No Bickering or Thinking: Just Do It

Understanding Obama's new health care agenda

Those who claim that President Barack Obama's speech on health care this week wasn't a glorious success are fooling themselves. A Washington takeover of health care never sounded so enticing or fun.

Just ignore the specifics, because when the president says he welcomes substantive new ideas, he means that if you have the nerve to offer any ideas—as Whole Foods' CEO, John Mackey, did in The Wall Street Journal last month—his allies will attempt to destroy your business and reputation.

And when the president says he welcomes bipartisanship, what he means is that he hasn't met with a single Republican on the issue since April—despite numerous requests and two separate House bills chock-full of ideas.

When this president says he is a deal-making centrist and will stand up to his own party, he means he will rebuff progressives on a complete straw man, such as a "single-payer" plan (a plan he supported at one time), which has been a non-starter in any iteration of health care reform this year. I only wish there were a stronger word for "courage."

When the president says everyone must chip in and sacrifice, he means more than 95 percent of small businesses won't have to chip in and sacrifice. That's good. But consider his plan a small-business generator, because larger businesses are sure to be small in no time (and many small businesses have a new incentive to stay that way).

President Obama says government will mandate that every American purchase insurance (despite his campaign promise not to do so) rather than allow us to indulge in "irresponsible behavior"—or, in other words, "choice."

Insurance companies, on the other hand, will be mandated to provide coverage, with no extra charge, to everyone, no matter how irresponsibly they behave. Also, feel free to ask for checkups and "preventive" care, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, on demand, no matter how needless your visit may be, no questions asked, no extra cost.

That should bend the cost curve in the right direction.

When the president says there is no possibility that a government-run public option could crowd out private markets, as such options have in nearly every other arena they operate in, he, as the tactful Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina might say, is trading in hogwash.

The president says that the public option is small potatoes because it would cover only 5 percent of Americans, pay for itself, and run like a private nonprofit. If such an option can change the dynamics of competition in health insurance, why not open a new private nonprofit organization that pays for itself?

Silly question, I suppose. As we all know, if any organization has demonstrated an uncanny ability to control costs, drive innovation and foster competition, it's been government.

The best part? Like that exotic mortgage taxpayers are paying for you, all this wonderment can be yours, according to the president, for absolutely nothing! Better yet, it would not add a single dime to the deficit in the next 10 years. Ignore the Congressional Budget Office's $900 billion estimate (and The Lewin Group's $1 trillion estimate).

Nope, we can pay for this by extracting $1 trillion in savings from insurance companies and Medicare (start cutting down on gratuitous use of paper clips, pronto). And if you even allude to the prospect of cuts (meaning government rationing for seniors), you are trafficking in a ghastly fabrication that might hasten your being "called out" by the president. No one wants that.

You may wonder how President Obama logically can sell a public option while claiming that reform would be paid for by waste found in another "public" option. You also may be wondering how mandates, price controls, regulations, and added costs would save us any money and preserve level of care. Don't. Just bask in the radiance of barren rhetoric.

Because when the president tells us that this is "the season for action" and that we no longer can waste time debating, he means that legislation won't be initiated until 2013, that this is all about politics and his very own entrenched ideology—not yours.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his Web site at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Comments

[@]

Barry is open to any suggestion that accepts his position as a starting point. That's the essence of magnanimity! What the hell is wrong with you Republicans?

[Episiarch]

I've come to the opinion that all Reason writers are racists. They question the President, after all.

[James Ard]

Every time Obama opens his mouth another lie pops out. He's heading towards a 30% approval rating. At this rate he might not even be able to complete his first term.

[John]

I hope you are right James. Perhaps I have read too many Greek tragedies, but I always have faith that the Gods of fate have a way of punishing hubris and that good luck always is evened out by some bad luck. Obama has literally floated through life on a wave of bullshit and white guilt. He has never been challenged or faced any kind of failure in his adult life. I am hopeing that the Gods or fate or whatever is about to change that. I don't see this ending well for him. The more unpopular he is, the angry and bitter he will be towards the country. Hopefully he won't do too much damage before he leaves and God help us with what kind of an ex-President he will be. He will make Carter look like a patriot.

[Donovan]

the president tells us that this is "the season for action"

Beatniks are out to make it rich,
Oh no, must be the season of the witch

[William Walsh]

Obama might not make it through his first term. OMG wouldn't that be awesome? I believe I'd accept socialized medicine just to witness the spectacle of an Obama resignation -- you know the "They won't have me to push around anymore." and the salute from Marine One. I'm getting goosebumps. Do you think it's possible???

[jester]

Presidents say all sorts of things. Ignore them. Encourage others like your Cogresspeeps to ignore them.

A President is there for the same things he campaigned on: acting and looking Presidential, making blathering speeches, dressing nicely, making people feel good about themselves because they proved they weren't racist by voting for the 'black' guy, things of that nature.

[Johnny Longtorso]

I'm no fan of (ex)Gov Palin, but if the left sinks into impotent bitterness after the 2010/2012 elections, blaming two words in Facebook ("death panels") from The Most Hated Person On Earth, I will be a happy, happy man.

[Jaosn WOods]

LOL, I personally think Obama is a lost cause. The only thing he appears to be good at is giving speeches!

R
http://www.anon-tools.vze.com

[Mad Max]

I apologize for the threadjack, but here's an interesting news item (and it seems to have a 'health care' angle):

'Man accused of shooting two, planning to shoot third

'. . . Police say that around 7:20 Friday morning, a car pulled up in front of Owosso High School, north east of Lansing. A man inside that car shot and killed 63-year-old anti-abortion activist James Pouillon.

'Police later caught the shooter and discovered that he had already killed another man, and had plans to kill one more.

'Investigators say 33-year-old Harlan Drake had a grudge against each of the men for different reasons.

'The first shooting took place in front of a high school, where an anti-abortionist would stand and display what many in town say were graphic images of aborted fetuses. . . .

'Investigators are saying that Pouillon was targeted on Friday because of his descriptive, and very public anti-abortion campaign.

'"Defendant was offended by the manner of Mr. Pouillon's message," said Shiawasee County Prosecutor Randy Colbry.

'"It seemed to bother him he was outside with his signs in front of the children," said Chief Assistant Prosecutor, Sara Edwards.'

It's For the Children! (TM)

[Chad]

As long as he keeps his damned government hands off my Medicare, I am happy.

Does anyone find it odd that one of the few measures of general health that we do well on (life expentancy after age 65) happens to coincide exactly with "socialized" medicine? Naah, it couldn't be that. It must be that the magic free market just gets that much better on that particular birthday.

[MNG]

"Obama has literally floated through life on a wave of bullshit and white guilt. He has never been challenged or faced any kind of failure in his adult life."

I think that's unfair. When your dad abandons you and you have a wacky hippie mom and you go to Harvard Law school, graduate with honors, become a US Senator and then the President you've been challenged and overcome those challenges. After losing his Congressional race Obama was so hard up he had trouble renting a car at the site of the next Democratic National Convention, and within a decade later he becomes the nominee and President. That's pretty impressive. You can rack that up to white guilt, but 1. he was easily as hurt by his race and funny name as much as he benefited (I would argue more) and 2. there are thousands of people who could have been the vehicle for guilty whites, but he became the one.

[MNG]

"The Shiawassee County Prosecutor's office has charged Harlan J. Drake, 33, of Owosso with two counts of first-degree, premeditated murder in Friday's slaying of an anti-abortion activist in Owosso and an Owosso Township gravel pit owner."

No word as to whether the gravel pit owner was targeted because of his traditional Catholic positions on rocks, but this will be looked into.

[Rich]

here's an interesting news item (and it seems to have a 'health care' angle)

The perp *does* appear to be obese.

[jester]

To superstitious statism-loving mongoloids, anything they are afraid undermines their firm religio-statist beliefs is suspect. Words such as magic are appropriate monikers of anything they can't understand or are unwilling to understand, hence with terms such as 'magical free market', they can dismiss any debate.

[Mad Max]

'No word as to whether the gravel pit owner was targeted because of his traditional Catholic positions on rocks, but this will be looked into.'

