Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Inch by Inch, Mile by Mile.

Recs

14

September 07, 2009 – Comments (30)

In the replies to my last post I made the statement "If you want better Government, don't elect Republicans" something we began doing in earnest in the early 80's after which debt exploded behind the empty promise of increased tax revenues through lower tax rates. Option1307 took exception and asked me if I honestly believed that statement. I responded that it was the first and best place to start. No matter how far you go down the wrong road, you have to turn back. In mile after mile along thirty years of mostly Republican "government is bad and we can prove it" policies, we Americans are being told we cannot retire, cannot afford Doctors, and will never get out of debt.

I say screw that. Its past time to start inching back.

JMHO and all that.

Enjoy the song, stay for the monologue:

30 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On September 07, 2009 at 2:41 PM, fmahnke (90.14) wrote:

devo,

(this is a duplicate comment recently added to your previous blog)  I would be interested in hearing form someone who is so pro-democrat to provide an opinion on the appointment of Jones or the protection of Wrangel.  (see below)

 

Congress approved a 6.5% increase in office administration expenses to $1.5 million per year last month.  Approriate for a country where our citizens struggle to pay their mortgages. They were also about to buy new jets before the public outrage grew too loud.  I wrote to Kucinich asking him if he voted for these measures, he chose not to respond.  Remenber he is my congressman.

I did not connect Kucinch to any corruption.  My comment cleary states that he supports a corrupt county gov't and opposes efforts to reform it.  I live here and have lived here my whole life.  We are highly taxed without a corresponding level of service.  Its democrats like Kelley, ( and soon Dimora and Russo) who will go to jail.  and Kucinich who opposes efforts to give more local representation to our counties communities. (which is a proposal initiated by Democrat Bill Mason). I beleive his motives are partisan and aimed at keeping republicans out of the gov't.  I jusr want better gov't and a congressmen who answers letters from his constituants

I am non-partisan.  I have voted for members of both parties but believe we need a new system of gov't which is smaller, less burdensome and more responsive to the voters as a whole,  not only their repspective special interests

Your politics are clear. but like most Obama supporters, you blame Bush for the deficits ( and I agree with you) although you fail to adress the more impotant question of what our administration is doing to fix the problem.  So far, I think they are compounding the problem by growing govt. and making things tougher for small businessmen

I do have one question for you.  Can you support Obama's appt of someone like Van Jones or Pelosi's refusal to deal with Charlie the Corrupt.  I really don't get how any American can support these ideals regardless of there political affiliations

Report this comment
#2) On September 07, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Option1307 (29.75) wrote:

Here is essential my re-post from the previous blog...

Yes, it is definitely the first and best place to start.

This makes no sense if you think about it. The article you posted basically says, Obama is a wuss and is giving into Industry pressure, similarily to Bush etc.

"The president and the Democrats decided not to press for the only plan that makes sense for everyone, in order to preserve an industry that is not only cruel and stupid and dysfunctional, but through its rank inefficiency has necessitated the very reforms now being debated."

Obama is essentially not going to make any sort of real reform, simply play the freaking PR game in order save his political career. Wow what a guy, I'm sure glad we elected an awesome, non-republican, person to get things done this time around.

While I'm sure you disagree with me, I don't see how this game is any different, or better, than what the idiotic Republicans played the last 8 yrs. Ya, it's not. More of the same crap, woo!

Btw, after watching that video I would agree with you that small steps are needed to reach any goal (inch by inch); however, my point is that we are side steping at best, and more likely moving backwards.

I am not here to support the Republicans nor am I trying to say that they did things right in the past, they certainly had more mistakes than successes. However, to say that the current administration is better, less corrupt, less incompetent, and less idiotic is just illogical IMO.

Obama has proved time and time again to be a typical politician. He makes great promises, but never delivers. All throughout his campaign he promised healthcare reform yet is now backing down from Big Pharma/Insurance pressure. He promised to withdraw from the Middle East, yet is escalating Afghanistan. He cried that Bush was evil for entacting the Patriot Act, yet has recently extended it. Again I say, are any of his advisors or appointments truley clean. The majority have very questoinable pasts.

Is this what you mean when you claim that "If you want better Government, don't elect Republicans" ?

This certainly doesn't seem like a better way of running things to me.

Yes changes are hard, and I'm not expecting to go from Bush to perfection. But I don't think its too much to ask that we have an actual honest and straight forward Democrat President before we go claiming that only Reblicans are evil and destroying America...

Again I say to you Devoish, if you want to prove to me/others that the Single Payer option is best. Stay on track and quit making ridiculous allegations that Republicans are bad, Democrats are good. It just doesn't add up or bring much credibility to your arguments.

Report this comment
#3) On September 07, 2009 at 3:19 PM, starbucks4ever (97.24) wrote:

I would modify this statement as follows: "If you want better Government, don't elect Republicans or Democrats".  :):):)

Report this comment
#4) On September 07, 2009 at 3:37 PM, dickseacup (66.90) wrote:

The Democrat and Republican parties became the dominant parties in the US in the mid-1800s. Starting with the 35th Congress (1857-1859), the Democrats controlled Congress only seven times up to the 65th Congress (1917-1919) with the longest consecutive run being the 63rd-65th Congresses (three terms). 

Republicans held the majority in Congress until the 73rd Congress (1933-1935), when the Democrats regained control and held the legislative branch for seven straight terms, until the Republicans regained control in 80th Congress (1947-1949). The Democrats retook Congress for the 81st and 82nd sessions, with the Republicans securing the majority for the 83rd Congress (1953-1955).

The Democrats then became the majority party in Congress for the next thirteen sessions, ending with the Republican three-term run from 1981-1987. The Democrats followed with four-terms of their own, from 1987-1995. We all probably remember the Republican "Contract With America" which brought them back into control of the House in the late 1990s. The Republicans were awarded the majority of seats in the 104th Congress (1995-1997) and maintained that status until the 107th Congress when the seats were evenly split.

For two or three weeks in January of 2001, the Democrats had the majority, owing to the deciding vote of outgoing Vice President Al Gore. Starting January 20, 2001, with the incoming Republican administration, the Republicans held the majority owing to VP Dick Cheney's deciding vote. Then Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent, caucusing with Democrats, giving the Democrats control of Congress starting in June 2001. The Democrats had a one-seat majority until November of 2002 when Republican Senator Talent was elected to replace Jean Carnahan, an appointed Democrat from MO.

The Republicans had the majority for the 108th and 109th Congresses, and the Democrats gained the upper hand in the 2007 election for the 110th Congress. The Democrats expanded their margin in the 111th (currently sitting) Congress.

You say:

 "If you want better Government, don't elect Republicans" something we began doing in earnest in the early 80's after which debt exploded behind the empty promise of increased tax revenues through lower tax rates.

The Democrats, as I have just laid out, held sway in seven of sixteen Congressional sessions since 1979, with one session split between Democrat and Republican control. Additionally, the only budget surplus during those years (1979-present) were from 1998 through 2001. Of course, the budget is proposed by the Administration, but approved by the Congress. The Congress, during the time that those surpluses were booked, was controlled by the Republicans (105th and 106th Congressional sessions). 

Deficits expanded in the 107th Congress (split control), but were decreasing again by the 109th Congress, the last session controlled by Republicans. The Democrats have approved the budgets since 2007, when they took control back. Here is a chart of budget deficits:

I would agree with your call to boycott the Republican party. However, you don't go far enough. The solution is not "vote out the Republicans and vote in the Democrats." Nor is it the inverse. The solution is to vote in independent candidates who are responsive to the people, not to the corporate and financial powers that pull the strings of career politicians.

Report this comment
#5) On September 07, 2009 at 3:49 PM, danteps (29.38) wrote:

Agree Zloj . . . voting out both the Republicans and Democrats is a great start. A government that does little, does little damage.

Comrade Obama is a communist in Democrat clothing. We are on the verge of a collapse in the U.S. dollar due to mounting debts (in part due to the Bush administration and the preceding ones as well). So what do comrades Obama, Pelosi, Frank want to do? Let's materially expand our debt by addding yet another entitlement.

