Shrum Lives!

Frank Rich channels his inner Bob Shrum to explain the sour American mood and Obama's declining popularity:

What disturbs Americans of all ideological persuasions is the fear that almost everything, not just government, is fixed or manipulated by some powerful hidden hand, from commercial transactions as trivial as the sales of prime concert tickets to cultural forces as pervasive as the news media.

Americans of all ideological persuasions fear "some powerful hidden hand"?  I will guess that folks on the right fear the perfectly visible hand of ever-bigger government.

Comments

[When you've lost Frank Rich.]

Punked? Yes, you can be.

[clarice]

Now you see it , now you don't.

[Captain Hate]

Typhus seems to have eaten a previous version of this, in case it shows up twice:

as trivial as the sales of prime concert tickets to cultural forces as pervasive as the news media.

I'm not going to give the old grey slattern a blog hit to see what context this is placed in, but is the hysterical queen going off the reservation?

[Ranger]

Hot Air has an example of the very vissible hand that people are afraid of. Apparently CA is demanding that taxes be paid on the IOUs they are using to pay vendors. And the state will not take those IOUs back to cover the taxes, they want actual money. This is the kind of thing that is souring the mood of the country.

[RichatUF]

Frank Rick displays not a hint of irony.

the system is in hock to “the interests of powerful lobbyists or the wealthiest few” who have “run Washington far too long.”

Classic. I wonder if the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, SEIU, or ACORN count as "interests" or if George Soros, Warren Buffet, or Oprah Winphery count as the "wealthy few".

You might wonder whether networks could some day cut out the middlemen — anchors — and just put covert lobbyists and publicists on the air to deliver the news.

So journalists don't just reguritate the talking points handed to them by think tanks or activist groups. Seems I should re-read a bit about how Fenton was able to drum up their Alar scare.

[RichatUF]

As Democrats have pointed out, the angry hecklers disrupting town-hall meetings convened by members of Congress are not always ordinary citizens engaging in spontaneous grass-roots protests or even G.O.P. operatives...

So when an angry citizenry shows up at town hall meetings to demand answers to what the hell is in a healthcare bill that will effect everyone significantly they can't be "grassroots" or "spontaneous" but they have to be GOP operatives-stooges really. But when the SEIU shows up to lock the doors to keep the angrry citizenry out of the town halls, and beat up someone passing out flags, it is really debate-it must be some sort of GOP set up.

[BB Key]

Hot Air has the C-SPAN caller from NH nailing of Manu Raju of Politico.

[I'm So Glad I'm Not a Lawyer]

Seems to be the risible finger on the hand, by the Obama-bots, if you asked me.

[centralcal]

I just saw it too, BB Key (and mentioned it on the Saturday thread). Great caller!

[Donald]

Well yeah RichatUF, what the hell did you think it was? Geez, people, get with the program.

[Gmax]

Seems like to me that the disgusting Frank Rich has had a freudian slip. The invisible hand that Adam Smith referred to in his writings as being the workings of capitalism when everyone pursues their own personal best interest, is likely what has him so animated and visibly agitated. These collectivists are so easy to read.

[JorgXMcKie]

Frank has delusions of adequacy. He contracted it from licking the boots (among other things) of the powerful for so many years.

[ben]

The AARP claims that they "are not supporting any legislation". You can see how they just pretend to be open to ideas at this meeting in Dallas on August 4th:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoMNDdQ1_h0
But if you go to their website its full of stuff about "health care myths" and "people failing to understand what Obama is proposing" which mirror the administration's talking points. Call them and ask them just who authorized them to speak in favor of Obama's plan and why they refuse to listen to the objections of the rank and file.

[RichatUF]

It maybe displacement. He sees in Obama the sort of corporatist he thought he was railing against. And now to find out that Obama's agenda: cap-and-trade and healthcare really are corporatist astroturfing campaigns and all of this time it was the GOP who was against them. It really is too much for Frank to process.

And GMax good catch on the "invisible hand".

[rhymin' simon]

what was the point of sending James Jones on the talk show circuit this Sunday morning. Is it to give the impression that the administration have everything well ion hand especially when Jones claims that they have repaired relationships with Russia and China. Was it to undercut the perception that the Clintons cut a deal with the Chinese?

Great to see the lady from New Hampshire taling Washington Post and Politico to task offering that the media has been lying. JB recall your missive about the AIG bonus kerfuffle in which acorn had to be bussed in to create the illusion of class envy. The Obama administration is guilty of projection because that is what his America coming to gether and other Soros funded NGO have been trying in vain to induce in the health care debate and it has not worked. That is why Rachel Maddow on MSNBC has to capture the web of right wing organizations that are part of the rally ahgainst healthcare at the town halls. The administration and the Soros funded organizations were dumbfounded that they were outsmarted.