Nice one! So if it turns out that the cops are right and this guy killed the protester because of his signs, then this is balanced out by the fact that the killer got a second guy for non-abortion related reasons.

That's probably the angle the guy should take - 'why focus on the politically-motivated killing I committed, instead of the *non*-political killing?'

To be sure, the assassing, if he's guilty, doesn't represent the pro-abortion community. Who could possibly suggest that some wacky gunman is some kind of representative of one side of the abortion debate? That would totally stupid!

[Mad Max]

assassin

[John]

"I think that's unfair. When your dad abandons you and you have a wacky hippie mom and you go to Harvard Law school, graduate with honors, become a US Senator and then the President you've been challenged and overcome those challenges."

True. But he seems to have an utter inability to understand the other side and reach out to them. I get the feeling that he has no real understanding or love for the country. His speech was really nasty. And it is not the first nasty one he has given. Disagreement is always referred to as "bickering" or "obstruction" and everyone who disagrees with him is presumed to have bad motives.

I don't think people who are hardcore supporters fully understand how grating that is to anyone who is not a hardcore supporter. He hasn't dealt well with opposition and setbacks at all. The more his numbers fall and the more his opponents push back the angrier and more stubborn he becomes. He doesn't strike me as a kind of person who will deal well with defeat.

The real test will come in the last two years of his administration. The Dems are going to lose effective control over the Congress even if they retain small majorities. Even if 2010 is not a disaster for the Dems, the Republicans will pick up enough seats that the days of "I won" will be over. He will actually have to show some humility and reach out to the majority of the country he has been giving the finger to during the first two years of his adminstration. I don't think he has it in him. But time will tell.

[MNG]

Max
I for one would like to suggest that this assassin is likely representative of one side of the gravel pit debate.

[MNG]

"Disagreement is always referred to as "bickering" or "obstruction" and everyone who disagrees with him is presumed to have bad motives."

This is the time-honored tactic of executives who try to paint the legislature as hopelessly mired in "partisan bickering" and "gridlock" (remember Perot?). There's really nothing remarkable about it.

As I said, I think he has dealt with obstacles in his life pretty admirably. This applies to some political ones (rebounding from his whupping in the Congressional race, beating Hillary whom the Right was talking about as a juggernaut). This crisis has not played itself out, so we will have to see. IMO he really overreached here (the whole health care thing coming so fast on the heels of these bailouts and stimulus packages), and clumsily dealt with it too (I have no idea wtf his "reform" is)

[John]

"IMO he really overreached here (the whole health care thing coming so fast on the heels of these bailouts and stimulus packages), and clumsily dealt with it too (I have no idea wtf his "reform" is)"

I think most people who are not partisians on either side wonder why in the middle of the worst recession since World War II, his number one priority is "healthcare". I am sorry but the idea that socializing medicine is the way to end the recession is absurb. No one believes that. The more he pushes for healthcare and ignores the deficit and the economy, the more he appears out of touch with the country.

He also totally blew it with the stimulus. He could have done a real stimulus that would have helped. Instead, he left it up to Pelosi and Reid, and they just wanted to steal and would fuck up a cup of coffee given the opportunity.

[Mad Max]

MNG,

To be sure, political assassinations are not the responsibility of those who peacefully and lawfully used their First Amendment rights to criticize the assassin's victims. So I suppose that, like Jesse Walker, you reject the argument of many pro-abortionists to the effect that precefully denouncing abortionists makes you responsible for the acts of assassins who kill abortionists?

Or perhaps you think that, if only George Tiller's assassin had balanced out his crime with a non-abortion-related killing, then the pro-aborts wouldn't have paid attention to the issue.

After all, 50% of the guy's victims were *not* killed because of abortion. So why drag in the abortion issue?

[MNG]

I'm also not sure I understand him as saying that all critics are liars. If I understand him correctly his point has been that people who are making certain assertions (i.e., "death panels," illegals are covered, etc.,) are lying.

The bickering stuff, as I said, is standard executive-speak.

I suggest it likely that you simply oppose what he is offering, think it is terrible for this nation, and therefore when he speaks you dislike the man. I don't know what to do in that situation. This nation is going to have leaders speaking on both sides of the aisle for the foreseeable future. What is your suggestion of how best to deal with this? Have the other side walk out, boo, hiss, yell "you lie" while the other side has the floor, etc, the whole time? At a minimum I say people can and should let whoever has the floor speak their speech...

[MNG]

I'm guessing the argument of many pro-abortionists is something like this: by working people into a lather about abortion being genocide or mass homicide it can very likely give people the idea to use force to end this atrocity. That seems somewhat reasonable to me. But no, I don't think peaceful pro-lifers are responsible for the acts of murderous ones.

What people flinch at in the pro-life movement is 1. their often seemingly "black and white" views, their failure to even acknowledge that this is, and would be to many reasonable persons, a quite difficult issue that it would (from the pro-lifers view) be easy for otherwise good reasonable people to get wrong and 2. the fact that what they are opposing is, in their minds, equated with mass murder (this is important because force can be justified in response to murder).

[MNG]

It seems to me a proper pro-life position would be something like this:

"You know, I can see how people might think otherwise given that fetuses often seem so different from born humans as to suggest a difference in kind as well as agree that would warrant different moral treatment, but I really think that upon much further reflection they are wrong, and we should work to correct this mistaken view."

This strikes me as much more sensible and healthy than "BABYKILLERGENOCIDE!!!" and then wondering why people blame you when some nut routinely uses force to stop the BABYKILLINGGENOCIDE!!!!

[John]

"I'm also not sure I understand him as saying that all critics are liars. If I understand him correctly his point has been that people who are making certain assertions (i.e., "death panels," illegals are covered, etc.,) are lying."

Let's look at what he said.

"Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. "

That presumes that everyone who disagrees with him is doing it to play games. No, they are not. I would like him to say "the other side has this idea and it is not the best idea because..." not just call the other side for having bad motives. Then he says

"Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple."

Again, he paints his entire opposition with a broad brush. Everyone is just lying and making things up. Bullshit. People have legit concerns and not everyone gets their politics and ideas from talk show hosts. It would be nice if he would talk to people as adults and not children being lead astray by demogogues.

[jester]

"there are thousands of people who could have been the vehicle for guilty whites, but he became the one."

He was really the only possible vehicle for 'guilty whites'. His 'blackness' came directly from Africa not indigenously, where he would have been categorized as either 'Uncle Tom' or Rainbow-Coalition type. He gained his 'black' cred (Rainbow-Coalition cred) not by being 'black' so much as marrying Michelle and attending Rev. Wright's Church. Most 'guilty white' voters saw his church membership as a political career move and when he so easily departed Rev. wright's church it confirmed their suspicion. The Kenyan father and Anthropologist mother connected with multi-cultural touchie-feeliness. The 'interracial' marriage that produced him was the deal-closer in that his very being exemplified the classless dream of Dr. King. There aren't very many Barrys out there with that resume.

What is dismaying is that weak-minded critics of the critics, the very one's whose Obama vote was based on his 'color', cry 'racist' to silence debate. That was evident it Matt's fun friday. If Teddy Kennedy were President (and not dead), critics would be piling it on just the same.

[jester]

"Have the other side walk out, boo, hiss, yell "you lie" while the other side has the floor, etc, the whole time?"

In a perfect world, that would be a huge yes. In our world, it tends to feed the my team vs. your team mentality. In reality there should be an entire league of teams. That's what is frustrating with a libertarian position. If you side against the President on Health Care then you are a Fox-News-Beck-Rush shill for the Republican Party.

[Chad]

John | September 12, 2009, 11:26am | #

Obama: "Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost."

You: "Again, he paints his entire opposition with a broad brush.astray by demogogues."

You seem to have some of disconnect about the meaning of "some". Frankly, "some" is an understatement, as the correct answer is "almost all". But Obama isn't so partisan that he would be THAT insulting, even if you deserve it.

It really is simple: We pay far more and suffer far more risk for good after-the-fact care but horrible overall care. Our current system is just awful in total and I cannot imagine anyone honestly defending it except those that "have theirs" and refuse to acknowledge that they are breaking everyone else's back.

