« The Phantasm of Genetic Determinism | Main | Shale Gas, Prosperity, & the Green Agenda »

Wednesday, May 11, 2011


Stan Gibilisco

"'States,' he [Romney] could solemnly intone, reading from my prepared script, 'are the laboratories of democracy. In a laboratory, a negative result is often as revealing as a positive one. I signed the Massachusetts healthcare reform fully expecting that it would fail.'"

Please forgive me if my native Minnesotan humor-impairment shows through, but I must ask: Ken, are you kidding?

If Mitt Romney were to admit that he signed a bill affecting millions of people knowing that it would fail, would it not reveal a profound cynicism and disregard for the real effects of his actions?

Hmm ... Sounds like the sort of thing I've accused some Democrats of doing in regards to the deficit ... If Romney actually is that cynical, he has no business running for President of the United States.

In my opinion, Mitt Romney should admit that he honestly thought his plan would work and then in fact it did not. He should admit that he was simply wrong, and now that he knows the truth about such things as individual mandates, he's more convinced than ever that Obamacare must be overhauled if not repealed.

Bill Fleming

The key question is "has it brought down the overall cost of health care?" Isn't it?

Bill Fleming

Looks like cost containment is the next big hurdle. IMHO, all this argues for a single pay system. Medicare for everyone.


Stan: yes, that was a joke.

Bill: it didn't, and it won't.



"If Mitt Romney were to admit that he signed a bill affecting millions of people knowing that it would fail, would it not reveal a profound cynicism and disregard for the real effects of his actions?"

You have to take into consideration that it was what the people of Massachusetts wanted, and his original scheme was not the appeared as the final law. Romney was a lone Republican in sea of Democrats in the State Legislature.

Let's look back on the reality of his contributions:

"The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty."

"He vetoed 8 sections of the final health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment. Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid. The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two"

Bill Fleming

National Health, National Energy. All problems solved.



"National Health, National Energy. All problems solved."

If that were true, then why is Europe and Canada still have increaseing prices, longer waiting lists, and less technology? We spend more than they do, but we have better results, and more access.

It is impossible for the Nationalization of Energy to produce cheaper prices at the pump than the free-market, that is why we already have some of the cheapest energy on the planet. When there is no incentive for oil companies to produce more, they won't. So the government would have to pay for exploration, and refinement, that will drive the price way up. The government would always be behind the demand curve, and there would be constant price spikes and shortages. Since there would be no incentive for oil companies, the prices of exploration, refinement, and transportation would increase dramatically while coupled with the loss in revenue from taxes associated with the amount of usage. All this cost increase would be passed on to the American people, and the result would be higher price and less supply. Reference the Nationalization of Energy in Latin and South America.

Ken Blanchard

On planet Flemming.

Bill Fleming

Jimi, Brookings has it's own municipal utilities. Water, power, phone, the whole shootin' match. Seems to be working for them. Also Canada. You do realize we get MOST of our oil from Canada, right, Jimi. So much for not having any customers. Plus, even if the price of gas is the same most of it (in Canada) is for taxes. Right now you have to pay the oil company AND the taxman. What's better, two hands in your pocket, or just one?



"Brookings has it's own municipal utilities"

This has nothing to do with Nationalizing Energy. Brookings merely buys the power from someone else, and charges to manage it's distribution, it is merely an unneeded middleman. The majority of the power used in Brookings comes from hydroelectric stations, which are already controled by the Army Corps of Engineers. Only 8% of the country's needs are met by HydroElectric Power, so referencing a small town like Brookings has little relevance to the Nationalization of Energy in America.

"You do realize we get MOST of our oil from Canada"

That is not true! The majority of the oil used in the United States comes from the United States. The majority of the oil purchased outside the United States is an equal quota from both Canada and Mexico. The oil coming from Canada is being produced by the Private Sector not the Public Sector.

"Right now you have to pay the oil company AND the taxman."

Ah...Hello? The government would become the Oil Company and you still have would have the cost of exploration, drilling, refinement, and transporation.

Once you eliminate the elements of [supply/demand] and competition, there is never the market forces to control the price. All the losses would be socialized and would always result in increases in the price. Anything short of a violent dictatorship, where the oil companies and their employess were forced to produce efficiency and advancement in technology without the compensation that comes with it, would spell disaster for the United States economy.

Billl Fleming

haven't heard a convincing counter argument yet, guys. Keep swinging and take off the blindfolds and you might find a way to hit the piñata.


That might be because you hear and do not listen. Or it might because you have not presented a convincing argument yet.

Donald Pay

I don't mind that Republicans are attacking there own health care plan, but it's too bad they misunderstand the statistics. What the WSJ and KB present are statewide averages. The real problems, lack of primary care physicians and lack of certain specialists in rural areas, are masked by those averages. There are plenty of docs to take care of the particular perceive "ailments" of the wealthy (skin wrinkles and small breast sizes), but when it comes to real medicine that's where we as a society have fallen down. It takes time to train up enough docs to do real medicine.

Billl Fleming

My argument is on the table, duggerSD. National Health, National Energy. As per the Preamble of the US Constitution. For defense, domestic tranquility, and the general welfare of we the people. What more do you need for an argument?

Ken Blanchard

It must be very nice and simple in your world, Bill, where phrases are arguments.



What you have stated is an oxymoron. You can not have a Socialist System and adhere to the Constitution.

The Germans invented Socialized Medicine with Bismark's famous quote, "nationalistic socialism to end international socialism."

By the time Hitler came around their system had evolved into State Medicine, where care was only given based on it's value to the state. That is exactly where we will end up, and the U.K. has begun to give up on NHS. They finally have realized that even when Health Care is rationed you cannot control the price.

I can tell your one of these people that hasn't figured out that ObamaCare is specifically designed to engage a Single Payer System after it crashes the Insurance Industry.

You think Health Care in America is expensive now? Just wait till it's Free!

Billl Fleming

Again, no rebuttal. There would be nothing unconstitutional about nationalizing health care and energy. If there is, show me, Jimi. And yes, it's nice and simple in my world, Ken. And it's taken me a good long time to make it that way. Thus, I consider it a modest personal accomplishment. Thank you for noticing.



"nothing unconstitutional about nationalizing health care and energy."

Your throwing the word "Nationalization" around because it sounds good to you, but you are a clear enemy of Freedom. And if you are an enemy of Freedom, you are a Clear and Present Danger to the Constitution and your fellow countrymen.

By definition you are incorrect:

Nationalization-"To convert from private to governmental ownership and control"

Now....I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Constitution, but the entire premise of the Constitution, and no question the intent of the founders according to the Federalist Papers, was to focus directly on preventing "Government ownership and control" of the economy from happening.

The last phrase of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, known as the takings clause, reads: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The intent of the Tenth Amendment was to deal with Nationalization directly. It didn't matter what the issue was, we are defined as a Republic, and the federal government only has the power to regulate matters directly delegated to it by the Constitution.

10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Billl Fleming

...without just compensation. yes, correct, Jimi. Move to the head of the class.

Billl Fleming

Arguments such as Jimi's essentially make the Union action against the Confederacy unconstitutional. Interestingly, Ron Paul suggests that the Civil War needn't have been fought. The Union should have just 'bought' the slaves' freedom from the slaveholders and saved both sides from mass slaughter. It begs the question, who owns you, Jimi? And by extension, who owns the planet's natural resources, and humanity's right to proper health care? Is it morally responsible to claim that these can be the exclusive property of any one individual or corporation?

Billl Fleming

Who owns the electromagnetic spectrum within the bounds of the South Dakota borders, Jimi?



"who owns the planet's natural resources"

What does that have to do with the Natinalization of Health Care and Energy?

"humanity's right to proper health care"

Where is the documentation that you have a right to proper Health Care? Who gave you that right?

"Is it morally responsible to claim that these can be the exclusive property of any one individual or corporation?"

Yes. I own mineral rights of my own. I owe water rights of my own. Keep your Commie hands away from MY STUFF, and go get your own!

Billl Fleming

You just think you do, Jimi.

Billl Fleming

Side note to Jimi, all documentation of natural rights is Ex Post Facto.

Billl Fleming


...for Jimi's edification.


john f.:If I was still an active mebmer of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would indeed be averse to him becoming the most recognized public face of the faith. First, he would further reinforce the stereotype that LDS are, as Seth so well put it, narrow-minded conservative throwbacks. Given that I did not fit that stereotype while I was an active mebmer of the LDS church, I hate to see that stereotype reinforced on a rather grand scale. Second, he has repeatedly changed his publicly-stated views on a variety of issues, each time conveniently to fit the demographic wherein he is running for office. He has done this so often, that I am unable to conclude that he is an honest man. I would be concerned that he might commit an unethical act, which would, due to his position, reflect badly upon the LDS church.Third, he has made more than one public statement which I would frankly expect faithful LDS to find offensive. Take, for example, his public joke that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, and another woman, etc. Take, for another example, his recent comment that he couldn't imagine anything more awful than polygamy. I don't care that the majority of modern LDS would probably leave the church if plural marriage came back. Romney has shown, by his words, that he is completely willing to mock and/or repudiate principles which have been sacred to mebmers of the LDS church, not to mention his own ancestors. This one makes me angry even as a FORMER mebmer of the LDS church.Fourth, Romney represents the so-called gospel of prosperity, which is already far too rampant in LDS culture. Seeing an extremely wealthy mebmer of the church elevated to such a position would only exacerbate that problem, I believe.Fifth, Romney's political views are, in my opinion, incongruent with those of a person who allegedly believes the U.S. Constitution was divinely inspired.I could go on, but this should be enough to make it clear that I'm not making a mere knee-jerk reaction here.


Define affordable. I work two jobs. Neither of them prvidoes insurance. I am very healthy, with two visits to a doctor over the past thirty five years for other than an annual checkup.And I paid cash EVERY time, so your claim about uninsureds making ER visits is plain bunk.I'm 54 by the way. I am able to pay my bills easily. However, If I were forced to buy health insurance, I would have financial difficulty. There is NO WAY I'll be forced out of my home so that the chronically sick will have their health care subsidized by a healthy person like me!May I have a comment from HCFA as to whether you libs would support fines for the obese (Who do more than their fair share in contributing to the health crisis )?


Oh and one more thing HCFA: Do you libs really think that those of us frcoed to buy insurance will not make runs to the doctors on a weekly basis, just to get our money's worth ? You would be wrong if you thought that way. If I have Quality, affordable, health care shoved down my throat, I promise you, I'll visit my doctor as often as I can, leaving you unable to make an appointment. Where will you be then?


Dan, I think you're giving liabrels waay too much credit. I know the stereotype is that liabrels are whiny smart people and conservatives are dumb hicks, but I've met plenty of liabrels who were dumb as a bag of rocks too.And explain to me how opposing a Mormon candidate because them lousy Mormons is all narrow-minded conservative throwbacks is supposedly superior to opposing a Mormon candidate because them lousy Mormons ain't God-fearin' Christian folk. I see no practical difference.And I've been on plenty of liberal discussion forums where these allegedly open-minded liabrels mercilessly mock Mormons for wearing funny underwear, call Joseph Smith an obvious fraud and proclaim all Mormons to be brainwashed retards for believing all that $#%& that Smith was talking about.I think you're essentially talking about a distinction without a difference. Leftists are every bit as bigoted as Rightists at far as I'm concerned.The only difference is the Rightists are largely keeping quiet about Romney, while the Leftists have been both vocal and vitriolic.Dan, I'm registering as a Democrat this year and I have no intention of giving the GOP another chance. I pretty-much agree with your stance on torture. But your comments are often waay too blindly partisan for me.Is it even remotely possible to you that Democrats might suck too?

The comments to this entry are closed.