But governments don’t have to make a profit, and they can even run programs that are not breaking even … if we decide that’s a
‘good thing to do’ (see, e.g., “The Pentagon”). So the level of benefits won’t have to be the same under a government plan as under private plans.

Err.. in the absence of government regulations, and especially those that reduce competition, private insurance will provide a variety that people can choose from. They can also be sued if they improperly deny benefits (if the ERISA government regulation were corrected).

Government gives us a one-size-fits-all. Notice how the Dems are trying to kill any vestige of private involvement (and hence, choice and competition) in Medicare.

Yankev: No, there is a huge difference between rationing and allocating.

Yes. One has an “r” and the other has “l”s. Maybe if you’re Asian, the distinction is rather subtle.

Insurance companies will size the benefits to not exceed the premiums (or raise the premiums), with as much profit on the side as possible for their owners. They do this in many ways: excluding high risks and pre-existing conditions, denying benefits (justly or unjustly). They may increase co-pays, or length of stays, or cap yearly or lifetime benefits. To say they don’t look at the bottom line when deciding what benefits to provide is foolish.

Governments may also have to manage benefit levels if a program is running low on money … or if someone wants to rip off that program to pay for other things (see, e.g., “Social Security”). But governments don’t have to make a profit, and they can even run programs that are not breaking even … if we decide that’s a
‘good thing to do’ (see, e.g., “The Pentagon”). So the level of benefits won’t have to be the same under a government plan as under private plans.

Cheers,

I follow the Immigration topic very closely. Most of the “hysteria” I have seen comes from the advocates of unlimited immigration for an unlimited time when real and effective solutions to immigration are proposed. Sen Barbara Jordans immigration commission in 1995 came up with many solutions all of which were lauded by the Clinton administration and then dismissed, sandbagged and forgotten, leaving proponents of massive immigration to drag out their constant nation wrecking Amnesty solution to immigration yet again.

As far as any worry of rising anti semitic percentages go, in poll after poll immigrants to the USA are shown to be at least twice as anti semitic as the native born population, and some segments of new immigrants are extremely anti semitic. It baffles me why so many Jews are in favor of more and more immigration that daily increases the population of those hostile to Jews.
And finally, and quite sadly,there are no other people in the mainstream media “like Pat Buchanan”.

David Nieporent: What do you mean that it’s a “straw man”?

You’re a lefty. That’s what lefties do.

Three times in one week (more or less) is pretty impressive. You should get a set of steak knives.

Mikey: Of course you’re are wrong, and the straw man argument about a foreign power saying that American citizens are also their citizens is a typical non argument (not based in the real world) of the left.

What do you mean that it’s a “straw man”? It’s the exact argument you yourself made: that since Britain — a foreign power — decided to say that Obama was also their citizen, he was a dual citizen, and therefore not a natural born citizen.

Mikey: Minor v. Happersett said CITIZEN PARENTS, it didn’t say A Citizen PARENT. Wong Kim Ark said the the child of an alien is as much a citizen as the NATURAL BORN CHILD OF A CITIZEN (women were citizens if married to a citizen automatically then). Perkins v. Elg (1929) also said that Miss Elg and Mr. Steinkauler were “Natural Born Citizens” (with the ability to be POTUS), born of Citizen parents, but Mr. Bohn, born of an alien father was declared “citizen”. There is NOT ONE SCOTUS case that says that anything less than 2 citizen parents can produce a Natural Born Citizen. NOT ONE.

Well, there’s Wong Kim Ark. (Oh, that’s right, you’ve invented an imaginary third category of citizenship for Wong Kim Ark that exists only in your mind.) There are numerous court cases, like Wong Kim Ark, that say that a child born in the U.S. is a citizen regardless of the citizenship of his parents. If there were any doubt about the source of that holding, that’s what the 14th amendment says.

(How you read Wong Kim Ark’s claim that “the child of an alien is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen” to say that the child of an alien is not as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen is beyond me.)

Here’s the problem: you’ve never read any of the cases you’re citing. Elg was the child of “A citzen PARENT,” not “CITIZEN PARENTS.” And Minor v. Happersett explicitly says that “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”

apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

it says nothing about me. i made no claims about people who use overbroad generalizations, you did…right after you used them yourself. i only made claims about people who make claims about doing something that they themselves do (i.e. you).

if you want the definition of hypocrite, use google. the “define:” function (the colon needs to be there) is very useful. you should have learned how to do independent research long ago.

and i’ll note you’ve so far only called out those who make overbroad generalizations about people you self identify with (i.e. right wing). i’ve yet to see you call out someone for the gratuitous use of “leftist”, “left-wing” etc. it seems that some overgeneralizations are more acceptable than others to you….don’t worry, given the general quality of your posts it didn’t surprise me either.

and yes, if you have some actual problem with my original statement i’d love to hear it. just remember, you’ll be discussing it with a surgeon who has not only read the new recommendations, but has read much of the underlying research and practices it when on the surg-onc service…so i don’t want to hear any of the made up BS that has formed all of the republican talking points so far.

Over and out.

Apparently you are not following the same debate that sane and rational people are…unfortunately that seems to be par for the course of most right wingers on this site.

what do you think that said about you?

Also, I’ve read the three quotes of mine that you picked out upside down and sideways, and I can’t get “hypocrite” out of them. I think you need to spell that out.

He’s handled this inevitability with grace and intelligent discourse, as evidenced by his race speech during the campaign.

And his pre-judging of the breaking and entering incident with his old processor – where he instantly assumed the officer was racist (there were two officers, one black, IIRC), and then had to patch it all up with the absurd “beer summit.”

Laura(southernxyl):
I thought it was mostly Rosie O’Donnell’s ilk.Would like to see her reaction to being called “right-wing”.

followed by:

Reckon what definition Brian has of “right wingers”?

and:

Now the labels do nothing but further obfuscate and prevent meaningful conversation.

This says a lot about laura, unfortunately none of it is good. the word hypocrite comes to mind, as do other things.

David Nieporent: Then every child born in the U.S. would be a dual citizen, thus none of them would be “natural born,” and so nobody would be eligible to be president. With no commander-in-chief, the country would be in trouble.

At least he’s not claiming to have proof that Mr. Obama was delivered by C Section.

Mikey: Your article typifies the attitude of the supposedly educated elites, who sneer at the populist movement to get back to adherance to the US constitution.

Your article typifies the attitude of the uneducated nut, who so desperately wants to escape his own feelings of inferiority for being uneducated that he latches onto a theory which educated people don’t believe, thus supposedly showing that he’s actually superior to them. The problem is, education counts, and reading a few websites does not make one competent to opine on legal issues. For instance:

I still don’t see any word from you about the Constitutional ineligibility of Obama due to the already admitted FACT that he was a dual citizen at the time of his birth, and thus is not a Natural Born Citizen (see Minor v. Happersett).

The only problem is that those web pages you read lied to you; Minor v. Happersett doesn’t say what you think it says. Nowhere in there does it say that

(a) “Dual citizens” are not “natural born”; or
(b) Children of one citizen parent and one non-citizen parent are not natural born.

Those websites give you a quote which

(a) doesn’t mean what you interpret it to mean; and
(b) is cut off in the middle, making explicit that you’re interpreting it wrong.

As I’ve explained to you several times, saying that children of citizen parents are natural born citizens — which the case says — does not mean that children of non-citizen parents are not natural born citizens.

By your ‘logic,’ the Soviet Union could have defeated the United States in the Cold War at any time simply by passing a law declaring every American born thereafter to be a Soviet citizen. Then every child born in the U.S. would be a dual citizen, thus none of them would be “natural born,” and so nobody would be eligible to be president. With no commander-in-chief, the country would be in trouble.

Laura, you claimed the 9/11 Truthers are of “Rosie O’Donnell’s ilk.”

No, look at what I said:

I thought it was mostly Rosie O’Donnell’s ilk.

See that word “thought” in there?

