Powered by TypePad

« Sunspots And Climate Change - The Times Steps Forward | Main | This From A Nobel Laureate? »

July 21, 2009


'Cause you see there's somethin' happenin' but you don't k now what it is, do you Mr. Jones?

"I deplore this risky rhetorical scheme."

Yeah. Whatever happened to the rhetoric about 'growing ourselves out of the Bush Deficits'?

Oh yeah. Goldman Sachs.....


Good point.

Strawman Cometh

Well Tom, it is for catches like this you make the big bucks.

Fresh Air

"Experimental" like trying to graft a horse's ass onto a....

Never mind. It's too gross to go any further.


Socialistic boondoggle works for me.

Buford Gooch

Just to poke them in the eye, I really think we should use "risky scheme".


Mark Steyn was on Dennis Miller's Show in I think Hour 2 on Monday. Steyn addressed this effort to Nationalize Health Care in terms of personal freedom. He considered it no less than the government trying to nationalize our bodies, thus gaining control over them, and the greatest loss of personal freedom imaginable.

It was very well stated in that inimitable way of Mark Steyn. I wish I could find a transcript but I cannot, and if Mark Steyn has written it up that way somewhere I am unable to find it. I thought it an excellent way to frame the issue, absolutely correct, and easily explainable and transmittable as a way of expressing the dangerousness of this Health Care Scheme, whether workable or not.

So though "risky" or "experimental" are both adjectives that definitely apply, to me the stronger point of opposition is that it is the biggest power grab in American history and the biggest surrender of personal freedom and responsibility in this nation since Day 1.

Since Steyn said it so much pithier and better, if anyone has a link to the transcript or something similar he has written, I would be much obliged to read it.


Mark Steyn has a unique gift for expression ideas. I enjoy him more than Rush when he guest hosts.

Amused Bystander

It is more the case of it being an "rhetorical experiment" is it not?


Just out of curiousity.....have any of the state run health programs throughout the world, worked? Couldn't the republicans hammer that one home. How many people live how long under our systems, how many and how young are the ones dying under these other state-run systems. This is no experiment, it has been done, and to the detriment of their populaces, for quite some time about that, republicans. Or do the republicans just want their state run program?


I like, "never worked and never will"

and "gullible people for whom history begins at dawn"

Danube of Thought

The biggest problem faced by opponents of this risky scheme is demonstrating the ultimate inevitability of a single-payer (government) system once this thing gets launched. Obama is at his most glib, and most deceitful, when he says "if you like your current plan you can keep it."

That is the single most important deception he is peddling, and it needs to be exposed as such over and over again.


I think they should be pushing the fact tat there are only around 15 million uninsured, most of the 23-34 who don't need health care insurance anyway.

Instead of destroying the entire health care system, why don't we just give them all a $2,500 medical savings account like they do in Singapore. that way they could purchase a catastrophic plan, and pay for small bills out of pocket.

Nah, forget it. That wouldn't be a way for the democrats to destroy private wealth and grab power.


Yikes! tat=that, the=them that=That

bio mom

I agree with Verner.


If you scroll down to "Mark Steyn" here, daddy, there's audio around 10 min. in of Mark Steyn explaining to Dennis Miller about the Dems wanting to "nationalize your body" purely as a means of control. He's very funny on Al Gore and Prince Charles and their carbon credits at the beginning too.


Let's see, the President has a filibuster proof Democratic Senate, a +60 seat margin in the House, a favorable press, a fawning Hollywood, a supportive academia and he is still whining about Republicans.

Makes me wonder what President Biden would do ?


"have any of the state run health programs throughout the world, worked?"

Thousands, or by now maybe millions, have voted with their feet (and risked their lives and the lives of their loved ones) to leave places like Cuba that have the state run health programs, to come to the US.
Where are Americans supposed to go when they become fed up with the Federal/state ran health programs?


Frontline some time ago had a series on healthcare around the world and how it basically is NOT working anywhere.

As I remember--Taiwan had pretty good care but the cost/expense was eating them up.


The health care reform legislation working its way through Congress has lost support over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% of U.S. voters are at least somewhat in favor of the reform effort while 53% are at least somewhat opposed.

Today’s 44% level of support is down from 46% two weeks ago, and 50% in late June.

Opposition has grown from 45% in late June to 49% two weeks ago and 53% today.

As in earlier surveys, those with strong opinions are more likely to oppose the plan rather than support it. The current numbers: 24% strongly favor and 37% strongly oppose.

And presidential tracking poll now -6.


Sen. Grassley says he was told by a Dem rep that Obama said to him, "You're going to destroy my presidency"...if Kill Granny fails.


CNN: “We appreciate the rhetoric and his willingness to ratchet up the pressure but what most Democrats on the Hill are looking for is for the president to weigh in and make decisions on outstanding issues. Instead of sending out his people and saying the president isn’t ruling anything out, members would like a little bit of clarity on what he would support – especially on how to pay for his health reform bill,” a senior Democratic congressional source tells CNN.

Imagine if this appeared the day Bush was to have a presser. Any chance there wouldn't be a stream of biting questions asking for "a little bit of clarity"...on how he'd pay for his health care takeover, his secret meetings, his divided party, his approval freefall?

Danube of Thought

Bobby Jindal nails it in the WSJ:

"...the marketing of the Democrats’ plans as presented in the House of Representatives and endorsed heartily by President Obama rests on three falsehoods.

"First, Mr. Obama doggedly promises that if you like your (private) health-care coverage now, you can keep it. That promise is hollow, because the Democrats’ reforms are designed to push an ever-increasing number of Americans into a government-run health-care plan.

"If a so-called public option is part of health-care reform, the Lewin Group study estimates over 100 million Americans may leave private plans for government-run health care. Any government plan will benefit from taxpayer subsidies and be able to operate at a financial loss—competing unfairly in the marketplace until private plans are driven out of business. The government plan will become so large that it will set, rather than negotiate, prices. This will inevitably lead to monopoly, with a resulting threat to the quality of our health care."

Mike Myers

Hey 'risky scheme" is what folks who aren't willing to adopt a "Social Security Lockbox" propose. Al Gore 2000 campaign.

I like "risky scheme"--one of the trademark favorite lines of Democrats. But as we all know, or are so instructed to believe--only evil Republicans and Bushites ever propose risky schemes.

And Bandini fertilizer tastes like vanilla ice cream. Obama told me so.


"have any of the state run health programs throughout the world, worked? "

Yes, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, the Czech Republic has a good one. Any place with a public/private mix like Obama is proposing. Look it up.

"How many people live how long under our systems, how many and how young are the ones dying under these other state-run systems. "

The people throughout most of Europe have a longer life span than Americans. They are also deemed to be statistically healthier at an older age. Again, look it up. Don't just go on North Korean style propaganda.


"If a so-called public option is part of health-care reform, the Lewin Group study estimates over 100 million Americans may leave private plans for government-run health care. Any government plan will benefit from taxpayer subsidies and be able to operate at a financial loss—competing unfairly in the marketplace until private plans are driven out of business. "

Who the f*** is the Levin group and who the f*** cares what they think? Like the government is going to run a plan so great that everyone will leave in a mass exodus to get on it. Please. The government barely has enough funds to get it started.

And even if the gov offers a good plan, then the health insurance industries will have to offer a better plan. It's called competition and freedom of choice people. They will have to offer better individualized service to win cusomers back. It will be kind of like the tony private colleges versus the basic state colleges. You get to pick what you want. So we are supposed to coddle the health insurance companies and suffer under their greedy and often fraudulent service because they are afraid to compete? Please.

If people want to get into a government plan because its cheap and portable - then so what? It's a free country and we should be able to do what we want. Obviously if the health insurance companies were doing such a great job then we wouldnt even be talking about this in the first place, so there is obviously a niche for something else now. And when there's a need, something will come and fill it.

Danube of Thought

Many factors, mostly involving lifestyle and obesity, swamp the effects of health care in determining life expectancy.

Neither Japan nor any European country has a system of the kind Obama is proposing. His plan is intended to, and would, eliminate the private industry in a very short time.


You know since everyone is falling under the propaganda bought by the insurance industries, I think the Dems should roll back the public option to include a means test, maybe three times the poverty level. Anyone above the poverty level would be on a stepped payment.

It would be kind of like what they are proposing now, execpt before anyone could get into it if they wanted to, but now only the lesser income can. That way everyone won't have a cow about the government taking over the system. It would be like extending Medicare.

We could try that for 5, ten years, and then open it up then, or not, later on.

And by the way, before you feel sorry for the insurance companies, I think I've heard that they are making pretty good profits by denying coverage and such. Record profits. And the CEOs get millions and millions in compensation, I think I heard one guy got a billion. All on the backs of sick people. So you don't have to cry for them. And with that excess money they have bought the media. Even the "left" media.


"making pretty good profits by denying coverage"


The dimorats have done everything they can to make sure that HSA with catastrophic coverage is less viable than expensive employer provided health insurance.

Ask yourself just why that is.

If it wasn't for the payroll tax penalty we would be strictly HSA+cat. Those millions and billions have been put in CEO's pockets by the very same crowd that now wants all that gravy for themselves. They've just been fattening up those turkeys for the harvest. And you believe they're the ones being straight with you?

Get a clue.


"Neither Japan nor any European country has a system of the kind Obama is proposing"

Uhh, yeah they do. They have a public/private mix.

"His plan is intended to, and would, eliminate the private industry in a very short time."

Where is the PROOF for that other than wild eyed tin foil hat theories? My proof is this, if a private public mix has existed in Germnay, France, etc, for decades, in the cradles of commie pinko socialism, why wouldn't it exist here? This is nothing but rampant paranoia.


My, sylvia's dropping her veil today.

BTW I think the countries with the best longevity records are the US and Japan.


Think you are wrong on that Clarice. Scandanavia is up there for sure. I'd look it up for you, but I have to go now. Feel free to post the stats.


PrintShareThisThe World Health Organization says women in Japan have the highest life expectancy in the world with 86 years.

Latest WHO figures:

WHO says men in San Marino have the longest life expectancy for their sex with 81 years.

The Geneva-based body says men from Sierra Leone are expected to live only 39 years. Women in Afghanistan will live to an average age of 42 years.

WHO says the figures are based on statistics gathered from 2007, the latest year available.

The global health agency says countries including Angola, Eritrea and Liberia have made remarkable progress while others including Botswana, Kenya and Lesotho have seen a drop in life expectancy since 1990.

The figures were among more than 100 health trends published Thursday by the World Health Organization.

Average life expectancy in the U.S. is 77.8 years old, according to the 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures — the most recent. That figure represents an average life expenctancy of 80.4 for women and 75.2 for men.


Scandanavian-Americans live as long or longer than Scandanavians. Japanese-Americans live as long or longer than Japanese. Mexican-Americans live as long or longer than Mexicans. Any ethnic/demographic comparison favors America. Any other type of comparison is dishonest. Do they exist? Oh yeah. Is that what you're looking for? Sure seems like it.


(to sylvia not clarice)


Sylvia is very confused and comparing apples to oranges. Many countries such as Norway with low, ethnically homogeneous populations, few immigrants, highly educated, healthy lifestyles and diets, etc. have higher life expectancies for factors that do not necessarily relate to health care. Most countries with public health care have mediocre health care at best, there are dozens of examples Also, are Norway or Finland in the forefront of drug development and research and medical breakthroughs? Hardly.


Yes, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, the Czech Republic

You left out Great Britain and Canada!!

snicker, snort, chortle.


Thanks DebinNC for The Dennis Miller/Mark Steyn link.

Excellent point Boris about the increased longevity of Hyphenated American's versus generic aliens.



Please at least read the transcript from the Frontline piece of "Sick Around the World". LUN

It will give a person some idea of what other countries healthcare strategies are and how they deal with the expenses.

All--outside of the US--employ some amount of rationing. And rationing is just not going to fly in this country.


You mean just because poorly nourished and badly cared for people land on our shores, their life expectancy doesn't instantly match Andorra's? Must be something wrong with out system.


Sylvia, why aren't all of those countries you admire over run with illegal immigrants? What the hell are they doing here?

Old Lurker

"Sylvia is very confused"



glaster, very good link there on the healthcare of different countries. I had already seen similar pages, but that was more unbiased and very good at pro's and con's. I think we should have a modified system like Germany's, halfway between what we have now and what they have.

I don't really know if there will be a lot of rationing. It doesn't seem like Germany has that much. Not as long as we keep a private option legal, because you can always top off your coverage with private.

And people will find a way to pay for more services. Kind of like how university services are constantly increasing, and we have Olympic pools and deluxe cafeterias no one needs because they are competing with each other. So that might be a myth.

What might happen is the salary of doctors might go down, like it is over there. Maybe not as much as Germany because that won't fly here. Maybe down 15%. But we will still have plenty of people who want to be doctors at that salary.


And here's a link to longevity. As you can see the US are not at the top, however, there might be other factors that might effect that - crime, infant mortality. But either way, the rates are all pretty close.

Annoying Old Guy

You have to be very careful with longevity numbers because they are very sensitive to infant mortality. The USA, it turns out, reports infant mortality differently in a way that increases the apparent rate, thereby decreasing the average life expectancy number.

Danube of Thought

"Uhh, yeah they do. They have a public/private mix."

Simply saying that there is a "public/private mix" does not mean that their systems are anything at all like Obama's plan. They are not, and the reason is the US tax code. During WWII the congress, it its infinite wisdom, decided to exempt health care benefits from wage and price controls and from taxation. The result has been the proliferation of employment-based health insurance. No rational employer will continue to pay its employees, in part, by purchasing health insurance for them when they know that if the cease doing so there is a "public option." A study by the Lewin Group estimates that 80 million Americans would lose that insurance and drop into the public plan, whether they wanted to or not.

Our current sytem came about as an unintended consequence of using the tax code to implement social policy. No other country, not Japan or any European country, has a system of this kind.



Doctor on Praegar says that at some big conference recently a proposal was mentioned for the hypothetical lower cost ofthe New Government plan, at which point more than 50 percent of the businesses represented in the room (which currently provide their employees a health care plan), stated they would immediately cancel that private plan and opt for the Government Plan just to cut costs. Thus, unlike Obama saying you could keep your keep previous Health Care Plan, that would no longer apply, as it would immediately be yanked out from under you by your cost-cutting employer, and you would now be stuck with the government mandated plan. So even there he's not telling the truth.


Really good article by John Stossel explaining competition in healthcare:

Give me a break. Since when is government needed to stoke competition? Competition is what happens when government lets people alone. I defy anyone to give me an example of lack of competition that doesn't have its roots in government intervention.

The comments to this entry are closed.