It is interesting to see the Progressive response at these functions where the bright eyed college students are quoting the party line of health care is a right. How about asking these kids of how much they are willing to pay for the freeloaders rights

[Donald]

I prefer to thimk of the as having vacant eyes.

[Parking Lot]

((So when an angry citizenry shows up at town hall meetings to demand answers to what the hell is in a healthcare bill that will effect everyone significantly they can't be "grassroots" or "spontaneous" but they have to be GOP operatives-stooges really))

The idiots on the left are so mentally proscribed that they think everyone operates in the same way that they do. They are such practiced hypocrites, abhorring in others what they chronically do themselves, that they wouldn't know ~authentic~ if it slapped them in the face.

[Konscientious Kompassionate Konservative]

"folks on the right fear the perfectly visible hand of ever-bigger government."

I know. You prefer the goons on the Blackwater and Halliburton payroll than the SEIU thugs.

Obama made a mistake by focusing on the economic 'have-nots' who have no healthcare coverage. He should emphasize the bleeding out of the average Americans coverage, and the resolution thereof.

Just as no one wants to tackle the issue of homeless people because there's no profit in a solution, so too nobody cares about the plight of those left to resort to the emergency room wherein their condition has degraded to near hopeless.

The poor are always with us and it is their fault, to a man and woman.

[Rob Crawford]

Nice new sockpuppet, 'kleo. Its initials fit you.

[narciso]

AS usual you don't understand, he wants have nots as many as possible, they depend
on the government. That is the whole point
of the public option, or a cap n trade policy that ravages small business, because
they are the core of the opposition.

[Parking Lot]

((AS usual you don't understand, he wants have nots as many as possible, they depend
on the government. That is the whole point
of the public option, or a cap n trade policy that ravages small business, because
they are the core of the opposition.))

nice try narcisco but that is just too much for their tiny little pea brains to compute

[Mikey NTH]

"Shut Up!", he explained.

[Stephanie]

60plus.org

Kill AARP... get this.

[matt]

Obama is in very deep trouble if after 6 months he has massive grass roots protests and Frank Rich after him. I read the Rich column at 5:00am this morning and my OJ almost came gushing through my nose I laughed so hard.

To the Left he's not Left enough, but those evil right wingers are calling him a are now tools of the "special interests". There is an incredible unreality to this whole thing. I guess we know the August recess Journo-list meme well enough. After all, the DNC, Nancy, Boxer, and it seems 20-30 Democratic Party congressmembers have told us so.

The first tea party I remember was here in Southern California in October or so when two radio hosts went after the state legislature for the budget mess and the duplicity of the Republicans. Then came TARP. Then the Auto Bailout. Then the Stimulus. And only now Health Care.

It has been a series of lurches to the left by the administration and Congress; not just health care, and people are fed up. Our leaders do not represent us whether Republican or Democrat.

The one thing Rich got half right was the dissatisfaction with the oligarchy. The small d democrats and small r republicans do have some common ground there.

[clarice]

Listen, Cleo, if ewe buy you the lithium will you take it?

[BB Key]

centralcal
Thanks, and if you give me a LUN lesson we can save 24 hours on the next one

[matt]

a certified copy of HR 3200 is available at The Hill web site.

[Cecil Turner]

Here are two not very daring predictions: Obama will get some kind of health care reform done come fall. His poll numbers will not crater any time soon.

Here's two even less daring predictions: government subsidies will not drive down the cost of health care, and voters will turn out incumbents in droves if they vote for this abortion.

[sylvia]

See I think the Pres sold the health care bill wrong. The cost will not come down. That is not what we are going for here. What we are going for are more benefits. We want to curb the abuses in the health insurance industry and to make it easier for the self-employed to afford coverage.

We are going for more benefits and it is going to cost more. The Dems should have been upfront with that from the beginning.

But they could sell it by saying a civilized country does not let people go bankrupt because of medical conditions and do not deny coverage to people because of bogus preconditions. And they should also say that people who choose to strike out on their own and have an entrepreneuial spirit and start their own business should not be punished by having to pay more for their healthcare.

[centralcal]

LOL, BB!

LUN is very simple.

Below the comment box are a box for user name, an email box, and a url box. Simply copy any url (http://www....) of a website you want to link and paste the url address in the url box. Easy as pie.

Right now the url for me is simply the JOM website, but I can replace it anytime with any other url I choose, or none at all.

[Jane]

You are getting rationing syvia, not more benefits.

[centralcal]

Also, BB, if you use FireFox, you can add a toolbar that lets you click on a word, a phrase, a paragraph and add links, italics, bold face, etc. etc.

I only use LUN when I am surfing on IE. In FireFox I use the far superior tools.

[sylvia]

You know I hae almost given up on healthcare reform. The American people are too brainswashed and ignorant. I don't know where this push is coming from, probably big money from the health insurance industries, but the lies and propaganda are flying thick and flagrantly from the media.

They are basically equating what Obama is doing to a single payer system, when it is not, and will not be for the foreseable future. They are bringing up horror stories of rationing in England in Candaa when in fact the system proposed will be more like the public/private mix in Germany and in France. And even in England and in Canada, it is not as bad as they are pretending. Brit commenters into the London Times are laughing at our media at the inflated propaganda we are spewing out about their systems.

The progranda is crazy on FOX news, but I can't even say the left media has done much to corrrect the record. They are both being bought off. It's almost no use to fight it. I would suggest to Obama to start as small as possible and leave the fight to future administrations. This change will have to be done very slowly here. The insurance industry is too powerful and the people too easily brainwashed.

[sylvia]

"You are getting rationing syvia, not more benefits."

How is there going to be more rationing Jane when your private plan will continue on into the future? What propaganda did you buy into?

[Ranger]

Sylvia,

Why is it that whenever some massive libery killing project crashes and burns, those who most support it blame "the people." "The people" are too dumb, or too weak, or too easily confused to undnerstand the gift that is being prepared for them. Perhapse "the people" would just rather be free, and accept the elements of risk that go with that freedom as one of the prices to be paid for it.

[sylvia]

"The people" are too dumb, or too weak, or too easily confused to undnerstand the gift that is being prepared for them."

Because if you got maybe 50% of those people at those townhalls who actually had an understanding of how health insurance is run in other countries, then maybe I would concede. But I will bet a ton of money hardly any of them do. Because they do not educate themselves but also because the standard media available to them is misleading them. So because of that, they are in fact ignorant and easily led.

[ben]

"Obama made a mistake by focusing on the economic 'have-nots' who have no healthcare coverage."

Ah, faux Cleo, that's actually what he HAS NOT done. Those who have no coverage could get subsidized health insurance for a lot less money than what Obama is proposing. Nobody is against expanding INSURANCE coverage. But there is nothing in that idea for the Dems, they want a government bureaucracy they can control and milk, plus an ideological victory. It's all about politics and power, nothing about have-nots.

[jean]

SLVIA 82% of the country is satisfied with there own health care.People have been told for so long our Health Care is broken it is now taken as fact.So people say OK fix all that broken stuff I keep hearing about.When it turns out the 82% are in for changes also.they say stop I didn't mean my health care.It isn't broken

[sylvia]

You know I think this argument about government control of healthcare is pretty rich when we have the government running the healthcare for people over 65 already. And over 65 is when the bulk of your medical problems start. I would have a lot more respect for the townhallers if they started advocating a movement to abolish Medicare, so that they could have more freedom and choices over their healthcare in their later years. But where is that movement? I don't see it. I see a lot of people happy with their Medicare. Yet to extend some of that to people under 65 would be a horror story somehow.

Nah, it's all baloney.

[sylvia]

You know in fact tonight I was googling some dental insurance for my dad to see how much it cost. And from what I saw it's not available to people over 65. So when someone tryies to pay for their own coverage and not have the government involved they cant get it. I'm not sure how people over 65 get dental coverage. Actually I think it stinks and that it is age discrimination. Someone should sue these companies in court.

[jean]

Well Obamas plan takes 500million or billion(who knows anymore) from Medicare.Could be the senoirs aren't happy about that.As far as the Dental Insurance.Why leave to others what you can do?Go for it sue them

[BB Key]

centralcal
FireFox? Down here that is something we hunt on Saturday night.
I typed in the 111 character url for that segment of WJ and got a pop up ((invalid url)). Should I use the shorter url to main web site and let readers find the specific reference?

[sylvia]

I really should sue them. If I were a lawyer I would. I think if the Dems just win in eliminating the precondition clause that would help a lot. After all your medical records are private, to everyone, and there is no reason why you should have to tell anyone your medical history. Also I think they should allow competition beyond state lines. I think these two things alone will help a lot in reducing insurance cost for individuals.

With the precondition thing, it makes it difficult to switch providers, and companies can use a bait and switch tactic with low costs the first year and then they slowly jack it up. And by that time, you built up enough of a history that it becomes difficult to switch and then they can charge you whatever they want.

So if we make switching and mobility easier, I think that would help in bringing down cost. At least we can start with that.

[kiwinews]

Just because articles about the german system are not so accessible to english-only speakers is no reason to suppose their system is in any better shape than the British or Canadian system. If you do speak german, you can google AOK Bankrotte and get an eyeful. The system is financed by general tax revenue, paycheck deduction for workers, payroll tax and co-pay from the patients - and it's still drowning. If you go to the AOK website you can read their helpful online magazine's article "Before the Election" that will help you choose which party is most committed to keeping them in business as usual. Nice. Naturally the SPD is upfront that those who make more should pay more, regardless of what use they get from the system and that those whose take more should in no way be penalized for not paying into it -except they are, everyone is, by the jacked up cost of living. Germany is a country with rationed care, unemployed doctors (because their districts lack funds to hire more and the cost of starting a private practice is in the millions) Private insurance is astoundingly expensive - and of course it doesn't let you out of paying the taxes that pay for everyone else.
Naturally the "Beamten" the tenured state/federal workers have their own Kasse that offers better services (Fully qualified doctors, Chefarzt" care, clinics, specialists with no referral). There is a third Kasse for the middle class, less expensive than private insurance, if you ever opt out of it though, (say to get private insurance) you cannot rejoin it and must content yourself thereafter with the student-doctor, multi-bed-ward care of the AOK.
Freude Friede Eierkuchen.
I was there, I know.

[clarice]

Yeah--and while we're at it you should be able to insure your house even if it is presently on fire. Fair is fair!

[Ranger]

Well, if you want to understand why this thing is sinking fast, just take a look at what Jeralyn posted over at TalkLeft today:

Rather than speak in shorthand about public options and single payer and reduced costs, I want to know that under the proposed legislation:

1. Reigning in costs will not result in a reduction of health care benefits to seniors.

2. It will not result in the Government deciding what diagnostic tests or treatment procedures a person can have. It will not prevent someone from getting a second or third opinion.

3. Providing health insurance to everyone and eliminating the ability of health insurance companies to deny coverage or overcharge those with pre-existing conditions will not result in higher premiums or reduced benefits for the healthy.

4. Health insurance companies will not be allowed to revise or eliminate plans after the law passes with the result that people end up with less coverage for the same amount of premiums they are paying now.

If the proposed reform bill does not mean the above four things are true, our legislators need to admit it and explain why it's still an improvement to what we have now.

If even she is begining to question the wisdom of this whole thing, there are much, much rougher times ahead for Team Barry.

WRT 1 & 2, she obviously has not embraced the wisdom of Obama in his very clear observation that "Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers."

[ben]

"They are bringing up horror stories of rationing in England in Candaa when in fact the system proposed will be more like the public/private mix in Germany and in France."

Imagine that, people are bringing up the horror stories that actually occur, how outrageous. And who is naive enough not to believe Obama and Pelosi and Barney Frank the Dem leadership when they say their goal is single payer? Sylvia, you are the one being brainwashed. These people want the public option as a conduit to single payer and socialized medicine, everyone on both sides of the issue know what the stakes are. The people opposing a government takeover are not insurance company stooges, as Sylvia suggests, and the media coverage is not driving the protests, the protests are driving the media coverage.

[sylvia]

"Imagine that, people are bringing up the horror stories that actually occur, how outrageous."

Like we don't have our own horror stories that can be manipulated? How about a little Michael Moore movie that made the whole world think we are all dying in the streets here unless we are millionaires. Every system has their problems, but what I have been hearing from Fox and others is beyond the pale.

[sylvia]

"These people want the public option as a conduit to single payer and socialized medicine, everyone on both sides of the issue know what the stakes are. "

So what. We know what they want, doesn't mean they are going to get it. We can find a better middle ground. And besides, even IF we have a single payer system, it's not going to be Armageddon like some people are making out. Anyway fear of a single payer should not mean it's okay to lie and mislead about what's going on.

[Swen Swenson]

Comment by Sylvia

They are basically equating what Obama is doing to a single payer system, when it is not, and will not be for the foreseable future.

Really?

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said she would allow a floor vote later this year on a single-payer option for healthcare reform after Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-NY, agreed to remove an amendment he proposed for inclusion in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s version of a healthcare reform bill, which the panel passed by a vote of 31 to 28 late Friday.

"Later this year" is pretty forseeable. Given the flak the Democratic congresscritters are taking -- good job, Tea Partiers! -- I doubt we're going to see any sweeping changes to health care any time soon, but the intent is pretty clear. They aren't including single payer in this legislative round because it would be a poison pill, but they'll slip it in later because single payer is their ultimate goal.

They want nothing short of a complete takeover of health care, but thanks to their overreach they're more likely to get something cosmetic and face-saving that doesn't really do anything material. You can be sure they'll declare a Great Victory though, regardless of how useless their final legislation will be.

[sylvia]

I agree with those points Ranger. I think Obama has been very weak in selling the plan. Fault all around.

[ben]

"The insurance industry is too powerful and the people too easily brainwashed."

Sylvia is intoxicated with Obama kool-aid and we are being brainwashed?

"The progranda is crazy on FOX news, but I can't even say the left media has done much to corrrect the record. They are both being bought off."

