Dear Readers,


I now consider this blog to be my Juvenelia. Have fun perusing the archives, and find me at my new haunt, here.

Friday, May 18, 2007

Okay, we get it, Times. You think Michelle Obama is uppity.

There's something about the way our paper of record covers race and gender issues that makes me throw up in my mouth a little every time. But when they cover both in tandem with their third most uncomfortably-approached category of folks--Democrats-- it gets kind of ugly.

First of all, as all good readers of this blog know, Maureen Dowd recently eviscerated Michelle Obama for not staying home and baking cookies and for being too loud and poking fun at her husband. Maureen topped it off by calling Michelle a "princess"--all of which are pretty durn unacceptable things to say so flippantly about a woman of color (or any ethnicity). It also reeked of self-loathing, not to mention quite a few unpleasant "isms."

I thought I had heard the last of that subject until last night, when a woman I know, who is, politically anyway, your typical left-of-center Manhattanite, said something vaguely about how "aren't people sort of sick of Obama, his wife saying 'oh he's not so great' and putting him down? Isn't that shtick getting a little tired?" I shuddered. Because as far as I'm aware, (and maybe I'm wrong) no one but Maureen has perpetuated this stereotype about Michelle. But Dowdy's throwaway, jokey categorizations are powerful, and have a long ripple effect.

Especially when she's assisted by her buddies at the paper, who ran this supposedly thoughtful piece about Michelle today, which incidentally, linked to Maureen's nasty column on the front page (!!!) There was nothing in the feature, that exactly demonized the woman per se, but the authors made some interesting choices in terms of placement and what quotations to use. The piece starts off with a taste of Michelle Obama's sarcasm, the kind MoDo hates so much:
Rolling her eyes as she pulled a reporter aside, Michelle Obama said [of Barack], “Maybe one day, he will do something to warrant all this attention."
To feminist-leftist-badasses such as m'self, this is not a negative image. It shows that Obama has a strong-minded wife who keeps him real and has a good sense of perspective and humor. But come on, Times, you's playing right in to the conventional wisdom of Barack Obama as inexperienced, and it makes Michelle look as shrewish as Maureen says she is. Futhermore, why are we putting an oft-repeated joke-y anecdote on the first graf of what's supposed to be a serious profile?

If you go back and do a close reading of the first paragraph, it's amazing how the authors use a few words to paint a pretty unoriginal picture: Barack as the naive boy wonder followed by throngs of oohers and ahhers, Michelle as the disgruntled, sardonic wife who longs to wear the pants. You know, it begins to sound a bit like the crap that dogged Hillary back in '92. Isn't the Times supposed to do original reporting, not stuff that parrots what's already being said?

But hold up. What makes the placement even more interesting, is that piece ends with this (ellipses are mine):

At campaign appearances, Mrs. Obama gets approving reviews....When Mrs. Obama mentioned her daughters at an event in New Hampshire, one woman cooed about “bringing laughter back to the White House,” while two retirees whispered that she was the picture of “everyday elegance” in her red sweater set and smooth flip of a hairstyle.

It was the same perfectly calibrated look reflected in a recent cover of Ebony magazine. Seeking to make the couple look as presidential as possible, Harriette Cole, the magazine’s creative director, said stylists at the photo shoot offered Mrs. Obama a strand of West Wing-appropriate pearls.

She had already brought her own.

I repeat: this is at the bottom of a very long profile. Along the way, we've learned that everyone in Michelle's family is scared of her, that she fits in with black audiences (don't get me started on the way the Times talks about the Blacks, 'cause I won't stop), oh and at the verrry end, we learn this small thing about how PEOPLE REALLY LIKE HER AND SHE'S GOOD AT THIS STUFF. Ohhh. I dig that. But by now, half of readers have peeled away, left with that lede burned into their brain. I repeat: interesting.

And incidentally, the first anecdote is the impression Michelle left on a newspaper reporter, that noblest of professions. The last bit is an impression she left on, let's see, normal people. Who vote. Now it all begins to make a bit more sense.

That's the thing about the WP, NYT and LAT. If you read the newsy pieces, you can never quite pinpoint the source of the unpleasantness with which you're left. But it's always about choice--which quotations to use when. Which quotations might have gotten left out. Who gets the passive voice, and so on. Very insidious. You also have to wonder about the ratio of pieces like this one and the one about candidates skeletons-in-closets that are pumped out compared with substantive analysis of their positions on stuff like education. Labor. Health care. You know what, that shit's much less interesting than marital drama and playing up gender and race anxiety. Forget I mentioned it, Bill Keller.

UPDATE: of course, Debra Dickerson of Salon says it even better than I. I guess it's sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for wives of politicians--which of course reflects how it is for all women. The Times sort of said this of course--sort of, in a way which reinforces the paradigm rather than subverting it.

21 comments:

  1. B. Hussein Obama hasn't got a chance. His wife knows it. Voters know it.

    She may well punctuate the end of his campaign with an outburst that will cause everyone in range to cringe.

    Meanwhile, John Edwards, a.k.a. The Breck Girl, has seen his run for office reduced to laughs about his beauty regimen.

    By Primary Day, Hillary will be the only candidate remaining. But she can't win. She'll pull in as many votes as John Kerry in 2004. But not enough to win.

    That aside, this silly diversion over Obama will look cruel in retrospect. The idea of an Obama candidacy is an insult to Americans.

    He's a senator who hasn't left a single mark on "the world's most deliberative body."

    He represents nothing and of all the candidates, he offers the worst platitudes to his supporters. His wife is headed toward a meltdown with the press. Perhaps, in the campaign post-mortems, the analysts will attribute some of his weakness in the polls to her.

    But in the end, he'll throw his support to Hillary. That's what this is all about.

    I'm no fan of Dowd's. Meanwhile, she's no fan of anyone. But if she were faced with the choice of a black male presidential candidate or Hillary, I'd put money on Dowd voting for Hillary.

    Meanwhile, the micromanagement of Mrs. Obama's image in the NY Times is nothing but an example of the paper's silly notion of its own importance. His campaign is DOA before voters consider the possibility of Mrs. Obama as co-president.

    ReplyDelete
  2. B. Hussein Obama hasn't got a chance. His wife knows it. Voters know it.

    One of my co-workers, who didn't even vote in the last election and is not registered with any political party, loves Barack Obama. She can't wait to vote for him. And, like me, she's middle-class and white.

    Obama's got a good chance, if he doesn't fuck it up. He wouldn't be the first one-term Senator to win the presidency.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great post. I blogged about this same article, myself. It's always interesting to read the different aspects that others pick up on when reading the same article, and you made a lot of really insightful comments that differed from my own.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous7:01 PM

    I have had a Barack Hussein bumper sticker on my car since the man announced his candidacy, and it upsets me to see muckrakers like no slappz smear him and his wife.

    Fortunately it is easy to poke holes in the dweeb's argument.

    Hillary Clinton may win the nomination, but she won't be the only candidate in NH, and the fact that the dweeb made such an assertion, shows how out of touch with reality he is.

    "That aside, this silly diversion over Obama will look cruel in retrospect. The idea of an Obama candidacy is an insult to Americans."

    Well I am certainly not insulted, and the 25 million dollars worth of donations Obama was given in the first quarter shows that a lot of other are also not insulted by his candidacy.

    "He's a senator who hasn't left a single mark on "the world's most deliberative body.""

    I guess the dweeb doesn't think improving conditions at Walter Reed military hospital is a good idea. The dweeb also ignored that Obama sponsored the "Higher Education Opportunity through Pell Grant Expansion Act," and that Obama took an active role in the Senate's drive for improved border security and immigration reform. The Dweeb saw no need to mention that Obama partnered with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), and then with Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), to successfully introduced two initiatives bearing his name. "Lugar-Obama" expands the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines, and the "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act", which provides for a web site, managed by the Office of Management and Budget, to list all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward, and then provides breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract.

    If you doubt me, and believe the dweeb, just check out Obama at wikipedia.org, because that's where I got the information on Obama's "marks" on the "the world's most deliberative body."

    "He represents nothing and of all the candidates, he offers the worst platitudes to his supporters."

    According to dweeb Obama's emphasizing ending the Iraq War and implementing universal health care, represents nothing, and are the worst platitudes.

    "But in the end, he'll throw his support to Hillary. That's what this is all about."

    Perhaps, but if Clinton loses out to Barack Hussein Obama, I am sure she will give her support to him against the Republican nominee, because that is what Democrats are suppose to do.

    Dweeb, I mean no-slappz, if you don't like Obama fine, but don't lie about him, or leave out the facts about his accomplishments as a great US Senator with 10 years of political experience (8 in the Illinois State Senate, and 2 (so far) as a United States Senator).

    VR
    A Very patriotic US sailor, with no political affiliation

    ReplyDelete
  5. VR: I
    think no-slappz just got slapped. Don't scare him away though; he's my one and only "troll" and his right-wing rants make me feel kind of important (joke).

    Amazing arguments for Obama, thanks for adding them to my somewhat fluffy textual critique of the Times--come back and visit often!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous8:54 PM

    You are important without the dweeb (sure you can call him a troll, but I think dweeb better suits him).

    Also I would like to say that I think Michelle Obama, who has written me several nice letters thanking me for supporting her husband, will make a great addition to any administration, and you can be certain that she will keep her husband focused on the issues that are important to feminist. Michelle and Barack are a good team (too bad she can't be his running mate, or can she?).

    Yours Ranter

    ReplyDelete
  7. anonymous, you wrote:

    "According to dweeb Obama's emphasizing ending the Iraq War and implementing universal health care, represents nothing, and are the worst platitudes."

    Look a little closer. No one favors LENGHTENING the war. The future of this war is how to define the end of it and our participation in it. You can be absolutely certain the most Obama will do in that regard is vote for one plan or another in the Senate.

    As you can see from the latest news releases, the idea of a withdrawal timetable is now dead.

    However, for many reasons this war may end before Bush leaves office. That will leave the Democratic party with less than one leg to hobble on till election day, when Hillary loses to the Republican.

    I don't assert this because I dislike Hillary, though I do. I say it because it's painfully obvious to anyone who's voted in a few presidential elections and who knows something about this country that a semi-black candidate with direct ties to Islam and the middle name of Hussein will NEVER reach the White House.

    American voters WILL reject this guy.

    Meanwhile, you also mentioned Universal Healthcare. Sorry. You're not getting that one anytime soon.

    Healthcare is extraordinarily expensive. There is no "economy of scale" in healthcare like there is in other industries. Our healthcare bills are the expenditure than can bankrupt this country.

    But bankruptcy is a sure thing if we give every American citizen healthcare coverage while granting citizenship to every child born in the US to illegal immigrants.

    Not only is the kid a citizen entitled to the healthcare benefits you want to pay for, we, because we are insanely generous, will grant benefits to his parents as well.

    We believe there are 10-12 million illegal aliens in the country now. If we offer free healthcare to every child born on US soil, the US will become the world's maternity ward.

    If you're willing to change the rules of citizenship, there's a chance for universal healthcare. But as long as you're offering health coverage to the children of every pregnant woman on Earth, forget it. We can't afford it.

    Anonymous, your list of "initiatives" and activities of Obama in the Senate prove, as I said, that he hasn't left a mark anywhere on the Senatorial body.

    As for "improving conditions at Walter Reed" well, it's not Walter Reed that needs the improvement. It's the affiliated sites where post-combat military personnel have been housed. In any case, Obama is just one of many getting into this movement. But you seem to suggest that he's the only one who noticed the problem.

    As for his Pell Grant expansion, you should learn something about economics. Here's the lesson: things cost the amount of money people are willing to spend on them. Thus, if the government gives away money to students, tuition rates will increase accordingly.

    Any free money doled out to students will be sucked up in higher tuition payments at colleges everywhere. Tuition rates have climbed faster than home prices in NY City. That should tell you something.

    By the way, B Hussein Obama disapproves of WalMart. That proves he's an economic fool. Meanwhile, the mayor Chicago witnessed the effects of barring WalMart from the city. He saw the company build stores outside the city limits and saw shoppers from Chicago head out of town to spend their money at WalMart.

    Shoppers want value. They get it at WalMart. It's not an illusion. But Obama the fool doesn't care if his Chicago constituents pay more for everything. He would rather accept the Flat-Earth brainlessness of his constituents that actually take steps to improve the economy of Chicago and the US through the undeniably successful power of capitalism.

    But his opposition to the competitive marketplace shows him for the socialist he really is.

    Anyway, his candidacy will end long before election day, though very young liberal idealists won't believe it till it happens. And event then, they won't accept it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous5:50 PM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous6:21 PM

    Please remove my last post and keep this one instead.

    Sorry for my late reply Dweeb, but I was too busy defending the country from terrorism.

    Dweeb, I mean no-slappz, I have a feeling that I am much older than you, so don't call me sonny.

    Why do you continue to lie? Do you work for Faux Noise? Fortunately your BS continues to be easy to poke holes in.

    "No one favors LENGHTENING the war."

    So the surge that has killed many of my coworkers was not meant to lengthening the Bush W. war? And when Bush W. vetoed the timetabled emergency funding bill, I guess he did that to bring about an end to conflict sooner. And when McCain strolled through Baghdad with an entire company of soldiers and attack helicopters, he did that to emphasize that we need to leave the quagmire of Iraq soon.

    The Republican politicians want to lengthen the Bush W war, and if a Republican candidate gets elected in 2008, then you can be certain that more US tax dollars and American servicemen lives will get lost in the neo-con's cooked disaster that is the Bush W. war.

    "As you can see from the latest news releases, the idea of a withdrawal timetable is now dead."


    All the Democratic candidates have said they will sign a timetable bill when elected president, but the Republican candidates have not. The time table bill is only delayed because the lame duck Bush W. refuses to sign it.

    "However, for many reasons this war may end before Bush leaves office."

    Bush has made it clear that he intends to pass his war on to the next president. Under Bush the US troops will only leave Iraq if the Iraqi puppet Shiite dominated parliament votes to ask US troops to leave.

    "it's painfully obvious to anyone who's voted in a few presidential elections and who knows something about this country that a semi-black candidate with direct ties to Islam and the middle name of Hussein will NEVER reach the White House."

    You got that straight from Faux Noise didn't ya, you lying dweeb? Check your facts idiot. Barack Hussein Obama is a Christian, and had never been a practicing Muslim. Obama's Grandparents (who raised him), wife, and daughters are all Christians, and he has attended the United Church of Christ for decades. Sorry to call you an idiot, but wouldn't you rather be thought of as an idiot than a liar?

    "American voters WILL reject this guy."

    Perhaps, but I feel confidently that Americans will probably feel better about Obama come election night, then they will about a Mass. Mormon flip flopper who lied about his hunting hobby (Mitt), or about a man so out of touch with reality that he thought strolling around a Baghdad market with the aforementioned company of soldiers and attack helicopters proved that Iraq was safe (McCain), or about a liberal, twice divorced, cross dressing, former NYC mayor who wanted to appoint a known criminal to the department of Homeland Security (Ruddy).

    "Meanwhile, you also mentioned Universal Healthcare. Sorry. You're not getting that one anytime soon."

    Well Dweeb if that is true then I guess I'll just have to continue living in envy of every other developed nation in the world. If we don't get a Universal Health Care plan, it will be because you Republican buffoons won't give it a chance. However I think the Mass. state Universal Health Care system will be successful, and it will be held as a model for the rest of the country to adopt come November of 2008.

    "Healthcare is extraordinarily expensive. There is no "economy of scale" in healthcare like there is in other industries. Our healthcare bills are the expenditure than can bankrupt this country."

    Actually Dweeb you are right in the former part of your tripe. My father pays over 300$ a month for single health care coverage, however my Japanese mother in-law (who is older than my father) only pays 70$ a month. Health coverage in America is expensive because Republican legislation has allowed pharmacies and health insurers to jack up the prices as high as they want. The movie "Sicko" (which Bush and the Republicans are terrified of) will show to the American people, and the world, that; "Our healthcare bills are the expenditure than can bankrupt this country," is a falsehood that 18,000 health covered Americans a year no longer need to unnecessarily die for.

    "But bankruptcy is a sure thing if we give every American citizen healthcare coverage while granting citizenship to every child born in the US to illegal immigrants."

    Once again Dweeb you need to check your facts. If what you wrote was true, then France, Canada, the UK, and every other developed nation would be bankrupt. Those developed nations are doing well, so that proves that you are an idiot. Every developed nation receives a lot of immigration, yet every developed nation, except America, has A Universal Health Care plan, and their GDP continues to grow. So why can't the USA have a Universal Health Care plan? Answer; we could enact a Universal Health Care plan if our politicians had the political will to confront the health care industry lobbyists, and pass legislation that would insure Americans access to affordable health care. 10-12 million peoples constitutes less then 5% of the total US population, so why should the other 95% have to suffer. Answer: they don't. German has over 7.5 million foreigners living in their much smaller country, and every other developed nation has equal or greater immigration rates than the US does, but they still keep their Universal Health Care coverage plans, so your argument is seriously flawed. Immigration is not a hindrance for Universal Health Care, unless you foolishly convince people that it is. Allowing migrants to work with guess worker visas will enable the government to collect taxes from them, which could then be used to supplement a national Universal Health Care plan.

    Your argument wouldn't be so easy to tear apart if it weren't for the fact that every developed nation, except the US, has a national Universal Health Care Plan that their citizens (both poor and rich) greatly enjoy.

    “In any case, Obama is just one of many getting into this movement (fixing Walter Reed). But you seem to suggest that he's the only one who noticed the problem.”

    If the Republicans cared as much about the health of soldiers and servicemen as Obama and the Democrats do, then why didn't the Republicans do something about Walter Reed years before it was brought to Americans attention by Democrats? Bush probably would have enacted legislation to address Walter Reed if the Republicans in congress hadn't tried to hide the controversy of Walter Reed while they control both houses during the first 6 years of the Bush administration. If the Democrats had not won in a landslide in 2006, the horrors of Walter Reed would still be in the shadows.


    “Any free money doled out to students will be sucked up in higher tuition payments at colleges everywhere.”

    The Pell grant is not free money you moron. Students have to earn it, just like they have to earn college entrance.

    “Tuition rates have climbed faster than home prices in NY City. That should tell you something. “

    Yeah that tells me a lot alright. That tells me that schools and the higher education system under Republican leadership (Pataki and Bush) didn't receive the amount of direct federal funding that they would have under Democratic leadership. If school systems are properly directly funded, then the tuition rates will go down.

    “:By the way, B Hussein Obama disapproves of WalMart.”

    He disapproves of the way that WalMart treats labor, as we all should be, because someday we all might be desperate for employment, so he supports WalMart workers who want to unionize. Obama's words; there is a "moral responsibility to stand up and fight" for a better economic future with adequate wages, health care and retirement benefits.

    I guess a Republican like you has no problem with slave labor.

    “But his opposition to the competitive marketplace shows him for the socialist he really is. “

    Once against you showed how idiotic you really are no-slappz. Obama is not against competitive marketplaces, he's against unfairness to labor, you twit.

    “Anyway, his candidacy will end long before election day, though very young liberal idealists won't believe it till it happens. And event then, they won't accept it.”

    Well I am not young, you dweeb, and I feel very confidently that Americans in mass will prefer pro-labor, pro-Universal Health Care, pro-education, Democrats over corporate puppet, theocratic Republicans in November of 2008.

    Dweeb, to sum it up, your arguments make you look like a liar, an idiot, a fool, and a twit, but I suggest you stay with the neo-cons, because they are your kind of people.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous, you wrote:

    “Sorry for my late reply Dweeb, but I was too busy defending the country from terrorism.”

    How?

    You wrote:

    ”Dweeb, I mean no-slappz, I have a feeling that I am much older than you, so don't call me sonny.”

    You have very thin skin. That’s a hindrance for anyone who subjects his views to public scrutiny. In any case, your age has granted you no wisdom.

    You wrote:

    ”Do you work for Faux Noise?”

    Never heard of them.

    You wrote:

    “ Fortunately your BS continues to be easy to poke holes in.”

    Not from any of your dull words.

    As I said:

    No one favors LENGTHENING the war.

    Perhaps it’s news to you that muslims have been at war with the US for decades. I mark the beginning of the war with the assassination of Robert Kennedy, killed by Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan in 1968. Terrorist attacks on innocent Americans have occurred virtually every year since then. The death toll BEFORE 9/11 was 1,000 Americans.

    Apparently you are among those who believe if we leave them alone they will leave us along. Nice thought. But history says otherwise. Meanwhile, the latest polls of muslims in the US promise us that more trouble lies ahead. A very large percentage, close to half, think terrorism can be acceptable. A large percentage is/was opposed to our military intervention in Afghanistan. That’s not a good sign.

    You wrote:

    ”So the surge that has killed many of my coworkers was not meant to lengthening the Bush W. war?”

    You are a believer in the fiction that our withdrawal from Iraq will stop the deaths of Americans at muslim hands. Keep dreaming. Even muslim rhetoric makes no such offer. Instead we’re treated to rants from the lunatic Iranian Ahmadinejad who wants to wipe Israel off the map with an atomic weapon. Frankly, I believe him. Are you one of those people who think he’s just kidding?

    What happens after Iran fires an atomic weapon at Israel? A lot. And it will involve the US.

    You wrote:

    “And when Bush W. vetoed the timetabled emergency funding bill, I guess he did that to bring about an end to conflict sooner. And when McCain strolled through Baghdad with an entire company of soldiers and attack helicopters, he did that to emphasize that we need to leave the quagmire of Iraq soon.”

    Again, you are foolish enough to think this war is contained to the combat in Iraq. It’s not. The muslims tell us. They make no secret of their desires to destroy the West and to destroy Israel. Furthermore, if we step back, we assure dictators everywhere that they can operate unimpeded by the US.

    Perhaps you don’t care about that. Maybe you think other countries should solve their own problems. Okay. But for the last hundred years the US has taken the view that it’s better if we butt in. Meanwhile, don’t get your hopes up about what Democrats would do. At the time we entered WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam, a Democrat was in the White House. Moreover, it was Hubert Humphrey who ran on the More War platform in the 1968 elections. Nixon at least claimed he would end the conflict, which he did, though too slowly, in my view.

    I wrote:

    "…it's painfully obvious to anyone who's voted in a few presidential elections and who knows something about this country that a semi-black candidate with direct ties to Islam and the middle name of Hussein will NEVER reach the White House."

    You wrote:

    ”You got that straight from Faux Noise didn't ya, you lying dweeb?”

    No. It’s just painfully obvious that B. Hussein Obama, a half-black candidate whose father is muslim will NEVER receive the Democratic nomination and hence, never move into the White House.

    You wrote:

    “Check your facts idiot. Barack Hussein Obama is a Christian, and had never been a practicing Muslim.”

    Nice word play. His father is muslim. He began life in a muslim environment. If anything, he is a convert to Christianity.

    You are overwhelmed with outrage, but short on understanding. That shortcoming is common among liberals these days.

    I wrote:

    "American voters WILL reject this guy."

    You wrote:

    ”Perhaps…”

    In other words, you know he will lose, but you can’t stop yourself from releasing your anger.

    You added:

    “…but I feel confidently that Americans will probably feel better about Obama come election night, then they will about a Mass. Mormon flip flopper who lied about his hunting hobby (Mitt), or about a man so out of touch with reality that he thought strolling around a Baghdad market with the aforementioned company of soldiers and attack helicopters proved that Iraq was safe (McCain), or about a liberal, twice divorced, cross dressing, former NYC mayor who wanted to appoint a known criminal to the department of Homeland Security (Ruddy).”

    I’m not sure who will represent the Republican Party in 2008. Rudy is probably the front-runner at the moment, despite polls suggesting otherwise. In any case, your criticisms of the Republican candidates will mean nothing on election day if the contest is between a black Democratic candidate and a white Republican candidate. The US will NOT elect a black candidate in 2008. You’ve got to be naïve if you think blacks, at 11% of the population, can field a winning candidate in a presidential race.

    Perhaps Colin Powell is the one black candidate capable of bringing in a lot of votes. But B. Hussein Obama is not Colin Powell. And I don’t think Powell would win either. Close, but no cigar. Obama would, if he were unlucky enough to receive the nomination, lose in an embarrassing landslide.

    I wrote:

    "Meanwhile, you also mentioned Universal Healthcare. Sorry. You're not getting that one anytime soon."

    You wrote:

    “Well Dweeb if that is true then I guess I'll just have to continue living in envy of every other developed nation in the world.”

    Yes. At least until we define rational eligibility standards. But as long as illegal aliens are guaranteed a winning ticket in healthcare lotto, you won’t see it.

    You wrote:

    “If we don't get a Universal Health Care plan, it will be because you Republican buffoons won't give it a chance. However I think the Mass. state Universal Health Care system will be successful, and it will be held as a model for the rest of the country to adopt come November of 2008.”

    The MA healthcare plan is already unraveling. However, it will increase the population of needy people in MA. Taxpayers will be thrilled, as will business owners.

    You wrote:

    ”My father pays over 300$ a month for single health care coverage, however my Japanese mother in-law (who is older than my father) only pays 70$ a month.”

    Does she live in Japan? Meanwhile, you’ve said nothing about the differences in the nature of coverage, and there are differences. Meanwhile, we have both Medicare and Medicaid in the US. By the way, why do you put your dollar signs ($) after the amount? That’s not the US convention.

    You wrote:

    “Health coverage in America is expensive because Republican legislation has allowed pharmacies and health insurers to jack up the prices as high as they want.”

    Based on your statement, I can see you have roughly ZERO knowledge of the healthcare industry.

    You wrote:

    “The movie "Sicko" (which Bush and the Republicans are terrified of) will show to the American people, and the world, that; "Our healthcare bills are the expenditure than can bankrupt this country," is a falsehood that 18,000 health covered Americans a year no longer need to unnecessarily die for.”

    First, it is a tribute to the marketing intelligence of Michael Moore that he can dupe people like you into believing the administration is terrified of a movie. Wizardry like that puts viewers in the seats. Are you thinking that some theaters won’t show the movie because it’s subject is “dangerous”? Get over it. Moore will make millions from his mini-horror flick. Think Reefer Madness.

    Regarding Universal Healthcare, I wrote:

    "But bankruptcy is a sure thing if we give every American citizen healthcare coverage while granting citizenship to every child born in the US to illegal immigrants."

    You wrote:

    ”Once again Dweeb you need to check your facts. If what you wrote was true, then France, Canada, the UK, and every other developed nation would be bankrupt.”

    Not at all. Healthcare is not given to anyone who slips into those countries. In fact, they are tough on illegal aliens. Unlike the US. Let’s look at France.


    France offers a vast choice of general practitioners and healthcare specialists, part of its mammoth social security system which, although very expensive and a constant source of funding worry, is one of the finest anywhere.
    French employees see about 20 percent of their gross salary, deducted at source, to fund the social security system, referred to as Sécurité sociale. A large part of this goes into public healthcare, to which every legal resident of France has access under the law of universal coverage, la Couverture maladie universelle. Indeed, this right to healthcare is a highly prized value of the French social model.
    To make up the difference of what the State does not cover, it is common in France to also subscribe to a private medical insurance policy, mutuelle.
    French social security cover for medical treatment is only partial and it may therefore be wise to take out a complementary private insurance to cover excess charges you will incur should you need treatment. ("mutuelle" ou "complémentaire maladie" - contact insurance companies for subscription).
    Hospital treatment: If you get treatment in an approved hospital then the Caisse de Sécurité Sociale will pay direct 80% or more of the costs to the hospital. You are liable for the balance and the fixed daily hospital charge which again can be covered by a private insurance.
    As in most other countries, but differing from the US, children born in France to tourists or short term visitors do not acquire French citizenship by virtue of birth in France: residency must be proven.
    France has accelerated its deportation of illegal immigrants and is more than halfway toward its 2006 target of 25,000, the Interior Ministry says, but with a new school year approaching the government appears to have largely refrained from expelling families with school-age children.

    The issue is highly emotive here, with the government under pressure both from the left and the far right - and from ordinary citizens.


    In short, there are only a relative handful of illegal aliens in France. If we took the French view of citizenship and booted the illegals here now, broadbased healthcare might succeed. Otherwise, forget it.

    You wrote:

    “Every developed nation receives a lot of immigration, yet every developed nation, except America, has A Universal Health Care plan, and their GDP continues to grow.”

    Wrong, as usual. Immigration is tightly controlled in the countries you mentioned. And they kick out the illegal aliens. We don’t. We ask for more. Who else will cut the lawns for all those Democrats?

    You opined:
    “So why can't the USA have a Universal Health Care plan?”

    Too expensive.

    You rambled:

    “Answer; we could enact a Universal Health Care plan if our politicians had the political will to confront the health care industry lobbyists, and pass legislation that would insure Americans access to affordable health care.”

    Oh. Don’t our politicians represent our collective desires? Anyway, now you claim it’s those terrifying lobbyists who run the country. How far offshore are you?

    You wrote:

    “10-12 million peoples constitutes less then 5% of the total US population, so why should the other 95% have to suffer. Answer: they don't.”

    The uninsured total in the US is estimated at 40 million people. That’s a far larger percentage than any other leading nation. Thus, giving them government coverage will cost a much bigger percentage of GDP. Too much.

    You claimed:

    “German has over 7.5 million foreigners living in their much smaller country, and every other developed nation has equal or greater immigration rates than the US does, but they still keep their Universal Health Care coverage plans, so your argument is seriously flawed.”

    Germany has a guest-worker program. The key term is “worker”. Immigrants are welcomed with open arms into the US. Millions come here for crappy jobs that offer low pay and no healthcare. Our worst is better than what they are leaving behind. Meanwhile, we have an illegal alien problem. The kids attend US schools, which means US taxpayers must fund the education of people who are historically poor students. Mexican immigrants drop out in big numbers.

    We take in about 1 million legal immigrants a year – far more than any other country. But only a small percentage have college degrees. Why not attract the college grads instead? Why import an economic burden when we can import valuable assets?

    You wrote:

    “ Immigration is not a hindrance for Universal Health Care, unless you foolishly convince people that it is.”

    It is if the cost of healthcare exceeds their earnings, which it will for those people who are cutting lawns and doing farm work.

    You wrote:

    “Allowing migrants to work with guess worker visas will enable the government to collect taxes from them, which could then be used to supplement a national Universal Health Care plan.”

    Now you are going down a new road. Previously you wanted to GIVE healthcare coverage to anyone able to sneak into the US. Now you’re redefining the situation. Obviously, then, you know that universal healthcare can’t work in the current US setting.

    You wrote:

    ”Your argument wouldn't be so easy to tear apart if it weren't for the fact that every developed nation, except the US, has a national Universal Health Care Plan that their citizens (both poor and rich) greatly enjoy.”

    You’ve made no progress in the tearing-apart process. You’ve only acknowledged that you don’t know where money comes from or how much other countries spend on healthcare.

    I wrote:

    “Any free money doled out to students will be sucked up in higher tuition payments at colleges everywhere.”

    You wrote:

    ”The Pell grant is not free money you moron. Students have to earn it, just like they have to earn college entrance.”

    Sorry, you’re the moron. A Pell Grant is a “grant”, which, means it is a gift, not a loan. No strings attached. I received Pell Grants every year I went to college. They helped. I paid for school myself with work, loans and Pell Grants. Not so tough.

    I wrote:

    “Tuition rates have climbed faster than home prices in NY City. That should tell you something. “

    You wrote:

    “Yeah that tells me a lot alright. That tells me that schools and the higher education system under Republican leadership (Pataki and Bush) didn't receive the amount of direct federal funding that they would have under Democratic leadership. If school systems are properly directly funded, then the tuition rates will go down.”

    From the preceding, I see that you have ZERO knowledge of economics. The expensive schools happen to be private schools. Harvard, Yale, all the big names. They can charge $100,000 a year if they choose. If the Ivy League decided to charge top rates, parents would pay. Meanwhile, state schools are a relative bargain today.

    And guess what? Through the wonders of the Internet, we now have online schools. There are accredited online schools and they are graduating people. In other words, the competitive market place is doing what it should. The nature of college may change, but its value will not decline. It is obviously increasing. If it weren’t, tuition would not rise.

    Meanwhile, what effect have Pataki and Bush had on college tuition?


    I wrote:

    “:By the way, B Hussein Obama disapproves of WalMart.”

    You responded:

    ”He disapproves of the way that WalMart treats labor, as we all should be, because someday we all might be desperate for employment, so he supports WalMart workers who want to unionize. Obama's words; there is a "moral responsibility to stand up and fight" for a better economic future with adequate wages, health care and retirement benefits.”

    As I said, Obama is a socialist at heart; your statement provides total support for the obvious. There are literally thousands of restaurants, bodegas, convenience stores and 99-cent stores in New York City that pay illegal aliens less than minimum wage and no benefits. Meanwhile, the major fast-food joints all over New York City pay over minimum wage for employees. But they pay less than WalMart.

    Moreover, based on your criticism of WalMart, you and Obama think entry-level employees should run the company. But corporations operate for the benefit of the owners, not the employees. Corporations exist to deliver products and services to customers. They do not exist to make employees happy, though such a thing is known to occur.

    You wrote:

    ”I guess a Republican like you has no problem with slave labor.”

    You’re the guy who likes slavery. In the form of illegal aliens living outside the mainstream. But even in their cases, it’s voluntary servitude. Anyway, your crack again shows your ignorance of economics. WalMart knows how much it needs to pay to find decent employees. That’s how every business operates.

    Does military pay match corporate pay? No. Yet we have a volunteer military.

    I wrote:

    “But his opposition to the competitive marketplace shows him for the socialist he really is. “

    You responded:

    “Once against you showed how idiotic you really are no-slappz. Obama is not against competitive marketplaces, he's against unfairness to labor, you twit.”

    More economic naivete from you. Your concept of “unfairness” boils down to disapproving of the fact that people with limited skills who are asked to perform low-skill work cannot demand high wages.

    Take note that almost all gas station gas jockeys are gone. I pumped gas in high school. Now the customer pumps his own and pays at the pump. An entire class of low-skill workers wiped out by technology and the limited skills needed to pump gas. It’s happening at check-out lanes too. Self check-out. Now cashiers are endangered.

    I wrote:

    “Anyway, his candidacy will end long before election day, though very young liberal idealists won't believe it till it happens. And even then, they won't accept it.”

    You responded:

    ”Well I am not young, you dweeb, and I feel very confidently that Americans in mass will prefer pro-labor, pro-Universal Health Care, pro-education, Democrats over corporate puppet, theocratic Republicans in November of 2008.”

    Believe what you want. But the country is not about to elect a black president who has no history of legislative action. Obama offers NOTHING to voters. He’s afraid to lay out any administrative goals because when he does he will begin to alienate voter groups.

    Obama is probably sweating about the day Al Sharpton endorses him. That’s when his popularity will begin its tumble.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous6:45 PM

    Dweeb, you, like the neo-cons, like to conflate the Bush W. war (the war in Iraq) with the war on terror. I am proudly fighting terrorism on a daily basis (sorry it's TS I can't tell you what I do), but the Bush W. war is only hindrance to the over all effort to stop the spread of Islam extremism. There is ample evidence that the Bush W. war has only emboldened and encouraged the extremist, and the longer we keep substantial numbers of our best and brightest in that quagmire of Iraq will make us less capability to fight the terrorists where we can actually stop them; like Afghanistan, the west bank, Lebanon, Yemen, UAE, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, or in other places where the Muslin leadership (both Sunni and Shiite) is against al-Qaeda.

    Dweeb, if you really want to fight Islamic extremism, I know a lot of people who have served over a year in Iraq who would love it if you would take their place. Since you support the Bush W. war, why don't you put life and happiness where your words are?

    Iraq will produce nothing substantial for America, except a huge lost of American tax dollars and servicemen lives and well being (possibly my own).

    "Perhaps it’s news to you that muslims have been at war with the US for decades."

    Complete BS. When has a Muslin nation ever declared war on the USA? Answer. never. By contrast America has invaded Iraq twice, bombed Libya, supported Israel against Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, overthrew the democratic government of Iran to install a dictatorship that was destined to fail, and kept troops stationed within arms reach of Mecca. Muslim have ever right to hate the United States, and as an American serviceman I think it is time we reversed that trend.

    Unlike you, I have seen the horrors of the Middle East, and I know that our military intervention there has only exasperated the problems in that region. War aint good for nothing and the longer we stay in Iraq, more Islamic hatred towards Americans will be fostered.

    Of course I will fight to the death to defend my country (unlike you dweeb), but wouldn't you prefer to see my sacrifice be given to create good will towards Americans rather than expand the evil view that Muslims already have of the West?

    "You have very thin skin. That’s a hindrance for anyone who subjects his views to public scrutiny. In any case, your age has granted you no wisdom."

    You (as a neo-con) are more my enemy than the Islam extremist are, because you pose a much greater threat to the safety of our serviceman and our country than the extremist ever will.

    I pledged to always support and defend the constitution, and people like you want to do away with a Habeas Corpus, make wire tappings warrant-less, allow our government to spy without just cause, disgrace the Geneva Convention by making America a torture state, and embarrass the USA in the eyes of the world by spreading lies to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation.

    If only we could declare war on the neo-cons. America's image around the world is shattered because of people like you. People like you have strengthen the Islam extremist’s cause, and cost of billions of dollars and thousands of life to create more hate in the world. That 550 Billion dollars spent in Iraq could have put half of all 2003 high school seniors through 4 years of college, or gotten America completely off of foreign energy sources through invested in alternative renewable energy sources.

    I hope you are happy with the disaster in Iraq, because it is 100% the neo-cons fault. Iraq was a nation with no terrorist ties, or weapons of mass destruction before Bush decided to invade it, but now it has become a hot bed for al Qaeda recruiting. Iran had not started their nuclear program before 2003, but when they saw us tied down in a civil war, they decided to flaunt to the world their nuclear capability.

    "You are a believer in the fiction that our withdrawal from Iraq will stop the deaths of Americans at Muslim hands."

    More correctly you are of the fiction that if we stay on Iraq the extremist won't come here (or elsewhere). Well, staying in the West Bank, Gaza, and southern Lebanon didn't stop terrorist from bombing all over Israel. The UK's military presence in Northern Ireland didn't stop the IRA from carrying out bombings. The Russian intervention in Chechnya didn't stop the extremist from hostage takings and bombings in Russia. And our presence in South Viet Nam didn't stop the North Vietnamese from attacking.

    Violence only leads to more violence, you buffoon.

    I want our forces out of Iraq (but redeployed to places were we are helpful, like Afghanistan, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and Yemen), so that we can begin the healing process from the Bush W./neo-con failure. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more difficult that healing process will be. In Iraq all that our forces can do is kill more Arabs (both Sunni and Shiite), and that will never bring about any level of stability in Iraq. If we could shoot the Iraqs into accepting each other, and getting them to work together to build a democracy, then it would have already happened. Democracy cannot be instituted at the point of a gun, and a forced governmental system will always be rejected. The government of Iraq is destined to fail, because it has little to no legitimacy to the Iraqi people or to the world as a whole. The Mehdi army, and al Qaeda control Iraq, and we have the neo-con policies to blame for that.

    "Perhaps you don’t care about that. Maybe you think other countries should solve their own problems. Okay. But for the last hundred years the US has taken the view that it’s better if we butt in."

    Well our "butting in" in Viet Nam was a failure, our butting in Iran (take a look at operation Ajax) was a failure, and our butting in Iraq will be a failure.

    Sometimes butting in, like in Kosovo, in South Korea, and in Kuwait, is the right thing to do, but only when the UN or NATO is behind the butting in effort. No treaty organization was ever in support of the "coalition of the willing". Bush W. couldn't even convince the Saudis or the Turks to support his insanity. By contras Bush the elder got Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Syria to aid and support the forced removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

    The invasion of Iraq was a sham, and every nation that didn't see profit in invading Iraq opted to stay out of the conflict. And now the situation has gotten worse. Saudi Arabia has all but directly supported the Sunni al Qaeda insurgents in Iraq, and the Shiite government of Iraq has directly allied themselves with Iran. Both of those developments have very dire consequences for the USA, much more so than encouraging extremist to travel to America. And a lot of extremist probably will travel to the United State's as part of the over 2 million Iraqi refugees that have to go someplace other than back to Iraq.

    Dweebs, that 2 million refugee problem is a direct result of the neo-con’s foolishness, and guess who will have to accept some of those refugee? Answer: America.

    "Nice word play. His father is Muslim. He began life in a Muslim environment. If anything, he is a convert to Christianity."

    More lies on your part Dweeb. Obama father moved back to Kenya when the Obama was 2 years old. Obama was raised by his grandparent form the age of 12 up, and they raised him as a Christian. You are a liar Dweeb.

    "In any case, your criticisms of the Republican candidates will mean nothing on election day if the contest is between a black Democratic candidate and a white Republican candidate."

    So you're saying America is racist? You might be, but I don't think the vast majority of Americans are. The white (non-Asian, non-Hispanic) American population is soon to become the minority, so you might want to rethink the racist things you say. racist comments like your's only strengthen the resolve of people like me to support Obama. But even if Obama doesn't win the nomination, I will still support any of the democratic candidates over the Republican buffoons, because I want the neo-cons, and racist like you as far away from the White House as possible.

    "Yes. At least until we define rational eligibility standards. But as long as illegal aliens are guaranteed a winning ticket in healthcare lotto, you won’t see it."

    I guess you really hate Hispanics, and you want to deny them health care. Further proof that you are a racist as well as a Dweeb.

    "Based on your statement, I can see you have roughly ZERO knowledge of the healthcare industry."

    I know it is extremely expensive in America, because it is profit driven, and I know that America has a higher infant mortality rate, lower life expectancy age, lower cancer survivor rate, and is more lacking in preventative health care measures than any other developed nation in the world. Do you want to continue to accept those standards?

    I don't, and I don't think most Americans on election night in November of 2008 are going to want to continue accepting them either.

    "Now you are going down a new road. Previously you wanted to GIVE healthcare coverage to anyone able to sneak into the US. Now you’re redefining the situation. Obviously, then, you know that universal healthcare can’t work in the current US setting."

    On this we agree (I do support a guess worker program), but unlike you I believe the "current US setting” can be changed (over time) to adequately and affordably provide health care to all Americans. It will take a lot of work to get to that level, but the Democrats are up for the task, and the Republicans are not. Hence if you care about affordable health care, then it is in your best interest to oppose Republican and support Democrats.

    The world is a mess, but the Democrats are putting forth solutions, where as the Republicans stall progressive legislation, or try to erode the separation of church and state.

    "Sorry, you’re the moron. A Pell Grant is a “grant”, which, means it is a gift, not a loan. No strings attached. I received Pell Grants every year I went to college. They helped. I paid for school myself with work, loans and Pell Grants. Not so tough."

    So glad that you were able to use the Pell grant to get through college; why do you want to prevent others from receiving Pell grant amounts adjusted to match inflation? Now you're hypocrite in addition to being a liar and a racist.

    "From the preceding, I see that you have ZERO knowledge of economics. The expensive schools happen to be private schools. Harvard, Yale, all the big names. They can charge $100,000 a year if they choose. If the Ivy League decided to charge top rates, parents would pay. Meanwhile, state schools are a relative bargain today."

    As a tax payer I care less about private schools than I do about public ones. Personally I wish all schools were made public, and that measure would keep the price of tuition down at the private schools that you are so worried about.

    "As I said, Obama is a socialist at heart; your statement provides total support for the obvious. There are literally thousands of restaurants, bodegas, convenience stores and 99-cent stores in New York City that pay illegal aliens less than minimum wage and no benefits. Meanwhile, the major fast-food joints all over New York City pay over minimum wage for employees. But they pay less than WalMart."

    Every business should be held to high minimum standards when it comes to how they treat their labor. I don't see that as a socialist position, I see that as a fairness position. If you take a position at any job, then you deserve to make enough to support yourself, and obtain assurances that your health and well being will be fully insured while you work, regardless of what that work is that you do. That is a moral position, not a socialistic one.

    "Moreover, based on your criticism of WalMart, you and Obama think entry-level employees should run the company."

    I don't know where you got that one from; I never said anything of the sort. I criticize WalMart because they treat "their associates" horribly, and they treat their overseas labor as if they were slaves. The executives of WalMart are making a fortune, and enough profit is made by the corporation to more than adequately pay and insure their labor.

    "You’re the guy who likes slavery. In the form of illegal aliens living outside the mainstream."

    Never said any such thing Dweeb, but I did say I supported guess worker visas, and I want those guess workers to be paid a fair mount and given benefits by their employers.

    "More economic naivete from you. Your concept of “unfairness” boils down to disapproving of the fact that people with limited skills who are asked to perform low-skill work cannot demand high wages."

    Your right, I think everyone who works has the constitution right to unionize, and demand that they get a fair wage and adequate benefits.

    "WalMart knows how much it needs to pay to find decent employees. That’s how every business operates."

    WalMart operates atrociously, and everybody knows it.

    "Does military pay match corporate pay? No. Yet we have a volunteer military."

    You got that right. I enlisted because I love America, and wanted to bring peace and stability to the rest of the world (of course I enlisted under Clinton, but I did re-enlist under Bush because I still believe in America, even if I don't believe in him). Nothing makes me prouder than to serve my country, and I am glad that I get a decent wage, and near full family benefits in addition to a great retirement package. Don't you think every corporation should treat their employees that well and operate that way?

    If the military operated like WalMart, our national security would be in big trouble.

    BTW Dweeb, You're college educated, come on pick up a gun and do your part, or should that work only be delegated to the poor minorities you look down on and despise?

    "Believe what you want. But the country is not about to elect a black president who has no history of legislative action. Obama offers NOTHING to voters."

    I think you and I have been arguing over all that Obama (and other Democrats) offers to this country, so your assertion that he offers nothing contradicts yourself, and proves that you are completely full of BS.

    Obama (like all Democrats) want to put an end the Bush W. war (and fight a smart war against terrorism). And work to bring America up to the level of every other developed nation, by getting us a Universal National Health Care Plan.

    Obviously getting out of Iraq, and getting a Universal Health Care plan are not important issues to you, Dweeb, but they are to me, and I think they will be to most voters on election night in 2008.

    VR
    Ranter

    ReplyDelete
  12. anonymous, your rant is long on emotion, but despite what you think, short on fact.

    You wrote:

    "You're college educated, come on pick up a gun and do your part, or should that work only be delegated to the poor minorities you look down on and despise?"

    Just to settle this issue for you, I dropped by my friendly Army recruiter's office last summer, told him about my engineering degree and my generally good health. But when I told him my age, he stopped me and said forget it -- too old.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous8:43 PM

    So you are older than 45.

    However you can still work for Black Water (if you want to kill extremist), and there are a large number of GNOs in Iraq that would love to have an engineer working for them in Iraq (because all the local engineers have become refugees).

    You talk the talk, so can you walk the walk. Or better yet send your son or daughter other there if got one.

    I'm making a sacrifice, so why can't you?

    ranter

    Actually I have never been to Iraq, but I have fought against terrorism in other ways.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous8:46 PM

    Sorry I meant say "send your son or daughter over there if you got one."

    Ranter

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous9:04 PM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  16. anonymous, you wrote:

    "However you can still work for Black Water (if you want to kill extremist)"

    Again you are revealing the limits of what you know. Blackwater hires only people with prior military experience. Visit the Blackwater website and see for yourself.

    It is possible the firm might consider someone with police experience but no military background, however the website is not clear on this point.

    Meanwhile, on the topic of other countries and the generosity of their societies, there is much to say about Japan. It is a fine country that has built an admirable economy but it has a long, long history of xenophobia.

    If the US were similar to Japan in its treatment of foreigners, national healthcare would probably exist here.

    Excerpt from today's Wall Street Journal:

    Japan, long known for its resistance to mass immigration, is gradually starting to use more foreigners -- known as gaikokujin roudousha in Japanese -- to solve its labor shortage.

    They are taking up jobs in rural areas where industries such as agriculture and textiles are struggling. Big companies are filling their factories with foreigners to assemble auto parts and flat-panel TVs. In cities, foreign workers serve meals at restaurants and stock shelves at grocery stores.

    The 2005 census found Japan had 770,000 foreign workers, or 1.3% of its working population, up from 604,000 and 0.9% a decade earlier. That is still a far cry from the U.S., which has 22 million foreign-born workers, or 15% of the labor force. Nonetheless, for Japan it's a big change.

    Resistance to allowing in foreign workers runs strong in this island nation, where virtually everyone speaks Japanese and shares a similar ethnic and cultural background.

    From 1639 to 1854, Japan banned nearly all foreigners from entering the country.

    The only major immigration in modern times came before and during World War II, when several million Koreans came to Japan. At the time, Korea was a Japanese colony.

    Even today, many Japanese believe that the country's relatively homogenous population and common values contribute to a low crime rate and economic strength. But as the country is swept by drastic changes in its population and economy, Japanese are shaking off some of their traditional views.

    In a 2005 government public-opinion survey, 56% of respondents said Japan should accept unskilled foreign workers either unconditionally or if certain conditions are met. Only 26% said they were opposed to the idea under any circumstance.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous3:43 PM

    I really don't know what point you are trying to make, but it sounds like your trying to flower up racism with:

    "Even today, many Japanese believe that the country's relatively homogenous population and common values contribute to a low crime rate and economic strength. But as the country is swept by drastic changes in its population and economy, Japanese are shaking off some of their traditional views."

    Your next line of course contradicts this, when you say 57% of Japanese people approve of foreign labor entering their country. However having lived in Japan for 6 years my opinion is that the low crime rate is due primarily to the complete ban on gun ownership, and an extremely high prosecution rate (taking the 5th in Japan is considered an omission of guilt). I am opposed to gun control, and repealing the 5th amendment.

    Alright I guess you proved me wrong that not every developed country has an equal or higher % of Foreign workers than we have, and actually you're right that a lot don't, but some do, and in any case immigration does not seem to affect the National Health care system anywhere. I still don't see immigration as a hindrance to obtaining Universal Health Care. If every foreign worker in America pays taxes, and spends more in this country than they remit, then everything will be fine.

    The simple fact of the matters is that we could have a universal Health Care system if we wanted it. Barack Obama wants it, all the other Democratic candidates want it, and I think on a election day most voters will want it as well.

    "Meanwhile, on the topic of other countries and the generosity of their societies, there is much to say about Japan. It is a fine country that has built an admirable economy but it has a long, long history of xenophobia."

    Are you endorsing Xenophobia? I thought it was strange that you brought up immigration when you criticized Universal Health Care, and now I see why you did that. You're a nativist who only wants Americans with several generations of background to receive this nation's benefits, despite the amount of blood, sweat, and tears recent arrivals to this country spilled to make it even greater. America would be nothing if were not for the immigrants who came to this great land of ours.

    Comparing Japan to America in not good logic, because Japan has a lot more problems than America does. Japan is the most Earth Quake prone nation in the world, and it is one of the most over populated as well. Neither of those are issues that the USA really has to deal with.

    But Japan decided not to allow their health Care system to be profit driven, which is why my mother in-law only pays 70 dollars a month for health insurance, while my father (who is younger) pays 300 dollars a month. Also in Japan I actually received money after my children were born, where as in America in would have cost my wife and I a fortune to have our children born in a hospital. In Japan when it came to choosing between the base hospitals, and the local Japanese hospitals, we had no problem choosing the Japanese ones. The costumer service was much better, and we had to fill out very little paperwork ever to receive Health Care. In Japan my wife got an ultrasound every week, but the military only allowed 3 during an entire pregnancy.

    In Japan the health providers actually care about your health, where as in America they primarily care about your money.

    I don't know about you, but I don't think our Health Care should be doled out on a supply and demand basis. Health Care should be non-profit, because it is a life necessity, not a luxury.

    Health Care should be like air and water, and surprisingly the privatize everything Republicans want to make our air and water supply and demand items as well.

    Somethings like education, Health care, transportation infrastructure, food, water, and air are social necessities, and doling them out should not be areas where someone can make a profit. I guess to you making a few people rich is more important than protecting the common good.

    I have no problem with competitive markets when it comes to items like fast food, restaurants, entertainment, internet access, cars, houses, TVs, computers, jewelery, cell phones, flashy clothes, radios, and etc, but the social necessities should not be seen or treated as luxuries. Personal wealth of the few will not last long is the health of the nation fails.

    Sorry I recommended that you look into Black Water. I hate that organization, and I really don't want to know anything about it. I think privatized militaries should be outlawed. However if you applied for something other than hitman, I mean security, I am sure Black Water could find a use for an engineer, and eventually you would be given a gun. Did you look into the NGOs at all? You can help out people in Iraq without having to shoot them. Iraqis needs a lot of help after all the damage we did them.

    VR
    Ranter

    ReplyDelete
  18. VR anonymous, I have to question your reading skills. My previous post consisted of two parts; the first half I wrote and the second half -- the segment about Japan -- was copied from today’s Wall Street Journal. I identified the segment as an excerpt from the paper.

    As for your claim that immigration doesn’t affect healthcare, well, that’s the same as saying it wouldn’t cost Japan an additional dollar if everyone in the US moved there and claimed benefits. You really need to learn basic economics. You also need to understand the difference between the issues of public health, like clean drinking water and combating widespread health risks, versus individual health issues.

    Before comparing one nation’s healthcare with another’s, you need to know the difference in services offered. And you can be sure there are differences.

    You stated that your father pays $300 a month for health insurance and your mother-in-law pays $70. You cited these two different insurance rates as part of your argument that profit-driven healthcare is wrong. Your statement implies that the same medical benefits that cost $300 here cost on $70 in Japan. Your statement also implies that you think the difference between the two numbers is the profit earned by US healthcare companies.

    You’d better check a few financial statements. Many healthcare companies are owned by stockholders. Thus, all their financial data is available to anyone. If you want instant access to company financials, they are available online. There is NO company in America that earns a profit of $230 from $300 in sales. NONE. Not one. Zero. The average company earns a net profit of 10%. Microsoft earns the highest profit margin. It’s profit margin is almost 25%. Healthcare companies do not earn high profit margins.

    You need to look at Japan’s expenditures on healthcare and you need to know how Japan spends its healthcare dollars. You also need to know that private health insurance exists in Japan. As the Wall Street Journal article noted, Japan is a homogeneous country. It is also law abiding. That reduces healthcare costs per-person a lot. I believe the citizens of Japan have benefited from the customary diet of the country. I think I recall that the Japanese suffer very little heart disease, which is arguably the biggest killer in the US. It’s prevalent here because Americans still drink, smoke and eat red meat till they drop.

    As for the eternal threat of earthquakes, well, that simply doesn’t enter into the equation. They are catastrophic acts of nature. Not a healthcare issue. Obviously they cause death and destruction. But aside from smart engineering and watching the perturbations on the Richter gauge, there’s nothing more than can be done except move to another country. I’m sure the Japanese would not think it very smart to rebuild the section of New Orleans that is below sea level, unless it were possible to elevate them above the water line.

    Meanwhile, no one is objecting to extending healthcare to those who pay for it. You even acknowledged this when you said “If every foreign worker in America pays taxes, and spends more in this country than they remit, then everything will be fine.”

    That is exactly the system we have. You’ve even suggested workers can afford insurance. If they earn enough to send a check out of the country, they earn enough to pay for health care. You’ve made my point. Why should Americans subsidize those who earn enough to remit money to people in other countries? That arrangement should tell you that foreign workers get an extraordinary deal. It’s nothing less than a transfer of wealth from the US to citizens of other countries. That’s a rip-off.

    You’ll have to agree that the cost of living in Japan is far higher than it is in the US. Why is that? You isolate your mother-in-law’s low insurance premium without mentioning where the money comes from.

    As for claims about the availability of sonograms for pregnant women, you again made my point. The military allowed three sonograms because the US military – not a profit-making operation – tallied the costs versus benefits and realized three is enough. I’m sure if your OBGYN requested another, he’d receive approval. Whereas, I’m not sure about the demographic trends in Japan, but I believe the birth rate is low. Thus, the government may well have decided to subsidize child-bearing as a way to increase the worker/tax-payer base.

    You wrote:

    “I don't know about you, but I don't think our Health Care should be doled out on a supply and demand basis. Health Care should be non-profit, because it is a life necessity, not a luxury.”

    Food is a “life necessity” too. How long would our agricultural industry last if we gave away food to everyone in the country? See North Korea for real-world evidence of the way things go when your ideas become polity. You don’t seem to understand your own Marxist nature. I thought you had socialist leanings, but now I see you have communist sensibilities.

    You previously compared the US military with WalMart and how the military would fail if it were run like WalMart. The comparison is an absurd one. The two enterprises are as unrelated and uncorrelated as two massive human endeavors can be. But they do have a few points of comparison. One, they both depend on logistics. Moving stuff to the right places when needed is important to both. WalMart does this well. Of course no one is shelling its facilities – yet. But other than some issues of logistics and a hierarchical command structure, there’s very little common ground.

    There are far more points of contrast. The better way to put it is this: If WalMart were run like the US military, it would have bankrupted itself years ago. Militaries are expensive. But governments are empowered to spend whatever amounts seem appropriate. WalMart must always balance its expenditures against sales. There’s no hapless taxpayer who gets stuck with WalMart’s bill. The military does not have to worry about the sales half of the financing equation. You complained about lobbyists without admitting that lobbyists are the guys who get the good hardware in the hands of the military.

    By the way, WalMart counsels its employees on their rights to receive federal and state benefits. The company has helped its employees receive Medicaid coverage for which they were eligible. This is exactly what you want. Employees getting government healthcare. It’s hilarious that WalMart critics see this as another reason to hate the company, when, in fact, WalMart has helped its employees get exactly what you are demanding: taxpayer-sponsored healthcare.

    You wrote:

    “Somethings like education, Health care, transportation infrastructure, food, water, and air are social necessities, and doling them out should not be areas where someone can make a profit. I guess to you making a few people rich is more important than protecting the common good.”

    You say these are areas where no one should make a profit. Let me be clear. You ARE a communist.

    You wrote:

    “I have no problem with competitive markets when it comes to items like fast food, restaurants, entertainment, internet access, cars, houses, TVs, computers, jewelery, cell phones, flashy clothes, radios, and etc, but the social necessities should not be seen or treated as luxuries. Personal wealth of the few will not last long is the health of the nation fails.”

    The US is wealthy because it is a capitalist country with relatively free markets. Countries that follow your prescription are poor and backwards. See North Korea and Cuba for examples of your beliefs in action. Meanwhile, Venezuela is about to see its remaining shreds of democracy disappear. The nut Chavez is nationalizing the oil industry and he has ended free speech rights. He has seized the major media companies and has already shown that criticism of him is a bad idea.

    The Venezuelan oil industry has already begun its slide. He will follow the usual path of reducing maintenance and repair expenditures because he won’t invest for the future. Thus, production will drop every year he remains in power. That means less capital will flow into Venezuela, which means its economy will contract. The country doesn’t have any other significant exports to replace lost oil revenue. But he will claim to offer free healthcare, while in fact, the hospitals will suffer the same fate as the oil industry. It’s going to be a mess in a couple of years. However, we’re talking about yet another Latin American dictator, which means he will very likely suffer an overthrow in a coup conducted by his military.

    I hope you take an economics course and that you study Milton Friedman. At the very least you will learn there is no free lunch. Obama has not learned that yet. By the way, not only was his biological father a muslim, his stepfather was also. His stepfather took him to Indonesia, the largest muslim country in the world. Obama lived in Indonesia from the age of 6 to 10. He attended a muslim school for two years. In short, he is sympathetic to muslim interests and he even said so while in Iowa.

    However, as a candidate, his appeal is questionable. As a black candidate, he appeals to blacks, or so you would expect. But, Democratic black voters support muslims in the middle east and oppose Israel. Obama has shown support for Israel. This will hurt his appeal with black voters. Meanwhile, his evident sympathy for “Palestinians” will trim his attractiveness to Jews and whites who support Israel.

    Another point, you attempted a little trickery by stating that no muslim nation has ever declared war on the US. But I never said any muslim nation had taken such a step. That’s not the muslim way. The muslim way is to form a terrorist organization that is funded with the approval of muslim governments and allow that terrorist organization to wage war on behalf of a government. Have you forgotten the 241 Marines killed in Beirut in October 1983? The truck bomb was driven into the Marine barracks by two of the first Hezbollah terrorist suicide bombers.

    I thought Reagan made a huge mistake when he pulled the US out of Lebanon after that. Time has shown he was wrong to leave. Now Lebanon is a country with a powerless government that is controlled by Iran through Hezbollah. Moreover, the terrorists in Lebanon receive additional aid from Syria.

    So you see, muslim nations have skirted the issue of declaring war on one another – and the US. They simply go about their murderous business in other ways. But their ways are still war. And they challenge our conventional wisdom of how to combat it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous10:57 PM

    "So you see, muslim nations have skirted the issue of declaring war on one another – and the US. They simply go about their murderous business in other ways. But their ways are still war. And they challenge our conventional wisdom of how to combat it."

    Well, if you are interested in combating it, go over there and combat it. I have seen too many people die, and it is not making a difference. If you want to die fighting in the Middle East, go for it I won't stop you.

    You can call me a communist if you want, but I don't accept that title, and everybody who knows me knows I love free enterprise, Democracy, market competition when it doesn't involve items of social necessity, and have put my life on the line to defend my country for over 11 years now. But you sir are a hypocrite, bigot, liar, and stooge of the corporate insurers. Have fun paying those high rates.

    Meanwhile I am going to hang out with my multiracial, gay and straight, friends, and have a nice Memorial Day weekend.

    See Ya
    Ranter


    PS Obama is probably unhappy that I couldn't win you over Dweeb, but you're a racist, trying to convince others not to vote for him just because he's black, so I am sure he doesn't want your vote anyways.

    Go back to your own kind you lying, bigot, corporate stooge.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete