Romney and Bain?

[jmervyn]

Once again, you miss the point of the observation about Mitty's comments. It's not his veracity people doubt so much is is obvious failure to understand the definition of the word diplomacy.

Oh, I understand completely. It's more satisfying to have the President apologizing for everything we can imagine and groveling in front of foreign leaders as if searching for a lost contact lens.

Present company excepted of course, old chum. All you should hope for is a pat on the back, you shabby little white thing you. Hopefully the iPod full of speeches will inspire you to better things in the future.

Spoiler

You don't like the Guardian? "Watch out for the Corgis" was spot on.

You sure you actually missed it? You didn't catch it and then bury the memory in a shallow grave in a fit of confusion?

Well, I've stated on more than one occasion that I usually don't recall what I ate for breakfast, but I really didn't see the part about him praising Israeli medicine. I'm not pretending he's conservative, if that's what you're suggesting.

I don't remember anyone important claiming that Mitty was wrong. The BBC website, David Cameron ... sure ... but no one whose opinions are actually worth considering.

Oh. I shared the royal box with the chair of the BBC once (a long time ago) and I thought he <WAS> quite important - not just in his own mind, like in the U.S.

It was the Scottish Play, as I recall. Lots of water under the bridge, I guess.

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

Oh, I understand completely.

Oh! Well don't hide it, ya goof, sheesh. Flaunt your understanding instead!

It's more satisfying to have the President apologizing for everything we can imagine and groveling in front of foreign leaders as if searching for a lost contact lens.

The enjoyment is not limited to Presidents, any leader can be entertaining.

Present company excepted of course, old chum. All you should hope for is a pat on the back, you shabby little white thing you.

Pats (on the back) I get on a regular basis. In the metaphorical, produced from the rectum of a cow sense of the word. From a great height.
Yikes, help me out here.

Hopefully the iPod full of speeches will inspire you to better things in the future.

My iPod contains the finest library of music of its size in the entire world. Ever.

You don't like the Guardian? "Watch out for the Corgis" was spot on.

It's Grauniad, dear boy. Nobody refers to it as "The Guardian", not even The Grauniad.

Well, I've stated on more than one occasion that I usually don't recall what I ate for breakfast, but I really didn't see the part about him praising Israeli medicine. I'm not pretending he's conservative, if that's what you're suggesting.

Kewpie Doll for the shifty looking character over there in the corner.

Oh. I shared the royal box with the chair of the BBC once (a long time ago) and I thought he <WAS> quite important - not just in his own mind, like in the U.S.

Indeed, a long time ago, when the BBC had something of a reputation to keep up.

It was the Scottish Play, as I recall. Lots of water under the bridge, I guess.

My mum once wrote to Tony Blair with a list of questions. She has written to a lot of people, including every Prime Minister from Thatch onwards, but Tony Blair failed to respond. Unlike Saddam Hussein ... his office did indeed reply to her.

Just whilst we are dropping names, and such, you understand. Old boy.

[Technomancer]

(No jokes about my family being drug addicts, please. "FIX" as in repair all the shyte that they've broken.)

I didn't even pick that out, but I'm glad you did. I lol'd.

Sorry, but the part about the Pal's is dead on. If you check the comments, he was essentially pointing out that the Orientalist view claims that societies succeed because of topology rather than culture. If you compare Israel and Palestine, as Mittens did, that's laughable. The Palestinians haven't done shyte with their society because they're too busy killing each other, hating juice, and allowing their leadership to steal all the U.N. lucre (largely in Swiss banks). The topology of the regions is identical.

There is also that pesky "occupied second class citizens" thing.

Perhaps he was talking about The Juice?

As for Israeli socialized medicine, I didn't catch that (though I'm not shocked). Got a reference?

Here, let me Google that for you: 1, 2, and 3.

[jmervyn]

Pats (on the back) I get on a regular basis. In the metaphorical, produced from the rectum of a cow sense of the word. From a great height.
Yikes, help me out here.

I don't know how.

It's Grauniad, dear boy. Nobody refers to it as "The Guardian", not even The Grauniad.

I know it's been a long time, but that's one completely new to me.

Indeed, a long time ago, when the BBC had something of a reputation to keep up.

Well, then, who are you thinking of? The ginger mistress of cell-phones?

Unlike Saddam Hussein ... his office did indeed reply to her.

Well, MI-6 isn't really in the business of answering letters from home, but if your Mum was an Iraqi citizen, she might well have received a note from Blair. Never let a good opportunity to recruit an intelligence asset pass one by, you know.

Just whilst we are dropping names, and such, you understand. Old boy.

Oh, I could drop many, many more, though that was never my intent. The "elite" tend to be a bit disappointing when viewed more closely.

There is also that pesky "occupied second class citizens" thing.

What, you mean "Pallywood"? Muslim citizens of Israel enjoy better quality of life, legal rights, and personal freedoms than any of the surrounding nations. Just because the U.N. slums are a purposefully perpetual sore hardly means the people living there couldn't do better for themselves if they were interested. Given their election of Hamas, they're obviously not very.

Here, let me Google that for you: 1, 2, and 3.

Interesting. I wonder how his camp will react when/if challenged here?

It remains his Achilles' heel - even though "Romneycare" was legal (since it was a state-level venture, similar to other states) and Obama's was not, "Romneycare" still smacks of socialized medicine because Obamacare is loudly touted as being drawn from the same well.

[krischan]

It seems that nothing is pure enough not to be called socialistic by you... Stalin, Hitler, Bismarck, all of Europe, Obama and now Romney

I think we can avoid another round of running in circles if we limit ourselves to likely short replies.

[jmervyn]

It seems that nothing is pure enough not to be called socialistic by you... Stalin, Hitler, Bismarck, all of Europe, Obama and now Romney

What, you're pretending Romney is NOT? Any time you collectivize or centrally manage something, you're socialistic. The military is a perfect example; soldiers surrender their rights and are dehumanized in the bargain.

The reason Romneycare was legitimate (albeit rock-stupid) was that it was done at the State level, like several other plans (which are similarly unsuccessful). American socialism is generally endorsed by the Left at the Federal level, because the Founders wanted the States to essentially compete against each other.

EDIT -

The enjoyment is not limited to Presidents, any leader can be entertaining.

Re: Romney's supposed Olympic "gaffe" - the terms "hoist" and "petard" come to mind, yes?

[krischan]

Any time you collectivize or centrally manage something, you're socialistic. The military is a perfect example; soldiers surrender their rights and are dehumanized in the bargain.

So socialism isn't bad per se? If there's something which I want to be organized by the state, then it's military and to my knowledge, you are supporting that as well.

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

There are some things that Government needs to be in charge of - the military, for example.

There are some things that Government should not be in charge of - anything that isn't the military, for example.

These are hard and fast rules - anyone disagreeing with them is a mouth-breathing, coprophagic socialist and should be married off to Kim-Kardashian-somebody-or-other, as punishment.

[jmervyn]

So socialism isn't bad per se? If there's something which I want to be organized by the state, then it's military and to my knowledge, you are supporting that as well.

YAY! You're finally getting it. Socializing "things" is not inherently evil, any more than being self-reliant is inherently good. The military is a perfect example; mercenaries or guerrillas are far more effective than mass-conscript armies, but both extremes have inherent dangers.

The evil comes when the socialism gets too big, the gov't applying it becomes too powerful, or it detracts from individuals' rights. That's why Communists, which you apparently consider "true" Socialists, believe it is beneficial - it steamrolls the individual right in favor of collectivism.

EDIT - Loz, don't ninja me, and don't be overly subtle.

[Stevinator]

What, you're pretending Romney is NOT? Any time you collectivize or centrally manage something, you're socialistic. The military is a perfect example; soldiers surrender their rights and are dehumanized in the bargain.

The reason Romneycare was legitimate (albeit rock-stupid) was that it was done at the State level, like several other plans (which are similarly unsuccessful). American socialism is generally endorsed by the Left at the Federal level, because the Founders wanted the States to essentially compete against each other.

I won't speak for Kris, but I can speak to romney. Romney doesn't seem to be so focus on the government control vs. not argument. I think partially this is because that makes him look bad. Romney is far more interested in talking about state vs federal, which to me, is something of a cop out. I would prefer politicians say, here's what I think, and here's what i would do. From the best we can tell, romney seems to be okay with "socialism" (healthcare might be the closest we come to actual socialism) coming from the state, but not from the feds.


In fact, Jmerv's "socialism" claim in the healthcare industry isn't completely out of whack. Sure there is a market based system for young healthy workers in the private sector (and their children up to age 26--with obamacare), but that portion of the populace still has enormous subsidies. medical benefits are tax deductible for employers if they pay for part of the insurance. that's a defacto subsidy that lowers the cost of healthcare, and spreads it back over taxpayers (the same group pays higher taxes), then you can deduct any of your medical expenses from your personal taxes with a little planning. (HSAs, flexspend accounts, and the medical deduction to name a few). So by the end of it all, you have subsidized insurance, and the part that you're responsible for is tax deductible (with some planning), so the cost to you for a needless medical procedure is far less than it actually costs. Factor in pushy doctors using assumptive sales techniques on you, and we have gross overspending on health care for young healthy people that don't need much at all.

As far as the insurance part, you don't get to shop for it, you have to take whatever is offered by your employer. so there's no real marketplace for insurance, and the insurance largely determines your care--because get this--when you have to pay for it yourself, you don't "demand" as much healthcare.


Then when you get old, you go on the medicare system, which is universal coverage and single payer. nearly half of all healthcare spending is actually in this program, not the private program because of two reasons, one you don't pay any extra for more care, so it's essentially "free" even though you did pay for it. (think "all you can eat buffet). And two, you need a lot more care when you're older. those factors plus doctors knowing what exactly medicare with pay for, means they'll treat you up to the max coverage and then tell you you're fine to go home.

So while we don't really have a completely socialized healthcare system, it's darn near it. Anyone who claims it's a market based system is being disingenuous.


So yes. the word socialism almost applies to healthcare. I prefer "over-regulated", because I prefer accuracy over propaganda, but it very nearly a centralized decision on who gets care and how much. I'd like to think we could make improvements to the system by changing the regulation to let the younger healthy workers have real choice in insurance and have some skin in the game for inexpensive procedures.

I also, and I'll probably take it for this, think we should have those "death panels" (I do not like that name), to curb how much we spend on people who are dying while on medicare--we're going to do it anyway, why not now before my parents (boomers) get old and there's no money?