Obama: The First Anti-American President

The need to continue to dance around it is growing silly. Obama is Jimmy Carter on steroids, without the homespun Southern meme. From traditional American economics, to our traditional role in world affairs, Obama is not a fan of a traditionally American worldview. He's the anti-Reagan, in that sense. And only fear of being politically incorrect prevents more people from saying it.

Liz Cheney calls him out on his latest episode of undermining America in the world's eyes, because Obama sees America as just another country, with no special place in world history. He is a revisionist in the broadest sense. Don't look for it to stop anytime soon. From undermining the nation economically - to militarily and morally, his new vision for America is increasingly clear with each passing day. He seeks to re-invent us as less than what we are because, to his Leftist mind, it's somehow more.

It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push "reset" -- or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.

Mr. Obama's method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies.

The approach was evident in his speech in Moscow and in his speech in Cairo last month. In Cairo, he asserted there was some sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the evil that the Iranian mullahs have done in the world since 1979. On an earlier trip to Mexico City, the president listened to an extended anti-American screed by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and then let the lies stand by responding only with, "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was 3 months old."

Comments

[Anon]

Some of the right's criticisms of Obama have been valid, for my money Bill Ayers is a terrorist and there is good evidence that Obama knows him better than he has admitted, so paling around with terrorists seems fairly accurate to me. The same goes for his self described 'mentor' who has now proven himself beyond any doubt to be a nutty racist, unless you missed his rant about "the Jews in the White House" keeping Obama from contacting him.

The birth certificate and flag pin 'controversies' were stupid, pointless and ultimately, other than a fringe element, hurt more than they helped.

Michele Obama's comments could certainly be taken in more than one way, I took them literally, that this was the 'first time' she had been proud of her country as an adult, and that is disturbing.

But, my main problem w/Obama has always been two-fold, what he says is pure rhetoric and never gives any indication of what he really means or what his policies will be on any given subject, it is very easy on many subjects for both sides to think he supports their viewpoint and this is puposefully manipulative, and my second, more serious problem with Obama is that I believe his economic ideas have been throoughly discredited by history, they ARE reflexively anti business and as well as being extremely destructive to what is left of American individualism and personal responsibility and independence.

[Bob]

"Not one of them appreciates that G-d is the source of our Natural Rights and personal responsibilities. None of them appear to understand that the Constitution is NOT the source of any Rights. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights simply outline which Rights the Government has no powers to infringe."

Your belief in God is un-actionable. In other words, your belief and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. It's simply not useful from the standpoint of deciding questions of constitutional rights. I could say I was a Hindu (I'm not, but just for the sake of argument) and it would make no difference whatsoever as far as my interpretation of or recourse to basic rights. Your professed belief changes nothing one way or another, and it has no affect on anyone else's interpretation of the Constitution. In other words, good for you, but so what.

Aside from that, as this thread demonstrates so well, it's virtually impossible to have a meaningful debate when one side demands to have their silly and unreasonable premise be the starting point. I don't think that any of you even sincerely believes that Obama hates America. So insisting that he does becomes more like a willful act of destructiveness. An honest and responsible conservative might say that he's against Obama over legitimate policy matters. But to say that Obama hates America is an act of pure hatefulness in and of itself. All it accomplishes is destructiveness and division -- it's like vandalism. And the fact that this has become the preferred avenue of attack for conservatives shows their fundamental lack of good faith. Aside from the hatefulness, though, what's notable is just how silly and juvenile so much of it seems to be. Like Slide said, "What utter schoolyard childishness." It's hard to believe that you even take YOURSELVES seriously.

[xerocky]

"This sounds like something you hear from some Idaho militia conspiracy nutjob...
and she's one of the new guiding lights of 'conservatism'?"

"Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, "I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." In other words, not so much."

Those are his words, not hers.

[Jane]

Dan - your blog is really infected with a bad bug - these trolls are thick - wish we could defumigate - And yo - trolls - it was LIZ not LYNN - you idiots

[Bob]

"Dan - your blog is really infected with a bad bug - these trolls are thick - wish we could defumigate - And yo - trolls - it was LIZ not LYNN - you idiots"

Jane, you're demonstrating the right wing's fundamental un-Americanism by objecting to a free and open discussion. If you don't like our opinions, you know what? Too bad for you.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Aside from that, as this thread demonstrates so well, it's virtually impossible to have a meaningful debate when one side demands to have their silly and unreasonable premise be the starting point."

That wins the award for most ironic statement of the day, given this:

"I don't think that any of you even sincerely believes that Obama hates America."

You mean that silly and unreasonable premise you set up, based on what?(emphasis mine)

"He wants to IMPLY that Obama is a traitor who literally hates America; he wants to IMPLY that citizen action under their 2nd Amendment rights will accomplish with violence what the conservatives are unable to accomplish through the ballot box. But when push comes to shove, he always equivocates. Oh no, he didn't really mean it that way. WELL HE DID. It's the same thing as conservatives USING CODE-PHRASES to refer to racial minorities."

In short, you created what you wanted to attack using typical liberal mindreading techniques, not what anyone was actually saying. You started with the statement that Dan Riehl is a racist who said Obama hates America and was demanding armed insurrection and rebellion, and then you, as is beautifully outlined in the paragraph I cited, set out to prove it, using "codebreaking" that matches Robert Langdon in drama, if not accuracy.

Really, what this indicates is that liberalism and the Obama Party have nothing left other than to accuse their opponents of racism and hate -- an amusing collapse to those of us who saw what political discourse they supported for the past eight years.

http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler.html

http://nyc.indymedia.org/or/2005/09/56901.html

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Jane, you're demonstrating the right wing's fundamental un-Americanism by objecting to a free and open discussion."

So you admit that Barack Obama is fundamentally un-American, then.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12816.html

And that the SEIU, Obama Party, and Media Matters are fundamentally un-American.

http://reason.com/blog/show/134720.html

And that websites like DailyKos, Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, and other sites that ban conservative commentors are also fundamentally un-American.

[Lala]

Bob dares right-wing people with this -

"If you don't like our opinions, you know what? Too bad for you."

[SacTownMan]

Anon,

While we don't always agree I find your posts refreshing. You seem to be a moderate on many issues and yet you see through the BS coming from the left. I have often noted your dislike of GWB but it is not the typical spittle flecked nonsense we see from Slime and the other turfers.

My wife is a moderate Democrat and as such you and she represent the real hope of "change" in this country. It is the "swing" voters, moderate Democrats, Independants, and disenfranchised Republicans that will determine the future of this country in 2010 and 2012. The vast majority of this country is center to center-right on issues such as national defense, big government and individual rights. The leftist nutjobs will continue to push their "progressive" agenda regardless of the impact to our country or society. The staunch conservatives will not be swayed by the Pravda media machine so what is left is the "middle", those folks that represent the true majority in this country! These are the poor smucks that go to the Tea Party protests, try and send their kids to college and plan for their retirement. This is the same group the Republicans tried to reach with McCain as the candidate but failed in no small part to the tanking economy and 3/4 of a billion dollars from Uncle George and his buddies. Combined with the leftist Pravda media machine the perfest storm hit in 2008 to help bring Xerxes to power.

The future for our great leader is murky at best. We will see "change" in 2010 but I don't think the libs are going to like what they see after November 2010 and the aftermath that will most certainly follow!

[Patrick Bateman]

God, the winger whining. Obama's statements of historical fact impugning your childish vision of 'Murica being God's greatest gift to the universe ALWAYS make you cry and always will. We get it; you're children. This is how children view history. 'Murica won the Cold War because Jebus loves America and the Godless Commies purple banana telphone. Liz Cheney gives the tired only winger line and shows no understanding of cause and effect:

"The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism."

This is the statement of a child, not an adult. There is nothing to respond to because it is devoid of factual reference. It is based inherently upon the winger delusion of exceptionalism - which in turn is based entirely upon tough talk, phony patriotism, and god-baggery.

Moreover, this of course is not what Obama said, in any event.

Sorry, Liz; sorry, babies. You lost. 'Muricans no longer want your nonsensical policy of throwing crappy countries against the wall to make you feel tingly in your panties.

[Bob]

SacTownMan, right wingers seem to have a basic inability to admit to uncomfortable facts. You keep repeating things that simply aren't true, such as saying that most Americans are more in line with conservative "principles." As far as what most Americans want, the Democrats appear to be closer to that than the Republicans. A recent Washington Post poll showed the following favorable/unfavorable views of the two major parties.

Favorable Unfavorable No opinion
a. The Democratic Party 53 40 6
b. The Republican Party 36 56 8

Or how about this one:

Who do you trust to do a better job handling [ITEM] - (Obama) or the (Republicans in Congress)?

Both Neither No
Obama Reps (vol.) (vol.) opinion
a. Health care reform 55 27 2 11 4
b. The economy 55 31 2 9 2
c. The federal budget
deficit 56 30 2 9 2
d. The threat of
terrorism 55 34 2 6 3

There's lots more. You can check it out if you're interested, and at least we can say you'd been exposed to the truth even if you still refuse to admit it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_062209.html

[Bob]

Oops, sorry, those tables got scrambled. In the second table the numbers are for Obama, then Republicans, then both, then neither, then no opinion. It shows Obama with a substantial lead in every single category.

Anyway, check out the article and read about it in detail. I think it would be a healthy reality-check for y'all.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Oh, so Bob likes to quote polls now, does he?

"Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on eight out of 10 key electoral issues, including, for the second straight month, the top issue of the economy. They've also narrowed the gap on the remaining two issues, the traditionally Democratic strong suits of health care and education."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues

Now watch as Bob contradicts himself again and whines that polls do not represent "truth" or "facts" like he claimed above.

Just as Bob runs away from the fact that, by his own standards, Barack Obama, the Obama Party, the SEIU, and Obama-owned websites like DailyKos, Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, and others are all "fundamentally un-American".

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/07/obama-the-antiamerican-president.html?cid=6a00d83451c1db69e201157204917c970b#comment-6a00d83451c1db69e201157204917c970b

[Anon]

The problem with Americans is that they don't pay attention to details anymore and are often led around by the nose either by politicians or the media from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis. By the time the reality of this health care fiasco hits home for most people, it will be too late and they will be stuck with it, just like we've been stuck with any number of ridiculous laws and policies, and it will be too late to roll it back. Same with the stimulus, plus, economics is so complicated that the Democrats are very likely going to be able to claim some sort of victory and if there is even a mild recovery, that may be enough to keep them in power in 2010. Plus, the GOP appears to be still reeling and can't get their act or their messages together.

God forbid, if Stevens or Kennedy retires, this country is screwed for another 40 years.

I used to be a liberal, and so I know that the most insidious facet of liberalism is its idealism and that all of its stated goals are so laudible, it all sounds good: health care for all! no more starving children! peace! jobs and houses for everyone! and of course, it is easy to demonize rich people, next to pedophiles and serial killers, they probably get less sympathy than anyone else at present. Spending money to 'solve' problems and make people happy sounds great...unfortunately liberals are just as bad any evangelical-the-earth-is-6000-years old when it comes to facts that they find inconvenient. Personal responsibility, hard work and sacrifice aren't as sexy, and as more and more of the social fabric frays, this easy way out/rosey picture of life will become more and more prevalent, and that is very bad for conservatives.

The sad fact is that if the economy starts to recover, it may be game over. The media still fawns all over Obama like they've got a school girl crush on him, and I don't see that changing unless there is some massive, massive scandal, and while I don't think Obama is "brilliant" in the traditional sense, he's a very, very, very good politician and is unlikely to make that level of a mistake.

The outlook is just not good. Liberals will eventually overreach themselves like they always do, but, good grief, look at the damage they've done while OUT OF POWER via their defacto control of the education system.

[Slide]

"I went all ad-hominem and meant it. Glad you took it personally."

yeah, I've devastated Ran. Let me guess - Harvard debating team? maybe not.

[Bob]

"By the time the reality of this health care fiasco hits home for most people, it will be too late and they will be stuck with it, just like we've been stuck with any number of ridiculous laws and policies, and it will be too late to roll it back."

Anon, I don't know how anybody can look at our current healthcare system, replete with insurance companies defrauding their customers and denying them coverage due to supposed "preexisting conditions" and so forth, and then utter a sentence like, "By the time the reality of this health care fiasco hits home for most people, it will be too late and they will be stuck with it . . ." As if our current system is anything but a fiasco in and of itself, whose primary beneficiaries are the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. It's unconscionable that a country like this should actually allow even its citizens who have health insurance to be bankrupted just because they became ill. And every time someone tries to fix this rotten system, all the industry shills start bleating "socialized medicine!" and the rubes run out in the streets to fight for higher industry profits. What a bunch of suckers.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"It's unconscionable that a country like this should actually allow even its citizens who have health insurance to be bankrupted just because they became ill."

Ah, but they don't have to, Bob; you and your fellow liberals could simply reach into your pockets and pay their medical bills. After all, Barack Obama could waste a billion dollars on ugly signs and Greek columns; it would seem child's play for Obama Party dons like Buffett, Soros, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Dodd, and others, millionaires or billionaires all, to pay the medical bills of others.

But that's really not the point of this fiasco. What this is all about is greed on the part of the Obama Party, pure and simple; they want more cash, so they're going to do as they have with Social Security and force all of us to pay them cash today, cash that we could be spending on clothes and food and necessities for our families, in exchange for an IOU whose value is completely and totally at their discretion and which they can choose to deny care in the future because they don't want to pay for it.

The hilarious thing is that Bob screams and whines and cries about the mean health insurance companies "denying care" and not giving people everything they want.

But what does Barack Obama say?

"resident Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care.

In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."

He added: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.""

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health25-2009jun25,0,1978875.story

In short, Bob screams about the cruelty of denying people care, but endorses and supports the government denying people care for which they will be forced to pay by law.

[Anon]

What you don't seem to grasp, Bob, is that in the case of health care, the 'cure' is going to be immeasurably worse than the problem as it currently stands.

It isn't an either/or proposition. The U.S. health care system is massively inefficient and overly expensive, but nothing in the proposed legislation that I can see is going to address any of the fundamental issues, let alone contain costs or effect any savings.

What we are going to end up with is the over 70% of people who currently have health care are going to pay more for less, the anticipated savings are not going to materialize and instead of REFORMING the system all we're going to do is glom on another layer of bureaucracy and costs.

Even if the single payer government run health care utopia that liberals want to see is eventually achieved, it isn't going to magically make our health care costs comparable to those in Europe, it will simply be another slip shod, fraud ridden government program that costs an exorbitant amount of money and provides mediocre service.

It will be just like public education: a black hole that we throw money into and year after year the costs go up and the quality goes down.

[Bob]

"What you don't seem to grasp, Bob, is that in the case of health care, the 'cure' is going to be immeasurably worse than the problem as it currently stands."

How can you possibly prove such an assertion, anon? Where are the facts that are going to support such a contention? You haven't even SEEN the details of the legislation, which were only released on the House side today. So how can you possibly declare that it's going to be "immeasurably worse?"

I've seen lots of this sort self-fulfilling pessimism and cynicism that government can't do anything right coming from arch-conservatives, and I'm convinced that it's just empty blather. All it reflects is a lack of will and a lack of ideas on the part of conservatives to deal with any real problems. As another testament to that fact, I notice that all any of you ever do is complain about the Democrats trying to fix things, and never offer anything constructive as an alternative. The Republicans really are "the Party of No." They're the Republi-CAN'Ts. Better that people with a more optimistic and can-do attitude are running the show for now.

[SacTownMan]

Dallas,

Bob tries to "enlighten" me but refuses to see that "the One's" popularity is not transferred to our current Clusterf**k congress!

Bob also uses a partisan rag like the Washington Compost, one of founding members of the Pravda media, and it's biased poll showing the popularity of Xerxes to make his point. Typical, I guess the NY Slimes was too busy with their latest round of Palin attacks to link. What no Daily Koz or Media Matters links were available?

Bob you do understand that HOW the question is worded in a poll has an impact on the response, right? Also you will note that the date of your poll is June 22nd is three weeks old and does nothing to track the current drop in Xerxes popularity since the latest unemployment numbers (9.4%)were released last week. This reality is shown in the numbers from the Rasmussen poll that Dallas links. I would invite you to read the results but would only expect more holier-than-thou posturing on your part and I don't want you to get your panties in a bunch. No one here is questioning the popularity of your great Xerxes, just his judgement and Chicago slime machine methods.

Thanks for the lesson in moonbat logic! It is refreshing to see the world through such a distorted lens! Oh yea and thanks for "exposing" the Washington Compost for the partisan rag it is! Now that was a suprise!

[Bob]

"Bob also uses a partisan rag like the Washington Compost, one of founding members of the Pravda media, and it's biased poll showing the popularity of Xerxes . . . blah blah blah"

The next time we face one of those rare problems that can be solved by throwing bullshit at it, we'll be sure to give you a call, SacTown. Otherwise, people who live in constant denial of objective facts have no place in any constructive undertaking. So don't expect a call anytime soon.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"You haven't even SEEN the details of the legislation, which were only released on the House side today. So how can you possibly declare that it's going to be "immeasurably worse?"

In the same fashion that you are declaring that it will fix the problems, and your Obama Party is proclaiming that it is going to be better.

Again, Bob, you seem bent on proving over and over and over and over again that liberals like yourself impose rules and restrictions on others that you have no intention of following yourself. If you are criticizing anon for his statement, you should be criticizing yourself and your Party for making similar statements.

"All it reflects is a lack of will and a lack of ideas on the part of conservatives to deal with any real problems."

Correction. What it represents is anathema to your liberal way of thinking, Bob, which is that the government is the solution to all problems. You simply are incapable of recognizing any solution that is not government-based as being in the least bit viable. Since you are unable to comprehend how a non-government-based solution could possibly work, you see no ideas coming from the Republican Party. The problem is in your lack of vision and abundance of prejudice.

[Anon]

The facts are in the numbers and the assertions being made about savings and cost and coverage, it isn't difficult to figure out that the numbers don't add up and that the projected savings will never materialize.

I can figure it out the same way I figured out that the Iraq War wasn't going to cost $50 billion and that there were no WMD, by looking at the data in a reasonable, non partisan way.

Large, heavily bureaucratic institutions by definition are rarely efficient. Medicaid is not efficient and it loses money, Medicare is not efficient and it wastes money.

So, what I want to know is on what basis would anyone believe that the government, which already fails to efficiently administer Medicaid and Medicare, will do a better job with more people? On what factual basis does anyone believe that 'universal health care' is going to be cheaper and better than private insurance, and if it is cheaper, how will it be cheaper without cutting quality or services?

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Otherwise, people who live in constant denial of objective facts have no place in any constructive undertaking."

This is particularly funny given Bob's complete refusal to respond to any of the posts I have made today, in which objective facts are cited to show that Bob and his Barack Obama consistently engage in the exact behavior which they criticize in others.

[SacTownMan]

"So don't expect a call anytime soon."

Don't worry Bob my phone has talking voice mail ID so as soon as I heard

"Dipshit troll" I would know it was you and let the machine get it!

[Anon]

If I'm remembering right, this version of health care reform will put in place a fine that is 2.5% of a person's total income if they don't get health insurance.

This is the kind of 'choice' that the Democrats are talking about, which is, in effect, no choice at all.

Am I the only person in America that remembers that HMOs based their whole business model on the idea that PREVENTATIVE CARE WOULD SAVE TONS OF MONEY, but found out, that it didn't save enough money to avoid rationing care for sick people??

But, I guess the government, with no real motive to save money, no track record at efficiency will do a better job than private industry which had profit as their primary motivation and still failed. Yeah, that's going to happen.

[Bob]

"Large, heavily bureaucratic institutions by definition are rarely efficient. Medicaid is not efficient and it loses money, Medicare is not efficient and it wastes money."

Anon, you make these vague assertions as though there were any specific facts to support them. In fact, Medicare is more efficient than comparable privately-run plans. A Congressional Budget Office study found that administrative costs for Medicare ran at about 2% of expenditures, while those of a competing private plan ("Medicare Advantage") were 11% of expenditures. Another study by the General Accounting Office pegged the same private plan's administrative costs at over 16%. Again, the opponents of healthcare reform offer nothing substantial as an alternative, and repeat claims that simply aren't true to support their endless complaints that nothing can be done. Why should anyone trust such bad-faith defeatists?

[Anon]

Administrative costs are a red herring, Medicare spending has gone up over 3% a year for several years with no end in sight, even Obama admits that Medicare spending needs to be brought under control. There is also wild disparities in cost and care throughout the country.

The problem is not administrative costs it is failure to manage the costs of HEALTH CARE, which is why costs continue to spiral upwards.

Hardly a model of efficiency on which to base a new national health care program.

[Anon]

Where is the proof that preventative care will reduce ER visits? This is just a platitude that people say with very little data to back it up, other than for childhood asthma. It is so generalized, like 'eat right and exercise', as to be meaningless. Most ER visits are for accidents or acute situations like heart attacks or strokes, and while theoretically, good preventative care might, and I stress might, reduce the risk of heart attack or stroke, there is no possible way to quantify this unless you run a clinical trial over a couple of decades with a test group getting top flight preventative care and a second group of similar age/demographics, etc. that has no health care and see what the results are.

Where is the proof that electronic medical records are going to either reduce extraneous tests or in any way improve health care? Again, its PR rhetoric, there isn't any data that I am aware of that supports this, and it will cost BILLIONS to implement and train people and YEARS to implement, so whatever minimal efficiencies and savings might be achieved won't show up for a decade.

And lastly, we're allegedly going to save all this money on advertising, and marketing and CEO salaries, but I have to break it to you, that is going to reduce the IRS take when all of those highly paid CEOS, ad agencies and marketing people are no longer paying taxes on their salaries. So again, savings is largely illusory and rhetorical.

[North Dallas Thirty]

A Congressional Budget Office study found that administrative costs for Medicare ran at about 2% of expenditures, while those of a competing private plan ("Medicare Advantage") were 11% of expenditures.

Oh yes, that old canard.

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2505.cfm

And a particularly ironic one:

"Administrative costs are one of the more confusing issues in health-care reform. Start with the term: What counts as an "administrative cost" for a health insurer? We all agree that paying bills counts. But does profit? What about disease management? Advertising? A nurse who dispenses health advice over the telephone?

Hard to say. But all of them get grouped under administrative costs at various times. Indeed, I've spent the last few weeks looking into studies and talking to experts, and there's not perfect unanimity on how to measure any of this. But most seem to think that Medicare's administrative costs are significantly undersold in the public debate. An apples-to-apples comparison would not leave you with the 2 percent of total Medicare spending often bandied about in debate. That doesn't count, for instance, Medicare's premium collection, which is done through the tax code, and thus through the IRS. Nor does it count most of Medicare's billing, which is outsourced -- and this might surprise people -- to private insurers like Blue Cross Blue Shield and listed under vendor services rather than program administration. A more straightforward estimate, according to experts I've spoken to, would be in the range of 5 to 6 percent.

Nor is it easy to measure administrative costs among private insurers. For one thing, which private insurers? When the Congressional Budget Office examined this issue, it found that administrative costs -- including advertising and profits -- accounted for 12 percent of the average insurer's dollar. But that hid substantial variation among insurers. Among employer-based plans, the largest firms had the lowest costs. Plans covering companies with at least 1,000 employees had a mere 7 percent in administrative costs. Those covering companies with fewer than 25 employees spent 26 percent of premiums on administration. And the individual market was a mess: 30 percent."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/administrative_costs_in_health.html

In short, Bob, the vaunted "2%" is actually a figure created by ignoring a vast amount of basic overhead costs, i.e. billing, premium collection, rent, utilities, staff salaries, capital costs, and so forth. Indeed, those corporations that liberals like yourself hate manage to get at or better than Medicare's costs with a mere 1,000 employees or more.

[North Dallas Thirty]

And here's another fine example of Medicare and its vaunted "efficiency".

"On an FBI undercover tape, the fraud was plain to see: A patient came to a South Florida AIDS clinic, signed some papers, walked into an office and was handed $150 in cash. She politely thanked the workers and left, her visit to the doctor finished without ever receiving any treatment.

According to records seized by investigators, the office staff (who was assured of the patient's cooperation) used her name to fraudulently bill Medicare for a list of expensive treatment and medications.

Law enforcement officials said it's just one of the many widespread, organized and lucrative schemes to bilk Medicare out of an estimated $60 billion dollars a year — a staggering cost borne by American taxpayers."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22184921/page/2/print/0/displaymode/1098

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25133095

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22202073/

Let's see; so of an annual outlay of $600 billion, over $60 billion is lost to fraud -- a 10% loss ratio.

Funny how that's never included in the "2% administrative rate" that Bob and his fellow Obamabots push.

[North Dallas Thirty]

And to Anon's point:

"Where is the proof that preventative care will reduce ER visits?"

Actually, it's the exact opposite.

"The visit rate for Medicaid patients (82 per 100 persons with Medicaid) was higher than the rate for those with Medicare (48 per 100 persons with Medicare), no insurance (48 per 100 persons with no insurance), and private insurance (21 per 100 persons with private insurance)."

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr007.pdf (Page 3, for those who look).

In short, Bob's own vaunted Medicare and Medicaid programs, which allegedly provide "preventative care", have a HIGHER emergency-room visit rate than even the uninsured, much less the privately-insured.

[Bob]

"Administrative costs are a red herring"

But, anon, you're the one who raised the issue when you said,

"Large, heavily bureaucratic institutions by definition are rarely efficient. Medicaid is not efficient and it loses money, Medicare is not efficient and it wastes money."

Administrative costs are the best measure of efficiency in such a system. All other expenditures are simply paying healthcare providers. And if a government-run system can do this more efficiently than private insurers, who have to pad their fees to make a profit, then I can't see how any honest conservative could object.

But since your earlier point about efficiency doesn't hold much water, now you're shifting your argument to say that the problem is that Medicare expenditures are increasing. Well, duh! The COST of medical care is going up disproportionately, and Medicare has to pay that just like the private insurers do. It's not Medicare's fault, for christ's sake.

The most urgent immediate problem is to get coverage for the 45 million or so uninsured. CBO and GAO analyses of both the Senate and House plans are showing that this can be accomplished at less cost than many had predicted. One estimate I read said that the cost of insuring everyone would add only about 4% to the predicted total healthcare expenditures over the next ten years. I'd suggest reading those reports, but I get the feeling that most opponents prefer to sulk in their current state of cynical defeatism. So fine. Let someone else do the hard work for you. It's already clear that the conservatives have nothing constructive to offer at all.

[SacTownMan]

"Funny how that's never included in the "2% administrative rate" that Bob and his fellow Obamabots push."A Congressional Budget Office study..."

Dallas why do you go to so much trouble when interacting with the Sorosbots?

You continue to provide links to back up your arguments but are met with debating tactics like:

"Another study by the General Accounting Office..."

"One estimate I read..."

"CBO and GAO analyses of both the Senate and House plans..."

These are just some of the samples of Bob's fine posting skills in this thread alone!

He obviously doesn't understand the concept that when you post something online it is considered rude to simply make stats up and not provide a link to the original author of that thought or fact.

It's called Plagiarism, Bob!

[Slide]

anon pulls some facts out of his ass as usual: "Most ER visits are for accidents or acute situations like heart attacks or strokes,"

But of course he is wrong. Surprise, surprise.

The National Center for Health Statistics analyzed data from the 1992 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and reported that a majority of ER visits (55.4%) were nonurgent (McCaig, 1994). Likewise, in a study of 1,190 ER patients, Baker, Stevens, and Brook (1994) found that 68% of all ER visits were classified as nonurgent. Of the 89% of patients who said they needed to be seen immediately, more than half did not require care within 24 hours according to the physician acuity rating (Baker, Stevens, & Brook, 1995). Similar findings were reported by Derlet, Kinser, Ray, Hamilton, and McKenzie (1995); McNamara Witte, and Koning (1993); and Nadel (1993).

Reasons for ER use for nonurgent care include erroneous self-perception of severity of ailment or injury, 24-hour open-door policy of ERs, convenience, and lack of primary care provider (Liggins, 1993). The U.S. General Accounting Office (Nader, 1993) identified causes attributing to nonurgent ER use as lack of a primary care provider, transportation problems, and need for after-hours care.

[Slide]

link to above quote

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FSW/is_n1_v15/ai_n18607246/?tag=content;col1

[Anon]

No, Bob, administrative costs are not a relevant measure of efficiency for health care because they don't tell you whether or not the "administration" is efficient or not, what tells you about efficiency is how well costs and fraud are contained. The data speak for themselves.

Slide, thank you for making my point for me. Most ER visits have nothing AT ALL to do with people waiting until they are "too sick" because they dont' have access to a doctor, in reality, they're not sick at all.

Also, I think you will find that the "facts" support that one of the main reasons people go to the ER is CHEST PAIN, e.g. people think they're having a heart attack.

But, I admit, even I had realized how overused the ER was for non threatening, non serious conditions, so I appreciate being informed of this reality, though as far as I can tell it is an argument AGAINST further expanding health care becuase it will result in more pointless and unnecessary visits to the ER.

The reason people w/private insurance have a lower percentage of ER visits than those on Medicaid or Medicare is because you're penalized for going there for trivial reasons.

Ask the state of Massachusetts, since they put in place their 'universal' health care plan costs are up 17% and visits to the ER are up 7%.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the idea that universal health care is going to save money is it? LOL

[Slide]

anon not dissuaded by evidence or facts regurgitates: "Slide, thank you for making my point for me. Most ER visits have nothing AT ALL to do with people waiting until they are "too sick" because they dont' have access to a doctor, in reality, they're not sick at all."

Guess you didn't read from the link but here are some quotes:

The U.S. General Accounting Office (Nader, 1993) identified causes attributing to nonurgent ER use as lack of a primary care provider, transportation problems, and need for after-hours care.

Padgett and Brodsky (1992) concluded that members of racial and ethnic minority groups and those of low socioeconomic status often depend upon ERs as a regular source of care.

In a 1991 study on access problems of 940 ER patients in which 25% reported the ER as their routine source of care, 30% had Medicaid coverage and 40.7% were uninsured (Pane et al., 1991). Additionally, 33.3% had delayed seeking needed medical care in the past year, 12.6% were refused care by a health care provider during the past year, and 20.6% delayed seeking care or were refused care by a health care provider for their current illness.

These findings suggest that community-based primary care services for children that focus on prompt treatment of infectious diseases could reduce complications and illness in a manner that is both cost-effective and humane. Middle-aged people tended to experience problems related to mental health or substance abuse, whereas the elderly presented with higher levels of acuity due to complications of chronic diseases related to endocrine, hematologic, or cardiovascular disorders. These findings substantiate the need for services for adults of middle age that facilitate their ability to cope with problems of daily living. Such services might include teaching stress reduction techniques. The elderly need services that emphasize health promotion to prevent the onset of chronic diseases, as well as long-term treatment and management of chronic diseases aimed at preventing the onset of serious complications that result in subsequent need for emergency interventions.

[Anon]

I looked at YOUR FACTS, but you see, I drew a different conclusion. My conclusion is that if the overwhelming majority of ER visits are not for serious emergencies, then giving people insurance alone isn't going to change behavior. Indeed, I quoted facts about MA, where their universal plan has increased costs and ER visits.

Why do Medicare and Medicaid patients, who have access to primary care doctors use the ER MUCH more than people with private health insurance?

Answer: because the rules governing ER use are stricter and better enforced.

What possible difference does it make about insurance if the overwhelming majority of ER visits are for non emergency situations, as your data pointed out?

The GAO figures don't give any breakdown, and quite honestly, I don't see how "transportation problems" would have any reasonable impact on going to the ER vs. going somewhere else. What I suspect is that the real reason people go to the ER is because they can, its open 24 hours a day and its convenient and faster than waiting to see your doctor.

Again, your stats don't really provide much assistance. If of the 940 people who used ER as their primary source of health care, only 40% of them were without insurance, then we are missing a piece of the puzzle on ER use that has NOTHING TO DO WITH ACCESS TO INSURANCE, since 60% of those using ER for their primary helath care have insurance.

The devil is in the details.

[Bob]

Anon and fellow defeatists apparently think that if all issues related to healthcare cannot be solved in one fell swoop, that it's better to just give up. I haven't seen one positive suggestion from any conservative on what is to be done.

One of the most pressing problems with healthcare is the 45 million uninsured. The new healthcare initiative is designed to insure those people without adding a huge extra burden to our current healthcare costs. The plan will use a combination of private insurers and most likely a "public option" that will likely be able to deliver the same services at less cost than the private plans. That takes care of one huge part of the problem.

The other part of the problem, of course, is rising costs. It's true that the new healthcare initiative will not immediately solve that problem, but so what? The current system won't solve it either. But at least we will have taken one HUGE step towards getting affordable healthcare for ALL Americans. Solving the rising cost issue is a tougher and more complicated problem that should be addressed going forward.

But in the absence of any OTHER plan that immediately solves that problem while guaranteeing healthcare coverage for all Americans, it's no excuse to do nothing. And doing nothing is all the wing nuts have to offer right now, because they have no political will and no ideas.

[seekeronos]

"--- Look, these guys are not winning any arguments here. Wally and Bob stand a chance at reason if they'd bother to start with Cicero's concept of Natural Rights. Then they'd have to accept the concept of a Creator... do they want to go there? ---"

Indeed. Most atheists are "progessives" (liberals), and a good many liberals tend to stop up their ears whenever GOD is mentioned - ESPECIALLY our most Holy and Undivided Trinity of God, the Father, the Son, Whose Name is Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

Because - by removing God, they can then successfully dismantle the rights granted to us by that same God, and along with it, dissemble and substitute their own "utopian" vision - which is nothing more than an agenda of CONTROL, nanny-state authoritarianism at its core.

Because when a society abrogates individual rights in place of "group rights" (accorded to favoured "identity groups" of course, and suppressing the "rights" of disfavoured groups) - it is well on the way to becoming the sort of closed society the Communist regimes of the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact nations, and Red China have long enslaved their peoples with.

Life was pretty good in Soviet Union for Russians (and less so, Ukrainians, but not so good for all those other ethnic minorities and non RSFSR Soviet "Republics")

Same story for non-Han Chinese, who typically do not get very far in the Party heirarchy.

And the same shall be for disfavoured groups, such as Christian Caucasians in the developing Soviet American People's Republic, where your rights come from your race, ethnicity, and belief systems as determined by Mother Government, instead of a Creator God.

In short, it is the same old story of a cabal of people seeking to make themselves gods on earth, and enslaving everyone else.

There's your "utopia", folks.

[Bob]

"Indeed. Most atheists are "progessives" (liberals), and a good many liberals tend to stop up their ears whenever GOD is mentioned - ESPECIALLY our most Holy and Undivided Trinity of God, the Father, the Son, Whose Name is Jesus, and the Holy Spirit."

This thread is a perfect encapsulation of why conservatives have nothing to offer of any practical value. We start out with a silly and mean-spirited attack on Obama supposedly being "anti-American," proceed to a series of defeatist posts using meaningless statistics to argue that nothing at all can be done to deal with our country's massive healthcare problems (even though many other industrialized countries like ours have dealt with the problem much more effectively), and proceed to some whacked-out B.S. about God and atheism and natural law. And somehow, what the conservatives claim always seems to benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of everyone else.
That's why, for any of our problems to be dealt with, no effort should be made to compromise with conservatives. They literally have nothing to offer, and their disingenuous intent is to sabotage any effort at effective solutions. Let them wallow in defeatism, prejudice and resentment and just get on with it without them. Even to try to engage them and listen to their disingenuous B.S. is a total waste of time.

[Anon]

No, Bob, no one is saying that "nothing should be done" or that "nothing can be done" to fix our healthcare system, what most are saying is that what "IS" being done is not going to fix anything but make the problem worse.

I do not believe that $500 billion in savings are going to be found in Medicare and Medicaid, as the Democrats say. If it was that easy to cut half a trillion dollars from their spiral budgets, it would have been done already. This is a lie, it will never come to pass.

I do not believe that adding 40 million people to the healthcare system with no discernable new/better cost controls will cost "ONLY" a trillion over ten years. I suspect it will cost at least double that.

I propose that you are looking at it backwards, before opening up gold standard health care for millions more people on the dime of the shrinking bare majority of people who actually pay taxes, that we need to FIX THE PROBLEMS FIRST. We need a way to control costs before adding millions more people.

I propose that Obama knows this and the Democrats know this, but they also know they don't really care about spiraling costs, becaues they know it can be pushed down the road another decade or so and they also know that they don't have the guts or principles to make the hard choices that will need to be made in order to control costs: closing hospitals, people losing jobs, wage decreases and yes, rationing of health care.

I propose that the 'public option' is a dark horse for the government taking over large swaths of the health care industry, and I propose that Obama and the Democrats and everyone else involved in the health care industry knows this because they know that the government can run at a loss, set its own rules and reap huge benefits of scale in negotiations that no private company can.

I propose and have proposed numerous times that what should be done is a series of 3-5 year state wide tests of various configurations of health care changes to assess results, unintended consequences and gain experience before rolling out a national plan. However, I know this isnt' sexy and it doesn't give liberals that tingling sensation they get when they feel they're giving away my money to "The Poor".

I propose that the best solution for the uninsured until the "problems" as you put it can be fixed is to offer government subsidized catrostrophic, and only catostrophic insurance to the uninsured. This will protect the vulnerable without increasing frivolous and unnecessary use of healthcare.

I propose that the plan on the table does and will add a "HUGE" extra burden on the majority of Americans who have helath care, as well as on small and medium sized businesses.

I propose that forcing someone to pay for health insurance out of their own pocket if they don't want it is unAmerican and unconstitutional.

I propose that in 20 years when this is shown to be a total fiasco, that you remember "I TOLD YOU SO"

[Anon]

And lastly, I propose there is no evidence that government run health insurance can deliver health care any cheaper than private insurance without resorting to exactly the same tactics that those insurers use, and I flatly state that I am unaware of any federal program that is cheaper or more efficient than its private sector counterpart.

[Bob]

"I do not believe that adding 40 million people to the healthcare system with no discernable new/better cost controls will cost "ONLY" a trillion over ten years. I suspect it will cost at least double that."

CBO ran the numbers, you didn't. The key, as it turns out, is that most of the uninsured are younger, healthier people who use less medical services. And if other countries can do it, why can't we?

Even in a perfect storm environment like this, where one party at least has a majority and the will to act, we can barely accomplish even the most basic step of getting coverage for the uninsured. All we ever get is delaying tactics and lots of excuses for why this country can't accomplish what many others already have. I propose that your piecemeal approach of statewide tests will lead nowhere, because the major problem to reform is always the lack of political will among conservatives. If we don't get comprehensive reform now, it'll NEVER happen. So we need to strike while the iron is hot, and stop making excuses for doing nothing.

It's been estimated that something like 18,000 Americans die every year due to lack of insurance.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

Your proposed 2-5 year study period would then have an additional hidden cost of 36,000 to 90,000 deaths while we dithered away deciding what we already know. I'm fed up with lame excuses because wing nuts are too callous to care. Get the hell out of the way and let more responsible people deal with the problem.

[North Dallas Thirty]

I propose and have proposed numerous times that what should be done is a series of 3-5 year state wide tests of various configurations of health care changes to assess results, unintended consequences and gain experience before rolling out a national plan.

Sounds more than reasonable.

And turns out it's already been done and failed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/opinion/15woolhandler.html?ex=1355374800&en=9229e00855a9d783&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

One would think that leftists like Bob who claim to be informed by facts would be aware of this. But, as we see above, Bob rejects any facts that do not line up with his ideological view as "meaningless" and refuses to even look at them, apparently afraid that his intellectual house of cards would topple were it to be tempered by reality.

If Bob and his fellow multimillionaire/billionaire leftists like Soros, Buffett, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Obama, etc. are so concerned about the uninsured, there is a simple solution; they could pool their money and buy health insurance for them. However, they won't do that because they prefer to tax other people rather than spend their own money.

[Bob]

Just to say, anon, I don't mean to impugn you personally. You seem like a truly decent person and I know that you, at least, are sincere in most of your concerns. But I still can't help being frustrated that this country, that claims itself to be so exceptional in the world, can't just deal with this problem and make sure that all of its citizens have the same quality healthcare that many other countries seem to be able to provide. I'm tired of the status quo of always being bamboozled by the healthcare industry and all of the lives and lost quality of life that it entails. It's a scandal and a tragedy that we've been so easily cowed into doing nothing to address the problem for so long. But again, sorry if I come across as insulting you personally. I don't mean it that way.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"It's been estimated that something like 18,000 Americans die every year due to lack of insurance."

Then one would expect that liberals like Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and others would immediately put to use the billions of dollars they have to purchase health insurance for people, which they could do instantly, with no waiting, and with zero expense to anyone but themselves.

This is, after all, what they claim they want. Why won't they use their own money to do it? Indeed, since they claim healthcare can be paid for completely from taxing "rich people", there's zero reason for them NOT to do it themselves.

That makes this particular attack hilarious.

"Your proposed 2-5 year study period would then have an additional hidden cost of 36,000 to 90,000 deaths while we dithered away deciding what we already know. I'm fed up with lame excuses because wing nuts are too callous to care. Get the hell out of the way and let more responsible people deal with the problem."

No one's stopping you from spending your own money to fix the problem, Bob, like those "wingnut" Catholic, Christian, and Shriners Hospitals have done for years.

But for some reason, your multimillionaire and billionaire Party members would rather try to impose crushing taxes on others. You refuse to provide care to people unless someone else is paying for it. That makes it clear that you don't care one whit about these people; indeed, the callousness that liberals like yourself display in using peoples' deaths as propaganda tools to push your leftist beliefs shows what little regard you have for human life.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"But again, sorry if I come across as insulting you personally. I don't mean it that way."

Which is why you were screaming that anon is a callous wingnut who wants people to die, why you lied about him claiming that "nothing can be done", and why you claimed he was a "defeatist".

"If" you come across as insulting him personally? Got it.

[Bob]

North Dallas, anon might be a decent fellow, but you're full of shit. You of all people have no moral authority to criticize anyone. So shut up. Now I will go back to ignoring you, since your blather is rarely worth the trouble of actually reading.