Saturday, October 31. 2009
Dede Scozzafava releases her voters! She is essentially dropping out.
This should give Hoffman an edge since she is, nominally, a Repub and (was) the pick of the County Repub Chair.
Send him a few bucks today, if you like him. Every little bit helps, and it looks to be tight. Plus the race has become nationalized: The O did a fund-raiser in NYC for the Dem in the race, and the RNC finally took down their ads against Hoffman.
We would like to see this modest, non-pol, Reagan-Conservative Republican guy elected.
Photo is Saul Alinsky. His ghost walks. Boo!
Thomas Sowell's Dismantling America, Part 1 and Part 2
Soros and Gore among WH visitors, but Andrew Stern of the SEIU was the most frequent, chalking up 20 visits.
Coyote on the Dem tax/health bill:
The implications for my business are staggering. I have already mentioned in the previous post that it imposes an 8% tax on wages on my business — a business where 50% of revenues go to wages and margins are in the 6-7% range. You do the math.
Via Gateway:
Rick sent this on the Pelosi Health Care Bill pages 1219-1246–
Just these 27 pages are enough to see what this bill is all about. I bet you will agree. PLEASE take time to read these 27 pages. Anyone who reads these pages and still says this bill isn’t about the government takeover of health care is either a fool or a liar. It’s just that simple.
The high cost of Aromatherapy: Premiums to Skyrocket Under Obamacare
‘Jobs Created or Saved’ Is White House Fantasy
Washington culture of corruption proceeds on course. Actually, dozens.
Re Henninger's piece which we linked:
Daniel Henninger writes a biting and inspired column today in the WSJ. Oh, the irony! Democrats caught hopelessly in the out-moded and tired ways of the past? In an age of iPhone apps and de-centralizing trends, Dems are pushing a miserable model of government that should have been left in the 1930s where it originated. Obama rides on a false reputation as a hipster. He's actually a crusty throw-back. As Henninger puts it, it appears irrefutable.
New Jersey plans vote fraud
Via our Irish friends re the US economy:
Ah well, the economy's getting worse then. Debt spending is not economic growth. Printing fake money does not create wealth no matter how many trillions you order up. The idea that GDP growth on the back of the Fed's printing press means a growing economy is the boneheaded thinking that got the US into this position in the first place. In fact the economy is in an even worse state now than when the recession hit; Americans have been saddled with a debt they cannot ever repay, unemployment is around twenty percent, the Dollar is sinking, inflation has gone orbital and prices will follow when the banks flood the markets. The fundamentals are not only still chronic, they're getting worse.
Cash for clunkers has screwed the used-car buyer. Well, that was predictable. Who got screwed? The taxpayer
Casinos in Ohio? Governments are money addicts.
How is that bending-over approach working with Iran?
Hockey stick returns to climate textbooks. Related: Al Gore still addicted to nonexistent hurricane-climate link in new book
Related: Gore says 220-foot ocean rise in ten years.
The Copenhagen Climate Extortion
Pelosi’s Bill Will Punish States Who Pass Tort Reform.
Michelle Bachman on Pelosi Health Care Bill: “This Is the Crown Jewel of Socialism”
Masterfleece Theater at RCP:
The word "shall" - as in "must" or "required to" - appears over 3,000 times. The word, alas, is never preceded by the patriotic phrase "mind our own freaking business." Not once.
From Reason's The Unhealthy Public Option:
...the key to the success of this program, writes Cato Institute analyst Michael Cannon, is that "government possesses both the power to hide its true costs (which keeps its premiums artificially low) and to impose costs on its competitors (which unnecessarily pushes private insurance premiums higher)." Private insurers will be "competing" against a team that gets to write the rules, run the draft and hire the referees.
With those artificial advantages, the public option could eventually become the only option. If that happens, a lot of Americans will be surprised. But I suspect Harry Reid and Barack Obama will not be among them.
