"We must insist that the future not belong to fear."

If only we could convince ourselves of that when struggling with our domestic politics, much less other nations.

During part of the speech Obama talked about the importance of letting people express their opinions. Gee, maybe he should write a memo to his fellow Democrats who are going around acussing anyone who disagrees with them of being racist nazi mob members.

2 | Posted by member2586 at 2009-09-23 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag: racist nazi mob member

At the UN:

What's up with the BLACK Font RCADE?!?!?!?!?!

Yeah! This blog favors the African-American and Asian cultures between the black print on a yellow background. Why does RCADE hate Hispanics and Caucasians?

A dyslexic will see this headline as "Obama Undresses"

Or a closeted fag.

I think Kanrei and I are the only ones really bored today.....

Most days...oh 4! I get to go home now!

one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations," Obama said.

Soooo... How does that play out with countries like North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Somalia, Venezuela etc. Is the US going to recognize their citizens rights and remind their leaders of their country's responsibilities?

Obama calls for greater co-operation from the world's great powers and to stop pursuing the ruinous and counter productive path of unilateralism that BushCo wandered down?

K, that's a no-brainer.

Strong calls for a workable solution to the Palestine/Israel clusterfuck?

Sentiments worthy of Kudos.

Gee, maybe he should write a memo to his fellow Democrats who are going around acussing anyone who disagrees with them of being racist nazi mob members.

He did already.

The speech outlined four pillars of U.S. international policy -- nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, the pursuit of peace, combating climate change, and increasing economic development and opportunity

combating climate change

"The speech outlined four pillars of U.S. international policy -- nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, the pursuit of peace..."

I guess that's why he waffled on the European Missile Shields, because Iran is interested in those two pillars. lol

"Maybe we should make environmental control a market function, selling billions of tons of pollution allowances, and set weak fuel efficiency standards for automobiles."

If you want a market solution, tax the shit out of oil, and let the market sort itself out. Wouldn't even need CAFE standards. Plus by taxing oil or BTUs, rather than gas, efficiencies are generated in other sectors of the economy.

Geez, Louise. You even used the same article.

I like it that Obama was talking to these leaders about like he did the school kids. It's time they buck up and take some responsibility in the world, particularly; they could help out with more UN troops in Afghanistan and with nuclear prolif efforts.

Seems to me if we want these countries to play ball, cut off the billions of dollars and aid we provide them.

Geez, Louise. You even used the same article.

Don't know how I missed yours. Merged.

The UN must step up or step aside. The purposes it was created for are not the purposes it is serving.

You, and Jesse Helms.

combating climate change

Maybe we should make environmental control a market function, selling billions of tons of pollution allowances, and set weak fuel efficiency standards for automobiles.

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Carbon Trade Swindle Behind Gore Hoax

by Richard Freeman and Marcia Merry Baker: Look behindif you dareAl Gore and his science hoax, and you find the very same London-centered oligarchical financial crew that drove the 2003-2006 oil and commodity price increase, amidst the bubbles and hyperinflation that characterize the breakdown-phase of the financial system. The centerpiece of the U.S. emerging market for carbon emissions trading, is the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), created in 2003 as a "voluntary," or pilot agency, part of a London-based network positioned to reproduce the oil bubble on a scale orders of magnitude greater and more dangerous, while at the same time, destroying what's left of the physical economy

#21 Rogers

S'OK, I miss them all the time.

How about this as a masthead pic candidate?

I love that hat!

-as a "voluntary," or pilot agency, part of a London-based network positioned to reproduce the oil bubble on a scale orders of magnitude greater and more dangerous, while at the same time, destroying what's left of the physical economy

Opinion piece.

If you want a market solution, tax the shit out of oil, and let the market sort itself out. Wouldn't even need CAFE standards. Plus by taxing oil or BTUs, rather than gas, efficiencies are generated in other sectors of the economy.

#17 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-09-23 04:36 PM

-as a "voluntary," or pilot agency, part of a London-based network positioned to reproduce the oil bubble on a scale orders of magnitude greater and more dangerous, while at the same time, destroying what's left of the physical economy

Opinion piece.

#26 | Posted by Corky

w/o facts whatsoever, of course...

At the Federal level, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.),the leading bipartisan warmongers, have been the leading bipartisan GHG markets advocates. Since 2003, they have repeatedly filed joint bills to cap emissions and launch GHG markets. Their 2007 version, filed in January, is S. 280. In an article they co-authored in the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 8, 2003, titled, "Tap U.S. Innovation To Ease Global Warming," McCain and Lieberman wrote the format line that, "Global warming is a serious threat. There is overwhelming evidence that increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are heating up the Earth's climate and that inaction could be disastrous.... One way to limit the release of greenhouse gases is a simple but powerful idea called 'cap and trade,' which is at the core of a bill we are introducing in the Senate.... The 'cap and trade' system is a constructive, business-friendly approach to countering global warming...."

Thus, the intent is evident for the Shultz/Rohatyn supranational financial networks, to impose their green swindle schemes, either through, or despite, an ineffectual Congress.

On March 15, Schwarzenegger's Environmental Protection Secretary Adams demurely informed chairman John Dingell's House Energy and Commerce Committee, "In October 2006, the Governor issued an Executive order (S-20-06), calling on the Air Resources Board to develop a multi-sector, market-based compliance system that could permit trading between the European Union Trading System and the Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and others. It also called on me to create a Market Advisory Committee of national and international experts to advise...on the design of such a market-based compliance system...."

"If you want a market solution, tax the shit out of oil, and let the market sort itself out. Wouldn't even need CAFE standards. Plus by taxing oil or BTUs, rather than gas, efficiencies are generated in other sectors of the economy."

The problem with that approach is that it isn't international and would give China a huge advantage in trade. CAp and Trade on the other hand would give us a clear moral imperitive to deny the right to export goods to the US by anyone not going along with the anti-global climate change initiative. China has already complained that they think cap and trade is really a back door tariff....which it probably is. That would be a good thing for American workers and would eventually force China to go along with us combating global warming and at the same time partially reduce their cost advantage in manufacturing.

Gadhafi made one great statement"get the un out of the us"please,please.

Cap and trade is back in the news. By the end of this month, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is expected to unveil new legislation along the lines

of the Waxman-Markey bill, which passed the House on June 26.

That bill contains 397 new regulations. One of them would affect almost everyone who buys or sells a home. If Waxman-Markey becomes law, homes for sale that qualify as "federally related transactions" which is almost all of them would be required to undergo an environmental inspection.
Inspections are not free. Nor is fixing the inevitable violations. Compliance with new energy-efficiency standards would make homes, especially older ones, more expensive. Selling one's home would become even harder than it already is in this down market if Waxman-Markey-style cap and trade becomes law.

I just love the Right Wing stance.

"DON'T DO ANYTHING!"

Everything is perfect to them just the way it is.........

Thank God for Progressives.

Gadhafi made one great statement"get the un out of the us" please, please.

Citation needed.

Spud found this...

Gaddafi's bid thrown out by UN

The United Nations says it is not entertaining Mommar Ghaddafi's suggestion of dismantling Switzerland. The UN says that the Libyan leader had sent a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, requesting that Switzerland be divvied-up along linguistic lines and given to its neighboring countries. A UN spokesman says the idea was rejected in early August, because it contradicted the principles of the UN charter which say that no member country can threaten the existence or sovereignty of another. Gaddafi first mentioned his idea of breaking up Switzerland during the G8 summit in Italy in July, saying that the country is run like the mafia, engaging in money laundering and financing terrorism. Ghaddfi could still, however, bring up the issue when he speaks to the General Assembly on September.

FTA: ...Obama received an ovation when he later stated: "The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians.

"And nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks against Israel over a constructive willingness to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and its right to exist in peace and security."

Tru dat.

Be Well.

going around acussing anyone who disagrees with them of being racist nazi mob members.

#2 | Posted by member2586

member, don't worry, nobody thinks you are in the mob.

"Dismantling Switzerland?"

Bon chance.

"Only an armed man can have political rights."
-- Old Swiss tradition

"Only an armed man can have political rights."
-- Old Swiss tradition

#38 | Posted by Zatoichi

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

--rednecks----

"Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

How about a fixed bayonet?

Question: is change... any change... for change's sake a good thing?

Have to laugh at this.

The problem is you are not looking for any change so you throw up this sort of crap.

We KNOW the current situation is not good so any change is not going to hurt.

How about a fixed bayonet?

Should say at the bottom of the invitation to the gun fight.

Mostly they's optional but personally Spud would never think of showing up to a gun fight without one.

Bayonets don't jam.

Be Well.

Rush (the band) has conflicting views on change.

Although no change is permanent
Change is
-Tom Sawyer

The more things change
The more they stay the same
-Circumstances

Why did I add this to the thread? I have no idea.

"Thank God for Progressives" Many, you mean Liberals right?

#4 | Posted by KBM

Great post! Obama is without question the worst president in U.S. history. I would rather have Jimmy Carter back than this loser president.

I officially would like to report a rape. The assailant is Barack Obama and the victim is Lady Liberty. Please stop that bastard Obama.

We KNOW the current situation is not good so any change is not going to hurt.

#41 | Posted by moneywar

So, if you have a fire burning and want to enact "change" to deal with it - does throwing gasoline on it as a form of change 'not hurt'?

Your premise is so illogical, I don't even know where to begin.

MW,

Do you even offer up a reasoned response to anything any more?

I swear, all I ever see out of you is ad hominem, usually in the form of a falsely assigned position, or strawman.

I know this place has gotten very contentious lately, but...

USA,

While I think Obama's presidency thus far has been mostly an unmitigated disaster and I suspect it will only get worse - it is STILL way early to be ranking him.

Question: is change... any change... for change's sake a good thing?

