WaPo: McCain Tries to Paint Obama as Exactly What He Is
The Washington Post attempts to inoculate Obama against credible charges of opportunism reports:
Sen. John McCain’s allies have seized on a new and aggressive line of attack against Sen. Barack Obama, casting the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee as an opportunistic and self-obsessed politician who will do and say anything to get elected.
So if it seems like Obama will say anything to get elected, remember: it’s an illusion. It’s all part of a “line of attack” that McCain’s allies have “seized on” to “cast[]” Obama in a bad light.
It’s just like those damn Republicans to try to trick you like that. Don’t be fooled!
Some nerve, “it seems like Obama will say anything to get elected” from the Guiness Book of World Records holder on flip flops.
I’m sure this is completely different that saying anything to get elected in wingnut world.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15924.html
* McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he’s against it.
* McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.
* McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.
* McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)
Wait, I’m not done with the last two weeks yet….
* McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.
* McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.
* He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”
* McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.
And these come after these other reversals from April and May:
* McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.
* McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.
* He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.
* He wanted political support from radical televangelists like John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.
* McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.
And these are the flip-flops I’ve noticed earlier:
* McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”
* McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.
* McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.
* In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.
* McCain has changed his economic worldview on multiple occasions.
* McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions.
* McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.
* McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off than they were before Bush took office.
* McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.
* McCain believes his endorsement from radical televangelist John Hagee was both a good and bad idea.
* McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
* McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.
* In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.
* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.
* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.
* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
* McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”
* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.
* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
* On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.
* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:28 am
Harpy, You haven’t disproved one word against Obama. In that you are a superpartisan, I’ll take it as confirmation that Obama is a greedy, grasping, empty-suit spawned by the Daley machine who will out Clinton the Clintons to get the White House, and that the MSM, left wingnut blogs, and discredited people like you will parrot any lie to help him.
Comment by PCD (5c49b0) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:35 am
Buncha racists…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:36 am
It should also be noted that McCain’s vote against drilling was some time ago… Changing over time (several years) isn’t quite flip-flopping…
Obama’s “changing his position” is changing views held as little as 3 months ago… That’s more like flip-flopping…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:38 am
Forfeiture is mandatory in federal sentensing. And it follows the money. Barack Gimme-At-Least-One-Acre-And-Keep-The-Mule Obama will almost certainly lose his “backyard” when Tony Rezko is sentenced. Let’s see if he loses his home too.
Comment by nk (11c9c1) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:51 am
harpy is sure fired up this morning. And, SHOCKA, it is still a lying mendoucheous crap weasel. Levi has competition.
Racists.
Comment by JD (75f5c3) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:51 am
*sentencing* Yikes!
Comment by nk (11c9c1) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:52 am
The rest of the article would be entirely amusing, if it did not have the possibility to influence a national election. The WaPo acts as if the “attacks” are entirely baseless. Does the newspaper really expect that a candidate for President will not point out inconsistencies in his opponent’s rhetoric?
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:55 am
And I’ve always considered teh Washington Post one of the best papers left…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:02 am
In light of the exhaustive #1, it would be interesting to know where the line is drawn to delineate a gratuitous flip-flop vs. the loftier – sniff – evolving point of view….
Comment by Dana (a61bbb) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:04 am
Dana,
How dare you try and judge the Light-Worker!
Such heresy shall not be tollerated against the God-Emperor (Warhammer 40k refference)…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:10 am
So it is clear that before you open your mouth to accuse your opponent of flip-flopping, you ensure your slate is clean. Remninds me of that good ol’ scriptural verse. “Let he that has no sin cast the first stone..” Both McCain and Obama are disqualified by the records from making such accusations of each other.
Comment by love2008 (1b037c) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:15 am
jharp, bad behavior cannot be excused by pointing at more bad behavior. To use the South Park example, we’re stuck choosing between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich. But that doesn’t mean that it’s silly to point out when the Mainstream Media is favoring one awful candidate over the other.
And, for heavens sake, cut out the name-calling. You don’t have to be a “Wingnut” to understand that most of the Mainstream Media is carrying water for Barack Obama.
Comment by h2u (81b7bd) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:21 am
your guy is crookeder than my guy, nyah, nyah, nyah.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate (3e71a3) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:22 am
Sorry, no offense intended. Is Obama’s Internet fund paying people to drop in at various places? #1 is lengthy and passionate. Similar to the committed, wordy Christian from about 3 months ago who had no problem with God Damn America. He’s gone now and so are his posts.
Netroots.
$ $
Comment by Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:23 am
Sorry PCD but jharp is mostly right (see lefty blogs)….oooh and tempered by Dana’s comment. So is Patterico implying here that ANY politician won’t say or do just about anything to get elected president? I read the post differently— John McCain has a new line of attack, he is saying that Barack Obama is a (GAWSP) politician….
If the next part of the attack will be McCain admitting that HE TOO is a politician who is pandering to his own special interests, then maybe JM can set up an argument that, since they are both politicians beholden to special interests, that Americans might be best served by electing the most EXPERIENCED one…..
But he has to stop confusing different A-rab groups….oh and if Bobby Jindal really is a crypto religious nut he can’t take him on as VP.
One of the reasons that many Louisiana voters forgave Jindal his religious nuttery is that he kept it to himself. Now that he is trying to make creationism be taught as science he might find himself a bit less palatable.
Comment by EdWood (06cafa) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:25 am
What h2u said.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:28 am
John McCain has been in office since 1987. Given how much the world has changed since then, I would hope that he has, occasionally, altered some of his positions.
I’ll pick the one that I have the most knowledge about: abortion in the case of rape and incest. In 1987 – the same year that McCain took office – Dr. Koop determined that the data on post-abortive women was contradictory and incomplete. He called for more research into the effects of abortion on women. In the past 20 years, support groups for post-abortive women have grown and become more prominent. If I’m not mistaken, the first study to specifically explore the effects of abortion on rape victims was published in 2000. Unless John McCain has information downloaded into his head every evening, he wouldn’t have reason to know of these things immediately.
We expect that people would both evolve and respond to changing circumstances over two decades. What we can hardly expect is that, absent explanation, the same gun ban is both constitutional and a violation of the Second Amendment within a few months.
That is, of course, if we accept JHarp’s list as being true in its entirety.
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:30 am
I would say that a flip flop should encompass anything that was said, then reversed, within the same election cycle. (To wit, when each of these Senators announced their campaign, their slate of promises is essentially erased from the last time he made those promises, because the situations that made those promises a good idea back then do not necessarily continue to today.
Gas prices being a good point. Gas prices have dramatically risen thanks to the Democratically-controlled Congress, so being against offshore drilling four years ago does not make it a flip flop to be in favor of exploring the options today.
However, saying that you are “committed” to something a few weeks ago, then dropping it like last week’s smelly diaper, IS a flip flop.
(Too recent for the situation to have changed that dramatically, y’see, especially since the only thing that had actually changed is the candidate’s mind.)
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:35 am
Which would be a very silly thing to do…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:37 am
Love2008, sometimes we agree. I found this at Hot Air.
(Ed at Hot Air)
Comment by Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:38 am
16, Ed, I’m right in that harpy didn’t say anything to disprove the points made against Obama.
Comment by PCD (5c49b0) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:42 am
Obama – Change you can believe in, except that I keep changing what I believe in, you fucking rubes. Try to keep up.
Comment by daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:45 am
“You don’t have to be a “Wingnut” to understand that most of the Mainstream Media is carrying water for Barack Obama.”
But you do have to be a wingnut to believe the media favors Obama.
One of of ten Americans still believe he’s a Muslim for Christ sakes.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:01 am
jharp, if non sequitur was wisdom, you’d be king.
Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:01 am
My god…
You’re full of stupid…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:02 am
“Gas prices being a good point. Gas prices have dramatically risen thanks to the Democratically-controlled Congress”
And how do you come up with this?
49-49-2
And the educated are well aware most of the increase in the cost of gas is due to a weakening dollar.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:04 am
Jharp, no SPQR…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:05 am
That’s the Senate, smart guy… There are two parts to congress…
And what party has people in the lead-spot for each?
You drunk your whole gallon of stupid, didn’t you…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:07 am
Maybe Jharp can help us with any recent flip flop by mcCain. Any position he held recently which he has changed this election year. That would make a good argument against valid points raised by bridget at #18 and Drumwaster at #19.
