Obviously, NO Real Atheist Can Be A Republican....OR A Libertarian!

Paul Ryan, Libertarian Randite with his Ryan Budget - he still hopes he can fob off on us in a "grand bargain". No atheist ought to have anything to do with this character or his ridiculous philosophy.

A recent article at salon.com ('Atheists Can't Be Republicans') see http://www.salon.com/2013/10/26/atheists_cant_be_republicans/

hits the nail on the head - given the Reepos are all about pushing heavy religion on its denizens, and using that as a hammer to also halt abortion, contraception, gay marriage and even state assistance to the poor ("If the poor had faith, then they wouldn't need welfare.") But the piece also nails the Libertarian crap, i.e. when stating:

"Atheists are secularists, and a secularist cannot be a member of today’s Republican Party. You’re either one or the other. You cannot be both. Now, I am acutely aware that a great number of atheists identify with the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, but this is comical. A lack of evidence is why atheists don’t believe in God. But to believe in libertarianism is in itself an act of faith, because libertarianism has not only never been tried anywhere, but an overwhelming number of economists reject the philosophy as little more than “capitalism with the gloves off” — a condition that would only exacerbate the winner-takes-all society we have today."

I can't dispute  this take which is why I have no truck or tolerance for Libertarian atheists, and dismiss Republican atheists like S.E. Cupp as essentially fakes. To me they're an anomaly like a two -headed,  walking carp.  Most Libbie atheists probably were drawn into their version of atheism by virtue of noting Ayn Rand's famous quote in her book, The Virtue Of Selfishness', p. 38:

"Faith is a malignancy that no system can tolerate with impunity, and the man who succumbs to it, will call on it in precisely those issues where he needs reason the most. "

But this is a minuscule support on which to build a coherent, "grown up" atheism.  The same salon.com article also notes that hyper-militant zealous atheists are equally immature, and give atheists a bad name to boot. A particular brand of these includes the likes of Sam Harris, and the late Chris Hitchens who pounded an incessant anti-Muslim theme in assorted writings.  As the salon.com piece observes, again accurately (and this was a topic brought up on Bill Maher's Real Time Friday night)the problem with these anti-Muslim zealot atheists is:

"rhetoric that not only ignores our long history of foreign policy blunders in the Middle East, but also echoes the neo-conservatives, the Israel lobby and the entire right-wing echo chamber"

Which was the exact same point guest Michael Moore was trying to make to Bill Maher, who echoed many of the anti-Muslim lines. Moore tracked our history in actually recruiting Bin Laden to our own ends - to make him our special "puppet" - to attack the Soviets in Afghanistan, as well as setting Saddam up as a separate puppet, to use against Iran. Oh, also toppling Iran's original President Mossadegh in 1953. Is it any wonder so many Muslims hate our guts? If you were pissed over at every turn, by a meddling nation full of hubris, wouldn't you not be exactly pleased? But this is the point the anti-Islamics miss.  Those who wish to see former security specialist Chalmers Johnson's take on it, can go here: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/have-americans-especially-thier.html

Where he supplies answers regarding 'blowback' and why too many Americans are totally in the dark. Maher and the anti-Muslim atheists ought to read that, as well as Johnson's book, "Blowback".

In his brilliant article Atheism Wars[1], the eminent economist John Gray, author of False Dawn- The Delusions of Global Capitalism,   argues that “evangelical atheism has so aligned itself with illiberal economic values that it’s joined forces  with the Christian fundamentalists in the Republican Tea Party.”

If this is so, why on Earth would I wish to make common cause, especially as I’m a 1960s-style Kennedy liberal who hasn’t moved one iota toward any specious “center”, especially since Kennedy’s murder at the plausible hands of a rightist-based conspiracy? Such affiliation, despite the much ballyhooed meme of “atheist diversity” is an insult to me.  Indeed as Gray notes, it would no more occur to Richard Dawkins that an atheist would reject liberal values than that he or she would take up witchcraft. But the unsettling fact is too many do!

As the 2012 political campaign revealed, the GOP budgetary doyen Paul Ryan (an ardent acolyte of Rand’s) basically sought to adopt her views in his Ryan Budget. This would have replaced standard Medicare with vouchers with which the elderly would seek their own medical assistance each year, as opposed to depending on a government secured co-payment. I can just imagine how I’d have fared in my HDR prostate cancer treatment last year if Ryan’s vouchers were the extent of  assistance available! With a $10,000 per year voucher allocation, I’d have ended up in major debt. Five figure debt!

 

So pardon me if I regard any self-proclaimed atheist who embraces the Ryan budget or his  minimal government (except for defense) politics as stupid, delusional or both. 

 
 

Beyond this, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz[2], “the upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year and control 40 percent of the nation’s total wealth”. Conversely, the bottom 80 percent of Americans own just 7 percent of the nation’s wealth. Stiglitz notes that “while the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall”[3]. By any measure this economic inequality is a corrosive, long term evil, given it reduces people’s choices and indeed can incept criminal acts for economic self-preservation.

This dovetails with the salon.com quote of Walter Bristol, an atheist interfaith activist, who wrote,

“Economic inequality is one of the most imminent issues facing Western society today. Any progressive movement that chooses to dismiss it is and will be rightfully dismissed themselves.”

Ouch! Any atheists paying attention? They had better be! Atheism in this view, and one shared by me in my new book, cannot be some mere abstract philosophizing position but must be in common cause with larger social justice movements  - and that by its nature- also excludes aligning with Reepos and Libertarians in economic policy issues. (Though one can strategically align with them when it comes to opposing NSA spying overreach - a subtle point Melissa Harris Perry was seemingly lost on in her show this morning.)

 

Since I am also foursquare opposed to laissez-faire capitalism and especially the Neoliberal variety that worships the global free market, there is really nothing I have in common with the new breed of pro-free market atheists.  We could as well be from different planets.  Reading John Gray’s excellent essay  showed me that my position is genuinely more implicit atheism, or what George Smith (The Case Against God, p. 9 ) described as agnostic atheism, than the more hard-edged variety of Ayn Rand, or Madalyn Murray-O’Hair. In Smith’s words:

 

 

The agnostic atheist maintains any supernatural realm is inherently unknowable by the human mind. And further - not only is the nature of any supernatural being unknowable, but the existence of any supernatural being is unknowable as well

 

 

After all, if one cannot truly know anything supernatural, then how can one arrive at a supernaturally –based morality? It is preposterous. One then must work very hard to fashion a natural ethics, which features test markers and attributes based in the natural world. This, of course, is the heart of my Materialist ethics!
 

The problem is that a libertarian atheist’s ethics aren’t likely to agree with mine, any more than his definition of Materialism will agree with my own. I had warned about this division of interests and ethics in my first book (The Atheist's Handbook to Modern Materialism).    As for S.E. Cupp, I don’t regard her as any bona fide atheist at all, but rather someone who’s been able to parlay a purely nominal atheism into becoming a high profile media person. She basically found her special media niche by being the ultimate conservative, religion-friendly atheist! As Ian Murphy so aptly describes her shtick, in an Aug 4, 2012 salon.com essay:

 

 

"Cupp’s self-loathing-token-atheist-in-the-conservative-media routine seems so geared toward delegitimizing atheism, and selling books to fundie Fox types, that is strains credulity"

 

She’s also disqualified from being an atheist I’d ever associate with by her comment, "I would never vote for an atheist, ever."

 

Murphy once more: "In an atheist integrity contest, she loses to Stalin by a mustache."

 

Is it possible the aggressive memes of dogmatic religions have called forth equally aggressive memes of non-belief to combat it? This is possible, but sadly hasn’t helped atheists win the battle for hearts and minds. In the meantime, atheists need to develop a more cogent, political dynamic that embraces the social justice aspect rather than ignores it.  To quote the salon.com article again:

 

"It’s time for the atheist movement to get off the political sidelines. It’s time to truly help this country become a better place to live for all its citizens"

 

---

[1] Gray: Playboy (60), 49.

 

[2] Stiglitz: The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Threatens Our Future, Chapter 1.

[3] Ibid.

 

Biden Eats Ryan’s Lunch: Now Obama Must Deliver

Joe Biden expresses astonishment after catching "Young Gun" Paul Ryan in his 22nd whopper.

It was a relief to finally have a debate with a Democrat displaying energy, passion and intellect and effectively humbling the Repuke pretender in the process. Such was the case last night, when Joe Biden demolished Paul Ryan on the national stage, and left nothing but some bleached out bones in the wake. Joe hit Ryan on so many fronts, exposing the false ideology underlying the Romney-Ryan ticket that it wasn’t even a contest. (Yes, in the wake of the event a CNN “flash poll” among the uncommitted (i.e. stupid, low information) voters gave Ryan a 48%-44% edge, basically because they disliked Biden’s smiling, facial contortions etc., but give me a fuckin’ break. As Howard Dean pointed out, anyone who paid the least bit of attention (and wasn’t distracted by Ryan’s baby blues) would have rightfully given the contest to Biden. Thus, the only poll I take seriously is the CBS poll which showed Biden won by 50% to 31% with 19% saying they “tied”.


Let’s get to some particulars: Moderator Martha Radditz, an ABC News Middle East reporter, went first to the area she knows best, the Libyan episode. Biden’s most telling point was that the Repuke House congress responsible for funding of embassies cut that budget by $300m. Hence, those embassies – including in Barbados and Libya- have had to cut back, live on less, much as seniors and the middle class will if Romney-Ryan are elected. In Barbados, the embassy staff is now so hamstrung by Repuke budget austerity they’re forced to mostly live on local  takeout pizzas, chicken wings. It’s a damned disgrace. This ought to be hammered to the nth degree.


On the issues of Medicare and Social Security Biden finally gave the full throated defense of those programs which Obama basically punted on. (Obama appeared at numerous points to simply agree with Romney’s take). This was critical because at least nine battleground states show these programs are election flash points, with voters hyper aware they don’t want any party that destroys them.


More importantly, Biden defended the much hyped $716 billion in “cuts” Romney raved about and Ryan did this time, noting these were basically cutting WASTE, not benefits. Also that the AMA and the AARP had signed on to these, as well as the health insurers. Thus, $200b was dedicated to remove overpayments for unnecessary procedures (of which Medicare has MANY!) as well as to providers who do multiple charges for a central procedure. For example, in the case of an HDR prostate cancer treatment such as I received, charging separately for the use of Treatment room, CT-scan, ultrasound probe imaging, use of afterloader, prep of indexers in afterloader, template suturing, catheter insertion in template, check of catheters, anesthesia, actual delivery of source dose, and use of acute surgery (hospital)  room for 2.2  hrs. In which case the total bill if itemized could come to $200,000 as opposed to about $15,000 for ONE single medical treatment!


The “15-person” panel Ryan tried to make so much of and which the brainless Teeps excoriated in 2010 (as "death panels") is simply a panel of top flight medical experts assigned to spot such multiple medical costing. As for the Medicare Advantage plans, they ought to have been sunset long ago - since THEY are also what's bleeding the standard Medicare into insolvency! These private plans were hatched with the ill-conceived "Medicare Modernization Act" of 2003. They have since been sucking up nearly $12b a year more than standard Medicare and also forced higher premiums in the latter to pay for them! (The total Medicare premiums have increased nearly 133% since the 2003 Act was implemented).


Biden then exposed the Ryan-Romney voucher plan for the claptrap it is noting the elderly person, say of 82 yrs. of age, is basically handed this $10,000 voucher (more likely MUCH less if Romney wants $2.3 trillion additional  for defense) and told to go off into the wilderness and find an insurance company that will take care of you. No mention at all that they won’t if there’s one pre-existing condition! Oh….but then… the Romney-Ryan jackals respond, 'you can still remain in standard Medicare'! Oh, wow-a-palooza!

A program that will then be headed for extinction because only the poorest, sickest seniors will be locked in there!(Since these are the very seniors the insurance companies won’t touch). But the costs for the sickest risk pool will rise precipitously over time, since it will cost more to care for their ailments,  until the program is totally insolvent and the sick seniors are tossed out totally - to fend for themselves by begging for medical charity. (Ayn Rand's solution in her "Virtue of Selfishness")


The most devastating hit by Biden was on Ryan’s hypocrisy concerning the $831b stimulus which Romney –Ryan have been bitching about the past few months. Biden noted the letters Ryan actually sent him begging for some of that stimulus money for Janesville, Wis. and his home district. (Rachel Maddow, in a show two months ago, displayed the Photostats of the two letters and long enough so any interested viewer could read them.) With his hypocrisy exposed, the most Ryan could do was obfuscate using babble about “state grants” to try to confuse the minds of the stupid segment.

Biden also merits kudos for shooting down Ryan’s claim that 20 percent spending cuts have been historically proven to create growth. He actually had the nerve to cite John F. Kennedy’s tax cuts! Of course, I blasted this meme to smithereens a few months ago: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/07/thats-right-now-blame-60s-jfk-for.html


The truth is that JFK wrought growth (and lowered the unemployment rate to near 4%) by the largest deficit spending since World War II! This is exactly the thing Ryan and Romney want to STOP! As Prof. Donald Gibson noted ('Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency', Sheridan Square Books, 1994), the federal policy was one of deficits. To quote Prof. Gibson (p. 84):

"The War was paid for primarily through borrowing and deficit spending on an unheard of scale."

Gibson again(ibid.):

"What Kennedy attempted to effect .....in the three years he was in office, was a moderate peacetime version of the federal policy during World War Two."

What was the result? Professor Gibson once more:


"During the years affected immediately by Kennedy's policies , 1962 to 1964-65, the U.S. economy returned to and even exceeded the rapid growth displayed during the pre-stagnation period" (of WWII).”


Thus, again, Ryan LIED! It was DEFICIT SPENDING not tax cuts of a 20 % magnitude, that incepted the growth of the Kennedy era. Hence, Biden was correct that what Romney-Ryan have proposed  has never been done in history. (Reagan’s example, that Ryan also raised,  doesn’t count, since Reagan had to go back and raise taxes to increase revenues after his initial cuts. See:  ‘The Indebted Society’ (1995) by James Medoff and Andrew Harless)

On the abortion issue, Biden showed in no uncertain terms how women’s rights would be compromised under a Romney –Ryan administration, given Ryan accepts the “personhood” bullshit spewed by so many rightist morons, i.e. that the fetus actually has personal and “property” rights. No woman in her right mind, given this, could possibly justify a vote for these assholes, especially when they stand to appoint at least TWO extremist judges to the Supreme court- enough to overturn Roe v. Wade – the Repukes’ wet dream from the year dot.


Lastly, let me address the complaint (e.g. by Reep Groupie Nora O’Donnell) that Biden was “rude” because he “interrupted Ryan 82 times”. One big reason for that is Radditz, a total newbie moderator, dropping the ball in terms of monitoring whose turn it was to initiate an answer to a question, or reply (as well as timing Ryan's over-extended replies!) It was as if a Court Judge at Wimbledon had allowed one player’s continuous service with none by the opponent! Had Biden not interrupted (basically doing Radditz's job for her), especially after Ryan butchered the facts numerous times, he'd have been seen as passive and impotent - much like Obama was last Wednesday when he was unable or unwilling to address Romney's scurrilous claims. Biden did exactly what he needed to in this regard, and the Dem base is once more fired up after a week of despondency and malaise. The latter is not good when the other side is showing more voter enthusiasm.

The deal now is that the onus and pressure is on Obama not to let the "home team" down with any decrement in energy, or repetition of Ambien-nation such as in his debate on Tuesday.Two things I've read or seen the past week have made me cringe in regards to where Obama's head is in this election. The first was a passage in the recent TIME issue on "The FACTS Wars", where he indicated that he felt his campaign had "gone overboard" a number of times. HUH!? Gone overboard? This is an election that's possibly the most critical in American recent history! Don't bawl about "going overboard" for god's sakes! Embrace it! Welcome it!  DO you want to be re-elected, or take a one -way ticket back to Chi-town?

Meanwhile, in the same paragraph Romney was fully committed to his campaign and its full court press, averring that it was "spot on". Obama needs to take 100% ownership for his campaign instead of issuing qualifiers and hand-wringing! Again, this plays into the meme that Obama really lacks the gumption to fight for anything. He wants to be "Mr. Peace and Tranquility". And, as Chris Hayes said after the debate last night, "stay above the fray". That's a fine strategy  - if you want to be a one -termer. A winner, however, will have to be prepared to get down and dirty in the hog pile and wrestle because that is what the other side is prepared to do! If Obama's handlers and advisors like Plouffe and Axelrod tell him any different, then they aren't seeing what the rest of us are, and are merely expediting his exit.

The other thing I cringed at was his response to Diane Sawyer in a recent ABC News interview, when she asked him what he'd do differently next time:

"Well, I'd just explain better the stark differences between their view and ours."

NO! NO! And NO! No "explanation" will work because at this stage 75% of the communication is effected via vocal tone (you need authority Mr. Prez, and reflecting anger when called for) and body language. The verbal content is only 25%. So, if Obama comes out Tuesday with this "explanatory" mode uppermost in mind, he's a loser. You can flush this election down the toilet and hand the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to Mitt Romney.

While Obama need not exactly "channel" Biden's energy and reactivity in this VP debate, he can't drop the baton by downshifting too much, which means employing the same slow (half-sleepy?) speech cadence as he used in the first debate, the same hemming and hawing, and the lack of  vocal- tonal differentiation and emotional nuance (i.e. being emphatic) when called for. The ball is now in his court.  Can he deliver?

Joe, in a new drive,  brought the ball to the opponent's 40 -yard line after a terrible INT, but now Obama - taking over- has to get it over the goal line without fumbling or being intercepted again. Everything depends on this, and how he does. No more excuses will do!

This game is now yours to lose, Mr. Prez!

------
Footnote: In a Denver Post column today ("The GOP's Security Lapse", p. 19A) WaPo columnist Dana Milbank exposed for the first time how GOOPr Darryl Issa's Committee of Inquiry into the Benghazi tragedy - by its inept questioning - exposed that one of the U.S. Embassy's bldgs. - the Embassy proper or the "annex" - was actually a CIA outpost. Thanks again, Issa! Now you assholes have replicated the traitorous deeds done after Rove and Co. outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. Have you fuckheads no shame? Wait! Don't answer that! We already know the answer!

Liar’s Poker: Ryan’s Visit to Colorado Springs

A grammar school nun, Sr. Mary Vivina, that used to teach me in Milwaukee, would often remind the Religion class:

“If you start out by telling small lies, it becomes much easier to tell big lies.”

This could be applied to Paul Ryan, who we now know started out with a small lie, regarding the time for a marathon he once ran. For those who haven’t heard, he bragged he ran 26.2 miles at a blistering pace of “two hours and fifty something”.

The first hint of the lie was not being able to exactly state the time. As anyone who’s ever run any distance race can confirm (I once ran a 5 km race in Alaska) you never ever forget the time, just as you never forget where you were or what you were doing when JFK was assassinated, or 9-11 erupted. It’s emblazoned on the engrams. Former Mass. Governor Mike Dukakis, for example, also ran a marathon (the 1951 Boston marathon) and recalls his time as 3 hours and 31 minutes, placing 57th overall. This is after 60 years!

Now, thanks to ‘Runner’s World’ – the niche magazine that called him out- we know Ryan was a flat out liar on his marathon time. On digging into the Minnesota marathon he ran, the magazine found an official time of 4 hours 1 minute and 25 seconds. In other words, a whopper of a difference from his claimed time.

Does this matter? Does it matter if a guy lies about a race time? Well, let’s put it this way: Does it matter if a guy was never in service but bragged he fought in some war or other, whether Korea, Vietnam or the Gulf war? If a guy DID fight, say in the Gulf War (1991) but was never decorated, does it matter if he claims he won a Purple heart or some other medal? Does it matter if he buys actual medals, say from a pawn shop or off ebay, and wears them to back up his specious claims? Do THESE lies matter? If so, why should they matter more than Ryan’s marathon lie? Because they’re about the military and an “honor” meme rather than honor in life overall?

To me, this is an artificial distinction. Moreover, it makes it more likely if a guy has lied about a race time – and in a big way—he will do so about military decorations, or any other thing, including his policy plans, budget plans and oh yes….the other guy’s too.

In Ryan’s case, even before he arrived in Colorado Springs two days ago for a rally with the local reich wing morons, his primary lie on Obama’s “Medicare cuts” had already been exposed to the cold light of day. As reported in The Colorado Springs Gazette (Sept. 7, p. 1A), not exactly a liberal bastion, the Associated Press had received a text of Ryan’s planned speech and the claim that “Obama stripped $716 billion from Medicare”.

As the Gazette article noted:

“Ryan advocated the same move in the budget he shepherded through the House of Representatives, ‘and the $716 billion change under Obama didn’t affect recipients, but rather reduced payments to hospitals, health insurance plans and other service providers’.”

Not mentioned was that ALL those changes had been agreed to in advance, by all the above. This was part of the deal made with them given the additional millions of participants delivered to them via the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. None of this was mentioned by Ryan in the Springs, where he repeated his lie about Obama taking away seniors’ benefits.

No, even to the most dedicated Reep troglydyte, a lie about a marathon time may not mean much, but a lie about Obama taking away his or her benefits should! But to the level of morons that turned out for Ryan in the Springs, it didn’t matter. Even when the Gazette reporter brought the AP fact check and lie expose to light, none of these knot heads believed it.

One, Gordon England a “retired music professor” asserted he still believes “Obama is raping Medicare”.

Another, Gina King - a former dental claims processor - said “it didn’t matter” and she didn’t care. Why?

“He’s good with numbers and tells it like it is!”

Yeppers! He’s real good with fudging numbers and lying! As for 'telling it like it is', kindly pull your head from where the Sun doesn’t shine, lady.

Ironically, this moron admitted she was “on food stamps” – for which access and benefit she really ought to be on bended knee and thanking Obama, because if the Reeps get in and cut that program by one third – as they claim (to pay for their increased tax cuts for the rich) she will be sucking salt. Or maybe sand. And her 'star boy' Ryan will be the one responsible for her kids or herself becoming malnourished.

This incredibly dumb shit woman also added (ibid.)

“I want someone who will help me help myself”.

Really? And you think Paul Ryan is the one? The guy LIES! The guy plans to massacre programs on which you now depend! Do you think you will magically be off those programs once Romney –Ryan are elected? Well, you likely will if they cut them to the degree they say. But jobs? You aren’t going to get any jobs from their policies!

Ongoing job constriction – as a Bill Maher guest pointed out Friday night – has been going on for the past fifty years, starting with de-industrialization, automation and then globalization the past 22 years. Obama didn’t start that! Fuck, he was not even BORN when de-industrialization commenced in the late 50s! How STUPID can people be!

As the guest observed, this is what keeps our national discussion of employment, deficits and future prospects at a childish, uneducated level. Ryan is part of this childish discussion and debate, and feeds the childish, indeed infantile needs of his base as when he makes such remarks as:

“We simply have to stop spending money we don’t have!”

But that’s exactly what HE and Romney plan to do! Spend money they don’t have. They intend to spend $ 4 trillion for tax cuts for the wealthiest (why do you think so many billionaires, like the Kochs, are donating to Romney?) and also add $2 trillion to the Pentagon budget. This total of $6 trillion over one term is NOT balanced by all the cuts they SAY they intend, so that means either:

1) They are lying through their asses, and plan to run up deficits on their terms, or

2) They plan much more massive cuts than they’ve already stated, which means to Social Security as well as Medicare and to current beneficiaries not merely those “under 55”. In this case, they’ve ALSO lied, a massive lie of omission.

But in this alternative universe where lies are truth and truth translates into lies, anything can be believed. Another guy Randy Kroeger, supposedly a “retired engineer from the technology industry” – so one supposedly with an IQ over room temperature, gave three reasons he supports Romney and Ryan. In his words (ibid.):

“A, they have a plan”

Yes, it’s to fuck you over, you and the other birdbrains, in the biggest bait and switch ever.

“B, I believe their plan will work!”

Oh, I KNOW it’ll work! Once they implement it and add another $5 trillion to the deficit you will be lucky to have any benefits left.

“C, I’ve followed the shenanigans of the Democrats for years!”

Spoken like a true Ditto head. But the question is, have you followed the “shenanigans” of the Reepos? Evidently not!

At least one attendee, a former Army veteran named David Justice, did see through the haze of lies and bullshit. As he noted (ibid.):

“Ryan’s speech was a pack of lies. It’s overwhelming. He said the president doesn’t reach across the aisle, when he’s bent over backwards to accommodate the Republicans”.

Justice conceded he wasn’t a Reep but attended the meeting “out of curiosity”.

Still, he was amazed at the level of lies spewed out. He shouldn't have been if he's remotely followed Reepo tactics the last few election cycles.

I re-read the account of Ryan's Frolics in the Gazelle, and recalled the words of Sister M. Vivina concerning lies. If you can tell small lies, like exaggerating the time you ran a marathon by more than one fourth, it becomes much easier to tell whoppers later, like about Medicare, Obama, and your own budget!

Smart voters need to remember Ryan’s “small lie” come November

Paul Ryan: Now Hoist on Multiple Petards

OOPS! He Must have smooched Ayn Rand! Or maybe her corpse!



Guys like Paul Ryan, now hailed as some kind of great thinker and leading light by the Reeps, have always been a dime a dozen. You most often see their kind on college campuses bloviating to their small groups of faithful, and usually extolling the virtues of deranged icons like Ayn Rand. (Ryan himself even admitted giving copies of Rand's novel, 'Atlas Shrugged' to his staff as a Christmas present, as reported in TIIME, Sept. 3rd, p. 36. One wonders what his staffers ever did with those copies. )

But now that he's in the spotlight - it's not even for telling eight straight lies in his convention speech about Obama. No it's about his Rand worship and claims to also follow St. Thomas Aqinas. Now that this much has come out, others are taking him seriously and fact checking.

When several Catholic groups, including nuns from the Leadership Conference for Women Religious, pointed out that Ayn Rand had nothing but contempt for religious faith, i.e. asserting 'The Virtue of Selfishness'', p. 38):


"Faith is a malignancy that no system can tolerate with impunity, and the man who succumbs to it, will call on it in precisely those issues where he needs reason the most. "

Ryan smugly responded (ibid.):

"I reject her philosophy. It's an atheist philosophy."

Which, of course, is bollocks. Her philosophy is called Objectivism and reduced to its basic message, devoid of bilge and baloney, comes down to people - when developing a self-sufficient economics - for example, relying only on objective evidence. Hence, faith or belief plays no role. Moreover, it's an extreme economics that issues from it, pivoting primarily on national and individual self-sufficiency.

Hell, as I noted in a blog last month, Rand in her pristine Objectivism doesn't even accept the military ought to be funded from the taxpayer's purse! Her solution (On Government Financing in a Free Society, p. 116) is for the Pentagon, law courts, police, firemen and others (who are fed off the taxpayer dime) to instead set up co-op insurance companies! In this way, she observes that: "Men would voluntarily pay for insurance protecting their contracts." She also allows for the military to use "lotteries" to get their money, though I can't think of a single person who'd wish to buy one of these tickets. I mean, what is the prize? One of the F-17 Stealth fighters that loses cloaking ability when it rains?

Meanwhile, Paul Ryan - while he plans to chop up Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, plans to use the money saved by going after "entitlements" to increase funding for the military. But this is EXACTLY the sort of "violence" (by taxes) Rand warned against!

As for the atheist part, while Rand was indeed a self-proclaimed atheist, her philosophy itself shares zero commonalities with atheism. For example, NO atheist I know insists we each become islands unto ourselves and pursue our own rational self-interest, even to the extent of weighing the value of another before even considering saving their life! (Virtue Of Selfishness', p. 45) Neither do any atheists I know demand the government be reduced to a mere onlooker in terms of governance, and let armies, police, citizens etc. set up "insurance" companies to get their funding, or lottos!

So, what Paul Ryan is really really saying in his denial, is that he loves Rand's gratuitous, selfish, anti-government economics but isn't buying the essential philosophy from which it's forged. Can we then agree this guy is trying to square the circle? Can we also agree he's full of shit? Especially when he himself doesn't even adhere to Rand's basic, enunciated economic principles in terms of "government funding in a free society"?

But the biggest howler and which petard is almost as large as the first he's hoisted on, is when he claims to be "following Saint Thomas Aquinas". (TIME, op. cit. p. 56). He claims (ibid.) he bases this on the fact that abortion is outlawed by the Church, and was by Aquinas, and hence legitimately he can oppose any abortion even if a 12 year old kid is raped by her uncle, or a young college woman is gang-raped by frat boys.

Maybe this joker needs to do a tad more reading, such as learning that a leading Church historian, John Connery, S.J. has documented that up to 1869 the Church permitted abortion, up the end of the first trimester! (See, e.g. Carl Sagan and Anne Druyan , PARADE, April 22, 1990 ) Clearly, the fact the Church already changed its doctrine on abortion shows it can do so again. And hence, one must question whether either of its positions (before and after 1869) embodies any kind of "absolute moral" position.

In his marvelous book, Infallible?, Catholic Theologian Hans Kung observes the following (p. 143):

“..no one, neither Vatican I, nor Vatican II, nor the textbook theologians, has shown that the Church - its leadership or its theology - is able to put forward propositions which inherently cannot be erroneous."

This makes sense, and is something I've always challenged Catholic padres on when I've debated them. The problem confronting all doctrinal absolutists is that their cognitive reach exceeds their grasp and they become hoist on their own petards. As the illustrious Ryan does on one big petard when he backed House bills dignifying the term "forcibible rape" and "non-forcible rape".

Kung goes on to note (ibid.):

"It is impossible to honestly deny objective errors committed by the Church's teaching office, both ordinary and extraordinary."

So why then are Catholics adhering to their Church's stupid, archaic rules so slavishly? Maybe because they've done it so long they no longer have the power to think for themselves. Or.....maybe they still buy into the "Hell" crappola, when the padres and Bishops (who never play when THEY are molesting altar boys or protecting the molesters) never play that card for their own misdeeds.

Moving on....

Ryan also claims- with a straight fact- this his "mission to reduce debt" issues from the Holy Father himself, Pope Benedict, who has charged that "governments and communities running up high debt levels are living at the expense of future generations."

That Ryan would cite a pope to justify his vicious budget is astounding, not to mention highlighting his own chutzpah! Because the truth is the CBO, Center for Tax Policy, and other budgetary cognoscenti have determined his own "Ryan budget' is nowhere near neutral in cuts and spending. While he makes brutal cuts to the social service programs (that most Catholics have always supported), such as food stamps, Medicaid - sending tens of millions into a limbo without health care, or enough food, he allows and enables $4.8 trillion in tax cuts for the 1%, and at least as much for the Pentagon's war profiteers. Most economists, e.g. Paul Krugman, estimate this will add at least an additional $7 trillion or so to the deficit. In other words, Ryan is actually INCREASING the debt as he demolishes social programs!

The man ought to be ashamed of himself, but after witnessing the bevy of lies he unloaded two nights ago, I believe he's totally shameless.

One thing we cannot do is let this lying scumball anywhere near the levers of power to try to implement his half-Rand, half-Aquinas bullshit agenda.

Exposing the "Ryan Plan" for the Hypocritical Crappola it is

The battle lines have been drawn, and now the only question is how much fight the Dems have in them to really make this a war to the bitter end. They also have to know that the Romney-Ryan Axis will try to spin any attacks on Ryan's plan any way they can. The Dems must prepare themselves for multiple distortions, and have solid responses ready.....no pussyfooting around or remotely acknowledging (as the Big Dawg Clinton did last year) that Ryan's plan has anything of any redeeming benefit. It does not.

It is a bare-faced, unadulterated effort to eviscerate the elderly in this country of any medical or other security. To leave them unprotected, like dogs without bones, in a vicious commercial -coercive market landscape that will laugh and howl in stitches before it remotely considers offering any insurance. Worse, the Ryan plan seeks to divide and conquer by telling current oldsters over 55  they "have nothing to fear" while leaving the horrific voucher system to "those 55 and under". In this execrable way, they hope to divide voters in key battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio - to win the votes of current seniors 65 or older, by causing them to exclusively think only of THEIR own self-interest.

But  this is the last thing they ought to do! As I noted three blogs ago, this is just what the plutocrats want: to have people faction off from each other by self-interest. Hence enticing horrific scenarios that could confer winnable margins in those states by virtue of voting seniors thinking: "Hey, I can vote Romney and Ryan 'cause their changes won't affect ME!"

But what about your younger peers? Have you no sympathy for what they will endure? How about your own nephews or nieces, or even kids? Do you not care one iota about them? Why indeed be so myopic as to consider only YOUR benefit, and not theirs? Do you not grasp that this is exactly why the country has been headed into the shitcan because too often voters have permitted their interests to be cynically manipulated, divided.

This morning ('Morning Joe') was telling as Chuck Todd, MSNBC analyst, put down nonsense spouted by Joe Scarborough himself about the potential for Dems to "demagogue" Medicare. Scarborough insisted the Dems and Obama would have NO comeback to Ryan's plan since "Obamacare already promises to cut $750 billion from Medicare, so how can the Democrats scare seniors with massive Ryan cuts?".

Todd replied by saying that this would not work because Ryan plans to not only KEEP those cuts (which are actually more to unnecessary medical procedures) but to add his own mammoth cuts, incurred by virtue of limited value vouchers which would compel seniors to spend more and more out of pocket in high risk pool markets. Thus, over time, and clearly by 2033, they'd have to pay a 60% or greater share for medical treatments and premiums than they do now. (But do so in an environment in which Social Security likely pays out less.)  After that, 'Morning Joe' was stone cold silent. At that point someone else chirped about all the "choices" oldsters would have. Todd, to his credit, slapped that one down too, noting that by a certain age, people no longer want more choices, they want security.   Indeed, I already blogged a few days ago about  patient choice  being more diminishing returns than anything of positive use.

But it bears repeating that this is something the Dems must be mindful of, and have a response for! They cannot let the Repukes spin this their way as if Ryan's plan is an advantage.

They also need to bring out the "Howitzers" as opposed to sling shots! (If they hired me as an ad man I'd prepare some ad formats that'd work wonders).

The level of attack in the ads aimed at Ryan has to at least approach the content (in terms of raising hackles and fears) as the infamous LBJ Daisy ad . Nothing less will DO!

Study that ad carefully, Dems! See the content. Sure, it only ran once, but it was in prime time and essentially sewed up the '64 election for LBJ (Over BarryGoldwater) in a landslide. People - citizens were so fucking scared by it that the remote thought of voting Goldwater became anathema.

If you want to save such a Cobalt bomb ad for later, ok. Go with the softer ones first that still land haymakers. One of these was done a year or so ago by a Left PAC that showed a Ryan lookalike pushing a granny in a wheel chair off of a steep cliff. This will work! Sure, it's emotional, but you can't attack Ryan's plan exclusively on the basis of policy positions, because often people (for whatever reason) tune out their grey matter. You have to hit them in their amygdalas!

And keep hitting! Don't let up!

You might also want to prepare some background info on Ryan's hometown, Janesville, WI, to use in ads. Zero in on guys like one unemployed worker, Brian Krutsch from Janesville (see image). Krutsch, like most ordinary workers there,  happily voted Ryan and Republican all the way so long as the issue remained theoretical about the usual Teabagging baloney of "deficts and high spending".

But what changed is when it ceased to be so distant and ethereal and became personal, as he now recognizes that not only will  HE will be affected by it, but his kids as well. In an Associated Press account in the April 10, 2011, Denver Post, he blurted out


"Old people need help with medical bills. There's too many under-insured right now- especially people like myself right now, who don't have insurance"

Not only Krutsch, but evidently many others in Janesville (formerly Republican voters) are now seeing it, according to the account. One 74-year old resident was quoted as saying:



"It bothers me that my kids and our grandchildren might be affected by whatever has to be done".

Well, it ought to bother you even MORE, now that this guy is VEEP candidate! Better late than never, but WHY didn't you see this earlier? Is it that hard to parse? Or was it your indefatigable American optimism that blinded you? This is the recurring question!

The other sad fact, which these Wisconsin voters have only slowly awakened to, is that Ryan's so-called "Path to Prosperity" makes NO demands on the wealthiest 1% (why economist Krugman calls it more "voodoo economics" based on supply side hooey that cutting taxes lowers deficits) and no demands on the Pentagon - now sucking up nearly 58 cents of every dollar spent annually. In other words, this rascal full well knows in his black heart that he is piling all the financial burdens onto the backs of the elderly and most vulnerable poor. Does he care? Hell no!

But Democrats, whose primary programs Ryan plans to eviscerate, have to care! Which is why they need to bring the biggest weapons to the fight this time, not mere sling shots!

Please Tell Me That Seniors Can't Be THIS Dumb!

WHY are these seniors fawning over Paul Ryan when his budget - if passed in a Romney adminstration- will send most to the proverbial poorhouse? (Or at least dumpster diving).

Okay, let me clarify that: By seniors I mean those over 59 and to about age 70, who assorted stats disclose are leaning ever more heavily GOP. Are you effing kidding me? What's in their brains, or is it early dementia? On the other hand, the older - much older- Depression era seniors like my 90-year old mom get it. They came up under the Great Depression, saw the breadlines first hand and know what a difference FDR meant.....which was why so many of them broke down like babies and cried when he died.

These seniors lean heavily Democratic by almost 2:1 and with good reason! They've been under no illusions, thanks to their Depression-era experience, that individuals can do everything for themselves. They know, at critical junctures, government must step in to assist the most pummeled and vulnerable....not simply toss them to the wolves or yelp to "pick yourself up by your own shoe strings!" Yeah.....what if they have no shoes, far less 'strings'!

But when large subsets emerge that have never fallen on hard times, especially individuals, it is too easy to become smug and complacent. Their motto is "Hey, I got MINE (e.g. health care) adding.... 'Fuck you, and get your own! Don't ask me to spend my tax dollars on YOU!'

The hard thing is that more seniors in the above -named age group, including baby boomers, appear to be falling into this trap. Why, I have no idea! According to an analysis by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, it concluded that the "over 65 set is now more conservative on social issues, angrier about the direction of the country and uneasy about the growth of diversity in the U.S." - say compared to the younger demographic. (WSJ, April 9, p. A4)

What these conclusions also telegraph to me is that most of the respondents are likely white and entitled, and safely ensconced in their gated villages or communities and.....like the infamous George Zimmerman - plausibly cowering every time a kid of color walks by ....if they see any at all. I mean "uneasy about the growth of diversity"? You have to be kidding!

Further stats disclose that "seniors favored John McCain in 2008 by 53% to 47% over Obama".(ibid.)

What's mystifying in the latter case, is that by favoring McCain (72 at the time) these seniors also would have favored his running mate - a know-nothing airhead from Wasilla, AK who couldn't even name one newspaper she read regularly in an interview with Katie Couric, and who believed Vladimir Putin sometimes "intruded over Alaskan airspace"! And this was the person they wanted merely three heartbeats from the 'football' with the missile codes?

What is it these seniors don't get?

Moreover, why (as in the photo shown) are they cozying up to a guy like Paul Ryan, whose budget will effectively toss all of them - especially the younger ones - into a kind of senior "hunger games".

Do these smiling fools think that if they're given a "voucher" for $5,000 or $10,000 they will be able to buy their health insurance on their own? I have news for them: they're dreaming! I saw that when, as a healthy 62-year old, I attempted to buy my own and was told that the only insurance available was a high-deductible plan for $15,000 /yr. Oh, and you had to cough up the first $5,000.

In the case of Medicare vouchers, the so-called "premium support" can be totally exhausted merely by premium payments (currently $100/month for standard Medicare, but more than $180/mo. for private plans). Add in a needed operation, say for a hip replacement surgery (after a fall) and the senior has not only exhausted his or her voucher, but ends up in debt (on account of having to likely use a credit card or loan to cover the cost of the operation since Ryan's meager voucher won't. Meanwhile, standard Medicare covers 80% of an operation's cost).

If seniors want a Romney-Ryan ticket, are they also prepared to have their Social Security privatized? Will they be deliriously happy living off of peanuts if the privatized version of Social security experiences losses in either equities, or bond funds? (Often loaded with "toxic assets" as observed by the author of 'License to Steal'.)

Bear in mind that Romney, given he's planning to bring on tax cut specialist Glenn Hubbard (doyen of the Bush Tax cuts that increased our deficits by nearly 30% over 10 yrs.) will likely also go with Bush's Social Security Privatization plan, patterned after the Chilean pension privatization scheme of CATO Institute's Jose Pinera. That scheme was implemented because it was realized the Chilean gov't had inadequate monies to pay out safe, secure pensions so had no choice but to tie them to the phantom money of the Chilean stock market. Pinera also tried to foist the plan on New Zealand, but that nation - after running the numbers and seeing how it would impoverish their elderly -said an emphatic 'No!'.

At root, the plan allows only a minimal monthly payout if any investments lose beyond a threshold level, of about 3%. Below that, and the recipient (likely the millions of seniors that are agog at voting in Romney because they are "reassured by his reputation for pragmatic competence" (ibid.) will get only about $400 a month. This was decided as the "baseline" level allowed under the Bush-CATO Pinera scheme.

Now, how many seniors really believe they can live on a $400 pittance, while also receiving only about $10,000 /yr. (if lucky) to pay for all their medical costs? If they believe they can, or have enough extra money to cover costs, then they shouldn't be out and about at political events but strapped into a firm seat in an appropriate institution with thorazine as their main supplement .

Are they even grounded remotely in reality that they'd so carelessly toss their future and that of millions of others to the four winds? Evidently for too many older Americans, added age doesn't necessarily mean more wisdom!

The Ryan Budget: A Blueprint to Destroy This Country

Ryan and his latest budget incarnation, recently proposed. His plan will surely destroy what's left of this country!

As ever more security nets become more entrenched and widespread in our land, to attempt to expose them thar t'errists (including a new NSA 'Cloud' center costing $2b to be located at Bluffdale, UT with one million square feet devoted to parsing all your blogs, googling, emails, phone calls etc. - see 'The Black Box' by James Bamford, in WIRED, April, 2012, p. 78) there are more sinister deficit-austerity terrorists afoot on whom no spotlight is trained but whose strategies - if ever implemented- will render this nation as destroyed as any robed lunatics might attempt to do.

I am referring, of course, to congressman Paul Ryan, who evidently has now revived his insane budget and put it on steroids. According to a Wall Street Journal article ('Ryan Plan Revives Deficit Duel', March 21, p. A5):

"Ryan said his plan would put the U.S. on a sound economic path by spending $5.3 trillion less than Mr. Obama recommends over ten years, resulting in budget deficits that would be $3.3 trillion lower."

But this is absolute, patently insane bollocks and bullshit because his plan, like the previous incarnation, does NOTHING to increase revenues, and everything to increase future debt on generations yet unborn. In effect, he not only keeps the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, but doubles down by lowering their top marginal tax rates to 25% from the current 33.5% (and 39.5% from the Clinton years when the last steady run of 20 million jobs were created.) Thus, if we now know that the effect of the Bush tax cuts over ten years were a solid $2.7 trillion lost in revenues, one can project at least $5 trillion lost by Ryan extending an even more vicious and imbalanced variant.

Thus, in order to come up with being $5.3 trillion in the black, as opposed to $5 trillion in the red, he'd have to slice every and anything - from Medicaid, to Medicare, to Social Security, and all "formula- based mandatory programs" - from agriculture to transportation to allowing even more infrastructure such as bridges, roads, water mains and sewer lines to come a cropper.

Are Americans really prepared to live in a Third World Banana Republic? Because this is what happens if this moron's budget ever gets passed. (Not that it will this year, but the main Gooper candidate Romney appears quite enthralled with it).

The most disgustingly anti-American aspect is how this vile budget spits on the vulnerable and poor, for example, leaving Medicare as basically only a shell of itself with mainly the sick and the poor in the government operated program, while private insurers rush to cover the wealthiest in semi-Cadillac . private plans. Is this what our nation is based on - growing even more inequality?

People on Medicaid, such as families with severely disabled kids, or with autism and MS would essentially be kicked to the curb and be at the mercy of charities. Ryan, like Romney, wants to gut this program and cap limited grants to the states.

Ryan's other budget plan aspects, according to the article, include:

- Eliminating all deductions for home mortgages as well as for dependent children

- Eliminating all deductions made for any charitable contributions, so people that need to turn to charities after he kills Medicaid will now see their hands doubly tied.

- No further deductions for state and local taxes, or property taxes

- Terminating all employer -based health care plans so workers will have to find a high deductible plan on their own..

Well, good luck with that, pallies!

Meanwhile, the richest fuckers will all be laughing their asses off as they cart even more shit loads of money to their respective banks or into their rentier accounts. Oh, they might have pity on some of us drones and hire us as their servants or yard slaves, who knows? They might even, in that employment scenario, help pay for a bit of health care after people collapse from laundering their clothes for 12 hours a day, or weeding the dandelions from their 15 acre yards.

Yes, there are debt-austerity terrorists, and Ryan is one. People determined to sink us into such a morass of debt and despair that the only "solution" will be to cut the entire basis of our civilization from out under our feet. And btw, I'm ashamed to admit this turd even comes from the same state, Wisconsin, that I do.

If you dispute it, check out the graphs attached comparing what Ryan's budget will realistically do, in terms of its total costs the next two years, and Obama's current policy trajectory including the implementation of his Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (Hint to Dems: Get out the old TV ads with a Paul Ryan actor lookalike pushing multiple grannies off steep cliffs (you can even use cgi effects to insert hundreds of grannies being pushed off!))

Maybe the NSA ought to spend more of its time training its electronic snooper eyes and ears on these terrorist Repukes as opposed to the amorous phone calls between ordinary average Americans!

"Premium Support" Medicare: Still A Terrible Idea!

The fell plan for Medicare that we thought had long since been interred, evidently is still alive and well. That is, the "premiumn support" Paul Ryan plan for Medicare. According to Fred Barnes WSJ op-ed piece today ('Ryan's Medicare Revolution') we are on the cusp of a change in Medicare which both parties will have no option other than to agree with....given soaring budget deficits (most, I remind readers, traced to wars of choice and a decade plus of unpaid for tax cuts, mainly benefiting the wealthy).

Barnes also gets his facts wrong when he writes:

"The revolution involves Medicare, the health care program for the elderly and the single biggest cause of America's looming debt crisis..."

In fact, it is not Medicare which is the "single biggest cause of the debt crisis" but the combination of ten years of useless, costly and unwinnable military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan - which have already gobbled up over $2.9 trillion combined, and 10-plus years of unjustified tax cuts. Those latter have now taken out nearly $3.6 trillion from revenues and hence, with the military overstretch, created a deficit hole nearly $6.5 trillion wide. And yet, Medicare, in which beneficiaries must pay nearly $1500 a year in premiums plus 80% of all co pays, gets the blame!

Why? Because for knuckle dragging economic Neandertals it's the most convenient way to try to justify taking a sledge hammer to the program.

How does premium support work? Barnes again:

"Beginning in 2022, it would create a marketplace in which seniors have a fixed amount of money to buy health insurance. The amount of 'support' would match the price of the insurance premium."

Is he for real? What kind of a "marketplace" does he think will be created to attend to the medical needs of the mostly sick or infirmity -ridden elderly, who typically have 80-90% more medical demands and needs than the 24-44 year olds?

First, NO health insurance companies are going to compete for senior health care! They only do it now because the Medicare Advantage plans are paid more for their services than the government pays in standard Medicare. Hence, contributing to the standard program’s insolvency (by an excess $12 billion a year according to the GAO).

Barnes is also dishonest about claiming that premium support "matches" insurance pricing! Let us bear in mind here the maximum "premium support" ever suggested for this absurd program has been $15,000/yr. But the current average senior in Medicare requires support (or if you want, assistance) in the vicinity of $30,000/yr and much more post-86 years of age. This means that at the level of only $1,250 a month, most seniors - unless spectacularly healthy - won't get much help.

Let us assume an elderly woman requires hip replacement surgery at an on-paper cost of $30,000. Today, Medicare - standard Medicare, will pay 80% of that or $24,000, leaving her with $6,000 to pay on her own. A goodly amount, but not insuperable. In premium support at the maximum level, however, the woman would use ALL her allottment for one operation and still have $15,000 left to pay, and no more "premium support" for any other needs that may arise.

Worse, why compete for a pool of citizens which is basically going to be sickly most of the time? This is self-evident. Even now health insurance companies factor in the medical loss ratio (the ratio of unhealthy subscribers to the healthy ones that support them via fees, costs) as the most important in getting continued profits. That means they already know that any private plans for seniors on the open market would have vast medical loss ratios meaning the proportion of insurers' profits would be next to nil. Thus, seniors will clearly be shut out, translating to a no win situation for them. (No Medicare, and no private insurer to take them)

Secondly, competition per se doesn’t mean prices coming down. This is a myth that capitalists repeat over and over but there’s precious little evidence to support it. See all those gas stations out there competing with each other, ostensibly? You see any of them lowering their prices significantly more than any others in their vicinity? I don’t! The reason the gas prices stay high is because speculators hidden in their green eyeshades are making bets that oil prices will rise and so they do!

In the same way, look for medical insurance futures to be the next big thing by 2022 so "medical traders" will be speculating on how much inflations sends hip replacement or other operations soaring. Think medical costs are high now? Wait until after the GOP gets in again, assuming they do, and they implement "medical futures markets"! As a recent TIME columnist pointed out (‘The Market Can’t Cure Medicare’, May 2, 2011): “Nowhere in Adam Smith’s rule book does it say prices have to come down every time competitors show up”.


Thus it is egregious nonsense for Barnes to claim "the cost of Medicare will be capped with premium support".

No it won't. What will be "capped" is elderly access to any health care, period. We will then be back to the days...the harsh and savage era....before Medicare, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/05/pre-medicare-era-nasty-brutish-and.html

As Economics Professor Fiona Scott Morton aptly put it (ibid.) Ryan’s plan, and indeed any such premium support plan, is merely a demand shedding plan. As she puts it, “there’s no evidence many companies will be rushing in to provide health coverage to ailing boomers with competition that ought to lower any premiums"

BINGO!

She added:

"The Republican plan is not solving the problem. It’s solving the problem of the cost of government health care. You have people who can’t afford it and they’ll just die. Economists call that demand shedding”.

Thus the “Medicare revolution” proffered by Barnes and Ryan is NOT to engender market competition to "lower health premiums for seniors", but to shed market demand (by seniors) so they'll be unable to enter or access any private health care, period. And since no government help or insurance will be available (other than a meager voucher to try and purchase private insurance in an open market with seniors the only and largest risk pool) the senior will have no choice but to die.

Thus, we have a death policy and there's no gaming it with euphemisms or trying to put any lipstick on this pig.

Apart from that, we know health isn’t like buying a car, or i-pad or TV. The elements of objective and cool rational choice aren’t available mainly because the time when people most need health care is when their lives may be on the line: after a serious auto accident or fall, or appendicitis, or contracting pneumonia. Then, they simply need care and cost may not factor into it given that we know costs vary across large geographical regions, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-cant-colorado-follow-grand-junction.html

As shown in that blog, there is a way to control medical costs, but it doesn't depend on "premium support". It requires a provider network than mandates FIXED pricing for each procedure irrespective of what insurance vehicle one has....or doesn't. In this way, the delivery of care is rendered uniform without wild variations in costs, and in addition, costs can be controlled - especially as unnecessary procedures.

It is based on the compendium of cost-saving data cost-saving was highlighted in The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care . The accumulated data - extracted from billing records compiled from hospitals across the nation, discovered variations from one town to the next in the treatment of the same ailment. This led to massive variation in the cost of treating the same ailment. As a result, some U.S. localities (like Miami) spend $17,000 per year on the average Medicare patient, while others (in Grand Junction, CO) spend less than $7,000 per year with results that are just as good.

All of this was highlighted in a recent PBS program:

http://video.pbs.org/video/2198039605/

In the specific type of system portrayed in Grand Junction, seniors - the elderly - would receive great care and at an economic cost without having to gamble they will be turned down in a premium support market.

It's eminently simple...IF you're out to serve people and not merely rake in profits!