Frankly, I think we should pass a new law immediately:

1: If your kids lose their health insurance, you lose your Medicare, in proportion to the number of your kids that lose their insurance

2: If you have no kids, no Medicare for you. Presumably, you were able to sock away quite a bit of the hundreds of thousands of dollars you saved by not contributing any producers for your Medicare, so you should be just fine on your own. If you didn't, I hope you enjoy all the granite countertops and SUVs you bought. Perhaps you can exchange them for some dog food and pills.

The minute we put the old farts with all the votes in the same boat as everyone else, you will see massive movement.

[Mad Max]

MNG,

You seem to be denying that any of these 'proper' pro-lifers exist; a common rhetorical device - "I'd love to have some responsible pro-lifers, but, darn it, they're all irresponsible demagagues like the late James Pouillon with his irresponsible demagoguic signs that frighten the children."

Yet there are all kinds of pro-lifers who are quite 'proper' by your standards - Consistent Life Ethic, Feminists for Life, Democrats for Life, and others. I would even say that the mainstream prolife lobbying groups, who spend most of their time promoting 'moderate,' 'common-ground' legislation (like the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act), are also being very 'proper.'

If you are going to play Diogenes, and claim that you haven't found any proper pro-lifers, it might behoove you to first check out the (dare I say) diversity of the prolife movement to see if you can actually find any 'proper' activity among them.

If you can't find any 'proper' pro-lifers even among such impeccably liberal groups as Democrats for Life and Feminists for Life, that may say more about you than about the prolife cause.

And the fact that folks like you simply ignore and brush aside the respectable, 'proper' pro-lifers is part of the reason that 'extremists' like the late James Pouillon engage in such improper and non-respectable tactics as holding up bloody photos. It seems that the improper and non-respectable prolifers get more attention than the proper and respectable ones. That is probably the reason that extremists like Pouillon, Martin Luther King and William Lloyd Garrison violate norms of respecability - because the respectable folks get sidelined and ignored.

[jester]

If Medicare, a flawed monster in its own right, is the starting point for 'reform', then Obama's plan 'seems' a logical answer to stop the increasing cost of that program.

Reason writers have done a good job to show that the root of the problem, ignoring market mechanisms, has not been addressed by the president's plan and therefore any federal band-aid in due time will require more and more.

Ever heard of a money-pit?

[Ray Butlers]

Just come out of the Republican closet, Reason Magazine. This is tedious.

[MNG]

Max
Did I say that these proper pro-lifers did not exist? I was just casting a pox on the house of one segment of the movement.

Additionally, are you claiming that this assassin was motivated by pro-choice views? Targeting this guy because of his messages or protests (or the nature thereof) does not mean the same as being a dedicated pro-choicer (I'd be very suprised if this guy was a vocal pro-choice activist).

You get that right? It "seems to me" you are implying otherwise in your posts...

[Mad Max]

MNG,

Your attempt to engage prolifers might be more effective if you actually pointed to real-world examples of 'proper' prolife activity. Given the wide variety of prolife groups and people and the great diversity of tactivs - from confrontational militance to Beltway lobbying to outreach for post-abortive women, and many others - you could certainly find, somewhere, an example of 'proper' prolife activity. Once you find an actual example of 'proper' prolife behavior you could then triumphantly say to me the equivalent of why-can't-you-be-more-like-your-little-brother by saying, 'look as so-and-so, they effectively promote the right to life of the unborn without using tactics which offend me - why can't you be more like *them*?'

But if you act like there's no single example of prolife advocacy which is both proper and effective, that might lead uncharitable people to conclude that 'proper' and 'effective' are mutually exclusive as far as you are concerned.

Let me add that I actually know prolife Obama voters - they sincerely want to be good progressives while promoting the cause of life. They reject just about anything that could be deemed 'right-wing,' including much of the prolife movement. What have you to say to such folks as to the best way they can promote life while remaining progressives? Is there any hope for them?

[MNG]

"That presumes that everyone who disagrees with him is doing it to play games."

I don't see that presuming what you say, I see you assuming that. A fair reading is "everyone agrees some reform is necessary, so let's get some reform passed, and asap."

"Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost"

How can you read this sentence and then say "Again, he paints his entire opposition with a broad brush." Do you get what "some" is? It's kind of hard to "paint with a broad brush" when you start your sentence with "some." John, this seems awful sloppy of you. Perhaps your partisan leanings are affecting your analysis?

[Art-P.O.G.]

Right on, Mad Max!

jester,

not to threadjack, but speaking of flawed monsters, has anyone seen Steve Smith lately?

[MNG]

Max
Again, where did I say there were not these folks? Decrying the rhetoric of those (such as yourself) who go over the top does not mean denying the existence of like-minded folks with more proper rhetoric...

Until you can point out exaclty where I said upthread that these folks do not exist I suggest you retract that charge.

[J sub D]

I'll go back and read the rest of the comments after this,

Jeebus, Mad Max,

Maybe the murderer was just out to kill people he considered assholes. By the accounts I've seen from people who knew him, the anti-abortion pro-life victim falls squarely into the asshole category. The gravel pit guy and other intended victim, who knows?

Don't try so hard to present youreself as a member of a persecuted minority. Neither side of the abortion debate gets to claim victim status.

[Mad Max]

'Additionally, are you claiming that this assassin was motivated by pro-choice views?'

I know the prosecutor's theory, which, again, is summed up as follows in the article I quoted:

'Investigators are saying that Pouillon was targeted on Friday because of his descriptive, and very public anti-abortion campaign.

'"Defendant was offended by the manner of Mr. Pouillon's message," said Shiawasee County Prosecutor Randy Colbry.

'"It seemed to bother him he was outside with his signs in front of the children," said Chief Assistant Prosecutor, Sara Edwards.'

Now, the prosecutors might be wrong. The defendant might be innocent. He might be guilty but never said what his motives were. He might be guilty but lied about his motives.

But let us not beat around the bush. If an abortion doctor had been shot, and the prosecotor announced an indictment while claiming that the shooter was offended by the doctor's abortionist practices, the pro-aborts would list this as a pro-life hate crime, a product of anti-abortion demagoguery. And if the accused was charged with a second, non-abortion-related murder, this would simply mean that 'only' 50% of his murders were abortion related. That wouldn't stop pro-aborts from using the kind of arguments which you (sympathetically) describe:

'I'm guessing the argument of many pro-abortionists is something like this: by working people into a lather about abortion being genocide or mass homicide it can very likely give people the idea to use force to end this atrocity. That seems somewhat reasonable to me. But no, I don't think peaceful pro-lifers are responsible for the acts of murderous ones.'

Have you checked out the rhetoric by the pro-aborts against protesters like Pouillon, by the way?

[J sub D]

Oops! Lemme try that again.
_______________________________________________________________
I'll go back and read the rest of the comments after this,

Jeebus, Mad Max,

Maybe the murderer was just out to kill people he considered assholes. By the accounts I've seen from people who knew him, the anti-abortion pro-life victim falls squarely into the asshole category. The gravel pit guy and other intended victim, who knows?

Don't try so hard to present youreself as a member of a persecuted minority. Neither side of the abortion debate gets to claim victim status.
______________________________________________________________
This is why I've been lobbying Hit and Run for a preview option in the comments. 🙂

[Art-P.O.G.]

I know what you're saying J Sub D. I mostly just consider these spree killer types dangerously unbalanced and, well who can say what political beliefs a dangerously unbalanced person will have and why they have these beliefs?

[Mad Max]

'Don't try so hard to present youreself as a member of a persecuted minority. Neither side of the abortion debate gets to claim victim status.'

Good thing I *didn't* claim victim status. I defended my position.

Though perhaps James Pouillon could maybe lay some kind of claim to being a victim. This retiree should have died in his bed, surrounded by his loving family, rather than being gunned down in cold blood on the public street like a dog.

If I believed in poetic justice, then the media would use this crime to attack the pro-abortion movement (by the way, thank you for using the term pro-abortion). But since I believe in actual justice, not poetic justice, I wouldn't wish that sort of slander on the pro-aborts.

