2012 May 22 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2010/03/23/no-president-obama-i-wont-add-my-name-to-yours-under-the-health-care-bill/
0
0
  |   60 comments

By golly, I got another email from President Obama! Last time he emailed me, it was to thank me for my efforts to push back against Obamacare, now it  is – a bit awkwardly – to co-sign the health care bill recently passed by Congress, and signed by his majesty himself earlier today:

This morning, I gathered with members of Congress, my administration, and hardworking volunteers from every part of the country to sign comprehensive health care reform into law. Thanks to the immeasurable efforts of so many, the dream of reform is now a reality.

How nice you contact me again, Mr. President. I’m both humbled and impressed. After all, one doesn’t receive an email from the most powerful socialist in the world every day, does one?

However, I’m afraid you still did not heed my advise to actually read my blog posts and columns. You see, I wasn’t being ironic when I said I did not support your attempt to “radically transform” America’s health care system. To the contrary, even. I opposed it passionately.

You see, I believed and continue to believe that socialism is not the answer to America’s problems. America’s health care system certainly needs fixing. But fixing isn’t the same as destroying it and starting anew. No, to fix something implies you work with what you have. That’s the opposite of what you’re doing with your precious bill, which is nothing short of revolutionary. And with revolutionary I mean, of course, “socialist.”

OK, back to your kind email:

So as we celebrate this great day, I want to invite you to add your name where it belongs: alongside mine as a co-signer of this historic legislation. Organizing for America will record the names of co-signers as a permanent commemoration of those who came together to make this moment possible — all of you who refused to give up until the dream of many generations for affordable, quality care for all Americans was finally fulfilled.

So if you haven’t yet, please add your name as a proud health care reform co-signer today:

http://my.democrats.org/cosigner

I’m terribly sorry, but I’m afraid I’ll have to disappoint you again. You see, I have no intention whatsoever of putting my name next to yours under the worst bill approved by Congress in history. If you don’t mind, I prefer to keep my soul untouched by the disgusting piece of trash popularly known as “Obamacare.” If you want to deal with the Socialist Devil, so be it, I don’t want any part of it.

Now that we’re being honest with each other, I’d also like to make clear that I’m not very appreciative of your messages. I get the strong impression you either don’t read my replies or don’t care. This would fit in rather nicely with your far-left elitist ideology, of course, but it’s a bit frustrating for me. I might as well talk to the walk next to me. No, let me rephrase that, I could better talk to the wall next to me: at least the wall won’t send me an email harassing me to brag about his latest “revolutionary” victory.

Kindest regards,

Michael

  1. Posted by Evil
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110169
    Evil Worst bill from congress in history. Really now. Really. I'm going to give you a chance to retract, Michael.
  2. Posted by Josie
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110170
    Josie Maybe you should get off of the mail-list. At the bottom of each of his emails there is an "unsubscribe" link. You are on a mass email list that you volunteered yourself for. I'm not sure why you signed up in the first place.
  3. Posted by Ellen
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110171
    Ellen Well, all I can say to you is that you should willingly pay for more insurance, receive fewer benefits, and sign a contract with your insurance company that they can cap your benefits or kick you off whenever they want. You can exclude yourself from insurance because of pre-existing conditions. You don't have to have a better future just because the majority want one.
  4. Posted by Jeb
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110173
    Jeb So our system becomes a bit more like the one you enjoy in the Netherlands and it means the destruction of our system?
    • Posted by Patrick Glenn
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #110177
      Patrick Glenn The quality of socialized systems "enjoyed" in western Europe will, themselves, be effectively reduced over time as a result of Obamacare. As for the potential damages to the U.S., ObamaCare should be seen both as a cause and a symptom of decline. By itself, it will do significant damage, but only so much on its own. At the same time, though, an America that will deliver unto itself ObamaCare has very serious flaws on a fundamental level, which can only be corrected by major shifts in public attitudes.
      • Posted by Michael vd Galien
        | Quote | Trackback | Link #110178
        Michael vd Galien The irony is that Europe is dependent on America's free market-based health care system for innovation. If the US breaks with that, the whole world suffers due to a lack of innovation. As for some other comments: it's fascinating to see some Obamabots, who have never read this website, suddenly leave a comment. Acorn or SEIU, I wonder? Or is this the digital version of "Organizing for America"?
        • Posted by Jeb
          | Quote | Trackback | Link #110187
          Jeb
          If the US breaks with that, the whole world suffers due to a lack of innovation.
          1) I have seen no convincing evidence that this is true and am willing to bet that you will not provide any. 2) Even if it were so, it is not our responsibility to carry Europe.
          As for some other comments: it's fascinating to see some Obamabots, who have never read this website, suddenly leave a comment.
          Pointless hand waiving. I have to say I was quite pleased with the medical care I and my family received when we lived in the Netherlands and appreciated the much lower costs. Most of the elements that conservatives have railed against in this bill are already law there. Do you honestly find the system that covers you so disastrous?
          • Posted by Interested
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110234
            Interested 1) point to massive innovations on the scale that the US has produced - yet under socialized health care. 2) refer to #1
      • Posted by Jeb
        | Quote | Trackback | Link #110186
        Jeb
        The quality of socialized systems "enjoyed" in western Europe will, themselves, be effectively reduced over time as a result of Obamacare.
        I have seen many on the right claim this but as yet have seen no convincing evidence that it is so.
        • Posted by Patrick Glenn
          | Quote | Trackback | Link #110190
          Patrick Glenn For a good brief discussion, see: The Pharmaceutical Umbrella by Benjamin Plotinsky in City Journal: http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon0922bp.html. That article mentions several studies/findings that expose the flaws in Donald W. Light's study and conclusions. I'll look for additional studies that have looked at this problem directly, but keep in mind the indirect effects of the U.S. going decidely more in the direction of Euro-style social democracy. As our entitlements and gov'tal burdens get more and more unsustainable, eventually the U.S. will cut back on defense spending, which would force Europe to make up the difference - and European social democracies are already running into major fiscal crises of their own. Sounds like you think Europe should do that anyway, but don't be surprised if their vaunted social safety nets were eroded in the process.
          • Posted by Jeb
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110197
            Jeb
            eventually the U.S. will cut back on defense spending, which would force Europe to make up the difference …Sounds like you think Europe should do that anyway, but don't be surprised if their vaunted social safety nets were eroded in the process.
            I'd be happy with the US and Western EU nations ending somewhere in between our current positions on a variety of social, economic, and foreign policy issues. My first impression of the opening is that there is no Cold War equivalent opposition and so our Cold War military stance is of much more limited utility. I tried to download the full text but have not been able to get a good copy of the first linked article as yet. I think the take away sentence of the abstract is:
            Results show that EU consumers enjoyed much lower pharmaceutical price inflation, however, at a cost of 46 fewer new medicines introduced by EU firms and 1680 fewer EU research jobs.
            The savings could well be worth it. In the EU the real price index of pharmaceutical inflation for pharmaceuticals has remained near 1 while in the US it has risen from 1 in 1986 to greater than 1.45 now. That is a worrying trend and could be worth the loss of 46 drugs over that time depending on what percentage of the whole that is. I could not find a reliable source for the total number of prescription produced out of the US and EU over that time period, but it does raise an interesting question. What percentage increase in pharmaceutical productivity is worth a 40% increase in pharmaceutical prices? Does the next Viagra copy or Cialis clone count in that percentage? The other linked study claimed
            A Frenchman making a monthly salary of 3,000 euros will pay approximately 350 of them (deducted by his employer) for health insurance. Then the employer will add approximately 1,200 euros, making the total monthly cost to the employer of this individual’s services not 3,000 euros but 4,200.
            That seems dubious given that the annual per capita spending on health care in France was 3,926 USD as of last report (2005) and 3,000 Euro is near the average income in France. The article would have us believe that the health insurance expenditure for the average French employee is 1,550 Euro (~1/2 of his yearly cost).
            and European social democracies are already running into major fiscal crises of their own
            but their rates of medical inflation are significantly lower than ours, with the exception of Luxembourg (if memory serves). * The address is good but the link is broken.
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110223
            Patrick Glenn On lower pharm price inflation in Europe: it's not necessary to believe that this trend is partly caused by the U.S. effectively subsidizing the Euro pharm market, but it's an expected result for those who see it that way. Moreover, if/as the U.S. moves toward a more socialized system that does not reward pharm innovation with profits to the extent now in place, Europe's socialized systems wouldn't be able to continue enjoying (as much, anyway) the best of both worlds: either they would have to ramp up investment (private and public) in pharm research, or their overall health system outcomes would decline.
          • Posted by Jeb
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110231
            Jeb
            it's not necessary to believe that this trend is partly caused by the U.S. effectively subsidizing the Euro pharm market, but it's an expected result for those who see it that way.
            Even if there is an effect 40% seems a might large. Is that worth a 10-15% increase in new drug output, particularly if a substantial amount of that increased output is clones of already present drugs?
            either they would have to ramp up investment (private and public) in pharm research, or their overall health system outcomes would decline
            Keep in mind that our public investment in pharma is also higher and that contributes to our increased output. US universities do considerably more basic pharma research that do EU universities.
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110224
            Patrick Glenn As for the post-Cold War opening: I used to (wishfully) think that we'd sort of turned a corner on major recessions. That, with improvements in monetary policy, etc., we'd still have periodic downtowns (doc.com bubble), but no more 1930s or late 70s/early 80s magnitude events. Obviously, I was disabused of that notion. I suspect that you're exhibiting similar thinking regarding the "opening": setting aside the seemingly crude but potentially grave threat from radical Islamism, this period of relative peace (absence of major powers colliding) is an historical anomaly. One way to ensure that it will end, however, would be for the big powers of the free world to deinvest in military preparedness.
          • Posted by Jeb
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110232
            Jeb
            this period of relative peace (absence of major powers colliding) is an historical anomaly
            For the time being the colliding of the major powers is much more about economics than military. BTW I am not saying that we should not maintain military superiority on the technological or operational fronts, just that I think current expenditures are not in line with the threats on the horizon. Is spending as much as teh rest of teh world combined really necessary with a sane foreign policy? The truth though is that our government, regardless of party in power, is intent on being the world policeman and much of the developed world likes it that way as much (as they may bellyache about it). If we continue on in that roll I see no way to meaningfully reduce our military commitments and so not way to meaningfully reduce our military spending.
          • Posted by Interested
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110236
            Interested
            however, at a cost of 46 fewer new medicines introduced by EU firms and 1680 fewer EU research jobs.
            Unless of course that one cure you need is in the 46 medicines.
          • Posted by Jeb42
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110241
            Jeb42 40% greater pharma inflation is a very high cost and there are going to be a significant number of clones in that 46 drugs. Everything comes with a trade off and the percentage increase in new medicines needs to be significant for it to be worth that high a cost. As far as vaccines and drugs for non-chronic conditions we would be far better off if we simply pinned drug price increases to inflation and added a 40% tax that went straight to University run pharma research. I wouldn't support that plan, but it would be a more efficient use of resources, as the research would be directed to producing vaccines, antibiotics, and drugs to treat non-chronic diseases rather than most of it being focused on drugs for chronic disease (because that is where the real profits are*). * Well, that and boner pills. Sorry in advance for the possible double post. I forgot to login to ID.
          • Posted by Interested
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110249
            Interested again, When you're on your death bed and a cure was possible. Your left friends can say. Sorry jeb, everything comes with a trade-off. Meanwhile - someone with clear thought can easily recognize that through some breakthroughs or even wild shots in the dark can have massive benefits for everyone. Too bad it'll be cut out in the 40% due to market restricting forces. But hey - it's a trade-off.
          • Posted by Jeb42
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110261
            Jeb42
            When you're on your death bed and a cure was possible.
            1) Thanks for the appeal to emotion. 2) Given the incentives most of those 46 extras are going to be meds for chronic conditions and clones of other successful drugs, so the likelihood of your scenario is rather slim. 3) If saving my life means that everyone has to pay 40% more for all of their meds then I don't know that I am worth it. That level of pharma inflation is going to price a lot of people out of drugs that may have saved them.
            Too bad it'll be cut out in the 40% due to market restricting forces.
            Again, what percentage increase in pharmaceutical productivity is worth a 40% increase in pharmaceutical prices? Does the next Viagra copy or Cialis clone count in that percentage? How about changing the formula of an extant drug just enough to extend a patent?
            Meanwhile - someone with clear thought can easily recognize that through some breakthroughs or even wild shots in the dark can have massive benefits for everyone.
            That type of research is not where the incentives lie for the big pharma companies. Where you are most likely to see that type of research is in a university or similar setting.
          • Posted by Jeb
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110199
            Jeb Patrick, My reply got caught in the spam filter, perhaps because it was long*. Would you mind fishing it out. * less than 500 words, but this system doesn't seem to like long comments.
          • Posted by Michael_Merritt
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110207
            Michael_Merritt Fixed. I've been trying to find the setting that lets us do more than 500 chars, but I have not had any success. I'll contact ID and see if they can help...
          • Posted by Jeb
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110215
            Jeb Thanks
          • Posted by Chuck Norton
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110208
            Chuck Norton Pat, no amount of facts will ever convince Jeb. You can show him all the evidence there is and he will not budge his position. You see to the leftist in pursuit of the leviathan state, it is not about the health of the rabble, it is about the power to socially engineer society and the economy. When Canada socialized its medicine, after a few years the number of new drugs invented by Canadian pharma came down to zero.
          • Posted by Jeb
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110211
            Jeb
            When Canada socialized its medicine, after a few years the number of new drugs invented by Canadian pharma came down to zero
            1) Which also explains how 6 of the top 8 pharma companies by total revenues and by R&D spending are in countries with socialized medicine (Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, UK, and France). To be fair I will point out that one of those 6 (AstraZeneca) is part US and part Swedish. 2) Perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to how many drugs were invented by Canadian pharma prior to their socializing medicine.
            Pat, no amount of facts will ever convince Jeb.
            Project much?
          • Posted by Interested
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110235
            Interested history is not projecting
        • Posted by Brian
          | Quote | Trackback | Link #110195
          Brian Just consider that the EU depends on the US economically far more than the US depends on the EU. Whether Obama's programs will dramatically change anything is a matter of opinion, but I think we need to realize how the world is interconnected and at this point. Europeans are already have done a lot of reforms, and are continuing to look at reforms, in order to make themselves more competitive with the US. That's why you see a lot of right-of-center politicians being elected. Sarkozy was elected in part to reform work laws.
          • Posted by Jeb
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110198
            Jeb As I mentioned to Patrick, I think that the EU and US would both be well served by moving towards one another on a variety of issues. BTW One of the interesting things about living in the Netherlands was the experience of being politically to the right for the first time in my life. Now I am living in the Bay Area and experiencing it for the second time.
    • Posted by Chuck Norton
