Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditSaturday has the potential to be a transformational moment for Barack Obama's presidency.
Called to deliver the eulogy for his friend and mentor, Edward Kennedy, Obama can -- and should -- use this moment to reconnect with the values and the ideals that propelled him to the White House.
It will come as a surprise to no one that the president has been asked to deliver this eulogy, as it was Kennedy who inspired, encouraged and ultimately endorsed Obama's audacious quest for the nation's highest office.
Obama will well honor the man he referred to on Wednesday to as "a colleague, a counselor, and a friend." There is no question of that.
The only question is whether Obama will honor the moment and use it, as Kennedy once did, to speak not merely of a life lost but of a cause unbowed.
To do right by Kennedy, Obama must make his words on Saturday more than a eulogy.
He must deliver a renewing address, both for the causes Kennedy championed -- of which the first and foremost is universal healthcare -- and for the presidency in which the late senator invested as much hope as the most idealistic Obama volunteer.
Obama must speak in the Kennedy tradition when he rises to speak Saturday morning at Boston's Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help.
To do so, the president will need to begin with an understanding that Ted Kennedy established his reputation not merely as an orator but as the undisputed tribune of contemporary liberalism with his remarkable 1968 eulogy for his slain brother, former New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy.
The 36-year-old senator from Massachusetts, who had until then been seen as little more than a political hanger-on, suddenly shone as the defender of the dream -- the champion of the ideals expressed during his brother's groundbreaking peace-and-justice campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.
"We loved him as a brother, and as a father, and as a son. From his parents, and from his older brothers and sisters -- Joe and Kathleen and Jack -- he received an inspiration which he passed on to all of us. He gave us strength in time of trouble, wisdom in time of uncertainty, and sharing in time of happiness. He will always be by our side," Kennedy began, his voice cracking with emotion. "Love is not an easy feeling to put into words. Nor is loyalty, or trust, or joy. But he was all of these. He loved life completely and he lived it intensely."
Kennedy then quoted his brother's words from RFK's groundbreaking 1966 speech to the young people of South Africa, in which the New York senator declared: "There is discrimination in this world and slavery and slaughter and starvation. Governments repress their people; millions are trapped in poverty while the nation grows rich and wealth is lavished on armaments everywhere. These are differing evils, but they are the common works of man. They reflect the imperfection of human justice, the inadequacy of human compassion, our lack of sensibility towards the suffering of our fellows. But we can perhaps remember -- even if only for a time -- that those who live with us are our brothers; that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek -- as we do -- nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can."
Ted Kennedy could have rested on his brother's eloquence.
But that he did not do.
Rather, the young senator from Massachusetts concluded:
My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.Those of us who loved him and who take him to his rest today, pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will some day come to pass for all the world.
As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him: 'Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not.'
With those words, Ted Kennedy grabbed the flag of American liberalism and raised it aloft -- reshaping the anguished cry at his brother's assassination into an inspired call to action.
Obama faces a different task than the one Kennedy performed on June 8, 1968, at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York. He is eulogizing a friend, not a brother. He is speaking of a man who died in relative old age, not the youthful victim of an assassination.
And, yet, the stakes are just as high.
Few would seriously debate that Barack Obama has been too cautious, too unfocused in the first months of the presidency that Ted Kennedy imagined would be characterized by: "New hope for justice and fair prosperity for the many, and not just for the few. New hope -- and this is the cause of my life -- new hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American -- north, south, east, west, young, old -- will have decent, quality healthcare as a fundamental right and not a privilege."
Obama has an opportunity to honor Kennedy by turning this moment of loss into a moment of renewal.
This is not just what Kennedy would have requested.
It is what the liberal lion would have demanded.
Kennedy close his last speech to a Democratic National Convention -- a speech he delivered on behalf of Obama's candidacy -- by roaring: "The work begins anew. The hope rises again. And the dream lives on."
The president should echo and, more importantly, embrace those sentiments.
If he does, August 29, 2009, could be as transformational a day in Barack Obama's political career as was June 8, 1968, for Ted Kennedy's.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Sorry, I don't think it's a Plus for BHO to try to `leverage' the passing of someone NOT universally regarded as `apple pie'.
It would be like eulogizing Michael Jackson by calling for universal access to cosmetic surgery so the ugly people can be on a `level' playing field.
It's late......for whatever this sound like.....
Posted by Happy at 08/26/2009 @ 11:07pm
Obama is hardly an ideal choice for a eulogy: Teddy was committed to peace, and in seven months, Obama has escalated war, started a new war, continued Gitmo, torture and renditions, none of which Teddy would have approved of. Not to mention betrayal about a single payer system, which Teddy was committed to. Obama pretended to be JFK during his campaign and half the nation feels betrayed. Caroline would be far more fitting for a eulogy, genuine and not fraudulent.
Posted by mystic7 at 08/26/2009 @ 11:17pm
You can expect what someone over at Daily Kos so correctly called "Wellstone on Steroids"! We haven't seen the whole list of speakers yet. Be sure to watch for a statistically correct demographic.
Posted by sntauri at 08/26/2009 @ 11:23pm
"With those words, Ted Kennedy grabbed the flag of American liberalism and raised it aloft --"
Funny, I don't recall Kennedy embracing the "hammer and sycle" on a red background as he did when he went behind a presidents back and visited Russia!?
Posted by BigPasture at 08/26/2009 @ 11:38pm
Funny, I don't recall Kennedy embracing the "hammer and sycle" on a red background as he did when he went behind a presidents back and visited Russia!? Posted by BigPasture at 08/26/2009 @ 11:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
It is spelled "sickle".
Lay off the booze.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/27/2009 @ 12:50am
I don't think this is good strategy.
You pushed for single payer even though there wasn't broad public support and continued pushing even after it was clear there wasn't going to be public support.
Then the effort cratered and it looked like nothing would happen so you backed off to "public option" which all your leaders describe as "stealth single payer". And you didn't get any traction because you so badly over-reached.
Now you want to over-reach because you think the death of a hero to Liberals will move the country to support either single payer or stealth single payer.
Learn from your mistakes. Figure out a way to cover more of the uninsured while leaving the 80% who are satisfied with their healthcare alone.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 06:27am
Then there is this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6092658/Cruel- and-neglectful-care-of-one-million-NHS-patients-exposed.html
'Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed
One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today.
*****************************************
Britan is about one-tenth the size of the US so that would be 10 million in the US. There are only 40 million unisured. Many of them illegal, many of them healthy young people who choose to gamble with their health.
The point is less than 25% of them need "care" that could be neglectful. Probably all of them should have a check up but not all of them need care beyond that for cancer, stroke, high blood pressue, etc.
So, what we see is diminished care for those that have coverage already and shitty care for those that don't which is what they already get in the ER.
So we have tangible costs in lower quality of care and the benefit is the illusion of a more egalitarian society.
Single payer just isn't worth it.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 06:39am
This is from the above article:
The charity has disclosed a horrifying catalogue of elderly people left in pain, in soiled bed clothes, denied adequate food and drink, and suffering from repeatedly cancelled operations, missed diagnoses and dismissive staff.
The Patients Association said the dossier proves that while the scale of the scandal at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust - where up to 1,200 people died through failings in urgent care - was a one off, there are repeated examples they have uncovered of the same appalling standards throughout the NHS.
**************************************
This is a different article:
Vive Le French Care? By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Health Systems: Health care in France is often held up as a model the U.S. might follow. Yet the French have their own problems that show there's no such thing as a free lunch -- or a free doctor's visit.
Call it the grass-is-greener syndrome. Advocates of national health care, acknowledging the flaws in ObamaCare yet despising the current U.S. system that has the best medicines, the best medical equipment and the shortest waiting lists, have turned their eyes lovingly to places like France.
As City Journal contributing editor Guy Sorman notes, the French would also love to have the low-cost, high-service system some Americans gush about. Unfortunately, they don't. France's system isn't that cheap and is financed by high taxes on labor that have heavy economic consequences.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=336178343967257
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 06:42am
Yes, honor Kennedy by remembering that he fought for his life against the verdict of his doctors who said his cancer was inoperable. But a surgical team surfaced that had an operation with a chance of prolonging his life. And Kennedy opted for that.
Had he been at the mercy of the Democrat's insurance reform package, and of Obama's outlook, would Kennedy have been given that chance?
In April Obama gave this interview to David Leonhardt of the NYTimes.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that's also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
LEONHARDT: So how do you -- how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think it has to be able to give you some guidance. http://tinyurl.com/l2q3on
So pass a bill to honor Kennedy, which if its authors have their way, would have written him off.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/27/2009 @ 06:55am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 06:42am | ignore this person | warn this person
The nursing care scandal in Britain is a latecomer, the U.S. has already had the same scandal dozens of times over decades. It's not a relevant point about health insurance here.
The total uninsured in the U.S. is approaching the total population of Britain. If that doesn't scare you straight it says a lot about your values.
The problem isn't just with the uninsured, its with the tens of millions of other Americans who HAVE insurance, and the insurance companies that use fine print, pre-existing conditions, and legal exploits to deny them care. Many of the uninsured have pre-existing conditions which prompt insurers to deny them coverage altogether. Plus, they use the tactic of underpaying bills, which turns middle class families destitute trying to pay off the remainders of large medical bills.
Having health insurance doesn't mean that you're covered. They can and do bully Americans every day, make decisions about whether someone will live or die or become more seriously ill. They are the real death panels. Insurance companies are profiting off of killing and maiming Americans. If you defend that, then you are also killing and maiming Americans.
Posted by Milhaus at 08/27/2009 @ 07:05am
this is the deadliest month in Afghanistan.
glad we elected a man who ran on getting us out of there.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/27/2009 @ 08:14am
Posted by BigPasture at 08/26/2009 @ 11:38pm |
You mean like Inhofe's 20 "Jesus Thing" trips to Africa?
Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 09:20am
So pass a bill to honor Kennedy, which if its authors have their way, would have written him off. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/27/2009 @ 06:55am |
What part of 'guidance' eliminates the patient's CHOICE?
Is the con argument that people are so smart that they can best manage their medical care alone, but so dumb that they can be talked into suicide?
Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 09:46am
this is the deadliest month in Afghanistan.
glad we elected a man who ran on getting us out of there.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/27/2009 @ 08:14am
Glad to see you haven't killed yourself yet.
And glad to see you have come over to the side of us evil "leftists".
Amazing to see that you aknowledge the mistake of being in Afghanistan! Even if it was fueled by the desire to take a shot at Obama.
He deserves it anyway. I thought we put Obama in there to bring the troops home.
Seems that was a rather naive assumption.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 09:48am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 06:39am |
"The point is less than 25% of them need "care" that could be neglectful."
So only 2.5M Americans NEED medical attention. Does that make it sound better to you?
"Probably all of them should have a check up but not all of them need care beyond that for cancer, stroke, high blood pressue, etc."
How about the college kid, scraping by, who is hit head-on by a drunk driver and now needs a respirator? You CAN'T KNOW what kind of medical care you're going to need and getting REAL coverage for what MIGHT happen is beyond the means of many...$220/mo for even the most basic Kaiser policy...or $1.40/hour after taxes...or 25% of their take-home at minimum wage (you can live in your car so you can afford healthcare, right?).
"So, what we see is diminished care for those that have coverage already and shitty care for those that don't which is what they already get in the ER."
Hordes of zombies hanging out in the ER is DIMINISHED CARE!
"So we have tangible costs in lower quality of care and the benefit is the illusion of a more egalitarian society."
No, we have the peace of mind of knowing that we're all covered, less people going to the ER for double-pneumonia instead of getting treatment for bronchitis, and less worry that we'll end up in that 40M and growing category at some point during our lifetime.
"Single payer just isn't worth it."
Private health insurance: why pay more for less?
Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 09:56am
Seems most of our Right-wing posters are against the idea, Mr Nichols....
must mean it would work.
LOL
Posted by Mask at 08/27/2009 @ 10:06am
BTW, think ANY of them would have had a problem if in 2004, George W. Bush and the GOP Congress had tried to push a flat tax or national sales tax as the "Ronald Reagan Memorial Tax Fairness Act"???
Yes, works both ways, before you ask.
Posted by Mask at 08/27/2009 @ 10:09am
I will look at Obama giving a Eulogy to his "friend and mentor", as somewhat like Brutus giving a Eulogy for Caesar.
Senator Kennedy was in the hospital in Denver with a sudden attack of extremely painful kidney stones directly before his endorsement speech for Obama. He was in agony and only left his hospital bed an hour before his speech at the convention.
Without his endorsement Obama may have never been elected.
And how does Obama pay him back? By doing every single thing possible that Teddy would have despised. Ted Kennedy only endorsed him instead of Hillary because he was afraid that Hillary would repeat her husbands mistakes.
I can only imagine how these first months of the Obama presidency must have dissappointed Senator Kennedy.
Really, I would think a Eulogy delivered by Joe Biden, a long time friend, as being more appropriate.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 10:12am
Sorry to change the subject for just a moment, but bear with me. And maybe we need a little break from this mourning.
Concerning the ever increasing unemployment situation. I recently read an article on Common Dreams.org written by Thom Hartmann.
He is thinking out of the box, and I found it intriguing.
Lowering the Retirement Age to 55.
According to this idea, it would solve the unemployment problem quickly. But in lieu of explaining it here I will just post a link to the article.
Read it and let me know what you think.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/24-7
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 10:29am
The Pfizer/Aetna Corporate Enhancement Makeover And Kleptocratic Embezzlement Reform.
PACEMAKER.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/27/2009 @ 10:32am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 06:39am |
"The point is less than 25% of them need "care" that could be neglectful."
So only 2.5M Americans NEED medical attention. Does that make it sound better to you?
Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 09:56am
First, the "less than 25%" applied to the 40 million without insurance or less than 10 million unisured. The number of Americans needing "'care' that could be neglectful" would be less that 75 million or 25% of 300 million.
Second, I made another off by 2 error. The population of UK is 50 - 60 million. France's population is about 25 million, which is what I was thinking of when I said 10 times as much for 300 million.
Sorry
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 10:34am
Read it and let me know what you think.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/24-7
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 10:29am
I think it will work about as well as when France tried to impose a 35 hour work week as a solution to its unemployment problem and fined people who's cars were in the parking lot too long.
