Whats equally troubling to me is the possibility that Palin is not cynical and calculating with the "patriotic" lingo.Comment Posted By Eric On 16.02.2010 @ 21:27
Thanks as always for a thoughtful post. I wish you and your fellows all the best in your struggle to take back your party from the likes of Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity. We need the best ideas from the entire political spectrum if we're to succeed in the many challenges facing the country.
On the question of terrorism, however, I have to disagree to some degree. While we need to work to avoid the serious threat of a terrorist attack with WMD or standard weapons employed as such, we also need to remember what the ideal of terrorism is: to use fear as a weapon to keep us from living our lives with boldness and freedom. Taking the threat seriously doesn't mean overreacting in law or force of arms. we have to take a cold hard look at what's effective and, yes, the tradeoffs in terms of our rights as well as our economic system. Personally I disagree with many of the steps now being taken to deal with the latest threat but I don't think the administration is "downplaying" the the threat so much as trying to fit it into our ongoing understanding of daily business. Terrorism isn't going anywhere and while we must fight it on all fronts we can't give in to its debilitating goals of creating a fearful reactive society willing to compromise its most fundamental principles on an ongoing basis.Comment Posted By Eric On 6.01.2010 @ 12:23
There there. Do we feel better now, Rick? Get it all out now.
Geez...I try to entertain my readers with a little over the top satire and this is the thanks I get?
I suggest you acquire a sense of humor and chill out.
ed.Comment Posted By Eric On 12.09.2009 @ 10:21
"...why cannot a man who claims to be a professor of constitutional law (cannot be proven like a lot of his bull) understand this? Hubris perhaps? Gadzooks, he’s a fraud.
Amazing how effective your reality distortion field is. Can you mass produce and market this? As long as you can adjust for the desired reality, I'd love to have one of these. Actually, I think both fringes seem to have a fair supply of such devices.
As for this one little bit of "reality", don't know why I bother but:
UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
Of course, I'm sure you want some kind of "non-existent" "official" document to prove something or other. . . he's not human, we don't have a copy of his genome by an approved right wing genetic lab. He wasn't born on earth, no one alive has come forward as a witness.
Whatever, Gayle, enjoy your socialist medicare and hope the government keeps it's hands off.Comment Posted By Eric On 10.09.2009 @ 10:35
Yeah, what they said: it seems to me that by forcing Democrats onto that "thin limb" Obama is courting the very implosion you believe is fading. Also, I really don't see how legislation can pass, especially in light of today's unemployment numbers. Americans care about jobs (with health insurance) and not about spending another trillion dollars.Comment Posted By Eric On 4.09.2009 @ 08:47
Rick, your analogy of health care to food is an interesting one. Yes, each is a right and a necessity and none of us want to see EITHER industry TAKEN OVER by the government. Yet many of us are quite happy to see the government provide food stamps or other support to avoid people starving or being malnourished. THAT is what we are talking about, providing ACCESS to health care through universal coverage. We are NOT talking about taking over health care at all. Look at Germany's example in a combination of public and private coverage and service that is very similar to ours while still providing practically universal coverage. No, they do not have a perfect system but they do have a better one than ours with greater, not less, freedom to choose your physician and, more importantly, freedom from fear of financial ruin through illness.
And, as you point out, limitations are a reality of ANY insurance/risk sharing health care payment system, whether public or private. Only the wealthy can assure themselves of unlimited options. . . at least up to their ability to pay. No system removes that advantage.Comment Posted By Eric On 26.08.2009 @ 08:04
Should I say welcome back? Was anyone else unable to reach this blog for the past few months? I got nothing but 404 errors until today.
I'm so thankful I can reach you again for some sanity on the right. Sorry, my friend, but there are so few places I can find well reasoned and thoughtful posts from the right these days. I had hoped and maybe even expected the rhetoric and vitriol to die down somewhat after the election but I've experienced just the opposite. After the first couple months post swearing in, the muck started to bubble up again. it's made it difficult for me to take anything anyone has said from the opposition seriously.
So, whether I was suffering a localized rightwingnuthouse blackout or there really was some kind of problem with the blog, I'm happy to see you again.
And thanks for another thoughtful post as you wrestle with the nuthouse in your back yard. And trust me, those of us on the left wrestle with our own nuts as well. There's no monolith on either side.Comment Posted By Eric On 20.08.2009 @ 11:57
I might have missed it but I wonder if you've actually presented any of your own ideas for reforming our health insurance system? It appears that you believe the system is in need of some reform but I'm not certain what form that reform would take.Comment Posted By Eric On 20.08.2009 @ 12:04
Health care is rationed as it is. None but the very wealthy can afford much in the way of health care outside of the insurance system and the insurance companies routinely deny, delay or otherwise obstruct coverage.
Those who can pay will always be able to buy more health care than those of us reliant on any risk sharing pool, whether government or private insurance. All such systems have limited resources and have to determine how and what to spend them on. There is nothing inherently better about the decisions a profit making system makes on what to spend the money on than a a non-profit system. Some insurance pools are non-profit as well.
More importantly, there is room for a combination of public and private insurance in the market. It exists currently and can continue to exist in a future with a "public option." Such a system already exists in Germany, where the majority of people are insured through private non-profits under government charter. Many people purchase supplemental policies for "luxury" coverage such as single rooms in hospital etc.
As long as the health care providers themselves, doctors, hospitals etc., are not public employees or businesses, the insurance world will have more than one option and there can be freedom of choice. In fact, I had more freedom of choice, not less, under the German "public" insurance than I do with our high end private insurance here in the US.Comment Posted By Eric On 20.08.2009 @ 12:21
We Conservatives aren't "basically acting like there is no big deal here and we can just sit on the issue". That is a false flag sent up by the Left. The GOP is fully behind many free market reforms that would achieve most of the goals Obama is claiming to want such as reducing price and increasing coverage. If ever there was a case of government being the problem this is it. Insurance is expensive for many reasons and most can be directly blamed on government like all 50 states acting as 50 independent insurance markets. The Fed has the authority under the Commerce clause to establish national regulations. Government also mandates coverage for things like chiropractic services, in-vitro services, massage therapy, mental health coverage, etc people wouldn't choose if they actually had the choice. This drives up the price of insurance. It's like being forced to buy towing, theft, loaner car, roadside assistance, etc for your car insurance policy when all you really want is liability!
I personally have a high deductible ($6,000), low premium ($57/month for a family) plan with an HSA. It's basically a catastrophic plan because that's what it would take to actually need to use my insurance. This type of policy save me money and saves the insurance company money resulting in lower premiums. If enough people were enrolled in this type of plan the price of a policy would fall dramatically.
To cover the truly needy all we would have to do is give them a prepaid HSA debit card that they would use to purchase insurance and to pay for out of pocket expenses. Any money not spent in any given year rolls over and is the recipient's to keep. That provides incentive to make good choices.
I went to the ER a couple weeks ago and when I got the bill I called and was able to negotiate 20% off my bill because I could guarantee immediate payment without the need for the hospital to have to work with the insurance company.
Even Medicare and Medicaid could be revamped to use the high deductible, low premium HSA model.
Please don't buy the Left's BS regarding a lsck of a solid GOP alternative.Comment Posted By Eric On 9.08.2009 @ 19:40