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #110192
      Chuck Norton No it doesnt become more like the one in the Netherlands, this bill has a different purpose. This goes to show that you don't know what is in the bill.
      • Posted by Jeb
        | Quote | Trackback | Link #110200
        Jeb The individual mandate, eliminating recision, eliminating previously existing condition exemptions, and more are all in the current bill and in the Dutch system. So yes it does move us closer to the Dutch system. Care to be specific about what major provisions you were talking about? (conspiracy theories don't count) Admittedly the Dutch don't pay off Nebraska, but that is what reconciliation is for. Removal of all the pay offs should be put as amendments in the reconciliation bill.
        • Posted by Chuck Norton
          | Quote | Trackback | Link #110204
          Chuck Norton Sure, it is not what it claism to do, it is how it is done. With this bill the insurance companies have to pay a new 8 billion dollar tax, have their premiums capped by the government, and cannot deny people who apply for insurance when they are sick or have pre-existing conditions. So anyone will be able to wiat till they get sick or injured, be in the hospital and buy insurance on the spot, the companies have to accept them and pay the bills, than later the person drops the coverage, till the next time. When the Netherlands passed their version of health care, it was not done to blow up the current system, for the ideological purpose of replacing it with another. Some Democrats have actually admitted that this is the purpose of the bill. http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/real-c... http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/cbo-de...
          • Posted by Michael_Merritt
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110209
            Michael_Merritt
            So anyone will be able to wiat till they get sick or injured, be in the hospital and buy insurance on the spot, the companies have to accept them and pay the bills, than later the person drops the coverage, till the next time.
            Problem with that idea: You're now required to have insurance, so you can't just go without it. Not for long, any way. I don't like the mandate either, but your statement will no longer apply.
          • Posted by Jeb
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110216
            Jeb Which is why a mandate or a tax and rebate structure are needed in order to guarantee that private insurance can survive the inability to avoid pre-existing condition denials and the ending of most recision. It is basically a Dutch lite system with some additional riders.
          • Posted by Michael_Merritt
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110218
            Michael_Merritt Tax and rebate of whom? The thing I find ironic with the mandate is that it is the definition of a give away to the insurance companies, which the single-payer crowd keeps telling us they hate. Also, I know the Republican solution is high risk pools, but with diabetes becoming more and more of a problem, they can't seriously suggest it without a lot of blowback from that group of people, as high risk groups are very pricey.
          • Posted by Jeb
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110219
            Jeb
            Tax and rebate of whom?
            Everyone. It is a way to have a mandate without a mandate. Rather than mandate and a fine, a tax is added and an equivalent tax rebate is given for purchasing insurance. This seems to be the consensus opinion on how a mandate can be accomplished in the unlikely event that the mandate does not survive a court challenge.
          • Posted by Jeb
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110220
            Jeb
            the thing I find ironic with the mandate is that it is the definition of a give away to the insurance companies
            More of a trade than a give away. They get an increased risk pool and in return submit to increased regulation including losing the ability to deny coverage based on previous condition or to rescind coverage at will.
          • Posted by Jeb
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110222
            Jeb An irony just struck me. If the Republican plan to end the mandate by judicial activism succeeds (unlikely), they manage to derail a tax and rebate replacement structure (likely), and their efforts to repeal the other aspects of the current bill (recision, prior condition, etc) fail (very likely) then it is quite possible that it will lead to just what some Republicans have said that Democrats planned all along (rates rising steeply enough to .convince the public to embrace a single payer system). It is not at all the outcome I would choose, but the irony of it would be poetic.
          • Posted by Interested
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110237
            Interested project much?
          • Posted by Jeb42
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110242
            Jeb42 ???
          • Posted by Interested
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110250
            Interested refer upwards.
          • Posted by Jeb42
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110262
            Jeb42 The comment you responded to with "project much" does not projecting my thoughts or emotions onto someone else so your response is nonsensical in this context. I realize that you saw me use that quip elsewhere and wanted to return the favor, but you picked the wrong comment to use it on. I ascribed no intent to the GOP beyond their own publicly stated goals and the end result that I mention as a possibility is not one that they would desire* (that is part of the irony you see). Were I to have posited that the end result of my above scenario was the actual goal of GOP efforts rather than an ironic possible outcome, then your comment would have made sense. * Nor is it one I would desire. It is the goal that some on the right like to assume is the hidden goal of left wing conspirators (another bit of the irony).
          • Posted by Jeb
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110228
            Jeb More lost to the spam filter. The most recent two were short. Could you please go fishing for me again? Thanks in advance.
          • Posted by Jeb
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110212
            Jeb
            With this bill the insurance companies have to pay a new 8 billion dollar tax, have their premiums capped by the government, and cannot deny people who apply for insurance when they are sick or have pre-existing conditions.
            Which separates it from the Dutch system how exactly? So anyone will be able to wiat till they get sick or injured, be in the hospital and buy insurance on the spot Of course you realize that is why the mandate is included.
            When the Netherlands passed their version of health care, it was not done to blow up the current system, for the ideological purpose of replacing it with another.
            That would depend on which time you are referring to.
            Jeb the probloem that you have, is that the only thing you know about this health bill is what you read in the elite media or what not, I have actually been going through the bill itself
            Because you know what I do and do not do, right?
  5. Posted by Evil
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110174
    Evil More like the destruction of your entire nation.
  6. Posted by Adam Voigt
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110176
    Adam Voigt Well, it may not be the worst in history, but it surely gives anything passed by FDR or LBJ solid competition as the worst! So Evil, you come on come on.... Read the history of this great nation, learn the Constitution, know that Government Healthcare is clearly unconstitutional; therefore, ILLEGAL!!! oh, and have a great day ;)
    • Posted by Evil
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #110179
      Evil If Godwin's law and Poe's law had a baby, it would be called "Unconstitutional".
      • Posted by Chuck Norton
        | Quote | Trackback | Link #110210
        Chuck Norton The comment above shows an important aspect to the left, they do not like "the rule of law", they like what they call "democracy". They define democracy as the rule of the people's representatives (politicians eg themselves) and if the law gets in the way do it anyways. Great power's fall when they take the rule of the whims of man over the rule of law.
  7. Posted by Evil
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110181
    Evil This is very lame fear-mongering. Explain how innovation in pharma is going to go down based on the reform. This is why your side lost, BTW. You forgot that propaganda is something you use to sway the people you have to sway - you never believe it so much it constrains your ability to adapt and plan ahead.
    • Posted by Chuck Norton
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #110191
      Chuck Norton A big fat tax on medical devices. That new multimillion dollar full body scanning machine will now cost you more. How dare you try to be on the cutting edge of medical care. Dont you know that old people are better off just taking the pain pill just like Obama and Robert Reich said? How about a 2 billion plus new tax a year on drug companies....ya they dont need new money to make new drugs, just like Robert Reich said and the video is on my web site.
  8. Posted by Patrick Glenn
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110184
    Patrick Glenn Having no luck with the link. Go to Real Clear Politics and check out the tab labelled "All Health Care Polls."
    • Posted by Evil
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #110185
      Evil Remember that you have to take away 11-13 % from the disapproval section - those are left-wingers who wanted the public option and pharma imports (other things the majority wanted, but didn't get because droopy dog and the other hippie-punchers had to be "moderate").
  9. Posted by Chuck Norton
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110205
    Chuck Norton The "Fix" only eliminates a few of the most publicized deals, many others such as the Louisianna one are still there. Jeb the probloem that you have, is that the only thing you know about this health bill is what you read in the elite media or what not, I have actually been going through the bill itself.
    • Posted by Jeb
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #110214
      Jeb Then push to have all of the back room buy offs removed in reconciliation. Then we could agree on something.
    • Posted by Jeb
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #110217
      Jeb
      Jeb the probloem that you have, is...
      While on this, it seems that you have exceedingly little knowledge of the Dutch system, since you do not notice the parallels in that system and the big changes put forward in the current bill. I have been covered by the Dutch system and still have family covered by it. It appears that you haven't even read the wiki.
  10. Posted by beautest
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110287
    beautest I'm also a test comment, so you can ignore me as well!