Change purely for the sake of change is stupid. Only those who don't think critically believe that crap.

Oftentimes, doing something is even worse than doing nothing.

In comparing the speeches from the two US Presidents at the UN I found this....

There are basic principles that are universal. There are certain truths which are self-evident, and the United States of America will never waiver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny.

President Obama Sept 23 2009

President Bush addressed the United Nations on Tuesday using the organization's Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the framework for his speech.

He paid particular attention to issues under Articles 25 and 26, which state in part: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

And, "Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit."

President Bush Sept 25, 2007

Hmmmm was Bush actually a closet Socialist?

"invitation to the gun fight"

At Dad's last gun fight he had the 6th artillery corps. Killed Chinese for three days. Most intense artillery barrages in the history of war.

I won't show up with anything less than six barrels and belt feed.

Cheers!

The Ad Hoc gun fight? Well, ... The car antenna will be in the parking lot.

I just love the Right Wing stance.

"DON'T DO ANYTHING!"

Everything is perfect to them just the way it is.........

Thank God for Progressives.

#33 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-09-23 06:25 PM

"Progressives" finally have immense power in government, enough to do something productive re. the environment, and they're settling for that weak kneed bull shit. Probably because they know most of their voters are afraid to demand more (like you).

" There are certain truths which are self-evident, and the United States of America will never waiver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny."

The rest of that quote

"Except Iran..... but other than that, we will stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine thier own destiny, well except for Honduras....Well lets just say the truth is relative..."

BLAH....BLAH BLAH...BLAH...BLAH

Why does Obama see moral equivalence between all nations? We need a League of Democracies. Let the UN rot.

USA,

Let me put it another way.

The Clinton presidency got off to a HORRIBLE start. But after he got his feet under him he turned out to be a decent president and a 2-termer to boot. Oddly, the '94 Republican takeover in congress was the best thing that could have happened to his presidency - it forced him to the center. Now, Obama seems to be much more of an idealogue than Clinton, with far more radical ties. But, he still has plenty of time to turn things around and hopefully, for the sake of this nation, he will.

Time will tell.

"We need a League of Democracies. Let the UN rot."

Who gets to decide which "democracy" is a real democracy? Therein lies the problem with that idea. More of the same. Even Burma has "elections."

Best I could do.

I heard very little of the speech, but it just seems to me that Obama thinks he is bigger and greater than the U.S.

"But, he still has plenty of time to turn things around and hopefully, for the sake of this nation, he will."

Yeah, maybe he can sign something like NAFTA 2.
Bill Clinton tried to bring health care reform, he failed. End of story. Hopefully Barack Obama will not fail. If Bill Clinton would have truely had a successful presidency George Bush would not have succeeded him.

#54 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Exactly.

And what of his grand plan to eradicate nukes from the planet?

We have N. Korea and Iran both on the cusp of being nuclear powers and he has some grand plan for global nuclear disarmament???

Let's hear it then. What are the specifics? If his recent words and actions are a clue, his "plan" is little more than flowery rhetoric and platitudes steeped in naivete and self-arrogance.

"I heard very little of the speech, but it just seems to me that Obama thinks he is bigger and greater than the U.S."

I just love it when Obama haters make complete asses of themselves and don't even realize it.

"And what of his grand plan to eradicate nukes from the planet?"

It reminds me of someone else's plan to eradicate tyranny.

Who said I hated Obama. You're the fool.

#60 | Posted by danni

My point being that early in 1994 his presidency looked to be dead in the water, yet he managed to get re-elected and turned out to be an OK president. He certainly wasn't a great president, but he was far from awful.

Your dream of a government-run health system probably isn't going to happen. WAY too many are opposed to it, or any watered-down incarnation of it.

You know I don't get these Right Wingers and their hatred for the UN. The UN is a good organization that the USA was instrumental in creating. The Right is too arrogant for their own good.

Larry

It reminds me of someone else's plan to eradicate tyranny.

#63 | Posted by danni

Precisely.

Both are laudable goals, but both are utterly unrealistic. Too much recorded history proves this to be the case.

"Your dream of a government-run health system probably isn't going to happen. WAY too many are opposed to it, or any watered-down incarnation of it."

Perhaps, but if so, your dream of an economy where your children can prosper won't happen either.
Look at the GDP numbers, look at the inflationary spiral of health care, then tell me we don't need a government option. Someday, you should consider putting your children's future ahead of your ideological foolishness.

It's the society that failed, the society that refused to see the facts and elected Ronald Reagan, not the warriors. This sort of pitifully stupid mentality rears it's festering head here regularly.

Oh wait.t
There were no warriors to elect.

I really miss Ike. He was the last president to leave office more popular than when he entered office.

For every one hundred men you send us,
Ten should not even be here.
Eighty are nothing but targets.
Nine of them are real fighters;
We are lucky to have them, they the battle make.
Ah, but the one. One of them is a warrior.
And he will bring the others back.

~Heraclitus

Larry,

I don't despise the UN.

