Thursday, July 29, 2010

The choice before us

Daniel Henninger writes that this election will be a clarifying moment on the vision that we have for our nation's future.
Now the clarifying gods have delivered a gift for the November election, the fight over taxes. Somewhere, George W. Bush must be laughing. Amid 9.5% unemployment, Democrats must deal with the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. They are trying to thread this needle by pushing a "middle class" extension through the hole, while impaling "the rich" on a tax spike.

In normal times, this tactic might work. But normal times are long past for America, and the voters know it. Mr. Obama himself talks all the time about the end of "business as usual." In the interests of the nation's future, Mr. Obama argues, the public economy needs to get bigger and stay bigger—currently 25% of GDP.

A big change indeed—unless the electorate decides this isn't what it wants for the next 50 years. That's another choice.
The GOP needs to grab this moment to make clear what their vision of the economy should be.
This election and these times are a chance to put to the voters opposed visions of why we work and what we do with the money we earn.

If voters ultimately feel more secure with a Barack Obama and the like designing a national itinerary for some 300 million people in 50 states, then certainly one should vote for letting taxes rise now on one class of Americans and imposing a VAT next year on everyone. They need a whole lot of money, so give it to them to the horizon. We work, they decide.

The alternative vision is that to compete for the next 50 years, the U.S. is going to need a tax structure that keeps more of the nation's decisions about using its wealth in the hands—and minds—of millions of intelligent citizens, from any economic class. They work, they decide.

So: Extend the current tax rates for all and free everyone in an economy begging for the chance to be strong again. Yes, the U.S. economy will always be "strong," but it needs to be strong enough to take on all comers and win, which last time I looked was the real American way.
When it is a time for choosing, it is the responsibility of both sides to clarify the choice.

As a visual aid in clarifying that choice, people can look at this chart of how ObamaCare will work that the House Republicans have put out.Now that's a choice the Republicans should be happy to run on. William Voegeli enunciates the principles that conservatives can put forth as undergirding their vision of this nation.
C. S. Lewis wrote that since progress means getting closer to your goal, when you’ve taken a wrong turn and are getting farther and farther from your destination, the truly “progressive” response is to turn around and go back to the right road. Most conservatives believe that America took a wrong turn in 1932, one that has led us farther away from the goal of preserving and strengthening republican self-government. Self-styled progressives talked us into that navigational error, and in the subsequent 78 years their liberal disciples have continued on the wrong road, superintending a rolling regime change that has steadily hollowed out our constitutional republic and replaced it with an administrative state, one increasingly indifferent to ordinary citizens’ concerns and insulated from their opposition.

The conservatives now reviving constitutionalism are rightly insistent on the need to retrace our steps, and to undo the mistakes that have supplanted limited with unlimited government. The point is not to go back to 1932 and stay there, compiling a list of things government cannot do and problems it cannot address. The point, rather, is to resume progress on the road not taken: toward a government that is both limited and vigorous, scrupulous about upholding the principles of republicanism but energetic and prudent about working within the framework created by those principles to respond to economic and social changes with policies that advance the people’s prosperity and security.

35 comments:

Tacitus Voltaire said...

how ObamaCare will work

the main effects of "obamacare" will be to

1) ban private health insurance companies from denying insurance coverage because of age or "pre-existing conditions"

2) require everybody who is not already convered otherwise to have health insurance - private health insurace. if a person cannot afford it, it will be subsidized

the main effect of this second provision will be to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars, private and tax, into private health insurance companies in this country every year

most of this money, obviously, will end up in the pockets of private hospitals, private drug manufacturers, private medical equipment manufacturers, and doctors, nurses, and other medical personell. it ought to be clear that the economic effect of "ObamaCare" will be to greatly stimulate the private health insurance and private medical care industries in the country

Tacitus Voltaire said...

Now the clarifying gods have delivered a gift for the November election, the fight over taxes. Somewhere, George W. Bush must be laughing. Amid 9.5% unemployment, Democrats must deal with the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. They are trying to thread this needle by pushing a "middle class" extension through the hole, while impaling "the rich" on a tax spike.

i have to laugh


Pew Research/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, sponsored by the Society for Human Resource Management. July 22-25, 2010

"What do you think would do more to improve economic conditions in the country over the next few years: following the economic policies of Barack Obama's administration, or following the economic policies of George W. Bush's administration." Options rotated

Obama's policies 46%
Bush's policies 29%

"Which comes closer to your view about the tax cuts passed when George W. Bush was president? All of the tax cuts should remain in place. Tax cuts for the wealthy should be repealed, while others stay in place. All of the tax cuts should be repealed."

Keep all the tax cuts 30%
Repeal the tax cuts for the Wealthy 27%
Repeal all the tax cuts 31%


good luck with that favorite republican project of pushing increasing the percentage of the tax burden on the middle class

by pushing a "middle class" extension through the hole, while impaling "the rich" on a tax spike

look after your own interests for a change and let "the rich" and their lawyers take care of themselves

Rick Caird said...

The Black Knight (AKA TV) rears his ugly head spouting the same misleading nonsense about the health care debacle. First, the main effect of the health care bill will be to terminate almost all current employer based insurance plans. No one, but no one, is disputing that. BK starts by claiming the bill bans health insurers from denying insurance based on preexisting conditions. That is true, but BK conveniently fails to note this is not free. In fact all policyholders will pay for this. Further, there is no way to know in advance how these people will distribute themselves. Will some health insurance companies have a disproportionate population of people with preexisting conditions? Without this knowledge, how will the companies price their product. Would not a direct subsidy from the government have been a much more straight forward approach?

Next BK waxes eloquently over the individual mandate. That would be the mandate that carries no IRS penalty and is not working in Massachusetts isn't it? Besides, at this point we don't even know if it is constitutional. We can also see from the "Massachusetts Miracle" that the reduced availability of doctors has created a massive expansion of requests for service at the emergency rooms.

BK also ignores the not so minor point of the CBO estimate of the plan costing $1 trillion dollars that we don't have. BK also ignores the myriad of taxes and other noteworthy expenses including the incredible expansion of the 1099 reporting. We have now have the incredibly dumb idea of putting a 10% tax n medical devices such as those pesky little pacemakers and diabetes supplies. Why? That is all to hide the true cost of the health care legislation. So, the government gets to count the 10% tax as revenue, while the insurance companies get to expense it and charge their customers. It would be hard to think of a more stupid way to deliver health care than that.

Rick Caird said...

The idea that this will expand private health care and insurance facilities is absurd on its face. No serious person could make that claim. But the BK is not familiar with serious as he then posts some excerpts from a previous unknown poll by a Human Resource Society. If BK had any sense, he would note there are no demographics released with the poll nor are the questions included. In fact, there is nothing but a couple of conclusions. The poll is useless.

http://congressionalconnection.nationaljournal.com/2010/07/despite-tough-climate-public-p.php

Go ahead and report that back.

So Cal Jim said...

"'ObamaCare' will be to greatly stimulate the private health insurance and private medical care industries in the country."

Can someone really be this stupid?

Rick Caird said...

Oh, Black Knight AKA TV, but wait, there's more. The health care bill, besides raising the income tax deduction threshold from 7.5% of gross to 10% of gross (harming the sickest among us) also goes after the special needs kids:

"5. The“Special Needs Kids Tax” takes effect Jan. 1, 2013: This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education."

Then, too, we have the payoffs and bribes for passage. We also have Medicare Advantage for Florida but not other states that needed the bribe.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

First, the main effect of the health care bill will be to terminate almost all current employer based insurance plans

incorrect

In fact all policyholders will pay for this

incorrect

The idea that this will expand private health care and insurance facilities is absurd on its face.

since the bill mandates that hundreds of billions of dollars of tax a private money be added to payments to health insurance companies every year going forward, how can you make such a ridiculous claim?

So Cal Jim said...
"'ObamaCare' will be to greatly stimulate the private health insurance and private medical care industries in the country."

Can someone really be this stupid?


what do you think the effect of the extra $100 billion a year going into the pockets of private health insurance companies will be?

The health care bill, besides raising the income tax deduction threshold from 7.5% of gross to 10% of gross (harming the sickest among us)

generally, rick, you miss the large parts of the bill while focussing of some doubtful details. apparantly the fact that the bill provides massive subsidies to those who can't afford private health insurance, as well as subsidies for small busnesses to buy health care for their employees, escaped your notice

i think it's fine that you are concerned about some details - i'm sure that the bill could use improvement in many detail areas. you should write to congress and otherwise agitate for the areas where you think it needs fixing

but the big picture is still as i described it

Tacitus Voltaire said...

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8084.cfm

Kaiser Health Tracking Poll — July 2010

The July Health Tracking Poll indicates overall public support for the health reform law is steady from June, while unfavorable views of the law have trended downward. Half the public (50%) now expresses a favorable view of the law, while 35 percent say they have an unfavorable opinion (down from 41% in June).


The poll also took a closer look at the views of seniors since they are often assumed to have a uniform view about issues. Below are some of the poll’s key findings about seniors’ views:


While seniors’ views of the new law are more negative than those of their younger counterparts, they remain roughly split about the law with 46 percent of seniors holding an unfavorable view of the law and 38 percent holding a favorable one. While 35 percent of seniors think they will be worse off under reform, a greater share (57%) say they will be better off (20%) or it will make no difference (37%).

Seniors’ awareness about the specific provisions of the health reform law that affect Medicare is mixed. For example, about half are aware that the new law will result in premium increases for some higher income Medicare beneficiaries (52%) and gradually close Medicare’s “doughnut hole” (50%). However, just a third (33% ) know the law will eliminate Medicare’s co-pays and deductibles for some preventive services.


On the other hand, large shares of seniors mistakenly believe the law includes provisions that cut some previously universal Medicare benefits and creates “death panels.” Half of seniors (50%) say the law will cut benefits that were previously provided to all people on Medicare, and more than a third (36%) incorrectly believe the law will “allow a government panel to make decisions about end-of-life care for people on Medicare.”

Despite the fact that Medicare’s actuaries predict the health reform law will extend the life of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund by 12 years (from 2017 to 2029), only 14 percent of seniors know this and nearly half (45%) of seniors think the health reform law will weaken the financial condition of the fund.


In general, seniors with a favorable view of the law are more likely to be aware of some of the law’s benefit improvements for Medicare, while those with an unfavorable view are more likely to be aware of increases in taxes and premiums that occur under the law.


also, rick, you say this:

BK also ignores the not so minor point of the CBO estimate of the plan costing $1 trillion dollars that we don't have

you provide neither documentation, description of what these costs are supposed to come from, or even a timetable to tell us over how many years we are supposed to incur these vague "costs". my information was that all the tax increases you complain about not only increased the number of years that medicare is predicted to remain solvent, but also paid for all costs of the health insurance reform subsidies and then some. could you provide specifics? cites?

Tacitus Voltaire said...

also, remember this little tidbit of information?

In the United States, the underwriting loss of property and casualty insurance companies was $142.3 billion in the five years ending 2003. But overall profit for the same period was $68.4 billion, as the result of float. Some insurance industry insiders, most notably Hank Greenberg, do not believe that it is forever possible to sustain a profit from float without an underwriting profit as well, but this opinion is not universally held.

Pat Patterson said...

And the whole of the quote, natually from TV's favorite source Wikipedia, states that, "In the United States, the underwriting loss of property and casualty insurance companies was $142.3 billion in the five years ending 2003. But overall profit for the same period was $68.4 billion, at the result of float. Some insurance industry insiders, most notably Hank Greenberg, do not believe that it is forever possible to sustain a profit from float without an underwriting profit as well, but this opinion is not universally held. Naturally, the “float” method is difficult to carry out in an economically depressed period. Bear markets do cause insurers to shift away from investments and to toughen up their underwriting standards. So a poor economy generally means high insurance premiums. In general, this tendency to swing between profitable and unprofitable time periods alternating over time cycles is commonly known as the "underwriting" or "insurance" cycle." So in other words what was profitable from arguable reasons is likely to run at a loss during periods of a poor economy.

So Cal Jim said...

TV, wake up from your stupor. Nationalized health care has been a abysmal failure everywhere it's been imposed. England? Canada? The old USSR? All miserable failures compared to our system. (Well, what was our system until Obama nationalized it.)

Obamacare will be every bit the failure that socialized medicine necessarily always becomes - a bloated, massively expensive, black hole of debt that will ultimately bankrupt the country while delivering increasingly shoddy care to the people forced to use it. Why do you think so many Canadians - indeed people from all over the world - come here for medical treatment instead of relying on their own country's socialized health care?

Pat Patterson said...

RCP has contrary information which shows the average is 12%+ opposed to the healthcare reform.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

Tacitus Voltaire said...

First, the main effect of the health care bill will be to terminate almost all current employer based insurance plans

employers are free to not offer health insurance right now, and they don't have to pay a penalty

after jan 1st 2014, if they don't offer health insurance, they will have to pay a $2000/employee fine

and that is supposed to make them more likely to drop health insurance?

is your mind on backwards day?

Tacitus Voltaire said...

First, the main effect of the health care bill will be to terminate almost all current employer based insurance plans

actually, if this did happen, it would leave companies with a fixed fine of $2000/employee, effectively a health insurance tax, which is about or less than what they pay now, and in return the employee would be able to get subsidized health insurance, paid for in part by these fines, which would be legally mandated to cost them less than most company-paid plans require from the employee as their contribution do now

and why would that be bad?

actually, the whole plan is designed to effect exactly such outcomes, which are cheaper and more reliable for everybody

Tacitus Voltaire said...

ok, rick, i did a little asking around, and i'll take your point that HCR might end up phasing out a lot of company subsidized plans. but, as i said above, this turns out to be a good thing

i have been talking to a small business owner who thinks he will have to drop his coverage for his employees. he makes a good source of information since he is living what you and i are merely discussing. here is what he told me:

(i wrote)
ok, now we have you paying less, perhaps, and the employee paying less

you pay a $2000/employee fine which is in effect a health insurance tax, and in return your employees get subsidized health insurance that is less than they are paying now

is that correct?


and he replied:

Yep. Now they are paying less because of subsidies, but yes. Point is, there is an incentive for employers to discontinue offering health insurance as a benefit. And the lower costs come in the form of higher taxes spread across the board. This is why originally when you posted your question about why large companies were considering dropping coverage, I could understand why that would be.

My company has a higher than average pay rate for the community I live in. I would guess that industries with lower than average salaries will cease providing coverage en masse once the legislation is in effect. Industries with higher average salaries will have less incentive to do so since employees would receive less subsidy.

I think the effect of this legislation will be to phase out employee provided health care. Almost everyone will purchase health insurance as individuals via the exchanges. One could argue this would result in more individual decisions and therefore a more efficient market than the current system. Risk would be pooled via the exchanges rather than via companies.


there you have it straight from one of the business owners who will be affected

tfhr said...

TV,

Your "friend" said: "And the lower costs come in the form of higher taxes spread across the board."

The "lower cost" would only be possible if health care costs decline and there is NOTHING about Obama's health care "reform" that suggest that this will be the case.

For instance:
"Total national health expenditures in the U.S. during 2010-2019 would increase by about 0.9 percent. The additional health demand for health services could be difficult to meet initially with existing health provider resources and could lead to price increases, cost-shifting, and/or changes in providers' willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage."
http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/OACT-Memo-FinImpactofPPACA-Enacted.pdf

That is taken from a April 2010 memo by the chief actuary from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the Department of Health & Human Services.

The memo specifically concludes that the suggestion that the excise tax on high-cost, employer-sponsored health insurance would not generate sufficient funds and would thus be "outweighed by increased costs associated with the expansion of health insurance coverage".

I would also take issue with regard to the phrase "spread across the board". There certainly will be higher taxation with a plan like this but those taxes will be nothing more than an effort at income redistribution.

Donald Berwick, Obama's dark of night, recess appointee to the head of CMS, the same organization that produced that memo) and erswhile Income Redistribution Czar, loves the socialism and particularly Britain's National Health Service. Berwick said,"Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must - must - redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistribution."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/9/obama-appointees-prescription-for-socialism/

As you know, the problem with socialism always was and still is that it works until you run out of other people's money to spend, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher. And oh look, the Brits are finally attempting to move AWAY from the bureaucratic burdens of their NHS, a system encumbered with more employees than our DoD, the UK's MoD, AND the standing Army of the People's Republic of China combined.
http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/1884-nhs-reform-what-would-donald-berwick-say

Tacitus Voltaire said...

Pat Patterson said...
And the whole of the quote


that's really great, pat - i'm happy that you are doing a little research and are trying to learn something instead of rewriting the dictionary to suit your prejudices

now, please tell us what point you were trying to make

Tacitus Voltaire said...

So Cal Jim said...
TV, wake up from your stupor. Nationalized health care


the health insurance reform bill requires that any americans who don't already have health insurance buy it from private health insurance companies

no public insurance entities or health facilities are created by the bill

please tell us why private health insurance companies equals "nationalized health care"

Tacitus Voltaire said...

tfhr
I would also take issue


i tend to place more credibility in the analysis of an actual employer who has analyzed the cost to his business in detail, and has actually read the bill himself since he will have to live by it, than your arguments, which are based on what?

nothing more than an effort at income redistribution

this is nothing more than empty class warfare rhetoric

perhaps you think using the word "socialism" is a magic spell that helps you win arguments when you can't win them otherwise

Tacitus Voltaire said...

oh, pat, by the way

in regard to your wonderful theory that the united states is not a democracy -

i think your should announce this startling news to everybody in your school. after all, so many books and public figures talk about the united states as a democracy that i think it is incumbent on you to correct them publicly! mention it to the parents of your students. call an assembly and make a speech about it to the entire school

after all, it is very important to you to believe that the united states is not a democracy! don't be shy - speak up!

Tacitus Voltaire said...

NHS, a system encumbered with more employees than our DoD

that' amusing. usually, hiring people is considered a good thing

when tfhr doesn't like employees, they become an "encumbrance"

that's funny!

Pat Patterson said...

Well, since you still seem to going to sources that would be rejected by a high school teacher I thought the least I could do is point out that the rest of that passage, aside from having nothing to do with the post, contradicts what you were arguing. And as to your insistence on avoiding the argument concerning whether the US is a republic or democracy I can only guess at why you seem unhinged at the idea of not understanding the Constitution. I mean it doesn't sound like you've ever read beyond the Preamble and still hold some misguided notion of the restraints it places on both parties. The public and the government.

Pat Patterson said...

I've asked this question in another post but I'll ask TV one simple one here Does word democracy appear any where in the Constitution?

equitus said...

As much as he denies the label, TV again and again reveals himself to be a statist.

Buying individual coverage through this "exchange" does indeed make the feds central to our heath care decisions - and with more onerous regulation and inefficiency with each session of Congress. And as more and more employees are dumped into this exchange more and more federal funds will be needed to subsidize it.

Also NHS employees are government employees, yet TV sees no difference between private and public sector employment. In fact, he' sees this as a very positive change. TV loves big government and enthusiastically cheers every step in this direction.

His first premise, his core values, are contrary to all that made the US a vibrant, innovative, and free society. He fails to see the the obvious unintended consequences of such a scheme, yet he thinks we're the idiots because we don't buy into his utopian logic.

Give it a rest, or take it to your own blog.

tfhr said...

TV,

The NHS currently has 1 employee for every 61 British subjects. In that total of 1.4 million employees you will find enough people to staff not only our military but also the UK's and the PRC's. The burden is overwhelming and the Brits are trying to reform this by cutting down on administrators and transferring more responsibility to general practitioners themselves when it comes to handling payment, among other responsibilities.

I'm not sure this will be much help considering the UK's GPs are already overwhelmed with their regular work load but the current systems is unsustainable and something must be done. Obama's recess appointee, Berwick, has professed his love for a single payer system and that is socialism, TV.

You should use the URLs I provided for you and at least glance at the materials. You would do well to understand that Obama's plan does not cut costs for medical care according to the Department of Health & Human Services. And to address your snit about my resistance to your desire to see a gargantuan government grow ever larger, I do think that more money spent of government employees does hinder economic growth.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

Pat Patterson said...
I've asked this question in another post but I'll ask TV one simple one here Does word democracy appear any where in the Constitution?


Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.
-Ronald Reagan

Now we are standing inside this symbol of our democracy. Now we hear again the echoes of our past: a general falls to his knees in the hard snow of Valley Forge
-Ronald Reagan, 2nd inagural

definitions of democracy:
a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
-Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
- american heritage dictionary

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
- World English Dictionary

the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representative; a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
- wordnetweb.princeton.edu


i know that you would like to narrow the definition of democracy so that it only describes athenian democracy where all citizens vote directly, but no literate or educated person restricts the definition that way, as you can clearly see

Tacitus Voltaire said...

so, Betsy, what do you think?

is the united states a representative democracy - a democratic republic - or is it not?

Tacitus Voltaire said...

and how amusing that tfhr adduces the pledge of allegiance when attempting to argue that the united states is not a democracy:

The Pledge of Allegiance
A Short History
by Dr. John W. Baer
Copyright 1992 by Dr. John W. Baer


Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.

The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.

In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans


http://www.oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm

like most of the misinformed conservatives, tfhr imagines that the pledge of allegiance is part of the constitution

Pat Patterson said...

Well, is the word democracy in the Constitution or not? Are you hoping no one notices that this blizzard of fertilizer doesn't address the question.

tfhr said...

TV,

Apparently you didn't get the memo from Al Gore, inventor of both the internet and Global Warming®, but excessive use of the copy and paste function creates Global Warming®. Apparently it is made even worse when done in a fashion that is irrelevant to the discussion. So TV, stop killing polar bears and tell us why you don't think the United States is a republic.

After that, maybe you can tell us why Barack Obama used a recess appointment to install a proponent of the single payer system, Donald Berwick, as the head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the same organization that predicts Obamacare will drive up costs.

I hope you appreciate that I'm giving you a variety of questions to run from in this multi-topic thread.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

you know, pat, if you are incapable of reading a few straightforward dictionary definitions, there is little hope for you

Tacitus Voltaire said...

your desire to see a gargantuan government grow ever larger

i have tried but failed to get you to stop attributing opinions to me that i don't believe and never said i believed

why don't you get yourself a nice plush toy so you can spend all day telling it what its opinions are. then you'll never have to deal with actual people who have their own opinions which are, sadly, not the same as the ones you want them to have, since this seems to present and insurmountable obstacle for you

the same thing goes for equitus, who seems to have the same personality disorder

Pat Patterson said...

It's irrelevant to the discussion to refer to dictionaries when the question remains. Is the word democracy in the Constitution? What does the primary document say not a definition.

Pat Patterson said...

You know, TV if you're incapable of reading the Constitution, there is little hope for you. One would think that writers of the Constitution would have put the word democracy in it if they intended to create demoracy but obviously they didn't.

The Bellamy's were indeed were well-known socialsts but the Pledge was written to specifically described the country as a Republic. Socialists of that period may be just as unrealistic in their goals as today but they actually were well-read and well-studied to differentiate between what the country was and what their midget forebearers imagine it to be.

Same question. Is the word democracy in the Constitution or not? Not that hard to answer except rather than rely of secondary opinions you'll have to actually read the document.

tfhr said...

TV,

Are you now saying that you are for less government? Do you want a smaller government? Do tell.

Some how is it that you've decided that I think the Pledge of Allegiance is in The Constitution? That's an odd conclusion to arrive at - even from you. Not sure where you get that but the pledge does contain the word "Republic", followed by "for which it[the flag] stands", and not "democracy", a word missing from The Constitution.

Seems to me your attribution is in error and that you're flopping like a fish on the bottom of the boat - one that thinks it can somehow swim away - though Pat Patterson has already caught you.

Enough of that - now get back to us on your plan to reduce the size of government.