Library Grape

Quote of the Day: Governorship Was Just a Title Palin Won

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:30:00 +0000

I think if you try to understand Palin as a beauty queen, it really explains her behavior as AK Gov—it was just a title to her, and she loved the ceremonial aspects while she dodged the real work.

They Who Find Every Available Reason to Declare War on Islam

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:44:00 +0000

Frank Rich has a great column up today on the hysterical, anti-Islamic reaction on the right to the Fort Hood shootings:

THE dead at Fort Hood had not even been laid to rest when their massacre became yet another political battle cry for the self-proclaimed patriots of the American right.

Their verdict was unambiguous: Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an American-born psychiatrist of Palestinian parentage who sent e-mail to a radical imam, was a terrorist. And he did not act alone. His co-conspirators included our military brass, the Defense Department, the F.B.I., the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and, of course, the liberal media and the Obama administration...

William Bennett excoriated soft military leaders like Gen. George Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, who had stood up for diversity and fretted openly about a backlash against Muslim soldiers in his ranks.

“Blind diversity” that embraces Islam “equals death,” wrote Michelle Malkin.

“There is a powerful case to be made that Islamic extremism is not some fringe phenomenon but part of the mainstream of Islamic life around the world,” wrote the [Doughy Pantload] Jonah Goldberg.

Islam is “not a religion,” declared the irrepressible Pat Robertson, but “a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world.”

Say what you will -- from an anti-theist/anti-theological perspective -- about the many flaws in Islam that make it, like nearly every other religion on the planet, detrimental to human evolution and self-actualization, but -- taking it from a practical, real-world-consequences perspective -- it really is amazing to me that the radical right in this country has been so eager to validate Osama bin Laden's thesis that America is at war with Islam and that young men and women should sacrifice themselves to destroy this existential threat to their people and their religion.

I once had a naive belief that there were certain extreme places into which even the "mainstream" wingnut fringe wouldn't venture. I have sadly come to realize over these many years that there are no arguments too heinous, or slanders too reprehensible, to be put into the service of their corrupt, nihilistic pursuit of earthly power and the destruction of their (domestic) enemies.

I truly dread the day that America experiences another large-scale terrorist attack. Whereas the country pulled together in the wake of 9/11 to face down a common enemy, the mainstream wingnut fringe will circle, like a pack of hungry hyenas, and pounce upon our wounded nation to gash out and drink the blood of fear and demagoguery that sustains them. A dark day in America will be darkened even further by the suffocating blanket of lies and fearmongering these sociopaths will descend upon us.

Are We Doomed? Has Empire Reached Its Inexorable March to Decline?

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:20:00 +0000

Maybe I'm being a little melodramatic but I've finally started reading Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free by Charles Pierce and my doom-and-gloom meter is needling farther toward doom. You really need to pick up this book.

I know that's a uniquely appealing recommendation ("buy the book, it'll make you depressed!"), but it really is a whip-smart, wry and erudite study of the history of our country and our complicated relationship with cranks, loons, hucksters, political opportunists and religious nuts. Its thesis is that modern technology has allowed these assorted cranks to rocket to prominence in a way that our founding fathers never imagined possible in the days before TV and the internet. The author looks fondly on the founding of a country that was largely built upon the aftermath of soul-scarring religious persecution and laments how the vibrant plurality they created has gradually flipped to the situation we have today -- where the charlatans, religious hucksters and unscrupulous liars in politics drown out the rational, sane and intelligent voices in our polity.

In essence, our country has gradually come to the point where large portions of the population glorify, and lavish respect upon, ignorance and nonsense -- to the exclusion of any respect for the experts and intellectuals they decry as "elites".

I'm still not all the way through but it's bringing me back to a core question I've been pondering ever since a few years into the Bush administration:

Are we doomed as a country?

I know that every generation engages in various musings about how the current age is one of wickedness and decline.

But when you factor in:

the multiple existential crises that confront us (e.g. dwindling oil reserves, rising global temperatures, the bankrupting of our treasury due to two unpaid-for wars, a financial system that nearly bankrupted us that will soon do it again because they will likely avoid any serious future regulation, etc.);
the serious abuses to our core values as a country that have gone on over the last eight years (e.g., torture, extraordinary rendition in order to torture, suspension of habeas corpus, indefinite detention, murder of terrorism suspects in custody, erosion of our civil liberties in the name of national security, warrantless wiretapping, etc.); and
the near-complete lack of societal or political will to seriously address any or all of the foregoing;

it's really hard for me -- an otherwise rational person not normally predisposed to getting the vapors -- to not seriously consider buying some guns, building a bunker somewhere, and waiting for the Chinese to invade (or foreclose).

I'm really interested to hear your thoughts on the matter. Am I just being gloomy and melodramatic? Or are we about to fall off a steep cliff (or have we fallen off already)?

Update: For those of you who may be frightened off my my gloomy attitude during my reading of the book, also consider this bit from a Facebook comment I just made:

One thing I think the book does really well is feed strength and knowledge to one's fight against the forces of ignorance and nonsense.

Whether we win that battle -- and successfully advance the cause of humanity evolving past its frightened, medieval, ignorant, reactionary and unthinking core -- is another story altogether.

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

noreply@blogger.com (Gherald L) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:10:00 +0000

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

"Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are."

[..] Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance "since the Ten Commandments."

"And let's not forget that when the Constitution was ratified it brought freedom to every single American," Mortensen said.

Mortensen's passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered. Still, some friends and family members remain critical.

"Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care."

Bad Music Fridays - Apache (Tommy Seebach)

noreply@blogger.com (Gherald L) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:55:00 +0000

Nothing describes the suffering of Native American tribes quite like disco.

Bad Music Fridays: Six-Foot Teddy Bear

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:43:00 +0000

I dig Gherald's new Friday night Bad Music feature. Top this!

Bad Music Fridays - I've Never Been to Me

noreply@blogger.com (Gherald L) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:27:00 +0000

by Gherald

What say you? I'm thinking new regular feature.

Feel free to nominate in comments.

Why Does Andrew Sullivan Remain A Catholic?

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:21:00 +0000

I admit that I've often wondered this myself. Rod Dreher ponders:

I genuinely don't understand [Andrew Sullivan's] position. He doesn't believe the Catholic Church teaches truth, except insofar as it coincides with what he believes. Staying inside the Catholic Church makes him truly miserable. So why stay? If he wants liturgy, smells, bells, and a complete blessing on the way he chooses to live his life, there's the Episcopal Church. I actually did believe in Catholicism, but for my own reasons was so tormented by staying that I lost my faith ... and so I left. I left in tears and heartbreak, but I left. Truly, it's a mystery to me why any free man would stay in a church in which he did not believe, and that made him so unhappy.

Here's Sully's unconvincing riposte:

I can recite the Creed with as clear a conscience as any of my fellow Catholics. I do believe that the Catholic church teaches truth in the single unifying credo I can recite at every mass. I do believe in the message of the Gospels as deeply as I believe in anything. I do believe in the Catholic communion as the core guardian of those Gospels and of the sacraments that keep Jesus in our tangible, physical midst. And I do believe in the task of spreading God's love as the core mission of a Catholic today.
What I do not believe in are the Church's contemporary social and reactionary political positions, and its cultural hostility to women and gays, and its profound ethical corruption and sexual hypocrisy, all of which have led to astonishing scandal and evil. I do not believe that this evil should be tolerated or enabled by those who love it. And I do not believe that tackling this evil is best accomplished by leaving, as Rod, for reasons that I deeply respect, has.

For now, I won't delve too deeply into what I view as the various defects in our evolution as a species that lead people to seek out and hold onto religion, but I will posit that I've always seen Sullivan as hanging onto his Catholicism for two reasons:

like many people, he has a sentimentalist attachment to something that was powerful in his life as a child; and
his deeply contrarian nature binds him tightly to the things within himself that the outside world finds to be naturally incompatible.

Just my two cents.

Favorite New Word of the Day: Bozone (n.)

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:17:00 +0000

This is brought to you by the annual Washington Post Style Invitational:

Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.

Catholic Diocese Channels Christ's Love, Threatens to Stop Feeding the Poor If Gays Marry

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:13:00 +0000

Words fail:

I've always found the Book of Matthew rather beautiful: "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me...."
It goes on to say, "Unless you live in a city where gays can get married, in which case, to hell with it."

OK, it doesn't really say that last part, but the D.C. Archdiocese may be confused on the point.
The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Here's a great idea for feeding the world's hungry: foreclose on the Vatican, sell it, and use the money to buy everyone food. When I was there a few years back, estimates on the value of the Vatican and its contents were on the order of a few trillion.

Update: Gherald parrots something that Kain spotted that indicates that this analysis is wrong. I tend to agree.

Idiotic Quote of the Year: Glick on Bush, Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:41:00 +0000

This quote from Bushlicker Caroline Glick has got to be one of the most vapid, puerile and downright idiotic things I've ever read:

But at least you always knew that Bush loved America and that he loved Americans. You knew that he valued America’s allies even if he didn’t always do right by them. You knew that his values were American values.
You can’t say any of that about his successor.

It amazes me that Glick is so shameless as to basically announce to the world that surface impressions are the only thing she cares about, without paying any mind to substance. "Mission Accomplished" banners over two failed wars... Flight suits and codpieces over scores of people killed by Hurricane Katrina... Getting Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" over the widespread torture of terror suspects in our country's custody... The mind reels...

Daniel Larison eviscerates this infantile nonsense with relish:

Yes, this is what you would expect from Glick (or from anyone, for that matter, who thinks that the last two years of Bush’s foreign policy were his worst), but it’s offensive all the same. As tempting and easy as it would be to turn this formulation around on one of the worst Presidents of all time, I don’t assume that Bush did any of the things he did because he didn’t have “American values” or didn’t love his country. I don’t assume that he trashed our relations with Europe, Turkey and Russia because he wanted America to be isolated or because he loathed these other nations. It is certainly true that he harmed American interests, weakened American power, wrecked our fiscal house and isolated us from many of our allies and potential partners, but the world is full of stories of people who harm that which they love. Bush’s problem wasn’t that he didn’t love America. The problem was that he had no idea what he was doing and substituted ideological fantasies in place of understanding.

Indeed, most of his catastrophic blunders came from an excess of sentiment and emotion concerning these things, combined with absolutely incompetent execution and an ideological obsession with American virtue and strength that ensured that his actions would be excessive, arrogant, ill-conceived and unrelated to the real world. Bush’s love of country was something similar to what the Apostle called in another context “zeal not according to knowledge.” The man was actually overflowing with saccharine, do-gooding, Gersonian sentimentality and he had no shortage of emotional, demonstrative professions of patriotic devotion. So what? What good did it do anyone? It might even have been better had Bush been less enthusiastic in trying to protect the United States, since he would not have been so ready to see dire threats around every corner where none existed. America needs fewer paranoid, jealous lovers, not more.

Reminder: You Can Follow Library Grape on Facebook and Twitter

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:02:00 +0000

Just a reminder that you can follow Library Grape on Facebook and Twitter!

You can find the blog's page on Facebook and become a fan here.

You can also become a fan using the Facebook Networked Blogs app here.
You can add Metavirus as a friend on Facebook or on Twitter.

Men Six Times More Likely Than Women to Leave Spouse After Serious Illness Diagnosis

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:39:00 +0000

This is just appallingly sad:

When Seattle oncologist Dr. Marc Chamberlain was treating his brain cancer patients, he noticed an alarming pattern. His male patients were typically receiving much needed support from their wives. But a number of his female patients were going it alone, ending up separated or divorced after receiving a brain tumor diagnosis.

Dr. Chamberlain, chief of the neuro-oncology division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, had heard similar stories from his colleagues. To find out if these observations were based in fact, he embarked on a study with Dr. Michael J. Glantz of the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute and colleagues from three other institutions who began to collect data on 515 patients diagnosed with brain tumors or multiple sclerosis from 2001 through 2006.

The results were shocking. Women in the study who were diagnosed with a serious illness were six times more likely to become separated or divorced than men with similar health problems, according to the report published in the journal Cancer.

As John Cole said regarding this study: "I’m really not sure how some people live with themselves."

... Apparently, people like Newt Gingrich appear to live with themselves just fine:

Gingrich obtained his first divorce in 1981, after forcing his wife, who had helped put him through graduate school, to haggle over the terms while in the hospital, as she recovered from uterine cancer surgery.

"What is killing the Republican party is that deep down, they are just complete assholes"

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:29:00 +0000

Another excellent contender for quote of the day from John Cole:

The funny thing about all of this is that no matter how bad all their ideas are, no matter how disastrous their governance has been, no matter how many horrible things they have done to the economy and this country, what really is killing the Republican party is that deep down, they are just complete assholes.

You see it in the way they treat women, you see it in the way they treat minorities, you see it in the way they treat homosexuals, you see it in the way they treat anyone who is not a white Christian, and you see it in the way they treat anyone who disagrees with them slightly about anything. They just have no respect for anyone, and it shows. People don’t like to be treated like crap, and grown-ups don’t want to be associated with people who yell “You lie” or scream “socialism” or “Hitler” or accuse you of being a terrorist whenever they don’t get their way.

Quote of the Day: Will Jonah Goldberg Ever Realize He's an Idiot?

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:24:00 +0000

A perfect takedown of the Doughy Pantload (who gives us sage tweets like the above):

What wakes liberal writers up at night -- I mean that eye-snap of soul-gnawing, nauseating dread -- is not social injustice, is not the fear of creeping fascism, is not rage against corporate greed ...

It is the haunting certainty that Jonah Goldberg will die happily in his sleep without ever comprehending that he's an idiot.

An Epilogue to Republican Obstructionism in the House

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:50:00 +0000

Tim F. gets the prize for best summation of Republican health care obstructionism in the House:

Reviewing Republican behavior during the Health Care Reform debate on Saturday, you would think a militant band of spoiled toddlers with Tourette’s had occupied the right half of the House. Or howler monkeys. If it was not the most embarrassing display of bad behavior in recent government history, it is only because of everything else Republicans did lately. When lying didn’t work (they want to euthanize granny!) they tried hyperbole (health insurance reform is LITERALLY THE SAME THING AS STALIN TIMES THE HOLOCAUST!). Then they tried lying again. Then lying plus hyperbole, stamping their feet and shouting.
Normally the side that doesn’t have the law on its side, and doesn’t have the facts either, recognizes that you just lose twice if you throw your credibility and reputation into a losing fight. This fight was clearly different for Republicans, and you know what? They’re right. If the GOP had not pushed the Overton Window way to the right compared with where we started when Single Payer was still on the table (ish), Democratic moderates would have no problem supporting the watered down “moderate” compromise that the House finally passed yesterday. The bills would have steamrolled both houses of Congress with decent support from swing-district Republicans if the party had not made it a hill to die on with an emphasis on die.
Bill Kristol had it right in 1994. If Democrats effectively fix health care then Republicans are screwed. Any health care reform that does not suck even worse would effectively be written in stone as soon as it passed. Realigning their issue set to stay relevant could be quite awkward since Democrats already claimed most of the issues that Americans don’t hate. To stay alive Republicans would need to tack somewhere less crazy, but that would motivate Michelle Bachmann’s twenty-some percent of crazy people to go third party. Those two factors would effectively doom Republicans to share a shrinking back bench with the conservative fruitcake party and their pet schmuck Joe Lieberman.
So yeah, Republicans pulled out all the stops on this one. If they can find another stop before the Senate vote they’ll pull that one too. Pretty much the only institutional incentive not pushing them towards brinksmanship at this point is that desiccated raisin occupying space where most people would have a conscience.

Evening Music Party - "I Like That"

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:12:00 +0000

I just heard this song tonight. I dig its funky house beat. Enjoy:

The House Passes Comprehensive Health Reform Bill With a Single Republican Vote

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:03:00 +0000

Well, mark this one down for the history books. I totally wasn't even paying attention but the House's health care bill passed - with a single Republican vote:

Moments ago, the House of Representatives passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act by a vote of 220-215, with one Republican — Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) — voting for the measure. Once the bill reached the needed threshold of 218 votes, the chamber erupted in applause. Members excitedly counted down the last few seconds of the vote. Watch it:

At the “House Call” tea party protest on Capitol Hill this week, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) pledged to the right-wing activists: “Be assured not one Republican will vote for this bill.” Cao’s vote must have surprised Cantor.

Cao has previously been touted by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) once as “the future” of the GOP. The White House had reportedly “been in constant contact” with him prior to the vote. “Rahm is going all in to get him,” one aide told Roll Call, referring to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

"There is no harder thing than to have Glenn Beck outlive your child"

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:45:00 +0000

Morbid, but freaking hilarious:

Money quote:

"She was just a normal kid. She wasn't some fat, dumb Mormon fuckface who should've drank herself to death when she had the chance."

h/t Maru

John Stewart's Masterful Glenn Beck Impersonation

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:44:00 +0000

This is quite possibly the funniest thing I've ever seen John Stewart do on The Daily Show. Absolutely brilliant:

Best quote:

"You know who else didn't answer medical questions? ... Hitler."

Marriage Equality - Hate Alone Cannot Forever Sustain the Beast

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:41:00 +0000

My favorite quote of the week on the bigots who won the day in Maine:

It is proof, yet again, that civil rights should never be decided by mob rule—but the hateful people behind Yes on 1 capitalize on spreading fear—suckling pigs at the teat of dying, mud-covered sow of homophobia.
The hog is going to die. Hate alone cannot sustain that beast.

Sick Teabaggers in D.C. Helped by Government-Run Healthcare

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:13:00 +0000

Oh, sweet delicious irony, how I love thee:

Thousands of protesters came to Capitol Hill yesterday for Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-MN) protest against health care reform, capping months of fear-mongering about the dangers of so-called “socialized” medicine. However, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank notes that at one point, one of the protesters had a heart attack. Luckily, federally-employed medical personnel were able to quickly attend to him — even though they were part of government-run health care, which is supposedly quite dangerous:
More ominously, a man standing just beyond the TV cameras apparently suffered a heart attack 20 minutes after event began. Medical personnel from the Capitol physician’s office — an entity that could, quite accurately, be labeled government-run health care — rushed over, attaching electrodes to his chest and giving him oxygen and an IV drip.
This turned into an unwanted visual for the speakers, as a D.C. ambulance and firetruck, lights flashing, pulled in just behind the lawmakers. A path was made through the media section, and the patient, attended to by about 10 government medical personnel, was being wheeled away on a stretcher just as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) stepped to the microphone. “Join us in defeating Pelosi care!” he exhorted. A few members stole a glance at the stretcher.
By the end of the day, “medics had administered government-run health care to at least five people in the crowd who were stricken as they denounced government-run health care.”

"You Know You're a Celebrity When People Want to See Your Penis"

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:39:00 +0000

I really, really love William Shatner and this bit of him doing a spoken word riff on Levi Johnston's Twitter tweets is pretty damn funny:

The Health Insurance Equation - Always a Negative Result

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:11:00 +0000

A conservative friend of mine popped up a question to me on Facebook:

Maybe you can answer this, Today it costs some $7k a year for a pretty comprehensive stand alone health insurance policy. Why can't the Feds and states pool their money and offer an insurance company $2,500 a head per year? We would reduce the cost and give everyone good care and just let insurance companies compete for the contract.

Here's my answer:

Hint: Because the insurance companies are the primary problem in the equation.

Just do the math:

First, take (x), the blanket antitrust exemption that health insurance companies enjoy (so, e.g., they can gobble up 90%+ of a state's health insurance market), which allows them to exercise abusive monopolistic practices without any fear of accountability.;

Then multiply by (y), the levying of up-front health insurance premiums for health insurance paid through businesses, which are able to shoulder obscene rate hikes year-over-year more easily than individuals (who would otherwise revolt);

And, finally, subtract (z), the inescapable and nefarious incentive to do as much as is legally possible to deny as much coverage, and quickly dump anyone that becomes sick from their paid-for insurance coverage based on a flimsy and transparent pretense, in order to maximize profits for their shareholders (which is made all the worse due to the fact that health insurance companies are shielded from civil liability from any claims based on denial of coverage).

Maths!

I really can't make it any plainer.

The clear and indisputable core business model of a "health" insurance company is to:

take in as much money in premiums as you can; then
deny as much coverage as you can.

It's that simple. We're talking basic profit principles, people.

The general construct is

PROFIT = REVENUES - EXPENSES

i.e.,

HEALTH INSURANCE PROFITS = PREMIUMS COLLECTED - (CLAIMS PAID - CLAIMS DENIED*)

So, yes, I hereby demand that we pump hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the coffers of the health insurance companies. Because, of course, they will simply just cover people and then pay for their claims when they're sick. RIGHT!?

Sigh...

* By "Claims Denied", I of course mean "People Killed".

Surprise - GOP "Health Reform" Bill Does Almost Nothing to Reduce Number of Uninsured

noreply@blogger.com (Metavirus) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:44:00 +0000

File this under "no shit, Sherlock":

Last night, the Congressional Budget Office released its analysis of the House Republican alternative health care bill. While the CBO determined the GOP bill’s 10 year price tag to be $61 billion — far less that the Democrats’ proposal — the score also found that their bill would have little effect on nearly 46 million uninsured Americans:
By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to
current law, leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The
share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, roughly in line with the current share. CBO and JCT
estimate that enacting the amendment’s insurance coverage provisions would increase deficits by $8 billion over the 2010–2019 period.
The CBO found that the Democrats’ bill, however, would cover 36 million more Americans and “reduce the number of nonelderly Americans without coverage to around 18 million over the next decade.” Yet, just before the CBO scored the GOP bill, a spokesperson for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) falsely claimed their alternative “will cover millions more Americans” than the Democrats’ bill.

Here's Steve Benen with more:

Thank goodness House Republicans came up with their own health care reform plan. Without it, some may have been tempted to think GOP lawmakers are credible when it comes to the policy debate.

As was quickly apparent, the Republican plan does nothing for the uninsured, nothing for those with pre-existing conditions, and nothing for those worried about losing coverage when it's needed most. It's an entirely partisan plan, written in secret, which ignores Democratic ideas altogether. The GOP proposal seeks to create a system that "works better for people who don't need health care services, and much worse for people who actually are sick or who become sick in the future. It's basically a health un-insurance policy"...

So, let me get this straight. The House Republican caucus has been working behind closed doors since June on a health care plan. Five months later, they unveil their plan, and it effectively leaves the broken status quo intact? That's the big GOP health proposal? Largely ignoring the uninsured, neglecting those with pre-existing conditions, and offering deficit reductions that are smaller than the Democrats' plan?...
I expected a bad Republican plan, but this is even worse than I imagined.