And Vermont at #21 can you provide me a link to that issue you raised? Thank you.
Comment by love2008 (1b037c) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:07 am
Scott, fear not, everyone knew who you were refering to.
Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:07 am
jharp, until Louis Farrakhan denounces Obama as an apostate, his campaign’s basically getting wink and nod approval from Muslims. Although it’s interesting that you, like Obama, want to distance him from his Muslim roots. Sort of throw it all under the bus.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:08 am
One of of ten Americans still believe he’s a Muslim for Christ sakes.
Only one in ten? He’ll have to do much better before November or he’ll lose Farrakhan’s support.
Comment by nk (11c9c1) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:08 am
I found the article he refers to, and here is a link for you.
Comment by Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:11 am
Love2008, it’s at Hot Air dot com … Ed Morrisey and one of his posts from this morning. I guess my linking skills are hit & miss, but it’s an interesting read. As a woman, I think we can wrap our jungle red claws around this story.
(a Clare Booth Luce reference.)
Comment by Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:13 am
VN
I linked to the Cyber News article… Right to the source, as it were…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:14 am
24, harpy, you have proven yourself to be an extreme wingnut. We’ll have to use Farrakhan’s Mothership at maximum warp to reach you. Don’t worry help is on the way.
Besides, you haven’t disproven a thing about Obama.
Comment by PCD (5c49b0) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:15 am
If by “educated,” you mean quasi-communistic university professors, perhaps.
Now, I thought that the increase in gas prices were due to the fact that we didn’t drill in ANWR five years ago, which would be providing us with quite a bit of oil at the moment….
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:16 am
Good man Scotty. Thanks.
Comment by love2008 (1b037c) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:17 am
thanks Scott. . .
Comment by Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:17 am
ROFL
I’ll most likely be voting for Obama and yet I believe this. You’re ridiculous, jharp. Absolutely ridiculous.
Or it could be due to the fact that worldwide demand outpaces supply. Or it could be that we need to build more refineries. Or it could be the lack of national standards for gasoline that make it difficult to send the same “gas” to California as that which goes to, let’s say, Nevada.
Or we could just be absurdly pithy and say it’s the weakening dollar…
Comment by h2u (81b7bd) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:21 am
Harpy, do you actually have sources for any of your wild assertions, or do you hope to make up in volume what you lack in substance? In particular, I’d like to see the source for yoru claim that McCain ever argued that the NRA should have no role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Actually, the more I think about it, the source of that quote is probably one of your nether regions I’d rather not see, after all. So scratch that. No, don’t.
If by “the educated” you mean “idiots who will fall for whatever crap I spew,” I suppose so. I guess the rest of us are just too damned unedumacated to understand how a weak dollar can explain why (1) our gas prices have risen far more than our currency has slipped, or (2) why Canada, the EU, and every other country with currency stronger than ours hasn’t seen their gas prices fall.
Comment by Xrlq (b71926) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:25 am
“But you do have to be a wingnut to believe the media favors Obama.”
May I introduce you to a little rag called the New York Times.
“One of of ten Americans still believe he’s a Muslim for Christ sakes.”
Your source for this because I move in fairly conservative circles and no one that I know believes this to be true. As a sidenote, some Americans also don’t care that he was/is/may-be- depending-on-his-audience a Muslim, because the fact is, he still sucks on the issues that matter.
Comment by Dana (a61bbb) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:28 am
What the post doesnt say is what these said staff were paid for. Were they all doing the same tasks? Was the discrimation based on job definition and qualification or was it based on sexism. Also I found this interesting:
If CNS has its figures correct, then Obama has some explaining to do. CNS has not always been terribly reliable, but in this instance, it’s not difficult to get the correct figures on staffers and salary; they’re matters of public record. CNS has managed to do what other media outlets have overlooked, which is to match Obama’s rhetoric with his hiring record.
It raises the issue of credibility of the source, dont you think?
Comment by love2008 (1b037c) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:31 am
No, it actually states that while in the past they are questionable, in this instance they really seem to have it right…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:39 am
Is this chart of gas prices in the EU and US helpful in any way, jharp, or do you need to go the the emergency room to stabilize your lithium levels?
Comment by nk (11c9c1) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:39 am
Before the Iowa caucuses McCain went to Iowa and other midewesterm places and told them the ethanol subsidy in particular and grandiose farm bills in general were out in a McCain administration. Let’s see ONE example of Barry taking anything like such a political risk. There is one but the Infants Born Alive protection bill is not one he claims too loudly since he voted against it, of course. His accomplishments in politics are all tactical and only tactical. What a farce.
Comment by megapotamus (17c12e) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:44 am
Testy testy testy. Trying to support an empty suit, flip flopping politician must be trying. lighten up, barry hussein obama will blow it, he is to stupid to notice that the people in fly over country can read and write, and are on to his blowing of the smoke up our asses.
Comment by Stephana (ce7ff2) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:46 am
And we are supposed to take there word for it this time, Scott?
Comment by love2008 (1b037c) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:48 am
ada #14…
We’re talking about politicians here;
Your comment is redundant!
Comment by Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:51 am
*sigh*
No, but their numbers are easy enough to find, and you can check for yourself. This is the sort of thing that with the numbers, it’s REALLY hard to cock-up…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:51 am
And we are supposed to take there their word for it this time, Scott?
Comment by love2008 (1b037c) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:52 am
Now you’re just purposefully being retarded…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:54 am
#52
oops! reposted it with a correction. “their” not “there”. But I ve seen your response Scott.
Comment by love2008 (1b037c) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:55 am
Ok… Then I retract the “retarded” line… I thought you were saying it again in ernest…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:56 am
Love2008 – if you disagree with the source, crunch the numbers yourself. You can only beat the drum of “credibility of the source” until you can independently verify the claims.
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:57 am
#44 re credibility of the source. As it states it’s not difficult to get the correct figures on staff and salary.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:59 am
#56
Maybe the numbers are accurate but it does not answer the question of what these people were paid for. Was the discrimination based on work description and merit or was it based on sexism. We are not told.
Comment by love2008 (1b037c) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:03 am
“how a weak dollar can explain why (1) our gas prices have risen far more than our currency has slipped”
Because not all of the increase is due to the weakening dollar. Just most of it
I tried to explain to no avail on a previous thread but I have a new approach that I think even a wingnut can understand.
In 2002 .62 US$ equaled 1 canadian dollar
Today it even $US = Canada dollar.
For ease of the less educated to understand substitute .50 for the .62. It’s close enough for educational purpose.
Canadian nightcrawlers are sold for $1 Canadian dollar both in 2002 and today, 2008.
In 2002 one US Dollar bought 2 dozen nightcrawlers.
In 2008 one US dollar buys 1 dozen nightcrawlers.
I hope this helps and you can thank me later.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:03 am
Is this chart of gas prices in the EU and US helpful in any way, jharp,
No, link does not work. I’d be more than happy to take a look if you can provide a working link.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:05 am
Wow.
Comment by h2u (81b7bd) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:06 am
harpy’s lalalalalalalalalalalalalalala school of argument rears its ugly head again.
Comment by JD (75f5c3) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:07 am
#58 – Well, then why give men the plum jobs while keeping girls in the steno pool ? That would leave Obama failing in two areas: pay and hiring.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:08 am
How is any of this drivel helping Michelle put fresh fruit on the table for her kids? Like John Francoise sKerry, Barry Hussein is a master of nuance. Barry looks good in tight jeans and makes grown men aroused. As my lib friends are wont to point out, McCain looks like a puppet on a string with those weird as shoulders and arms dangling plus his teeth are not attractive. Michelle had a rough road to hoe and Cindy had everything handed to her on a platter and still she became a junkie and stole drugs. So there, you racists. Issues don’t matter, charisma do and Urkel is the reincarnation of Abe Lincoln and is healing our racial divisiveness. Plus The Lightmaker will be able to negotiate better with despots since he is no warmonger. And Barry has a wealth of foreign experience having lived in Indonesia as a lad of seven. All McCain did overseas was to get shot down and give his jailors good reason to kick his sorry honky ass. And besides, Hollywood know a winner and sees that in Obambi. So do all those terrorists groups. Is not the chance of peace in our time greater when the two parties are on equal footing sans preconditions and open to compromise? Time to throw those Israelis under the bus because you know they are ready to gratuitously bomb Iran without adequate provocation or attempts at diplomacy. Heil Hussein! Hope! Change!