Personally, I like the concept.

The problem is that it chronically fails to live up to its charter.

The other problem is that too many (mostly on the left) people feel we should cede our sovereignty to the 'greatness' of the UN. A 1-world order and all that.

I say let's all try to hold the UN more accountable to its mission statement. Try to fix or improve what's broken, but don't scrap the whole thing.

Someday, you should consider putting your children's future ahead of your ideological foolishness.

#68 | Posted by danni

I wish I were as smart as you.

Your dream of a government-run health system probably isn't going to happen. WAY too many are opposed to it, or any watered-down incarnation of it.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-09-23 07:44 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

To the massave detriment to the AMerican Public. The only reason they are opposed to it is because those slimeball Conservatives scared them into being against it. If those rotten bastards hadn't received all of that health care insurance monies for bribing the Conservatives into not going along with it there would be a whole lot more for it. It's all about poor Health Care industry and FUCKING GREEDY BASTARDS. That's it JeffJ.

Larry

"He was the last president to leave office more popular than when he entered office."

No, actually Bill Clinton was.

Look at the GDP numbers, look at the inflationary spiral of health care, then tell me we don't need a government option.

You act as if a government option is the ONLY way of controlling costs.

Open up your mind to other possibilities.

Government isn't the be-all end-all to all problems facing this country.

We have N. Korea and Iran both on the cusp of being nuclear powers and he has some grand plan for global nuclear disarmament???

Don't be an idiot, Jeff.

There will never be "no nukes".

EVAR.

Only morons believe otherwise.

Strategic arms talks including nuclear, biological and conventional are important in the grand scheme of things even if they are imperfect.

Talking generally means not fighting.

While the world will always compete fer its increasingly dwindling resources we must keep international lines of communications open in order to at least try and stave off uneccessary military confrontations and work towards a more just and equitable global consensus.

"Jaw Jaw is better than War War"

~Winston Churchill.

Let's hear it then. What are the specifics? If his recent words and actions are a clue, his "plan" is little more than flowery rhetoric and platitudes steeped in naivete and self-arrogance.

If you as usual are gonna make an absolutist argument (ie. Obama seeks to ban all nukes everywhere) then Spud'll assume you take the opposite position (ie. You seek to ban all arms talks and proliferate nukes around the globe).

Specifically, why shouldn't Spud call you a wingnut fer espousing such a thing?

Be specific now.

Be Well.

Personally, I like the concept.

The problem is that it chronically fails to live up to its charter.

The other problem is that too many (mostly on the left) people feel we should cede our sovereignty to the 'greatness' of the UN. A 1-world order and all that.

I say let's all try to hold the UN more accountable to its mission statement. Try to fix or improve what's broken, but don't scrap the whole thing.

#70 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-09-23 07:49 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Hey we signed and one of the chief archetecs to the UN Charter We are legally bound and duty bound to abide by their decisions. Oh and when the Chief Archetec(The United States breaks lawsw in the UN Organization how can You expect others to abide by the Laws in the same organ??

Larry

The only reason they are opposed to it is because those slimeball Conservatives scared them into being against it. If those rotten bastards hadn't received all of that health care insurance monies for bribing the Conservatives into not going along with it there would be a whole lot more for it

scared them how?

"I wish I were as smart as you."

NOt brains my friend, it's willingness to face facts and reject ideology and patriotic bull shit when reality shows you that a different path is necessary. The fact is we can't afford to stay on the same track with health care that we are on, by the time my grandchildren and your children are grown health care will be consuming 20% or more of GDP. Most Americans will not be able to afford health care and our economy will be in the toilet.
But hey, at least you will be able to say that you never wavered in your support for free markets, rugged individualism and Republican values. I hope your kids find that comforting.

I was glad to see that the US has finally paid its dues to the UN. That was kind of embarrassing seeing as we are the host country.

BTW- I can't believe some here would post their dumb comments and then admit they didn't even bother reading the speech.

Here ya go dummies! Let me guess... Republican right?

"scared them how?"

they said...."it's socialism!!!!"

Better dead than red.

#72 | Posted by LarryMohr

Do you know why your side has gotten its ass handed to them on this debate?

It's the left's condescension. It's the left's belief that the ONLY reason anybody could disagree with their version of Utopia is because they are stupid sheep who have been brain-washed by some evil neo-con cabal. It's the left's unbelievable arrogant belief that they are SO much smarter than everybody with whom they disagree.

Add to that your leadership's flat-out lies when trying to sell their solutions as something far greater than reality allows AND demonizing dissenting viewpoint as racist, or worse; and it's no wonder a considerable majority of the public is recoiling against this.

On this issue, your side could desperately use a big dose of humility plus at least a modicum of respect for reasoned opposition to your agenda.

Disarmament is impossible, naive, stupid.

And that's just bayonets and pocket knives.

We have become a planet where everyone who can get into grad school in physics knows how a nuclear bomb works.

Here:

"Open up your mind to other possibilities."

Yeah, I will open my mind to the possibility that corporate CEOs will just decide not to raise prices, not to take multi-million dollar salaries, not to deny claims, not to find pre-existing conditions, not to commit recissions.....what drug do you have to take to actually believe that shit????
If we don't enact a public option the insurance companies will laugh their asses off....AGAIN!!! They've only been laughing at us for about sixty years or so. How long does it take for some folks to wake up????

Hey JeffJ it's not the left who is arrogant it's Your side who thinks only about Money and nothing about the lives Your side is ruining by denying the American Public their Basic Human Rights to Health Care. No JeffJ it's Your side who refuses to work with Obama. Hell Obama held out His hand and the Right shrugged it off. I can not believe You have the gall to declare the left is the arrogant ones. Fucking funny if You ask Me. OH AND WHEN DID HEALTH CARE BECOME A PRIVILEDGE OF THE RICH??? It's not that way in the rest of the industrialized world.

Larry

"On this issue, your side could desperately use a big dose of humility plus at least a modicum of respect for reasoned opposition to your agenda."

When you lose an argument based on facts then call them elitists.

Right wing lesson #1

On this issue, your side could desperately use a big dose of humility plus at least a modicum of respect for reasoned opposition to your agenda.

#81 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-09-23 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Boy if this isn't so much garbage. The Republicans haven'/t shown one iota of respect for the majority party not once. Hell they are trying to do whatevbber it takes to ruin Obama so they can get back into power. They don't giove a fuck about the AMerican People. They are blood thirsty for power and they will take this Country down to do it.

Larry

Catch the plutonium 238 comment.
*sigh*

Don't be an idiot, Jeff.

There will never be "no nukes".

EVAR.

Which was precisely my point.

If you as usual are gonna make an absolutist argument (ie. Obama seeks to ban all nukes everywhere) then Spud'll assume you take the opposite position (ie. You seek to ban all arms talks and proliferate nukes around the globe).

Specifically, why shouldn't Spud call you a wingnut fer espousing such a thing?

Be specific now.

To this day, Obama still talks as if he's on the campaign trail. Flowery rhetoric that is long on emotion and short on substance and specifics. He flat-out stated that he has a big plan to halt nuclear proliferation. All I am asking is for the specifics of the plan. Is that too much to ask?

Hey we signed and one of the chief archetecs to the UN Charter We are legally bound and duty bound to abide by their decisions.

We do not cede our sovereignty to ANY foreign entity. It doesn't work that way.

The fact is we can't afford to stay on the same track with health care that we are on, by the time my grandchildren and your children are grown health care will be consuming 20% or more of GDP.

I do agree that we are on an unsustainable path. However, you act as if a government-takeover is the ONLY answer.

But hey, at least you will be able to say that you never wavered in your support for free markets, rugged individualism and Republican values.

You had me until you dropped in that last salvo. Them's fighting words. I have come to despise the GOP.

#86 | Posted by LarryMohr

The GOP is full of shit. No argument there.

Having said that, I don't recall the leaders of the GOP calling opposition to their agenda as:

"racist, evil-mongers, un-American, inciting violence, etc."

Now, I am not talking about pundits and/or shock-jocks; I am talking the most powerful elected officials of the DNC. That the MSM gives these assholes a complete pass for this AND, even goes so far as to pile-on; just makes me shake my head in amazement.

Open up your mind to other possibilities.

Spud has.

Break up the near monopoly of Big Insurers who collude to keep costs and hence profits sky rocketing.

Some form of tort reform regarding medical malpractise suits but one in which the victim's rights are protected better than they are now where they win a big number in court and then eventually go on to see it lessened by one of an army of corporate lawyers who exist basically to specialise in that sort of thing.

End of the day the current practise means people get paid late, and less than they won and the lawyers keep an ungodly amount of the cash.

Do not want.

There are other solutions out there by brighter people than Spud but the political will to implement them has been sapped by the army of K street lobbyists who PWN DC on a daily basis.

That all noted the government option of a single payer system that does not seek to increase bottom line by decreasing care is really the only effective way of introducing true competition and a price point stabiliser into the health care market.

First it would allow the government to bargain in good faith with Big Pharma over the cost of prescription medicines (like the rest of the western world) with the result being cheaper drugs across the board.

With that on the record Spud agrees with Jeff that sometime the cure is sometimes worse than the disease.

If Obama's Health Care reforms are legitimate and well reasoned then they will work.

If they are a de-clawed, de-fanged sop to various competing corporate interests like Big Pharma, The Insurance Near-Monopoly and the Lawyer Lobby then it will be an expensive boondoggle that only makes matters worse.

Time will ultimately tell.

Which is why it's important to discuss the specifics now while the ball is still rolling instead of wasting time with all this "socialist/communist" fear mongering we keep hearing that muddies up the real and vital debate here.

Be Well.

they said...."it's socialism!!!!"

Better dead than red.

only a spineless pussy loser would let that deter them.

