September 23, 2010
— Ace I think they're both wrong, and in ways that have become wearying predictable, each playing his cliched and exaggerated role.
Perhaps the Most Ridiculous Thing to Come Out of Washington Since George McClellanThe House Republicans’ “Pledge to America” is out. A thrill will run up the leg of a few Chris Matthews’ types on the right. As Dan noted on Twitter, the Contract with America was 869 words and this is 21 pages. The Contract told you everything you needed to know about how a Republican Congress would be different from a Democrat Congress after 40 years of Democrat control.
No, it really didn't.
These 21 pages tell you lots of things, some contradictory things, but mostly this: it is a serious of compromises and milquetoast rhetorical flourishes in search of unanimity among House Republicans because the House GOP does not have the fortitude to lead boldly in opposition to Barack Obama.I have one message for John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and the House GOP Leadership: If they do not want to use the GOP to lead, I would like to borrow it for a time.
Yes, yes, it is full of mom tested, kid approved pablum that will make certain hearts on the right sing in solidarity. But like a diet full of sugar, it will actually do nothing but keep making Washington fatter before we crash from the sugar high.
It is dreck — dreck with some stuff I like, but like Brussels sprouts in butter. I like the butter, not the Brussels sprouts. Overall, this grand illusion of an agenda that will never happen is best spoken of today and then never again as if it did not happen. It is best forgotten.
The pledge begins by lamenting “an arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites” issuing “mandates”, then proceeds to demand health care mandates on insurance companies that will drive up the costs of health care for ordinary Americans.
The plan wants to put “government on the path to a balanced budget” without doing anything substantive. There is a promise to “immediately reduce spending” by cutting off stimulus funds. Wow. Exciting.
All right, several points. First of all, Erickson's entire political premise is faulty. Platforms are not supposed to be detailed legislative agenda items. Think of a pie chart. In this pie chart, "ObamaCare" -- let's use that as a specific example -- represents a tiny wedge of all possible political options. The rest of the pie -- color it red in you mind -- represents all other political options.
I was against ObamaCare. You know who else was against ObamaCare? The extremely liberal/bordering on leftist Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake. We were "allies" in the fight against ObamaCare.
Does that mean we agreed on anything else? Hell no. But going back to the pie chart, we were in the big fat huge red chunk of the circle, both opposed to the narrow slit of legislative space called "ObamaCare."
It is much easier to create a coalition against a specific thing than a coalition in favor of an equally specific thing. Because in opposing ObamaCare, Hamsher and I both agreed that the tiny little space Obama and the Democrats had to defend was bad. We each had in mind our own different slice as being the best option, but we were united in belief that Obama's slice was awful.
This is the advantage of an out-of-power party. And it is a huge advantage. You know when they say every election is a referendum on the incumbent? This is why. Because the incumbent has to defend the tiny wedge of political possibilities he advocated, supported, or voted for. The out-of-power opponent takes almost the entire rest of the pie, or at least a good half of it.
This is how Obama won. He was against Bush's slice of the pie (which became, in the media's telling, McCain's slice as well). And Obama occupied a far larger portion of the pie than any other candidate in history had been permitted to do, because usually the media tries to pin down candidates (even Democratic ones, though less so) into specific positions, specific slices of that whole pie.
But Obama was permitted to occupy nearly its entirety. Was he in favor of raising taxes? Yes. Was he also in favor of giving you a tax cut? Yes again. If you wanted taxes raised, Obama was your man. If you wanted taxes cut, Obama was also your man.
Was he a candidate of peace who would end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes. Was he also the tough-on-terrorists candidate who would finally stop coddling bin Ladin? Sure was!
In almost every case, Obama was not merely to the left of McCain -- he was also to McCain's right.
Does that make sense? No, of course not. But post-partisan hope and change plus a media walking around with painful 4 hour erections permitted that illusion to hold for the few months necessary for Obama to win.
Now, in a more conventional election, with the media actually attempting to narrow a candidate's platform into what the candidate really intended to do, McCain and Obama would have been roughly equal as regards how big a space they had to defend. But that wasn't the case.
As a general proposition: The candidate who, whether by media connivance or skill at obscuring policy choices, is permitted to occupy the largest section of the pie chart of political possibilities will win. At least he'll have a massive advantage -- because, if you're not sure of either candidate, might as well go with the guy who doesn't force you to make hard choices.
Every choice a voter makes is a chance for him to decide against you. Every single time. "I'm pro-life" loses you some votes. Gains you some, but loses you some tool. "I'm pro-life and I am against any abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother loses you a lot more. Because at each decision point you peel away voters. The more specific you are, the narrower the cohort of voters you are appealing to.
The Democrats have been demanding for a year that the Republicans define themselves in sharp and narrow focus. Why? Because the Democrats already are defined in sharp and narrow focus, by their own actions, and they are insisting that Republicans operate under the same burden.
They are not demanding we define ourselves in order to help us politically. They are making this demand to hurt us politically and help them.
They have a very narrow, and very unpopular, slice of the pie to run on. They cannot escape it -- what they have is worse than bad rhetoric; they have bad facts and bad outcomes.
This is why Obama keeps demanding that Republicans vow to slash Social Security and Medicare in order to prove we're serious about budget discipline. Of course he wants that -- he wants us to make the most unpopular promises imaginable. And I assure you he is not doing so with our best electoral fortunes foremost in his mind.
Now on to the pledge: First of all, this nonsense about the Contract with America being super-detailed and super-limiting is nonsense. It was by and large a procedural sort of thing, promising better procedures, ethics, etc., and expressing a disgust at how business was currently being done in DC. As far as substance -- there was substance there, but in general terms.
Point out to me the specific legislative commitments on substance in the Contract. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Further, this idea that the Contract arouse out of pure principle whereas the Pledge is "poll-tested pablum" is childishly naive.
Let me assure you all that Newt Gingrich did some amount of focus-grouping on the Contract before presenting it.
When I saw Gingrich at CPAC two years ago, he listed a whole bunch of popular positions, and rattled off the level of support for each. Paycheck protection? 75% approval. Term limits? 80% approval. And so on. For each he knew the exact level of polling support. He did not just suddenly discover polls and the power of public opinion. He was a creature of math in 1993-94, too.
Now, comparing the two documents, the Pledge is far more specific. Far more. And that, of course, is an infirmity, because by being specific, it makes Erick Erickson say "Well, they are specifically pledging to do far less than I would have hoped." Whereas a broader, more constitutional sort of document -- constitutional, I mean, in the Constitution's open and vague language -- might have satisfied him. Broader, more open-ended language would have occupied a bigger slice of the pie, uniting those who have in mind more limited reductions in the size of government and much bigger reductions. Neither could say precisely what such a broad hypothetical Pledge meant; but neither could say the Pledge did not say what they wanted it to say.
Now, bullied by Democrats and a media demanding "details" about our agenda -- and, once again, when they demand this, let me assure you right off the jump they are not doing so in order to help us win elections -- the Republican leadership decided to offer a bit of that, a few genuine specifics, to shut people up.
These specifics aren't all that impressive, certainly. Guess what? That's because they're poll-tested and a broad slice of the electorate has been found to be in favor of each. But that hardly means this is all we're going to do. This is just the easy stuff. The gimmes. The lay-ups.
As for the hard stuff...? The stuff that will take some convincing to get...? The stuff the electorate has a pretty solid chance of turning off of...?
Well, do you really expect that to appear in a consensus document written by dozens of hands? And a document crafted, by the way, without the input of the 50-70 new Tea Party Republicans who will soon be occupying Congress?
Politicians love claiming they have "plans" they post on their websites. Ask a presidential candidate what his plan is for reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and he'll give you a few empty platitudes. When you ask for specifics, he'll say "go to my website; our plan is there." That plan, by the way, he knows you won't read (and even the media will barely read it, mentioning it perhaps once or twice), and furthermore is barely any more concrete than his easy-breezy platitudes, but it has charts and graphs and stuff and looks "detailed."