Basically, it made things worse.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 10:37am
yes barry O. use ted kennedy's legacy to push for real health care reform. it is precisely what he would have wanted.
once again, rest in peace senator and rest knowing your name and legacy WILL help pass something better.
ted has no problem with that. the kennedys have no problem. whats the problem?
the parasites of the american health care cartel, their bought and paid for stooges in congress, and the fiercely and pridefully ignorant teabaggers who form the moronic storm troopers of satano-aynrando ideology that want so desperately to be the majority and are willing to screach their stupid lies loud enough to try and appear to represent a majority...
a majority of the angry, hate filled, fiercely proudly ignorant dupes and stooges of the aynrandian anarchist lie cartel.
eff them. they are a distinct minority. yes - progressives must hit back twice as hard.
it is precisely what ted would have wanted.
Posted by dexter666 at 08/27/2009 @ 10:41am
France's population is about 25 million, which is what I was thinking of when I said 10 times as much for 300 million. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 10:34am
Did France recently have a resurgence of the "Black Plague" that I was unaware of? I find it highly unlikely considering they have possibly the best Healthcare System and Social Safety Net in the World...
Might have something to do with the fact that France and Germany are the first countries to climb out of this global recession. Ya think?
In any case the population of France is currently about 61 Million.
Darin, how did you lose almost 30 million French?
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 10:47am
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 10:29am |
An interesting thought experiment, but I think Thom overlooks a few problems:
- The people leaving the workforce would be highly trained workers with institutional knowledge and not easily replaced by fresh-faced college kids, no matter how much they may want and need a job.
- The people entering the workforce wouldn't be getting the 55+ year old's salary, so our tax revenue would shrink precipitously, at least for a time.
- Reducing the length of the workweek would have drastic implications for productivity which would also gut our tax base and thus revenue.
Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 10:51am
Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 10:34am
And believe me, I keep track of these things. At least 15 million of your misplaced French citizens are Women. And French Women are extraordinary. Believe me, I know...
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 10:52am
Basically, it made things worse.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 10:37am
Troll, did you read the article at the link I posted? Or did you just resort to your usual knee jerk reaction?
I was looking for a substantive debate on the issue. Not just a comment on France's parking situation. And France has nothing to do with the proposal anyway.
Cmon Troll, I was actually starting to hope you were coming around.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 11:02am
I guess I don't know what the hell I was thinking with respect to European populations.
Off to read the link.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 11:09am
"It is spelled "sickle". Lay off the booze"(schnellerheinz) That reminds me of the joke where someone sees the handwritten "I love grils" on a wall; He crosses it out, and undermeath writes: "You mean girls stoopid"; The next day he sees that was also crossed out and in its place underneath is written "Hey, what about us grils?"
Posted by mystic at 08/27/2009 @ 11:20am
Posted by mystic at 08/27/2009 @ 11:20am |
"I don't wanna pickle. I just wanna ride on my motor..."
Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 11:29am
Cmon Troll, I was actually starting to hope you were coming around.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 11:02am
Okay, I read it. It's a stupid idea. I can give you a general reason and a specific reason.
Generally, Thom doesn't understand the fundamental economic relationships that drive an economy. It's like the theater major who tells the kid in shop class that since one engine makes the car go fast throwing a second engine in the trunk would make it go twice as fast, when the added drag through weight would actually make it go slower.
Fundamentally, and economy is driven by production and consumption. All other things being equal, earlier retirement would reduce consumption, but would require a dramatic increase in production per person of the workers left behind, which isn't acheiveable.
The particular problem is that Thom views "labor" as through the union lens: that is, labor is a commodity. It doesn't matter whether Joe or Sam works the lathe, you get the exact same out put with the exact same quality.
Snowball touched on this when he said, in effect, you can't take someone with 30 years experience and replace them with a college graduate and get the same result. Maybe you can if they are working a lathe, but engineering, accounting, medicine, computer programming, motivating a workforce, finance and distribution aren't like working a lathe.
Briefly, an artificial contraction in labor markets does produce an effective government subsidy. It creates wage inflation, without a productivity enhancement. Effetively, it gives the favored group an artifically high purchasing power relative to the rest of the popultion. This can be achieved as effectively with cash welfare payments. (But can't be hidden as easily.)
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 11:32am
BIG P!! HUGO!! LISTEN UP!! ST SARAH & GLENN (RIGHT-WING MR ROGERS) HAVE A MESSAGE 'SPECIALLY FOR YOU:
OBAMA DEATH PANELS WILL PULL THE PLUG ON G.I. JOE!! AND THEN SHOVE HIM INTO THE HUMAN SHREDDER TO MAKE SOME SOYLENT GREEN WHILE OBAMA FEASTS ON ORGANIC TOFU CAVIER!!
And Da' Facts:
"Health Care Reform Hysteria: ‘Death Book' Scare Tactics Inexcusable: (D.C.) – "Health care reform is a legitimate topic for discussion and debate," said John Rowan, National President of Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA), "but it is outrageous for some partisans to politicize the debate by targeting veterans with blatant scare tactics.
"The issue du jour is the so-called Death Book for veterans," Rowan said. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, the person who headed the office of faith-based initiatives for the Bush White House attacked ‘Your Life, Your Choices,' a 52-page booklet of end-of-life options to be considered by veterans and their families that has been given out by the VA as per federal law. This booklet, developed in 1997 when Bill Clinton was President, was given to veterans & their families, if requested, under a directive in 2007 from President Bush. It was updated last month, under President Obama.
"This booklet was developed with guidance from clerics," Rowan said, "and it addresses options most of us and our loved ones will have to sort through as we live our final years. To play politics with veterans' end-of-life choices is not only irresponsible politically, but it is cruel. We agree with Congressman Joe Sestak, a retired Navy Admiral, who is outraged at the ‘Death Book' charges and has called them ‘inexcusable.'
"It is our hope that sane minds reject fear-mongering, & that veterans recognize these scare tactics for what they are," Rowan said."
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/27/2009 @ 11:47am
this is the deadliest month in Afghanistan.
glad we elected a man who ran on getting us out of there.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/27/2009 @ 08:14am
Glad to see you haven't killed yourself yet.
And glad to see you have come over to the side of us evil "leftists".
Amazing to see that you aknowledge the mistake of being in Afghanistan! Even if it was fueled by the desire to take a shot at Obama.
He deserves it anyway. I thought we put Obama in there to bring the troops home.
Seems that was a rather naive assumption.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 09:48am | ignore this person | warn this person
--you're the despressed one "so all alone" (when have i ever expressed depression hear? never)
blame obama, not me.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/27/2009 @ 12:08pm
All other things being equal, earlier retirement would reduce consumption, but would require a dramatic increase in production per person of the workers left behind, which isn't acheiveable. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 11:32am
The U.S. currently leads the world in in labour productivity. But without a corresponding rise in wages and healthcare benefits.
Real wages fail to match a Rise in Productivity. But Corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960's. This means that Corporations have benefitted from higher productivity, but the workers who made that possible are not sharing in the riches.
What you end up with is degradation of the middle class and the inabilty of workers to stimulate the economy by spending money they no longer have on the products that they produce.
Then is gets complicated. In order for workers to obtain the products that they produce, because of suppressed wages they are forced into a credit game that eventually bites them in the ass and further degrades their abilty to spend.
By decreasing the workforce and providing babyboomers the opportunity to retire at 55 with a liveable wage by increasing Social Security by 20%, this will allow a new generation full employment.
Productivity might suffer at first. But as the younger generation gains experience, and with the increase in wages due to a reduction of the labor pool. Along with the increaed taxes being paid by them, and the savings incurred by not having to provide for the unemployed. We will all come out ahead.
I think this proposal deserves serious consideration.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 12:36pm
blame obama, not me.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/27/2009 @ 12:08pm
Always looking for someone to blame, is a primary sign of depression. Blame everyone else and take no responsibilty yourself is a sign of extreme depression.
Don't kill yourself urmie! There is help available. And your obsession with Death really worries me! Take it easy Bud..
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 12:41pm
And how does Obama pay him back? By doing every single thing possible that Teddy would have despised. Ted Kennedy only endorsed him instead of Hillary because he was afraid that Hillary would repeat her husbands mistakes.
I can only imagine how these first months of the Obama presidency must have dissappointed Senator Kennedy.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 10:12am
Chaos,
I have to disagree with you on this. Teddy Kennedy was, as many will attest, a political realist. I think he was an idealist in his heart, and realist in his head. I think Obama is, too (which is why he's disappointed so many on the left - including me). If Obama can successfully straddle the line between eulogy and political speech (although all eulogies for politicians turn into political speeches), then I think he can push the fight forward...at least for a strong public option. Perhaps he can at least shut up the crazy people and they will be seen for what they are: crazy.
Obama has almost everything riding on this - the gamble is potentially huge - if he can pass a strong public option, even on the back of Teddy's funeral, I think a lot of people will forgive him for Afghanistan and Iraq (not bringing the troops home immediately, etc.) and some of his other blunders. I think Teddy would (perhaps secretly) applaud Obama turning his eulogy into a speech asking for the one thing Teddy wanted most of his political career. Once Teddy gave up his Presidency dream, his realism at getting things done in the Senate became primary, which is (again) part of the reason Obama looked up to him as an example of bipartisanship (so much harder in these days of stupid, intractable Republicans).
This health care fight ain't over until the fat lady on Medicare sings. She's warming up backstage.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 12:43pm
blame obama, not me.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/27/2009 @ 12:08pm
Always looking for someone to blame, is a primary sign of depression. Blame everyone else and take no responsibilty yourself is a sign of extreme depression Don't kill yourself urmie! There is help available. And your obsession with Death really worries me! Take it easy Bud..
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 12:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--yeah, I'm the one who repeated "i'm so all alone" and "i'm leaving an never coming back" on multiple threads a couple weeks ago! oh wait--that was you!
you're looking to blame me (and other's like me) for not leaving my job and taking a meaningless 3 week joy ride that won't get you what you want.obama is the president. i'm an average joe commenting anonymously under a blog. obama ran on reform, of making things better for the average joe. he has a filibuster proof majority in the senate from his party. the bases are loaded. and is he willing to risk his 2nd term to for it? not a chance. he's keeping the bat on his shoulders and hoping for a walk.
i participated int eh representative democracy. i voted for obama based on his promises. he's not keeping them (with iraq and afghantistan either).
but i'm not depressed about it. you sure were. and just repeating to me what i said to you doesn't change that you were...but glad you're better and feel like your time here as an anonymosu blog commenter isn't time wasted!
Posted by urmygyro at 08/27/2009 @ 12:52pm
This health care fight ain't over until the fat lady on Medicare sings. She's warming up backstage.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 12:43pm
I really hope you are right. This is a great opportunity for Obama to support what he purports as a key element of his Presidency. Health Care Reform.
He could well use the passing of an American Icon to guarantee the passage of real reform. But will he? We shall see. And what we do see will perhaps finally give us an idea what sort of President we have elected.
I truly hope you are right. I hope Obama is playing Chess instead of Checkers.
We shall soon see.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 12:52pm
mystic, reminds me of a kid that spray painted budweir on the side of a circle K here, I believe he was trying to spell budweiser, anyhoo, we laughed for months every time we drove past that building until they finally painted over it.
Posted by Denise29 at 08/27/2009 @ 12:53pm
Posted by urmygyro at 08/27/2009 @ 12:52pm
Settle down urmgyro. Just because I expressed the emotion of feeling alone at one point doesn't mean you have to go off the deep end...
It was my emotion after all. You don't have to adopt it!
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 12:59pm
"Always looking for someone to blame, is a primary sign of depression. Blame everyone else and take no responsibilty yourself is a sign of extreme depression. "----Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 12:41pm
Ohhhhhhh.....NOW, I get why he bird-dogs me around the blog.
Thanks, chaos.
Posted by Mask at 08/27/2009 @ 1:02pm
How about the college kid, scraping by, who is hit head-on by a drunk driver and now needs a respirator? You CAN'T KNOW what kind of medical care you're going to need and getting REAL coverage for what MIGHT happen is beyond the means of many...$220/mo for even the most basic Kaiser policy...or $1.40/hour after taxes...or 25% of their take-home at minimum wage (you can live in your car so you can afford healthcare, right?).
"So, what we see is diminished care for those that have coverage already and shitty care for those that don't which is what they already get in the ER."
Hordes of zombies hanging out in the ER is DIMINISHED CARE!
"So we have tangible costs in lower quality of care and the benefit is the illusion of a more egalitarian society."
No, we have the peace of mind of knowing that we're all covered, less people going to the ER for double-pneumonia instead of getting treatment for bronchitis, and less worry that we'll end up in that 40M and growing category at some point during our lifetime.
"Single payer just isn't worth it."
Private health insurance: why pay more for less?
Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 09:56am
Why would the student need single payer when the driver's liability coverage is responsible for medical bills? Whatever isn't covered would be met by either a lawusuit for the unpaid bills, and costs of lost time.
Additionally student health insurance is very cheap. this quote I just obtained is for my nephew who is attending Fresno State. The quote is from Assurant Health.
https://www.studentselect.com/SS/ChoosePlan/
It runs $1557 a year with a $250 annual deductible.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 1:04pm
Edward M. Kennedy 1932-2009 And the world is a better place.
Posted by Survivor123 at 08/27/2009 @ 1:12pm
Another observation. Why is a great man buried promptly?
But yet in the case of a freaky pop star, it takes months? Hmmm.
There was some talk of a missing nose. Wonder who stole it?
Sorry for the reference. I couldn't help it.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 1:13pm
This health care fight ain't over until the fat lady on Medicare sings. She's warming up backstage.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 12:43pm
Did Senator Feingold get your memo?
August 25, 2009
<U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold told a large crowd gathered for a listening session in Iron County last week there would likely be no health care bill before the end of the year - and perhaps not at all.
It was an assessment Feingold said he didn't like, but the prospect of no health care legislation brought a burst of applause from a packed house of nearly 150 citizens at the Mercer Community Center.
"Nobody is going to bring a bill before Christmas, and maybe not even then, if this ever happens," Feingold said. "The divisions are so deep. I never seen anything like that.">
http://tinyurl.com/n7u3ue
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 1:14pm
Edward M. Kennedy 1932-2009 And the world is a better place.
Posted by Survivor123 at 08/27/2009 @ 1:12pm
Could you please give us your address so we can horsewhip you?
The world was probably a better place before you dripped down someone's leg..
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 1:17pm
Edward M. Kennedy 1932-2009 And the world is a better place.
Posted by Survivor123 at 08/27/2009 @ 1:12pm
But I must give you the benefit of the doubt.
Did you mean that the world is a better place because of him? Or did you mean the world is a better place without him?
You should be very careful in your response. And I don't mean this lightly.
You won't consider it funny later. Believe me.
My Hoodoo abilities are much respected.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 1:24pm
Hey chaoszen, I love that hoodoo that youdoo so well too.
Posted by Denise29 at 08/27/2009 @ 1:31pm
It runs $1557 a year with a $250 annual deductible.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 1:04pm
LAME. Coming from an insurance salesman?
Damn Anti. I'm surprised you didn't burst into flames after you posted that...
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 1:32pm
Obama is a poor choice for a eulogy. But nobody asked me.
Posted by torgo2009 at 08/27/2009 @ 1:44pm
Is it the intention of the pro-reform activists to avoid talkng about real substance and to keep the discussion at an emotional level? The idea is to hammer away with admin talking points? Or is it to just wait until something erupts from conference committee, when it is too late for us to do anything about the substance? I don't think the editors, writers , and staff at The Nation are capable of defending the current bills. And the current bills contain the bulk of what we are going to get, regardless of the noise from the left or right. If you like HR3200 or HR676 or HELP, then tell us why!
Posted by sntauri at 08/27/2009 @ 1:45pm
The U.S. currently leads the world in in labour productivity. But without a corresponding rise in wages and healthcare benefits...
Then is gets complicated.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 12:36pm
You got the stuff that wasn't complicated wrong. The US leads the world in productivity and it leads the world in per capita income. Where wages are today relative to a decade ago has nothing to do with it.
Furthermore, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of productivity increse and where they come from.
You seem to think that a more productive worker is the sole source of productivity increases. If I make 10 widgits per day in 2008 and 11 widgets per day in 2009 that is a 10% increase. That's possible but rarely attributeable to the worker.
Zen, you haul mail. Let's say you haul 50,000 pieces per day. What if the US Post office invested $275,000 in a truck that allowed you to haul 55,000 peices? Do you deserve a 10% raise? No, it was an capital investment that led to the productivity increase. Labor deserves no increase because labor didn't improve anything. Simlarly, suppose the environmentalist get a bill passed that reduces truck sizes so that you are prohibited from law by carring more than 45,000 pieces, are you going to take a 10% cut in pay?
Let's say there's a guy who's been making hand-turned baseball bats for 30 years and he makes 1000 per year and earns $30,000. Let's say a competitor sets up shop across the street and with a $20,000 high school graduate uses a computer to turn out 2000 bats a year. It cuts the cost of bat by 20%. The depreciation on the equiptment is $20,000, that's a 33% productivity improvement while total wages decreased 33%
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 1:46pm
It runs $1557 a year with a $250 annual deductible.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 1:04pm
LAME. Coming from an insurance salesman?
Damn Anti. I'm surprised you didn't burst into flames after you posted that...
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 1:32pm
I don't sell it. I merely looked it up as an example to respond to Snowball.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 1:49pm
I truly hope you are right. I hope Obama is playing Chess instead of Checkers.
We shall soon see.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 12:52pm
In chess, one must always be open to making a sacrifice. I think Teddy's death, while tragic, might be a lever that Obama can use on some of Teddy's more stubborn Senatorial colleagues to bring them to a public option. In other words, "Do it for Teddy."
By the way, I can barely beat my computer at chess on Level 5 (out of 10). I think Obama plays a higher level.
Who ever knows how the future will play out? As long as Obama keeps the fight up, then Teddy's death and his lifelong fight for the downtrodden will not have been in vain. Ultimately, Teddy's legacy will outshine Bobby's and perhaps even JFK's.
I grieve for the Kennedy family and for America, having lost the Lion. However, I have to believe that America's future will always be one of prosperity and the continuing fight for equality for all, not just the rich, or the white, or the straight. We have our first non-white President; I have to (and will) see that as a positive in the long term for our nation, regardless of the political mistakes he makes during his "on the job training" period.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 2:08pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 2:08pm
You keep ignoring my question about Sen Feingold's statement that there will be no healthcare reform bill.
Is Sen Feingold wrong? And if so, what do you know that he doesn't?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 2:14pm
Zen, you haul mail. Let's say you haul 50,000 pieces per day. What if the US Post office invested $275,000 in a truck that allowed you to haul 55,000 peices? Do you deserve a 10% raise?Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 1:46pm
Of course I would deserve a 10% raise! If the Post Office in your example could afford an investment of $275,000 for a truck that allowed me to haul 55,000 pieces, that investment potential was provided by the workers increased productivity.
My increased productivity provided the means or profit to afford the "company" to invest in better technology in the first place. And then when I haul 55,000 pieces instead of 50,000 pieces it reduces the cost to the consumer. This decreased cost to the consumer results in more spendable income for the worker and the 10% increase in wages provides even more incentive to spend and stimulate the economy.
Unless of course this increased profit is not spread out evenly and is co-opted by a few greedy bastards at the top.
At that point it becomes counter productive, and only benefits those at the top.
This stuff is easy. Only the greed addicted have a stake in making it complex.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 2:21pm
No, Feingold said: "Nobody is going to bring a bill before Christmas, and maybe not even then, if this ever happens"
And you transform that into him saying "that there will be no healthcare reform bill".
Despicable...
Posted by BlackFrancis at 08/27/2009 @ 2:22pm
Goodnight All. My bedtime. Gotta work at Midnight, (great time to go to work) Not!
Thanks for the commentary. And believe me spooning with my damn pillow is no great shakes...
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 2:31pm
No, Feingold said: "Nobody is going to bring a bill before Christmas, and maybe not even then, if this ever happens"
And you transform that into him saying "that there will be no healthcare reform bill".
Despicable...
Posted by BlackFrancis at 08/27/2009 @ 2:22pm
you didn't read far enough..
"likely be no health care bill before the end of the year - and perhaps not at all.
Nobody is going to bring a bill before Christmas, and maybe not even then, if this ever happens,"
So, perhaps not at all and if ever are not pretty dismissive of the chances?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 2:36pm
I stand by my statement. Maybe you can't comprehend what you read?
You typed: "that there will be no healthcare reform bill".
"will be no" is not the same as "perhaps not at all" or "maybe not even then, if this ever happens".
Posted by BlackFrancis at 08/27/2009 @ 2:42pm
No can do.
Ted was flawed, but not owned.
Obama is unflawed, it seems, but owned.
Change? No, mainly continuity, especially where it hurts us most, Pentagon, Treasury, Fed.
Posted by sloper at 08/27/2009 @ 2:42pm
Darin, I'm posting this on both of Nichols' Kennedy threads just in case you're no longer following the first, which is where this issue came up:
Medicare has a lower admin cost as a percentage because the average claims for Medicare recipients (avg age 75) is at least 10 time higher than that for private insurance (avg age ~25 - 30) Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/26/2009 @ 6:08pm
Sources(s) please. Posted by cka2nd at 08/26/2009 @ 9:45pm
Medicare covers all Americans over the age of 65. So the participant range from 65 to 120, but there are millions 65 and only one or two 120. I guessed 75 as an average.