But that won't stop me from pointing out the logical consequences of the bogus pro-abort 'political climate' argument against the prolife movement.

[Mad Max]

sorry, J sub D, it was MNG, not you, who referred to pro-abortionists as pro-abortionists.

[Mad Max]

'This is why I've been lobbying Hit and Run for a preview option in the comments. :-)'

I see a preview button on my screen (not that I use it, of course).

[Art-P.O.G.]

I only use "preview" for HTML, because HTML can look ugly when you fail.

[Mad Max]

'By the accounts I've seen from people who knew him, the anti-abortion pro-life victim falls squarely into the asshole category.'

If what were, at worst, civil-disobediance arrests make one an asshole, then he would be one (just like many civil-rights activists from the 1960s, of course).

But otherwise, what is the basis of your assertion?

For an alternate perspective, see this article from a prolife site:

'"Jim the Sign Guy": Slain Pro-Lifer, Father of Two, Remembered by Friends as Cheerful, Peaceful Activist

'OWOSSO, Michigan, September 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Jim Pouillon, the pro-life activist shot and killed outside a high school in Owosso Friday morning, is being remembered today by friends as a peaceful and dedicated defender of the unborn. Those who knew him say that, in the face of the frequent physical harassment and death threats aimed at him for his pro-life work, the veteran pro-lifer always responded with charity.

'According to friends, Pouillon, 63, was a born-again Christian and longtime resident of Owosso. They say he was divorced, with a son and a daughter as well as grandchildren.

'LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) spoke with Cal Zastrow, a longtime friend of Pouillon's, who described the pro-life activist as "one of the most loving, compassionate people, peaceful people I've ever met in my life."

'Zastrow says Pouillon began his pro-life work with the rescue movement spearheaded by Operation Rescue in Atlanta, Georgia in 1988, and has been active ever since.

'"He was 100% non-violent. He never threatened anyone. He never condoned violence ever," said Zastrow.

'While known to travel to pro-life events throughout the country, Pouillon's most frequent method of witnessing was by holding signs on the street corners in his hometown. And that was what he was doing when he was gunned down this morning - holding a sign depicting the beaming face of a newborn baby, with the word "LIFE" superimposed.

'In his hometown, residents grew to expect the large bearded man, sitting in a lawn chair and holding pro-life signs with images of babies or aborted children. Suffering from weak lungs compromised by smoking earlier in life, he depended on a portable oxygen tank.

'Occasionally, as he was doing this morning, Pouillon was known to stand near Owosso high school to discuss abortion with the students there.

'He became known, after at least fifteen years of steady witnessing in Owosso, as "Jim the sign guy" or "the abortion sign guy," a ubiquitous presence that always drew reactions, whether of praise, anger, or hatred.

'Various sources have described Pouillon as the frequent target of screaming, spitting, and even throwing fruit. Zastrow said that he and Pouillon often received verbal abuse and death threats from passersby.

'But, he would just "smile and laugh, and say 'Thank you, Jesus,'" Zastrow said of his friend. He noted that he and Pouillon had been physically assaulted on separate occasions "for peacefully praying and witnessing."

'"He would say, 'God forgive you, I bless you,'" he added.

'Court records published by local news reports show that Pouillon has been cited on charges connected to his pro-life activities, mostly minor infringements related to property laws, many of which were dismissed. In 2000, Pouillon was found guilty for stalking - a charge Zastrow says was unjustly brought against the veteran pro-lifer.

'"Once they lied about him and put him in jail for stalking, and they said he threatened somebody, but it wasn't true," said Zastrow. "He never threatened anybody."

'Zastrow expressed concern that media reports would portray Pouillon as violent.
'"He never was," said Zastrow. "He's America's first peaceful pro-life rescuer martyr."

'Pastor Matt Trewhella of the Missionaries of the Preborn described his friend of 7 years as "so soft-spoken, but persevering, faithful." Trewhella said Pouillon began his ministry after he saw images of unborn children killed by abortion.
"He was moved with compassion and decided he had to speak up for them," said the pastor. "He was a good man."

'Operation Rescue president Troy Newman told LSN that Pouillon, who participated in Operation Rescue, was a "dear friend" and "always an encourager."

'"He's the sort of guy who always gives you a big bear hug, tells you he loves you," said Newman. "I know he was always out on the street carrying a sign whether it was the dead of winter, or the middle of summer.

'Newman said Pouillon's faithfulness was evidenced by the way he died. "He was faithfully out on the street holding a sign in the middle of the week with a beautiful picture of a baby and it said 'life' on it. 'Life,' and a picture of a baby. And he was shot down for it," said Newman.

'"If the purveyors of death think this is going to stop us, they're absolutely dead wrong," said Newman. "History is replete with martyrs who have stood sacrificially and even given their own lives so that others may live. And that has always been the premise of the pro-life movement, and we will continue steadfast marching forward in that direction.

'"Was he a perfect man? No, none of us are. But he stood faithful to the end."'

[Chad]

Mad Max | September 12, 2009, 12:00pm | #
MNG,

You seem to be denying that any of these 'proper' pro-lifers exist; a common rhetorical device - "I'd love to have some responsible pro-lifers, but, darn it, they're all irresponsible demagagues like the late James Pouillon with his irresponsible demagoguic signs that frighten the children."

Yet there are all kinds of pro-lifers who are quite 'proper' by your standards - Consistent Life Ethic, Feminists for Life, Democrats for Life, and others. I would even say that the mainstream prolife lobbying groups, who spend most of their time promoting 'moderate,' 'common-ground' legislation (like the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act), are also being very 'proper.'

I am pro-life and generally support government-based health and welfare programs. However, they have nothing to do with each other morally, and there is no contradiction between any combination of opinions on them. The argument over at what point we should grant human beings rights has nothing to do with the argument about which health care system works best.

[John C. Randolph]

I am sorry but the idea that socializing medicine is the way to end the recession is absurb. No one believes that.

Sadly, it seems to me that many on the left do indeed believe that. There is a lot of waste in our current system, although it's asinine to imagine that the government which causes the waste is the solution to the waste.

Hell, the Unicorn Jockey Himself might even believe it. Anytime he's off the teleprompter, you can tell that he's not exactly the sharpest crayon in the box.

-jcr

[Mad Max]

And there's this article from the Flint News:

'OWOSSO TOWNSHIP, Michigan -- Toting his portable oxygen tank and graphic fetus images, James Pouillon protested abortion as if it were a day job -- a hard-to-miss figure in his sleepy hometown of Owosso Township.

'Nothing kept him from his mission, not being spit on or screamed at. Not being pelted with fruit, pop cans or condoms. Not being drenched with urine, having his life threatened or being arrested.'

The article says that on unspecified occasions, he used the term 'baby killer' - which must have certainly terrified the people against whom he was protesting. I mean, what if he threw his oxygen tank at someone?

'He had just dropped off his granddaughter, who attends the high school, according to a family friend. . . .

'Some knew him as a peaceful grandfather driven by passion, even if it meant thousands of days of demonstrating, often carrying hand-lettered signs with images of newborns and dead fetuses -- and occasionally even spending time in jail.'

And it seems that 'asshole' is one of the kinder terms his opponents used against him:

'Zastrow recalled the time a man drove by the two while they protested in Saginaw saying he was going to kill them.

'"Jim looked up and smiled real big and said thank you Jesus," Zastrow said. "He's gets to wear a martyr's crown in heaven." . . .

'In 2000, he told The Flint Journal that an Owosso pharmacist called him David Koresh and that an elementary school principal "tells his kids I'm an American Nazi when they're walking into church."

'But none off it deterred him. . . .

'"If you can throw it out of a car, it's been throwed at me," he told the Journal.'

[Tulpa]

When your dad abandons you and you have a wacky hippie mom and you go to Harvard Law school, graduate with honors, become a US Senator and then the President you've been challenged and overcome those challenges.

Whoa whoa whoa, full stop. Obama had a well-off extended family on his mother's side, so let's not for a moment pretend that his childhood resembled that of the average black boy whose dad disappears. He went to private schools from fourth grade all the way through high school (presumably not on vouchers, either!).