Looks detailed. But not actually detailed.
And not to be all cynical, but that's really a good way to go about things. And it's smart for Republicans to offer their "plan" -- hey, you want our detailed plan? It's online, go read it (we know you won't) -- just to shut the Democrats up.
Now the Democrats will say, "But you don't have a plan!"
And we say, "Sure we do. Check our website, www.noonewillreadthis.org."
So there's our plan.
The objection here is obvious: But then you're not specifically promising your partisans any really detailed policy goals. I.e., sure, you can get elected on this platform; but then how do I know you will advance my goals? You haven't given me a firm guarantee on specific policy points.
Again, this is a congressional midterm. We do not have one candidate here, representing the party as its titular head as in a presidential election. We have around 360 federal candidates and hundreds (maybe thousands) more of state office seekers, from Governor to AG to SecState to all those state legislator slots that we desperately need to take to put our foot on the throat of the Democrats for the next ten years.
With literally thousands of people up for election, just how specific a promise were you expecting in a document supposedly representing all of them?
If you want specifics, go to an individual candidate. (And, frankly, if I'm advising him, I tell him in that instance to be only as specific as necessary and not a micron more detailed than that.)
We are occupying a very large slice of the pie right now. We are anti-Obama. We are anti-Pelsoi-and-Reid. We are anti- the wreck these people have made of our country the past two, four years.
You can get a whole lot more detailed than that, and narrow the area of political possibilities you represent, if you like. I would strongly advise against that, and be content to say we're that big fat half of the pie that is for lower taxes, stronger defense, slimmer and trimmer government, and no more ObamaCare.
We can win with that, and are winning with that. This demand that we upset the applecart and pledge some list of specific goals some of which may be quite unpopular... I don't get that.
We have a lot of arguments ahead of us. Let's have those arguments among ourselves once we're in the goddamned majority, huh?
Okay, here's Frum, and my rebuttal:
ut if the document is unsurprising, it’s also unsurprising that Erickson and those who think like him would find it enraging. The “Pledge to America” is a repudiation of the central, foundational idea behind the Tea Party. Tea Party activists have been claiming all year that there exists in the United States a potential voting majority for radically more limited government.The Republican “Pledge to America” declares: Sorry, we don’t believe that. We shall cut spending where we can – reform the legislative process in important ways – and sever the federal guarantee for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Republicans will redirect the federal government to a new path that is less expensive and intrusive than the status quo. But if you want promises of radical change? No. Too risky. We don’t think the voters want that – not the smaller, older, richer, whiter electorate that votes in non-presidential years, much less the bigger, younger, poorer, less white electorate of presidential years. And even that smaller, older, richer, whiter electorate is highly wary of cuts to programs that benefit them, Medicare above all.
But the real news is this: You can primary a Bob Bennett, you can nominate a Sharron Angle, you can balk Karl Rove and Mike Castle – but when decision hour arrives, the leadership of the party rejects the assessment of the American electorate offered by Rush Limbaugh, Dick Armey and for that matter Erick Erickson.
Yet at the same time, we so-called RINOs can take no pleasure in this document. Yes, there is good in it. (Putting legislative language online 72 hours in advance seems Good Government 101.) The silly bits are not too silly: the promise to cite specific constitutional language is an empty sop to those so-called constitutionalists who vainly hope to revive the John Randolph school of constitutional interpretation.
But the true sad news is that this is not a document to govern with in the recessionary year 2010. ItÂ’s fine to reject Tea Party illusions. But without an alternative modern Republican affirmative program, the GOP will find itself at risk of being captured and controlled by special interests instead.
Shut the fuck up.
A More Detailed Rebuttal On Specific Pledges: At Dan Riehl.
Paul Ryan's Explanation:
Ryan: We designed it for a Republican Congress with Obama in the White House. It's the stuff we can do, not a bunch of promises we cannot possibly keep.
Yeah, that's a good point. I don't know what the hell the revolutionaries have in mind when Obama has the veto pen. Like, you want us to propose stuff that isn't going to happen just for the sake of validating you?
This grates on me, more than anything else.
Are we here to win fucking elections and enact real, positive, tangible change, or are we here to spout cant and rhetoric and feel psychologically validated?
Let's prioritize here, huh?
"Good Stuff:" Says Dr. Melissa Clouthier, going through each proposal.
Posted by: Ace at
09:40 AM
| Comments (225)
Post contains 2694 words, total size 17 kb.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at September 23, 2010 10:00 AM (L8kaT)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 23, 2010 10:01 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Oldcat at September 23, 2010 10:01 AM (z1N6a)
Today on Laura Ingraham, Paul Ryan explained exactly why it was framed like this.
Ryan: We designed it for a Republican Congress with Obama in the White House. It's the stuff we can do, not a bunch of promises we cannot possibly keep.
Posted by: the serious comic at September 23, 2010 10:01 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: JWF at September 23, 2010 10:04 AM (1l37M)
Posted by: ATaLien at September 23, 2010 10:04 AM (SkRi5)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at September 23, 2010 10:04 AM (SB0V2)
Frum is just a liberal who is either too dumb to know it or just afraid to come out of the closet.
Posted by: robviously at September 23, 2010 10:05 AM (h6sl7)
You mean the voters you stinking fucknozzle? Modern Republicanism is small government and not thinking because they gave the Left 75% of what they ask for it's a win. Frum makes me want to vomit. Good Lord, this turd really is what Iowahawk jokes about with his T. Coddington Van Vorhees articles.
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at September 23, 2010 10:05 AM (gRJOf)
Good rebuttle ace, a little long winded but still a good read.
Posted by: Bosk at September 23, 2010 10:05 AM (pUO5u)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 23, 2010 10:05 AM (QxSug)
Castle's unforgivable sin was his vote for Cap'n'Trade. Frum, uber-RINO, still wants to moderate for the sake of moderation. That means fiscally liberal, especially with Obama in office. So what are these moderates good for anyway.
On the other hand, Cristie vetoed 1.7 million for abortion funding and the NJ state Senate couldn't override the veto. (I posted the NR article on the CC thread.) Planned Parenthoods are starting to close all over the state. That's a fiscal conservative, social liberal policy I can get behind. The funding of abortion is evidence that "social liberalism always comes with a pricetag."
Posted by: AmishDude at September 23, 2010 10:06 AM (T0NGe)
As for frum, perfect response to an oh so super secret lib enabler.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at September 23, 2010 10:06 AM (L8kaT)
In our polisci classes, we call this "cleavage," meaning, every time you get defined, you put a hatchet into your base and cleave off a part.
This should have been, as Rush suggested today, a seven-or-so bullet point list, and that's it. The answer to the questions about specificity should be, "We have a plan. The Democrats who have failed this country for four years have none. Where's their plan?" Not even a nod to a website, unless there's a big, red DONATE button on it.
Posted by: Truman North at September 23, 2010 10:07 AM (G5JPI)
Posted by: Hedgehog at September 23, 2010 10:07 AM (oQIfB)
Ryan: We designed it for a Republican Congress with Obama in the White House. It's the stuff we can do, not a bunch of promises we cannot possibly keep.
As if Barry Soetoro Chandoo Ayers Dunham is ever going to agree to ditch Fannie & Freddie.
You guys must not have been among the 2,000,000+ viewers of this Youtube video.
Posted by: at September 23, 2010 10:07 AM (pfMMA)
No, no. I've seen the intellectual heft that is required to get a polisci degree and that's not what cleavage means in those classes.
Posted by: AmishDude at September 23, 2010 10:08 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 23, 2010 10:08 AM (OxBX8)
The problem with this approach is that electing someone to office is like sending your kids off to college.