The left wing media is not helping Obama??? The MSM is not supporting Obamacare??? ABC gave them an hour infomercial, no dissenting views allowed, MSNBC shills for Obama 24 hours a day, as do all the anchors for CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS as well as the morning shows. Obama is supported by NPR, the LA Times, NYT, 95% of editorial boards in all major markets in the country. Obama gets an hour free prime time whenever he feels like it, his surrogates are "interviewed" around the clock. And Sylvia complains about Fox News? Delusional, dishonest, bad faith, take your pick.

[Jane]

Sylvia,

I'm sure some lawyer would gladly take your case on a contingency basis. Why not go for it.

[sylvia]

"The left wing media is not helping Obama??? "

I watch MSNBC for example and hardly ever see them talk about the subject. Also CNN is very mild and lukewarm in their coverage. They could do a lot more educating if they wanted to.

[sylvia]

"I'm sure some lawyer would gladly take your case on a contingency basis. Why not go for it."

Are you being serious? Aren't you a lawyer? I really do think that it is age discrimination.

[Jane]

I watch MSNBC for example and hardly ever see them talk about the subject.

Perhaps they aren't bright enough to understand it.

[ben]

"We can find a better middle ground."

Sylvia, a middle ground is a proposal that gets 80% of the votes in the House and Senate. It's not something where Obama buys enough people in Congress to pass it by one vote and where 60% of the people oppose it. A middle ground is a proposal that expands coverage to the uninsured without bringing down the quality of healthcare for 80% of the population, without creating a huge government bureaucracy to be politically manipulated. The middle ground is something designed by non-partisan experts, not Democratic political ideologues and hacks financed by Move.on and big labor and trial lawyers.

[jean]

Sylia you maybe fine with Govt.run single payer,but I think you are finding out just how few Americans agree with you.

[sylvia]

"A middle ground is a proposal that expands coverage to the uninsured without bringing down the quality of healthcare for 80% of the population, without creating a huge government bureaucracy to be politically manipulated."

Well I'm all for that. I hope a middle ground can be found. I think it can.

Although I don't think it's going to be free, we should be honest and admit it's going to cost, but as long as the value is worth it.

[ben]

"I watch MSNBC for example and hardly ever see them talk about the subject. Also CNN is very mild and lukewarm in their coverage. They could do a lot more educating if they wanted to."

Ah, not only does the coverage have to be favorable to Obamacare, the media should also "educate" the public. Maybe the media should set up "re-education centers" for non-conformists.

What were you saying about brainwashing?

[ben]

"Although I don't think it's going to be free, we should be honest and admit it's going to cost, but as long as the value is worth it."

That's just the point. Despite the propaganda barrage more people understand Obamacare is not worth the cost, as politically motivated solutions never are. This plan is a vehicle to the mother lode for Democrats, nationalized healthcare. That's why they don't read the contents, they don't care what's in it, as long as it furthers a political cause. So this bill does not represent progress or a middle ground. The Democrats know that they can fund coverage for the uninsured tomorrow with plenty of Republican votes, but that is not their objective.

[verner]

This has been healthcare week in my family. I had to get diagnostic imaging (and did in <24 hours--all is well.) My mom got a pacemaker within 10 hours of being diagnosed with blockage. Since she's 77, I wonder how quickly she would have gotten it in Canada?

Which leads to an interesting conversation I had with one of her providers over ObamaCare. Here's an example of what's wrong with the current system...

The doc told me of a man that he has treated 3-4 times in the hospital in the last 2 months. He is a two pack a day smoker with no insurance. He developed bloodclots, and refuses to take his blood thinner (a $4 generic at Walmart) because he says he can't afford it. Gee.

This budding Darwin Award winner presents a self- resolving problem. But until he does finally pass over from that big Pulmonary Embolism that will most certainly end his life before the year is out, how much is this nimrod going to cost the system?

I think physicians and private hospitals should at least have a "three strikes you're out" policy for deadbeats who refuse to take personal responsibility.. If we're going to ration care, let's start there!

So when you think of the uninsured, think of Mr. Threehundredbucksamonthoncigarettes, who can't afford health insurance--or even a $4 life saving Rx. Is he worth turning over our entire health care system to the guvment? Um...not in my universe.

[Ignatz]

Is sylvia another of cleo's sock puppets?

Her faith in Pelosi et al not intending to implement a British style monstrosity seems even to excede the credulity of the semantic psychotic.

[Cecil Turner]

The cost will not come down. That is not what we are going for here.

Well, there's a refreshing bit of reality. Here's the rest of that point: either you pay more for the same care, or get less for the same money. And we need this why?

This isn't stupidity or disinformation, it's basic common sense. The American people know the government isn't a force for efficiency, nor does government bureaucracy improve administration. If they wanted to improve the system, they could do it tomorrow with tort reform. Obviously that ain't the goal.

[Jane]

Tort reform and allowing purchasing over state lines. I actually think the latter might be a bigger improvement. Then again I'm in Massachusetts.

[Rick Ballard]

Ignatz,

Just think of it as a severe hail storm of misguided ignorance. It's OK to watch from a covered porch, just marvel at the obvious extraordinary imbalance between the number of synapses and receptors. I'm sure she's very popular in her village. On a "there but for the grace of God..." basis, to be sure.

[Cecil Turner]

I'm sure there are other commonsense initiatives that would drive down unit cost as well. But the point is that they're not even on the table . . . and our elected "representatives" are cashing in on special interest payola whilst they ignore the interests of their constituents. And asking us to "trust them." It's a wonder it's taken this long for the pot to boil.

[Peter UK]

Has anybody costed this thing?

Advances in medicine are being made all the time. Ailment can be treated/cure which were unthinkable only a few years ago.
One problem,they cost money, the area of treatable ailments expands so does the cost.
An open ended commitment to ALL possible treaments would rapidly bankrupt your economy.
This is giving a hostage to fortune that no responsible government could or should.
At some point there will be rationing. Granny's hip operation,or a child's cleft palate? Heart transplant or a transgender operation? Drugs for depression or a cold?
Drugs for several Alzheimers patients or one cancer victim.
At some point someone will look at the budget and have to make a decision.
A growing population,means growing health care costs.Remember it is never going to go DOWN!
What to do with immigrants who have not paid into the system? No small problem.
How do you feel if triage decides it is an immigrant child and not your granny who is deserving of treatment? You are a civilised country,how are you going to reconcile that?
How do you deal decently with and aging population who have paid taxes all their lives?
So why does Obama not try to deal with these problems before setting this bureaucratic monster in stone.Once up and running it will be unstoppable and unreformable.

[Soylent Red]

They could do a lot more educating if they wanted to.

I'm going to channel my inner Captain Hate here and just posit that it is probably difficult for the creeps at CNN and MSNBC to effectively educate people with their lips so firmly attached to Obama's ass.

[Rob Crawford]

Tort reform and allowing purchasing over state lines. I actually think the latter might be a bigger improvement.

Plus cutting all the "required coverage" laws. Let people buy coverage for the things they want, and stop forcing people to buy coverage for all the crud lobbyists demand.

[Cecil Turner]

At some point someone will look at the budget and have to make a decision.

Yes, and because of the inevitable fraud, waste, and abuse (e.g., siphoning off stimulus money to benefit ACORN), they'll have to make more decisions as they try to do more with fewer resources.

[Captain Hate]

I'm sure she's very popular in her village. On a "there but for the grace of God..." basis, to be sure.

Ok that made me LOL.

[Rob Crawford]

So why does Obama not try to deal with these problems before setting this bureaucratic monster in stone.

Because he's not interested in solving problems; he's interested in expanding his authority.

Gotta love, though, that people who whined about the government looking at international phone call records have no issue with giving government unlimited access to their medical records and bank accounts!

[Janet]

Great video @ HotAir...Meet the Mob

LUN

Wish it was on the MSM. This, and the audio of Leah calling CNN

[Captain Hate]

Soylent, in truth I was thinking that the usual suspects not saying a damn thing about Il Doucheanasia is proof positive of what a massive clusterfuck it is. When shit-sifters like Olberthing can't find a kernel of corn in it, you know that it's complete ca-ca.

[verner]

Jane, tort reform would certainly help. But what really needs to happen is a reconnection of market forces to healthcare. I am a firm believer in medical savings accounts. We have one. When you pay for healthcare out of pocket with your own money, you most certainly stay aware of how much it costs.

As things are now, there is no incentive for individuals to use the system wisely.

For example, we're all going to go sometime. But any nurse will tell you that even when the end is obviously near, you'll have families insisting on doing everything possible to save their elderly loved one, no matter what the cost (since medicare is paying for it...) And if the hospital or physicians refuse, they can sue. The biggest expenditure in health care dollars is in the last two weeks of life.

If the physicians could look at these families and say "that's fine by me, but it is an obvious waste of medicare dollars and you're going to have to pay for it...", I think a lot of the nonsense will stop.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

I lost my health insurance in 2005 when my income was cut by 2/3rds and I could no longer pay the $252 mo. premium. I had BC/BS thru Cobra/GM, prior to that I had Aetna. I loved both, but I had to weigh the risk. And for me, even though I had some serious problems with my back, I figured that I was not and had never used $252 a mo. worth of health care for illness, just accident-related injuries. And even those expenses were years apart.

I still don't need that, but I could afford $100 mo. to provide a safety net. I found some coverage at $129 mo. that would pay everything, including hospitalization, IF, my need for a doctor was accident related. A fall at home, for instance, would be covered, but a cancer diagnosis/treatment would not.

Many comprehensive health care insurance policies are just that comprehensive. I would prefer the ability to mix and match. I want coverage for a couple doctor's visits a year, prescription coverage, maybe 2 x-rays a year in case of broken bones and I'd be happy. I don't need pre-natal care, maternity care, psychiatric coverage, drug/alcohol treatment, etc. yet those are included in the comprehensive plans.

We have two clinics in this area that are very good. One is a Women's clinic where you can go for mammograms, PAP smears, pregnancy tests. They charge $45 flat rate, but send you to a specialist if they find anything serious. The other is a Walk-in Clinic. They charge $65 flat rate for the doctor's visit, which is okay if you are there for something that can be taken care of in one visit, such as prescription refills, shots, or anything you might go to see a General Practitioner for. They do a heavy business in physicals for camp, sports, employment, etc. If you need an x-ray, the cost for the visit jumps to $125.

I am not yet eligible for Medicare, but I would be eligible for Medicaid should I land in the hospital. But, I can promise you, I would have to be on death's door before I would allow myself to be put into the Medicaid (welfare) system.

First of all, without TORT reform, the whole health care debate is meaningless and fruitless. Second, for the elderly, a change in Medicare which would allow some kind of reimbursement when the family takes on the care is in order. Now, if the person isn't in a nursing home/hospital, which Medicare will pay for up to their cap of $100,000, you can not get any reimbursement for home care. And there should be some kind of credit incentive for those who have to leave the job market to care for their elderly loved ones so that they are not penalized for doing so by loss of Social Security quarters for earnings and thereby put themselves in even a bigger financial hole. We reimburse foster parents when they take on children for foster care, why not have something similar for the elderly. I would make it a requirement that they are family or designated caretakers, however.

[Soylent Red]

have no issue with giving government unlimited access

No, no, no. Not "government". Obama. They have no problem giving Obama unlimited access. Because he, in their mind, is perfectly pure in motive and action.

I'm desensitized to this crap anymore. The hypocrisy doesn't even surprise me.

[Extraneus]

Hey Jane, how did you like the movie?

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

Sylvia:

Are you willing to give up your home, your savings, your monthly income in order to go under government care where they drug you into oblivion so they don't have to be bothered with you anymore? That is what is going on now in nursing homes all around this country. They hire min. wage workers to take care of you, illegals who barely speak English in my neck of the woods.

Are you willing to have the government privy to your most confidential medical records? Who would ever want to reveal anything to their doctor if they thought their most intimate problems were going into a public database with God knows who would have access?

Medicare allows you to pick your own doctor and deal with him privately. They reimburse, but they aren't in on the decisions of your care, except perhaps to set caps on certain types of procedures. That is far different than medicine by committee, which seems to be on the table now.

[verner]

PUK, people who think the cost of health care is just going to keep on going up have no imagination. Remember how expensive the first antibiotics were just after the war? Remember how expensive the first open heart surgery was to perform?

I am a believer in the market, and if left to it's own devices, I think that the market will handle it.

For example, who knows what great wonder drug the pharmaceutical companies are working on right now. Could some company be developing computer chips that transmit diagnostic information straight to the physician? Talk about early detection! What about nanobots that eat the plaque out of our arteries? Any of this could be a reality in the next decade IF we keep the government away from total control of the system.

[rick]

Sylvia,

Take a look at the French system. They are cutting back on it as we speak. They are adding a lot of the things we have here while our prez Zero is trying to copy the French.

Read the UK Daily Telegraph sometime. Almost every day there are horror stories about their NHS and its failings. They have citizens who go elsewhere to get treatment because they can't wait for the NHS to make space for them and then they sure the govt to try to get their payments back - and do. If Canada was so good why are there so many Canadians coming here to get treatment. In fact the woman who pushed hardest for the socialized care system there flew to California to get treatment for her cancer because she would have had to wait 2 years in Canada to get the treatment if she got it that fast.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Update on analysis of the long email OL received yesterday concerning HR3200 was delayed today because of extreme laziness and the performances of Tiger and the Braves.

I promise I will work on it during the Yankees game tonight.

From skimming the whole Act, I have little doubt that the questions Jeralyn asks are going to be the undoing of this monstrosity of a "healthcare reform" package.

The massiveness of the bureaucracy it sets up would be unnecessary if its purpose were not to control free choice of treatment or doctors. Now, for example, if the insurance company denies me the right to certain treatment, I can borrow money and pay for it myself. Under this plan, I am certain that if I were denied such treatment it would be unavailable under any terms.

[Peter UK]

Verner,
As you know,over prescription has negated the efficacy of many antibiotics,doctors gave them out like sweeties,patients were often to careless to finish the course,follow the dosage. Consequently there are many infections which only have one or two antibiotics which work,the are expensive.
But my main point was,that the expansion of treatments and cures will mean the overall cost will go up. If it is free at the point of use,many will be demanding a CAT scan for an ingrowing toenail.
Bureaucracy will eat up most of the funding and treatment will have to be rationed in a state healthcare system.