I'll give you that Harvard Law is tough, for the sake of argument. Though I'm not prepared to say someone has overcome great odds in their life just on the basis of graduating from that place.

The Senate run? Are you kidding me? He beat Alan Keyes for Allah's sake. And we all know the story of his presidential run, so please don't try to paint it as any sort of hard-fought triumph over adversity. If anything, McCain's getting the GOP nom was more of a rise from the ashes.

After losing his Congressional race Obama was so hard up he had trouble renting a car at the site of the next Democratic National Convention, and within a decade later he becomes the nominee and President.

That requires a link (and not one to a Kos-level hagiography). I don't believe it for a second.

[Mad Max]

'The argument over at what point we should grant human beings rights has nothing to do with the argument about which health care system works best.'

Yes, but the liberal poster MNG seemed to be in search of proper, responsible pro-lifers. From experience, I know how liberals define proper and responsible, so I gave him the links to put an end to his Diogenes posing.

[J sub D]

Back on topic - Obama's address to the joint section of congress.

1) He started out spewing incredible, completely unsupportable bullshit about how he saved the economy from collapse. -10

2) He demonized opponents motives as if he had never heard the phrase loyal opposition. -15

3) He lied, yes fucking bald faced lied, when he stated that "his" plan (really an all too familiar congressional sausage making disaster in the making) would not increase costs to taxpayers or the deficit. Pollyanna doesn't find that statement credible. -10

4) The proposed requirement that everybody (except undocumented workers who help keep the social security/medicare schemes afloat without getting any benefits) has to buy health insurance. Guess what Barack, when I was 18, healthy and a goddam busboy, I didn't have health insurance because, hold on to your hats folks, it was an expenditure I could neither afford nor found sensible. As a free person I opted to pay for my health care out of pocket and ddidn't stick the taxpayers/hospitals/insured cititzens for one thin dime. For infringing on millions of young people's freedom by forcibly extracting additional money from the least wealty in society to subsidize weathier folks, -100.

5) Without McCain/Biden/Hillary/Palin to compare him with, his oratory skills aren't overly impressive. Still good, but in the primaries and general election he was competing with minor leaguers. Because oratory ain't shit compared to honesty and competence, +5.

Total score was a -130. To say the least, I was unconverted.

[Aunty Entity]

He who hijacks unrelated threads with abortion polemics must face the wheel.

[MNG]

Max
You really can't see the difference in killing someone because of the victim's pro-life protests and killing someone because of the killer's pro-choice beliefs? I don't think there is ANY evidence the guy was pro-choice or movitated by pro-choice beliefs.

The town hated the guy, he seemed like a goofy old crank. Yes, he was seen as a goofy crank because of actions he took that were obviously motivated by his pro-life views. He, nor anyone, deserves murder for being a goofy crank. But being killed for that is different than being killed because you provide abortion services.

Now if the killer was a person who had a history of being motivated by pro-choice beliefs you might have something.

[MNG]

Let me help Max see this point. Say there were a gun rights activist in a town who constantly and obnoxiously protested at town events. Let's say some guy shot killed the guy.

Would that make the killer representative of gun control advocates?

[Art-P.O.G.]

But being killed for that is different than being killed because you provide abortion services.

????? fail??

[MNG]

"From experience, I know how liberals define proper and responsible"

Just for score keepers, Max is mad because I "seemed" to be saying there were no responsible pro-lifers. He cannot point out where I did so, even after challenged. But then he also doesn't mind broad brushing "liberals."

He "knows" what we're up to ;)!

[Art-P.O.G.]

MNG, I refer you to my 12:28 post.

[MNG]

Art
You can't see the difference either?

Try putting it in a sentence.

"You can conclude that one that kills a pro-life activist is pro-choice because..."

Do you think all the people who yelled at this guy, threw urine and stuff at him were motivated by their pro-choice beliefs?

I mean, just reverse this. Say there was a guy who showed up at town events relentlessly and fanatically protesting FOR abortion rights. And someone kills him. Would that mean we can conclude the killer killed the guy BECAUSE of his (the killer's) pro-life beliefs?

[Art-P.O.G.]

I was trying to say that "dangerously unbalanced" is more salient than "left-wing", "right wing" or what-have-you.

[MNG]

Art
We actually have NO evidence that the killer felt one way or the other about the abortion issue other than the fact that he killed a pro-life protestor.

He also killed a gravel pit operator and planned to kill a real estate agent. Did he hate rocks and property?

Even the assertion that he killed the protestor because of "his message" cannot support a conclusion that the killer was pro-choice. He may have hated the nature, not the stance, of the message. Judging from a lot of what we know the nature of the guys message angered even pro-life people.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Would that mean we can conclude the killer killed the guy BECAUSE of his (the killer's) pro-life beliefs?

I guess I'm not seeing in what dimension it matters. Maybe I'm just tired.

[MNG]

The article I read quoted a local pro-life Church of the Nazarene minister who said that most people, even those who agreed with the guy on the issue of abortion, disagreed with how he expressed his views.

So even if it is true that he was targeted for "his message" it does not follow the killer was pro-choice in any way.

[Art-P.O.G.]

MNG,

OK, I think I see where you're coming from. It was never too important to me that the killer was motivated by any pro-choice beliefs. Hell, like I said, spree killers believe all sorts of things.

[JB]

The fucker lies about everything. Fuck that bitch.

[jester]

Riding hard on his hobby horse, Mad Max lost track of time and missed Saturday Mass...

[MNG]

Art
Think of it this way. If someone kills the town crank, does that mean the killer killed the crank because of the particular stance the crank took or because the killer strongly believed otherwise?

The answer of course is no. Max is of course too fanatical or too much of a dishonest apologist to see that, he just wants to score points for his side, but you are an honest and smart fellow who can.

[Art-P.O.G.]

MNG, fair enough...it reminds me of how someone beat up our beloved (but seemingly schizophrenic) local homeless guy. Some people are just assholes.

[Tony]

A Washington takeover of health care never sounded so enticing or fun.

Really? Who is proposing a washington takeover of health care?

And when the president says he welcomes bipartisanship, what he means is that he hasn't met with a single Republican on the issue since April-despite numerous requests and two separate House bills chock-full of ideas.

There is one, maybe two Senate Republicans in good-faith negotiations. The rest are simply stoking hysteria with hyperboles such as the one you pimped in the quote above, and much worse. Republicans for the most part aren't interested in debating, they're interested in destroying Obama's agenda and hence dampening Democrats' prospects in 2010.

When this president says he is a deal-making centrist and will stand up to his own party, he means he will rebuff progressives on a complete straw man, such as a "single-payer" plan (a plan he supported at one time), which has been a non-starter in any iteration of health care reform this year.

Liberals support single payer. We've accepted that we aren't getting our way. A "public option" is the consolation prize and compromise. Obama could propose a plan a hairs-width to the left of the status quo and the opposition's hysteria would be equally loud.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Obama could propose a plan a hairs-width to the left of the status quo and the opposition's hysteria would be equally loud.

Tony, I think most people dislike the status quo but can imagine increased gov't involvement worsening the situation.

[ransom147]

After losing his Congressional race Obama was so hard up he had trouble renting a car at the site of the next Democratic National Convention, and within a decade later he becomes the nominee and President.

Tulpa: if i had to guess i would say it probably came from one of his autobiographies, and i would even bet it was parroted by some sort of rag like newsweek, us, oprah's drivel*, time, etc...

if that's true, it's about as credible as the rest of the pres' blathering bs.

just guessin though.

*not sure what it's called.

[jester]

"he hasn't met with a single Republican"

Now there is the mother of all strawmen. If he can't find one GOP member to sign up for his plan than the whole thing isn't about Health Care, it is about who will get credit for delivering a glorious Government Health Care System and insure a legacy for his name to all of posterity.

Believe me, at least half of Republicans would love to be Obama's shoes and have their names on the glorious delivery of Health Care 4 All. Bush still doesn't get his proper due for delivering Senior Drug Benefit. This is payback time from the GOP, quite simply.

[ransom147]

"Liberals support single payer slavery."

FTFY

[jester]

"Obama could propose a plan a hairs-width to the left of the status quo and the opposition's hysteria would be equally loud."

There is no opposition. It is about who gets there name on it. Here at Reason, you might hear some criticism. Hysteria? Nope. Most of us realize that we have a slim chance of stopping the juggernaut.

Ironically, it's the two teams tripping over eachother that slows the juggernaut. It reminds me of Masada. "We will take their victory from them."

[Tulpa]

Oh, here we are:

He was drained of money and confidence, fresh from a punishing defeat in a Congressional primary race here. Even the Illinois delegation did not have room at the party's gathering in Los Angeles for Mr. Obama, then a 39-year-old lawyer, who had annoyed some state Democrats for not waiting his turn to seek a higher office.

Never mind all that. Mr. Obama bought a plane ticket and headed west anyway.

He persuaded a clerk at the car rental agency to overlook the unpaid balance on his credit card, and he made his way to the festivities. He was not a delegate - not even close to being a superdelegate - and without a floor credential he had all the sway of the junior state senator that he was.

No wonder he was so adamant about passing a credit card deadbeat's bill of rights! And newsflash, Los Angeles has these things called city buses that go from the airport to the convention center. Apparently Mr. Log Cabin was not so earthy and humble to catch a ride holding onto a pole among regular folk.

[J sub D]

Bush still doesn't get his proper due for delivering Senior Drug Benefit.

If you think you've found a GOP site here, let me disabuse you from that misconception.

I've been giving Bush his due for Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit ever since he proposed it. Make no mistake about it. I've directed nemerous diatribes filled with profanities and obscenities at Bush for that piece of crap legislation. If it makes you feel better I also ragged on the congresscritters from both parties that supported it.

[Tulpa]

Of course, what happened next is even more instructive.

After an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2000, Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama faced serious financial pressure: numerous debts, limited cash and a law practice he had neglected for a year. Help arrived in early 2001 from a significant new legal client -- a longtime political supporter.

Chicago entrepreneur Robert Blackwell Jr. paid Obama an $8,000-a-month retainer to give legal advice to his growing technology firm, Electronic Knowledge Interchange. It allowed Obama to supplement his $58,000 part-time state Senate salary for over a year with regular payments from Blackwell's firm that eventually totaled $112,000.

A few months after receiving his final payment from EKI, Obama sent a request on state Senate letterhead urging Illinois officials to provide a $50,000 tourism promotion grant to another Blackwell company, Killerspin.

Somehow that part didn't make it into The Audacity of Hope, though.

[jester]

Would you expect anything less than a syrupy retelling of Mr. Log Cabin's travails?

[ibrindle]

You know what the stupidest part of all this is? As soon as he is booted out and the Democratic Party becomes unpopular, another fucking Republican will be elected, and the idiot-based loop will continue. It is going to near-impossible for a libertarian to squeeze in there, unfortunately.

[jester]

Easy there Jsub,

my comments were not intended for you. They are for the Obama apologists that have been posting here. They are the one's trying to paint you (and me) as GOP shills by lumping any and all who oppose Obama as having the same agenda as the GOP.

[jester]

ibrindle,

exactly, which is why I can't see a silver-lining to an Obama collapse. It'll only postpone the inevitable. And the next GOPer will try to atone for the mean-spiritedness by being 'compassionate'.

[J sub D]

jester, my bad. We are both aware that both parties are all full of hypocrisy. That it's not about principled stands on issues but winning the unholy game that matters.

[MNG]

Wow Tulpa, wow. You are literally drowning in your own sea of partisanship.

Obama goes from being nearly unable to even rent a car to get into his party's national convention to within a decade being the nominee of that party and President, and you can't just admit that is quite the example of "facing and overcoming obstacles" (which is what brought the point up). But you're like "oh what, too good to take the bus, huh?"

[MNG]

Ransom @ 1:44 with "TEH SLAVERY!"

Surprised it took this long!

I mean, you guys should not sell yourselves so short with this health care reform=TEH SLAVERY stuff, why not go all the way?

health care reform=TEH HOLOCAUST!

I mean, both involve coercion...

[Old Fart]

The minute we put the old farts with all the votes in the same boat as everyone else, you will see massive movement.

Crank this all the way up, close your eyes, and listen.

[Tulpa]

MNG,

1. "Literally" is not an emphasis word. It literally has its own meaning, and as my lungs are free of water, I literally am not literally drowning in literal partisanship. Well unless you were literally using "literally" figuratively.

In any case, as I have just as much disdain for faux-plain-folks in the GOP, such as GWB with his mansion that he (and the then-worshipful press) called a ranch.

2. It is the manner in which he overcame these alleged obstacles that disturbs me. First of all, the rental car obstacle was entirely of his own making: the guy didn't pay his credit card bill!

And the fact that the "obstacle" of not being able to get to the convention was overcome by smooth-talking a rental car clerk, rather than doing what truly poor people do when they need to get somewhere (ride a bus or just walk), speaks volumes about his character.

And how did he get back on his feet again, you ask? By getting a cushy consulting job with a scummy capitalist who knew an up-and-comer who could pay him back later when he saw one. Not exactly a course of action available to a truly poor person, as opposed to a temporarily down-on-his-luck aspiring politician.

[ransom147]

MNG | September 12, 2009, 3:36pm | #

well, MNG, if you've got a better word for forcing some to work for the benefit of others then i'll take it under advisement...

[Francesco Sinibaldi]

Flag of the world.

It's beautiful,
for me, to
speak about
the dream of
a tired book,
with a noise
in my heart
that stands in
the melody like
a starry behaviour.

Francesco Sinibaldi

[Jordan]

Obama managed to survive on a $58,000 per year salary, working part-time? Wow, what a trooper!

[Jordan]

If adversity is now defined as working part-time on a $58,000 salary, than I think we can get rid of every welfare program in this country now.

Does anyone find it odd that one of the few measures of general health that we do well on (life expentancy after age 65) happens to coincide exactly with "socialized" medicine? Naah, it couldn't be that. It must be that the magic free market just gets that much better on that particular birthday.

Lifestyle and cultural factors, you hack.

[jester]

Jordan,

honestly, that's peanuts compared to payout someone like Obama could have made in the private sector. He was called to the 'priesthood' of public service. Look at someone like Al Gore. The guy probably would be mentioned alongside names like George Soros or Warren Buffet. But he gave all that up for public service. We really don't know just how blessed we are to have these righteous men sacrificing dutifully each day to save ourselves from ourselves. I mean it is fucking humbling.

[Enyap]

So MNG who in the past repeatedly tried to tie a sexually frustrated guy who shot up a woman's aerobic class to rightwing extremism because of a few anti obama blog post is now complaining about us not looking for the proper motive. I shouldn't be surprised, hypocrisy is abundant among the left these day.

[kwais]

Two things:

JSub, good summary and score of the speech, I am quoting that on my facebook.

All y'all arguing the abortion crap. My finger grew tired from scrolling past your posts.
Reason should have the permanent abortion thread, off to the side. With thousands upon thousands of pointless posts. And all posts about abortion in any other thread should go immediately to the appropriate thread.
Civil war post could be welcome in that thread too.

[AtheistConservative]

"It really is simple: We pay far more and suffer far more risk for good after-the-fact care but horrible overall care. Our current system is just awful in total and I cannot imagine anyone honestly defending"

If you want to understand why Obama is President, you need look no further than the mouth-breathing troll that is 'Chad'.

After being thoroughly defeated in another thread on the same subject, having every single argument he put forth utterly demolished with factual rebuttal, he's back again and starting it all over from zero.

Originally I was saddened to learn that, after his tiresome, by-the-books, ridiculous speech, Obama had gained a few points. But then I realized the problem: this country is full of "Chad"'s - stupid people who cannot think for themselves, refuse to see reason or logic, and are just in love with the nice black man who yells at them for their own good.

It's pathetic, but aren't all aspects of left-wing insanity pathetic?

[AtheistConservative]

"Really? Who is proposing a washington takeover of health care?"

Barney Frank, for one. Obama admitted this was his preference. Lots of far-left Democrats have said it's what they want.

But of course the issue isn't whether or not you 'propose' it, it's whether or not new legislation puts us irrevocably on that path.

"The rest are simply stoking hysteria with hyperboles such as the one you pimped in the quote above, and much worse. Republicans for the most part aren't interested in debating, they're interested in destroying Obama's agenda and hence dampening Democrats' prospects in 2010."

One of the more tiresome strawmen.

What do you consider 'debate'? What would be the 'proper' way to resist the attempts by our far-left government to take over health care?

This is one of the major issues fueling the incredible anger at your type: your continued insistence that you want 'rational debate' while your spokesman tells everyone to 'shut up and take it', and of course would have rammed the whole unread, unexamined, unexplained mess through in August if he'd had his druthers.

This IS a national debate. And you're losing. That's why you keep complaining about 'tactics'. You want to frame the 'debate' in a way where you can win. Since that's not possible, all you do is whine about how you're losing.

"Obama could propose a plan a hairs-width to the left of the status quo and the opposition's hysteria would be equally loud."

Perhaps, but that's because our system is too far to the left already. All the problems with health care are because of leftist legislation and attempts to 'fix' a system that was never broken.

[alice bowie]

---------------------------------------------------------
Justification for Single Payer
---------------------------------------------------------
Cost Per Capita of Current Healthcare $6,000
Cost Multiplied by Population $1,688,228,712,000
Cost Per Worker (Yearly) $12,873
Cost Per Worker (Monthly) $1,073

***For many people, $1,073 is less than what they pay
in health insurance costs and medicare taxes (6%)
combined.

----------------------------------------------------------
Assumptions
----------------------------------------------------------
Total Population in America: 281,371,452
80% of Working Population : 131,149,881
Total Cost per Capita of Healthcare $6,000

----------------------------------------------------------
Comments from the Author
----------------------------------------------------------
1. Premiums would be much lower if we eliminate the 30% overhead of private Insurance
2. Everyone would be covered. No out of pocket cost.
3. No Dependency on your employer.
4. The 20% unemployment is taking into account the
official number plus others not counted.
5. There will still be a second tier: Doctors that don't take national insurance?No way out of this.
6. Cost will be controlled the same way it's done today
with usual and customary rates.
7. Tort reform can be included. Eliminating Malpractice
insurance and using incident insurance.

----------------------------------------------------------
References
----------------------------------------------------------
- Cost per capita I've got from GAO.
- Population info from the Census website.
- Working population was made up by ME. 80% of people between the ages of 21-65 pay Premiums.

[jester]

Obama won because the neutrals abandoned the GOP, not because anyone was particularly excited about the guy. Obama is taking his landslide victory to mean he has a mandate to 'fix' healthcare in a way he will learn is not favored by those who really put him in office.

Nice breakdown on the big band-aid, alice. Again, you are assuming a starting point that ignores market mechanisms i.e. medicaid.

[alice bowie]

I think many social-liberal/fiscal-moderates like myself voted him in. And as much as I'm for a single-payer solution and FREE markets for everything else, I'm probably not goin' to vote for this guy...unless he keeps dope alive...that is.

[Mad Max]

MNG,

I did not say that the killer was pro-choice, and it was - to use your word - *dishonest* - of you to say so.

I quoted, twice, the prosecutor's theory, which I copy for yet a third time:

''"Defendant was offended by the manner of Mr. Pouillon's message," said Shiawasee County Prosecutor Randy Colbry.

'"It seemed to bother him he was outside with his signs in front of the children," said Chief Assistant Prosecutor, Sara Edwards.'

(I also acknowledged that the prosecutor might be wrong, and for all I know it was the one-armed man).

This very quote gives the theory that the killer objected to the "manner" of the protest.

It is also true that I riduculed pro-abort 'logic' - remember how *all* pro-lifers were responsible for the assassinatino of abortion doctors? The same logic could make all pro-aborts responsible for a deadly attack on a prolife demonstrator - you know, with all their hate speech against the prolife demonstrators which caused an unstable man to assassinate a prolife demonstrator.

Now, here is the thing - I was not *endorsing* pro-abort logic, but refuting it. And it was dishonest of you to suggest otherwise.

[Mad Max]

MNG,

Here is how I got the idea that you were dismissive of the idea of prolifers being 'responsble' (by your definition of responsibility):

'What people flinch at in the pro-life movement is 1. their often seemingly "black and white" views, their failure to even acknowledge that this is, and would be to many reasonable persons, a quite difficult issue that it would (from the pro-lifers view) be easy for otherwise good reasonable people to get wrong and 2. the fact that what they are opposing is, in their minds, equated with mass murder (this is important because force can be justified in response to murder).

MNG | September 12, 2009, 11:26am | #
It seems to me a proper pro-life position would be something like this:

'"You know, I can see how people might think otherwise given that fetuses often seem so different from born humans as to suggest a difference in kind as well as agree that would warrant different moral treatment, but I really think that upon much further reflection they are wrong, and we should work to correct this mistaken view."

'This strikes me as much more sensible and healthy than "BABYKILLERGENOCIDE!!!" and then wondering why people blame you when some nut routinely uses force to stop the BABYKILLINGGENOCIDE!!!!'

The fact is that you made many assumptions about how prolifers act, without mentioning any exceptions being noted. You cited a 'proper prolife position' without acknowledging that prolifers routinely express that position. Your only citation to a prolife argument is the word 'BABYKILLINGGENOCIDE,' which you enclose in quotation marks.

From your account, it is very difficult to understand how prolifers could have won any legislative victories at all, yet they *have* made some - from the Hyde Amendment to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act to mandatory waiting periods. We know these policies have *some* effect because (at least in the case of the Hyde Amendment and waiting periods) the pro-aborts are trying to roll them back.

[Chad]

AtheistConservative | September 12, 2009, 7:31pm | #

After being thoroughly defeated in another thread on the same subject...

In AtheistConservativeLand, "Chad going out on Thursday night and not responding to someone's post in a tired thread" = "Chad being utterly defeated by AtheistConservative's brilliant arguments". Haha, funny funny.

You have still not provided a whit of evidence that our sick care system (ie, cancer survival rates, life span after heart attacks, etc) is substantially better than other leading nations. It IS similar, with us winning on some things and France, Japan, Sweden, Germany etc winning on others. It is quite obvious that our entire health care system, which includes prevention and a broad-based system of encouraging healthy habits, is an abject failure. The only "success" we have had on that front are very anti-libertarian excessive taxes on smoking. Our obsesity rates and life spans are pathetic.

In order to justify the out-sized expense and risk Americans take in obtaining our health care, the burden is on YOUR shoulders to show that we get something for the money. We clearly don't, and pointing out that we have better colorectal cancer survial rates among men of African decent between the ages of 45 and 50 than anyone else doesn't change this, because there are hundreds of such possible measurements for us to come out on top of. That implies that by pure chance and measurement error we will top a few of them.
Instead, you need to show that we consistently top them...and by a wide margin.

[Andrew Lale]

Superb article. Wish I'd said that. I thought only I was that sarcastic!

[Jas]

The role of the President is provide leadership. It is easy for talking heads to rant about every point, and for politicians with vested interests to bicker and avoid doing anything. Say what you like about George W., he still provided leadership at a time of need. The current situation is no different, with the exception that big business, such as insurance and pharmaceutical companies, does not stand to profit. Easier then to be inflamed at anything this President says rather then rally to the call of health care for the masses. Where would we be now if one year after 9/11 the politicians were still debating the best way to legislate the war before taking action?
Health care needs to be reformed, the time is now.

[jester]

The role of the President is [to]...shut the fuck up and hold important parties in your subsidized housing.

[MNG]

"The same logic could make all pro-aborts responsible for a deadly attack on a prolife demonstrator"

Well, it might if in both cases you had someone clearly motivated by pro-life and pro-choice ideologies, but in the Tiller case we clearly have someone motivated by the former and in this case you have no evidence that the killer was pro-choice at all. Hating and killing an obnoxious pro-life crank does not make one pro-choice. But we have evidence that Tiller's killer was very motivated by his pro-life views, pro-life views which sound an awful lot like what many pro-lifers say routinely.

[Andrew Lale]

Jas- 'The current situation is no different, with the exception that big business, such as insurance and pharmaceutical companies, does not stand to profit.' Liar. This is an outright lie. The insurance companies and big pharma ARE on board with the bills in Congress, because they have been promised a very good deal by Obama. These are exactly the kind of lies and distortions which the left have been using repeatedly during this debate. I'm sick of it.
'Easier then to be inflamed at anything this President says rather then rally to the call of health care for the masses.' 80%, i.e. the masses are currently satisfied with their healthcare provision. What you are talking about is government monopoly health care as part of an ideological program to nationalise all the important industries in the United States. Stop lying about your goals.

[MNG]

Let's take a little comparison of the killer of George Tiller and the killer of the pro-life protestor in Michigan, whom Max is trying to promote an equivalency between.

In order for Max's equivalency both would have to be shown to be activists for and motivated by their respective ideologies, namely pro-life and pro-choice. But if Max has any evidence that the latter was a pro-choice activist, or that he was even simply pro-choice, let him bring it forth.

On the other hand, here is a profile of Tiller's assassin:

"Anti-abortion militancy
David Leach, publisher of Prayer & Action News, a magazine that opines that the killing of abortion providers would be justifiable homicide, told reporters that he and Roeder had met once in the late 1990s and that Roeder at that time had authored contributions to Leach's publication.[27][28][29] Leach published the Army of God manual, which advocates the killing of the providers of abortion and contains bomb-making instructions, in the January 1996 issue of his magazine.[30] A Kansas acquaintance of Roeder's, Regina Dinwiddie, told a reporter after Tiller's murder (speaking of Roeder), "I know that he believed in justifiable homicide." Dinwiddie, an anti-abortion militant featured in the 2000 HBO documentary Soldiers in the Army of God, added that she had observed Roeder in 1996 enter Kansas City Planned Parenthood's abortion clinic and ask to talk to the physician there; after staring at him for nearly a minute, Roeder said, "I've seen you now," before turning and walking away.[31]

Roeder's former roommate of two years, Eddie Ebecher, who had met Roeder through the Freemen movement in the 1990s, told a reporter after Tiller's murder that he and Roeder had considered themselves members of the Army of God. Ebecher said Roeder was obsessed with Tiller and discussed killing him, but that Ebecher warned him not to do so. Ebecher, who went by the nom de guerre "Wolfgang Anacon," added that he believed Roeder held "high moral convictions in order to carry out this act. I feel that Scott had a burden for all the children being murdered."[32]

In 2007, someone who identified himself as Scott Roeder posted on the website of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue that, "Tiller is the concentration camp 'Mengele' of our day and needs to be stopped before he and those who protect him bring judgment upon our nation." This was reported by the ADL's Center on Extremism, noting that Roeder called for "the closing of his death camp."[23][24] After Tiller's murder, officials from Operation Rescue, which had long opposed Tiller's abortion practices but denounced his shooting, said Roeder was not a contributor or member of the group.[14] The phone number for Operation Rescue's senior policy advisor, Cheryl Sullenger, was found on the dashboard of Scott Roeder's car[33]. At first, Operation Rescue's senior policy advisor Cheryl Sullenger denied any contact with Roeder, saying that her phone number is freely available online. Then, she revised her statements, indicating that Roeder's interest was in court hearings involving Tiller.

" He would call and say, 'When does court start? When's the next hearing?' I was polite enough to give him the information. I had no reason not to. Who knew? Who knew, you know what I mean?[8] "

Roeder reportedly attended the 2009 trial in which Tiller was acquitted of violating state abortion laws; Roeder called the trial "a sham" and felt the justice system failed in letting Tiller go free. On May 30, one day before Tiller was killed, a worker at a Kansas City clinic told the Federal Bureau of Investigation that Roeder had tried gluing the locks of the clinic shut, something Roeder was suspected of doing there before years earlier.[14] The Kansas City Star reported that a man of Roeder's description had glued the locks shut at the Central Family Medicine clinic in Kansas City on May 23 and May 30.[8]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_George_Tiller#Anti-abortion_militancy

Equivalent? From what we know now it's absurd, wishful thinking on Max's part.

[MNG]

As to the common rhetoric used by George Tiller's killer and mainstream abortion opponents, one can take the rhetoric used by Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry,calling Tiller a "mass murderer" whose "hands were covered with blood" or Bill O'Reilly who referred to Tiller's practice as engaged in "Nazi stuff", Tiller as "Tiller the Baby Killer" referenced "Judgment Day" in discussing Tiller, etc. and compare it to the killer's rhetoric calling Tiller's practice a "death camp" calling Tiller "'Mengele' of our day" and saying Tiller "needs to be stopped before he and those who protect him bring judgment upon our nation."

In fact our own good old Mad Max routinely refers to "pro-aborts" happily killing humans and babies, compares them to the Nazis and Stalinists, etc. Just use the search enginge above to see some MM nuggets (I assume you are not on the fringe of your own movement, eh Max?).

It is just this kind of dangerous hyperbolic rhetoric that is all too common in the pro-life movement, a movement which, predictably given the prevalance of such rhetoric and black and white, self righteous positions taken all too often in that movement, has been linked with a great deal of violence against persons and property:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

[MNG]

Enyap or whoever nicely and predictably (though amusingly considering he accuses me of hypocrisy) leaves out most of the right-wing killers we dicsussed numerous times (such as the guy who shot up the unitarian church in TN or Tim McVeigh for example), because they were so plainly motivated by their right wing views. He wants to focus on the one that shot up the aerobics class because the connection between right wing views and shooting up aerobics classes is one he hopes can be painted as tenuous. Of course, the killer's diaries were full of women hate, which is all too common on the right (not exactly known for its womens rights stances that right wing) and the guy shot up a womens aerobic class, so there's that, but he also had the classic racist Obama hate that many people were, well, worried about when people started showing up at Obama events angry with Obama and carrying guns.

So there's that.

[Mad Max]

'In fact our own good old Mad Max routinely refers to "pro-aborts". . .'

As this link shows, MNG has actually used the phrase 'pro-abortionists' to describe certain people who, well, who support abortion. The link is not to some previous thread, but to *this very thread.*

Can't you keep your story straight, MNG?

So it seems that the phrase 'pro-abortionists' is legitimate, but the abbreviated term 'pro-abort' incites terrorism? Is that *really* what you're going with? The abbreviated term incites terrorists, but the full phrase doesn't?

I knew you didn't have a whole lot of respect for the intelligence of the people here, but this really takes the cake.

[Mad Max]

And you still choose to respond to the argument in your head, rather than to my actual point that your 'climate theory' (by which you link the killing of abortion doctors to the peaceable speech of the prolife movement) can be used to show that the pro-abortionists (your phrase) are to blame for the killing of this prolife demonstrator because of their excessive rhetoric against the prolife movement (including accusations of being in favor of slavery, murder, etc., etc.)

[Jennilee13]

"Also, feel free to ask for checkups and "preventive" care, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, on demand, no matter how needless your visit may be, no questions asked, no extra cost."

I have not read anywhere that any option being proposed would allow preventive care on-demand such as you are describing. The truth is that the current guidelines in use, 1 mammogram per year after age 40 and before age 40 if certain indicators are present, saves lives and saves money by catching the disease early. Nothing about on-demand anywhere. How can I take your article seriously when you make statements like that? Even if you have some valid points to make, after reading that, you have lost me. At least you didn't compare anyone to Hitler.

I am a new reader to this, er, publication, hoping to find some well thought out articles and discussions without the hysteria from other sources. Seems like I will keep looking.

[slutmonkey]

I agree! ...I think. It's hard to tell cause sarcasm doesn't come through well in print.

[Persistant Vegetative Statesma]

Will all those folks who refuse medical care on religious grounds be required to to purchase the mandatory coverage? Sounds like a potential 1st amendment problem to me.

[mark]

I have not read anywhere that any option being proposed would allow preventive care on-demand such as you are describing.

Barack Obama, 9/10/09: "And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies - because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse."

[abercrombie milano]

My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different mindsets.

[nike shox]

is good