Mark Helprin: Obama and the Politics of Concession - Iran and Russia put Obama to the test last week, and he blinked twice.
Friday, October 30. 2009
Democratic Congressmen and Senators should think twice about whether they'd rather have an angry wife by lining up for Pelosi and Reid.
In a recent poll of women, Obamacare is rejected by most women. This is important because there are more female than male voters, because women are usually more involved with and sensitive to medical coverage, and because women are most influential in making decisions about medical coverage.
Although John Hinderaker’s conclusion is telling that the various ObamaCare proposals from Congressional Democrats all add up to socialized medicine, the rejection of ObamaCare in this poll is even high among Democrat women. The poll identifies political leanings, but the questions are not ideological. Practical and personal concerns are polled, and are primary over ideology.
After several decades of experience in health insurance brokerage and consulting, I can tell you that women are far more concerned and demanding as to their coverage. At least before middle-age, women have more health care issues and make more visits to their doctors. Women are most often the decisive influence on the choice made in the workplace, including that most HR people are female, and the wives of the senior executives or owners make their desires quite clear to their husbands. For example, try to separate a woman from her favored gynecologist or their children from their favored pediatrician and the broker usually faces a fight, the women willing to even pay higher premiums to retain their favorite personal doctors.
A conservative-leaning organization, The Independent Women’s Forum, hired an independent pollster to question in depth what appears to be a representative national sample of female voters about their preferences in the health care legislation debates. The poll analysis is here, and more details of the questions and responses are here.
Some of the key poll results:
75% want few to no changes to their own healthcare (40% ?? be modified, but mostly left as is; 35% ?? be left as?is) while 19% want it to undergo dramatic overhaul.
67% of women agree with the following statement: “I would prefer that United States Senators and Member of Congress not support poorly?crafted or rushed healthcare legislation. It is more important to get it done right than to get it done fast.”
When asked how much should be spent on healthcare reform, most put the acceptable amounts in the thousands (16%), millions (24%), or billions (16%). Only 10% say that $1 trillion (5%) or more than $1 trillion (5%) should be spent on healthcare reform.
66% of women describe the quality of their health insurance as “excellent” or “good.” 74% use the same terms to describe the quality of their healthcare. 29% say their health insurance is “fair” or “poor” while 24% say the same of their healthcare.
By a margin of 64%?27% of women would “rather have private health insurance than a government?run health insurance plan.”
55% think that the CBO projection of $829 billion is an underestimation of how much will ultimately be spent on healthcare reform. 17% think the figure is too high and 12% think the guess is about right.
46% of women predict that “increased federal involvement in healthcare” will result in more doctors leaving the practice of medicine while 12% think it will cause more to join; 34% think the ranks will remain unchanged.
58% disagree and 29% agree that “more federal involvement in healthcare will improve the relationships members of my family have with their doctors.”
51% of women think more federal involvement will cause declines in the quality of healthcare they and their families receive; 15% feel it will lead to improvements; and 28% believe the quality will remain unchanged.
Among Independents, 73% would be less likely to support a “candidate for Congress knowing he or she favored moving people from their private healthcare plans to government?run healthcare plans.”
Among Independents, 47% would be less likely to support a candidate “knowing he or she supports this new $829 billion healthcare bill,” 31% would be more likely.
Among small business owners, 65% trust that the private sector does a better job of providing choice in healthcare; 25% think the federal government does.
Among small business owners, 56% believe the private sector can offer lower costs while ensuring high quality healthcare; 36% give the federal government the advantage.
Majorities of voters in all age, regional, and educational attainment cohorts believed the private sector to be superior when it comes to providing choice in healthcare. Pluralities of selfidentified Democrats (45%) and liberals (49%) agreed, as well as majorities of self?identified Independents (64%), Republicans (81%), moderates (54%), and conservatives (74%).