So many of us are exasperated each paycheck when we look at the government cut. ENOUGH. THE GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN ENOUGH. LOWER TAXES AND GIVE THE MONEY TO THE GREAT PEOPLE OF THIS NATION.

The oligarchy in Washington must be stopped.

Report this comment
#6) On September 07, 2009 at 3:54 PM, danteps (29.38) wrote:

Well written dickseacup.  Thank you for sharing facts, which sometimes trip up both the Democrat and Republican supporters who cling to party affiliations. 

Report this comment
#7) On September 07, 2009 at 5:07 PM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

dickseacup,

I used to have those stats and was recently looking for, but could not find them. I would love your source. I would also like to know by "control" if you mean both houses and the presidency or just one house and the presidency or both houses and not the presidency. Seems to me I remember the "contract with america" from the early 90's, not late.

It is my belief and hope that without the Republicans the Dems would splinter into a few different factions and we would all be better off.

Zloj,

Republicans are bad. They proved it behind Bush and again with the lies they are delivering today. I never equated Bush with succumbing to industry pressure like Obama seems to be doing. Bush IMHO is much worse than Obama for his full support of the wealthy at the expense of other Americans. I never claimed all Democrats were good, just that some of them are and deserve support rather than the blanket Gov't bashing so often delivered.

Your post #3 is where I want to go, but to risk another Republican administration would be disastrous.

Danteps,

your post is so far in support of the actions and catchphrases that have hurt America I do not know what to tell you.

fmahnke,

I am truly tired of this type of BS doubletalk;

I did not connect Kucinch to any corruption. VS.  My comment cleary states that he supports a corrupt county gov't and opposes efforts to reform it. 

At least try to seperate it between a few paragraphs.

Report this comment
#8) On September 07, 2009 at 5:39 PM, fmahnke (90.14) wrote:

Yeah its BS,  Connecting Kucinich to corruption would suggest he is corrupt and I didn't say it (I don't even believe he is)

But if you lived here, youd know that Cuy Counties democtatic leadership is corrupt, and Kucinich has supported these people for many years and is working against reform initiatives As I stated, with issue here is priortizing partisanship over common sense

Our course, that probably doesnt bother you. Your brand of doubletalk simply ignores issues that you can't defend.  My guess is that you'd be happy with growing gov't, increasing deficits and people like Van  Jones leading our country. 

How strange

Report this comment
#9) On September 07, 2009 at 6:06 PM, truthisntstupid (83.28) wrote:

Oh for crying out loud!  You people who are SO worried about deficit spending and "still another entitlement"  are such damned hypocrites!!  This will continue to get worst if something isn't done.  And nothing will be done...yet.  Things have to get much much more dangerous first....and not just for those who can't afford healthcare.   For decades now the wealth in this country has concentrated in the top few percent of the population at a faster and faster rate.  Healthcare costs are exploding and the general population is growing ever poorer.  WHEN...not if, WHEN...there are enough of us "peons" watching our loved ones die preventable deaths...more and more people will grow angrier and angrier.  It won't be pretty.  Let's see just how many of you amateur armchair economists are hollering for more police on the streets when that time comes!  You won't be worrying about the stinkin' deficit when it's YOUR behind you're worried about, will you?  Well, mister, that's when the rest of us who wanted universal healthcare should stand up and demand to know "just where's the money going to come from to pay for all these extra police?"  I know I will.

Report this comment
#10) On September 07, 2009 at 6:41 PM, danteps (29.38) wrote:

Please stop spreading misinfomation and attempting to mislead folks.  Wealth has not been getting more concentrated in the top few percent over the past few decades at a "faster and faster rate". 

Simply not true. 

 Please read the paper below. 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/papers/concentration.2001.10.pdf 

It's also inaccurate and impolite to refer to folks who support responsible spending by our elected officials as "hypocrites".  Not wanting us to spiral into bankruptcy because of further deficit spending is a reasonable concept.  Contracting government and reducing entitlements also is a reasonable concept. 

I doubt you are peon and we certainly would not want to watch your loved ones die.  Please purchase quality health care insurance and save for potential emergency situations.  Ask not what others can do for you, but what you can do for yourself, family and others.

I will always be worried about the deficit, because it's bad for our currency and future generations (among a great many things).  I will never give up the cause and will fight against nearly all future entitlements, most certainly universal health care.  It's wrong and immoral to ask one citizen to subsidize another's private health care decisions. 

Report this comment
#11) On September 07, 2009 at 6:49 PM, starbucks4ever (97.24) wrote:

devoish,

You'll need the highest-resolution electronic microscope in order to see the difference between the two parties. 

Report this comment
#12) On September 07, 2009 at 6:58 PM, rd80 (98.29) wrote:

the empty promise of increased tax revenues through lower tax rates

Of course you know that revenues did, in fact, increase following each of the three most recent significant tax cuts (Kennedy, Reagan and Bush).

Report this comment
#13) On September 07, 2009 at 7:11 PM, truthisntstupid (83.28) wrote:

"Please purchase quality health care insurance and save for...."

This shows for all to see how little you know.  You don't BELIEVE there are people who can't...CAN'T!!!  afford "quality health insurance."  (or even crappy health insurance)  YOU PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW WE EXIST.  Uhh...who pays YOURS?  Do YOU pay it all?  Does your employer pay part of it...maybe more than part of it?  That should be taxed as income.  If you get something either subsidized or given to you that many many people need but can't afford to buy....you want to talk about unfair "entitlements?"  What the heck is that?

Report this comment
#14) On September 07, 2009 at 7:59 PM, russiangambit (29.30) wrote:

> You'll need the highest-resolution electronic microscope in order to see the difference between the two parties. 

Ha-ha. I agree. Both parties live in their own little world. Especially the repuiblicans with their "conservative" values which they preach but never practice.

Report this comment
#15) On September 07, 2009 at 8:06 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@zloj,"You'll need the highest-resolution electronic microscope in order to see the difference between the two parties."

As an external observer (I'm not American) I find this statement to be baseless. The Dems have an important pro-establishment, corporatist wing (mainly represented in the Democratic Leadership Council) but it's nothing compared to the present day situation of the GOP. Today, the GOP is little more than white, Southern males engaged in conspiracy theories, smearing campaings and lobbying for corporations. I'd say that the numbers of Republicans who expose logical arguments with factual basis, are criticals of the establishment, engage in consensus building for the common good are a rarity.


@devoish,

Two good resources for you:

Insurance Reform Watch.org

Healthcare data from the OECD and Dartmouth presented in an interactive way


Keep up the good fight. If substantial reform in the healthcare sector is averted, America will be headed towards bankruptcy. If legislation to mitigate climate change is stopped, the global civilization is headed towards collapse.

Report this comment
#16) On September 07, 2009 at 8:36 PM, uclayoda87 (29.24) wrote:

Bush lit the fire in 08 and Obama added the gas in 09, don't you just love the two main parties working together?!  Financial arson by committee!

The people who are really pissed now are the Hillary supporters, I doubt that she would be making so many rookie mistakes, especially in dealing with health care.

There won't be much need to vote out the Congress, since they will probably just go home when they have finished spending everyone else's money.  Once the California style of stagflation hits the rest of the country and China no longer thinks we are worthy of their investments, then maybe Ron Paul will be given a chance, since he is one of the few in Congress who really believes in smaller government.  Since there won't be any money left to spend, he'd be perfect for the job.

 

Report this comment
#17) On September 07, 2009 at 9:17 PM, starbucks4ever (97.24) wrote:

lucas1985,

The "one corrupt wing" line is just a classic example of good cop, bad cop tactics. Don't you see how this half-winged, half-honest party, after a heated debate that mesmerizes the audience, always succeeds in working out a wonderful compromise that just coincidentally agrees 100% with GOP proposals, and then happily votes for this compromise solution with its both wings? 