[Peter UK]

Frankly, I shudder to think what the Obamabots would do under a government takeover of Medicare.

[clarice]

"The massiveness of the bureaucracy it sets up would be unnecessary if its purpose were not to control free choice of treatment or doctors."

The reason for that is evident if you look at all the expanded federal programs--they are designed in significant part to employ friends of the left, social workers, paper pushers, etc. not engineers and doctors and rpoducers.
In the UK, the cops work gets more circumscribed by the moment, but there is no end to the community outreach and social worker and psychologist contingent. Too few cops and jail guards but an unbelievable number of "helpers".

[CrypticGuise]

Frank Rich is an elitist asshole who should have remained a NYTimes cultural reporter. As far as Obama's HealthCare Program/s, if the Senate slams through any Bill there is going to be a VIOLENT revolution in this country. The scumbags in Congress voting against the interests of a majority of the American Citizenry are going to get their asses kicked - literally.

[boris]

Seems to me the argument "insurance companies are already rationing your care" is about the reality that unlimited "free at point of use" would over burden the system.

Instead of a persons deductible or copay limiting demand, there will need to be a bureuacrat to do that. Of course the assertion will be the bureaucrat will do the job as good or better (and way more fair) than the invisible hand of a person's own economic self interest.

So it is an indirect way they admit rationing is necessary for this type of system. Quite sure in their mind it's a feature not a bug.

[Original MikeS]

A big intrusive government that wants to inject itself into my business. The elite group of leftists who imagine that they will be in charge of that nightmare government from hell, want to make decisions for me. They want to make decisions about my health-care, what I eat, what kind of car I drive, what temperature I set my thermostat. One crazy lady even wanted to decide how many squares of TP I use during what used to be a very private moment.

It's no wonder that some people are angry.

[boris]

"Frankly, I shudder ..."

GFY assclown.

Government medicare for the elderly is sorta like foodstamps for the poor.

It's irrelevant to the notion of the government taking over food distribution so everybody gets proper nutriotion in a fair and rationed way.

[Jane]

Loved it Ex - I rarely go to the movies, so I was mesmerized by the big screen and how lyrical it all was. And apparently a true story. My favorite part was all the references to boueff bourginone (sp). My mother gave me that cookbook many years ago and I make that dish several times a year. It is my absolute favorite. So I thought that was simply fab. (She changed the recipe in the movie I might add).

But what really needs to happen is a reconnection of market forces to healthcare.

In everything Verner - in everything.

[Peter UK]

Economics is the study of allocating resources in an environment characterized by unlimited wants vs finite resources.

When viewed in its appropriate context, rationing is by necessity present in any economic system.

[Rick Ballard]

Dear Boris,

This one lacks the intelligence to be classified as an assclown - what's two more steps down the brains ladder in the Boris Taxonomy of Trolls & Sockpuppets?

[Peter UK]

But what really needs to happen is a reconnection of market forces to healthcare.

In fact, free markets assume that both parties in an economic transaction have full and unfettered information regarding the details of their agreements.

In light of this, insurance companies should be required to publish data on recission rates, claim denials, and rate hikes for people undergoing treatment.

Without this type of basic information the existence of an informed consumer will remain a frustrating myth.

[AST]

OK, maybe "invisible hand" wasn't the best metaphor Adam Smith could have used, but how was he to know that morons like Frank Rich would take it literally? He obviously equates markets with Democrat political fixes, which may be why so many "capitalists" have become Democrats in order to use government to get around the restrictions free markets place on them.

[windansea]

Facebook poll results: Will you vote for Obama in 2012?

yes 13,220 (22.2%)
no 43,876 (73.7%)
undecided 2,416 (4.1%)

enjoy your day of rest JOMers

[Semanticleo]

Oh my God! The venereal warts are growing through my head again.Only Obama Care can help me.Free at the point of use,I can catch any filthy disease I want,the stupid winger tax payers will pay for it. Brazil here I come!

[boris]

"what's two more steps down the brains ladder in the Boris Taxonomy of Trolls & Sockpuppets?"

Imaginary offspring. Or would that be a step up? After all it's sorta like Assclownistan algebra where a step down plus a step down is a step up.

existence of an informed consumer will remain a frustrating myth

Sorta like yer offspring troll.

[Semanticleo]

My imaginary son has an "invisible hand".

[Extraneus]

Cecil: If they wanted to improve the system, they could do it tomorrow with tort reform.

This is the bottom line.

Obviously, this isn't about improvements to the health-care "system," just as it's not about globull warming when nuclear power is mysteriously absent from the discussion.

It seems fair to simply question their motives.

"If cost control is really your objective, and doctors themselves freely admit to ordering tests and increasing costs in other ways merely to defend against potential future lawsuits, yet tort reform isn't part of your solution, then why should we believe that's really your objective?"