Private insurance covers about 180 million of the 220 million people below age 65. They range from 0 to 65. Given that we have generally had an increasing population and because of deaths the average age is less than the "middle age" of 32½" So I picked 25 - 30. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 07:01am
Darin, what I was asking for was the sources for your statement that "average claims for Medicare recipients is at least 10 time higher than that for private insurance," not for the ages of those covered by the two systems.
Posted by cka2nd at 08/27/2009 @ 2:52pm
Posted by cka2nd at 08/27/2009 @ 2:52pm
Gotta watch DTT very closely, CKA. He'll insert off-hand remarks into his "data" and hope that nobody catchs THOSE.
If they do, as you did, he'll change the subject while claiming to answer the question.
Posted by Mask at 08/27/2009 @ 3:15pm
Darin, I'm posting this on both of Nichols' Kennedy threads just in case you're no longer following the first, which is where this issue came up:
Medicare has a lower admin cost as a percentage because the average claims for Medicare recipients (avg age 75) is at least 10 time higher than that for private insurance (avg age ~25 - 30) Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/26/2009 @ 6:08pm
Sources(s) please. Posted by cka2nd at 08/26/2009 @ 9:45pm
Medicare covers all Americans over the age of 65. So the participant range from 65 to 120, but there are millions 65 and only one or two 120. I guessed 75 as an average.
Private insurance covers about 180 million of the 220 million people below age 65. They range from 0 to 65. Given that we have generally had an increasing population and because of deaths the average age is less than the "middle age" of 32½" So I picked 25 - 30. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 07:01am
Darin, what I was asking for was the sources for your statement that "average claims for Medicare recipients is at least 10 time higher than that for private insurance," not for the ages of those covered by the two systems.
Posted by cka2nd at 08/27/2009 @ 3:26pm
Shoot, sorry for the double post!
Posted by cka2nd at 08/27/2009 @ 3:27pm
President Obama does not seem to be the logical choice for what Ted Kennedy stood for, nor do I expect Mr. Obama to heed John Nichols call for a radical systemic change in our country's health system.
However,the request is worthwhile, especially since Obama needs to demonstrate more courage and leadership in the face of his collapsing administration and faltering integrity.
Being of Irish extraction, and catholic upbringing, and of liberal persuasion, I applaud Mr. Edward Moore Kennedy's humility, steadfastness, and courage in overcoming his own personal limitations and failures; and graciously tolerating the many unfair and insulting critics he has had to face all of his adult life.
However, I am saddened by Senator Kennedy's unwillingness to go even further not only on the issues of war, health care and poverty, but also on the failures and corruption of his own political party.
Ted Kennedy could have been a hero for all times had he been able to go beyond his partisanship and playing the establishment game.
Despite his liberal credentials, he still tried to do it all within the system, with the status quo and remained sadly part of the establishment, and part of the problem, in the end.
Brian P. Moore, Florida
Posted by brianmor at 08/27/2009 @ 3:39pm
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 2:14pm
OK, I won't ignore it anymore....but will respond with what I have responded with to several of your posts in recent days:
Just because someone says a thing is true, does not mean it IS true. Even if that someone is someone I respect as much as I do Senator Feingold.
President Obama has "lost" so many battles in his short national career long before he ended up winning them. And as far as strategy goes, what else would a Senator as smart as Feingold do to rally his base? He might say something is lost before it has even REALLY started.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/27/2009 @ 3:53pm
Of course I would deserve a 10% raise! If the Post Office in your example could afford an investment of $275,000 for a truck that allowed me to haul 55,000 pieces, that investment potential was provided by the workers increased productivity.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 2:21pm
Are you kidding?
You didn't do anything. You didn't attend training. You didn't find a shorter route that saved gas. You didn't do anything. Furthermore, the ability to invest in a bigger truck hasn't changed the labor market which is million of disicions by independent actors. If investing $275k (which means I need additional profit to recoup the investment) means you think you deserve a raise, I can go to the labor market and find another driver who is willing to drive your route for the same price you make now.
Besides, nobody "affords" investment. You go to the bank and finance it. I go to the bank and show them how by them giving me a loan for $275k, I will produce an additional $350k in order to pay off the loan. If you think you deserve and additional $350k (over the 12-year life of the truck) how am I going to pay off the loan I took out to invest in capital?
Seriously, you didn't do anything differently. A manager will make a decision to invest in a bigger truck or not. How is it you think you are responsible for a productivity increase?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 3:57pm
Posted by cka2nd at 08/27/2009 @ 3:26pm
The 10 times figure is based on my experience with health insurance. This morning we were discussing a health product for Korea. (Its a suppliment to the national health program.) Here are some rates for disease and accident:
Age 25 male 63.3 female 71.3
Age 30 male 70.0 female 76.3
Age 75 male 711.4 female 563.4
granted, this isn't proof, but it is evidence that "a factor of 10" is the right magnitude.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 4:04pm
http://www.freerepublic.com/
Posted on Fri Jul 17 08:53:56 2009 by jimthompsonworstpersoninworld
NOTE: At the time a hero was walking on the moon, a coward was walking away from a woman trapped underwater in an air pocket. It was only 6 feet of water.
===================================================
40th anniversary of Mary Jo Kopechne's drowning at Chappaquiddick...Kennedy's story still doubtful July 17, 6:02 AM
Sometime around midnight, on July 18, 1969 Kennedy drove his Oldsmobile 88 off of a small bridge on Chappaquiddick island, into eight feet of chilly water. The vehicle landed upside-down. While Kennedy managed to free himself from the wreck and swim to safety, his passenger, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne was left in the car to drown.
Once he reached shore, Kennedy claims to have made seven or eight attempts to rescue Kopechne, but could not free her.
Kennedy then walked back to the cottage where he and four other men, were partying with several young women known as the "Boiler Room Girls" who had worked on Robert Kennedy‘s campaign. Though Kennedy passed by a fire station and a private home to return to the cottage, he never stopped to ask for help for the trapped Kopechne.
Posted by BBFmail at 08/27/2009 @ 4:11pm
Posted by urmygyro at 08/27/2009 @ 12:52pm
Settle down urmgyro. Just because I expressed the emotion of feeling alone at one point doesn't mean you have to go off the deep end...
It was my emotion after all. You don't have to adopt it!
Posted by chaoszen at 08/27/2009 @ 12:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--so you have nothing to say now! rather you just repeat what I said to you (and which obviously doesn't apply to me, 'cause I'm fine)...glad to see you're feeling better and feel your time here isn't a waste!
Posted by urmygyro at 08/27/2009 @ 4:17pm
Mask: "Gotta watch DTT very closely, CKA. He'll insert off-hand remarks into his "data" and hope that nobody catchs THOSE."
watch meaning bird-dog right? oh, right, it's not that when you do it!
