Every morning during the local TeeWee news, we're being inundated with political commercials to the point that I'm not certain that there are any car dealers or mattress joints still in business, and I'm noticing a pattern: Only one side is mentioning Obamacare.
Every single commercial for a GOP candidate, from Romney on down to the county dogcatcher, is hanging Obamacare on their opponent in a tone of voice that makes it sound like the next thing to eating babies for breakfast.
Conversely, not even André Carson, holder of an hereditary sinecure in the Bluest district in Indiana south of the Chicago 'burbs, is coming out and saying "...and I voted for Obamacare!" in commercials otherwise gloatingly touting his Bolshevist voting record in Congress since he took the seat over from the embalmed corpse of his grandma.
It's almost like it's not polling well or something...
EDIT: Come to think of it, every GOP ad associates their opponent with Obama or the "Obama/Pelosi gang", or similar. For instance, nearly every ad for Mourdock pictures Donnelly with Obama, but not a single Donnelly ad does. Come to think of it, no Democrat ads I've seen for down-ballot candidates even mention the president. Hmmmm...
I thought you'd be debunking the President's debate claim that we had fewer bayonets in inventory than we did in 1916...
ReplyDeleteUm...do you mean Donnelly, or is this some new version of the famous Tam-snark I'm unfamiliar with?
ReplyDeleteAbout the same here now that you mention it. Not that I pay that close attention to the mudslinging, but I think you're right about who's mentioning what. Which is interesting....
ReplyDeleteLeaves you to wonder if the University of Colorado Presidential polls are indeed accurate.
ReplyDeleteMethinks the other side will have to find a lot of vampires.
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/22/vote-fraud-alert-obama-scores-big-among-north-carolina-vampires/
"...that I'm not certain that there are any car dealers or mattress joints still in business"
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that was a throwaway line but, damn, it was funny.
the_gripping_hand,
ReplyDelete"Um...do you mean Donnelly..."
Well, that's what my brain told my fingers to type, at least. :o
Here in the I-4 corridor I've noticed, that all of the adds, for the person presently sitting in the Presidential chair, are firmly aimed at exciting his base, whereas the adds, for the person seeking the Presidential chair, are largely aimed at attracting undecided, and poaching, votes from the other side.
ReplyDeleteGee, it's almost as if the MSM's narrative that "The President is still very popular" is all a bunch of bulls**t.
ReplyDeleteDon't watch what they say; watch what they DO. That will tell you what they believe.
Last election I let the President buy me a vacation via Paddy Power.
ReplyDeleteThis year I'm not so sure he's a safe bet.
While I would prefer that the election fell on April 15th, this might be worse timing for Obamacare.
ReplyDeleteOpen enrollment just started at my company. We got lots of e-mails to the effect of "Gee sorry, your HMO plan is no longer offered and the others are way more expensive this year..." They don't explicitly blame Obamacare, but they drop a lot of hints.
I bet there is a whole lot of that going on right now.
I actually tried to look the bayonet thing up.
ReplyDeleteWe still issue the M9 even if we're not training to use them. About a million soldiers and most of them have a rifle... So, that's a lot of bayonets.
In 1914, there were about 98,000 soldiers, and by 1918 there were around 4,000,000. So, sure there are fewer bayonets than in 1916.
Also interesting was that we put 4,000,000 people into the Army for WW1 with a population of around 100 million. Now we're far more committed internationally and have about 1.5 million total including the other services and a population of 300 million.
Same thing with the ads here in BuckeyeLand.
ReplyDeleteAngus, keep in mind that in 1916 it took less support per person at the front line than is does now too. I would imagine a significant number of those four million were front line troops, while in today's Army you have lawyers, EEO officers, spousal support sections, motor pool warrant officers, etc. etc.
ReplyDeleteIt's not the MI, that's for sure.
And what poor bastard drew the short straw to run against Carson this time?
ReplyDeleteIt's the same EVERYWHERE Tam... And yeah, the ads have taken over... Sigh...
ReplyDeleteI've noted similar happenings in Wyoming.
ReplyDeleteYard signs for Republican candidates either have the word "Republican", or the GOP elephant displayed.
The Democrat's signs are all tastefully well done, and very nice, but they are all mysteriously missing the word "Democrat".
Hum? What's the opposite of "riding his coat-tails?"
ReplyDelete@Stretch - trying to stay upwind of him?
ReplyDeleteCar dealers? Obama's "Trash the clunkers" burned up the motors and took care of them. Mattress dealers? That special "Do Not Remove" tag on the mattress - DHS and Sister Neapolitano took care of all those guys.
