He sux.
Who knew we were electing a national mother-in-law? And get a chance to endure increased taxes for the privilege. Obama’s supposed to be rallying support from voters, not castigating them. Outside the S& M parlor, most people do not enjoy paying to be disciplined.
What’s amusing is that his acolytes (including some in this very blog’s comments) are just as bad, because they use the same dumb arguments.
No surprise. The only thing he’s ever really been able to sell is himself. He may be the most spectacular example of the Peter Principle in world history.
[Update a few minutes later]
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:
“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers…
…It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It’s scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we’ll come across in the final 1,002.
You can see why these fascists object to the notion of reading bills.
[Update late morning]
The civil war among the Democrats:
Blue Dogs had aired their complaints last week in a letter to Pelosi that caused her to delay the rollout of the bill until Tuesday. But when the bill was introduced, they felt Pelosi and the committee chairmen who wrote the legislation hadn’t taken their concerns into account.
That led to a tense session between Pelosi and Blue Dogs at the group’s regular Tuesday meeting hours after the rollout.
“The meeting did not go well. She just kept saying it was a good bill,” said one Blue Dog.
“There is a growing perception among many of us that our leadership meets with us but doesn’t listen to us,” said another Blue Dog.
What do you expect? She’s a moron. And I hope that she’ll continue to lead them…to a massive defeat next year.
[Noon update]
I propose that the government impose a single-payer system on the legal profession. Instead of charging private fees, all attorneys would have to send their bills to LegalCare, a new agency in the federal government. Because the government can bargain collectively, they can impose rational fees for legal services instead of the exorbitant billing fees attorneys now charge. Three hundred dollars an hour? Thing of the past. Everyone knows that the government can control costs through price-setting; now we can see this process applied to the legal system, where the government has a large interest in seeing cost savings.
How will we pay for LegalCare? I take a page from the House surtax method here, which will disproportionately hit doctors in a wide variety of disciplines. In this case, I propose a 5.4% surtax on lawyers, judges, lobbyists, and political officeholders at the state and federal level. They’re the ones who have enriched themselves through this inequity in the legal system. After all, why should we all have to pay for the single-payer legal system when we can penalize lawyers instead?
I think we need a big-bang solution that can integrate a solution to the health-care and legal-care crises.
[Update after 3 PM]
The public-option scam:
Some statements are inherently unbelievable. Such as: “I am an official of the government of Nigeria, and I would like to deposit $60 million in your bank account.” Or: “I’m Barry Bonds, and I thought it was flaxseed oil.” And this new one: “I’m Barack Obama, and I favor more competition in health insurance.”
They must think we’re stupid. And unfortunately, judging by the election results last fall, it might not be a bad bet.
[Update a few minutes later]
A shocking development — honesty from someone in Washington, from the CBO, of all places.
As I’ve commented in other posts, I don’t want to change my health care and those of you who want to change it for me may affect my health in a negative way. So pardon me for not being civil if we ever meet.
Wow, I thought this guy was elected because he was so much more thoughtful and composed in his rhetorical skills over George Bush.
One criticism I have seen a lot of lately is how Obama seems to make ill informed snap decisions. Then instead of changing his position in light of additional information he instead makes excuses and passes the buck. Then, he just quickly moves onto something else in the most scatter brained of fashion.
Obama must be getting wind of this since he made it a point to say, “Hey, I learned something and changed my mind when I found out that insurance for young people is cheaper overall.” Gee ya’ think? Then, we see why he made it a point to proclaim this revelation over such a obvious fact. “See, see, I’m the President and I DO change my mind from time to time! Oh, and if I can do it then so can you. So, time to get on board and do the patriotic thing — buy my mandated health care.”
So, we will be worse off than in Britain, where although the government wastes lots of your money on a sucky NHS, at least you can enroll in any private health care plan you like (and where, in fact, private enrollment has been growing rapidly).
Lower taxes than us, too, after 2011.
Hope and change.
For a more accurate, and less hysterical take on this question in Kaiser Health News, click my name. An excerpt:
So first the right complains about the public plan. Then they complain that not everyone will be allowed into the public plan. What will they complain about next?
So first the right complains about the public plan.
Glad to see that you at least acknowledge that we’re right.
As for what we will “complain” about next, we will continue to complain about fascists like you wanting to screw up our health care.
Where’s the hysteria? Pointing out something that’s actually printed in the bill? Using the word “fascist”?