Two?thirds of women objected to government paying for abortions in the healthcare bill, including majorities of women of all ages, races, regions, marital and parental statuses, and political parties (55% of self?identified Democrats, 66% of Independents, and 84% of Republicans). Even 39% of “prochoicers” qualified their views with their unwillingness to pay for it.
When informed that “one of the reasons why the deficit is expected to decrease is because the federal government is going to decrease how much it spends on Medicare,” 77% of women deemed this tactic a “mostly bad” one. Just 13% considered this approach a “mostly good” idea. Majorities of women of all ages, races, regions, marital and parental statuses, incomes, educational attainments, political parties, ideologies, and regions considered these cuts to Medicare to be a “bad idea.” At least 70% of women in every age cohort not benefitting from Medicare rejected this.
John at Powerline asks why they need the public option:
Under the House bill, it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that health insurance companies are no longer in the insurance business. They can't rate and underwrite risks, which is the essence of insurance. That's illegal. They can't decide to whom they will issue policies; that's illegal, too. They can't offer novel or innovative coverages; their coverages are dictated by law. To a limited extent they can make decisions on paying claims, but under the watchful eye of government regulators. Meaningful competition among insurance companies will be, in effect, illegal. (In that context, it is a sick joke that the Pelosi bill also subjects health insurance companies to the antitrust laws, from which they had been exempted in consideration of their regulation by state, not federal, authorities.)
In the world that the House bill would create, the money we will pay to insurance companies won't really be insurance premiums. Insurance premiums are contractual payments which the parties voluntarily agree upon and which are based on a mutual assessment of risk. Rather, the checks we write to insurance companies will be taxes--legally compelled, at rates set by the federal government that are designed to punish some and subsidize others.
Isn't this socialized medicine in all but name? The only difference, perhaps, is that when things start to go badly, as they inevitably will--spiraling costs, long waits for treatment--Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues will have someone to blame: the insurance companies. Maybe old-fashioned socialized medicine would be better. Then, at least, the government would have to take responsibility for its folly.
Exactly. Turn them into form-processors instead of free enterprises. Regulate them to death.
Steyn:
Did you know every aspect of your life was being negotiated at Copenhagen? But in a good way! So no need to worry.
Halloween witch above courtesy of Theo
High-end home stagers.
The sad strange life of Bobby Fischer
"Sustainability" Wars on campus.
A new housing bubble? Your government is working on it.
The guy who filmed the world's last hunter-gatherers
 Story begins like this:
Last week it was announced that George Soros (the man who helped bring us Obama) had pledged $1.1 billion to fund “Climate Change initiatives”.
“Soros will establish the Climate Policy Initiative, an organization that will work with the US, China, India, Brazil and Europe and ensure that public interests are represented as new issues that affect climate change are established. According to Thomas Holler, who will lead the initiative, “It will be part advisory service, part policy developer and part watchdog.”
What a coincidence !!
That will tie in nicely with this: Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord (see video and red text below) – in December President Obama will fly off to Copenhagen again, this time to put his signature onto a document which effectively establishes a New World Government, based on “Climate Change” – formerly known as “global warming”.
The details of the new taxes in the Dem bill. (h/t, Blue Crab). These would go into effect right away.
Sounds as if they are designed to crush business and employment.
 Do Dodd or Frank care why TARP failed? Washington Examiner
Government Takeovers: Is Charity Next? (h/t, Riehl)
As the GDP shows some growth, Democrats are now admitting that they like their miserable POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) economy.
It's getting old: Intertubes turn 40
AG tries to shut down school voucher ad. Screw the kids. This is union payback.
How Putin is Separating America from Europe
The mess the Dems are creating with health care. From Robb at RCP:
...the change in incentives in the Democratic reform will turn the entire health care market topsy-turvy. Politically, this could be disastrous.
A very large number of people will have to change their health care coverage regardless of whether they want to. That's a hassle to begin with. The combination of a weak individual mandate, guaranteed issue and a public option will mean declining private sector options and a large increase in the number of people on some form of government health care.
