A Matter Of Opinion

Friday’s Loose Thread

Posted by Gary

Nov. 20, 2009 9:37 a.m. • 44 comments

Dang! Sixty, That’s just really old.

Thoughts on this Friday before Black Friday (uh-oh, here comes that Steely Dan earworm!)?

44 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

Ron_the_Cop on November 20 at 11:14 a.m.
FYI an enlightening discussion thread on Jonathan Brunt’s article on the MOBIUS Project:

Science center plan falters
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/nov/18/science-center-plan-falters/
empyrius on November 20 at 3:05 p.m.
“Justice” anyone . . .

Justice is subjective, there are no moral universals (get real realism). Some say kill the killer, that is only eye for eye, derived from Old Testament law, in spite of Jesus; morality of divine command is open to interpretation. “Justice” found by legislative or judicial decree represents naught me! Legislators and their assorted governmental agencies say marijuana is “evil”, while I say the Lord calls the green herb good. Presidents go to war utilizing portions of “just war theory”, I call them murderers just the same, government says “thou shalt not steal” as they take half my check without my consent . . .

“Justice” is about who has the most money or lawyers who have grown quite accustomed to speaking with forked tongues!

So sayeth empyrius!
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/justice-and-the-majority-37749-2.html#lastpost

pax vobiscum
nslopeofw on November 20 at 3:17 p.m.
Anyone can read others’ writings, or write there own, but only in the extreme can they be more than just an opinion. Socrates and Jesus both were willing to die for their words. Now, that’s extreme.
empyrius on November 20 at 3:47 p.m.
C’mon now bro, I whipped that lil tidbit up my own lowly self, if somebody has written something similar to my previous post, my bad, but I had not seen it.

Peace bro
nslopeofw on November 20 at 4:15 p.m.
Not to you, just makin’ a philosophical observation about some of the posters on your link. Philosophy can make you think. Reading someone else can give you idea’s. The quotes should be one’s own.
richard on November 20 at 6:36 p.m.
Democratic Senator Landreau of Louisiana has been critical of the Senate health bill. With a cloture vote near, Dirty Filthy Harry put a $100,000,000 “gift” to Louisiana in the bill.

And since this is such a reprehensible act, I believe that all the good, responsible Democrats on these pages will stand up and criticize Harry Reid’s act.

Right?
empyrius on November 20 at 9:17 p.m.
Not to defend democrats Richard, b/c they are just as clueless as republicans, but as far as that ear-marking stuff, it seems both parties have done their fair share of “slipping in” all sorts of “little extras” into legislated bills. Nevertheless, until the day comes when we have a political system uninfluenced by money, then we can only expect nonsense such as this to continue. Let us consider . . .

Is Roe v Wade representative of your views? Is, as per the 2000 POTUS election, the electoral, and ultimately judicial, decision of who “won” the election democracy? No it was not, it was an election wholly decided by Congress and the Courts, against popular vote! Look at the history of marijuana. The government and big business interests actively spread “inaccurate” information to the masses at large, and government pushed through regulation, and ultimately, obviously, decriminalization without an informed popular vote of any kind! Is that democracy, or even “representative” democracy? No!

Well, if you don’t like it change it, contact your government representative you say. Yeah, I hear you, hope to be represented by somebody I have not given a 100 thousand dollars to right?!? It takes money to be heard, it takes money to organize, it takes money to buy airtime; “representative” democracy simply takes money, and I have no money.

One last tidbit.

Conservatives accuse liberals of attempting to “social engineer”, but are not conservatives guilty of the same “crime”? Perhaps there were/are some democrats who actually simply wanted to have healthcare available to all Americans (which in this for profit system was a doomed ideal from the very start), but I have to believe they truly saw a better world if their efforts would have succeeded. In contrast, are not republicans who say, and strive to legislate, “no gay marriage” and “no abortions” guilty of the same social engineering? Whether you justify your beliefs by Scripture or some “godless” humanism tis “social engineering” just the same is it not brother?

Peace
Arch_Druid on November 21 at 8:56 a.m.
I can find it hilarious that “civil comments” must remain the norm for posting but “uncivil comments” can be published in the S-R letters pages. Such as the letter from S.F. Pangerl. Headlined as “Controller-in-Chief.”

I define “civil” in this way. You can agree or disagree on any legitimate point without resorting to fear, hysteria, or blatant rage. And Pangerl expressed and was actually published, foaming at the mouth blatant rage. Doesn’t do much for the paper’s “standards,” eh Gary C. and Doug F.?
Arch_Druid on November 21 at 9:16 a.m.
Now to the letter in question that I think needs a true rebuttal. Gary Warren would no doubt like to use the Schiavo case as what would be indicative of health care reform under Dem legislation. However, Mr. Warren does a lot of historical revisionism to say the least.

First of all, the 4th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the courts ultimately deciding (in defiance of a law passed by a GOP controlled Congress and signed onto by a GOP President to assist absolutely one and only one person in the nation in order to garner the votes of religious activists) the fate of one brain dead and blind woman and who should ultimately decide it on medical grounds, the parents or the husband. The 4th amendment involves searches and seizures pursuant of criminal misconduct. The 8th amendment involves no cruel or unusual punishment for those CONVICTED OF A CRIME. WHEN did anyone suggest that Ms. Schiavo “committed a crime” when she ultimately entered into a medical and vegetative coma? Until Warren, no one.

