Congress gave final approval on Sunday to legislation that would provide medical coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans and remake the nation’s health care system along the lines proposed by President Obama.
Nothing about destroying what little remains of the American economy. Nothing about forcing citizens to buy something they don’t want. And, above all else, nothing about the creation of the United Socialist States of America.I’m too sick at heart to write anything more about this right now. However, there is an election coming up in a few months, and a lot of popular anger can be mobilized via the tea parties.
I recommend two slogans for this election season. First, a perennial favorite:
THROW THE RASCALS OUT!
Second:
REPEAL IT OR FEEL IT!
It’s time to put the feet of those corrupt and craven pork-junkies to the fire.
[Rant ends here]
35 comments:
Keep the pressure on!
I strongly urge that ALL readers who have their own blogs should post a link to GOV in their blog sidebar.
Preferably, also post the little badge of the Mo-doggie Art Project with a link back to GOV.
Whether you have a blog or not, be sure to tell your friends about GOV and suggest that they either read it directly or subscribe to the RSS feed. You can get the RSS feed sent to your smart phone to give yourself something interesting and worthwhile to read whenever you have a few minutes to spare.
My take on this particular situation is here:
Can't stand it any more?
Social democrats should cease to be defensive and apologetic. A social democratic vision of the good society entails from the outset a greater role for the state and the public sector. The welfare state is as popular as ever with its beneficiaries: nowhere in Europe is there a constituency for abolishing public health services, ending free or subsidised education or reducing public provision of transport and other essential services. -- Tony Judt
Via Oliver Kamm Times Online - Present discontents
For anyone who still thinks BHO is not a socialist, know this, our next PM Mona Muslim stole his slogan Yes We Can and just slightly changed it to S We Can. A catchy slogan that will probably become recycled in the upcoming elections later this year. These two clowns have at least two things in common. They're both socialists and closet mohammedans fer shur!
Escape Velocity, even people in the US receive welfare payments and subsidised housing, it’s not something that’s limited to Europe. Yes it’s annoying that some people scrounge off others, but what would happen, and in particular in today’s economy, if the state all of a sudden decided to cease all such payments? There would be a lot of desperate people willing to do almost anything to get something to eat, which again would reflect on the crime statistics.
I think the situation would deteriorate rather quickly and be very similar to the current appalling situations in South Africa and Brazil, with rampant out of control violent crime if that was ever to happen. I’d rather pay a little bit more in taxes and be safe, rather than living in a crime ridden hellhole.
Except crime all over Europe is increasing.
Perhaps you should increase your taxes and bribes to criminals, to keep you safe.
Escape Velocity said..
“Except crime all over Europe is increasing.”
But nowhere as bad as it is in the states, which also has a rising crime rate.
“Perhaps you should increase your taxes and bribes to criminals, to keep you safe.”
Nope, I’m an advocate of reducing taxes, cutting bureaucracy and handing out harsher sentences to criminals and to speed up deportations of foreign criminals. I also think it would be a good idea to re-instate the death penalty in Europe.
But nowhere as bad as it is in the states, which also has a rising crime rate. -- kritisk
I think you need to research a bit better.
Escape Velocity...not sure your point in quoting the self-satisfied paragraph from Judt.I'm too tired to look him up, but he sure doesn't have a grip on the American character.
Polls, even those from leftist groups, show the surprising increase in the number of the American electorate who consider themselves conservatives. It has grown rapidly since voters have gotten a good look at Obama. And his victory lap in this latest debacle will be mean-spirited and as clueless as his foreign policy has proved to be.
"I Won" has done what I pray is not irreperable damage to the American contract between the public 'servants' and the electorate. November is coming and with it a lot of folks determined to use all the mechanisms they can to undo some of the damage of this bill. If we can stop the steamroller before it gets up to a good speed we have a chance.
Poor Canadians, though: if this stuff becomes set in stone, they have no exit door for necessary medical care they can't get at home. At that point, our usefulness to them becomes pretty much moot.
Well, there are more expensive alternatives: the Indians, Cubans, Bahamans, et al, will see the numbers of medical tourists increase a great deal. definitely a growth industry for some places.
Escape Velocity said..
"But nowhere as bad as it is in the states, which also has a rising crime rate. -- kritisk
I think you need to research a bit better."
Well good for you guys, looks like Obama has managed to lower crime rates then. The overall crime rates are still a lot worse in the US than they are in Europe.
kritisk_borger said:
...
Interesting opinion. And that's all it is, since you provide no sources for your assertion.
Three things:
1. What is the change, up or down, in Europe for the "overall crime rates" in the last five years?
2. What numbers of population are you comparing?
3. And most important, where do you get your statistics?
Sources, please. Opinions without any backup are not worth much.
g'night y'all.
Dympha, here are some links to support my claims. I have broken the links so that they fit into the window.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_
tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_
of_countries_by_murder_rate
Dymphna, sorry about misspelling your name.
A great victory for statism...
Speaking of Tony Judt... This is off topic, but there are some quite enthusiastic comments by that nazi dirtbag on the back cover of this book.
So Sarah Palin used to cross the border into Canada for socalized medicine, Rush Limbaugh went to Hawaii for that state's socialized medicine, and yet American Conservatives rail against it?
Every daily news feed on GoV has some piece about the horrors of the NHS or other European public healthcare systems, but nothing on the incredible abuses of the private-owned, Conservative-kosher, Founding-Father-friendly, Bible-compliant, freedom-fostering insurance companies. Nothing about "preexisting conditions", nothing about the little girl who was rejected because she was too thin and the little boy who was rejected because he was too fat, although they looked pretty normal in the pictures I saw. Are private insurance companies not Orwellian? Are they that much better than the Evil State?
I am against bureaucracy, the wasting and abusing of taxpayer money and the State's meddling in every aspect of our life, but I would NEVER vote Republican, I HATE their hypocrisy, mendacity and stupidity. I am against Islamization, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness and Eco-Alarmism, but the GOP and the Tea Parties are far from being our saviors.
Americans are enslaved to banks, credit card companies, insurance companies and other major corporations, but Conservatives reject any reform that involves government regulation or a public option. People in the West are privileged to live in a society that is much safer, cleaner and more prosperous than it used to be in the 19th century, for example. If you want a purely Capitalist society, try working in a sweatshop with no insurance, no safety net, no union and no rights. Try working 15 hours a day, 7 days a week, from age 10 till your untimely death. Try living in the slums with no public services. Then tell me how those market forces work for you.
Why is it that Americans fear the government they elect and can change every 4 years, yet you don't fear Google, Goldman Sachs and the insurance companies over which you have no influence?
For me, the hypocrisy of the Tea Parties is encapsulated in that famous sign held by a protester: "Gorvenment hands off my MediCare."
I did not intend to offend anyone by my remarks, but I really feel that the American Populist-Conservative movement (a la Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, Inhofe, Bachman, Pat Robertson) is permeated by hypocrisy and stupidity. Anti-Gay Congressmen and preachers who turn out to be gay, anti-government corporatists, anti-elitist Palins stuffing their wardrobes with elitist haute couture freebies...
I guess I am a Progressive after all. If only they would give up Islamophilia, MC and PC and work on those deficits.
linbetwin, nice rant :)
Every daily news feed on GoV has some piece about the horrors of the NHS or other European public healthcare systems, but nothing on the incredible abuses of the private-owned, Conservative-kosher, Founding-Father-friendly, Bible-compliant, freedom-fostering insurance companies.
I'm sure Huffinton Post or other blogs has something to your liking. This is called 'media diversity' and is Good.
This is called 'media diversity' and is Good.
What happened to media objectivity? As I see things, bloggers have the legal right to be biased, but they also have the moral and deontological obligation to be impartial.
I'd say HuffPo is a little less biased than Drudge because they're trying to pass off as a serious news organization, whereas Drudge is just the RSS feed of GOP Congressmen and Tea Party Conservatives.
linbetwin --
"Impartiality", hell! My obligation is to the truth, nothing more nor less. When I make an error of fact, I correct it promptly.
But never without partiality. I'm biased, and proud of it. If you want "impartiality", watch Chris Matthews! "Objectivity" really means "the news as reported by the left-wing media establishment, with no particular regard for the truth."
The pretense of an "objective" news media is relatively new, going back no farther than the beginning of the 20th century. Before that, all newspapers were biased and made no bones about it. Since there were all possible varieties of bias, every viewpoint was represented.
Now we have a monoculture of liberal opinion in the mass media, which pretends to be "objective". What a crock!
Forget impartiality. I'll take bias any day.
What happened to media objectivity?
As Baron points out, it's a ruse.
'Objective' journalism usually means that the journalist and the media he works for is trying to hide their actual points of view, in order to give more credibility to the biased crap they spew out regardless.
'Objective' media is about as neutral as the UN Human Rights Committee. Deceitful, not useful.
Baron, I guess you're right. Sometimes fighting bias with bias is the best option -- or, indeed, the only option. But as an atheist and somebody who believes in evolution, I'm not a big fan of Conservatism and I certainly don't think Fox News is "fair and balanced" towards atheists and evolution. I was glad to hear Obama mention people of no faith in his inauguration speech. I know many people here think he is a closet Muslim, but I'm pretty sure he's a closet atheist (or at least an agnostic).
Impartiality doesn't mean what the leftist media says it means. It means reporting the whole relevant truth. Opposition to "ObamaCare", if it is valid, will stand on it's own merit, not propped up by bias. You yourself rejected the bias of that historian who claimed that Islam caused the Dark Ages, because you knew that true history is indictment enough against Islam.
Nonetheless, I do enjoy your blog a lot.
@linbetwin-
I almost deleted your comment because it violates our rules re civility over and over again. For example, this:
I am against bureaucracy, the wasting and abusing of taxpayer money and the State's meddling in every aspect of our life, but I would NEVER vote Republican, I HATE their hypocrisy, mendacity and stupidity. I am against Islamization, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness and Eco-Alarmism, but the GOP and the Tea Parties are far from being our saviors...
Now that's a lot of ad hominem screaming packed into one paragraph. You're not engaged in a dialogue with anyone here, you're simply unloading a great deal of hatred ACCOMPANIED BY CAPS IN THE EVENT WE CAN'T READ LOWER CASE. Lots of heat and very little light...
And where did you ever read on our pages that we favor Unfettered Evil Capitalism? Take a look at our sidebar. Try clicking on the Acton Istitute for starters. Do some homework. You could start with Frederic Bastiat.
You don't intend to offend?? As in "sorry I stepped on your feet even if I had to cross the room to do so"? That kind of unintended offense?...well, you're pardoned for your remarks, but you aren't excused for making them in the fashion you have chosen. There are so many fallacious arguments in your comment that it would take a week to unpack them.
Hmmm...your comment might make a good starting point for a post. It is full of meaty fallacies that beg to be answered. Not for your sake since the kinds of comments you're making usually issue forth from folks who don't listen well (of course you may be an exception), but it could serve as an examplar for our readers.
Bias is inherent in human thinking, linbetwin. Everyone has a point of view and he or she reaches it via reason or feeling, or a combination of both. Only those enthralled by the dogmas of the religion of scientism believe in objectivity. Try reading some quantam physics, too. You might grasp how fundamental one's relative place on the spectrum really is.
As for the mendacity of the Republicans...I agree. All politicians are suspect whatever their place on the political divide. We are conservatives here, with some libertarian leanings. You would know that if you'd read our blog with greater comprehension than your comments indicate.
We are not Republicans and if you'd read our blog more closely, you'd know that.
We are advocates of small government, lower taxes, and minimum "services" from anything other than the local polity. The feds exist to protect our sovereignty and to minimally regulate commerce. We agree with Eisenhower in that regard.
We think socialism has long since past its sell-by date but it's hard to get that across to an administration which is filled with people who've never held a job outside those reserved for the Political Class.
Our president has never directly suppported himself, he's lived on government largesse since he got here. Thus I can understand that his pov of view is colored by his experience -- or, in this case, by his lack of experience.
If you continue to read Gates of Vienna, I hope you learn to read it more closely. So far your remarks demonstrate a poor level of comprehension of what we believe or propose.
A C- for you this semester.
Dymphna, I don't consider the rantings of linbetwin to be 'ad hominem' in a strict sense of the word. It's a pile of unsubstantiated rubbish for sure, but it's targeted at the 'Republicans', not individuals.
Upper case (AKA 'yelling') is just rude. It's what people do when they lack the patience to make their points properly.
Also, 'Unfettered Evil Capitalism' is a strawman.
I haven't weighed in about this subject before, and this will be the only time.
I don't get what all the fuss is about. Where I live, and have lived for all of my life, there's universal health coverage for all. It's dirt cheap all things considered, reasonably (or even very) high quality care and it just plain works.
I advise all americans to just get over it.
Where I live, and have lived for all of my life, there's universal health coverage for all.
Same here in Denmark. This leads to people not appreciating the value of healthcare properly, and leads to an endless shortage of doctors and nurses.
The objective truth is that it's snowing.
Yeah. But what people are interested in is not 'objective truth' - they can use a weather station for that - they want to know: "What does this mean for me?"
Connecting the dots and projecting future consequences is a very important activity, 'objectivity' be damned.
linbetwin --
I'll let Dymphna answer for herself when she comes in from gardening. In the meantime, I'll just address one of your points.
Your first paragraph serves to demonstrate one of Dymphna's points, namely that you are obviously not a close reader of this blog. It also shows that you (like many other Europeans) do not understand American conservatism.
Conservatives in the USA divide approximately into two camps -- the libertarians and the social conservatives. Sometimes their alliance is a bit uneasy; at other times -- such as when Obama is president -- they forget their differences and stand together.
My wife and I tend towards the libertarian stance. I don't ignore the case for communitarian values -- you'll find me posting on the topic here from time to time -- but my strongest principle is this: Government should leave people alone.
That includes homosexuals -- the government has no business taking an interest in what people choose to do with their johnsons in the privacy of their own homes.
Nor does it have any business marrying people of the same sex, teaching "safe-sex" practices to five-year-olds, promoting condom use, or funding "Transgender Studies" programs in public educational institutions.
This last point is where libertarians and social conservatives can agree -- if the government leaves people alone and stops meddling with them, they tend to form responsible, socially conservative communities.
And we're fine with that, because the formation of sturdy local community-based institutions is what small-government conservatism is all about.
Left to their own devices, people will create healthy institutions. But the goal of the transnational Marxists is to destroy such institutions as already exists and prevent any new ones from forming.
Big Daddy Government always knows better than you do what's good for you, from cigarettes to hybrid cars.
Hence the socialist program: Government and More Government.
Government of the Government, by the Government, and for the Government.
Government for Government's sake.
More Government and bigger Government until nothing exists but Government.
Thou shalt have no other Governments before me.
Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of independence, I shall fear no liberty, for the Government is with me.
etc., etc.
Didn't they try libertarianism in Chile?
Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible (the so-called miracle of Chile). Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws... Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America... growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
... and in New Zealand?
"The New Zealand Experiment" began in 1984 when Roger Douglas became Minister of Finance and began radically restructuring the country's economy to fit the libertarian model. Over the next 15 years, New Zealand's economy and social capital faced a steady decline: the youth suicide rate grew sharply into one of the highest in the developed world; the proliferation of food banks increased dramatically; marked increases in violent and other crime were observed; the number of New Zealanders estimated to be living in poverty grew by at least 35% between 1989 and 1992; and health care has been especially hard-hit, leading to a significant deterioration in health standards among working and middle class people. In addition, many of the promised economic benefits of the experiment never materialised.
linbetwin --
This is typical troll behavior -- set up a straw man in order to take a jab at a conservative, and then, after the point has been answered, drop it with no acknowledgment or further reference, moving on to another completely different jab. This game is commonly known as "bait-and-switch".
Given those underhanded tactics, I will no longer respond to your comments. Regardless of how much time you spend reading our blog or how much you claim to like it, you are not commenting here in good faith.
Further conversation is therefore pointless.
linbetwn--
I had to delete one of your comments because you left a very long URL that went past the boundaries of the post width. When that happens the whole page is skewed. This won't show if one opens an individual post, but it does if someone clicks on to our home page. It will look empty.
If you want to repost with a live link using HTML code, by all means do so. You'll see the warning about not leaving long URLs in the directions for posting that appear above the comment window. You'll also find the template to use for your URL.
I'm done discussing anything further with you. Obviously you do know how to make italics so it wasn't necessary for you to CAP your angry remarks in your initial comment. You may not agree with the blogosphere rule that caps are for yelling, but that doesn't make the rule lgo away. Why you seem to think the rule doesn't apply to you is not for me to figure out. However, your saying it's not a rule doesn't change it. You're being disingenuous about this...in addition to setting up strawmen in order to knock them over.
Probation is over. Any further incivility and you'll be deleted for it.
Trolls are supposed to be funny.
to mriggs and other Europeans who think we should just accept what has been done by the Congress because your socialized health care works fine for you:
What you get works because it is spread across the continent. There's no point in traveling elsewhere (except maybe India or Cuba or Switzerland or other medical tourism destinations where Westerners can get superior care if they have the $$)...
The situation on this continent is more complicated. We have a great many Canadians coming over here for care they can't get at home at any price. We also have a sizeable minority of Canadian doctors coming here because they can't get the continuing education that is available in their field at home. Here it can be had for very little.
There is a smaller percentage of Americans going over the border to get Canadian medications since the govt subsidizes the cost for its citizens. This has been outlawed by the US but is probably still going on to a lesser extent.
The medical economies of both countries impinge on one another.
In addition, our medicine is far more regulated than you could know. It's also, generally speaking, ahead of many places in Europe.
Medical care in this country is already over-regulated to begin with. The federal govt has its fingers in about 50% of our care. It wants the other 50% but it doesn't plan to pay for it. When this hellacious bill is implemented it will still leave about 20% of the population uncovered.
I could give you endless lists of medical economics experts to explain why this mess is unworkable. It's not what you think it is and never will be. In fact, what you think you have is going to change as the whole continent ages and people need much more care.
Here's one retired doctor's opinion on what is coming down the pike for us:
...Waiting lists, shortages and decreased quality likely will result. In Massachusetts with its version of what is to come nationally there are much longer wait times for physician visits even in spite of the very high per capita number of docs in that state.
Having health insurance is not equivalent to receiving health care. Who typically gets the goods or services that are in short supply due to government controls, the well to-do and well connected or the poor and less well connected? Either through accessing retainer practices (it will take a while to outlaw them) or other means of getting to the front of the line or getting care out of the country the richer and more connected will, as always do much better. Those who will not are some the same folks who are the alleged beneficiaries of this deconstruction/
reconstruction of health care.
You can read further here:
retired doc's thoughts
We already know what socialized medicine will look like. It will resemble the poor care veterans and Indians get. It will be full of scandals like the mess at Walter Reed Hospital in D.C. Congress gets great care there; the injured soldiers do not.
We've seen it in MA and TN and those citizens are saying they don't like it and they want their old system back. Fat chance.
Didn't they try libertarianism in Chile?
They did. Chile today has a healthy economy. It works.
Dymphna said ...
“to mriggs and other Europeans who think we should just accept what has been done by the Congress because your socialized health care works fine for you:
What you get works because it is spread across the continent. There's no point in traveling elsewhere (except maybe India or Cuba or Switzerland or other medical tourism destinations where Westerners can get superior care if they have the $$)...”
Dymphna, stating that the average European receives inferior health services than the average American sounds quite absurd. Can you back up that claim with solid sources or medical research? If not you’re guilty of exactly the same thing you accused me of earlier in this thread.
Dymphna quote;
“Interesting opinion. And that's all it is, since you provide no sources for your assertion. Sources, please. Opinions without any backup are not worth much.”
Post a Comment