They poked the wrong elephant, and now that elephant is after them instead tacit support.
What are you talking about??? Are you talking about the Taliban and A-Q before 9/11? If so, then you really don’t have a clue. The Clinton Administration had cut off relations with Afghanistan. It was the Bush Administration that was working to renew diplomatic relations with the Taliban up until 9/11. It was Team Bush that was coddling the Taliban. And it was Team Bush that allowed the Taliban and A-Q to escape out of Tora Bora. The war in Afghanistan was never more than a sideshow as far as Team Bush was concerned.
We are making a lot of progress in decapitating A-Q and in breaking apart the Taliban. That’s partly due to the unwinding of the war in Iraq, partly due to good luck in not having to deal with Musharraf, and a lot to do with more effort being put on Afghanistan.
2slugs said: “But that’s not what the data say. This issue has been studied and studied and studied again.… And if you have an economic problem, then why would you listen to a doctor.” Even again he is saying trust the economists. NO! NO! NO!
Studies that are cedntered on the impacts of lawsuits are not the actuality that is going on. Drs are scheduling tests not for their efficacy, but to show that they did everything, whether needed or not, to absolutely prove without any doubt that when sued there was nothing left to disprove their diagnosis.
Show us the economic study that handles these excess tests rationally and not just the conomics of law suits and medical insurance.
I am at a point that I do not listen to economists on anything. They are, have been and continue to be wrong.
2slugs, why do you continously rephrase what was said and making that the center piece of your counter argument? You said: “What are you talking about??? Are you talking about the Taliban and A-Q before 9/11? “
Why don’t you please put a smiley face on your commentary for the current news ignoranti when you are just joking around. You know there are news sources other than the Daily Show. But, I guess if you took my advice re: the smiley faces, we would get too accustomed to seeing smiley faces while ignoring the messsage.
The Clinton Administration had cut off relations with Afghanistan. It was the Bush Administration that was working to renew diplomatic relations with the Taliban up until 9/11.
They were working to get OBL and short of that they were planning to oust the Talliban. Bill Clinton was a fool and his action bombing Afghanistan was the cause of 911. Moreover, his policy was in dissaray at the end of his administration. He had his chance to go after Bin Ladin but he spent the end of his presidency grabbing ass and involving the entire country in his personal drama. Not to mention he started the anti fada in Palestine with his dilettante fly by last minute hail mary legacy enhancing peace initiative. Obma policy in Afghanistan today is captive of doing something different then Bush. So Obama’s brilliant policy is to contradict Bush.
One day before the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. At that September 10 meeting of the Bush administration’s top national security officials, it was agreed that the Taliban would be presented with a final ultimatum to hand over bin Laden. Failing that, covert military aid would be channeled by the U.S. to anti-Taliban groups. If both those options failed, “the deputies agreed that the United States would seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action.” The BBC News reported that Niaz Naik, a former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan, claimed that he had been told by senior American officials in mid-July 2001 that military action against Afghanistan would begin by the middle of October at the latest. The message was conveyed during a meeting on Afghanistan between senior U.S., Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani diplomats. The meeting was the third in a series of meetings on Afghanistan, with the previous meeting having been held in March 2001. During the July 2001 meeting, Naik was told that Washington would launch its military operation from bases in Tajikistan – where American advisers were already in place – and that the wider objective was to topple the Taliban regime and install another government in place.
The Clinton Administration had cut off relations with Afghanistan. It was the Bush Administration that was working to renew diplomatic relations with the Taliban up until 9/11.
They were working to get OBL and short of that they were planning to oust the Talliban. Bill Clinton was a fool and his action bombing Afghanistan was the cause of 911. Moreover, his policy was in dissaray at the end of his administration. He had his chance to go after Bin Ladin but he spent the end of his presidency grabbing ass and involving the entire country in his personal drama. Not to mention he started the anti fada in Palestine with his dilettante fly by last minute hail mary legacy enhancing peace initiative. Obma policy in Afghanistan today is captive of doing something different then Bush. Pretty lame.
One day before the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. At that September 10 meeting of the Bush administration’s top national security officials, it was agreed that the Taliban would be presented with a final ultimatum to hand over bin Laden. Failing that, covert military aid would be channeled by the U.S. to anti-Taliban groups. If both those options failed, “the deputies agreed that the United States would seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action.” The BBC News reported that Niaz Naik, a former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan, claimed that he had been told by senior American officials in mid-July 2001 that military action against Afghanistan would begin by the middle of October at the latest. The message was conveyed during a meeting on Afghanistan between senior U.S., Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani diplomats. The meeting was the third in a series of meetings on Afghanistan, with the previous meeting having been held in March 2001. During the July 2001 meeting, Naik was told that Washington would launch its military operation from bases in Tajikistan – where American advisers were already in place – and that the wider objective was to topple the Taliban regime and install another government in place.
You need to get the context of the story right. These machinations were part of a larger strategy to try and negotiate an oil pipeline deal with the Taliban. In fact, the the Deputy Director for the FBI (John O’Neill), who was killed on 9/11, resigned in July 2001 precisely because the Bush Administration was playing footsie with the Taliban. This business about planning military action was part of a larger threat that the Administration was trying to impress on the Taliban. Part of that threat included a military action to restore King Shah. It didn’t have a damn thing to do with bin Laden. That was being set up as the pretext for threatened actions if the Taliban didn’t go along with the Haliburton pipeline deal across Afghanistan. Geez, get some facts straight.