Hopefully, Floyd will allow letters to the editor that tells Mr. Warren what kind of difference there is in “death sentences” that are reserved for those who commit heinous crimes and those who are in fact brain dead and are only “kept alive” through extraordinary measures. So the parents didn’t want to see their daughter finally resting in peace and exploited a private family issue into a national political issue that ought not have received so much of the nation’s attention. But on the other hand, Schiavo could have the “concerns of Congress” under GOP hands that should indeed be denied the rest of us. He’s right in that much but directs the vast majority of his barking at the wrong tree.
Cindy_H on November 21 at 8:01 p.m.
All I want to know is what is a “Steely Dan earworm”? Is that too much to ask?
Jeffrey_Grey on November 22 at 6:50 a.m.
Slight change of subject…

So, the health-care reform measure passed the cloture vote and moved into debate.

What happens now?

I listened to Senate Minority Leader McConnell’s speech with some interest last evening. And I noticed something important in it. In the midst of all the fiery partisan rhetoric, if you listened carefully you could hear some valid, important points.

1) Health care reform is a vital concern.
2) This whole thing started with the notion of making health care more affordable. Remember that originally it wasn’t all about health *insurance*. Un-affordable insurance premiums and the questionable tactics of the insurance companies were initially (and rather briefly) seen as only a symptom of the larger problem: nobody could afford health care without insurance.
3) There are other issues to be addressed besides ‘public option / no public option’ or another manifestation of the terribly vexing question of abortion and who pays for it. How about tort reform and the related question of ‘defensive medicine’ and insane malpractice insurance premiums that conspire to drive up the cost of health care?

I was thinking about all this as I read my e-mail this morning. My mail server has one of those ‘headline news’ pages that you click through to get to the mail. One of those headlines was, “Senate Republicans seek to deal crushing defeat to Obama administration over Health Care reform.”

I just sat there staring at the page.

That’s what this is all about? Engineering crushing defeats? Tallying up a win for our side - no matter what the cost?

Now being a Republican myself (life-long) my first instinct was to say, ‘Hey! That’s not *only* what this is about. Oh sure, I know American politics is pretty partisan these days. But you can be partisan and still represent the people who elected you!’

That was my first instinct.

My second, more pessimistic (pragmatic?) impulse was to grumble, ‘Wanna bet?’

So let’s see what really happens now. With a debate now forced upon them and cries of ‘dead on arrival’ no longer available, will the conservatives and centrists now step up to the plate and actually argue for what needs to be done? Will good solutions to the three issues mentioned above - along with realistic ways to achieve those solutions - come forward?

Make no mistake; as Senator McConnell said last night - this is a one vote question. So the idea that a Democratic majority can just ram through whatever they want is laughable upon its face. There is a genuine opportunity here for *every* representative to have a very meaningful impact on what will eventually become the law of the land.

That being the case, will this now become a genuine give-and-take? Will each Senator and Representative have to face the fact that half a loaf is better than none, at least for all those faceless masses who usually only count as one vote toward getting and keeping all the perks and privilege of elected office? Will they realize that while nobody’s going to get everything they want, there still might be a way to address the serious problems facing this nation as a result of this issue and that through genuine compromise, maybe some genuine good can be accomplished?

Or will it all just degenerate into the same old partisan rhetoric and obstructionism as one side seeks ‘a crushing defeat’ of the other? Will it be, ‘Maybe we can’t win, but we’ll damn sure make sure you don’t either!’

I intend to be watching very closely.
richard on November 22 at 8:56 a.m.
Does anyone really need the letters to editor “interpreted” for them?

I think I am capable of understanding what was written, just as I am capable of deciding if I agree.
empyrius on November 22 at 11:42 a.m.
Great discussion JG!

1) Health care reform is a vital concern
2) nobody could afford health care without insurance
3) ambulance chasers and idiots

If we truly wanted universal healthcare, in this for profit system, every hospital in America would have to become a ‘Veterans’ Hospital’, the insurance industry and the drug companies entire would take a grave hit, in that health/driving insurance would be unnecessary and drug companies manufacturing junk b/c a dude wants a bigger hard-on would instead make sure their is enough swine flu vaccination for everybody. If somebody is sick give them medical attention, if there is a car accident give them medical attention! If the car accident happened b/c somebody had been drinking/texting or simply being in some way irresponsible, then depending upon the severity of the accident punish them accordingly, license suspended for a period of time, car impounded (without the impounders charging a hundred dollars a day), etc.

But, with money nvolved, justice is an unreachable ideal, perfectly exemplified by putting a price on “pain and suffering”. The drug companies, insurance companies, lawyers, greedy “victimized” consumers . . .

Our entire judicial system in that their are “defense” attorneys, “prosecuting” attorneys, and a judge as “referee” is ridiculous: a judge, a panel of peers, and the facts are all that is needed! But this is another story.

The bottom line, whatever healthcare plan that is ultimately pushed through, will have failed the poorest, and struggling “middle-class”, that most needed it!

