Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Why Isn’t the Angry Left Angry Now?

Why Isn’t the Angry Left Angry Now?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

During the Bush years it was obvious that a lot of people on the political left were very, very angry. They were angry about the war, angry about heightened security, angry about domestic surveillance, angry about torture, angry about corporate handouts, angry about cronyism, angry about no-bid contracts — they had plenty to be angry about, and in some cases their anger was even justified. But now, just a few years later we still have a war, we still have heightened security and domestic surveillance, we have even more cronyism, corporate handouts and inside deals going on, but no one on the left seems to be angry about any of it anymore. Did they suddenly come around, or was all that anger just partisan posturing?

 

A good example of this is the health care legislation currently being considered in Congress in its latest incarnation as the Baucus Bill — called that because no one else was willing to stand up and put their name on it. The left enthusiastically supports this legislation in the hope that it will lead to socialized medicine, despite the fact that as written it does more to subsidize the insurance companies and give them more power to mismanage health care and our lives than they could ever have in a free market. The bill was essentially written by and for health care special interests to give them a big, fat payoff to keep them from actively opposing more meaningful reform.

An impassioned leftist I know who is often rational on other subjects, recently commented in outrage:

"The main concern from the right is the welfare of medical insurers about whom I don't give a rat's ass. If they all closed their doors, I would rejoice. Control of virtually everything in this country has been given over to insurance companies – medical insurers included. How anyone could prefer to have some functionary at an insurance company or HMO making their health decisions based on the company's bottom line and perhaps earning a nice bonus come Christmas time for meeting denial quotas is a mystery to me."

Apparently he expected me to disagree because I oppose Obamacare, yet I agree wholeheartedly with most of his statement. The bureaucratization of health care in the hands of monopolistic health care and insurance companies is at the heart of the need for reform. He sees this problem clearly, which raises the question of why he is incapable of understanding that exactly the things he complains of about the current system will be institutionalized and made more comprehensive with greater government control and that the health care proposals which seem likely to pass do more to empower the insurance companies and their bean counters than they do to return choice and control to health care consumers.

The truth is that opposition to this bill from the right is not inspired by or supported by the insurance industry, despite all of the accusations. It comes primarily from grassroots consumer groups  and individuals who are as concerned about monopolies and corporate greed as they are about the inefficiency and corruption of government managed programs like Medicare and Medicaid. They realize that the source of the monopolization which unbalances and ultimately destroys free markets is almost always government regulation and government's desire to interfere with certain key industries and make the way that they operate more like government itself. The health care and insurance industries have been so heavily regulated on a state and federal level that they have ceased to exist in anything resembling a free market; market forces have been replaced with government mandates and bureaucratic procedures which they have been forced to rely on instead of good business practices because so much of their revenue is dependent on government authorization or direct payment from the government.

The core problem with the health care bill which ought to be enraging the left, but which they seem incapable of seeing, is the idea of mandated insurance, which has been in every version of the bill proposed because it is actively supported by President Obama. This mandate forces as many as 40 million people who are uninsured by choice to purchase health insurance which they can barely afford from private insurance companies under terms dictated by the government. Private insurers aren't opposing this, they're quietly cheering for it in the background and their allies in Big Pharma and their bought-and-paid-for shills in the American Medical Association are right there with them. These mandates will take more than $200 billion a year out of the pockets of the middle class and working poor and hand it with a bow on it directly to a small group of insurance companies who would rather work with government for a sure profit than operate in a free market which demands efficiency and quality service.

This takes choice and control away from consumers, makes the insurance companies answerable to the government instead of their customers, and will lead to less efficiency and even lower quality care, because the demands of government which has the deep pockets of deficits and raising taxes will never be as onerous for those companies as servicing the demands of customers in a free market would be.

This is a continuation of the process  which got us intothe current mess in the first place.  Consumers went to their state legislators and demanded that insurance companies cover liposuction and hair implants and prohibitively expensive procedures and the legislators responded by passing laws defining what insurance companies had to cover in their states.  Faced with lowered profits as a result, insurance companies either raised their rates to cover the cost or got out of the market in that state, with the result that consumers ended up paying more and having fewer choices.  And the more mandates the legislators added over the years, the more expensive insurance became and the fewer companies were willing to do business in that state.  As the number of companies in a state became smaller, those who remained could get away with charging more because they had a captive market and consumers couldn't go somewhere else to get cheaper coverage with fewer bells and whistles.  That's how we end up with insurance in one state costing three times what it does in a neighboring state where there is more competition.

Competition always brings prices down.  Excessive regulation always leads to a reduction in competition and the creation of monopolies.  Monopolies always charge as much as they can for as little service as they can, because their customers have no other options.  In this specific situation the only alternative for many people has been to go without insurance and take their chances.  The problem with the current health care plan is that it will take even that unattractive option away from people and use the coercive power of government to force them to pay for insurance they can't really afford at a price which is much higher than it would be in a free market.

Some argue that a "public option" plan from the government will create the equivalent of competition, but in reality there's no difference between an insurance company working hand in hand with the government and a plan actually run by the government.  The public plan will be tailored to keep the monopolies in business and the monopolies will adapt to be just like the public plan, so once again choice and control will be taken away from the consumer.

This is the government putting its stamp of approval on the monopolistic insurance industry the same way that the British crown gave an exclusive license to the British East India Company to sell tea in the American colonies, subsidizing the debts of the Company on the backs of American consumers.  Then as now, this  unholy marriage of government and business adds up to tyranny.

Yet those on the left who rail against Starbucks and their "corporate coffee" and the corrupt bargains between Halliburton and the military or between the Bush administration and Big Oil, seem unable to see that this health care bill is doing exactly the same thing.  It is a two trillion dollar bailout of one of the most corrupt and abusive industries in America, authorized by politicians who have for years been their partners in creating monopolies and exploiting and abusing the American people.

I won't even bother to explain (this time) how free trade and the lifting of regulation would reduce prices and improve service.  My friends on the left certainly don't want to hear that.  But if any of them are still reading this, maybe they'll stop and ask themselves why they support a bill which gives more money and more power and the direct support of government to the very same companies whose practices they have been calling an outrage for years and whose practices  created the health care crisis.  How on earth does that make any sense?  How can you support health care reform which reforms nothing and actually repeats and expands on the mistakes of the past? Why aren't you angry now? Why aren't you marching in the streets?