When you lose an argument based on facts then call them racists.

There. FTFY!

We do not cede our sovereignty to ANY foreign entity. It doesn't work that way.

The fact is we can't afford to stay on the same track with health care that we are on, by the time my grandchildren and your children are grown health care will be consuming 20% or more of GDP.

I do agree that we are on an unsustainable path. However, you act as if a government-takeover is the ONLY answer.

But hey, at least you will be able to say that you never wavered in your support for free markets, rugged individualism and Republican values.

You had me until you dropped in that last salvo. Them's fighting words. I have come to despise the GOP.

#88 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-09-23 08:05 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You still do not believe in obeying the rules that Your Country signed onto. It's typical right winger for You. bwhahahahaha quite typical.

Larry

You still do not believe in obeying the rules that Your Country signed onto.

lets give the country back to the indians.

LOL

"I do agree that we are on an unsustainable path. However, you act as if a government-takeover is the ONLY answer."

It's the only realistic answer I've heard and coincidentally the answer all other modern democracies have ended up with so I would be surprised yet open to a real alternative that would actually work. All I care about is results, we need health care and we need to reduce the cost and we need to make it available to all. If there is some way to accomplish all three goals without involving government then please tell me what it is.

Eberly kiss My fucking ass You worthless fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!

Larry

Your side has the votes. They don't need mine. Man up. Get it done. What's really holding you back?

But........they are scared!!!!!

They should be. They have the WH, senate, and the House and every special interest group of consequence right now lining up to throw money at them and Larry asserts they are scared

How many bullshit pussy excuses can dipshits like Larry make for the dems.

BTW, I think it is funny when government is rejected as the answer but were we to offer the private sector the "opportunity" to take over Medicare and supply the care for millions of elderly and disabled folks what do you think would happen???

Medicare is private insurance companie's dream come true, they profit during our younger, healthier years then at 65 or when disability occurs they get to dump us onto the backs of the taxpayers.
I just don't understand why so many people are so unwilling to look at that deal and not realize we are getting screwed.

Eberly kiss My fucking ass You worthless fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I probably can despite the fact that I'm in a different time zone.

"Your side has the votes. They don't need mine. Man up. Get it done. What's really holding you back?"

We both know the answer to that question, one of us will admit it.....insurance lobby dollars is the answer. Just because they are Democrats doesn't mean they aren't whores.

Which is why it's important to discuss the specifics now while the ball is still rolling instead of wasting time with all this "socialist/communist" fear mongering we keep hearing that muddies up the real and vital debate here.

As long as you are willing to add:

"astro-turfing, racism, tea-bagging, incitement of violence, etc."

Then I wholeheartedly agree.

An anecdote:

I just got back from a 4-day weekend "up north" with the wife and another couple, sans kids.

Anyways, on the 4-hour drive home I broached this subject with my wife (she works for a health-provider). Specifically, I broached the subject of mandating the insurance of pre-existing conditions. The analogy I came up with is the auto insurance industry. It would NEVER work in that field. Why? EVERYBODY would drop their collision and comprehensive coverage and then purchase those options only AFTER getting into an accident. The insurance companies would get slaughtered. In that context, the "fine" for not carrying coverage actually makes sense. Why would ANYBODY pay premiums when well if they could, with the government at their back, pay for insurance only AFTER a problem arose? In this context, Obama would to a far better job of justifying the "fine". Instead, he chooses to argue that it's not a "tax", which it very clearly is.

Regardless, the pre-existing thing really IS a tough quandry. We are not talking about cars here, we are talking about people.

Hey Jeff, how's your hero, Pinochet Mao? You two been exchanging love letters while he's in the joint?

You still do not believe in obeying the rules that Your Country signed onto.

Wrong.

I understand the Supremacy Clause and how it works.

This is something you've utterly failed to grasp time and time again.

How typical.

Hey Jeff, how's your hero, Pinochet Mao? You two been exchanging love letters while he's in the joint?

No love letters, but a couple of conjugal visits!

Just because they are Democrats doesn't mean they aren't whores.

If Righto were around he'd probably give you the Moment of Clarity Award (TM) for the day.

Obama still talks as if he's on the campaign trail. Flowery rhetoric that is long on emotion and short on substance and specifics.

First, Obama in a sense IS always on the campaign trail.

All pols are these days or hadn't you noticed?

Next... A POTUS' job isn't just to make and decide policy but also to achieve consensus on it.

And not just in DC but in the court of public opinion as well.

Talking to groups of people live or through media outlets, of course, Obama rarely lays out minutely detailed plans. Most POTUS' don't. People would complain they were being too erudite, too elitist and too boring and would proceed to nit pick before he finished speaking. So instead he draws big pictures with broad strokes to indicate specific goals and rationales as to why such a move is needed but the specifics need to be hammered out on the job back in DC or in State Senates or Houses.

He flat-out stated that he has a big plan to halt nuclear proliferation. All I am asking is for the specifics of the plan. Is that too much to ask?

Hellz no, Jeff.

Spud's a big fan of specifics.

God (they say) is in the details.

They say the devil is in there too.

Hence it behooves all and sundry to PAY ATTENTION.

Spud's a big fan of all kinds of crazy notion in this regard including stuff like legislators actually being given a reasonable amount of time to read a bill through in detail, in it's entirety and actually doing so before voting on the damn thing.

Spud would also like to see all Bills about to be voted on be posted on the internet well in advance.

Spud also sez... No last minute pork either.

That Spud!

Wot a nutter! -_-

Be Well.

/KK, nuff blog-fun fer now.
//The Drudge Retort's resident 8 1/2 inch tall talking tater o' doom is outro
stage left.

We both know the answer to that question, one of us will admit it.....insurance lobby dollars is the answer. Just because they are Democrats doesn't mean they aren't whores.

fair enough Danni

If there is some way to accomplish all three goals without involving government then please tell me what it is.

#96 | Posted by danni

I, and some others, have already suggested an HSA model (catastrophic coverage, coupled with cheap well-visits, and an HSA account). Hell, this could even be funded via the treasury. It would result in FAR less beaurocracy and would REALLY address costs from a market sense. It would put money into the hands of EVERYBODY for the purchase of health insurance, BUT it would also put the onus on the individual to make responsible decisions regarding their healthcare.

It would keep government out of the equation, except for the fact that the government would be moving money into EVERYBODY's hands for the explicit purchase of health insurance.

Fuck HSA's. Unless you can get employers to match contributions and the money to stay with the contributor rather than go back to the company it is a waste.

Fuck HSA's. Unless you can get employers to match contributions and the money to stay with the contributor rather than go back to the company it is a waste.

Have you looked at an HSA plan specifically?

If so then give me the premiums, deductibles, out of pocket etc.....

Spud's a big fan of all kinds of crazy notion in this regard including stuff like legislators actually being given a reasonable amount of time to read a bill through in detail, in it's entirety and actually doing so before voting on the damn thing.

Spud would also like to see all Bills about to be voted on be posted on the internet well in advance.

Spud also sez... No last minute pork either.

Amen.

Talking to groups of people live or through media outlets, of course, Obama rarely lays out minutely detailed plans. Most POTUS' don't. People would complain they were being too erudite, too elitist and too boring and would proceed to nit pick before he finished speaking. So instead he draws big pictures with broad strokes to indicate specific goals and rationales as to why such a move is needed but the specifics need to be hammered out on the job back in DC or in State Senates or Houses.

Understood. But when he says that the proposed cuts in Medicare will be made up by cutting waste and fraud within the system, to the tune of $500 billion?

When he says that mandating the purchase of insurance and "fining" those who refuse isn't a "tax" when right in the damn bill it's labelled as an excise tax?

He's selling this as Utopia. He really is. If he'd at least acknowledge some of the negative tradeoffs and THEN articulate why the positives outweigh the negatives, he'd be much better off. His party's crass demonization of opposition is only hurting his cause. The MSM is making it worse for him - the fawning coverage continues, unabated, and I really do believe that his ridiculously slanted media coverage is causing him to believe that he has more sway than he actually has. He's made plenty of mistakes on this issue, but his own party leadership as well as his PR machine, aka the MSM, has only made matters worse for him.

From a purely political standpoint, his strategy and that of his party on this issue has been utterly disastrous.

"Regardless, the pre-existing thing really IS a tough quandry. We are not talking about cars here, we are talking about people."

And there is the crux of the problem Jeff. The question really does boil down to whether the ability of the insurance company to make a profit should trump the ability of people to get the treatments they need paid for. If this were a discussion about cable TV I'd say that the ability of the company to make a profit is the most important thing because it will encourage expansion of the TV cable network,etc. But, when it concerns the ability of people to just stay alive, to be able to relieve pain, etc. I believe it transcends the boundaries of what the free market should control. No one's profit should prevent anyone's cancer treatment and the only justification for the present system I've seen is to pretend that it doesn't happen in spite of the many examples where we see that it has and is.

No love letters, but a couple of conjugal visits!

#105 | Posted by JeffJ

You're supposed to get pissed off. Asshole.

Health savings accounts by definition favor the wealthy and/or the healthy. For those that never go to the doctor, or who can afford the high out-of-pocket costs incurred when using health savings accounts (you need to pay $1,050 as an individual or $2,100 for a family before your insurance will cover the rest), health savings accounts are great. Wealthy and/or healthy individuals can put a bit of money away, tax free, into their health savings account and then draw from it to pay their astronomical out-of-pocket costs when they decide to go see a doctor. If you're healthy, the doctor's visit doesn't happen very often. If you're wealthy, who cares if it happens very often, you can afford it.

For the rest of us, however, health savings accounts don't work. If we get sick and see the doctor often, we have to pay those huge costs often; that means we have to save a lot of money in that health savings account. For those on fixed incomes, or even those just barely scraping by (and that's a lot of us in today's economic climate), putting away even $4,000 in a health savings account is out of the question. Health savings accounts don't work for the same reason tax credits don't work: Those who don't have a lot of cash to save are forced to put away money they don't have a bit at a time to pay for their care. With tax credits, they get repaid at the end of the year. With health savings accounts, they don't pay taxes on that money. But either way, they need to save over the course of a year to get that payoff. For a lot of folks, this just isn't a realistic option - there's simply nothing to spare.

"I, and some others, have already suggested an HSA model (catastrophic coverage, coupled with cheap well-visits, and an HSA account)."

I don't even have $2000 deductible on my car. HSAs basicly are designed to discourage you from going to the doctor when you need to and they are pretty effective because most people don't have a couple thousand dollars laying around.
HMOs are far better than HSAs. AT least with an HMO you can go when you think you need to (or when you need to take your kids) and not risk more serious illness because you don't have the bucks.
HSAs are really a bet, the insurance company is betting you won't spend $2000-$5000 and you are betting you will. Either way, you lose.

You're supposed to get pissed off. Asshole.

#114 | Posted by nullifidian

I know.

Problem is, I have come to the realization that I have been getting WAY too worked up over what's going on in this country.

So, I am in a good mood, today. Hell, I even set up a 'fun' thread today.

Going forward, I will try to give you a signal as to when I am menstruating, THEN you might have better success at pissing me off.

Danni,

I've got to move on for the night.

I just barely perused your last 2 posts and can already tell they are worthy of a response.

I have a pretty crazy-busy week on the JeffJ front, but I will make a serious effort to get back to this thread and respond to your last 2 posts.

Have a great night!

Go smoke a bowl on my behalf!

"From a purely political standpoint, his strategy and that of his party on this issue has been utterly disastrous."

I don't know about that, health care reform is probably, in some form, going to pass this year.
Barack Obama will very likely be taking credit for it next year and the Republicans are going to look like the opponents of SS, Medicare, Civil Rights, etc. Americans like progress, they may resist it for a while but when it comes they are glad it did.

"Go smoke a bowl on my behalf!"

Actually, I haven't had a whiff for months.

Last comment...

Jackass,

I don't disagree with what you've put forth.

My point being is that if HSA's were a government-provided "privelege or right" then it would be a far better solution on a macro-scale than what is currently being bandied about.

Actually, I haven't had a whiff for months.

#120 | Posted by danni

Sorry to hear that.

OK - I am TRULY outa here now.

"My point being is that if HSA's were a government-provided "privelege or right" then it would be a far better solution on a macro-scale than what is currently being bandied about."

I could make an argument that it is exactly the opposite but I'll wait til you're here for a while again.

I'm still waiting for someone to publish ALL of Obama's "friends" in a nice little blog before I have to dig that shit up.

Obama has sold out America. The land of the Free and the Home of the Fucking Brave mean NOTHING to him!

What a fucking piece of shit YOU fuckers elected!

According to Kissinger, who is not my favorite turd, Obama is a brilliant chess player on the world stage.

"Obama has sold out America. The land of the Free and the Home of the Fucking Brave mean NOTHING to him!"

As if America hadn't already been sold out by the corporations and their wealthy owners.

Problem is, I have come to the realization that I have been getting WAY too worked up over what's going on in this country.

So, I am in a good mood, today. Hell, I even set up a 'fun' thread today.

#117 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-09-23 08:45 PM

Obama has sold out America. The land of the Free and the Home of the Fucking Brave mean NOTHING to him!

How about the unfucking brave? You know sir, there is more to America then the small minority you claim to be a part of. You can't have the home of the free and the patriot act at the same time. You can't have the home of the brave when cowards like you want it destroyed in a nuclear war started by an 'alley" that's only in it for the money. I don't know about you, but I didn't see Israel send any troops to Iraq. Even our injured soldiers were treated in Germany, not Israel which was closer. The fact is Israel couldn't fight their wars without our WMDs. It wouldn't be profitable for the smucks. What Obama said was right on and it appears even Netenyahu was quoted as saying Obama was right in asserting Israels right to security. They just need to get their heads out of their asses.

so once again the obama apology tour makes it to his home turf.

You can't have the home of the free and the patriot act at the same time.

#128 | Posted by RingMaster at 2009-09-24 11:00 AM

Tell it to Obama. He supports the Patriot Act.

WTF difference does it make what he thinks? This is my opinion.

WTF difference does it make what he thinks? This is my opinion.

#131 | Posted by RingMaster at 2009-09-24 01:44 PM

LOL, ok!

I thought the messiah was actually going to get on his kness and suck some cock in there. Slobbering all over as he was.

That would be a good thing for American workers and would eventually force China to go along with us combating global warming and at the same time partially reduce their cost advantage in manufacturing.

#30 | Posted by danni

Danni, would you like to explain to me how this years summer was a full one degree cooler than last years summer yet there really is a thing that exists called global warming?