Are they going to party down and make friends with all the wrong people? Or are they going to buckle down and study hard and make you proud?
For the last 80 years politicians have told us one thing on the campaign trail, and did a 180 when in office.
And quite frankly I am sick of it.
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at September 23, 2010 10:10 AM (omOZD)
We each had in mind our own different slice as being the best option, but we were united in belief that Obama's slice was awful.
Talkin' Shit about my Pie!?!?
Posted by: FLOTUS at September 23, 2010 10:10 AM (btcwG)
Posted by: laceyunderalls thinking about key lime, apple, chocolate peanut butter, pecan pie, good God, make it at September 23, 2010 10:10 AM (Sz/W0)
Posted by: Editor at September 23, 2010 10:11 AM (pUfK9)
Are they going to party down and make friends with all the wrong people? Or are they going to buckle down and study hard and make you proud?
For the last 80 years politicians have told us one thing on the campaign trail, and did a 180 when in office.
And quite frankly I am sick of it.
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at September 23, 2010 02:10 PM (omOZD)
That's why you send your kids to college for four years instead of fifty.
Posted by: Oldcat at September 23, 2010 10:11 AM (z1N6a)
I skimmed through the post and found that telling statement.
Posted by: Skimmer at September 23, 2010 10:12 AM (gbCNS)
Do you notice that they never get more conservative in office?
Posted by: AmishDude at September 23, 2010 10:12 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: ace at September 23, 2010 10:12 AM (KUUXH)
You spent 8 years sucking Bush's balls, and never once did you complain about the "deficit."
Fuck you. Seriously. I would like to wad pages 21-39 of the "Pledge" and then pack it into your rectum with my huge cock.
Fuck you.
Posted by: Kenneth Burke at September 23, 2010 10:12 AM (1yfos)
Is this like a sober Lindsey Lohan or a honest Charlie Rangel?
Posted by: WalrusRex at September 23, 2010 10:12 AM (xxgag)
I've seen the intellectual heft that is required to get a polisci degree
So true. The nursing students need to take 128 credit hours. I could conceivably get a polisci degree with 73. And in polisci, there's no math, and no chance of accidentally killing someone that's actually in the room with you.
Posted by: Truman North at September 23, 2010 10:12 AM (G5JPI)
I tuned out after you started talking about pie.
Posted by: laceyunderalls thinking about key lime, apple, chocolate
peanut butter, pecan pie, good God, make it at September 23, 2010 02:10
PM (Sz/W0)
Me too.
Posted by: AmishDude, thinking about other kinds of pie at September 23, 2010 10:12 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: ace at September 23, 2010 10:13 AM (KUUXH)
Posted by: AmishDude at September 23, 2010 02:12 PM (T0NGe)
Limited Government doesn't get a bridge named after you very often.
Posted by: Oldcat at September 23, 2010 10:13 AM (z1N6a)
Fuck you.
Posted by: Kenneth Burke at September 23, 2010 02:12 PM (1yfos)
I think that he may enjoy this. Also, it makes you gay.
Posted by: Hedgehog at September 23, 2010 10:13 AM (oQIfB)
Shut the fuck up.
The greatest 4 word rebuttal to Nancy-Boy Frum I've ever seen.I use his book "An End to Evil" as a paperweight now.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at September 23, 2010 10:13 AM (9hSKh)
I grew weary of Erickson a long time ago. Very nice rebuttel ace.
Posted by: jewells at September 23, 2010 10:13 AM (l/N7H)
Old and Busted: A 21-page statement of policy and principles
The New Hotness: A cool logo with a D in the middle of it
Posted by: Cicero at September 23, 2010 10:13 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: ace at September 23, 2010 10:14 AM (KUUXH)
Posted by: Chris Christie at September 23, 2010 10:14 AM (FcR7P)
One of the best Noonan columns in years recently addressed this. Her analogy was that Republican Leadership starts at the middle and then haggles with the Left that is at the 100% mark. SO they call giving 75% of the Left's agenda a win...and these are the people that Frum poutingly says have to be leaders:
But the real news is this: You can primary a Bob Bennett, you can nominate a Sharron Angle, you can balk Karl Rove and Mike Castle – but when decision hour arrives, the leadership of the party rejects the assessment of the American electorate offered by Rush Limbaugh, Dick Armey and for that matter Erick Erickson.
Which is why the Tea Party has become Frum's "special interest group"...Specially interested in no longer letting the Left have their way with the Constitution and thje economy the way Ace does with a drunken hobo.
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at September 23, 2010 10:14 AM (gRJOf)
Posted by: Joe Mama at September 23, 2010 10:14 AM (pRKLf)
You spent 8 years sucking Bush's balls, and never once did you complain about the "deficit."
Fuck you. Seriously. I would like to wad pages 21-39 of the "Pledge" and then pack it into your rectum with my huge cock.
Fuck you.
You weren't here when Medicare Part D got passed were you?
And shut the fuck up.
Posted by: EC at September 23, 2010 10:14 AM (mAhn3)
Posted by: Phil Smith at September 23, 2010 10:15 AM (n+cpx)
Posted by: ace at September 23, 2010 02:14 PM (KUUXH)
I may be wrong but I think he was referring to Frum, Bush's speechwriter I believe.
Posted by: Hedgehog at September 23, 2010 10:15 AM (oQIfB)
Dude, saying that you should complain about Bush's deficits before opining on Obama's is like you're a hypocrite for ignoring grandma's occasional nips at the bottle of sherry but criticizing Lindsay Lohan.
Different orders of magnitude.
Posted by: AmishDude, thinking about other kinds of pie at September 23, 2010 10:15 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at September 23, 2010 10:15 AM (Q/Vmi)
Posted by: jewells at September 23, 2010 10:15 AM (l/N7H)
Posted by: maddogg at September 23, 2010 10:16 AM (OlN4e)
Grow up, little one.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at September 23, 2010 10:17 AM (ZJ/un)
Posted by: jjshaka at September 23, 2010 10:17 AM (0OzvK)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 23, 2010 10:17 AM (QxSug)
The Democratic party is the party of cognitive dissonance.
They were for the longest time, simultaneously, the party of segregation and the party of civil rights.
Posted by: AmishDude at September 23, 2010 10:18 AM (T0NGe)
oh eggmcmuffin, you clever well-read internet genius, you did it again.
Kenneth Burke. Yet another obscure name-drop to show us how smart you are.
Posted by: the serious comic at September 23, 2010 10:18 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: WalrusRex at September 23, 2010 10:18 AM (xxgag)
Frum has completed the transition to the anti-conservative conservative perch occupied by the loathsome Sullivan only with a flouncier skirt.
Fuck off dipshit.
Posted by: JackStraw at September 23, 2010 10:18 AM (VW9/y)
Posted by: Ms Choksondik at September 23, 2010 10:19 AM (uvFJG)
Posted by: AmishDude at September 23, 2010 10:19 AM (T0NGe)
I appreciate the effort, but, damn, that's like devoting an entire week of network programing to the Paris Hilton vs. Nicole Richie "feud".
Posted by: DelD at September 23, 2010 10:20 AM (oAZ1S)
Well, a lame temper tantrum anyway. Come on, we need a better class of trolls round here. Do we have to start making them up ourselves again?
Posted by: Oldcat at September 23, 2010 10:20 AM (z1N6a)
46 ...... I use his book "An End to Evil" as a paperweight now.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at September 23, 2010 02:13 PM (9hSKh)
So, Frum's book is too small to be used as a door stop?
Posted by: Arbalest at September 23, 2010 10:20 AM (BqSr3)
Fucking hypocrite.
Posted by: Kenneth Burke at September 23, 2010 10:21 AM (1yfos)
Back on topic...