ReplyDeleteAround here cars with "Republican" stickers get keyed by those nice and tolerant Democrat and Teachers.
Dumbass socialist Hollyweird guru-director Robert Altman had Lieutenant Hanley (and all the rest) running around with fixed bayonets on episodes that he directed of Combat! "Naturalistic"?? Bull - what's left of my opinion of him sinks lower each day.
For a while I've been wondering if Romney will have coat tails in the down-ballot races. I'm beginning to think that the answer is "no".
ReplyDeleteHowever, Obama seems to have huge "negative coat tails" in those races.
I saw some signs in Anderson that are Red, but are for Democrats.
ReplyDeleteFor that matter, most Democrat signs I've seen don't even mention that they are Democrats.
ReplyDeleteM'Thag and Woodman, you're both way wrong. The surge in Army strength didn't happen until 1917. Authorized strength, including non-active components, was well below 300,000 in 1916, even with the border campaign.
ReplyDeleteBy any measure, far more bayonets that year than today.
Oops, today than in that year.
ReplyDeleteAnd in Tennessee, Democrats stopped putting their party affiliation on signs about 1976...
ReplyDeleteAnd, we've got three different generations of bayonet patterns in use right now, all for the same rifles -- the Vietnam era M7 (STILL issued), the Late Cold War M9, and the Marine-only pattern OKC3.
ReplyDeleteWe probably have at least two bayonets for every M16/M4 pattern rifle that can take a bayonet at all, plus at least one bayonet for every previous pattern rifle retained in inventory.
I'm pretty sure that by 1916, the overwhelming majority of the Civil War arsenal had been sold civilian side, exported overseas, or given to the individual states by then, along with their accoutrements.
So, yeah, we have more bayonets in US Army inventory now than we had in 1916. Definately more, if you count ARNG (which are, after all, legally and organizationally part of the US Army -- they are only "state militia" if POTUS doesn't want them right at that moment.)
The state militias other than the ARNG still exist. The organized militia includes the National Guard which can be Federalized and state guards or defense forces that cannot be Federalized. The reserve militia or unorganized militia is every other adult male that it not a member of the organized militia:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
http://statedefenseforce.com/database/joining-the-sdf/
http://www.telegram.com/article/20110601/NEWS/106019919/-1/NEWS07#.UIcPV8XA9sk
Ed: Well we're certainly not organized in any meaningful sense of the word, so there's that. :)
ReplyDeleteOpen enrollment just started at my company. We got lots of e-mails to the effect of "Gee sorry, your HMO plan is no longer offered and the others are way more expensive this year..." They don't explicitly blame Obamacare, but they drop a lot of hints.
ReplyDeleteI bet there is a whole lot of that going on right now.
Place where my wife works dropped their old plan and replaced it with something that costs us about 50% more. Place where I work is also changing plans, though I don't know what the difference is as I wasn't on the old one. We've decided to just stick with Tricare for the coming year....
For those of us watching the US electioneering from a distance, it appears to be the longest play ever to run in the theatre of the absurd. It appears to be a phantasy which sadly lacks a continuity person.
ReplyDeleteWe watch in wonder as the two remaing protagonists fight it out over health care with the guy who implemented universal health care in the state he governed decrying the incumbents introduction of an almost identical scheme for the country. And neither mention the elephant in the room - the fact that the US pays almost twice as much for health care as do those in civilized nations which also offer universal coverage and which achieve better health outcomes.
At any rate, the best show since "Shock and Awe": Baghdad. With a bit of luck the election will be followed by "Shock and Awe": Tehran.
Mike from Oz
Mike
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to compare the 'massaged' costs of countrywide expenditures on healthcare, but what about individually?
As a working (in the NHS) resident in the cradle of 'universal healthcare', these are what I pay.
I entered the workforce in 1982, National insurance payments as a percentage of gross income were:
1981 - 1982 8.75%
1982 - 1989 9.00%
1989 - 1994 9.00%
1995 - 1999 10.00%
1999 - 2003 10.00%
2003 - 2011 11.00%
2011 - 2013 12.00%
In all that time my entire costs were for 8 stitches to a head wound (no x-ray or follow-up, thank you drunken patient who hit me with a chair from behind), and one knee injury (one x-ray, one consultant appointment for which I waited 8 1/2 months , one prescription for topical medication which I must pay for in full).
So? Compare and contrast just what my costs in both systems would have been (not to even consider the levels or quality of treatment).
Socialised medicine is only good for those who either can't or won't contribute. Yes, there are countries that do it better than here (eg. France) but on the whole it comes down to 'do you wish the responsibility and choice' and 'do you want to force everybody to pay for someone elses healthcare'.