If you’re talking about the current successes along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, then “poking” the Pakistani elephant (strange metaphor given the relationship between Pakistan and India) is a pretty minor thing. It has a lot more to do with getting rid of Musharraf. And even more to do with redirecting intelligence resources. And about a year ago there was a change in strategy to try and foment mistrust between A-Q and Taliban leaders. And it’s really been the fomenting of deep distrust that has undercut the network.
More BS from 2slugs. The trans-Afghanistan pipeline was abandoned when: ” Unocal withdrew from the consortium on 8 December 1998.” But, when you are desperate to make/win a point why worry about facts?
Oh, I forgot! Sayeth 2slugs: It was ALL BUSH’S FAULT!!!!
Nice fairy tale but its not what I find when I look up the name of John O’Neil. Last time I checked his big conflict was with Yemen and it was over the way the ambassador wanted to handle the Cole investigation.
Clueless Teabaggers Ignorant About Tax Rates Interesting comment from ex-Bush economist Bruce Bartlett on the clueless teabaggers. Hat tip to Mark Thoma’s site for the link.
Look harder. He was interviewed by 2 French reporters shortly before he was killed. Also, check out salon.com for more on the pipeline deal and O’Neill’s resignation. Likewise for CoRev.
Health insurance is for when you don’t have anything wrong but if something unexpected happened that was expensive it would help you pay the high bill. If you are already sick and have high costs then maybe the the government will help you pay the bill but then that’s not insurance its social wellfare. So why doesn’t the government limit itself to social welfare and leave insurance alone?
Cantab,
Private health insurance is a monopolyrunning a betting house where you wiin if you get sick. But not too sick or they cut theor loses.
It is gambling, and makes sense only if you are concerned about being bankrupted, which means it makes no sense for 93% of the US population to have health insurance because only about 7% of the population has enough assets to bet against getting sick.
Thanks for keeping the debate logical.
Hope is not a plan, especially when the hopes are revised downward every year since 1998 for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter lately referred to as Lightining II. The NAVAIR Lightning II is: too expensive, too late and too shoddy. It don’t work. The sellers (Lockheed) cannot deliver articles to test and if there were airplanes to fly either at Pax River or Edwards AFB they would break so much the test points would only show that the quality and reliability is terrible. The F-35 program is in violation of the Nunn Mc Curdy Act which requires to pentagon to “fess up” when a procurement exceeds a defined cost increase, so the 15 March edition of Aviation Week (and related aerospace propoaganda) reported. In my experience it has gotten worse as time and corporate welfare progress to change the militarist state in th US. The new weapon system designs are so poor, late and unproducible that supply issues (better referred to as supplier ineptitude) are blamed but engineering faults cause the materiel issues!! Someone needs to peel this onion. Let’s see what congress does with Nunn Mc Curdy for this flying dog.
Hope is not a plan, especially when the hopes are revised downward every year since 1998 for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter lately referred to as Lightining II. The NAVAIR Lightning II is: too expensive, too late and too shoddy.
It don’t work. The sellers (Lockheed) cannot deliver articles to test and if there were airplanes to fly either at Pax River or Edwards AFB they would break so much the test points would only show that the quality and reliability is terrible.
The F-35 program is in violation of the Nunn Mc Curdy Act which requires to pentagon to “fess up” when a procurement exceeds a defined cost increase, so the 15 March edition of Aviation Week (and related aerospace propoaganda) reported.
In my experience it has gotten worse as time and corporate welfare progress to change the militarist state in th US. The new weapon system designs are so poor, late and unproducible that supply issues (better referred to as supplier ineptitude) are blamed but engineering faults cause the materiel issues!!
Someone needs to peel this onion.
Let’s see what congress does with Nunn Mc Curdy for this flying dog.
Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure’s sweeping and radical aims – the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases, higher premiums, state-sanctioned rationing, longer waiting lines, the erosion of the quality of medical care and the creation of a huge, permanent administrative bureaucracy. Rather, the most alarming aspect is the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to achieve their progressive, anti-capitalist agenda.
Obamacare is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the public, more than 60 percent of independents and almost all Republicans and conservatives. It has badly fractured the country, dangerously polarizing it along ideological and racial lines. Even a majority of Democrats in the House are deeply reluctant to support it.
Numerous states – from Idaho to Virginia to Texas – have said they will sue the federal government should Obamacare become law. They will declare themselves exempt from its provisions, tying up the legislation in the courts for years to come.
Mr. Obama is willing to devour his presidency, his party’s congressional majority and – most disturbing – our democratic institutional safeguards to enact it. He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country’s stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.
The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime – a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.
It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government – meeting the threshold of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” If it’s enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.
Peggy Noonan:
And so it ends, with a health-care vote expected this weekend. I wonder at what point the administration will realize it wasn’t worth it—worth the discord, worth the diminution in popularity and prestige, worth the deepening of the great divide. What has been lost is so vivid, what has been gained so amorphous, blurry and likely illusory. Memo to future presidents: Never stake your entire survival on the painful passing of a bad bill. Never take the country down the road to Demon Pass.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704207504575130081383279888.html
ilsm,
Obama keeps pulling out examples of people that had their healthcare dropped after they bacame sick. It seems to me then he should be arguing only to create a government subsidy to help pay for these people’s above average healthcare expenditures and Obama provides no logical reason why the government should gain influence over everyone elses healthcare spending.
