The Tea Party indeed ascended quite fast. The current economy and modern media certainly helped that. But, as the writer states, “Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin simply aren’t the kind of people who wear well. Their fifteen minutes aren’t up yet, but they will be within a year or two.” Indeed.
Amen, brother Ebert! Amen!
Quite a scathing profile of Sarah Palin. Just like Beck, the profile paints her as a phony whose love for power and success knows no bounds. As one Twitterer says, “..wait for backlash in a few hours.”
After reading Paul Krugman’s New York Times column entitled “It’s Witch-Hunt Season“, I couldn’t help but recall a song by Rush called Witch Hunt. Read Paul’s column while considering the following lyrics:
Witch Hunt
Lyrics by Neil Peart
The night is black
Without a moon
The air is thick and still
The vigilantes gather on
The lonely torch lit hill
Features distorted in the flickering light
The faces are twisted and grotesque
Silent and stern in the sweltering night
The mob moves like demons possessed
Quiet in conscience, calm in their right
Confident their ways are best
The righteous rise
With burning eyes
Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies
To beat and burn and kill
They say there are strangers who threaten us
In our immigrants and infidels
They say there is strangeness too dangerous
In our theaters and bookstore shelves
That those who know what’s best for us
Must rise and save us from ourselves
Quick to judge
Quick to anger
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand…
See what I mean? For a song written in the 80’s, it’s pretty amazing at how relevant it is even today. Gotta love Rush!
Someone finally put in words exactly how I feel about Glenn Beck. ‘Nuff said!
I recently received yet another goofy right-wing email from a relative. While there were plenty of holes in the email that turned it into Swiss cheese, I’m going to concentrate on just one example from the email. Consider the following quote:
“Now because they think Washington knows best, they are singling Texas out and are threatening to withhold $800 million in our federal tax dollars unless I violate the Texas Constitution and commit Texas to funding obligations without the consent of future legislatures”
Now this one:
“Consider recent events. Because they think Washington knows best, the EPA unilaterally declared more than 120 state air permits void at Texas plants, despite the fact the program has existed under both a Democrat and Republican President, and most importantly, has contributed to a decrease in air emissions.”
The writer claims they are from a public letter written by Rick Perry. Oddly enough, these quotes are not on one single webpage. Google has absolutely zero results for these quotes. So, my question is this: If it’s a public letter, why isn’t any of these quotes listed on a single website? Where the hell did these quotes come from?
Which brings me to a broader point: What the hell is going on?
I was talking with some friends this weekend and, during our discussion, we talked a bit about how there is so much misinformation being thrown around these days. While both sides of the fence are guilty (both liberal/progressives and conservatives) the majority of it seems to come from conservatives, or what many of us call neo-conservatives. It’s as if people have become completely ignorant of the facts, that it’s completely ok to express your opinion without having any real facts to back it up, and that it’s somehow ok to believe in stuff that is basically made up.
What’s dangerous about this is that it means that there are people who believe in what a particular person says simply because they think they can trust their word. All one has to do is write a blog post or a mass email that includes certain key words and mention a particularly famous person as the source for the content and you’ve got something that a good mass of people can believe it. It’s how so many have managed to make others believe that Obama is a Muslim and that he wasn’t born in this country.
It doesn’t stop there either. We’ve got plenty of folks in the media that are doing the exact same thing. This usually comes from personalities who are not news reporters and rarely if ever research the facts before opening their mouth. You know who I’m talking about! Need I say more?
If a picture is worth a thousand words then how many words can you get out of 39 pictures? If you look at the recent pictures posted on The Boston Globe website then they’re worth billions. Click over and take a hard look at all the pictures. Seriously. I’ll wait.
Now, consider the following: It’s been over a month since the Deepwater Horizon oil rig blew up. All efforts by BP (British Petroleum) to plug the leak that has been spewing millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf have failed. It appears that BP is initiating one last ditch effort tomorrow, performing what they call a “top kill”, an attempt to using heavy mud and cement to plug the leak.
Now ask yourself: What if they fail? What if the “top kill” doesn’t work? What now?
The only reasonable answers to those questions is to simply shut down all offshore drilling and any future drilling till we have the technology to address such disasters. Think about it. We can’t run the risk of another disaster like this one. If BP can’t plug the leak in a reasonable timeframe and we don’t have the necessary resources to clean up all the oil, then what can we expect the next time another disaster occurs? What if it’s worse the next time? Is it really worth it? No, it isn’t.
The choice here is either more oil or a cleaner, better environment. You can’t have both. We can get back to square by continuing to buy oil from the Middle East while we transition to cheaper alternatives like natural gas. What we can’t get back is a damaged environment. Once the coastlines are damaged, they’ll never be the same. It’s damage that’s just not easily undone.