I did a cursory search of 9/11 truthers. I found names like Martin Sheen, Ed Asner, Cynthia McKinney. These are not right-wingers, Ricardo. I found nothing to support the initial assertion that 9/11 truthism is to be laid at the door of right wing populism. So I stand by my original statement, that it is not the right wing pushing 9/11 trutherism. Perhaps you have some data to show that it is.

Relurking.

10-4.

Obama campaigned for fiscal conservatism and, presumably, got a lot of his vote from people who were unhappy with the Bush Administration. So, at this point, you have small-government conservatives who were unhappy with Bush and have every reason to be unhappy with Obama, independents who feel as if they were lied to, and a few Democrats who don’t approve. Obviously, with Obama’s approval rate at about 47% and Bush’s at 25ish%, there’s a solid quarter of the country (at least) that disapproved of both.

Find the common element between the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration and you probably have figured out what upsets these people. Dismissing it all as racist, reactionary, or foolish seems to be an overly simplistic and unjustified way of looking at a movement that consists of over a million people (counting local events, national events, etc).

He’s handled this inevitability with grace and intelligent discourse, as evidenced by his race speech during the campaign.

So by inserting “racialist” for “racist” it doesn’t look so dumb, it just looks obsolete and irrelevant.

When you say “the claim that Obama is our most racist president since Wilson” has “obvious logical merit,” I would instead substitute, “is so stupid that whoever says it is either a fool or just trying to get a reaction out of people.”

Let me suggest a substitution of “racialist” since “racist” and it doesn’t look so dumb.

But the claim that Obama is our most racist president since Wilson is not without historic foundation and obvious logical merit.

Enjoy this Google search: Nixon abortion “when you have a black and a white”

When you say “the claim that Obama is our most racist president since Wilson” has “obvious logical merit,” I would instead substitute, “is so stupid that whoever says it is either a fool or just trying to get a reaction out of people.”

I should note, as a counterexample to my argument, Beck’s stupid remark that Obama is a “racist” who has a “hatred of . .. white culture.”

Beck’s remark isn’t stupid at all. Incendiary, even ill-advised, perhaps. But the claim that Obama is our most racist president since Wilson is not without historic foundation and obvious logical merit. There are arguments to be made either way. But mere dismissal is not an argument.

And the breezy assertion that those concerned about the trend to pack illegals into the country are guilty of hysterical anti-immigrant nativism is just jejune. Again, there are things to be said, and no real advantage in refusing to say them.

That’s just for starters.

And the comments need work. Maybe a recruitment drive for quality commentors is needed. Perhaps Obama’s magic wand – the one which will make the oceans recede – can supply some. So who is this Welker guy, and why can’t he get to the point? I’m not interested in his appraisal of the author and other commentators. I couldn’t care less that he thinks they’re dumb. What is his argument, and why can’t he make it? Weirdo.

More importantly, Leo Marvin hits the nail on the head here:

I’ve also never seen anyone get banned who, when warned, promised to do better. On the other hand, people who righteously defend their incivility can almost always be counted on to continue it, so they get banned sooner or later — may as well be sooner. I’m not sure whether David got banned this morning or not, and I certainly can’t speak for Orin, but if he is banned I’d be surprised if he couldn’t get himself reinstated if he committed to being more courteous.

I have never banned, and I don’t think I ever would ban, a commenter who actually expressed willingness to comply with our comment policy. The commenters who get banned are the ones who either (1) make clear that they think the comment policy is dumb and simply refuse to comply with it or (2) insist that they are the true victims because they are being treated unfairly, and demand an immediate and complete accounting of the editing decisions concerning all of their past comments. Life is just too short for that.

Laura(southernxyl): I thought it was mostly Rosie O’Donnell’s ilk. Would like to see her reaction to being called “right-wing”.

Without any data, I don’t see how you could say it was “mostly” left-wing. My experience is similar to Mr. Nieporent’s: the Truther movement was a coalition between the Ruby Ridge/Waco right (and some even more unsavory elements, like white supremacists and the militia and Christian Identity movement) and the Noam Chomsky left.