Every time I think our great nation has crossed a certain threshold of political maturity, these malign malcontents of so-called middle America, remind me how far we have yet to go. So last year, when John McCain won the Republican nomination, I for some reason thought he might join our candidate in giving us a race to be proud of. Instead, he gave us Sarah Palin.
And when Obama won the presidency, I thought there may just be a chance that conservatism would come back from its headless descent toward the political fringe and actually engage in a healthy discourse about our country’s future. The shoutdowns, putdowns and shameless use of kids with Downs in attacking health care reform the past few weeks prove what a naive dumbass I was in harboring that thought – if even for a minute. And again its Sarah Palin, who seems to find new ways to outdo her own irrepressible bizarrity with each twitter post, that rises to the forefront.
But while I may feel disappointed in the level of discourse offered by the disloyal opposition and covered by a lazy and seemingly neutered mainstream media, I can’t but feel that, just as last year, the right has again strayed too far from the mainstream in their spiteful attacks to be successful. So as last year they tried to link Obama to domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers, even as he came across as reasonable and well-meaning, this year they argue he wants to kill our elders and euthanize disabled kids, even as he speaks to everyday folks about covering kids and people with pre-existing conditions.
There is something about Obama’s always measured and dignified response to his critics, his basic groundedness, that seems to drive the right into spasms of vitriol. They hated Clinton because he stole their clothes. They hate Obama because he has hasn’t tried to. But what lies at the heart of their apoplexy is that they see a country they had easily terrorized with anti-government fear-mongering for so long not so easily swayed this time. The same-old attacks just aren’t working so they dig deeper into their gutters, desperate to see off even the most basic reform, knowing that when it comes in, and actually works, the country will see full well the depth of the falacies they had perpertrated for so long.
And from their desperation will ultimately come their final undoing. By calling on their ugliest and bitterest minions to carry the flag they have shown their truest colors and demonstrated for all to see who the real adults and problem solvers are. And it’s too late to pull them back now.
So even as this August, like last year’s, gives the right their moment to rail against change, they have again squandered it even as they dominate the terms of debate. Reform is a comin’ and we will be able to thank Palin and her ilk, as much as the steadfast Mr. Obama for its success.
stay above the gutter.
<
p>I agree. Obama is a master of giving his political opponents just enough rope to hang themselves, using their own weight and momentum against them. Let’s hope he played this one right, becuause the stakes in health care reform enormous, both for ordinary citizens who need health care and politically for Obama and the Democrats.
to the right wing loons by not pointing mentioning the latent racism in their nastiness.
<
p>At the heart of it is their own fear: for their economic security and for their status in a country that is changing very rapidly around them as a result of immigration, globalization, capitalism, and a variety of other factors. In some cases, this becomes an unreasoning conservatism — senior citizens, for example, who refuse to understand that Medicare is government health care — in other cases more ugly things.
<
p>I agree with David and you that this is extremely bad politics for the Republican Party insofar as it hopes to remain a national institution.
Amtrak
Medicare
Medicaid
USPS—by Obama’s own words today
The war in Iraq
The war in Afghanistan ( that is spiralling out of control)
Federal spending–pick a budget
The Stimulus Bill
DHS
ICE
Border security
<
p>Everything the federal government touches is becoming a colossal failure costing the taxpayers ever increasing amounts of money—-which is very quickly drying up.
<
p>Uncivil discourse—-you mean what GW Bush endured? ( I am not and was never a fan of that nitwit) You folks are only getting back what you dished out. That’s what some of these people are using as an excuse for raising their voices. Didn’t Kohn Kerry have to say something about that as well as the community agitator in chief?
<
p>Personally–I think this is the tip of the iceberg. You may see insurrection by next summer if the joblessness hit 12% or higher. The war in Afghanistan is an abslolute debacle. How many young Americans have to die to placate Obama’s need to show he is a tough guy. The Soviets proved to me that Afghanistan is nothing for anyone to die for. That is why God invented Predator’s.
<
p>And so this country continues it’s inexorable decline.