And Obama is being a bit dishonest here. Where are his examples of someone that got a severe case of cancer and their health insurance paid their costs as one would hope and expect. I have several databases full with these cases so I don’t need to search the country to find anecdotes like he’s doing. Therefore, his presentation is an sppeal to fear, off the point, and grossly misleading
Sammy,
We’re hearing a great deal about how the Health Care Reform legislation will have ruinous financial consequences for the country and many individuals. Frankly I don’t know if that’s true or false. I do know that quoting Peggy Noonan on any political issue is like asking a whore about the value of sex. The answer is bound to be self serving. Where was Ms Noonan and the many fiscally concerned hacks we’re hearing from now when Georgie Boy was pissing away a trillioin dollars a year in Iraq? Where are they today concerning Obama’s continuing to piss away the Treasury in both Iraq and Afghanistan? It would appear that the only concern regarding the deficit is who may be on the receiving end of that deficit spending. Spending big bucks on health care is anathema to the very same ass holes who can’t seem to get enough spent on guns and ammo. Does that not strike you as strange?
I don’t happen to think that the health care legislation before the Congress is all that good. The most important reform, a public optiion as it is being called, has been abandoned. There are a plethora of amendments that do little other than cater to the fears of the public and the avarice of health insurance corporations and big pharma. But to scream only about the cost is bullshit to the nth degree. Big government is A OK when it comes to corporate welfare and warfare, but anything that might benefit working people is suddenly to costly. It’s bull shit, just ordinary political bull shit.
jack,
Here’s what Peggy Noonan said about BHO:
He has within him the possibility to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy, which need changing; his rise will serve as a practical rebuke to the past five years, which need rebuking; his victory would provide a fresh start in a nation in which a fresh start would come as a national relief. He climbed steep stairs, born off the continent with no father to guide, a dreamy, abandoning mother, mixed race, no connections. He rose with guts and gifts. He is steady, calm, and, in terms of the execution of his political ascent, still the primary and almost only area in which his executive abilities can be discerned, he shows good judgment in terms of whom to hire and consult, what steps to take and moves to make. We witnessed from him this year something unique in American politics: He took down a political machine without raising his voice.
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2008/10/31/peggy-noonan-makes-a-case-for-barack-obama/
However, she has since woken up and smelled the derangement. Will you?
***Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure’s sweeping and radical aims – the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases,***
Considering that the US has the least cost effective health care system on the planet, why would anyone who is not a perfect fool think that transforming it is a bad idea?
How big of a political blunder will be the health care bill?
How big of a mistake will the Obama election be?
If you are a Dem politician, your career appears to be doomed. The midterms will be catastrophic. All for what even its supporters admit: ” I don’t happen to think that the health care legislation before the Congress is all that good.” (See Jack, above.)
The biggest mistake is Obama’s intransigence. Healthcare reform was/is within his reach by just scrapping this bill and starting over. The entire nation would accept and maybe even respect his judgment.
The ramifications of continuing on the current path are still to be determined, but there can be no good results for Dems, Dem politicians, and the country in general.
So, that leaves is with one question. Why? For someone supposed to be such an adroit politician, he is far from it. Political hack and avid idealoque is what most voters see.
What has been lost? Trust. Who have lost the most? Dems. But, the list of losers grows daily, and the full fall out is still to be felt.
Cantab,
Just regulate the gambling houses.
Check your policy for the life time limit.
Medicare B is subsidies for the insurance monopoly why have the taxpayer enrich the “house”?
THe effect of reform is to break up the insurers’ gambling machine with its monopolist power which makes them a numbers racket.
This racket is harming the US economy as did the unregualted stuff Wall Street tagged you for…… Trillions to Wall Street!!
Sammy,
A rather lengthy ad hominem filled with FOX News, Murdoch unfounded, no context corporatist talking points.
And the insurance monopoly part of the one sixth of the economy has no regulation and monopolist power.
Discuss the benefit of the insurance monopoly and hpow it helps keep US health results at number 39 in the world.
Psywar is being waged and the insurance cabal has all the tools.
What say you if some politicians actually put principle, even if made unpopular by the insurance monopoly propaganda psywar machine, before the impression the mob has been fed by FOX News?
Trust? If you listen to FOX News and the teabaggers who needs the “trust” those propagandists spread?
CoRev,
How big of a political blunder will be the health care bill?
You mean in the same way that passing the Civil Rights Act and Medicare led to political losses for the Democrats in 1966? And just like then, the forces of reaction and ignorance are lying and trying to hold back progress.
If you are a Dem politician, your career appears to be doomed. The midterms will be catastrophic.
It will certainly be bad for some, but it will be bad mostly because of the economy. Once enacted the bill will become very popular. That’s the way it was with Social Security (remember, the GOP ran on repealing SS and they got clobbered). That’s the way it was with Medicare. That’s even the way it was with Medicare Part D, which Democrats opposed. I hope the Republicans run on the “Repeal It” slogan in 2010 and especially in 2012. But you and I know they won’t.
The GOP has a long run problem. They have to do better than just do well in 2010; they have to do spectacularly well. They will have to win both Houses of Congress and by fairly wide margins because the demographics and issues do not line up well for the GOP over the next several election cycles. The Republicans have become wedded to a shrinking and (literally) dying political base. 2010 is about as good as it’s going to get for Republicans for a very long time, so they better win huge if they want to remain relevant. This is pretty much a make or break election for the GOP. And I think they know that, which is one reason they are becoming so desperate and willing to tell the most outrageous whoppers.
What has been lost? Trust.
You’re right. Obama went into this thing wanting to trust the GOP and they proved that they are liars. In fact, some GOP leaders even bragged to their base supporters about how they played Obama for a fool by pretending to want to cooperate on the healthcare bill but they were in fact only stalling for time until the August recess. Sorry, CoRev, but those liars were caught on YouTube telling their wingnut teabag supporters exactly that. So trust has been lost. Obama no longer trusts the GOP, which is what many Democrats were warning him about early on.
The biggest mistake is Obama’s intransigence. Healthcare reform was/is within his reach by just scrapping this bill and starting over. The entire nation would accept and maybe even respect his judgment.
And this little gem just continues the stream of lies. The GOP made it plain last winter that they were never going to accept any healthcare reform because the issue for them was never healthcare…it was always about trying to bring down Obama’s Presidency. They even said so in some internal memos that leaked at the time. Even Sen. DeMint admitted that it was all about bringing about Obama’s “Waterloo.” And the GOP’s lead guy on healthcare even admitted that he would have vote against the bill even if he got everything in it that he wanted. And of course Grassley initially denied this, but then had to try and explain it away when confronted by the YouTube evidence. So he’s just a liar and not to be […]
sammy,
Why do you even bother reading or listening to Peggy Noonan. I think her appeal to some is that she uses this oh-so-earnest tone in her voice, but when you tune out the voice tones and pay attention to the words you find that she says the most banal things imaginable. She’s a conservative emoter. The good feeling nonsense that she said about Obama is almost identical to the good feeling nonsense that she said about George Bush. Her only claim to fame is that she wrote some sappy line about astronauts slipping the surly bounds of earth and touching the face of God. It was a Hallmark card line written for a Hallmark card moment. It’s not a claim to political wisdom. If I see her as a guest on This Week, I almost always turn it off.
sammy,
What a load of crap. Where to begin?
1. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure’s sweeping and radical aims – the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy
Alas, if it were only true, but it’s not. The healthcare bill represents about 0.7% of the US GDP. I know that conservatives are math challenged, but even you should know that 0.7% is really not even close to one-sixth. What the healthcare bill does it try and make sure that one-sixth of the economy doesn’t become one-fifth and then one-fourth of the economy, which is where it’s headed if we don’t begin to get healthcare costs under control. The Obama plan is a very small step in that direction…it will shrink healthcare costs by about three-quarters of one percent of GDP over the long run. It’s a start.
Obamacare is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the public, more than 60 percent of independents and almost all Republicans and conservatives.
The cartoon version of the plan is opposed by the public. But when you ask the public about the three main pieces of the plan, then there is overwhelming support. In fact, a large majority want a public option, so for many the problem with the plan is that it doesn’t go far enough.
Numerous states – from Idaho to Virginia to Texas – have said they will sue the federal government should Obamacare become law.
Opinions no doubt informed by folks with a teabagger’s understanding of the constitution. A lot of state Attorneys General are making those noises, but the overwhelming opinion of constitutional scholars is that such a suit would be a waste of state AG resources. They would simply lose because the SCOTUS has already ruled on this kind of thing in the past.
He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country’s stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.
So what did that make Richard Nixon, whose healthcare plan was far more left wing? Look, the far right are the only “reckless ideologues” out there right now. And don’t forget, when pressed on the specific features of the bill, even the GOP leadership agrees with most of the individual pieces as a matter of public policy. The GOP just doesn’t want it to pass because they don’t want Obama to have any legislative success. This fight is not about healthcare anymore, it’s about the naked ambitions of McConnell and Boehner.
The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder;
I agree that it would be a strategic blunder, but your constitutional arguments are without merit. The SCOTUS has already ruled on this matter over a 100 years ago and a bill is presumed to have passed legitimately by each House if the Speaker certifies the result for the House of Representatives and either the Vice-President or Senate Pro Tempore certifies the results for the Senate. The Constitution allows each chamber to set its own rules on how bills get certified as having been passed. And don’t forget, one of the idiots who is pushing this very argument about the bill being illegitimate is the same congressman who stood up at one of those GOP/Teabagger rallies last fall and said he would quote from the Constitution and proceeded to quote from the Declaration. Teabaggers…Ignorance is thy name.
Just curious sammy. Have you ever taken a ConLaw class in a credentialed law school?
2slugs, this logic mysifies me: “ The Republicans have become wedded to a shrinking and (literally) dying political base. 2010 is about as good as it’s going to get for Republicans for a very long time, so they better win huge if they want to remain relevant.”
We are on the leading edge of the boomers joining that ?shrinking and dying? political base. Boomers have perturbed the economics, politics and nearly all other things US during their lives. Are you implying that this same generation will not perturb politics or their effect is already over? Dunno, doen’t make sense to me.
Moreover, taking a whack at this same generation in the HC bill is a wise thing? Dunno, doen’t make sense to me.
As to your Repub memo talking point we now have a totally different poltical situation. Then, it was Repub politicians fighting the bill alone. Now, we have 2/3s or more of the voting population disgusted with the Dem attempts to pass this very bad bill. That’s why I say this adroit politician, aint!
As to future political actions, after the Repubs take control of the next Congress, if the HC bill is passed, they will just attach riders that chip away at the worst featrures of “Dem/Obama” HC bill on each Obama desired future bill. Each appropriation bill will then use reconciliation to take these actions even further. Four years (two Congresses) should be adequate to get the bill into a form the voters can accept.
If Dems fight it then they become the party of NO!
There is very real chance that due to the loss in trust of their judgement, that they may have lost political influence for a long time. Dems lost their way due to over reach, and subservience to idealogy. An idealogy not shared by the general populace. But the real mstake is in not listening to the voters.
I won’t describe the variety of mistakes in the bill itself. They will become apparent at passage. Just look at the alignment of states taking action against it, then consider how can this adroit politician have made such a colossal political mistake?
If you want a bottom line, I think it will be that the Republican Party will be thanking him/Libs/progressives for overplaying his hand for a generation. YMMV.
I’ve changed my bumper sticker from “Repeal It” to “Vote all Dems out.”
Cantab,
So why doesn’t the government limit itself to social welfare and leave insurance alone?
So is this a vote for expanding socialized medicine? And under your proposal, if the govt pays for all of your healthcare if you don’t have health insurance, why would anyone ever buy health insurance? Sounds like it’s time to review the rationale for Obama’s healthcare plan…which is by now more like Hillary Clinton’s 2008 plan rather than Obama’s 2008 plan. In any event:
1. Expanding the availability of health insurance is required both as a moral issue and as a practical issue for bringing down health insurance premiums for those that already have insurance. So we want to make health insurance universal. Even the GOP agrees with that goal.
2. If you create a separate risk pool made up of only high risk people with pre-existing conditions, then the premiums become unaffordable and the program descends into a financial death spiral. So in order to bring down the average cost you have to include healthy people in the pool. That means you have to make insurance mandatory. This will bring in a lot of healthy, young adults currently without healthcare.
3. If you make health insurance mandatory, then you have to provide some kind of subsidy for those who cannot afford it. And the main reason most young, healthy people don’t have insurance is that they can’t afford it. So you need a govt subsidy if you are going to make it mandatory.
4. To fund the govt subsidy the Obama plan is to cut out the most spectacularly useless and indefensible parts of Medicare Advantage and to tax “Cadillac plans”. Just about all academic economists agree that not only will these two things more than pay for the subsidy (they will actually generate a small surplus), but those two things are also critical for the long run bending of the healthcare cost curve. “Cadillac plans” are major drivers of healthcare costs because they effectively shift the demand curve to the right.
Those are the pillars of Obama’s healthcare reform. They are all necessary conditions for reforming healthcare if at the same time you want to preserve the basically private nature of health insurance. So if you oppose this approach, then you’re either going to have come down supporting something like Canadian single payer, or the British single provider, or no reform at all. The Obama plan is the least radical path to healthcare reform…provided that you’re really interested in healthcare reform and not just winning clueless teabagger votes in November.
Cantab,
It seems to me then he should be arguing only to create a government subsidy to help pay for these people’s above average healthcare expenditures and Obama provides no logical reason why the government should gain influence over everyone elses healthcare spending.
That would mean increasing taxes to pay for the subsidy. And just providing a subsidy does not help in bending the cost curve. In fact, it makes it worse because it creates an “income shift” in the demand curve for healthcare. Look at the way the Obama plan gets the revenue to susidize mandatory insurance. It does so in a way that not only reduces the deficit, but actually tends to shift the demand curve to the left, which lowers costs for everyone.
CoRev,
The elderly and to some extent the boomers are opposed to the bill today, but that’s mainly because they are confused and afraid about any change. Once the bill is passed and they see that the world hasn’t ended and is in fact a little bit better, then a lot of the anxiety will melt away. That’s exactly the same thing you saw with Medicare Part D. And history books tell us that it was the elderly who opposed Social Security in 1937…until it happened and then they turned on the GOP when the GOP ran on a “repeal it” platform.
When I’m talking about the long run prospects for the GOP, I’m talking about demographics. It’s literally true that the hardest support for the GOP is with the very group that is shrinking and dying. Look at teabaggers. They are overhwhelmingly white and at least middle-aged and frequently retired. Think about the usual red meat issues that motivate these voters. These are issues that not only don’t motivate younger voters, but actually alienate younger voters. And by wide margins. And the fastest growing ethnic groups are strongly aligned with the Democratic party, not the Republicans…that’s why Karl Rove wanted immigration reform even though it alienated the GOP base. Rove at least understood the numbers and warned Bush that the GOP would be a footnote in history if the GOP didn’t attract Hispanic voters. One of the rules of thumb in Poli Sci is that if a young voter supports a political party for three consecutive elections, that voter will likely vote the same way for the rest of his or her life. That’s a problem when the emerging demographics support the Democrats by margines of 2:1 and 3:1. The GOP has become a regional party of the Old Confederacy, and that’s about all. Interestingly, Menzie Chinn has a piece that breaks down the regional “for” an “against” the healthcare bill among academic economists. There is a strong regioinal bias.
CoRev,
As to your Repub memo talking point we now have a totally different poltical situation. Then, it was Repub politicians fighting the bill alone. Now, we have 2/3s or more of the voting population disgusted with the Dem attempts to pass this very bad bill.
The reason they fought the bill was because they didn’t want Obama to have any legislative successes. That was the point of the internal memos. The strategy was to make up lies in order to inflame things, which is exactly what they did. Remember the “death panel” lies from last summer? That was completely manufactured out of internal GOP focus groups.
As I told sammy, the two-thirds opposition is to the cartoon version of the bill, not what’s actually in the bill. Most people like what’s in the bill when you poll on the separate features. And most people even want a public option. And a lot of the opposition to the bill is because it doesn’t go far enough. Look, I don’t like the bill, but I support it because it is a big improvement over the current situation. You gotta start somewhere and this bill is a good place to start.
BTW, if it passes the House on Sunday and the GOP tries to block the fixes to the “Cornhusker Deal” and the “Louisianna Purchase”, does that mean the GOP is telling voters that they support those political bribes? Why shouldn’t we expect Democratic politicians to start running ads showing the GOP defending those things. Then let the GOP explain why they were against the the Cornhusker Deal before they were for it. Turnabout is fair play.
Slugs,
Obama is just hiding the tax hike as an unfunded mandate on health insurance companies. Therefore, they will raise premiums and the rise will be the tax. Forcing everyone to buy health insurance at prices much higher than cost is another backhanded tax. Obama care is all about increasing taxes and as I see does nothing to bend the cost curve. You can’t bend the cost curve by focusing on insurance companies.
Slugs,
Why do you even bother reading or listening to Peggy Noonan.
Not everyone listens to Krugman when he tells people to shut down their minds and only listen to his list of approved people.
ILSM, saying this: “….made unpopular by the insurance monopoly propaganda psywar machine,” just shows your ignorance over the bill. The one industry that will gain, substantially, is the insurance industry.
You continuously rant about the defense industry, but ignore the others that feed at the trough. Why?
2slugs, mouthing the dem talking points here: ‘Once enacted the bill will become very popular. ‘ Shows an interesting, whistling by the graveyard, ignorance of the bill. Once enacted there will be an immediate tax increase, insurance rate increase, and a large number of Drs claiming to no longer take medicare patients. On the plus side there will be some marginal improvement for access to healthcare for those with prior conditions.
Actual implementation of the benefits are delayed for nearly four years. Four years while the bill is gradually improved, but not yet implemented. If the Repubs improve and implement the improvment, who gets credit? Not likely Dems because they have been tarred with the badness of this abortion.
I think Obama’s plan is arbitrary. If someone has a Cadillac plan this should not be a problem to anyone. For me i would value a cadillac plan the same way a person that never dives would value a cadillac. But some people want these plans and Obama has no place telling them they are wrong, other than his being arbritrary.
Increasing availability of health insurance is not a moral issue. Providing access to healthcare treatment is, but we already do this so again Obama’s plan seems pointless on the merits and what you have left is a power grab.
If you make health insurance mandatory, then you have to provide some kind of subsidy for those who cannot afford it.
You can only do this by overcharging and swindling those you force to buy insurance. By by morality.
The best line I’ve heard so far. “This weekend ends the ascendancy of the liberal policies in US politics.” Mike Pence to the Tea Baggers.
CoRev,
You know perfectly well that the reason the GOP is fighting healthcare reform is precisely because it will be very popular once enacted. They know that once it’s on the books there is no chance that they will be able to repeal it. That’s been the history of all landmark legislation.
Many of the benefits will kick in tomorrow afternoon when Obama signs the bill if it passes the House. For example, effective tomorrow it will be illegal to deny coverage to children as a result of a pre-existing condition. That’s important to a lot of families. Effective tommorow parents will be able to keep their kids on their own health plans up to age 26. That’s important for families with young adults who are just now trying to enter the labor force in a depressed economy. And there are other benefits that will phase in. The full package of benefits won’t come for 4 years, but that doesn’t mean all benefits will be delayed four years. And if you and the GOP want to try and accelerate that benefit schedule, then I’m sure the Democrats would be happy to oblige. But that’s not what you want, so please don’t annoy us with the crocodile tears about how bad it is that the full package of benefits won’t kick in for four years.
If the Republicans improve the bill I will look for pigs to fly.
Cantab,
I explained how the Obama healthcare plan expands health insurance coverage, how it will be funded and how it will bend the cost curve by shifting the demand curve to the left. If there is one thing that almost every academic health economist agrees on, it’s that Cadillac insurance plans are big drivers in pushing up healthcare costs for everyone.
I agree that you have to get beyond just health insurance companies. A lot of their costs are simply costs that originate in Big Pharam (another GOP constituency), Big Hospital (another GOP constituency), Big Medicine & the AMA (both GOP constituencies), and Big Medical Engineering & Testing (also big GOP constituencies). Those are the ultimate sources of rising healthcare costs and that’s the part where Obama tries to bend the curve. That’s why the Administration wants to cut back the egregious parts of Medicare Advantage. That’s why the Administration wants to cut back on Cadillac plans that drive up medical costs. That’s why the original bill allowed reimbursement of doctors’ fees for end-of-life discussions with families. That’s why Obama took up Sen. Coburn’s suggestion to have undercover agents ferret out corruption by doctors and hospitals…notice that you didn’t see Sen. McConnell and Rep. Boehner jump up to support Coburn on that idea!!!
Cantab,
I explained how the Obama healthcare plan expands health insurance coverage, how it will be funded and how it will bend the cost curve by shifting the demand curve to the left. If there is one thing that almost every academic health economist agrees on, it’s that Cadillac insurance plans are big drivers in pushing up healthcare costs for everyone.
I agree that you have to get beyond just health insurance companies. A lot of their costs are simply costs that originate in Big Pharma (another GOP constituency), Big Hospital (another GOP constituency), Big Medicine & the AMA (both GOP constituencies), and Big Medical Engineering & Testing (also big GOP constituencies). Those are the ultimate sources of rising healthcare costs and that’s the part where Obama tries to bend the curve. That’s why the Administration wants to cut back the egregious parts of Medicare Advantage. That’s why the Administration wants to cut back on Cadillac plans that drive up medical costs. That’s why the original bill allowed reimbursement of doctors’ fees for end-of-life discussions with families. That’s why Obama took up Sen. Coburn’s suggestion to have undercover agents ferret out corruption by doctors and hospitals…notice that you didn’t see Sen. McConnell and Rep. Boehner jump up to support Coburn on that idea!!!
Sammy — while you are concerned about foreign policy under Obama I would just point out to you that under Obama we have done more damage to al Quada over the past few months in Pakistan than bush did in six years of his misdirected war in Iraq that helped al Quada more than it hurt them.