Peace
nslopeofw on November 22 at 5:31 p.m.
Personally, I enjoy Druid’s take on the letters of the day.
richard on November 22 at 5:32 p.m.
My first comment, Jeff, would be that you read a headline written by one person and maybe an editor glanced at it and said ok to it.

So the words you read were written by a reporte, and those words seemed to have quite an impact - at least on you, but probably many others as weel.

Now i have no idea who wrote that headline, nor do I know what was really being communicated. Was it a prediction made by that reporter? Was it an interpretation made by that reporter? Or was there some kind of proogandist intent on the part of the reporter, seeking the very reaction you had?

Again, without knowing the intent of the reporter, can you see how one simple statement in media can have an impact on readers which really has no basis in fact, but contains an emotional wollop?

That headline did not contain anything factual (unless of course there was a story attached to the headline in which some top ranking Republican made a statement such as that.

I would be curious to know what the rest of the story contained.

But my point should be fairly clear in this example. Unfortuanately, we see too much of this kind of reporting where reporters include there “own” insight/bias, and not enough presentation of just the facts.
richard on November 22 at 5:34 p.m.
Empyrius the swine flu vaccine issue has nothing to do with drug companies wanting an inordinate profit. The government messed that one up all by themselves. They usually don’t need anyone’s assistance to screw things up.

I don’t think I need to bore you with the ever increasing long list of bad policies followed by inept actions … do I?
empyrius on November 22 at 8:32 p.m.
I am more than confident either of us, and certainly both of us, could make a comprehensive list of governmental “bad policies followed by inept actions”.

The swine flu bit was just for example, my broader point I was making, which was not obvious since I gave no details, my bad, but my point was, these drug companies with the commercials for “can’t sleep at night”, “have a rough time waking up in the morning”, “are your ant-depressants not quite working …”, “could your love life use ‘a boost’”, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera . . .

Its like brothers and sisters go to the gym and your legs won’t be “restless”, take a puff or two of some yummy green bud (if it was not illegal!) and quietly think through why you are depressed, take a nice hour long walk in the evening so you can sleep at night, quit worrying about your performance in bed with your loved one, if it is that bad do a little coke (har har har har, just joking on that one); but seriously, all of the junk these drug companies make for the sake of the almighty dollar is totally mis-spent energy that could make profound inroads into curing cancer, MS, Alzheimer’s, etc.

But then again I am one of those conservative types that think plastic surgery just to look younger or to have “nice round bosoms” exist simply b/c of humankind’s vanity, and when vanity, greed, and “sacred” competition allow our brother to suffer, well, only evil can then occur, as it far too pervasively does occur!

Peace
spokelooneh on November 22 at 9:14 p.m.
“Or will it all just degenerate into the same old partisan rhetoric and obstructionism as one side seeks ‘a crushing defeat’ of the other?”

Crushing defeat is an apt term in this case.

Regarding Obama’s push for health care reform, Republican Senator Jim DeMint said this:

“”If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”

“The defeat at Waterloo put an end to Napoleon’s rule as the French emperor, and marked the end of Napoleon’s Hundred Days of return from exile.
…
Napoleon abdicated, surrendered to the British, and was exiled to Saint Helena, where he died in 1821.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo

So yes, the Republicans want a crushing defeat of Obama.
Jeffrey_Grey on November 23 at 6:00 a.m.
Richard,

Well, my first comment to you would be - you’re absolutely right.

At least up to a point.

Clearly that headline was written with the intention of having an emotional impact. The otherwise unnecessary adjective ‘crushing’ makes that rather obvious. So yes, the author clearly intended to do more than simply state a simple fact; ‘The Republicans seek to defeat the Democrats and especially the President on this issue.’

But in my opinion, here’s where you consistently get it wrong:

– … can you see how one simple statement in media can have an impact on readers which really has no basis in fact, but contains an emotional wollop? –

It’s the assumption of ‘no basis in fact’, Richard. Where does that come from? Do we just assume that conservatives wouldn’t actually be seeking to hand Obama and the liberals a crushing defeat if they could?

Really?

That you don’t like something that spokel’s quotation proves is indeed ‘based in fact’ doesn’t make that something untrue after all. Just because something doesn’t fit your preconceptions and your side’s agenda doesn’t in and of itself make a report of that something ‘propaganda’, even if it’s stated in lurid terms.

I could listen to Minority Leader McConnell’s speech the other night, discount what was obviously partisan rhetoric and ‘lurid’ terminology and still hear some important truth.

Can you do the same, Richard?

Can you perceive that there are indeed conservatives - *and yes, liberals* - out there who care *far* less about reforming health care and *far* more about doing whatever it takes to discredit their ideological opponents? That there are indeed elected representatives out there *far* more interested in ‘the win’ - and oh, by the way, the impact that win will have on their chances of getting re-elected and thus hanging on to all the power and privilege - than they are in what that win might eventually cost the people who elected them?
lewis8457 on November 23 at 9:19 a.m.
While having lunch with my brother the other day he said the problem with the SR is no one does any investigative reporting any more. He was talking about the recent trial of a drunken police officer involved in a hit and run.

If the SR would do some investigative reporting and showed how many DUI hit runs we have had in Spokane and the fines and or penalties. Then the people could see if the officer defense was one used by the average Joe. Well I took it upon myself to search 9 days of DUI- Hit Run trials and their sentences.

As you can read there is no one who got off with a slap of the hand and allowed to drive them self’s home from court.

1.Danny C. Jones, 36; 365 days in jail with credit given for 365 days served, hit and run attended vehicle.
2.Donald F. Hines, 59; $865 fine, one day in jail, 24 months probation, driving while intoxicated
3.Craig L. Shirley, 57; $823 fine, 90 days electronic home monitoring, 24 months probation, hit and run attended vehicle amended to hit and run unattended vehicle.
4.Lucas D. Upton, 28; $866 fine, two days in jail with credit given for two days served, driving while intoxicated.
5.Edward L. Thomas, 24; 13 days in jail with credit given for 13 days served, 24 months probation, third-degree driving with license suspended and hit and run- attended vehicle.
6.Jared T. Thoren, 31; $1,546 fine, 210 days in jail with credit given for two days served, 60 months probation, driving while intoxicated; $1,975 fine, driving while intoxicated.
7.Jerry R. Turner, 28; one day in jail with credit given for one day served, driving while intoxicated amended to reckless driving.
8.Ashley N. White, 18; $866 fine, one day in jail, 24 months probation, driving while intoxicated.
9.Jennifer J. Seip, 54; $865 fine, one day in jail with credit given for one day served, 24 months probation, driving while intoxicated.
10.Gordon L. Pederson, 54; $1,200 fine, two days in jail, driving while intoxicated.
11.Joseph E. Rowley, 29; $1,200 fine, 15 days in jail, 24 months probation, reckless driving and driving while intoxicated amended to reckless driving.
12.Jason C. Shook, 21; $865 fine, 16 days in jail with credit given for 16 days served, 24 months probation, driving while intoxicated amended to reckless driving.
13.Anthony J. Derr, 32; $1,546 fine, 45 days in jail, 90 days electronic home monitoring, 24 months probation, driving while intoxicated.
14.Thomas R. Ruppert, 51; 30 days in jail with credit given for six days served, violation of a no contact order; $1,121 fine, driving while intoxicated.
15.Joseph M. Maya, 30; $500 fine, 24 months probation, driving while intoxicated amended to reckless endangerment.
16.Jamison M. Stubbs, 26; $500 fine, 12 months probation, driving while intoxicated amended to first-degree negligent driving.
17.Daniel S. Lime, 31; $925 fine, 18 days in jail with credit given for 18 days served, driving while intoxicated amended to reckless endangerment.
18.Frederick N. Nelson III, 54; $1,121 fine, 90 days in jail, driving while intoxicated.
19.Donna J. Davis, 48; $2,821 fine, 270 days in jail with credit given for nine days served, 60 months probation, driving while intoxicated.
20.Jennifer L. Lee, 32; $866 fine, 24 months probation, driving while intoxicated.
lewis8457 on November 23 at 9:20 a.m.
22.David E. Harvey, 46; $866 fine, one day in jail, 24 months probation, driving while intoxicated amended to reckless driving.
23.Heidi L. Robertson, 34; $5,801 restitution, three days in jail with credit given for three days served, 12 months probation, after pleading guilty to failure to remain at the scene of an accident-injured person.
24.Jodi L. Kenworthy, 41; $500 fine, two days in jail, driving while intoxicated amended to first-degree negligent driving.
25.Terrance L. Cooper, 36; six days in jail with credit given for six days served, driving while intoxicated.
26.Lesa M. Eggleston, 26; $250 fine, one day in jail, 12 months probation, driving while intoxicated amended to first-degree negligent driving.
27.Dean J. Bellamy, 40; $866 fine, 24 months probation, driving while intoxicated amended to reckless driving.
28. Randy B. Fjermestad, 42; $866 fine, one day in jail, 24 months probation, driving while intoxicated.
29. Candice L. Francis, 21; $500 fine, 24 months probation, driving while intoxicated amended to first-degree negligent driving.Levi J. Garrett, 23; $866 fine, one day in jail, 24 months probation, driving while intoxicated.
25. Chad A. Groth, 21; $1,121 fine, two days in jail, 24 months probation, driving while intoxicated.
26.Cassie M. Defreese, 27; $500 fine, 12 months probation, driving while intoxicated amended to first-degree negligent driving.
garyc on November 23 at 9:51 a.m.
>>All I want to know is what is a “Steely Dan earworm”? Is that too much to ask? <<

Oh great! Now it’s back!

It’s like an ABBA earworm except it isn’t fatal.

You see, Steely Dan had this song called “Black Friday” and an earworm is a song you can’t dislodge from your mind.
Cindy_H on November 23 at 10:08 a.m.
I’ve always said that AMOO is the most educational SR blog. However, if you repeat this I’ll say I was misquoted or my comment was taken out of context.
Just an fyi.
Ron_the_Cop on November 23 at 6:11 p.m.
Lewis,

The S-R put Morlin and Dorn-Steele out to pasture.
richard on November 23 at 7:51 p.m.
Forget it Jeff. By gauging the level of how “worked up” you seem to have gotten from reading my post … I can easily diagnose that you have a level of understanding of what I posted, than you are willing to acknowledge.

You are “P’O’d from my post. It touched a nerve. But your real anger is that Republicans oppose these bills. And you either don’t understand the failings of these bills … or you don’t care. You want your “free lunch”.

Those Republicans and Democrats oppose these bills because of the following reasons . . .

The bills will …
1. Raise the premiums of those who pay for their own insurance (which is about 80% of Americans). according to the CBO

2. It will cost all of us MORE to pay for the public option than it would if we did nothing. “CBO”

3. It will add significantly to the current debt and the burgeoning national debt. “CBO”

4. WE will be paying for the bill for 4 years before anyone receives one dollar of benefit - this is the “smoke and mirrors” way for Obama to be able to say that the bill is “debt neutral.” CBO.

So, go ahead and defend these aspects of the bills written by Democrats.

Latest Rassmussen poll … Who favors the current bills being considered by Congress?

These numbers have been streadily going down since last summer as they learn more and more about the what is in them . . .

Latest results - 38%.of Americans favor, while 56% oppose. Which means the Dems don’t give a rusty nail about what the people want.

So how do you defend these bills? And why is wrong for the Republicans to be trying damn hard to defeat the Dems in their bold plan to grab nearly 20% of the economy so they can control it.?

How about Dirty Harry giving $300 million dollars to the state of Louisiana in order to “buy” mary Landreau’s vote?

I can only conclude that you feel entitled to a free lunch to be paid for by those who are being given no say in what goes into the bill; rather than creating a simpler bill which will create a way to get coverage to those who don’t have it.

It doesn’t take 2000 pages to “fix” the problems in the health care system; it does take 2000 pages if you want to hide and obscure the “oh by the way” plans to control a huge chunk of the economy.

How does anyone believe Obama on the health bill, when there is such an incredible amount of evidence that they are lying every day about the “job creation” of the stimulus bill. Go to Recovery.com and study it … they are unable to show even one job being created … but we read and hear from our media that the Stimulus has “created” jobs.

It is a total lie! Research it, look into it. It is inescapable that you will find the actual “truth”.
Marie on November 23 at 8:57 p.m.
Lewis,

What you don’t have listed are the names of people who have received deferred prosecutions for DUIs. I don’t know if those are published in the paper. You may have to request that information from Spokane District and Municipal Court (and the courts in Cheney, Medical Lake, etc.) If you were to check out how many people were getting deferred prosecutions you might find out there are more than you think. Most people who are in the program aren’t advertising the fact that they were arrested for DUI.
richard on November 23 at 10:51 p.m.
The GAO has said that Recovery.com has totally ficticious figures (proven beyond a doubt) showing that the Stimulus created 20,000 specific jobs.

They have asked the White House to take the fictituous numers down and to apologize to congress for the “errors.”

The White House refuses to correct the website which is costing us $17 million to run.

Where is all that transparency we were promised. I really was looking forward to that. It doesn’t exist, does it?
Jeffrey_Grey on November 24 at 4:15 a.m.
– You are “P’O’d from my post. It touched a nerve. –

You’re right. All this knee-jerk reflexive partisan bickering is indeed starting to touch a nerve.

– But your real anger is that Republicans oppose these bills. And you either don’t understand the failings of these bills … or you don’t care. You want your “free lunch”. –

Your mind-reading skills and deep insight to my every thought and feeling are absolutely amazing, Richard.

My anger at Republicans would explain those several paragraphs where I talked about how Minority Leader McConnell’s speech pointed out several important truths, huh?

Speaking of what I actually said, did I actually defend any of the things you say I’m defending in my desperate quest for my ‘free lunch’? Could you show me where I said any of that?

Seems to me all I’ve ever actually said was that we’re currently facing a crisis in this country with respect to health care costs and we have to do something about it. Pretty much the same thing *everyone* who has actually addressed the point has said - including Senate Minority Leader McConnell. I’ve also said that reflexively attacking as a ‘freeloader’ and a ‘socialist’ anyone who tries to advance a plan to fix the problem somehow doesn’t seem very constructive. I do remember saying that several times now.

If it matters at all, I have serious doubts about the current proposed legislation. For one thing, I’m not a big fan of the public option. See, I’ve never wanted anyone to buy my health insurance for me. I’ve always just wanted a chance to pay for it myself. So I’ve never been convinced that we need a public option - at least not right from the start. To that end, I’m far more in favor of Senator Snow’s ‘trigger’ than I am of this bizarre ‘state opt out’. I for one think that if the free market is so sure it can fix the problems, it ought to at least be given a chance to try.

I think that way because if we must have a ‘public option, I’m *deeply* troubled by how we’re going to pay for it.

On the other hand, since according to the State Insurance Commissioner, a family of four is *already* paying something like $900 a year in inflated insurance premiums to cover this state’s un- and under-insured, along with God knows how much all of us are paying in increased costs… That even with all that, the state’s health care system is in imminent danger of collapse under a no longer sustainable burden of unrecouped losses…
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/nov/20/ranks-of-uninsured-swell-in-state/

Given all that, I’m pretty sure that name-calling, messenger assassination and jockeying for partisan advantage probably isn’t the way to go.

Or maybe I’m not sure.

Maybe I’m just saying that. Maybe I don’t really mean it. Could you please read my mind again and see what I really and truly think and then pass that along to every one else?
Ron_the_Cop on November 24 at 7:46 a.m.
The MOBIUS Project

In the interest of a full and fair debate, folks interested in this project should read the guest editorial in Sunday’s S-R by MOBIUS Project Board President Nick Worrell and the comment thread:

No derailing science center
Neil K. Worrall
Special to The Spokesman-Review

A meeting of a Park Board subcommittee this week created an inaccurate perception of the Mobius Science Center project. Members of the board suggested Mobius is asking for sweeping changes to the pending lease the two parties have been working on for months. This is not the case. More importantly, this meeting led to a perception that the project may be faltering. Also untrue. . .

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/nov/22/no-derailing-science-center/
spokelooneh on November 24 at 9:28 a.m.
“The bills will …
1. Raise the premiums of those who pay for their own insurance (which is about 80% of Americans). according to the CBO.”
-Richard

That is a total lie! Research it, look into it. It is inescapable that you will find the actual “truth”.

Richard’s very first point is an utter falsehood and shows how very little he knows about health insurance in America.

A tiny minority of Americans pay for their own health insurance.
If you don’t even understand this basic fact, you really have no business commenting about health insurance as it exists or is being proposed to be reformed. Except for entertainment purposes, of course.
garyc on November 24 at 10:39 a.m.
Um, insurance premiums have gone up an average of 7 percent a year since 1994 without congressional bills.

<<2. It will cost all of us MORE to pay for the public option than it would if we did nothing. “CBO”>>

Source?

<<3. It will add significantly to the current debt and the burgeoning national debt. “CBO”>>

It refers to “bills”. Which one?

Doing nothing will add to the current debt and burgeoning national debt since interest on fhe debt is so high and debt is an accumulated figure over many years.

As for the deficit, CBO said both bills would reduce it by 2019.
richard on November 24 at 12:50 p.m.
Loone’ and Gary … you are completely wrong. I gave you the sources. The CBO. Did you not read David Broder?

The CBO does not say any of the bills will reduce the deficit, except if yiou accept the smoke and mirrors element of the Senate Bill, which requires that the Governmnet begin collecting taxes, fees, surcharges, etc in year one, while the beneftis of the the health bill do not begin actually (I was wrong when I said four years) until the sixth year.

And that is correct, doing nothing will add to the debt; so why don’t you lobby for common sense changes to our system rather that a 2000 page overhaul of the entire system in furtherance only of a yearning by the left to control this economy?

Why do you seem to support the radicals Pelosi and Reid?
richard on November 24 at 12:59 p.m.
Did anyone read the story about the economy and the deficit which was on Page one of the New York Times?

According to this article, the debt this country has amassed for decades and which is being added to at a rate only known during WWII, is on the verge of being completely unsustainable when interest rates begin to go up.

Without saying so directly, there is no other way to interpret the message of this article than to say that if Obama, Pelosi and Reid continue in their unprecedented spending and front-loading our children with debt, there is an ever increasing chance that this economy could collapse!

Read it … and then tell me how we can afford the extremes of the health bills, the cap and tax bills, and all the other devastating measures which we cannot afford.

Hope and a prayer? Is that the answer?
Jeffrey_Grey on November 24 at 2:21 p.m.
Do I have this right? So long as the CBO’s statements can be read as negative, they’re to be accepted because the CBO knows what it’s are doing. However…

– The CBO does not say any of the bills will reduce the deficit, except if you accept the smoke and mirrors element of the Senate Bill …. –

So when the CBO does report savings or anything positive, they’re not to be trusted because clearly they’ve fallen for the ‘smoke and mirrors.’

Insightful and correct when they support your claims - misled and ignorant when they don’t.
lewis8457 on November 24 at 2:33 p.m.
Thank you Maria for the info
richard on November 24 at 7:04 p.m.
No, that is not what I tried to say. Maybe it did not read correctly. I said; if the CBO did say it would reduce the debt, it is because they have used the 10 year figure of costs of the health bill … which amounts to “smoke and mirrors” because WE pay for it through higher taxes, fees, higher premiums, surcharges, reduced Medicare and Medicaid payments, etc. for the first 6 years of the program. It is not until that point that anyone receives any of the benefits.

If the CBO merely did all the computations that they do, then the bill may appear to be “debt neutral.”

And the question becomes … are WE, the American people supposed to be that stupid that we don’t care how these radicals are shaping our futures? Just like we are supposed to sit back and let Mary Landreau demand 300 million dollars for her vote in the cloture vote? Well how much will she demand for the final vote … just so she can hand out our money to voters which oppose what she voted for?

And what about the other 59 Democratic Senators? Do you not think they will now feel entitled to get their “free money” form us so they can “buy votes”?

So, I will be interested to see your comments Jeff. Do you support this spoils system … as long as it benefits the bill you prefer?
Jeffrey_Grey on November 25 at 3:12 a.m.
Richard,

You can’t have it both ways. Either the CBO is insightful enough to weigh all the facts, *cut through the smoke and mirrors* and arrive at a trustworthy analysis. Or they aren’t.

They can’t be right when they criticize and wrong when they praise. (How ever you want to define ‘criticize’ or ‘praise’.)

So which is it? Do we trust them even when they say things that don’t advance our agenda? Or do we discount them as untrustworthy?

As for the rest:

I don’t approve of the way politicians behave in this country. I think before they address any other problems, they need to enact term limits - *as they once solemnly promised to do* - and thus remove at least a large part of the partisan politics that drive every other action.

But Richard, to point at the liberals you so hate and rant and rail at their sins *as though sinning is unique to liberals* - that just simply doesn’t persuade. The conservatives are EVERY BIT AS GUILTY of exactly the same kinds of sins. So please spare me all the muck raking. At the end of the day, it doesn’t advance your agenda. It only invites unflattering and distracting comparison.

And it doesn’t address the fundamental issue at hand: fixing a health care system that *everybody* recognizes is badly broken.

Finally; as for me supporting ‘the spoils system’ so long as it advances the bill I prefer…

Just which bill do I prefer, Richard? Which legislation do I hope to see enacted?
gmorton on November 25 at 2:42 p.m.
Spokalooneh wrote,

“1. Raise the premiums of those who pay for their own insurance (which is about 80% of Americans). according to the CBO.”
-Richard

“That is a total lie! Research it, look into it. It is inescapable that you will find the actual ‘truth’.

You’d better do the research, Looneh. Where do you think the money to pay for the uninsured, the uninsurable, and to subsidize older persons will come from?

The so-called health care “reform” breaks new statist ground. Instead of the government collecting taxes to pass out to free-lunchers, it forces individual citizens to support them by paying higher prices for goods they buy, and forcing them to buy them.
richard on November 25 at 10:19 p.m.
Jeff, it is not the function of the CBO to be “insightful.” They are merely number crunchers to determine - from the figures given them - how it pencils out. They do not do any editing or “commenting” on the political issues at hand.

And they do not “criticize” any legislation - other than if the numbers do not pencil out as projected by congress. They are politically neutral.

The Senate bill sets up a health care system for the next 10 years. They claim it is deficit neutral. This is done by claiming the bill will cost XXX number of dollars over the next 10 years.

They then claim that additional revenues from taxes, fees, surcharges, higher premiums on insurance companies, lower Medicare payments, etc. will add up to XXX number of dollars over the same 10 year period.

They say that the amount of “savings” and revenue collected (higher premiums, taxes collected, etc.) equals the cost. XXX cost = XXX revenues = deficit neutral. So far, so good.

The CBO took those numbers and calculations; they verified and added up the revenues that would be collected, etc, and they verified and deducted the costs. They confirmed that, indeed, the bill was deficit neutral. Again; so far, so good.

As I said, CBO does not make any commentary on whether it is good politics or good policy, all they do is say “yes” or “no” that the figures given them are verifiable and legitimate and the “pencil out.”

What was of no interest to them was that for the first 6 years the bill will be raising taxes, surcharges, premiums, etc. as it will be lowering Medicare and Medicaid payments, etc. Not until year 7 of the 10 year plan, will any of the benefits of the bill go to any American.

The bottom line is: WE the people will be paying for the health care for the entire 10 years of the plan, but the 10 million who will be provided with the public option will only have this benefit for the last 3 years of the 10 year plan.

So you tell me, Jeff, is this the kind money management you expect from Washington DC? Sounds to me that the health bill is not really debt neutral except when you apply the “smoke and mirrors” accounting for it.

Since you claim to be very interested in this legislation and you have followed it rather closely, would it be fair to say that our leaders have not really been transparent about this bill and that mainstream media has not shared everything about this bill that people should know?

But it really doesn’t much matter what the particulars of this bill is, I am convinced we cannot afford it. We should be doing cost saving measures incrementally over the next couple of years. I can’t think of a more inefficient way to cram politicians into committee meetings to “hammer out” pieces of the legislation, which add up to 2000 pages of indecipherable double-talk and legalize - and then told to get it done in the next few weeks. And that is exactly what Obama told them to do at the beginning. He gave them a matter of a few weeks.

There was a reason he wanted it done so rapidly.

Stop the madness. We don’t need to do this when the nation is verging on bankruptcy.
Jeffrey_Grey on November 26 at 3:33 a.m.
– Jeff, it is not the function of the CBO to be “insightful.” They are merely number crunchers to determine - from the figures given them - how it pencils out. They do not do any editing or “commenting” on the political issues at hand. –

And yet you routinely cite them for the insight and political weight of their calculations.

Richard, the CBO doesn’t use a trustworthy, partisan-neutral method to calculate the answers that agree with your agenda and a different, untrustworthy, partisan-biased method to calculate the answers that disagree.

– But it really doesn’t much matter what the particulars of this bill is, I am convinced we cannot afford it. –

Oh, well… Just so long as you keep an open mind and stay informed on the facts rather than pre-judging based on partisan agenda.

– Stop the madness. We don’t need to do this when the nation is verging on bankruptcy. –

So we do what? Just go with the status quo that *everybody* admits is unsustainable and wait for the house of cards to eventually, inevitably collapse?

Do we abandon the ‘socialistic liberal Obama-care’ and flock to the GOP’s alternative? (Such as it is.) I’m a bit skeptical of that as an option. But since my skepticism is based on the CBO’s *highly* unflattering report on the GOP plan, and since I’m now informed that I must used a double standard when reviewing the CBO’s work, maybe I need to reconsider.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/congressional_budget_office_th.html
richard on November 27 at 12:12 p.m.
You got it wrong again:

“And yet you routinely cite them for the insightful and political weight of their calculations.”

I don’t cite them for anything “insightful.” I cite them for their non partisan calculations … as if there is something wrong with that. There function is as a watchdog; whatever their calculations are I accept them as legitimate.

What is the problem?

You are right; they don’t calculate anything for me. Tell me where I denounced any calculation they have made which I, for political reasons, did not like. I doubt you can.

Nope, we don’t just leave the status quo. I think I briefly answered that. We slow down, enact obvious cost savings measures - tort reform is a very obvious one - and continue in that manner. Knowing at some point the individual measures will become more contentious. This would allow for that particular measure to be thoroughly debated and voted on, rather than throwing “everything into the pot” and then stirring it up hoping something both “nutritious and tasty and efficient” will result.

And sure, if you wish to use double standards, that is your prerogative. And if the Republic plan does not solve the problem, then it shouldn’t be enacted. I don’t recall ever offering my opinion that I supported that plan. I am not a Republican.

And I know you don’t like to hear this kind of analysis, but I wouldn’t just accept one commentary about the pluses or minuses of the bill. This commentary is clearly pro-Democratic-plan.

What was left out of this writer’s analysis of the CBO report? He cleverly writes his analysis as if there is only “this choice or that choice” solution. And when you do that, then demonstrate a clear bias in favor of a bill that we already knows “forces people” to pay for the benefits for 6 years before anyone gets any benefits. All so it can conform to Obama’s promise that he would not sign a bill that was deficit neutral.

It is kind of like donating to a charity to feed hungry people, and the charity “managing” the money for 6 years before they serve up any meals.

How can you justify all those deaths from lack of health care we hear so much about? Kind of sounds like a con job to me.
Jeffrey_Grey on November 28 at 8:09 a.m.
What is the problem?

In a word; hypocrisy.

Count up about sixteen posts or so and you’ll see the following:

‘This is a flaw with the proposed health care reform legislation. Source - the CBO.’
‘This is another flaw with the proposed health care reform legislation. Source- the CBO.’
‘This is a third flaw with the proposed health care reform legislation. Source- the CBO.’

There’s no explanation or amplification. It’s all just ‘CBO sez.’

A few posts later, Gary challenges some of your assertions and offers as his proof of one of his points, ‘CBO sez.’

And instantly you launch into a long tirade about how the CBO isn’t to be believed on that point - how their figures are all wrong and were arrived at based on a flawed methodology that was confused by ‘smoke and mirrors.’

In other words, Richard - ‘Right when I can cite them for what I believe in, wrong when what they say conflicts with my beliefs.’

Argue that, spin that, deny that all you want. It’s just too obvious on its face - at least to me - to spend any more time on this.
richard on December 01 at 4:36 p.m.
Exactly Jeff! You have reached the end point where your argument cannot be supported with facts so you try to shoot the messenger.

The fact that the CBO has consistantly not supported the figures of the Dems (or the claimed conclusions from the figures used by the Dems) demonstrates that none of the bills being considered are anything more than HUGE poorly constructed bills that are being forced through by the leadership … just becausde they want a bill. And any bill that satisfies their base on the extreme left will do.

They know that once it is passed they can always dodge and deflect the heat when it proves to be the boondoggle that it is.

By then it will be too late. For all of us.
garyc on December 01 at 5:08 p.m.
Richard,

You said:

<<those republicans=”” and=”” democrats=”” oppose=”” these=”” bills=”” because=”” of=”” the=”” following=”” reasons=”” .=”” .=”” .=”” the=”” bills=”” will=”” …=”” 1.=”” raise=”” the=”” premiums=”” of=”” those=”” who=”” pay=”” for=”” their=”” own=”” insurance=”” (which=”” is=”” about=”” 80%=”” of=”” americans).=”” according=”” to=”” the=”“ cbo.=”“>>

Most people have group insurance. Is that what you mean by people who pay for their own insurance?

Perhaps you haven’t seen the latest CBO report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113004391.html?hpid=topnews

“As the Senate opened debate Monday on a landmark plan to overhaul the nation’s health-care system, congressional budget analysts said the measure would leave premiums unchanged or slightly lower for the vast majority of Americans, contradicting assertions by the insurance industry that the average family’s coverage would rise by thousands of dollars if the proposal became law.”

How does that square with your 80 percent figure and CBO citation? The above quote comes from CBO.

You are aware that the government subsidizes at great cost employer-provided insurance, right? So those people are not paying their own way. They are sharing the costs, but it is a minority portion of the cost. The employer pays most of it, then gets a tax deduction.

It is still government-funded insurance and it would surely dry up and blow away without the subsidy (which negatively affects the deficit).