As a middle-class person, I will continue to complain that my health-care costs will rise while you leftists continue to claim there’re going down. Until you get around to claiming this garbage will “create jobs”. Then I’ll howl with laughter and complain that that’s idiocy.
For those leftist morons like Jim who claim that health care costs will go down if the government is in charge, I dare them to provide examples where this has ever happened in US history. The government itself admits that roughly 10% of Medicare spending goes to fraud and abuse. Their administrative costs are high when you factor in everything (civil service salaries and retirement, facilities, etc). The only way they can lower the costs is to reduce medical services. Except the politically connected will always get the best of care.
If the Dems didn’t have a monopoly, the political horse-trading might include something like:
I’ll give you mandatory participation and no pre-existing conditions in return for medical tort reform.
But the liberals are in charge (and own it) now. The only question is how bad it’ll get and how much permanent damage is done. The mood of the country is changing fast, maybe enough to prevent driving off the cliff……
I’ll think it’s a good plan when Congress is willing to use it instead of acting like the House of Lords. Every member that votes for it with the exemption in place should be voted out of office.
Regarding the IBD article (Second link from top) if you actually read the bill, you will find that it does not ban private health insurance.
The provision is in a section entitled “Grandfathered Health Care Programs Defined” and it merely states that a plan can’t be considered grandfathered if it enrolls people after the law takes effect. You can still buy private health insurance in this plan.
Since it took me all of five minutes to figure this out, anybody who tells you otherwise is either lying or stupid.
Every member that votes for it with the exemption in place should be voted out of office.
Excuse me? Would Washington settle for voting them out of office? When there are trees and rope enough? We’re Americans. When we don’t like our politicans, they should be peeing their pants in personal fear. We could learn a thing or two from the patriots in the streets of Tehran, I’m thinking.
Health care must be considered a human right — under the “Right to life” — the first unalienable right articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the declaration. How can we talk seriously about other freedoms if we don’t allow people the freedom to survive — without being burdened by massive debt?
Health care must be considered a human right.
No, it mustn’t at all. Positive rights are immoral, as they imply theft from others for those unwilling to pay their own way.
Positive rights are immoral,
That’s certainly an opinion.
So, given that I, and many other people don’t share your opinion, how do you propose we resolve the problem?
…given that I, and many other people don’t share your opinion, how do you propose we resolve the problem?
Well, most of the people who share my opinion that our wealth shouldn’t be stolen from us for those who think that they have a “right” to it have the guns. At least in this country. And who has the guns is ultimately the only way that wealth is distributed in an immoral manner, and to defend against same.
So, given that I, and many other people don’t share your opinion, how do you propose we resolve the problem?
You can always upgrade to a better opinion. In the meantime, the US Constitution still provides some protection from other peoples’ “opinions”.
“Since it took me all of five minutes to figure this out, anybody who tells you otherwise is either lying or stupid”
I vote for you’re stupid since it also says once your plan isn’t grandfathered, you’re stuck with the same choices as everyone else. A company can’t add new employees to the grandfatered plan. What company is going to adminster two plans? None.
Bill Maron – wrong again. First, the grandfathered clause is for individual, not employer (AKA “group”) plans.
Employer plans have a 5-year grace period to get in compliance. It’s on the very next page.
Regarding multiple plans – my company with all of 200 employees administers 3 plans.
Well, most of the people who share my opinion that our wealth shouldn’t be stolen from us for those who think that they have a “right” to it have the guns
How’s that working out for you then? Not so good at the moment I expect.
You can always upgrade to a better opinion.
Why on earth would I do something that silly?
In the meantime, the US Constitution still provides some protection from other peoples’ “opinions
Indeed. Something which works both ways.
My opinion still seems to hold water under your constitution too. I still see there’s a Federal Income tax where I live.
As I’ve commented in other posts, I don’t want to change my health care and those of you who want to change it for me may affect my health in a negative way. So pardon me for not being civil if we ever meet.
Believe me when I say the utter contempt I have for your attitude would ensure that we would have far from a civil meeting in that unfortunate event.
I also have some under insured friends I’ll bring along whom you can explain your position too.
My insurance is f’king awesome, but that doesn’t guide my ability to feel concerned about people around me.
Anyway, what amuses me is ignoring the fairly lousy British system, which, for the interests of full disclosure I, and my immediate family, have had nothing but exemplary service from (including emergency surgery, cancer treatment and other stuff), it amazes me that Britain and Canada are the usually used comparisons and not France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Holland and so forth where they seem to have really amazing universal healthcare… oh, and for less money than the US taxpayers are already paying.
Go figure.
Even assuming that universal healthcare is “better”or even just that the system is so broken that massive overhaul is dearly required, why the rush?
How urgent is healthcare? Why is it so urgent that a massive bill must be rammed through such that it can’t be read or understand?
Is there some critical tipping point that requires the bill to be passed this month? Other than the eroding political support? If this idea really was popular and greatly loved, then why not spend more time basking in it?
If this goal of health care truly is necessary and good and, most importantly, vital…. then why rush it? Why make a giant mess of something that’s critical?
Look at the Stimulus. They said that was urgent, and look at the results of that rushed and botched job.
If Health care and Global warming are such great problems, they why do the solutions look like this?
Why would this health care bill preform any better than the Stimulus?
What were the lessons learned?
I vote for you’re stupid since it also says once your plan isn’t grandfathered, you’re stuck with the same choices as everyone else.
I disagree. Gerrib is naive and thinks the rest of us our too. He believes the 5 years to get into compliance is a just a small hurdle to cross. Sort of like the routine and simple paperwork doctors must file to get reinbursed by Medicare/Medicaid. Since most of us have experience with government paperwork, we know that compliance takes more than 5 minutes of understanding. Then again, I’ve met some naive people, who are selfaware of that fact. Gerrib not being self aware may be a sign he’s stupid as well.
Do keep in mind Gerrib thought during the election, and really still does today, that Obama was only going to raise taxes 2-3%, and that would be small burden on taxpayers.
My insurance is f’king awesome, but that doesn’t guide my ability to feel concerned about people around me.
How about being concerned for your fellow Britains, over 75, dying of cancer? Considering the WHO says cancer is the leading cause of death worldwide, one would think an awesome healthcare system would be out in front on something like that.
Why most Americans are opposed to fascist healthcare is because it limits choice and costs more. The CBO is clearly acknowledging it will cost more, and what Obama and Jim is claiming as a solution for cutting costs is to just let those 75 years and over dying with cancer go without care. As they say, most healthcare costs comes from needlessly taking care of the terminally ill. So if they lived 10 years less, I guess you the country can save lots of money. Such things make me wonder where fascist will cut costs next.
It doesn’t guide your ability to think critically either. It just guides your ability to FEEL. And that’s the important thing after all, right? You go on feeling your way through life; the rest of use will continue to be guided by the lessons we’ve learned through history, and our ability to apply those lessons logically.
@Daveon
“it amazes me that Britain and Canada are the usually used comparisons and not France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Holland and so forth where they seem to have really amazing universal healthcare”
That’s great! Too bad this current health care legislation has little semblance to anything going on in those countries. Hell, in Britain and Canada you can still buy your own private coverage. This part of this bill will stifle even that choice among Americans.
If the gov’t can indeed provide the types of cost savings claimed by universal coverage proponents then prove it with Medicare.
How urgent is healthcare? Why is it so urgent that a massive bill must be rammed through such that it can’t be read or understand?
It’s been sixty years since Truman first proposed universal health care. I don’t think it’s been rushed!
As to why a particular bill has to be rushed: it’s because our system of government is set up to make big changes next-to-impossible. We give 41 Senators (who may represent as little as 25% of the population) a veto over everything. And even before that, you have to get by various committee chairpeople, all of whom are subject to ferocious lobbying. There are lots of choke point, and to be successful the bill has to survive all of them. That’s why we went 80 years without passing a single civil rights bill, all while millions of black Americans were living as second-class citizens.
There is a very small window — basically one year — when a newly elected president can overcome inertia and all the procedural obstacles to actually enact the programs that he ran on, and which the voters elected him to enact. After that the House and a third of the Senate is focused on the midterms, and power swings from the White House and popular opinion to the contributors and their lobbyists.
I would like both parties to agree to change the Senate rules to require only 51 votes to stop debate and call a vote. The rule change should be made so that it takes effect after the 2014 elections — i.e. after every current member of the Senate has had to face the voters, and at which point either party could be the one with the majority. But such a change would reduce the power of any individual Senator to stop legislation, so I doubt they would agree to it.
