The Boy King: Where Do O Bow Now?

When not making gaffes due to a sputtering teleprompter, it seems boy king O-Bow-Now's handlers simply point him at the latest thug king or emperor with instructions to bow down as low as he possibly can. It's a good thing O-Bow-Now didn't face the challenges of coming up through the ghetto as, unfortunately, too many blacks do. If he ever had to do time, his flexibility in being able to bend over so far would have gotten him on any jail's ten most wanted and taken list.

There was a recent headline claiming O-Bow-Now was America's first Pacific POTUS. I stop short of that, simply referring to him as our first un-American head executive. Obviously O-Bow-Now doesn't have a clue what it means to be one, let alone its president.

Bill Clinton disgraced the Oval Office by putting a young female intern on her knees. O-Bow-Now is just taking it to the logical next step, all but hitting his knees himself to any and every alleged world potentate. That seems to be the case except for our traditional allies like Britain, Canada and Australia, of course. That's likely just too all fired American for him. Tragically, O-Bow-Now's misguided acquiescence to the world's leaders and more tyrannical dictators seems to go hand-in-hand with his weak foreign policy, too.

Let's hope he bends over this easily in 2012 so we can kick his sorry azz out of the WH where it never belonged in the first place. Hail the boy media king obsessed with his image and determined to destroy the country's economy just as the media all but destroyed its culture before hand. By 2012, it'll be well past time to take it back and we can get a good start on it in 2010. Be sure to remember that! Don't get mad, get engaged in our political process. If O-Bow-Now can't stand up for America, it falls to us to do it. No one else can, or will.

How low will the new American president go for the world's royalty?

This photo will get Democrat President Obama a lot of approving nods in Japan this weekend, especially among the older generation of Japanese who still pay attention to the royal family living in its downtown castle. Very low bows like this are a sign of great respect and deference to a superior.

To some in the United States, however, an upright handshake might have looked better. Remember Michelle Obama casually patting Britain's Queen Elizabeth on the back during their Buckingham Palace visit? America's royalty tends to make movies and get bad reviews and lots of money as a sign of respect.

Obama could receive some frowns back home as he did for his not-quite-this-low-or-maybe-about-the-same-bow to the Saudi king not so long ago. (See photo here)

Comments

[gocart mozart]

What do you make of this Dan?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/911review/293457625/

Also this
http://i35.tinypic.com/5vj9k.jpg

[SteveP]

"my god, but you people are stupid.

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=bush+kiss+saudi"

My God, but you're ignorant. In Arab culture kissing is a greeting BETWEEN EQUALS. Bowing is a demonstration of subservience as it is in most cultures, including Japan.

[Blanche]

"Bob's been waiting all his life to serve on a black man's plantation. Give 'em a break! ; )"

Dan slays us all with his savage wit.

[Bob]

"I invoke communism and marxism when discussing the Jugeared Nitwit because I am a student of history and political economy. My own research into his history, my knowledge of collectivist ideology and history and my study of economics have convinced me that your hero is, in fact, a communist."

Communism is defined by the state controlling the means of production and owning all property. Obama has never advocated that the state should own and control everything. His healthcare plan, for example, went out of its way to keep a place for private companies in providing health insurance and other medical services. He has never undertaken a general approach of nationalizing financial institutions even though many leading economists recommended doing so. If countries like the UK, Germany, France and Switzerland are not "communist," then the U.S. under Obama -- which has even more laissez-faire policies than those countries -- certainly isn't either. Your other assertions are nothing but guilt by association. I'm surprised you couldn't bring ACORN into the discussion since you managed to hit all the other wing nut smears.

So sorry, Steve, but your pretense of being a "student of history" looks like a lame pose. I give you a D-, and that's only because I'm a generous grader.

[Americaneocon]

American Power tracked back with (the best video evah!), 'Bowing Before Monarchs and Tyrants: Obama 'Restores' America's World Standing With His Head Down - UPDATE: REAGAN DIDN'T BOW!!'.

[Anon]

Pray tell, Bob, exactly what does the U.S. have in common with Switzerland in terms of demographics or government or population or education level or cultural homogenity?

Once you've answered that question with information that shows some significant parallels then I would be prepared to accept the notion that what works in Switzerland could or would work in the U.S.

I don't think you can show those parallels to any significant degree, and the same goes for Germany, but maybe you will surprise me.

PS...I'm sure that you know, Bob, that several of the Western European countries that you and the Kos Kids like to use as examples of health care...Canada, England, France...to name a few are facing significant budget problems with maintain the same level/cost of care under their current systems.

Does it ever make you wonder if those systems just like Medicare/Medicaid and SS are simply not supportable given the demographic shifts and the ever shrinking ratio of workers to retirees and the projected aging of the population bases?

Nah, didn't think so/

[A. Stephens]

Bob,

TARP was Bush and was the point at which I walked away from him. Free markets mean freedom to succeed and freedom to fail. Additionally, passing TARP meant that some who had a hand in creating the problem were able to walk away from accountability. It was government over-reach, and that a Republican president signed off on it makes it no more palatable or constitutional.

At this point "Economic Stimulus" is an oxymoron. Even you should be able to admit as much. It has had zero positive impact, and many of the supposed benefits have yet to materialize. Like this one, -If we fail to pass this legislation, the unemployment rate will exceed 8%. Further, there was little to no serious deliberation and it was rushed through. I submit that was because had there been real debate, the American public would have made their displeasure known, as they have with the healthcare issue.

1,990 pages at 1.5 trillion dollars+ is not reform. It is complete destruction of a working system widely credited with providing the finest health care in the world. Again, there has been no real, honest, serious debate on this issue. The Republicans have proposed a 300 page alternative health care plan that addresses accessibility and cost (seems like we could agree that's where the priorities should lie), yet no one is even discussing it. AP can assign 11 reporters to fact check a pirated copy of Sarah Palin's book, refreshing the story every hour or so, but they seem to have no curiosity for, or interest in presenting to the public, any details of the Republican alternative. To your point of support for Obama's health care reform, follow the graph lines, they're trending steadily downward. The more that is known about this monstrosity the less people want it. That is why this congress rammed their version through at midnight on a weekend. Americans are waking up to the chilling fact that they've made a deal with the devil (metaphor, Bob), and they're demanding their voice be heard.

Individual liberty, preference for personal responsibility over the nanny state. What's radical about that? in my view, if it's not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution, I submit that it's radical. We've been given a specific outline for implementing new rights and laws, again by adhering to the tenets of the Constitution. Following that process, where the decision making for granting the federal government new authorities over our individual freedoms flows bottom-up rather than top-down, is the moderate and constitutionally mandated prescription. Anything else is bureaucratic fiat. Honest.

[RafroSmurf]

"My own research into his history, my knowledge of collectivist ideology and history and my study of economics have convinced me that your hero is, in fact, a communist."

Then you, sir, are an idiot.

[Bob]

"Pray tell, Bob, exactly what does the U.S. have in common with Switzerland in terms of demographics or government or population or education level or cultural homogenity?"

Using the same sort of argument, anon, you could also question how a federal system of government could possibly work for the U.S. if it works for Switzerland, since both have such a form of government. But apparently it does. Since you raise the issue, I'd think that the onus would be on you to prove that a similar healthcare system SHOULDN'T work because of these differences you claim.

And yes, costs are a serious issue in our system. But it's an issue that's only going to be worse in the absence of reform. It's just that the consequences will be different depending on what we do or don't do about it. Conservatives like to pretend that THEIR way -- whatever that is -- is supposed to be better, but all they ever offer up are piecemeal measures like tort reform. Tort reform could at most save 2% on our healthcare costs, and that ignores the fact that significant tort reforms have ALREADY been instituted. So from where we are now, further tort reform will only save an additional 0.5%.

Republicans insist that there can't be anything like rationing for healthcare, but ignore that our current system rations strictly on a have/have-not basis. I think the bottom line is that many if not most conservatives think that tens of millions of Americans don't deserve healthcare, and they think therefore that the current system is already perfect and fair. But they're not doing anything to address costs either. They're also afraid (NOW, at least) to touch Medicare or propose any sensible changes that might address costs, because they want to accuse Democrats of trying to pull the plug on Grandma. In a political environment that's been poisoned by so much bad faith and dishonest rhetoric, it really has become virtually impossible to have a rational discussion about healthcare any more.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Communism is defined by the state controlling the means of production and owning all property."

Which is exactly what Barack Obama wants and is doing.

Notice the nationalization of GM and Chrysler -- including Barack Obama's use of government power to take away legitimately-purchased assets and to deny the banks and investors their rights.

Notice the nationalization of the TARP banks -- and Barack Obama's taking pay away from people.

Notice the Kelo decision - and Barack Obama's support of stripping private citizens of their property for takeover by the government.

But again, Bob, the useful idiot, defends Obama's Marxist anti-business policies. In fact, Bob regularly rants about how awful corporations are and screams that health insurance companies should be driven out of business so that government can take over all health care.

[North Dallas Thirty]

But it's an issue that's only going to be worse in the absence of reform.

Actually, the facts say differently.

"Elmendorf: No, Mr. Chairman. In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/cbo-sees-no-federal-cost-savings-in-dem-health-plans.html

And then, of course, the paid whore Bob plays the moocher card.

"I think the bottom line is that many if not most conservatives think that tens of millions of Americans don't deserve healthcare, and they think therefore that the current system is already perfect and fair."

This is again the typical tactic of the moocher. Instead of working and earning money and choosing to spend their money on health insurance, moochers like Bob demand that other people pay it for them so that they don't have to ration their money or make choices like everyone else does.

Liberals like Bob don't believe that other people should have the right to keep their money and choose how they wish to spend it. Instead, jealous Bob wants these people stripped of their private property so that it can be given to him instead. That's really all that "health care" is about; it's about Obama's need for the state to control all property and the means of production.

[Bob]

"But again, Bob, the useful idiot, defends Obama's Marxist anti-business policies. In fact, Bob regularly rants about how awful corporations are and screams that health insurance companies should be driven out of business so that government can take over all health care."

How is bailing out a major U.S. company like GM "anti-business?" How is keeping a place for all current medical-insurance companies in healthcare reform "anti-business?" Yes, Obama has insisted on a certain level of government control for bailed-out companies, but that's only under conditions of extreme crisis, and it's only sensible. Personally, I'm much more of a lefty than Obama seems to be. I think he should have gone with a single-payer healthcare system, and should have broken up several of the too-big-to-fail financial institutions like Goldman Sachs. But even I'M not a socialist, and I'm sure as hell not a communist. I believe in a regulated free-market economy.

I work for a publicly traded company and have company-provided health insurance that has never failed me. But I want universal healthcare so that tens of millions of Americans don't have to live in fear of having serious health problems. If no other country had done it, if it had ruined the fortunes of countries that tried to do it, maybe it'd be different. But it didn't. Countries like the UK and Switzerland are doing fine, and if they can do it, then so can we.

[Anon]

No, Bob, the onus is on the person who is making the claim that "what works for Switzerland will work for the U.S." it isn't up to me to disprove your claims though I can and have repeatedly, it is up to you to PROVE your OWN claims.

You have also been repeatedly shown valid statistics that there are not "tens of millions" of Americans without health care, but at the absolute most 10-12 million.

If you want to know if I think that this 10-12 million people who don't have health insurance but nevertheless have access to actual HEALTH CARE is a critical problem facing this country, the answer is NO, not even close.

We need to recreate our economy so that this country will again be a place where a blue collar, non professional person can make a decent wage, and that is by stimulating job growth in the private sector.

We desperately need to put in place sensible, reasonable and common sense regulations for the financial markets and the banking industry, ending the idea that any company is ever too big to fail, ending the concentration of money and power in a handful of global giants.

We need desperately to fix our broken education system and stop with the quick fixes and the smiley faces and the New Age jargon and go back to teaching children what they need to know in order to become productive citizens of this country.

And we most desperately need to fix the entitlement system we have already inherited from the past generations of do gooders so that the country can prosper in the future.

All of these things are much, much more important than spending untold trillions to get health insurance for a small group of Americans who already can access plenty of free health care.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"But I want universal healthcare so that tens of millions of Americans don't have to live in fear of having serious health problems."

That's a lie.

If that were the case, you could have reached into your own pocket and paid for other peoples' health insurance. Indeed, your Obama Party could purchase health insurance for "the poor" instead of paying whores like yourself to go online and blabber.

But you don't. Instead you try to steal from working people and those who are productive so that moochers like yourself don't have to spend your own money. Furthermore, as we see in the case of Charles Rangel, you put taxes on others, but then dodge and refuse to pay them yourself.

Your communist beliefs become more obvious the more you blab, Bob. You support the takeover and destruction of private companies by the government and the confiscation of private property. Poor bitter failures like yourself, paid whores for the left, are always the ones who want the government to take from others and hand it over to you. It's no surprise you support Barack Obama.

[Bob]

"Liberals like Bob don't believe that other people should have the right to keep their money and choose how they wish to spend it."

What typical bullsh*t. There goes the 2 year old acting up again. Are you even capable of making an argument without resorting to fabricating falsehoods to "prove" your claims? Why should anyone trust the judgments of someone like you who's incapable of limiting themselves to honest or fair arguments?

[Bob]

"No, Bob, the onus is on the person who is making the claim that "what works for Switzerland will work for the U.S." it isn't up to me to disprove your claims though I can and have repeatedly, it is up to you to PROVE your OWN claims."

On one hand, you have a majority of mainstream Republicans, like Sen. Grassley, using phrases like "pull the plug on grandma" to describe the Obama plan. So don't cop the attitude that MY side of the argument is the one that's being disingenuous or misleading. If you want to know pretty much exactly what the current House bill will do, for example, you can read thousands of pages in the bill itself and study the Congressional Budget Office's assessment that says it will REDUCE the federal deficit over the next ten or fifteen years. Additional costs of universal coverage will be paid for by an increase in the taxes of the top 0.3% of income earners, a demographic that's doing just fine and can afford it. So yes it absolutely will work. Will it do enough to control costs? Probably not, initially, but cost containment is a systemic problem that is as much or more a function of the providers, not the entity (government or private insurance) that's paying the bills. This will be a much longer-term problem, but to pretend that doing NOTHING will somehow result in a better outcome in any regard is really missing the point.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"If you want to know pretty much exactly what the current House bill will do, for example, you can read thousands of pages in the bill itself and study the Congressional Budget Office's assessment that says it will REDUCE the federal deficit over the next ten or fifteen years."

Sorry, but even the Associated Press pointed out that that was a lie, based on the Obama Party's deliberately leaving OUT hundreds of billions of dollars in spending.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/03/actual-cost-of-pelosi-bill-1200000000000/

And even that doesn't address how the Obama Party deliberately rigged the bill to collect taxes for YEARS prior to providing any benefits in order to pretend it doesn't explode the deficit.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/05/actual-10-year-cost-of-pelosi-plan-1-8-trillion/

Meanwhile, how about the Republican plan?

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/05/gop-health-care-reform-cost-61-billion-cut-deficit-68-billion/

That's right; according to the CBO, it costs $61 billion total, reduces the deficit by $68 billion in the first decade, continues to reduce deficits in the following decade, and reduces premium costs across the board.

But you hate that, Bob, because it requires you to actually pay for your own health insurance, rather than mooching off others. As you demonstrate from your diatribe against people who make more money than you, you're nothing but a bitter child, jealous of the successful, who thinks you should be arbitrarily able to dictate who has too much money and use the power of the government to take it away from them and give it to you.

Communist. Typical for a Barack Obama supporter.

[Anon]

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said that we should "do nothing" and I never said the GOP had not ever played dirty in terms of manipulating the debate.

Anyone who paid attention knows that the CBO came under serious threat because their first analysis wasn't what Obama and the Dems wanted to hear, and anyone who pays attention would also know that they put enough caveats in the ahem, revised analysis to know that it is worthless.

All I want you to do Bob, is remember ten years from now when the health care reform plan has proven to be much more expensive than predicted and that it has failed to do what its proponents said it would do: just remember, I told you so.

Cost containment is not really a problem of the providers, it is a problem of an aging society, a medical tradition that does EVERYTHING to elongate life by even a day, a highly litigious society and the country where, coincidentally, almost all of the shiny new drugs and treatments are developed.

I have no problem with single payer as long as you can explain to me exactly how it is going to work: what is going to happen to the hundreds of thousands of people who work for the health care companies? what is going to happen to those millions in taxes they pay? how is the elimination of this entire sector of the economy...moving it from private hands to public hands...going to be accomplished. If there is ANYONE or ANY explanation out there that covers how in reality we would transition from private health insurance to single payer government insurance, please direct me to the links.

[Bob]

Oh, by the way, anon, on your claims about the actual number of uninsured Americans, I think your sources are wrong. The consensus seems to be much more than 10-12 million. A story by CBS news takes issue with Obama's claim of 46 million, but says that it's because 10 million of that number are not actually American citizens. That still leaves 36 million who ARE:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/49586

Another source, PolitiFact.com -- a very reputable non-partisan fact-check site -- says that the figure of 46 million is "mostly true." They also cite that a similar proportion (almost 10 million) of the uninsured are not U.S. citizens, but also agree that there ARE 36 million AMERICANS who lack insurance.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/18/barack-obama/number-those-without-health-insurance-about-46-mil/

[Anon]

I already linked previously to Megan McArdle's blog at The Atlantic Monthly where she provides a very convincing argument and back up data on how the 40 million breaks down...I don't remember the numbers but it breaks out into illegals, citizens that are already eligible for existing gov. programs but don't access them and citizens that, according to the charts, can afford to buy health care but choose not to, this leaves as I said about 10-12 million Americans who do not qualify for any current gov. programs and based on their income cannot afford to buy insurance in the current market.

[Bob]

"Don't put words in my mouth, I never said that we should "do nothing" and I never said the GOP had not ever played dirty in terms of manipulating the debate."

I don't mean you personally. I mean conservatives, and especially, congressional Republicans. The Republican "plan" relies on fakery over things like tort reform, would only increase coverage marginally (i.e. it would be nowhere near a universal system) and is in no way comparable to a comprehensive plan like what the Dems are proposing. It would entail such minimal changes as to make no significant improvement at all.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/congressional_budget_office_th.html

"CBO begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance in 2010. In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that ...17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance. The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population to 4 percent.

But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.

The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan."

[Bob]

"I already linked previously to Megan McArdle's blog at The Atlantic Monthly where she provides a very convincing argument and back up data on how the 40 million breaks down . . ."

But McArdle is a person who seriously tries to argue that a national universal healthcare system is bad because if it succeeds in controlling costs, pharmaceutical companies will not make enough profits to continue innovation. This is a highly dubious claim that's been disputed by many other healthcare experts. She's a libertarian who is hostile to universal healthcare. I can understand why you'd go with HER estimates, of all possible sources. But her numbers on the number of uninsured seem to be an outlier. Since she has such an obvious ax to grind, I find her to be less convincing than the source of the 46 million figure: the U.S. Census Bureau, who found out their numbers simply by asking people, and they have no such partisan bias.

[Anon]

I'm not 100% sold on her idea that universal health care will kill pharma innovation, but she does make a pretty good case that U.S. medical and pharmaceutical industry innovation allows the rest of the world to access these drugs and technologies more cheaply because its US companies that are footing the bill.

Like I said, she provided links and back up for her analysis that all seemed above board to me, because to me there is a big difference between "I don't have health insurance because I'm choosing to risk it" than "I don't have health insurance because I cannot afford it"...which if all you ask is "Do you have health insurance, it isn't going to get you to that level fo detail..simply NOT having insurance doesn't mean that you cannot afford it. I don't have insurance because I believe it is too expensive to buy an individual plan in my state..premiums went up by 30% over about 3/4 years, but according to Obama's figures I CAN afford it and according to Obama I will HAVE TO BUY it, whether I want it or not and that is unconstitutional bs.

I find McArdle's blog to be really interesting, but as a libertarian myself, she's speaking to the choir.

But come on, her claim is certainly no less dubious than the idea that giving people "free" health insurance is going to reduce the amount of health care that they access...which isn't backed up by any data and as we've discussed previously, the MA data shows otherwise...when you give someone free healthcare they use more of it, not less and there was no corresponding decrease in other costs through all that lovely preventative care. Sometimes, the truth is counter intuitive.

It sounds right that preventative care would reduce overall costs because you'd be catching illnesses earlier and keeping people healthier, but the data doesn't really show that to be true. HMOs tried that paradym and found they couldn't make money on it because it doesn't work, screening and preventative care and a yearly physical simply don't save any substantial amount of money in the long run, for a lot of reasons, patient non compliance, the fact that the cost of testing hundreds of thousands of people who are healthy in order to catch a handful of those with diseases costs more than it saves. That isn't to say it is undesirable, but that it is incorrect that preventative care, which is basically a yearly physical and having your own PCP saves much money in the long run or keeps you much healthier in the long.

[Bob]

"But come on, her claim is certainly no less dubious than the idea that giving people "free" health insurance is going to reduce the amount of health care that they access...which isn't backed up by any data and as we've discussed previously, the MA data shows otherwise...when you give someone free healthcare they use more of it, not less and there was no corresponding decrease in other costs through all that lovely preventative care. Sometimes, the truth is counter intuitive."

That's one area where it's probably fair to say that the Dems' claims are overstated, and the CBO said as much, for example, in a fairly recent study they did on whether electronic medical records would save substantial costs. Ultimately, there can't be completely unlimited access to care that's not necessary or efficacious. A lot of unnecessary procedures are done because some doctors and hospitals know it'll make them money, some is done as a "cover your ass" measure, and some is done because patients expect it. But any sincere good-faith effort to try to rein-in costs by reducing unneeded procedures immediately gets demagogued as "death panels" and other such nonsense. Is our current system fair because it gives some people more than they need and others little or nothing at all, or would it be better if everybody had access to effective treatments that had as good of outcomes without incurring exorbitantly excessive costs? I don't buy the "death panels" accusations. I think there's room to start cutting back on unnecessary procedures in a fair and rational way that won't have a negative impact on peoples' health. Are doctors and pharmaceutical companies to be seen as victims if this cuts into their profits? Tough!But in the political climate that Republicans -- yes, I give them the lion's share of blame -- have created, we can't have rational discussions about things like that.

[North Dallas Thirty]

I thought the paid whores Bob and Ezra Klein couldn't be any more duplicitous already, but as usual, their dishonesty and lies never cease.

Klein and Bob babble this:

"But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.

The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan.""

But there's something missing from that -- like the fact that the Republican plan costs $61 billion dollars total, and the Obama Party's "plan" costs 1.8 TRILLION dollars -- nearly 30 times as much.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/05/actual-10-year-cost-of-pelosi-plan-1-8-trillion/

Why didn't Bob and Klein insert that part? Why did they need to hide the true cost of their attempt to take over health care, including a massive tax increase?

What makes this particularly dangerous is that paid whores like Bob aren't aware of economic research and the effect of tax increases. For example:

"The strong negative relationship between tax changes and investment also helps to explain the
size of our estimated overall effect on output. Recall that we find that a tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by about 3 percent, implying a substantial multiplier."

http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf

In short, the $2 trillion tax increase will have the net effect of lowering GDP by approximately three times as much, or $6 trillion -- roughly 40% of the entire US GDP for

But again, selfish paid whores like Bob simply aren't able to understand that. They want free health care, and they don't want to pay for it. They want to force other people to do it. What these economically-ignorant children simply don't understand is that they cannot demand everything for free without substantially harming the economy.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"But any sincere good-faith effort to try to rein-in costs by reducing unneeded procedures immediately gets demagogued as "death panels" and other such nonsense."

Again, the duplicity and lies of the hypocrite Bob never cease to amaze.

Bob whines and screams that health insurance companies should never be able to deny claims, even if they are fraudulent, spurious, or unnecessary.

But when it comes to the government denying care, Bob supports and endorses it.

The fact that Bob is a paid whore is obvious in the degree of contradiction that is obvious in all of his arguments. A normal, intelligent, educated person would never be this hypocritical.

[trentk269]

The funny thing is, I don't recall O-bow-ma pivoting at the waist for Queen Elizabeth. However, I'm sure Bob has a rational explanation for that,

[Northern Observer]

SteveP,

If Obama was a communist you would have two bullets in the back of head and your corpse would be moldering somewhere in a ditch in one of the national forests after the secret police picked you up. Oh and your family would be in an internment camp somewhere remote.

You are ignorant my friend; I tell you this because I care, hard as it is to hear. And the funny thing is that the only thing you achieve by confusing Bolshevism with Liberalism is help excuse the crimes of the Bolsheviks. By making your exaggerated claims you are pissing on all the victims of communism. Instead of pretending to know what Marxism is and why Obama is oh so much like that I recommend you do a little reading. For the Soviet Union I would read Martin Amis' Koba the Dread: Laughter and the 50 Million. On Mao the best one is Mao: The untold story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. If first person account is more your thing than Kolyma tales by Varlam Shalamov is excellent.

Get informed. Stop letting the Rhiels and other agenda men lead you by the nose.

[O!]

Bob, thank you for that additional helping of Journolist/Axelturf talking point spam.

2010.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"If Obama was a communist you would have two bullets in the back of head and your corpse would be moldering somewhere in a ditch in one of the national forests after the secret police picked you up. Oh and your family would be in an internment camp somewhere remote."

Give it time. Lenin didn't go crazy his first year in power. Knowing Obama, though, who supports and endorses the gang and criminal culture of Chicago, it's just a matter of him not thinking he can get away with it yet.

We already know Dear Leader doesn't think privacy laws apply to him, given how he's ordered his brownshirts to rummage through government records to attack people who dare criticize him. And since we already know he's paying SEIU and other union thugs to attack people at town halls, exhorting them to beat up those who are opposed to him, he's got the violence down pat. The mind control is coming from his attempt to control the news media and his insistence that elementary-school children be taught hymns to him in school ("Barack Hussein Obama, mmm mmmm mmmmm").

[What would Churhill]

He also bowed at the Pope when they met at the Vatican (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CjQFVQQPcw) on the 1:47 mark.

[What would Churhill]

He also bowed at the Pope when they met at the Vatican (www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CjQFVQQPcw) on the 1:47 mark.

[What would Churhill]

He also bowed at the Pope when they met at the Vatican (www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CjQFVQQPcw) on the 1:47 mark.

[Elmo]

Posted by: Bob | Saturday, November 14, 2009 at 12:46 PM

I kinda smirk when any uh ya respond to Boobie. But well, he's starting to amuse me. His Grrrrrr .... grrrr is just so dang cute [do not mistake this response, for confirmation of having read more than one of Bob's 'comments' (tyvm)].

We now return you to your regularly scheduled internet ....

[Ted Haggard's Manwhore]

Obama bowing is awful, but Bush holding hands and tongue kissing a Saudi king is what, not gay at all because a right wing chimp did it?

Please explain.

[Anon]

Bob,

You are starting from the wrong premise, the government cannot make life "fair"...what you are essentially saying is that rather than haves and have nots you want everyone to have a little..that's socialism in a nutshell, take off the bottom and the top and everyone is stuck in the middle.

I agree that the GOP played politics with the death panel stuff, but the Dems were also disingenious since there is NO WAY they can not do some kind of health care rationing, health care is already rationed and we will need more rationing, not less. The difference between a conservative and a liberal is that the liberal wants to put the rationing in the hands of the government directly...thousands of pages of directions and so forth, as a conservative I want to see the system regulated in such a way that there are no incentives to provide over care but that the decisions on care will remain w/the doctor...not a gov. panel. Remove the need for defensive testing, encourage communication between doc and patient on what they want in terms of quality of life, etc. and then follow the data on what tests and procedures should be implemented.

And let me just point out that it was only when insurance became so widespread that the costs of health care became disengaged from reality...when it was pay as you go, the average person could afford all the health care he and his family needed out of pocket and doctors weren't poor...the market self selected, but there was a doctor for everyone, and he even came to your house.

I fail to see how health insurance itself has improved anyone's quality of life...it was another of those 'sounds good' type of moves that in the end hasn't done much but drive the cost of health care into the stratosphere and insert a third party, the carrier and the government, into the doctor/patient relationship.

More unintended consequences of do gooder ideas, but sadly the do gooders are still never able to stop themselves, they always believe that "this time" it will be different.

You also have set up in your mind that this is between the good victims [uninsured] and the bad rich [doctors/insurers/pharma] and that is unfair and unproductive because what it results in is a 'screw the rich' mentality that will eventually ruin our health care system, just like the 'evil capitalist' meme will eventually screw the economy. There is nothing wrong with making money, being rich does not mean you have exploited anyone, unfairly or otherwise.

Remember, Ayn Rand didn't just hate the moochers, she also hated the looters...those people who gamed the system via stock fraud, lobbyist acquired special exemptions, etc.

Just sayin.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"I fail to see how health insurance itself has improved anyone's quality of life...it was another of those 'sounds good' type of moves that in the end hasn't done much but drive the cost of health care into the stratosphere and insert a third party, the carrier and the government, into the doctor/patient relationship."

If it were insurance proper, that wouldn't be a problem; that is, you pay for normal wear and tear maintenance out of pocket, and have insurance only when the cost of a given procedure or accident would be overwhelming. But instead, what we have now is a system in which you are essentially prepaying your everyday medical costs through premiums and being forced to pay for mandates like sex-change operations that the vast majority of people will never need or use.

Meanwhile, the government's own Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have said flat-out that the Obama Party's plan will drastically increase health care costs.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/CMS_House_bill_increases_health_care_costs_.html?showall

And it also makes it clear that it will reduce care for seniors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/14/AR2009111402597.html?hpid=topnews

This brings the moocher aspect of the bill into stark relief. This bill takes from people who have paid into Medicare their entire life and gives to welfare addicts who have and will never pay a dime into the system. It is wealth redistribution, plain and simple, and it is communism.

[Officious Pedant]

That's cute Dallas, but you got a little creative with it, didn't you?

Page 2 of the report says: "The Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation have estimated that the total net amount of Medicare savings and additional tax and other revenue would somewhat offset the cost of the national coverage provisions, resulting in an overall reduction in the Federal deficit through 2019."

Plus another 34 Million get coverage.

Oh, and Page 3: Total national health expenditures under this bill would increase by an estimated 1.3 percent in calendar year 2019, reflecting the net impact of (i) greater utilization of health care services by individuals becoming newly covered (or having more complete coverage), (ii)lower prices paid to health providers for the subset of those individuals who become covered by Medicaid, and (iii) lower payments and payment updates for Medicare services."

So, it doesn' quite say what you think it says, but there you go.

More importantly, since WaPo has some problems with stuff like, you know, facts, and research, and the like. The bulk of the cuts are being leveled at Medicare Advantage, which is essentially taxpayer funding going to a private HMO to give Medicare-like coverage. And it pays as much as 14% more than the coverage is worth. It also recoups about $250 billion in Federal funds. So, that should be good. And I know, for certain, that you're not going to propose to me that you have a soft spot in your heart for goverenment run health care as it applies to Medicare, and those that depend on it, are you? That would be...disingenuous of you, I think.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"The bulk of the cuts are being leveled at Medicare Advantage, which is essentially taxpayer funding going to a private HMO to give Medicare-like coverage."

Unfortunately, the ignorance of the Nancy Pelosi paid talking points repeaters continues to manifest itself.

"MA plans — private health plan options that provide coverage to 8.3 million Medicare beneficiaries — disproportionately provide coverage to low-income and racial and ethnic minority beneficiaries. Specifically, 40 percent of African Americans without Medicaid or employer coverage rely on comprehensive health insurance coverage provided by MA plans. By providing more comprehensive benefits and lower cost-sharing than traditional Medicare, MA plans help racial and ethnic minority populations gain access to health care services that are critical to their long-term health and well-being."

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/washington/medicare_monitor/entries/2007/03/15/naacp_backs_medicare_advantage.html

In short, Medicare Advantage plans cost more because they provide more benefits at a lower cost to participants. And of course, why do they do that?

"Over time, Congress has revised the payment formula to raise payments in order to attract more plans to rural and certain urban areas. The BBA of 1997 established a payment floor, applicable almost exclusively to rural counties. The Benefits Improvement and Protection Act (BIPA) of 2000 created payment floors for urban areas and increased the floor for rural areas, with a subsequent boost in payment, across all areas, authorized by the MMA of 2003."

http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/2052-13.pdf

In short, they also provide services to areas where "traditional" Medicare cannot operate because of costs.

So to summarize, Medicare Advantage plans cost more because a) they provide more benefits at a lower cost to participants and b) because they operate in higher-cost areas, all of which are good things for those senior citizens they serve.

Perhaps if you had thought past the talking points your Nancy Pelosi provides, you would recognize that. But I also realize that the Obama Party doesn't pay you or your fellow liberals to investigate or have thoughts; you're paid to repeat the Obama Party line.

Meanwhile, as discussed above, raising taxes by $2 trillion will, according to economic research, cause $6 trillion worth of reduction in GDP. What seems to be beyond Obama talking-point repeaters is the fact that a reduction equal to 40% of the US GDP for 2008 is going to negatively affect tax receipts in the first place -- meaning that Obama Party talking points repeaters like yourself are agitating for an increase in taxation that will have the net effect of drastically reducing taxable activity, and thus tax receipts.

[Bob]

"You are starting from the wrong premise, the government cannot make life "fair"...what you are essentially saying is that rather than haves and have nots you want everyone to have a little..that's socialism in a nutshell, take off the bottom and the top and everyone is stuck in the middle."

Now you're being disingenuous. I'm talking about giving everyone HEALTHCARE, not saying that everyone has to be given the same of everything else. It's like you're claiming that it's "socialism" because everyone now has police protection and a fire department in their neighborhood, and it would be inappropriate for government to "fairly" provide such services to ensure that everyone was protected. Again, I'd refer you to those hellish European countries that manage to accomplish this without ruining their economies or deadening the souls of their people.

And jeez, you're almost sounding like North Dallas Forty-Bucks-And-A-Bandaid when you accuse people like me of hating the rich. I don't begrudge anyone making an honest living. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs: bully for them. But if someone gets rich at the expense of destroying peoples' lives by unethical business practices and is then able to wield disproportionate influence over our government by buying-off politicians so they get what they want and everyone else gets screwed, then I have a problem with that. Capitalism is NOT self-cleansing, as should be obvious to anyone by now. Scumbags will always be trying to game the system, and we the people should do our best to prevent that from happening. Sensible regulations and rational government planning -- including knowing what the limits of government should be -- can enhance, not interfere with, effective competition in the economy.

And please, it's such a deliberate mischaracterization of liberal attitudes to claim that liberals don't want doctors and their patients being the primary decision makers in the medical system. Conservatives have a way of so dishonestly framing their arguments, as if liberals want some imaginary government bureaucrat deciding whether Mrs. Smith gets a colonoscopy. It's like saying, well, we CONSERVATIVES believe that air for breathing should be FREE, but those liberals just want to TAX and REGULATE EVERYTHING! Liberals are tired of having to entertain bullshit mischaracterizations just so we can have a rational discussion about practical things like end-of-life planning, proper reimbursement rates for medical procedures, how best to provide a society with affordable healthcare, etc. But it will never happen, because companies with vested interests won't let it happen. They'll try to ensure that our healthcare continues to cost too much, and that they'll all get to split those excess profits at everyone else's expense. And they'll always buy just enough legislators to make sure it stays that way, and they'll always get to control the agenda in the media so that we end up discussing teabaggers at townhalls rather than having that rational discussion about healthcare that we can never have.

[O!]

Bob, thank you for that additional helping of Journolist/Axelturf talking point spam.

2010.

[Anon]

Come on Bob, the rhetoric of the Democrats is all about hating the rich, now who is being disingenuous?

The answer to where to get the money is always, always from "the rich" because "they can afford it"...who has been demonized in the health care debate? Health insurance and big pharma. Why? Because [gasp, horrors], their businesses are FOR PROFIT!! How many times have we been told that all of those evil profits from health insurance and pharma will be used to help "the poor" get health insurance? That is the definition of a moocher...trying to instill guilt in the productive to extract free services for the unproductive.

Again, the GOP has not always been on the right side of every issue, they are much too enamoured of "free trade" and most have never met any regulation on any business that they thought was appropriate.

However, in this current climate I think it is absolutely fair to say that "the rich" have been totally demonized and I think it is absolutely fair to say that almost every liberal program comes with a huge, huge dose of government intervention including health care reform. Come on , Bob, how many new agencies and boards and other government bodies does Obama's plan CREATE? Isn't it a couple of dozen?

In fact, it is absurd to claim that the liberals have been framing the debate honestly on health care since they first have claimed that they don't want illegals and non citizens covered [a lie], they then have claimed their plan will cut costs and have used cost cutting as a key message [another lie] and have claimed they wont' raise taxes [another big lie]. Who if not the liberals has made health insurance the bad guys? The problem w/health insurance is that the business model has been so skewed by liberals with community rating and other regulations to make sure its "fair" that the only way they can make money is through cutting services. The HMO model was always hugely flawed and it has now distorted the system so much that Americans don't think they should have to pay out of pocket for ANYTHING...the old 80/20 split w/fairly high deductable meant that you basically paid for routine medical services and your insurance kicked in for something big. No more. Now everything thinks they should pay $10 for the doctor's visit and their tests...totally unsustainable. I guarantee you that if auto insurance was structured so it only cost $10 for an oil change or to get your tires rotated or your brakes adjusted that the auto insurers would have to continually raise their rates as well.

[Bob]

"However, in this current climate I think it is absolutely fair to say that "the rich" have been totally demonized and I think it is absolutely fair to say that almost every liberal program comes with a huge, huge dose of government intervention including health care reform. Come on , Bob, how many new agencies and boards and other government bodies does Obama's plan CREATE? Isn't it a couple of dozen?"

Every year that goes by, "the rich" get a little richer relative to everyone else, i.e. the income gap gets larger. Incomes for middle- and lower-class Americans have stagnated in recent years, while the top earners make more and more and control a larger and larger proportion of the GDP. It's not to demonize anyone to simply acknowledge that, since the wealthiest Americans are pulling down a larger share of income relative to everyone else, they should be able to afford tax increases to help pay for government services. They'll still be doing just fine even with higher tax rates. Just to note that there are people like Kenneth Lay who fit the description of robber barons does not translate into an across-the-board hostility towards rich people. It's just the usual disingenuous pre-emptive strike by conservatives, who try to justify rich people controlling more and more of our economy by accusing anyone who notices that fact of engaging in "class warfare." As Warren Buffet said a few years ago, "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html

"Now everything thinks they should pay $10 for the doctor's visit and their tests...totally unsustainable. I guarantee you that if auto insurance was structured so it only cost $10 for an oil change or to get your tires rotated or your brakes adjusted that the auto insurers would have to continually raise their rates as well."

What? Most peoples' insurance costs thousands of dollars per year, usually paid by both the employer and the employee, in addition to a $10 or $20 copay. So no medical procedure "costs" $10. If Americans were getting something for nothing, all of those doctors, hospitals and insurance companies would be LOSING money. In fact, they're making very decent profits. The people who are paying are the employers and employees, who have to pay more and more for their insurance coverage. The cost problem is systemic and there's no one entity at fault for it. Everyone in the system does their part through waste, unnecessary procedures/tests, unreasonable expectations, etc, to keep jacking the costs up. But any measures that might try to rein-in any unnecessary or ineffective or too-costly procedures immediately gets demagogued as "death panels" by conservatives. Evidently most conservatives (not you, necessarily) think the present system is just fine, since they're willing to do so little about it. Yea, tort reform is the answer to all our problems, LOL.

[Bitter Scribe]

"My own research into his history, my knowledge of collectivist ideology and history and my study of economics have convinced me that your hero is, in fact, a communist."

Well, that settles the matter. If someone with such deep knowledge--so deep that he actually proclaims it on a website--says soemthing, it must be true.

[Anon]

We agree that it is not good that "the rich" have increasingly become the "super rich" and that money is concentrated in fewer hands today than probably in the time of the robber barrons, and we agree that it is bad that the middle class is being squeezed otu of existance.

What we don't agree on is the solution. Your solution is to tax the rich and spread their money around. This is a short term feel good solution that does nothing to address the underlying economic landscape that has created the situation...monstrously huge multi-nationals like Citi...most every industry moving to a place where you have to be global to compete at all...leaving us closer and closer to monopoly...coupled with the wholesale offshoring of American manufacturing jobs which was endorsed and supported by BOTH parties.

My solution is not onerous taxes on wealth that has already been created, but incentives that encourage the creation of wealth and jobs in small businesses and regulations that will curtail the "too big to fail" model since we've seen pretty conclusively that big isn't better or smarter only more dangerous.

Again, your answer to the problem is more "government services" but what that creates is a population that is passive, sheeple, a country full of people with no spirit and no drive, because Uncle Sam is taking care of all their basics and then some. Yes, the most talented people will always excell one way or the other, but the issue is the "average" person or the somewhat above average person...when you create a society that runs on government patronage there is no incentive to create anything of your own...new wealth, new productive capacity.

My answer isn't necessarly "less" regulation but its "better" regulation, and we need to reinject JUDGEMENT into the equation instead of continuing on in the other liberal falacy that only if you have enough rules you can make everything equal. You can't. Either you allow for a level of subjectivity and judgement that empowers people and live with the fact that sometimes they will make bad judgements or you continue turning the population into sheeple who follow the rules and can't think. You know--expelling children for plastic knives in their lunch box and stripping girls for "contraband" Advil.

I know that my way is the right way just as much as I know that we are too far down the sheeple road and that your way will win. Hopefully you will live long enough to understand how wrong the premise was.

[O!]

Bob, thank you for that additional helping of Journolist/Axelturf talking point spam.

2010.

[Bob]

"What we don't agree on is the solution. Your solution is to tax the rich and spread their money around."

The rich in this country don't pay any higher proportion of their wealth in taxes than rich people in most other advanced countries. It's just that the specific ratio of different taxes -- incomes tax, value added taxes, etc -- are different in different countries. Wealthy people have nothing to complain about here, and one of our most prosperous decades -- during the Clinton administration -- featured higher taxes on the wealthy than we have now in the wake of the Bush tax cuts. There's plenty of room to raise funds for a SPECIFIC program like universal healthcare without unduly burdening the wealthy or hampering our economy. Again, if it hadn't been shown not to be a problem in earlier decades here, or in other countries that pay for their universal healthcare through taxes, then maybe you'd have a leg to stand on. But the facts clearly show that the proposed level of taxation to support a specific program like this is not a problem. It's worth noting that the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars could have EASILY paid for the entire healthcare program over the next 10-15 years, and none of those conservatives who now express such deep concerns about costs and deficits EVER expressed those concerns just a few short years ago.

The cost issue is a different matter, of course, and if nothing is done WILL become more and more of a problem, and probably is NOT sustainable long-term. But it's going to be a problem with or without universal healthcare. Again, there are lots of things that could be done to control costs -- even some suggestions you've made -- but just go ahead and try proposing your idea of making more rational allocation of end-of-life care among your fellow conservatives and see how well the discussion goes.

I certainly don't think it's a fair characterization of the liberal viewpoint that more regulation is always better. But when you see the disastrous results of de-regulation in certain markets like energy and finance, it's hard to argue that targeted and reasonable regulation is necessary to optimize market performance. The founding fathers knew well enough not to trust politicians and built many checks and balances into their government framework. The same is true of the business world. People and markets CAN'T be trusted to do the right thing without sensible laws and regulations. There's nothing at all wrong with that.

[Bob]

Oops, that should read "it's hard to argue that targeted and reasonable regulation is NOT necessary to optimize market performance."

[anon]

The Clinton prosperity was just as false as the Bush bubble...real wages have been stagnate for 30 years....also Clinton is the one who repealed Glass Steigel. The deficit has increased more in 6 nonths than Bush's 8 years... so the $1 trillion wasted in Iraq is a footnote now.

We'll have to agree to disagree on taxes and liberals view of regulation

[O!]

Bob, thank you for that additional helping of Journolist/Axelturf talking point spam.

2010.