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • http://mizbviewsfromthetower.blogspot.com Jeanne Browne

    Dave, I agree with some although not all of what you say, and your question is a legitimate and important one.

    My core disagreement is with the idea that The Market is the solution to almost any problem and that government involvement in nearly anything is, by nature, a bad idea.

    However, I agree with you wholeheartedly when it comes to your central question: Why isn’t the Left more angry? I’m a Leftie and I’m royally pissed off — but it’s become very difficult to explain what we’re angry about and get that message across.

    For example, I have no problem with the concept of “socialized medicine” as the Right defines it. But I have a HUGE problem with all of the actual legislation put forth to date. That original 1,000-page thing was a complete mess that almost nobody could read and even fewer understood. And this new Baucus bill is an outrage in the way it panders to the insurance companies and their related special interests.

    Just today, I received a survey from Organizing for America/the DNC. The questions ask us to rate the President’s “performance” on health care reform, energy policy, foreign policy. etc., and the answer options range from “excellent” to “undecided.”

    I’m not sure what to do with this survey, because it’s asking the wrong questions and providing a selection of inadequate answers. What this survey doesn’t allow us to express is that we approve overall of the President’s “performance”: his cool under pressure, his direct and ongoing communication with the media and the people, his willingness to move forward with difficult initiatives, his consistent civility and sincere efforts to achieve bipartisan cooperation, and many such aspects of manner, approach and leadership.

    But I disagree, strongly, with many of his specific policies. I think we should be getting out of Iraq faster and more forcefully. I think we should get out of Afghanistan immediately and entirely; we can do no good there. I think the climate change bill was a useless joke. I think health care reform should be handled in stages, starting with the things that basically everyone can live with (no denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions, no dumping sick people from their plans because they actually got sick, no punishment via increased premiums for employers or individuals who use the plans, a must for coverage of preventive care — things like that).

    Personally, I wish the President had just put forth a Medicare For All plan and demonstrated how Medicare would be cleaned up, cleaned out and streamlined to do the job well. I wish he’d put the useless, predatory, middle-men-insurance companies out of business and let health care be a direct matter between health care providers and patients. I do not believe that health should be a profit-making industry.

    In general, I wish the President were more Left than Centrist, that he was not maintaining/repeating some of the worst aspects of the Bush administration. I wish he hadn’t agreed to the original bailout before he was elected and that he hadn’t compounded that act with further bailouts. I wish he’d give up on bipartisanship and just use the power he and the Congress have to put forth a new agenda. In short, I wish he’d do all the things that would probably make your head explode.

    But my comrades on the so-called Left are tired, and they’re confused. They want to be supportive of a President they admire, even though they’re definitely unhappy with the specifics of many policies. And while he’s being so vehemently attacked by the Right, they don’t want to create a demoralizing climate by attacking him from the other side. Besides — and this is most important — the nuanced objections of the Left are hard to condense on demonstration placards and 30-second media sound bites.

    President Obama has been at the helm for a mere nine months. But because we live in a high-tech age where his every move is noted in real time, he has a thankless task. How can anyone lead in a 24-hour news cycle? And in a media environment with a blood-thirst for controversy, how do supporters voice their concerns without being portrayed as disloyal?

    It’s all very complicated and there are no easy answers to any of today’s difficult and very legitimate questions — including yours.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Amid the customary distortions, fact-twisting, and carefully masked half-truths, all very typical of Mr. Nalle’s propaganda, is this gem:

    Excessive regulation always leads to a reduction in competition and the creation of monopolies.

    Oh indeed? Do tell. Are you inventing a new economics theory imported from Planet Pluto?

    At any rate, the Baucus bill is a starting point for debate, not a finished product. There will be more subsidies and lower penalties to reduce the mandate’s burden on the middle class. The mandate could catch some folks in a dilemma, but many [liberal and moderate] senators are already making a lot of noise about that possibility and demanding changes. [This will make the bill more expensive, which may be inevitable.]

    And the largest group of people will continue to get insurance through their employer, just like now.

    The point of the much abused ‘public option’ was to compete with private insurers on price as a brake on costs. You may expect to see Olympia Snowe’s adaptation of this, a public option trigger that goes into effect only if insurers fail to meet affordability and coverage targets, in the final bill.

    The ‘giveaway’ to the insurance industry comes with a big consequence for them: it is virtually certain that ‘pre-existing conditions,’ lifetime coverage caps, and insurers dropping people when they get ‘too sick’ will all become a part of the past.

    Leftists and liberals and progressives don’t all want exactly the same thing, and we want the president to succeed; that has muted some disappointed reaction to some policies.

    And most of us find Obama a highly intelligent, highly honorable man with a very sharp set of advisers. His policies have been caricatured to an extent beyond belief. Some of the public may have bought into these caricatures, but I believe that is leveling off. Even Rasmussen now finds Obama’s favorable rating higher than his disapproval rating. The Real Clear Politics average is 52% approval and 42% disapproval, about the same for more than a month now.

    Yet as recently as this evening, Rush Limbaugh was saying on Jay Leno [!] that Obama’s numbers are ‘plummeting.’

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Excessive regulation always leads to a reduction in competition and the creation of monopolies.

    Oh indeed? Do tell. Are you inventing a new economics theory imported from Planet Pluto?

    Actually, from Planet Friedman and Planet Laffer, but I’m sure they’re as far away from you as Pluto which you still seem to think is a planet.

    At any rate, the Baucus bill is a starting point for debate, not a finished product. There will be more subsidies and lower penalties to reduce the mandate’s burden on the middle class. The mandate could catch some folks in a dilemma, but many [liberal and moderate] senators are already making a lot of noise about that possibility and demanding changes. [This will make the bill more expensive, which may be inevitable.]

    Listen. While the cost of the mandates is onerous, it is the idea of the mandate which is the problem. It is the massive subsidy to monopolistic fat cats which it creates which ought to have you up in arms. Does the charm of Obama just turn off your rational faculties altogether?

    And the largest group of people will continue to get insurance through their employer, just like now.