Is damaging the environment really worth the need we have to drive our cars? Is that a price you’re willing to pay? If you answered “yes” to these questions then you are an idiot.
Some time ago, I attempted to do a series of posts based on a series by Ann Coulter on the current health care debate[1]. Well, as fate would have it, I didn’t exactly have time to really devote to is and, as such, never finished it. To finish this series, I’m topping it off with a response to Ann Coulter’s recent blog post entitled “My Healthcare Plan“. So let’s see what CoulterCare would look like…
CoulterCare is described as a “one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance” with an emphasis on the words “free market”. Ann claims that “nearly every problem with health care in this country…would be solved by my plan“.
Here’s her plan…
1. Congress will amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance.
This is probably one of the only things I agree with that CoulterCare mandates. However, I do not agree that it will provide the level of competition that Ann thinks it will. Granted, it would allow for a greater degree of competition but, let’s face it, these are insurance companies we’re talking about. What will likely happen is that many insurance companies will merge together thus causing a flux of less competition rather than more. States that had only one or two insurance companies present would continue to have just one or two due to the fact that a lot of companies simply don’t want to try and compete.
More so, if an insurance company has already merged with companies that have a presence in that state then you won’t see new insurance companies move into those state. We saw this happen with banks and financial institutions back in the 1990’s. Once banks and financial institutions were given the right to compete more through mergers and acquisitions, a slew of mergers happened almost immediately. One would think that this would mean more competition within the banking and financial sector. However, many purported that this allowed for banks and financial institutions to get too big and thus create less competition and more problems.
If we allow the same sort of behavior with health insurance companies then it’s possible that what happened to the financial sector could happen in the health insurance industry: a full-on collapse of the system. Only way to protect against that is some common sense regulations and rules. Granted, it’s a good idea to allow for interstate commerce within the health insurance industry. But to simply tear down the fences and let them roam free isn’t a good solution. We still have to have some gates to keep from floods happening.
2. The exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company’s home office is.
According to CoulterCare, “every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates, just as most corporations are based in Delaware today“. This would open up a big ole’ can of worms. Ann claims that having such a provision would keep insurance companies from having to follow idiotic state mandates that require all insurance plans to cover bogus things. That may sound great and all, but it also goes against the Conservative principle of allowing the states to decide on these kinds of issues.
For instance, let’s pretend that I live in a state where abortions are legal specifically in cases where the mother’s and/or child’s life is in danger. Pretend that my wife is six-months in and the doctor has given us the bad news and recommends that we abort the child immediately, else we run the risk of my wife and the child of dying due to complications. Now pretend that CoulterCare is in full effect and, since our insurance company is based in a state where abortions are not covered and aren’t legal, our insurance company has told us that they will not cover it. Thanks to CoulterCare, we’re stuck with a bill for thousands and thousands of dollars for something that was totally beyond our control. Not good.
Again, just like with interstate commerce, common sense rules and regulations can be put in place to ensure that insurance policies aren’t covering bogus things. Goofy state-based regulations need to apply. Let the states decide.
3. Prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies.
Freed from onerous state and federal mandates turning insurance companies into public utilities, insurers would be allowed to offer a whole smorgasbord of insurance plans, finally giving consumers a choice.
This sounds great, doesn’t it; until you realize that, other than the interstate commerce regulations, insurance companies haven’t really been regulated much by the federal government. Right now, consumers don’t have much choice.
Consumers don’t have a choice on what doctor they can go to. If the doctor you’ve been using for the past ten years isn’t a preferred doctor and in-network according to your insurance company then you will likely not get coverage or receive only a small percentage of coverage.
Consumers as well as doctors and hospitals don’t have the final say-so on what doctor visits, tests, procedures, medications, operations, and such get covered. Only the insurance company has the final word. While you may try to appeal their decision, good luck getting them to pay for it in the end.
Consumers have no say-so as to how much total coverage is provided by their insurance company. An insurance company can stipulate that you’ve maxed out your coverage at any time and refuse to pay any additional medical bills. You could be sitting in the hospital dying and in need of a life-saving procedure, but if your insurance company refuses to pay…good luck!
All of this has nothing to do with government intervention or regulations. It’s all behaviors from the insurance companies in an attempt to maximize profits and make share holders happy. Without some common sense rules and regulations from our government, insurance companies will continue with these behaviors and thus giving consumers less choice instead of more. When consumers aren’t in control over their healthcare, how can one claim that they have choice? That doesn’t make any sense.
CoulterCare claims that “in a free market, the government wouldn’t need to prohibit insurance companies from excluding ‘pre-existing conditions’“. It seems that CoulterCare is mixing the idea of ‘pre-existing condition’ with ‘charity’. That is not what we’re talking about here. Consider this…
I, myself, have a disease with no cure that every health insurance company would see as a ‘pre-existing condition’. If my wife were to loose her job, we would likely end up losing our insurance unless we take over the payments for our insurance plan. If we were to drop the insurance plan and go with another insurance company there is absolutely no guarantee that the new insurance company will cover my ‘pre-existing condition’ right away. As such, I would be forced to have to pay the full price for all my doctor’s visits, all tests, and all prescription. That adds up to a whole lot of money.
Prior to my wife getting a new job, I was without insurance between six months to a year. In that time, we’ve had to minimize doctor’s visits, find alternative medications that cost much less (not to mention less effective than the ones my doctor recommended!), and pay out our doctor’s bills over time. It put a serious dent in our finances and put a serious strain on my ability to maintain good health and get access to the preventative care I needed to avoid the possibility of landing in an emergency room.
Would CoulterCare consider me ‘charity’ case? I suppose so. All I wanted was to be able to pay a reasonable rate for a healthcare insurance policy so that I could get the preventative care I needed at a price I could afford. If CoulterCare were policy then insurance companies would continue with the same practices and thus would force me out of their pool since I would be considered a ‘high-risk’ customer.
Ann doesn’t get it. Ideology can’t fix the healthcare system. You can’t apply political ideology on how corporations run. Corporations don’t care about Conservative principles and ideals; they care about growth and profits for their shareholders. Thus CoulterCare would only help corporations find new ways to maximize profits and wouldn’t solve anything; rather it would make it worse.
I’m not anti-corporation; rather I’m a firm believer in free markets and capitalism. But there is a difference between creating a health profit and profiteering. In order to avoid abuse, you have to create a common sense framework of rules and regulations that everyone can follow. The current healthcare bill, while imperfect, at least takes some steps to creating that framework. CoulterCare does nothing to promote that framework.
Free markets are never ‘free’. Nothing is ever ‘free’. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. No one is entitled to a ‘free lunch’. Thus free markets can never be maintained and will never be sustainable without a framework of common sense rules and regulations. Sustainability and innovation are the keys to maintaining an open free market; an idea that Ann Coulter and other Conservatives are not talking about. They just don’t get it.
I know, I know…I’m so damn far behind on this series of posts. Better late than never I suppose. I think I’ll make it a goal to have this series done before Thanksgiving.
In case you missed it[1], this is an ongoing series based on an ongoing series by Ann Coulter. Ann begins part four of her series with some words about your health coverage should you have to move or lose your job:
(12) Only national health care can provide “coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job” — as Obama said in a New York Times op-ed.
This is obviously a matter of great importance to all Americans, because, with Obama’s economic policies, none of us may have jobs by year’s end.
Or you simply lose your job because no one wants to read any more of your cynical opinions. Hmm…there’s a thought. We can wish, can’t we? I know, I know…enough with the “Us vs. Them” mentality, but I can’t help it. With Ann, you kind of have to be a little sarcastic.
The only reason you can’t keep — or often obtain — health insurance if you move or lose your job now is because of … government intrusion into the free market.
That statement is partially true. Our current health insurance system is largely employer-based. If you lose your job, you more or less lose your insurance too…that is, unless you pay for your own insurance. And that is where the rub is. Companies receive group discount rates, whereas many people simply can’t afford to pay the high premiums as individuals. More on the government intrusion part in a sec.
Federal tax incentives have created a world in which the vast majority of people get health insurance through their employers. Then to really screw ordinary Americans, the tax code actually punishes people who don’t get their health insurance through an employer by denying individuals the tax deduction for health insurance that their employers get.
Actually, according to the IRS[2] you can deduct the amount you paid for health insurance premiums for you and your family so long as the following requirements are met:
The only rub about this is that it doesn’t include people whose employer doesn’t offer a health insurance plan and aren’t technically self-employed. I’m very curious to know how many people this issue actually effects. So, while Ann is correct on her assertion, she is only partly correct.
If Democrats really wanted people to be able to purchase health insurance when they move or lose a job as easily as they purchase car insurance and home insurance (or haircuts, dog walkers, cars, food, computers), they could do it in a one-page bill lifting the government controls and allowing interstate commerce in health insurance. This is known as “allowing the free market to operate.”
While I agree that the interstate commerce restrictions should be lifted, it is only a small part of the solution. No doubt that a lift in restrictions will allow people to move more freely with their health insurance. However, simply “allowing the free market to operate” isn’t going to promote the sort of standards necessary to help drive down rising health care costs. Lots more to think about other than “how can we make it so that the insurance companies get more money”.
(13) The “public option” trigger is something other than a national takeover of health care.
Why does the government get to decide when the “trigger” has been met, allowing it to do something terrible to us? Either the government is better at providing goods and services or the free market is — and I believe the historical record is clear on that. Why do liberals get to avoid having that argument simply by invoking “triggers”?
Why not have a “trigger” allowing people to buy medical insurance on the free market when a trigger is met, such as consumers deciding their health insurance is too expensive? Or how about a trigger allowing us to buy health insurance from Utah-based insurers — but only when triggered by our own states requiring all insurance companies to cover marriage counseling, drug rehab and shrinks?
What I think Ann is trying to say is that the so-called “trigger” option is just another way for the government to control what your health care options are. Problem is that most of the so-called “trigger” options being talked about are just that: they’re just talk. I don’t think any of these “trigger” options will make it into a bill. I hear “trigger” and I think “mandates”. In other words, the moment certain conditions are met certain options then become mandatory. This doesn’t sit too well for many states because you can never really anticipate when certain “triggers” will occur that will have an effect on state budgets. So, no, don’t think “triggers” will be a part of the equation.
Ann did offer a good question: Why not have a “trigger” allowing people to buy medical insurance on the free market when a trigger is met, such as consumers deciding their health insurance is too expensive? My question to Ann is: Isn’t that what the “public option” is all about?
Some of the bills, like the Baucus bill[3], focus on simplifying the access to programs like Medicare for people who are within 150% of the poverty line. This is a good step in the right direction in getting poor people access to health care but it still doesn’t address the availability of affordable health care for those above the poverty line. That’s what the “public option” is supposed to be all about.
Now, I’m a believer that a free market should exist. However, a free market can’t be maintained without fairness. I do not believe that the government is going to be put in a position to decide what good and services the public is able to purchase as far as health care is concerned. If anything, I think the “public option” should be a baseline policy that all health insurance companies have to offer to all Americans. This is very similar to what the Netherlands have setup for their health care system[4]. For those who want a free market, this is probably the only way to do it. A free market can’t really exist unless certain standards are set in place. Having a baseline policy that is affordable to all Americans would be a good place to start.
(14) National health care will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.
On July 30 of this year, a House committee voted against a Republican amendment offered by Rep. Nathan Deal that would have required health care providers to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program to prevent illegal aliens from receiving government health care services. All Republicans and five Democrats voted for it, but 29 Democrats voted against it, killing the amendment.
Ann is referring to the Baucus bill and the fact that, although it denies illegal immigrants from receiving health care, it doesn’t outline the process on how to screen people for this[5]. This is a bit of a touchy topic because if you put in place a method for which hospitals are allowed to screen people on whether they are illegal immigrants or not, what’s to stop hospitals from denying medical care simply on the basis of a person’s immigration status? At least that’s the fear, I think. If I were a Representative in the House I probably would have voted against it if this question was not addressed in the amendment. I don’t like the idea of anyone being turned away for treatment regardless of immigration status.
On the same day, the committee voted 30-29 against an amendment offered by Republican Joe Pitts explicitly stating that government health care would not cover abortions. Zealous abortion supporter Henry Waxman — a walking, breathing argument for abortion if ever there was one — originally voted in favor of the Pitts amendment because that allowed him, in a sleazy parliamentary trick, to bring the amendment up for reconsideration later. Which he did — as soon as he had enough Democrats in the hearing room to safely reject it.
If any liberal sincerely believes that national health care will not cover illegals and abortion, how do they explain the Democrats frantically opposing amendments that would make this explicit?
Republican Joe Pitt’s talk about an abortion mandate[6] as well as the amendment he proposed[7] is a good example of why religious views do not belong in public policy. While Rep. Pitts doesn’t outright claim it to be a religious view, words like “the destruction of human life” and “health care is about saving and nurturing life, not about taking life” clearly are the words of someone with certain beliefs.
The problem I have with the whole abortion debate is the fact that no one is talking about how changes in policy regarding abortion will effect real women with real problems. It’s almost as if it’s being painted as a black and white issue; either you’re for abortion or against it. There is no grey area; no instances where an abortion might actually be necessary to save lives.
Earlier this week, I posted a story I saw on HDNet[8] about Dr. Lee Carhart, one of the few remaining doctors performing late-term abortions. Anyone who wants to understand the real debate about abortion should watch this story. I would love to hear what Ann’s take is on this story. Would she admit that there are circumstances where an abortion is necessary? If so, why shouldn’t one’s health plan cover it?
More to come soon…
Twitter: jeffwhitfield