Calculate at those rates how much you would have paid, and then say it's a good deal!
Mike from Oz:
ReplyDeleteFour percent of taxes taken in in your country go into your nationalized healthcare system.
That is quite a chunk of change.
Add to that the fact that 44% of all Australians are willing to cough up a 1.5% tax surcharge in order to have private healthcare and private insurance, and stay the hell out of government run medical facilities.
I work in the health benefits administration industry. The instant Obamacare hit dozens of our clients dropped their benefits, since their plans were now illegal. Thousands of people went without insurance due to the decision that a low lifetime maximum plan was worse than no plan.
ReplyDeleteEach change that came down the pipe cost 1-2% to implement. And the beautiful thing about things like the birth control coverage is that the insurer, which in my business is the employer, has to take into account the fact that if you blanket cover "contraception" then it's unlikely that women will continue to pick the cheapest options.
"Come to think of it, no Democrat ads I've seen for down-ballot candidates even mention the president. "
ReplyDeleteOf course not. No Senator back when B. Hussein won (bought?) his Senate seat wanted to work with Obama. Then ACORN put him into the White House -- and even more people won't work with "cannot wait for Congress" President Obama.
And don't count ACORN out of this election; they kept their Congressional funding after the public hullabaloo about de-funding them, then went further underground with the connivance of the Dept of Just-us.
Romney may not have much more going for him than, "Hey, I ain't from Kenya, and I ain't Obama", but the people surrounding Romney were raised American, and some of them learned to live *with* the limits of the US Constitution.
Ed, I'm aware that state militias (even organized state militias, AKA "X State Defense Force") exist, seperate from the ARNG.
ReplyDeleteMy point was simply that, under the Total Army organization (set up under federal law), the National Guard is a federal force (albeit, mostly part-time, like the reserves; but trained, equipped, paid, and organized as part of the federal Army) that POTUS allows state governors to borrow (and pay for) when POTUS doesn't want them.
In effect, ARNG/ANG of a state has a parallel (and wholly overlapping) membership -- the Guardsmen are simultaneously federal reservists in federal units, and also state militia in an identically organized state militia force, who are allowed to borrow the federal equipment when carrying out state duties. Which is why USAR and USAFR officers have one commission, but ARNG and ANG officers have two commissions, and can even have different ranks in each organization. (Note -- when Uncle Sam is paying the tab, they are serving in their USAR grade; but if solely on the state's dime, they can serve in their Guard rank, if it's higher. Yes, it does happen -- but I'm only aware of a guy having different Guard/Reserve ranks when the state promotes someone to the rank for which he is on the promtion list for federally already. {grin})
If I put a bayonet on my M-16 imitation AR, will it hurt the rifle if I actually have to stick something with it?
ReplyDeleteWhere's that "butter won't melt in my mouth" smiley?
Hi All,
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify, health care costs in Australia are around 9% of GDP compared to 15% plus in the US. That is total costs; government payments, private insurance company payments, patient "out of pocket" payments etc.
And I'm not talking about socialised medicine. You have socialised medicine in the US, just that, instead of accountable, elected representatives rationing your health care you have faceless men and women driven by the profit motive making your decisions for you and your doctor is answerable to their employer eg HMO rather than to the patient.
In Australia, the government has a social contract with all individuals to pay them a certain amount of money each time they receive a medical service (with a few exceptions like cosmetic surgery) or are prescribed and dispensed a drug from a large and inclusive list.
I can see any doctor I want and go to any hospital I want; the only thing that varies is the amount of money I get paid to reimburse the service cost. Prescriptions are treated in a similar way.
And the good thing is, when a family has a catastrophic event like needing a heart transplant, they do not have to cope with bankruptcy as well as their medical rehab.
Mike in Oz
Mike in Oz,
ReplyDeleteThe entire problem in the US is "HMO's".
Insurance is intended to pay for catastrophic, unplanned occurrences, not headaches and ingrown toenails.
Once you expect a Third Party to pay for every bruise and sniffle, you can count on costs spiralling out of control. Doubly so when there's a very real chance of a malpractice suit if the bruise or cough isn't treated to the non-payer's satisfaction.
The new model is an ACO, where an organization ispaid a fixed amount to keep a group of people healthy and alive. This makes the hospital want to keep people out instead of driving them in. Empty beds would mean money in their pockets, but if they misdiagnosed or screw up, they have to pay to put humpty dumpty together again.
ReplyDeleteWhen its been tried it has worked well. Doctors make house calls to check on people, because keeping on top of eveyones health has been incentivized. Perfect, no... But better than hospitals making a mint because everyone is sick.