Report this comment
#18) On September 07, 2009 at 10:23 PM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

rd80,

I also know there is a difference in going from 70% to 60% (Kennedy) at the top and 60% to 34% like Reagan did. I also know that Reagan and Bush 1 had the benefit of interest rates dropping from 17% to I0% as did Clinton from 10% to 7% and the flood of spending and tax revenues that easier money created. I also know that Bush 2 increased tax revenues because lending rates went from 7% to 1%, through the increased money supply allowed by 35:1 capital requirements, to the largest investment banks, by not watching CDO's, loosening lending requirements for FHA loans, and reckless lending on the part of lightly regulated mortgage brokers. That is what caused the revenue increases. I also know that "lowering" stops at "lowest" whether it is taxes or interest rates and then the tide goes out, and then you are finished and need to get a real plan.

Zloj,

I need no microscope to see the difference between Sanders and Bush, Kucinich and Thompson, Boxer and Steele, Wiener and Obama (same party). I am sorry you do.

truthisntstupid,

danteps needs to believe in the idea that jobs that do not pay more than the median income such as stocking shelves, roofing houses, etc are not worth the cost of a salary that can afford a doctor and a decent life. He will tell you, you should rise up from that level hoping you will not ask about the time you spend rising through that level. He believes manual labor does not have much value probably because his back doesn't ache though he may contest my guess. He hopes to convince laborers they are undeserving and should accept such low wages. On Labor day.

Dannteps,

Your source about income distribution is choosing a carefully selected time period, and whenever that happens, for global warming, income distribution, or any statistics it is a red flag of data mining. 1989 - 2001 includes Clintons tax increase on the top earners from Reagans 34% up to 39%. It helped slow the redistribution of American wealth into fewer hands as your source shows. He also selected 2001 as the endpoint, the end of the dot com bubble. The numbers would not support as low wealth distribution if it eneded in 1999 or 2000, 2006 or 7, or had its beginning in 1982 along with Reagans tax cuts. The first paragraph also tries to verbally diminish the change by seperating the top 1% (1/3 of the wealth) from the top 10% (2/3 of the wealth; 1/3 to the top 1%, 1/3 to the next 9%, the last third divided among the remaining 90%). Taking the percentage of income owned by the top 10% as a whole, from 1982 until 2006, 50% went to the top ten percent and the other 50% was divided among the remaining 90%. The wealth controlled by the top ten percent is even higher. The bottom 10% fell so far that wealth disparity in the USA has never been greater. You could not have helped make my point condemning Conservative/Republicans or whatever you are calling yourselves today spewing BS any better. Thank you. I do not know if your elected Republicans are having this BS fed to them, through them, or by them, but it is still pure and stinky crapola and talking this BS, harmful to all but a very few Americans, seperates the Republicans into a BS pot all their own.

Responsible spending includes Medicare for All and the taxes to pay for it, or wages that can pay for it instead.

How's that for a microscope, Zloj?

And before anyone cries that my points contradict "free market theory or small Gov't theory", I know. Free market theory and small gov't theory does not work for more than the wealthy few anywhere in the world.

fmahnke

You are making a National issue out of a couple of corrupt local engineering dept employees that accepted 6 figures in bribes each, some of those bribes came from a former Republican Senator according to the dozens of news reports I can find. Those are the confessions and convictions so far after 3 years of FBI investigations. The worst two guys are rooted out and it is too bad they are getting shorter sentences by trying to implicate some elected officials over a $1000 trip to Vegas. If nothing comes from their accusations I hope they get the maximum sentences possible. If something does come from their accusations it will be nice to see law enforcement working.

Didn't anybody enjoy the song and monologue? It saved you from a labor day post about how your great grandfathers fought oppression by organizing into unions, and how the combination of high taxes and union negotiating power from the depression until Reagan, created the environment of success and better living standards Americans experienced, from the depression forward marred only by war and an oil embargo, until Reagans tax cuts and union busting put us on course for todays private and public debt issues.

But hey, there's always another day.

Let me leave you with another fun song;

Report this comment
#19) On September 07, 2009 at 11:13 PM, danteps (29.38) wrote:

Devoish - there you go again trying to spread communist ideals and making false assumptions. 

Please don't assume all those that will fight the fight to reduce entitlements, prevent the further socialization of medicine and seek to reduce / eliminate the deficit are Republicans.  Never voted for one, maybe never will.