    Which is the other side of the coin of bad policy which no one is addressing. Forcing people into group plans through their employers is one of the things which has led to monopolization, inflated prices and poor service.

    The point of the much abused ‘public option’ was to compete with private insurers on price as a brake on costs. You may expect to see Olympia Snowe’s adaptation of this, a public option trigger that goes into effect only if insurers fail to meet affordability and coverage targets, in the final bill.

    The public option is meaningless. Insurance companies are already so tied in to government regulation that they are the public option, and they certainly will be after this goes through.

    The ‘giveaway’ to the insurance industry comes with a big consequence for them: it is virtually certain that ‘pre-existing conditions,’ lifetime coverage caps, and insurers dropping people when they get ‘too sick’ will all become a part of the past.

    Which, again, will limit choice, limit competition and raise costs. Only the insurers willing to make a set profit under the terms set by government will remain in the business, and government will set costs based on the demands of those few monopolies not on real world considerations.

    Leftists and liberals and progressives don’t all want exactly the same thing, and we want the president to succeed; that has muted some disappointed reaction to some policies.

    But what you are supporting in this case out of blind partisanship is inherently extremely illiberal and a disaster for the nation.

    And most of us find Obama a highly intelligent, highly honorable man with a very sharp set of advisers.

    Who are resigning over amateurish gaffes and issues in their background which should ahve disqualified them from any public office.

    His policies have been caricatured to an extent beyond belief.

    There is no caricaturing in this article. Obama has unequivocally suppoted and even demanded the mandates, end of story.

    Some of the public may have bought into these caricatures, but I believe that is leveling off. Even Rasmussen now finds Obama’s favorable rating higher than his disapproval rating. The Real Clear Politics average is 52% approval and 42% disapproval, about the same for more than a month now.

    Yes, Obama remains personally popular, but the popularity of his policies, especially healthcare, is dropping fast, because people who are not blinded by partisanship can see through this plan to the disaster it represents for our future.

    Yet as recently as this evening, Rush Limbaugh was saying on Jay Leno [!] that Obama’s numbers are ‘plummeting.’

    Why do you think that anything Rush Limbaugh says is relevant?

    Dave

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    None of it makes any sense, Dave. But what people want to see is insurance for those who can’t afford it. That is the bottom line. If it is insurance with plenty of issues that are distasteful or no insurance–there’s pretty much only one choice. Sort of like the presidential choices…or any other supposed ‘choice’ people have about anything.

  • Clavos

    If the only real issue is insurance for those who can’t afford it, all that has to happen is for the Medicaid threshold to be lowered to whatever point satisfies every faction and we’re done.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave’s last comment first: Regarding Limbaugh – Sadly, a huge number of people DO believe everything Limbaugh spews.

    Both handy and Jeanne have very good points.

    Dave, of course, is wrong about most of what he writes.

    As it happens, I am the supposed “deluded” lefty he chose to quote early in his piece.
    He also chose to ignore my next rebuttal. (All this happened on Facebook – BTW.)

    I pointed out that his charge that the insurance companies will make out like a hog in slop would not happen if a robust public option is included in the bill.

    He also states that the left is firmly behind the Senate version coming out from the “gang of six,” which isn’t remotely true. It is recognized by both moderates and liberals as a meaningless, watered down nothing of a bill. It only barely will serve as a starting point.

    It is unfortunate that Obama had compromised away from his campaign position, which generally supported a single payer system, so early in the game. He gave away far too much from the gitgo.

    It goes without saying that Congress would not support a single payer system even though a majority of Americans would welcome it. But, had Obama led a charge for single payer, he could have, little by little, meted out compromises that might well have culminated in the public option. This miscalculation on his part left him with few bargaining chips.

    Dave, and most conservatives are over-estimating the strength of the anti-Obama movement. It has been loud, and rude thereby garnering a lot of press. But it’s core backing and financing comes primarily from Dick Armey’s Freedom Works working in tandem with pharma and many of the insurance companies who together have fed the flames of most of these tea parties and the disruptions at townhall meetings AND the traveling protest gatherings.

    Sure some grassroots people have jumped on the bandwagon probably thinking that it was their idea. The fearmongering by the Reps and those working for and on behalf of Freedom Works has succeeded in galvanizing many who were on the right and have hated the left and, in particular, Obama for a variety of reasons. People tend to forget that the right lost last November by a rather large margin. The shine may not be as glossy now as then, but there still remains a majority of people who are behind Obama. They just haven’t been as loud as the anti-Obama throng.

    The most articulate spokesman from the left is New York Congressman Anthony Weiner. He is an ardent supporter of a single payer system, but is also pragmatic enough to know that that is a remote – virtually non-existent – possibility at this juncture.

    I don’t agree that the health care legislation should have been approached piecemeal. That would have far too many repeated opportunities for opponents to throw a wrench in the entire effort. I say – all or nothing.

    I personally think that Republicans – other than perhaps, Olympia Snowe – are irrelevant and should be completely shut out of the health care reform effort. They clearly want none of it.

    The real trouble comes from the damn Blue Dogs, who, frankly are essentially Republicans in sheep’s clothing. Indiana’s Evan Bayh is one of them. It was noted last Sunday on one of the talking head shows that it’s possible Richard Lugar would be more likely to support health care reform than Bayh.

    I’d love to see the Dems succeed in enticing Lugar into their camp for health reform. That’d be great.

    B

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Oh, one more thing I take issue with is Dave’s repeated notion that 30 million people are uninsured in this country “by choice.” That is rot. His numbers don’t hold up to any scrutiny. The great majority of the uninsured in this country WANT health insurance, but for a variety of reasons cannot afford it. In the event they need care, their only alternatives are to either go into debt or depend on emergency rooms which are mandated to provide care to all, the cost of which winds up being borne either by the government or in the form of higher premiums for everyone else. The insurance companies absorb little or nothing. Anything that could diminish their bottom line is passed onto their policy holders – not their stock holders.

    B

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dave, and most conservatives are over-estimating the strength of the anti-Obama movement. It has been loud, and rude thereby garnering a lot of press.

    There’s really nothing about this in the article we’re discussing.

    But it’s core backing and financing comes primarily from Dick Armey’s Freedom Works working in tandem with pharma and many of the insurance companies who together have fed the flames of most of these tea parties and the disruptions at townhall meetings AND the traveling protest gatherings.

    This is just pure and utter bullshit, taken from Democratic Party talking points which bear little or no relation to reality. FreedomWorks is playing almost no role at all in the protests, except to claim credit they don’t deserve and issue a lot of press releases to make themselves look good. As for Pharma and insurance companies, even less of a role because they are all on Obama’s side.

    Incrasingly the protesters include people like the 60,000 doctors who have quit the AMA because of its support for the health care bill and many other health care workers who believe they will not be able to do their jobs and serve their patients if this bill goes through.

    Sure some grassroots people have jumped on the bandwagon probably thinking that it was their idea.

    The grassroots people were there first and dominate the protests. Why do you think you can get away with lying about this to people who know better?

    The great majority of the uninsured in this country WANT health insurance, but for a variety of reasons cannot afford it.

    Those reasons are outlined in this article. As the article says clearly, they face the choice between overpriced monopolized health insurance and no insurance at all and they DO choose the latter.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    The insurance companies absorb little or nothing. Anything that could diminish their bottom line is passed onto their policy holders – not their stock holders.

    This is because the absence of competition and the protection of a government facilitated monopoly takes away any incentive to provide good customer service or any service at all to marginal customers when they can focus on the most profitable. Open up real competition and companies will find ways to serve higher risk customers.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Oh, and sorry for not quoting your addendum, but it came in after the article was submitted and Clavos has had it locked until now. I’ll see if I can work it in somehow.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    The left isn’t angry now because they’re a plethora of pathetic, patronizing hypocrites(if anyone knows a synonym for hypocrites that starts with p please let me know…i find alliterations so entertaining)

    The left spent the last two months demonizing those at the town halls who raised their voices in the presence of Democrat congressmen/women but now we have the left wing loons at the g20 throwing rocks at property and police and generally causing a threat to public safety but the left isn’t saying shit. No long winded rants from Olbermann or Maddow……

    No…….. granny tearing up her aarp card because she doesn’t buy into Obamacare is much more of a threat than some 20 year old masked punk chucking rocks at the heads of Pittsburgh’s finest.

    Although I am angry that we currently have a man destined to be one of the worst presidents in history I, [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor], (you know who you are) can at least attempt to be objective.

    Here are three things I think Obama has gotten right since taking office. They will probably be the only three in his four years.

    1. He gave the OK to take out the Somali pirates. It took him longer than it should have but he made the right calla nd captian whatever his name is alive because of it. Kudos Barry!

    2. Calling Kanye West a jackass. Who could argue with this one?

    3. The last is definitely the most significant. It is obama’s hesitancy to send more troops to Afghanistan. Sadly I believe the GOP is playing politics with Afghanistan and not approaching the situation objectively. It is a lost cause if we continue to fight in Afghanistan with the idea that somehow we can make the place anything other than what it was destined to be for all time, a mountainous 10th century shithole full of ungrateful, helpless, cavemen. It is not worth any more American blood or money. If Obama’s intent is to withdraw the troops or scale back to some type of covert intel operation then I cannot help but commend him because I believe that would be the right thing to do in Afghnistan. It’s very sad that the Dems played politics with Iraq and the GOP is now using Afghanistan as a political football.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I must say that I like the fact that Facebook is letting me know the names of a lot of you that have been hiding for years behind these silly screen names…

    And I still don’t hear or see anyone talking about the number one cost to doctors…their own malpractice insurance. As long as you leave the lawyers alone the price of health care will never go down. Think about it, average insurance cost for an OB/GYN is $200K a year! That’s almost $4 grand a month!

    Whose pockets are the those trial lawyers in? Come on liberals…you know the answer…you can say it…come on…wanna hint? Starts with a D…

    I honestly thought you were smarter than that…damn!

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle


    No…….. granny tearing up her aarp card because she doesn’t buy into Obamacare is much more of a threat than some 20 year old masked punk chucking rocks at the heads of Pittsburgh’s finest.

    Actually, I’d argue that they’re right about this. Tens of thousands of grannies tearing up their AARP cards are a much more significant and effective form of protest than some braindead anarchists throwing rocks at the police. The angry grannies vote and have money to spend, so they have real influence beyond just posting a video of police in riot gear dragging your dreadlocked boyfriend off for a night in jail.

    Dave

  • Mark

    Beware of Anarchist Grannies…and Aunties! Shouldn’t be allowed to handle those cards with their sharp edges anyway.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    11- Arch

    phonies, pretenders, or posers

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    the left wing loons at the g20 throwing rocks at property and police and generally causing a threat to public safety

    Ah, Pittsburgh. I was sorry I couldn’t make it. It’s so close and yet so far.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    G20 is a trending topic on twitter. (like that alliteration Arch?) I will at least be able to participate (in some modest way) from home. (I’m not much of a rock-thrower anyway.)

  • Clavos

    One more time: enroll everyone who doesn’t have and really can’t afford health insurance in Medicaid. Leave the 20-somethings who choose not to have insurance and the rest of us happy with what we’ve got, the hell alone.

    The only really viable argument for “reform” is the people (whatever their number) who don’t have and do want insurance.

    All the rest is pure bullshit.

    Note to Andy: I have brought up the issue of tort reform a number of times in the past, but it’s a sacred cow to the dems because they get the majority of their funds (both at individual and party levels) from the trial scumbags, er, lawyers, and their lobbyists.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    After these 3 or so years that I’ve been posting and commenting here, I don’t know how or why I forget what a right-wing haven BC is. You guys love nothing so much as stroking each other’s – uh – egos.

    You sit upon your high chairs banging your spoons in protest and pontificating from your self-serving and limited perspective while truly understanding virtually nothing.

    I haven’t the time to make a point by point rebuttal of all the garbage (spoken with a soft “g” to give it some class which it sorely needs.) spewed above. I will note, however, that Freedom Works has provided the money and the venues for most of the protests, but has actually charged other, lesser groups thousands of dollars to participate.

    Pharma in particular is NOT on board with Obama and the insurers and HMO’s are only willing participants as long as the public option is off the table. They are ready and willing to pick up their toys and go home if it winds up in the final bill.

    I live at the home of Eli Lilly and their public position is wholly against the reforms. If they are negotiating privately in any other direction, it would be news to most everyone here.

    B

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baritone –

    Don’t you know that Dave has stated that BC has a reputation as a ‘left-leaning website’?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    You know why most of the left isn’t enraged?

    Because we know that this is merely a first step, a foot in the door, the first pebble giving way on that slippery slope to forcing all of that Last Bastion of Corporate Personhood – the United States of America – to join the Socialists of the Dark Side in the Land of Socialized Medicine: MorCare!

    Really, Dave – you’ve got to Learn How to Stop Worrying and Love the Obama!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Like your post, B-man. The Reps don’t want to have anything to do with it. So they may as well be left out of the debate. And I think you’re also right about the Blue Dogs: they’re nothing but “Dinos,” to use Limbaugh’s terminology.

    I agree with Jeannie, however. This bill doesn’t go far enough. There’s already been too much compromise. The only good thing about it, if it passes, it’s the first step – like breaking the barrier.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Re: Clavos, #18:

    Your simplistic solution has a few holes in it:

    The fact that medical costs have been rising at several times the price of inflation.

    The resulting increase in premiums is pricing more and more employers and individuals out of the health insurance market.

    Pre-existing conditions and other disgusting insurance practices

    People who face personal bankruptcy because of medical bills; they often have insurance, just not enough when the bills get very high

    20-somethings who don’t want to buy insurance…until they get in an auto accident or come down with leukemia or AIDS or diabetes

    The latter group should at least be required to buy catastrophic insurance. But the reason for the larger mandate is to enlarge the risk pool — not because the government craves more power over you.

    And regarding tort reform: David Leonhardt, the excellent NY Times economics columnist covered it earlier this week. His conclusion: doctors do prescribe unnecessary treatments to cover their asses, but it amounts to $30 billion a year or less, not insignificant, but not the primary cost driver either.

    And…only 3-5% of significant errors result in malpractice suits. The actual costs of lawsuits and damage awards amount to a rounding error in the universe of total healthcare spending.

  • Clavos

    The fact that medical costs have been rising at several times the price of inflation.

    Due in large part to the increasing sophistication and scope of modern medical care, an increase which will not be ameliorated by the government paying for and regulating health care, unless we’re willing to settle for less of it. Due also to the costs of defensive medicine which increase as above.

    Pre-existing conditions and other disgusting insurance practices

    Medicaid doesn’t do that, and the private insurers have already agreed to stop it in exchange for continuing to be able to sell private insurance — now a non-issue.

    People who face personal bankruptcy because of medical bills; they often have insurance, just not enough when the bills get very high.

    Give Medicaid (and I DO mean give — no charge) to supplement their inadequate private insurance, if the inadequacy is due to their inability to pay the premiums for a good policy.

    20-somethings who don’t want to buy insurance…until they get in an auto accident or come down with leukemia or AIDS or diabetes

    Not a factor — most don’t suffer catastrophes. I’m willing to pay the taxes to take care of those who do — we’re already doing that.

    David Leonhardt’s opinion is only one of many. Plenty of conservatives argue that the bill is higher, but accepting Mr. Leonhardt’s $30 billion figure, that’s probably enough to cover the 50 million uninsured who WANT insurance.

    And…only 3-5% of significant errors result in malpractice suits. The actual costs of lawsuits and damage awards amount to a rounding error in the universe of total health care spending.

    No argument, but the REAL cost is in the coverage (premiums) and especially in the cost of unnecessary defensive medicine.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    [Me:] Pre-existing conditions and other disgusting insurance practices

    [Clavos:] Medicaid doesn’t do that, and the private insurers have already agreed to stop it in exchange for continuing to be able to sell private insurance — now a non-issue.

    Yes, assuming the bill passes. But I was responding to your comment suggesting expanding Medicaid instead of the rest of the bill. The insurers want a tit-for-tat, more customers for fewer restrictions.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    And it remains an open question:

    How to do tort reform that doesn’t do harm. How does tort reform change ingrained habits of doctors? How do we do it without discouraging worthy lawsuits, of which there probably should be more, not less. [Or some more effective way to expose and sanction doctors/hospitals who make serious errors, without punishing the good guys.]

    Republicans cry ‘tort reform’ — but it’s not just some abstraction. There has to be a real bill written, and like all legislation [such as the Baucus bill!] there will be consequences attached, maybe not all intentional or desirable.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, perhaps malpractice should result in losing the license (rather than just in awarding pecuniary damages, against which one can always insure).

    And amount of money paid in compensation should be set at realistic levels rather than serving as a warning.

  • Clavos

    One of the main reasons I’m an advocate of tort reform is because. As it is practiced currently, the only beneficiaries are the lawyers; not the patients or their families. The lawyers’ take a minimum of 40% AFTER their “expenses” come off the top, and in some cases as much as 60%.

    It’s a disgrace that costs all of us far too much in the form of widespread unnecessary medical practices and physician insurance premiums. The tort problem also results in physicians abandoning certain specialties such as OB/GYN.

  • Clavos

    And tort reform will not happen anytime soon because the lawyers have effectively bought the Democrats off.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    And that’s one valid reason for criticizing Obamacare for not being balanced but politically-motivated.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    While I’m not much of a fan of polls, it is, I think, interesting that despite tea-bagger’s loud protestations a poll released today indicates the great majority of Americans want health care reform WITH a public option – including a majority of Republicans! I guess they are really closet delusional Obamaites, right?

    B

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Glenn (your #20)

    Oh. I guess if Dave says so, it MUST be true. :)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    While I’m not much of a fan of polls, it is, I think, interesting that despite tea-bagger’s loud protestations a poll released today indicates the great majority of Americans want health care reform WITH a public option – including a majority of Republicans! I guess they are really closet delusional Obamaites, right?

    Why would we see this as improbable, and why do you think Republicans are necessarily against a public option? Truth is, you haven’t bothered to even think about why people are opposing this bill.

    A public option competing on a fair basis with a genuine free market for private insurance wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. Or as some Republicans have suggested, opening up the free market in private insurance to restore competition and lower costs would make insurance affordable for many who don’t have it, and then those in the borderline low incomes could be covered by expanding medicaid to a higher income threshold.

    So I have to ask why these options aren’t even being considered?

    But it’s all going to be okay, because now the word is out that the current version of the bill will punish people who don’t get mandated insurance with fines of up to $250K and a year in jail. There’s a great solution.

    Dave

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    “Why would we see this as improbable, and why do you think Republicans are necessarily against a public option? Truth is, you haven’t bothered to even think about why people are opposing this bill.”

    Oh, I think I have. But you miss the point. It is Republicans and some of the Blue Dogs in Congress who are adamantly opposed to the public option. Name one Republican who supports it, especially in the Senate.

    So the point is that those who oppose the public option in Congress are not listening to or representing their constituencies. Instead, they are shamelessly allowing all this crap to float around without protest because they see it as the only means to get re-elected. But the truth may prove to be that it will ultimately turn on them and bite them squarely in the ass come 2010.

    “…now the word is out… What does that mean? Sounds pretty official. Who is proposing it? Who agrees with it? What chance would it have of passage? Sounds like more fearmongering to me.

    B

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    I don’t know if that last paragraph is intended as a joke [if so, ha ha], but it isn’t true.

    The penalty is an excise tax maxing out at a couple of thousand dollars a year. I guess if you refuse to pay the tax, you could be charged with tax evasion, but that carries a max $25,000 fine, not $250,000.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Dave’s untrue ‘word is out’ claim apparently came from the office of that great patriot, Sen John Ensign of Nevada.

    But repeat: the ‘up to a year in jail’ is the penalty for tax evasion, not for refusing to buy insurance.

  • http://www.joannehuspek.wordpress.com Joanne Huspek

    I would love to see fair and equitable health care for all citizens, however, at this moment with most of Washington DC in the bag with one special interest group or another, I sincerely doubt the outcome will be what the People are wishing and hoping for. Since we are now ruled by a bunch of people who owe big companies big favors, no one is looking out for the little guy, especially not our elected offices.

  • pablo

    I normally disagree vehemently with Nalle’s views on almost every political subject, however this piece is right on. It only confirms to me what total hypocrites most of those on the left are, particularly with reference to mass murder, illegal detention, and mass unlawful wiretaps of the american people. Obama is nothing short of a trojan horse, and most libs are far to naive and enamored to see the forest for the trees. Good job Nalle.

    Individual Mandated health insurance, that says it all. I bet handjob loves it.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Hi pablo. Good post.

  • Zedd

    Dave,

    Lets start here:

    “they had plenty to be angry about, and in some cases their anger was even justified”

    What were they justified in being angry about? What are the PLENTY of things that they had to be angry about?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    It is no surprise that all of you commenting on yet another tiresome screed on “health insurance” in the United States have managed to miss the one money line of importance in the whole article.

    This is the government putting its stamp of approval on the monopolistic insurance industry the same way that the British crown gave an exclusive license to the British East India Company to sell tea in the American colonies, subsidizing the debts of the Company on the backs of American consumers. Then as now, this unholy marriage of government and business adds up to tyranny. (emphasis mine)

    None of you are willing to admit that what has been introduced into your country since September 2008 is fascism – the unholy marriage of government and private industry – and none of you is willing to admit that a so-called “leftist”, Obama, has been nothing but a pawn in the hands of financial “experts” from the casino known as Wall Street in deepening that fascism.

    What a bunch of blind fools!

  • Stickler

    The article states:

    “The health care and insurance industries have been so heavily regulated on a state and federal level that they have ceased to exist in anything resembling a free market;”

    Wrong.

    ALL insurance companies are exempted from ALL federal regulation by the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson act. You could look it up.

    State regulators are weak and famously corrupt, resulting in very weak anti-monopoly regulation.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Stick around, man. We need to be corrected on such basic facts.

  • Zedd

    Dave,

    I would like to find out from you what you believe an ideal society would be like. How would it be organized and how would the people function in relation to one another and their government?

    I hear a lot of discontent from the Right without much of a clear explanation of what they want. We do know the buzz words but they have very little meaning. They certainly don’t explain why they are preferred and what benefit they would have on society. It’s as if they are best, in and of themselves. I get the sense that those that pronounce them believe that they are understood to be a good and by simply spouting them that all arguments should end. The truth is, it’s no longer clear what is desired. In a world where Communism was a real and present “threat” perhaps those words had some relevance but they are flat and out of context. So do help me out by shedding the light. What do you want and why do you want it?

    So…. What do you want society to be like and why?

  • Zedd

    Clavos,

    I’m not sure if you realize that you are arguing against models that don’t exist in this country. You argue against Latin American realities.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    In which comment had he done that, Zedd?

  • Clavos

    Good question, Roger, ‘coz there is no tort system in any Latin American country (the subject of my most recent comments in this thread)of which I’m aware, and I was absolutely referring to the US tort “system.”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I would have thought, as you say, that it’s a peculiarly American type of institution/practice.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Here’s a picture of Dave’s World, Zedd.

    (click to enlarge it)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    This is capital. Too rich for words.

    But as Marie Antoinette had once said, “Let them eat cake.”

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Ah, but that world is really ‘gone with the wind’. The new Dave’s World looks a little different. Take 1 Take 2

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I love “Take 1.”

    This time it’s the neocons who are in charge – or the Military-Industrial complex.

  • Zedd

    Roger,

    You can be quite literal sometimes. I wasn’t refering to his last post. I meant that his arguments are based on a refutation of a system that doesn’t exist in this country. His take is informed by his awareness of systems in Latin America.

    I’ve often wondered why he is so adamant about certain topics and yet rarely has a passable reason for his protest. Clavos is fighting a different war.

  • Zedd

    Cindy,

    Where do you think he sees himself on that hierarchy?

    What I find interesting is how many staunch Right Wingers work against their own personal interest because of a commitment to an ideology – one that was sold to them for the purpose of keeping them docile and ever committed to supporting the agenda and pocket books of the “powerful” and wealthy.

  • Zedd

    Do you see Plato’s (Socrates’)Republic in any of the scenarios?

  • http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

    Again, none of this addresses the core issues of for-profit, employer based health care in America.

    The current system is UNSUSTAINABLE.

    “National health spending is expected to reach $2.5 trillion in 2009, accounting for 17.6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). By 2018, national health care expenditures are expected to reach $4.4 trillion—more than double 2007 spending….

    To make the argument that the “only” problem to fix is covering the 47 million CURRENT uninsured is like patching a hole in your boat as a tsunami bears down on you. Why?

    “Over the last decade, employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have increased 119 percent. 4

    Employees have seen their share of job-based coverage increase at nearly the same rate during this period jumping from $1,543 to $3,354.4

    The cumulative increase in employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have raised at four times the rate of inflation and wage increases during last decade. This increase has made it much more difficult for businesses to continue to provide coverage to their employees and for those workers to afford coverage themselves.4

    The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost.4 Health insurance costs are the fastest growing expense for employers. Employer health insurance costs overtook profits in 2008, and the gap grows steadily. 5
    Total health insurance costs for employers could reach nearly $850 billion by 2019. Individual and family spending will jump considerably from $326 billion in 2009 to $550 billion in 2019.6
    The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that job-based health insurance could increase 100 percent over the next decade.7 Employer-based family insurance costs for a family of four will reach nearly $25,000 per year by 2018 absent health care reform.”

    In other words, those WITH for-profit, employer based health care are either going to lose their coverage, or lose their jobs. It’s the only LOGICAL business decision when health care costs eat up all a company’s profits. There’s no WAY small businesses can swallow 100% increases in health care costs, and the 47 million uninsured will look like the “good ol’ days” in about 15 years.

    I’m actually an advocate of single payer, but since that’s not going to happen, the public option is the wet dog I’d take in and settle for, and if anybody posting here works for a small business, or is an entreprenuer, it would be smart business to endorse it as well.

    –Cobra

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Quoted for truth:

    “The current system is UNSUSTAINABLE.”

    But, it’s not just insurance, it’s the whole thing. Come on. How long can it keep going?

    When I first realized there was going to be something terribly wrong with the economy, I hadn’t a clue about the economy. I could smell it, from the way no one could afford things and the ever increasing costs of things. I could tell things were just getting to be too expensive.

    I recently talked to the tax collector for our county. I wondered why if all the real estate taxes are in fact paid, by tax sale, then why is the county laying people off? They’ve met their budget. So, why is it impossible for the county to function? She said she didn’t know and that ‘everything is just getting so expensive’.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    I would like to second this line…:) You sit upon your high chairs banging your spoons in protest and pontificating from your self-serving and limited perspective while truly understanding virtually nothing.

    The left is disgusted.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    The ugly truth in the US is very simple to understand.

    You are not as upset by the democratic upheaval in this country as you are upset that the President of the United States is BLACK!

    maybe you could discuss this fact at your next “tea-social.”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Interesting post, Zedd.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    The following is the official website of Senator Olympia J. Snow, in all likelihood the only Republican senator to support the healthcare legislation.

    In the middle of the page, there is a link, “contact me,” if you care to leave her a message.

    I’m certain she’d appreciate hearing from all interested parties.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    And the following is the news story.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Hello Roger,
    Questions for you…
    Why should anyone contact Senator Snow? What can she do?
    Is she in “good” with the big insurers and the Pharmas?

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    “Public option, single payer!” shouts a woman who does not break stride to deliver her message to Snowe.

    “Thank you, appreciate it,” Snowe replies.

    “People in Maine want it!” the woman retorts from around a corner.

    “Not all of them,” Snowe pushes back, then chuckles quietly.

    This last line shows her true colors..wouldn’t you agree?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don”t know whether she is or not. But she does seem to support the legislation.

    Since Theodore Roosevelt there’s been talk of passing national healthcare, and nothing has been done. We still haven’t made the first, baby step, so it’s about time something will get done – flawed as it may be.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Unless there is a public option you cannot call this reform…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Perhaps, perhaps not. I’d like to keep an open mind. The whole thing is still in the process of unfolding.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Nothing will get done Roger…(

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    All I can do is wait and see.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    I am not sure what the opposite of a “Tea-Bagging” party is, but that’s what we on the left need now!
    Silly me, what was I thinking?

    There is no we…

  • Clavos

    You are not as upset by the democratic upheaval in this country as you are upset that the President of the United States is BLACK!

    Oh bullshit. That’s a fucking strawman and all you lefties know it. You’re beating it to death to paint everyone who opposes Obama as racist, which is not only a canard, it’s sleazy and dishonest.

    If the black man in the White House were Thomas Sowell, you wouldn’t hear any complaints from the right.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    But you would from the left.

    And then we’d be called racist.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Are you the watchdog on this site Clavos?

    I can say what ever the hell I feel like here.

    It’s called free speech

    I must have hit the nail on the head with that one…

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Why are there soo few articles in the political section?

    because the political editors are all on the right!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Yes, Jeannie.

    Nobody likes getting nailed, so Clavos is no exception.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Nobody likes getting nailed, so Clavos is no exception.

    I’m glad you have remained Roger

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, Jeannie. I just couldn’t abandon the site to such hotheads like Clavos and company, could I now?

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    I read an e-mail from Eric the other day in reference to the political section. He wanted more activity, but how can you get past these two. They want to control what articles and thoughts appear on this site…

    it’s as plain as the nose on my face!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You mean Clavos and Nalle?

    Yep, they’re as hard as nails. They talk a good talk – freedom of speech and all that – but they’re real dictators when it comes to this site. We’ll show ‘em, though.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Roger, I’m sure BC has room for one more editor in this section..
    Why not you?…:)

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Ya, That’s the ticket !

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    I can say what ever the hell I feel like here.

    Jeannie, you can say whatever you please here. You will have freedom of speech – until Obama takes it away from you.

    But the bottom line is that Clavos is right and you are wrong. Most of the opposition to Obama is from people who are afraid, and rightly so, that he will take away their civil rights. There are racists who don’t like him, but that is not the main issue. And all your whining about the political orientation of the political editors here is just a straw-man. To my knowledge, only one article has been rejected on editorial grounds, and the rejection did not come from the political editors, but from the publisher, Eric Olsen. The facts of trhe matter are that the political editors keep their noses out of what is published here, outside of certain ground rules that have nothing to do with editorial content. Since most of MY articles, about 130 of them, have been published in the politics section, I know whereof I speek.