Hopefully we wil follow in the footseps of the Phoenix.
FNMA (Fannie)
FHLMC (Freddie)
FHA, soon to be insolvent like Freddie and Fannie
Ginnie Mae, soon to be insolvent like Freddie and Fannie
The FAA which cannot, after 2 multi-billion tries, upgrade the nation’s ATC system
In every debate, it seems someone points to the Postal Service as a glaring example of government failure. Why? It always works for me; I can send a letter to my relatives in California or Hawaii for less than fifty cents, and have confidence it will arrive in a few days, right at their house. UPS and FedEx won’t deliver air to the people next door for that.
<
p>When something I’ve ordered arrives in the mail, if no one is home and the package won’t fit in my mailbox, they’ll bring it back the next day. UPS will just toss it on the steps whether anyone’s home or not. When given a choice, I always ask for postal delivery.
<
p>What is it about the USPS that so annoys the Right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
“It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.” Because Obama said that, the Right decided that USPS is a failure? I had no idea they valued his opinion so highly.
but when you try to get service inside the post office building in my town it is like standing in line in the old Soviet Dust Bin. Everyone there shirks waiting on customers until the line goes out the door. Several times I have had to go to knock on the door of the local postmaster to get someone to wait on the customers. That attitude towards paying customers would never be tolerated by business. By the way, I would not characterize those of us waiting in line as being on the “right.”
Customer service seems to have been the first thing they cut. The Somerville UPS likes to play a game called “we’re not sure where that package is.” Played right, they can keep you standing there for 10-15 minutes. Repeated over an entire line it makes package pickup a bonding experience.
The one where I live is good. I must be one of the Chosen People, or something.
Even though it took 3 weeks for a Priority package to get from Boston to LA. I paid extra for “Delivery Confirmation” but it only showed when it left Boston and that it hadn’t been delivered.
<
p>The USPS, compared to other national postage systems, is a tremendous bargain.
<
p>But it pales, pound for pound, in comparison to FedEx or UPS.
Exactly. What you can get for 44 cents at FedEx or UPS totally outclasses what the USPS offers.
Decidedly less advanced than the comparable product from UPS or FedEx. Roughly the same cost.
<
p>No one is comparing a 44 cent letter to a FedEx Letter delivered at 8:30AM next day.
<
p>That’s what I meant, “pound for pound.”
<
p>I had a relative work at all three entities. USPS was like a “slow motion retirement home” in comparison.
<
p>Incidentally, is not the USPS mandated by the Constitution?
I bet ya Fed Ex could charge $0.30 for the same piece of mail. You see though, they are NOT ABLE to COMPETE by law.
Doesn’t the postal service subsidize rural delivery? Would farmers still be able to send letters and pay bills by mail if not for the postal services unfair monopoly?
That was the very reason for the federal monopoly. Otherwise, private delivery would cherrypick the easy, low cost routes and leave the post office with the high cost routes.
Because it doesn’t exist.
<
p>Sad, really.
Because it doesn’t exist.
<
p>Sad, really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…
You’re correct that only the USPS is allowed to deliver letters. Notice, though, that others can deliver magazines. Why don’t FedEx and UPS use their awesome private-sector powers to wrench that business away from the evil government tentacle?
Because they don’t have legal access for delivery to mail boxes
Neither do newspapers. They manage.
Newspapers manage because they’re recurring and local. Their technique is to either throw the paper onto the porch or lawn or else provide a free newspaper tube upon the signing of a subscription.
<
p>Newspapers can’t legally use the mail box; non-postal use of a mailbox is illegal. I really assumed this was common knowledge.
<
p>Think of it. To compete in the 2nd class mailer market, a re-mailer would have to contract with someone to provide a separate receiving tube or else have them throw the mailer on the law. That won’t work. Too expensive. Homeowners won’t cooperate and there’s no access to PO boxes.
<
p>That’s the reason a 2nd class mailing competitor hasn’t arisen; the monopoly over the mail box is too large a barrier for entry into the market.