Mask: "If they do, as you did, he'll change the subject while claiming to answer the question."
so you'll have to continue asking him the same question and try to get a straight answer...wait, i mean you'll have to "bird-dog" him, which means you're wrong for asking.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/27/2009 @ 4:25pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 4:04pm
I was a physicis major in college. I had a physics professor who would quote some other physics geek who said the only number that matter is order of magnitude and sometimes 2 when talking about your paycheck.
Were the numbers I provided sufficient to convince you a 75-year old's claims are an order of magnitude higher than a 25 - 30-year old's claims?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 5:02pm
hey Mask!
Have they improved HR3200 since the last time you explained it to us? We'd like to hear your thoughts on the new sections.
Posted by sntauri at 08/27/2009 @ 5:24pm
PhilMcCrevice at 08/27/2009 @ 11:47am
If there is a single post on these boards that screams hysteria and stupidity it is yours.
I am not waving a Death Book. I'm quoting Barack Obama. Notice that his words unmistakably propose a panel of independent experts that decides on which patients medical care is most efficiently spent, and on which, because of their age and conditions money can be saved.
If you don't like that, shout at Obama. Call him a fool and liar, a fear monger.
You know into which crevice you can shove your outrage.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/27/2009 @ 5:31pm
I think you are so right. The sad passing of Senator Kennedy is a huge opportunity for President Obama to reinvigorate the work being done to finally secure healthcare as a right, and not a privilege. Thanks for this article!
Posted by Wendycolleen at 08/27/2009 @ 5:35pm
snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 09:46am asked:
>> What part of 'guidance' eliminates the patient's CHOICE? <<
Be a little honest. Obama wants nationalized medical insurance. In the interview I cite, Obama is talking about a system where, to best use limited funds, an independent panel decides, what treatments and procedures to fund for which patients and conditions, and for which patients it does not pay. It would not be a question of arguing a patient into agreeing to die untreated, but of deciding what treatment to offer and which to withhold.
You can argue that such a triage system is not unreasonable, but you can't argue that Obama is not saying what he is saying.
Your post adds:
>> Is the con argument that people are so smart that they can best manage their medical care alone, but so dumb that they can be talked into suicide? <<
The con argument is Teddy Kennedy's:
There are professionals who think lavishing expensive and iffy brain surgery on a 77 year old cancer patient, for at best a few extra years, is not cost efficient. Yet there are mentally active and ambitious oldsters who want a chance at additional life.
If you and Nichols are sincere in wanting to honor the memory of "the Lion of the Senate", which side of that argument do you uphold?
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/27/2009 @ 5:43pm
Lets all just have a drink.
Posted by bleedingheart at 08/27/2009 @ 7:21pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/27/2009 @ 5:43pm |
"Be a little honest. Obama wants nationalized medical insurance. In the interview I cite, Obama is talking about a system where, to best use limited funds, an independent panel decides, what treatments and procedures to fund for which patients and conditions, and for which patients it does not pay."
It's called cost control. You really want to fix the problem that the projections see turning into multi-trillion dollar entitlement monsters, you've got to address the fundamental problems of why we're spending so much on healthcare.
"It would not be a question of arguing a patient into agreeing to die untreated, but of deciding what treatment to offer and which to withhold."
But you're projecting a demonic purpose onto these decisions which is no more 'out to get you' than a private health insurance company.
"You can argue that such a triage system is not unreasonable, but you can't argue that Obama is not saying what he is saying."
When did I ever argue "what Obama is saying"?
"There are professionals who think lavishing expensive and iffy brain surgery on a 77 year old cancer patient, for at best a few extra years, is not cost efficient. Yet there are mentally active and ambitious oldsters who want a chance at additional life."
And these, being exceedingly expensive procedures with decidedly iffy results, might be something that is better left to Kennedy-class personal fortunes or the good graces of charity. Or perhaps not.
I'm for single-payer insurance, with top-ups to 'best in the world' policies, higher Medicare premiums, an increase to payroll taxes for SS/Medicare, and more cost being passed to Medicare 'consumers' to address 'rationing' and expense concerns.
Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 7:24pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/27/2009 @ 5:43pm |
I highly recommend the Bloomberg "On the Economy" podcast on healthcare reform yesterday with Uwe Reinhardt from Princeton and Eliott Fisher from the Center for Health Policy.
Good info on reigning in healthcare costs is presented.
Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 7:29pm
I'm for single-payer insurance, with top-ups to 'best in the world' policies, higher Medicare premiums, an increase to payroll taxes for SS/Medicare, and more cost being passed to Medicare 'consumers' to address 'rationing' and expense concerns.
Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 7:24pm
I like this. I sent it to my Congressman to use in his next town hall meeting. I explained that it was similar to Robert McNamara's Viet Nam policy.
"We had to make health care more expensive in order to make it cheaper!"
Should resonate well with the voters!
Posted by sntauri at 08/27/2009 @ 7:29pm
Lets all just have a drink.
Posted by bleedingheart at 08/27/2009 @ 7:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I'm with you on that one.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/27/2009 @ 7:38pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/27/2009 @ 5:02pm
Not sure if you were asking me whether I was convinced or not by your numbers, but in case you were, I have no doubt that the medical claims of the average 75-year old is SOME order of magnitude greater than that of the average 30-year old, nor that the administrative costs are greater by SOME order of magnitude, but one supplemental plan in South Korea and your personal experience isn't really enough for me to accept that the cost of administering those claims is 10 times greater.
I'd love to see a comparison of a wide range of administrative costs, from advertising to management to labor and more between Medicare and private companies. But another thing that would need to be taken into account is the comparative costs for medical providers of dealing with Medicare vs. the private sector. If anyone knows a source for such data, I'd be interested in checking it out.
Posted by cka2nd at 08/27/2009 @ 9:47pm
Posted by sntauri at 08/27/2009 @ 7:29pm |
Typical con response to pragmatic action by someone from the left to acknowledge the rising cost of caring for our seniors and the need to pay for same somehow.
Much better to jump up and down about imaginary entities like 'death panels', obfuscate, and pretend to be doing everyone a favor by tearing down the social safety net.
Better not talk about details or how to make things work...that way leads to progress, passing legislation, and improvement of people's lives...and the right can't have any of that before the end of 2010 if they're ever to see any political capital in the next century.
Screech away, oh mighty, righty shitbird.
Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 11:15pm
your personal experience isn't really enough for me to accept that the cost of administering those claims is 10 times greater.
Posted by cka2nd at 08/27/2009 @ 9:47pm
Okay, big misunderstanding here. I'm not saying the cost of admin is 10 times greater, only the cost of claims it 10 times greater (an order of magnitude).
Proponents of single payer quote the 2% - 4% of costs for admin as a reason that single payer is so efficient.
What I am pointing out is that even if the cost of admin is the same (say $600) for a 35-year old and a 75-year old, perceent spent on admin will be higher as a percentage.
Assume the average claim cost for a 35-year old might be $1800 (600 ÷ (1800 + 600) = 25%) and the avg claim cost for a 75-year old might be 18,000 (600 ÷ (600 + 18,000) = 3.2%)
The point is that showing a small percentage of claims can be misleading. Naturally having a much large average claim will show a much smaller admin cost as a percentage of claims.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/28/2009 @ 06:45am
-This is a parody-
August 25 (AP) South Carolina Governor Mark Sandford is recovering in a Columbia hospital after an automobile accident. The Governor appears to have lost control of his Oldsmobile Delmont 8 late last night on the Chinook bbridge over the Broad River. The Governor called police from a motel two miles from the crash site. It was not immediately disclosed why he had gone there; he had a cell phone, but it may have been damaged by submersion in water, although the Governor's clothes did not appear to be wet. It is unknown at this time if anybody was in the car with the governor. Local authorities are sending divers to try to recover the wreck. From his hospital bed he gave his wife a thumbs up and said, "I'm a fighter, I'll be on my feet in no time. I won't let this be a setback, I'll be the Governor again, I'll be in politics for another 40 years!" Visitors said the Governor appeared unusually cheerful.
Posted by HonestLiberal at 08/28/2009 @ 08:47am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/28/2009 @ 06:45am
Yes, I absolutely agree with you that the same admin cost can represent vastly different percentages of the medical costs or total costs. However, I am unconvinced that this is the sole reason, or even the 800-pound gorilla of reasons, for the higher admin costs for the private sector.
Posted by cka2nd at 08/28/2009 @ 08:55am
I am not waving a Death Book.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/27/2009 @ 5:31pm
"Death Book". "Death Panel".
Same shit, different flies with regard to rightwing cretins who make up one lie after another and then throw girlish hissy fits when called what they are. Whether it's climate change, Iraqi "WMDs", political prosecutions out of DoJ, astonishing levels of war profiteering, "birthers" and "deathers", absurd & obsessive defenses of torture when it is obviously illegal and self-defeating, (and on and on), the animal like grunt of an answer from the right is always the same: TERRORIZE REALITY!!!
Where does the quoted material from BHO say what you say it says "unmistakably" (emphasis mine): "unmistakably propose a panel of independent experts *that decides on which patients medical care is most efficiently spent*, and on which, *because of their age and conditions money can be saved*." Where does it put a government official between doctors and patients? Where are the "death books" and "death panels" that elicit not a whimper if they come out of a private sector insurance bureacracy of slide-rule beholden paper pushers?
Or let us guess: The "unmistakable" part is in invisable ink, right? By the same wild-eyed logic, HUGO is going to tell us that BHO also said, "Psssst! Hey everyone out there! It's true! I really am a Muslim from Kenya on the mission for which I was groomed at age 8 in the Indonesian madrass, just like the anoymous chains of emails say. But don't tell anyone, it's our little secret until I scream 'Allah Akbar' & we begin our neo-Nazi program with ACORN as our shock troops".
That is the "common wisdom" of the right & its thought leaders. They're freaks! Freaks! Gawdamn freaks, every last one of 'em.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/28/2009 @ 09:43am
What I am pointing out is that even if the cost of admin is the same (say $600) for a 35-year old and a 75-year old, perceent spent on admin will be higher as a percentage.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/28/2009 @ 06:45am
And this is exactly where your argument falls apart. You cannot assume the administrative costs for a 35 year old healthy person and a 75 year old are going to be anywhere NEAR the same in a single payer system. The 75 year old is going to be having many more doctor visits, going to have many more prescription needs, etc. etc.
The administrative costs for the elderly will be higher than for the young...just like it is right now, and that's the EXACT reason the health insurance companies DON'T want old or sick people on their rolls...thus the high level of rescission and/or claim denial by the health insurance companies when people get sick.
Because the POOL of medical patients under a single payer system would be huge (300 million plus), and the majority of those will be relatively young and healthy people (and that majority will actually get larger once the boomers atrt to die off), the percentage spent per capita will go down, not up.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/28/2009 @ 12:17pm
An afrocentric analyst critiques Obama - 08-08-09
President Obama is not a change agent...when obama talks about change - he is not talking about a social revolution, he is only talking about cosmetic change.
All human beings fall into three political classes: 1. Liberals 2. Moderates 3. Nationalists
Barack Obama is a MODERATE. He has surrounded himself with moderates. Moderates do well during prosperous times but they are ineffective during any prolonged crisis.
Because Obama is a moderate by nature he is incapable of radical change. Obama's first mistake upon becoming president, was to surround himself with a gang of moderates. This group is totally incapable of solving the country's economic problems. Their modest, tentative, hesitant,and feeble economic reforms, are inadequate and will not bring about the economic revolution that Americans want.
Now imagine if Obama the moderate, had chosen a group of free thinking individuals as his chief advisors and cabinet members. Under his guidance these individuals would have charted new territory...by creating a new economic model:
1. Instead of giving away trillions of dollars to wall street and the banks they could have divided the billion dollar stimulus equally between wall street and main street.
This would have ensured a an adequate flow of capital between the macro economy [wall street] and the micro economy [main street].
Instead they gave all the money to wall street and nothing to main street. The result?- the disequilibrium between the two systems [the m
Posted by erc1195 at 08/28/2009 @ 4:11pm
snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 11:15pm said:
It's called cost control. You really want to fix the problem that the projections see turning into multi-trillion dollar entitlement monsters, you've got to address the fundamental problems of why we're spending so much on healthcare.
Yes, the problem is uncontrolled costs and as I wrote elsewhere, that spiral began in 1966 when Medicare and Medicare began. From that moment all restraints on how much to charge came off because the govt wallet would pay for the elderly and for the poor. The other insurers had to raise premiums to meet the costs of the rising bills. From '66 on the shares of stocks connected to the medical industry skyrocketed and doctors could no longer afford to make house calls.
In short, it was govt insurance that began this endlessly rising cost curve. It is hard to understand how an even larger govt insurance that will not bend the curve down, the CBO assures us, but will add another trillion dollars to our costs, is the answer.
>> But you're projecting a demonic purpose onto these decisions which is no more 'out to get you' than a private health insurance company. <<
No, I don't assume a demonic motive in the Obama quotes I cited. Nothing wrong with the ambition to reform medical insurance, it is well intentioned. And even the idea of letting experts decide who should and should not be treated is not diabolic in intent.
But the result would have "panels" make life and death decisions based on which patients they thought most merited being kept alive. However well meaning the experts on those panels, would you want the lives of your parents in their hands?
You admit you would leave the majority at the mercy of such panels, while the super rich, like Kennedy, would not be so constrained.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/29/2009 @ 05:53am
PhilMcCrevice at 08/28/2009 @ 09:43am said:
>> the right & its thought leaders. They're freaks! Freaks! Gawdamn freaks, every last one of 'em. <<
Take heed McCrevice:
Especially on crossing the street after it's rained. If you step into a pothole you'll drown.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/29/2009 @ 05:57am
obama is a gutless wonder!!! Let's elect a leader of the Democratic Party in 2012 who possesses courage, intelligence, and experience.
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 08/30/2009 @ 01:11am
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/29/2009 @ 05:53am |
How well did being super rich work out for Ted?
The fact is we're all subjected to death panels under whatever insurance plan public or private...they can exclude you from the plan, offer nothing but crap plans with high deductibles at your employer, and turn away the same doctors and meds that you fear the govt would leave beyond your reach (not in our network or formulary).
This puts the rules in the hands of people we elect rather than the people that Aetna's board elects.
I like my policy rules to be up there in the legislative record, not shapeshifting in a corporate boardroom.
Posted by snowball777 at 08/30/2009 @ 10:42pm