pundit27's Comments (77)

“No, actually the only death panels in America that are working at this very moment are run by private insurance companies under the name of Medical Loss Boards, those committees that decide when to rescind already paid-for insurance among the very ill or when to deny any service due to a previously diagnosed condition.
Actually, a new public option can be written into law without much fuss: just reduce eligibility for Medicare by five years every three years so that in 12 years everyone in the country over 45 will be eligible, thus allowing private insurance companies, operating under new anti-recision and -previous condition regs, to insure the people they want to insure: the younger and healthier among us. I believe this is a simple, win-win solution.”

“Please, i have more freedom of choice under Medicare than I did with my private insurer. And as for "death panels," the only bodies that actually do make life and death decisions on seniors and others are private insurers' coverage panels. What do you think recision practices and exclusionary pre-existing condition policies are all about? I knew the American people were gullible, but I never thought of them as being so widespread ignorant as during this so-called health care reform debate. Maybe it's partially the media's fault, but a large heap of blame has to go to the Obama administration, which seems to have confused a sensible policy process/political approach -- letting Congress develop the legislation -- with a necessary public awareness/education campaign, which has been largely non-existent since the beginning of the reform process.”

“wrong . . . corporatism, i.e. capitalism without meaningful regulation, drives the boat . . . .”

“Of course they're looking the other way -- taxpayers just vote, but banks and their lobbyists pay for the privilege of lax or totally lacking regulation. It's the American way.”

“Yes, forget Obama's conceit that he is tough because he's from Chicago. At heart, and this is why the birthers are so off-base and he doesn't need a birth certificate to prove it, he is most definitely from Hawaii. It is his manifestly lived Aloha Spirit that, I am convinced, so befuddles brilliant intellects from New Haven, Cambridge and points east. Hawaii and Chicago, a unique presidential mashup of influences that will likely stick in the craw of professional oval office observers for the foreseeable future.”

“1) Obama is not overexposed, but his messaging leadership is sorely lacking. Where are his lieutenants putting out the major talking points on health care (insurance) reform? What are those major talking points? WE just need four to six to be able to repeat ourselves, but Obama has been shown to be a poor leader in this regard.
2) RE: health care costs, my favorite stat is this: 80% of our health care spending goes toward treating people in their last two years of life. One of the secrets to humungous health insurance profits is this fact; they will rarely deny coverage to an elder in need of treatment -- surgical, medicinal or testing, for that person will likely be a wasted life (no longer alive) before too long and they must be kept alive to obtain last premiums and to give providers last reimbursements. However, a younger person who could be almost guaranteed a long life if given on extraordinarily expensive treatment will often face recision or cancellation simply because they do not pencil out as ultimately a profitable life for an insurance company. In short, what we need is health insurance reform; with effective legislation to curb such invidious demographic discrimination, health care costs would plummet.”

“True, but in this particular case, Obama committed a cardinal sin of public affairs messaging: he stepped on his own critical arguments. Not only was his health care messaging performance pitifully inadequate, he then compounded the problem by being overly provocative on the Gates arrest. For such an adept communicator to do this, it may well have been that BHO was fully aware of how badly he had fallen short in giving the public the four to seven points -- the maximum number of discreet assertions that so-called top tier messaging should ever cover -- on why health care reform is necessary, why his administration's approach is the correct one and what the financial impacts will be for our economy and individual families. Obama's lackluster performance may have been the first time in his six-month presidency where the President's messaging "meism" has undercut his aspirations rather than advance them. What are those four to seven points that EVERYONE in the administration and on its side in Congress are repeating daily to sell this initiative? When people like Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi are apparently blithely allowed to wander off the messaging reservation, you don't have to speculate about Presidential weakness, it is clearly manifested. Time for some very strong internal discipline or this baby will be drowned in six inches of political swampwater.”

“sorry, carefulskeptic, that b.s. just doesn't come close to refuting either the central or supportive points of UberReaganite, who was actually spot on in his analysis . . . .”

“Exactly. The systemic criminals, ie high government/FED officials, goldman sachs executives, citibank and b of a bosses, etc. have transferred trillions of dollars from public accounts to private enterprises. Remember everyone worrying about Obama redistributing the wealth - Ha! - the exact opposite, in astronomical amounts, has occurred that dwarfs whatever Obama had in mind or that Madoff pulled off. The American taxpayer has been had, totally, and our Senators and Congressmen hardly flinch.
What a charade we've been living through! It makes you want to puke.”

“Ditto. When I heard David Axelrod express the same sentiment as right-wing ire rose over closing Guantanamo a few weeks ago, I almost gagged. What is this, a gentler, kinder Bush-Cheney? It is NOT the duty or first responsibility of the President to keep us safe; OMG, where did that come from if not constitutionally ignorant Bush. Constitutional professor Obama has to get off this tact immediately. I, and millions more, voted for him to specifically repudiate that politically expedient, transparently manipulative construct. I don't want him waking up and first thinking about keeping us safe! Good gracious, Mr. President, gets some balls and speak truth to Cheney and the other fear mongers.”

“Exactly, what I read. Ben, could you please explain this apparent contradiction.”

“Reasonable? How can Elliott say the stress tests are comprehensive if they exclude factoring in the $50 trillion-plus derivatives hole? And how can he say they are consistent if individual banks valuation systems still guide each bank's results? Maybe I'm getting my information wrong from some media sources, but if that is the case why is the communication of these stress tests' parameters, procedures and outcomes being left so vague by Treasury?”

“Unfortunately, the personal likes and dislikes of individual audience members have nothing to do with network decisions about on-air talent. Coming Soon: a tech solution that will enable individual viewers to get their talking heads from virtually whomever they want.”

“actually, twitter reminds me of video press releases in the 80s, a new, shiny tool that uses a relatively new technology to incrementally update a more mature function for commercial communication -- but likely nothing more. . . .”

“Right. . break 'em up and bring back Glass-Steagall . . .”

“Qs for Mr. G
1. Why has the government chosen not to comply with the Prompt Corrective Action provisions of the FDIC Improvement Act of 1993? Should not at least the banking divisions of the large American financial holding companies be forced to show 2% tangible capital?
2. If, as the President says, the stress tests are being conducted so that we can determine which banks will "require taxpayer assistance," what are the underlying philosophical, constitutional, or statutory bases upon which the presumption is made that banks deserve or have a right to taxpayer assistance?
3. What is the risk in allowing bank bondholders to take the loss for their worthless assets v. forcing it on the taxpayer?
4. Haven't you and the President failed to faithfully execute the laws in regard to the banking industry by circumventing their express requirements with a new program?”

“At this point, yes, there is no question that he is obstructing justice.”

“The problem is the pattern. So far, on two of the most major issues of the day -- banking restructuring and torture -- he has chosen the expedient way, not the principled one. Unfortunately, he does have other fish to fry -- and the indications so far are clearly that consensus and compromise are paramount -- even over principles that he supposedly holds dearly. What happens to health care reform and new energy initiatives with this kind of weak leader? Likely some watered down legislation, like the stimulus bill, that goes about, say, a third of the way, toward fixing any one problem.
Thus far, he has shown he can handle the ball and hit the occasional outside shot -- but where is his inside game, where's the grit, the fight? He is rapidly losing major parts of his base, regardless of the endless flow of emails. VERY disappointing.”

“right, they obviously used the wrong defense, which allowed the prosecution to get murder 2. . . spector over his life was repeatedly criminally negligent with his use of guns to assert control over others -- women or men, not just women who were spurning him . . . if his defense had been honest and not tried to blame the shooting on clarkson, he'd be facing several years for involuntary manslaughter but not a life term . . . .”

“Yes, it's "whatever happened to Kansas" writ wide and very shallow . . . .”

“Yes, Black is not the only one who has noted this. Clearly, Treasury, with Obama's permission, has chosen to ignore this explicit statute that is aimed precisely at this kind of situation. It's very much akin to Bush's decision to circumvent FISA. Obama has apparently bought the arguments that 1) PCAL does not apply to the global financial holding companies, and/or 2) current circumstances are such that the government is not capable of taking the mandated actions. If Obama's failure to follow this law eventually is seen as a primary reason for a new banking meltdown, will he be seen to have committed an impeachable offense? When does a manifest failure to faithfully execute the laws of the land become permissible under a perceived pragmatism defense? And why, apparently, must presidents seek not to test the inherent pragmatism of the applicable laws as written?”

“Yes, which is why employing substantial portions of our offshore Exclusive Economic Zone (200 miles out to sea from our coastlines, an area the size of Europe) for alternative energy development is so important. We have five regions of offshore EEZ to manage: East Coast, Gulf Coast, West Coast, Alaska and Pacific Islands. To date, though the developmen­t/protecti­on actions have been ad hoc, we have been fortunate to have not overreached. The Gulf Coast EEZ currently has about 4,000 oil/gas platforms at work and numerous leases to be developed, The Hawaiian and Pacific Isles' EEZ was wisely protected by the Bush Administration, with the world's largest marine sanctuary being one result. Our focus now must be the East and West Coasts and Alaska. The two former regions need comprehensive, holistic plans developed to try to reverse the worst two trends of the last 50 years -- overfishing and plastic pollution -- and move forward with a powerful mix of sustainable energy, water, food and transportation projects. The Alaska EEZ's southern portion could be key in delivering Alaskan natural gas stores to the lower 48, obviating the need to run a pipeline across Canada and instead only needing that country's agreement to use a tiny portion of its EEZ to allow the gas to be easily deliverable. Like Redford's point on mapping those federal land areas we can use for energy development, Salazar and Chu will have to look carefully at where the EEZ can best help our future.”

“Right, the whole point of their plan is to let the major actors game the system because that is essential when you are dealing with worthless paper. These naked credit default swaps are actions not assets, huge wagers on the movements of certain indices by fractions of a point. So to revive that market you have to support the delusion of value that is created by the number and speed of trades. As things stand currently, our government has given us no choice but to root for the trillion dollar games to continue, so, yes, in the long run it may actually be to the average taxpayer's advantage to pay up up front, so that housing bubble can be reinflated.”

“ms. pettifor, thou hast doth proscribeth too much: verdant greenery! excellent post. it suggests that this crisis may be more opportunity than danger, that truly "wise" parents will know that the power of parallel solutions is the way to go -- strong, new regulation, including a UN-based global financial watchdog that will pacify Sarko and give PrezO some more maneuvering room, and substantial stimulation, which will depend on PrezO leading mummy merkel out of the dark; evidently she is still trying to wash off the truly
creepy backrub she got from W. and, worse, what it said to her about American style in general; and now when we really need her to cooperate, she views the US as a big game of Hustle and Flow . . . . tant pis pour nous . . . .”

“they are not toxic or garbage -- they are literally nothing.”