Tags for this video have been changed from 'barack HUSSEIN obama, monarch, tyrant, criminal, healthcare, takeover extreme' to 'barack HUSSEIN obama, monarch, tyrant, criminal, healthcare, takeover, extreme, racism' - edited by burdturgler

The irony is by heightening up the rhetoric to ridiculous proportions they made more Democrats likely to vote for the bill.

Had they not it would have cemented the perception that health care was an attempt at government takeover, death panels and Armageddon. The only choice left even for many Democrats against the bill was to help pass the bill because if they didn't then in the midterms the party they belonged to would have had much more relevancy in determining their future than what their actual position on the bill was.

Two cents from Dennis Kucinich:

"This is reform within the context of a for-profit system. And the for-profit system has been quite predatory — it makes money for not providing health care."

"My concern was that this bill was hermetically sealed to admit no opening toward a not-for-profit system, no competition from the public sector with the private insurers. Which makes the claims of a government takeover such a joke. You know, those who claim that this is socialism probably don't know anything about socialism — or capitalism."

Dearest Mabeline,

It has been three weeks since the Northern Aggressors passed the Socialist Health Care Takeover Act of 2010. I have organized a small band of like-minded rebels, and we have set ourselves to the task of taking back this great nation from the grip of the of the socialist devils who have stolen it's helm. Our first act will be the loud comdemnation of this heresy on every message board that we have accounts on. Later, we will probably go to Chili's.

I hope to see you soon,

Colonel Lionel T. Douchebag
Teabagger

>> ^Crake:
^Voldemort quote. Nice
I agree that fairness it often an abused term when it comes to real-life issues (such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict).
I'm not sure that's the issue here, though. I think Lewis is working from the basic assumption of Capitalism everywhere: It's voluntary, therefore it is fair (this is where the pirate comparison becomes problematic).
If I win the lottery, I don't deserve the winnings. Same goes if I sell a mint condition comic book for tens of thousands of dollars. I don't have to worry about the buyer's reason for paying that price, it may be because he's a sucker, or because he really sees that much value in it (or because he knows he can resell it for even more later, which is probably the usual case).
So, there is a disconnect between buyer and seller, that allows for a lack of compassion for mistakes, I guess, but it's on a solid moral footing (voluntary, presumably rational actors) , so it's hard to change.
nor should it be changed, but that's just my own Capitalist opinion


I think you're wrong.

Capitalism is not voluntary. It's mandatory.

The pirate comparison is not out of line. You've heard of T. Boone Pickens? You've heard of hostile takeovers?

And lastly, the fairness question is not "an abused term" -- it is the heart of the issue.

Any system that considers fairness as being something that need not be adhered to, that need not be included in decision-making, and that need not be a goal of policy is, at heart, a criminal system.

Human government expands and needs income and resources to continue to expand. This leads to wars abroad to spread hegemony and police the takeover of land with desirable resources. This leads to wars domestically to create criminals out of victimless offenses and create a fear-based system of need for industrial complexes.

Simply put: the government requires income generation to continue its expansion. This is an absolute system that corrupts absolutely. And thankfully for that, my new catch phrase "haha, way to go statist idiots" has gained wings.

>> ^bmacs27:
I'd rather just pick some fixed amount everybody gets for life however, and just hand them the money when they are 18. It doesn't even have to be money right away (to defer the inflation). It could just be stamps that are converted to cash by the doctors when they are reimbursed for services. It's got most of the qualities of the progressive plans. It's egalitarian. It puts money in the pocket of people that need it. Unlike those plans however, it would get the votes from both sides.
Like I said, it isn't that radical. It isn't like the European style systems, but there are models. Like I mentioned, a similar system is quite popular in Singapore (which I wouldn't describe as an entirely backwards society, I could do without the caning, but you know, quit yer litterin'). For whatever reason, however, this debate always gets bogged down in this quagmire of European system or status quo, which I find bunk. I think there are legitimate concerns with the European way of providing health that don't fit neatly with our cultural identity. There would be broad Republican support for a bill that puts consumers in charge of cost control (this video could be cited as evidence). So why not consider that sort of plan? Because it doesn't inch us along the path to single-payer? Political points? What is it? Why isn't it even on the table?


Let me unpack this a bit, and respond separately to policy substance and the politics of the bill.

I'm not sure how a "lump sum" grant would work. Is there a hidden assumption in there that this is to replace their Medicare benefits later in life? Are there new taxes to offset it? Do people get to keep what they don't spend as cash? What happens if you get a serious illness and deplete it before you're 30?

Part of the advantage of the plan DeLong proposes is that most of the cost is borne by the individual themselves. They also have strong incentives to keep themselves healthy, since any money they don't use gets rolled over into their IRA, or if they so choose, returned to them immediately. If they're young and healthy, this means they have a pretty strong push towards saving 15% of their income at all times. If they do get sick, they have an incentive to try to deal with their illness as cheaply as possible, since every dime is out of pocket. If they get seriously ill, and blow through their HSA, they know what they pay is capped at 15% of their yearly income, and everything past that is paid for by the government, so they know they won't go broke.

A lump sum plan seems to lose most of those advantages.

As for politics, what Democrats are proposing now is actually to the right of the bill Republicans offered to Bill Clinton in the 90's. It's more conservative than the Massachusetts Romneycare reforms.

Republican opposition isn't ideological. There isn't a single god damned thing Democrats could do with this bill that would make Republicans vote for it. They win by handing Obama a defeat, period. Any reform that dramatically improves the system that's signed into law by Obama means historically huge credit will be heaped on Democrats in general, and Obama in particular. They will do anything to stop that from happening.

That said, I would have loved to have seen Democrats propose something like what DeLong suggested, just to hear what the Republican anti-reform talking points would've been. Probably they'd just demagogue the mandated 15% contribution to HSA's and call that a "government takeover" of health care. They'd probably still say that all we need to do is tort reform and to "let companies sell insurance across state lines" which would in effect eliminate the states' ability to regulate insurance.

The only bill that would ever get broad Republican support is one introduced by a Republican majority in congress.

Then watch Obama's SOTU speech followed by his appearance at the GOP retreat (including the Q&A). That's 3 hours of your time and it makes the whole situation very clear, from a management perspective at least.

The only thing that Obama's SOTU & GOP retreat speeches make clear is that Obama is a petulent, selfish, insecure loser. His policies are being rejected by the American people. Every initiative he puts forth is being reoundly rejected by the public. Obama's version of health care - rejected. Obama's version of Cap & Trade - rejected. Obama's government takeover of industries & money - rejected. Obama's stupid Kenseyian economic vision - rejected. He is being rejected and frustrated at every turn and he clearly doesn't like it. He just wants everyone to shut up, quit fighting his agenda, and goose-step to his whimsy.

"Management perspective". There was no management perspective from Obama. The nub of his two speeches (SOTU & GOP) can be summed up in one phrase... "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! You aren't doing what I waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaant!"

I heard a clip on Brietbart or some other blog that I peruse. I cycle through Kos, HuffPo, Brietbart & a couple others to see what the kooks are aflutter about. Anyway, the clip was from Rush Limbaugh - and I had to admit that he nailed Obama perfectly. Essentially he said that Obama was sensitive, insecure, and defensive because for the first time in his life no one is there to give him an "A" when he really got a "D"... No one is there to give him a job when he really isn't qualified... His mistakes and stupidity are hanging out for the world to see, and he doesn't like it when he's actually held responsible for being an idiot. He's a little man-child who has had everything handed to him on a platter all his life and for the first time no one is there to paper over his mistakes. He has no mechanism to deal with actual culpability - so he just lashes out and blames everyone else because that's what he's done all his life.

I heard that and it clicked. It his Obama square between the eyes. I've met people like that before, and it describes them (and Obama) perfectly. He's a small man in a pair of boots way too big for him, and he knows it. He's the naked emporer; he knows he's naked, and he's scared to death of people who point it out so he tries to shout them down.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The Tea Partiers represent huge numbers of fiscal conservatives and independants who are alarmed at government debt spending & over-spending.

And Socialist Nazis. They're pretty pissed about those too.

My neighbor is a tea party protester. If you want to hear something funny then just ask a tea partier to define "government takeover of healthcare".

You can argue that we would benefit from a federal insurance system or not, but let's not make stuff up out of thin air and call it scary truth.

I couldn't agree more. Let's start with the lie about death panels. Then the lie about government takeovers. Then the lie about taking away benefits from old people. Then the lie that it'll bankrupt the country. Then the lie that wait times will go up. Then the lie that innovation will stop. The lie that you'll have a "government bureaucrat between you and your doctor". The lie that the proposed plans will kill small businesses.

In a related note, fear mongering about the H1N1 vaccine should stop too.

But back to your pet peeve on display here about "obscene profit" -- if you think the main, central argument Democrats have been using is for reform is that we need to punish insurance companies for the crime of having made a profit, you haven't been listening to Democrats. You've been listening to the talk radio/Fox News caricatures of Democratic positions instead.

I think it's pretty safe to say that what makes the profits "obscene" is not their size, but that they're coming amongst a backdrop of worsening service, and shrinking coverage base. As MoveOn put it, "Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." That's not a comment on the size of profits, it's a comment on how those profits were achieved.

No comments....I guess this isn't part of the socialist takeover plot.

Well, you can stick me after my .357 stops smoking.

^ The Democrats in congress don't seem convinced, and Obama can't simply bypass them or order them to vote how he wants.

I can already see the commercials and Fox "News" stories about the number of people in the insurance industry losing jobs from the "government takeover" during difficult economic times. The bigger the change, the easier it is to scare people. I genuinely think Ron Paul would try to implement broad changes, but I don't think he would be any more successful in getting the votes for it.

I'd love to see a single-payer system, but unfortunately I think pushing hard for one would fail and would also sabotage the chance of getting anything else through. People want change, but they freak out when it's actually proposed. =\

So what did people think, that Obama could just step into office and fix everything with the wave of his hand? How much support do you think he would get for a single-payer system? Hell, he mentions a government "option" and people start flipping out about socialism and government takeovers. If he tried to push through a single-payer system then the whole attempted reform would fall flat on its face.


I honestly like Obama better than any other candidate out there. I don't agree with every decision he makes, but I can't see a better alternative. He probably won't stick to every promise he makes, but I'd be far more concerned if we elected conservatives that did follow through on all of their promises.

Marxists want the workers to own the means of production, even through violent takeover (Not saying Moore is a Marxist). They don't mind if someone else takes all the risk in building that company, as long as they get a slice of the pie if its successful.

"Fair" is never fair in a democracy. It typically means stealing.

Moore seems to think the freelancers (who he probably got fired after this interview) need to be permanent employees with benefits. Why? I am a freelancer and I work for an hourly wage I set and is fair, and I don't go asking my clients for health insurance or to make me a permanent employee. Actually, to the contrary, they want to make me fulltime, and I don't want to be.

No one is saying there aren't some isolated kooks who are racist. Shame on them. What I'm saying is that for Carter to generically label ALL opposition to Obama as racist (which is what he's doing) is pure garbage. Carter made no qualifications on his comment. He said "The overwhelming portion of the animosity to Obama is because he's a black man." He's lumping anyone and everyone who opposes Obama POLITICALLY into a bin and ascribing thier motivation as racial. Bullcrap.

Race is the last thing on the mind of most of the people that oppose Obama. They oppose his radicalism. They oppose his interpretation of the Constitution as lacking 'negative rights'. They oppose his Kenesyian propensities. They oppose his cradle to grave vision of America. They oppose his attempt to change health care. They oppose his attempt to tax energy & carbon. They oppose his takeovers of the auto industry and key financial institutions. They oppose his union ties. They oppose his deplorable habit of bad mouthing his own country. They oppose him for a million and one reasons, and none of them have anything to do with whether he's black, white, or purple.

Carter is full of crap. His comments are more a reflection of is own propensity for viewing the world through the lens of race than anything else.

UPDATE: And hopefully this little gem from Obama himself will put this silly matter to rest... Whatever racism actually exists against Obama is isolated, and in the remotest, most miniscule minority.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama