Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Memetrics
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktSuzanne Somers is an Expert, who knew?
Somehow I don’t think that this is quite what the WSJ anticipated when it gave the former actress and lifestyle guru access to their editorial pages:
CORRECTIONS AND AMPLIFICATIONS:
An earlier version of this post contained a quotation attributed to Lenin (“Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state”) that has been widely disputed. And it included a quotation attributed to Churchill (“Control your citizens’ health care and you control your citizens“) that the Journal has been unable to confirm.
Also, the cover of a Maclean’s magazine issue in 2008 showed a picture of a dog on an examining table with the headline “Your Dog Can Get Better Health Care Than You.” An earlier version of this post incorrectly said the photo showed and headline referred to a horse.
And, in case you didn’t know, evidently Obamacare is taking the place of Medicare, if what Ms Somers writes in her editorial is true about Obamacare’s effect on the elderly. You heard it here first!
Filed under: 2013 and beyond, PPACA | Tagged: Goofy |
All Things in Moderation 
Also, Brent and I are getting together for dinner tonight, so if y’all feel your ears burning you know why!
LikeLike
Have fun at dinner.
Prediction, The Abomination results in less people covered and poored healthcare (and outcomes) for those that do get it.
It can’t result in any other outcome.
LikeLike
I can’t wait for the WSJ to have Jenny McCarthy weigh in on the polio crisis going on in Afghanistan.
LikeLike
MSN headline isn’t particularly good for the administration, especially since it’s the default Internet Explorer homepage.
LikeLike
Michi, To answer your question from the previous thread, it’s about four hours from Baltimore to Richmond I believe. My recommendation would be to take the train rather than drive.
LikeLike
Three of the top (to include the main) headlines on msnbc.com are about the PPACA (to include that one from MSN), but I’m sure that’s because of the hearings. Having the hearings is probably the best thing that could happen if they’re anything like Benghazi, the IRS, and all of the other ones that the House Republicans have had–they’ve tended to make the “scandal” disappear practically overnight.
LikeLike
The quality of the opposition has been one of the administration’s best assets.
LikeLike
My recommendation would be to take the train rather than drive.
I’ll keep that in mind!
LikeLike
quality of the opposition
Yes. This administration has been extremely lucky that way.
LikeLike
I’ve done Baltimore to Richmond in three hours but I’ve also taken much longer. Traffic can be a nightmare depending on time of day and season. I’ve never taken Amtrak southbound. The problem with trains (and planes) is how to get around once you’re there.
LikeLike
This administration has been extremely lucky that way
Now I’m beginning to wonder how much better things could have been with a more competent opposition. Interesting thought experiment.
LikeLike
Mich:
Now I’m beginning to wonder how much better things could have been with a more competent opposition.
Undoubtedly a lot better from a non-left point of view. But if one is a liberal who prefers Obama’s policies, it’s hard to imagine things being “better” with a more competent opposition.
LikeLike
Better for the country or better for the administration?
LikeLike
The quality of the opposition has been one of the administration’s best assets.
Agreed, the pre-2010 election Republicans were a complete disaster and the only thing keeping the party afloat currently is the Tea Party. If they abandoned it (fingers crossed it happens) we’ll get a viable third party.
This article describes the fault lines perfectly.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/28/Grover-Norquist-turns-to-the-liberal-media-in-crusade-against-Ted-Cruz
Norquist, once the boogeyman if the left is Brocking himself. His Cruz jealousy and fear of the Tea Party is fascinating.
LikeLike
Better for the country or better for the administration?
Better for the country because the administration would have had to have done better (or sunk). I think they’re only playing to their opponent’s level, which is understandable but unfortunate.
LikeLike
Mich:
Better for the country because the administration would have had to have done better (or sunk). I think they’re only playing to their opponent’s level, which is understandable but unfortunate.
This sounds to me like just another variation on the theme from yesterday, blaming the R’s for Obama’s deficiencies.
“It’s just that damn Tea Party and that lying son of a bitch, Cruz. I would never hurt the country, Jenny, you know that.”
LikeLike
Jonah rips Greg Sargent:
I’m not arguing that the GOP shouldn’t capitulate to the law simply out of spite (though spite is underrated in this circumstance if you ask me). But I fail to see why Republicans should simply accept that the law is here to stay and get into wonky discussions about how to improve it at the margins at the exact moment the wheels are coming off the bus. The president and the Democrats lied us into a bad law. The right opposed the law on principle. A single party — the Democrats — own this law in a way that no party has had complete ownership of any major social legislation in a century. They bought this legislation with deceit and the GOP said so. Now that it is going into effect, the facts on the ground are confirming that deceit. Moreover, the same haughty condescending bureaucrats and politicians who told us they were smart enough and tech-savvy enough to do just about anything are being exposed as incompetent political hacks. And this is the moment when Sargent thinks the GOP should simply throw in the towel and work with the Democrats to make Obamacare bipartisan?
edit: I changed the snippet I used to a better one.
LikeLike
blaming the R’s for Obama’s deficiencies.
Then you’re reading it wrong. I don’t blame the president’s deficiencies on anyone other than him and his advisors.
LikeLike
Mich:
Then you’re reading it wrong.
In what ways do you think the country would be better off with a more “competent” R party? In other words, in what specific instances would Obama have “done better” if R’s were a more competent opposition?
LikeLike
All you need to know about how bad a reporter/hack Sargent is is AquaBuddha and the MMfA email Burgundyesque quality of literally printing anything they give him.
LikeLike
This will leave a mark.
Unlike the Tea Party, most left wingers don’t really believe their own ideology. They put partisanship first, or they put the color of a candidate’s skin or the shape of their genitals over the candidate’s policy. Identity is more important to them than how many brown children that politician is killing.
http://www.ianwelsh.net/a-brief-note-on-why-the-progressive-blog-movement-failed/
Sad trombone.
LikeLike
Science!
http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/29/dont-like-data-just-call-anecdotal-ignore/
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t it have been cheaper to give every affected UAW member $100,000 in cash?
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131029/AUTO0103/310290032
LikeLike
I actually feel sorry for her having to defend the President’s rhetoric.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/medicare-chief-obamacare-isn-t-responsible-for-insurance-plan-cancellations-20131029
LikeLike
In what ways do you think the country would be better off with a more “competent” R party?
Freely cribbed from people much smarter and politically savvy than I when I posed the question on PL; I think that these are all likely if the Republicans in Congress had been a more principled opposition.
Several people had a hard time with the concept of a thought experiment, but these are some of the better ideas.
Here’s the thread in case you’re interested.
LikeLike
Republicans could have supported the ACA and gotten tort reform thrown in for free and declared victory since that was their entire health care platform circa 1994.
Hey! That sounds familiar.
The 1996 Republican Platform for your reference with cherry-picked highlights:
If anything, Obamacare falls short of some of these.
LikeLike
Mich:
I think that these are all likely if the Republicans in Congress had been a more principled opposition.
First I would note that there is quite a difference between a principled opposition and a competent opposition, and we were talking about a competent opposition. But beyond that, it sounds to me like your friends at PL have construed "competent opposition" to mean "not opposing Obama". I mean, sure, maybe Republicans "could have" supported ACA and gotten tort reform thrown in, but support for Obama's signature legislation is by definition not “opposition”, competent or otherwise.
LikeLike
Mich:
I just read the thread on PL. You asked an entirely different question.
LikeLike
Is this true?
@jbarro: Vast swathes of policy are based on the correct presumption that people don’t know what’s best for them.
If so, is it moral?
LikeLike
there is quite a difference between a principled opposition and a competent opposition
How so?
Also, you’re jumping a bit to conclusions about who made a couple of those comments . . . which tells me you’re biased because I asked the question on PL.
LikeLike
Mich:
How so?
For example, I don’t think there is any doubt that Ted Cruz’s opposition to Obamacare has been principled. But whether or not it has been competent is definitely a matter or controversy.
Also, you’re jumping a bit to conclusions about who made a couple of those comments…
No, I’m not.
LikeLike
jnc:
Over at PL you said:
The ACA is easily fixable from a policy standpoint. Roll back some of the mandates and the subsidies and eliminate the tax preference for employer provided insurance.
Isn’t any piece of ill-considered legislation “easily fixable” if you strip it of its very essence and raison d’etre? Yes, ACA will be much less damaging if you eliminate the employer mandate, the individual mandate, the coverage mandates, and the subsidies. But then, of course, it wouldn’t do most (if any) any of the things it was intended and designed to do. Is that really a “fix”?
It’s like saying that SS is “fixable” if we just eliminate the cap on the payroll tax and means test benefits. I guess if you consider turning what was sold as a self-financing insurance scheme into a means-tested welfare program financed by general taxation merely a “fix”, then yeah, SS is “fixable”.
LikeLike
Troll – looks like the Tea Party can be bought:
LikeLike
“For example, I don’t think there is any doubt that Ted Cruz’s opposition to Obamacare has been principled. “
I doubt it’s been principled. I believe it’s been opportunistic, and had the same program been proposed by George W. Bush or Mitt Romney, he would have not had the same level of opposition and may have even gone along with it.
By contrast, I believe that Rand Paul would be against the drone strikes, etc regardless of who was President.
LikeLike
jnc:
I doubt it’s been principled.
OK. So change Ted Cruz to Rand Paul, or any number of other people who oppose Obamacare in principle. The point remains that there is a difference between a principled opposition and a competent opposition. That is especially true in Washington where effective opposition so often depends on backroom wheeling and dealing.
LikeLike
So change Ted Cruz to Rand Paul, or any number of other people who oppose Obamacare in principle.
I’ll give you Rand Paul but I still dispute the premise that opposition to the ACA is based on principle. It’s pure calculus. Once Romneycare got co-opted by the moderate Democrats (and let’s remember that Obama won the nomination in part because his health care platform was more conservative than Hillary’s), they had to move the goal posts.
If you argue that Republicans in general and Capital C Conservatives never wanted any sort of health care reform ever, then the Heritage Foundation was guilty of rank intellectual dishonesty.
LikeLike
yello:
I’ll give you Rand Paul but I still dispute the premise that opposition to the ACA is based on principle.
More relevantly, do you acknowledge the distinction between a principled opposition and a “competent” opposition?
Also, just out of curiosity, is Obama’s (and more generally the D’s and capital “L” liberals ) support for same sex marriage a principled support or is it pure calculus?
LikeLike
I don’t think there is any doubt that Ted Cruz’s opposition to Obamacare has been principled. But whether or not it has been competent is definitely a matter or controversy.
No, he’s been in that for himself
corked!
And the question was the same, or at least everybody else has interpreted it in the way I intended. I know you like to play Humpty Dumpty with words, but in this case it doesn’t apply.
LikeLike
Mich:
And the question was the same…
No it wasn’t. Claiming that the Tea Party has not been true to R principles while asking what would happen in a world where R’s “work with” Obama and a D senate is absolutely not the same as asking how Obama would have “done better” (your words, BTW) if R’s were a more competent opposition.
I know you like to play Humpty Dumpty with words…
That makes me feel so unwelcome here.
LikeLike
J,
Everybody’s for sale eventually. That’s why I’m for torturing terrorists before putting a bullet in there head; everyone cracks.
Why is capturing the Senate of any interest to me? I could give a shit who divys up the spoils, I want a smaller pot of spoils.
Our window was the last couple of years, now it is (has) passed.
Competent opposition to slowing the leftward progression is meaningless to someone who believes a complete reversal is necessary.
If Paul’s principles keep him from droning a terrorist in Baluchistan but allow a compromise on budget caps, big fucking deal.
LikeLike
If you argue that Republicans in general and Capital C Conservatives never wanted any sort of health care reform ever, then the Heritage Foundation was guilty of rank intellectual dishonesty.
I would most definitely separate Conservatives from Republicans in that calculation. And Heritage was/is engaging in rank intellectual dishonesty. But so what?
LikeLike
Why?
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/barack-obama-campaign-for-terry-mcauliffe-virginia-2013-gubernatorial-elections-99002.html
LikeLike
Why?
Why not?
Slick Willie was his opening act the other night. A first hand report says that he only spoke for 20 minutes which has to be a record for him.
LikeLike
What’s the political benefit for President Know nothing? TM is winning by double digits.
LikeLike
“Isn’t any piece of ill-considered legislation “easily fixable” if you strip it of its very essence and raison d’etre? Yes, ACA will be much less damaging if you eliminate the employer mandate, the individual mandate, the coverage mandates, and the subsidies. But then, of course, it wouldn’t do most (if any) any of the things it was intended and designed to do. Is that really a “fix”?”
My point is that the exchange structure is fundamentally a market based solution. The problems with the PPACA are all the other things kludged onto it.
This distinguishes my criticism of it from those on the left who argue that anything short of single payer is doomed to failure.
I’ll also grant you that my priorities are different from the administration. For me, cost control is more important than expanding coverage.
LikeLike
jnc:
My point is that the exchange structure is fundamentally a market based solution.
For what it is worth, if you want to be fully understood I think you would be better off saying this than saying that ACA is “easily fixed”. Saying the latter is definitely prone to being understood as suggesting that you think the law is fundamentally sound, but for a few tweaks, not that you think the law contains a shell of usefulness if the vast majority of it is completely trashed.
The problems with the PPACA are all the other things kludged onto it.
Yes, but those things are in fact the essence of what makes ACA what it is, and are what make it attractive to those who actually embrace the law. Take them away and ACA isn’t “fixed”. It doesn’t exist anymore.
BTW, by “easily fixed” you must also be speaking conceptually, since politically there is no chance in hell that the Dems would ever gut the law in the manner you suggest, and Obama would never sign on to it if it ever got passed by an R congress.
LikeLike
That makes me feel so unwelcome here.
Somehow I doubt that.
LikeLike
Mich:
Somehow I doubt that.
Yeah, I was just being snarky. I am willing to put up with all kinds of personal jabs, as the past should amply demonstrate.
LikeLike
Brent and I had a great time over dinner, just going to prove that a conservative Libertarian (or, as Aletheia would have it, a “Propertarian”) and a Liberal PinkoCommieSocialistMarxist can enjoy each other’s company.
And now I actually understand Glass-Steagall.
LikeLike
Troll,
“Everybody’s for sale eventually. That’s why I’m for torturing terrorists before putting a bullet in there head; everyone cracks.”
Indeed, they do, and if they know something you will generally find out everything they know. I’m mystified by the idea that is often propagated that “torture doesn’t work”. Of course competent torture works. If you pick up random people and torture them into confessions of stuff they didn’t do, of course that “doesn’t work” but that’s stupid. Or a straw man. The discussion is about whether or not you can torture actionable information out of known terrorists and, of course, you can. Although psychological manipulation tends to be much more effective, combined with diet control and sleep deprivation. Being harsh (not torturing, just harsh) then suddenly becoming their best friends. But I don’t think we’re supposed to do that, either.
… I can see the moral objection to condoning any form of torture, and the slippery slope argument. But the idea that it doesn’t work continues to mystify me. People will generally do anything, eventually, to stop the pain, up to and including a complete disclosure of the truth.
LikeLike
BTW, regarding the original post: I guess the WSJ doesn’t fact check editorials? As quotes from elder statesmen of the past that seems suspiciously relevant to contemporary political debates are generally fake internet memes and unless they are so familiar that you already know them by heart, you need to check them out. My first thought would have been: Suzanne Somers is quoting emails she’s received from fellow travelers and received them without skepticism because of confirmation bias.
And somehow in 2013 perhaps she has yet to be made aware that just because it’s on the Internet or in a Facebook post doesn’t make it true.
Hopefully the government will come up with the Internet Networking Management and Reform Act of 2014, and fix the internet like it has healthcare.
LikeLike
yellojkt: “I can’t wait for the WSJ to have Jenny McCarthy weigh in on the polio crisis going on in Afghanistan.”
Do flu vaccines cause polio? Who knew!
LikeLike
@Troll: “Prediction, The Abomination results in less people covered and poored healthcare (and outcomes) for those that do get it.”
I dissent. I believe that Obamacare, if it lasts in anything like its current form (debatable) will result in slightly more people covered, similar or slightly improved outcomes (well, I don’t believe the slight improvement in outcomes will have anything to do with Obamacare so much as the passage of time, but still) . . . and way more out-of-pocket expenses than expected, even with billions of tax payer dollars being funneled into the healthcare industry. Also, fewer doctors and more private hospitals or practices that do not take insurance, resulting a further net increase in the amount private citizens spend of their own money for their healthcare, in additional to a radical increase in the overall amount spent on healthcare.
Follow the money.
LikeLike
@jnc4p: “I doubt it’s been principled. I believe it’s been opportunistic, and had the same program been proposed by George W. Bush or Mitt Romney, he would have not had the same level of opposition and may have even gone along with it.”
I would argue that it probably has been principled for the vast majority of actors . . . and had a similar (probably not identical program; at some point the employer mandates would have seemed to heavy-handed and they would have wanted incentives instead) program been proposed by president Mitt Romney, they would have supported it, and their support would have been similar principles. Unless conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, et al, lined up against it and characterized Republicans who supported it as selling out, in which case they might oppose it, yet the opposition would remain principled.
I tend to think people who seem to be acting opportunistically honestly think they are acting on principle. But the political and social opportunities and influences are probably having a significant effect on them.
One reason the Tea Party and Tea Party leaders keep in such active contact with their elected leaders . . . history shows that a change in environment and social pressures tend to soften the principles upon which candidates are elected.
LikeLike