Comment by madmax333 (2ac3a0) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:09 am
The same criticism may be leveled against Obama’s (and other’s) discussions of the fact that women get paid $0.77 for every dollar earned by men.
There are always issues of competence, education, seniority, job description, and performance. These things become less relevant when people are in the same industry, all relatively new to the specific job (although some of them may have been staffers elsewhere before), and probably all possess the same level of education.
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:09 am
Addition: if Obama were hiring experienced men and inexperienced women, he has questionable judgment and, in light of his defeat over Hillary, lacks some common sense.
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:10 am
#66,
Actually, yes. Again, judgment.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:14 am
jharp is the absolute king of ignoring all comments and posts that point out how incredibly freakin’ wrong his/her/its positions are. For example, how bridget noted that he selected, just a coincidence, a period of time to measure the Euro to the dollar where the Euro had just been introduced to the market, and was weak in comparison. Or, just witness the 400+ comments where he jammed his arms in his ears, and chanted, “I do not see where you have refuted me” or declared all opposing viewpoints wrong out-of-hand.
He/she/it would not know good faith if it jumped into its lap and called it Daddy/Mommy/Libtard.
Comment by JD (75f5c3) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:16 am
harp, did they serve pizza at that seminar where you got all your talking points ?
Comment by Mike K (6d4fc3) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:25 am
Pizza sounds really good right now.
Back to our regularly scheduled programming….
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:33 am
He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”
This, of course…is utter sophistry. The decision contains many elements. Once again, these “patriots” who find fault with our national defense at every turn, have a way of playing word games. One can be both against the decision for a variety of reasons, and still not favor INDEFINITE DETENTION of “suspects”.
The finite nature of managing terrorists who seek to kill and maim my countrymen..including innocent civilians in an undeclared war, in which they operate under no conventions…has these “patriots” weeping and gnashing their teeth.
Of course, they screamed at the top of their lungs when any member of the press wore a flag lapel pin (ie Tim Russert) in a display of solidarity and respect for those murdered on 9-11.
Petit treason…little treasons are the hallmark of these cowards.
* McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.
The “litmus test” for federal judges is one of the most offensive political machinations, among a litany of millions. The leftists are the monarchs of mendacity on this issue. From my own personal perspective, I would want people from the center, who had no agenda, did not want to sit as a superlegislature nor carry out any specific “brand” of activism at all. I think the leftists are the worst of a bad lot on this issue.
And these come after these other reversals from April and May:
* McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.
This, of course…is a leftist lie. McCain has always had preconditions on dealing with Castro (Fidel in 2000), and those conditions required that they move toward a free democracy. The position has not changed. To say it did, is to brand the speaker a liar.
* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.
This, of course..is yet another leftist lie. McCain, in one soundbite on CNN said that we would HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM SOONER OR LATER…BUT NOT UNTIL THEY RECOGNIZED ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO EXIST. CNN and the leftist lemmings then tried to make hay out of the “sooner or later” comment…by hiding, distorting and eliminating the condition precedent. To use this as a slam against McCain…is to brand oneself a liar.
* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.
This, of course…is a distortion. McCain backed the trip of Colin Powell in 2006, ex post facto…but maintained the same position then as now. Syria could not be a state sponsor or terrorism and could not take over Lebanon and threaten Israel. His position on what should be done with Syria remains the same. This is a typical leftist distortion.
We could go on and on…but what is the point? These “patriots” all sing from the same one note hymnal. Telling lies, distortions, forging documents, staging photographs scenes, photoshopping photos…they will stop at nothing to get out their narrative…and certainly truth, honor and dignity won’t stand in their way.
Cowards, liars and traitors…who would want to associate with that bunch? A very, very small person without an ounce of integrity.
Comment by cfbleachers (4040c7) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:41 am
What, are you sexist? The correct PC term is “she/he/it”. Or in harpie’s case (among others), it can be abbreviated as “s’h'it”.
Harpie, on the other hand, definitely has a head crammed chock full of Special High Intensity Training.
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:43 am
sh’i'it is too close to Shiite, and the collectivists would call me a racist for that too. Kind of like how it is racist to state that Baracky Hussein Obama’s middle name is Hussein. I denounce myself. Voldemort.
Comment by JD (75f5c3) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:51 am
“For example, how bridget noted that he selected, just a coincidence, a period of time to measure the Euro to the dollar where the Euro had just been introduced to the market, and was weak in comparison.”
I’m curious as to how you come up with “was weak in comparison”. It is utter nonsense.
And what you say about the Canadian dollar kicking our ass?
In 2002 .62 US$ equaled 1 canadian dollar
Today it even $US = Canada dollar.
For ease of the less educated to understand substitute .50 for the .62. It’s close enough for educational purpose.
Canadian nightcrawlers are sold for $1 Canadian dollar both in 2002 and today, 2008.
In 2002 one US Dollar bought 2 dozen nightcrawlers.
In 2008 one US dollar buys 1 dozen nightcrawlers.
I hope this helps and you can thank me later.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:51 am
jharp, maybe you’re just not properly measuring the externalities in the booming nightcrawler market…
Comment by h2u (81b7bd) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:53 am
Boy, I am very informed by that explanation; except, there isn’t much demand for Canadian nightcrawlers here in SoCal. Guess I’ll just have to be satisfied with the relative change of value between the Dollar and Euro, and how oil is priced in each.
Comment by Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:59 am
Obama will do and say anything to get elected?
Aside from the fact that it is true and provable, the first person to make this claim publicly was Jeremiah Wright shortly after he crawled out from under Obama’s bus:
Comment by capitano (03e5ec) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:59 am
Now he’s cut-and-pasting from himself! (see # 59 above) *facepalm*
jharp, I have seen your post and find nothing of substance there.
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 12:01 pm
Drew,
“Boy, I am very informed by that explanation”
Is that a thank you?
And the demand for Canadian nightcrawlers in S. Cal has nothing to do with it.
It was explanation to the uneducated of the effects of a devalued U.S. dollar in buying foreign goods.
And a pretty good one if I say so myself.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 12:14 pm
“jharp, I have seen your post and find nothing of substance there.”
Nah, no substance there. Just an explanation of how the weak dollar is mostly responsible for your $4 gas.
I dumbed it down as well as I could. I think the problem is your ability to reason, not my explanation.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 12:20 pm
Well, ya know, we buy most of our oil from Europe, so….
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 12:21 pm
/ˈsɑrkæzəm/ [sahr-kaz-uhm]
–noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 12:23 pm
Like I said. Nothing of substance. You are a proven liar, and have deliberately ignored alternative data in a pathetic ploy to score some metaphorical points in an argument where you neither understand the situation being debated nor the conditions that brought it about.
I’ve seen deeper thoughts in a fortune cookie and more facts on a potato chip bag.
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 12:26 pm
Oh, and for someone who asserted that he lives in Indiana, that was an especially revealing slip; to wit, the price of “your gas”, when talking about a national-level economic issue.
How are things in Rio these days?
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 12:27 pm
So now he’s in open admiration of his vast intellectual powers. As usual, those who are wont to proclaim themselves geniuses are not. Say, don’t you have other things to attend to – like your family, foreign exchange business and auto depreciation consulting?
Don’t you have to stock up on some more “bullets” for your vast collection of arms as well? Do tell, we wait with baited breath as to the coming wonders of your limitless expertise.
Comment by Dmac (ea35f7) — 6/30/2008 @ 12:31 pm
What the post doesnt say is what these said staff were paid for. Were they all doing the same tasks? Was the discrimation based on job definition and qualification or was it based on sexism.
There you go again, spewing Rethuglican Talking Points, in order to excuse and belittle instances of sexism . . .
Comment by Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 6/30/2008 @ 12:33 pm
And here I thought the only thing that affected price was Supply and Demand…
I must remember to tell my old Econ prof…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 6/30/2008 @ 12:49 pm
We do not claim him.
Comment by Indiana (75f5c3) — 6/30/2008 @ 12:51 pm
“Oh, and for someone who asserted that he lives in Indiana, that was an especially revealing slip; to wit, the price of “your gas”, when talking about a national-level economic issue.”
“How are things in Rio these days?”
You are a lunatic. What in the hell makes any difference where I live?
And yes, it is central Indiana. Home to the GOP base crowd of living poor and voting rich.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 12:52 pm
Sayeth the newest sockpuppet…
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 12:57 pm
“You are a lunatic.”
You, sir, are an ignorant doofus. You completely missed the Gleenwald (aka “Thomas Ellers;” aka Rick Ellensberg”) reference. Are you that out of touch regarding your oft – quoted hero?
Comment by Dmac (ea35f7) — 6/30/2008 @ 1:01 pm
I was wondering how long it would take him to catch on. Jeez, he’s a dense one, isn’t he?
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 1:07 pm
Home to the GOP base crowd of living poor and voting rich.
One sentence, so very chock full o’shite that it is hard to figure out where to begin.
Comment by JD (75f5c3) — 6/30/2008 @ 1:18 pm
#86
There you go again, spewing Rethuglican Talking Points, in order to excuse and belittle instances of sexism . . .
I wasnt aware sexism was the issue here. Has anyone made that claim based on this yet? We havent gotten to that point yet.
Comment by love2008 (1b037c) — 6/30/2008 @ 1:20 pm
#93
o’shite
Racist. I denounce you JD.
Comment by love2008 (1b037c) — 6/30/2008 @ 1:25 pm
Thank you, lovie.
But denouncing me is redundant.
Comment by JD (75f5c3) — 6/30/2008 @ 1:38 pm
You are right, seeing you have already denounced yourself. #73 I denounce myself. Voldemort.
What more can I add to that?
Comment by love2008 (0c8c2c) — 6/30/2008 @ 2:06 pm
As opposed to the liberal, John Kerry crowd of living rich (while paying 15% of one’s gross income in taxes every year) and taxing the heck out of everyone else to pay for the poor?
The quick economics of “living poor and voting rich:” when a big, bad, evil corporation goes out of business, hard-working middle class people get laid off and have a hard time putting food on the table. When a big, bad, evil corporation does not run a profit, hard-working people get laid off and cannot put food on their tables.
Medical care and housing are too expensive for the working class because they are in the unfortunate position of making too much money to be the beneficiaries of government handouts. They pay for themselves and, through taxes (Medicaid, or those that go to low-income housing) for those who don’t hold down the steady jobs that they do. The people who are most able to appreciate the unearned benefits that accrue to the poor are those who earn more but live with less.
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 2:07 pm
Sweet bridget,
“As opposed to the liberal, John Kerry crowd of living rich (while paying 15% of one’s gross income in taxes every year) and taxing the heck out of everyone else to pay for the poor?”
The liberals you speak of favor middle class tax cuts. Not tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
“when a big, bad, evil corporation goes out of business, hard-working middle class people get laid off and have a hard time putting food on the table. When a big, bad, evil corporation does not run a profit, hard-working people get laid off and cannot put food on their tables.”
I don’t give a rats ass if they out of business or not. The backbone of the American economy is small businesses that are being crushed by the most expensive health care system in the world.
How the wingnuts ever got the base to believe there own well being depended on a corporation making money I don’t know. The Wellpoint CEO made 14 million last year. Please explain to me how that trickled down to lower health care costs for you and me.
“Medical care and housing are too expensive for the working class because they are in the unfortunate position of making too much money to be the beneficiaries of government handouts. They pay for themselves and, through taxes (Medicaid, or those that go to low-income housing) for those who don’t hold down the steady jobs that they do.”
And who has promised to do something about it. Something that will actually lower costs and make insurance accessible to all.
It ain’t McCain.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 2:26 pm
San Fran Nan made exactly that promise. How’s that working out for you?
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 2:35 pm
With $4.00 Gas I would hope someone would have the courage and intelligence to CHANGE their Position as McCain has done. Obama is clueless.
Comment by Dennis D (ae900a) — 6/30/2008 @ 2:52 pm
Yes harpo, your desired socialized healthcare works so well in real life for sure….rationed care, very long waits for many procedures. If it ain’t really broke why try to fix it. You saw what Americans thought of Hillary’s secret health care task force so many years ago. What makes you think that american gummint bureaucratic drones would do a better job of running a health care system than the awful job the euroweenies and Canadians are doing? Our own Congress cannot even run their own cafeteria sensibly and has farmed that out to private industry. Yes, the liberal Congress does a swell job of lowering energy costs also- only up by about 100% since they took over in that 2006 tsunami of alleged change. Tax the rich until there are no rich no more? Bush lied, people died? Bush shirked his duty during Vietnam war? Bush was arrested for DUI? His wife killed someone? Bush loves to torture innocent terrorists? Bush stole the 2000 election and USSC selected him in a partisan fashion? Bush was behind the Twin Towers collapsing and the Troofers were right? List some more administration failings for us.
Comment by madmax333 (ae788c) — 6/30/2008 @ 2:58 pm
The WaPo is the best mainstream newspaper. Of course, it is sometimes laughably leftist, but at least it tries (compare with the New York Times).
Comment by Person No. 85 (a1522a) — 6/30/2008 @ 3:35 pm
nk – Your link at 46 worked just fine for me and in fact I was looking at the same chart independently earlier. I can see exactly why (ahem) jharp is having trouble with the link.
On the other thread, jharp made the point that the dollar declined by 63% from the beginning of 2001 until today against the euro. Using the DOE data and 1/22/01 as a proxy date for the start of the Bush administration, the price of gasoline has increased by 144% in both France and the U.K., 172% in Italy and 159% in the U.S.
Now 63% is a significant part of those overall percentage changes, but hardly the stuff harpy has been boasting about. I wonder what accounts for the rest of the change in price?
Comment by daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/30/2008 @ 3:55 pm
Really… “Middle class” must be defined different outside of Econ classes…
You do realize that taxes on Big Business fund this country, right? And taxes on the richest 10%…
And if the Microsofts and Walmarts go out of business, I can promise you that MORE people won’t be able to afford healthcare.
You must not listen to yourself talk either, or else you’d know you make no sense…
Again, do you even listen to yourself talk? When has the Government run anything better, faster, cheaper than the private sector? and name me one coutry with a socialized health system that isn’t shit/turning people away/causing death?
Canada is looking into increase private sector involvement in their health system because that whole “6 months for a CT scan, 2 years for hip replacement” thing isn’t working so great.
Socializing healthcare has never improved said care anywhere. It fails constantly, even if the countries rfuse to accept it.
I can get treatment for anything in the US. The bills might bankrupt me, but I’ll live. in the UK or canada, while I won’t go broke, I’ll die from cancer because the waiting list for the CT scan was too long, and by the time they found it I was terminal…
You REALLY want that kind of system? Really? Why not just shoot yourself, and save the time and pain from dying slowly, eh?
Comment by Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/30/2008 @ 4:19 pm
Underpants Gnomes.
1. Collect underpants
2. ?
3. Profit!
Comment by h2u (81b7bd) — 6/30/2008 @ 4:19 pm
“And who has promised to do something about it. Something that will actually lower costs and make insurance accessible to all.”
I wonder how liberals convinced people that access to insurance rather than access to healthcare was the issue. Everybody has access to healthcare. Hospitals cannot turn away patients. What liberals are promoting is cost shifting. They have convinced people that somebody else should pay for their health care. That is not insurance. That is a free lunch. Harpy should know with all his fancy economic terminology:
TANSTAAFL
Somebody always pays.
Comment by daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/30/2008 @ 4:26 pm
jharp’s entire world view seems to be based on his complete ignorance of economics. The healthcare comment is perfectly illustrative.
Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 6/30/2008 @ 4:31 pm
“There you go again, spewing Rethuglican Talking Points, in order to excuse and belittle instances of sexism . . .”
Daryl – I don’t understand your point. The issue is always who has the hottest babes working in their office. When I worked on the Hill in the 1970s, Senator Kennedy won hands down.
Now Obama has some communist and radical women working in his office according to the articles I’ve read. Those types can tend toward the really skanky side, but in the spirit of bipartisanship, I’m not going to pass judgement until after the swimsuit contest.
Comment by daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/30/2008 @ 4:43 pm
Everybody has access to healthcare. Hospitals cannot turn away patients. What liberals are promoting is cost shifting. They have convinced people that somebody else should pay for their health care. That is not insurance. That is a free lunch. Harpy should know with all his fancy economic terminology:
TANSTAAFL
Somebody always pays.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/30/2008 @ 4:26 pm
I hope this subject comes up where it can be debated.
And to quote George Bush. Bring. It. On.
US health care. The most expensive in the world for the same level of care.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 5:29 pm
I gotta run so I’ll point out the nonsense quickly
Yes harpo, your desired socialized healthcare works so well
Nobody, no one, not anyone is proposing socialized medicine.
Let’s stop that now. Agreed?
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 5:32 pm
jharp, you are again showing your ignorance.
Just as an example, the British medical journal published a study comparing the British National Health Service to the HMO Kaiser Permanente. The study found that Kaiser gave its customers better service for approximately the same cost at NHS.
Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 6/30/2008 @ 5:32 pm
Yeah, that’s expensive health care. Funny how many people come to the U.S. to get that health care. As if it were pretty good or something.
But then, this debate is tendered by a poster who has issues with Baracky’s skin color. I don’t know if this is any more honest than his other trollery.
Comment by steve miller (0fb51f) — 6/30/2008 @ 5:33 pm
“When has the Government run anything better, faster, cheaper than the private sector?”
Roads, military, national parks to name a few.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 5:34 pm
Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits
The same level of care? Well, yeah, as long as you figure in that when the Canadian system can’t take care of you, they send you to the US.
What’s wrong with a 10 month wait for a spot in a maternity ward?
Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/30/2008 @ 5:35 pm
“You saw what Americans thought of Hillary’s secret health care task force so many years ago.”
No I saw what right wing republicans blocked in 94. And how did that turn out?
What makes you think that american gummint bureaucratic drones would do a better job of running a health care system than the awful job the euroweenies and Canadians are doing?
Because the government of every other industrialized country in the world does it at about half the cost of what we amercians pay for it.
Gotta run. Check around. We are paying double for the same level of are.
But Rush says it’s OK so I guess that makes it OK
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 5:39 pm
jharp, you really don’t know what you are talking about, “right wing republicans” did not kill Hillary’s healthcare plan. Democrats did.
Your continual insistence on demonstrating your ignorance of history has a certain amusement value but the joke is getting old.
Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 6/30/2008 @ 5:41 pm
jharp -
Go check out the roads on a large business compound, then check out the roads in an average city, and see if you still are going to try to claim Gov’t does it better.
Next time there’s a forest fire, go look at that national park– the compare it to, say, http://www.ohmegardens.com and try to say it’s cheaper, better, faster.
Go look at Blackwater Inc, compare to, say, the SEALs, and try to say it’s done faster, cheaper and better. (Mildly unfair, because Blackwater tends to take in the best of the former military folks, but hey.)
Gov’t isn’t used for military, roads and parks because they’re BETTER– any more than they’re used for the post office because they’re BETTER. They’re used because they’re everywhere– private things are in response to demand, with the requirement of profit.
Comment by Foxfier (15ac79) — 6/30/2008 @ 5:44 pm
SPQR, even though the Democrat Party controlled the Senate and House, the wascally Wepublicans did the head-fake and made the Democrat Party vote like Wepublicans! How powerful those Wepublicans are!
Comment by steve miller (0fb51f) — 6/30/2008 @ 5:45 pm
Let’s not forget the Post Office as the exemplar of government efficiency.
Comment by steve miller (0fb51f) — 6/30/2008 @ 5:46 pm
If America and Britain have the same level of medical care, why are British doctors spending half their time seeing private patients?
Comment by DRJ (2ccf5c) — 6/30/2008 @ 5:48 pm
DRJ, you are quoting facts. This debate is not about facts. It’s about FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELINGS.
Comment by steve miller (0fb51f) — 6/30/2008 @ 5:55 pm
No, you saw the American people’s reaction when Hillary tried it during the ’93-’94 Congress. The result was the most massive shift in power since we tossed England back over the ocean. (Contract With America wasn’t until the ’94 midterm election, two full years after Bill was elected, and “Co-President Hillary” got her ass handed to her over it.
Quick question: do you think that America’s vets are getting adequate health care? How about the elderly?
No? Those are the two subsets of our nation that already have government-run health care. And you want everyone to have the same crappy level of care and lovingkindness one finds at the DMV? Thanks, but not in this lifetime.
And until the Federal Government can run a whorehouse at a profit, they have no business touching any other part of the economy.
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 5:57 pm
On medical care:
We can expect a lower level of care than we currently give to Medicare and Medicaid patients if we were to have socialised medicine. Currently, doctors may take an economic hit on those patients, because they can make up for it with patients who have private health insurance or pay for their health care out-of-pocket.
The strength of the American health care system is its amazing panoply of technology, services, and world-class physicians. If Americans want to pay less for new technology, there will be a reduced incentive to invent. Twenty years from now, medical technology will not have advanced beyond the current state. Our pharmaceutical industry can make enough money off of American consumers to give a discounted price to the rest of the world; if we turn to socialised medicine, there is not another country like ours to take over R&D. The saying in the pharmaceutical industry is that the first pill costs $1 billion (or $800 million), and each additional pill costs $1. The costs of R&D need to be paid somehow, but Americans want the technology but not the price tag.
In America, highly educated people can go into extraordinarily lucrative fields. Medicine must compete with business, start-ups, lawyering, and accounting, among others, for top talent. We cannot get that top talent without paying doctors enough to pay back their (astronomical, unseen in other countries) student loans, and enough to make a comfortable, upper-middle class existence.
Now, government regulation has increased the cost of health care. I once broke it down state-by-state (sample of about a dozen states), and, universally, the states with the most regulation (such as Massachusetts and New York). Massachusetts, for example, requires that health care plans pay for in-vitro fertilisation. That adds a substantial cost to health care, which makes insurance unaffordable for those who would want protection against the cost of a broken leg or cancer.
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:25 pm
BMJ paper comparing the Kaiser HMO to NHS:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/324/7330/135.pdf
Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:27 pm
bridget,
“We can expect a lower level of care than we currently give to Medicare and Medicaid patients if we were to have socialised medicine.”
I stopped right here.
No one, no body, not anyone, is proposing socialized medicine.
I’d be more than happy to discuss but won’t address anything that’s opens with a HUGE untruth.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:30 pm
Cool principle, jharp. That means we can stop your trolling dead in its tracks given how often you open with falsehoods.
Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:32 pm
No one is proposing single payer? Wrong.
Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:38 pm
That means we can stop your trolling dead in its tracks given how often you open with falsehoods.
SPQR, jharp wouldn’t see truth if it were several crocodiles ripping the limbs away from his body.
Comment by Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:41 pm
Pablo, Obama is not proposing single payer but that is because he has been extraordinarily careful not to actually … you know … propose anything.
Vacuous promises.
Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:41 pm
Then what are you proposing? How will the effect of that differ functionally from socialised or single-payer medicine?
Wouldn’t any proposal to increase government interference in health care also be one that moves us towards socialised medicine? Isn’t it silly to suggest that we will only make one more change to the system, one more step away from a free, open market, and stop there?
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:42 pm
Cool principle, jharp. That means we can stop your trolling dead in its tracks given how often you open with falsehoods.
Comment by SPQR — 6/30/2008 @ 6:32 pm
Go for it. I respect that.
No one is proposing single payer? Wrong.
Comment by Pablo — 6/30/2008 @ 6:38 pm
Here I go again. No one is proposing single payer to my disappointment.
And. SINGLE PAYER, though by far the most cost effectivce, IS NOT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.
I really hope you can understand this.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:44 pm
Bullshit. What do you think “single source” or “nationalized” healthcare means?
Why do you think it got shot down so decisively in ’94?
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:45 pm
“SINGLE PAYER, though by far the most cost effectivce, IS NOT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.”
Great, jharp wants to play “no true Scotsman”. It was the last logical fallacy he’d not used to date.
Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:46 pm
Yes, it is. That “single source” is the government. Government-run medicine is the very definition of socialized medicine.
Add “facts” to the list of things harpie hasn’t got a clue about.
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:46 pm
Oh, come on, SPQR. There’s Hope! And then there’s Change! That You Can Believe In! That Will Work For You!
Isn’t that enough? What the hell do you want from the man?
/Heh.
Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:47 pm
Add “facts” to the list of things harpie hasn’t got a clue about.
Drumwaster, we saw that all weekend.
Comment by Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:47 pm
Woo-hoo! We have a full set! Can we trade them in for prizes?
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:48 pm
With Obama, it will end up “I hope I have some change left”…
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:48 pm
Precisely. And no sooner does the system get put in place than you’ve got the government telling you what care you will or will not have and where you can go to get what care they’ll allow you.
Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:49 pm
Woo-hoo! We have a full set! Can we trade them in for prizes?
Kind of like S&H Green Stamps?
Comment by Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:49 pm
“Then what are you proposing? How will the effect of that differ functionally from socialised or single-payer medicine?”
Single payer is by far the most cos effective and combined with private insurance is the system used by the best health care systems in the world.
Sorta like Medicare now. Not perfect but everyone gets care and doesn’t lose their house getting it. And supplemental private insuance to fill the gaps.
It would save about $3,500 for everyone single American per year.
Please, look around, ther are doing it as we speak.
And Canada and the UK are the worst at it so please check them all.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:50 pm
Single payer is by far the most cos effective and combined with private insurance is the system used by the best health care systems in the world.
And where would that be? What is their effective tax rate?
Comment by Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:51 pm
I’m always surprised that the people who criticise the Hyde Amendment are the same ones arguing for more government interference in medicine.
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:52 pm
Then it isn’t single payer, is it?
It’s easy to be cost effective when you’re rationing treatment. Ask Claude Castonguay.
In America, you can get all the care you want, just not for free.
Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:53 pm
Not perfect but everyone gets care and doesn’t lose their house getting it.
No, they just die in line waiting for their turn.
Comment by Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:53 pm
Dude. Seriously. You’re holding up Medicare as an example?
When I was young, my father had a serious heart attack. He survived, but we lost our house and car. Under the Canadian Medicare system, though, we would have kept the house and car and would have just had to pay the inheritance tax. — Emo Philips
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:54 pm
#
“SINGLE PAYER, though by far the most cost effectivce, IS NOT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.”
Great, jharp wants to play “no true Scotsman”. It was the last logical fallacy he’d not used to date.
Comment by SPQR — 6/30/2008 @ 6:46 pm
#
And. SINGLE PAYER, though by far the most cost effectivce, IS NOT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.
Yes, it is. That “single source” is the government. Government-run medicine is the very definition of socialized medicine.
You, gentleman. Have no idea what in the fuck you are talking about.
Single payer is not socialized medicine.
I’ll respond to your buffoonery as soon as you recognize that point.
Stupid and publishing your ignornance on Patterico is no way to go through life.
Please try the google. Our whole country will be better off.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:54 pm
Well, as I pay about $700/year for my health care, and I’ve so far paid an additional $500ish in co-pays (for a pretty scary incident), I fail to see how this applies to most people, unless the government is going to give me a $2,200 rebate.
Something like 3% of Americans use 84% of the health care dollars in a given year. If we want to cut down on health care costs, we only need to eliminate the high costs – new or experimental therapies, liver transplants (roughly $300,000 per), and end-of-life care.
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:55 pm
Correction: I fail to see how this applies to “everyone [sic] single American”.
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:56 pm
Single payer is not socialized medicine.
I’ll respond to your buffoonery as soon as you recognize that point.
Since you “know” what you are talking about, define for us “buffoons” the difference between Single payer and socialized medicine.
Comment by Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:59 pm
Then there’s the Kenyan housing system. You wanna talk cost effectiveness, there’s your huckleberry.
Well, I guess you probably want to just fuck off, then.
Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:02 pm
A much less succinct version of Paul’s statement (and, perhaps, one in which my actual identity may be important):
I’ve been very, very sick before. When a doctor discovered a lump in my breast when I was 19, I got an ultrasound within a week. Friends and family were outraged that I wasn’t able to schedule one that very day. When the tumour needed to come out, I scheduled surgery four months away – but that was to coincide with a school vacation, not because my (excellent) doctor could not fit me in earlier.
When I was 18 and had chest pain, I got a doctor’s appointment (with my PCP) within a week and an EKG and a chest X-ray the day of my appointment.
In March, my doctor was able to schedule a MRI within three days of my appointment to see her. In January of 2002, I waited less than a week for an abdominal MRI.
MGH ER, Saturday night in ’01, in for head trauma (inter alia) – got two CT scans, X-rays, blood work, and ultrasounds immediately.
(Yes, I glow in the dark.)
Anyway – we take it for granted that we can pay for immediate access to excellent medical care. I’m glad that I’ve had good insurance, and I’m thankful that I have the capacity to work to afford my co-pays. Health care is one of the great motivators for me. I want to ensure that, no matter what, I can get the best health care for myself; I don’t mind working long hours, or at a job that I don’t particularly love, so that I can afford health care. After all, health care is the single most important bill that I’ll ever have to pay. Those who do not want to pay it are making a value judgment about their own lives, and, by so doing, are holding their lives hostage to those who care about humanity.
/rant
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:06 pm
Or, we could just push those 3% off the health care rolls. It’s easy.
Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:07 pm
In Canada, people with brain tumors are waiting 6 months for an MRI. In the US, you can go get one tomorrow. Even if you’re Canadian.
Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:10 pm
Actually, it was 2,700 PRE FAMILY (not person) if I recall, and that isn’t until 2019, and that’s total savings, including government savings…
And considering the huge costs to prctices to go completely electronic with their record keeping, it would force out a large number of small practices…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:17 pm
BTW, with all of this said, the US government has done some awesome work in the health care field, work which has and will continue to change the face of medical treatment. This is one revolutionary example, and following on that, this is groundbreaking, and will move the research ball forward in a quantum leap.
Many, many, many of the modern advances in health care are American born. Our system is the best on the planet, bar none. Our level of care is the best on the planet, bar none. Unless you can’t afford it, which is what really needs addressing.
Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:26 pm
“Well, as I pay about $700/year for my health care”
That’s a remarkable deal. You must be quite young and healthy.
Do you mind if I ask who your insurer is and any other details?
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:26 pm
In March, my doctor was able to schedule a MRI within three days of my appointment to see her. In January of 2002, I waited less than a week for an abdominal MRI.
In Canada, people with brain tumors are waiting 6 months for an MRI. In the US, you can go get one tomorrow. Even if you’re Canadian.
False. Link?
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:28 pm
Do you mind if I ask who your insurer is and any other details?
Ah, ah, ah! Define for us the difference between single payer and socialized medicine.
Comment by Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:30 pm
“In Canada, people with brain tumors are waiting 6 months for an MRI. In the US, you can go get one tomorrow. Even if you’re Canadian.”
False. Link?
You’ve got some big brassy ones to demand a link, Mr. Cut-and-Paste.
Comment by Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:32 pm
That is knowledge I’ve gained from those who have experienced it firsthand, not something I learned from the internet. But about 3 seconds on that Google you speak of returned this and this and this.
To be continued…
Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:35 pm
Student health insurance. Incidentally, Anthem BCBS charges about $1,000/year for excellent health insurance, that maxes out individual contributions at $1,500/year.
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:38 pm
“And considering the huge costs to prctices to go completely electronic with their record keeping, it would force out a large number of small practices…”
False.
My very close neighbors who are both docs and my best friend, also a doc both venhemently disagree.
They are big time in favor of single payer, It would eliminate 10 to 15 employees (i’e’ reducing costs) and allow them the time to practice medicine instead of managing accounting clerks and fighting with insurers.
I’ll say it again. We are the only industrailized country in the world without some form of single payer and our health care costs are two times as high.
While 40 + million go without coverage and amny who choose not to marry but live together instead, get it for free.
Our system sucks. And the right wingers babble about socialized medicine being bad when no one, I repeat no one, is proposing such a thing.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:38 pm
Pittsburgh has more MRI Machines than Canada.
Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:40 pm
Still avoiding the question.
Color me shocked. Except, y’know, not.
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:41 pm
to be brief
socialized medicine = systems in which the government operates health care facilities and employs health care professionals.
Single-payer = the payment for doctors, hospitals and other providers of health care from a single fund.
The payer may be a governmental unit or other entity such as an insurance company. The proposed advantages include administrative simplicity for patients and providers, and resulting significant savings in overhead costs.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:42 pm
The people who write the checks run the show, jharp.
If you want to be brief, I’d suggest retracting your #159.
Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:45 pm
You still haven’t shown that there is any difference. Government-paid doctors treat patients in, government-paid administrators handle the paperwork for, and government-paid janitors mop the floors of, government-funded hospitals and clinics.
That is the very definition of socialized medicine.
Or are you attempting to argue that the government will supply the money with no attempt at control whatsoever?
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:46 pm
Drumwaster, I think he’s suggesting that eeevil corporations will still be able to run amok, just on the government dime. Better check his voter registration card.
Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:50 pm
Pablo,
Got this from your first link.
And the patient in question had previously disagnosed cancer so your link was bullshit.
“Peter Dawe of the Canadian Cancer Society says patients with confirmed cancer do not wait for MRIs.”
I’m sure the dude from the Cancer Society is a known liar.
I’ll check the other two and be back.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:50 pm
Second link had nothing to substantiate his claim.
As a matter of fact he reminded me of you.
Just pulled form thin air. “there are waiting lsts to get an MRI in Canada”
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:53 pm
And the patient in question had previously disagnosed cancer so your link was bullshit.
“Peter Dawe of the Canadian Cancer Society says patients with confirmed cancer do not wait for MRIs.”
How does one confirm a cancer case without an MRI?
Dumbass.
Comment by Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:54 pm
Second link had nothing to substantiate his claim.
As a matter of fact he reminded me of you.
Look in the miroor, Mr. Cut-and-Paste.
Comment by Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:55 pm
Third link.
I’ll quote Drumwater.
Nothing of substance here.
Two things. Why don’t you cite a real issue.
And most importantly.
YOU COMPARE US TO THE SECOND WORST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD.
There is a big world out there well past the US, Canada, and the UK that have equal care at HALF THE COST.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:58 pm
Paul,
To be very technical, you can get some cancer diagnoses in other ways. For example, ultrasounds and core needle biopsies may reveal breast cancer; then again, breast MRIs were only approved in April of 2007. You could also (tentatively) confirm advanced cancer by checking the lymph nodes, which would feel like peas.
Abdominal cancers could be tentatively diagnosed with an ultrasound. I’m not sure about bone, blood, or other cancers. Skin cancer may be found after a mole is removed and sent to a lab.
If a brain tumour is located directly behind the eye, an opthamologist can make a preliminary diagnosis. Nevertheless, you only diagnose brain cancer with MRIs (or other high-tech imaging, like CT scans). So your point holds for this particular case… and you can ignore my nit-picking.
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 7:59 pm
I made an observation. You called it false. I’ve provided 4 links to substantiate it and to explain why the situation is what it is.
There is no comparison, there’s a contrast. If you want to look at decent health care systems to compare, try Japan’s.
Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:04 pm
Third link.
I’ll quote Drumwater.
Nothing of substance here.
That’s his mockery of your allergy to facts, bucko.
Two things. Why don’t you cite a real issue.
You’ve had your ass handed to you the last three days on real issues.
And most importantly.
YOU COMPARE US TO THE SECOND WORST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD.
Oooooo! All caps! That’ll make an impression.
There is a big world out there well past the US, Canada, and the UK that have equal care at HALF THE COST.
FALSE. LINK?
Comment by Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:04 pm
Link?
Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:04 pm
#
There is a big world out there well past the US, Canada, and the UK that have equal care at HALF THE COST.
FALSE. LINK?
Comment by Paul — 6/30/2008 @ 8:04 pm
#
There is a big world out there well past the US, Canada, and the UK that have equal care at HALF THE COST.
Link?
Comment by Pablo — 6/30/2008 @ 8:04 pm
I’ll get to it. A few family issues tonight. Two teenagers.
I just wanted to say as much as I could as I’m well versed in the issues. Not saying I’m always right but our system sucks bad.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:11 pm
I’ll get to it.
Translation: I’ve got nothing but what’s in my imagination.
Comment by Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:13 pm
Anybody else here notice that jharp completely ignored the counterpoints made in #168 and #169?
Comment by Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:16 pm
Then they are quite mistaken, and in the VAST minority…
You can say it as often as you like, bubba, but if tht IS the case, then why is it they all come here for the emergency stuff they have to wait ages for back home?
Strawman. Anyone in the US can go get medical care. At any time. you have to pay for it, but you get it right away. in the UK, where you don’t pay, you have to wait, and in Canada, they make you leave the country… We treat illegals with the same equipment and care as anyone else gets…
No, our system is actually the best, the most inovative, and while it does cost more, you do, on occation, have to pay for quality.
And how do you think the Government will pay for this single-pay stuff? You think there won’t be tax increases? How about us without health care that don’t WANT coverage? For me, right now, it isn’t needed. Why should *I* pay for YOU to get coverage? I pay for enough of yur crap already…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:17 pm
Yeah. It’s the worst system on the planet, except for all of the other ones.
I’d dig up a link for that, but..you know…stuff to do. People. Buffoonery. Etc…
Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:18 pm
I’ll get to it.
Translation: I’ve got nothing but what’s in my imagination.
Comment by Paul — 6/30/2008 @ 8:13 pm
Hey Paul. How about you go fuck yourself.
Just kidding.
And the biggest piss off of all for me is whenever there is a call for reform we’ve got Rush Limbaugh and the dittoheads calling it socialized medicine.
I promise I’ll post some details asap.
Might get to it tonight but I have teen issues and tomorrow is a golf day day.
But trust me I’ll be back with oyu. And it’d be great for patterico to make a post about it.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:19 pm
While perhaps it isn’t the most accurate of terms, it s accurate enough.
Anything that places the power to ration care (and if you don’t think there would be rationing of care, please tell me so I can prep the econ lesson) in the hands of the goverment is not only counter to the spirit of America (freedom), but dangerous…
The power to ration a thing is the power to control a thing, and if the Govt controls access to healthcare, who would dare stand up against it?
Comment by Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:27 pm
Hey Paul. How about you go fuck yourself.
Just kidding.
And the biggest piss off of all for me is whenever there is a call for reform we’ve got Rush Limbaugh and the dittoheads calling it socialized medicine.
I promise I’ll post some details asap.
Dude, you’ve been arguing about this for six hours. That’s why I called you on it.
Comment by Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:28 pm
I suspect the harpster is, you know, making things up.
Comment by steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/30/2008 @ 8:38 pm
“Anything that places the power to ration care (and if you don’t think there would be rationing of care, please tell me so I can prep the econ lesson) in the hands of the goverment is not only counter to the spirit of America (freedom), but dangerous…”
Please read up on the other health care systems in the world. As I had said befor the best systems are a combination of single payer and private insurance.
Rationing is not part of it any more than rationing is part of it today.
Are you a dittohead?
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:00 pm
Whoever is keeping the list, add “economics”…
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:03 pm
Start with this. It’s a pdf so I couldn’t copy the key parts.
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:05 pm
Betcha not being able to cut-and-paste large tracts of print you don’t understand left you feeling incomplete, huh?
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:09 pm
When you have two people paying, that isn’t single-payer.
I know, it[s a rough concept.
See, here’s where rationing comes in. I’ll go slow.
Lets say, for example, that with the equipment that we have, we can do 1 million CT scans a year.
Now, no one pays for them, so why not get checked for cancer at the first sign – Doctors find 1.3 million people in the US that might have cancer and need CT scans to make sure.
Well, 1.3 is more than 1, so 300,000 people dont get a CT scan that year. And next year, assuming the same numbers, we now have 600,000 people who haven’t gotten CT scans they need (assuming that the 300k people who didn’t get one LAST year start at the top of the list THIS year).
That is rationing, and it’s what is killing the UK and Canadian systems… And every other system.
When price is zero, demand is virtually unlimited, and sadly supply is fixed (or fairly inflexible).
Get it?
Comment by Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:10 pm
There was a sci-fi story back in the 50s about the availability of “free” auto insurance, and how it destroyed the market for insurance, auto repairs – and autos.
I suspect that story might have some bearing here. As Scott points out (but economics merely predicts), reducing the price to zero creates a demand far in excess of supply for nearly any commodity.
The result isn’t more supply; the result isn’t even rough parity. The result is nearly no supply.
Remember price controls of the 70s? How well did that work to reduce demand? Oh, wait, it didn’t reduce demand, it merely reduced supply. It’s like economics doesn’t obey the voice of the Obamessiah.
Adam Smith beats a Chicago politician every day, hands down.
Comment by steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:32 pm
Maybe the harpster can tear himself away from his golf game long enough to produce some original thought & not merely something copied from an echo chamber for the Obamessiah. Who will, I predict, abandon every left-wing statement he made during the primaries in order to be elected – and those same promises, which were used as proof why we should vote for him in the primaries, will be abandoned by his cult with no shame at all.
Comment by steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:34 pm
When you have two people paying, that isn’t single-payer.
I know, it[s a rough concept.
For you it seems to be.
Either you are trying to be cute or are quite the dimwitted one.
We have exactly the same system in place today with Medicare and supplemental insurance.
It’s a basic insurance that you don’t need to lose your life savings and your house via a catastrophy.
See, here’s where rationing comes in. I’ll go slow.
Lets say, for example, that with the equipment that we have, we can do 1 million CT scans a year.
Now, no one pays for them, so why not get checked for cancer at the first sign – Doctors find 1.3 million people in the US that might have cancer and need CT scans to make sure.