There is nothing in the Constitution saying that we should let our government officials allocate capital and ensure everyone gets an equal piece of the national wealth.  Rather we should be a nation where hard work is rewarded and encouraged.  Innovation and perspiration are the foundations of our nation's success.

Stop asking for others to pay for you and your comrades!  Take care of yourself and don't ask for entitlements. 

Let's reduce taxes and shrink government spending.   

Report this comment
#20) On September 07, 2009 at 11:20 PM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

Lucas1985,

Thanks, feels like an island in a sea of BS sometimes.

Uclayoda,

If I was trying to save small gov't theory after the disaster of what proponents of that theory have delivered so far, I would be trying to pretend all Dems are the same as Repubs too.

Zloj,

The "one corrupt wing" line is just a classic example of good cop, bad cop tactics. Don't you see how this half-winged, half-honest party, after a heated debate that mesmerizes the audience, always succeeds in working out a wonderful compromise that just coincidentally agrees 100% with GOP proposals, and then happily votes for this compromise solution with its both wings? 

Are you planning to live with this? Small Gov theory has become a plan to deliver control of America to a wealthy few, so it gets fought for all I'm worth. I have chosen a side and am supporting every inch of every step in that direction. I reposted Taibbi's healthcare expose' to bring attention to the Dems who suck and support to the ones who don't. 

I support Medicare for All, paid in full by improved efficiency savings and the insurance payments we already make but as taxes instead of insurance payments and with nothing paid, without showing it in your paycheck.

I would accept as a compromise specific language saying no Federal law shall prevent Single Payer as a States Right if not a federal one, and the option of buying into Medicare as a competition for Private Insurer for any State that chooses not to implement a State Single Payer system.

HR3200 has become worse than doing nothing, mostly due to the lies being spread by Republicans weakening support for the little good that was in it and pathetic negotiating by the Dems. Just as Taibbi's article describes it.

The "public option" at this point is likely to become a dumping ground for the sickest people, passing the expense of healthcare from the insurers we are paying, to the Gov't taxes it adds. Medicare for All would avoid that.

The requirement that 80% of insurance premiums go to health care aligns Insurers with providers, both benefitting by raising costs of providing healthcare. Medicare for All would avoid that.

I will be there during the election cycle. I will get new Dems in the primaries, and new Dems into as many Republican seats as I can. Unless I can get Green Party or independent candidates.

You mistake my discust with Republicans as support of Dems. I am very unhappy with many of them too, much more so after this healthcare debacle. If you can find me any Repubs who do not believe in "small gov" or if you can find somewhere in the world it works to bring good living standards to 95% of its population, we can talk supporters of small gov theory.

Report this comment
#21) On September 07, 2009 at 11:30 PM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

There is nothing in the Constitution saying that we should let our government officials allocate capital and ensure everyone gets an equal piece of the national wealth.  Rather we should be a nation where hard work is rewarded and encouraged.  Innovation and perspiration are the foundations of our nation's success.

Likewise, there is nothing in the Constitution that says we cannot. No small gov't rewards hard work, innovation or perspiration. Unless you can name one. Every single Nation with national healthcare has more small business's per capita than the United States. And like it or not roofing a house is hard work, driving a daily grind to put bread onto a supermarket shelf is hard work. And frankly, it shouldn't have to be. It shouldn't require working from dawn till dusk and still not get paid enough for healthcare. Good healthcare, not just aspirin and a band-aid.

Let's raise taxes and balance the budget and promote the general welfare.

Comrade.

Report this comment
#22) On September 07, 2009 at 11:48 PM, starbucks4ever (97.24) wrote:

I am not a supporter of small gov theory (and have actually been called a "Socialist ideologue" for that), but I am not buying that notion of "good Dem, bad Dem" either. A Democrat is just a Republican who thinks that his stock or housing bubble can be reinflated more efficiently by the big government. End of story. All that small talk for the benefit of the poor is a good thing, but it's inconsequential. Fortunately, politics is an exact science in that it does afford us one, and only one criterion of truth: the actions. If a party promises you a public option and votes for the bill as it stands today, the only correct conclusion is that the said party is AGAINST the public option no matter what they write in "My Struggle", sorry, I mean, "The Audacity of Hope".

Report this comment
#23) On September 08, 2009 at 12:48 AM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

If a party promises you a public option and votes for the bill as it stands today, the only correct conclusion is that the said party is AGAINST the public option no matter what they write

I'll skip the incindiary comparison to Hitler in the copy, but I do not disagree with your sentiment. They will not get the vote of Kucinich, Wiener or Sanders (independent) with HR3200 as written. HR676 has 93 cosponsors and I am hoping they stand their ground and demand nothing less than the Single Payer as a State Right or just to get it done right. I will remind them with a call. 202 224-3121

Report this comment
#24) On September 08, 2009 at 1:22 AM, starbucks4ever (97.24) wrote:

Plus, the public option was emasculated to begin with. Where was the vertical integration? Of course there are some savings to be had on the top level (insurance), but the hospitals also need some good kick in the butt, as well as CRE owners who make golden hospital buildings. A vertically integrated public company would easily save 50% of the cost, but that proposal was not even on the table. 

P.S. The comparison to der Fuhrer is not incendiary, because I'm comparing the rhetorical devices rather than practice. Hitler was very much a "yes we can" orator, and by the way, the rules of polititician-speak are pretty much the same for all denominations of the political spectrum.

Report this comment
#25) On September 08, 2009 at 7:57 AM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

Re:  the comparison,

Ok.

Re: the public option, and the healthcare part of all this,

Remember to call.

 

Report this comment
#26) On September 08, 2009 at 8:33 AM, dickseacup (66.90) wrote:

Likewise, there is nothing in the Constitution that says we cannot.

Article 1, Section 8; Amendments IX and X.

No small gov't rewards hard work, innovation or perspiration. Unless you can name one.

The United States of America, from about 1785 until, oh, I'll just say 1915. In actuality, the reward for individual responsibility continued in the US until some time after the end of The Great War, but that was the beginning of the end of small, Constitutionally-focused government in this country.

Report this comment
#27) On September 08, 2009 at 9:20 AM, rd80 (98.29) wrote:

I would accept as a compromise specific language saying no Federal law shall prevent Single Payer as a States Right if not a federal one, and the option of buying into Medicare as a competition for Private Insurer for any State that chooses not to implement a State Single Payer system.

The 10th Amendment already provides the first half of your compromise.  Just need to find justices that will uphold it. 

I could go along with the other half as long as the Medicare buy-in option required the buy-in price to be set so that any Federal subsidy to the program applied to both public and private plans.

Report this comment
#28) On September 08, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Alex1963 (28.47) wrote:

Devo

great post. I wish had more time lately to help fight the good fight but meantime keep up the "collective" good work uh, comrade :)

Also how about "ask not what others can do for me but what can I do for others". And I don't think most people who support a public option or meaningful healthcare reform do so purely out of selfish self interest. I believe there is quite a bit of empathy and community spirit behind this position. Otherwise it would seem that healthcare reform support would reflect polling that correlates to the smaller number of people who have inadequate or no insurance and this is clearly not the case. Further, the evidence I see of the fiscal sense real reform makes is compelling. I believe in major reform or even universal healthcare because I believe that by doing so we ensure prosperity for all. So it's actually good economics particularly in the healthcare arena IMHO. 

My only other comment is that to those who feel politicians are too beholden to lobbies etc. please, support reform efforts in this area. I don't know how we ever got suckered into allowing corporations to be treated as if they were citizens but clearly we need to revist (again) the whole campaign and lobbying structure. To focus on voting in "independents" who while they may not be beholden to start may likely become so if they wish to be re-elected is to attack the symptom and not the sickness. And yes, I do believe Obama/congress will address this eventually and I hope every (individual) american weighs in. 

Alex 

Report this comment
#29) On September 08, 2009 at 10:45 PM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

dickseacup,

Section 7; Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto/

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Report this comment
#30) On September 14, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Alex1963 (28.47) wrote:

danteps  

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare

Omygod is that the word "welfare" right there in the constitution?!

In what reality does providing better heathcare for Americans not fall under "the general welfare"? 

Best

Alex 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement