COUNTERCOLUMN: The Adjunct of Evil

Governor Palin Resigns to Spend More Time With Her Shotgun ...

Obama Celebrates Independence Day By Visiting Moscow ...
..American Troops Breath Sigh of Relief ...

Maureen Dowd Holes Self Up in Hamptons Beach House, Watching "Heathers" Obsessively, Say Friends ...
Wanders NY Times Halls, Muttering "That Breeder Hag."
Accuses Palin of Neurosis

Obama Presses Detroit for Technology to Make Fuel out of Soldiers' Blood ...

Like new iPhone, White House Turns Pink When Under Stress ...

Buffett Directs WaPo Publishers Turning Tricks in DC Streets to Raise Cash ...
..Reporters reportedly thrilled at promotion, status increase ...
Profile: The Lot Lizards of L Street ...

Holocaust Museum Officials To Create Display out of Recent Vandalism ...


Developing ...

Labels: Countercolumn News Ticker, Humor

Marcus at JustBarkingMad continues his look at the doctrinal underpinnings of the new ROE in Afghanistan here, building on this post here, but has not, as yet, provided anything approaching a useful suggestion to the platoon leader on the ground faced with contact from an Afghan house or village.

Herschel Smith gets much the better of the argument, in my opinion.

Try as I might, and having given Marcus two extensive posts to defend his position, the new ROE just doesn't seem to me to pass the 'boots-on-the-ground' test. I think his position is complicated by the fact that if ANY guidance is so complicated to express that it takes more than two full blog posts on JustBarkingMad to spell out, it will NOT pass the boots-on-the-ground test, by definition.

Here's my guidance:

Find the enemy. Cut him off. Pursue him. Fix him. Close with him. Kill him.

If Afghan forces are capable of conduction the last two, AND are at hand, then let them take the lead, by all means. But if they are not? Then go after the Taliban and kill them where they are.

It ain't rocket science. The time to get all fucking involved and kissy-faced with the tribal elders and get your panties all in a wad over civil affairs issues is BEFORE the moojies open up on you from the house on the corner. NOT during the fucking firefight.

Jus in bello concerns about proportionality and the economy of force principle of war still apply.

Marcus says "this shit is chess, not checkers."

No. This shit ain't chess. This shit is war.

Let me take it a bit further. I'm reminded of a joke at the end of the movie Colors. There's two bulls up on a hill, looking at a herd of cows. The young bull says to the old bull, "Hey, pop! Let's run down the hill and fuck one of them cows!" The papa bull says to the young bull, "No, son. Let's walk down... and fuck them all!"

Well, guess what. Just because COIN doctrine says you WALK down the hill instead of RUN down the hill doesn't mean that when you get down the hill you don't fuck the cows. YOU STILL FUCK THE COWS!!!!

Do I need to explain further?

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Afghanistan, bloggers, soldiers' issues, Warfighting

From the A.P.

BEAUMONT — Relatives of a slain sailor are calling the 29-year-old’s death a hate crime.
Rose Roy of Beaumont said her nephew, Navy Seaman August Provost III, had complained a year before about being harassed for being gay.
Roy said she advised Provost to report and document the incidents, but she said the military did little to help.
“He went to the Navy to serve and protect,” she said in an interview with Beaumont’s KFDM News, “he didn’t get protected at all.”
Roy told The Associated Press that the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy discouraged her nephew from asking for help.

What did I tell you? What the fuck did I tell you five years ago? Yeah, I called it. And for calling it exactly like it was, I got accused, at the time, of penning "homophobic rant."*

At any rate, the conclusion that the DADT policy is to blame is utter hogwash. That's not the military's policy that discouraged her nephew from asking for help. It is the UCMJ, which is the law of the land. The military has zero choice in the matter, and absent a change in the law, approved by Congress, Provost would have been in the exact same predicament had DADT never been enacted.

I get pretty tired of dumbass reporters getting led around by their noses.

The 29-year-old Houston native was found dead Tuesday at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, north of San Diego. Roy said the family was told that Provost was shot three times, had his hands and feet bound, his mouth gagged, and body burned.

Just terrible. But that problem is a hell of a lot bigger than DADT. Indeed, had the military still had a blanket ban on gays serving, August Provost would probably still be alive today.

Democratic Rep. Bob Filner of San Diego said Thursday he wants a Defense Department investigation into the death, after leaders of the city’s gay community asked him to intervene.
Investigators have called the sailor’s death a random act unrelated to his sexuality and have taken a “person of interest” into custody. Inside sources describe possible suspects as a construction worker, a police officer, a cowboy, and an Indian chief. No charges have been filed.

I'm taking some liberties with the last part.

Incidentally, although the Navy Department has long had a 'witch-hunt' culture, to my eye, there is no reason why a commander needs to take a complaint over sexual harrassment as an admission of homosexuality, leading to a discharge. It is entirely possible to investigate the harrassment without looking into homosexual conduct itself.

I haven't been directly confronted with the issue. I've had troops who I'm reasonably sure were gay, but I didn't care, had no reason to look into it, had other things to worry about, and it wasn't a problem in the unit. I suppose had I heard the first rumblings of any kind of harrassment problem, I could have let the word out through my First Sergeant that I would not condone or permit a hostile work environment for ANY reason, and that furthermore I would consider any male on male harrassment of any soldier on the basis of homosexuality to be a tacet admission of homosexual interest on the part of the harrasser, and simply proceed with discharge papers.

**See also this reaction by Bill Cameron

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Army, culture, gays, law, Politics, soldiers' issues, The media, UCMJ

I knew he was popular overseas, but I didn't know it went this far.

The poor darlings.

Labels: Humor, Michael Jackson

Sarah Palin Declares Independence from Job as Home-Based Multi-Level Marketing Business Really Takes Off ...

Michael Jackson's Appearance Gradually Improving, Say Doctors ...

New York Times To Run WaPo Scandal On Front Page for 46 Days Straight ...
Aims to match Abu Ghraib Record ...

As Afghan Poppy Fields Burn, Battle Takes Mellow, Lethargic Turn ...
Commanding General Does a Stately Pleasure Dome Decree ...

Palin's Vagina Announces Run for Senate ...




Impacting ...

Labels: Countercolumn News Ticker, Humor, News Ticker, Palin

Michael Jackson were Irish?

Labels: dance, Humor, Ireland, Michael Jackson

And who is getting IOUs?

Hint: Public employee pensions are getting cash. The legislators are paying themselves cash.

The mentally handicapped? IOUs.


Bastards.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: California, economy, finance, mental health, Politics, taxes

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

To quote a line from Animal House: "You fucked up! You trusted me!"

Labels: culture, gays, Obama, Politics

Labels: Hitler, Humor, Michael Jackson, parody

"If I've lost Helen Thomas, I've lost Dingbat-America."

Labels: health care, Helen Thomas, Obama, Politics, The media

The award for best use of the major seventh interval in a pop song goes to:

Harriet Wheeler, The Sundays. Here's Where the Story Ends.



Honorable mention: The cool melodic variations in the third verse. This girl had it.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Countercolumn Trivial Music Awards, Music, the Arts

Andrew Sullivan continues his demented obsession over Sarah Palin's vagina.

Labels: Palin, Palin's Vagina, Sullivan, The media

Supports mandatory health coverage for employees.

So states the triumphant lead written by a libtard at The Hill, who can't see what's really going on.

With Wal-Mart’s endorsement of a legal requirement that employers provide health benefits to their workers, the nation’s largest employer has broken from the business community.

The so-called employer mandate is adamantly opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business and virtually every major business trade association in Washington. But the backing of Wal-Mart, which employs about 2 million people, could give a big boost to President Obama and Congress’s effort to levy such a requirement on companies.

Moreover, Wal-Mart declared its support for the employer mandate in a joint letter to Obama with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the liberal Center for American Progress, which is run by John Podesta, a close associate of the White House.

“We are entering a critical time during which all of us who will be asked to pay for health care reform will have to make a choice on whether to support the legislation,” says the letter, signed by Wal-Mart President and CEO Mike Duke, SEIU President Andy Stern and Podesta.

He just doesn't see that by doing this, Walmart is sticking a shiv into the ribs of their small town, mom and pop competitors, already reeling in a down market, who simply cannot afford to provide health insurance to their employees. The cash just isn't there for it in these small businesses.

Walmart knows this, and knows that thousands and thousands of their competitors are teetering on the edge. A mandatory health insurance requirement will push them out of business... leaving them with a bigger market share, whether the economy recovers or not.

But Jefferey Young, reporter extraordinaire, doesn't see that he's being played like a violin, the poor little darling.

Splash out

Jason

Labels: business, economy, The media, Wal Mart

No surprise. Really, the only suprise to me is that it was even close.

What's more, as PowerLine observes, when Sotomayor issued her ruling, she devoted only one paragraph to the merits of the case. Says Paul Mirengoff:

But this much is clear: the Court devoted 93 pages to a matter that Judge Sotomayor tried to dispose of in a summary order. Moreover, according to Ed Whelan, not a single Justice thought that Judge Sotomayor acted correctly in granting summary judgment for the City of New Haven.

In other words, Sotomayor didn't even put forth a minimal effort to understand the merits and build a case for her conclusions, based on precedent and law.

Congratulations, Mr. President. You've appointed a divisive racialist and racist who got her biggest case exactly wrong.

Good going.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: human resources, law, race, Sotomayor, supreme court

McDonald's, on CNN's front page story on the unrest in Honduras.



I'm lovin' it.

Labels: CNN, food, Humor, public relations

I don't buy the whacky conspiracy theories being passed around by libtards mourning the WaPo's decision to let Dan Froomkin go. It's not like he's the only journo to get a pink slip this year.

But if your own ombudsman tries to get some insight into an editorial decision at the newspaper - only to be met with a wall of silence - then what is the use of having an ombudsman?

The editor-in-chief and publisher should put the word out: This ombudsman works for my readers, and therefore works for me. If you stonewall my ombudsman, you're stonewalling me, and I won't have it.

I

nstitutionally, The Post is now responding by circling the wagons -- ironic for a news organization that insists on transparency from those it covers. Its initial statement on June 18 from spokeswoman Kris Coratti lacked substance (“Editors and our research teams are constantly reviewing our online content to ensure we bring readers the most value...while balancing the need to make the most of our resources”).

I was off much of this week with a minor medical problem. But when I was able to start querying editors yesterday, a wall of silence was erected. Raju Narisetti, the managing editor who oversees the Web site, declined to go beyond last week’s PR statement. Online Opinions Editor Marisa Katz, after talking Thursday with the Washington CityPaper, said she had been instructed not to respond to additional queries. And Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt, who had previously responded to questions from me and other journalists (including the CityPaper on Thursday), today said he was unable to comment.

Readers should revolt until they have the publisher's attention.

Post Pulitzer-winning columnist Gene Weingarten, who expressed “respect” for Froomkin and regret that White House Watch was ending, said: “I don't know why Froomkin's column was dropped, but I can tell you that the diabolical conspiracy talk is nuts. Froomkin wasn’t dropped because he is too liberal; things just don’t work that way at the Post.”

Yeah, no shit. This is the same paper that syndicated Ted Rall for years.

Labels: bloggers, newspapers, Ted Rall, The media, Washington Post

That'll show them.

The sad thing is, this appears to be the clearest and most concrete statement our government has yet made in support of pro-democracy reformers in Iran.

Labels: International relations, Iran, Obama, State Department, War on Terror

Before there was Stevie Ray, there was...

...WINTER!!!!!



Johnny Winter, vintage 1971

Labels: Blues, guitar, Music

Ahmadinejad Lynched in Central Square After Being "Outed" by Perez Hilton ...

Hamas Caught Plagiarizing Obama Speeches ...

White House Invites Gitmo Terrorists to White House Slumber Party ...

In Focus: Are Our Politicians' Wives Giving Enough Head?

Source: French Government Dismayed By American Ennuis ...

Rogue State Department Official Attempts "Dialogue" with Rabid Dog ...

Obama to trade Hawaii, Aleutians for Korean Disarmament Pact ...
"Peace In Our Time"

White House Accuses Victorious U.S. Soccer Team of "Arrogance"...

U.S. To Provide Troop Reinforcements to Taliban ...
President seeks to "level playing field"

Oscar Meyer Company to Name Weenie After President ...

Impacting ...

Labels: Countercolumn News Ticker

Sean Keane.

Labels: fiddle blogging, fiddles, Music

What a weenie.

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States said Monday its invitations were still standing for Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 celebrations at US embassies despite the crackdown on opposition supporters.
President Barack Obama's administration said earlier this month it would invite Iran to US embassy barbecues for the national holiday for the first time since the two nations severed relations following the 1979 Islamic revolution.
"There's no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.

I wonder: How many young women do Iranian goons need to shoot in order for Obama to reconsider the invitation?

How many women need to be clubbed over the head for Obama to reconsider the invitation?

How many soldiers in Iraq does Iran have to kill, through their proxies, for Obama to consider rescinding the invitation.

How many Iranian-manufactured explosively-formed projectiles have to go off in Iraq for Obama to consider rescinding the invitation?

How much American blood, specifically, does the current Iranian regime have to have on its hands, before Obama considers rescinding the invitation?

How many?

Labels: Iran, Obama, stupid, War on Terror

Obama the Lion has a new general in Afghanistan, and Obama the Lion's new general has announced tough new rules of engagement: Track down Taliban holing up in a house? Leave them alone.

Run away.

The top U.S. general in Afghanistan will soon formally order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding in Afghan houses so the battles do not kill civilians, a U.S. official said Monday.

The order would be one of the strongest measures taken by a U.S. commander to protect Afghan civilians in battle.

What kind of fellatist journo takes a look at what's essentially an order to surrender the towns to the enemy and considers that a "strong" anything?

McChrystal will issue orders within days saying troops may attack insurgents hiding in Afghan houses if the U.S. or NATO forces are in imminent danger and must return fire, said U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Greg Smith.

"But if there is a compound they're taking fire from and they can remove themselves from the area safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option they should take," Smith said. "Because in these compounds we know there are often civilians kept captive by the Taliban."

Nice. So the civilians have no incentive to fight off Taliban themselves. And the Taliban get a million free safehouses around the country out of the deal.

If we lose Afghanistan, this is the moment you can point to.

McChrystal's predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, issued rules last fall that told commanders to set conditions "to minimize the need to resort to deadly force."

But McChrystal's orders will be more precise and have stronger language ordering forces to break off from battles, Smith said.

Run away!!!! Run away!!!!!!

The Obama military. Tough. Strong.

UPDATE: MCQ at Blackfive has the same reaction I do, and asks: "I mean, you tell me, where, if possible, would you initiate all of your contact from now on if you're the Taliban?"

UPDATE II: In the comments to the above, commenter Marcus, who apparently blogs here, writes:

General McChrystal is playing a very smart game of counterinsurgency. He understands the Afghan culture--particularly the ethical code of "Pashtunwali." Two of the major tenets of Pashtunwali are "Melmastia" and "Nanewati" which loosely translates into "hospitality" and "protection." The Afghan people--and the ethnic Pashtun in particular--will provide shelter and protection in their own homes for whoever asks for it. That includes the Taliban... and our people too.

Destroying houses and villages with Taliban in them because the locals won't turn them over is a quick way to turn the population against us. The center of gravity in this war--and any counterinsurgency for that matter--is the popular support of the people. In this case it is the Pashtun peoples, as the insurgency has not caught fire amongst the Tajiks, Hazara, Uzbeks or other ethic groups within the country.

Unlike in Iraq we enjoyed a tremendous wave of popularity amongst the Afghan people after we invaded. The Afghans hated (and still hate) the Taliban, and therefore welcomed us in with open arms. This has all changed within the last two years and our popularity with the people there has plummetted. Since we cannot hope to win if the people hate us, we have to get them on our side. And what the people there want more than anything right now is security--so McChrystal's metric of success may very well be spot on.

We can run around killing insurgents all day long but that will definitely not win the war for us. It didn't work in Iraq and it's not working in Afghanistan either. If we focus on killing bad guys while alienating the Afghan people we will eventually lose. Then we'll sit around like the Vietnam generation and bitch about how we won all the battles but lost the war. They lost because they didn't understand COIN. We've figured it out--it sure as hell took long enough--and now hopefully it's not too late to apply what we've learned.

If you look at the new FM 3-24 (Counterinsurgency), or more importantly read Bernard Fall, Sir Robert Thompson, Roger Trinquier or even Mao you'll see that protecting the populace and getting them to support you is critical.

McChrystal is applying COIN doctrine while tailoring it to the Afghan culture. He's also looking at it from a operational and strategic perspective... not tactical. And that's good, since that's what the man gets paid for.

Will we lose more people on the ground because of this adjustment to the ROE? Maybe. But I would argue its better to lose a few more men and women and win the war, rather than be casualty-adverse and lose it.

Now that may sound like a cold thing to say from a "Chairborne Monday Morning Quarterback," and it would be. So full disclosure--I will personally be over there humping the hills and working with the ANA in a few months time--and I still think McChrystal's policy is the smart play. I'm willing to put my own ass on the line, perfectly comfortable with this new ROE. It's up to guys like myself to figure out the tactical problems framed within the confines of guidance nested within the operational and strategic framework. And I'm cool with that.

Like Denzel Washington said in the movie Training Day... "This shit is chess, it ain't checkers!"

Labels: Afghanistan, Army, soldiers' issues, stupid, War on Terror

Cedarford, a racist, bigoted, Jew-hating jerk who comments on Althouse, nails the recent escape of a NYT reporter from Taliban captivity:

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall during the NYTimes hostage negotiation for their reporter.

"Look, we gave you info on the Afghan Predator program, America tapping into SPRINT to find Islamoid financiers. We regularly give page 1 to any "wedding party atrocity" you alledge. We helped kill hundreds of American soldiers by working hard to inflame Muslims with endless stories of Abu Ghraib, GITMO torture, Haditha, Koran desecration..Details on jammer devices the military was trying against IEDs. Endless advocacy of terrorist's precious rights and civil liberties."

"Frankly, you Taliban and Al Qaeda owe us! Release our guy!"

Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, journalism, New York Times, War on Terror

Remember when Obama said this?

" if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime."

If Obama doesn't pledge to veto this, then we know what his word is good for, don't we?

WASHINGTON (AP) - Early work on the ambitious health care overhaul the Obama administration is seeking has exposed the kinds of in-house fights that typify just how hard it will be to get meaningful legislation this year. Case in point: A proposal to help bankroll universal health coverage with a dime-a-can increase in the price of soft drinks.

Who's behind this? Democrats, of course. Looking out for working families, and all that.

Other possible screwings:

- Increasing the price of soda and other sugary drinks by 10 cents a can.
- Applying a potential 2 percent income tax increase to single taxpayers earning more than $200,000 a year and households earning more than $250,000.
- A new employer payroll tax could target 3 percent of employers' health care expenditures.
- Taxing employer-provided health insurance benefits above certain levels - a less likely option but one that still is in the running..

If they add a 3% payroll tax on health insurance, smaller employers will drop their coverage by the thousands. These fools don't understand how group plans and other ancillary benefit packages are sold to small businesses. The agent goes in and shows them how paying compensation in benefits can cost little or nothing once you net in FICA and Medicaid payroll taxes. That's a huge part of the sell, and a huge part of why small business owners provide these benefits.

If Congress destroys that, then employers will simply drop coverage.

Which is, of course, what these cretins want, because that will only increase demand for universal care.

The liberal assault on private enterprise, small business and the middle class continues apace.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: business, Democrats, economy, health care, insurance, taxes, The Left

The New York Times editorial board didn't see fit to write an editorial on Iran today. But they did weigh in on Obama's effort to destroy the American health care system as we know it.

As the debate on health care reform unfolds, no issue has caused such partisan rancor — and spawned such misleading rhetoric — as whether to create a new public insurance plan to compete with private plans.

The nation already has several huge public plans, including Medicare for the elderly (once reviled by conservatives, it is now only short of the flag in its popularity) and Medicaid for the poor.

Great. How is that Medicare balance sheet looking these days, morons? Wait. Don't answer that.

Now the issue is whether to establish a new public plan to encourage more competition among health insurers

Garbage. Why do these idiots swallow this crap? If the government gets involved in this marketplace, a number of insurance carriers, and thousands of agents, will simply pull out of the market altogether. The result will be fewer options. Not more. Less competition (except with tax-subsidized public plans on less than a level playing field, in which the true cost of coverage is masked.)

Most Democrats and some Republicans have already accepted the need to create one or more health insurance exchanges where individuals without group coverage and possibly small businesses could buy insurance policies.

These morons are too dumb for words. People without group coverage purchase health insurance every single day. I hold an individual plan myself - even though I have access to a similar plan through my employer. My risk pool is better than theirs, so I stay with my own plan. Small businesses purchase health care plans every single day.

An exchange would give the government (federal or state) a lot more power over insurers that choose to participate in order to tap a vast new market of previously uninsured people.

There you have it. These trotskyite bastards just let the mask slip. They think giving the government more power over private entities is a GOOD thing.

They are also blindingly ignorant. State regulation of insurance companies is a long tradition in this country - and a good one. The state insurance commissioners do a much better job of financial regulation, with closer accountability, than the SEC and their grubbing FINRA handmaidens.

It would determine the range of benefits that all participating plans would have to offer.

So much for offering more competition and more choices, huh?

But it gets worse than that. When government gets involved in dictating what benefits to offer, they start mandating coverage for uninsurable risks. The result is that insurance policies gradually cease to be vehicles of risk transfer, as they should be, and become nothing more than hyper-expensive, glorified discount plans.

It would presumably require those plans to accept all applicants, regardless of “pre-existing conditions.”

Unless you make health coverage MANDATORY, for all Americans, like auto insurance, and enforce it with jail time, this is totally unworkable. It becomes a factory for adverse selection. I don't even think the imbeciles at the New York Times know what adverse selection is, or why it's important. I'd love to quiz them.

There is no serious consideration in Congress of a single-payer governmental program that would enroll virtually everyone.

Who are they kidding. That's the dream. Government money always drives out private money: If the government plan is made universally available at very low cost, that is precisely what will happen, as people flee their private plans to suckle on the government tit with a giant sucking sound. It's been tried on a small scale in Hawai'i already. With disastrous results.

Nor is there any talk of extending the veterans health care system, a stellar example of “socialized medicine,” to the general public.

The Times is talking out of its ass here. The VA system can't handle its own case load. Non-service-related injuries are way down the totem pole. Vets who rely on the VA system alone don't get the benefit of competition. And scroll down for an example of just how 'stellar' the quality of care and administration of VA health care is. Just a few days ago, CBS News ran a story on how 40 different VA Medical Centers were under investigation for tainted colonoscopy procedures, putting thousands of veterans at risk for Hepatitis, HIV, and other illnesses.. My God, they are calling the VA a "stellar example of socialized medicine" on the very same day they're running this story.

There is just no end to the level of arrogance and ignorance in the NY Times editorial offices.

A public plan would have lower administrative expenses than private plans, no need to generate big profits, and stronger bargaining power to obtain discounts from providers. That should enable it to charge lower premiums than many private plans.

Dreamy. Why not fucking socialize EVERYTHING, libtards?

But I don't buy for a moment that a public plan would have lower administrative expenses than private plans. The DB plans on public sector workers alone would blow that argument out of the water. Further, much of the administrative expense in running a health insurance company comes out of HIPAA compliance. That's right... it costs millions each year just to keep up with the government's own ideas! So the government comes up with requirements, forcing the health insurance companies to spend money to comply. Then they get blamed for high administrative expenses. But government will still have the same compliance issues. If they don't, then there is no privacy in government plans.

It would also provide an alternative for individuals who either can’t get adequate insurance from private insurers

This is truly the crux of the matter. What are we to do with people who are uninsurable? But every state already has measures in place to provide an insurer of last resort. We have already addressed portability issues with HIPAA - so just because you lose your job doesn't mean you have to lose your health insurance. Yes, you do have to pay the premium, including the portion formerly paid by your employer. This is health care - the fervent, childlike wishes of libtards not withstanding - isn't free.

Further, any young and healthy worker who declines health insurance, gets sick or hurt, then blames the system for not providing him or her a health insurance plan they didn't want to support when they were healthy, doesn't deserve a health insurance plan. Let them bankrupt themselves first, then go on to Medicaid. You make health coverage MANDATORY, and enforce it, and you won't have a problem with this.

The prospect of competing with a government plan terrifies the private insurers. But in our judgment, if that many Americans were to decide that such a plan is a better deal for them and their families, that would be a good thing.

That's because you are a bunch of commie rat bastards with no understanding of where money comes from or how wealth is generated.

Innovative private plans that already deliver better services at lower costs would survive. Inefficient private plans would wither

.

Again, I ask the libtards at the New York Times with the 10th-grade understanding of economics: If that's the case, why not socialize everything?

I have an idea. Let's put a government-owned city newspaper in New York City. Let's see how the argument changes.

LIGHTER VERSIONS Other proposals are circulating that would level the playing field with private plans. They would require the public plan to hold the same reserves as private plans and sustain itself from premium income without drawing on the federal treasury.

Wonderful. Who would put up the "reserves," dipshit? Or do we just waive around some magic faerie dust?

STATE-BASED PLANS A bipartisan group, led by three former Senate leaders — Republicans Bob Dole and Howard Baker and Democrat Tom Daschle — has proposed leaving it to states to create public plans if they wish. The federal government would be able to step in after five years if a state has failed to establish an exchange with affordable insurance options. That looks like a formula for delay and inaction.

Why? Because libtards HATE the states. Their instinct is to centralize everything, all the time, and send power as far away from the people as they can. They can't get away with sending it to the UN yet, so they'll settle for Washington. Just for fun, next time you're hanging out with a libtard, ask them this question: "What does the 10th Amendment mean to you?" Press them on it. Hang on to it like a bulldog on a bone. Don't let the bastard change the subject. Progressivism is a bankrupt ideology. Force them to confront it. "Why do you think the founding fathers included the 10th amendment in the Bill of Rights?"

COOPERATIVES Propelled by a belief that no public plan could survive a Republican filibuster, Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, has proposed instead setting up private nonprofit cooperatives — run for the benefit of their members rather than stockholders — to compete with profit making insurance plans.

The presumed advantage of this approach is that cooperatives might be able to charge lower premiums because they would not have to earn large profits. Their performance, too, would be a yardstick against which to measure whether profit making plans are charging fair premiums.

Oh, wow. Geez. Mutually-owned insurance companies. What a concept! Genius!

TIGHT REGULATION Right from the start of the debate, some experts have suggested that much tighter regulation of the new insurance exchange could achieve many of the goals of a public plan.

Great idea. Because if there's anything that attracts new competitors to the marketplace, fosters innovation, and lowers administrative costs, it's tight regulation.

Regulators could insist that insurers not exclude people with pre-existing conditions or charge them higher premiums.

Yes. Because that will help control costs. We can also evoke, by legislative edict, entities called the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, too, to make children happy. I swear to God, this article looks like it was written by idealistic 10th graders - not by hard-bitten, realist journalists. But liberalism, deep down, is fundamentally childishness.

And the near-universal coverage in Massachusetts was achieved without a public plan option.

That was achieved by making health coverage mandatory, geniuses. A detail that seems to have escaped you.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: health care, New York Times, The Left

... And covers it up.

Had the government responded more aggressively, it might have uncovered a rogue cancer unit at the hospital, one that operated with virtually no outside scrutiny and botched 92 of 116 cancer treatments over a span of more than six years — and then kept quiet about it, according to interviews with investigators, government officials and public records.

The team continued implants for a year even though the equipment that measured whether patients received the proper radiation dose was broken. The radiation safety committee at the Veterans Affairs hospital knew of this problem but took no action, records show.

More:

The 92 implant errors resulted from a systemwide failure in which none of the safeguards that were supposed to protect veterans from poor medical care worked, an examination by The New York Times has found.

Peer review, a staple of every good hospital, in which colleagues examine one another’s work, did not exist in the unit. The V.A.’s radiation safety program; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates the use of all nuclear materials; and the Joint Commission, a group that accredited the hospital, all failed to intervene; either their inspections had been limited or they had not acted decisively upon finding problems.

Over all, the implant program lacked a “safety culture,” the nuclear commission found. Dr. Kao and other members of his team, the commission said, were not properly supervised or trained in what constitutes a substandard implant and the need to report it. Dr. Kao declined to comment for this article.

Quick! Let's put government employees in charge of everyone's medical care, right away!

Labels: Government, health care, soldiers' issues, veterans

Neda. Shot by Iranian goons. Tehran, June 20th, 2009.

Labels: Iran, Obama

John F. Kennedy: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge—and more."

Ronald Reagan: "Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Barack Obama:"“It’s not productive, given the history of the US-Iranian relationship, to be seen as meddling,”

Labels: foreign policy, Iran, Obama, Politics, War on Terror

Oh no's!!!!

She was probably dodging sniper fire again. Damn snipers.

Labels: Hillary, Humor

When a liberal criticizes the Bush administration, 'dissent is the highest form of patriotism.'

When a conservative criticizes the Obama administration, the CIA chief calls it "dangerous politics."

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Cheney, CIA, Intelligence, Politics, Republicans, The Left, War on Terror