Baucus & Grassley Hijack Obama's Agenda

Barack Obama received 67 million votes in the last election. Senator Max Baucus of Montana received 349,000 votes when he ran for re-election last year. His Republican counterpart on the Senate Finance Committee, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, got just over a million votes when he last ran in '04.

So how, exactly, was Obama's landslide victory a mandate for Baucus and Grassley to hijack the president's agenda? When it comes to healthcare reform, trusting Baucus was the first mistake Obama made. Allowing Baucus to cede so much authority to Grassley is the second.

When Baucus became chairman of the Senate Finance Committee after Democrats recaptured Congress, many Democrats were justifiably worried. After all, Baucus helped shepherd through Congress two of President Bush's signature initiatives, his tax cuts and Medicare privatization plan. He received a ton of money from corporate lobbyists, many of whom were former staffers of his. In a Nation profile in early '07, I dubbed him "K Street's Favorite Democrat."

Baucus' staff went to great lengths to convince me that he really was a progressive at heart. Just look at how he fought Bush's privatization of Social Security, even when the president came to Montana! Ok, but one relatively modesty stand does not erase a career of compromise and capitulation. Matt Yglesias came up with a fitting nickname for the Montana Senator: Bad Max.

Yet as Democrats solidified their control of Congress and Obama cruised to the White House, Baucus tried to convince his Democratic colleagues that they had nothing to worry about with him at the helm of such an important committee with jurisdiction over crucial financial matters. He endorsed Obama during the primary and Obama tapped Baucus' top aide, Jim Messina, as his chief of staff for the general election and deputy chief of staff in the White House. The hiring of Messina should've set off alarm bells among progressives, signaling that Baucus now had an influential booster in the president's inner circle.

"Max Baucus could prove a progressive legislative giant," Ezra Klein wrote just after the election. "Or he could be Bad Max." The latter, unfortunately, is what we've seen of late. Was "Good Max" always a facade?

When it came time to assemble a healthcare bill, Baucus gathered behind closed doors with the so-called "gang of six"--Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Republicans Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Grassley. As Yglesias pointed out, these six senators represents 2.74 percent of the US population, or 1/5 of California. Yet they quickly became the most influential group in the Congress. In a secret, backroom process, they disregarded the president's preference for a public option and likely killed the best chance we had for substantive healthcare reform that would cover all Americans, lower costs and give people a real choice of plans.

In a superfluous attempt to appear "bipartisan," Baucus once again bent over backwards to appease Grassley (the two have a long history and even when Baucus is holding the hearings it's difficult to tell who's really running the committee) even as Grassley falsely railed that Obama wanted to pull the plug on granny and made it clear, yesterday, that he has no intention of voting for whatever bill he is currently helping to draft. Ezra summarized the gist of Grassley's appearance on MSNBC yesterday:

He railed against "government-run health care" and the "Pelosi health-care bill." He talked about bureaucrats and exploding deficits. He sounded like a House conservative giving a stump speech. Grassley presumably leaves his stemwinders behind when he's with the Gang of Six. But this was not a comforting sign. This was not a unifying performance.

Second, Chuck Todd asked Grassley whether he'd vote for the bill if it was a good piece of policy that he'd crafted but that couldn't attract more than a handful of Republican votes. "Certainly not," replied Grassley. Todd tried again, clarifying that this was legislation Grassley liked, and thought would move the ball forward, but was getting bogged down due to partisanship. Grassley held firm. If a good bill cannot attract Republican support, then it is not a good bill, he argued.

Grassley, in other words, is working backward from the votes. If the Gang of Six reaches a compromise that the Senate Republicans don't support, Grassley will abandon that compromise, regardless of the fact that he's the guy who built it. The Gang of Six, in other words, falls apart if it can't assure a vote of 76.

Grassley is clearly the one who's off his meds. Democrats are rightly asking themselves what's the point of a 60-vote, supposedly filibuster-proof Senate majority if a crazy Republican from Iowa can derail their agenda? How can Baucus rely on Grassley? And why did Obama ever trust Baucus? Does he still? The answers to these questions will help determine whether healthcare reform can be salvaged in Congress.

Comments (336)

1. You asked and answered your own question, Mr Berman-

   "So how, exactly, was Obama's landslide victory a mandate for Baucus and Grassley to hijack the president's agenda?"....

   "When Baucus became chairman of the Senate Finance Committee after Democrats recaptured Congress..."

   Remember the bitching and moaning, typically from your colleague Mr Nichols, over "executive power running roughshod over the legistlature"?

   Well, he got what he wants...Congress is running the show, not the President. Only NOW, he probably doesn't like it, since it's not the agenda HE (and you) want.

   Sorry, you want the Legislative Branch to have more power over the Executive under Dubya...fine. But smme standard applies under Obama. And SOMETIMES, Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders are just 2 of 100.

   Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 10:47am

2. Why does Obama seem to have more difficulties with Democrats in Congress than Reagan did?

   Posted by Mistral at 08/18/2009 @ 11:16am

3. This is all so typical of Democrats in Congress, and I vote Democrat. Get the power and then go hunting for a foot to shoot which turns out to be your own. This is a Democratic tradition. For some reason Democrats hunger to appease conservatives. The American people just kicked conservatism in the teeth this last election and yet here we have the Democrats worried that without bipartisan support nothing can get properly done. Conservatives will not be appeased no matter what Democrats do because they hate the Government. I don't really understand this hating Government thing. A conservative will tell you the US is the greatest country in the world, but it's Government is evil. How does that work? People who have been in the Government for years say Government is the problem, not the solution. Well, then what are you doing as an elected official? Why are you working for an evil entity? Don't say, "To make it smaller." because that's not what conservatives have been doing the last eight years. They made it bigger. They made it more intrusive and they made it . . . What, less evil? The Democrats have got to stop fawning over Republicans and leave 'em behind. They don't want to play ball so get them off the field.

   Posted by DavidDurham at 08/18/2009 @ 11:25am

4. Health care reform of any real sort is dead. The Democrats are to blame.

   At this point, given the fact that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are calling the shots with this legislation, what we are likely to get is going to be more a "reform" that makes them richer, not anything that improves conditions for people who work. I'd rather have no health care legislation at all now. We can try again with the next presidency.

   Posted by syfriendly at 08/18/2009 @ 11:26am

5. Baucus & Grassley are clearly "in it for the money." Unless of course they're starry eyed reverse apparatchiks dedicated to the "free enterprise" system.

   These guys should wear suits emblazoned with the corporate logos of their health insurance sponsors, a la the way Nascar drivers do it.

   Posted by Sorelish at 08/18/2009 @ 11:27am

6. It's becoming a lot of fun to watch the unraveling of the left over this issue.

   Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 11:38am

7. Could we see the crumbling of the wall of marxist "liberalsim" in the US?

   I'm reminded of this great song by Pink Floyd-Another Brick in the Wall

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_bvT-DGcWw

   Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 11:51am

8. Just because one Pink Floyd song is never enough

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntm1YfehK7U

   Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 12:03pm

9. antisocialist-We are not seeing the crumbling of Marxism in America.You guys will continue to find Marxists hiding under your beds just as many on the other side will always find Zionists and nazis hiding under their beds.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 12:08pm

10. Now don't give up hope on this, it's not dead yet. Enough House Demos are standing up to block any health care bill without a decent public option. The thing to do is keep the pressure on those who are wavering (this now includes the White House apparently) and support those who are standing up for the public option. Do some homework. Find out where your Rep. stands and write them. Send the White House a few words while you're at it. Remember that the polls that show Americans aren't happy with the Administration's approach to health care doesn't mean that the people have decided they are against reform. Those numbers include both the anti-reformers and progressives who want real reform. The people want reform, don't let anyone spin these numbers to reflect otherwise.

    Posted by DavidDurham at 08/18/2009 @ 12:09pm

11. The people want reform, don't let anyone spin these numbers to reflect otherwise.

    Posted by DavidDurham at 08/18/2009 @ 12:09pm

    Better look again.

    And the numbers keep falling.

    <In a new NBC News poll set for release Tuesday afternoon, a plurality of Americans now oppose a government-run plan -- 47 percent to 43 percent. That's a shift from last month's poll (released in conjunction with The Wall Street Journal) when 46 percent said they supported it, compared to 44 percent who did not.

    In another sign of discontent with the looming overhaul, some 60,000 senior citizens have severed ties with the AARP since July 1. The membership loss suggests dissatisfaction on the part of AARP members at a time when many senior citizens are concerned about proposed cuts to Medicare providers to help pay for making health care available for all.>

    http://tinyurl.com/r85r6q

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 12:12pm

12. Maybe the next time a genuine progressive like Ralph Nader runs for president, the Nation Magazine might at least do us the favor of holding back on the vitriol now that your giddiness over Obama's victory now seems rather inexplicable. The only way genuine progress will be made in the USA is independently of the Democratic Party even though the people in the driver's seat at the Nation obviously have class ties to this crappy, racist, imperialist political party.

    Posted by lnp3 at 08/18/2009 @ 12:23pm

13. Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 11:38am | ignore this person | warn this person

    You're definitely an expert on unraveling. It's going to take a psychologist a long time to figure out exactly at what point you started coming undone.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/18/2009 @ 12:27pm

14. I just can't seem to get that Barry McGuire song out of my head:

    "Liberal heads, they are explodin'..."

    ["Eve of Destruction", 1965]

    Posted by sntauri at 08/18/2009 @ 12:28pm

15. Posted by Mistral at 08/18/2009 @ 11:16am

    He didn't have too much trouble signing the 1986 Tax Reform Act which raised corporate taxes, did he?

    Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 12:32pm

16. Posted by sntauri at 08/18/2009 @ 12:28pm

    Possibly. The only thing that might ruin it for your side would be...

    one of those "ordinary, patriotic Americans" showing up with the GUNS at the President's town halls doing something "crazy".

    Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 12:35pm

17. We voted for change which meant we don't listen to the republicans again. Obama tried it his way by conceding to repub and it didn't work. The time to compromise had ended. The next problem I have seen for years and years.....The democrats haven't got a set of balls between them!. It is time Obama and his staff call in all the democrats and tell them how it is going to be and that he and the country want single payer. Toss out ALL the compromises. The repubs are going to say no and that is how it has been for 6 months. The time has come to draft the bill Obama wants and shove it to the people, ask for them to contact their reps and Senators. He said he couldn't do it alone but all I see are demo's bitching and whinning and not backing him up with letters and emails and phone calls. Yes, we elected Obama and it is our job to help him pass what he wants. It is our job to turn a deaf ear to the repubs lies and distortions. It is the press' job to tell the TRUTH on issues and stop spreading the lies and bs of others that are flat lying. We, obviously, have some very ignorant people in our country which goes to show that education has failed

    Posted by greenriverkate at 08/18/2009 @ 12:36pm

18. Since when in our judicial system is it okay to lie. There should be NO lies allowed in politics. Boy, bet that would get rid of 99% as most don't even know the truth anymore. Look what we have become. It is a sad day in this country when lies are believed by ignorant people and they ignore the facts on everything. Many just read a headline. We also need to change the way a bill is drafted. We need a law that clearly states, nothing will be added to a bill that doesn't pertain directly to the bill! If these congressmen want pork, let them all draft their own bill. Next, we need to outlaw ALL lobbiests. We need to forbide them to talk to any congressperson. We need to stop payola. These people have totally forgotten they are there to represent the American people and to protect us from big business. It has become all about the money. We must have a law that specifies ways congresspersons can make extra monies (speeches, what ever but not by lobbiest or big business) If this doesn't change, our country will continue to slide down that illegal slippery slope.

    Posted by greenriverkate at 08/18/2009 @ 12:45pm

19. You're definitely an expert on unraveling. It's going to take a psychologist a long time to figure out exactly at what point you started coming undone.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/18/2009 @ 12:27pm

    Not undone at all. I have a great life, with many wonderful friends. I'm planning right now through my next youth cycle as I'm getting ready to start surfing again! I enjoy good music, parties with friends, good food and wine, not bad at 60.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 12:49pm

20. Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 12:49pm

    I'm betting that "move to El Salvador" has been put on hold, though...right?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 12:56pm

21. A quick little demographics fact.... Des Moines, Iowa is one of the largest insurance capitals in the world.

    At one time it was reputed by the Des Moines Chamber of Commerce to be third, behind London at number one and Hartford, Connecticut at number two.

    Whether or not these rankings are entirely accurate, the fact remains that the state Grassley represents is very, very heavily into insurance. Of the life, casualty and health varieties.

    As well as home to a little company called Frank Magid Associates, the 50 year old television consulting firm responsible for cute little news reporting concepts such as "if it bleeds, it leads".

    But I'm certain neither of these industries have had any influence on Sen. Grassley's beliefs regarding health care reform, or the way in which he deals with those beliefs publicly.

    Posted by lumenpro at 08/18/2009 @ 12:56pm

22. I'm betting that "move to El Salvador" has been put on hold, though...right?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 12:56pm

    the move to El Salvador is still a posssibility but is taking a back seat to my current move downsizing to a small place at the beach. that part is consistent with my lifestyle of having a small economic footprint. Having good food, wine, friends and the ocean is more than enough for me.

    And El Salvador has become a big location for surfing so that is part of the future.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 1:05pm

23. We are gonna win!! We are gonna get the Public Option!! I predicted it, I am going to gloat, everyone call your Senator. We are gonna get healthcare!!!!!

    There will never be a mandate without a Public Option!!!!!!

    Posted by DPGrassley at 08/18/2009 @ 1:06pm

24. We are gonna win!! We are gonna get the Public Option!! I predicted it, I am going to gloat, everyone call your Senator. We are gonna get healthcare!!!!!

    There will never be a mandate without a Public Option!!!!!!

    Posted by DPGrassley at 08/18/2009 @ 1:06pm

    Too many Red Bulls there young person. you have let the caffeine and sugar overcome whatever brain cells were working in your body.

    We have lots of healthcare in this country. We will not have the totalitarian take over that you dream of.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 1:16pm

25. antisocialist-You have yet to show that there is a desire for totalitarian control by the left and just keep repeating the statement.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 1:26pm

26. Having voted in several Montana elections, I always felt the same queasy feeling I felt when I voted for Obama over McCain. Sometimes a good choice just doesn't exist. Finding a progressive in Montana is about as easy as finding a labor organizer in the Federal Reserve. Baucus is a Specter / Lieberman - style self-obsessed opportunistic con artist. Come to think of it, so is Obama.

    Posted by DejaVu at 08/18/2009 @ 1:45pm

27. antisocialist-You have admitted that you do not know any people who are on the left and yet you make vast judgments about people that you admit to not knowing.I know people on the left,like my wife and her friends,and they are not totalitarian nor do they have any desire to control the population.Many of you people,on both sides,need to get together and get to know each other so you can stop being so paranoid.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 1:47pm

28. If we continue to expose that Baucus, Grassley and Conrad are puppets of the insurance companies and continue to put pressure on them, I think they'll come around.

    Time to start playing hardball with these fools to ensure we get a strong Public Option at the very least.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/18/2009 @ 1:55pm

29. "You're definitely an expert on unraveling. It's going to take a psychologist a long time to figure out exactly at what point you started coming undone...." syfriendly.

    Have I Told You Lately That I Love You('re comments?)

    Posted by DejaVu at 08/18/2009 @ 1:55pm

30. Big Government has always posed a bigger threat to my freedom or quality of life than any one Big Business. ... It was FDR who put all those Japanese-Americans in interment camps, not Standard Oil.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 10:28am

    It's called reparation after a nation commits an inequity in order to make amends.

    But along a similar line-- imagine if the nation of Japan had lobbied our gov after bombing Pearl Harbor, demanding the USA not to go to war with them-- negotiating only that they'd reduce the amount of their bombing of us...

    Now, I'd say fine to no public option if the Medical Industrial Complex had already insured our poorest. Rather they only state they'll bomb the rest of us less. Our poorest already being dead to them.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/18/2009 @ 12:57pm

    Yes, I do see this as a clear cut case of class warfare. The rich and powerful want one thing, profits, the poor and defenseless needing another, life.

    When 'liberty' and the 'pursuit of happiness' of the very few precludes the 'life' of the many-- these priorities we've enumerated as the basis for our nation, have become clearly flawed.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/18/2009 @ 2:21pm

31. It isnt caffeine, it isnt Red Bull, it is HATRED against your kind, Anti-Socialist. "We have health care", yeah right. You pay the insurance company tens of thousands of dollars for decade after decade, then they cut you off - recission - pre-existing condition - you're bankrupt anyway. Go ahead and tell us your lies Conservative about how you and every one of your friends and family got rich from working hard and has premium health care. You anger me for than the 1,000,000 times the maximum possible amount. If I was President you would be hanging from a flag pole. Americans who work hard need help, we are tired of going bankrupt even with insurancej - because of your kind. DOWN WITH BI-PARTISANSHIP!!! GIVE THEM A TASTE!!! We are gonna win!!!

    Posted by DPGrassley at 08/18/2009 @ 2:24pm

32. The Democrats are merely doing what they've been paid to do.

    But how any ordinary citizen who works for a living can support and defend the health insurance conglomerate is beyond my understanding.

    Posted by Citizen54 at 08/18/2009 @ 2:45pm

33. Well anti socialist, perhaps the folks quit AARP because they found out United Health Care was behind their insurance. They were wondering why they were getting screwed so badly when Shawn was telling them about a government bureaucrat could get between them and their doctor. Then they woke up from their real life nightmare and found a faceless bureaucrat was already pulling the strings with their insurance."How could this be",they asked indignantly." He never lied before did he."Their translator told them with a touch of sorrow in his voice, "he did ,yes, he did". That will be the lesson to seniors when they realize they have been duped by the conservatives. For what do our seniors have left. They have their memories and pride. So keep stealing from their Social Security fund and take away their Medicare. When it is your turn and things haven't gone your way watch people turn up their collar on you and see what it is like.

    Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 3:19pm

34. "In another sign of discontent with the looming overhaul, some 60,000 senior citizens have severed ties with the AARP since July 1. The membership loss suggests dissatisfaction on the part of AARP members at a time when many senior citizens are concerned about proposed cuts to Medicare providers to help pay for making health care available for all.>

    http://tinyurl.com/r85r6q"

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 12:12pm

    Come on, Anti. I mean, really.

    The AARP has 40 million members. So .15% have canceled specifically citing (the likely misunderstood, you know, things like "death panels") efforts at health care reform. Wow, that's signifcant.

    "The approximately 60,000 number represents members who specifically cited AARP's stance on the health overhaul debate in canceling their membership between July 1 and mid-August, Nannis said. He said that on average AARP loses some 300,000 members a month, but he couldn't say how many more members had quit for other reasons in that time period.

    He said AARP gained some 400,000 new members during the same period and that 1.5 million members renewed their membership."

    http://tinyurl.com/rbnge8

    Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 3:26pm

35. The Obamanation that makes desolation and his Demoncrats are idealogically the definition of mass confusion. The Obamanation has gone from the "Apologist in Chief" to the "Racist I.C.", to "Liar I.C.", to "Spammer I.C." and still thinks he is "Campaigner I.C. "never realizing he actually did win an election!

    All the Demoncrats want is to retain their power mad grab as long as legislatively possible and are on a tear to establish as many and as many entrenched demoncrat bureauracies as possible to solidify their failing power with Americans.

    American see the failure of socialist Medicare and Medicaid both of which have dug such a "black hole" of national debt to remain almost unsalvageable.

    They will not countenance MORE Demoncrat follies with the working citizens healthcare which is already subsidizing illegal aliens by the millions and the nonworking socialogical dregs who are capable of working and earning but won't!

    At least Clinton was able to see the folly of welfare, but these fools have undone what he accomplished!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/18/2009 @ 3:28pm

36. I see another half wit awoke from his nap. For fun try to have one thought that is connected to some sort of reality would you. I mean even someone who can read is able to do more than blab slogans and try harder than you have. You are a disgrace.

    Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 3:35pm

37. "American see the failure of socialist Medicare and Medicaid both of which have dug such a "black hole" of national debt to remain almost unsalvageable."---Posted by BigPasture at 08/18/2009 @ 3:28pm

    So, RIO....why are NONE of the Republicans proposing scrapping them???

    Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 3:39pm

38. "American see the failure of socialist Medicare and Medicaid both of which have dug such a "black hole" of national debt to remain almost unsalvageable."

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/18/2009 @ 3:28pm

    "..."Medicare versus Private Insurance: Rhetoric and Reality," by Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis and colleagues, Medicare out-performs private sector plans in terms of patients' satisfaction with quality of care, access to care, and overall insurance ratings. The survey found that elderly Medicare beneficiaries are 2.7 times more likely than enrollees in employer-sponsored plans to rate their health insurance as excellent and less likely to report negative experiences with their insurance plans. Medicare beneficiaries are also one-third as likely to say they couldn't get health care because of cost than are those covered by employer private insurance plans. The survey also found that elderly Medicare beneficiaries were more likely to report being very satisfied with the care they received compared to those with private insurance (62% vs. 51% respectively)."

    http://tinyurl.com/c2d73n

    Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 3:48pm

39. Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 3:39pm

    Well, I think Medicare and Medicaid are perfect examples of how difficult it is to uproot existing govn't programs, even when they are underperforming and/or inefficient.

    Funny how you would ask why none of the Republicans propose scrapping them, Mask, when you, as a political animal, are fully aware of the answer.

    But you are very disingenuous as a rule.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/18/2009 @ 3:54pm

40. I guess the big is out to pasture. It begs the question can the conservatives manage to totally dismantle these programs. They have attempted plenty over the years. The minority party is trying to keep its nose above water in Tampa Bay.

    Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 3:56pm

41. Now if a legislative heavyweight, such as Lyndon Johnson, had been elected, he would have had no trouble putting through his plans.

    On the other hand, this land war in Asia might have some difficulties...

    Posted by Mistral at 08/18/2009 @ 4:03pm

42. antisocialist-You have yet to show that there is a desire for totalitarian control by the left and just keep repeating the statement.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 1:26pm

    right...let's take a quick overview

    1. Seniors cannot opt out of Medicare-govt control put in by the left

    2. progressive income tax put in by the left and cited by Marx as a key to a communist state

    3. Recently the govt took over control of the largest Insurance company in the world.

    4. Recently the govt took over control of two of the three American auto manufacturers.

    5. The left is calling for the Fed govt to take over the healthcare system.

    6. Most on the left want the govt to take greater control of the educational system.

    7. The left wants even more progressive taxation-which means more Federal govt control

    4. The left (which does include Obama and the Dem Congress) have quadrupled our Fed deficit in just a few months of control.

    Seems pretty conclusive to me.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 4:05pm

43. "Looking ahead to the Immigration Reform debate, we want to make it clear that since illegal immigrants now get free education (due to Education Reform) and free health care (due to Health Care Reform), there can be no objection to amnesty and granting citizenship immediately, since it won't cost anything more than it does now."

    Who could argue?

    Posted by sntauri at 08/18/2009 @ 4:09pm

44. This again demonstrates the complete failure of the Democratic Party to create real change. The military budget keeps expanding, the wars continue,AIPAC still rules the government, Wall Street gets welfare, and real affordable healthcare is not being fought for. Liberals and progressives need to face the truth: the Democrats are using you and leading you nowhere. (I voted for Nader.)

    Posted by philbq at 08/18/2009 @ 4:12pm

45. Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 3:48pm

    Despite your attempts to defend these black holes of debt, Medicare and Medicaid have bankrupted the country.

    Medicare/Medicaid is in the red to the tune of 54 TRILLION DOLLARS.

    The official comptroller general report says by 2050 it will consume 100% of all Federal Tax revenue.

    And Medicare/Medicaid is one of the prime drivers of higher healthcare costs. Because of the limits placed by the govt on Medicare/Medicaid re-imbursement, doctors and hospitals are forced to pass on the costs to the insurance carriers who then pass on the costs to consumers.

    As an example, if a procedure is only reimbursed by Medicare for $25 and the doctor or hospital has figured the cost to be $75, the additional $50 is added to the price they charge private insurers.

    That is one of the central reasons that the left's cry for universal medicare is such a joke. Either you will have to nationalize all medical care and put these people on a Fed payroll at reduced wages from their current earnings, or the system will continue to bankrupt the US.

