"Al Gore has won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. This choice, more than any other Nobel Committee selection, marks the end of a 105-year era. In direct contradiction of Alfred Nobel's last will and testament, the selection of Gore essentially means the Peace Prize can no longer be said to be an award for improving the condition of humankind. Looking at Gore's writing, it's far from clear that Gore even believes that humanity is his most important priority."
[snip]
"Awarding the prize to Gore in 2007 is the equivalent of honoring the Luddites who tried to stop the beneficial technologies of Alfred Nobels's day."
The article goes on to examine what Alfred Nobel stated as the purpose of his prizes, which was to honor "those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." Exactly how Al Gore's actions are diametrically opposed to this intent are made clear in the article.
It's ironic that the same day Al Gore's prize was announced, one of the best meteorologists in the world was slapping down Al Gore's teachings as "foolish" and contrary to the actual evidence.
"On Friday, deliciously coincident with the Global Warmingist-in-Chief receiving likely the first of many Nobel Peace Prizes, Dr. Gray spoke to a group of meteorologists and students at the University of North Carolina telling the audience that the theory of manmade climate change is "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works."
and
"Dr. William Gray, professor emeritus of the atmospheric department at Colorado State University, who has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster, made that assessment at the University of North Carolina over the weekend.
"We'll look back at this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was," he said.
Climate scientist William Gray, skeptical that man is responsible for global warming, is unswayed by political pressure.
Meantime, said Gray, "We're brainwashing our children. They're going to the Gore movie and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
Mark, what's wrong with it is quite simple, all the political and scientific hoohaw aside. He was given a "prize" for doing something that has not yet been validated, i.e. not yet been shown to be correct. This does not consider the merits of any arguments thereof, rather it considers that the argument has only just begun.
It's like putting a rookie in the hall of fame. No, that is done after he has earned it, not while all he has done is make noise about how great he's gonna be.
Gore's winning was due in part because he "raised awareness" to the potential damage that we are doing to the environment. Though I disagree with Gore on every single issue, including global warming, I agree that there is importance in being better stewards of our environment.
As an outdoorsman, imagine how angry you get when you find that your favorite hiking/hunting/shooting spot has become Billy-Bob's newest tire dumping site... or a dump spot for his oil change... etc, etc...
Though I don't agree with global warming, I agree that raising awareness into environmental stewardship is essential in our growing consumer-based wasteful society.
Did it deserve a prize... no...
BTW, keep up the great blog! always a pleasure to read!
" what Alfred Nobel stated as the purpose of his prizes, which was to honor "those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." Exactly how Al Gore's actions are diametrically opposed to this intent are made clear in the article."
Hmmm, you sad...you confused.
Me 'splain:
The Nobel Prize means that Algore has retired from electoral politics forever.
Is this not the greatest of benefit to humankind?
Need I remind you of the great relief we all felt on the evening of September 11th, 2001 that we were NOT looking to a President Algore for leadership?
I really can't get too worked up over it because the Peace Prize (as opposed to the various science prizes, which still mean something) has been transparently political for decades now. It'd be like defending Paris Hilton's honor as a lady.
That said, I honestly can't figure out how Gore has made a contribution to world peace from ANY angle I try it from. Even if I assume that he is right about everything, and global warming is going to cause the levels of devastation he says it is, then we're left with a scenario where our choices are to let the devastation happen... or impose a massive global totalitarian system that, in effect, will bar most countries from ever developing any further for the forseeable future. Carbon dioxide isn't like the other pollutants we've successfully demonstrated we can significantly reduce, like sulfur dioxide; it's the inevitable outcome of... combustion. Not just the combustion of petrochemicals- any time you burn a carbon compound, you get CO2. Because carbon compounds are literally common as dirt, most ways to get energy on a mass scale are based on burning carbon compounds. Most forms of life on earth is based on this process, which is why everything but plants, cyanobacteria, and certain weird other bacteria that don't use oxygen at all excretes CO2, and why I joke that the most efficient way to decrease your carbon footprint is to die. Reducing CO2 levels is technically feasible- but right now, it means going to massive effort and cost for extremely low returns. Many trillions would need to be spent or sacrificed for (again, assuming Gore is right about everything) tenths of a degree in abatement of projected increases in temperature. Serious efforts at abatement would therefore lock the vast majority of the planet in grinding poverty- and do you think other countries are going to take that sitting down?
World peace, my foot. If Gore isn't a self-important fraud, he's the standard-bearer for the single biggest cause of global conflict in human history.
"great relief we all felt on the evening of September 11th, 2001 that we were NOT looking to a President Algore for leadership?"
This would be an excellent example of how the conservative movement has effectively brainwashed some people into believing that, after the worst attack on US soil, Al Gore would've done nothing. It is completely outrageous and really demonstrates the complete lack of character the right has...
Knowing what we know now about President Bush, I think Al Gore would've been a much better president. I voted Libertarian that year (Harry Browne) but have since regretted it. If Gore were president, I think OBL and Zawahari would be dead or in custody. I think many of our troops and thousands of Iraqi civilians would be alive. Al Gore would've recognized pretty early on that only blowing shit up is not going to win this war.
And we would've been on a much better path towards the future. Of course, we will never truly know and all of the above is just my opinion based on what I know about Gore and the decisions that President Bush has made by placing corporate interests over national security. So, bilgeman, I think you might want to not be so thankful that Bush was president on 9-11.
"This would be an excellent example of how the conservative movement has effectively brainwashed some people into believing that, after the worst attack on US soil, Al Gore would've done nothing."
Why, thankee...I've always known some day that someone would point to me as an example.
(I'd like to thank the Academy...)
In case you were out sick that week, chum, the big relief was not that Algore would do nothing...that's your half-assed presumption, but rather that he would do the WRONG thing.
I read the American Thinker piece the day Gore won the prize. Since Kevin linked that site, I have been checking it out quite a bit. The writings there, as well as some here, demonstrate a trend or theory that I have been mulling over recently. Bear in mind, this is a work in progress:
1. Something happens. Examples:
a. Dems push for universal health
care.
b. Liberals protest war.
c. Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace prize based on work to improve our environment.
d. anything that could help people.
2. Conservatives don't like it.
3. The propaganda machine begins to roll.
a. Flat out lies are told (followed by)
b. character assasination begins based on the lies (followed by):
c. a reminder to folks that while all of these things (health care, peace, clean environment) might appear to be a good thing, it is really evil because of 3a and 3b.
4. A policital wedge is driven where there should be none. Democrats scratch their head and, in their typical spineless turdom, send out Harry Reid (or someone of equal ineffectiveness) to inspire about as much strength as an evening of quiliting and warm milk.
5. Our country becomes, not a leader, but a lagger, with at least 35 percent of our nation trapped in a stubborn belief system whose only goal appears to division, not unity.
Never mind whether climate change is settled or not...the Peace Prize is supposed to be awarded to the person who's done the most to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
1. Something happens. Examples:
a. Dems push for universal health
care.
b. Liberals protest war.
c. Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace prize based on work to improve our environment.
d. anything that could help people.
(*sigh*)
Yes, Conservatives are against any and all ideas that will help people. Just ask Mark.
One of my favorite quotes goes something like this:
The only thing worse than knee-jerk Conservatism is knee-jerk Liberalism. At least with knee-jerk Conservatism, you know what will happen if you take their advice.
Actually, with Liberalism, all you know is that whatever it was you set out to achieve will be a complete failure. The unintended consequences are, by definition, incalculable.
(But the philosophy cannot be wrong! Turn up the power!)
I dunno Kevin, at least he's achieved logical consistency for once. We've been bashing on him for months for his unshakeable assumption that intentions dictate outcome. Since that's obviously one of his most basic premises, and he's just stated that liberals always want to do things to help people as another premise, the chain of reasoning goes:
1. If liberals want to help people, then all they have to do is do the things they dream up and it will help people.
2. Conservatives often oppose liberals.
3. Conservatives must not want to help people or they don't realize that all you have to do is do things to help people and it will help people. (Libertarians would bear out this theory- they not only don't want to help people, they don't want to be helped and are clearly insane.)
4. Conservatives are stupid, evil, or both.
Well, I have to admit that I threw "d" in as a semi-joke but it really seems that way to me sometimes.
Take a look at what happened with Graeme Frost. Classic example of my theory...and this is a bill that is supported by many Republicans!!
Do you really think that he and his family should be the poster-children for expansion of the S-CHIP program? Graeme Frost and his family are "poor"? Fuck, dude, by that measure I am poor and should qualify for gubmint-funded health care!
The Dems used a child to make an emotional appeal to the public, and when the conservatives used logic and reason they are vilified for "attacking a child!!!" Well, the Democrats should be vilified for trying to foster a massive expansion of a government program under the umbrella of "it's for the Chiiiiildren!"
"Many Republicans" support it because they're afraid of being tarred with that brush, IMHO, not because they think the expansion is a good idea.
As LabRat put it, opposing the bill is characterized by the Left as "stupid, evil, or both," and they know it.
It's all about "framing the debate" - something you seem to believe is exclusively the purview of the Right.
Liberals as a socialistic group where everybody looks different and talks different but accept a universal morality and are the crusading good guys...
Conservatives as a monolithic group with a single agenda, heartless and soulless, bent on mass conversion and exploitation of the masses, able to somehow mobilize all individuals as a single unit to achieve the agenda...
Holy shit guys, he thinks we're the Borg!
Come to think of it, "We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own" would be a pretty cool new tagline for Atomic Nerds.
Astute observation, LabRat. Funny that the perception is exactly backwards. The liberal socialistic group wants everyone to be different just like them!!, while the conservatives (at least we libertarian types) just want to be left the fuck alone so that we can actually be ourselves, regardless of how everyone else behaves/believes.
"Dems push for universal health
care.
b. Liberals protest war.
c. Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace prize based on work to improve our environment.
d. anything that could help people."
and then:
"4. A policital wedge is driven where there should be none..."
Y'know, ace, that sounds like your idea of "democracy" would be indistinguishable from a totalitarian dictatoship of liberal Democrats, (or the UberFrauFuhrer Clinton Administration, if there's any difference between the two).
Labrat makes an astute observation concerning the Borg.
Mark, old number, just because Howard Dean can press a button on his desk and make you do a backflip, doesn't mean that the whole world is that way...or even wants to be.
"Graeme Frost and his family are "poor"? Fuck, dude, by that measure I am poor and should qualify for gubmint-funded health care!
The Dems used a child to make an emotional appeal to the public, and when the conservatives used logic and reason they are vilified for "attacking a child!"
This would be my nomination for #103 on the AT list of media dishonesty. And the award winner? Michelle Malkin. Her charges, which were immediately believed by many right wing bloggers:
1. Graeme and his sister go to private school so the Frost's must be rich.
2. They live in an expensive House
3. Mr. Frost is a small business owner.
According to her, "The bottom line is that this family has considerable assets."
(Loud Buzzer Sound)
Wrong. And a blatant lie. Graeme and his sister go to school on scholarship. They bought their house in 1990 for 55K when the neighborhood was actually considered the ghetto. Since that time, it has improved. Frost dissolved his business in 1999 and now he and his wife make combined income of 45K a year.
Before Graeme's accident, they looked into getting health care and costs ranged around 1200 a month, which wouldn't fly on their salary so they went with SCHIP. This is what I have been talking about all along with health care...costs are too high for many people.
As Paul Krugman recently stated in the NYT:
"All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they’re “phony soldiers”; if Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he’s faking his Parkinson’s symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he’s a fraud."
Since I know that you may not take his word for it...how about Laura Ingraham, from early 2006:
"If Republicans don't get the message and start working to help ease the burden of middle class families, they will lose Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008."
Mark, I bought my house in 1991 for $66k. Their home is currently worth about $260k. Mine is worth maybe $200k. I own no other real estate, commercial or otherwise. I own three vehicles, too, but one is a classic Mustang, not a Volvo SUV nor a Suburban. (I plead guilty on the pickup truck, though.)
But here's the kicker, Mark - the Graemes QUALIFIED FOR S-CHIP ALREADY. The argument that the Dems are making with their bill (but assiduously avoiding in the media) is that the ceiling NEEDS TO BE RAISED - not that Bush's veto will STRIP THE GRAEMES OF THEIR COVERAGE.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. The program does NOT need to be expanded. The Graemes prove that.
"Before Graeme's accident, they looked into getting health care and costs ranged around 1200 a month, which wouldn't fly on their salary so they went with SCHIP"
I've heard that quotes for healthcare for this family could be found in the $450 range... and don't they own two homes?
I can't contain my disgust at the way the democrats thrust this family into the spotlight for pure politics. The image of Reid with his arm around this kid - as though he gives a shit about this family beyond scoring points off the president - makes me sick. Democrats don't play fair. Parading sick kids like that is vile.
As usual, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Michelle Malkin. Her charges, which were immediately believed by many right wing bloggers:
Because she backed them up and was investigating.
1. Graeme and his sister go to private school so the Frost's must be rich.
$20k/year tuition.
2. They live in an expensive House
No, they own a house worth a lot. (And put a lot of expensive upgrades into it! But, they have no money?! Hey, Scooby! Something's not adding up here! Ri Row, Raggy!)
3. Mr. Frost is a small business owner.
Yup. Obviousy, you don't understand what that means.
Wrong. And a blatant lie.
Be careful with the "lie" word. Oh, hell, you won't, you toss it around freely, nevermind what that does to your reputation.
It's disputed at best. And a lot of the disputing came after people started looking into the specific case, and realised that this was not a good example you wanted to use to push for expanding S-CHIP and demonizing the President for vetoing.
Graeme and his sister go to school on scholarship.
Reportedly. They're still paying something for that school. Also it's been reported that the grandparents (who are filthy, stinking, rich, of the sort you hate hate hate) were paying the bills. The actual "true" answer hasn't been discovered yet.
They bought their house in 1990 for 55K when the neighborhood was actually considered the ghetto.
That damages your point, Mark. that means they have equity they could leverage. Or sell, and buy health insurance. What a concept!
Frost dissolved his business in 1999
First I've heard of that, and there's a fair bit of evidence to show that he's still running his "home business". If you're right, that damages your point even more, since he apparently didn't go and get a W2 job!,
and now he and his wife make combined income of 45K a year.
Again, reportedly. And drive brand new cars. In a fixed up, renovated house. With $20k of countertops and easily $5k (assuming woodworker did all the labor himself) cabinets.
And they qualified for S-CHIP.
So, they're sending kids to private school, buying brand new, very expensive cars (that if they really only made $45k, they'd not be approved for the loans on, but nevermind that, it's a fact), and have spent far more than what that would bring home to update their home, and have a huge amount of equity in it....
And I'm paying for their healthcare. And you want to "expand" beyond people sitting on at least a half-million in assets, driving 3! new cars?!
Despite the fact that I can't afford but 1 car payment. Or my house (Which needs renovation! Maybe the Frosts can come do to my kitchen what they did to theirs, for cheep!), is waiting on my wife's house to sell, so we have money.
Because I'm paying for my healthcare. And the Frosts!
Nothing you said, Mark, really disputes what Malkin has turned up, by the way. But you're willing to take the "defense", without thought. Telling, that. No, you won't figure that out, either.
But Mark, the Frosts are going to kill S-CHIP. I thank them for that. Because if they're qualified for it, the system is horribly broken. They have the ability to pay for healthcare. They just don't think it important. They'd rather put their money somewhere else. So why should I be forced to pay for their rash decisions?
Kevin S: I can't contain my disgust at the way the democrats thrust this family into the spotlight for pure politics.
Bah. I'm glad as hell. I mean, if they went and found real poor people, (ick, they smell!) think of the case they'd have!
Instead, they went and got a rich liberal hiding assets (and already under S-CHIP!) to whine about how mean the President is, and how much he doesn't care about rich liberals hiding assets.
The sad part is the people who that program was meant for, who really needed it, who really could use it - are going to be left in the cold because of the Frosts.
Mark, of course, misses this irony totally, in favor of screaming "HOW DARE YOU CHECK INTO ANYTHING WE SAY!"
Right, Mark, there's no liberal media, the Democrats are scrupulously honest, and there never, ever would be people lying to freeload off of systems designed to help the needy.
It's a "dry lab," Jedi. The rules are simple: 1) Get your results; 2) derive your data; and, 3) whent the phoniness is discovered, complain that your grade isn't fair.
Wow. Having read Unix-Jedi's post, I have come to the realization that y'all need to be subsidizing MY kids healthcare. Cough up, people!
Seriously, though, I don't know how someone like Frost can do that and still look in the mirror. No sense of shame, no sense of pride in self-reliance.
Unix, Malkin's claims have been refuted and/or categorized as false. This is why you saw Republicans quickly back down from some of their earlier statements. The fact that you still think her claims were founded clearly demonstrates that what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. Do you hold her to the same standard that you hold--say the New York Times? No, you don't.
You hear what you want to hear, Unix. I think if you stayed off the right wing blogs and did some honest fact finding, you will find the Frosts are an excellent example of why the health care system in this country needs to be reformed in addition to be a great case of how the neocon bullshit brigade.
DJ, special dedication for you. I will be happy to continue to talk about the Frosts of course, but I came across this column about the Gorester and, since I have been accused of BDS...I thought you would enjoy it...
No, they have not. Which is why a new kid is being fronted as the new face.
The Frosts are staying alive in the public eye because, well, they're taking a beating publicly for their lack of responsibility and rather than letting it go...
Unix, Malkin's claims have been refuted and/or categorized as false.
Um, no, they haven't. There are multiple stories around about some of the disputed items (the scholarships, for instance.)
The fact that you still think her claims were founded clearly demonstrates that what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. Do you hold her to the same standard that you hold--say the New York Times? No, you don't.
I hold her to a higher standard, Mark. Because she's proven capable of adhering to it. I don't agree with her on everything, but she's a damn good reporter, she's got a good nose for a story, and so far, she's been right. And even if she's wrong, Mark, what she's uncovered, and the discussion are very valid topics of discussion. Who is being covered by these programs? Are they actually addressing what they were sold to the public to deal with?
You hear what you want to hear, Unix.
... Mark, they're in a nicer house than me. They're driving much more expensive vehicles than mine, they're living a life with far less work than mine, with far more resources, and I'm paying their bills. How is that "hearing what I want to hear?" Damn if it's not pretty much looking at the available evidence.
I think if you stayed off the right wing blogs and did some honest fact finding, you will find the Frosts are an excellent example of why the health care system in this country needs to be reformed
Yes, Mark, they are. But you can't see that.
These are people who didn't plan for the future, presumed that we'd just "S-CHIP" in case anything happened, and as a result, they live a very luxurious life - while most of us reading this are paying for it.
"They have the ability to pay for healthcare"
(Propaganda) Mission Accomplished!
Mark - they do, and even you admit it.
They're not paying for it.
Here's a family of not inconsiderable means, and they're playing the system for "free" care. (And "Free" schooling presumably better than the taxpayers-funded "Free" public schooling).
AND THEY WERE ALREADY COVERED UNDER S-CHIP. BUSH'S VETO MEANS NOTHING TO THEM.. They're already covered.
Mark, can you not get this through your head, too many conspiracies in the way? They're a really bad example of S-CHIP now, and even a worse example of expanding it more!
If the Frosts get more exposure - S-CHIP will be probably yanked back in great detail, because not everybody can live the Frost's life and game the system. (According to a neighbor, they're also ardent Leftists, not surprising. So they hide their assets, and let us pay for their lack of responsibility.)
You want to talk about blindness, yet you refuse to see.
"I received an unsolicited e-mail this week from a neighbor of the Frost family, the family held up by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the entitlement expansionist Democrats. He wrote:"
They’re good people. Terribly misguided, pathetically leftist buffoons, but still good people. It was a terrible accident and Bonnie is quite beat up with guilt over the events. Lots of neighbors pitched in to cook meals and help out… Bonnie works half time doing freelance editorial work and Halsey, an incredibly disorganized lovable goofball, just can’t seem to hold down a proper job or, when he’s tried, to run a proper company. He’s a millwork carpenter and does great work installing custom interior and exterior trimwork and cabinetry. He should be making great money but can’t get out of his way…
…Still, we make choices, right? They have three vehicles - a nice new volvo SUV, a Suburban, and his F250 Ford Pickup work truck, [Mark, but you said he sold the biz in 99? Care to retract, or go attack their neighbor?] a nice house, and all four kids go to private school. Not sure where the money comes from, but they don’t make all that much. Should they be the poster child for S-CHIP? Heck no….
Now, Mark, notice this neighbor likes them. Feels for them. Is willing to help them.
But notice the level of irresponsibility here, as reported from one of their friends.
Or is he part of the "neocon" (Dammit, Mark, you can't even define neocon. Neocon's got absolutely nothing to do with this, it's merely your standard epithet to anything that you oppose.) "bullshit brigade?"
"DJ, special dedication for you. I will be happy to continue to talk about the Frosts of course, but I came across this column about the Gorester and, since I have been accused of BDS...I thought you would enjoy it...
I agree with every single word"
Of course you do. Why would we expect otherwise?
And, in pointing this out to me personally, you point out to all of us that you didn't understand my comment about Al's prize.
I have not passed judgment on whether or not Al is correct in his campaign concerning global warming. I stated before that I hadn't studied the issue, and I still haven't.
The Nobel Prize in physics and such is not awarded unless and until the discovery it is awarded for has been vetted by peer review and found thereby to pass muster. If Al's assertions about global warming are worthy of such a prize, then the "scientific discovery" on which his assertions are based should be vetted the same way. Such vetting has barely begun, and it's likely to take a long, long, time.
The point I made, which you missed, is simply that awarding Al Gore a Nobel Peace Prize for his assertions about science was extremely premature.
And talking in any way about the merits of his assertions won't change that. Regardless of how such vetting progresses or what the result of such vetting are, awarding the prize when the vetting had only just begin was premature.
And this would still be true no matter who made the assertions. Notions of "Gore Derangement Syndrome" simply don't enter into it.
Let's have a little fun, here, and try some "illumination by analogy," shall we?
Consider what would happen if car insurance operated the same as health insurance.
1) When you filled the tank, you would pay a co-pay, and the gas station would bill your insurance carrier for the rest.
2) Everything the vehicle needed for "preventive care", such as oil changes, oil and air filters, spark plugs, injector cleaners, and even winshield washer fluid would be covered by your insurance carrier, with the usual co-pay.
3) Other parts replacements, such as tires, batteries, and such would be subject to a deductible, then an 20% co-pay.
4) Anything "elective", such a better tires, detailing, or new floor mats would be on you.
5) You would be limited in what you could do with the vehicle. For example, your benefit package might limit you to only two visits to Aunt Ethel per year, given how far away she lives.
The cost per mile to own and drive a vehicle would not be any less, would it? Indeed, it would be quite a bit more, because the cost of the premiums would have to exceed the cost of the benefits, even if only to pay the administrative overhead.
You laugh, but I'm not. I am dead serious.
I am reminded of an observation by Winston Churchill: "We contend that a nation that tries to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
And I contend that a gubmint cannot increase the prosperity of the citizens by taking money from them and using it to buy stuff for them.
So, what is really behind all the current noise about health care, and why is the Frost family saga only a symptom of it?
It is an auction.
The candidates of the Dimocrat Party, and some who are not even candidates, are simply putting things on the block and asking, "What am I bid for these benefits?" The bidding is in votes, i.e. the votes of those who would receive the benefits, and the paying is in dollars, i.e. the dollars of the evil, hated, corrupt rich folks who have money, but who don't vote for Dimocrats anyway.
Healthcare is only one item on the block. Think not? Well, look at what's been laid on the block:
1) Hillary Clingon has put free money on the block. She proposed that the gubmint give five thousand dollars to every newborn baby at birth.
The reaction was weak, in part because the only beneficiaries would be those who will have babies in the future. There aren't many votes there to buy.
2) Hillary Clingon has put free money on the block. She proposed that people be able to invest $1,000 each year in a 401(k), with the amount invested to be a "refundable" tax credit, and with the amount invested to be "matched" by the gubmint. The deduction and matching would be reduced for families with income above $60K and would be phased out totally above $100K.
Now analyze this one carefully. A "refundable" tax credit means that it directly reduces income tax, and if it exceed the total income tax, then the gubmint simply gives the taxpayer the difference. If the tax total is zero, then the gubmint simply gives the credit amount to the taxpayer. This is the same scheme as the mis-named "Earned Income Credit".
Now, I submit that the following is indistinguishable from the above description in form, fit, and function: "Each year, the feddle gubmint will give each taxpayer unit (i.e. one gift per tax return) the sum of $2,000, provided the taxpayer unit invests the funds in a personal 401(k). The gift is reduced in amount for those taxpayer units with incomes above $60K such that it is eliminated for those taxpayer units with incomes above $100K per year."
This one is getting some traction, but the votes she would buy with it would be expensive. If the lower 50% of the taxpayer returns made use of it, the cost would be one hundred billion dollars per year. Who would pay for it? Hillary Clingon says she would freeze the pending estate tax reductions at the level they will have in 2009, projecting a cost of $20 to $25 billion a year. Yup, it would be paid for, at least partially, by the dead rich. They don't vote at all.
That's quite an item: "Y'all gimme your votes, and I'll give you a hunnerd billion dollars to split among you, every year!"
3) Al Gore has put rights on the block. He has just re-stated the notion that health care in America "ought to be a matter of right".
I've analyzed this notion before. Health care consists of services and products that are provided by people and corporations. To hold that receiving these services and products is a right is to hold that the recipient has a right to the time, labor, and property of others. No, not in my world, they don't.
You can find other such examples. The auctioneers will find one or more issues that the MSM will describe as "resonating with the voters", meaning "the voters want these benefits and will vote for those who promise them." The candidates, Hillary Clingon especially, are trolling the voting waters to see who they can hook, and the Frost family saga is only a symptom.
Let's compare what you're saying is "Truth", with the source.
But the fact is I did have a business. Of course, they did not report properly that I ran from like—Frost Works from 1990 and folded up around ‘98, ‘99, went as far as incorporating that, actually carrying health insurance. And actually that was probably one of the nails in the coffin in that business.
Now, Mark, that's certainly on first glance a claim that the business ended in '99, as you claimed Frost dissolved his business in 1999 and now he and his wife make combined income of 45K a year.
So, what's he been doing for the last 8 years? Either he's sitting on his duff, or he's referring to a specific business where he had health insurance (presumably for his employees as well).
So, able-bodied man, who reportedly "has his own business", and you claim that it was dissolved in '99.
OK, Mark, which was it? Either he's not working at all, despite being able-bodied and possessing a truck (without seeing taxes, I don't know for certain, but I can't imagine that it's not being written off) for "work". According to his neighbor, he flits around working at times, doing excellent work, but not a dependable contractor.
See how your claim - which isn't by any stretch of the imagination "Proven" - doesn't make sense?
Or, if it does, what's he been doing for the last 8 years, and what's his excuse?
None of which changes the basic facts that:
* The Frosts were already covered under S-CHIP. Nothing about the veto affected them.
* (This means that this was awfully stupid to go front and center as the spokespeople for the government charity program.)
* A large majority of people upset about this live with far less luxuries in life, and are paying for the Frost's bad luck, and worse planning. Mark, I keep asking you, are you denying this?
* The Frosts are demanding more for their bad luck, as opposed to what the rest of us (By definition all of us can't demand more than we've got) do - cut back, sell possessions, readjust to suit circumstances.
Mark, have you ever owned your own business? Paid sales tax, tax on the business? (Full Disclosure: I have. And I suspect most of the other commentators here have as well.)
"So, able-bodied man, who reportedly "has his own business",
"what's he been doing for the last 8 years, and what's his excuse?"
Unix, do you have any kids and if so have you been the stay at home parent? I am just guessing here but you are in your 20s, right?
Point by point
"* The Frosts were already covered under S-CHIP. Nothing about the veto affected them."
True. But they wanted to share with the country how well it worked for them. It's called "trying to help out." They made too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford health insurance. Have YOU ever had a family? If not, you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about
* (This means that this was awfully stupid to go front and center as the spokespeople for the government charity program.)
Again, the whole concept of helping people out and being bold enough to stand up to another bullshit lie from our President.
"* A large majority of people upset about this live with far less luxuries in life, and are paying for the Frost's bad luck, and worse planning. Mark, I keep asking you, are you denying this?"
Yes, I am. You are not paying for this, unless you are a smoker. Are the "large majority" smokers?
* The Frosts are demanding more for their bad luck, as opposed to what the rest of us (By definition all of us can't demand more than we've got) do - cut back, sell possessions, readjust to suit circumstances.
Dude, seriously, you don't have a clue what's going on out there...
"have you ever owned your own business? Paid sales tax, tax on the business? (Full Disclosure: I have. And I suspect most of the other commentators here have as well.)"
Yes, I have. And was lucky enough to have a wife who had a great benefits plan so I didn't have to worry about the same things the Frosts did.
Unix, you see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. You hold people like Michael Moore to a different standard than Michelle Malkin. At least Moore backs up his facts (on a web site you refuse to go to) rather than doing what Malkin does which is tap into her inner rage, make up a story, and write it down as fact.
After reading your last post, I decided to call up my congressmen, though, and see if I could get some first hand thoughts on the S-Chip bill. My next post will detail what he told me.
My congressmen, a Republican btw, told me (we are acquaintences) that the claims made by the president and some members of Congress were flat out wrong. This bill enjoys a broad bipartisan support (67 votes in the Senate and 45 Republicans in the House) as well as 43 governors (15 Republican).
Under S-Chip's public-private partnership, private health care plans work with individual states to cover uninsured children. The insurance industry, the AMA, the AHIP, and the AHA all support S-CHIP. It is private industry that is leading the charge because they know that healthy children mean LESS strain financially on them in the long run. They are investing in their future because they think it will help their market.
In the end, that helps folks like you Unix who won't have to pay higher premiums. So, this progam is actually good for the economy. The health care industry wants this.
My congressmen is retiring at the end of this current term so he has nothing to gain by supporting this bill--no votes or any such thing--he just wants to the right thing. He is retiring, btw, because he is tired of people like Michelle Malkin giving conservatives a bad name. :)
This would be the same eeeevil health care industry that you have railed against in comments here on several occasions? And this doesn't raise your suspicions at all?
Unix, do you have any kids and if so have you been the stay at home parent? I am just guessing here but you are in your 20s, right?
No kids, and no, I'm not in my 20s. I keep telling you to stop trying to project on people. You suck, suck, suck at it in a sucky way unseen since George Plimpton took a snap from center.
"* The Frosts were already covered under S-CHIP. Nothing about the veto affected them."
True. But they wanted to share with the country how well it worked for them.
Really! It allows them to sit on their assets, and I get to pay for their health care, since they didn't get insurance when they could have afforded it.
Mark: Not everybody can be on S-CHIP. By definition. Do you not understand that?
It's called "trying to help out." They made too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford health insurance.
Mark, the point we keep trying to get across to you and the use of sources is you have to run them through a vetting process.
The Frost's circumstances lead me, and many others, to not believe that they couldn't afford health insurance. That is, they decided that they didn't need it, would roll the dice, and hey! If something bad happens, someone else will pick up the tab!
Yes, Mark, they say it [that they only make $45k.] Right. Ok. Does the evidence support that? Does it support that they're struggling? The evidence is rather astoundingly supportive otherwise. The 3 newish vehicles alone - get this Mark - you can't finance on $45k/year. You won't get a loan! Before you say they might not be financed.... Then... there's some choices that could have been made.
Have YOU ever had a family? If not, you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about
Really, Mark? If I'm the one without a clue, then why aren't you answering my questions?
At what point will you decide not to support people?
So they say they make $45k. Adjusted, that is. While they choose to live their life that way. Mark, that's fine, I don't begrudge them that, until they insist that I pay for their avoidance of the costs of their decisions.
* (This means that this was awfully stupid to go front and center as the spokespeople for the government charity program.)
Again, the whole concept of helping people out and being bold enough to stand up to another bullshit lie from our President.
What's a "bullshit lie"? Bush vetoed the bill because he wouldn't agree to the massive (and somewhat not-well-contained) expansion of S-CHIP. He'd have signed it if there hadn't been more than a minor expansion! I didn't give a shit one way or the other, but dammit, I want it abolished, Mark. Not not-expanded. Gone. If the Frosts are who's getting the money, fuck that shit. Let them live with their choices, and serve as a warning to others who'd refuse to pay their share.
"* A large majority of people upset about this live with far less luxuries in life, and are paying for the Frost's bad luck, and worse planning. Mark, I keep asking you, are you denying this?"
Yes, I am. You are not paying for this, unless you are a smoker. Are the "large majority" smokers?
Mark, S-CHIP is funded from General Revenue sources. Congress allocates it from the General Revenue fund.
Let me clarify the question:
Mark: Do you deny that the people paying for the Frosts may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than the Frosts?
* The Frosts are demanding more for their bad luck, as opposed to what the rest of us (By definition all of us can't demand more than we've got) do - cut back, sell possessions, readjust to suit circumstances.
Dude, seriously, you don't have a clue what's going on out there...
Dude, seriously, I do. That's exactly what's happening. My wife lost her job because of her medical conditions. Right after we bought a house.
Guess what? My kitchen hasn't been redone! (Unlike the Frosts!) (I did put a new floor in the bedroom - myself - the hardwood was purchased before her accident). I've had to cut back. I don't go out to eat now. I've not been able to buy the things I've wanted to. I know exactly what it's like to deal with health concerns, and have to sacrifice. While we didn't face as much in totality the bills the Frosts did - we weren't able to continue the way we wanted, as a result.
And you shove the Frosts in my face, with at least $250k in equity in their house, $100k or so in new vehicles, with rental property to boot, sending 4 kids to private school with 20k/year tuition (notice they're not telling us what their "scholarship" break is?)
They're worth more than I am, Mark. And I'm paying for their health insurance. And mine.
Yes, one of us doesn't know what's going on, all right.
Unix, you see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. You hold people like Michael Moore to a different standard than Michelle Malkin.
You do know that Irony isn't something on the periodic table, right?
At least Moore backs up his facts (on a web site you refuse to go to)
Bullshit X 2. I've been to it, I've pointed out (to you even) how he doesn't "back up his facts". I've pointed out to you that his defenses aren't honest. And you ran away. (The "picking up the gun at the bank", in case you've forgotten.)
rather than doing what Malkin does which is tap into her inner rage, make up a story, and write it down as fact.
Ok, Mark. AGAIN. What part of it isn't true? You like to nit-pick and go after minor issues - that are debatable. (The grandparents might be picking up the school tab, for instance. Doesn't change the base narrative, which you've missed in it's totality.) She didn't tap into her "inner rage". Unlike Moore, she went, researched what she could, and reported on it.
The story is evolving - but the base components are fundamentally there. As new issues break, there's some back and forth and discovery - the Frosts could quickly settle all the questions, let me note, if they'd come clean and allow access to the relevent documentation. (They're not obligated to, or required to. I just note they could, but for some reason, have been obfuscating and misdirecting. I've drawn conclusions from that. You have not.)
You want to froth about "It's called "trying to help out."" - but by definition, you've got to have more paying in than taking out - and the Frosts are an example of someone with bad luck who gambled, lost - and now we pay for them.
This bill enjoys a broad bipartisan support (67 votes in the Senate and 45 Republicans in the House) as well as 43 governors (15 Republican).
Then I don't see the problem you've complaining about. Override the veto, seems simple enough. Instructions included in every copy of the Constitution!
Kevin: By the way, you might want to look at Varifrank's Laws. A number are recently very applicable here.
1. You dont get paid by how hard you work, but by how hard you are to replace.
5. The worlds large monuments, such as the Pyramids of Giza were made for no other purpose than to simply keep people busy. There is nothing more dangerous to governments than well fed people who have free time, no common purpose and most importantly no need of control or organization by said governments.
7. The core idea of western civilization is the phrase "none of your business".
8. The core idea of fascist and communist thought is "you have no business".
9. There is no leftist thought, except that no matter what the situation is "America is always wrong".
12. The only part of the news that you can really use is given to you by the weatherman, who is almost always the station idiot.
13. You can teach anyone who can think logically how to code software, but you cannot teach anyone to think logically; they either have it or they dont. You would really be shocked at how few people think logically.
[/me hangs head in shame.
/msg Yo, my bad, you're right.]
14. Most humans are sane and rational, but all human organizations are insane and irrational. The bigger the organization, the more insane and irrational. Therefore, avoid joining all large organizations the same way you would avoid making eye contact with the crazy homeless people that you see on the way to work.
15. If you cannot own property, you are property.
18. Utopia is the single most destructive idea ever invented by mankind.
"Mark: Do you deny that the people paying for the Frosts may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than the Frosts?"
Once again, I refuse to answer a question like this as it frames the debate in such a way to produce a desired outcome for yourself. It would be like me asking you the question:
Do you deny that people paying for Iraq may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than Haliburton executves?
Would YOU like to answer that question? Don't think so...because it doesn't cover all of the angles, even the ones that benefit my beliefs.
Really, Unix, focusing only on the tired old "welfare queen in a Cadillac" allegory (which, btw, is sooo played, dude)is not applicable to 2007. Maybe 1987 but not now.
I do apoligize, though, for thinking you were in your 20s.
I refuse to answer a question like this as it frames the debate in such a way to produce a desired outcome for yourself.
IOW: "You're right, and I've lost the debate, so I'll climb on my Moral High Horse." I appreciate the admission.
focusing only on the tired old "welfare queen in a Cadillac" allegory (which, btw, is sooo played, dude)is not applicable to 2007. Maybe 1987 but not now.
Well, true, the Frosts are partial to much more expensive vehicles. So I guess now it's "S-CHIP qualifier in a Volvo?" That OK by you?
pdb: hey, he did throw HALLIBURTON at you
aren't you supposed to wince and scream now?
(Oh, sorry! I forgot Halloween is coming up! Thanks pdb!)
EEEEEEEEKKKK!!!!!!!
HALLLIBURTON!!!!!!
OH, HOW CUUUUUUUUUUTTTTEEEEEE! AND YOU LOOK JUST LIKE KARL ROVE! EEEEEE! I'M SOOOOO SCARED!!! YOU MUST BE DICK CHENEY! AND YOU'VE EVEN GOT THE "PACKAGE!" EEEEE!
Ok, here's some snickers, and some M&M's, and oooh, you're so scary!
Actually, what you should be scared about is that many people (including myself) have decided that the neco conservative bullshit brigade (NCBB) don't get to dictate the terms and conditions of debate in this country anymore.
Framed questions, like the one above, are seen for what they truly are....
"I refuse to answer a question like this as it frames the debate in such a way to produce a desired outcome for yourself."
You mean like how the Left trots out a cute kid in order to kill any debate on the expansion of the S-CHIP program and then when anyone complains, then they yell, YOU JUST HATE KIDS! That kind of framing the debate?
I assume you mean neo. Do you even know what a neo conservative is? They would probably support the S-CHIP program. It is more of a traditional conservative position to be against this sort of government expansion. Neo-Cons love big government.
Do you deny that people paying for Iraq may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than Haliburton executves?
Would YOU like to answer that question?
Sure. The answer in both cases is "Yes." But then, I'm not the one drawing the moral equivalence between the Frosts and Haliburton executives. I don't see either group as evil. One provides a service to the federal government for which it is paid. You can argue it shouldn't be receiving the contracts, or that the billing is too high, but you cannot deny that there are services rendered. The Frosts appear to have the means by which they ought to be able to afford health insurance, but instead chose to spend their money in other ways and depend on taxpayers to provide their health care coverage.
Note: There's no equivalence there, Mark. Swing-and-a-miss! The Haliburton boogeyman doesn't really work here.
"I refuse to answer a question like this as it frames the debate in such a way to produce a desired outcome for yourself."
Mark, you don't have a fucking clue how intellectually dishonest that response is. It is the purest cop-out, the purest refusal even to try to engage in rational discussion.
I stated before that you are a phony, Mark, merely a faux intellectual who simply will not think rationally. Every time you try this "defense", you simply confirm the validity of my assertion.
Now grow up, little boy. If you can't handle the discussion like a man, then try doing the only honorable thing left to you, which is shutting the fuck up.
Exactly. Mark can't see that he's framed the debate already, and he's resisted going back to "first principles".
"Neco-conservatives (what, are they waaaaafer thiiin) are evil!" So he wants to only debate whether the Frosts were helped by the payment of their costs. That's it. That's the sum total of the debate for Mark. Evil, or not evil.
But ask to go back to the first principles, oh, woah, woah, woah! No, no, I won't go there! Down that way lies rationality! And defeat for my emotional reactionism!
....
The really sad part of this, is if Mark were to ask "Should there be a way for people to be able to not lose their house, their car, their businesses due to unforeseen bad luck", we could have a discussion on that.
I'm not against catastrophic insurance, actually. (I am, however, against you only paying into it after you say 'Oh, shit, I need that now!')
But instead, Mark slings accusations and ad hominems. "Welfare Queen driving a cadillac! So 80s, man!"
Well, Mark, the reason Welfare Reform was going to happen come hell or high water was exactly that. Some people on assistance got their food and housing paid for, and they used the rest to live very high on the hog (in the short-term) conspicuously.
It's not just a slanderous cliche - I've seen many cases of it. It's by far not the average, or the norm - but it's very visible. I can tell you about helping friends at the shelters/"goodwill" stores, and the - yes, cadillac driving - entitlement bitches who nothing was good enough for, and damn if you were going to "Dis' Them. Oh, HELL no!"
But damn if that didn't wreck it for the people who it was intended to help. The ones trying to scrape by. The ones trying to save, and plan, and have a nest egg, and could use a little extra help.
Mark can't see it like that - he can't say "How can we best cover people" - because that requires actually reconsidering first principles. Much easier to throw the insults, and insist that anybody who isn't willing to take money from others must just be evil, and out for bad things.
So, the Frosts, a family that by all outside observations, could have prepared for a rainy day were used as the poster children, and now, the "broad bipartisan support" has evaporated, and now there's no assistance there.
Just like the 80's "Cadillac Welfare Queens". But Mark won't address the truth of those issues, just dismissing (framing the debate!) those as ridiculous.
Mark can't see the irony there.
This is why we keep telling Mark that he's really bad at trying to come up with realistic policies that do what you say they will.
But we can be ignored, after all. We're just evil, mean, selfish people. (Which isn't better or worse than being good, nice, and generous.)
Unix-Jedi"Mark: Do you deny that the people paying for the Frosts may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than the Frosts?"
Mark:"Once again, I refuse to answer a question like this as it frames the debate in such a way to produce a desired outcome for yourself."
Mark, this question is the central point of the disagreement here. We hold the belief that everyone has choices about where to spend their money. Some people will choose to spend it on insurance, or at least savings, to cover possible emergencies (whether medical or otherwise). Others spend every penny they get on lifestyle choices and neglect planning for emergencies. We contend that those who choose to not prepare for emergencies do not have the right to demand money from others (paying the government to fund such programs is not optional, therefore it is a demand) just so they can avoid the consequences of their own bad choices. (Personally, I have no problem with asking for voluntary charity, in which case they would almost certainly have their needs met with no real fuss.) The problem is that we view having the government take money from one group to give to another as merely being one step removed from doing the same thing in a face to face fashion. Even if done to meet needs like this family has, people still get shot for attempted robbery.
Bottom line, if you are going to convince us that it was appropriate to use this family as an example, you must give us a convincing answer to that question because that is exactly how we see this issue. It is impossible to convince someone of anything until you first meet them were they are.
Most of you probably recognize the name Davy Crockett. Until recently, I only knew him as a famous frontiersman. What I didn't know was that he eventually was elected as a Congressman.
During his term in office, he had two different chances to vote on spending tax money in acts of compassion and charity. In the first case he voted for spending the money, because he considered the cause to be just. For the second bill, he considered the cause to be just as worthy, yet he spoke out against it. The reason he acted differently the second time around is because he learned one very important truth: Tax money is not theirs to give away.
SCHIP and every welfare program like it is generally passed due to good intentions. There are people who are genuinely helped through these programs. However, The Constitution does not give the government the power to do this because governments cannot do charity right.
We recently had a huge discussion about New Orleans. There were basically two huge groups providing aid to New Orleans: government and private charity. Guess which group was more effective at actually helping people and getting things done. That's right, it was the private charity which made far more happen, and with less money to boot.
I'm with Davy Crockett on this one:
"I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money."
And here is a perfect quote from Shooter1001 in the comments at Kim duToit's blog:
"When they have the power to arbitrarily simply take your property and then disperse it to whomever they please and for whatever reason, they own you and you are at their mercy!"
Mark, can you honestly argue that:
A) This isn't true
and/or
B) S-CHIP, especially in an expanded version, does not fit this description?
I go back even further than first principles, guys, and Mark, now that I've calmed down a bit, I'll explain it even further.
What Jedi did is make an assertion and ask if you agreed with that assertion. That is a perfecly legitimate thing to do, and it can be done several ways. Here is the way it would be done in a textbook on logic:
"Assertion: Some people who pay for the Frost's benefits may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than do the Frost's. Question: Do you agree with this assertion?"
It can also be asked in an inverse form:
"Assertion: Some people who pay for the Frost's benefits may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than do the Frost's. Question: Do you disagree with this assertion?"
It can also be asked in another inverse form:
"Assertion: Some people who pay for the Frost's benefits may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than do the Frost's. Question: Do you deny that this assertion is true?"
And finally, the assertion and question can be combined into a single sentence, as Jedi did:
"Do you deny that the people paying for the Frosts may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than the Frosts?"
Now, teacher, this is plain, simple, unequivocal English. A fourth grade student ought to be able to understand it without quibble and without confusion. Most importantly, that same fourth grade student ought to understand that all four forms of the assertion and question that I showed above are equivalent.
More to the point, it is a perfectly legitimate assertion and it asks a perfectly legitimate question. It is not a "have you stopped beating your wife" question and it is not a trap. It does not "frame the debate", it simply asks if you agree with or deny a part of the debate.
There are only three reasonable responses to the question: 1) "I agree with the assertion, and I think [insert thoughts here ...]"; 2) "I disagree with the assertion, and I think [insert thoughts here ...]"; and, 3) "I don't know if the assertion is true or not, and I think [insert thoughts here ...]".
But, as usual, you just couldn't respond reasonably. The core of your problem, i.e. why you have such a cringing, childish approach to responding to his question, is that you find it extremely difficult, if not actually impossible, to affirm an assertion made by someone else if you do not like the truth of the assertion. Doing so sticks in your craw like a big wad of stale peanut butter and you just can't get it out. Instead, you either ignore the question, or, as in this case, you dance and dance around the assertion like a little boy who's peed in his pants and hopes that, if only he dances fast enough, nobody will notice.
This is precisely why you are "dismissed", Mark. The "zeroth principle" that you continually ignore, or that you do not understand, is that refusing to say, "Yes, I agree, that's true, but ..." when what is true is not merely true, but astoundingly true, is guaranteed to cause you to be regarded like a child who's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar saying, "Nu uhh! No fair!"
You want respect, Mark? Really? Then stop insulting our intelligence. You can, of course, have whatever opinions, likes, and dislikes you want, but refusing to admit to reality earns you the treatment you get here.
"I'm not against catastrophic insurance, actually."
I am, actually. In my unhumble opinion, that's what insurance is for.
I would dearly love to be able to pay for medical insurance that covers catastrophes, such as heart attacks, bypass surgery, transplant surgery, cancer treatment, and so on, but nothing else. These are things that only a fraction of people fall victim to, and so insurance that covers only such occurrences is a "share the risk and share the expense" enterprise.
That's how car insurance works, and that's why it's cheap compared to health insurance.
But the only health insurance I can get covers everything, meaning any visit for any reason to a health practitioner, half the cost of prescription drugs, and, oh yeah, help for catastrophic coverage, too.
Numbers don't scare me, so I did a little forensic accounting. About 52% of my insurance premium pays for the "reduction" in the amount I pay for prescriptions, and I pay the rest. So, in effect, I pay normal prices for my prescription needs and the rest of the premium pays for catastrophic coverage.
Now if the whole system were set up to do that explicitly, I would save considerable headaches and effort, because it is much easier to just go to the neighborhood pharmacy and fill those prescriptions than it is to deal with the bureaucrats at the insurance company and get them filled by "mail order".
And underlying it all is a paraphrase of what I posted earlier: The insurance industry cannot increase the ability of the people to pay for medical care by taking money from them and using it to buy stuff for them. Doing so is not even a zero-sum process, it's a parasitic process, as it simply adds a very expensive layer of overhead to medical care.
The idea that a person should get all the medical care that he needs or wants, but someone else ought to pay for it, is parasitism in the extreme. That is what I rail against, and the Frost's case is just a symptom of it.
Yosemite, yeah, I am really struggling with a name for the Michelle Malkin's of the world. Saying "conservatives" seems to generalized and "Bushie" seems stupid. Neo-con is more of a Paul Wolfowitz type so...you're right, I need a new name. Any suggestions?
Ed, you said "you must give us a convincing answer to that question because that is exactly how we see this issue."
My point is that it is impossible given the Malkins of the world because now you (and others here) see the Frosts that way and I seriously doubt it will be any other...she succesfully framed the story the way she wanted to, facts be damned, and has now created a new reality. A reality that some people here are always willing to reside in...
DJ, we've had this discussion before...here we go again. The question was:
"Do you deny that the people paying for the Frosts may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than the Frosts?"
By answering "No, I don't deny it" I am then placed into the "formula", as it were, to lead to the insanely narrow minded answer.
Questions like these fail to take in the big picture. For example, would these same less fortunate people pay more money that they don't have if S-CHIP wasn't around? What is the cost of caring for unhealthy people to the taxpayer by the time they get to Medicare? How does preventative care factor in as well?
The question is meant to provoke an answer that is so narrow in scope in relation to the problem that it's actually insulting. But maybe that's the real issue here...I view our current health care system as a "problem" and you view it as being hunky dory.
"I view our current health care system as a "problem" and you view it as being hunky dory."
And there you get it exactly wrong again.
It's not "hunky dory." It's pretty fucked up - yet it provides the best results to the greatest number of any system in the world, else they wouldn't be coming here to be treated.
But it is not the business of government to fund insurance programs. And, I would argue, much of the blame for our fucked up health care system can be placed directly at the feet of the unintended consequences of government overreach into the health care system.
From everything I've seen out of you, Markadelphia, your answer to any problem is to increase the involvement and control of government - insisting that will solve all our problems. After, of course, admitting that the government is completely screwed up and full of corrupt criminals. But, somehow, if we just put the right people in charge, this will all change.
It's maddening to debate this with you because you will not listen to yourself, much less us.
Mark:"My point is that it is impossible given the Malkins of the world because now you (and others here) see the Frosts that way and I seriously doubt it will be any other...she succesfully framed the story the way she wanted to, facts be damned, and has now created a new reality."
Not quite. Even without the Frosts, we still have the underlying issue: We are convinced that it is wrong to take money from others by force and give it to others, especially when they find themselves in a hard position due to their own bad choices. It does not matter if the people in the hard position have more money than those being taken from or not. However, if the people "in need" have more money than those being taken from, that rubs salt into the wounds.
It is this basic principle that is at issue here and which you must address: taking money from one group by force to give it to another is wrong. Period.
Mark, for cryin' out loud, go back and READ my last comment directed at you. READ the goddamned thing and try, just once, to comprehend something that someone else wrote. TRY, Mark.
Now, let's look at your statement to me about it:
"By answering "No, I don't deny it" I am then placed into the "formula", as it were, to lead to the insanely narrow minded answer."
No, Mark. A million times, NO.
By answering "No, I don't deny it," you would explicitly admit that you agree to his assertion, namely that the people who pay for the Frost's benefits might well have a standard of living that is lower than the Frosts. That's all you would be admitting to, Mark.
But, you can't do that, can you? You're so goddamned paranoid, so fucking afraid of being thought of as "in the wrong", that you will not even try to be right. Being "in the right" is just what you would be by admitting the truth of his assertion. It's the taxpayers who pay for the Frost's benefits, millions of whom don't have the assets or the income the Frost's do, but who pay taxes that pay for the Frost's benefits. The truth of Jedi's assertion is self-evident, and you just can't say, "Yup, that's true", and move on.
Now, what did I say about this behavior on your part:
"The core of your problem, i.e. why you have such a cringing, childish approach to responding to his question, is that you find it extremely difficult, if not actually impossible, to affirm an assertion made by someone else if you do not like the truth of the assertion. Doing so sticks in your craw like a big wad of stale peanut butter and you just can't get it out. Instead, you either ignore the question, or, as in this case, you dance and dance around the assertion like a little boy who's peed in his pants and hopes that, if only he dances fast enough, nobody will notice."
BINGO.
And I finished with:
"You can, of course, have whatever opinions, likes, and dislikes you want, but refusing to admit to reality earns you the treatment you get here."
Damnit, man, are you really so dense that you can't understand this, and that you think we don't?
You apparently don't have the slightest clue how much respect you would earn by simply admitting to other people that they are right when they are right. You've spent a whole lifetime avoiding it, haven't you?
"...taking money from one group by force to give it to another is wrong. Period."
But it's the basis of democratic government. See Mencken:
The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.
Or George Bernard Shaw:
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
Or G. Gordon Liddy:
A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.
Of course, we here at TSM are all conservatives or extremists, as defined so piquantly by Joseph Sobran:
If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist.
Kevin, here's a thought. I will attempt to logically explain to you my thoughts on government and corruption. You said:
"increase the involvement and control of government - insisting that will solve all our problems. After, of course, admitting that the government is completely screwed up and full of corrupt criminals. But, somehow, if we just put the right people in charge, this will all change."
Yes it will. Government can work, if you want it to. You don't want it to work. So it never will, in your eyes. Think of it this way.
1. People in our government are, for the most part, corrupt and evil.
2. Our government has federal programs run by these people.
3. The programs are, for the most part, corrupt and evil, doing more harm than good.
Now change the paradigm.
1. People in our government are, for the most part, competent and effective.
2. Our government has federal programs run by these people.
3. The programs are, for the most part, effective and help people.
Our country is like any company, Kevin. If you have an ineffective CEO or employee, a change is made and many times, that company performs more effectively. Let's do that now.
Can't you see what's going on here? Bush/Cheney want the government to be viewed as incompetent and/or evil. This allows them to increase the privatization agenda that they, and other like minded indivdiauls have. They can say "See? Look at how big government screws thing up!" and then dance their merry way into increased profits and furthering the class divide.
"taking money from one group by force to give it to another is wrong"
Well, you are going to have to define "force." I don't have a problem with the government taking my tax money in order to form a standing army and protect our nation. Do you? Is it only certain groups that you don't want your money given to or all of them? Or is it something else? Another way of looking at it?
It's possible that the "love it or leave it" argument so often evoked by conservatives could apply here. Your taxes pay for the infrastructure of this country which you enjoy the benefits of everyday. Isn't this true? Or is the question to limited in scope?
Mark, I'm going to make a post out of your comments above. It will take me a while, but bear with me.
I'd appreciate it if the rest of you; DJ, Bilgeman, Unix, Ed, etc. refrain from opening fire on Mark until I get it posted - at least until sometime Sunday.
I was too busy being at the range, but no problem. :)
(My friend the Xman wringing out his newly built XK, and introducing a friend of mine and his cute gf to bench shooting at 100 yards - she really loved the 30-round mags for the 10/22, and pounded 32 oz plastic bottles all afternoon.)
"DJ, I believe I have said several times that "I see your points." That is me agreeing with you and admitting that you might be right."
Possibly you have, but I recall only one time in that form, to which my response was, "Thank you." I understood your comment as you stated above at the time you made it. And, you have agreed with other people a few times on a few other matters. But, how many hundreds of times has your behavior been exactly the opposite, as I have complained about here? What is the ratio of the two?
I think you understand exactly what I've been trying to get you to understand. Your comments on it in this post have only tightened the asymptote. Why do I think that? Because of two words, Mark, your two words:
"Alright, guys, how about your thoughts on the as yet unsolved anthrax attacks?
Mark, I'm done here except for a short observation.
Respect from others and consideration by others are considerations that must be earned, and it is respect to others and consideration for others that earns them. For the people who regularly visit Kevin's parlor, a healthy respect for demonstrable reality is a prerequisite, the denial of which is a sure vaccination against credibility, respect, and consideration.
The past is over, Mark. I suggest you consider the future. The ball's in your court.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/10/i-take-few-days-vacation.html (82 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Yes.
And your problem with Gore winning the Nobel Peace prize is...?
Man, oh, man.
Once again, Markadelphia throws down the red meat.
Here's the best article I've seen on this so far: Al Gore and the Mission of the Nobel Prizes
"Al Gore has won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. This choice, more than any other Nobel Committee selection, marks the end of a 105-year era. In direct contradiction of Alfred Nobel's last will and testament, the selection of Gore essentially means the Peace Prize can no longer be said to be an award for improving the condition of humankind. Looking at Gore's writing, it's far from clear that Gore even believes that humanity is his most important priority."
[snip]
"Awarding the prize to Gore in 2007 is the equivalent of honoring the Luddites who tried to stop the beneficial technologies of Alfred Nobels's day."
The article goes on to examine what Alfred Nobel stated as the purpose of his prizes, which was to honor "those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." Exactly how Al Gore's actions are diametrically opposed to this intent are made clear in the article.
It's ironic that the same day Al Gore's prize was announced, one of the best meteorologists in the world was slapping down Al Gore's teachings as "foolish" and contrary to the actual evidence.
The Warming Debate's Gray Area
Famed Hurricane Forecaster Says Al Gore ‘Brainwashing Our Children’
"On Friday, deliciously coincident with the Global Warmingist-in-Chief receiving likely the first of many Nobel Peace Prizes, Dr. Gray spoke to a group of meteorologists and students at the University of North Carolina telling the audience that the theory of manmade climate change is "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works."
and
"Dr. William Gray, professor emeritus of the atmospheric department at Colorado State University, who has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster, made that assessment at the University of North Carolina over the weekend.
"We'll look back at this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was," he said.
Climate scientist William Gray, skeptical that man is responsible for global warming, is unswayed by political pressure.
Meantime, said Gray, "We're brainwashing our children. They're going to the Gore movie and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
Mark, what's wrong with it is quite simple, all the political and scientific hoohaw aside. He was given a "prize" for doing something that has not yet been validated, i.e. not yet been shown to be correct. This does not consider the merits of any arguments thereof, rather it considers that the argument has only just begun.
It's like putting a rookie in the hall of fame. No, that is done after he has earned it, not while all he has done is make noise about how great he's gonna be.
Gore's winning was due in part because he "raised awareness" to the potential damage that we are doing to the environment. Though I disagree with Gore on every single issue, including global warming, I agree that there is importance in being better stewards of our environment.
As an outdoorsman, imagine how angry you get when you find that your favorite hiking/hunting/shooting spot has become Billy-Bob's newest tire dumping site... or a dump spot for his oil change... etc, etc...
Though I don't agree with global warming, I agree that raising awareness into environmental stewardship is essential in our growing consumer-based wasteful society.
Did it deserve a prize... no...
BTW, keep up the great blog! always a pleasure to read!
Ed Whatthe heck Man:
" what Alfred Nobel stated as the purpose of his prizes, which was to honor "those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." Exactly how Al Gore's actions are diametrically opposed to this intent are made clear in the article."
Hmmm, you sad...you confused.
Me 'splain:
The Nobel Prize means that Algore has retired from electoral politics forever.
Is this not the greatest of benefit to humankind?
Need I remind you of the great relief we all felt on the evening of September 11th, 2001 that we were NOT looking to a President Algore for leadership?
Be calm in your mind.
Thanks Bilge,
I'm going to be chuckling about that one for quite a while. ;)
I really can't get too worked up over it because the Peace Prize (as opposed to the various science prizes, which still mean something) has been transparently political for decades now. It'd be like defending Paris Hilton's honor as a lady.
That said, I honestly can't figure out how Gore has made a contribution to world peace from ANY angle I try it from. Even if I assume that he is right about everything, and global warming is going to cause the levels of devastation he says it is, then we're left with a scenario where our choices are to let the devastation happen... or impose a massive global totalitarian system that, in effect, will bar most countries from ever developing any further for the forseeable future. Carbon dioxide isn't like the other pollutants we've successfully demonstrated we can significantly reduce, like sulfur dioxide; it's the inevitable outcome of... combustion. Not just the combustion of petrochemicals- any time you burn a carbon compound, you get CO2. Because carbon compounds are literally common as dirt, most ways to get energy on a mass scale are based on burning carbon compounds. Most forms of life on earth is based on this process, which is why everything but plants, cyanobacteria, and certain weird other bacteria that don't use oxygen at all excretes CO2, and why I joke that the most efficient way to decrease your carbon footprint is to die. Reducing CO2 levels is technically feasible- but right now, it means going to massive effort and cost for extremely low returns. Many trillions would need to be spent or sacrificed for (again, assuming Gore is right about everything) tenths of a degree in abatement of projected increases in temperature. Serious efforts at abatement would therefore lock the vast majority of the planet in grinding poverty- and do you think other countries are going to take that sitting down?
World peace, my foot. If Gore isn't a self-important fraud, he's the standard-bearer for the single biggest cause of global conflict in human history.
On the Microstamping front, somebody sneaked some sneaky-talk into the bill's language: AB-1471 May Never Be Implemented (for at least 15 years). One of those things, "you never hear about?" Hmmm...
"great relief we all felt on the evening of September 11th, 2001 that we were NOT looking to a President Algore for leadership?"
This would be an excellent example of how the conservative movement has effectively brainwashed some people into believing that, after the worst attack on US soil, Al Gore would've done nothing. It is completely outrageous and really demonstrates the complete lack of character the right has...
Knowing what we know now about President Bush, I think Al Gore would've been a much better president. I voted Libertarian that year (Harry Browne) but have since regretted it. If Gore were president, I think OBL and Zawahari would be dead or in custody. I think many of our troops and thousands of Iraqi civilians would be alive. Al Gore would've recognized pretty early on that only blowing shit up is not going to win this war.
And we would've been on a much better path towards the future. Of course, we will never truly know and all of the above is just my opinion based on what I know about Gore and the decisions that President Bush has made by placing corporate interests over national security. So, bilgeman, I think you might want to not be so thankful that Bush was president on 9-11.
Sheesh.
Mark:
"This would be an excellent example of how the conservative movement has effectively brainwashed some people into believing that, after the worst attack on US soil, Al Gore would've done nothing."
Why, thankee...I've always known some day that someone would point to me as an example.
(I'd like to thank the Academy...)
In case you were out sick that week, chum, the big relief was not that Algore would do nothing...that's your half-assed presumption, but rather that he would do the WRONG thing.
You can serve as an example yerself, y'know.
I read the American Thinker piece the day Gore won the prize. Since Kevin linked that site, I have been checking it out quite a bit. The writings there, as well as some here, demonstrate a trend or theory that I have been mulling over recently. Bear in mind, this is a work in progress:
1. Something happens. Examples:
a. Dems push for universal health
care.
b. Liberals protest war.
c. Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace prize based on work to improve our environment.
d. anything that could help people.
2. Conservatives don't like it.
3. The propaganda machine begins to roll.
a. Flat out lies are told (followed by)
b. character assasination begins based on the lies (followed by):
c. a reminder to folks that while all of these things (health care, peace, clean environment) might appear to be a good thing, it is really evil because of 3a and 3b.
4. A policital wedge is driven where there should be none. Democrats scratch their head and, in their typical spineless turdom, send out Harry Reid (or someone of equal ineffectiveness) to inspire about as much strength as an evening of quiliting and warm milk.
5. Our country becomes, not a leader, but a lagger, with at least 35 percent of our nation trapped in a stubborn belief system whose only goal appears to division, not unity.
bilgeman, And what would the "wrong thing" be in your opinion?
Never mind whether climate change is settled or not...the Peace Prize is supposed to be awarded to the person who's done the most to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
1. Something happens. Examples:
a. Dems push for universal health
care.
b. Liberals protest war.
c. Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace prize based on work to improve our environment.
d. anything that could help people.
(*sigh*)
Yes, Conservatives are against any and all ideas that will help people. Just ask Mark.
One of my favorite quotes goes something like this:
The only thing worse than knee-jerk Conservatism is knee-jerk Liberalism. At least with knee-jerk Conservatism, you know what will happen if you take their advice.
Actually, with Liberalism, all you know is that whatever it was you set out to achieve will be a complete failure. The unintended consequences are, by definition, incalculable.
(But the philosophy cannot be wrong! Turn up the power!)
I dunno Kevin, at least he's achieved logical consistency for once. We've been bashing on him for months for his unshakeable assumption that intentions dictate outcome. Since that's obviously one of his most basic premises, and he's just stated that liberals always want to do things to help people as another premise, the chain of reasoning goes:
1. If liberals want to help people, then all they have to do is do the things they dream up and it will help people.
2. Conservatives often oppose liberals.
3. Conservatives must not want to help people or they don't realize that all you have to do is do things to help people and it will help people. (Libertarians would bear out this theory- they not only don't want to help people, they don't want to be helped and are clearly insane.)
4. Conservatives are stupid, evil, or both.
Q.E.D.
Well, I have to admit that I threw "d" in as a semi-joke but it really seems that way to me sometimes.
Take a look at what happened with Graeme Frost. Classic example of my theory...and this is a bill that is supported by many Republicans!!
Mark, Graeme Frost?
Do you really think that he and his family should be the poster-children for expansion of the S-CHIP program? Graeme Frost and his family are "poor"? Fuck, dude, by that measure I am poor and should qualify for gubmint-funded health care!
The Dems used a child to make an emotional appeal to the public, and when the conservatives used logic and reason they are vilified for "attacking a child!!!" Well, the Democrats should be vilified for trying to foster a massive expansion of a government program under the umbrella of "it's for the Chiiiiildren!"
"Many Republicans" support it because they're afraid of being tarred with that brush, IMHO, not because they think the expansion is a good idea.
As LabRat put it, opposing the bill is characterized by the Left as "stupid, evil, or both," and they know it.
It's all about "framing the debate" - something you seem to believe is exclusively the purview of the Right.
I just had an epiphany.
Liberals as a socialistic group where everybody looks different and talks different but accept a universal morality and are the crusading good guys...
Conservatives as a monolithic group with a single agenda, heartless and soulless, bent on mass conversion and exploitation of the masses, able to somehow mobilize all individuals as a single unit to achieve the agenda...
Holy shit guys, he thinks we're the Borg!
Come to think of it, "We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own" would be a pretty cool new tagline for Atomic Nerds.
Astute observation, LabRat. Funny that the perception is exactly backwards. The liberal socialistic group wants everyone to be different just like them!!, while the conservatives (at least we libertarian types) just want to be left the fuck alone so that we can actually be ourselves, regardless of how everyone else behaves/believes.
Mark:
"bilgeman, And what would the "wrong thing" be in your opinion?"
Hah-hah...you will have your little jokes, yes?
What color was the cat that DIDN'T bark?
Congratulations are in order to you, though:
"Fuck, dude, by that measure I am poor and should qualify for gubmint-funded health care!"
You made Kevin say:
"fuck"
(I wasn't entirely sure that he could, y'know).
I SAY it a lot, Bilgeman. I just tend not to write it all that much.
Mark:
"Dems push for universal health
care.
b. Liberals protest war.
c. Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace prize based on work to improve our environment.
d. anything that could help people."
and then:
"4. A policital wedge is driven where there should be none..."
Y'know, ace, that sounds like your idea of "democracy" would be indistinguishable from a totalitarian dictatoship of liberal Democrats, (or the UberFrauFuhrer Clinton Administration, if there's any difference between the two).
Labrat makes an astute observation concerning the Borg.
Mark, old number, just because Howard Dean can press a button on his desk and make you do a backflip, doesn't mean that the whole world is that way...or even wants to be.
"Graeme Frost and his family are "poor"? Fuck, dude, by that measure I am poor and should qualify for gubmint-funded health care!
The Dems used a child to make an emotional appeal to the public, and when the conservatives used logic and reason they are vilified for "attacking a child!"
This would be my nomination for #103 on the AT list of media dishonesty. And the award winner? Michelle Malkin. Her charges, which were immediately believed by many right wing bloggers:
1. Graeme and his sister go to private school so the Frost's must be rich.
2. They live in an expensive House
3. Mr. Frost is a small business owner.
According to her, "The bottom line is that this family has considerable assets."
(Loud Buzzer Sound)
Wrong. And a blatant lie. Graeme and his sister go to school on scholarship. They bought their house in 1990 for 55K when the neighborhood was actually considered the ghetto. Since that time, it has improved. Frost dissolved his business in 1999 and now he and his wife make combined income of 45K a year.
Before Graeme's accident, they looked into getting health care and costs ranged around 1200 a month, which wouldn't fly on their salary so they went with SCHIP. This is what I have been talking about all along with health care...costs are too high for many people.
As Paul Krugman recently stated in the NYT:
"All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they’re “phony soldiers”; if Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he’s faking his Parkinson’s symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he’s a fraud."
Since I know that you may not take his word for it...how about Laura Ingraham, from early 2006:
"If Republicans don't get the message and start working to help ease the burden of middle class families, they will lose Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008."
Yep.
Mark, I bought my house in 1991 for $66k. Their home is currently worth about $260k. Mine is worth maybe $200k. I own no other real estate, commercial or otherwise. I own three vehicles, too, but one is a classic Mustang, not a Volvo SUV nor a Suburban. (I plead guilty on the pickup truck, though.)
But here's the kicker, Mark - the Graemes QUALIFIED FOR S-CHIP ALREADY. The argument that the Dems are making with their bill (but assiduously avoiding in the media) is that the ceiling NEEDS TO BE RAISED - not that Bush's veto will STRIP THE GRAEMES OF THEIR COVERAGE.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. The program does NOT need to be expanded. The Graemes prove that.
"Before Graeme's accident, they looked into getting health care and costs ranged around 1200 a month, which wouldn't fly on their salary so they went with SCHIP"
I've heard that quotes for healthcare for this family could be found in the $450 range... and don't they own two homes?
I can't contain my disgust at the way the democrats thrust this family into the spotlight for pure politics. The image of Reid with his arm around this kid - as though he gives a shit about this family beyond scoring points off the president - makes me sick. Democrats don't play fair. Parading sick kids like that is vile.
Mark:
As usual, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
Michelle Malkin. Her charges, which were immediately believed by many right wing bloggers:
Because she backed them up and was investigating.
1. Graeme and his sister go to private school so the Frost's must be rich.
$20k/year tuition.
2. They live in an expensive House
No, they own a house worth a lot. (And put a lot of expensive upgrades into it! But, they have no money?! Hey, Scooby! Something's not adding up here! Ri Row, Raggy!)
3. Mr. Frost is a small business owner.
Yup. Obviousy, you don't understand what that means.
Wrong. And a blatant lie.
Be careful with the "lie" word. Oh, hell, you won't, you toss it around freely, nevermind what that does to your reputation.
It's disputed at best. And a lot of the disputing came after people started looking into the specific case, and realised that this was not a good example you wanted to use to push for expanding S-CHIP and demonizing the President for vetoing.
Graeme and his sister go to school on scholarship.
Reportedly. They're still paying something for that school. Also it's been reported that the grandparents (who are filthy, stinking, rich, of the sort you hate hate hate) were paying the bills. The actual "true" answer hasn't been discovered yet.
They bought their house in 1990 for 55K when the neighborhood was actually considered the ghetto.
That damages your point, Mark. that means they have equity they could leverage. Or sell, and buy health insurance. What a concept!
Frost dissolved his business in 1999
First I've heard of that, and there's a fair bit of evidence to show that he's still running his "home business". If you're right, that damages your point even more, since he apparently didn't go and get a W2 job!,
and now he and his wife make combined income of 45K a year.
Again, reportedly. And drive brand new cars. In a fixed up, renovated house. With $20k of countertops and easily $5k (assuming woodworker did all the labor himself) cabinets.
And they qualified for S-CHIP.
So, they're sending kids to private school, buying brand new, very expensive cars (that if they really only made $45k, they'd not be approved for the loans on, but nevermind that, it's a fact), and have spent far more than what that would bring home to update their home, and have a huge amount of equity in it....
And I'm paying for their healthcare. And you want to "expand" beyond people sitting on at least a half-million in assets, driving 3! new cars?!
Despite the fact that I can't afford but 1 car payment. Or my house (Which needs renovation! Maybe the Frosts can come do to my kitchen what they did to theirs, for cheep!), is waiting on my wife's house to sell, so we have money.
Because I'm paying for my healthcare. And the Frosts!
Nothing you said, Mark, really disputes what Malkin has turned up, by the way. But you're willing to take the "defense", without thought. Telling, that. No, you won't figure that out, either.
But Mark, the Frosts are going to kill S-CHIP. I thank them for that. Because if they're qualified for it, the system is horribly broken. They have the ability to pay for healthcare. They just don't think it important. They'd rather put their money somewhere else. So why should I be forced to pay for their rash decisions?
(Loud Buzzer Sound)
Right back atcha.
Kevin S:
I can't contain my disgust at the way the democrats thrust this family into the spotlight for pure politics.
Bah. I'm glad as hell. I mean, if they went and found real poor people, (ick, they smell!) think of the case they'd have!
Instead, they went and got a rich liberal hiding assets (and already under S-CHIP!) to whine about how mean the President is, and how much he doesn't care about rich liberals hiding assets.
The sad part is the people who that program was meant for, who really needed it, who really could use it - are going to be left in the cold because of the Frosts.
Mark, of course, misses this irony totally, in favor of screaming "HOW DARE YOU CHECK INTO ANYTHING WE SAY!"
Right, Mark, there's no liberal media, the Democrats are scrupulously honest, and there never, ever would be people lying to freeload off of systems designed to help the needy.
It's a "dry lab," Jedi. The rules are simple: 1) Get your results; 2) derive your data; and, 3) whent the phoniness is discovered, complain that your grade isn't fair.
Kevin S,
"and don't they own two homes?"
My understanding is that they own a home and a business property.
Wow. Having read Unix-Jedi's post, I have come to the realization that y'all need to be subsidizing MY kids healthcare. Cough up, people!
Seriously, though, I don't know how someone like Frost can do that and still look in the mirror. No sense of shame, no sense of pride in self-reliance.
Unix, Malkin's claims have been refuted and/or categorized as false. This is why you saw Republicans quickly back down from some of their earlier statements. The fact that you still think her claims were founded clearly demonstrates that what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. Do you hold her to the same standard that you hold--say the New York Times? No, you don't.
You hear what you want to hear, Unix. I think if you stayed off the right wing blogs and did some honest fact finding, you will find the Frosts are an excellent example of why the health care system in this country needs to be reformed in addition to be a great case of how the neocon bullshit brigade.
"They have the ability to pay for healthcare"
(Propaganda) Mission Accomplished!
Oops....
how the neocon bullshit brigade WORKS.
DJ, special dedication for you. I will be happy to continue to talk about the Frosts of course, but I came across this column about the Gorester and, since I have been accused of BDS...I thought you would enjoy it...
I agree with every single word :)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=2&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Mark:
No, they have not. Which is why a new kid is being fronted as the new face.
The Frosts are staying alive in the public eye because, well, they're taking a beating publicly for their lack of responsibility and rather than letting it go...
Unix, Malkin's claims have been refuted and/or categorized as false.
Um, no, they haven't. There are multiple stories around about some of the disputed items (the scholarships, for instance.)
The fact that you still think her claims were founded clearly demonstrates that what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. Do you hold her to the same standard that you hold--say the New York Times? No, you don't.
I hold her to a higher standard, Mark. Because she's proven capable of adhering to it. I don't agree with her on everything, but she's a damn good reporter, she's got a good nose for a story, and so far, she's been right. And even if she's wrong, Mark, what she's uncovered, and the discussion are very valid topics of discussion. Who is being covered by these programs? Are they actually addressing what they were sold to the public to deal with?
You hear what you want to hear, Unix.
... Mark, they're in a nicer house than me. They're driving much more expensive vehicles than mine, they're living a life with far less work than mine, with far more resources, and I'm paying their bills. How is that "hearing what I want to hear?" Damn if it's not pretty much looking at the available evidence.
I think if you stayed off the right wing blogs and did some honest fact finding, you will find the Frosts are an excellent example of why the health care system in this country needs to be reformed
Yes, Mark, they are. But you can't see that.
These are people who didn't plan for the future, presumed that we'd just "S-CHIP" in case anything happened, and as a result, they live a very luxurious life - while most of us reading this are paying for it.
"They have the ability to pay for healthcare"
(Propaganda) Mission Accomplished!
Mark - they do, and even you admit it.
They're not paying for it.
Here's a family of not inconsiderable means, and they're playing the system for "free" care. (And "Free" schooling presumably better than the taxpayers-funded "Free" public schooling).
AND THEY WERE ALREADY COVERED UNDER S-CHIP. BUSH'S VETO MEANS NOTHING TO THEM.. They're already covered.
Mark, can you not get this through your head, too many conspiracies in the way? They're a really bad example of S-CHIP now, and even a worse example of expanding it more!
If the Frosts get more exposure - S-CHIP will be probably yanked back in great detail, because not everybody can live the Frost's life and game the system. (According to a neighbor, they're also ardent Leftists, not surprising. So they hide their assets, and let us pay for their lack of responsibility.)
You want to talk about blindness, yet you refuse to see.
And the replacement for Graeme?
...Dara admitted to me that she and Brian had been talking about having children since before they were married. She further admitted that after they were married she voluntarily left a job at a country club that had good health insurance, because the situation was “unmanageable.” ... the couple went on to have a baby anyway, presuming that others would pay for it and certainly long before they knew their daughter would have heart defect that probably cost the gross national product of Burkina Faso to fix. But not knowing about future health problems is the reason we have insurance in the first place.
Oh, one of the family friends weighed in.
"I received an unsolicited e-mail this week from a neighbor of the Frost family, the family held up by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the entitlement expansionist Democrats. He wrote:"
They’re good people. Terribly misguided, pathetically leftist buffoons, but still good people. It was a terrible accident and Bonnie is quite beat up with guilt over the events. Lots of neighbors pitched in to cook meals and help out… Bonnie works half time doing freelance editorial work and Halsey, an incredibly disorganized lovable goofball, just can’t seem to hold down a proper job or, when he’s tried, to run a proper company. He’s a millwork carpenter and does great work installing custom interior and exterior trimwork and cabinetry. He should be making great money but can’t get out of his way…
…Still, we make choices, right? They have three vehicles - a nice new volvo SUV, a Suburban, and his F250 Ford Pickup work truck, [Mark, but you said he sold the biz in 99? Care to retract, or go attack their neighbor?] a nice house, and all four kids go to private school. Not sure where the money comes from, but they don’t make all that much. Should they be the poster child for S-CHIP? Heck no….
Now, Mark, notice this neighbor likes them. Feels for them. Is willing to help them.
But notice the level of irresponsibility here, as reported from one of their friends.
Or is he part of the "neocon" (Dammit, Mark, you can't even define neocon. Neocon's got absolutely nothing to do with this, it's merely your standard epithet to anything that you oppose.) "bullshit brigade?"
"DJ, special dedication for you. I will be happy to continue to talk about the Frosts of course, but I came across this column about the Gorester and, since I have been accused of BDS...I thought you would enjoy it...
I agree with every single word"
Of course you do. Why would we expect otherwise?
And, in pointing this out to me personally, you point out to all of us that you didn't understand my comment about Al's prize.
I have not passed judgment on whether or not Al is correct in his campaign concerning global warming. I stated before that I hadn't studied the issue, and I still haven't.
The Nobel Prize in physics and such is not awarded unless and until the discovery it is awarded for has been vetted by peer review and found thereby to pass muster. If Al's assertions about global warming are worthy of such a prize, then the "scientific discovery" on which his assertions are based should be vetted the same way. Such vetting has barely begun, and it's likely to take a long, long, time.
The point I made, which you missed, is simply that awarding Al Gore a Nobel Peace Prize for his assertions about science was extremely premature.
And talking in any way about the merits of his assertions won't change that. Regardless of how such vetting progresses or what the result of such vetting are, awarding the prize when the vetting had only just begin was premature.
And this would still be true no matter who made the assertions. Notions of "Gore Derangement Syndrome" simply don't enter into it.
"There are multiple stories around about some of the disputed items"
Let's see them...and they can't be from conservative blogs....
DJ, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I see your points.
Let's have a little fun, here, and try some "illumination by analogy," shall we?
Consider what would happen if car insurance operated the same as health insurance.
1) When you filled the tank, you would pay a co-pay, and the gas station would bill your insurance carrier for the rest.
2) Everything the vehicle needed for "preventive care", such as oil changes, oil and air filters, spark plugs, injector cleaners, and even winshield washer fluid would be covered by your insurance carrier, with the usual co-pay.
3) Other parts replacements, such as tires, batteries, and such would be subject to a deductible, then an 20% co-pay.
4) Anything "elective", such a better tires, detailing, or new floor mats would be on you.
5) You would be limited in what you could do with the vehicle. For example, your benefit package might limit you to only two visits to Aunt Ethel per year, given how far away she lives.
The cost per mile to own and drive a vehicle would not be any less, would it? Indeed, it would be quite a bit more, because the cost of the premiums would have to exceed the cost of the benefits, even if only to pay the administrative overhead.
You laugh, but I'm not. I am dead serious.
I am reminded of an observation by Winston Churchill: "We contend that a nation that tries to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
And I contend that a gubmint cannot increase the prosperity of the citizens by taking money from them and using it to buy stuff for them.
So, what is really behind all the current noise about health care, and why is the Frost family saga only a symptom of it?
It is an auction.
The candidates of the Dimocrat Party, and some who are not even candidates, are simply putting things on the block and asking, "What am I bid for these benefits?" The bidding is in votes, i.e. the votes of those who would receive the benefits, and the paying is in dollars, i.e. the dollars of the evil, hated, corrupt rich folks who have money, but who don't vote for Dimocrats anyway.
Healthcare is only one item on the block. Think not? Well, look at what's been laid on the block:
1) Hillary Clingon has put free money on the block. She proposed that the gubmint give five thousand dollars to every newborn baby at birth.
The reaction was weak, in part because the only beneficiaries would be those who will have babies in the future. There aren't many votes there to buy.
2) Hillary Clingon has put free money on the block. She proposed that people be able to invest $1,000 each year in a 401(k), with the amount invested to be a "refundable" tax credit, and with the amount invested to be "matched" by the gubmint. The deduction and matching would be reduced for families with income above $60K and would be phased out totally above $100K.
Now analyze this one carefully. A "refundable" tax credit means that it directly reduces income tax, and if it exceed the total income tax, then the gubmint simply gives the taxpayer the difference. If the tax total is zero, then the gubmint simply gives the credit amount to the taxpayer. This is the same scheme as the mis-named "Earned Income Credit".
Now, I submit that the following is indistinguishable from the above description in form, fit, and function: "Each year, the feddle gubmint will give each taxpayer unit (i.e. one gift per tax return) the sum of $2,000, provided the taxpayer unit invests the funds in a personal 401(k). The gift is reduced in amount for those taxpayer units with incomes above $60K such that it is eliminated for those taxpayer units with incomes above $100K per year."
This one is getting some traction, but the votes she would buy with it would be expensive. If the lower 50% of the taxpayer returns made use of it, the cost would be one hundred billion dollars per year. Who would pay for it? Hillary Clingon says she would freeze the pending estate tax reductions at the level they will have in 2009, projecting a cost of $20 to $25 billion a year. Yup, it would be paid for, at least partially, by the dead rich. They don't vote at all.
That's quite an item: "Y'all gimme your votes, and I'll give you a hunnerd billion dollars to split among you, every year!"
3) Al Gore has put rights on the block. He has just re-stated the notion that health care in America "ought to be a matter of right".
I've analyzed this notion before. Health care consists of services and products that are provided by people and corporations. To hold that receiving these services and products is a right is to hold that the recipient has a right to the time, labor, and property of others. No, not in my world, they don't.
You can find other such examples. The auctioneers will find one or more issues that the MSM will describe as "resonating with the voters", meaning "the voters want these benefits and will vote for those who promise them." The candidates, Hillary Clingon especially, are trolling the voting waters to see who they can hook, and the Frost family saga is only a symptom.
"DJ, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I see your points."
Thank you. Someday maybe I'll get interested in global warming.
DJ:
"1) Hillary Clingon has put free money on the block. She proposed that the gubmint give five thousand dollars to every newborn baby at birth."
Hey...wait a dad-gummed minute!
I thought the UberFrauFuhrer said that it "Takes a Village",
...so where does the 5K come into it?
Is that what villages cost nowadays?
Heil Hillary!
"Is that what villages cost nowadays?"
No, but it might be what winning an election costs. She's not concerned about the village, she's concerned about the election.
Mark:
Let's compare what you're saying is "Truth", with the source.
But the fact is I did have a business. Of course, they did not report properly that I ran from like—Frost Works from 1990 and folded up around ‘98, ‘99, went as far as incorporating that, actually carrying health insurance. And actually that was probably one of the nails in the coffin in that business.
Now, Mark, that's certainly on first glance a claim that the business ended in '99, as you claimed Frost dissolved his business in 1999 and now he and his wife make combined income of 45K a year.
So, what's he been doing for the last 8 years? Either he's sitting on his duff, or he's referring to a specific business where he had health insurance (presumably for his employees as well).
So, able-bodied man, who reportedly "has his own business", and you claim that it was dissolved in '99.
OK, Mark, which was it? Either he's not working at all, despite being able-bodied and possessing a truck (without seeing taxes, I don't know for certain, but I can't imagine that it's not being written off) for "work". According to his neighbor, he flits around working at times, doing excellent work, but not a dependable contractor.
See how your claim - which isn't by any stretch of the imagination "Proven" - doesn't make sense?
Or, if it does, what's he been doing for the last 8 years, and what's his excuse?
None of which changes the basic facts that:
* The Frosts were already covered under S-CHIP. Nothing about the veto affected them.
* (This means that this was awfully stupid to go front and center as the spokespeople for the government charity program.)
* A large majority of people upset about this live with far less luxuries in life, and are paying for the Frost's bad luck, and worse planning. Mark, I keep asking you, are you denying this?
* The Frosts are demanding more for their bad luck, as opposed to what the rest of us (By definition all of us can't demand more than we've got) do - cut back, sell possessions, readjust to suit circumstances.
Mark, have you ever owned your own business? Paid sales tax, tax on the business? (Full Disclosure: I have. And I suspect most of the other commentators here have as well.)
Just as an FYI, I have the link to two videos that will really ruffle your feathers!
Rudy's stance on Gun Control:
http://themaritimesentry.blogspot.com/2007/10/giuliani-calls-second-amendment.html
http://themaritimesentry.blogspot.com/2007/10/giuliani-confiscate-guns.html
Steven:
I hope you're not thinking you'll _surprise_ us with those. :)
"So, able-bodied man, who reportedly "has his own business",
"what's he been doing for the last 8 years, and what's his excuse?"
Unix, do you have any kids and if so have you been the stay at home parent? I am just guessing here but you are in your 20s, right?
Point by point
"* The Frosts were already covered under S-CHIP. Nothing about the veto affected them."
True. But they wanted to share with the country how well it worked for them. It's called "trying to help out." They made too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford health insurance. Have YOU ever had a family? If not, you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about
* (This means that this was awfully stupid to go front and center as the spokespeople for the government charity program.)
Again, the whole concept of helping people out and being bold enough to stand up to another bullshit lie from our President.
"* A large majority of people upset about this live with far less luxuries in life, and are paying for the Frost's bad luck, and worse planning. Mark, I keep asking you, are you denying this?"
Yes, I am. You are not paying for this, unless you are a smoker. Are the "large majority" smokers?
* The Frosts are demanding more for their bad luck, as opposed to what the rest of us (By definition all of us can't demand more than we've got) do - cut back, sell possessions, readjust to suit circumstances.
Dude, seriously, you don't have a clue what's going on out there...
"have you ever owned your own business? Paid sales tax, tax on the business? (Full Disclosure: I have. And I suspect most of the other commentators here have as well.)"
Yes, I have. And was lucky enough to have a wife who had a great benefits plan so I didn't have to worry about the same things the Frosts did.
Unix, you see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. You hold people like Michael Moore to a different standard than Michelle Malkin. At least Moore backs up his facts (on a web site you refuse to go to) rather than doing what Malkin does which is tap into her inner rage, make up a story, and write it down as fact.
After reading your last post, I decided to call up my congressmen, though, and see if I could get some first hand thoughts on the S-Chip bill. My next post will detail what he told me.
My congressmen, a Republican btw, told me (we are acquaintences) that the claims made by the president and some members of Congress were flat out wrong. This bill enjoys a broad bipartisan support (67 votes in the Senate and 45 Republicans in the House) as well as 43 governors (15 Republican).
Under S-Chip's public-private partnership, private health care plans work with individual states to cover uninsured children. The insurance industry, the AMA, the AHIP, and the AHA all support S-CHIP. It is private industry that is leading the charge because they know that healthy children mean LESS strain financially on them in the long run. They are investing in their future because they think it will help their market.
In the end, that helps folks like you Unix who won't have to pay higher premiums. So, this progam is actually good for the economy. The health care industry wants this.
My congressmen is retiring at the end of this current term so he has nothing to gain by supporting this bill--no votes or any such thing--he just wants to the right thing. He is retiring, btw, because he is tired of people like Michelle Malkin giving conservatives a bad name. :)
"The health care industry wants this."
This would be the same eeeevil health care industry that you have railed against in comments here on several occasions? And this doesn't raise your suspicions at all?
Unix, do you have any kids and if so have you been the stay at home parent? I am just guessing here but you are in your 20s, right?
No kids, and no, I'm not in my 20s. I keep telling you to stop trying to project on people. You suck, suck, suck at it in a sucky way unseen since George Plimpton took a snap from center.
"* The Frosts were already covered under S-CHIP. Nothing about the veto affected them."
True. But they wanted to share with the country how well it worked for them.
Really! It allows them to sit on their assets, and I get to pay for their health care, since they didn't get insurance when they could have afforded it.
Mark: Not everybody can be on S-CHIP. By definition. Do you not understand that?
It's called "trying to help out." They made too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford health insurance.
Mark, the point we keep trying to get across to you and the use of sources is you have to run them through a vetting process.
The Frost's circumstances lead me, and many others, to not believe that they couldn't afford health insurance. That is, they decided that they didn't need it, would roll the dice, and hey! If something bad happens, someone else will pick up the tab!
Yes, Mark, they say it [that they only make $45k.] Right. Ok. Does the evidence support that? Does it support that they're struggling? The evidence is rather astoundingly supportive otherwise. The 3 newish vehicles alone - get this Mark - you can't finance on $45k/year. You won't get a loan! Before you say they might not be financed.... Then... there's some choices that could have been made.
Have YOU ever had a family? If not, you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about
Really, Mark? If I'm the one without a clue, then why aren't you answering my questions?
At what point will you decide not to support people?
So they say they make $45k. Adjusted, that is. While they choose to live their life that way. Mark, that's fine, I don't begrudge them that, until they insist that I pay for their avoidance of the costs of their decisions.
* (This means that this was awfully stupid to go front and center as the spokespeople for the government charity program.)
Again, the whole concept of helping people out and being bold enough to stand up to another bullshit lie from our President.
What's a "bullshit lie"? Bush vetoed the bill because he wouldn't agree to the massive (and somewhat not-well-contained) expansion of S-CHIP. He'd have signed it if there hadn't been more than a minor expansion! I didn't give a shit one way or the other, but dammit, I want it abolished, Mark. Not not-expanded. Gone. If the Frosts are who's getting the money, fuck that shit. Let them live with their choices, and serve as a warning to others who'd refuse to pay their share.
"* A large majority of people upset about this live with far less luxuries in life, and are paying for the Frost's bad luck, and worse planning. Mark, I keep asking you, are you denying this?"
Yes, I am. You are not paying for this, unless you are a smoker. Are the "large majority" smokers?
Mark, S-CHIP is funded from General Revenue sources. Congress allocates it from the General Revenue fund.
Let me clarify the question:
Mark: Do you deny that the people paying for the Frosts may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than the Frosts?
* The Frosts are demanding more for their bad luck, as opposed to what the rest of us (By definition all of us can't demand more than we've got) do - cut back, sell possessions, readjust to suit circumstances.
Dude, seriously, you don't have a clue what's going on out there...
Dude, seriously, I do. That's exactly what's happening. My wife lost her job because of her medical conditions. Right after we bought a house.
Guess what? My kitchen hasn't been redone! (Unlike the Frosts!) (I did put a new floor in the bedroom - myself - the hardwood was purchased before her accident). I've had to cut back. I don't go out to eat now. I've not been able to buy the things I've wanted to. I know exactly what it's like to deal with health concerns, and have to sacrifice. While we didn't face as much in totality the bills the Frosts did - we weren't able to continue the way we wanted, as a result.
And you shove the Frosts in my face, with at least $250k in equity in their house, $100k or so in new vehicles, with rental property to boot, sending 4 kids to private school with 20k/year tuition (notice they're not telling us what their "scholarship" break is?)
They're worth more than I am, Mark. And I'm paying for their health insurance. And mine.
Yes, one of us doesn't know what's going on, all right.
Unix, you see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. You hold people like Michael Moore to a different standard than Michelle Malkin.
You do know that Irony isn't something on the periodic table, right?
At least Moore backs up his facts (on a web site you refuse to go to)
Bullshit X 2. I've been to it, I've pointed out (to you even) how he doesn't "back up his facts". I've pointed out to you that his defenses aren't honest. And you ran away. (The "picking up the gun at the bank", in case you've forgotten.)
rather than doing what Malkin does which is tap into her inner rage, make up a story, and write it down as fact.
Ok, Mark. AGAIN. What part of it isn't true? You like to nit-pick and go after minor issues - that are debatable. (The grandparents might be picking up the school tab, for instance. Doesn't change the base narrative, which you've missed in it's totality.) She didn't tap into her "inner rage". Unlike Moore, she went, researched what she could, and reported on it.
The story is evolving - but the base components are fundamentally there. As new issues break, there's some back and forth and discovery - the Frosts could quickly settle all the questions, let me note, if they'd come clean and allow access to the relevent documentation. (They're not obligated to, or required to. I just note they could, but for some reason, have been obfuscating and misdirecting. I've drawn conclusions from that. You have not.)
You want to froth about "It's called "trying to help out."" - but by definition, you've got to have more paying in than taking out - and the Frosts are an example of someone with bad luck who gambled, lost - and now we pay for them.
Who, Mark, will you draw the line at?
Kevin B:
And this doesn't raise your suspicions at all?
Shirley, you jest.
(Don't call me Shirley. - Ed.)
Edited By Siteowner
This bill enjoys a broad bipartisan support (67 votes in the Senate and 45 Republicans in the House) as well as 43 governors (15 Republican).
Then I don't see the problem you've complaining about. Override the veto, seems simple enough. Instructions included in every copy of the Constitution!
Kevin: By the way, you might want to look at Varifrank's Laws. A number are recently very applicable here.
1. You dont get paid by how hard you work, but by how hard you are to replace.
5. The worlds large monuments, such as the Pyramids of Giza were made for no other purpose than to simply keep people busy. There is nothing more dangerous to governments than well fed people who have free time, no common purpose and most importantly no need of control or organization by said governments.
7. The core idea of western civilization is the phrase "none of your business".
8. The core idea of fascist and communist thought is "you have no business".
9. There is no leftist thought, except that no matter what the situation is "America is always wrong".
12. The only part of the news that you can really use is given to you by the weatherman, who is almost always the station idiot.
13. You can teach anyone who can think logically how to code software, but you cannot teach anyone to think logically; they either have it or they dont. You would really be shocked at how few people think logically.
[/me hangs head in shame.
/msg Yo, my bad, you're right.]
14. Most humans are sane and rational, but all human organizations are insane and irrational. The bigger the organization, the more insane and irrational. Therefore, avoid joining all large organizations the same way you would avoid making eye contact with the crazy homeless people that you see on the way to work.
15. If you cannot own property, you are property.
18. Utopia is the single most destructive idea ever invented by mankind.
Damn, that post is excellent.
"Mark: Do you deny that the people paying for the Frosts may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than the Frosts?"
Once again, I refuse to answer a question like this as it frames the debate in such a way to produce a desired outcome for yourself. It would be like me asking you the question:
Do you deny that people paying for Iraq may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than Haliburton executves?
Would YOU like to answer that question? Don't think so...because it doesn't cover all of the angles, even the ones that benefit my beliefs.
Really, Unix, focusing only on the tired old "welfare queen in a Cadillac" allegory (which, btw, is sooo played, dude)is not applicable to 2007. Maybe 1987 but not now.
I do apoligize, though, for thinking you were in your 20s.
I refuse to answer a question like this as it frames the debate in such a way to produce a desired outcome for yourself.
IOW: "You're right, and I've lost the debate, so I'll climb on my Moral High Horse." I appreciate the admission.
focusing only on the tired old "welfare queen in a Cadillac" allegory (which, btw, is sooo played, dude)is not applicable to 2007. Maybe 1987 but not now.
Well, true, the Frosts are partial to much more expensive vehicles. So I guess now it's "S-CHIP qualifier in a Volvo?" That OK by you?
pdb: hey, he did throw HALLIBURTON at you
aren't you supposed to wince and scream now?
(Oh, sorry! I forgot Halloween is coming up! Thanks pdb!)
EEEEEEEEKKKK!!!!!!!
HALLLIBURTON!!!!!!
OH, HOW CUUUUUUUUUUTTTTEEEEEE! AND YOU LOOK JUST LIKE KARL ROVE! EEEEEE! I'M SOOOOO SCARED!!! YOU MUST BE DICK CHENEY! AND YOU'VE EVEN GOT THE "PACKAGE!" EEEEE!
Ok, here's some snickers, and some M&M's, and oooh, you're so scary!
Actually, what you should be scared about is that many people (including myself) have decided that the neco conservative bullshit brigade (NCBB) don't get to dictate the terms and conditions of debate in this country anymore.
Framed questions, like the one above, are seen for what they truly are....
"I refuse to answer a question like this as it frames the debate in such a way to produce a desired outcome for yourself."
You mean like how the Left trots out a cute kid in order to kill any debate on the expansion of the S-CHIP program and then when anyone complains, then they yell, YOU JUST HATE KIDS! That kind of framing the debate?
"neco conservative bullshit brigade"
I assume you mean neo. Do you even know what a neo conservative is? They would probably support the S-CHIP program. It is more of a traditional conservative position to be against this sort of government expansion. Neo-Cons love big government.
It would be like me asking you the question:
Do you deny that people paying for Iraq may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than Haliburton executves?
Would YOU like to answer that question?
Sure. The answer in both cases is "Yes." But then, I'm not the one drawing the moral equivalence between the Frosts and Haliburton executives. I don't see either group as evil. One provides a service to the federal government for which it is paid. You can argue it shouldn't be receiving the contracts, or that the billing is too high, but you cannot deny that there are services rendered. The Frosts appear to have the means by which they ought to be able to afford health insurance, but instead chose to spend their money in other ways and depend on taxpayers to provide their health care coverage.
Note: There's no equivalence there, Mark. Swing-and-a-miss! The Haliburton boogeyman doesn't really work here.
"I refuse to answer a question like this as it frames the debate in such a way to produce a desired outcome for yourself."
Mark, you don't have a fucking clue how intellectually dishonest that response is. It is the purest cop-out, the purest refusal even to try to engage in rational discussion.
I stated before that you are a phony, Mark, merely a faux intellectual who simply will not think rationally. Every time you try this "defense", you simply confirm the validity of my assertion.
Now grow up, little boy. If you can't handle the discussion like a man, then try doing the only honorable thing left to you, which is shutting the fuck up.
DJ:
Exactly. Mark can't see that he's framed the debate already, and he's resisted going back to "first principles".
"Neco-conservatives (what, are they waaaaafer thiiin) are evil!" So he wants to only debate whether the Frosts were helped by the payment of their costs. That's it. That's the sum total of the debate for Mark. Evil, or not evil.
But ask to go back to the first principles, oh, woah, woah, woah! No, no, I won't go there! Down that way lies rationality! And defeat for my emotional reactionism!
....
The really sad part of this, is if Mark were to ask "Should there be a way for people to be able to not lose their house, their car, their businesses due to unforeseen bad luck", we could have a discussion on that.
I'm not against catastrophic insurance, actually. (I am, however, against you only paying into it after you say 'Oh, shit, I need that now!')
But instead, Mark slings accusations and ad hominems. "Welfare Queen driving a cadillac! So 80s, man!"
Well, Mark, the reason Welfare Reform was going to happen come hell or high water was exactly that. Some people on assistance got their food and housing paid for, and they used the rest to live very high on the hog (in the short-term) conspicuously.
It's not just a slanderous cliche - I've seen many cases of it. It's by far not the average, or the norm - but it's very visible. I can tell you about helping friends at the shelters/"goodwill" stores, and the - yes, cadillac driving - entitlement bitches who nothing was good enough for, and damn if you were going to "Dis' Them. Oh, HELL no!"
But damn if that didn't wreck it for the people who it was intended to help. The ones trying to scrape by. The ones trying to save, and plan, and have a nest egg, and could use a little extra help.
Mark can't see it like that - he can't say "How can we best cover people" - because that requires actually reconsidering first principles. Much easier to throw the insults, and insist that anybody who isn't willing to take money from others must just be evil, and out for bad things.
So, the Frosts, a family that by all outside observations, could have prepared for a rainy day were used as the poster children, and now, the "broad bipartisan support" has evaporated, and now there's no assistance there.
Just like the 80's "Cadillac Welfare Queens". But Mark won't address the truth of those issues, just dismissing (framing the debate!) those as ridiculous.
Mark can't see the irony there.
This is why we keep telling Mark that he's really bad at trying to come up with realistic policies that do what you say they will.
But we can be ignored, after all. We're just evil, mean, selfish people. (Which isn't better or worse than being good, nice, and generous.)
Unix-Jedi "Mark: Do you deny that the people paying for the Frosts may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than the Frosts?"
Mark: "Once again, I refuse to answer a question like this as it frames the debate in such a way to produce a desired outcome for yourself."
Mark, this question is the central point of the disagreement here. We hold the belief that everyone has choices about where to spend their money. Some people will choose to spend it on insurance, or at least savings, to cover possible emergencies (whether medical or otherwise). Others spend every penny they get on lifestyle choices and neglect planning for emergencies. We contend that those who choose to not prepare for emergencies do not have the right to demand money from others (paying the government to fund such programs is not optional, therefore it is a demand) just so they can avoid the consequences of their own bad choices. (Personally, I have no problem with asking for voluntary charity, in which case they would almost certainly have their needs met with no real fuss.) The problem is that we view having the government take money from one group to give to another as merely being one step removed from doing the same thing in a face to face fashion. Even if done to meet needs like this family has, people still get shot for attempted robbery.
Bottom line, if you are going to convince us that it was appropriate to use this family as an example, you must give us a convincing answer to that question because that is exactly how we see this issue. It is impossible to convince someone of anything until you first meet them were they are.
Most of you probably recognize the name Davy Crockett. Until recently, I only knew him as a famous frontiersman. What I didn't know was that he eventually was elected as a Congressman.
During his term in office, he had two different chances to vote on spending tax money in acts of compassion and charity. In the first case he voted for spending the money, because he considered the cause to be just. For the second bill, he considered the cause to be just as worthy, yet he spoke out against it. The reason he acted differently the second time around is because he learned one very important truth: Tax money is not theirs to give away.
If you haven't heard of this, you should go read the story right now.
SCHIP and every welfare program like it is generally passed due to good intentions. There are people who are genuinely helped through these programs. However, The Constitution does not give the government the power to do this because governments cannot do charity right.
We recently had a huge discussion about New Orleans. There were basically two huge groups providing aid to New Orleans: government and private charity. Guess which group was more effective at actually helping people and getting things done. That's right, it was the private charity which made far more happen, and with less money to boot.
I'm with Davy Crockett on this one:
"I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money."
And here is a perfect quote from Shooter1001 in the comments at Kim duToit's blog:
"When they have the power to arbitrarily simply take your property and then disperse it to whomever they please and for whatever reason, they own you and you are at their mercy!"
Mark, can you honestly argue that:
A) This isn't true
and/or
B) S-CHIP, especially in an expanded version, does not fit this description?
I go back even further than first principles, guys, and Mark, now that I've calmed down a bit, I'll explain it even further.
What Jedi did is make an assertion and ask if you agreed with that assertion. That is a perfecly legitimate thing to do, and it can be done several ways. Here is the way it would be done in a textbook on logic:
"Assertion: Some people who pay for the Frost's benefits may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than do the Frost's. Question: Do you agree with this assertion?"
It can also be asked in an inverse form:
"Assertion: Some people who pay for the Frost's benefits may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than do the Frost's. Question: Do you disagree with this assertion?"
It can also be asked in another inverse form:
"Assertion: Some people who pay for the Frost's benefits may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than do the Frost's. Question: Do you deny that this assertion is true?"
And finally, the assertion and question can be combined into a single sentence, as Jedi did:
"Do you deny that the people paying for the Frosts may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than the Frosts?"
Now, teacher, this is plain, simple, unequivocal English. A fourth grade student ought to be able to understand it without quibble and without confusion. Most importantly, that same fourth grade student ought to understand that all four forms of the assertion and question that I showed above are equivalent.
More to the point, it is a perfectly legitimate assertion and it asks a perfectly legitimate question. It is not a "have you stopped beating your wife" question and it is not a trap. It does not "frame the debate", it simply asks if you agree with or deny a part of the debate.
There are only three reasonable responses to the question: 1) "I agree with the assertion, and I think [insert thoughts here ...]"; 2) "I disagree with the assertion, and I think [insert thoughts here ...]"; and, 3) "I don't know if the assertion is true or not, and I think [insert thoughts here ...]".
But, as usual, you just couldn't respond reasonably. The core of your problem, i.e. why you have such a cringing, childish approach to responding to his question, is that you find it extremely difficult, if not actually impossible, to affirm an assertion made by someone else if you do not like the truth of the assertion. Doing so sticks in your craw like a big wad of stale peanut butter and you just can't get it out. Instead, you either ignore the question, or, as in this case, you dance and dance around the assertion like a little boy who's peed in his pants and hopes that, if only he dances fast enough, nobody will notice.
This is precisely why you are "dismissed", Mark. The "zeroth principle" that you continually ignore, or that you do not understand, is that refusing to say, "Yes, I agree, that's true, but ..." when what is true is not merely true, but astoundingly true, is guaranteed to cause you to be regarded like a child who's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar saying, "Nu uhh! No fair!"
You want respect, Mark? Really? Then stop insulting our intelligence. You can, of course, have whatever opinions, likes, and dislikes you want, but refusing to admit to reality earns you the treatment you get here.
"I'm not against catastrophic insurance, actually."
I am, actually. In my unhumble opinion, that's what insurance is for.
I would dearly love to be able to pay for medical insurance that covers catastrophes, such as heart attacks, bypass surgery, transplant surgery, cancer treatment, and so on, but nothing else. These are things that only a fraction of people fall victim to, and so insurance that covers only such occurrences is a "share the risk and share the expense" enterprise.
That's how car insurance works, and that's why it's cheap compared to health insurance.
But the only health insurance I can get covers everything, meaning any visit for any reason to a health practitioner, half the cost of prescription drugs, and, oh yeah, help for catastrophic coverage, too.
Numbers don't scare me, so I did a little forensic accounting. About 52% of my insurance premium pays for the "reduction" in the amount I pay for prescriptions, and I pay the rest. So, in effect, I pay normal prices for my prescription needs and the rest of the premium pays for catastrophic coverage.
Now if the whole system were set up to do that explicitly, I would save considerable headaches and effort, because it is much easier to just go to the neighborhood pharmacy and fill those prescriptions than it is to deal with the bureaucrats at the insurance company and get them filled by "mail order".
And underlying it all is a paraphrase of what I posted earlier: The insurance industry cannot increase the ability of the people to pay for medical care by taking money from them and using it to buy stuff for them. Doing so is not even a zero-sum process, it's a parasitic process, as it simply adds a very expensive layer of overhead to medical care.
The idea that a person should get all the medical care that he needs or wants, but someone else ought to pay for it, is parasitism in the extreme. That is what I rail against, and the Frost's case is just a symptom of it.
Yosemite, yeah, I am really struggling with a name for the Michelle Malkin's of the world. Saying "conservatives" seems to generalized and "Bushie" seems stupid. Neo-con is more of a Paul Wolfowitz type so...you're right, I need a new name. Any suggestions?
Ed, you said "you must give us a convincing answer to that question because that is exactly how we see this issue."
My point is that it is impossible given the Malkins of the world because now you (and others here) see the Frosts that way and I seriously doubt it will be any other...she succesfully framed the story the way she wanted to, facts be damned, and has now created a new reality. A reality that some people here are always willing to reside in...
DJ, we've had this discussion before...here we go again. The question was:
"Do you deny that the people paying for the Frosts may well have a standard of living with less luxury and means than the Frosts?"
By answering "No, I don't deny it" I am then placed into the "formula", as it were, to lead to the insanely narrow minded answer.
Questions like these fail to take in the big picture. For example, would these same less fortunate people pay more money that they don't have if S-CHIP wasn't around? What is the cost of caring for unhealthy people to the taxpayer by the time they get to Medicare? How does preventative care factor in as well?
The question is meant to provoke an answer that is so narrow in scope in relation to the problem that it's actually insulting. But maybe that's the real issue here...I view our current health care system as a "problem" and you view it as being hunky dory.
"I view our current health care system as a "problem" and you view it as being hunky dory."
And there you get it exactly wrong again.
It's not "hunky dory." It's pretty fucked up - yet it provides the best results to the greatest number of any system in the world, else they wouldn't be coming here to be treated.
But it is not the business of government to fund insurance programs. And, I would argue, much of the blame for our fucked up health care system can be placed directly at the feet of the unintended consequences of government overreach into the health care system.
From everything I've seen out of you, Markadelphia, your answer to any problem is to increase the involvement and control of government - insisting that will solve all our problems. After, of course, admitting that the government is completely screwed up and full of corrupt criminals. But, somehow, if we just put the right people in charge, this will all change.
It's maddening to debate this with you because you will not listen to yourself, much less us.
Mark: "My point is that it is impossible given the Malkins of the world because now you (and others here) see the Frosts that way and I seriously doubt it will be any other...she succesfully framed the story the way she wanted to, facts be damned, and has now created a new reality."
Not quite. Even without the Frosts, we still have the underlying issue: We are convinced that it is wrong to take money from others by force and give it to others, especially when they find themselves in a hard position due to their own bad choices. It does not matter if the people in the hard position have more money than those being taken from or not. However, if the people "in need" have more money than those being taken from, that rubs salt into the wounds.
It is this basic principle that is at issue here and which you must address: taking money from one group by force to give it to another is wrong. Period.
Mark, for cryin' out loud, go back and READ my last comment directed at you. READ the goddamned thing and try, just once, to comprehend something that someone else wrote. TRY, Mark.
Now, let's look at your statement to me about it:
"By answering "No, I don't deny it" I am then placed into the "formula", as it were, to lead to the insanely narrow minded answer."
No, Mark. A million times, NO.
By answering "No, I don't deny it," you would explicitly admit that you agree to his assertion, namely that the people who pay for the Frost's benefits might well have a standard of living that is lower than the Frosts. That's all you would be admitting to, Mark.
But, you can't do that, can you? You're so goddamned paranoid, so fucking afraid of being thought of as "in the wrong", that you will not even try to be right. Being "in the right" is just what you would be by admitting the truth of his assertion. It's the taxpayers who pay for the Frost's benefits, millions of whom don't have the assets or the income the Frost's do, but who pay taxes that pay for the Frost's benefits. The truth of Jedi's assertion is self-evident, and you just can't say, "Yup, that's true", and move on.
Now, what did I say about this behavior on your part:
"The core of your problem, i.e. why you have such a cringing, childish approach to responding to his question, is that you find it extremely difficult, if not actually impossible, to affirm an assertion made by someone else if you do not like the truth of the assertion. Doing so sticks in your craw like a big wad of stale peanut butter and you just can't get it out. Instead, you either ignore the question, or, as in this case, you dance and dance around the assertion like a little boy who's peed in his pants and hopes that, if only he dances fast enough, nobody will notice."
BINGO.
And I finished with:
"You can, of course, have whatever opinions, likes, and dislikes you want, but refusing to admit to reality earns you the treatment you get here."
Damnit, man, are you really so dense that you can't understand this, and that you think we don't?
You apparently don't have the slightest clue how much respect you would earn by simply admitting to other people that they are right when they are right. You've spent a whole lifetime avoiding it, haven't you?
"...taking money from one group by force to give it to another is wrong. Period."
But it's the basis of democratic government. See Mencken:
The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.
Or George Bernard Shaw:
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
Or G. Gordon Liddy:
A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.
Of course, we here at TSM are all conservatives or extremists, as defined so piquantly by Joseph Sobran:
If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist.
Kevin, here's a thought. I will attempt to logically explain to you my thoughts on government and corruption. You said:
"increase the involvement and control of government - insisting that will solve all our problems. After, of course, admitting that the government is completely screwed up and full of corrupt criminals. But, somehow, if we just put the right people in charge, this will all change."
Yes it will. Government can work, if you want it to. You don't want it to work. So it never will, in your eyes. Think of it this way.
1. People in our government are, for the most part, corrupt and evil.
2. Our government has federal programs run by these people.
3. The programs are, for the most part, corrupt and evil, doing more harm than good.
Now change the paradigm.
1. People in our government are, for the most part, competent and effective.
2. Our government has federal programs run by these people.
3. The programs are, for the most part, effective and help people.
Our country is like any company, Kevin. If you have an ineffective CEO or employee, a change is made and many times, that company performs more effectively. Let's do that now.
Can't you see what's going on here? Bush/Cheney want the government to be viewed as incompetent and/or evil. This allows them to increase the privatization agenda that they, and other like minded indivdiauls have. They can say "See? Look at how big government screws thing up!" and then dance their merry way into increased profits and furthering the class divide.
"taking money from one group by force to give it to another is wrong"
Well, you are going to have to define "force." I don't have a problem with the government taking my tax money in order to form a standing army and protect our nation. Do you? Is it only certain groups that you don't want your money given to or all of them? Or is it something else? Another way of looking at it?
It's possible that the "love it or leave it" argument so often evoked by conservatives could apply here. Your taxes pay for the infrastructure of this country which you enjoy the benefits of everyday. Isn't this true? Or is the question to limited in scope?
DJ, I believe I have said several times that "I see your points." That is me agreeing with you and admitting that you might be right.
Mark, I'm going to make a post out of your comments above. It will take me a while, but bear with me.
I'd appreciate it if the rest of you; DJ, Bilgeman, Unix, Ed, etc. refrain from opening fire on Mark until I get it posted - at least until sometime Sunday.
I know it will be hard, but bear with me on this.
Fine with me, Kevin. He's handed you quite a piece of rope, and it's going to be interesting to see the hanging.
Okay Kevin,
Holding fire, with gritted teeth. ;)
This oughta be good.
I really hope my computer manages to keep limping along until I can get a good view of the fireworks... and be there for the party, maybe.
I was too busy being at the range, but no problem. :)
(My friend the Xman wringing out his newly built XK, and introducing a friend of mine and his cute gf to bench shooting at 100 yards - she really loved the 30-round mags for the 10/22, and pounded 32 oz plastic bottles all afternoon.)
"DJ, I believe I have said several times that "I see your points." That is me agreeing with you and admitting that you might be right."
Possibly you have, but I recall only one time in that form, to which my response was, "Thank you." I understood your comment as you stated above at the time you made it. And, you have agreed with other people a few times on a few other matters. But, how many hundreds of times has your behavior been exactly the opposite, as I have complained about here? What is the ratio of the two?
I think you understand exactly what I've been trying to get you to understand. Your comments on it in this post have only tightened the asymptote. Why do I think that? Because of two words, Mark, your two words:
"Alright, guys, how about your thoughts on the as yet unsolved anthrax attacks?
Mark, I'm done here except for a short observation.
Respect from others and consideration by others are considerations that must be earned, and it is respect to others and consideration for others that earns them. For the people who regularly visit Kevin's parlor, a healthy respect for demonstrable reality is a prerequisite, the denial of which is a sure vaccination against credibility, respect, and consideration.
The past is over, Mark. I suggest you consider the future. The ball's in your court.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>