<
p>The alternatives in the 2nd class market: i) USPS or ii) inserts in local newspapers.
and you even wrote how:
<
p>Newspaper tubes.
<
p>It would be neither hard nor expensive for a 3nd class mailer market to use a second box on the post, much like a newspaper tube. Heck, the USPS doesn’t provide the mail box — there’s no reason why 2ndClassMail ™ couldn’t have the same requirement.
<
p>The monopoly over the mailbox is utter nonsense.
I’m mystified; the economics of the postal monopoly are well studied. First, it’s obvious that no re-mailer in 2nd or 3rd class mail currently competes significantly with USPS. Question is why.
<
p>Hypo 1: USPS is so blindingly efficient, no one even tries.
<
p>Hypo 2: There’s a barrier to entry.
<
p>You saying that LL Bean, Sears, JCPenneys, ever other junk mailer in the world is going to provide a tube, AND most homeowners would take it and use it? How about cities, high rise apt buildings – resident there don’t even have a logical place for a tube.
<
p>So from the start if you know you can’t gain the market penetration that the USPS has, then you have to expect major efficiencies elsewhere. Like for instance high volumn deliveries: newspaper.
<
p>You’re claiming it’s inexpensive to broadly install another tube. I sure wouldn’t allow a junk tube in my yard; I don’t even have a newspaper tube.
<
p>Take the test yourself. If someone contacted you with a free tube and post in front of your house, flat, condo, whatever, to take 2nd/3rd class mail from non-post office sources would you embrace the tube?
<
p>Did you even read that USPS link I provided? USPS knows they have the mailbox monopoly; it’s no secret. Personally, I think it’s even a good idea. Here’s Michael Schuyler
Amazingly efficient. By the way folks, save on your postage. Priority mail is delivered just the same as regular first class mail. anything mailed under 1 lb. is better going 1st class. Seroiusly.
Palin? That’s yesterday’s news. Today’s reality is a majority, of likely voters do not want this so-called “health care reform” to pass, 53% to 45%. And growing.
<
p>The heat Congressmen and Senators are taking is probably a good reflection at the anger voters have over the usurpation of their health insurance plans most are happy with. This ignores the prospects of higher taxes all around that scare the heck out of folks.
<
p>(Higher taxes are actually written into the health care bill, as a tax on small business payrolls, see Section 313(b)(1), page 150 … 8% on a $400,000 payroll? That eliminates one job.)
<
p>The socialization of health care may indeed happen, but there will be a price to pay for it at the polls this fall in a couple of elections, notably NJ and VA where Republican leads in these Democratic states are huge.
<
p>And I can’t wait until 2010.
she were yesterday’s news in the general sense. Her interjection into the health care dialogue with her absolute nonsensical lying about death squads and Baby Downs ™ sure seem to keep her in the news.
…that in some ways she is the biggest problem from a legitimacy standpoint. The Limbaughs and Becks of the world can be dismissed as loudmouths making money and ratings. Palin, however, is more the face of the actual Republican Party because she is their most recent VP nominee. I’m afraid that there are some who will dismiss the talk show hosts, but will be more willing to give Palin credibility as a former elected official and candidate. Assuming McCain is still a somewhat decent guy I’d like to believe that he is kicking himself and wishing he could disappear every time Palin opens her mouth.
The right wing fills the media and culture with outrageous lies about the proposed health care reform, and then points at the resulting change in polls as evidence of “anger”?
<
p>The dip in polls demonstrates (1) advertising works (duh!), and (2) most Americans are clueless about the reality of their own health care system, and (3) most Americans are incapable of or unwilling to actually engage any issue that takes more than a bumper-sticker to explain.
<
p>Given the current state of European and Canadian health-care systems versus the US, the “socialization” of health-care so maligned by the hysterical-right looks far more attractive than the “privatization” of social security — pushed with similar hysteria (and with the same utter lack of honesty or integrity) by the same crowd a few years ago.
<
p>If we had listened to them then, would we be better or worse off after the collapse of the entire financial system? Based on the performance of the right-wing bozos on (a) the “war on terror”, (b) the social security debacle, (c) disaster preparedness (remember when New Orleans was real?) (d) the economy, (e) climate change, (f) science and research, etc., what sort of insanity leads someone to think they are any more correct about health care?
<
p>Why anybody with more than three brain-cells gives these right-wing clowns the time of day is beyond me.
Yes, there are some distortions flying around. No, the “myths and lies” you cite are not in the same league as “Bush knew about 9/11” theories. Most are very real concerns, perhaps couched to receive maximum media attention.
<
p>But there are real problems with this health care bill and the President and Congress are not being totally straightforward with the public.
<
p>When Barney Frank, who should know, is caught on tape (now on You Tube) saying the bill is a move towards a single-payer national plan, then Democrats unequivocally deny it, taxpayers are skeptical that the bill is what you say it is.
<
p>If Palin paints “death panel” images, good for those who oppose, bad for you. Her embellishments don’t invalidate the concerns people have about this proposal.
<
p>If you would like to debate aspects of the bill, I’d be happy.
“I don’t want the government taking over my Medicare!”
That’s it!
<
p>There is no such usurpation going on. Health insurance through private providers will continue, well into the foreseeable future.
<
p>But health insurers haven’t insured some 47 million people in this country. For-profit rejects are those most in need, and least helped.
<
p>Now, if you are of the mind that health (and thus health insurance) is a right (as I am) then nobody ought to be happy with this state of affairs, no matter their personal state of provider satisfaction. But beyond that, the vast majority of people are insured AND HEALTHY. They are, if anything, pleased with their health and cannot, in fact, be overly pleased with their health care as they haven’t put it to the test of exigency. Stories are legion of otherwise healthy people being ‘pleased’ with their health care up until they get really sick and/or injured, at which point the insurer decides to cut their losses.
<
p>
<
p>Apparently, the biggest fear is that, somehow, that nefarious Obama is going to get his governmental paws all over Medicare…
<
p>Ruh-roh…
I have read the fist 150 pages or so of the House health care bill.
<
p>This bill gives the government the power to regulate all aspects of private health care, including but not limited to setting of benefit levels, co-pays, out-of-pocket limitations, plan maximums, even loss ratios.
<
p>This gives the government the right to set high levels of benefits which private insurers will not be able to match ON “PUBLIC OPTION” PREMIUMS SET BY GOVERNMENT which, if I’m reading correctly, will be the Medicare reimbursement rates.
<
p>MD’s who participate in the “public option” will get reimbursed at 80% of this rate. No balance billing, either.
<
p>So, the Commissioner and Sec. of HHS get to design the plans then offer them in the public plan at “affordable premiums” set by them, and subsidized by tax revenues since program costs will not be covered by premiums.
<
p>How will private insurance plans compete against this? It’s a rhetorical question, petr.
<
p>By design, the government is in total control. That makes nothing optional.
<
p>Health care is not a right, BTW. Rights are not conferred or granted by government, they are reserved by the people. Health care is no more a right than a ham sandwich on Tuesday.
OK, so where do I sign up to reserve to myself the right to have health care without an insurer telling me no or having to pay through the nose for it?
<
p>Nobody’s arguing that health care is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, which is what you seem to be saying. I believe it is a right inherent in my membership in that elite club we refer to as the homo sapien species. Yes, government absolutely can grant additional rights through both statute and case law and has done so numerous times.
<
p>The rest of what you say about the bill, assuming its accurate, doesn’t bother me. Refering to your comment above I think Barney Frank is right. Any public option is a step in the direction of single-payer. The discrepancy with Democrats saying otherwise may be about intention. In other words Frank may simply be stating the fact that such a plan would be closer to single payer than the status quo, but others are trying to say they have no intention to complete the process. Many of us are upset for the opposite reason that so many Democratic leaders have said point blank that single payer is “off the table”.
<
p> The Health Care Constitutional Amendment
<
p>
I would need more convincing to support constitutionalizing it, however. The constitutions of many of our states and many other countries I feel become to lengthy because people over the years have written public policy into them that seem to be more appropriate for ordinary statute. Constitutions should be very simple documents which outline the structure of the polity and limitations of its powers. The US Constitution does a fairly decent job of limiting itself to those two functions, the one glaring exception being prohibition which, regardless of the merits had no business being in the Constitution. I read the ninth amendment of the Constitution as an open invitation to both Congress and state legislatures to advance and protect other rights not enumerated. The other concern I have is that health care requires money and I’m not sure it’s wise to constitutionally require spending. That could get messy at budget time. The enumerated rights as they stand for the most part can be interpreted as a list of “Thou shalt nots” directed at the government. It generally does not require spending for the government to not do something.
or Home Insurance Constitutional Amendment. Or a constitutional right to sneakers.
<
p>A “right to health care” … totally silly.
“You have the right to choose any form of health care insurance or provider, to pick and choose whatever level of benefits you wish, or to self-insure, without any directive or interference from the government.”
<
p>You do not have the right to have health care paid for you.
..ethically fail!
<
p>I am arguing that health care is as fundamental to life as the air we breathe. We don’t have a right to drive a car or even to have a local fire department come to our rescue either, but they are practically considered to be such and rightfully so. Neither do children have a right to education, but again we consider it so fundamental that we provide it. The concept of rights must go beyond the prevention of government interference; sometimes the government must also actively guarantee it. Even your constitutional right to counsel has been interpreted as not just the state can’t deprive you of counsel, but most go as far as to provide one if you can’t afford it.
I must have missed that during the campaign.
<
p>The only way Obama and the obfuscating liberals in congress can pass “health care reform” is through stealth, deception, and outright falsehoods.
<
p>I’ll start on page 16 … if I’m reading correctly, insurers cannot take on new individuals. This means if you leave employment, you cannot seek private coverage. The public “option” is your only option, i.e., not optional: Section 102(a)(1)(A).
<
p>How does this square with “if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance?” If your employer dumps you into the individual market, you’re in the public option.
<
p>LAIRS.
…because he’s not for it. Even if what you say is accurate its not socialized medicine. Healthcare providers will not be working for the government like the VA (which IS socialized and works well!).
Where the government can drain your bank account penniless? I have experienced the MA DOR making such a mistake. I have been banking in CT for the last 20 years to avoid them making another “mistake”.
Bilixi just wanted to let you know that the text of the bill is actually referring to insurers posting electronically like direct deposit payments to providers with remittance advice (the itemized list of what the insurance paid). This is called an ANSI X12 835 Remittance interface. In 2001, HIPAA standardized remittances with version 4010, ARRA is referring to the new version 5010.
<
p>No one is taking money out of anywhere it is a deposit and an itemization of what got paid.
<
p>Reviewing ARRA is part of what I do for work. I cut and pasted the pages referenced by Rush etc. a few days ago and forwarded to a member of my group. He’s a good guy, but let’s say we are on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to politics. Without him knowing the background I asked him to review and explain pages 57-59, it actually coincides with his specific job function so it wasn’t out of the ordinary that I would forward this to him. I already read it and understood exactly what those pages referenced. He came back to me and said it’s referencing electronic submissions and remittance with providers and payers.
<
p>Here’s the actual text with the area that Rush quoted in bold:
<
p>
<
p>Key thing to understand is the heading: ‘SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.
<
p>Then the sub heading: (4) REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC STANDARDS
<
p>Where you have sections:
(A) clarify questions, there is a comment period
(B) if you process paper instead of electronic then you need a means through another party to provide the payer the electronic version
and Rush’s(C) pay electronically with remittance advice.
<
p>This is so obnoxiously false, it is impossible for anyone to read this and think the government is going into your bank account. Bilixi someone purposely lied to you and you should be upset that they wasted your time. If you want to fight health care reform you want to know the facts and argue based upon the merits of the bill. If I were you I’d be pissed off at the person shoveling lies to you.