By the way, could you tell me how the US is better off or more secure because of the lives and fortune we are spending in Iraq. Wouldn’t we be much better off in these resources had been spent on Afghanistan where there actually was some al Quada forces.
slugs,
If the Republicans improve the bill I will look for pigs to fly.
Our improvement will be to kill the bill as soom as possible. Oink!
With removal of Saddam our efforts against Al Quida would be a total failure. Its like petty street crime in New York and the chaos it creates that sets the environment for more serious crime. Saddam created chaos in the Middle East with his invasion of two countries, funding Islamic terrorists, gassing his own people, and actively seeking to build nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Without his removal the war on terror would be a mockery and the terrorist would still be jumpy through their fiery hola hoops rather than cowering in caves.
I support Obama’s use of drones yet at a civilian to terrorist kill ratio of 10 to 1 Obama may be the first person to both win the Nobel Peace Prize and be charged as a war criminal for killing civilians. On the number of stikes this is a function new drone models becoming available for strikes. It has nothing at all to do with Obama being bold and decisive.
CoRev,
I am a very busy young retiree these days.
Please correct my ignorance.
I am somewhat unaware that the insurance industry wants this bill, I know Kucinich is going along holding his nose, but please enligthen me on what about the bill is loved by the insurance guys who are funding the opposition.
Or am I wrong the insurers are buying ads to get the thing passed.
As to others aside from the militarists: I have no time to do service about the militarist welfare state which is such a huge target. No tome for DoT, NASA or DoE corporate welfare.
Any response to F-35 entering Nunn Mc Curdy breech?
I would comment about the ignorant blither in Aviation Week about Northrop Grumman cutting and running from Airbus recognizing that militarist welfare for Toulouse RF won’t fly.
In particular, when McCain and Lott have lost their edge to torture Boeing along with the taxpayers………….
But, I am a very busy young retiree.
And what else would the teabaggers want to hear?
I am too young to associate with teabaggers!
ILSM, ?young? retiree???? Maybe a new retiree, but i seriously doubt you’re all that young. :>)
As to the funding of opposition, there is no evidence of your claims. Last summer lefty blogs made such claims, especially about the tea Parties and the Townhall attendance, but my own experience is just the opposite. if anything the Unions and Acorn were active in appearing at the Townhalls.
The rest of your post is just your regular blather that I no longer have interest.
Improvement is in the eye of the beholder.
Confused elderly? Not likely. We’ll see in Nov.
Cantie, you forgot that other factor, capture of a couple of key Taliban leaders, and then NOT SUBMITTING them to US civilian justice.
Spencer, we have done more damage to Taliban leadership than Al Quaida. Get your talking points straight.
The big mistake was the Taliban and Al Quaida attempt to take over major portions of Pakistan. They poked the wrong elephant, and now that elephant is after them instead tacit support.
2slugs said: “ If there is one thing that almost every academic health economist agrees on, it’s that Cadillac insurance plans are big drivers in pushing up healthcare costs for everyone.”
And nearly every practicing Dr says it is the defensive medicine they are forced to practice. Trust an academician on 2slugs word they are saying what he says, or the multiple interviews, comments and articles from Drs. I trust the Drs.
Then 2slugs claims, “…big Pharma(another GOP constituency), Big Hospital (another GOP constituency), Big Medicine & the AMA (both GOP constituencies), and Big Medical Engineering & Testing (also big GOP constituencies).” while the real word is that they (all of them) have been involved with writing the Dem version of the bill. So, do we again wonder at 2slugs claim of allegiance? Not me. He’s wrong.
CoRev,
And nearly every practicing Dr says it is the defensive medicine they are forced to practice.
Yes, that’s what they say. But that’s not what the data say. This issue has been studied and studied and studied again. I’ve posted some of those studies. You’re wrong. And if you understood anything about econonmics you would know why doctors’ claims are wrong. And doctors are not economists. If you had a medical problem, then I wouldn’t advise consulting with an economist. And if you have an economic problem, then why would you listen to a doctor.
CoRev,
The big mistake was the Taliban and Al Quaida attempt to take over major portions of Pakistan. They poked the wrong elephant, and now that elephant is after them instead tacit support.
What are you talking about??? Are you talking about the Taliban and A-Q before 9/11? If so, then you really don’t have a clue. The Clinton Administration had cut off relations with Afghanistan. It was the Bush Administration that was working to renew diplomatic relations with the Taliban up until 9/11. It was Team Bush that was coddling the Taliban. And it was Team Bush that allowed the Taliban and A-Q to escape out of Tora Bora. The war in Afghanistan was never more than a sideshow as far as Team Bush was concerned.
We are making a lot of progress in decapitating A-Q and in breaking apart the Taliban. That’s partly due to the unwinding of the war in Iraq, partly due to good luck in not having to deal with Musharraf, and a lot to do with more effort being put on Afghanistan.
2slugs said: “But that’s not what the data say. This issue has been studied and studied and studied again.… And if you have an economic problem, then why would you listen to a doctor.” Even again he is saying trust the economists. NO! NO! NO!
Studies that are cedntered on the impacts of lawsuits are not the actuality that is going on. Drs are scheduling tests not for their efficacy, but to show that they did everything, whether needed or not, to absolutely prove without any doubt that when sued there was nothing left to disprove their diagnosis.
Show us the economic study that handles these excess tests rationally and not just the conomics of law suits and medical insurance.
I am at a point that I do not listen to economists on anything. They are, have been and continue to be wrong.