    Or what is the best solution is to get the Fed govt completely out of the healthcare business.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 4:23pm

46. Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 12:12pm

    I wonder how many members AARP loses in a month due to...death?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/18/2009 @ 4:26pm

47. Hey antis do you think this is true ? Are you a conservative fear guy? Did you talk to Chuck Grassley and get the update on the senior citizen provision of the health care bill? Karl Marx huh, at least you are thinking hard but it is still laughable. AIG, the great bastion of thieves. Too bad we didn't take over the crooks at United Health. They only are reporting record profits in the worst economic situation since the 1930's. You don't think they are gouging the public do you? Oh, is that why health care reform is on the table? I guess that is why the insurance industry is throwing $1.5 million a day at our Congresspeople. We make popsicle sticks in this country,I believe we should have enough sense to have a manufacturing sector. You don't believe it is necessary but then don't you want 10% unemployment all the time. Sixteen percent of our money is spent on health care. That only leaves one sixth of our population uncovered. What a crazy number,have you no shame. We don't want to educate our children we want them to think like you.I think we should borrow more money from the real "Communists"don't you? We have been doing it to finance our "war on terror". At the same time the "Communists" are beating us Capitalists" at our own game. Guess what boys and girls, we are back to the masquerade called" antis". The only thing you are close to are the stimulus package cost which was caused by George and his band of merry men.

    Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 4:42pm

48. Freiheitz, you had the option of ignoring what Mask asked, and you chose to respond to Mask instead. So what I dont understand is why you didnt answer the question.

    Posted by DPGrassley at 08/18/2009 @ 4:42pm

49. Cost explosion is the reason for Medicares problems . Can guys on the right add and subtract?

    Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 4:44pm

50. Once the conversation quietly shifted from "health care reform" to "health insurance reform", you knew any meaningful improvement in health care in the US was finished. Frankly, I will never understand how Americans think. So many are worried that the "government" will make their health care choices yet have no problem allowing an insurance company bureaucrat who gets paid for rejecting claims do so. I am grateful to live in a country where I have the choice of private care or single-payer universal care. It would never even occur to me to seek sub-standard medical treatment in the US. American paranoia about "socialism" (something not one in ten Americans even understands) is symptomatic of an inherent weakness of character and/or native intelligence. Of course, to a resident of a region victimized by US violence and greed for two centuries, the gradual erosion of American influence isn't necessarily a bad thing. Poor health care can only facilitate the process.

    Posted by saroman0414 at 08/18/2009 @ 4:44pm

51. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/18/2009 @ 4:26pm

    Well, we all know a good way to increase that number regardless! Don't we Stephen? C'mon, let's ask Zeke Emanuel!

    Haha, just kidding. Clearly he's not for the killing of old people whose value to society has diminished, even though he wrote in the context of which medical services should be guaranteed to all Americans, "An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."

    Obviously that would never happen in a government controlled monopoly, with all of its inherent compassion...

    But by then it'll all be settled law, so it would be okay, right?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/18/2009 @ 4:45pm

52. Posted by saroman0414 at 08/18/2009 @ 4:44pm

    Haha, but YOU sure understand socialism, don't you.

    You've succinctly identified the entire premise of "Obamacare":

    "Of course, to a resident of a region victimized by US violence and greed for two centuries, the gradual erosion of American influence isn't necessarily a bad thing. Poor health care can only facilitate the process."

    Well done saroman0414! But you've blown the cover.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/18/2009 @ 4:49pm

53. But don't feel too bad. We already knew.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/18/2009 @ 4:53pm

54. Despite your attempts to defend these black holes of debt, Medicare and Medicaid have bankrupted the country.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 4:23pm

    Anti,

    I make no attempts to defend the debt, simply to state that more people on Medicare are satisfied with the service they receive than those on private insurance. However, I'm all for improving efficiences and eliminating fraud in the system. Something the Obama adminsitration is actively pursuing.

    "Experts estimate that abuses of Medicaid eat up at least 10 percent of the program's total cost nationwide--a waste of $30 billion a year."

    http://tinyurl.com/mkp9up

    The Justice and Health and Human Services departments have expanded criminal ''strike forces'' that existed under the Bush administration, most recently to Detroit, but also have committed about half a billion dollars to fraud prevention efforts this year. They are working on sharing suspicious billing information with Medicare -- an agency notorious for paying claims fast without verifying them -- to help stop fraud and waste.

    Experts estimate the huge entitlement program loses at least $60 billion to fraud every year, with Miami-Dade County at the center of the national crisis."

    http://tinyurl.com/qdcp46

    I'd like you to prove your statement that the medical providers pass along additional costs from lower Medicare payments. Or is that just an assumption?

    Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 4:53pm

55. Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 4:05pm

    Larry, Larry, Larry....

    1. I don't see a huge outcry of seniors trying to get out of Medicare. The throngs you imply exist seem to be are silent on the matter, evidently.

    2. So, Marx was right about everything he said? Progressive taxes brought you the highway system you use to see your family, among other things.

    3. Yes, because conservatives let loose of the governmental oversight and regulatory reins in your mad rush to allow unbridled Capitalism to run free which allowed the corporations to do whatever the hell they wanted, the rest of us be damned.

    4. See #3 above.

    5. See #3 above.

    6. Who is this "most" you cite? Lefties want strong public education because like health care, we believe it is a right that is not enumerated in the Constitution, rather than a privilege, as you believe.

    7. Your statement seems a little paranoid to me. Progressive taxation, within limits, will NOT lead to a socialist state, not matter how loud you scream, Mr. Antisocialist.

    8. Your statement is, in my opinion, one of the most disingenuous things you've ever posted (and I think you've posted a few doozies). Obama was handed a load of crap from the previous administration. You know that but have let your blind love to all things W get in the way. That load of crap included a failing and greedy banking industry (which would have plunged us into a worldwide depression), a failing auto industry, a failing and greedy health insurance industry, a greedy and recently rewarded for that greed big Pharma industry, not one but two wars (neither of which was included in a budget) which were put into the budget under Obama, a homelending crisis due to the aforementioned greedy banks....I could go on.

    Still seem pretty conclusive to you?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/18/2009 @ 4:53pm

56. antisocialist-The "left"is not calling for the government to take over health care nor is Obama and the democrats in congress leftists.There are a fair number of moderate and conservative democrats. Once again,you guys on both sides come up with your lists that you think shows totalitarianism or fascism,etc,but nothing really changes in the real world and no one notices that they are being controlled by fascists or Marxists so this stuff must not be so bad since no one notices it..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 4:58pm

57. Obama was handed a load of crap from the previous administration.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/18/2009 @ 4:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    They're still having to put up with the same excess crap....cleaning that crap out is going to take more than four months.

    Posted by jarshadow at 08/18/2009 @ 5:08pm

58. Or what is the best solution is to get the Fed govt completely out of the healthcare business.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 4:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I knew I was gone to long, now you've beat me to castigating our socialist medicare and medicaid which Flaim set himself up for!

    Doctors, Hospitals, HMOs, Health Ins. Co. all spend necessary dollars to combat healthcare FRAUD, and the U.S.A. government simply sweeps the billions of fraud under the carpet daily because of lack of enforcement and NO intentions of aleviating the opportunity for fraud! Probably over 50% of the debt is attributable to that.

    Most these idiots want the opportunity for fraud to INCREASE by starting another government black hole of debt!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/18/2009 @ 5:11pm

59. 2. progressive income tax put in by the left..."

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 4:05pm

    Adam Smith, Mr. Invisible Hand himself, was a leftie?

    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    "The Wealth of Nations"

    Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 5:12pm

60. You are a disgrace.

    Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 3:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Cost explosion is the reason for Medicares problems . Can guys on the right add and subtract?

    Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 4:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Where ever you live, don't move! Everytown deserves a local idiot!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/18/2009 @ 5:15pm

61. "Doctors, Hospitals, HMOs, Health Ins. Co. all spend necessary dollars to combat healthcare FRAUD, and the U.S.A. government simply sweeps the billions of fraud under the carpet daily because of lack of enforcement and NO intentions of aleviating the opportunity for fraud! Probably over 50% of the debt is attributable to that."

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/18/2009 @ 5:11pm

    BigP, do you actually read?

    "The Obama administration is aggressively pushing Medicare fraud prevention along with criminal prosecutions as the president seeks to expand healthcare coverage for millions of uninsured Americans."

    http://tinyurl.com/qdcp46

    Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 5:16pm

62. Government meddling in healthcare is what created this monster. Expecting government to fix healthcare is like giving the alcoholic another bottle of booze to cure them. It seems that most here who identify themselves as progressives are in fact bartenders.

    Posted by liberty4all at 08/18/2009 @ 5:19pm

63. Hey BP, I believe the phrase is "village idiot". But your right to say so.

    Posted by liberty4all at 08/18/2009 @ 5:22pm

64. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/18/2009 @ 4:45pm

    I googled Zeke on Wiki...

    So because Ezekiel Emmanuel (Jew), a bioethicist and known opponent to euthanasia, is brother to Rahm Emmanuel (Jew), who is the White House Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama (Black), and he (Zeke) wrote a couple of papers about abstract and philosophical statistical and ethical realities of patient care throughout a human's lifespan and just happened to write that one of the hypothetical patients should be hypothetically called "Mrs. White," (I'm not kidding), Michelle Bachman (White), Betsy McCaughey (White) and the rest of you right wing nutjobs (mostly White), including you, "freiheit" (with a vaguely...is that a GERMAN nom de plume?) decided you all had uncovered a vast medical conspiracy created by the Jews to kill all us poor White Christians and our poor White Christian grannies who get medical care from the "socialist government program known as Medicare." Right?

    God, I LOVE conspiracy theories! (and long sentences)

    From Wiki: Of the 1996 Hastings Center Report, Emanuel said, "I was examining two different, abstract philosophical positions to see what they might offer in the context of redoing the health-care system and trying to reduce resource consumption in health care. It's as abstractly philosophical as you can get on a practical question. I qualified it in 27 different ways, saying it wasn't my view."[23] He also said, "As far as rationing goes, it's nothing I've ever advocated for the health system as a whole, and I've talked about rationing only in the context of situations where you have limited items, like limited livers or limited vaccine, and not for overall health care."[24]

    (continued)

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/18/2009 @ 5:24pm

65. "Doctors, Hospitals, HMOs, Health Ins. Co. all spend necessary dollars to combat healthcare FRAUD..."

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/18/2009 @ 5:11pm

    Oh yeah, they're reallly SPENDING money to combat fraud...

    "FBI and HHS agents raided the suspects' two Miami-Dade businesses, ABC Home Health Care and Florida Home Health Care Providers, while prosecutors froze their bank accounts.

    The prosecutions follow Medicare's suspension of billing privileges for 10 Miami-Dade home healthcare agencies that charged more than $100 million for suspicious services to treat homebound diabetic patients -- including false claims for nurses injecting their insulin shots twice a day."

    http://tinyurl.com/qdcp46

    Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 5:25pm

66. (continued to freiheit)

    Emanuel said that his words were selectively quoted, and misrepresent his views. He said, "I find it a little dispiriting, after a whole career's worth of work dedicated to improving care for people at the end of life, that now I'm 'advocating euthanasia panels.'" [25] Emanuel spent his career opposing euthanasia and received multiple awards for his efforts to improve end of life care. Emanuel said, "It is incredible how much one's reputation can be besmirched and taken out of context" and "No one who has read what I have done for 25 years would come to the conclusions that have been put out there."[26]

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/18/2009 @ 5:25pm

67. Hey out to pasture you don't care about it so be quiet.

    Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 5:30pm

68. Why is it that with some people 'Government meddling' is always what caused the problem, whatever the problem may be? We just went through 8 years of unregulated finance and what happened? Here was the conservative's big chance to show us progressives that an unregulated free market would lead to bigger and better things. Well, it didn't. It lead us right into a disaster of almost epic proportions. Big Business showed its true colors with a frenzy of greed and arrogance. Big Pharm and insurance companies are no different. Greed trumps the nation's health and arrogance trumps reason. After the last 8 years I'm supposed to trust corporations to fix health care? Sorry, but I just don't trust them to fix anything but their bottom line. Give me a public option.

    Posted by DavidDurham at 08/18/2009 @ 5:53pm

69. greenriverkate,

    You say: ".....Yes, we elected Obama and it is our job to help him pass what he wants....."

    You forget, that not only you and other lefties (your "we" above) but many other people elected Obama also.

    Many of those people voted for Obama because they thought he would fix the economy. They believed he would be bipartisan. They voted for "change", not for Socialist Utopia.

    In fact, there was cackling and glee on this website from some after the election along the lines that "see, Obama is not the hard leftist you "cons" said he was, he is going to govern as a centerist and be bi-partisan...he is not a leftist....what is socialism, anyway?, Obama is not socialist, etc etc etc".(my paraphrasing)

    That all changed on Inauguration Day, when it was pedal to the metal with the socialist agenda.

    Many people who voted for Obama did not vote for this proposed overhaul (libs call it "reform") of our health care system that Obama is proposing, and they did not believe that this would be pursued.

    Obviously, the hard lefties who voted for Obama did vote for him hoping for this socialist health care, but most middle of the road people did not.

    Many people not only do not agree with Obama's original proposals, but they are not at all happy that the attempt was made to shove it down their throats. If you remember, Obama tried to run this through Congress and have it approved by the end of July, before anybody would have a chance to even know what was in the proposed bills.

    So, you need to remember that not all who voted for Obama voted for Socialist medicine.

    And consider those who did not vote for Obama, such as me, who don't want socialist medicine either.

    Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2009 @ 5:55pm

70. Stephen, seriously I was just being facetious. I don't believe Zeke Emanuel is for 'death panels'. No one rational could or would.

    Haha, but I loved how you wove the conspiracy theory! Great stuff! :-))

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/18/2009 @ 6:03pm

71. DavidDurham,

    It was Rep. Barney Frank (D) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D), who promoted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, promoted the availablity of mortgages to people who may not be able to keep up with those mortgages, that had a large part to play in causing the financial crisis last fall.

    You have misrepresentated what caused the financial meltdown, by saying it was "unregulated finance" and an "unregulated free market".

    Government intervention in the normal functioning of markets regarding the availablity of credit is more to blame than what you cite.

    I am also tired of hearing pharmaceutical companies referred to as "Big Pharm". It costs an enormous amount of up front investment to develop the life-saving medicines that we now take for granted. Those things did not appear out of nowhere by magic. If pharmaceutical companies operating in a free market system had not existed we would not have those medicines today.

    Leftists always cite big business or "corporate America" as villians but these same leftists do not mind having the things big business and "corporate America" produce available to them to make their lives better.

    Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2009 @ 6:04pm

72. What barely25, Liver and Ziticin-Carrion are doing here is what the repubs are doing with the townhalls, the MSM, it's beyond astroturfing, it's carpet bombing their bullshit to drown out real dialog and the concerns of those in real need.

    Most think that greed trumps need if the MSM bends over and takes it like a greedy little whore.

    Not so with Beck.

    Which then begs the question-- is Obama just waiting for the lunatic right to go too far too?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/18/2009 @ 6:07pm

73. I'd like you to prove your statement that the medical providers pass along additional costs from lower Medicare payments. Or is that just an assumption?

    Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 4:53pm

    How about this source from the American Prospect on Alternet (both leftist sources)

    <In 1989, the system implemented an explicit fee schedule that effectively set the prices doctors could charge their Medicare patients.

    Thanks to the cost-containment efforts, Medicare has actually managed to hold down its costs as well as, if not slightly better than, private insurance. But the program's victory over skyrocketing costs was far from complete. When Medicare reduced its payments to the providers of medical services, the providers turned around and charged more to other payers of premiums, whether insurance companies, employers, or individuals. This is known as "cost shifting." The net shift is impossible to know, because doctors and hospitals try to shift some costs back onto Medicare as other sources of revenue diminish.

    Service for service, procedure for procedure, Medicare already pays less than most private insurers. Every time a new cut looms, many doctors threaten to stop seeing some or all Medicare patients. That hasn't actually happened yet, according to the Center for Studying Health System Change, perhaps because few doctors can afford to shun such a large group of paying patients. Another reason could be that Medicare, although not the most generous financier of medical care, is one of the quickest. But at some point, cutting fees must restrict access.

    http://tinyurl.com/q8j3pz

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 6:08pm

74. Back to the author's question of why democrats gave such an important position to baucus? Everyone who tows the party line eventually gets a go at the congressional goodie bag of lobbyist perks when their party is in power. Same reason that ole byrd from wv got his turn too.

    Posted by liberty4all at 08/18/2009 @ 6:11pm

75. The prosecutions follow Medicare's suspension of billing privileges for 10 Miami-Dade home healthcare agencies that charged more than $100 million for suspicious services to treat homebound diabetic patients -- including false claims for nurses injecting their insulin shots twice a day."

    http://tinyurl.com/qdcp46

    Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 5:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Exactly, home health care is NOT doctors, hospitals or healthinsurance! It is a vehicle provided by and ENABLED by medicare -medicaid and an easy way to perpetrate FRAUD!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/18/2009 @ 6:13pm

76. Hey BP, I believe the phrase is "village idiot". But your right to say so.

    Posted by liberty4all at 08/18/2009 @ 5:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Europeons and the Clintons have the corner on that, we just have towns and cities!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/18/2009 @ 6:17pm

77. sjchermak-Just as many on the left take advantage of what big corporations make many on the right take advantage of government programs and all that the government does.humans are funny critters.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 6:19pm

78. Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 6:08pm |

    I thought they just kept ordering Medi-care payments for other services from the same patient (who knows if they even run the tests and provide care) to compensate themselves for the hassle of treating riff-raff that can't pay top dollar.

    Like Rick Scott and his $1.7B fine for fraud.

    Now he's with 'Conservatives for Patient's Rights' spamming against reform to keep his golden geese a-layin'

    What a country.

    Posted by snowball777 at 08/18/2009 @ 6:19pm

79. bigpasture-America has places that are called villages.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 6:20pm

80. I don't know too much about economics, so please forgive my ignorance. However I do have a few thoughts about this issue.

    1. Why should access to healthcare have anything to do with income? If someone is sick or injured they need to be treated. This not only benefits the person who is ill, but society itself. It is also a very basic matter of caring for our fellow humans.

    2. Why should health insurance have anything to do with employment? People who are laid off or out of work are more likely to need healthcare, but they are the very people who often lose their health insurance. If anything, the unemployed should be given priority, so they can become well and able to work again.

    3. Regardless of what their mission statements may say, the main goals of health insurance companies seem to be to take in as much money as possible and deny claims whenever possible. Rather than paying huge premiums to companies who do not care about patients, why not pay taxes to cover these services based on NEED (i.e. according to doctors, not insurance companies). I see no reason why these services couldn't be paid for out of taxes in much the same way we pay for highways and other public services. To me this is common sense. It certainly is not totalitarianism or Marxism.

    Posted by rosy at 08/18/2009 @ 6:22pm

81. Here's a cautionary tale from last week's Canadian Press. The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Anne Doig, has described the health system as in crisis. "[Canadians] have to understand that the system that we have right now -- if it keeps on going without change -- is not sustainable," she said. "We all agree that the system is imploding. We all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize."

    President Obama set out to reform health care not because Americans were clamoring to profoundly change our system, but because he wishes to transform the relationship between the individual and the state. The Congressional Budget Office has punctured the risible claim that a Democratic revamp of the American health-care system would save money over the long haul. The president is now losing momentum as his ungrounded promises run smack into certain realities. A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 89 percent of Americans are satisfied with the health care they receive. And surprisingly, even 70 percent of the uninsured reported themselves as either "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their health care.

    Canadians, researcher John R. Lott reports, were asked the same questions in a Harris survey. "In most comparisons, Canadians were more satisfied than uninsured Americans, but just barely, and they were nowhere near as satisfied as insured Americans." Seventy-seven percent of insured Americans were happy with their ability to access timely non-emergency care. Only 60 percent of Canadians were. And while large majorities of Canadians say they prefer their system to ours, far more Canadians than Americans (26 percentage points difference) express frustration at not being able to "see top-quality medical specialists.

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/18/2009 @ 6:23pm

82. David, I wouldn't expect a collectivist to understand how we haven't had a free market for over a century now. But I fully understand how a collectivist would try to pin our current problems on the policies of the last 8 years, the other side of the establishment is in power now. Until you partisans figure out it's us(citizenry) against the establishment, the system will continue on unabated of the corruption that's rampant in politics.

    Posted by liberty4all at 08/18/2009 @ 6:23pm

83. A 2001 survey asking American and Canadian medical professionals about health care in their respective countries found that only 51 percent of Canadian doctors rated their country's emergency-room care as good or excellent, while 72 percent of U.S. doctors rate their care so highly. The hospital administrators who were surveyed painted a similar picture: 88 percent of American intensive-care units were rated as good or excellent, compared with only 70 percent of those in Canada; 81 percent of U.S. operating theaters earned the high rating, compared with 62 percent of Canada's; and 84 percent of admins in the U.S. thought their diagnostic and imaging technology made the grade, compared with only 49 percent of those in Canada.

    Since the Canadian Supreme Court's 2005 decision ruling that Quebec could not lawfully forbid a citizen from paying privately for medical care, private clinics have begun to spring up around Canada (though it varies by province).

    Canada is a nice country. For the sake of its citizens, I hope its medical-delivery system continues to evolve toward more competition. I hope the same for ours. (thanks to Mona Charons insight)

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/18/2009 @ 6:24pm

84. "Exactly, home health care is NOT doctors, hospitals or healthinsurance! It is a vehicle provided by and ENABLED by medicare -medicaid and an easy way to perpetrate FRAUD!"

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/18/2009 @ 6:13pm

    Right, there are no doctors involved in home health care. Keep right on, digging BigP.

    Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 6:24pm

85. Posted by rosy at 08/18/2009 @ 6:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Ever heard of medicare- medicaid?

    As Antisocialist pointed out it is in the red to the tune of 54 TRILLION DOLLARS.

    Actually I believe the LATEST figure is now 70 Trillion in the RED!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/18/2009 @ 6:29pm

86. sjchermak, Most economists feel Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were certainly a problem, but one that has been greatly overstated by Wall Street who wants someone else to take the rap. Still, you have a point. As for Big Pharm, the loin's share of drug research is publicly funded and is conducted at universities. A 1982 law written in part by Bob Dole allows drug companies to secure patents on drugs produced by this research.

    Posted by DavidDurham at 08/18/2009 @ 6:32pm

87. bigpasture-It is quite sick to wish that the medical profession move towards competition.It is quite sad that greed is what motivates someone to try to help their fellow human.Of course,you Christians know that Jesus healed for cash only and promoted living for money through more competition.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 6:33pm

88. Hey scmomak, You are another koolaid drinker. Was the money given to the Big Banks a hard left turn? Wow $2 trillion, what a socialistic type of move. Just think of the left wingers it helped on Wall Street. The housing crisis seems to be going on and on. That tells me that you are wrong. Those people were a small part. The bigger part was the home construction people fooling the American consumer that they needed a 4 bedroom home for 3 people. There a huge amount of high end homes available in the Minneapolis market. Derivative traders caused a near collapse in our banking system. Again ,another liberal phenomonom. You flat out do not know the cause because you fail to acknowledge the thieves involved. You have bought into Big Pharma and how much it costs. I don't think anyone thinks drugs are developed for free. I have a problem with the seemingly unending commercials which begs me to ask what is the advertising cost percentage in pharmaceuticals. Please defend the health insurance companies next. I believe they will probably re invent health care with youy telling the story. You make me look long on fact and short on conjecture.

    Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 6:36pm

89. Anti,

    Cost-shifting is also a tool used by the insurance companies in other ways.

    Many years ago health insurance was pure insurance. If 100,000 people lived in an area and it cost $1,000,000 per month to provide care for all 100,000 then everyone paid their fair share and paid $10.00 plus a small administrative fee per month and everyone was covered. The cost was evenly spread out among the population, everyone was taken care of and no one suffered a severe loss. But the insurance industry figured out that all those younger people in high school and college almost never spent any money on health care. So the insurance industry started offering experience rated policies based on age, demographics, employers, etc. and those students now only had to pay $5.00 per person per month. The insurance industry had a marketing advantage and captured a healthier base of patients at lower risk and made a better profit. Problem was that the rest of the population that was older and sicker had to now pay a higher premium in order to balance the system.

    So, a public option would essentially force the private insurers to compete with a lower-cost government program and cost-shifting would have to be eliminated for them to remain competitive.

    Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 6:38pm

90. Of course, the cat was let out of the bag earlier in the thread when saroman0414 showed he didn't get the secrecy memo and blurted out the real motives behind Obamacare... "Of course, to a resident of a region victimized by US violence and greed for two centuries, the gradual erosion of American influence isn't necessarily a bad thing. Poor health care can only facilitate the process."

    That's it!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/18/2009 @ 6:41pm

91. "It was Rep. Barney Frank (D) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D), who promoted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, promoted the availablity of mortgages to people who may not be able to keep up with those mortgages, that had a large part to play in causing the financial crisis last fall."

    Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2009 @ 6:04pm

    I am really tired of this old canard:

    "Federal Reserve Board data show that:

    * More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

    * Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

    * Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

    The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday...

    Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble."

    http://tinyurl.com/4nao53

    Remember GWB's "ownership society?"

    Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 6:48pm

92. Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2009 @ 6:04pm

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't the whole problem, sjcherm.

