When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
38 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
URI
13 years ago
Zero is now bringing the “Inmigration Reform” to the table,..what a looooooser!….with unemployment so high, who could possible be thinking about illegal inmigrants? the unemployed?
who could possible be thinking about illegal immigrants?
Who’s thinking about them you ask?
Why, the Dimocrats of course….that group has proven to be a reliable voting block for them.
Adding 25, 35, 40 million more just enlarges the Dim voter registration pool….IF they can get it done.
TSgt Ciz
13 years ago
I don’t think the Dem leadership will risk a up or down vote unless they know for certain that they have the votes they need. So I think they will keep tinkering in the margins and threatening all manner of tricks until it becomes completely clear that the voters will not have it, and everyone has to go off to campaign.
As for illegal immigrants being a reliable voting block for Dems, I don’t know if that is a fair statement. I would posit that the majority of illegal immigrants don’t vote. Not that none do, but the majority don’t. And if the majority did vote, they would very likely be more inclined to vote Republican according to their values. It is a rather large constituency that conservatives (rightly) deprive themselves of on the basis of principle. Sadly the Dems have no principles that prohibit them from pandering to illegals.
I didn’t mean to imply that illegals vote for Dims while “illegal” (although there are documented cases of illegals being registered)…the Hispanic bloc however, has been historically reliable for the Dims hence the eagerness to add more potential votes to the pool.
You would think that people would vote according to their values and interests, however, just as Jews vote Dim by a large margin, so does the Hispanic population.
Disturber
13 years ago
I am going out on a limb here and saying Obamacare is dead. Here is a very insightful article by Pat Cadell and Doug Schoen, both well respected Democrat pollsters, a must read.
On top of that, the hysterical quality of the President’s recent pitches tells me that he has received the bad news and thinks that he still has the mojo to turn it around. But the people aren’t listening any more and he isn’t changing minds in his favor. The longer this goes on, the more desperate he looks and the more certain the defeat. I am calling it dead now.
Disturber
Greg
13 years ago
Who’s thinking about them you ask?
Why, the Dimocrats of course…
The powerful lobbying force largely responsible for having E-Verify removed from the stimulus package was the American Chamber of Commerce–not exactly a liberal, democratic-leaning organization. That same conservative organization also filed a suit to block the President from putting mandatory E-Verify into effect by Presidential Directive.
Enforcement of our immigration laws has become a joke primarily because American business wanted dirt-cheap labor.
@Disturber: Yes, I noticed how angry Obama was getting over health care demanding that the time for talking is past and yet there he is TALKING… AGAIN…
CNN found last month that 56 percent of Americans believe that the government has become so powerful it constitutes an immediate threat to the freedom and rights of citizens. When only 21 percent of Americans say that Washington operates with the consent of the governed, as was also reported last month, we face an alarming crisis.
Health care is no longer a debate about the merits of specific initiatives. Since the spectacle of Christmas dealmaking to ensure passage of the Senate bill, the issue, in voters’ minds, has become less about health care than about the government and a political majority that will neither hear nor heed the will of the people.
…
For Democrats to begin turning around their political fortunes there has to be a frank acknowledgement that the comprehensive health-care initiative is a failure, regardless of whether it passes. There are enough Republican and Democratic proposals — such as purchasing insurance across state lines, malpractice reform, incrementally increasing coverage, initiatives to hold down costs, covering preexisting conditions and ensuring portability — that can win bipartisan support. It is not a question of starting over but of taking the best of both parties and presenting that as representative of what we need to do to achieve meaningful reform. Such a proposal could even become a template for the central agenda items for the American people: jobs and economic development.
Unless the Democrats fundamentally change their approach, they will produce not just a march of folly but also run the risk of unmitigated disaster in November.
The problem is that Obama and Pelosi have already rejected the go slow approach. Remember Pelosi’s “itsy bitsy spider” and Obama’s refusal to start over?
They are intent on driving this thing off the cliff. And Obama still believes he is the messiah and can pull it off.
He will need a shrink to put his ego back together if this dies.
Patvann
13 years ago
I think that they will try to incorporate their favorite parts of the bill into another one later this year.
I have also been warning about their next “big thing” and that’s the immigration issue. They will throw gas on the embers and let loose the savages within the SEIU and La Raza, hoping that violence will occur so that they can paint us all as haters.
Watch for it.
Greg
13 years ago
Unless the Democrats fundamentally change their approach, they will produce not just a march of folly but also run the risk of unmitigated disaster in November.
Failure to consider comprehensive changes to an out-of-control health care system is probably just another way to unmitigated disaster. The main difference is that it will come in stages, gradually working its way up the economic ladder. Current cost trends and demographics are enough to tell us what we’re headed for.
I do believe O’healthcare, as written now, is dead. I also believe that Obama wants a vote to get this off the campaign trail talking points. I think he’d rather have a losing vote, than dragging it out during midterm elections.
Then, I concur with Patvann… they’ll be busy tagging O’healthcare on as riders to other bills.
@Greg, there are few elected ones who want to do nothing. Most agree that out-of-control costs need to be addressed. This is completely different than your chosen phrase of out-of-control-health-care-system.
The prices charged by medical service providers are high because their operating overhead, equipment, supplies and drugs are spiraling out of control. O’healthcare does nothing to control the baseline cost for a medical provider. It merely depends on price fixing insurance premiums.
The democrats have reached a psychological state of deminishing returns.
Whatever they put effort in turns to bigger and bigger failure. It does not matter what they say or do. This will be the case for the rest of their term in office.
Obamacare is toast and Obama is a one termer. No doubt.
The big problems now is mitigating the massive damage Obama is doing to the economy and it will be biblical in proportion and keeping the Republicans in line when they get to majority. They too have a tendency to forget who put them there.
pat
13 years ago
As a refugee from the health care system, I can tell you it was “broken” back in 1986, or earlier, and yet it has lurched onward for 24 years. Costs keep going up. The usual strategy is a blame circle with no real analysis of what to do. My feeling is that it is the insurance model vs. a public demand for the highest level of health care, and my solution would be several fixes, but none of them are in this “healthcare” bill. It is a cobbled up nightmare of people’s after-dinner fantasies. However, Zero won’t let go of it. I am even more disgusted by all the sneaky procedural moves and fully expect them to try what Rep. Ryan described as a shell bill, or what we call here a “strike everything amendment.” A particularly poisonous procedure that should be stopped, because it is totally unfair and very effective. I think our only hope is that when 0 goes to Indonesia, he doesn’t come back.
Sadly, his little girls won’t get to go with Daddy for Spring Break because of the delay. No doubt this will be spun as some sort of evil Republican scheme to cheat the two school girls from their well deserved vacation.
Obama delaying the vacation is a signal that Dems may feel they have the votes to proceed. I can’t see Obama being SOOO stupid to delay his trip and get nothing. But then remember Copenhagen and the Chicago Olympics?
Pelousy is holding a news conference in a few minutes so we may have a better idea of whether they will be moving to a vote or not.
pat
13 years ago
@Mike’s America
There wasn’t any real reason for him to go in the first place, there have been protests against him in Indonesia, and Australia announced that they have no plans to invest him with the Order of Australia (? some honor which someone else is getting), so he might as well stay home and triple down on stupid, because it wasn’t going to be a love fest anyway. Surely he isn’t actually listening to some voice of reason about the complaints over what another do-nothing trip would cost.
I tend to agree he would stick around to sign his bogus bill if he thought they could pass something, but others think it’s more desperation and big-time arm twisting. So we don’t know. Good time to do something else for a while and pray for another miracle (I think Climategate was a miracle, and so was losing the Olympics)
@pat: I watched Pelosi’s news conference and she intended to convey the message that they are on track for a vote soon. First the CBO must give a final score. That could happen today. Next the Budget Committee would have to pass the reconciliation package and that could happen Monday.
That still doesn’t mean they have the votes overall for passage.
Interesting also that they are now lumping in the takeover of the Student Loan program with this reconciliation on health care. Another way for them to advance big government and avoid the 60 vote threshold in the Senate.
I guess now that Democrats have decided to use this very rare and controversial tactic they decided they like it. The precedent they are setting will bite them hard.
pat
13 years ago
Human bites are the nastiest… One can only hope for a deep bone infection in the ass region.
BRob
13 years ago
“You would think that people would vote according to their values and interests, however, just as Jews vote Dim by a large margin, so does the Hispanic population.”
Let’s ponder this . . . you imply that Jews and Hispanics should not be voting Democratic. You imply that their “values and interests” lay elsewhere. There are three possible answers to this quandry:
1) you have misconstrued their values and interests, such that you don’t actually know what they really value and what really interests them;
2) you have a better understanding of their values and interests than they do; or
3) there is something so offensive to the Jews and Hispanics about the GOP that they vote Dem even though their values and interests would have them vote otherwise.
I think that, most likely, the answer is a combination of 1) and 3). You think you know what their values and interests are, but you don’t, otherwise you would know WHY the don’t vote GOPer.
I could give you a hint why, but we would just be refighting the battles the GOP lost in the 1960s, thanks to the conservatives . . . .
BRob
13 years ago
In order to reject Obamacare, the Dems would have to turn up their nose at a plan that will decrease the deficit by $118 billion over ten years while extending health insurance to an additional 31 million people. No, cons, Obamacare will pass . . . and I think the GOPers in Washington know it will pass, which is why they are trying to scare House Dems with refusing to let reconciliation happen, hoping that Dems will be swayed. When your opponant has to resort to such tactics, that’s when you know you got ’em.
I see our resident FA racist has returned. I also note that billy bob spouts the same ol’ lies and BS. You know, the $132 b that was *supposed* to be reduced deficit according to those in his party as math challenged as billy bob is really now $118 b according to the CBO.
But of course he leaves out the CBO caveat… that reduced figure is the result of ten years of collections, and only six years of paid out benefits.
So billy bob, I see you didn’t bother to take me up on my offer to sell you a car on another thread. You know, the car that you start paying me today for, and I deliver 4-5 years from now. Then when it’s delivered and used up, you can start paying me for the next used car I’ll be delivering to you. Of course, your second car will have to cost more because the cost of building that used car I’m selling you is going up, unchecked. Ready for that?
Ponzi schemes never work… even when the feds institute them under the guise of being legal.
So billy bob… you’re an attorney… sorta. Social Security and Medicare… both federal ponzi schemes… have decades of proof they do not work. It’s the feds just emulating Bernie Maddof. Just how do you justify price fixing premiums as the foundation for health INSURANCE reform? Or are illegal activities just fine in your book when you agree with the end goal? Then again, perhaps you feel the feds are above the law.
billy bob sez: When your opponant has to resort to such tactics, that’s when you know you got ‘em.
Exactly right, bubba. Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Slaughter.. the list goes on. The tactics they are resorting to in desperation is readily apparent to the nation.
As I’ve said before, your pie in the sky “hopes” for “change” and predictions have been noted. And watching you all squirm is highly entertaining.
pat
13 years ago
Geez, the whole prediction of effects of Obamacare is ridiculous because (a) no one knows all that is in the bill; (b) no one knows all the possible fallout from all the contortions people will go through, once they find out what is going on, to avoid paying more money;(c) the administration has no credibility whatsoever; (d) this estimate of how many people will be covered depends on the parameters we don’t know, in the bill, and also on a count of how many people are truly uninsured. Never do I see a straight estimation, for instance, of people who are uninsured by choice. But of course, there will be no choice because everyone must be forced to join.
Which brings us to the basic question of the insurance model. Obamacare is really just a bigger version of the usual insurance scheme. If the original idea of increasing the risk pool and controlling benefits to keep outgo less than income was faulty, as the propaganda goes (Those obscene profits! Rationing care! Denying for preexisting conditions! High rates for high risk!), then a bigger scheme is only going to be more faulty. If the original insurance model is good, why replace it? We haven’t even settled the question of “what’s broke.”
But I have a suspicion about it all, beyond the control value. That is, that the SS and Medicare funds are so much worse off than we think, that the only way to bail them out is to raise taxes now, and maybe throw a bunch of stimulus money that way too, so the true size of this debt is covered up. I can imagine a bunch of deep thinkers saying, yeah, we’ll just kick the can along this way and when the healthcare thing is supposed to kick in we’ll be gone.
TSgt Ciz
13 years ago
@pat:
I can testify to the vile nature of human bites. I very nearly lost my right hand due to a human bite from a fight. With in 12 hours my hand was the size of a cantaloupe and bright orange. The skin was tearing open at the bite points from all the swelling.
I think the only thing more infectious than a human bite would be a kimono dragon bite, or worse,,,
if BRob were to bite you.
The horror!
URI
13 years ago
BROB: I am a Jew and a Hispanic and according to my values and interests, I am dead opposed to this living nightmare of marxist administration that we have. I believe in maximizing my utility and certaintly government does not!
It is sad to see how the American Jewry has forgotten Israel, however, more than 80% of Israelis did not vote for Obama.
As for Hispanics, Texas and Florida have a very large Hispanic population. Texas has a very conservative government and Florida is ready to elect Marco Rubio as Senator and he is very conservative. As for the Californian hispanic population, they are not going to be voting for liberal democrats as they used to and there are a number of grassroot hispanic organizations that are very conservative and joining the Tea Party movement as well in the Valley.
Brittanicus
13 years ago
1986 IMMIGRATION LAWS WERE NEVER BROKEN–JUST NEVER ENFORCED.
California–THE SANCTUARY STATE–IS broke because of the invasion. Arizona and border states are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Many other states like New York also have massive debt, because they have pandered to impoverished, desperate foreigners. WHY do you think many states other than Sanctuary California is mandating E-Verify? Utah is signing E-Verify into law as it passed the house. Enforce immigration laws, secure the border and resuscitate Proposition 187 (cutting of welfare to illegal alien families in California) that never was allowed to reach the Supreme Court. Station the National Guard along the border. Make illegal entry into the United States a felony. Arizona has very rigid immigration law pending. Georgia too and others have enforcement laws.
Here is are some quick fact: JANUARY WELFARE COSTS FOR CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL ALIENS EXCEEDED $50 MILLION DOLLARS March 9th 2009 LOS ANGELES COUNTY – Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich released figures from the Department of Public Social Services showing that illegal aliens’ children born in the United States collected over $50 million in welfare benefits (CALWORKS + Food Stamps) for the month of January.
Approximately 23% of all CALWORKS and food stamp issuance in Los Angeles County are made to parents who reside in the United States illegally and collect benefits for their native-born children. “When you add this to $350 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for health-care, the total cost for illegal immigrants to County taxpayers far exceeds $1 billion a year – not including the millions of dollars for education and prison upkeep,” said Antonovich.
Don’t listen to the rhetoric and propaganda of critics about E-VERIFY. ITS being progressively upgraded, with new innovations to stop illegal workers STEALING YOUR JOBS. Its your right and an obligation of our politicians to enforce this law and to serve Americans and not cater, wealthy lobbyists organizations, foreign governments and 20 to 30 million alien families.
Mandate E-Verify for every business throughout America and not just for new hires. Every violation should carry a harsh penalty. Fines, confiscation of business assets and prison. Enforce aiding and abetting law that includes University professors, anybody who assists, transports illegal aliens. No AMNESTY or any other law favoring the illegal immigration occupation of our country. Join Pro-sovereignty, anti-illegal immigration organizations. Make available special visas for the highest technical skills including scientists, engineers, etc. Stop importing foreign national who will end up in the welfare rolls and become a liability for taxpayers. Most important of all immediately terminate the instant citizen-birthright (Anchor baby) law.
Remember that another AMNESTY will mean those people become legitimate immigrants and then can bring to America, their children, mothers and fathers and a whole slue of foreign family members labeled as “CHAIN MIGRATION” that you will be paying for. In addition, if the number of illegal aliens was just 12 million, you can at least triple that number to around 32 million who will have access to your pensions, SSI, SSDI and your social security.
FIND OUT THE FACTS FOR YOURSELF? DON’T LISTEN TO HEAVILY BIASED REPORTS, BLOGS OR NEGATIVE PRESS.
pat
13 years ago
@TSgt Ciz
; ) Yep, there is a Karmic blowback to fighting for the one getting the punch in–aim for the cheekbones, they break really easily.
I’d say Hispanics in AZ are such a mixed bag, they tend to resent being characterized as monolithic. I certainly wouldn’t say they all, or even a majority, are in a defined group of ideas or genes. But what gets me is many “Hispanics” who qualify for various dispensations are only Hispanic in name. IE “Mrs. Gonzalez” nee O’Mara. The whole thing about them being a “race” is silly and the whole race idea should be tossed.
pat
13 years ago
@Brittanicus
The pushback started a few years ago because the border is a war and trash zone. Our financial problem is not due to immigrants as much as in CA, but because most revenue depended on the home industry. Copper, cotton, and citrus, the original industries, withered or were replaced by subdivisions. In fact, we have lost many immigrants since Prop. 200, penalizing people who knowingly employ illegals, became law. Not that it has been used, but the very idea sent a lot away. And this actually hurt legal Hispanics here, because they were selling services like hair care to the illegals. Made another noticeable drop in sales tax revenue. However, those who bothered to go through the hoops are as fearful of illegals taking their jobs as anyone else and not totally in favor of big amnesties.
BRob
13 years ago
URI wrote —
“I am dead opposed to this living nightmare of marxist administration that we have.”
“I believe in maximizing my utility and certaintly government does not!”
You drive only on privately maintained roads and fly out of privately owned airports, huh? If your house catches fire, you call a private fire control service, too, I guess. And your good are protected by a private police company and you get your water and sewer services from a private water company? And you don’t have a federally backed mortgage and never took a goverment student loan, yes?
No, Uri, you use and used all those high functioning government provided services and you would scream like a biotch if you needed any one of them someday and they weren’t there when you needed them. There are some things that only government can do well; your rant about “marxism” is silly, like something I would expect to hear from a college junior at some second tier right wing university.
“It is sad to see how the American Jewry has forgotten Israel, however, more than 80% of Israelis did not vote for Obama.”
Uh huh. You either meant “80% of Israeli’s don’t like Obama” or “80% of the dual citizenship Israelis did not vote for Obama.” Because the last I checked, Obama got well above 70% of the US Jewish vote. Which is no surprise, given that the LAKESHORE JEWS WERE A HUGE PART OF HIS BASE IN CHICAGO!
“As for Hispanics, Texas and Florida have a very large Hispanic population. Texas has a very conservative government and Florida is ready to elect Marco Rubio as Senator and he is very conservative.”
So what? Hispanics still vote Dem. Y’all had your chance with Bush, but the wingnuts BLEW IT by coming out against immigration reform using language that compared illegals* to cockroaches. The next thing you know . . . the 2006 con wipe out followed by the 2008 obliteration. And dollars get you donuts that Obama brings up immigration reform again, maybe even before the 2010 elections. Why? Three reasons:
a) Obama’s base is pro-reform
b) moderates are ambivalent, but they hate . . .
c) the right wing nuts who WILL engage in racist offensive coimmentary to rile up their side. I am betting Obama and company are secretly funneling money to The Minutemen for that very purpose . . . “Keep up the work, guys!”
“As for the Californian hispanic population, they are not going to be voting for liberal democrats as they used to and there are a number of grassroot hispanic organizations that are very conservative and joining the Tea Party movement as well in the Valley.”
Yeah . . . right . . . sure . . . the impending GOPer Latino reallignment.
* you know, the disproportionately young, ambitious men and women who cross a friggin desert to work $10 per hour jobs that Americans turn their noses up at . . . but I digress
BRob
13 years ago
Mata —
Back in 1992, when I was living in Chicago, Mike Ditka was campaigning for some shlubby looking GOPer in a poorly fit gray suit. Ditka, in his wisdom, basically predicted that America would be ruined forever if Bill Clinton won the presidency. In 1994, Clinton and the Dems pushed through a tax increase and pay go rules that, by 1998, had the budget balanced. GOPers, of course, predicted that we would slide into a decades long depression if the tax increases went through. Just last year, I remember cons predicting the implosion of the economy if Obama was elected, the nationalization of the banking and finance sector if the bank bailout was approved, and double digit inflation if the stimulus bill passed. Now we hear that if Obamacare passes, it will destroy the US health care system, cause people to engage in massive contortions to avoid the insurance mandate, and, generally, result in firing raining down on us all as pestilence sweeps the land and a roving band of ACORN people go door to door doing forceable abortions and euthanizing anyone over 65.
As I recount the above (and I don’t even add in the Iraq predictions), cons are pretty friggin lousy at predicting anything. In fact, from your track record, regardless of what you predict, it seems like the exact opposite ultimately occurs. It’s kinda like my “Thurgood Marshall Rule” from law school — if you wanted to predict how the Supreme Court would vote during the Burger/Rhenquist courts, you figure out what Marshall would say, then chose the opposite.
Which leads me to believe that, contrary to Mitch McConnel’s warnings, if the Dems pass health care reform, they will not be run out of town, they will be celebrated for finally fixing a huge problem. There will not be more abortions (as a poster elsewhere on FA implied) but more llve and healthy births and fewer unwanted pregnancies. It will not add trillions to the deficit, but it will eliminate it all together. Yep, if the cons say it will be the ruination of us all, then it must be a GREAT thing for America!
1: The balanced budget during the late Clinton years was accomplished by a GOP Congress. In 1992, when Ditka make his prediction, both chambers were held by the Dems until 1995…. when there was NO balancing of budget happening. Just like today.
Boy, ain’t that inconvenient for you?
2: Your comments to URI INRE police, fire, city utilities…. there is a vast difference Constitutionally as to what can be provided by States and what comes under Federal control. The regulation of insurance is a States’ right, not a federal.
But thank you for your explanation of reasoning and logic… if “the cons” like it, you hate it. Uh… ain’t that what you accuse us of doing?
Clean up your own back yard, guy.
URI
13 years ago
BRob, If my house burns, I have insurance. If I get sick, I have insurance because I worked my ass off all my life and I don’t take charity from anyone. I have being raised by very poor parents, who escaped so much horror, in such a responsible way. G-d has always been a part of our life and today I give as much as I can to those who need and I pay my dues in full. The rest I plan to give to my children and grandchildren, so that they can appreciate the fact that America made it possible for me and them to be succesful. You will never undestand that and I will not engage in further discussions with you because you are pathetic.
PS: I am also happy to mention that so many of my dear friends cannot believe the grotesque mistake the made by voting for this president.
BRob
13 years ago
URI —
I am not talking about insurance; I am talking about the fire department that will try to save your house and the cops who will keep it from being looted.
I am responding to your “marxism” remark. You ducked my point, of course, which is fine. Because there is no debating what I pointed out — some things government does more efficiently than the private sector ever could (like army, police, interstate highway system, and water service), some things only government can do (like regulate clear air and enforce the laws), something government is OK at (public universities, public hospitals, etc.), and some things . . . er, let’s consider privatization. But a screed against “Marxism” in the United States is pretty limp.
Seriously, no actual Marxist think we have a Marxist system, or that Obama is anything other than what he appears to be: a center left moderate who is working to maintain and maximize the military, economic, political, technological and cultural dominance of the USA. You lose credibility when you rail against all goverment, talk about “Marxism”, and gloss over all the parts of goverment that work pretty friggin well, and of which you take advantage on a daily basis.
BRob
13 years ago
Mata —
You are changing the subject, as usual. Cons said the tax increases would cause a depression. They were wrong. The budget got balanced because the tax rates increased and brought in more money. And pay as you go helped, too.
As for insurance, it is a “state” issue only because the feds have never tried to regulate it. They have the authority to regulate it the same way they regulate interstate trucking; they just haven’t. But now they will.
No, I don’t look at what cons like to go for hte opposite. That would be childish. I simply try to see if they make any sense; sometimes cons do make sense, but lately, those times are getting farther and farther between. Whether you are talking about the Magic Tax Cut Fairie sprinkling money all across the land, or arguing to maintain an health insurance system that is cutting the throats of employers (my cllients, dude), cons have gone off the reservation.
*I’m* changing the subject? LOL! What chutzpah you continue to have, billy bob. I commented on your out-of-left-field BS. You try to give the Dems the credit for a balanced budget years after they were out of majority power. By doing that, you attempt to say Ditka was wrong.
I suggest that had Clinton and the Dems held power, exactly what he suggested would come to pass. Neither you or I can successfully defend a parallel universe 15 years ago. But we certainly have a reality with your irresponsible big government spenders and overstepping the Constitution POTUS.
As for insurance, it is a “state” issue only because the feds have never tried to regulate it. They have the authority to regulate it the same way they regulate interstate trucking; they just haven’t. But now they will.
Regulating commerce, and mandating citizens purchase a product that is designed to protect themselves, and not others, are different apples and oranges, billy bob. Very poor analogy, but about the best that can be expected from you.
And I notice you dodge my comment about some newly formed legitimacy of price fixing by the feds. Wonder why?
BRob
13 years ago
Mata —
My point was that cons are lousy at predicting ANYTHING, including what would happen after Clinton and the Dems raised taxes. Cons take credit for balancing the budget? Yeah . . . with money that a Dem president put into the pipeline. And if cons were so good at balancing budgets, then why didn’t they . . . you know . . . BALANCE THE BUDGET when Bush was in office?
Insurance is interstate commerce, Mata. There is no rational argument that the feds can’t regulate it.
If you are talking about the mandate purchas, that is a different question. But since health care is commerce, and government spends on Medicare, Medicaid, and various kinds of subsidies to hospitals, then obviously they can mandate coverage or penalize you for not having it. Why? Because of the severe free rider problem created by the absence of a mandate.
That is all government needs to justify this policy: a rational relationship to a governmental function. Which is why the cons have been pretty friggin silent with all the talk about challenging the mandate in court.
And “price fixing”? Not sure what you are referring to. But speaking of price fixing, if the health insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption is deleted, there will be no more price fixing and no more four firm concentration in the 90% range. No more anti-trust exemption means more competition. That will bring prices down, too, . . . against the cons will, of course.
American conservatives . . . wrong as the day is long . . . .
My point was that cons are lousy at predicting ANYTHING, including what would happen after Clinton and the Dems raised taxes. Cons take credit for balancing the budget? Yeah . . . with money that a Dem president put into the pipeline.
Your point was off the mark about predictions, billy bob. The conditions under which Ditka made his predictions were significantly altered when the GOP took control of Congress. And Clinton didn’t put *anything* into the pipeline… that was the result of a dot com bubble, and private enterprise. Clinton is to be credited for not interfering with profits (even tho a bubble), however that was because he was tempered by a business friendly GOP Congress.
But it is amusing that Obama’s economic policy disasters remain, to this day, the fault of Dubya, but your precious Dems get credit for the GOP work. Really, billy bob… try to show even a glimpse of sanity and consistency, please.
I didn’t suggest that the feds couldn’t regulate insurance as interstate commerce. What they cannot do is mandates of purchase, and price fixing… tho just as you say, they are going to try. And no, they cannot mandate you purchase a product that is supposed to benefit the individual as opposed to the states mandating car insurance to provide liability for damage done to others. Again, apples and oranges.
And “the cons” have been far from “silent” about mandates, billy bob. Perhaps just beyond your reading/searching capabilities. So we’ll give you another shot at rethinking your self-imposed ignorance. The briefs have been in the works for months now in anticipation of a Dem federal Congress, trampling states rights with their unConstitutional mandates.
And “price fixing”? Not sure what you are referring to. But speaking of price fixing, if the health insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption is deleted, there will be no more price fixing and no more four firm concentration in the 90% range. No more anti-trust exemption means more competition. That will bring prices down, too, . . . against the cons will, of course.
I swear, the more you post here, the more law school education scare the willies outta me….
O’healthcare is all about price fixing of insurance premiums INRE caps, demands, etc. Did you not read either the House or Senate legislative clusterf*#k? Obviously not, which is why you have to say “not sure what you are referring to….” Premiums for the higher risk cannot be more than those of lesser risk, etal.
And again we’re back to the gullible, whining about big bad insurance companies making that 2-3% profit off the “victims”. You’ve got to be kidding me!
anti-American progressives… wrong as the day is long….
Art
13 years ago
I just got the following in an email:
“Barack Obama says he will persuade Congress to pass his health care overhaul even if it kills him.”
Well, what can I say? Let’s wish him good health so that the Bill will fail and he can remain the same old sack of S.
Disturber
13 years ago
To add to Mata’s post, the so-called Clinton surpluses came at the expense of huge cuts in the defense budget that reduced the size of the active military by a considerable amount. In addition, the dot com boom caused a very large increase in capital gains realizations which swelled the Federal coffers. It is also true that Clinton’s tax increases helped as well. However, much of the alleged surplus was a result of accounting gimmicks that resulted in deferrals of expense and out of budget obligations. It is very complex and difficult to analyze.
With respect to a state imposed requirement for auto insurance, there are two bases that support that requirement. The first is as Mata states that the benefit is to the public at large so that if a driver causes damage, there is s source for recompense. But the other is the concept that driving is a privilege and not a right and the state is allowed to impose requirements upon the exercise of that privilege.
The real interesting legal issue that is likely to arise is whether the Supreme Court would be willing to hold a statute unConstitutional on the grounds that it was never validly enacted by the legislative body. Generally, the branches of government tend not to mess with each other and review by the Supremes has always presumed that the statute in question was validly enacted. I can’t recall a single instance where the Supreme Court was called upon to consider whether Congress acted properly in the enactment process. I do believe that were they to utilize the Slaughter approach, it would be arguably in violation of the articles that describe how a bill becomes law – that is requiring a true vote in each branch of the legislature. This is a very interesting question indeed. Too bad so much is at stake.
BTW, I’d like to point out that Obama’s delay/cancellation of his spring break holiday in Indonesia to be around for health care is indicative of his determined push for that “up or down” vote. This supports my firm belief that he’s determined to get this out of the midterm election campaign trail talking points…. win or lose.
He’d rather accept the loss now, and concentrate on keeping the supermajority power to give it another go. If left unresolved, it’s the albatross around the Dems’ neck throughout the season.
For that reason, I registered my vote above in the “dies in the House” column.
American Voter
13 years ago
If the OCare bill dies in the House (here’s hoping) — might O try to bring this legislative topic up again after the November elections and offering enticements for passage? Maybe a baby step bill? For example–lame duck Congressmen may be more vulnerable to enticements for their yes vote. . .just a thought.
As far as O’s delayed trip — maybe he delayed because he knows chances for passing are slim and did not want to be accused by his base — of not being engaged in the final legislative push by abandoning the Congressional Majority Leaders?
Zero is now bringing the “Inmigration Reform” to the table,..what a looooooser!….with unemployment so high, who could possible be thinking about illegal inmigrants? the unemployed?
@URI:
Who’s thinking about them you ask?
Why, the Dimocrats of course….that group has proven to be a reliable voting block for them.
Adding 25, 35, 40 million more just enlarges the Dim voter registration pool….IF they can get it done.
I don’t think the Dem leadership will risk a up or down vote unless they know for certain that they have the votes they need. So I think they will keep tinkering in the margins and threatening all manner of tricks until it becomes completely clear that the voters will not have it, and everyone has to go off to campaign.
As for illegal immigrants being a reliable voting block for Dems, I don’t know if that is a fair statement. I would posit that the majority of illegal immigrants don’t vote. Not that none do, but the majority don’t. And if the majority did vote, they would very likely be more inclined to vote Republican according to their values. It is a rather large constituency that conservatives (rightly) deprive themselves of on the basis of principle. Sadly the Dems have no principles that prohibit them from pandering to illegals.
@TSgt Ciz:
I didn’t mean to imply that illegals vote for Dims while “illegal” (although there are documented cases of illegals being registered)…the Hispanic bloc however, has been historically reliable for the Dims hence the eagerness to add more potential votes to the pool.
You would think that people would vote according to their values and interests, however, just as Jews vote Dim by a large margin, so does the Hispanic population.
I am going out on a limb here and saying Obamacare is dead. Here is a very insightful article by Pat Cadell and Doug Schoen, both well respected Democrat pollsters, a must read.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102904.html
On top of that, the hysterical quality of the President’s recent pitches tells me that he has received the bad news and thinks that he still has the mojo to turn it around. But the people aren’t listening any more and he isn’t changing minds in his favor. The longer this goes on, the more desperate he looks and the more certain the defeat. I am calling it dead now.
Disturber
The powerful lobbying force largely responsible for having E-Verify removed from the stimulus package was the American Chamber of Commerce–not exactly a liberal, democratic-leaning organization. That same conservative organization also filed a suit to block the President from putting mandatory E-Verify into effect by Presidential Directive.
Enforcement of our immigration laws has become a joke primarily because American business wanted dirt-cheap labor.
@Disturber: Yes, I noticed how angry Obama was getting over health care demanding that the time for talking is past and yet there he is TALKING… AGAIN…
Thanks for sharing the Wash Post article. Two excerpts:
The problem is that Obama and Pelosi have already rejected the go slow approach. Remember Pelosi’s “itsy bitsy spider” and Obama’s refusal to start over?
They are intent on driving this thing off the cliff. And Obama still believes he is the messiah and can pull it off.
He will need a shrink to put his ego back together if this dies.
I think that they will try to incorporate their favorite parts of the bill into another one later this year.
I have also been warning about their next “big thing” and that’s the immigration issue. They will throw gas on the embers and let loose the savages within the SEIU and La Raza, hoping that violence will occur so that they can paint us all as haters.
Watch for it.
Unless the Democrats fundamentally change their approach, they will produce not just a march of folly but also run the risk of unmitigated disaster in November.
Failure to consider comprehensive changes to an out-of-control health care system is probably just another way to unmitigated disaster. The main difference is that it will come in stages, gradually working its way up the economic ladder. Current cost trends and demographics are enough to tell us what we’re headed for.
I do believe O’healthcare, as written now, is dead. I also believe that Obama wants a vote to get this off the campaign trail talking points. I think he’d rather have a losing vote, than dragging it out during midterm elections.
Then, I concur with Patvann… they’ll be busy tagging O’healthcare on as riders to other bills.
@Greg, there are few elected ones who want to do nothing. Most agree that out-of-control costs need to be addressed. This is completely different than your chosen phrase of out-of-control-health-care-system.
The prices charged by medical service providers are high because their operating overhead, equipment, supplies and drugs are spiraling out of control. O’healthcare does nothing to control the baseline cost for a medical provider. It merely depends on price fixing insurance premiums.
No need to go out on a limb.
Obamacare is dead.
The democrats have reached a psychological state of deminishing returns.
Whatever they put effort in turns to bigger and bigger failure. It does not matter what they say or do. This will be the case for the rest of their term in office.
Obamacare is toast and Obama is a one termer. No doubt.
The big problems now is mitigating the massive damage Obama is doing to the economy and it will be biblical in proportion and keeping the Republicans in line when they get to majority. They too have a tendency to forget who put them there.
As a refugee from the health care system, I can tell you it was “broken” back in 1986, or earlier, and yet it has lurched onward for 24 years. Costs keep going up. The usual strategy is a blame circle with no real analysis of what to do. My feeling is that it is the insurance model vs. a public demand for the highest level of health care, and my solution would be several fixes, but none of them are in this “healthcare” bill. It is a cobbled up nightmare of people’s after-dinner fantasies. However, Zero won’t let go of it. I am even more disgusted by all the sneaky procedural moves and fully expect them to try what Rep. Ryan described as a shell bill, or what we call here a “strike everything amendment.” A particularly poisonous procedure that should be stopped, because it is totally unfair and very effective. I think our only hope is that when 0 goes to Indonesia, he doesn’t come back.
@pat: Speaking of O’s Indonesian trip, he has delayed it to work on health care:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100312/D9ED50K00.html
Sadly, his little girls won’t get to go with Daddy for Spring Break because of the delay. No doubt this will be spun as some sort of evil Republican scheme to cheat the two school girls from their well deserved vacation.
Obama delaying the vacation is a signal that Dems may feel they have the votes to proceed. I can’t see Obama being SOOO stupid to delay his trip and get nothing. But then remember Copenhagen and the Chicago Olympics?
Pelousy is holding a news conference in a few minutes so we may have a better idea of whether they will be moving to a vote or not.
@Mike’s America
There wasn’t any real reason for him to go in the first place, there have been protests against him in Indonesia, and Australia announced that they have no plans to invest him with the Order of Australia (? some honor which someone else is getting), so he might as well stay home and triple down on stupid, because it wasn’t going to be a love fest anyway. Surely he isn’t actually listening to some voice of reason about the complaints over what another do-nothing trip would cost.
I tend to agree he would stick around to sign his bogus bill if he thought they could pass something, but others think it’s more desperation and big-time arm twisting. So we don’t know. Good time to do something else for a while and pray for another miracle (I think Climategate was a miracle, and so was losing the Olympics)
@pat: I watched Pelosi’s news conference and she intended to convey the message that they are on track for a vote soon. First the CBO must give a final score. That could happen today. Next the Budget Committee would have to pass the reconciliation package and that could happen Monday.
That still doesn’t mean they have the votes overall for passage.
Interesting also that they are now lumping in the takeover of the Student Loan program with this reconciliation on health care. Another way for them to advance big government and avoid the 60 vote threshold in the Senate.
I guess now that Democrats have decided to use this very rare and controversial tactic they decided they like it. The precedent they are setting will bite them hard.
Human bites are the nastiest… One can only hope for a deep bone infection in the ass region.
“You would think that people would vote according to their values and interests, however, just as Jews vote Dim by a large margin, so does the Hispanic population.”
Let’s ponder this . . . you imply that Jews and Hispanics should not be voting Democratic. You imply that their “values and interests” lay elsewhere. There are three possible answers to this quandry:
1) you have misconstrued their values and interests, such that you don’t actually know what they really value and what really interests them;
2) you have a better understanding of their values and interests than they do; or
3) there is something so offensive to the Jews and Hispanics about the GOP that they vote Dem even though their values and interests would have them vote otherwise.
I think that, most likely, the answer is a combination of 1) and 3). You think you know what their values and interests are, but you don’t, otherwise you would know WHY the don’t vote GOPer.
I could give you a hint why, but we would just be refighting the battles the GOP lost in the 1960s, thanks to the conservatives . . . .
In order to reject Obamacare, the Dems would have to turn up their nose at a plan that will decrease the deficit by $118 billion over ten years while extending health insurance to an additional 31 million people. No, cons, Obamacare will pass . . . and I think the GOPers in Washington know it will pass, which is why they are trying to scare House Dems with refusing to let reconciliation happen, hoping that Dems will be swayed. When your opponant has to resort to such tactics, that’s when you know you got ’em.
I see our resident FA racist has returned. I also note that billy bob spouts the same ol’ lies and BS. You know, the $132 b that was *supposed* to be reduced deficit according to those in his party as math challenged as billy bob is really now $118 b according to the CBO.
But of course he leaves out the CBO caveat… that reduced figure is the result of ten years of collections, and only six years of paid out benefits.
So billy bob, I see you didn’t bother to take me up on my offer to sell you a car on another thread. You know, the car that you start paying me today for, and I deliver 4-5 years from now. Then when it’s delivered and used up, you can start paying me for the next used car I’ll be delivering to you. Of course, your second car will have to cost more because the cost of building that used car I’m selling you is going up, unchecked. Ready for that?
Ponzi schemes never work… even when the feds institute them under the guise of being legal.
So billy bob… you’re an attorney… sorta. Social Security and Medicare… both federal ponzi schemes… have decades of proof they do not work. It’s the feds just emulating Bernie Maddof. Just how do you justify price fixing premiums as the foundation for health INSURANCE reform? Or are illegal activities just fine in your book when you agree with the end goal? Then again, perhaps you feel the feds are above the law.
Exactly right, bubba. Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Slaughter.. the list goes on. The tactics they are resorting to in desperation is readily apparent to the nation.
As I’ve said before, your pie in the sky “hopes” for “change” and predictions have been noted. And watching you all squirm is highly entertaining.
Geez, the whole prediction of effects of Obamacare is ridiculous because (a) no one knows all that is in the bill; (b) no one knows all the possible fallout from all the contortions people will go through, once they find out what is going on, to avoid paying more money;(c) the administration has no credibility whatsoever; (d) this estimate of how many people will be covered depends on the parameters we don’t know, in the bill, and also on a count of how many people are truly uninsured. Never do I see a straight estimation, for instance, of people who are uninsured by choice. But of course, there will be no choice because everyone must be forced to join.
Which brings us to the basic question of the insurance model. Obamacare is really just a bigger version of the usual insurance scheme. If the original idea of increasing the risk pool and controlling benefits to keep outgo less than income was faulty, as the propaganda goes (Those obscene profits! Rationing care! Denying for preexisting conditions! High rates for high risk!), then a bigger scheme is only going to be more faulty. If the original insurance model is good, why replace it? We haven’t even settled the question of “what’s broke.”
But I have a suspicion about it all, beyond the control value. That is, that the SS and Medicare funds are so much worse off than we think, that the only way to bail them out is to raise taxes now, and maybe throw a bunch of stimulus money that way too, so the true size of this debt is covered up. I can imagine a bunch of deep thinkers saying, yeah, we’ll just kick the can along this way and when the healthcare thing is supposed to kick in we’ll be gone.
@pat:
I can testify to the vile nature of human bites. I very nearly lost my right hand due to a human bite from a fight. With in 12 hours my hand was the size of a cantaloupe and bright orange. The skin was tearing open at the bite points from all the swelling.
I think the only thing more infectious than a human bite would be a kimono dragon bite, or worse,,,
if BRob were to bite you.
The horror!
BROB: I am a Jew and a Hispanic and according to my values and interests, I am dead opposed to this living nightmare of marxist administration that we have. I believe in maximizing my utility and certaintly government does not!
It is sad to see how the American Jewry has forgotten Israel, however, more than 80% of Israelis did not vote for Obama.
As for Hispanics, Texas and Florida have a very large Hispanic population. Texas has a very conservative government and Florida is ready to elect Marco Rubio as Senator and he is very conservative. As for the Californian hispanic population, they are not going to be voting for liberal democrats as they used to and there are a number of grassroot hispanic organizations that are very conservative and joining the Tea Party movement as well in the Valley.
1986 IMMIGRATION LAWS WERE NEVER BROKEN–JUST NEVER ENFORCED.
California–THE SANCTUARY STATE–IS broke because of the invasion. Arizona and border states are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Many other states like New York also have massive debt, because they have pandered to impoverished, desperate foreigners. WHY do you think many states other than Sanctuary California is mandating E-Verify? Utah is signing E-Verify into law as it passed the house. Enforce immigration laws, secure the border and resuscitate Proposition 187 (cutting of welfare to illegal alien families in California) that never was allowed to reach the Supreme Court. Station the National Guard along the border. Make illegal entry into the United States a felony. Arizona has very rigid immigration law pending. Georgia too and others have enforcement laws.
Here is are some quick fact: JANUARY WELFARE COSTS FOR CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL ALIENS EXCEEDED $50 MILLION DOLLARS March 9th 2009 LOS ANGELES COUNTY – Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich released figures from the Department of Public Social Services showing that illegal aliens’ children born in the United States collected over $50 million in welfare benefits (CALWORKS + Food Stamps) for the month of January.
Approximately 23% of all CALWORKS and food stamp issuance in Los Angeles County are made to parents who reside in the United States illegally and collect benefits for their native-born children. “When you add this to $350 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for health-care, the total cost for illegal immigrants to County taxpayers far exceeds $1 billion a year – not including the millions of dollars for education and prison upkeep,” said Antonovich.
Don’t listen to the rhetoric and propaganda of critics about E-VERIFY. ITS being progressively upgraded, with new innovations to stop illegal workers STEALING YOUR JOBS. Its your right and an obligation of our politicians to enforce this law and to serve Americans and not cater, wealthy lobbyists organizations, foreign governments and 20 to 30 million alien families.
Mandate E-Verify for every business throughout America and not just for new hires. Every violation should carry a harsh penalty. Fines, confiscation of business assets and prison. Enforce aiding and abetting law that includes University professors, anybody who assists, transports illegal aliens. No AMNESTY or any other law favoring the illegal immigration occupation of our country. Join Pro-sovereignty, anti-illegal immigration organizations. Make available special visas for the highest technical skills including scientists, engineers, etc. Stop importing foreign national who will end up in the welfare rolls and become a liability for taxpayers. Most important of all immediately terminate the instant citizen-birthright (Anchor baby) law.
Remember that another AMNESTY will mean those people become legitimate immigrants and then can bring to America, their children, mothers and fathers and a whole slue of foreign family members labeled as “CHAIN MIGRATION” that you will be paying for. In addition, if the number of illegal aliens was just 12 million, you can at least triple that number to around 32 million who will have access to your pensions, SSI, SSDI and your social security.
FIND OUT THE FACTS FOR YOURSELF? DON’T LISTEN TO HEAVILY BIASED REPORTS, BLOGS OR NEGATIVE PRESS.
@TSgt Ciz
; ) Yep, there is a Karmic blowback to fighting for the one getting the punch in–aim for the cheekbones, they break really easily.
I’d say Hispanics in AZ are such a mixed bag, they tend to resent being characterized as monolithic. I certainly wouldn’t say they all, or even a majority, are in a defined group of ideas or genes. But what gets me is many “Hispanics” who qualify for various dispensations are only Hispanic in name. IE “Mrs. Gonzalez” nee O’Mara. The whole thing about them being a “race” is silly and the whole race idea should be tossed.
@Brittanicus
The pushback started a few years ago because the border is a war and trash zone. Our financial problem is not due to immigrants as much as in CA, but because most revenue depended on the home industry. Copper, cotton, and citrus, the original industries, withered or were replaced by subdivisions. In fact, we have lost many immigrants since Prop. 200, penalizing people who knowingly employ illegals, became law. Not that it has been used, but the very idea sent a lot away. And this actually hurt legal Hispanics here, because they were selling services like hair care to the illegals. Made another noticeable drop in sales tax revenue. However, those who bothered to go through the hoops are as fearful of illegals taking their jobs as anyone else and not totally in favor of big amnesties.
URI wrote —
“I am dead opposed to this living nightmare of marxist administration that we have.”
“I believe in maximizing my utility and certaintly government does not!”
You drive only on privately maintained roads and fly out of privately owned airports, huh? If your house catches fire, you call a private fire control service, too, I guess. And your good are protected by a private police company and you get your water and sewer services from a private water company? And you don’t have a federally backed mortgage and never took a goverment student loan, yes?
No, Uri, you use and used all those high functioning government provided services and you would scream like a biotch if you needed any one of them someday and they weren’t there when you needed them. There are some things that only government can do well; your rant about “marxism” is silly, like something I would expect to hear from a college junior at some second tier right wing university.
“It is sad to see how the American Jewry has forgotten Israel, however, more than 80% of Israelis did not vote for Obama.”
Uh huh. You either meant “80% of Israeli’s don’t like Obama” or “80% of the dual citizenship Israelis did not vote for Obama.” Because the last I checked, Obama got well above 70% of the US Jewish vote. Which is no surprise, given that the LAKESHORE JEWS WERE A HUGE PART OF HIS BASE IN CHICAGO!
“As for Hispanics, Texas and Florida have a very large Hispanic population. Texas has a very conservative government and Florida is ready to elect Marco Rubio as Senator and he is very conservative.”
So what? Hispanics still vote Dem. Y’all had your chance with Bush, but the wingnuts BLEW IT by coming out against immigration reform using language that compared illegals* to cockroaches. The next thing you know . . . the 2006 con wipe out followed by the 2008 obliteration. And dollars get you donuts that Obama brings up immigration reform again, maybe even before the 2010 elections. Why? Three reasons:
a) Obama’s base is pro-reform
b) moderates are ambivalent, but they hate . . .
c) the right wing nuts who WILL engage in racist offensive coimmentary to rile up their side. I am betting Obama and company are secretly funneling money to The Minutemen for that very purpose . . . “Keep up the work, guys!”
“As for the Californian hispanic population, they are not going to be voting for liberal democrats as they used to and there are a number of grassroot hispanic organizations that are very conservative and joining the Tea Party movement as well in the Valley.”
Yeah . . . right . . . sure . . . the impending GOPer Latino reallignment.
* you know, the disproportionately young, ambitious men and women who cross a friggin desert to work $10 per hour jobs that Americans turn their noses up at . . . but I digress
Mata —
Back in 1992, when I was living in Chicago, Mike Ditka was campaigning for some shlubby looking GOPer in a poorly fit gray suit. Ditka, in his wisdom, basically predicted that America would be ruined forever if Bill Clinton won the presidency. In 1994, Clinton and the Dems pushed through a tax increase and pay go rules that, by 1998, had the budget balanced. GOPers, of course, predicted that we would slide into a decades long depression if the tax increases went through. Just last year, I remember cons predicting the implosion of the economy if Obama was elected, the nationalization of the banking and finance sector if the bank bailout was approved, and double digit inflation if the stimulus bill passed. Now we hear that if Obamacare passes, it will destroy the US health care system, cause people to engage in massive contortions to avoid the insurance mandate, and, generally, result in firing raining down on us all as pestilence sweeps the land and a roving band of ACORN people go door to door doing forceable abortions and euthanizing anyone over 65.
As I recount the above (and I don’t even add in the Iraq predictions), cons are pretty friggin lousy at predicting anything. In fact, from your track record, regardless of what you predict, it seems like the exact opposite ultimately occurs. It’s kinda like my “Thurgood Marshall Rule” from law school — if you wanted to predict how the Supreme Court would vote during the Burger/Rhenquist courts, you figure out what Marshall would say, then chose the opposite.
Which leads me to believe that, contrary to Mitch McConnel’s warnings, if the Dems pass health care reform, they will not be run out of town, they will be celebrated for finally fixing a huge problem. There will not be more abortions (as a poster elsewhere on FA implied) but more llve and healthy births and fewer unwanted pregnancies. It will not add trillions to the deficit, but it will eliminate it all together. Yep, if the cons say it will be the ruination of us all, then it must be a GREAT thing for America!
billy bob… a few facts for you to consider.
1: The balanced budget during the late Clinton years was accomplished by a GOP Congress. In 1992, when Ditka make his prediction, both chambers were held by the Dems until 1995…. when there was NO balancing of budget happening. Just like today.
Boy, ain’t that inconvenient for you?
2: Your comments to URI INRE police, fire, city utilities…. there is a vast difference Constitutionally as to what can be provided by States and what comes under Federal control. The regulation of insurance is a States’ right, not a federal.
But thank you for your explanation of reasoning and logic… if “the cons” like it, you hate it. Uh… ain’t that what you accuse us of doing?
Clean up your own back yard, guy.
BRob, If my house burns, I have insurance. If I get sick, I have insurance because I worked my ass off all my life and I don’t take charity from anyone. I have being raised by very poor parents, who escaped so much horror, in such a responsible way. G-d has always been a part of our life and today I give as much as I can to those who need and I pay my dues in full. The rest I plan to give to my children and grandchildren, so that they can appreciate the fact that America made it possible for me and them to be succesful. You will never undestand that and I will not engage in further discussions with you because you are pathetic.
PS: I am also happy to mention that so many of my dear friends cannot believe the grotesque mistake the made by voting for this president.
URI —
I am not talking about insurance; I am talking about the fire department that will try to save your house and the cops who will keep it from being looted.
I am responding to your “marxism” remark. You ducked my point, of course, which is fine. Because there is no debating what I pointed out — some things government does more efficiently than the private sector ever could (like army, police, interstate highway system, and water service), some things only government can do (like regulate clear air and enforce the laws), something government is OK at (public universities, public hospitals, etc.), and some things . . . er, let’s consider privatization. But a screed against “Marxism” in the United States is pretty limp.
Seriously, no actual Marxist think we have a Marxist system, or that Obama is anything other than what he appears to be: a center left moderate who is working to maintain and maximize the military, economic, political, technological and cultural dominance of the USA. You lose credibility when you rail against all goverment, talk about “Marxism”, and gloss over all the parts of goverment that work pretty friggin well, and of which you take advantage on a daily basis.
Mata —
You are changing the subject, as usual. Cons said the tax increases would cause a depression. They were wrong. The budget got balanced because the tax rates increased and brought in more money. And pay as you go helped, too.
As for insurance, it is a “state” issue only because the feds have never tried to regulate it. They have the authority to regulate it the same way they regulate interstate trucking; they just haven’t. But now they will.
No, I don’t look at what cons like to go for hte opposite. That would be childish. I simply try to see if they make any sense; sometimes cons do make sense, but lately, those times are getting farther and farther between. Whether you are talking about the Magic Tax Cut Fairie sprinkling money all across the land, or arguing to maintain an health insurance system that is cutting the throats of employers (my cllients, dude), cons have gone off the reservation.
*I’m* changing the subject? LOL! What chutzpah you continue to have, billy bob. I commented on your out-of-left-field BS. You try to give the Dems the credit for a balanced budget years after they were out of majority power. By doing that, you attempt to say Ditka was wrong.
I suggest that had Clinton and the Dems held power, exactly what he suggested would come to pass. Neither you or I can successfully defend a parallel universe 15 years ago. But we certainly have a reality with your irresponsible big government spenders and overstepping the Constitution POTUS.
Regulating commerce, and mandating citizens purchase a product that is designed to protect themselves, and not others, are different apples and oranges, billy bob. Very poor analogy, but about the best that can be expected from you.
And I notice you dodge my comment about some newly formed legitimacy of price fixing by the feds. Wonder why?
Mata —
My point was that cons are lousy at predicting ANYTHING, including what would happen after Clinton and the Dems raised taxes. Cons take credit for balancing the budget? Yeah . . . with money that a Dem president put into the pipeline. And if cons were so good at balancing budgets, then why didn’t they . . . you know . . . BALANCE THE BUDGET when Bush was in office?
Insurance is interstate commerce, Mata. There is no rational argument that the feds can’t regulate it.
If you are talking about the mandate purchas, that is a different question. But since health care is commerce, and government spends on Medicare, Medicaid, and various kinds of subsidies to hospitals, then obviously they can mandate coverage or penalize you for not having it. Why? Because of the severe free rider problem created by the absence of a mandate.
That is all government needs to justify this policy: a rational relationship to a governmental function. Which is why the cons have been pretty friggin silent with all the talk about challenging the mandate in court.
And “price fixing”? Not sure what you are referring to. But speaking of price fixing, if the health insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption is deleted, there will be no more price fixing and no more four firm concentration in the 90% range. No more anti-trust exemption means more competition. That will bring prices down, too, . . . against the cons will, of course.
American conservatives . . . wrong as the day is long . . . .
Your point was off the mark about predictions, billy bob. The conditions under which Ditka made his predictions were significantly altered when the GOP took control of Congress. And Clinton didn’t put *anything* into the pipeline… that was the result of a dot com bubble, and private enterprise. Clinton is to be credited for not interfering with profits (even tho a bubble), however that was because he was tempered by a business friendly GOP Congress.
But it is amusing that Obama’s economic policy disasters remain, to this day, the fault of Dubya, but your precious Dems get credit for the GOP work. Really, billy bob… try to show even a glimpse of sanity and consistency, please.
I didn’t suggest that the feds couldn’t regulate insurance as interstate commerce. What they cannot do is mandates of purchase, and price fixing… tho just as you say, they are going to try. And no, they cannot mandate you purchase a product that is supposed to benefit the individual as opposed to the states mandating car insurance to provide liability for damage done to others. Again, apples and oranges.
And “the cons” have been far from “silent” about mandates, billy bob. Perhaps just beyond your reading/searching capabilities. So we’ll give you another shot at rethinking your self-imposed ignorance. The briefs have been in the works for months now in anticipation of a Dem federal Congress, trampling states rights with their unConstitutional mandates.
I swear, the more you post here, the more law school education scare the willies outta me….
O’healthcare is all about price fixing of insurance premiums INRE caps, demands, etc. Did you not read either the House or Senate legislative clusterf*#k? Obviously not, which is why you have to say “not sure what you are referring to….” Premiums for the higher risk cannot be more than those of lesser risk, etal.
And again we’re back to the gullible, whining about big bad insurance companies making that 2-3% profit off the “victims”. You’ve got to be kidding me!
anti-American progressives… wrong as the day is long….
I just got the following in an email:
Well, what can I say? Let’s wish him good health so that the Bill will fail and he can remain the same old sack of S.
To add to Mata’s post, the so-called Clinton surpluses came at the expense of huge cuts in the defense budget that reduced the size of the active military by a considerable amount. In addition, the dot com boom caused a very large increase in capital gains realizations which swelled the Federal coffers. It is also true that Clinton’s tax increases helped as well. However, much of the alleged surplus was a result of accounting gimmicks that resulted in deferrals of expense and out of budget obligations. It is very complex and difficult to analyze.
With respect to a state imposed requirement for auto insurance, there are two bases that support that requirement. The first is as Mata states that the benefit is to the public at large so that if a driver causes damage, there is s source for recompense. But the other is the concept that driving is a privilege and not a right and the state is allowed to impose requirements upon the exercise of that privilege.
The real interesting legal issue that is likely to arise is whether the Supreme Court would be willing to hold a statute unConstitutional on the grounds that it was never validly enacted by the legislative body. Generally, the branches of government tend not to mess with each other and review by the Supremes has always presumed that the statute in question was validly enacted. I can’t recall a single instance where the Supreme Court was called upon to consider whether Congress acted properly in the enactment process. I do believe that were they to utilize the Slaughter approach, it would be arguably in violation of the articles that describe how a bill becomes law – that is requiring a true vote in each branch of the legislature. This is a very interesting question indeed. Too bad so much is at stake.
Disturber
BTW, I’d like to point out that Obama’s delay/cancellation of his spring break holiday in Indonesia to be around for health care is indicative of his determined push for that “up or down” vote. This supports my firm belief that he’s determined to get this out of the midterm election campaign trail talking points…. win or lose.
He’d rather accept the loss now, and concentrate on keeping the supermajority power to give it another go. If left unresolved, it’s the albatross around the Dems’ neck throughout the season.
For that reason, I registered my vote above in the “dies in the House” column.
If the OCare bill dies in the House (here’s hoping) — might O try to bring this legislative topic up again after the November elections and offering enticements for passage? Maybe a baby step bill? For example–lame duck Congressmen may be more vulnerable to enticements for their yes vote. . .just a thought.
As far as O’s delayed trip — maybe he delayed because he knows chances for passing are slim and did not want to be accused by his base — of not being engaged in the final legislative push by abandoning the Congressional Majority Leaders?