2slugs, why do you continously rephrase what was said and making that the center piece of your counter argument? You said: “What are you talking about??? Are you talking about the Taliban and A-Q before 9/11? “
Why don’t you please put a smiley face on your commentary for the current news ignoranti when you are just joking around. You know there are news sources other than the Daily Show. But, I guess if you took my advice re: the smiley faces, we would get too accustomed to seeing smiley faces while ignoring the messsage.
Slugs
The Clinton Administration had cut off relations with Afghanistan. It was the Bush Administration that was working to renew diplomatic relations with the Taliban up until 9/11.
They were working to get OBL and short of that they were planning to oust the Talliban. Bill Clinton was a fool and his action bombing Afghanistan was the cause of 911. Moreover, his policy was in dissaray at the end of his administration. He had his chance to go after Bin Ladin but he spent the end of his presidency grabbing ass and involving the entire country in his personal drama. Not to mention he started the anti fada in Palestine with his dilettante fly by last minute hail mary legacy enhancing peace initiative. Obma policy in Afghanistan today is captive of doing something different then Bush. So Obama’s brilliant policy is to contradict Bush.
One day before the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. At that September 10 meeting of the Bush administration’s top national security officials, it was agreed that the Taliban would be presented with a final ultimatum to hand over bin Laden. Failing that, covert military aid would be channeled by the U.S. to anti-Taliban groups. If both those options failed, “the deputies agreed that the United States would seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action.”
The BBC News reported that Niaz Naik, a former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan, claimed that he had been told by senior American officials in mid-July 2001 that military action against Afghanistan would begin by the middle of October at the latest. The message was conveyed during a meeting on Afghanistan between senior U.S., Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani diplomats. The meeting was the third in a series of meetings on Afghanistan, with the previous meeting having been held in March 2001. During the July 2001 meeting, Naik was told that Washington would launch its military operation from bases in Tajikistan – where American advisers were already in place – and that the wider objective was to topple the Taliban regime and install another government in place.
Slugs
The Clinton Administration had cut off relations with Afghanistan. It was the Bush Administration that was working to renew diplomatic relations with the Taliban up until 9/11.
They were working to get OBL and short of that they were planning to oust the Talliban. Bill Clinton was a fool and his action bombing Afghanistan was the cause of 911. Moreover, his policy was in dissaray at the end of his administration. He had his chance to go after Bin Ladin but he spent the end of his presidency grabbing ass and involving the entire country in his personal drama. Not to mention he started the anti fada in Palestine with his dilettante fly by last minute hail mary legacy enhancing peace initiative. Obma policy in Afghanistan today is captive of doing something different then Bush. Pretty lame.
One day before the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. At that September 10 meeting of the Bush administration’s top national security officials, it was agreed that the Taliban would be presented with a final ultimatum to hand over bin Laden. Failing that, covert military aid would be channeled by the U.S. to anti-Taliban groups. If both those options failed, “the deputies agreed that the United States would seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action.”
The BBC News reported that Niaz Naik, a former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan, claimed that he had been told by senior American officials in mid-July 2001 that military action against Afghanistan would begin by the middle of October at the latest. The message was conveyed during a meeting on Afghanistan between senior U.S., Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani diplomats. The meeting was the third in a series of meetings on Afghanistan, with the previous meeting having been held in March 2001. During the July 2001 meeting, Naik was told that Washington would launch its military operation from bases in Tajikistan – where American advisers were already in place – and that the wider objective was to topple the Taliban regime and install another government in place.
CoRev,
“Maybe a new retiree, but i seriously doubt you’re all that young.”
Not that new retiree. But working full time.
You might check out Samuel Ullman abut the youth thingy.
Cantab,
You need to get the context of the story right. These machinations were part of a larger strategy to try and negotiate an oil pipeline deal with the Taliban. In fact, the the Deputy Director for the FBI (John O’Neill), who was killed on 9/11, resigned in July 2001 precisely because the Bush Administration was playing footsie with the Taliban. This business about planning military action was part of a larger threat that the Administration was trying to impress on the Taliban. Part of that threat included a military action to restore King Shah. It didn’t have a damn thing to do with bin Laden. That was being set up as the pretext for threatened actions if the Taliban didn’t go along with the Haliburton pipeline deal across Afghanistan. Geez, get some facts straight.
CoRev,
If you’re talking about the current successes along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, then “poking” the Pakistani elephant (strange metaphor given the relationship between Pakistan and India) is a pretty minor thing. It has a lot more to do with getting rid of Musharraf. And even more to do with redirecting intelligence resources. And about a year ago there was a change in strategy to try and foment mistrust between A-Q and Taliban leaders. And it’s really been the fomenting of deep distrust that has undercut the network.
2slugs, sigh!!!!! Where’s the smiley face?
More BS from 2slugs. The trans-Afghanistan pipeline was abandoned when: ” Unocal withdrew from the consortium on 8 December 1998.” But, when you are desperate to make/win a point why worry about facts?
Oh, I forgot! Sayeth 2slugs: It was ALL BUSH’S FAULT!!!!
Slugs,
Nice fairy tale but its not what I find when I look up the name of John O’Neil. Last time I checked his big conflict was with Yemen and it was over the way the ambassador wanted to handle the Cole investigation.
Clueless Teabaggers Ignorant About Tax Rates
Interesting comment from ex-Bush economist Bruce Bartlett on the clueless teabaggers.
Hat tip to Mark Thoma’s site for the link.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
Look harder. He was interviewed by 2 French reporters shortly before he was killed. Also, check out salon.com for more on the pipeline deal and O’Neill’s resignation. Likewise for CoRev.
Slugs,
It’s your point so you ought to be the one looking harder for a quote.