    What about Countrywide? Largest home lender in the country: gone. What about Washington Mutual? Largest lending bank for new homes in the west and fourth largest bank in the country: gone.

    What about the billions of "toxic assets" Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and EVERY OTHER BIG BANK IN THE COUNTRY got into, that we the taxpayers are bailing out, while they give their CEOs huge bonuses with our tax dollars?

    Huh? Wake up.

    You like to blame the government for everything that goes wrong and give it none of the credit for what goes right (unless a Republican is in charge).

    Government has two (actually three) health care systems that work (albeit with some problems): Medicare and the Veterans Administration. Medicaid also works.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/18/2009 @ 6:52pm

93. Posted by BigPasture at 08/18/2009 @ 6:29pm

    I am breaking my own rule by posting this.

    Hell, Big Pasture, have some balls and just go for the even number and call it a $100 Trillion!

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/18/2009 @ 6:54pm

94. Like Rick Scott and his $1.7B fine for fraud.

    Now he's with 'Conservatives for Patient's Rights' spamming against reform to keep his golden geese a-layin'

    What a country.

    Posted by snowball777 at 08/18/2009 @ 6:19pm

    Scott had no part of that fraud. It occurred before he took over. The investigation began before he took over, lasted several years and found no fault with the company's practices after he took over. this is typical of the misrepresentation of the facts that is posted on leftwing cites and then cited by people like yourself.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 7:09pm

95. Which then begs the question-- is Obama just waiting for the lunatic right to go too far too?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/18/2009 @ 6:07pm

    A very good question that I have wondered about myself. He's a strategic thinker, unlike Bush, who is simply all guns blazing. "Kill em all first and we'll sort it our later!"

    Like the supposed "deal" Obama made with Big Pharma...

    I think he (Obama) can't fight the pharmaceuticals and the insurance companies at the same time, so perhaps this is an example of "divide and conquer?" Big Pharma got exactly what they wanted under Bush. Keep them quiet (or even better, advertising for you) while you take on Big Insurance and (hopefully) get a strong Public Option, then use the strength of the (now done and signed into law) Public Option to "renegotiate" all the sweet deals Big Pharma got under Bush.... I mean, what's Big Pharma gonna say, "He lied to us when he made a deal!" as they pout?

    Not inconceivable, because I do think, all political naivete aside, Obama is a pretty smart community organizer. It's just that this is a pretty big community he's trying to organize.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/18/2009 @ 7:10pm

96. ...or I could just be projecting my wishes upon him...

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/18/2009 @ 7:11pm

97. Ari Berman writes: "...trusting Baucus was the first mistake Obama made. Allowing Baucus to cede so much authority to Grassley is the second."

    The above presupposes that the President intended to enact real health reform. But as the late John N. Mitchell once declared "Judge us not by what we say but by what we do."

    The Huffington Post reported on July 7th that Rahm Emanuel has been trying to sabotage the public option since January. Did this go on under President Obama's nose for six months without his knowing about it?

    The President, unlike his predecessor, is anything but negligent, ignorant or stupid. It's hard to believe that he did not anticipate the likely consequences of delegating authority to individuals with known track records.

    In short, based on the Mr. Obama's actions, one must ask whether he ever had any intention of pursuing real health reform (or any part of a progressive agenda).

    Posted by eastriverliberal at 08/18/2009 @ 7:23pm

98. There is no question our broken health care system stems from greed and exploitation of the sick. As an example, since Medicare covers only 3 days in the Intensive Care unit, during those 3 days our elderly patients endures countless painful and unnecessary procedures. After the 3 days, they are immediately referred to Palliative Care- some death panel devised by hospital administrators.

    Posted by nursevic at 08/18/2009 @ 7:23pm

99. "Scott had no part of that fraud. It occurred before he took over. The investigation began before he took over, lasted several years and found no fault with the company's practices after he took over. this is typical of the misrepresentation of the facts that is posted on leftwing cites and then cited by people like yourself.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 7:09pm

    Anti, how can you take over a company you started?

    "Scott previously started a for-profit hospital chain in 1987 that later became the $23 billion Columbia/HCA."

    "The investigation revealed that the hospital chain had been bilking Medicare while simultaneously handing over kickbacks and perks to physicians who steered patients to its hospitals. ... The company did not fight the charges.

    In 2000, HCA (which by then had expunged "Columbia" from its name) pleaded guilty to no fewer than 14 felonies. Over the next two years, it would pay a total of $1.7 billion in criminal and civil fines.

    In 1997, Scott was forced out as head of the Columbia/HCA healthcare company as the result of a fraud investigation conducted against the company in the 1990s. The firm eventually pleaded guilty to charges that it overbilled state and federal health plans, and paid the government a record $1.7 billion in fines. Scott argues that he was never charged with any crime and that other health-care companies have also received fines for overbilling. However, court records show that the illegal activities during his tenure as chief executive officer were so extensive that he knew or should have known about them. One of the government complaints alleges that he was actively involved in kickback schemes in which doctors were illegally given large incentives for making referrals."

    http://tinyurl.com/lp6v3d

    Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 7:37pm

100. Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 7:37pm

     I don't have time to find the article again right now. But I've previously found another article that completely refutes the one you cite.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 7:46pm

101. Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 7:09pm |

     "Columbia Healthcare was formed in July 1988 by Richard Scott, a lawyer and Richard Rainwater, a financier."

     Nice try, Minitrue, but you can't conflate when fines were paid with when offenses occurred.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7o1pphlLnY

     Say it with me, Anti, "Committed fraud for OVER A DECADE".

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/18/2009 @ 7:47pm

102. "I am really tired of this old canard: "Federal Reserve Board data show that: * More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. * Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. * Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics. The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday... Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication."

     Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 6:48pm

     And I'M getting rather tired of people here spreading disinformation to keep Barney Frank from getting his share of the blame. From wsj online:

     "How did we get here? Let's review: In order to curry congressional support after their accounting scandals in 2003 and 2004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac committed to increased financing of "affordable housing." They became the largest buyers of subprime and Alt-A mortgages between 2004 and 2007, with total GSE exposure eventually exceeding $1 trillion. In doing so, they stimulated the growth of the subpar mortgage market and substantially magnified the costs of its collapse."

     Posted by twillie at 08/18/2009 @ 7:50pm

103. whatizz,

     You said "......Derivative traders caused a near collapse in our banking system. Again ,another liberal phenomonom...."

     You were attempting to be sarcastic.

     Slick Willie signed the bill into law prohibiting the federal government from regulating financial derivatives.

     So your sarcasm failed, because you were correct instead! It was a liberal phenomenon.

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2009 @ 7:55pm

104. "And I'M getting rather tired of people here spreading disinformation to keep Barney Frank from getting his share of the blame."

     Posted by twillie at 08/18/2009 @ 7:50pm

     Share of the blame is quite different from "large part to play in causing the financial crisis."

     Note, i quoted:

     "Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent."

     And twillie, Fannie and Freddie don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans. I'd say the private lenders had a "large part to play in causing the financial crisis."

     Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 8:06pm

105. "American see the failure of socialist Medicare and Medicaid both of which have dug such a "black hole" of national debt to remain almost unsalvageable."---Posted by BigPasture at 08/18/2009 @ 3:28pm

     +++

     Yo, how about the cost of your two dirty little wars? Don't hear any complaining about that. What is it? Ten billion a month in each location? Ten billion a week? Talk about black holes. But hey, we love our wars more than we care for our fellow Americans.

     Posted by Citizen54 at 08/18/2009 @ 8:17pm

106. Yo, how about the cost of your two dirty little wars? Don't hear any complaining about that. What is it? Ten billion a month in each location? Ten billion a week? Talk about black holes. But hey, we love our wars more than we care for our fellow Americans.

     Posted by Citizen54 at 08/18/2009 @ 8:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Very well spoken, 54....hey Reps, don't forget the 4,000+ dead.

     Posted by jarshadow at 08/18/2009 @ 8:30pm

107. ... and that doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of Iraqs killed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

     Posted by rosy at 08/18/2009 @ 8:57pm

108. FLaim,

     You say: "...I'd say the private lenders had a "large part to play in causing the financial crisis......"

     FLaim, that is because the government promoted the granting of loans to those who may not be able to pay them back. Fannie and Freddie were the vehicle by which some of this was "backed up" by the government. The lenders themselves did not create this out of thin air, and start this on their own.

     Read this:

     Who caused the meltdown? Democrats! Their meddling with the market triggered the nation's economic crash Rick Berg on Thursday 10/30/2008

     http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=24167

     The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (think Jimmy Carter) strongly encouraged banks to make mortgage loans to borrowers who either did not have the capacity or intention to pay them back. Banks that failed to meet their quota of dubious loans were singled out for federal regulatory scrutiny.

     The drive to put every American in his or her own home accelerated dramatically in the 1990s, when Bill Clinton and his Democratic friends decided that homeownership was an entitlement, not a privilege. They turned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the engines to deliver to all Americans their housing birthright.

     On Sept. 30, 1999 (more than a year before George W. Bush's "eight years of failed policies" began), The New York Times ran a remarkably prescient piece on the dramatic influence of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the exploding sub-prime loan market.

     "Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders," the paper reported. This "will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans."

     to be continued

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2009 @ 9:05pm

109. FLaim,

     continuation of article above

     According to the Times, this meant that Fannie Mae "is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."

     Wow! The Times foresaw the $750 billion bailout coming way back in 1999. But for the Democrats, it was damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. Iceberg? What iceberg?

     By 2004, alarms were going off again in Washington about Fanny and Freddie. And just look at what Democrats were saying at a House hearing that year:

     Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.): "We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac."

     Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.): "I don't see anything in the [regulator's] report that raises a safeness or soundness problem."

     ============

     had enough for now?

     ==============

     Stephen_Carver1:

     This posting and the one above also answer your concern that other lenders besides Fannie and Freddie were involved...you cited Countrywide and Washington Mutual......it is all part of the same thing....the same mess caused by Democrat pressure on the mortgage industry to grant risky loans as well as Slick Willie de-regulating the securities industry with regard to derivative trading.

     Yet, despite this, Rep. Frank and Sen. Dodd were screaming and howling in Congress condemning everybody but themselves for the blame.

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2009 @ 9:11pm

110. About Medicare and their deficit, I say this:

     1) if the HMO's had control over seniors' health care then services would be 10% of the volume of present services under Medicare (you know the bottom line). And really our seniors would be dying by thousands! THEY would be REALLY pulling the plug on grandma just by not plugging her on the first place.

     2) Why is it that HMO's - and Reps - have not ever claimed that seniors should be taken care for in the private system? Because THEY KNOW that at that stage of life you CANNOT MAKE PROFITS with people unless you kill them or charge them their total assets value. Ergo they want to take care only of young and healthy (and no existing condition) people to maximize their profits.

     3) The last point proves that at least a certain degree of medicine socialization is absolutely NECESSARY since - as Social Security - younger people need to make for the differential of the higher cost of treating seniors. (That's real in every civilized society).

     4) So we got Medicare and Medicaid carrying with the heaviest load of care while the HMO's get the money.

     5) It is not surprising that Medicare does not keep up with Hospital costs. HMO's dictate their terms to Hospitals and introduce such administrative margins and inflates costs at such rate that Medicare can't keep up. Many are just BOGUS costs! Nothing more than another source of revenue!If the HMO's lost 1/2 their strength with a public option, I would not be surprised that the 0.65 are quite real.

     6) Finally, if HMO's are making so much money without taking care of seniors. We could only envision what could a public option do when participating in the "healthy people market".

     7) Nothing compares to peace of mind. Canadians don't go broke - or discriminated - when in ailment.

     Posted by Frank42 at 08/18/2009 @ 9:28pm

111. Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2009 @ 9:11pm

     Now we're going back to Carter to explain the financial crisis?

     "The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods. The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operations) in all communities in which the bank takes deposits. The law does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution. Federal regulations dictate agency conduct in evaluating a bank's compliance in five performance areas, comprising twelve assessment factors. This examination culminates in a rating and a written report that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank.

     The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution. An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA."

     "Community Reinvestment Act". - Federal Reserve Board (FRB)

     And, sjermak, you do recall why the act was implemented, yes? It's called redlining.

     Rick Berg? I wouldn't call that impartial journalism.

     Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 9:36pm

112. "And twillie, Fannie and Freddie don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans. I'd say the private lenders had a "large part to play in causing the financial crisis." Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 8:06pm

     Oh, FLaim..... If fannie and Freddie tell private lenders they'll buy any and all mortgages, what do you think private lenders will do? Disappoint Fannie and Freddie? Nope. They'll make more loans. Unless someone reins in F & F. Which Barney Frank blocked.

     Posted by twillie at 08/18/2009 @ 9:53pm

113. Posted by twillie at 08/18/2009 @ 9:53pm

     Twillie,

     It sounds like you agree that it was private institutions greed that had a "large part to play in causing the financial crisis." And that Frank was just stupid. Sort of like the vast majority of congresscritters that voted for the war authorization without even reading the NIE.

     "Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market."

     And you and sjchermak should probably be reminded that the CRA regulations only applied to commercial banks and thrifts, not investment banks and non-bank lenders. Other than the institutions mentioned by Stephen_Carver1, New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest also come to mind.

     As of January 1, 2007, New Century was the second-biggest subprime mortgage lender in the United States

     "On 1 August 2005, Ameriquest announced that it would set aside $325 million to settle attorney-general investigations in 30 states to settle allegations that it had preyed on borrowers with hidden fees and ballooning payments.

     Former employees from Ameriquest, which was United States's leading wholesale lender, described a system in which they were pushed to falsify documents on bad mortgages and then sell them to Wall Street banks eager to make fast profits. There is growing evidence that such mortgage fraud may be at the heart of the Financial crisis of 2007–2009."

     http://tinyurl.com/q2m2gv

     Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 10:10pm

114. Schmomak, Bill was just following in the footsteps of George 1. He was just getting ready to be a money pig He is no liberal but better than G1. I think it is interesting that he has a foundation tied together with G Sr. For you to say the derivative swap game is a liberal phenomonon is pretty good. Its Barney's fault,its Bill's fault. Who started this mess ,the great American hero,Ron the Front man. He started the deregulation phase in American government. So lets call a spade a spade. It's Ron"s fault. Remember this quote when he stopped funding for community colleges in California. They aren't voting for me so why should they go to school on me. How about our friend Al Greenspan, he did not play a part in this tragedy did he? You quoted the New York Times you must be desperate. In 2003-4 Congress was controlled by the conservatives. You must havev to many facts swirling around you to keep straight.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 10:13pm

115. Now we're going back to Carter to explain the financial crisis?

     Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 9:36pm

     no way.

     carter/volcker had some ballz!

     reagan messed everything up.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2009 @ 10:25pm

116. Seems to me Obama's reason is fairly clear. It is the same reason behind the utterly unconditional trillion dollar give-away to Wall Street. It is the same reason behind opposition to any real oversight of the government arms now bolstering the major financial corporations. The same reason behind secret meetings with big Pharma and health insurers.

     This is a president who never believed the rhetoric of his campaign. He is a slave (sic) to big business and the wealthy.

     Posted by hsansom at 08/18/2009 @ 10:34pm

117. For the Democrats, just cleaning house isn't enough. They need to totally abolish private financing of public political campaigns altogether. Most of our peer nations have publicly funded campaigns and the will of the people is served. Private money has no place in our election process anymore. The only thing our elected representatives should be worrying about is what their constituents want, not how they are going to pay for their next election. Thom Hartmann has this nailed down. Democrats have the most to gain from publicly funded campaigns because they are the populist party. The republicans get most of their political influence from gigantic support from small numbers of ultra-wealthy companies and individuals eager to gain political partners to help them make profits. This forces everyone involved to do the same, pandering to forces who seek to harm Americans for profit. That's how you permanently remove the Republicans as a political force, take money out of the picture. When we have real representation, opposing laws which support for the American people will be politically impossible.

     Posted by Milhaus at 08/18/2009 @ 10:43pm

118. "reagan messed everything up."

     Posted by frosty zoom at 08/18/2009 @ 10:25pm

     Watch it, Frosty! You're talking about the Republican god!

     I've always wondered where the NRA was when Rappin' Ron Reagan signed the Mulford Act.

     Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 10:51pm

119. I hope that all liberal Democrats in here feel as disgusted with obama as I do. He has been a disappointment before he got in. FISA was unforgivable. He is a coward and we need to let him know how we feel. He is an appeaser. And fool and a idiot if he believes republicans are normal. They are a step away from being full blown traitors!!! We as Democrats need to rally for an intelligent, experienced, electable candidate to take over the presidency in 2012. obama has got to go. Stop making excuses for this person. My goodness, he is related to cheney. Doesn't that make you sick enough?!

     Posted by Tiger2Lover at 08/18/2009 @ 11:20pm

120. What kind of country is this?

     Gun toting goons are showing up at political events where the President is speaking.

     What does this mean?

     Is anyone disgusted and shocked?

     Posted by koroviev at 08/18/2009 @ 11:59pm

121. Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2009 @ 9:11pm

     Yo, Sherm, if things were so horrible in 2004, 2hy didn't the Republican Congress, the Republican Senate, or the Republican President do anything about it, huh?

     I actually have little to no argument, with that exception. However, you conveniently left out anything and everything Reagan did to screw up the situation...which was A LOT!

     Mostly because your argument proves almost exactly what I try to acknowledge on this site: Republicans and Democrats contribute to the problems of this country. However, Democrats believe in regulating big business (sometimes)...Republicans do not (at all). Therefore, it more a matter of viewpoint as to who is "at fault." My overall point is, and always will be, that of the two devils known as the Republican and Democratic parties, I prefer the Democrats because they at least don't believe in screwing the American people over at the drop of the hat.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 12:51am

122. Posted by Tiger2Lover at 08/18/2009 @ 11:20pm

     who do you recommend?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 12:55am

123. It is over.

     All this pie in the sky deliverance that was expected from a black president--merely because he was black has been shown for just what it is--delusion!

     Insurance companies have stolen the health care debate. This should come as no surprise in a capitalist culture that lives and thrives under only one simple premise and motivating factor--MORE!

     These clowns, be they Republican or Democrat live with only one primary goal in mind--protecting wealth and killing anything and everything that prevents its continued accumulation. With NO working class voice or representation to fight them, these people will savagely do whatever it takes to the keep the ill gotten gains they have acquired since Reagan and Clinton rolling in their direction.

     Union decimation--done.

     Environmental protection--gone.

     Separation of church and state--laughed at.

     Corporate regulation--nonexistent.

     In the name of profit--the wages, living conditions, and health care of regular people has steadily been dismantled over the last forty years. This is not opinion, mine or any others--this is fact. Plain and simple, any and all sense of public entitlement has been replaced by a corporate one.

     Now, capitalists of both parties and (and all colors it seems) want nothing more than to place a stick in the grave site of their accomplishments, putting an end, once and for all any hope of a national health care plan that infringes on the "right" of health care companies to continue with their insane profit margins.

     This is called Capitalism folks.

     It will take much, much more than a black president to effect the meaningful "change" necessary to combat these cancerous swine.

     It will take revolution. And not the kind on an Apple computer ad.

     Posted by emmaG at 08/19/2009 @ 01:19am

124. I've carefully watched Obama's public meetings - the clumsy and counter-productive analogy of the post office and FedX; the recent lukewarm "if we have the public option", as though it's just a possibility etc.What's clear is that Obama is not a conviction politician, and I believe that this whole charade is shaping up like a Greek tragedy. He's still perceived by the likes of The Nation as some sort of flawed idealist who's allowed his healthcare scheme to be hijacked. Crap!The man has never had his heart in even a watered-down version of the long-standing European and Canadian healthcare schemes. Think about it. Why, in the first instance would he choose pharmaceutical industry lobbyist Daschle as Secretary of Health?If you want to open a pub, do you appoint someone from the Salvation Army to manage it?

     Posted by pongacat at 08/19/2009 @ 01:24am

125. Obama is a buffoon.

     When Reagan came to power he didn't begin by implementing his arcane supply side economic philosophies by first asking if we could all just get along. He compiled a team of like minded amazons--and shoved it up our @#%^.

     Since then, the terms of what it means to live in a civil, democratic society has swung so far the right of center, Obama need not concern himself with fairness--things haven't been "fair" for decades--if they ever were.

     It is high time this president showed just a little toughness and demonstrated some principle rather than just a need to be liked.

     Power will be relinquished by force--not debate!!!

     The time for talk is over.

     Posted by emmaG at 08/19/2009 @ 01:42am

126. Baucus is a Specter / Lieberman - style self-obsessed opportunistic con artist. Come to think of it, so is Obama.

     Posted by DejaVu at 08/18/2009 @ 1:45pm

     I fear you may be correct. Well, if no substantial healthcare reform takes place one thing will happen for sure. More Americans will lose their health insurance as it continues to go up in price while wages are stagnant, jobs are being outsourced overseas etc.

     You rethug morons will get your wish. Everyone living in the U.S. can work for minium wage or less with no healthcare and be thankful to be an AMARIKUN.

     While you are at it, why should businesses contribute to 401k's or any form of retirement for their employees? Lets get rid of social security, medicare, medicaid, pension plans, 401k's , and let private corporations charge tolls for using what used to be public infrastructure. No more using the highway for free, it isn't a right after all. No more public schools because education isn't a right either. Children should work to earn their keep because after all, if you can't pull your own weight, you really don't deserve to exist. Survival of the fittest and wealth belongs to the wealthy, not the workers anyway.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/19/2009 @ 07:12am

127. to sjchermak

     Like many people unfamiliar with the "financial community" you say "You (the left) have misrepresentated what caused the financial meltdown, by saying it was "unregulated finance" and an "unregulated free market".

     1) There is no such thing as a "free market"; there are only regulated markets and rigged markets when it comes to international finance.

     2) The present collapse was not caused by either corruption in Fannie Mary or Freddie Mac nor by the so-called sub-prime collapase but by a complete collapse of the derivatives market. A Derivative is a financial instrument that is derived from some other asset, index, event, value or condition (known as the underlying). Rather than trade or exchange the underlying itself, derivative traders enter into an agreement to exchange cash or assets over time based on the underlying. In other words, derivatives are side bets (in gambling lingo, and after all, Wall St. is nothing more than one big casino).

     3) Wall St. firms began expanding these side bets in the early 1980s at the same time they promulgated a cultural paradigm change throughout America and the world to the philosophy that "greed is good".

     4) Some of the investment banks on Wall St. took advantage of the collapse to kill off their competitors and to rip-off American tax-payers with TARP. Now on Wall St. there is not one, repeat, not one investment bank that can in any way be called American, they are all foreign controlled. Chief among them is the big winner "La Famiglia" Goldman Sachs which, as the recent Rolling Stone article on the company said, has its tentacles wrapped around the human race. Government Sachs, as it is sometimes called, now controls the leadership of both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 07:23am

128. more to to sjchermak

     5) When it comes to the foreign investment banks on Wall St., they are as much espionage outfits as they are financial institutions. There are more spooks on Wall St. than there are at Langley. They don't just trade in financial instruments, they operate both overtly and covertly to manipulate society.

     6) The same people who control Wall St., also control the insurance industry which is the true winner in this health care debacle, no matter what finally turns out. Assets in both the Dems and Reps have destroyed any change of single payer and any public option change we get will be a difference without distinction.

     7) Obama could have changed this by re-instituting the regulations we once had over Wall St. greed by not continuing TARP but investigating this great hiest, re-instituting fixed currency exchange rates thus depriving the hedge fund pirates like Warren Buffet and George Soros from their booty, and re-instituting the Glass-Steagall act which enabled the wild wild derivatives gambles of the past few decades, and, most importantly, stop by any means necessary the foreign investment banks taking advantage of the economic crisis by the demolition of America.

     Obama has done none of these things. The foreign investment banks have their tentacles wrapped tightly around his administration, just as they would have around a McCain administration.

     Anyone who wants true reform in any area (including health care) must first look to cleaning up the organized crime syndicates on Wall St. (and its British counterpart, the City of London) and their overt and covert control of both Democrats and Republicans (and a bunch of the third parties also). Wall St is where the problem with health care starts. So far they are winning.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 07:42am

129. "Funny how you would ask why none of the Republicans propose scrapping them, Mask, when you, as a political animal, are fully aware of the answer. But you are very disingenuous as a rule."--------Posted by freiheit1 at 08/18/2009 @ 3:54pm

     Well, 1. The disingenuousness is on your part...since you refused answer the question.

     2. We both DO know what the answer is to the question "Why don't Republicans push for eliminating Medicare if they oppose 'Government-run health care'?"....and it is because...

     it's too POPULAR. Try to coat it in "dependency mentality" or "entitlements are hard to get rid of" or whatever dodge you want....the basic fact is that all that "liberalism"...Social Security, Medicare...is POPULAR and whenever the Right makes real noises about "cutting Government"....they lose.

     Posted by Mask at 08/19/2009 @ 07:58am

130. Wall St is where the problem with health care starts. So far they are winning.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 07:42am

     They had it won before the game even started. History, not to mention money, is on their side. I believe you are on target saying that both parties are outright owned by these folks which further implies that we are not living in a republic whatsoever....at least as far as any real issues go. We're still in Iraq, we are escalating in Afghanistan, we're still doling out obscene amounts of cash into the military industrial complex, and yet we can't afford health insurance for the people paying for all of the above. What a sham and what a shame.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/19/2009 @ 08:02am

131. perryfellwock,

     So, to rephrase what you said, you are basically saying everything is lousy and everything is bad.

     Wow, what a horrible place this country is. We certainly are under the opressive thumb of corporations and businesses both foreign or domestic, who work to opress us and suppress us, stealing our property and our wealth, wealth that belongs to the workers and to the people, and these monsters were in total cahoots with the cabal at BushCo. and now are in alliance with Obama, who had claimed he was for the workers and the people but is for businesses who are out to screw us instead.

     It certainly makes one envious of the utopia that existed in places like the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) which was a true workers paradise where all people were equal in every way and a kind, caring and compassionate state provided the people (as it should) with their every need and want.

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2009 @ 08:49am

132. What is depressing is that there are hard lefties on this site that will nod their heads in total agreement with what I said above......it will not faze them that I was being sarcastic.

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2009 @ 08:51am

133. to sjchermak

     No where, in any of my blog postings, have I used Marxist language nor supported any foreign Marxist state. I am not a Marxist. Many, many of us on the left are not Marxist and to paint us with your broad brush is simply ad hominem attack and name calling. The solution is not instituting a state-controlled planned economy. There is nothing wrong with enterprise. but there is something very wrong with criminal enterprise. Above, I stated that the solution was to return to the regulations we once had on the international financial community.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 08:56am

134. perryfellwock,

     1. I did say I was being sarcastic.

     2. You doth protest too much. People may be critical of "enterprise" or "business" from time to time while still supporting those endevours, but I don't think someone who calls Wall St. an "organized crime syndicate" is much of a business-friendly person.

     3. Wall St. and the City of London? Huh?.....It is Fleet Street, not the City of London.....the last I knew the mayor of the City of London was a leftist anti-war type

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2009 @ 09:13am

135. BTW, SJCHER....I'm sure you "missed" Olberman last night....proving that Rush LIED about "never speaking of 'death panels' except to quote Sarah Palin"...

     with video. Right?

     Posted by Mask at 08/19/2009 @ 09:23am

136. Whoops,

     I was thinking of something else. Fleet Street is where the British press is concentrated. I was thinking it was a place in London like Wall St. in New York City.

     But the City of London incorporates more than just British Banks. It consists of everything there, from Parliament to Buckingham Palace, to Trafalgar Square, to Picadilly Circus, to Hyde Park, to Bayswater, to Harrod's Department Store, etc etc etc....The City of London is a counterpart to the City of New York, not Wall St. I don't know (since Fleet St. refers to something else) if there is a name for a concentration of the British financial industry.

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2009 @ 09:24am

137. Fleet St. in London is the center of the British newspaper industry there. The City of London is not the same as London. The City is a distinct jurisdiction from London itself, and by British law is 1/2 of the "Crown" - the sovereign power in Great Britain; the other half being the monarchy. Regardless of the domestic positions (left or right) of the Mayor of the City of London, The City is the location of the investment banks. And it is the City of London that is truly in charge of western finance and the major political parties in England just as Wall St. gains more power over the political parties here. Every year, the monarch (Queen Elizabeth currently) MUST appear in ordinary business clothes before the Mayor of the City of London in his resplendent finery and declare her subservience to The City. Since the 1980s, the institutions of The City have been the controlling force pushing their counterparts in other countries (the counterparts being the subservient banks like the ones hq'd on Wall St.) to engage in the derivatives madness. Again, you seem to know nothing about the international financial community. In England the people are not sovereign as we are supposed to be here.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 09:26am

138. Mask,

     I did not see Olberman last night. I did not "miss" Olberman, that implies that I usually see him.

     I never see Olberman. I do not give a flying crap what Olberman says.

     You are hyper-fixated on minutae and make points just for the sake of making points, which many people on these threads both left and right have told you, but you continue it anyway.

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2009 @ 09:28am

139. "You are hyper-fixated on minutae and make points just for the sake of making points, which many people on these threads both left and right have told you, but you continue it anyway."---Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2009 @ 09:28am

     So Rush Limbaugh caught blatently lying....ON VIDEO...about one of the major smears of Obama's health care reform ("death panels")...

     is "minutae"?

     Posted by Mask at 08/19/2009 @ 09:58am

140. and sjchermak, FYI re the health care mess, the insurance companies that are winning the health care debate here in America are all ULTIMATELY controlled are influenced by The City of London. All insurance instruments, from liability insurance, to your home insurance, to health care insurance, etc. ultimately wind up in and institution of The City called Lloyds of London, whose "members" - a tight, ingrown little oligarchy, also control the investment banks of The City. That is the U.K. connection to our health care mess. But since we cannot really effect things there, we MUST "effect" the financial institutions here on Wall St. where we, the people of the United States, have the constitutional power to so (sovereignty). With the political parties being currupted by Wall St., we can only do so by an independent, i.e., populist, movement, in my opinion. Again, to all those on the left reading this blog, don't mourn what is happening with health care, the continued rip-off of our economy, the escalation of the colonial war in Afghanistan, or any of the other non-changes of the Obama administration, just organize. But always keep in mind, who is actually subverting our sovereignty. Re this blog, learn and teach others who is really behind Baucus and Grassley,or Obama's advisors, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, or any of the other politicans in Wall St.'s pocket.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 10:03am

141. BTW...here's the video

     http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908180057

     Posted by Mask at 08/19/2009 @ 10:05am

142. perryfellwock,

     You appear to be correct about the makeup of the "City of London"....I was not up to speed on the geography of that city.

     I have been in London once in my life and not to go to the banks so it did not impact my travel.

     You are totally off base with your phobia about people in London controlling our lives, how bad business is to us, how all politicians Republican or Democrat are screwing us, etc etc etc.......but you are not the only one here in liberal-land that feels that way.

     You mention the monarchy and refer to it as "Queen Elizabeth currently".

     Currently implies temporarily......that does not appear to be the case. Queen Elizabeth has been Queen longer than I have been alive and I myself am getting old........You have to wonder if she will ever pass away.......certainly Chuck will never be King.....in the event the Queen does pass away it won't be for a long time and by that time Chuck will be in no shape to be King......his mind is not all there now (he is gung-ho for the global warming stuff) so I don't see it getting better for him and the Queen will outlive him anyway probably but even if she does not he will be in a nursing home babbling to himself by then and they will give the monarchy to William.

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2009 @ 10:16am

143. Mask:

     1. You referred to "Obama's health care reform" up above. What reform? Where is reform happening? How is a blatant attempt to convert medical care in this country to socialist medicine any kind of "reform"? How is an attempt to ram an over 1,000 page bill to start conversion of health care to socialist medicine through Congress by the end of July (before anybody would have a chance to understand what was being done to them) a reform?

     2. You are fixated on a lie you believe Rush Limbaugh told. Rush Limbaugh is not President of the United States. Barack Obama is President of the United States. Barack Obama has repeatedly lied or misrepresented what his agenda has been. Why do you fixate on what you believe to be a lie by someone who is not president instead of concentrating on lies by someone who is president?

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2009 @ 10:25am

144. sjchermak,

     What happens with the ongoing soap opera of the monarchy is irrelevant -- by British law, the Crown is still sovereign and will continue to be so whether William assumes the royal thrown or not, and that means The City of London remains in charge in England and the Commonwealth. And again, we can not change anything there, but we have the lawful constitutional right (and the American responsibility) to change things HERE. Change in health care will not come from Obama or the congressional Democrats, that should be obvious by now. They are more interested in preserving the insurance companies and getting reelected in 2010 and 2012 than bringing the Changes they promised. And it certainly won't come from the Republicans. It will only come from an awakened and educated and mobilized American public. Wall St. must ALWAYS be regulated and watched and where criminal activity has ocurred, prosecuted. Obama could have brought change as he promised if he had returned the regulations defeated over the years by both corrupt Republicans and corrupt Democrats but he has not done so. And don't get me wrong, I do not think all Republicans and all Democrats are corrupt -- just those who take money from foreign investment banks (Goldman Sachs, etc.) or who have long standing family ties to the Wall St. oligarchy. Unfortunately, in these times, the corrupt ones are in charge.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 10:30am

145. However, Democrats believe in regulating big business (sometimes)...Republicans do not (at all). Therefore, it more a matter of viewpoint as to who is "at fault." My overall point is, and always will be, that of the two devils known as the Republican and Democratic parties, I prefer the Democrats because they at least don't believe in screwing the American people over at the drop of the hat.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 12:51am

     Are you really this brainwashed?

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/19/2009 @ 10:44am

146. Posted by Mask at 08/19/2009 @ 10:05am

     Despite your protests to the contrary, relying on a far left organization like Media Matters betrays you.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/19/2009 @ 10:50am

147. oh no, antisocialist, not at the drop of the hat. The only difference, in my humble opinion from studying history, is that the conservatives and Republicans will look you in the eye and then stab you in the belly while liberals and Democrats (again the corrupt ones) will walk beside you, pretend to be your friend, and then stab you in the back. You seem to prefer the dishonest Democrats ("we will bring change") over the honest Republicans ("we will never bring change"). That is your preogative, but some of us prefer true substantive change over what we have now. Not just lipstick on the pig.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 10:51am

148. sorry, that last post of mine (re drop of the hat) was meant for Stephen_Carver1 not antisocialist.

     I know you, Stephen_Carver1, are well meaning and hope for the best, and indeed there are members of the Democratic party who are on the side of the American people, but, dear fellow, THEY ARE NOT IN CHARGE.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 10:55am

149. perryfellwock,

     I know the "soap opera" of the monarchy is irrelevant....I was just making some miscellaneous off-topic comments about the monarchy because you and I do not see eye to eye on the issues.

     You indicate that change in health care will not come from Obama or congressional Democrats, and it is obvious you are upset about that.....I, on the other hand am glad about that if that does hold up....we don't need "change" that would ruin health care in this country for all.....and the fact that it may have been stopped if it is successfully stopped HAS come about through an awakened and educated and mobilized American public who are smarter than Obama thinks they are and who do not want the things he is proposing and do not like the idea Obama tried to ram it through quickly without people even knowing what was happening.

     It is portrayed that everthing is lousy and the insurance companies are screwing people....the reality is that most people are satisfied with their health care and cases where insurance companies have tried to do bad things are fewer and more far between than many here on The Nation portray them to be.

     And the reality is also that our health care system has allowed for the greatest expanse of medical knowledge and technology brought to bear to improve people's lives health-wise than anywere else in the world.

     The reality also is that some in this country (fewer than is portrayed on The Nation) can not afford medical coverage. The solution would be market based reforms to make insurance more affordable and elimination of frivolous lawsuits that raise costs and assistance to those who still can't afford insurance, as Republicans have proposed.

     The solution is not to adopt the flawed socialized systems present elsewhere.

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2009 @ 10:56am

150. 2. You are fixated on a lie you believe Rush Limbaugh told.---Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2009 @ 10:25am

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/19/2009 @ 10:50am

     Larry, SJCHER....did Media Matters fake those videos taken directly from Rush's "ditto-cam"?

     Please feel free to claim that...or change the subject.

     Posted by Mask at 08/19/2009 @ 10:57am

151. It will only come from an awakened and educated and mobilized American public.

     PFW, What you mentioned will never happen. We've got people here believing in death panels, that the government is coming to take their guns and that anything provided by the government is marxist, communist, socialist and the work of the devil.

     A more brainwashed drooling pool of idiots never existed anywhere aside from Germany under Hitler. The right wingers posting here are in lock step in their stupidity and truly don't believe in a government of the people by the people and for the people. They, in turn, wish for a government of the businesses, by the businesses, and for the businesses which is what we have today via Milton the Anti-Christ Freidman and his disciples.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/19/2009 @ 10:57am

152. "....and that anything provided by the government is marxist, communist, socialist and the work of the devil."----Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/19/2009 @ 10:57am

     "except Social Security and Medicare", Wolf. Remember the protestor screaming "Keep your Gov't hands off my Medicare!"?

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 08/19/2009 @ 11:05am

153. Posted by sntauri at 08/18/2009 @ 12:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     you do know what happened to McGuire's career after that monster hit song?

     "McGuinn and McGuire just are getting higher in LA you know where that's at..."

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLC2bf4jfPE

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/19/2009 @ 11:06am

154. There will be universal single payer but it will be started at the state level.

     July 17th, 2009

     By a 25-19 vote, the House Committee on Education and Labor on Friday approved an amendment to the House's health-care reform bill allowing states to create single-payer health care systems if they so choose.

     This is how Canada started their health care it was not enacted by their federal government.

     There are 10 states with single payer works in their government. Pennsylvania may be the first state to have single payer in America.

     Under the single-payer system, doctors' offices and hospitals remain private for-profit or non-profit institutions. But the federal government covers the bills for patient services, with funds coming from taxes. The patient gets the health care they need. Paperwork and billing are kept to a minimum. Employers no longer have the difficult task of choosing, administering, and paying for health insurance for employees. Everyone is covered.

     Posted by spytheweb at 08/19/2009 @ 11:10am

155. Posted by sntauri at 08/18/2009 @ 12:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     you do know what happened to McGuire's career after that monster hit song?

     "McGuinn and McGuire just are getting higher in LA you know where that's at..."

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLC2bf4jfPE

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/19/2009 @ 11:11am

156. But how any ordinary citizen who works for a living can support and defend the health insurance conglomerate is beyond my understanding. Posted by Citizen54 at 08/18/2009 @ 2:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Stockholm Syndrome?

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/19/2009 @ 11:12am

157. sjchermak,

     True most people who have health insurance in this country are satisfied, UNTIL the insurance companies and HMOs deny them coverage (happens all the time).

     And, guess what, the Medicare that most people like IS a socialized system. We just need to expand it, regulate the coverage, and reemphasize American health care (and diet) towards preventative medicine rather than hospital care and the use of exotic and expensive machines (that will make it cost effect). Change that is good & decent is not really all that hard to achieve, except that it is being deliberately sabotaged by non-caring Republicans and duplicitous Democrats. That is why Obama is failing and why this blog originally asked why Baucus and Grassley have hijacked the situation. It is called Divide and Conquer. That is why the country and the issue is in turmoil. Instead of single payer, the Democrats went for something less (public option) and then deliberately (in my opinion) put provisions in HR3200 that would give the Republicans justification for opposing Obamacare. Tweedledee and Tweedledom have danced together to confuse the public and defeat any meaningful health care reform for many, many years to come. And the winners are those pulling Tweedledee and Tweedledom's strings.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 11:13am

158. Big Government has always posed a bigger threat to my freedom or quality of life than any one Big Business. ... It was FDR who put all those Japanese-Americans in interment camps, not Standard Oil.

     as opposed to the US corporations who played ball with Hitler?

     when gov't misbehaves we have a remedy, the ballot box.

     when industry misbehaves, and they do, our only remedy is the courts, and there they have nearly unlimited funds, and we don't.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/19/2009 @ 11:15am

159. God, I LOVE conspiracy theories! (and long sentences)

     how German of you.(the long sentences.in Thomas Mann's masterpiece Buddenbrooks the first sentence takes up more than the entire first page.)

     but I digress.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/19/2009 @ 11:23am

160. "Let me get this straight.

     Obama's health care plan will be

     written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke.

     What could possibly go wrong?

     This is the problem with th3 govt anywhere near health care...

     "Let me get this straight.

     Obama's health care plan will be

     written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke.

     What could possibly go wrong?

     Plus, Canada system is crashing as is UK..

     So PLEASE ram this program up our asses and then lets sit back and watch the grass roots revolution attack Washingron in a manner worse than after the Congress Post Office Robbery....

     even Obama laughes at the Post Office, which is what you arw going to get as a model for your health care..

     Posted by YourJomamma at 08/19/2009 @ 11:25am

161. Posted by rosy at 08/18/2009 @ 6:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     correct and concise.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/19/2009 @ 11:26am

162. Larry, SJCHER....did Media Matters fake those videos taken directly from Rush's "ditto-cam"?

     Please feel free to claim that...or change the subject.

     Posted by Mask at 08/19/2009 @ 10:57am

     I don't know. Nor do I know if it is in context. And most of all, I don't care. It's not important to me.

     What is important and relevant is that despite all the denials about death panels, the House took out the section that people were complaining about after all this attention about it.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/19/2009 @ 11:51am

163. "In another sign of discontent with the looming overhaul, some 60,000 senior citizens have severed ties with the AARP since July 1. "

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 12:12pm

     I think it would be informative to read the broader perspective on this phenomenon:

     http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/18/cbs-asa/

     Posted by drhammer at 08/19/2009 @ 11:53am

164. Plus, Canada system is crashing as is UK.. . YourJomamma at 08/19/2009 @ 11:25am | ignore this person | warn this person

     another fact free post.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/19/2009 @ 11:54am

165. I think it would be informative to read the broader perspective on this phenomenon:

     http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/18/cbs-asa/

     Posted by drhammer at 08/19/2009 @ 11:53am

     Wow, I'm shocked to find that a leftwing organization (Think Progress) offers an article from another leftwing organization (AARP) that tries to spin this in a better light. (LOL)

     I'm certainly glad that I have been tearing up the membership offers from AARP for a decade.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/19/2009 @ 12:01pm

166. Lefty: "I hear Spain has a way lower rate of death due to waiting than the USA plus theirs is lower cost, universal, rated way higher than too."

     Righty response: "But hey, Spain can't unnecessarily bomb other countries at will with tons of depleted uranium now can they! Plus they're just more dumb socialists..."

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2009 @ 12:02pm

167. "McInturff is one of the most respected pollsters in Washington, and his work is often treated as straightforward and honest. But the pollsters' decision to alter the language of their August survey has raised the eyebrows of industry observers.

     Instead of asking whether people should be given a choice between a public and private plan -- as NBC/WSJ had done in its June 2009 survey -- the pollsters dropped the word "choice" and asked whether people favored or opposed creating a public plan to compete with private insurers. Whereas two months ago, 76 percent of respondents said they felt it was either extremely or quite important to have a public option, in August that number was down to 43 percent.

     "I think it's a very big deal to drop the word," said Wendell Potter, a former vice president at the insurance giant CIGNA. "This has been a strategy the industry has had for many years. They ask questions in many ways, knowing the way they are asking the questions will skew the result. Dropping the word choice is very important. It plays into some of the fears some of the people have been hearing lately, that the government would leave them without an option."

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2009 @ 12:09pm

168. "I don't know. Nor do I know if it is in context. And most of all, I don't care. It's not important to me. "------Posted by antisocialist at 08/19/2009 @ 11:51am

     Oh, so FIRST you besmirth Media Matters, hinting that the videos aren't true...

     now you claim you "don't care" and "it's not important to you" if Limbaugh blatently and deliberately LIED and it's on video-tape.

     Two questions-

     1. You saw the videos? How could "context" help?

     2. Would Jesus Christ defend a lie or say it's "not important"?

     Posted by Mask at 08/19/2009 @ 12:16pm

169. I agree with everyone who says the Dems are to blame. They are. They are vile and subhuman. Even before Obama, there was Pelosi the traitor who put Israel above her own country when she brazenly declared that impeachment was off the table, because AIPAC didn't want Israel's role in that clear blue morning in September to be exposed. Don't worry, Nancy, the Biochemoistry lab of Copenhagen University has already done most of your dirty work for you. As for Obama, he's finished. He'll spend the rest of his single term killing, to torturing and renditioning people to Afghanistan but it will be a long time before anyone votes for a black president again.

     Posted by mystic at 08/19/2009 @ 12:23pm

170. to mystic

     Don't rule out Obama getting his second term. Elections are not always determined by ballots anymore. And I am afraid you are right that resentment towards Obama in particular may result in racist resentment towards any non-white holding the highest office in the land. Where once Obama moved diversity ahead he may end up moving diversity backwards. Sad.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 12:35pm

171. Just a few comments on this health care debate:

     If the smoke would clear away, what we would find is a President who is not leading on the issue. By that I mean that he is on the tube every day but he is saying all the wrong things. It's not his own supporters who he needs to convince, it's the fence leaners and the rich who need a reason to get on board.

     So, what it is the president needs to say? Well, if I were one of his advisors, (by the way, I think he's getting terrible advice), I would tell him that he needs to start uniting. He's looking at republicans and rich people in general as though they are enemies and it's evident by the remarks coming from those on the left who should know better, namely, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and of all people Barney Frank, etc.

     Let's face it, there is a distrust and a fear of this President on the right and actually in the center now.

     The President should stop the cameos immediately, take time to think about how to bring the republicans on board, rather that talking of going it alone. A prime time address from the Oval Office should be held for that reason where the president should ASK, yes ASK for the help of the rich. He's got to overcome this feeling that rich people and ALL working people have of having a socialized health care system forced on them when they don't want it. Americans will respond.

     He needs to counteract the Limbaughs and the Hannitys with common sense insteast of combativeness.

     I think most people who work or have money are basically compassionate people who give to charity every year. But if these people are going to ante up, they will want something in return. The dregs of society have nothing to offer them so Obama has to give and stop sending messages of take, take, take........

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/19/2009 @ 12:41pm

172. You are hyper-fixated on minutae and make points just for the sake of making points, which many people on these threads both left and right have told you, but you continue it anyway.

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2009 @ 09:28am

     So, Sherm, if the devil is in the details, and Mask is "hyper-fixated on minutiae," does that mean you're calling Mask the Devil? boy, THAT'S certainly adding to the high level of YOUR debate.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 12:47pm

173. Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 12:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     whattabunchofhorseshit.what were that goddamn Bush's accomplishments after six months? and what is Obama's perceived failure in comparison with 9/11?

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/19/2009 @ 12:51pm

174. continued.....

     In Obama's address, he should acknowledge that this issue has racial undertones and then say this:

     "It's time that black people take the chip off of their shoulders. It's time for all American's to make their best effort to heal the wounds of past discrimination. It's time for black Americans including myself to stop crying racism over every issue involving a white and a minority person of color. America has fought several wars with white men and people of color fighting side by side. Everyday on the streets of America, white cops and firefighters fight crime and fire side by side with their black and latino brothers and sisters. We cheer our favorite sports teams and do not see color.

     Now it's time to come together as one people and fight the biggest battle of them all. Yes, my fellow Americans, I'm talking about the battle of the classes. Stop the hate. We must heal as a society and come together for the common good of all Americans. We all bleed the same color blood. Therefore, I'm asking my wealthy fellow citizens of all colors and working people everyhere to put aside their predjudices and distrust of their fellow man and open your hearts to those who need you so badly. I'm asking everyone to tone down the rhetoric and look to your better selves to get this problem solved.

     I'm am scrapping all previous bills, especially the latest and I am going to ask Congress to come up with a simple bill that all Americans can understand, that will address the problems we face with the rising costs of our national health care. Right wing talk radio must carry that message. I want your help to get the solution out to America. I think we can all agree that health care needs basic reform. Now let's roll up our sleeves and get it done."

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/19/2009 @ 12:59pm

175. to emile duBois

     Well for one thing, like Bush, Obama, like Bush is not going after the perpetrators of 9/11 and instead is expanding a colonial war in Afghanistan to protect the opium producers.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 1:00pm

176. Are you really this brainwashed?

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/19/2009 @ 10:44am

     Nope. Not brainwashed at all. Just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

     What did Bill Clinton, in his eight years of office, lie about (primarily)? Consensual sex between two adults, and then he compounded that lie by lying about that lie. Yet he was impeached for it.

     What did W lie about in his eight years in office? Almost everything.

     What did Jimmy Carter lie about in his four years in office? Almost nothing which is probably part of the reason he was a one term President).

     What did George Senior lie about in his four years in office? "Read my Lips" which is why he was a one term President.

     What did Reagan lie about during his eight years in office? A hell of a lot. I won't say everything, but does Iran/Contra come to mind? (For which he should have been impeached and removed from office.)

     Ford - not enough time to lie. (I actually voted for Ford in 4th grade.)

     Nixon - well, he lied a crapload and Cheney is STILL pissed that he was forced to resign or be impeached.

     And don't even get me started on the Republicans in Congress and the Senate and all their lies (just last week!)

     I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 1:01pm

177. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 12:47pm

     There's a great ol' "Andy Griffith Show" episode that SJCHER puts me to mind.

     Andy, Barney, Opie, and Floyd pull over a pretty "city woman" for speeding. She insists on a trial and at the trial, Andy cross-examines Barney on the events of the speeding.

     Barney, now well into the episode and smitten with the "lady prisoner" starts to equivocate and come up with semantical ways of not admitting that she was speeding. Finally when asked a pointed question, he says to Andy "Andy, don't you think you're making a little too much out of this?"

     Same for Larry/antisoc....rather than EVER admit that Rush spoke a deliberate and obvious lie (within DAYS of each otehr)....they call it "minutae" and attack the website posting the video and say "it's not important"....

     while if it was a liberal, especially Obama...they'd be calling for a special prosecutor.

     And then later they accuse US of being "cult-like" about Obama!

     Posted by Mask at 08/19/2009 @ 1:04pm

178. Bush's adnistration is over so are all the others.

     Above I've explained how President Obama can appeal to the masses. There has been a lot of damage done from the media on both sides and from politicians. Any politician who refuses to hold a town hall meeting should be black-balled and face a primary in 2010 and 2012.

     We are no good as a nation if we are divided. We do not have to like funding entitlements with our tax dollars but we need to recognize that we need basic health care reform. We need to work together.

     Also, Acorn needs to open it's books because they have taken tax dollars. President Obama needs to call for this immediately.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/19/2009 @ 1:04pm

179. The "public option" is NOT dead!

     The point Obama was trying to make, is that health care reform has a lot of aspects to it that incrementally move toward a single payer system.

     The reason the HMOs are crying so loudly about the public option is that they know they cannot compete with it and continue to raise premiums to astronomic levels in their desire to maximize profits.

     But even if there were no public option, requiring HMOs to cover all condition, including pre-existing conditions, is a game changer. The reason HMOs drop people with certain conditions or do not cover certain pre-existing conditions is that it makes them less profitable as a company. As these companies become less profitable because they have to cover all conditions, they will drop out like flies leaving the government as the only game in town for healthcare.

     The bottom line is that for-profit healthcare and universal healthcare coverage are incompatible concepts unless there is some option for those who are not covered by HMOs to get the coverage they need without resorting to emergency-care. <---on this, nearly all agree, including some Republicans.

     Every time we hear "government takeover" or "socialized medicine" we should trot out our veterans who get VA-care and say "IF IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THOSE WHO DEFEND AMERICA, IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR AMERICANS" .

     Veterans are respected in all of the swing states, bluedog states, and places where Obama flipped red into blue. USE THEM!

     Posted by Metteyya at 08/19/2009 @ 1:05pm

180. BTW, their next move will be to say...

     "So what? Is Rush Limbaugh elected to or running for office?"

     meaning apparently it's okay for a conservative lie as long as they aren't in or running for political office.

     Posted by Mask at 08/19/2009 @ 1:06pm

181. Well for one thing, like Bush, Obama, like Bush is not going after the perpetrators of 9/11 and instead is expanding a colonial war in Afghanistan to protect the opium producers. Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 1:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     it's just not true. the military now have orders to shoot opium traffickers. a bone headed idea.

     read a goddamn newspaper.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/19/2009 @ 1:09pm

182. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 1:01pm

     But Stephen, Don't you know that when republicans lie, it's for our good and they just don't want us to know all of the bad things that are going on in the world. When the democrats lie, it's because they have an agenda to turn the U.S. into China or more like the old Soviet Union.

     Republicans= Godliness, wholesomeness, and just down right goodliness and demoncrats are just pure evil. Sounds a lot like Rio or Anti doesn't it?!

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/19/2009 @ 1:09pm

183. What did George Senior lie about in his four years in office? "Read my Lips" which is why he was a one term President.

     nah, the read my lips was a little white lie. he may have believed it at the time. no, the big lie of Bush Sr. was the Iran/contra thing. he was completely complicit

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/19/2009 @ 1:11pm

184. Leave the elderly alone unless it's to enhance their standard of living.

     Leave Veteran's alone except to make sure their benefits are paid and their care is forthcoming.

     Make sure that Medicare and Medicaid stays funded.

     Provide for a voluntary catastrophic illness health insurance policy for all Americans at a very modest fixed premium.

     Enact tort reform immediately to free up billions and a trillion over the next decade in unnecessary testing.

     Make it illegal for private insurers and any other type of insurer to deny health care for the so-called 'prior condition.'

     Americans will help if they get something in return. The above of examples of getting something in return.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/19/2009 @ 1:13pm

185. As for Obama, he's finished. He'll spend the rest of his single term killing, to torturing and renditioning people to Afghanistan but it will be a long time before anyone votes for a black president again.

     Posted by mystic at 08/19/2009 @ 12:23pm

     So whatever Obama does is because he's black and any other prospective black candidate would of course do exactly the same thing since they're both black? Even a republican black presidential candidate... Oh wait like that could even happen within the next 150 years. Ok, even an independent black presidential candidate?

     And is it only white presidents that can be different apparently since their suits are made of teflon (?) and the wars they start and rules they break can only stick to the darker toned typed presidents? (Must be because they absorb more light or something...)

     But why stop at blaming him for attempting to resolve the two wars he didn't start, why not also Vietnam, Korea, WWI-II, and even the Civil War!

     But hey shouldn't Obama also get the blame for social security, medicare/medicaid, vets health admin, anything already socialistic, and don't forget all taxes even!?!

     Oh boy, I can see why you guys are carrying guns around where Obama speaks.

     Fear is indeed a powerful thing.

     For you guys, apparently--- compensation is the only recourse.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2009 @ 1:15pm

186. to emile duBois

     You clearly don't have any idea what is going on in Afghanistan. The only opium producers possibly being shot by our troops are the hapless Taliban villagers who got into the opium game only recently. Hamid Karzai and his family have been involved in the opium trade for a long time and no Nato troop has shot him as yet. Also the warlords that run most of the opium production are not the target of any Nato operation. Nor are the Pakistan middle-men nor anyone in the west involved in the opium trade especially the bankers who launder the money.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 1:17pm

187. Every time we hear "government takeover" or "socialized medicine" we should trot out our veterans who get VA-care and say "IF IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THOSE WHO DEFEND AMERICA, IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR AMERICANS" .

     Veterans are respected in all of the swing states, bluedog states, and places where Obama flipped red into blue. USE THEM!

     Posted by Metteyya at 08/19/2009 @ 1:05pm

     Unless I'm reading you wrong, you're equating the sacrifice that veterans made with some ordinary citizen who doesn't work, collects welfare or is just plain useless. You surely are not doing that I hope. Because there is where the problem lies for people who are against public option.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/19/2009 @ 1:17pm

188. Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 10:55am

     I agree with almost all you've said (and I enjoyed your description of Wall St. / City of London - very educational). I am against the big corporations' influence in Washington (Goldman Sachs, esp.), and I agree with other posters that a revolution (actually, I would call it a Return to the People) is necessary. I agree with the Progressive caucus in the House that if a public option (at a minimum) is not in the bill, then to hell with the whole thing.

     However, I do believe that when push comes to shove, Americans can and will defeat the big corporate interests (or at least hamstring them), and that defeat will be at the hands of a strong Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. I can only hope that by the time it happens, it won't be too late.

     If I didn't believe that, I would leave the USA and not look back, because the country which offered the world true freedom for all, isn't willing to back its words with action (and I am not talking about war...at least not a war against any nation, but rather a fight against human greed). Instead, we decided to watch reality TV, turn off our brains and allow people like Happy, Anti-, sjcherm, BP and the rest of them give our great country to the corporatists, turning our ship of state into a fascist nation and doing it in the name of nationalism and Christ.

     I have to admit, I am afraid for our country and fear it may be too late. After all, the media is owned by the big corporations and they now decide which parts of the debate most Americans will ever see or hear. The fourth estate has completely disappeared because it was hijacked by big business.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 1:20pm

189. also to emile duBois

     If Obama really wanted to end the opium trade he would be eradicating the opium fields in those areas protected by Nato and he is not.

     If you want to understand the politics of heroin in Afghanistan, first read about the drug trade in earlier years in Alfred W. Mccoy's classic book on the Vietnam war, "The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia".

     The more things change, the more they stay the same.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 1:23pm

190. As for Obama, he's finished. He'll spend the rest of his single term killing, to torturing and renditioning people to Afghanistan but it will be a long time before anyone votes for a black president again.

     Posted by mystic at 08/19/2009 @ 12:23pm

     WHAT?????

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/19/2009 @ 1:24pm

191. to Stephen_Carver1

     Don't dispair. Don't leave the country. Read history, learn the truth of politics (you can't understand American history unless you understand it in a world context) and organize. As long as we are alive, it is not too late. Change will come from the American people, not from a messiah.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 1:26pm

192. If Obama really wanted to end the opium trade he would be eradicating the opium fields in those areas protected by Nato and he is not.

     our troops have been doing exactly that. the Taleban did that too, more successfully.the US paid them 50 million dollars, just a few months before 9/11.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/19/2009 @ 1:30pm

193. Oh, so FIRST you besmirth Media Matters, hinting that the videos aren't true...

     now you claim you "don't care" and "it's not important to you" if Limbaugh blatently and deliberately LIED and it's on video-tape.

     Two questions-

     1. You saw the videos? How could "context" help?

     2. Would Jesus Christ defend a lie or say it's "not important"?

     Posted by Mask at 08/19/2009 @ 12:16pm

     I don't have to watch anything from Media Matters to label them what they are, which is a far left organization.

     As to Limbaugh, you are ignoring the my point which is I don't care whether Limbaugh lied or told the truth about the death panels. It's not relevant to my position.

     I have just read the transcripts for the two broadcasts in question. At an initial reading it seems as if Olbermann has a point. Until you concentrate on the context of the two dialogues and realize that the truth is something quite different.

     Limbaugh is correct that he was talking about death panels in the context of discussing the controversy over Sarah Palin's Facebook posting.

     And on the 17th, Olbermann leaves out what Rush says just a moment later and I post from the transcript

     <Here's the practical result. Forget the term "death panel."

     That was just a clever turn of phrase by Sarah Palin that really focused Obama and focused a lot of people.>

     Seems clear to me that the idiot Olbermann and those who treat him as respectable are once again manipulating the facts. That's why I said that context is important.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/19/2009 @ 1:31pm

194. ...the reality is that most people are satisfied with their health care and cases where insurance companies have tried to do bad things are fewer and more far between than many here on The Nation portray them to be.

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2009 @ 10:56am

     Sjcherm,

     Most people are satisfied with their health care...until they actually have to use it. That's when they get screwed, because Americans, as a nation, don't believe in preventive medicine.

     I have two options with my health care at my job: Kaiser Permanente, or Blue Cross, etc. I am in generally good health and haven't used my provider except for the occasional prescription. I am a good client for them. I am profitable.

     Don't Republicans like the idea of providing true choice in the marketplace anymore? Competitive pricing? Isn't that what a true conservative would argue? So, where is my choice? I get either one or the other. I would prefer a banquet of options, which is what the public option would provide, at a reasonable cost, which is what the insurance giants DON'T want. Because it's administered by the government and competes with the insurance companies, how is that competition bad for America, from a true conservative point of view?

     As for the "bad things" that insurance companies do, while you may think the number of "bad things" is small, you do realize that the Boomers are all getting older, and the for profit insurance companies will find more reasons to rescission them, since we all know health care becomes less profitable as the patient grows older and needs more care, which means the circumstances will exist that the government will have to cover more of their costs ANYWAY, unless we want them all to die.

     That's just demographics. Figure it out.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 1:34pm

195. to emile duBois

     re "our troops have been doing exactly that". Where are you getting your information, every expert that I know of on Afghanistan, almost every reporter who is actually there, and the UN Commission on Drugs and Crime is not reporting any significant eradication of opium in Afghanistan. And ask any junkie or law enforcement officer in any major city plagued by heroin if there has been any reduction in heroin on the street. Instead you will find just the opposite, there is more junk out there now under Obama than there was in the last months of Bush.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 1:36pm

196. Posted by emile duBois at 08/19/2009 @ 11:23am

     German on both sides of my family, emile. As I like to tell my friends, "We only tried to take over the world twice in the last century. And failed."

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 1:38pm

197. Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2009 @ 12:09pm

     Very true.

     Republicans are against choice in just about everything.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 1:42pm

198. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 1:01pm

     And so I repeat, you are brainwashed.

     Clinton was a serial liar, to the country, to his family, and most likely, even trying to lie to G-d. He lied about all of the women he raped, molested, or engaged in adultery with.

     I've yet to see anyone demonstrate that GW Bush was a liar

     Carter didn't lie while president, he was just terribly incompetent and cost us dearly.

     Bush Sr certainly lied about taxes as was to be expected from a liberal (which is why I voted 3rd party instead)

     Reagan never lied, just part of the leftist dogma to hate one of the best presidents in our history and someone every American should honor.

     Ford was just a caretaker

     Nixon showed again what happens when Republicans let a Rockefeller Liberal represent them. He fooled many conservatives into thinking that he was a conservative, but ran the presidency as just another liberal (think EPA, OSHA, wage and price controls, China, etc)

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/19/2009 @ 1:43pm

199. Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 1:00pm

     OK, so I agree with you on the whole corporatist thing and then suddenly you let loose this charge? I cannot and will not think that the war in Afghanistan is a colonial war to support the poppy farmers. That is just a ridiculous statement.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 1:46pm

200. Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/19/2009 @ 1:04pm

     Gunslinger - when the other side (Republicants in Congress and the Senate) have already signaled (and actually stated) that they will not support anything the President does in order to get a political victory, how precisely, is he supposed to "reach out" to them to get them to agree to something they fundamentally oppose because they are in the pockets of big business?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 1:51pm

201. to antisocialist,

     Where shall I begin re Reagan and his devoted followers like you and lying?

     How about as president of the Screen Actors Guild, Ronald Reagan informed on fellow actors to the FBI.

     The Reagan admininstration was one of the most corrupt in American history, including 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal.

     138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted.

     Reagan's decision to send troops to Lebanon cost 241 lives. Reagan's decision to send marines to Lebanon was disastrous and his invasion of Grenada a joke.

     During the Reagan administration the number of families living below the poverty line increased by one-third. Reagan made major cuts in Medicaid, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, and school lunch programs.

     Reagan's policies led to one of the greatest financial scandals in American history: the Savings & Loan debacle which cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

     Reagan fired 13,000 air traffic controllers in a devastating blow to government union members and from which air safety has still not fully recovered.

     Reagan, during his 1980 campaign, blamed trees for emitting 93 percent of the nation's nitrogen oxide pollution -- giving rise to jokes about 'killer trees"

     After a major tax cut by your favorite President, there was a long recession and unemployment that hit ten percent.

     His administration in 1984 secretly sold arms to Iran -- which the United States considered a supporter of terrorism -- to raise cash for Nicaraguan contra rebels, despite a congressional ban on support for the Latin American insurgency.

     and there is much, much more.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 2:01pm

202. Posted by antisocialist at 08/19/2009 @ 1:43pm

     wow. Being called brainwashed by someone who is obviously brainwashed is starting to feel like I won some sort of award.

     "Reagan never lied...." ARE YOU SERIOUS OR JUST DEMENTED?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 2:03pm

203. >>>Unless I'm reading you wrong, you're equating the sacrifice that veterans made with some ordinary citizen who doesn't work, collects welfare or is just plain useless. You surely are not doing that I hope. Because there is where the problem lies for people who are against public option.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/19/2009 @ 1:17pm<<<

     No, GUNSLINGER!

     The POINT is that government run healthcare WORKS!

     It works for veterans so it can work for other Americans that have health conditions that are too expensive for HMOs to profit from.

     The idea that those with expensive health conditions are "useless" is extraordinarily offensive.

     Steve Hawkening has already de-bunked this, as his expensive health condition that was paid by the government of Great Britain has not stopped him from becoming one of the foremost scientists in the world.

     Posted by Metteyya at 08/19/2009 @ 2:09pm

204. to Stephen_Carver1

     re Afghanistan and the opium trade. In time (as I expect this war to go on for a long time) ,if you follow the reports that will be coming out of Obama's war, you and other naifs will have to see that my allegations are not ridiculous. Many of us veterans of Vietnam didn't want to believe there was a drug connection to that war either but we saw it first hand. Eventually, there were many, many public reports on the drug trade and the origins and operations of the war in South East Asia and there is virtually no serious Vietnam War scholar today that doubts what I have said herein. Go back and study history and then examine the reports coming out of Afghanistan today. Why do you think we are escalating in Afghanistan?

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 2:10pm

205. "and there is much, much more."

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 2:01pm

     Like the South-side Chicago "welfare queen driving a Cadillac:"

     "She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names."

     "'Welfare Queen' Becomes Issue in Reagan Campaign". New York Times.

     Posted by FLaim at 08/19/2009 @ 2:12pm

206. It's soooo funny, yet sooooooo CHILDISH to blame the republicans for osama's failure on socialist healthcare reform, when the Dem's OWN ALL 3 BRANCHES OF GOV'T OUTRIGHT, and don't need one single "R" vote with their "filibuster proof" majority. Please, children, grow up, stop whining, get off the gov't nipple, and have some self respect! Blame the blue dogs if you have too, but....Hahahahahahahahahaha, Osama and pelosi have FAILED miserably and in the process, offened millions of americans, causing AARP to lose 60,000 members in just a few days, and turning a large portion of america against them and their sick party! Your side really screwed up this time, you idiots and your cohorts in the MSM personally attacked, marginalized and offened a segment of the american population, a segment with a high percentage of regular voters, both during the tea-parties and town-hall protests, attacking their freedom of expression and discounting their dissent. Many of us will never forget or forgive what the left/dems/msm did in 09', and we'll make sure our friends family and fellow americans are fully aware of the henious acts you leftist lunatics committed on and toward your fellow americans, and we'll use these examples against your side again and again and again to keep your sorry asses from ever attaining this type of power again. This is undeniable proof that the left doesn't believe in freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and protest, the right to dissent, freedom of opinion, the right to oppose big gov't etc. 09" will forever show that the left is totalitarin, intolerant of opposing views, dictatorial, fascist, and downright EVIL! All the facts are there, thanks to the internet/youtube.

     Posted by barry25 at 08/19/2009 @ 2:20pm

207. barry25-We can tell how the left hates freedom of speech by the way that this leftist blog just let you post that.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2009 @ 2:24pm

208. "causing AARP to lose 60,000 members in just a few days..."

     "The approximately 60,000 number represents members who specifically cited AARP's stance on the health overhaul debate in canceling their membership between July 1 and mid-August, Nannis said."

     http://tinyurl.com/m57cky

     Barry, it's been more than "just a few days" since July 1st. I've warned you before about the meth.

     Posted by FLaim at 08/19/2009 @ 2:31pm

209. max is a frustrating disapointment. --karey mcglynn

     Posted by loveloki at 08/19/2009 @ 2:38pm

210. Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 2:01pm

     I have to go to an appt with a client, but will return to debunk your insanely stupid lies.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/19/2009 @ 2:41pm

211. to antisocialist

     Sorry to flaunt my "insanely stupid lies" to your religious beliefs in Ronald Raygun. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings or blaspheme your god. I am sure the believers in Zeus and Jupitor must have felt the same way. But by all means, start your "debunking".

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 2:45pm

212. Wow, the was so clever and witty! You must really have to be a "deep thinker" to come up with material like that, i'm impressed!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/19/2009 @ 2:47pm

213. And then later they accuse US of being "cult-like" about Obama!

     Posted by Mask at 08/19/2009 @ 1:04pm

     Well, there's a good reason for that: our neocon friends here are, largely, nuts.

     They wax all libertarian an' stuff one minute, then want to tell us who can "marry" whom the next, even claiming ownership of the terminology involved.

     Split personality disorder I think it is called.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/19/2009 @ 2:48pm

214. barry25-Why are you talking to yourself on a blog?

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2009 @ 2:50pm

215. "'Welfare Queen' Becomes Issue in Reagan Campaign". New York Times.

     Posted by FLaim at 08/19/2009 @ 2:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Reagan was a scab.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/19/2009 @ 2:51pm

216. Ok, in just a matter of 45 days, the AARP has lost 60,000 members, due to the HEALTHCARE DEBATE, and that's just the beginning! LOL! That so-called "astroturf" full of "nazis" sure has had an effect on a large number of people! And you soory people discounted them and marginalized them, and now it's time to pay the piper!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/19/2009 @ 2:52pm

217. Posted by barry25 at 08/19/2009 @ 2:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Got a new concept for you too, barry. It's called the paragraph.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/19/2009 @ 2:53pm

218. "As to Limbaugh, you are ignoring the my point which is I don't care whether Limbaugh lied or told the truth about the death panels. It's not relevant to my position.

     (then)

     Limbaugh is correct that he was talking about death panels in the context of discussing the controversy over Sarah Palin's Facebook posting. "----Posted by antisocialist at 08/19/2009 @ 1:31pm

     So you don't care if he's lying....you then say he's not lying....then you say he's correct about something else "in context of", which still means he lied about "never talked about death panels except to quote Sarah Palin".

     Larry, if Limbaugh said "I never said the world was flat"....and three days earlier he said CATAGORICALLY "This proves once again that the world is flat"....

     I swear you'd find a way to excuse it.

     Again, What Would Jesus Do...about Limbaugh lying?

     Posted by Mask at 08/19/2009 @ 2:53pm

219. Nixon showed again what happens when Republicans let a Rockefeller Liberal represent them. He fooled many conservatives into thinking that he was a conservative, but ran the presidency as just another liberal (think EPA, OSHA, wage and price controls, China, etc)

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/19/2009 @ 1:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Yeah, unlike the massive shrinkage in the size of the federal government under the last Repub we had in there.

     LOL.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/19/2009 @ 2:55pm

220. Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/19/2009 @ 2:48pm

     I've noted it often.

     Look at the "Obama is your Messiah" charge.

     Yet here's Larry/antisoc trying to parse words to make it so Limbaugh didn't lie and claiming that Ronald Reagan was the only modern politician who NEVER lied....

     like Tom Cruise discussing L. Ron Hubbard!

     Posted by Mask at 08/19/2009 @ 2:57pm

221. to barry25

     Actually, it is not worth replying. I think I should apologize to everyone else on this blog as I allowed antisocialist's mythic remarks re Reagan to get us off topic. We are supposed to be debating the roots of what is happening with health care and the Obama administration and the current set of Republicans not dead Republicans. Sorry.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 2:59pm

222. Obama lied about almost everything he promised during the campaign. No loobyists? LIE. Not the same ol' wahington establishment? LIE. Clean up supposed "culture of corruption"? LIE, tax cheats across the board in his admin. Pull out of Iraq? Lie. Stop Bush's supposedly "illegal" wiretapping of potential terrorists? BIG FAT LIE, the evil bastard EXPANDED the program you stupid f'ing IDIOTS! and the list goes on and on..........So, you twerps can make up stuff about how Rush lied, or Hannity lied, but YOUR SAVIOR, YOUR PRESIDENT (with absolutely no executive/life experience in the real world) HAS LIED and BROKEN PROMISES REPEATEDLY, and we're still in the first year. He's an embarrassment to himself, his family, african-americans, and humanity as a whole....a clear-cut narcissistic-sociopath.

     Posted by barry25 at 08/19/2009 @ 3:03pm

223. 1. I gladly supported the election of an articulate, intelligent leader for our country and recognize that he has done much to restore dignity and reason to the Oval Office. 2. I reluctantly accept the necessity of your "Publisher's Clearing House" fund raising campaign but I regret that it says two things to me: a. You seem to think that a refrigerator magnet will keep me happy enough to send money, and b. Since it appears that "money" is the only thing that can influence either political party, the good of the country may have to go begging for change. 3. I fear for my country and its values when: a. The level of intellectual ignorance in the healthcare debate goes unchallenged until we have threats of euthanasia being taken seriously and b. It can be perceived that carrying automatic weapons in the street is the true practice of democracy. Hasn't anyone noticed that what Republican operatives are projecting as our future if we DO change the healthcare system is really what will happen if NOTHING is done? Are we really doomed to let greed trump altruism at every turn? 4. Banking and healthcare interests are buying members of both parties. These powerful lobbies controlling how they are to be regulated is like having the wolf persuade the farmer that he will not have to be muzzled near the sheep.

     Posted by pandrews at 08/19/2009 @ 3:26pm

224. The idea that those with expensive health conditions are "useless" is extraordinarily offensive.

     Posted by Metteyya at 08/19/2009 @ 2:09pm

     I don't think I've said anywhere that people with extensive healt conditions are useless. By 'useless', I'm referring to people, and I'm sure this comes as no suprise if you've read my previous posts, who as a way of life choose not to work but instead live off the government tit in the form of welfare abuse or simply by kepping themselves in a position that would qualify them for such.

     I don't think that there are any sane people out there who believe that these people are useful in any way and they surely do not compare by any stretch of the imagination to a veteran. So no, they should not recieve health care in the form of a public option at the expense of people who actually contribute something worthwhile to society. I wonder why you are so easily offended?

     Maybe you are one of these people who carries a chip around. Time to let it go don't you think?

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/19/2009 @ 3:30pm

225. Mask,

     You have absolutely made my day!

     In a post above, you have come up with the best one you have ever come up with. It was hilarious!

     You said above: "........Andy, Barney, Opie, and Floyd pull over a pretty "city woman" for speeding......." (In reference to an Andy Griffith Show episode from the past)

     Andy, Barney, Opie and Floyd?

     More specifically, Opie and Floyd?

     Opie, a child, and Floyd the Barber were deputized to enforce traffic law in Mayberry?

     What about Aunt Bee? What about Gomer, or later on Goober?

     Could Howard Sprague pull over speeders, too?

     Did Barney deputize his sweetheart, Thelma Lou?

     I have no reason to doubt you, so I guess they were serious about traffic safety in Mayberry. The folks over in Mount Pilot were probably jealous.

     Thanks, Mask for the laugh, you have outdone yourself today. Reward yourself with a beer.

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2009 @ 3:58pm

226. Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/19/2009 @ 3:30pm

     Gun,

     I'm confused. I thought TANF would have ameliorated the issue of people "who as a way of life choose not to work but instead live off the government tit in the form of welfare abuse..."

     You see, I remember the images of kids in the South eating the red dirt because they were so poor, despite all the religious and private charities that existed.

     Posted by FLaim at 08/19/2009 @ 4:00pm

227. Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2009 @ 3:58pm

     Yep, Goober was a deputy on several episodes. :-)

     Posted by FLaim at 08/19/2009 @ 4:03pm

228. Barry, I am happy to see you received a new allotment of hate medication. It is just to bad that it won't help you think more clearly.I am happy that you are concerned that AARP members are going over to a conservative organization. You know they are making a mistake and you feel bad for them.Way to go Pin Man.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/19/2009 @ 4:04pm

229. so funny, you have health care reform on the table, that no one can understand, and the pres. can't even articulate because no one fully understands it, can't explain how to pay for it.....and you idiots are claiming that the people are uninformed? They're informed enough to know not to TRUST politicians or congress on anything, and they can spot a "SOCIALIST" (supposed code for african-american according to the left/ the most embarrasssing use of the race card EVER!)FROM A MILE AWAY! They ALSO KNOW, factually, that socialized medicine in europe and canada are FAILURES, that reat people like CATTLE! These Un-informed americans also suspect, JUSTIFIABLY, ANY gov't system that the POLITICIANS who hail it, are unwilling to be put into it themselves! How stupid are you idiotic liberals? You are like sheep. Why in the hell would any of you want a system that your heroes in congress refuse to be a part of themselves? You are truly embarrassing! LOL

     Posted by barry25 at 08/19/2009 @ 4:05pm

230. Stephen_Carver1,

     You say Americans don't believe in preventative medicine but then you say your insurance choices on your job are Kaiser Permanente and Blue Cross.

     You then say you don't use your provider except for an occasional prescription. So I guess you chose Blue Cross.

     Because I have had Kaiser Permanente at a couple points in my life and they believe in preventative medicine.

     As far as the general discussion that takes place here on The Nation about how insurance companies "screw" people and how they pay insurance for years while in good health but then run into health problems and the insurance companies investigate their past and find some reason to drop their coverage or deny them coverage for the illness so they have paid for nothing for many years..............this is the only place I see that discussion.

     The leftist bloggers here on The Nation would have you believe that this is almost an epidemic of sorts, but outside of The Nation (i.e., in the real world) I do not see much discussion about this. I am not going to claim that there have been no insurance companies that have ever done this, of course, but I think it is few and far between. You never hear of it.... ......I think this circumstance is hyped by leftists who want socialized medicine and is not reflective of reality.

     As far as competition, the government opition would not be competition. The government can set the rates for their option way below what the insurance companies can live with, and it will drive them out of business, which is what Obama wants. Private companies have to set a rate that will allow them to recover their costs, the government is not burdened by that, they can pull money from elsewhere or Obama can just add it to the debt he is piling up anyway.

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2009 @ 4:13pm

231. You remind me of hilter's lemmings! Easily indoctrinated, easily made dependant on other's/gov't, easily led, easily controlled, easily screwed!!!!!! Truly embarrassing to the human race, as a whole! My god, your president has NEVER had a real JOB in his life, and you follow him as if he were the all-knowing messiah. He's a nothing! Empty suit, soft hands, "city boy hands" as robert shaw said to that sorry liberal twerp, Richard Drypuss, no REAL WORLD/PRIVATE SECTOR experience, just another nipple-in-mouth, coddled, supposed public servant, which is code for "dude can't make it in the real world"! Osama is nothing! You strip that little boy of all his political power and connections, put him in the real world, with real consequences (an ugly word for lib's), and Obama would be unemplyed for LIFE! He couldn't manage a convenience store. What a charmed life. Did Obama, at any point in his life, do anything without the help of gov't? Pathetic, embarrasssing, and a kick in the teeth of all who died protecting this once great nation!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/19/2009 @ 4:16pm

232. Stephen_Carver1,

     Just to finish my comment (since I ran into the word limit), if private companies set rates at what the government will set, it would probably be considered predatory and illegal. The competition from the government option will not be fair and healthy competition but predatory competition from an entity (the government) that is not dependent on the amount gained from the rate charged to finance the health care they deliver, thus it will not be apples and apples but apples and oranges, or to phrase it otherwise, it will not be a level playing field and the game will be over quickly with the Socialist Team captianed by Dr. Obama coming out the winner.

     Thus Conservatives are not being hypocritical when opposing the government option because that would not be healthy competition in the true sense of the word.

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2009 @ 4:19pm

233. When it came time to assemble a healthcare bill, Baucus gathered behind closed doors with the so-called "gang of six"--Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Republicans Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Grassley.

     You could hardly assemble another list of "elected-by-least-votes" Senators.

     Posted by flotron at 08/19/2009 @ 4:22pm

234. Posted by FLaim at 08/19/2009 @ 4:00pm

     I have mentioned in previous posts which you may or may not have read, that I understood that welfare was created to help feed those poor kids and give their mom, and where a father existed, a leg up. I have no problem paying a little extra to help these people out It was never meant to be a way of life.

     My problem is that segment of society who think that they are owed something an keep themselves in the ready position to recieve all the government handouts that they possibly can. It's not only the welfare queens, who pile the groceries up at the check out counter to feed their eight kids while the rest of us are using coupons too help make ends meet but the people OF ALL COLORS who run around gathering signatures from potential employers just to satisfy the unemployment agency so that they can max out their benefits and then they rejoice when those benefits are extended. If you really want a job you can have one. I know. I've worked three jobs at different points in my life and I would have been embarrassed to take a handout. If the poor need help, that's a horse of a different color but please stop the intentional despersions.

     Stop taking my words out of context because we all know where you're coming from. It's no secret that this condition still exists and working people are tired of it. It doesn't help when Congress people refuse to hold town hall meetings because there afraid to face the 'MOB'. They will face that mob in 2010 at the polls. It's like the old motor oil commercial, pay me now or pay me later. Somehow, Congress forgot that they represent ALL the people, not just the ones they prefer to.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/19/2009 @ 4:23pm

235. Barry15, The only industrialized country in the world without health care for all its citizens is us. The last time I looked we are the country in the worst shape economically of the industrialized countries. Coincidence,I don't think it is . Keep spewing b15 I love it. You are like an old record that skips in the same place every time you play it. Competition is the key b15, we can't compete with Japan,Korea or Brazil. I can't help it we helped them beat us. Look at jeans made in China label and feel good about it.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/19/2009 @ 4:27pm

236. perryfellwock,

     I have seen little indication over the years that air safety in this country has been impacted by the firing of the air traffic controllers.

     Whenever there has been a major air crash in the news the cause usually winds up being pilot error or a mechanical error with the airplane or in the case of the Hudson River landing earlier this year, geese.

     Yet, you imply that Ronald Reagan firing the air traffic controllers was a bad thing.

     It was a good thing, it was an absolutely great thing.

     As you should know, public employees can't strike.

     The controllers went on strike. There was discussion about them being fired, but most people believed there would be negotiation, dialogue, discussion and eventual settlement.

     Instead, President Reagan surprised everybody and fired the Air Traffic Controllers asses.

     They were gone, and not ever allowed to come back.

     It proved than an elected leader can do things without being swayed or intimidated by the machinations of government bureaucracy or union power.

     That is why Ronald Reagan was a great President.

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2009 @ 4:29pm

237. sjchermak-Reagan was not a great president nor was he bad,either.He was quite average which is why he can be made to sound both good and bad.Of course,the fact that people have to say that he was great or bad shows how average he was since you do not have to tell people when a leader is great or bad since that is obvious to most.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2009 @ 4:33pm

238. I wouldn't mind paying taxes, even paying a bit more than I do now, if I ever felt it would make any difference for someone who needs help, but history has shown that no matter how much the gov't confiscates from the taxpayers, it only makes things worse.

     Posted by barry25 at 08/19/2009 @ 4:34pm

239. I wouldnt mind getting rid of government, even privatizing the drinking water if I ever felt it would make any difference for someone who needs help, but history has shown that no matter how much the gov't privatizes and gives to the corporations, it only makes things worse.

     Posted by DPGrassley at 08/19/2009 @ 4:37pm

240. sjchermak, Ron was average at best.For working Americans he was a disaster. Thank him for starting the trend of union busting. All that has done is cost the middle class money in the form of lost wages and benefits. You can say this though,he started the explosion of executive pay. That has made social stratification a huge issue. Are people who work for the government different from other people? I mean they still are individuals are they not. When a strike vote is taken it is individuals that vote.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/19/2009 @ 4:44pm

241. ...,but history has shown that no matter how much the gov't confiscates from the taxpayers, it only makes things worse.

     Posted by barry25 at 08/19/2009 @ 4:34pm

     Is this a personal history of a venereal infection your relating to us perhaps.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2009 @ 4:49pm

242. Look idiots, Gov't/private sector, who gives the public better service? Well, let's ask Obama: "UPS and Fed Ex are doing fine, it's the post office (gov't) that's failing." End of debate...YOU LOSE!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/19/2009 @ 4:58pm

243. "My problem is that segment of society who think that they are owed something an keep themselves in the ready position to recieve all the government handouts that they possibly can...If the poor need help, that's a horse of a different color but please stop the intentional despersions."

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/19/2009 @ 4:23pm

     Gun,

     I am not making any aspersions (despersions?, perhaps you meant dispersions?) concerning your position.

     I am truly interested in your opinion of how some makes this a "way of life" after the enactment of TANF, which is supposed to only last 5 years and requires people to get employment if they are able.

     Unemployment benefits are another matter entirely. And I doubt, even with an extension, that anyone makes a life of unemployment benefits.

     And with the current unemployment rate, I also doubt that "If you really want a job you can have one." Tell that to all the out-of-work line workers in Flint.

     "Stop taking my words out of context because we all know where you're coming from."

     Do tell. Where am I coming from?

     Posted by FLaim at 08/19/2009 @ 4:59pm

244. Barry15- I think you are right. I know who a few people who work for Fed Ex., their new contract this year was a 10% pay cut. Go by Fed Ex terminals and see how many trailers are sitting in the same spot day after day. I see it here, it must be really bad in California with your Republican governor. Things are so good that DHL went out of business. That has helped UPS and Fed Ex. If you come up with enough random thoughts b-15 I will be able to teach you like a little brother.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/19/2009 @ 5:09pm

245. Obamanation and the Demoncrats are purely intellectually dishonest about national healthcare and all you have to do is look a existing programs to see that!

     The most compelling argument against having the government dishing out your aspirins comes from an analysis of basic economics. There is no such thing as universal free medical care. The money has to come from somewhere. The 2010 projected budget for the UK Department of Health will be £110 billion (roughly $187 billion US), most of which will go to pay for the NHS. The latest population figure for Great Britain is just over 60 million souls, of which 29 million are in the workforce.

     So each taxpayer is now paying roughly $6,450 per person for basic care, provided you meet certain age and pre-existing condition guidelines. Compare this with the leading complete-service private insurance program in England, BUPA, which charges $2,180 for an entire family. The government-run NHS charges 3 times more for a far inferior service. And it's getting worse.

     These sums explain why the Conservative Party has not ruled out upping the Value Added Tax (VAT) to 20 percent should the next election turn out the tax and spend Labour Party. VAT (the national sales tax) is charged on most goods and service businesses in the UK. This is on top of the import duties for any foreign made products. In other words, VAT is like always tipping your ‘waitperson' 20 percent on any dinner tab, no matter how bad the service is.

     NHS falls short, most agree, is in establishing preventative programs and providing cutting edge treatments and medications.

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/19/2009 @ 5:18pm

246. A recent report published by The Institute for Fiscal Studies offers three possible future scenarios for NHS funding. The categories are: tepid, cold and arctic (with apologies to global warming enthusiasts). All require raising taxes even higher to maintain present NHS levels of care. Demands on the system are expected to increase along with an aging population, decreasing taxpayer base, and with absolutely no guarantee patients will not continue to die from superbugs whilst in hospital. This includes ye olde MSRA bacterial infections and new foreign imports from returning "medical tourists" who went abroad to escape long waiting lists for basic surgeries like hip replacements.

     Another publication: "From Cradle to Grave -- 50 Years of the NHS," warns that the state of public finances will now -- more than ever -- require "difficult trade-offs." Sounds like code words to die for. The IFS study concludes that the future of the NHS is "far from rosy," a dainty understatement if there ever was one.

     But wait, it gets better. If a free-for-all National Health Service is so dandy, why is one major London hospital producing infomercials to raise private funds? Well, because they need the money. So out are trotted cancer-ridden children with wide-eyed appeals to help pay for "Linda, my nurse, who gave me so much love." Or so that "Mommy can stay with me when I am here."

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/19/2009 @ 5:20pm

247. These sad sagas are virtually identical to the TV appeals mounted for stray dogs and even donkeys. Yes -- now British television viewers are told about unfortunate donkeys that fall over in the desert and cannot get up. FYI: there are no deserts in England. Where these poor beasts of burden are falling over is not mentioned in pleas to contribute just £3 a month to stand them back up again. We shall not lapse into jokes about subsidizing asses. Feel free to make up your own.

     Should you be interested, a current copy (January 2009) of the National Health Service Constitution for England is available on-line here.

     It offers a glimpse into what may be the future of your health care - and what it could cost you - if Obama gets his way.

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/19/2009 @ 5:20pm

248. barry25-I'm quite happy that you were able to end the debate and declare yourself to be the winner.On top of that you got to call people names which always means that you win.At least,it did on the playground.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/19/2009 @ 5:22pm

249. Do tell. Where am I coming from?

     Posted by FLaim at 08/19/2009 @ 4:59pm

     Since you asked:

     Well you are obviously liberal minded. I think from your comments that you'd prefer to live in a socialist society although I could be wrong. But I doubt it.

     I've stated over and over that America takes care of it's poor in the form of welfare, food stamps and housing but you'll get nowhere with me trying to deny that there are people who make a living off the dole. And this is no small problem. What about all the mortgages that were issued to people who never had a realistic chance of paying them back, even for a few months. It's so easy to waste taxpayer's money trying to correct all this compassion. If you can't here the din of the angry uprising, you are just plain indifferent.

     And please, don't be correcting my typos or incorrect use of words. I don't do that to anyone else here. I don't claim to be an elite, just a common working man with attitude. I generally don't proofread and I probably type way too fast but I think I make my point. I really don't see how I can possibly bmake myself more clear.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/19/2009 @ 5:32pm

250. You pay tens of thousands of dollars to the insurance companies for decade after decade.

     What is the reward? Going bankrupt anyway.

     Recission, pre-existing condition, bonus money for the VP who hires the lawyer to rip you off legally (or even illegally if they calculate that you're unlikely to sue).

     The customer who pays the company tens of thousands of dollars for 20 years gets no favoritism over the customer who waits 20 years while they are young and then finally signs up.

     Lose your job, lose your insurance, then, can't get new insurance because of pre-existing condition.

     How about those free emergency rooms!! Sure they're free, if you are already broke or were planning on filing bankruptcy anyway. Sure they're free, as long as you don't need a finger sewed back on.

     Conservatives merely lie to themselves, oh I may not be rich but I will be soon (riiiight). So what if you are rich - what about your friends and family??? Have you ever felt compassion for your friends and family? I paid over $5,000 to get 2 of my friends teeth fixed, there isnt an emergency room in the country that would have fixed them for free. I saved over $20,000 by not having insurance these last 10 years, I would have gladly spent $40,000 if there was some kind of guarantee of claims being paid. That $20,000 would have went right in the company coffers to pay for the attorneys to deny me coverage.

     Conservatives you arent getting the kind of hate you deserve, because Liberals have submitted to decades of Wimp Training!!! But that is over!!! Grassley isnt negotiating, the wimps have been humiliated and made fools of, no compromise with authoritarians is EVER warranted.

     Liberals are getting angrier, it

     Posted by DPGrassley at 08/19/2009 @ 5:38pm

251. Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 2:10pm

     I don't deny there is a "connection" between poppies and the Afghanistan war. The sale of heroin worldwide is helping to finance terrorism everywhere. However, I believe that your connection between the Obama administration, the sale of heroin and the reasons for escalating the war are erroneous and ultimately, ridiculous. Naif that I am.

     Now, are there big corporate type powers who might be interested in illegitimizing Obama's presidency and bringing down America for their own ends? Hell yes. Might they be double dealing at the trough of the illegal drug trade (i.e. decrying it in America yet supporting it elsewhere)? Yes, of course. Just like the weapons manufacturers in this country who sell arms to our enemies and then cry that their liberty is being taken by the evil "Demoncrats."

     That's doesn't mean the administration is actively involved. Taken advantage of? More likely.

     The reason we are escalating in Afghanistan is because we never put the right resources into that war to begin with, thanks to W's incompetency and his hardon for Saddam.

     But knowing that doesn't mean I support an increase of troop levels in Afghanistan. I say we go assassinate (from the Arabic root "Hashshashin" ironic, that) OBL and his #2 - #10 (none of which goes against our laws regarding assassinations) and be done with it. I've always thought the rest of the WoT (what a joke!) should be led by the CIA, Interpol and our federal policing agencies in coordination with other nations' agencies.

     Get rid of the boogeyman, turn the lights on...and watch the cockroaches go scurrying away.

     Put the terrorists behind bars with the bloods, the crips, the Mexican mafia and the neo-Nazis and see how long they last.

     (cont)

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 5:39pm

252. (cont)

     So, why are we fighting this "War on Terror" anyway? 9/11? The Cole? OBL? Not remotely. We're fighting it because it's profitable.

     There are, at most, 50,000 "Islamo-fascist terrorists" in the world today. Unless our recruiting efforts continue in Iraq and Afghanistan, that number will drop. We've spent over a trillion dollars trying to eradicate them with no true measure of success available. (The "we haven't been hit since 9/11" argument carries no water with me, since it is primarily stated by the same people who blame Clinton for 9/11.)

     That equates to roughly $20 million (or more) per terrorist that we've spent so far...and doesn't include other countries' expenditures (and who do most of them buy their weapons from? US). If the weapons manufacturers and their corporate allies that make up Military Industrial Complex aren't behind the continuation of these wars, then no one is. Follow the money. And yet the Republican Christian conservatives [like Anti] don't seem to acknowledge that greed is one of the 7 deadly sins. Imagine that.

     So, yeah…it comes back to Halliburton, Blackwater, GE, Boeing, and all the other companies (Oil) that feed off public subsidies on the one hand, a huge federal budget for the military on the other hand, and profits from the public sector on the third hand. Yes, the third hand.

     They are profiting off these wars by building bigger and better ways for humans to kill each other, at the expense of every American's basic services, like health care. Republicans don't have a problem with that, and they bastardize "free market" Capitalism to justify it all, and a misread of the Constitution (corporations have rights) to make it all quasi-legal.

     Sad. What would Jesus do, indeed.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 5:41pm

253. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 1:51pm

     Both parties are in the pockets of big business. Wake up. Barack Obama is a Chicago politician. That's really all you need to know. Republicans are playing the same game as democrats did in the Nixon, Reagan and Bush days. The pendulum swings back and forth.

     My question for you is why the hell aren't you as angry as I am to have to pay for all the bullshit. I'm telling you, Barack Obama's election has awakened people. They now have heard of ACORN for maybe the first time. There is NO change. People have dutifully forked over their hard earned cash for decades now and they finally are waking up. When will you?

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/19/2009 @ 5:43pm

254. Little pasture- You puzzle me with your comments which are so well written but always fall short. It is like you have a calculator that is missing the 6 and the 7. Thanks for giving us a cost on English supplemental insurance ,that was interesting. I am sure you know about 4000 british people who unhappy with their health care.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/19/2009 @ 5:51pm

255. Posted by barry25 at 08/19/2009 @ 4:05pm

     Hmmmmm... nope. Not hearing a big "mooooooooo" coming from either Canada or Europe. I guess that means Barry is wrong. Dang! I was hoping this ONE time he was right!

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 5:52pm

256. Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/19/2009 @ 5:32pm

     I don't correct typos either, but in trying to understand what you mean, I think it's important to get the right word. I certainly don't want to be accused of intentionally misinterpreting what you say. Oh, you already did that.

     "And this is no small problem."

     That's where we differ. It seems to me that you are stuck in a 60's mentality of vast hordes of welfare cheats taking food from the mouths of hard-working Americans. I simply don't believe that is the case today. I'm open to changing my mind if anyone can supply more than their opinions on the subject.

     And again, the sub-prime loans were made by corporations, so I'm glad you agree that greed caused the financial problems we are currently experiencing.

     And you are wrong. If I preferred a socialist society, I have the means to immigrate to one if I so desired. I have never been on the "dole". I have started more than one capitalist company that employed(s) lots of people. I would not want anyone taking away my "means of production." I also own guns and was taught to shoot and use them correctly at the age of 9 by my father. I think people who can work should, and I value education as a means of improving the lives of those who can't afford the 40K a year it takes to put a student into some schools. I paid 8K a year for K-3 for my two children to attend a private school, and never complained that my taxes were being taken to support public education. I despise corporate welfare much more than individual welfare as reformed by Clinton and TANF.

     And, I HATE greed. If those things make me liberal-minded, then I accept the label heartily.

     Posted by FLaim at 08/19/2009 @ 5:54pm

257. Liberals are getting angrier, it

     Posted by DPGrassley at 08/19/2009 @ 5:38pm

     The angry liberal? That is the nature of liberals. Always hating, wanting to control everything and everybody.

     As to your dental example, it makes no sense. Here in CA, lower income individuals and families (including illegals) get free dental through MediCal which is simply the state application of Medicaid.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/19/2009 @ 6:00pm

258. As far as competition, the government opition would not be competition. The government can set the rates for their option way below what the insurance companies can live with, and it will drive them out of business, which is what Obama wants. Private companies have to set a rate that will allow them to recover their costs, the government is not burdened by that, they can pull money from elsewhere or Obama can just add it to the debt he is piling up anyway.

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2009 @ 4:13pm

     Sjcherm,

     So let me understand this correctly. What you (and all Republicants) are saying is that on the one hand, government run medical programs are "lousy and don't work," and on the other hand that government can't run a health care program without "cheating" the poor little health insurance industry.

     Kinda talking out of both sides of your hypocritical mouth, ain'tcha?

     Personally, as long as the overall recipients of that "cheat" (no insurance flunkies and lower prices) are the American people, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it and I have the feeling that if put to them that way, the majority of Americans would agree.

     As for the former, I have proof you're wrong on that (Medicare and the VA...they work!).

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 6:02pm

259. And yet the Republican Christian conservatives [like Anti] don't seem to acknowledge that greed is one of the 7 deadly sins. Imagine that.

     They are profiting off these wars by building bigger and better ways for humans to kill each other, at the expense of every American's basic services, like health care. Republicans don't have a problem with that, and they bastardize "free market" Capitalism to justify it all, and a misread of the Constitution (corporations have rights) to make it all quasi-legal.

     Sad. What would Jesus do, indeed.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 5:41pm

     Wrong again grasshopper. I have always condemned greed. You will never find a statement from me lauding greed.

     BTW, the list of the 7 "deadly" sins is a manmade work of the Catholic church. All sin is deadly to mankind apart from the blood of Jesus.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/19/2009 @ 6:07pm

260. Conservatives don't have any idea what is it like to be hated as much as they deserve. Because of Conservatives, Americans were slaughtered en-masse in Iraq. Because of Conservatives, Americans are paying tens of thousands of dollars to insurance for decades and decades and then going bankrupt anyway even with insurance - or denied coverage - Americans!!! Liberals have been idealizing a Jesus Christ turn the other cheek attitude - that would be fine if it was talking about non-violence which I support - but to turn the other cheek in terms of rhetoric, to turn the other cheek in terms of not releasing the f---ing pictures, to turn the other cheek in terms of bi-partisan CRAP, is unacceptable and must not continue. Hate is the only appropriate emotion towards those who would make America authoritarian and deny health care to hard-working peace-loving law-abiding Americans. Down with bi-partisanship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     Posted by DPGrassley at 08/19/2009 @ 6:09pm

261. Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 2:01pm

     1.Reagan and actors= has nothing to do with him as president. However, I am thankful that he placed country above cronyism and turned in communists bent on the overthrow of our country.

     2.Clinton admin was the most corruption

     here from the Progressive Review (the same progress review that created your list of lies)

     http://www.prorev.com/legacy.htm

     Now add in the 15 convictions from Whitewater

     http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=44804

     3.While it's not a lie that 241 Marines died from a Hezbollah terrorist attack in Lebanon, it doesn't make Reagan either corrupt or a liar. I don't think most Americans believe that rescuing American students from a marxist threat is a joke.

     4. the standard of living of the poor-86% of the poorest economic quintile as of 1979 had experienced an increase in standard of living by 1988, and 0% a decrease

     (US Treasury, Office of Analysis, 1992)

     The poverty rate fell from 15.2% during the peak of the 1982 recession to 12.8% when Reagan left office (U.S. Bureau of the Census)

     And more data

     http://www.ronaldreagan.com/rush2.html

     Reagan's Tax Reform Act 1986, included the escalation of the EITC and its indexation to inflation (a move I disagreed with).

     Let's use an example of Medicaid. You claim Reagan cut Medicaid. The CBO shows Medicaid spending increased from 16.8 billion in 1981 to 30.5 billion in 1988.

     http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

     Reagan did propose cuts and I wish he would have succeed since these programs are unconstitutional. However, the facts are that spending on these programs increased.

     continued

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/19/2009 @ 6:10pm

262. Posted by perryfellwock at 08/19/2009 @ 2:01pm

     5. The financial deregulation was implemented by Carter not Reagan.

     http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33206

     6. Trees cause pollution-Reagan has been proven correct

     <According to a study by the University of Helsinki, coniferous forests--that is to say, those composed of trees such as pines--release nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere that combine with other pollutants to form smog.>

     http://tinyurl.com/lneqon

     7. Air Traffic Controllers-they broke the law and Reagan correctly fired them. The move was popular with the majority of Americans at the time.

     8. Recession and unemployment-I lived through the misery of the Carter years,trying to raise a family. The recession officially started in 1980 while Carter was president. The Reagan tax cuts broke the back of the out of control inflation and high interest rates which resulted in the largest and most productive gain in the economy in our nation's history (including the creation of 20 million jobs).

     9. The traitorous Congress attempted to take over foreign policy which is the responsibility of the executive branch. Between the traitors on the Church committee in the 1970's to those who attempted to stop Reagan from halting the spread of communism in our hemisphere, the Congress nearly succeeded in destroying our country.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/19/2009 @ 6:11pm

263. Anti-American, compassion might not make any sense to you, but I disagree - compassion DOES make sense - in my opinion. California may have some kind of socialized medicine that covers teeth - I doubt it - you're probably lying through your Conservative teeth - but if such a fantasy were true - it would be socialize medicine. Compassion makes sense - you dont - you suck.

     Posted by DPGrassley at 08/19/2009 @ 6:13pm

264. Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/19/2009 @ 5:43pm

     So, it's all ACORN'S fault? Wow. I always thought it was the ACLU's fault, or Planned Parenthood's fault.

     I think it is everyone's fault (including my own) for not fighting back harder when Reagan was elected and ushered in "trickle down economics" which his own VP once called "voodoo" economics.

     Short term gain, long term nightmare. We're now officially in the long term nightmare.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/19/2009 @ 6:16pm

265. http://www.modbee.com/local/story/722254.html

     HEY, F---ING, CONSERVATIVE AUTHORITARIAN LYING PIECE OF SH--:

     Medi-Cal dental benefits expiring soon Emergency rooms not prepared to handle expected patient influx By Ken Carlson kcarlson@modbee.com Buzz up! E-Mail Print Comments (21) Recommend (0) Text Size: tool nameclose tool goes here As of July 1, the state Medi-Cal system no longer will cover dental care for low-income adults.

     Posted by DPGrassley at 08/19/2009 @ 6:20pm

266. Anti-American, compassion might not make any sense to you, but I disagree - compassion DOES make sense - in my opinion. California may have some kind of socialized medicine that covers teeth - I doubt it - you're probably lying through your Conservative teeth - but if such a fantasy were true - it would be socialize medicine. Compassion makes sense - you dont - you suck.

     Posted by DPGrassley at 08/19/2009 @ 6:13pm

     Well, I stand corrected. Free dental care ended July 1st. It doesn't mean that I'm wrong. It has been a standing coverage here for many years.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/19/2009 @ 6:41pm

267. You get what you pay for. We, corporate America, pay for power. I'm not sure who would have called Grassley a moderate and rational bipartisan. Meds? He has pushed policy out the window and achieved everything he desired. A plan nobody could vote for.

     Bauchus is the med man. Every democrat knew before the negotions began that he was the number one money launderer for corporate America. Worse than being the highest paid Senator, he uses this money himself to purchase Senatorial power. The ultimate deception.

     Obama needs the meds. Fortunately, he's getting a big dose of reality for Change In America.

     Posted by crooked6p at 08/19/2009 @ 6:55pm

268. "Well, I stand corrected. Free dental care ended July 1st. It doesn't mean that I'm wrong. It has been a standing coverage here for many years."

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/19/2009 @ 6:41pm

     I wouldn't worry about it too much, Anti. Arnold proposed doing away with all the state's welfare program for families, medical insurance for low-income children and Cal Grants cash assistance to college and university students last March.

     Something about the $21.3 billion budget shortfall. Ain't recession grand?

     Posted by FLaim at 08/19/2009 @ 6:59pm

269. I kind of have to agree with Mask on this one. We were complaining under Bush that the President had ceded too much power from Congress. Now that Obama is trying to do this the proper way and allow Congress to create the legislation liberals are freaking out and saying he should take control. Same with the stimulus plan. The President doesn't make laws. That was the biggest problem under Bush. He dictated law to Congress. That's not the President's job.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/19/2009 @ 6:59pm

270. Why does Congress get paid at all? The discussion in the country has nothing to do with the results.

     They have negotiated a plan that already guarantees Health Insurance companies a 35% profit limit. So, lower deductibles and higher bills.

     The longer we let Republicans and Blue Dogs negotiate the more we will pay for this "conservative" plan. And why be surprised? All of them are being paid by INSURANCE COMPANIES.

     Throw out the bill. Not one of us can afford the negotiated savings. We'd do better under the existing laws. And tell Congress to take a holiday ... until the next election.

     Posted by crooked6p at 08/19/2009 @ 7:51pm

271. Twillie, It sounds like you agree that it was private institutions greed that had a "large part to play in causing the financial crisis." And that Frank was just stupid. Sort of like the vast majority of congresscritters that voted for the war authorization without even reading the NIE. "Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market."

     Posted by FLaim at 08/18/2009 @ 10:10pm

     No, I don't agree. Fannie, Freddie, and Frankie incentivized making bad loans, by buying them up as fast as they could. they didnt "struggle", they became the largest BUYERS of subprime and alt-a mortgages, the most risky and first to fail.

     Incentivization- what the government does to encourage a certain behavior. In this case, the wrong behavior. the Dems want to hold all kinds of hearings to pillory the people that THEY blame. They should look in a mirror.

     Cash for Clunkers - Another incentivization plan. Do you think that all these people would have been buying cars over the last few weeks if they weren't getting $4500? Seems like a great idea, huh?

     But what about the working poor, who can't afford a new car? All those inexpensive, but mechanically sound cars have all been junked.

     Posted by twillie at 08/19/2009 @ 8:57pm

272. Call it hijack , or whatever, Obama needs a bill to sign and the progressives will accept whatever comes out. The rationalization will be they will fix it up later. Much as Democrats did when they accepted denying Medicare the right to negotiate for better pharma prices to extend Medicare coverage to prescriptions. They would revisit it and correct it later. Never happened and already excluded this time around.

     There will be benefits and significantly greater availability to insurance likely, but without a methodology to lower costs, sooner or later, costs will increase again. Without either regulation of all health care costs or competition from a government run Medicare like coverage, there is no mechanism to lower costs and without lower costs either participation or service will decline .

     In the meantime insurance companies will be delivered millions of subsidized clients, at a time they find it unprofitable to supply consistent service at a profit as more cannot afford premiums, deductibles, and copays.....

     Charlie M

     Posted by cmsandia at 08/19/2009 @ 9:43pm

273. Look idiots, Gov't/private sector, who gives the public better service? Well, let's ask Obama: "UPS and Fed Ex are doing fine, it's the post office (gov't) that's failing." End of debate...YOU LOSE!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/19/2009 @ 4:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     You have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

     The Postal Service has a mandate to go to every address, everyday, everywhere. A lot of the rural service, for example, cannot be done profitably. It is the fulfillment of the constitutional directive to establish a system of post roads, etc. It is a universal service concept. If you want to review the validity of that concept in the modern debate, ok. But they're doing what they are MANDATED to do.

     Apples and oranges comparing them to UPS, Fedex et al.

     You DO REALIZE, Barry, do you not, that the Postal Service does much of what is called the "final mile" of delivery, i.e., UPS/FEDEX drop-ship, literally, pallets of parcels at the P.O. for final delivery in less-profitable (typically low-density, non-urban) areas?

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/19/2009 @ 9:51pm

274. Whoops. Almost forgot.

     YOU LOSE!!!

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/19/2009 @ 9:58pm

275. Why does Obama seem to have more difficulties with Democrats in Congress than Reagan did? Posted by Mistral at 08/18/2009 @ 11:16am:

     Reagan was an experienced pro and knew how to work the political system while Obama is just a young guy who has a lot to learn.

     You want a solution to the healthcare system that will get everyone covered, keep the government panels from scaring seniors "to death" (no pun intended), and not breaking the bank. Look no further than John Mackey and Whole Foods. A plan like that would scale-up. You dwebes on the left may not like healthcare without total government control but the rest of us will.

     Posted by pyeatte at 08/19/2009 @ 10:17pm

276. Leftists love to talk about Canada socialist health!

     Vancouver, Canada's health authority is mulling skipping over more than 6,000 surgeries in an effort to close a $200 million budget shortfall, according to a report in the Vancouver Sun.

     The excised procedures would include a host of neurosurgeries, treatment for vascular diseases and other medically necessary procedures -- leaving patients waiting long periods of time for their backordered operations, said Canadian health critic Adrian Dix.

     Dix pointed to a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document he said outlined the cuts.

     "This hasn't been announced by the health authority … but these cuts are coming," Dix said, citing figures he gleaned from an unpublished executive summary of "proposed VCH surgical reductions."

     The health authority confirmed the document is genuine, but said it represents ideas only. It is a planning document. It has not been approved or implemented," said spokeswoman Anna Marie D'Angelo.

     Canada's national health insurance program, often referred to as "Medicare," is theoretically designed to ensure that all residents have reasonable access to medically necessary hospital and physician services -- on a prepaid basis.

     Instead of having a single national plan, Canada has a national program that is composed of 13 interlocking provincial and territorial health insurance plans, all framed by the Canada Health Act (CHA).

     Roles and responsibilities for Canada's health care system are shared between the federal and provincial-territorial governments. Under CHA, criteria and conditions are specified that must be satisfied by the provincial and territorial health care insurance plans in order for them to qualify for their full share of the federal cash contribution.

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/19/2009 @ 10:32pm

277. Recently, the new president of the Canadian Medical Association said Canada's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

     Dr. Anne Doig argued that patients are getting less than optimal care.

     "We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," she told The Canadian Press.

     On the Vancouver front, Dr. Brian Brodie, president of the BC Medical Association, called the proposed surgical cuts "a nightmare," according to the Vancouver Sun. "Why would you begin your cost-cutting measures on medically necessary surgery? I just can't think of a worse place," he said.

     According to the leaked document, Vancouver Coastal wants to close nearly a quarter of its operating rooms starting in September and to cut 6,250 surgeries. As many of 112 full-time jobs -- including 13 anesthesiologist positions -- would be affected by the reductions, the document indicates.

     "Clearly this will impact the capacity of the health-care system to provide care, not just now but in the future," Dix said.

     Hope noone really needs a Canadian operation to live!!!!!!

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/19/2009 @ 10:34pm

278. ...,but history has shown that no matter how much the gov't confiscates from the taxpayers, it only makes things worse.

     Posted by barry25 at 08/19/2009 @ 4:34pm

     Is this a personal history of a venereal infection your relating to us perhaps.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2009 @ 4:49pm

     Look idiots, Gov't/private sector, who gives the public better service? Well, let's ask Obama: "UPS and Fed Ex are doing fine, it's the post office (gov't) that's failing." End of debate...YOU LOSE!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/19/2009 @ 4:58pm

     Having problems and failing are two very different premises. A football team can have a lot of problems and still win the superbowl.

     OBAMA: 'UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems"

     And the major problem with repubs, they never figured out how to win without making the USA fail...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2009 @ 10:49pm

279. Ain't recession grand?

     Posted by FLaim at 08/19/2009 @ 6:59pm

     They are absolutely necessary in just about any economic system and unavoidable in any case.

     Recessions give rise to the often-delayed (and unpleasant) but critical task of weeding out wastes and inefficiencies.

     Posted by Happy at 08/19/2009 @ 11:03pm

280. Leftists always cite big business or "corporate America" as villians but these same leftists do not mind having the things big business and "corporate America" produce available to them to make their lives better.

     Posted by sjchermak

     Kepone, DDT, Ford Pinto, Big Macs, Asbestos, Dioxin (Agent Orange), PCBs, Carbaryl, Plutonium, Tobacco products, Chloroflurocarbons etc...

     Posted by koroviev at 08/20/2009 @ 12:56am

281. "Fannie, Freddie, and Frankie incentivized making bad loans, by buying them up as fast as they could. they didnt "struggle", they became the largest BUYERS of subprime and alt-a mortgages, the most risky and first to fail. "

     Posted by twillie at 08/19/2009 @ 8:57pm

     "They are absolutely necessary in just about any economic system and unavoidable in any case."

     Posted by Happy at 08/19/2009 @ 11:03pm

     Twillie, I don't think that's correct. They may be the largest US holders, but the UK, Japan and China, and their banks hold a huge amount. I'll have look it up later.

     Happy, recessions are only inevitable in a boom and bust economy. There is something economists call "market equilibrium." It's when "Irrational exuberance" takes over, when profits are high, and people assume the good times will always roll that we have problems, whether a .com or expecting home equity to increase 5-10% "because it usually does." If 10 companies are put out of business by 10 others due to better efficiencies, then a recession need not occur.

     And yes, some economists look at recessions as a means to improve efficiencies. I don't think we still need any buggy whip factories.

     Good night to all.

     Posted by FLaim at 08/20/2009 @ 02:01am

282. Posted by sjchermak at 08/19/2009 @ 3:58pm

     Barney, you bet everything, you know that?

     ((BTW...Rush still lied))

     Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 07:55am

283. You have to see what they are doing with hospitals in the Twin Cities. They now make the entrances look like you arrived at a nice hotel. Why does anyone wonder about the high cost of health care. Conservatives accept it for what it is theft. They hope sometime in their life they can play Jesse James. When you stand for me-me-me that is what you will get . Look at little pasture, he will not acknowledge the outlandish costs of health care worldwide it doesn't fit his philosophy. It is socialist this and that. Oh look at this example of this. Face the dacts, health care is all about corporate profit,nothing more or less. That is why there is this debate. If you think corporate greed is all right listen to big pasture. If you don't,listen to me and others.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/20/2009 @ 08:33am

284. Face the dacts, health care is all about corporate profit,nothing more or less. That is why there is this debate. If you think corporate greed is all right listen to big pasture. If you don't,listen to me and others.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/20/2009 @ 08:33am

     Then why is the largest HMO, Kaiser, a nonprofit?

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 09:27am

285. Posted by FLaim at 08/20/2009 @ 02:01am |

     Here's an article with some of the relevant numbers of domestic vs foreign ownership of treasuries and US securities / corp debt.

     http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10607

     The question these days: will you be ready for the dislocation China has in store for us?

     Why wage physical war when economic war will do?

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/20/2009 @ 09:50am

286. "Then why is the largest HMO, Kaiser, a nonprofit?"------Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 09:27am

     Kaiser's Medical Groups that provide the actual care for its Health Plan members....are non-profit?

     Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 09:56am

287. >>>>Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/19/2009 @ 3:30pm <<<

     GUNSLINGER,

     The Welfare Queen living off the public dole who has 10 kids and drives a big Cadillac when her lazy dope-smoking, pimp boyfriend isn't driving it, is a FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION!

     This entire conservative fantasy died with Ronald Reagan, and now we see homeless VETERANS on the street. That's right: VETERANS!!!

     I know you don't want to hear this because there are a lot of veterans in those swing states that put Barack over the top, but the plain fact is that Bush/Cheney only cared about "active-duty" soldiers, and completely abandoned these same people when they came home after fighting for our country.

     Some of the health conditions of these veterans were completely ignored under Bush, especially mental health treatment.

     The only thing I will give you is that with a public option, if the REPUBLICANS ever regain power again, then seniors ARE in danger of having their health conditions ignored if we look at how Republicans have treated our veterans!

     I guess Rush Limbaugh and Freedom Works are actually telling the public what would happen in a public option if "they" were in power, and this SHOULD frighten most Americans who are not wealthy.

     Posted by Metteyya at 08/20/2009 @ 10:20am

288. Kaiser's Medical Groups that provide the actual care for its Health Plan members....are non-profit?

     Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 09:56am

     My brother used to work as a data base analyst for a large coop in a northwestern state similar to Kaiser. Part of his job was writing software for the database that pretty much decided who would get what kind of care under set circumstances. For example, if somebody was up there in the years and had a terminal type of cancer, that person was pretty much stonewalled. The process was slowed down and that person was placed on a waiting list behind others. The idea was that the cancer or whatever they had would kill them before costly surgery was done.

     Think about it, they are old, they aren't going to be paying their for their benefits much longer, so they are unimportant or put in a better way, not cost effective from the business side of the equation....in short, pull the plug. And these same corporations claim the government is going to run death panels?! The hypocracy of these people knows no bounds.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/20/2009 @ 11:16am

289. The hypocracy of these people knows no bounds.

     Sorry should be hypocrisy.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/20/2009 @ 11:19am

290. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/20/2009 @ 11:16am

     Plus, I'm sure all the Kaiser execs are working for minimum wage +$1 an hour.

     Likely Larry heard a "throwaway line" about Kaiser being "non-profit" and decided to use it...before actually looking into the company's practices.

     Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 11:22am

291. "Here's an article with some of the relevant numbers of domestic vs foreign ownership of treasuries and US securities / corp debt.

     http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10607"

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/20/2009 @ 09:50am

     Thanks, Snow. It's just as I suspected. Freddie and Fannie are really a blip on the screen.

     "China's State Council approved a plan Wednesday to spend 850 billion yuan ($124.3 billion) in the next three years to reform the country's troubled health care system. Measures include expanding health insurance coverage to 90% of the populace and overhauling woefully inadequate public hospitals."

     "With various details still unspecified, the government's plan is to provide annual health subsidies to citizens as well as to implement a system to deliver vital drugs and vaccines."

     China Takes A Stab At Universal Health Care - Forbes Jan -09

     "The question these days: will you be ready for the dislocation China has in store for us?"

     I guess I should tell my kids to start learning Mandarin.

     Posted by FLaim at 08/20/2009 @ 12:14pm

292. "Likely Larry heard a "throwaway line" about Kaiser being "non-profit" and decided to use it...before actually looking into the company's practices."

     Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 11:22am

     On no, Mask, please don't get me started on Kaiser...

     "The latest example of this trend is being carried out in a Kaiser plan for warehouse style regional Call Centers. The plan calls for the implementation of computerized "canned" sets of medical advice staffed by "Teleservice Representatives" (TRs) that field patients' calls. TRs may soon be the first person - and possibly the only one - with whom a Kaiser member may speak when calling in for help to one of these centers. TRs are appointment clerks who will be discussing symptoms with patients. TRs will decide whether to allow a patient to speak to a Registered Nurse or a physician.

     The required educational and skill levels of Teleservice Representatives are markedly different from those of Registered Nurses.

     Teleservice Representatives:

     a high school education, no formal health care education, and no professional license.

     Registered Nurses:

     a formal degree in Nursing with intensive education including anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, and chemistry. They are licensed health care professionals."

     http://tinyurl.com/n4ctwf

     Posted by FLaim at 08/20/2009 @ 12:53pm

293. Kaiser's Medical Groups that provide the actual care for its Health Plan members....are non-profit?

     Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 09:56am

     <Fast Facts about Kaiser Permanente Founded in 1945, Kaiser Permanente is the nation's largest not-for-profit health plan, serving more than 8.6 million members, with headquarters in Oakland, Calif. It comprises:

     Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and their subsidiaries The Permanente Medical Groups.>

     http://xnet.kp.org/newscenter/aboutkp/fastfacts.html

     Many of my friends and family are Kaiser members. I've never heard any of them grumble about it. I believe Snowball said he is a Kaiser member.

     I know as someone who used to sell healthcare coverage years ago, that Kaiser is almost always a less expensive choice for healthcare coverage.

     I think they are a good company.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 1:44pm

294. Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 1:44pm |

     Cool...care to address any of the issues raised by Wolfgang or FLaim?

     Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 2:00pm

295. Cool...care to address any of the issues raised by Wolfgang or FLaim?

     Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 2:00pm

     1. Flaim's link-It just another anti-organization from reading it.

     The teleservice idea seems pretty good to me.

     2. Wolfgang doesn't actually cite Kaiser, he cites what he calls "similar to Kaiser". How do you respond to that kind of vagueness?

     Let me add more anecdotal evidence. While I don't participate, my wife is of another view (I call a hypochondriac-politely of course). She has been a member of Kaiser for more than 20 years. She loves Kaiser. She must, she goes at least once a month. She always gets in to see a doctor within a day of calling. She has gone to numerous specialists without more than a $15 co-pay. Most of her prescriptions are $5.

     She's also had 2 surgeries with no co-pays.

     As I said, I know many other friends and family with the same experience. One of the pro Universal Health Care radio hosts here, Bill Handel is an enthusiastic supporter of Kaiser which he says he's used for nearly 30 years.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 2:38pm

296. REPUBLICAN PROPAGANDA DRIVING POLLS

     There is this Republican and Republican pollster propaganda trying to convince us that the President and Democrats are losing and that their popularity is falling. It is not falling. People have been made by Republican pollsters and Party to base their answers on things that are patently false. But look at SurveyUSA poll that came out today. In that poll, 77% of Americans support public option in the health care bill. And there is another funny propaganda coming from the Republican side. I call this one the MITT ROMLEY HYPOCRISY. Ambitious Mitt just said the President should forget "extreme" left wing Democrats and negotiate with "extreme" right wing Republicans (led by Rush Limbaugh) who have been saying no to everything! Republicans get to keep their base; Democrats throw theirs overboard. Absurd logic indeed! Dr. Sam

     Posted by drsam8 at 08/20/2009 @ 2:44pm

297. Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 2:38pm

     Does Kaiser...pay for abortions, as Blue Cross does?

     Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 3:54pm

298. 1. Flaim's link-It just another anti-organization from reading it.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 2:38pm

     Anti,

     Yes, the link I provided is an anti-Kaiser page. That doesn't diminish some of the facts they present.

     Such as:

     "The California Supreme Court disagreed. It found that the only thing binding about Kaiser's arbitration process was that it tied up cases so long that patients sometimes died before having a chance to pursue their grievances. Wilfredo Engalla was one of those literally dying to get his grievance against Kaiser heard.

     Wilfredo Engalla alleged medical malpractice in the misdiagnosis of his lung cancer. He requested arbitration on May 31, 1991. He died Oct. 23, 1991, the day after both sides agreed to a neutral arbitrator.

     The court found that, ...Kaiser fraudulently induced Engalla to enter the arbitration agreement... by misrepresenting the speed and fairness of its arbitration program.

     The court also noted Kaiser had a financial incentive to wait until after Engalla died; his spouse could recover $500,000 from Kaiser if the case was arbitrated while he was alive, but only $250,000 after he died.

     Delays occur statistically in 99 percent of all Kaiser medical malpractice arbitrations, the high court said, while only 3 percent of cases see a neutral arbitrator appointed within 180 days. A neutral arbitrator is appointed in an average of 674 days."

     But if we're relying on anecdotal evidence...My sister, now retired, was a nationally-recognized award-winning oncology nurse practictioner. She scored so high on her state nursing boards that no one beat her score for the next 23 years. She dislikes Kaiser and tells me the executives are more worried about their image and compensation than healing.

     Posted by FLaim at 08/20/2009 @ 4:08pm

299. Americans, we are winning! We are going to get the Public Option! Ignore CNN, Ignore USA Today, Ignore Baucus. Conservatives have made a last ditch effort of telling over the top lies. Conservatives have finally taken to embracing Medicare in order to try to pit it against the Public Option. How long will that temporary advantage last? Are Americans going to start enjoying going bankrupt because of a few lies? These lies are like ice cubes on a hot skillet. Americans are not going to stop hating Conservatives just because they jump up and down and scream one last ditch time. Obama and Rahm Emanuel have been making sell-out statements about not being committed for 2 months. This isnt about Obama, Obama can either be on board with what Americans are going to do or else Obama can be behind the curve with Centrist Bi-partisan pieces of sh--. DOWN WITH BI-PARTISANSHIP. Shame on Republicans but double shame on Moderates. DOWN WITH BI-PARTISANSHIP. We are gonna win, WE ARE GONNA WIN!!!!

     Posted by DPGrassley at 08/20/2009 @ 4:25pm

300. Does Kaiser...pay for abortions, as Blue Cross does?

     Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 3:54pm

     It depends on the plan that someone has.

     For instance some only cover the "morning after pill".

     Some like the college student plans actually cover abortion with a $20 co-pay.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 5:07pm

301. Healthcare for profit is immoral. The profit motive destroys everything it touches. Universal National Healthcare is the best way to protect us from bioterrorism.

     Posted by wildthing at 08/20/2009 @ 5:36pm

302. When we pass the trillion dollar threshold on our " war on terror" will that makes us eligible for a public option health care system? Is it O.K. to pay that much to maim and kill but not to heal the sick?

     Posted by whatizz at 08/20/2009 @ 8:28pm

303. "Here's an article with some of the relevant numbers of domestic vs foreign ownership of treasuries and US securities / corp debt. http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10607" Posted by snowball777 at 08/20/2009 @ 09:50am "Thanks, Snow. It's just as I suspected. Freddie and Fannie are really a blip on the screen. "China's State Council approved a plan Wednesday to spend 850 billion yuan ($124.3 billion) in the next three years to reform the country's troubled health care system. Measures include expanding health insurance coverage to 90% of the populace and overhauling woefully inadequate public hospitals." "With various details still unspecified, the government's plan is to provide annual health subsidies to citizens as well as to implement a system to deliver vital drugs and vaccines." China Takes A Stab At Universal Health Care - Forbes Jan -09 "The question these days: will you be ready for the dislocation China has in store for us?" I guess I should tell my kids to start learning Mandarin." Posted by FLaim at 08/20/2009 @ 12:14pm

     Well now, that was a clever sleight of hand. We WERE talking about Fannie and Freddie being the LARGEST buyers of risky subprime and alt-a mortgages. Now you want to change the subject and talk about Treasuries and US securities?

     Posted by twillie at 08/20/2009 @ 9:28pm

304. "Now you want to change the subject and talk about Treasuries and US securities?"

     Posted by twillie at 08/20/2009 @ 9:28pm

     Twillie,

     No tricks. Here's where we started:

     "How did we get here? Let's review: In order to curry congressional support after their accounting scandals in 2003 and 2004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac committed to increased financing of "affordable housing." They became the largest buyers of subprime and Alt-A mortgages between 2004 and 2007, with total GSE exposure eventually exceeding $1 trillion. In doing so, they stimulated the growth of the subpar mortgage market and substantially magnified the costs of its collapse."

     That was your statement.

     2007:

     "The value of USA subprime mortgages was estimated at $1.3 trillion as of March 2007."

     And I had already noted: "Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent."

     Now from Snow's link:

     "Foreign ownership of US Agency securities, bonds and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) issued or backed by agencies such as Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac totaled just under $1.5 trillion."

     You do realize that US Agency securities mean securities backed by the US government? F&F, Ginnie, and Farmer Mac are examples. You do know that bonds, included above, are issued by these agenices?

     Again, Snow's link:

     "As of the middle of 2007, foreign investors held almost $5 trillion in US equities and foreign direct investment, almost $3 trillion of US corporate bonds and more than $2 trillion of US Treasury securities."

     So, I still disagree with your posting of "Fannie and Freddie being the LARGEST buyers of risky subprime and alt-a mortgages."

     Posted by FLaim at 08/20/2009 @ 11:06pm

305. Here's where you came into the conversation, speaking of what "We WERE talking about."

     "It was Rep. Barney Frank (D) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D), who promoted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, promoted the availablity of mortgages to people who may not be able to keep up with those mortgages, that had a large part to play in causing the financial crisis last fall."

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/18/2009 @ 6:04pm

     And by the way, it was the bursting of the housing bubble, which was largely fueled by speculative purchasing, that had the largest part to play in the financial crisis last fall. Too much "permanent" inventory will do that to a business.

     Posted by FLaim at 08/20/2009 @ 11:27pm

306. Has anyone here noticed while we & the nation have been arguing about health care, becoming disenchanted with the war in Afghanistan, and occasionally arguing about what caused the collapse which peaked last September, that

     1) On August 6th, Bernake & the Fed, at the urging of Obama's economic chiefs, began monetizing the debt with the purchase through a back door of over $11 billion in 7-year Treasury Notes - and indication of a dramatic fall in the value of financial instruments associated with our national debt. This is the first monetization in U.S. history. The Fed now hopes to control interest rates by monetizing US Treasuries equalling $300 billion.

     2) This amounts to a ponzi scheme to prop up the U.S. financial instuments with an ever-increasing flow of money which Bernake is printing to extend the scheme.

     3) Yet by the Fed buying the instruments (even through the back door) is in itself that these instruments are loosing value. Bernake must feel damned if he did, damned if he didn't. As early as last December, he said he would do something like only in an emergency.

     4) Increase the supply of money exponitionally, falling values of financial instruments, and no meaningful recover of jobs or any real productivity in the U.S. is a program for disaster. In September, once again, the U.S. physical year ends and reports will be do which could well shake events so much that the current arguments everyone is having and watching (while not watching the economy) could become mute.

     5) The U.S. could be facing a "Zimbabwe moment". The Zimbabwe central bank printed bills in the denomination of 100 trillion Zimbabwean dollars, then found they had value only as a novelty item on eBay. Eventually, Zimbabwe was forced to abandon its currency altogether.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/21/2009 @ 12:39am

307. 6) The only earlier time I know that a national debt was monetized which resulted in hyperinflaction and a collapse of societal norms was in the 1920s in the German Weimar Republic. As in the Weimar Republic, The Fed is spins up the presses to monetize the debt. At the end of the Weimar Republic, one percent of government income came from taxes and 99% came fresh from the printing presses. Money became practically worthless.

     7) Do you think Bernake can prevent a "Zimbabwe moment" here in the next couple of months? If not, then isn't all our talk of health care reform, or any reform, probably mute, since Obama can not sign any health care bill earlier than December. Hyperinflation, worthless dollars and anarchy in the streets could make any policy discussions mute. I think we could have other things on our minds. Like survival. Do you think Bernake can prevent all this so Congress can pass some health care bill and Obama can sign it in December? What is going to happen from September till Thanksgiving? I would trully like to know your opinions.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/21/2009 @ 12:47am

308. Well, Anti jumped all in my s**t the other day and . . . he was quite right to do so. I had referred to work visas when I should have been referring to green cards. I retract, I retract. When your wrong you gots to admit it.

     Posted by DavidDurham at 08/21/2009 @ 08:43am

309. I believe the housing "bubble" was caused by the basic make-up of our' Manufacturing" sector of the economy. Housing construction is purely an American act even if some materials are imported. The amount of affiliated businesses and industries has certainly come to the forefront during this recession. Home building did not stop when it should have. How many people were involved in this bubble? What other sectors of the economy were performing well? The large banks made maneuvers that if anyone would had been watching would have been at the very least highly suspect. With the ongoing poor business climate in our country I ask this question,when does it end? 9% of homeowners are involved in one form or another of foreclosure. This put simply is 1 in 10 Americans. How did Fanny and Freddie's policies cause this? It is just easy to point the finger in that direction. I am much more concerned with the bankrupt large banks in this country who have put their "toxic assets" underneath their plates are acting like they are gone. For us to base 70% of our economic activity on consumer spending is a recipe for disaster. The only thing the free traders can buy on the stock market are shells of the great American companies. Throw the additional whammy of health insurance on the American family and you are seeing the drowning of the middle class. Tax cuts for the rich did nothing to stimulate the economy. The government stimulus is moving the economy slowly in the proper direction. A simple shift in health care costs(to government) would put huge amounts of disposable income in the pockets of Americans. Do Republicans just not want ordinary Americans to have some comfort in their lives or do they not want the insurance companies executives to lose their plantation owner lifestyles

     Posted by whatizz at 08/21/2009 @ 08:48am

310. ) The U.S. could be facing a "Zimbabwe moment". The Zimbabwe central bank printed bills in the denomination of 100 trillion Zimbabwean dollars, then found they had value only as a novelty item on eBay. Eventually, Zimbabwe was forced to abandon its currency altogether.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/21/2009 @ 12:39am

     And when the dust settles will the gold standard be brought back or perhaps the oil standard. Whichever standard it is that currency would be based off would have to benefit the wealthiest of the wealthy or it won't happen at all.

     A handful of people (compared to the population of the world) manipulate the markets for their own gain and won't lose on this because they are the ones making up the rules as the game goes along.....everyone else gets to play catch-up about 1000 steps behind them.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/21/2009 @ 09:14am

311. Posted by FLaim at 08/20/2009 @ 11:27pm

     FLaim, what you've got to understand about SJCHER's "Barney Frank and Chriss Dodd ran the Congress in 2003-2004" silliness is...

     it's a right-wing talking point, from Limbaugh & Co., not a serious critique of the Congressional oversight of Freddie and Fannie.

     It's their way of "explaining away" why a housing bubble burst and massive recession from it are "the minority Democrats' fault, not the GOP Congress or Bush's"....otherwise, their world-view collapses.

     Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 09:32am

312. Mask,

     As you know, any real Republican resistance to allowing or promoting or encouraging risky mortages (with the goal of promoting home ownership amonst low income people) would have been met by Democrat screaming that Republicans did not care about the poor or were being racist, etc.

     This is what Democrats do. They make a morality play of everything. You yourself saw this very recently with the various articles here on The Nation from Ms. Lacewell and others about Sonia Sotomayor, and how she was being portrayed as valiantly standing up against white males grilling in Congress grilling her about her qualifications to be a Supreme Court Judge.

     You can't tell me Democrats would not have played the "race card" had Republicans tried to stop or modify efforts towards granting loans to low income people who may not be able to pay them back.

     Republicans know this and were intimidated by and thus made no effort to do anything about it, other than some Republicans (George W. Bush, for example) warned about some of the pitfalls and potential problems.

     You keep harping on how Republicans controlled Congress and thus how come they did not do what they wanted, etc.....you have also done this with other issues......

     But, just because a given political party controls Congress at a given point in time does not mean it is easy for that party to completely do what it wants.

     Your questions in this vein are along the lines of the dammed if you do and dammed if you don't mode.......many on the left are responsible for the race card throwing or morality playing when different issues come up, which does impact actions by the Conservatives, yet after that you come along and question how come they did not do certain things.

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2009 @ 10:54am

313. Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2009 @ 10:54am

     So how did you get the tax cuts, Patriot Act, two wars, etc.....if Barney Frank and Chris Dodd could stop anything they didn't like??!?!?!??

     Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 11:20am

314. Mask,

     As you can see from my actual words up above (of course, what people actually say is not always important to you, it is how you can twist or ignore what they say that matters to you), I said that Republicans would have been crucified if they had made much of an effort to stop or modify the practice of loans to low income people who may not be able to pay those loans back.

     And as you can see I said this would be done by Dems throwing the race card.

     As you can also see, I did not say that Barney Frank or Chris Dodd could stop anything they did not like. Obviously they did not have the ability to stop anything they did not like (fortunately).

     You are the one that is hypothesiszing up above that they could stop anything they did not like.

     PREDICTION: You will post back and say you did not say they could stop anything they did not like, even though it shows up above in your 11:20 am posting. You may hang your denial on the use of the word IF.

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2009 @ 11:46am

315. Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2009 @ 11:46am

     Oh, I see.....so though they KNEW years in advance that it could cause a housing bubble burst and possible massive recession...

     to avoid being "crucified" and LOSING THEIR SEATS IN CONGRESS.....they gutlessly wimped out?

     That works too....thanks.

     Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 12:20pm

316. Mask,

     Anything can work for you because you twist and distort anything anybody says.

     Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2009 @ 12:59pm

317. Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2009 @ 12:59pm

     What did I twist, SJ?.....YOU WROTE-

     "I said that Republicans would have been crucified if they had made much of an effort to stop or modify the practice of loans to low income people who may not be able to pay those loans back"

     Now, ONLY TWO POSSIBILITIES-

     1. Such a "crucifixion" would be meaningless and irrelevant, and they'd still easily win re-election the next Congressional. But that begs "Why fear it?"

     2. They were in such FEAR of "being crucified" that they didn't do the reform necessary to save us from a housing crises and massive recession. But that begs "So they cared more about their seats, than the American people."

     Please....try to come up with another answer that makes sense.

     Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 2:04pm

318. Stop it. Just stop it, already. Baucus and Grassley are only the issue because Obama wants them to be the issue. He wasn't a newborn infant on November 5, 2008.

     Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/21/2009 @ 2:59pm

319. "He wasn't a newborn infant on November 5, 2008."-----Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/21/2009 @ 2:59pm

     That's not what McCain and the Repubs kept telling us about his "lack of experience"!

     Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 3:21pm

320. I see that their are still those who believe the economic crash of last year was caused by corrupt Democrats in Congress involved with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. And there are others who think it was a Republican enabled housing bubble that burst. I think both of these are true but neither "caused" the crash. The crash must be seen on a larger stage. It is a crash of the entire, world wide free trade system because of a 3-decades long, wild west derivatives gambling spree by Wall St. and foreign investment banks. The casino just went broke. In the chaos of the collapse the most ruthless of the foreign investment banks took advantage where they could and killed off their competitors and then perpetrated the greatest financial heist in history, TARP, a heist that began under Bush and has continued under Obama. Now thanks to the entire nation focusing on the crazy contraditions of Obama's health care ideas, very few eyes on the continued crash. Instead, Obama's economic brainwashers have written happy talk for the President & Bernake to issue that recovery is just around the corner, don't worry, go back to sleep, or keep arguing about health care if you wish. Just don't notice that America is headed for the abyss as Bernake prints tons of worthless money pushing us towards hyperinflation & chaos. Oh, I know some economists who have noticed Bernake's monetizing of the debt & his printing habits say he can pull back from the abyss but I say that is a lot of trust to place in one man who still has his foot on the throttle headed towards the drop off. Meanwhile, Obama goes on vacation to get away from it all. He will need the rest, because the drop off is just weeks away.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/21/2009 @ 4:49pm

321. Posted by perryfellwock at 08/21/2009 @ 4:49pm

     Sometimes you read like you have facts at hand and other times you read like a complete and total looney.

     Are there two of you?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/21/2009 @ 6:05pm

322. "I see that their are still those who believe the economic crash of last year was caused by corrupt Democrats in Congress involved with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. And there are others who think it was a Republican enabled housing bubble that burst."

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/21/2009 @ 4:49pm

     And let us not forget the dot-com boom and bust. Lots of hard-earned investment money went up in smoke.

     If I recall correctly, it was Scott Blum who took Buy.com through an IPO, making a lot of money in the process. When online stores' value crashed, he bought it back for pennies on the dollar.

     At least the sock puppet got a new job.

     Posted by FLaim at 08/21/2009 @ 7:00pm

323. "Foreign ownership of US Agency securities, bonds and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) issued or backed by agencies such as Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac totaled just under $1.5 trillion." You do realize that US Agency securities mean securities backed by the US government? F&F, Ginnie, and Farmer Mac are examples. You do know that bonds, included above, are issued by these agenices? Again, Snow's link: "As of the middle of 2007, foreign investors held almost $5 trillion in US equities and foreign direct investment, almost $3 trillion of US corporate bonds and more than $2 trillion of US Treasury securities."

     So, I still disagree with your posting of "Fannie and Freddie being the LARGEST buyers of risky subprime and alt-a mortgages." Posted by FLaim at 08/20/2009 @ 11:06pm

     again, FLaim, we were talking about subprime mortgages, NOT "US equities" (stocks), US corporate bonds, or Treasury bills. I have no doubt that China has more money invested in the US than Fannie and Freddie, but the Chinese were'nt buying subprime mortgages directly from mortgage brokers, and thus encouraging the brokers to sell-sell-sell.

     You can disagree with wsjonline if you want : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html

     Posted by twillie at 08/21/2009 @ 10:49pm

324. You can disagree with wsjonline if you want : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html

     Posted by twillie at 08/21/2009 @ 10:49pm

     Twillie,

     OK, I'll disagree. One important lesson I learned at a young age was "consider the source." Just as I look at the Nation's articles with a critical eye, I also will look at anything that comes out of the American Enterprise Institute the same way.

     By the way, lenders sold to maintain their liquidity and make their books look better, not because they were "incentivized."

     Posted by FLaim at 08/22/2009 @ 12:22am

325. By the way, lenders sold to maintain their liquidity and make their books look better, not because they were "incentivized." Posted by FLaim at 08/22/2009 @ 12:22am

     No, they sold because Fannie and Freddie removed all the risk by buying up the risky mortgages. If the guy who makes the loan is assured by a government entity that it will buy up the loan, then all he has to do is fill out the paperwork, pocket his fees, and let someone else worry about the risk. there was an huge incentive (make money) to make the loan, and no downside.

     The basis of capitalism is risk and reward. This was one of the results of trying to regulate it.

     Posted by twillie at 08/22/2009 @ 01:30am

326. I don't think there is any question that we have had Regulatory failure in our banking and investment systems. I will agree that our big "housing" apparatus also let us down. What bothers me the most is that our "international" borrowing to support our wars has put us at a disadvantage. In this ongoing commentary about "health care"we seem to have gone in and out of different political stances and theories. When it is all said and done all of the talk comes back to economics. If that is the case I want to know why we can borrow staggering sums from the international community to fund war with no end in sight. This is bureaucrats between me and my tax dollars at work. Yet, if health care reform is brought up the hackles rise on conservatives. Someone please tell me if this is the death panel the Republicans are describing to our seniors. I don't know the count any more of how many Americans have died in our Middle Eastern police mission. The statement that comes to mind is ,"we are all in this together". If this is the case isn't it time to move on to fixing our system of insurance andshealth care? Think of the money in American hands to spend on goods and services. We as a people have to get it right.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/22/2009 @ 10:02am

327. ALL WHO WISH TO RESPOND,

     Both the Democrat and Republican parties deserve to die and disappear from existence. For those of you who are crushing to the GOP (and they do deserve it of course) you have to think to yourself and consider the following formulation:

     Presidency - Democrat

     United States House of Representatives - Democrat Majority with a lead of 78 seats (256 to 178 with one vacancy)

     United States Senate - Democrat Majority with a lead of 20 seats and a 60 seat filibuster proof majority (60 seats for the Democrats 40 for GOP)

     Now ask yourself:

     WHAT HAVE PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS ACCOMPLISHED IN TERMS OF LEGISLATIVE VICTORIES AND CHANGE PEOPLE CAN BELIEVE IN?

     MICHAEL STEELE, CHAIRMAN OF THE RNC, IS COMPLETELY RIGHT WHEN HE SAYS MR. PRESIDENT, YOU HAVE THE VOTES, A HEALTH CARE BILL SHOULD HAVE PASSED 31JULY2009 IF NOT SOONER.

     Now think about the following:

     SAY WHAT YOU WANT ABOUT BUSH/CHENEY, BUT WITH A FAR SMALLER LEGISLATIVE MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE, WITH THE DEMOCRATS CONTROLLING EITHER ONE OR BOTH CHAMBERS AT ONE POINT DURING THEIR TIME IN THE WHITE HOUSE, THEY RAMMED THROUGH FAR MORE LEGISLATION AND POLICIES. AND ALL OF THIS OCCURED WITH DICK CHENEY'S APPROVAL RATING AT 21 PERCENT. THAT'S RIGHT PEOPLE, A VICE PRESIDENT WITH A 21 PERCENT APPROVAL RATING ACCOMPLISHED MORE IN SEVEN WEEKS THAN OBAMA WITH A 78 SEAT LEAD IN THE HOUSE AND A 20 SEAT LEAD IN THE SENATE HAS ACCOMPLISHED IN SEVEN MONTHS.

     Be hard on the GOP because they do deserve it, but for you suckers who have hitched your wagons to the Democrats, standby, because in 2010 the GOP will win back enough seats in the House and Senate to make things more chaotic than they are now. Democrats are righwing Republican now, but once the GOP cuts into t

     Posted by POSEIDON at 08/22/2009 @ 4:01pm

328. The difference is that the executive branch was experienced in how to control the government and was 90+ months into governing. The leadership of the Republican Congressional caucus was and remains much better. The liberal media bias is the biggest myth that helps conservatives. Just keep watching and listening to our information sources. It has a blatantly conservative slant but ownership keeps promoting the liberal slant Let's get along has been the slogan for far too long in the Democratic party. If the politicians finally realize the people are behind them they can do something. We have to push back not knife people in the back.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/22/2009 @ 5:13pm

329. Robert Reich said it best in his current piece at Huffingtonpost: Obama put Baucus in charge of this corrupt rotten healthcare bill, and Baucus is doing what Obama wants. They are both corporate whores.

     Posted by philbq at 08/23/2009 @ 07:49am

330. Posted by twillie at 08/22/2009 @ 01:30am |

     "The basis of capitalism is risk and reward. This was one of the results of trying to regulate it."

     I see the TARP reward. I see the bonuses. When were they ever really 'at risk' though?

     Fannie and Freddie aren't guiltless, but the vast majority of bogo loans made between 2000 and 2006 were made by the private sector asset-backed securities bundlers, who WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE CRA, and not our darling government supported entities.

     http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/fannie-freddie-data/

     http://economistsview.typepad.com/.shared/ image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/24/gse.gif

     Note the pink and light blue lines on this graph during Dubya's reign.

     Watch out what you mistake for Kool-Aid, kids.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 11:17am

331. You can disagree with wsjonline if you want : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html Posted by twillie at 08/21/2009 @ 10:49pm

     More like disagree with the American Enterprise Institute...always a good choice for thinking Americans.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 11:19am

332. Putos no faltan, tampoco financistas!

     Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/23/2009 @ 6:52pm

333. Grassley is an incompetent old man that has problems if someone doesn't tell him what to say. Baucus loves being a power broker. The problem here is that he has lost touch of the situation he was in. Now he looks a buffoon even within his own state.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/24/2009 @ 08:27am

334. Gallup Poll. Rolling average. N=approx. 1,600 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

     "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?"

     Date __________Approve__Disapprove

     8/20-22/09_______54_______38

     8/19-21/09_______ 53_______40

     8/18-20/09_______53_______40

     8/17-19/09 _______ 51_______42

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/24/2009 @ 12:29pm

335. That is what happens when there is a clear message coming out of the White House.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/24/2009 @ 1:37pm

336. To Stephen_Carver1

     The ebullient talk on the economy bubbling out of the White House and The Fed appears to me to be designed to divert Americans (especially the media) from looking at the reality of the economy while focusing on the raucus health care debate. Part of the reality we know (continued massive unemployment) and we seem to have become accustomed to this (no town halls on the economy, no shouting down of Congress types over jobs, no back & forth as to who is un-American over unemployment). What I have tried to raise here is that since August 6, the White House and the Fed have embarked on a new strategy for the economy; a strategy that is being ignored and lost in the health care debate. The strategy is that The Fed is now purchasing U.S. debt and paying for it with newly minted (and unbacked) currency. This is called monetizing the debt. I think this will lead to hyperinflation, unless Bernake can rapidly resell this debt to our usual creditors. So far the Chinese are skeptical and very, very worried. In late September and early October the end of fiscal year reports will come out (just a weeks away) which, I believe, will show that the United States is bankrupt and all the happy talk from Obama is just hot air. I hope that I am wrong about a looming crash that will make last year seem simple. I hope that Bernake can pass along The Fed's debt purchases soon. But I am skeptical. Hence I think an even greater disaster than the health care fracus is facing Obama when he gets back to work. I hope this doesn't sound too looney. I am just scared about what is going on in the economy while the press and the nation is focused on health care.

     Posted by perryfellwock at 08/24/2009 @ 3:41pm