Originally Posted by herbal tee

The offensive piece of legislation is called McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945.

And McCarran was a Democrat who is also famous for sponsoring a draconian "anti-Communist" law that made the Patriot Act seem minimal by comparison. The Las Vegas airport is named for him.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

And McCarran was a Democrat who is also famous for sponsoring a draconian "anti-Communist" law that made the Patriot Act seem minimal by comparison. The Las Vegas airport is named for him.

Yep.
From reading period classics such as John Gunther's 1947 work Inside USA one gets the impression that McCarran was likely the biggest corporate stooge in the Senate at the time.
Of course Nevada in 1947 was mostly a one party state. At the time, it was essentially a collection of archtypical ghost towns and their played out mines, the Reno divorce mill and a little spot between LA and Salt Lake City that eastern gangsters were beginning to think that they might be able to lander money through.

Remember 1945 was irght at the last 4T/1T cusp. And here we're talking about a law that was effectively set in stone for the last saculium which is now in 2009 considered a problem needing change. Classic 4T stuff. :

Originally Posted by playwrite

Maybe we are in a prolonged 3T, and rather than FDR, Obama is the equivalent of -

wait for it,

wait for it...

Richard Millhouse Nixon!!!

In many ways, Nixon would not measure-up to the demands of the current conservative moment - his health bill looks a lot like the one that today's conservatives are going apoplectic over. For the love of the Almighty, he also started the EPA!

Maybe Obama is the reverse of Nixon, i.e. a liberal who actually has some strong conservative traits, those old style Burke conservative traits.

As Nixon set the stage for Reagan and the ushering in of the real 3T, Obama might set the stage for the real game-changer to come... and, somewhat frightening, the real 4T. If it holds, it would be some baby boomer in their 70s some time in 2016 or even 2020, if we have an equivalent Ford/Carter situation! I wonder who they might be....

Just a thought.

Maybe Hillary isn't out of the game after all. (Hillary '16!)

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Yep.
From reading period classics such as John Gunther's 1947 work Inside USA one gets the impression that McCarran was likely the biggest corporate stooge in the Senate at the time.
Of course Nevada in 1947 was mostly a one party state. At the time, it was essentially a collection of archtypical ghost towns and their played out mines, the Reno divorce mill and a little spot between LA and Salt Lake City that eastern gangsters were beginning to think that they might be able to lander money through.

Remember 1945 was irght at the last 4T/1T cusp. And here we're talking about a law that was effectively set in stone for the last saculium which is now in 2009 considered a problem needing change. Classic 4T stuff. :

An era where some Democrats were actually corporate stooges, and some Republicans were actually corporate enemies?

That sounds so warm and fuzzy. How do we get back there?

Forget MTV. I want my Ike & Adlai - NOW!

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

An era where some Democrats were actually corporate stooges, and some Republicans were actually corporate enemies?

That sounds so warm and fuzzy. How do we get back there?

Forget MTV. I want my Ike & Adlai - NOW!

Sorry, we can't untake the red pill.
The unique regional partisanship borne out of the civil war 4T is over. Party and ideology are now alligned in America as they are everywhere else. There is no reason to believe that this will change in the foreseeable future.

There is a bright side of course. Being a southern Democrat is no longer a code word for racist.

This is promising -

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2...s/a3-nejoe.txt

Lieberman says he would vote to let health care reform motion proceed

I think Senator Schumer (my guy!) pointed this out first in an interview a couple of days back, but here is Ezra Klein's take on it -

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ealth-car.html

Tautological as it sounds, chief among the questions is which questions will be answered in the negotiations, and which questions will be left for the floor. It's not an idle debate. Take the public option. If Reid decides to put a public option, or some sort of public option compromise, into the bill, then it would require 60 senators to remove it on the floor, and only 41 senators to defend it. Conversely, if he decides to leave the public option fight for the floor, then it will take 60 senators to add it into the bill, and only 41 to block it. That means that groups who see an issue decided in their favor during the blend have a huge advantage over groups that are left to fight it out on the floor.

Encouraging news on Health Care in Hawaii.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/he...er=rss&emc=rss

..."But perhaps the most intriguing lesson from Hawaii has to do with costs. This is a state where regular milk sells for $8 a gallon, gasoline costs $3.60 a gallon and the median price of a home in 2008 was $624,000 — the second-highest in the nation. Despite this, Hawaii’s health insurance premiums are nearly tied with North Dakota for the lowest in the country, and Medicare costs per beneficiary are the nation’s lowest."...

The NY Times reports Obama Threatens Insurers’ Anti-Trust Exemption For discussion purposes...

Originally Posted by NY Times

In unusually harsh terms, Mr. Obama cast insurance companies as obstacles to change interested only in preserving their own “profits and bonuses” and willing to “bend the truth or break it” to stop his drive to remake the nation’s health care system. The president used his weekly radio and Internet address to push back against industry assertions that legislation will drive up premiums.

“It’s smoke and mirrors,” Mr. Obama said. “It’s bogus. And it’s all too familiar. Every time we get close to passing reform, the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, ‘Take one of these, and call us in a decade.’ Well, not this time.”

Rather than trying to curb costs and help patients, he said the industry is busy “figuring out how to avoid covering people. And they’re earning these profits and bonuses while enjoying a privileged exemption from our anti-trust laws, a matter that Congress is rightfully reviewing.”

Mr. Obama’s sharp attack comes as the health care debate moves out of congressional committees to the wider stage of floor debates in the Senate and House. While he has criticized insurers before, his bare-knuckled language on Saturday reflected a more open break with the industry and recognition that his efforts to bring it into some sort of consensus had failed.

I was also listening to a Boston PBS program about media issues called "Beat the Press." It seems Obama recently broke diplomatic relations with Faux News. He was tired of their slanted coverage, and intends to give them less access than other media outlets for a time.

Up to this point in his presidency, Obama may have been erring on the side of seeking consensus and reconciliation with his enemies. He has pretty much passively taken stuff like the negative spin on the Olympics and the Nobel Prize stuff. This has earned him some disapproval from the liberal side of his support. Many on the left wanted a more forceful and partisan style.

I'm not sure, but I think Obama might have just had a Popeye moment. There comes a time in the cartoon where Popeye says, "Enough is enough, and enough is too much!" At that point Popeye generally reaches for a can of spinach.

Might be about time?

A wannabe Gray Champion has to balance the importance of getting idealistic transforming change through and building a new consensus in the middle. To this point, I think he has been erring on the side of trying to build consensus. I'm seeing a few hints here of a change of emphasis. Let's see how it goes.

About. Damned. Time.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'm not sure, but I think Obama might have just had a Popeye moment. There comes a time in the cartoon where Popeye says, "Enough is enough, and enough is too much!" At that point Popeye generally reaches for a can of spinach.

Might be about time?

The writers of Saturday Night Live may have seen the same thing I did. Instead of Popeye the Sailor, they referenced the Marvel superhero Hulk. Their normal guy who played Obama was shown getting angry. There was a a series of brief scenes showing clothes tearing and giant muscles forming. The audience is then presented with The Rock Obama, as played by the pro wrestler. They then played some comedy temper tantrum scenes as The Rock throws senators out the window.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

About. Damned. Time.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, the windows in the real Oval Office are very strong. I don't think the real Obama could get a senator through. Maybe he too could hire The Rock as a stunt double? ™

Originally Posted by radind

Encouraging news on Health Care in Hawaii.

Update on the Federal Health Insurance Program:

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cf...s_most_popular Insurance providers drop out of federal employee health program
By Alyssa Rosenberg, October 9, 2009
"Some federal employees will have to choose new health plans during open season this year because their insurance providers are leaving the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, or reducing the number of areas they cover....Fourteen plans are leaving FEHBP altogether: PacifiCare of Arizona, PacifiCare of Colorado, ConnectiCare's plans in Connecticut and Massachusetts, United Healthcare of Florida, JMH Health Plan, PersonalCare Insurance of Illinois, Group Health Plan of Illinois and Missouri, PacifiCare of Oklahoma, United Health Care of Ohio, Paramount Health Care in Ohio, Keystone Health Plan Central and Keystone Health Plan East."...

The program for federal employees operates with minimum government oversight and sufficient competition that Health Care providers either provide enough of what the customer (employee) wants, or customers abandon providers that can't compete. And sometimes the provider simply decides to get out of the program.

From the Libertarian Hypocrisy thread:

Originally Posted by playwrite

The cns news is right wingnut trash; not worth a look....

-Ah, yes, the open-minded ad hominem.

Obviously, it's not "trash" since PW spent quite a bit of time responding to the results:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52602

Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.

At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.

In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Then there is your future. When health reform passes, and the world doesn't come to the end, grandma doesn't get unplugged, and the storm troopers are not released, you guys are going to look like the clowns that you have become...

...If Progressives really believed that, there wouldn't be so much "urgency" for Obamacare, which doesn't take effect until (cough) 2013 i.e. AFTER the election.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/ben-shapiro/myths-lies-and-stupidity-about-health-care.html

Ten million of the uninsured are illegal immigrants

Another 9 million "uninsured" have household incomes of above $75,000.

And then there are "12 million uninsured Americans … eligible for Medicaid and the State Children's Health insurance program — but they haven't signed up,"

So, to sum up, of those 46 million "uninsured," a solid 31 million are uninsured in ways that require no fix from the federal government. That leaves 15 million uninsured unaccounted for. A nationalized health care plan of the sort Obama proposes therefore shifts health care for literally 95 percent of the population on behalf of 5 percent of the American population — 5 percent who, like illegal immigrants, receive emergency care under federal law.

...and...

Why these exponentially higher costs? Because of increased government involvement in the health care system...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/blank_screen_VRgK9QYpvI7vsOWaEyUxnM

I asked him if he would not have preferred if our country had guaranteed him a job, a pension, health care and a college education for his children. He told me no -- and gave three reasons. First, he said, he takes pride in knowing what he has done for his family. Second, he knows that the government does not, cannot, know what he wants for himself and his family. Third, he knows that what government gives, it can take away...

Immigrant or native-born, it's written in the American DNA: A paternalistic government threatens our independence, our individuality and our right to self-determination...

In contrast, President Obama's praise for the free market and individual liberty just doesn't ring true -- because his record does not reflect his rhetoric...

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/oct/04/president-fudges-facts-health-care-proposal/?uniontrib

President Barack Obama's much-anticipated speech to Congress was intended to alleviate growing public concerns about his plan to overhaul American health care. Instead, the president sidestepped legitimate questions about his reform effort and offered up a litany of dubious “facts” to support his proposals.
First off, the president failed to adequately defend his promise that “nothing in [his] plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.” Many Americans are skeptical of this claim — and with good reason.

Oh, Canada!

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2066531

Which is pretty much the kind of decision a "death panel" would be confronted with...

WSJ Escape to Montana Canadians seek private option...

In other words, while Congress debates whether to set U.S. medicine on the Canadian path, Canadians are desperately seeking their own private option. At least Ms. Woodkey had the safety valve of Montana and private American medicine. Once Congress passes a form of Medicare for all, with its inevitable government price controls and limits on care, Americans might not be so lucky.

FWIW:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/the_baucus_bill_the_worst_poli.html


Racism!:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100010099/jimmy-carter-plays-the-race-card/



---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

Welcome back Mr. Glick..... computer down for a few weeks in the shop?????

[QUOTE=jamesdglick;280295]...

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52602

...Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.
In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004....

I am skeptical of any self-proclaimed labels and the actions of the US electorate at the polls do not square with the Gallup poll .
There is another poll that shows a nation evenly split in its political identity and center-left in its policy orientation ; this seems more consistent with the actual behavior of the American public.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/11/...ressive-study/
.guest Blogger Mar 11th, 2009 … guest bloggers : … John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira, fellows at the Center for American Progress.
For years, traditional public opinion polling has broken down Americans’ political ideology into three distinct groupings: liberal, moderate, and conservative. Based on this simplified categorization, there has been remarkable stability in ideological orientation with roughly one-fifth of Americans identifying themselves as ‘liberal’ and about 4 in 10 classifying themselves as ‘moderate’ or ‘conservative’, respectively, according to Gallup polling from 1992 to 2008. Two new studies conducted by the Progressive Studies Program at the Center for American Progress break down the electorate on a new 5-point scale of political ideology that reflects the primary approaches people ascribe to today. Under this schematic, 34 percent of the country self-identifies as ‘conservative’, 29 percent as ‘moderate’, 15 percent as ‘liberal’, 16 percent as ‘progressive’, and 2 percent as ‘libertarian’. After moderates are asked which approach they lean towards, the overall ideological breakdown of the country divides into fairly neat left and right groupings with 47 percent of Americans identifying as progressive or liberal and 48 percent as conservative or libertarian and the rest unsure.
A nation that is evenly split in its political identity is decidedly center-left in its policy orientation….Complementing this agenda are significant demographic shifts that favor progressives. Between 1988 and 2008, the share of minority voters in presidential elections has risen by 11 points, while the share of increasingly progressive white college graduate voters has risen by four points. But the share of white-working class voters, who have remained conservative in their orientation, has plummeted by 15 points….

Originally Posted by radind

I am skeptical of any self-proclaimed labels and the actions of the US electorate at the polls do not square with the Gallup poll .
There is another poll that shows a nation evenly split in its political identity and center-left in its policy orientation ; this seems more consistent with the actual behavior of the American public.

You should be highly skeptical of anything Mr. Glick posts. He actually puts a disclaimer in every one of his posts - it a Freudian thingee.

As I noted before when he posted this crap earlier -
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...9&postcount=83

Glick leaves out this important note -

In fact, while all 50 states are, to some degree, more conservative than liberal (with the conservative advantage ranging from 1 to 34 points), Gallup's 2009 party ID results indicate that Democrats have significant party ID advantages in 30 states and Republicans in only 4.

As I noted before -

Sure, generally, everyone wants to reign in big old bad government and be identified as leaning conservative - it seems like the prudent way to be. And certainly, next best would be to be moderate in all things. Even without the drumbeat of big govt myths and memes of the last 40 years, responses to such general questions would lean that way.

However, when things get specific and more thoroughly explained, the jackass logic of what passes today as a conservative, i.e., the Repubs, well, that's what you get, less than 10% of the states have significant GOP identification with 60% of states having significant Dem identification - and what's your guess on how the electoral votes pan out for these state; do you thing its stays at 60/10?

But let's hope he and the other dittoheads stay delusional into Nov. 2010.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

Another 9 million "uninsured" have household incomes of above $75,000.

And then there are "12 million uninsured Americans … eligible for Medicaid and the State Children's Health insurance program — but they haven't signed up,"

[COLOR=#ff0000]So, to sum up, of those 46 million "uninsured," a solid 31 million are uninsured in ways that require no fix from the federal government. That leaves 15 million uninsured unaccounted for. A nationalized health care plan of the sort Obama proposes therefore shifts health care for literally 95 percent of the population on behalf of 5 percent of the American population — 5 percent who, like illegal immigrants, receive emergency care under federal law

This is so sophomoric, its barely worth replying to. But, perhaps there are some late-comers to the party that might still get confused by the illogic and self-centered Glick and his ilk.

First, you may notice that he blows off 15 million people because, well, they can go to the emergency room. No attempt to discuss what those visits to the emergency room means in regard to the costs to all the rest of us in terms of higher medical bills and higher taxes as well as the 'illness costs' of people choosing to tough it out rather than go to the emergency room. Yes, in Glick's and the dittohead 'minds' it is much better to have poor sick people out and about getting the rest of us sick than having a medical systems that mitigates these risks.

Also, of note he also blows off an additional 12 million people because they might be eligible for Medicaid and SCHCIP, but does he provide any analysis of what would it cost the taxpayer if they did all apply? Does he discuss whether that is a more efficient and cost-effective way of delivering medical care than what has been proposed? No, that would require some brain power rather than just dittohead regurgitation.

And does he provide any discussion of how those 12 million coupled with the 9 million with incomes greater than $75K being out of the pool of insured makes the insurance for everyone else much more expensive? No, that would required some brain power rather than ideological barf.

One can go to the GOP's own website -
http://barackobamaexperiment.com/gop...are-principles
- and see that even they are talking about the need to reach the uninsured. One can debate their methods of their doing it or how unlikely its success in working, but one can't fault them for not seeing the need for covering the uninsured as an objective - unlike the irrational and self-centered Mr. Glick.

Yes, time has moved on, but Glick has been absent and apparently stuck in some kind of a time warp. In doing so, he provides a 'refresher' for us of the idiots we heard from back in August during the Clown Hall Meetings.

Excellent points Playwrite about the Glick rant.

I would add to the idea of the 12 million who are eligible not have not registered the admonition that they are most likely not even aware they are eligible. Of course, we have people called COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS who are demonized by the Right when they attempt to inform people of such programs. Seems the teabaggers like Glick want it both ways - criticize Community organizers for doing their job and ripping into the poor who fail to get the message that the Organizers would perform.

Nothing new in that.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Excellent points Playwrite about the Glick rant.

I would add to the idea of the 12 million who are eligible not have not registered the admonition that they are most likely not even aware they are eligible. Of course, we have people called COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS who are demonized by the Right when they attempt to inform people of such programs. Seems the teabaggers like Glick want it both ways - criticize Community organizers for doing their job and ripping into the poor who fail to get the message that the Organizers would perform.

Nothing new in that.

Reminds me of another issue regarding a woman's right to choose, where the wingnuts might want to considering caring - even after birth. What a concept!

Good insight -

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...e_committ.html

The impact was magnified, though, because the composition of the Finance Committee is not friendly to grand social policy schemes. The committee includes Kent Conrad, Blanche Lincoln, Tom Carper and Bill Nelson. The committee is led by Max Baucus. When you're doing something like health-care reform, these aren't the votes you rely on. These are the votes you worry about. The fact that Finance was not only able to secure universal Democratic support for its bill, but also attract Olympia Snowe, was evidence of something that many in Washington simply did not believe: This is doable. Democrats could hang together, and even pick off the occasional Republican.

Less symbolically, in featuring a lot of the same actors that worry people in the final vote, the Finance Committee vote did more than demonstrate that health-care reform could clear their concerns: it bought them into the project. The result was that health-care reform moves forward with some key moderates attached. So long as the Finance Committee members stick close to the bill, it will be hard for Ben Nelson or Evan Bayh to blow up the negotiations at the last minute. It's not credible to claim that legislation supported by Conrad, Snowe, Carper and Lincoln is somehow overly liberal.

Last week was a big win overall --

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/123590

Big Week of Momentum for Health Insurance Reform

and while there may be some sideline discussions -
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...ws-health.html

- the action this week is really on one guy and he's feeling da heat! -

http://www.politico.com/politicopuls...opulse107.html

Reid's political fix could mean public option slips into Senate bill -- Progressives buy ads on Las Vegas TV

WHY THE SENATE BILL MAY INCLUDE A PUBLIC OPTION: The public option was front and center again yesterday, with President Obama’s senior aides reiterating the White House position that Obama supports a government-run option -- but isn’t demanding one. Fortunately for public-option supporters, they may not need much more presidential support now that reform has fallen into Senate Majority Leader Reid’s lap. Unions and progressives have been aggressively railing against a Senate Finance bill that they call a giveaway to insurance companies. And this week, progressives will begin running ads in Reid’s home state of Nevada asking whether he’s strong enough to get a public option passed. The conventional wisdom has been that Reid would not include a public option in the bill he takes to the floor, but would give liberals the chance to add it later. Now, Reid could diffuse a lot of progressives’ animus by doing the reverse – including a public option in the bill he brings to the floor, but giving opponents the chance to strip it out. The move could increase his progressive cred and prevent a backlash from the very allies whose help he will need in what’s shaping up to be a very tough reelection campaign.

- all politics are local.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Playdude, do you realize that your repeated postings of butthole images says more about you than anyone else?

Oh, I just scroll past them. He makes his points perfectly well in plain text.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Playdude, do you realize that your repeated postings of butthole images says more about you than anyone else?

Well, given that the "butthole" on the first photo is rather obsurce and certainly not the predominant aspect, I can only assume that you are speaking of the second photo. While I perhaps could agree with your desciption of Mr. Glick, I am not so sure it is appropriate for this forum and want to make clear my distance from your conclusion.

(Note- If you are indeed referring to the first photo, your unusual attention to that feature should perhaps be of concern. Is there a term for this compulsion in your field and if so, a standardized prescription? For me, if you are personally comfortable with it, I say, "to each his or her own!" - so to speak.)

Playwrite: Regardless of the accuracy of her descriptive term or lack thereof, I'm going to second the Rani's statement that it's gross.

I am sure that the "B -word" is being used quite alot in Senate chambers on this one - on both sides of the aisle -

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...-care-bill.php

Pelosi Aims to Squeeze Skeptics on Public Option With Cheaper Bill Than Senate

The House health care bill is getting cheaper, but Democrats aren't boasting just yet. Because when they ultimately break silence the hope is to present conservative Democrats in both chambers with a bill that will walk the walk of fiscal responsibility--including a public option, which is projected to save the government billions.

As always, the legislative process is unpredictable, and the Senate is operating in isolation from the House. But with the public option potentially in the balance, Speaker Pelosi's goal is this: present conservative Democrats in both chambers with a Hobson's choice between a public option bill and a potentially more expensive Senate bill that may have no public option at all.

This is called playing hardball.

Now if Reid would only grow a pair of ___ (edited for Rani's sake; for clue, please see photo above, but please ignore the anus - and, I am talking about the one hanging out on the computer monitor above, not the one hanging out by the trailer)

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Playwrite: Regardless of the accuracy of her descriptive term or lack thereof, I'm going to second the Rani's statement that it's gross.

Rani and Brian -

It is obvious that you are not pet owners.

I suggest getting a gold fish and working your way up the ladder to a cat or a dog (but please stay away from babies and toddlers for your own good!)

I would say then to "man-up" but that would not be gender neutral. However, I think you get the idea.