Showing posts with label Blue Dog Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blue Dog Democrats. Show all posts

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Media starts to report on health care costs

Maybe it's just because Fox is cleaning their clocks, or perhaps there are just too many lies to ignore it any longer.
    "Could it be that the press is finally catching on to the fact that the Democrats’ health care reform bills don’t decrease costs? New York Times columnist David Leonhardt rips up the House bill in a column today. He writes, “Making the medical system more efficient is, in short, about saving lives and giving Americans a long overdue raise. It is arguably the single most important step that the federal government could take to improve people’s lives. And the bill that the House of Representatives passed last weekend simply does not get it done.”

    The Politico also gets in on the act, writing “Barack Obama ran for president on a promise of saving the typical family $2,500 a year in lower health care premiums. But that was then. No one in the White House is making such a pledge now. It’s one of the most basic, kitchen-table questions of the entire reform debate: Would the sweeping $900 billion overhaul actually lower spiraling insurance premiums for everyone? No one really knows. …. [MIT health economist Jonathan] Gruber, the favorite economist of the White House, said the bill “really doesn’t bend the cost curve.” … Reminded that Obama demanded a bill that lowers health care spending, Gruber said: “That is what he would like to do. But he’s not doing it.””

    And ABC News corrects the Democrats’ claim that insurance company profits are responsible for increasing health insurance costs. ABC News reports, [T]he companies’ profits still represent a miniscule percentage of the $2.5 trillion Americans spend every year on health care. “Insurance company profits in the large picture have very little to do with the overall rising cost of health care,” said health care expert Henry Aaron, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.” Link

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Suits from central casting

Excerpted From VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: “His [Ted Kennedy] monument stands all around us

"I was raised a New England Democrat. Far from hating the Kennedys, I suppose I almost worshiped them. I wish John and Bobby had not been killed. Though you would have had to be deaf not to hear older New Englanders note that the family money had come from crime (bootlegging, specifically); that JFK's multiple adulteries (including with Sam Giancana's Mafia moll, Judith Campbell Exner -- in the White House!), creating so much cover-up work for the press and the Secret Service, so disrespectful of the lovely mother of his young children, only echoed his father's famous affair with Hollywood actress Gloria Swanson; that he was asking for trouble when he asked the unions and the mob to help him steal the presidency by rigging the returns in Illinois and West Virginia -- and then turned his back on them, actually siccing his younger brother Bobby on them like an attack dog, as soon as he got elected.

Republicans fail by losing the presidency when they do the sensible thing: nominating old Washington hands like Bob Dole, a perfectly decent fellow who knew the ropes and probably would have made a competent if uninspiring administrator. A "go-along" kind of guy with unarticulated (if any) economic principles who never stood in the path of the profligacies of Ted Kennedy and his ilk, Bob Dole was no hero of mine.

But Democrats do something far more interesting. Democrats fail -- not incrementally but massively, disastrously -- by winning the presidency, which they do by nominating virile younger men in whom Americans see the image of the brave, handsome, smooth-talking, dapper guy they wish they were.

John F. Kennedy was woefully unprepared to be president. His lack of experience and his health problems, so obligingly covered up by a press corps that loved him -- Addison's disease, colitis and back problems so severe he had to wear a brace, possibly caused by his decades-long steroid treatments, while all we got to see was touch football on the beach -- left him woefully inadequate in his summit meetings with Khrushchev in Vienna. Khrushchev read the callow young president as a playboy dilettante and decided he could get away with deploying missiles to Cuba, bringing the world to the brink of war.
Did Kennedy "bravely stand him down," as we were all taught? Kennedy agreed to pull our own missiles out of Turkey. (We're told "they were obsolete, anyway." We won the battle of Guadalcancal with stuff that was more obsolete.) Khrushchev won ... in the short run, which is all the victory a socialist can ever hope for, given that their underlying philosophy will always breed poverty and disaster in the end.

Bill Clinton was of the same mold but worse -- a greedy crook with his hand always out for a check (whether it be a corporation looking for a contract in Little Rock, or the Chinese military seeking our satellite and missile technology), but nonetheless a big, handsome teddy bear of a foul-mouthed multiple adulterer, if not (as I believe) something closer to a serial rapist.

And now the Democrats have given us Barack Obama, a handsome, dapper, smooth-talking, virile younger president who is -- hard as it is to believe -- vastly less qualified for the presidency than John F. Kennedy.

He has no idea he has taken an oath to protect a Constitution that promises us a government of sharply limited powers. (Where in that Constitution does he find any authority for federal bureaucrats to manage auto companies? To meddle in medicine or insurance?) He has no experience commanding even the small military units once officered by JFK or Jimmy Carter -- let alone the mighty administrative experience in matters of life and death once shouldered by Washington, Jackson, Eisenhower.

He has never worked in, let alone managed, a small business that had to meet payroll by selling actual merchandise to actual customers. (At least Harry Truman once sold shirts.) He is the perfect creature of the arrogant leftist academy -- actually believing in the magic power of rhetoric to alter reality, seeing no need to test out such theories on some little hamburger or yogurt stand before attempting to micro-manage the largest economy in the world.

For six months, Barack Obama has had it all his way, with a populace virtually hypnotized into allowing him to advance a far-left agenda learned at the knees of his mother's communist friends, aided by such powerful and privileged yet philosophically hollow allies as Ted Kennedy."

Friday, July 31, 2009

What's the proper greeting?

Bill, a senior citizen who grew up where I did, asks in an e-mail list, some I know, some I don't
    "All the noise by the public has delayed Washington's direction and activity on the health care bill. They are now starting to horse trade to get something acceptable to get this passed. The democrats have offered to soften the impact on small business in hopes of satisfying the republicans. And there are other offerings as well.

    HOWEVER, have you noticed there is no mention of softening the impact on the seniors. Obama still stutters when people question this issue. The seniors are still going to take it on the chin with health care rationing and politician control of services offered. They cannot change this as this is where the big cost savings are hidden to support the expansion of services to others.

    The senate and house members are about to go home for their summer vacation. This means they will be in their local offices a great deal. They are going to get an ear full. Very little will be positive toward doing any thing to make changes. Now here is my point.

    Today every correspondence and communication by most has been fairly positive and non threatening, just stating one's opinion. We are about to take the gloves off and get very nasty. The politicians who are for this bill and pushing (Mostly Democrats) are well known. Those who oppose (mostly Republicans) are also well known. The next attacks after their summer holiday must be toward those who are for and are pushing; even if they do not directly represent you in your state. These folks must get a big picture of the size of the back lash which all politicians will feel as a result of this health care proposal. My problem is I am struggling to come up with a greeting line to address them on written letters that sets the tone."
What sort of a greeting would you use in advising a Blue Dog Democrat or a moderate what you think of Obama's treatment plan for seniors?

Dear . . . .fill in the blank. Bill suggests "Dear Senior slayer" or" Dear death deliverer". But Rusty chimes in with "Dear Asshole." And Richard agrees with Rusty.