Or is there something profoundly disturbing about people who take great pride and joy in “making history”? Osama bin Laden made history, after all, as did Yamamoto.
40 thoughts on “Is It Just Me?”
Comments are closed.
Or is there something profoundly disturbing about people who take great pride and joy in “making history”? Osama bin Laden made history, after all, as did Yamamoto.
Comments are closed.
Lee Harvey Oswald went from unknown total loser to “making history” in less than a minute.
“Making History” in a positive way usually requires years of effort and often isn’t recognized until after that person’s death, something that escapes these narcissists like our Community-Organizer-in-Chief who crave instant gratification and adoration.
People should take great pride and joy in making positive history, e.g. Burt Rutan and Spaceship One.
Expanding health insurance from covering 85% of Americans to covering 95+% of Americans is making positive history.
Would that be 95% positive history? I’d suppose the last 5% would feel positively horrilbe knowing that we had to go through all that and still wasn’t able to get them included.
“Positive” and “negative” are in the eye of the beholder.
Murdering twelve million Ukranians is positive history, if you approve of what Josef Stalin was doing.
After all, you can’t break eggs without making an omelette, right?
Jim,
if what you say, 85% to 95%+, could be done by following the rules of our country, that being the Constitution, and by allowing the free enterprise system to work freely, it WOULD be a positive move in history.
But the way it’s currently being done is an abomination. It’s a power grab and income redistribution, compounded by the pipe dream of thinking it will cost LESS to insure millions more people. There are plans and edicts coming that violate the Constitution in ways we can’t imagine yet.
And I’m pretty sure that becoming a historically relevant figure, through committing an abomination makes you infamous Jim, not famous.
“Expanding health insurance from covering 85% of Americans to covering 95+% of Americans is making positive history.”
Untill the Government defaults on its debt.
Like a man jumping off a 20 story building, the guy on the 10th floor asks him how its going. The jumper answers “So far so good!” as he passes.
That is the motto of the Welfare State.
if what you say, 85% to 95%+, could be done by following the rules of our country, that being the Constitution, and by allowing the free enterprise system to work freely, it WOULD be a positive move in history.
Health care reform is constitutional, just like Medicare. And feel free to point out a single country that insures 95% of its people using only “free enterprise”.
Like a man jumping off a 20 story building, the guy on the 10th floor asks him how its going. The jumper answers “So far so good!” as he passes.
That is the motto of the Welfare State.
Social Security dramatically reduced poverty among the elderly; 70+ years and “so far so good.” The War on Poverty dramatically reduced poverty, period; 40+ years and “so far so good.” The Welfare State has improved the general welfare, which is why you don’t see much support for rolling it back.
In 40 years and 70 years people will look back at this health reform law and see it as a great step forward, just as nearly everyone today sees Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc. as great steps forward. Even the GOP found itself arguing that health reform was bad because it would hurt Medicare. No doubt they will fight some future expansion of the welfare state by arguing that it will hurt Obamacare.
So, the results justify the means, eh, Jim?
Enormous increases in taxes, bureaucracy, and regulation, micromanaging the lives of the “citzens” receiving this wonderful boon, opening up limitless possibilities for graft and corruption, disincentivizing investment and innovation, forcing one portion of the population to buy something that they don’t want and don’t need in order to pay for freebies for another part of the population that wants it but can’t or won’t pay for it, etc. etc. etc., why, that’s okay if it produces a marginal improvement in your chosen measurement, no?
If free market reforms promised coverage to 98% of the population, would that be a better alternative, even though not “perfect” (100%) by your chosen measurement? Or is there something intrinsically superior in your view in the statist, collectivist, corruptocratic approach being given to us as a Christmas gift this week?
Very historic:
It will now be 100% illegal to have catastrophic only insurance. Cha Ching.(Sound of taxpayer’s costs going up).
Insulin Inhalers are not FDA approved yet, and sure as heck won’t be covered in ObamaCare (cost controls you see) so there’s one innovation that probably won’t come about.
You don’t need that mammogram either, too many false positives to care about the true positives. (Cost controls you see, because the science is settled).
Socialism doesn’t produce successful outcomes; it does hide them though.
Anyone interested as I am in starting an off-shore medical haven?
–Fred K
Social Security dramatically reduced poverty among the elderly; 70+ years and “so far so good.” The War on Poverty dramatically reduced poverty, period; 40+ years and “so far so good.” The Welfare State has improved the general welfare, which is why you don’t see much support for rolling it back.