Every health care provider, even the government, has to say no sometimes. Even Medicare says no. But now, rather than some demonic health insurance company saying no, it will be the government.
Republicans think the Democrats are engaged in a ruse, that they really want a government takeover of health care.
In their heart of hearts, Democrats do believe that health care should be a public good, provided by government irrespective of ability to pay. But I don't think they've purposely set out to achieve that by misdirection.
Instead, I think they honestly don't appreciate how fundamentally they are changing health care incentives and what the huge consequences of such changes will be.
Thursday, October 29. 2009
Imus was never too impressed, but now he is getting a bit rough on Obama:
Because the President is a whiny little titty baby and a girly man and doesn't have enough guts to figure out what to do in Afghanistan, he's going to take on, what — Fox News and get his ass kicked there?
 I think it's a trick. So does Dick Morris. Here are some initial details.
Happy Halloween, from your Federal government.
 WSJ: Doctors on Health-Care Reform 'Government is in the process of duplicating everything that managed care did for the last 15 years that was reviled by everybody.'
Report: Cash for Clunkers was a lemon
George Soros launches a $50 million effort to purge economics of its free-market zeal.
Peeing on the O's photo would show true artistic courage, but it would be equally adolescent.
Well, nowadays, true artistic courage would be to create something that would add grace, nobility, and beauty to the world.
Speaking of "art," desecrating the flag for health care
Chicago Trib endorses Repub health plans
Hitchens dares enter the Christian world, finds it's not scary
Marginal Rev: Mandates don't stay modest. Autism treatments
Via Vanderleun:
"Northwest Nap"
It's the word of the day @ Urban Dictionary - A very deep sleep where you are unable to hear telephones, text messages, and even the Air Force. Named to honor the two fine pilots from Northwest Airlines and their little "in flight snooze."
Gateway:
Pelosicare will force individuals to buy the government insurance, will tax the wealthy, and will result in rationed care and the end of private health insurance industry.
It’s a socialist’s dream.
If you want to do something about freedom of speech, then the only choice is USE IT, exercise it.
Kurt Westergaard in this interview
Wednesday, October 28. 2009
Get a darn U-Haul and get out of your crappy old town before winter sets in. Go somewhere where there are plenty of jobs, vitality, enthusiasm, and low taxes. Like Texas or Alabama or Georgia or New Mexico or New York City. It's the American way; the pioneer way. Plenty of jobs in the Dakotas too, if you have a warm coat.
We were gonna say it, but Riehl beat us to it. Ned gave us the Independent Joe Lieberman (my Senator, with whom I agree on things around 25% of the time - not a bad % for a Conservative voter in CT).
I respect him as a thoughtful human being, and will give credit when due. Plus I like the guy. I like Ned too. Very fine fellow personally, but not politically.
The O to tax pacemakers, artificial hips, etc. Brilliant. Heck, plastic canes are cheap at WalMart.
The O's media control strategy
WSJ: Washington's Suicide Mission
I don't know about "narcissistic rage," but Mr. Bring Us Together isn't bringing us together. Who hasn't the Admin demonized yet? Besides ACORN/SEIU?
Quote via Dr. Sanity on the goals of the enviro movement:
Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens. The subject is almost sacrosanct and those who indulge in criticism are labeled as Marxists, socialists, fundamentalists and worse. These labels are used because alternatives to democracy cannot be perceived! Support for Western democracy is messianic as proselytised by a President leading a flawed democracy
There must be open minds to look critically at liberal democracy. Reform must involve the adoption of structures to act quickly regardless of some perceived liberties....
We are going to have to look how authoritarian decisions based on consensus science can be implemented to contain greenhouse emissions [emphasis mine].
Love that "perceived liberties."
AA via Insty:
ANN ALTHOUSE: “The answer, Ms. Herron (Merron?) is precisely that pop culture permeates the world of young Americans. Why pursue even more of it in college? Learn new things. Get what you can’t get just living in the world soaking up the things you naturally love and enjoy. What is the point of going to college?”
Tuesday, October 27. 2009
Sowell begins:
Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?
Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers-- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?
Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?
Whole thing here.
It's a simple matter of incentive. With government medicine, you are a cost unless you are still paying plenty of taxes - which is around only 10% of the population, or less. If you are sick or disabled, you become even more of a burden to "the common good."
With private insurance, they want you alive to pay your premium.
Anybody who believes in government benevolence is in dreamland: as we have been saying here, government is just another powerful special interest group. A doc's committment is quite the opposite.
And nobody wants their doctor worrying about "the common good."
 More on the health care debate as a moral struggle
NRO: The conformity enforcers of "tolerance" and "diversity" are growing ever more explicitly totalitarian.
How to lie and get away with it. h/t, Vanderleun
Our Golfer-in-Chief. Hmmm. I don't care if he plays golf a lot. I just wonder what they'd be saying if it were Bush. Plus sets a record for attending fundraisers. Easy gig, President. Just be the figurehead while others do the work.
The power of the Soros-funded think tanks in DC
ACORN. Read the first comment on this Tiger piece. Good grief.
The problem with ignoring Milton Friedman
Via Legal Insurrection:
Instead of solely considering costs, shouldn't we ask if Americans are willing to die sooner from cancer, to give up access to specialists, to be refused safer, more accurate diagnostic imaging, to lose the most accessible screening programs, and to lose their autonomy in pursuing treatments for their families? Shouldn't we ask if Americans want to replace the most advanced and successful medical care in history with the restricted care and lower cost social programs of Europe, and insure the less than 5 percent of people who don't buy insurance but receive care anyway?
Those evil health insurance companies
Via Powerline:
57% of voters nationwide believe it will raise the cost of health care, and 53% believe the quality of care will get worse. ... Just 18% say passage of the congressional plan will reduce costs, while only 23% believe it will lead to better care.
Remarkable: by a margin of 3-1, voters think Obamacare will raise the cost of health care, and by more than two to one, voters believe it will make the quality of health care worse. Isn't that the death knell for government medicine? If not, why not?
Via SDA:
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett. [...] The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said. Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month.
Monday, October 26. 2009
 Note to self - when fishing in the Alaska bush
More on the polls: New Gallup Poll Finds 40% of America Conservative– 20% Liberal
The O's war on business. Via Driscoll:
Obama has demonized just about every business sector in America. Through the 2008 campaign to the present, he has gone after credit card companies, the coal industry, mortgage companies, real estate companies, steelmakers, utilities, drug companies, doctors, oil companies, Wall Street, defense contractors, and health insurance companies, just to name a few. In each case he has dinged them for greed, taking excessive profits, and failing to put people first. His criticisms have not been over minor matters but over their basic core functions, and their values or lack of them. [His demonization of talk radio and Fox News also constitutes a front in his attack on business -- Ed]
Obama demonstrates almost complete ignorance about the private sector and it’s no wonder: he has so little experience in it.
Noonan: He owns the rubble now
WSJ: Why Government Health Care Keeps Falling in the Polls - The health-care debate is part of a larger moral struggle over the free-enterprise system.
Samuelson on the fake health care debate:
The promise of the public plan is a mirage. Its political brilliance is to use free-market rhetoric (more "choice" and "competition") to expand government power. But why would a plan tied to Medicare control health spending, when Medicare hasn't? From 1970 to 2007, Medicare spending per beneficiary rose 9.2 percent annually compared to the 10.4 percent of private insurers -- and the small difference partly reflects cost shifting. Congress periodically improves Medicare benefits, and there's a limit to how much squeezing reimbursement rates can check costs. Doctors and hospitals already complain that low payments limit services or discourage physicians from taking Medicare patients.
|
Sipp: