The Boycott That Backfired

As I noted here, the leftwing organization ColorofChange.org, headed by an Obama administration official, has been promoting a boycott of Glenn Beck's television show on Fox News.

Liberals hailed the dropping of ads by Best Buy, Wal-Mart and CVS (plus several other advertisers) that their celebration of free speech by trying to silence speech with which they disagree was working. But is it really? Well, not exactly.

In other words, the claim here was about half true. It was completely false regarding Best Buy, and CVS didn’t request ads for Beck before requesting to avoid him. Only Wal-Mart actually pulled ads from the show, and even at that may still be redirecting its ad money to other shows.

It seems that several major advertisers are now choosing to avoid commentary shows as a way to avoid this sort of harassment by kooks.

As William Jacobson notes, boycotts rarely ever work. And, in this case, is probably backfiring because advertiser avoidance of commentary shows is more likely to affect left-leaning shows like Rachel Maddow and Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Actions do have consequences.

About Reconciliation...

And why Democrats would be foolish to use it to push through Obamacare here.

Escallating the Rhetoric: When You Can't Win the Argument, Say the Other Side Wants Your Man Dead

That's what Howard Dean says.

Here's the transcript:

STEPHANIE MILLER (1:29): I saw you (Howard Dean) on Keith Olbermann last night. You really do believe we’re going to have a public option.


HOWARD DEAN: At the end of the day, I think we will. First of all, the president is a very smart guy and he knows very well this can’t work without a public option. Secondly, you know he’s run into a rough patch in the Senate, mostly because of Democrats, honestly.

The Republicans, they have no interest in this Bill. They’re using the 1994 playbook. Let’s kill the bill and kill the president...... or, kill the president’s term. Although there are sort of angry people out there I get very nervous about this stuff. I don’t like it at all.


DEAN (5:02): I’m an optimist. I think the president is gonna get a bill on his desk. I think it is going to have a public option in it. He’s going to sign it in December, his numbers are gonna turn around and we’re not going to lose a lot of seats. In fact I think we’ll pick up seats in the Senate and lose just a couple of seats in the House.

Frankly, it's disgusting stuff when you have someone saying that political opposition wants to kill the president. I'm not sure that even qualifies as free speech, but it certainly follows the plan to demonize opposition.

Notice how he walked back from "kill the president" to "or kill the president's term." There's a big difference between those two statements, and Dean knows it. To have even uttered the accusation of assassination discredits him, but how much more discredited can Dean get?

More at Hot Air.

They Own the White House and Congress, but It's Still Republicans' Fault

Lesson here: even if you control both the executive and legislative branches of government--and have a "super-majority" in the Senate--you still can't pass legislation because it's all those mean ol' Republicans' fault.

Given hardening Republican opposition to Congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority’s cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks.

Baucus, and the Debate on Health Care, Go West (August 19, 2009)
Times Topics: Republican PartyTop Democrats said Tuesday that their go-it-alone view was being shaped by what they saw as Republicans’ purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this month’s Congressional recess, as well as remarks by leading Republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair.

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said the heated opposition was evidence that Republicans had made a political calculation to draw a line against any health care changes, the latest in a string of major administration proposals that Republicans have opposed.

Rahm Emanuel is a liar. Republicans don't oppose any health care changes. In fact, they have released their own health care plan, but Democrats have stiff-armed that.

As usual, Democrats don't consider Republicans' ideas useful. They just want GOPers to shut up and vote with Dems. Now, they're trying to blame their disarray on a minority that has absolutely no power in this government. How pathetic is that?

Barney Frank: Why Are You Yelling at Me?

Frank would have been better off trying to answer the shouted questions, as opposed to talking down to his constituents. Why are they yelling? Maybe they're tired of being treated like children who can be fooled one more time about Santa Claus.

About The High Cost of Medicine

The argument is deceptive.

It's true that the United States spends more on health care than anyone else, and it's true that we rank below a lot of other advanced countries in life expectancy. The juxtaposition of the two facts, however, doesn't prove we are wasting our money or doing the wrong things.

It only proves that lots of things affect mortality besides medical treatment. Heath Ledger didn't die at age 28 because the American health care system failed him.

One big reason our life expectancy lags is that Americans have an unusual tendency to perish in homicides or accidents. We are 12 times more likely than the Japanese to be murdered and nearly twice as likely to be killed in auto wrecks.

In their 2006 book, "The Business of Health," economists Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider set out to determine where the U.S. would rank in life span among developed nations if homicides and accidents are factored out. Their answer? First place.

That discovery indicates our health care system is doing a poor job of preventing shootouts and drunk driving but a good job of healing the sick. All those universal-care systems in Canada and Europe may sound like Health Heaven, but they fall short of our model when it comes to combating life-threatening diseases.

What Government Motors Is Planning

Interesting article on GM's upcoming models for 2011 and beyond.



Right now, we have a 2001 Hyundai Santa Fe and a 2005 Ford Focus. The Santa Fe has been a trouper and has probably close to 200k on it. The Ford Focus we got a year old and has about 140k on it (yes, I drive a lot).

A lot has changed since we bought the Santa Fe. For one thing, we no longer have to fit 2 car seats in the backseat and still have room for a third child. OTOH, we now have a nearly adult daughter with her own car, an almost teenage son and a fourth grade daughter who will be wanting to bring friends with them wherever they go. I won't tell you how we do this now, as it's probably illegal.

But reading through Chevrolet's options, I do find myself fantasizing about getting a new car. The Volt's mileage would be great, since I drive to Dallas 4-5 times a week (66 miles roundtrip). But a car with 3 rows of seats would be very convenient now, too.

Truthfully, though, it's all fantasizing. The Ford is nearly paid for and the Santa Fe still runs. We won't be turning either of 'em in for the Cash for Clunkers program, which is probably the greenest (and cheapest) thing we can do, anyway.

Why Color of Change Is Really Mad at Glenn Beck

H/T: the Patriot Room.

Why Do Successful Female Stars Have to be Sluts?

This column on the sluttification of Miley Cyrus brought to mind that old joke by Bob Greene from the 1980s about women being genetically inclined to strip for cameras.

The joke was part of a column that came out after Vanessa Williams was decrowned Miss America for having posed nude for a photographer. Greene commented that it wasn't the first time a woman had fallen from grace for having nude pics, but that this was something that didn't happen to men. I'm reciting it from memory, but Greene said something like, "You'll never hear Ronald Reagan or Tip O'Neill have to say, 'I was young and impressionable.' Because men don't have a pathological need to strip off their clothes for the camera."

I was furious when Greene originally wrote that, with all the fury that a 20-year-old know-better can muster. But as I've aged, I've sadly grown to agree with Greene more and more. Do women have a pathological need to strip for the camera? And why do so many women do it willingly and for fame?

In Miley Cyrus's case, it's not like she's not making a gazillion bucks because of the pole dance. She was already a gazillionaire because of the Hannah Montana television show and her various merchandising endeavors.

I guess the explanation may be simpler: she's 16 and boy, nothing screams "I'm an adult!" more than showing off your sexuality.

Unlike Rebecca Hagelin, who seems indignant that yet another tween girl idol has gone the way of the tramp, I'm not surprised at all. As difficult as it is to keep one's daughters from glorifying TV and music stars, that's what responsible parents have to do. Because regardless of what the culture is telling your daughters, you still don't want them pole dancing..at 16 or 26, for that matter.

Nearly Half Oppose Public Option

Liberals can't complain that it's a Rasmussen poll this time, either, but nearly half of all Americans oppose the public option.

And according to a brand-new NBC News poll, 47% of Americans -- a plurality -- oppose the public plan, versus 43% who support it. That's a shift from last month's NBC/WSJ poll, when 46% said they backed it and 44% were opposed.

In a follow-up question explaining the benefits and disadvantages associated with a public plan, 45% said they agreed with the description -- by supporters -- that it would help lower health-care costs and provide coverage for uninsured Americans.

But 48% sided with opponents who say a public option would reduce access to their choice of doctors, and would lower costs by limiting medical treatment options.

It's precisely because of the way costs will be lowered that more Americans oppose the public option. That and the idea that it won't be an option for them.

What John Mackey Said to Start the WholeFoods Boycott

For those not in-the-know (I, of course, am), liberals are boycotting WholeFoods, their grocery store of choice, because co-founder and CEO John Mackey had the audacity to say we don't need a massive new government entitlement for health care.

While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment.

Health care costs are only going to go down when people decide using less is in their own best interest. Or someone else decides it's in their best interest for you to use less health care. The first is making your own decisions. The second is rationing.

War's Just No Fun When They Don't Have GWB to Blame

Liberals have seemingly forgotten their opposition to these "illegal" wars.

The news that emerged is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have virtually fallen off the liberal radar screen. Kossacks (as fans of DailyKos like to call themselves) who were consumed by the Iraq war when George W. Bush was president are now, with Barack Obama in the White House, not so consumed, either with Iraq or with Obama's escalation of the conflict in Afghanistan. In fact, they barely seem to care.

As part of a straw poll done at the convention, the Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg presented participants with a list of policy priorities like health care and the environment. He asked people to list the two priorities they believed "progressive activists should be focusing their attention and efforts on the most." The winner, by far, was "passing comprehensive health care reform." In second place was enacting "green energy policies that address environmental concerns."

And what about "working to end our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan"? It was way down the list, in eighth place.

Liberals are uncomfortable demonizing Barack Obama for following the same policies as his predecessor because he is their guy. Better to focus on issues they think he agrees with them on.

AARP Loses Members Over Health Care Stance

H/T: Chuck Serio

About 60,000 people have quit AARP since July 1 because of the group's support for Obamacare. Seniors know that "cuts in cost" will equal less care for them, and AARP is seemingly willing to push some members closer to the end-of-life panel discussion.

“I hate to say it in public, but many of [his] stories were not even close to the standards we expect at 60 Minutes.”

That's according to 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager, speaking of Dan Rather in a piece for the Los Angeles Times. (Via Media Research Center)

Rather's suit to save his dwindling credibility is bringing out some of the ugliest stuff on both sides. Rather is attacking CBS as trying to " string it out, wear me out, suck the will from me, and make it so painful on the pocketbook that I want to give up," but, honestly, that's a common legal strategy not necessarily reserved for Dan Rather.

Rather's claims, though, that he was unlawfully terminated (not that the fake documents used to smear George W. Bush weren't fake, as Amanda Marcotte and the Pandagonistas have bizarrely tried to claim) forces CBS to bring up painful truths about Rather.

"It's hard to watch," said Jeff Fager, executive producer of "60 Minutes." "It's like he is in some paranoid nightmare where everybody is out to get him. We're all witnessing the poor guy thrashing around, tormented.

"I can't for the life of me understand why he's doing this, how he could turn such a storied career into this train wreck," he added....

Plenty of people with big egos have a hard time realizing when they've lost the argument, the fight, the divorce, and that continuing to howl at the moon merely embarrasses their once friends further. In this case, Rather should have accepted his termination (it sounds like there were other grounds for it, but, because of his longevity with the company, they were going to let him work out his contract) and moved on with his life. In five years, most people wouldn't have worried about the fake documents story and Rather could have done other work to make up for it. Instead, we are left with the spectacle of a washed-up pseudo-journalist crying for "justice" when justice has already been served. Kicked to the curb, Rather is just joining the other bums with the "Will Work for Revenge" signs.

Quote of the Day

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Charles Jarvis, 1820

Jefferson never read Rules for Radicals or he'd know that he should disparage and attack anyone who disagrees.

Hillary Clinton and Hissy Fits

I must admit that I haven't been paying as much attention to international affairs of late, what with the health care reform "riots" being so much more entertaining (and enlightening. I had no idea we were all still evil-mongering, Nazi mobs). In fact, I completely missed Clinton's it's not all about Bill moment, but, frankly, I can't blame her for being more than a little annoyed at the rude question about what her husband thought regarding international affairs.

Liz at Echidne of the Snakes notes the various characterizations of Clinton's statement as "fatigue," "a temper tantrum," and--my favorite--"a hissy fit."

How often does the media describe a man's behavior as a hissy fit?...

Around the globe, women are fighting for equal rights. The more privileged among us are struggling for workplace equality: fair pay and a shot at the corner office. The less fortunate are fighting for the most basic rights: for their safety and the safety of their children. Hillary Clinton sees these struggles every day. So when asked what appeared to be a sexist question in a country where women are in grave danger, I think a temper tantrum, an eruption or an outburst would have been perfectly justified. In fact, when you view Clinton's reaction through a broader lense, when you look at all of the experiences that framed her answer, I think her response was calm, cool and collected.

Clinton's experience--being glossed over for the opinions of her husband--are similar to any woman who has gone car-shopping with her spouse, then looked at appliances at Best Buy. Amazingly, according to sales clerks, women do not drive but do spend a remarkable amount of time in front of the stove or washing machine.

As luck would have it, I do most of the cooking and the laundry in our house. But I also do a significant amount of driving. So, I guess, choosing the car is as much a woman's responsibility as buying a washing machine or a stove.

In a similar vein, Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State, not her popular (in more ways than one) husband. She has a right to be indignant when snubbed, and not have it called a "hissy fit." This isn't the old days. Welcome to the 21st century, Democratic Republic of Congo!

OTOH, what does President Obama think about his Secretary of State having to stand up for herself this way?

Short Trip in the Wilderness

Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States, Says Gallup Poll

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.

It's still a center-right country.

More to the point, the issues favor Republicans.

"The issue mix right now could not be better for us, with the public worried about big spending, high taxes and big government. If ever there was a mixture of issues that could benefit Republicans it would be that, just like in 2008 we probably had the worst issue mix we could have ever had," GOPAC chairman and longtime GOP insider Frank Donatelli said in an interview.

They Can't Hate Everybody, Can They?

Andrew Breitbart analyzes BDS-by-proxy, which is the left's determination to demonize every person who opposes any part of their agenda. The list keeps getting longer: Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, Tea Party goers, now townhall "mobs."

"Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)"

That's from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, and the Democrats have followed it word for word over the last eight years. They've perfected the technique with a rapidity that is frightening. If you have the audacity to question any part of Teh One's agenda, you will be attacked with "personalized criticism" and "ridicule works."

Perhaps castigating those questioning Obamacare as "un-patriotic" and "evil-mongering" are the straws breaking the camel's back here. I can't imagine that most of the people asking blunt questions appreciate being ridiculed for their dress, particularly after being accused of participating in Brooks Brothers riots. No one ever accused the Left of consistency.

Hopefully, Americans are waking up to the utter contempt Democrats and the American left hold them in. Certainly, they've been given enough notice.

Religious Tolerance in the U.K.: Only Burkinis May Swim

In yet another example of religious tolerance in the U.K., some swimming pools are becoming burkini only for women.

British swimming pools are imposing Muslim dress codes in a move described as divisive by Labour MPs.

Under the rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – are barred from entering the pool in normal swimming attire.

Instead they are told that they must comply with the "modest" code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees.

In the interest of tolerating strict Muslim dress codes, everyone else is encouraged to either (a) stay away or (b) wear the restrictive clothing.

LOL of the Day

But it's a sad, cynical LOL from none other than the President of All of Us:

In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain. But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing. If we maintain the status quo, we will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day. Premiums will continue to skyrocket. Our deficit will continue to grow. And insurance companies will continue to profit by discriminating against sick people.

That is not a future I want for my children, or for yours. And that is not a future I want for the United States of America.

In the end, this isn’t about politics.

As Ed Morrissey notes, this is all about politics. When the government gets involved in some area, it becomes political. More to the point, Barack Obama used health care reform as a political point during his campaign last year. If that doesn't make the debate political, what does?

Obama makes no new points in this op-ed, because he doesn't have any more ammunition for the fight. Every point he makes has been rebutted and debunked by ordinary Americans using common sense. Why would your employer keep offering you insurance if it's cheaper for him/her to dump you in a public plan? And if a "panel of experts" is going to be determining which treatments are "best practices," what doctor is going to face penalties or bureaucratic red tape for ordering different treatments?

We are not the health care consumers of the 1970s, who went to their doctors and took whatever treatments and medicatiosn were prescribed. Today's citizen can go on the internet and find a variety of opinions (including many doctors' opinions) on what the best treatment for any particular ailment is. Doctors don't always like this because patients may become unnecessarily worried about the risks of any procedure, but being more informed allows patients to have a greater voice in their own care.

Similarly, Democrats should be giving patients more power to determine their own care, but encouraging HSAs and consumer-driven health plans. Instead as usual, Democrats want more control for the government in your care. This is what people don't want.

The Crazies Are All on the Right

According to Rick Perlstein.

So the birthers, the anti-tax tea-partiers, the town hall hecklers -- these are "either" the genuine grass roots or evil conspirators staging scenes for YouTube? The quiver on the lips of the man pushing the wheelchair, the crazed risk of carrying a pistol around a president -- too heartfelt to be an act. The lockstep strangeness of the mad lies on the protesters' signs -- too uniform to be spontaneous. They are both. If you don't understand that any moment of genuine political change always produces both, you can't understand America, where the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy, and where elites exploit the crazy for their own narrow interests.

Perlstein goes on to attach every crazy, evil, racist conspiracy group to the right. Conveniently, he forgets about every nutjob group the left has ever produced. But fortunately for him, Steve Bainbridge makes a short list for him, including the Weathermen, Code Pink, Act Up and the eco-terrorists ALF and ELF. I had a short discussion (I left) with a friend where I also included the nuclear winter believers of the 1980s, the winter soldier liars of the Vietnam era, and the actual communists who supported overthrowing the American government.

The stunning part about Perlstein's argument is that so many people want desperately to believe that there are no crazies on their side of the political spectrum. But there are always extremists in each party. They don't represent the vast majority of Americans.

But what's worse is Perlstein's (and many Democrats') attempts to paint normal, everyday Americans who are concerned about Obamacare as Nazis, thugs, astroturfers, mobs, un-patriotic and downright evil people. They aren't any of these things. What they are is involved.

Who Is Barack Obama?

Now that the monster known as Obamacare is dead and liberals are crying and gnashing their teeth, there's a bigger question out there: who is Barack Obama?

That last part may be a little too harsh, because it’s clear that there’s at least one thing Barack Obama is fully and fixatedly convinced of: himself. The “opportunity of a lifetime” in health care is, of course, two-fold, because while there’s an ideological opportunity here for the Left to remake the health system — and like it or not, they think for the better — there also emerged a likely divergent political opportunity for Barack Obama to lasso a powerful interest group in the process. Two roads, one leading to Chicago-style politics, with a choice making all the difference.
And that’s the problem for everyone, Right and Left. It’s not “pragmatism” that drives Barack Obama’s agenda. It’s personal, political opportunism, cloaked and advanced in Leftist ideology insofar as it advances the President’s perpetual cult of personality. I don’t doubt that as a disciple of Saul Alinsky, follower of Jeremiah Wright, and colleague of Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn, Obama holds the values of the finge Left. We see that clearly enough in his voting record and rhetoric. But when it comes to the hard choices, Obama is out for Number One, and if that takes saving a piddly 2% on drugs to reward pharmaceuticals for their ObamaCare support and indenture them to an Obama re-election bid, then that’s exactly what he’s going to do — even if he has to bankrupt America in the process, which the bills being contemplated in the House and Senate no doubt would do even without the pharma deal. With a true statesman missing at 1600 Pennsylvania, the health care bill has floundered badly, bearing with it a poisonous and destructive backlash against the American people among Obama hardliners in Congress — a reaction perhaps unparalleled in recent history in its contempt for the American people. It’s a tone fully of the President’s making and against which the President has spent little, if any, political capital to tamp down.

Like many of us tried to say during the campaign, Barack Obama's primary interest is Barack Obama. Where he is pushed to present ideas and positions, he will lean to the left. But he will always try to get someone else to do the heavy lifting. That means that Democrats in Congress will always take the fall for bad policies (such as the stimulus bill) that Americans don't want and are afraid of paying for.

More Joys of Socialized Medicine

'Quarter of a million people waiting more than 18 weeks for NHS treatment'

What Happened to Public Discussion of Health Care?

From Yorkshire at Common Sense Political Thought.

The Status Quo Usually Appears Better

54% Say Passing No Healthcare Reform Better Than Passing Congressional Plan

Thirty-five percent (35%) of American voters say passage of the bill currently working its way through Congress would be better than not passing any health care reform legislation this year. However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that most voters (54%) say no health care reform passed by Congress this year would be the better option.

As various provisions from the Democrat bills have come to light, Americans are becoming more skeptical about buying this pig in the poke--the one no one has bothered even attempting to look at.

Americans don't like many policies of insurers, from bans on pre-existing conditions, to (non)portability, to lack of variety. But they know that the care they currently receive from their doctors, nurses, and other providers is top notch, and they don't want to risk losing that in a debate about insuring a lot of people who are deciding not to get their own insurance for one reason or another.

Instead of tackling the problems with health insurance that Americans are concerned about, Democrats saw the health care "debate" (one they have not wanted to have) about how to best set America on the road to a single payer system. As Rahm Emmanuel has said, Democrats didn't want to let a good crisis go to waste, and, in the process, they have managed to alert the majority of Americans to their overreaching. But it's ok, because they think you're just a bunch of crazy, racist, commie-hating mobsters anyway.

The Economy Is Turning Around...

Bankruptcy Filings Up 35 Percent Over Last Year

Individuals and businesses filed 1.3 million bankruptcy cases in the year ended June 30, an increase of 35 percent over the previous year, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said Thursday.

It is the third consecutive annual increase, as the recession has forced thousands of businesses to close shop and as job losses and rising debt have caused individuals to seek protection from creditors. Business filings increased 63 percent, while individual filings were up 34 percent.

We're a long way from any recovery feeling like a recovery.

Now for a Little Levity

Consumer-Driven Health Care

I've turned into all healthcare--all the time, but bear with me. The debate about this issue is so important, but most of the options aren't really on the table.

Here is an excellent article that discusses what we should be doing about health care reform. The bottom line: consumers should be responsible for their care. If you are poor, the government should be subsidizing it, but everyone else should be required to have health savings accounts and catastrophic health insurance.

It's ridiculous what insurance will and won't pay for these days. Why does an insurance plan pay for your office visits? Does your car insurance pay for your oil changes? Does your home insurance pay for mowing your grass?

It's inefficient the way we expect health costs to be free or nearly free, and it is part of the reason Americans expect the best health care on earth for a song. As the article notes, areas not covered by insurance, such as LASIK procedures or most plastic surgery, are consumer-driven and prices tend to drop over time as a procedure becomes more common. And doctors also add new "features" to attract customers and/or keep their prices up.

But with insurance, you don't know how much office visits, treatments and procedures cost. Often times, the facilities can't tell you, either. This was something that truly puzzled me about the way health care and insurance works in this country.

When my oldest daughter was born, the hospital had a "special" of sorts for people with our HMO. The total cost for labor and delivery was $25. But I got a bill for about $500 (I think; bear with me, it was a long time ago). I called the hospital to find out why my friends got the $25 deal but I was charged so much more. After much haggling, the clerk said, "Ok, just forget it. We won't charge you anything." So, I got my daughter for "free."

But how does that work? I mean, the insurance paid for most of it, obviously. But what about the $25 special? And why should I get my child for "free" just because I questioned my bill? What happened to the $475 that I wasn't expecting to pay?

Fast forward 16 years to this situation I discussed in a post last year, where my doctor waived his office fee for me out of compassion (I'd just lost my father and I was self-pay). As a self-pay, I usually paid $70 for an office visit. Who paid the 70 bucks for my doctor's compassion?

Then there was the $700 ultrasound I was supposed to get last year. I told the hospital "no," that I couldn't afford it. The clerk was stunned that anyone would simply refuse to get diagnostic treatment. But that was my choice, wasn't it? And why was the hospital quick to talk about payment plans or reducing the cost just to get me to get the procedure.

These are the sorts of questions we ask when we don't have insurance, but we should also be asking when we do. And it doesn't matter if you have private insurance or use Medicare or Medicaid. Medicare paid for my father to get his toenails clipped by a podiatrist every three months. Why is that?

If consumers were truly in charge of their health care decisions, like we make decisions about cars, houses, education, and so on, then they would probably opt not to have so many (unnecessary) tests and procedures. Or if they decided to get them done, then patients would be choosing how to spend their own dollars as opposed to someone else's. My fear is that most people advocating a new government system simply don't want to have to make those decisions, partly because it can be complicated and scary, but also because when someone else makes the decisions and you get stuck with something you didn't want, you can blame someone else. After all, who likes admitting that they bought a sucky car because they thought they were so smart? Most people just want to blame the salesman.

It seems to me that if consumers were responsible for their own care and providers were required to give the proper information, then many of the problems with our current system would be solved.

Three More Years of This Kind of Whining

From Nobel laureate Paul Krugman:

“I am in this race because I don’t want to see us spend the next year re-fighting the Washington battles of the 1990s. I don’t want to pit Blue America against Red America; I want to lead a United States of America.” So declared Barack Obama in November 2007, making the case that Democrats should nominate him, rather than one of his rivals, because he could free the nation from the bitter partisanship of the past couple of months after Mr. Obama gave that speech, I warned that his vision of a “different kind of politics” was a vain hope, that any Democrat who made it to the White House would face “an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false.”

So, how’s it going?

Sure enough, President Obama is now facing the same kind of opposition that President Bill Clinton had to deal with: an enraged right that denies the legitimacy of his presidency, that eagerly seizes on every wild rumor manufactured by the right-wing media complex.

This opposition cannot be appeased. Some pundits claim that Mr. Obama has polarized the country by following too liberal an agenda. But the truth is that the attacks on the president have no relationship to anything he is actually doing or proposing.

As Jules Crittenden notes,

Ha ha. Obviously this is just more distorted partisan claptrap from Krugman, whose big problem with Obama is that he isn’t socialist enough. What’s great is how well it works if you sub in “Bush,” ”1999,” ”Republican” and “enraged left” for “Obama,” ”2007,” ”Democrat” and “enraged right.” The difference is Bush actually did engage in extensive bipartisanship and didn’t attempt to ice out the opposition, right up to the end.

President Bush's experience with the Texas legislature had given him hope that he could bring bipartisanship to Washington, because he had seen it work firsthand. But Democrats in Congress knew that they would be in town long after Bush had gone back to Texas, and so vilifying him became first priority. Despite GWB's attempts to reach across the aisle (such as with No Child Left Behind), Democrats were determined to fight him and lie about him as long as they possibly could. And they still do it.

But they expect Republicans to shut up and allow Democrats to blame them for every problem in the universe, and not criticize the disasters the D's have planned for us? What's next? Gonna try to pull our sponsors if we keep announcing the emperor has no clothes?

Obama Official Linked to Glenn Beck Boycott

Put this in the creepy government censorship file.

A racially charged activist group called “Color of Change” founded by Van Jones, a special advisor to the Obama Administration, is trying to silence popular radio and Fox News personality Glenn Beck by calling for a boycott of Beck’s TV advertisers...

Now “Color of Change” has bullied at least five of Beck’s big advertisers -- SC Johnson, Progressive Insurance, Geico, Procter & Gamble and Nexus Lexis -- to pull their ads from Beck’s national cable program. Jones, the founder of “Color of Change,” was named Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality -- a key administrative post -- this past March.

White House officials using their non-profits to silence critics? Can't imagine if George W. Bush had done this.

"End of Life" Provisions Dropped from Obamacare Bill

It's a small concession, IMO, but expect more classy name-calling from the smart bunch over it.

Oh, and there's the hypocrisy claims that Sarah Palin was for death panels before she was against them. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. There's a big difference between favoring information being available and mandating that people be told things, as Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion notes. I don't mind a doctor asking me if I have a living will but I'm not sure I want him telling me approved sources for the information.

From Ann Althouse:

Why didn't the congressional Democrats defend their own bill? If it was so terribly wrong to say "death panels" — and what indignation was expressed! — then why wasn't it easy to crush stupid, crazy Sarah for what she so outrageously said? By backing down and removing the language she leveraged, they not only seem to admit she had a point, they sacrifice credibility that they need to promote what's left of the bill.

Tide Is Turning?

Voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on health care.

Democrats Don't Like Their Constituents

If Sheila Jackson-Lee is any indication.

Maybe this is why Democrats don't want to discuss health care reform at their townhalls. It's just not as important as whatever else they have going on.

And when the Democrats aren't insulting voters with their behavior at the townhalls, we have Democrat plants who are
lying at them. And worse, the plant gets all cheeky when she's revealed to be a liar.

Here's her bloviation:



I guess since Obama didn't need credentials, we shouldn't expect supporters to be honest, either.

We've been told that the plants are those opposed to Obamacare. Yet, it seems like the types and number of plants at the townhalls are more closely allied with proponents of the plan than those who don't like it or are, at least, skeptical about it.

Check out Lone Star Times for more on this.

UPDATE: A friend let me know that the Houston Chronicle has corrected the story. Here's the salient part:

One supporter, Roxana Mayer, praised the reform plan for overhauling a broken system.

“I don't know what there is in the bill that creates such panic,” she said.

Mayer identified herself as a physician who does not live in Jackson Lee's district. However, her name does not appear in the database maintained by the Texas Medical Board, which licenses all doctors in Texas.

In an e-mail to the Chronicle on Thursday morning, Mayer confirmed she is not a licensed physician.

"I have been advised to refrain from making any further statements," she said.

In the initial story about the event, the Chronicle reported that she was a doctor based on her claim at the meeting.

Today, Jackson Lee denied knowing Mayer.

Facts and Myths About Obamacare

Good post on the misinformation the Obama administration and Democrats are putting out about Obamacare.

Good Question

IF THE 49% ARE UNAMERICAN...:

Poll: 49% disapprove of Obama's handling of healthcare policy

"...then what are the 43%? Or is this America whereof the President speaks not governed by consent of the people?"
We've been told that democracy worked in November. Do we not get democracy between elections? Or does the opinion of Americans not matter in non-election years?

Man Jailed for Yawning

This is one of those stories that probably has some explanation missing.

Clifton Williams, 33, of Richton Park, is facing six months in jail for making what court documents call a yawn-like sound in Will County Judge Daniel Rozak's court last month.

The yawn happened as Williams' cousin, Jason Mayfield, was being sentenced for a drug charge on July 23.

Rozak found Williams in contempt of court and sentenced him to six months in jail. However, Rozak could free Williams after a status hearing Thursday, if Williams apologizes and the judge accepts. By then, Williams will have served 21 days.

There seems to be some dispute as to the sound Williams made. It's described as a yawn, but could it really be so loud as to warrant a 6-month jail term?

Why We Don't Want Socialism Here

Michael Moore and others extoll the virtues of Cuba-style medicine, but there are good reasons to oppose it.

As these examples of Cuban progress roll in, CNN is presenting Cuba's socialized health care system as "a model for health care reform in the United States," according to a report on the cable network last week. The report credits low cost and universal coverage.

"How does Cuba do it?" gushed the CNN anchor. "First of all, the government dictates salaries. Doctors earn less than $30 per month — very little compared to doctors elsewhere. And priority is given to avoiding expensive procedures, says Gail Reed (a contributor to the Cuban communist party propaganda organ Granma), who's lived and worked in Cuba for decades."

But instead of pluses, these features are at the root of why the Cuban system is not a model. Government-dictated salaries — like Medicare payments here — reduce incentives for doctors to provide quality care. And when cheap procedures are a priority — as they are, say, in the U.K. — teeth get pulled instead of filled. But the basic problem with socialism is that there's literally nothing there.

CNN gives little attention to the fact that hospitals in Cuba have no Band-Aids and are short on aspirin and actual medicine. Photos from TheRealCuba.com show hospitals strewn with filthy mattresses, infested with cockroaches and full of bony patients nursing ugly bedsores. The only plenty within Cuba's universal coverage system is one of want.

Paying doctors next to nothing sounds great...if you aren't a doctor.

Obama Busses in Supporters

For all the complaints about "astroturfing" and Republican groups bussing in supporters, Democrats don't mind busing in a few of their own when necessary.

Via Gateway Pundit.

Remember: IOKIYAD.

Just like the ordinary citizens asking Obama questions about health care reform aren't plants or anything. Hey, who was it who complained about people paying for a seat at the table? Oh, yeah. Democrats. But that was before they were in charge of things. Now, they just can't get enough.

Psst, Perry. Before you make some stupid "Nuh-uh, they didn't do that!" statement, do a Google search. Save us both some effort. And while you're at it, take a look at Hitler posters at the townhalls. I'm shocked! Shocked! That Democrats would actually try to make it look like Republicans did this.

Obama Plants

You have to love the Obama administration. When they're losing the argument, they plant some kids.

Girl gets chance to ask Teh One a "great question," i.e., one that allows Obama to discuss people's "underlying fear" that Obamacare will result in rationing and defacto euthanasia. Only problem? The girl's mother donated thousands of dollars to the Obama campaign, and her law firm did, too. Just ordinary citizens, right?

And these people have the audacity to complain about "plants" at townhalls. Disgusting.

Propaganda

A friend of mine sent me this piece of propaganda regarding Obamacare. Let's look at it point by point.

Lie #1: President Obama wants to euthanize your grandma!!!

The truth: These accusations—of "death panels" and forced euthanasia—are, of course, flatly untrue. As an article from the Associated Press puts it: "No 'death panel' in health care bill." What's the real deal? Reform legislation includes a provision, supported by the AARP, to offer senior citizens access to a professional medical counselor who will provide them with information on preparing a living will and other issues facing older Americans.

These claims are all properly footnoted with quotes from liberal sites. But they don't address the question: why would people be concerned that Obamacare will "euthanize your grandma"? The reason stems from Obama's promises to cut costs. Since the elderly spend a disproportionate amount of the health care dollars, cost cuts will come from the elderly. And that means rationing of treatments and options and implied or overt calls for the elderly to die and get over it. Critics are correct that Obamacare advocates some sort of euthenasia, whether that's a Logan's Run style offing people (of course not) or simply by reducing options for living for the elderly. It's simply impossible to believe allowing old people to die rather than trying to save them is an element of this plan.

Lie #2: Democrats are going to outlaw private insurance and force you into a government plan!!!

The truth: With reform, choices will increase, not decrease. Obama's reform plans will create a health insurance exchange, a one-stop shopping marketplace for affordable, high-quality insurance options. Included in the exchange is the public health insurance option—a nationwide plan with a broad network of providers—that will operate alongside private insurance companies, injecting competition into the market to drive quality up and costs down. If you're happy with your coverage and doctors, you can keep them.5 But the new public plan will expand choices to millions of businesses or individuals who choose to opt into it, including many who simply can't afford health care now.

This statement is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't ask the big question: what happens next? Do they genuinely believe that businesses won't drop insurance coverage once a "public option" exists? Why would most businesses keep their insurance, when they can foist this obligation off on the government? Since we know business isn't benevolent, after all. This statement is horribly naive and fairly refuses to look at real life, rather than fantasy Obamaland.

Lie #3: President Obama wants to implement Soviet-style rationing!!!

The truth: Health care reform will expand access to high-quality health insurance, and give individuals, families, and businesses more choices for coverage. Right now, big corporations decide whether to give you coverage, what doctors you get to see, and whether a particular procedure or medicine is covered—that is rationed care. And a big part of reform is to stop that.

Health care reform will do away with some of the most nefarious aspects of this rationing: discrimination for pre-existing conditions, insurers that cancel coverage when you get sick, gender discrimination, and lifetime and yearly limits on coverage. And outside of that, as noted above, reform will increase insurance options, not force anyone into a rationed situation.

This is a bizarre Alice-in-Wonderland claim. We're now experiencing rationing because insurance companies can deny claims or refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions. But, somehow, government bureaucrats won't be rationing your care when they make you wait inordinately long amounts of time to treat you, or give you inferior treatments because your Quality Life Years isn't worth spending more on you. Do Democrats actually buy these arguments?

If your insurance company denies your claim, you can appeal the decision, and, surprisingly, many claims are accepted when customers pursue them. And if the insurance company's behavior is egregious, you can report it to the state board of insurance regulation. It's not like in the government, which will determine which procedures and treatments should be available to you and you must accept them.

Lie #4: Obama is secretly plotting to cut senior citizens' Medicare benefits!!!

The truth: Health care reform plans will not reduce Medicare benefits. Reform includes savings from Medicare that are unrelated to patient care—in fact, the savings comes from cutting billions of dollars in overpayments to insurance companies and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.

Health care reform will cut senior citizens' access to health care because cost-savings will have to come from somewhere, and electronic medical files will only save so much. This means that cost savings will be found in reduced payments to doctors, which will incentivize doctors to not treat patients (or treat no more patients than required). Plus, as I stated before, the elderly use a disproportionate amount of health care dollars. If we are going to cover everyone, someone will have to get less health care to cover the others. Guess who that someone will be?

Lie #5: Obama's health care plan will bankrupt America!!!

The truth: We need health care reform now in order to prevent bankruptcy—to control spiraling costs that affect individuals, families, small businesses, and the American economy. Right now, we spend more than $2 trillion dollars a year on health care. The average family premium is projected to rise to over $22,000 in the next decade—and each year, nearly a million people face bankruptcy because of medical expenses. Reform, with an affordable, high-quality public option that can spur competition, is necessary to bring down skyrocketing costs. Also, President Obama's reform plans would be fully paid for over 10 years and not add a penny to the deficit.

This is the most idiotic claim yet. We need to spend $1 trillion setting up a brand new health care system because individuals may face hardship dealing with medical bills. Only Democrats could believe this logic. Bankrupt the country because some small percentage of people have problems with medical bills.

What struck me most about this propaganda piece is how naive it sounds. These are the same people who apply healthy doses of skepticism to every claim by the military or by the business sector. Yet, because the left is so desperate to get a single payer system (and they know this plan is a step that direction), they are willing to swallow whatever deceptions are offered up to justify it.

Real Health Care Reform

Unlike all the government control options put out by Democrats and the Obama Administration, there is a system that would bring costs down and doesn't involve a government takeover of health care. It's called consumer driven health plans.

Consumer-driven health plans (CDHP) rely on health insurance to cover larger medical expenses and preventive care. And they are usually paired with a tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) or Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) that can be used to pay for smaller and routine health care expenses. Employers usually provide part of all of the money in the HSA, and, because the money belongs to the employee, they have a reason to be a value-conscious shopper in the health care marketplace.

One of the reasons for skyrocketing medical costs is that everyone demands the best care, but no one knows what that will cost until after the procedure (or at the time the copay is required). If people had more control of their expenditures, they would probably make better choices and help control their own costs. They might opt for a low-cost procedure for something that's elective, saving their dollars for more necessary things. And if people had to pay out of pocket for doctor's office visits, for example, they might not want to run to the doctor for a cold, or expect expensive tests for everything.

For example, a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that people in consumer-driven plans have 10% fewer emergency room visits overall and 25% fewer repeat visits, almost entirely for nonsevere conditions. Regence Blue Shield found that people decreased their use of hospital emergency services by 32% when they switched from a traditional insurance plan to a consumer-driven plan compatible with a Health Savings Account (HSA).

This isn't to say there aren't times when the E.R. is the best choice; of course there are. But you might just wait to see your regular doctor for your fever or cough if the money comes from your pocket, not the insurance company's.

President Obama has said that containing and controling medical costs is a primary goal of his plans. But the only way to control costs is to reduce usage among patients. CDHPs provides one way of doing this, by allowing consumers to make more of their own decisions about their healthcare. The other way to control costs requires someone else deciding for you what your options will be. We usually call this rationing.

Thanks to Chuck Serio for steering me to this article.

Obamacare for Thee, but not for Me

Via Hot Air, Massachusetts Democrat Niki Tsongas won't commit to taking Obamacare over her gold-plated health care plan. And why not? I don't want to give up my insurance for Obamacare, either. But I've been told that that attitude equates to "I got mine, f*ck you." I wonder if those who made that argument to me will feel the same about Tsongas?

Meanwhile, there is, indeed, astroturfing going on, but not from opponents.

Turns out there are hundreds, if not thousands, of advertisements seeking “activists” who will be paid to support Obamacare. That’s right CNN. That’s right Olbermann. You want astroturf? It’s out there by the dozens. In support of, not in opposition to.

I'm wondering if Rachel Maddow, who was infuriated that many of the groups supporting the Recess Rally are tied to the RNC, likes the idea of hiring activists to support Obamacare.

Quote of the Day

"Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday and St. Tuesday, will soon cease to be holidays. Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them." --Benjamin Franklin, letter to Collinson, 1753

Obama Lurvs Him Some Signing Statements

I remember when signing statements were a bad thing. But President Obama who condemned them during the campaign has--you guessed it--flip-flopped on the issue and now can't get enough of 'em.

In the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama called Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements an “abuse,” and said he would issue them with greater restraint. The Obama administration says the signing statements the president has signed so far, challenging portions of five bills, have been based on mainstream interpretations of the Constitution and echo reservations routinely expressed by presidents of both parties.

Of course he's using signing statements sparingly. Or not. But don't challenge him on it because Teh One gets testy about having to explain himself.

Fortunately, some Democrats aren't cowards about pointing out the hypocrisy of condemning an action during one's campaign and then wrapping that action in a big ol' bear hug once you're POTUS. But I don't expect to see many complaints from the leftosphere on the issue.

How Can Anyone Read Events So Badly?

It's hard to believe that anyone could misread the events of the past week as badly as the Democrats, but Susie Madrak manages to do just that. Her list of things President Obama did wrong regarding Obamacare is almost exactly backwards.

First, the problem wasn't that Obama delegated creation of Obamacare to Democrats, but that he set up goals, then changed his mind about them. Originally, he said he wanted to Give all Americans access to affordable, comprehensive, portable health coverage and "Implement Reforms to Help Lower Costs and Improve Health Care Quality." But what has come out of committee are plans that would severely tax businesses, forcing more Americans into the misnamed "public option."

Then there's the usual Democrat whinging about "bipartisanship." The truth is that Democrats haven't wanted Republican input or compromise on any of the legislation, shutting out all but a handful of Republicans from the process. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to ram through legislation before the August recess and didn't care about bipartisanship then. We've been treated to Democratic threats of reconciliation and utter contempt for anyone voicing concern about health care reform. And pity the fate of the Blue Dogs...

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi need to come up with new strategies, since kissing their collective Blue Dog butts only inflates their already-swollen egos. Someone (Obama?) should lay down the law. Put them in the worst offices, cut their staff budgets until they cooperate.

It seems to me that punishing Congressmen for doing the will of their constituents is the best way to help themselves into the minority. Blue Dogs vote with Nancy Pelosi 70% of the time. It's difficult to argue that they are much less than lap dogs with a voting record like that.

Madrak, as most Democrats, is misinterpreting what has happened concerning health care. Democrats could have reformed the system through changes in regulation and tort reform. Instead, it's easier to blame everyone but themselves and their own arrogance.

LOL of the Day

From this outraged post on that angry mob protesting Obamacare!

We live in a culture where one side is led by rational accommodationists who want to get along and the other, smaller side, led by a delusional, angry, id who want the majority to surrender.

Emphasis mine.

Ah, that angry, delusional id.


















They look delusional, don't they? So angry. So crazy. Let's compare them to terrorists because it's just too much that people might be wondering what the hell Democrats are trying to palm off on us.

Not like the rational protesters of yesteryear:

Those protests were the rational accommodationists. Right?

Mobs, Terrorists, Timothy McVeigh, and Liars

What else will the left call voters?

Smells like desperation. Now, Democrats are talking about using the reconciliation process to ram through Obamacare over the objection of American citizens.

There's a mean and nasty part of me that says, "Go ahead. Make my day." Because as much as Americans hate their insurance providers, they hate smug politicians cramming unpopular and life-changing (for many of us) legislation through. But then, there's the rest of me that says Democrats just can't possibly be so ignorant and suicidal and arrogant as to do something that pisses off Americans and provides more materials for political ads than the RNC can actually use. Can they?

Unemployment Edges Down .1%

Only 247,000 jobs were lost in July, but, hey, it's better than expected. Of course, try telling that to the half of all homeowners underwater by 2011, who can also expect higher taxes with all the Democrats' big spending plans. Eh, doesn't look so rosy then, does it?

"(O)ur elected leaders have a right to hear from their constituents -- not organized thugs whose sole purpose is to shut down the conversation"

So say AFL-CIO thugs wanting to shut down protests at townhall meetings.

The nation's largest federation of labor organizations has promised to directly engage (emphasis mine) with boisterous conservative protesters at Democratic town halls during the August recess.

In a memo sent out on Thursday, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney outlined the blueprint for how the union conglomerate would step up recess activities on health care reform and other topics pertinent to the labor community.

We know how unions directly engage their opponents. With fists and bats.

Some of those "astroturf" protesters the AFL-CIO wants to "directly engage":


Now this is some Grade A, Chicago-born astroturfing for you.

Remember When Protesting Was Patriotic?

I sure do.

That was just in 2004. Then people really went nuts.

I do not recall their congresswoman, Nancy Pelosi, ever protesting these protest.

Then again, George Bush never did either. He was too busy running the country to set up a snitch-on-protesters program or to whyyyyne about it day after day as president.

Mrs. Pelosi owes everyone who dares to stand up and speak Truth to her Power an apology.

Just who does she think she is insulting her employers like that?

Pelosi is a good and loyal Democrat, just following the example of her party leader. Don't like protests? Insult them and accuse them of astroturfing, even though it was your party that perfected that technique. Accuse them of racism, because you send some kooks in undercover to make the opposition look bad. Mock the voters. Then hope those same voters have a very short memory.

More manufactured outrage from those Brooks Brothers protesters! How dare they protest the stereotype!

Those intrepid lefties found the guy behind the astroturfing but, oddly enough, it doesn't sound anything like the moonbats are portraying it.

HopeNChange: This White House Definitely Handles Dissent Differently

Via Rightwing Sparkle:

While the Bush administration treated protestors with respect and understood the right to protest, this administration chooses to denigrate and spread lies about who the protestors are and why they protest.

Bush administration officials met with Iraq war protestors and others who disagreed with George Bush's policies, never smearing them. This White House accuses protestors of being "astroturf." But really, should we expect anything else from an administration that thinks it is so much smarter than the rest of us?

Thanks to Chuck Serio.

The F*** Your Friends for a Flashlight Campaign and Other Memories of Snitch Encouragement

When I worked at the newspaper, we had a heated rivalry with the Dallas Morning News. That didn't mean we didn't have lots of friends, lovers, spouses and other family who worked there. We did. And we all traded information about how the powers that be were trying to put the screws to us all.

In the 1980s, companies were hysterical about drug usage and trying to put a stop to it. I'm not in favor of recreational drug use, but the thought of being required to pee in a cup on a random basis just so I could answer the telephone was more than I could stomach. Particularly when we knew the druggies, and they weren't the clerks ripping the wire copy off the printers for you.

Always the leader in innovation, the folks at the DMN came up with an incredibly stupid campaign to get employees to snitch on their coworkers. If you turned in your buddy for having a doobie on the docks, the company would give you a free flashlight. This campaign quickly became known as the "F*** your friend for a flashlight" campaign and died a blessedly speedy death.*

I couldn't help but remember this when I read about the pathetic yet sinister attempt by the White House to enlist willing sycophants to snitch on anyone accurately informing others about what Obamacare contains.

The video begins: “Hi. I’m Linda Douglass. I’m the communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform, and one of my jobs is to keep track of all the disinformation that’s out there about health-insurance reform. And there are a lot of very deceiving headlines out there right now, such as this one — take a look at this one. This one says, ‘Uncovered Video: Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will Eliminate PRIVATE Insurance.’

“Well, nothing can be farther from the truth. You know the people who always try to SCARE people whenever you try to bring them health-insurance reform are at it again. And they’re taking sentences and phrases out of context, and they’re cobbling them together to leave a VERY false impression. The truth is that the president has been talking to the American people a LOT about health-insurance reform and what is at stake for them.

“So what happens is that because he’s talking to the American people so much, there are people out there with a computer and a lot of free time, and they take a phrase here and there — they simply cherry-pick and put it together, and make it sound like he’s saying something that he didn’t really say.”

The problem, of course, is that Obama did say that he wants to eliminate private insurance. There's nothing false or misleading in this video:

But that is the problem for the White House, which is why they are implementing the snitch program in the first place. And they aren't even giving away free flashlights for f***ing your friends over.

Thank goodness Democrats have a backup plan for when this one fails: blame Republicans.

Health Care Synopsis Politics Free

A friend of mine sent me this link to a politics-free analysis of different health care systems, including the pros and cons of each. There's much food for thought here.

One thing that doesn't get much attention, particularly from the left, is the need to reduce demand in health care in order for prices to go down. This post explains the dilemma, and I'll steal from it:

Mr. Seib ignores the modern reality that health care is just another consumer good and the main reason the system costs a lot is because we buy a lot. The only way to reduce what it supplies then is to reduce what we demand.

In the abstract, you could do that easily enough through regulation, taxation, and/or rationing. But in order to make it politically salable you'd have to demonize health care in the same way that we do things like tobacco, alcohol, gasoline, and the like.

Ironically though, the very same folks who claim to want to reform health care are the ones who tend to mystify it and elevate it into some sort of God-given right. Rather than a good, they treat it as a Good. And they worry that some people don't enjoy as much of the Good as the rest of us. When it comes to other commodities, the Left generally opposes consumption, but, because they view this one differently, they're claiming that we don't consume enough because access to it is too difficult. Their "reforms" will, therefore, drive the amount we spend on it even higher, almost by definition.

The unrealistic argument from the Left is that we should all be able to have all the health care we want, free of charge, because we have the same fundamental right to it as we do to free speech. The difference, of course, is that talking won't necessarily cost you anything, and there are ways to disseminate your opinions without paying anything or requiring others to do so (such as blogging).

But like most things, the free one isn't as good or effective as something you pay for, which is why hosting a television show or radio program can more effectively spread your ideas around than a simple blog on Blogger. It's not that Blogger is terrible; it's that a television show can provide better ways to communicate...for a price.

Health care seems to be the only industry where people demand the best for nothing (or very little) and this is completely unrealistic. We want the best cancer treatments, but we bitch about the price charged by the doctor, hospital and pharmaceutical companies to pay for those things. We want the best maternity care, then gasp at the prices charged.

It would be nice if we lived in a world where medical care--the best in the world--were free. But we don't. Medical care is always costly and, frankly, should be, as a way to prevent people from overusing it. Do you really need to go to the doctor when you have seasonal allergies? Or when your kid has the flu? What about your toenail fungus?

We get the medical care we both demand and are willing to pay for. Unfortunately, some think we can get it for free.

Birthers vs. Truthers: Each Party Has Its Fringe

Both Parties Have Their Fanatics

Fully 35 percent of Democrats believe George W. Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Fully 28 percent of Republicans believe Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States.

We had a 9/11 Truth commission which didn't satisfy the truthers. Should we have a Birther commission so it won't satisfy the Birthers, either? But notice the bias in reporting:

Consider that southerners are most likely to believe Obama was born abroad. Northeasterners are least likely. The former is the most conservative region, the latter is the most liberal. And it's no coincidence that nearly all Democrats believe Obama was born in the United States and nearly all Republicans believe W. Bush had no prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

The disparate treatment of the two conspiracy theories is unmistakable. More Democrats fell into the "truther" camp than Republicans fall into the "birther" camp. But the mainstream media has covered the "birther" poll far more vigorously. It's easy to understand, unless one is invested in the opposing camp, why these incongruities irk the political right.

I think the media's obsession with the Birthers has to do with their contempt for Southerners in general. If Birthers are kooks and more Southerners are unsure of Obama's birthplace than any other region and Southerners are less educated and more inbred (so the stereotype goes) and the South still votes Republican, then this is a terrific smear on Republicans. See the comments at this post for an example of how this thinking goes.

The author goes on to make a different point about the polarization of our politics, but I thought it was important to point out that the lens through which media types see events affects the way they report them. Thus, if those reporting the news consider certain regions of the country to be prone to certain behavior, they may pick up on examples in that region more quickly than others. And if those same media types belong to a different region, they might not be so quick to stereotype that region.

Michelle Malkin Shows the Ladies from the View What an Interview Should Be Like

After numerous examples of the witless wonders on the View lambasting Republicans and conservatives, it was wonderful to see Michelle Malkin pummel the "ladies" the way they should be.

As Malkin notes, the liberal nutbags only answer to Malkin's copious examples of Obama corruption was "Bush did it, too!" Of course, George W. Bush didn't run as the HopeNChange candidate who was going to be "bipartisan" and bring "transparency" back to the system. Those were Obama's promises, and he has clearly failed to deliver on them.

I was happy to see someone aggressively take charge of an interview on this noxious program. All too often, Republicans are too polite to these hags and wind up being trampled by them. Cheers to Malkin for not allowing it this time.

Of Course They're Going to Raise Your Taxes

Morning Bell: The Obama Middle-Class Tax Hike is Coming

But now President Obama is finding that keeping the promises made by candidate Obama is next to impossible. You just can’t borrow a trillion dollars for an economic stimulus, enact a new trillion dollar health care entitlement, and increase discretionary spending by 12% through 2019 (including doubling federal education spending) and then expect to pay for it all by taxing the most productive Americans. Eventually the moment comes when reality catches up to campaigning . That moment is fast approaching.

This weekend on the Sunday talk shows, both Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers refused to rule out the possibility that President Obama will raise taxes on the middle class. Secretary Geithner’s middle-class tax hike admission came among the context of deficit reduction on ABC’s This week.

Even Teh One can't defy the laws of economics, not that anyone wanted to hear this during Santa's promises before the election last November.

Dana has a wonderful "I told ya so" post up worth reading.

Of Course They Want a Single Payer System

Yes, they are talking about a government takeover of health care

Yes, of course, it’s a Trojan Horse for government-run health care and the elimination of private industry. They’ve been telegraphing it since the S-CHIP expansion efforts began in 2007 and Obama signed that “first step” into law in February.

Here's the video:

Anyone saying you'll be able to keep your private health care is lying to you.

A Democrat Is Still a Democrat

Blue Dog Dems Report Card

When calculating 16 of the most important votes so far in the 111th Congress of the 52 members in the Blue Dog Coalition 78% have voted in lockstep with ultra liberal Rep. Steny Hoyer.

If they voted with liberals any less, they'd be Republicans.

H/T: Chuck Serio

New Media, Making Sh*t Up and the Sarah Palin Divorce Story

I saw the story that Sarah and Todd Palin were getting divorced last night. It was the top story at midnight on Memeorandum, and had been significantly displayed on that site for about 18 hours before it finally was dumped once Mememorandum couldn't bury the denial any longer.

We should have been tipped off when the original story, which was oddly written as a straight news story, ended like the bitter, vengeful, wronged ex who can't keep it in any longer.

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin says politicians need to have thick skin "just as I've got" Which of course is hilarious since she quit as Alaska's governor complaining about her hurt feelings from Alaska's bloggers reporting on her 21 ethics violations.

Maybe the "hurt feelings" were about bogus ethics violations reports from bloggers who gleefully make stuff up and their Democrat counterparts who like to harass popular Republicans. Sounds to me like the only hurt feelings are from the bloggers who make sh*t up.

Robert S. McCain laments that we conservative bloggers don't have sources that can help us make sh*t up like liberal bloggers do.

To me, the whole thing goes back to why the left hates Sarah Palin and how they'll say absolutely anything to gin up the troglodytes in their readership.