This certainly wasn't my favorite document they could put forth, but something was necessary. Obama's screed since day one has been this 'Party of No' bullshit. So they've at least got a paper trail now. I tend to think less is more w/these things, but eh, who the hell cares how they [the media] pick it apart? They were going to regardless.
Am I a fan of 21 pages of yawnworthy run-on sent ences? Not really. But it's better than shitty generic logos and slurpee analogies the Dems are putting forth.
You raise a good point about the polling with the K w/America. Do we know if this was part of a focus-group as well?
Posted by: laceyunderalls at September 23, 2010 10:21 AM (Sz/W0)
Who even listens to Frum anymore? He's got no apparent consitutency at all, as far as I can tell.
So he should be right at home writing for the New York Times.
Posted by: Cicero at September 23, 2010 10:21 AM (QKKT0)
Bush didn't spend like a drunken sailor.
Drunken sailors by Thai lady-boys with their money.
Posted by: wooga at September 23, 2010 10:21 AM (2p0e3)
Posted by: Hedgehog at September 23, 2010 10:21 AM (oQIfB)
Oh I watched it, but in my state we are at the mercy of the ignorant slobs in the major metro areas.
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at September 23, 2010 10:22 AM (omOZD)
Posted by: ingenus at September 23, 2010 10:22 AM (+sBB4)
Since liberals have no independent morality (every act that advances liberalism is moral), they assume we do also.
And, yes, we complained about Bush's spending, but the liberals couldn't hear us because they were complaining about the "unwinnable" Iraq war.
Posted by: AmishDude at September 23, 2010 10:22 AM (T0NGe)
Because those aren't action plans? What they were presenting is an action plan for the next two years. When we pick up the White House I expect something a bit more pithy and pointed.
You may recall Newt tried that thinking he could beat Clinton in a situation almost exactly like we see today (only worse today) and that specificity caused immense problems.
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at September 23, 2010 10:23 AM (gRJOf)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 23, 2010 10:23 AM (QxSug)
I like the limited specifics. The pie example is instructive, but you can't offer no specifics or you look like a jerkwad, aka John Kerry:
"I have a plan. I'm not going to tell you anything about that plan. Just know: I have a plan."
Posted by: The Q at September 23, 2010 10:23 AM (pfStM)
Posted by: Oldcat at September 23, 2010 10:23 AM (z1N6a)
I agree with you, ace, but with one caveat which can't be proven one way or the other until the next Congress swaggers into town and starts sucking on the Public Teat:
Lots of noble words in the "pledge," but unless the dimwits actually follow through with action -- legislation, impeachment (yes, I honestly think it's necessary) and fiscal responsibility in every way the douchenozzles can spend our money -- it's more of the same bullshit we hear, in one form or another, every fuckin' election cycle.
"Oooh, things are a mess, and we gotta do something about it!" doesn't change, no matter who is in power. Osama Obama says it, and so does Jim DeMint. If their roles were reversed, they'd still say it.
So here's the "pledge" I want from the political hacks this year: "Give us the authority to do what you expect us to do, and we will do it. Otherwise, you won't have to throw our asses out in two years...we'll go away."
Posted by: MrScribbler at September 23, 2010 10:23 AM (Ulu3i)
My complaint about this and the GOP in general:
GOP-2010
So Bold We're Gonna Bring Spending All The Way Back To 2008 Levels
Posted by: the serious comic at September 23, 2010 10:23 AM (uFokq)
'Cause if we've lost Frum and St. Andrew, well, we've lost . . . oh, Frum and St. Andrew.
Posted by: jimmuy at September 23, 2010 10:23 AM (ImAna)
Posted by: Erick Erickson Is a Fat Useless Fuck at September 23, 2010 10:24 AM (RQ+r+)
GOP-2010
So Bold We're Gonna Bring Spending All The Way Back To 2008 Levels
Posted by: the serious comic at September 23, 2010 02:23 PM (uFokq)
And not a penny less!
Posted by: WalrusRex at September 23, 2010 10:24 AM (xxgag)
Posted by: Oldcat at September 23, 2010 02:23 PM (z1N6a)
I see that now Oldcat.
Posted by: Hedgehog at September 23, 2010 10:24 AM (oQIfB)
Posted by: ace at September 23, 2010 10:25 AM (KUUXH)
72 Ace, dude, you just spent 4,000 words explicating a Erickson vs Frum slapfight?
To be fair, 3,996 of those words were for Erickson.
Posted by: The Q at September 23, 2010 10:25 AM (pfStM)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at September 23, 2010 10:25 AM (Sz/W0)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 23, 2010 10:26 AM (QxSug)
There is a promise to "immediately reduce spending" by cutting off stimulus funds. Wow. Exciting.
.
I wonder, did Erickson ever try to get a group of people to agree on specifics? Like at a family reunion? 10 people and what kind of beer everyone wants? nahh didn't think so. he's an idiot.
Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at September 23, 2010 10:26 AM (V1pAY)
As a general proposition: The candidate who, whether by media connivance or skill at obscuring policy choices, is permitted to occupy the largest section of the pie chart of political possibilities will win. At least he'll have a massive advantage -- because, if you're not sure of either candidate, might as well go with the guy who doesn't force you to make hard choices.
Ace, this is some of your best work.
Posted by: rdbrewer at September 23, 2010 10:27 AM (gFCrm)
Posted by: maddogg at September 23, 2010 10:27 AM (OlN4e)
We must've said thousand of times how Bush's tax cuts were great, but his (and Congress') spending is counterproductive.
We applauded Bush for raising tax receipts with his cuts, but we also took exception to how the money was going out the back door faster than it was coming in the front door.
Posted by: the serious comic at September 23, 2010 10:28 AM (uFokq)
96 ace, you need to get video of these chrysler workers drinking and tokin' it up on the job. it's on Fox's America Live right now
Yup..our tax dollars at work
Posted by: beedubya at September 23, 2010 10:28 AM (AnTyA)
Posted by: MJ at September 23, 2010 10:29 AM (BKOsZ)
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at September 23, 2010 10:29 AM (gRJOf)
Posted by: Oldcat at September 23, 2010 10:29 AM (z1N6a)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at September 23, 2010 10:30 AM (Sz/W0)
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at September 23, 2010 10:30 AM (gRJOf)
Posted by: Rapedyne Systems Model 601 "Pat Caddell" at September 23, 2010 10:31 AM (Q/Vmi)
Posted by: ingenus at September 23, 2010 10:33 AM (+sBB4)
Posted by: Infidoll at September 23, 2010 10:34 AM (3HbFX)
This is why I am against this whole internet blogger/forum stuff. It's just evil and nasty. People should watch my show at 8pm on Fox news instead. You get no spin with me folk and no bloviating.
Posted by: Bill O'Reilly at September 23, 2010 10:34 AM (Q1lie)
Posted by: Oldcat at September 23, 2010 10:35 AM (z1N6a)
Fucking hypocrite.
Posted by: Kenneth Burke at September 23, 2010 02:21 PM (1yfos)
This is definitely a piece of performance art, right? No way we have a troll this obtuse?
The accidental semicolon in the middle of Palin's name makes me think it might be real. I can see a liberal frantically stabbing at the keyboard trying to defend his horrible ideas.
Posted by: robviously at September 23, 2010 10:35 AM (h6sl7)
"....and Mike Castle still should have won....."
*ducks and runs away before Ace goes all "Ewok" on me* ;-)
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at September 23, 2010 10:35 AM (ZuXtZ)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 23, 2010 10:35 AM (QxSug)
Furthermore, if they promise too much, in 2 years the donkeys will beat them over the head saying "they broke their promises!"
This is designed as a reach out to the "undecided" voters describing what the R's stand for. As someone else mentioned, a refudiation of the "party of No" bullshit line that Ogabe has been spouting.
ps I know refudiate isn't a word...
Posted by: Hedgehog at September 23, 2010 10:35 AM (oQIfB)
Posted by: joncelli at September 23, 2010 10:35 AM (RD7QR)
Anyone know if there is a chance to dump Zoe Lofgren of CA-16??
This idiot is the one bringing in Stephen Colbert to Congress to testify regarding immigration
Posted by: beedubya at September 23, 2010 10:36 AM (AnTyA)
This is why I am against this whole internet blogger/forum stuff. It's just evil and nasty. People should watch my show at 8pm on Fox news instead. You get no spin with me folk and no bloviating.
Posted by: Bill O'Reilly at September 23, 2010 02:34 PM (Q1lie)
Bill, I watch your show every night. Otherwise, how would I know what new Factor Gear is available for folks like me to purchase?
Posted by: robviously at September 23, 2010 10:36 AM (h6sl7)
Posted by: ace at September 23, 2010 02:14 PM (KUUXH)
First time I read that I missed the comma. Commas are important.
Nice takedown, Ewok.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at September 23, 2010 10:36 AM (5aa4z)
The bad news is you used two more words than necessary in responding to Frum.
The good news is you used one of the necessary words.
Posted by: Steve the Pirate at September 23, 2010 10:36 AM (W54Uh)
113
The people who used that type of language are dangerously close to not being "Great Americans."
Who am I kidding? You're all Great Americans, living in the greatest, most perfect nation that God ever granted Man ever on this Earth.
Posted by: Sean Hannity at September 23, 2010 10:36 AM (pfStM)
Posted by: joncelli at September 23, 2010 02:35 PM (RD7QR)
LO fucking L!
Posted by: Hedgehog at September 23, 2010 10:37 AM (oQIfB)
Posted by: ingenus at September 23, 2010 10:37 AM (+sBB4)
Yes they would. It is part of my platform. All I have to do is convince a majority of my fellow citizens it's the thing to do. Wish me luck.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at September 23, 2010 10:38 AM (5aa4z)
Anyone know if there is a chance to dump Zoe Lofgren of CA-16??
This idiot is the one bringing in Stephen Colbert to Congress to testify regarding immigration
Posted by: beedubya at September 23, 2010 02:36 PM (AnTyA)
--Wow, bringing in a comedian to testify about a profoundly important issue before Congress.
The Demotards have no arrows in their quiver.
Posted by: logprof at September 23, 2010 10:40 AM (CE2wR)
Health care should be accessible for all, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses. We will expand state high-risk pools, reinsurance programs and reduce the cost of coverage. We will make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, eliminate annual and lifetime spending caps, and prevent insurers from dropping your coverage just because you get sick. We will incentivize states to develop innovative programs that lower premiums and reduce the number of uninsured Americans.
Get that? You can show up to an insurance company with advanced boneitis, oozing blood, lymph, and pus from every oriface, and they have to sell you an insurance policy. Even if you show up healthy to an insurance company, you and the insurer are not allowed, as supposedly "free" Americans, to enter into a contract that limits the amount that the insurance company will have to pay.
How is this different from Obamacare? Oh, right: it's actually financially worse. At least the Obamacare individual mandate kept people from gaming the system, and waiting until they were diagnosed with terminal cancer before getting insurance. But this steaming pile of elephant shit? It legalizes ripping off the insurance companies.
And you know what's on the other side of insurance company bankruptcy? Single. Motherfucking. Payer.
God, no wonder they call it the Stupid Party. Fuck me and the horse I rode in on.
Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at September 23, 2010 10:45 AM (JYuY2)
Posted by: LAI at September 23, 2010 10:46 AM (R4ub4)
Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis, thinking of cobbler at September 23, 2010 10:50 AM (kJXs1)
Posted by: Oldcat at September 23, 2010 10:50 AM (z1N6a)
seems like this Pledge is useful in appealing to Independents ... relatively light on the social issues, heavy on the fiscal ... and very little target surface for the Alinsky crowd ...
Posted by: Jeff at September 23, 2010 10:52 AM (A3tpD)
Posted by: Beth at September 23, 2010 10:54 AM (5NfIh)
Posted by: Rapedyne Systems Model 601 at September 23, 2010 10:55 AM (AEW6+)
"Shut the fuck up."
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
We conclude Ace brings teh funnie and Frum is a fucktard. . . .
(The Sage still speaks to us across the years...)
Posted by: Warthog at September 23, 2010 10:56 AM (WDySP)
(D) for Deepthroat
Posted by: Robert at September 23, 2010 10:56 AM (jYQ2v)
Posted by: Beth at September 23, 2010 10:59 AM (5NfIh)
Ace, let me shorten your Frum take-down so Erickson can appreciate it more than the Pledge:
STFU.
Posted by: Schwalbe at September 23, 2010 11:00 AM (UU0OF)
Thank you for standing up for the Reps on this Ace. I'm so fucking sick of these fuckwad assholes nitpicking every single little thing anyone on their OWN SIDE does and utterly ignoring the actions of those in actual power currently. (I'm looking at you Frum.)
Oh, and while I'm at it, FUCK MATT WELCH (Reason) in the cornhole. That piece of hackery he wrote today isn't any better than the shit Frum splatters and calls writing.
Posted by: Ms Choksondik at September 23, 2010 11:03 AM (uvFJG)
We will make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition,
Dunno, MP. Looks to me like they're saying you have to be renewed even if you get sick. Otherwise, "someone with prior coverage" doesn't make sense.
Posted by: spongeworthy at September 23, 2010 11:03 AM (rplL3)
Posted by: The Pledge to America at September 23, 2010 11:08 AM (lSuMX)
As a general rule I agree, but with the media carrying the Dems water so much, demanding "specifics" (where the fuck are the Dems' specific plans for the future? they can't even decide on extending tax cuts), I can see the merit in rolling off some specific agenda items.
Again, so we can say: Check our website. There's our specifics, fuckface.
I agree 100% Ace. The Democrats haven't even passed a budget for the next fiscal year, which starts in 7 days. They bitch about the Republicans not having a plan when they (the Democrats) have completely abdicated their Congressional responsibility.
Posted by: Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz at September 23, 2010 11:10 AM (Bs34i)
121 - I don't know what the polls are showing, but the Republican candidate in CA-16 seems like a good guy. Here is a link to his website if you want to send some support.
Posted by: Zoe must go at September 23, 2010 11:13 AM (fjbys)
Get that? You can show up to an insurance company with advanced boneitis, oozing blood, lymph, and pus from every oriface, and they have to sell you an insurance policy.
No, it means that if you get sick after switching insurance companies, your new insurer can't claim that it was a pre-existing condition and thus refuse to cover you.
Exact thing happened to my mom after my dad retired. She ended up needing 100 grand of surgery, and the insurance company decided that even though the problem wasn't diagnosed until well after they switched, it wasn't their problem.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 23, 2010 11:23 AM (plsiE)
Why push them to overpromise and underdeliver, when the overpromising is a net loss in votes/power in this environment anyway? I'd rather have them underpromise and overdeliver, since the Democrats have already set the political landscape for us.
On a side note, Erickson is a blowhard. He reminds me of the music snobs. He kinda likes it when his band doesn't have widespread acclaim. The band is a sellout the moment they do anything to attempt to appeal to an audience outside their circle jerking clique. Anything at all. In this case a meaningless pledge that means little when it comes to real legislation.
Posted by: Dave S. at September 23, 2010 11:25 AM (UvR6d)
Posted by: Scoob at September 23, 2010 11:27 AM (T7+JL)
Erikson can be a bit irksome at times.
but I would agree with him on this point - talk is cheap, pledges have no meaning if they are not kept.
I'd rather have action than nice sounding pledges.
Posted by: Shoey at September 23, 2010 11:27 AM (3yT2W)
Yet another Frum column, exactly like every other one ever written. All can be summarized by "I have nothing meaningful or useful to say, but allow me to write 2000 words to say it."
Someone needs to remind Frum that the ability to write a speech advancing someone else's position does not mean your own ideas have merit.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 23, 2010 11:28 AM (plsiE)
Call for Dr Freud. Paging Dr Freud. Your slip has arrived.
Posted by: andycanuck at September 23, 2010 11:30 AM (oLT/p)
So what? A condition that you had while you had an insurance contract with Company X pre-dates a subsequent contract you wish to enter with Company Y. Why should Company Y have to sell you an insurance policy just because you used to have an insurance policy with Company X?
Dunno, MP. Looks to me like they're saying you have to be renewed even if you get sick. Otherwise, "someone with prior coverage" doesn't make sense.
Well why the hell should they have to renew you? If you buy a policy that says "Company X shall pay all medical expenses for treatment received from January 1 to December 31, 2010," what business is it of the government to tell them that Company X has to pay for your medical bills in 2011?
Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at September 23, 2010 11:34 AM (JYuY2)
Let's start analyzing bowl movements.
Sounds like folks want to be important by writing BS.
Guess it's working. Ignore the bastards.
Posted by: Kemp at September 23, 2010 11:36 AM (AQxTm)
stating specific policy goals before you have the power to implement them is like handing your enemy the battle plans for your next attack.
don't let them know what you are going to do until they can't do anything to stop it.
Posted by: Shoey at September 23, 2010 11:37 AM (3yT2W)
About 5 minutes later Rick Klein retweeted it to all his followers (of which I am one so I can see what he's up to).
Then amazingly, the press piled on with article after article, which Gabe noted and tweeted.
They are running Journolist on Twitter. I would bet cash money on it.
And Erickson, who has a penchant for throwing a wrench in the spokes just to look all superior and crap, should STFU.
We have been asking them to release something like this, and then when they do the nit-picking armchair generals have to make it sound useless, which it is not.
Everyone should pick 2-3 mainstream newsguys to follow. You get to see how shallow they are, and you can catch them doing stuff like today.
Posted by: Miss Marple at September 23, 2010 11:41 AM (bixjr)
You're absolutely right: it doesn't. But price controls must be a part of any insurer mandate. Why?
Let's say you show up at Blue Cross looking to buy a health insurance policy for the arm you just broke because you have bone cancer. Blue Cross says "no way, we're not paying for your treatment."
"But you have to," you reply. "It's the law. BoehnerCare."
"Okay, we'll sell you an insurance policy," says Blue Cross, surrendering. "Your premiums are $1,000,000 per month."
See what I did there? No price controls = no insurer mandate.
Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at September 23, 2010 11:44 AM (JYuY2)
Yeah, following Matt Ynglesias and Adam Serwer is an eye opener. Gleen Greenwald is full of it, too, but he at least has a cogent thought once in a while. Katrina from The Nation is a walking talking point. David Corn likes to make fun of everyone, as long as they are conservative.
But the winner is Oliver Willis. just look at @owillis on twitter sometime. It's like watching a train wreck.
Posted by: Jay in Ames at September 23, 2010 11:45 AM (UEEex)
So what? A condition that you had while you had an insurance contract with Company X pre-dates a subsequent contract you wish to enter with Company Y. Why should Company Y have to sell you an insurance policy just because you used to have an insurance policy with Company X?
Problem is that Company Y sells them a policy, then refuses to pay out.
If someone has continuous coverage, they should be covered- but right now, they aren't, at least without getting lawyers involved.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 23, 2010 11:50 AM (plsiE)
Pete & Hallowpoint -
the only way to bring down the cost of medical care is to treat it as a commodity on the open market.
anything & everything the government tries to do to "fix" it only makes things worse, a lot of people are going to suffer for that, including you, me and all of our mothers.
put healthcare back in the free market now, so it has some time to balance itself out before our children get old.
Posted by: Shoey at September 23, 2010 11:52 AM (3yT2W)
GOP-2010
So Bold We're Gonna Bring Spending All The Way Back To 2008 Levels
Posted by: the serious comic at September 23, 2010 02:23 PM (uFokq)
And not a penny less!
Posted by: WalrusRex at September 23, 2010 02:24 PM (xxgag)
Considering the billions (trillions?) of dollars Obama has increased the budget since then, reducing spending to 2008 levels would actually be a pretty big deal.
Posted by: Paul at September 23, 2010 11:53 AM (DsHk0)
Frum is the biggest tool around. He has no positions he just exists at the fringes so as to poke a finger at everyone else for being too extreme. I have never read a single good idea from him. a complete loser and permanent cocktail class smoozer.
Erickson is okay, I just can't stand him.
Posted by: exceller at September 23, 2010 11:55 AM (jx2Td)
put healthcare back in the free market now, so it has some time to balance itself out before our children get old.
Posted by: Shoey at September 23, 2010 03:52 PM (3yT2W)
The problem is nobody's gonna vote for a free-market healthcare system. Explaining why a free-market system is superior takes a good amount of intellect on the part of both the teacher and the student, and a detailed explanation of historical market forces showing how government constantly fucks things up.
All the Dems have to do to counter that is to go OMG THINK OF TEH CHILDRENZ!11!!one! VOTE FOR US AND GET FREE STUFF!!
Posted by: Paul at September 23, 2010 11:56 AM (DsHk0)
Posted by: FeralCat at September 23, 2010 11:57 AM (U4ReX)
Posted by: mrp at September 23, 2010 11:57 AM (HjPtV)
Posted by: jbw at September 23, 2010 11:57 AM (BZcMK)
Posted by: Contemplationist at September 23, 2010 12:04 PM (FPtHm)
Paul,
you make a good point, but that only means that The Explainer-in-Chief and His Magic Blackboard (Glenn Beck) has even more work to do.
he could use a little help from us.
Posted by: Shoey at September 23, 2010 12:05 PM (3yT2W)
Pete & Hallowpoint -
the only way to bring down the cost of medical care is to treat it as a commodity on the open market.
anything & everything the government tries to do to "fix" it only makes things worse, a lot of people are going to suffer for that, including you, me and all of our mothers.
put healthcare back in the free market now, so it has some time to balance itself out before our children get old.
I largely agree, but no industry operates without some basic rules in place.
Imagine you've had coverage for years. You get a new job and with it a new insurance company, with no gap in coverage. A couple weeks later, you notice some pain in your side. You think nothing of it at first, but when doesn't go away, you see a doctor a week after that.
The doctor says you have cancer, but with expensive surgery and treatment you'll be ok. You submit the forms to your new insurance company, and they tell you to get bent, saying that even though you weren't showing symptoms and it wasn't diagnosed when you switched to Company Y, the cancer had been present and growing for a month prior to that. Sorry you had a "pre-existing condition", not covering you. Neither will your old Company X cover you- your policy with them was terminated when you got the new coverage.
Sure, you can shell out thousands taking them to court, but winning won't mean much when your dead before getting a chance to see the inside of a courtroom. This sort of thing happens all the time, but shouldn't.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 23, 2010 12:05 PM (plsiE)
Posted by: Contemplationist at September 23, 2010 12:08 PM (MgAxs)
The next 2 years are going to be exceptionally frustrating, but we're so out of power we need the stalemate before we get the wins. I'm expecting the house to be strong on the fiscal issues because they are sure winners. I'll be disappointed if they don't. However, I'm not expecting them to do a damn thing on social issues and I'm not really wanting them to even though I'd usually agree with them. That isn't going to fly with Erickson. He's going to raise holy hell about this for 2 years, and by 2012 he's going to be actively getting in the way of getting to the finish line as far as repealing this health care sham and getting a fiscally responsible supermajority in office.
Posted by: Dave S. at September 23, 2010 12:10 PM (UvR6d)
#173
I haven't had a chance to read it all yet, didn't know that was in there... for fuck's sake.
how about kittens & puppies? people like kittens & puppies the GOP were fools not to include kittens & puppies!
Posted by: Shoey at September 23, 2010 12:12 PM (3yT2W)
I understand your point as well Hollowpoint, and furthermore I know what you say is true, which is even more reason that people need to be responsible for their own care and not leave it their employer. Insurers make these kind of contracts because they deal with your employer and not you as an individual.
if the consumer were to contract directly with an insurers (without government interference) the Invisible Hand could do it's work and sort the whole mess out.
Posted by: Shoey at September 23, 2010 12:20 PM (3yT2W)
Posted by: Contemplationist at September 23, 2010 12:21 PM (eRsMQ)
Posted by: Shoey at September 23, 2010 12:27 PM (3yT2W)
Ryan's point-why raise expectations when the veto cudgel will be wielded liberally. Establishment reThuglicans can expect to be flogged day-in-day-out 'til Nov. 2012-pulled by the RINO cabal this way, the Tea Party caucus that way.
The only good thing is Donks can expect their cars stripped, their families mugged and Il Douche will be on their backs to 'get in pipples faces'.
I'd be having those halal meals tasted by a white guy, mister P.
Posted by: gary gulrud at September 23, 2010 12:32 PM (/g2vP)
Come on folks. Does no one care that the GOP has now adopted the essential parts of ObamaCare in its platform? Do you only care about ObamaCare because it was proposed by Obama or because you think THE POLICY IS BAD?
Time to hold the GOP accountable on this.
They haven't adopted essential parts of ObamaCare. Some of you are freaking out over vague statements about coverage and pre-existing conditions.
Note they said someone with "prior coverage". They're not suggesting that you can go without health insurance until you get sick, sign a policy and then immediately demand coverage.
Does anyone really think that our health care system was perfect and in no need of reforms at all? ObamaCare is the wrong answer, but let's not pretend there weren't and aren't problems. Republicans won't be able to enact sweeping, free-market solutions with Obama in office, but getting rid of the most expensive and ominous parts of ObamaCare is a start.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 23, 2010 12:32 PM (plsiE)
look at it this way: if employers weren't giving healthcare insurers buisness and the government weren't giving them business, they wouldn't be getting much business, unless they could attract the individual healthcare consumer, it would be a buyers market, the insurers would be forced to offer favorable terms just to stay afloat.
And if I could shit gold I'd be rich.
Completely revamping the system such that individuals wouldn't have to rely on limited options provided by their employers for health insurance would be a good start, but in the near term Obama is going to veto anything that doesn't involve the federal government having all ten fingers in the pie.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 23, 2010 12:38 PM (plsiE)
Posted by: Shoey at September 23, 2010 12:38 PM (3yT2W)
We needed incremental fixes to decouple insurance from employment, sensible answers for the preexisting-conditions situation, and allowing people to make rational choices about the level of insurance they want instead of mandating first-dollar care for hangnails.
Posted by: JEM at September 23, 2010 12:39 PM (o+SC1)
Posted by: Shoey at September 23, 2010 12:40 PM (3yT2W)
Posted by: Contemplationist at September 23, 2010 12:41 PM (FPtHm)
No.We.Don't.
We spend what we spend because we damn well want to.
Why?
Because we want the benefits of Big Medicine.
Does the bureaucratic underpinning of the system suck? Sure.
Does it add unnecessarily to the expense? Sure.
Just fix the competition aspects, and damper the "ambulance chaser" aspects, and the get the fzck out of the way. You can't prevent fraud, you can only punish it. You can't prevent malpractice, you can only punish it. You can't force best practices, you can only reward them. That's how the legal system is supposed to function. End the government programs, especially those "committees," and support the genuine market and specific laws to create standards.
Posted by: K~Bob at September 23, 2010 12:41 PM (9b6FB)
besides, someone has to be pulling ALL the way to the right so that the ones calling for something a little less than that sound reasonable.
few of us like Erikson, but we do need him.
Posted by: Shoey at September 23, 2010 12:44 PM (3yT2W)
Posted by: Shoey at September 23, 2010 04:38 PM (3yT2W)
Not only that, but by doing so, the very concept at the core of "insurance" is removed, and the insurers become nothing more than a payment processing arm of the government.
Insurance is supposed to be about risk. Take that away and the whole insurance industry vanishes.
Posted by: K~Bob at September 23, 2010 12:50 PM (9b6FB)
Posted by: Contemplationist at September 23, 2010 12:52 PM (FPtHm)
Posted by: K~Bob at September 23, 2010 12:53 PM (9b6FB)
K~Bob,
you are exactly right insurance is about risk, it's another one of those things that the progressives have managed to twist people's thinking on, they have put it in people's minds that just because they need something that someone else should be forced to provide it.
Posted by: Shoey at September 23, 2010 12:58 PM (3yT2W)
We spend what we spend because we damn well want to.
Well, you can rephrase "we pay too much" as "we get too little in return for what we pay".
I get my health care from my employer, and they give me a list of three choices to pick from. That's it. Allowing us to have real choices in an open market would be fantastic.
Posted by: sandy burger at September 23, 2010 12:58 PM (twiRb)
193 Hmmm. Without actually reading the McCarran-Ferguson act itself (just the weaky-pedia article), I don't see why it's repeal is vital. Nor can I tell why it is the culprit behind the wall between in-state vs. interstate insurance provision.
Is there some other act that forbids Interstate commerce in that industry? Why can I buy an item on eBay or Amazon without regard to its state-of-origin, but not insurance? Also, why is my in-state insurance actually handled in another state?(Clearly I need more study on the concept).
Posted by: K~Bob at September 23, 2010 01:02 PM (9b6FB)
Yes.
I personally think Apple's iTunes store is a ripoff. If I were to operate such a store, the high-end music prices would all be under 25cents per title, with most individual popular songs selling for a nickel.
Posted by: K~Bob at September 23, 2010 01:04 PM (9b6FB)
Posted by: Contemplationist at September 23, 2010 01:06 PM (MgAxs)
People who actually engage in the reform of healthcare should all be required to read C.K. Prahalad's The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid.
It's the biggest "eye opener" in the history of business publications since Deming's work that led to the rise of Toyota's dominance of the auto industry.
Posted by: K~Bob at September 23, 2010 01:09 PM (9b6FB)
some people are not insurable due to no fault of their own, others are uninsurable due to their own actions, still others are insurable but lack the means to pay for it.
my grandfather once told me he paid a doctor in smoked-carp and sweet corn for the medical care my grandmother needed, both of them were very old before they ever had healthcare "insurance" yet they both lived happy, fullfilling and long lives.
what has changed?
the circumstances of the human condition haven't changed since then, what we think has changed.
Posted by: Shoey at September 23, 2010 01:10 PM (3yT2W)
Again, I'm pulling this from a place best kept undisclosed.
Posted by: K~Bob at September 23, 2010 01:13 PM (9b6FB)
Of course, that wasn't for a root canal or dentures. Just basic dental care.
I wish I could pay my docs out of pocket without govt. interference.
Posted by: K~Bob at September 23, 2010 01:15 PM (9b6FB)
Posted by: Contemplationist at September 23, 2010 01:17 PM (MgAxs)
Posted by: securitymom at September 23, 2010 01:17 PM (oHUi9)
Posted by: Contemplationist at September 23, 2010 01:20 PM (MgAxs)
As predictable as bad weather.
Posted by: Terrye at September 23, 2010 01:20 PM (Pr8hY)
Posted by: GhostShip at September 23, 2010 01:21 PM (4VxpQ)
if we can get the government out of it, things will work out on their own, doesn't mean they will be perfect, but only the insane and fools desire perfection.
I want to live in a world that has both hot and cold, pleasure and pain, joy and misery, that is the world God made for us when we so alter it as to take away all things evil, all things good go away with it.
Posted by: Shoey at September 23, 2010 01:24 PM (3yT2W)
Hollowpoint, its people like you who give the RINOs cover for adopting the Progressive agenda.
Read the damn quote. Here it is again:
We will make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition.
Contemplationist, you are an imbecile. I am not. Don't bother responding to my comments if you can't hold back the stupid.
"We will make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition." is exactly what all 2,000+ pages of ObamaCare does? Really?
Someone with prior coverage implies that they've had coverage. If you need medical care and had health insurance prior and during that time you need it, it's not exactly a radical progressive commie plot to suggest that you should be covered.
We have no idea what the details of their actual proposals will be. Screaming that one vague sentence represents the Republicans suddenly adopting liberal policies makes you look like a dumb reactionary. And I suspect for good reason.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 23, 2010 01:51 PM (plsiE)
Gee, that's not what I remember at all. In fact I don't remember president bush anywhere near there and for the next two weeks. In fact I remember they practically had to drag the man out weeks later to even talk about it.
I remember the Thursday evening meeting was in nanny p's office. I remember my senator, chuckie was also a party to the situation (and oh I how wish his constituents would remember that too) and I remember ol Hank. But what I remember most is the press conference when they exited the room.....white, pure white, scary white like they had just seen a ghost and unable to really say much but mumble all over themselves and think, in their smug self serving assurance, "woo we got em now". So, they got it all, the whole shebang and they've squandered it in record time by giving it to the wrong person. A couple of days before the election some lib/dem on either CNN or MSNBC suddenly realized that the president might actually get both chambers filled with his guys/gals and she began echoing a clarion call about how important balancing of power really was. She saw it coming, can't even remember her damn name but wow do I remember how spot on she was.
Nancy Pelosi and Chuckie Schumer own that meeting with Hank Paulson in her office that Thursday evening with many of my friends not realizing that their life, their jobs were hanging in the balance. Bush was left out of it and I would venture to guess he is going to tell you all about that in his memoirs.
And they have had two years to really investigate, really figure out what went wrong, what happened. Oh they have their ideas, they can point to any number of "situations that developed" and changes that occurred but really have they even stopped to try and figure out how they came to be in that office that Thursday night? They owed that to the American people but instead we got an apologetic Christina Romer heading back to the safety of academia admitting they still don't have a clue and this time, their clue can't be bought.
I didn't like the GWB I saw in the last two years or so of the presidency when the dems held all the cards but heck, this one is not his fault, the seeds were sewn by Carter and Clinton and were the weed tree you couldn't kill.
Posted by: curious at September 23, 2010 01:51 PM (p302b)
Yes, this is what happens when the government establishes incentives to have health insurance through employers. This is tragic, actually: government creates a problem by yanking on Lever A, and your solution is not to get the government to stop yanking on Lever A, but to look around for some other lever for the government to yank that might mitigate the effects of yanking on Lever A. How about the government stops fucking yanking levers??
This is why I'm so completely fed up with the GOP. If the Democrats announced a three-year plan to kill ourselves with rat poison, the GOP would counter with a five-year plan to several injure ourselves with ball-peen hammers.
Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at September 23, 2010 01:57 PM (JYuY2)
Posted by: Contemplationist at September 23, 2010 01:58 PM (eRsMQ)
Someone with prior coverage implies that they don't have coverage now. Forcing a private corporation to do business with you on the basis that, once upon a time, you had a similar contract with some other corporation is "exactly a radical progressive commie plot."
Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at September 23, 2010 02:00 PM (JYuY2)
some people are not insurable due to no fault of their own, others are uninsurable due to their own actions, still others are insurable but lack the means to pay for it.
my grandfather once told me he paid a doctor in smoked-carp and sweet corn for the medical care my grandmother needed, both of them were very old before they ever had healthcare "insurance" yet they both lived happy, fullfilling and long lives.
what has changed?
the circumstances of the human condition haven't changed since then, what we think has changed.
What has changed is obvious.
The reason your grandfather's doctor accepted such payment was that health care during that time largely consisted of "take two aspirin and call me in the morning", with the occasional antibiotic or cast around a broken arm. There was no such thing as open heart surgery, liver transplants, chemotherapy, etc.
Health care has gotten a lot more advanced and far more expensive since then. Some of the cost increases are avoidable- through malpractice reform for example. Some aren't avoidable- your grandfather's doctor didn't have multi-million dollar MRI machines in his hospital or access to expensive drugs that can now treat what was then untreatable.
Many people- including your grandfather and myself- have managed just fine without such advancements, but that falls under the providence of luck more than mindset.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 23, 2010 02:02 PM (plsiE)
funny and true
"This is why I'm so completely fed up with the GOP. If the Democrats announced a three-year plan to kill ourselves with rat poison, the GOP would counter with a five-year plan to severly injure ourselves with ball-peen hammers."
Posted by: Shoey at September 23, 2010 02:03 PM (3yT2W)
Someone with prior coverage implies that they don't have coverage now.
No, it doesn't; I highly doubt that's what they're trying to imply.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 23, 2010 02:04 PM (plsiE)
Posted by: Contemplationist at September 23, 2010 02:07 PM (MgAxs)
Posted by: Contemplationist at September 23, 2010 02:10 PM (FPtHm)
217
HollowPoint, please do yourself a favor and read the damn
LINK
I did. It's full of the same sort of stupid assumptions based on relatively vague lines in the "pledge" being made by you and others in this thread.
Until we see details, speculating that a sentence in the pledge can only mean the worst possible interpretation is simply a foolish knee-jerk reaction.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 23, 2010 02:19 PM (plsiE)
my point is that people don't really need all that stuff, sure it's nice if you have the money to pay for it, but most don't, just because they don't doesn't mean that someone else has to.
let's say I own a company that manufactures a very expensive piece of medical equipment that no one can really afford - how do I sell these things?
easy, you sell the idea that everyone should have a "right" to access one, that you personally are somehow being wronged if you are denied the use of one for whatever reason.
you create demand by creating a problem that can only be "fixed" by what you are selling.
i am going to die someday no matter how many MRI's I have or don't have.
that is the truth, the rest is all lies.
Posted by: Shoey at September 23, 2010 02:51 PM (3yT2W)
Posted by: Shoey at September 23, 2010 02:54 PM (3yT2W)
Posted by: johnc_recent_EX-dem at September 23, 2010 03:05 PM (ACkhT)
Posted by: torabora at September 23, 2010 03:17 PM (5boUq)
Now, where's the sammich?
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at September 23, 2010 03:52 PM (swuwV)
Posted by: Contemplationist at September 23, 2010 05:08 PM (8n56/)
"Let me assure you all that Newt Gingrich did some amount of focus-grouping on the Contract before presenting it."
I can do better than that. I worked for a Republican Rep in 1994. Gingrich told us staffers that every issue that made it into the Contract was focus-grouped to death by Frank Luntz. Only those issues that got 75+% made the cut. That's why there weren't any of the hot button social issues like abortion in it. The Pledge at least has the Hyde amendment to ban taxpayer funding of abortion.
Posted by: Simon Oliver Lockwood at September 23, 2010 05:26 PM (zcAWy)
Good points Ace! First and foremost we have to win before we can govern and make the changes that are needed to start turning things around.
Posted by: D. at September 24, 2010 02:41 AM (plSrP)
Posted by: iþ baþvurusu at March 06, 2011 01:30 PM (0ENkl)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2579 seconds, 353 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Shut the fuck up.
here here!Posted by: the serious comic at September 23, 2010 09:58 AM (uFokq)