Correlation doesn’t imply causation. Do you know what else changed in the last 70 years? GDP per capita. It grew from $$8,188 in 2005 dollars in 1939 to $21,021 (again in 2005 dollars) in 1969 to $43,714 in 2005 dollars in 2008. That’s a factor of five improvement in the wealth earned per person, adjusted for inflation. That alone explains the considerable decline in poverty.
Anyone interested as I am in starting an off-shore medical haven?
You’ll be competing with Mexico and India doctors. Could still be a business case, but there’s already some outlets for this sort of thing.
Please, folks, in the interest of comity, don’t confuse “Jim” with reality. I don’t want to clean up the mess here from the exploding head.
Several insurance companies are already marching down the path of “boutique hospitals” in places like Costa Rica. ‘Yes, you’ve covered if you have the operation in the States, we’ll pay the usual 80%. We’ll pay 100% and throw in airfare plus a tropical vacation if you’ll go to XXX though. All of our Doctors have US medical degrees, etc.”
OH BULLSHIT, Jim.
I’m sorry, but the War on Poverty did not help poverty, it made incentives for millions of welfare babies, still entrenched in poverty, is up to stealing large amounts of the fruit of our labors and giving us back a tiny fraction of it, and all with an increasing loss of freedom.
Oldsters cannot make it on Social Security, most American cities look devastated in large areas; New Orleans was a dump before Katrina, as it was mainly a welfare city, and Detroit is a complete clusterf**k. I’m sure you’ll blame evil capitalists, like GM, for the decline, but their mayor concedes it was the politicians (welfare-promoting crooks) who drove the city into something out of the Third World in appearance.
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme that only stayed afloat when it took out small portions from a large group of younger workers, and not so many people lived past 65, which is exactly what FDR’s commmies…and they WERE commies…were hoping for. It especially worked well against blacks, whose life span was about…64, when they passed SS.
Welfare has devastated the inner cities, and we’re now on the 3rd or 4th generation of rampant single-motherhood, and WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THE MOMS WHO HAVE 4 KIDS BEFORE THEY’RE 20 YEARS OLD? Don’t tell me it’s a stereotype, I see it every time I go to work (I work in an ER in the Midwest).
The country is BROKE due to these shithead politicians, from Fdr AND lbj ON, AND BECAUSE OF ECONOMIC illiterates like you. MY children are SCREWED because of your kind, and I”m not sure I have anything to look forward to but poverty, as the govt. takes more and more of my livelihood to support everyone else BUT me and my family.
I doubt Burt Rutan built SpaceShipOne to “make history”. More likely he just wanted to make a spaceship.
Keep in mind the old saying, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”. Inevitably, those who try to make history do so by trying to modify other people’s behavior, never their own. Do-gooders can never do enough “good”, there’s always more to be done (to other people) in order to make the world “better”, and someone else always pays the bill.
Increasing the power of the State is never making history in a positive way. Turniong the US into Venezuela del Norte is making history in an awful way. But Comrade Obama’s Uncle Frank is probably very proud of what nephew Barry is doing.
Expanding health insurance from covering 85% of Americans reasonably well to covering 95+% of Americans poorly is making negative history.
Which is the only way the Democrats have ever accomplished anything.
And we’ll see just how “positive” Social Security turns out to be when the demographic trends that have kept it on life support this long, finish reversing themselves and the world’s only legal Ponzi scheme finally collapses.
I doubt Burt Rutan built SpaceShipOne to “make history”. More likely he just wanted to make a spaceship.
Similarly, I doubt Obama wanted to pass health care reform to “make history.” He “just” wanted to cover the uninsured (thereby saving tens of thousands of lives per year) and improve the country’s long-term solvency.
Correlation doesn’t imply causation.
Do you really want to argue that transferring trillions of dollars of the country’s wealth to the elderly had nothing to do with a steep decline in elderly poverty?
Increasing the power of the State is never making history in a positive way
So the 14th amendment was not positive? The Civil Rights Act was not positive?
“In 40 years and 70 years people will look back at this health reform law and see it as a great step forward, just as nearly everyone today sees Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc. as great steps forward.”
Your obvious lack of knowledge about economics makes this statement laughable. The enormous unfunded obligations of these programs already beggar future generations. The extra burden from Obamacare will turn us into a 3rd world economy.
Bill Maron writes: “Your obvious lack of knowledge about economics makes this statement laughable.”
Hey, Bill, that’s our little Jimmy! His ignorance of economics is what makes his posts amusing. It’s like watching my five-year-old nephew trying to paint. All you really can do is chuckle, say “That’s nice,” and put his “masterpieces” on the refrigerator, THen when friends come over you can say, “Yeah, I know–he actually thought that looked like a pony!”
Jim asks “So the 14th amendment was not positive? The Civil Rights Act was not positive?”
Yopu tell me, Jim. Did they (a) increase the power of the State and (b)–which invariably follows (a)– diminish the libertry of the individual?
I don’t suppose the sayings “A government powerful enough to give you everything you want is a government powerful to take away everything you have,” or “The power of the State to do for you is in proportion to the power of the State to do to you” resonate with you at all, do they?
Do you really want to argue that transferring trillions of dollars of the country’s wealth to the elderly had nothing to do with a steep decline in elderly poverty?
Yes, the decline in elder poverty has to do with our increased wealth. In fact, Social Security serves to diminish that wealth just as the “War on Poverty” and other aspects of the so-called “welfare state” do. In other words, these improvements in well being have happened despite government attempts, not because of them. This is nowhere as clear as it is in health care, where decades of attempts to “improve” health insurance and care have resulted in the near complete separation of the consumption of health care from the paying of health care and most expensive system on the planet.
Now perhaps the Obama health care changes aren’t in themselves enough to reverse the trend of economic growth. But it’s a rather big mess to make of what has become a fifth of the US economy. Given that Social Security and the Medicare/Medicaid programs also will self destruct in the next few decades (the latter despite some minor improvements proposed by the health care changes) and that the US government has significant increased, over the GWB era, the borrowing of funds, I really don’t see economic growth fixing this collective disaster.
Expanding health insurance from covering 85% of Americans reasonably well to covering 95+% of Americans poorly is making negative history.
One of the best things about the bill is that it improves the quality of private health insurance coverage. No longer will insurers be able to drop you because you got sick, or deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. No longer will there be annual or lifetime limits on benefits. It should no longer be possible to have insurance and still be driven to bankruptcy by medical bills.
The extra burden from Obamacare will turn us into a 3rd world economy.
Just as they’ve done to France, Norway, and every other country with guaranteed health coverage? Germany’s had it for over a century, and yet they still seem to be part of the 1st world. The only 1st world country without national health care is the U.S., and fortunately that is about to change.
Similarly, I doubt Obama wanted to pass health care reform to “make history.” He “just” wanted to cover the uninsured (thereby saving tens of thousands of lives per year) and improve the country’s long-term solvency.
Uh…bullshit? Over the span of six or seven presidencies, never have I heard the words “unprecedented” and “historic” thrown about more often or more casually in reference to and by the president and his minions. Beyond that, any president, by definition, is a narcissist who wants to “make history”. So, no, I’m not buying that Obama’s motivation for making a fundamental change to every single American’s life and wealth comes from being a great, compassionate, scary-smart guy.
Yopu tell me, Jim. Did they (a) increase the power of the State
Yes.
and (b)–which invariably follows (a)– diminish the libertry of the individual?
Yes. And they also made our country a better place.
I don’t suppose the sayings “A government powerful enough to give you everything you want is a government powerful to take away everything you have,” or “The power of the State to do for you is in proportion to the power of the State to do to you” resonate with you at all, do they?
I don’t find slogans to be a reliable guide to good public policy.
One of the BEST things???
Pray tell Jim, from your post in la-la land, is there anything in the “bill” that you disapprove of?
P.S. For all new-comers here, please be sure to catch Rand’s post above; he has enough on his plate as it is without cleaning up spilt brains.
Well there you have it folks. To Jim, further enslavement to the government is to make the world a better place. Fascism is as fascist do.
I write: “I don’t suppose the sayings “A government powerful enough to give you everything you want is a government powerful to take away everything you have,” or “The power of the State to do for you is in proportion to the power of the State to do to you” resonate with you at all, do they?
And Jim writes: “I don’t find slogans to be a reliable guide to good public policy.”
Did someone hear a loud squeaking sound? Like that of a weasel?
One of the best things about this bill is that folks like me are going to lose their coverage and join the uninsured. It’s historic!
Jim says:
“Even the GOP found itself arguing that health reform was bad because it would hurt Medicare.”
No, the GOP is arguing that health care reform is bad because it will make paying off medicare impossible. As it stands right now medicare is set to go bankrupt by 2017 and will only stay afloat beyond that time with massive infusions of tax payer money. If medicare was so great then why aren’t the democrats trying to work out a plan to save it in some way. Because the only effective plan is one that cuts back on some the grand promises of coverage made over the years. So, the Dems wanted to cut a couple hundred billion out of Medicare and just repackage it in ‘New and Improved Health Care Reform — now with 20% more reform!’ But there won’t be any cost overruns with Medicare 2.0 this time, not one bit I’m sure. When Congress finally realized that cutting back Medicare would be total political suicide they took out the Medicare cuts but then started playing retroactive tax games to push projected costs beyond the scope of CBO analysis. If health care reform is going to make America “financially solvent” then why is Congress continually playing shell games in order to keep hiding the true costs? If this was a crisis like they claim, then why were they so willing to push the reforms off a few years in order to make the budgets look like they will balance?
It is the poor accounting of how funds are sloshed through gov’t bureaucracies that begs the question, “What good could all those trillions of dollars done for us if we had just left it in the private sector?” If someone wanted to have the option to go to their insurance company and purchase some type of coverage that had no annual limits or pre-existing denials then it should be perfectly within their right to pay extra for this level of assurance. However, gov’t wants to force everyone to buy a one size fits all level of coverage. Forcing everyone to buy this one size fits all level of coverage will invariably raise the price of premiums for most people who are already buying insurance, and are happy with their current level of coverage. This is going to reduce the general wealth of the nation as a whole just to protect some 10 percent of people who MIGHT otherwise go bankrupt due to some illness. No, what we need are reforms that open up access to multiple types of insurance which will entice people to buy some form of medical coverage; you know, real competition.
Jim doesn’t like “slogans,” except, apparently, for “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” That seems to be the hidden premise behind his redistributionist “economics.”
Getting back to Rand’s original point, though, yes, to me there is something creepy about the cult of “making history.” To me it suggests (as so much about ObamaNation does) 1930s Soviet or Hitler Youth posters, with handsome, heroic looking laborers looking idealistically off to the horizon. I can almost see the slogan, “We’re Making History!” I think Goldberg alludes to something similar in LIBERAL FASCISM.
“We’re Making History” was the keystone of Obama’s entire campaign.
No, the GOP is arguing that health care reform is bad because it will make paying off medicare impossible.
That’s plain wrong. The GOP specifically complained about cuts to Medicare Advantage, which is a subsidy to private insurers that costs billions. If Medicare’s solvency was their real concern, they’d be all for trimming waste like Medicare Advantage.
If medicare was so great then why aren’t the democrats trying to work out a plan to save it in some way.
They are — the bill is full of efforts to trim the growth rate of health care spending, which is the only way to make Medicare (or the U.S. economy in general) sustainable.
When Congress finally realized that cutting back Medicare would be total political suicide they took out the Medicare cuts but then started playing retroactive tax games to push projected costs beyond the scope of CBO analysis.
Not true. According to the CBO, the bill will reduce the deficit more in its second decade than in its first.
Expanding health insurance from covering 85% of Americans to covering 95+% of Americans is making positive history.
If I am FORCED to have healthcare not of my choosing, its negative to myself and my family. CHOICE is key and Obamacare has none. No company in history has ever succeeded for a length of time when competing against the government because the govt does not need to make a profit.
All the jobs he’s “created” are govt jobs…who pays those people when the profits don’t come in?
One of the best things about the bill is that it improves the quality of private health insurance coverage. No longer will insurers be able to drop you because you got sick, or deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. No longer will there be annual or lifetime limits on benefits. It should no longer be possible to have insurance and still be driven to bankruptcy by medical bills.
Maybe, but it also means long waits for care and people dying because they couldn’t wait. As for the last sentence…with govt run health care, we will be driven into bankruptcy by medical bills.
Most importantly though, this process takes competition out of the equation and with it, our ingenuity and drive to do things better. Our health care system offices will be no better than the DMV offices.
Being grist for the mill is historic!
And you know this how? I mean, considering that the members of Congress voting on it don’t even know what’s in it.
Jim, either you’re the only guy on earth who does know what’s in the bill, or you’re talking out your @$$.
I know which gets my vote.
He’s said many times that he’s never read it, so a quick disjunctive syllogism…
Jim Says:
“Expanding health insurance from covering 85% of Americans to covering 95+% of Americans is making positive history.”
Raising the minimum wage to $50/hour would, by that definition, be making “positive history”. But, health insurance is not an actual service delivered, it merely hypothetically gives you a place in line to receive said service.
Our population is afflicted with the inability to comprehend the difference between abstract and real wealth. Real wealth is the set of all tangible goods and services one has readily available for immediate consumption. Abstract wealth includes media of exchange and legal obligations of the State. The latter are valueless unless there are real goods and services for which they may be exchanged or used to fulfill.
Will expanding health insurance create more doctors and nurses, more medical equipment and facilities? Every indication is that it will do the opposite, and so the problem of scarcity in the delivery and provision of medical services will, in real terms, worsen.