Your grasp of history is astoundingly poor jim. I’d make specific points but why bother when you can take everything you just said and throw it out the window.
Josh Reiter – please get with the program. Even Instapundit has managed to read to page 18 of the bill. It does not ban private insurance.
There is no rush to get this bill passed. There is a lot of obstuctionism (mostly by Republicans) who don’t want to pass it and therefore will attempt every delaying tactic possible.
What is the name of the planet you live on?
Thank G*d.
Josh Reiter – please get with the program. Even Instapundit has managed to read to page 18 of the bill. It does not ban private insurance.
Perhaps you should read the actual post, Chris. What IP did was to post an email of a reader who disagreed with IDB’s interpretation of the paragraph cited. I don’t see where he definitively concurred with either position.
Just as an aside, from the e-mail IP cited: “It does not outlaw individual private coverage – you can still buy the plan on the Exchange where they will compete with the public option, not be replaced by it.”.
Let’s assume for the moment his interpretation is correct and that it doesn’t outlaw private coverage, what do we have? Well in this case, the people that manage the “public option” also have the authority to regulate the “private option”. Imagine for a second that Microsoft is given the authority to regulate Google; does anybody really think that any competition between the two would be fair?
“Outside the S& M parlor, most people do not enjoy paying to be disciplined.”
But a large number of middle-class and upper-class “liberals” do! “I’ve been a greedy, selfish person, Daddy State! Tax me–tax me good and hard!”
These would be the masochistic, self-hating “liberals” (i.e., State-fetishists). The flip side of this kink is the sadistic “liberals”–the one who get off on weilding the whip of State.
Well in this case, the people that manage the “public option” also have the authority to regulate the “private option”.
The regulation in question is that insurers can’t deny you coverage for having a preexisting condition, or drop you (or hike your premiums) once you get sick. These regulations are good for consumers, and keep the public plan from becoming a dumping ground for expensive patients dropped by their private insurer.
You may disagree with the specific regulations (I’d love to hear why), but it’s silly to be surprised at the existence of regulation — private health insurance is regulated today.
ucfenger – perhaps you should read the actual bill, and explain to me how a provision that grandfathers (AKA “exempts) specific plans from a regulation in fact bans private insurance.
perhaps you should read the actual bill, and explain to me how a provision that grandfathers (AKA “exempts) specific plans from a regulation in fact bans private insurance.
Considering how far Gerrib was off in understanding what Glenn Reynolds wrote; I doubt ucfenger can explain in this forum how grandfather does not mean “not prohibited”. Or how having three types of regulations (one for the government, one for grandfathered private health insurances, and one for new private health insurances) creates barriers to the market that favor existing enterprises. Then there is the other issue that the bill that exists today is very unlikely to be the same bill that will make it to the floor for a vote. If cap and trade is any example (and it is), then we can expect unincorporated revisions for up to 30% of the bill within hours of being called to a vote.
“Just 35% of U.S. voters now support the creation of a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurers. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 50% of voters oppose setting up a government health insurance company as President Obama and congressional Democrats are now proposing in their health care reform plan. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. In mid-June, 41% of American adults thought setting up a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies was a good idea, but the identical number (41%) disagreed.
The president is often praised for his oratory. But so far his oratory is not convincing.”
The bloom is off the rose. Of course that isn’t a rose of a health care plan we’re smelling.
“Believe me when I say the utter contempt I have for your attitude would ensure that we would have far from a civil meeting in that unfortunate event.”
I’d be happy to make that a reality.
The product you must have!
Healthcare Kneepads!
These innovative devices will keep your most-stressed joint free from harm as you grovel to your local health bureaucrat for health-related needs. They will offer:
-comfortable begging for the boon of getting to pay for timely, effective health care on top of the increased taxation for government run inefficient, ineffective, untimely health care
-non painful pleading for your particular health need not to be deemed cost inefficient because you are too old or a bad health risk
-blister free scraping and crawling to obtain help and guidance in understanding the behemoth regulations that will allow any health care activity to be allowed or disallowed with the right political connection or proper flattery of your local health care bureaucrat
Order your pair now! They will even be useful before health care “reform” is complete as you pitifully beg your representatives and senators not to mess up your health care!
(If health care reform is passed, knee pads may be obtained free from the government option health plan, pursuant to a particular interpretation of item 749.73.6 on page 837 of the 1018 page bill, paragraph 6.)