    The main issue is what I pointed out in a previous comment, what every one of you has ignored. Obama has only deepened the fascist regime that Bush introduced. Fascism doesn’t require rabid nationalism or restrictions on freedom of speech (though the restrictions on freedom of speech seem to be coming bit by bit, in a very sophisticated way). It basically is the combining of big government and big business. That has been the defining trademark of the Obama administration. Your inability to see that basic reality is what has you so annoyed with his “health care” (more accurately a health insurance control-grab) bill. So wake up and smell the coffee, lady. Your tin-pot little dictator in Washington is a fascist, and you don’t even know it!

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Michael Moore is opening his new documentary on Friday the second of October.

    I can’t wait to see it!!!

    Capitalism a love story

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Probably, Obama doesn’t either.

    But Jeannie – Ruvy does have a point here, doesn’t he? Remember how excited you were at the beginning about the healthcare proposal and how disenchanted with it you are now?

    Which could be summarized by saying, “the more things change, the more they remain the same.”

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Roger, The only point Ruvy makes with his poison keyboard is bitterness…

    yuk

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Be nice now, Jeannie.

    We may be a quarreling and bickering community, but we are a community. I certainly wouldn’t want everyone to think exactly like me, and I’m sure you wouldn’t either. So lets appreciate and respect our differences.

  • Clavos

    They want to control what articles and thoughts appear on this site…

    More bullshit, Jeannie, and again, you know it.

    They talk a good talk – freedom of speech and all that – but they’re real dictators when it comes to this site.

    Same to you, Roger. Name the last time one of your pieces was refused for ideological reasons, or edited to the point its meaning changed.

    But don’t take my word for it — ask Glenn Contrarian.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    The only point Ruvy makes with his poison keyboard is bitterness….yuk

    Wow!! The level of that response really raised the level of discourse here. I really appreciate your ability to intelligently answer an argument, young lady. Have you been practicing?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Yep, Jeannie went to the finishing school this summer, can’t you tell? (Just kidding, Jeannie).

    Irony, Clavos. I’d thought that calling you a hothead would be clue enough.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Parody may be an apter term.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    I didn’t think I had to impress the Burger King manager with my vocabulary.

  • Clavos

    Parody (or satire or irony) are VERY difficult to convey online, Roger. Now that you point it out, I see it, but the difficulty in getting it across is why I limit my forays into that general area to sarcasm, which is broader and easier to carry off.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    I want to know why every comment I make is countered by Mill

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    That is the control I am referring to.

  • zingzing

    what are you talking about jeannie?

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    zingzing,
    Every word that I write is countered by Clavos and I’m pointing this fact out to him.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    I believe this is a form of intimidation and knowing how emotional I am just makes it worse…:(

    soo leave me alone Clav

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    All right, let everybody take five.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Hi Jeannie,

    Good to see you back. Hope the job is going well.

    On a politics site, it seems to me people will disagree with each other. Sort of like how we disagree with them as well and want to say something about it. It’s not control or intimidation–just disagreement. That’s sort of natural–no?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’ll second Cindy’s comments. We all welcome you back, including Clavos.

    Clavos, say something nice to Jeannie, please!
    (I mean it straight.)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    What I mean – I’m not being a shit disturber this time. Just trying to keep the peace in the family.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Jeannie, if you call the sky purple and it is really blue, and someone counters what you assert, is that intimidation?

    This is a comment thread, and we express our opinions here. What did you call it? “Freedom of speech”, yeah that’s what it was.

    Nobody has censored a word you have said here, nobody has stopped YOU from espressing your opinions. So, who are you to tell any of us not to express ours?

    Your emotional upsets are your business, not ours. If all you can do to counter an argument against what you are saying is to call my words “poison keyboard”, I’m well within my limits to excoriate you for it. And do note, I have not said anything about you personally.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Let me make a confession, Jeannie. BC is kind of hard to get used to first time. It had taken me a while, four or five months at least – and many here will testify to that – to get rid of my thin skin and to be able to take it in stride. So you haven’t yet gone through the test of fire. But let me assure you, very few people here are really, really mean or evil.

    As to difference of opinion, we all have it. We’ve just got to learn to live with the fact that not all think alike.

    Vive la difference!

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “Every word that I write is countered by Clavos and I’m pointing this fact out to him.”

    You appear to be under some delusion that no one can react to your comments? I don’t know if you are new to the Internet but this is a public forum and everyone is free to respond within reason. If you don’t like it then don’t post a comment here.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    You have absolutely nothing to do with the comments I made last night EL.
    If you don’t like my comments then I suggest you stop reading them…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Good morning, Jeannie.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Hello Roger :)
    It looks like a public option for Health-care is still feasible…

    What is the Schumer amendment?

    Does it look like Medicare?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, that’s good (the first point), because that is the essential element – the centerpiece without which the entire bill would be nothing more than a bandaid.

    But I haven’t really kept up with the issue, not at least some of the most pertinent details which still emerge daily. It is far from a done deal – the exact and final form of it, I mean. So let’s hope for the best and may the coolest heads prevail.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “You have absolutely nothing to do with the comments I made last night”

    And your point being? Again, you appear to be under some delusion that no one can react to your comments here. Were you dubbed queen of the comments, because I didn’t get the memo? Or is this some form of intimidation on your part?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Apparently, EB, some of the left is angry – contrary to Dave Nalle’s assertions…. And that itty bitty part of the left is given to emotional upsets when she is disagreed with.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    She is rather like you then, eh, Ruvy?

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    I love this. This is great and wonderful and very cool! left over from the Mackey debacle. Operation Mackey! Dance, dance, dance…

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Cindy,
    That was a great video #112 !

    It’s time we all started dancing…

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Ah Jeannie,

    I was hoping you would find that. I was originally looking for you to post it to you.

  • Phil

    since the government is doing such a great job controlling medicare costs (bankrupt in 2030?), i’m sure they’ll do a great job handling health care for the entire country…

    it will be a sad day if it is not repealed