Well, 1.3 is more than 1, so 300,000 people dont get a CT scan that year. And next year, assuming the same numbers, we now have 600,000 people who haven’t gotten CT scans they need (assuming that the 300k people who didn’t get one LAST year start at the top of the list THIS year).
That is rationing, and it’s what is killing the UK and Canadian systems… And every other system.
We have rationing today as we speak. The differnce in a single payer is the doctors make the decisions. Not the insurers who have a fudicciary duty to make profits. If we are unhappy with the results from the insurers we have no say. With our elected government we have say. We vote them out of office.
When price is zero, demand is virtually unlimited, and sadly supply is fixed (or fairly inflexible).
No. The doctors make the decisions. Not aan insurer who has a duty to maximize wealth to the shareholders.
“Get it?”
Yeah, I get it. We have the most expensive health care system in the world by double. And get the same quality care or less.
It is you that doesn’t get it.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:36 pm
Since Medicare is single payer health care, and we also have private insurance plans in place for anyone who wants to pay for it, this means that harpster actually thinks that the US is “the best system”!
Either that, or he hasn’t got a clue about that which he blathers…
Any takers?
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:39 pm
Demonstrably false. There has already been evidence presented that a private HMO provides the same level of care as the NHS, and for the same price.
You are deliberately ignoring the facts again.
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:40 pm
So the way to avoid losing the argument is to avoid the argument entirely.
I’ll have to remember that next time I lose an argument. “I don’t care about your facts. My feelings are that I’m right.”
Comment by steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:42 pm
And the patient goes onto a list that actually obeys the laws of supply and demand, which don’t get repealed by government action.
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:43 pm
“There was a sci-fi story back in the 50s about the availability of “free” auto insurance, and how it destroyed the market for insurance, auto repairs – and autos.
I suspect that story might have some bearing here.”
Now you’re talking. Good one.
Lets’ base our nations health care system on a 50′s sci-fi story.
Nice solid thinking.
Or why don’t you call Rush limbaugh and let’s let him set policy.
God help us. We are so fucked with nitwits like you running around.
Comment by jharp (9b1a32) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:43 pm
Harper needs to learn how to use the quote button…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:43 pm
Yow know, harpster, you’re right. Why base it on a 50s sci-fi story. That has absolutely no relevance.
Let’s just base it upon what we see in reality. Canada. Britain. France. Russia. (Remember the 10s of thousands of elderly dead because no one thought to take care of them during a heat wave? We get headlines in America if a few hundred die in a heat wave.)
Yep, don’t use a story to think through a problem – that would be wrong. Instead, use magic thinking! That’s the Democrat Party in a nutshell. “Adam Smith is dead, so we don’t have to think about what he said. Dead people’s thoughts are irrelevant.”
I’m sure you carry that philosophy into all your thinking and behaviours.
Comment by steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:49 pm
Canada – health care so good, people are dying to use it.
Comment by steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:50 pm
At least you can sue an insurance carrier, or pay out of pocket. This little thing called sovereign immunity would prevent suits against the government, and they may set up a system that (de jure or de facto) prohibits people from seeking private care.
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:04 pm
Ahh..nothing like a tug at my liberal heart strings..using litigation as a check on corporate misdeeds. Love that.
Comment by TLove (4a03a6) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:08 pm
“Stupid and publishing your ignornance on Patterico is no way to go through life.”
jharp – When are you planning on leaving, because thatis exactly how you have spent the past four days.
Comment by daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:10 pm
Oh god… A trial lawyer??
Comment by Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:11 pm
Scott #208. There are worse things.
Somewhere.
Comment by steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:12 pm
who, me? I am an angel.
Comment by TLove (4a03a6) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:13 pm
An angel?
Dear, your halo is tilting… and slightly tarnished…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:15 pm
heh heh heh…lawyers can be angels too.
Comment by TLove (4a03a6) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:17 pm
Huh?
No, I’m not a trial lawyer… but that is irrelevant, as the lovely, Atari-owning, nerd-joke-getting TLove is about to steal Scott Jacobs’ heart. Say your final good-byes, because you’re not getting it back for a long, long time.
Incidentally, why does Patterico not have an “awwwww” html tag?
As for the liberal nature of my argument against socialised medicine: it does no good to make conservative arguments to liberals, who don’t accept the premises. I would rather make arguments that have some gut-level appeal to my opponents.
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:19 pm
You wish.
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:20 pm
nah, Scott is firmly in the Bridget camp.
Comment by TLove (4a03a6) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:22 pm
Aren’t you supposed to be joining us in a chat room?
Comment by Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:23 pm
“They are big time in favor of single payer, It would eliminate 10 to 15 employees (i’e’ reducing costs) and allow them the time to practice medicine instead of managing accounting clerks and fighting with insurers.”
jharp – Your neighbors are delusional. You obvioussly have not read very much on this subject. I suggest you stop your buffoonery.
Comment by daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:25 pm
#215
I can be persuaded… Bridget merely toys with my heart…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:25 pm
Hey, here’s another way that Obamessiah is oh-so-much better than McCain:
Grim proving ground for Obama’s housing policy
Just think: Obamessiah could do for medical care what he’s done for housing in Chicago!
Comment by steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:25 pm
Nah, TLove – I’m always the girl that gets chucked for someone else within about a nanosecond.
Scott Jacobs – is that why you’ve finally posted a link to your blog? Chat info? I wouldn’t want to interrupt anything… or be the fifth (third?) wheel. Y’all can discuss your Monty Python wedding music without a chaperone, I’m sure.
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:27 pm
Have you been talking to Alan, who has lodged the same complaint?
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:28 pm
Awwww. Now I feel bad.
Comment by TLove (4a03a6) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:29 pm
Comment by Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:29 pm
That’s ridiculous and a waste of energy.
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:34 pm
For you to feel bad, she’d have had to be interested…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:37 pm
<ijharp – Your neighbors are delusional. You obvioussly have not read very much on this subject. I suggest you stop your buffoonery.
Comment by daleyrocks
Come on, he thinks Gov’t roads are the best around.
Of course he’s delusional.
Comment by Foxfier (15ac79) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:37 pm
Duuuuude, where’s my italics……
Comment by Foxfier (15ac79) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:37 pm
Come on, he thinks Gov’t roads are the best around.
Of course he’s delusional.
Comment by Foxfier — 6/30/2008 @ 10:37 pm
So next time you have to take a 500 mile trip just get on your private roads and enjoy.
Think about it. No speed limits. You can drink all you want.
No license. No License plates. Unsafe vehicle? no problem.
Comment by jharp (1e383d) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:52 pm
So “government monopoly” = “good”?
And the private part of the 91 freeway was one of the best-kept roads in the State.
Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:59 pm
Drumwaster beat me to it: California has experimented, quite successfully, with private roads.
Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:02 pm
jharp -
I notice you are ignoring the PRIOR reply to your comment, where I point out the Gov’t is used because it’s all over, not because it’s *better.*
Baka.
Comment by Foxfier (15ac79) — 6/30/2008 @ 11:19 pm
So “government monopoly” = “good”?
In the case of roads, yes.
“And the private part of the 91 freeway was one of the best-kept roads in the State.”
So friggin what? Would rather be able to, you know, get places, or have “one of best kept roads” in the State. Is it safe to assume the other “best kept roads” are maintained by the government.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 10:59 pm
#
Drumwaster beat me to it: California has experimented, quite successfully, with private roads.
Comment by bridget — 6/30/2008 @ 11:02 pm
#
jharp -
I notice you are ignoring the PRIOR reply to your comment, where I point out the Gov’t is used because it’s all over, not because it’s *better.*
Baka.
Being “all over” is kind of important criteria to judge which road system is better.
I don’t know about you but I generally use the roads to you know, get places.
Comment by jharp (1e383d) — 7/1/2008 @ 7:30 am
Strike #232 as nonresponsive.
Comment by daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 7/1/2008 @ 7:36 am
Then:
“When has the Government run anything better, faster, cheaper than the private sector?”
Roads, military, national parks to name a few.
Comment by jharp — 6/30/2008 @ 5:34 pm
Now
Being “all over” is kind of important criteria to judge which road system is better.
I don’t know about you but I generally use the roads to you know, get places.
Comment by jharp — 7/1/2008 @ 7:30 am
But, you know, what about the quality of the trip, the cost of the road and the speed the road is built?
Please, I’m waiting for you to back up your assertions!
Comment by Foxfier (15ac79) — 7/1/2008 @ 9:34 am