When President Obama is re-elected!!

[stefan]

Jim, Lucie broke her foot on one visit to France and had it set at a hospital. We were not entitled to free care, but the hospital (it was in a rural area) couldn't figure out how to charge us and told us just to forget it.

[JimHow]

i see the nasty old white men of the Republican Party are going to go after a black female in her nomination for Secretary of State. Oh that's beautiful. These fools just won't learn. Keep it up boys.

[stefan]

The Repubs just keep shooting themselves in the foot. Obama, being the politician that he is, might nominate Susan even if he prefers another candidate. Perhaps McClain considers an unsuitable candidate and is using Benghazi as an excuse. Is he really that stupid?

[JimHow]

I mean no shit! Are these guys serious?
Let me get this straight.
Younger, attractive black woman, likely to be nominated Secretary of State, attacked by two Republican old nasty white guys. I mean... They're kidding, right?
I love how he called out McCain and Graham by name.
Don't be fooled by this "nice guy" routine by Obama.
The guy is a fucker.
He is ruthless.
The guy is an assassin.
It's like: You wanna come after my girl Susan Rice?
Come get some, mothers.
Let's get it on.

[AlexR]

Jim,

You asked, “So what are the worst things about living in France, Alex?”

Indeed, there is no paradise on earth! Yes, there are things that exasperate me. Cars that park with impunity on the sidewalk, the fact that nearly everything is closed on Sunday, and dealing with the bureaucracy of government agencies are a few things that spring to mind.
I think that the US is better for entrepreneurs, but the reason I stay here is the “quality of life”, which pretty much coincides with my personal preferences and priorities.
There is also a sort of political correctness à la française that can be quite annoying. Example: a transport strike that annoys the hell out of everybody, but we’re “not supposed to” criticize the people who are responsible…
Furthermore, the word chauvinism comes from a Napoleonic general… Both America and France are convinced they have a universal model for other countries around the world to follow… So, there’s a strong streak of nationalism in France that can sometimes be quite annoying. Not just anti-Americanism, mind you, because the Germans are more or less pulling all the strings in the EU now…

You ask “Is there a lot of poverty? Is there a middle class?”.
I guess it all depends on how you define poverty… According to Wiki, 6.1% of the French population is poor (i.e. living with less than half of the median income) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_France. According to the same source, the US poverty rate, which is on the rise, is 15.1%.
So, yes, there is a huge middle class. And, like America, people are shunning manual work and are better educated, so unemployment is a big problem. Unemployment stands at 9.7% in France, vs. 7.8% in the US. Obviously, this does not account for the underemployed and working poor.
You ask” Is there a big gap between the 1% and the middle class?”. According to Wiki, once again, income inequality is 75% greater in the US than in France http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... e_equality

“Do you still have like 6 weeks of vacation?”. The minimum is 5 weeks, and that means starting your first year. I think it’s an excellent idea. It means people can have ambitious personal projects and spend time with their family. It also helps towns in the mountains and seaside resorts that would be empty all year round otherwise.

“How do you get so much vacation if taxes are so high?”. Well, it’s just built into the system.

“Is there Walmartization in France? I.e., is the landscape dotted with downtowns that have been gutted by big corporate retail giants?”
Walmart tried to buy France’s largest retail chain, Carrefour, but they were thwarted by boardroom politics. The French claim that they invented the Walmart-type store, called a hypermarket here. And yes, they are to be found in every city. However, strip malls are far less common.
As for what suburban France looks like, it’s not a heck of a lot different from suburban New Jersey in many places. And with the ugly billboards to match!

“Are pensions safe?”. Yes, they are locked in. Heavy regulation meant that French banks also suffered a lot less from the financial crisis.

“Describe the process involved if, say, you break your wrist slipping on the sidewalk. How do your medical bills get paid, etc.”. There’s a two tier system to some extent. Everyone has basic health care coverage through the social security system (and this is, in effect, entirely free for the poor). But coverage varies in terms of the kind of health care. Most things are reimbursed about 70-80% let’s say. But a large majority people also have a complementary mutual insurance policy through their job which makes up the difference.
What amazes me about the opposition to public health service in the US is that the private system in America is so grossly inefficient and expensive (percentage of GNP spent on health care is greater by leaps and bounds than any other country). What’s the advantage? Liberty? As opposed to the British health care system, let’s say, I can choose which doctor I go to, and can be treated in a private clinic if I so choose. We have liberty here too. And no bullshit about “pre-existing conditions” and the like.
The World Health Organization (UN) voted health care in France the best in the world.

All the best,
Alex R.

[JScott]

Regarding Rice, Obama is clearly trying to have it both ways here. He had his coordinated moment in the second debate where he made it clear he did in fact call it terrorism in the Rose Garden, but now says Rice was sent out after the famous Rose Garden moment "at the request of the WH" and only conveying the best info she had when blaming it all on the video. So did they know it to be false and told her to go say it? Or was his debate moment disingenuous? Also, are we saying here that the push back on Rice is racially motivated, or just is unwise politically?

Regarding French health care, it's all trade offs. The system we're about to embark on may ultimately resemble the French one in some ways, actually, although I suspect the scope and scale here will be an impediment. We'll see whether everyone views it as an improvement. All I can tell you is I have many international neighbors where I live who work for a major multinational company. My former next door neighbors of seven years have returned to Paris. He is a Brit and she is French. Both had miserable experiences seeking treatment within months of their return (one with a sinus infection, the other back trouble) and now both return to the U.S. for their healthcare. Ditto the couple several doors down (also now Parisians) as well as several others. It's hardly a scientific sample, of course, but I've yet to have any of them claim to prefer the French system, after having spent a few years here.

[AlexR]

JScott,

I must adamamently counter, and reject the negative comments your neighors made. I don't know their story, but their experience is certainly at odds with the health care system in this country!!!
An English tradesman is doing some work on my house. Just today at lunch, while sampling the Beaujolais Nouveau, he was saying how much better the health care system is in France compared to England, and obviously much more so in America where his two daughters live.
What we all criticize in the States is not the acutal health care, which is some of the finest in the world. It is the grotesque financing of it all. Both ujnjust and inefficient. Not worthy of a developed country. Not until Obamacare, that is.

Alex R.

[stefan]

I have no idea why McCain considers Rice to be unsuitable, but unless he is a complete idiot it cannot be because of what she said regarding the Benghazi attack. See, for example,

http://washingtonexaminer.com/actually- ... KTzLI45QWo

which includes a video of her statement on one of the Sunday shows. McCain knows that Rice was not in the line of command for embassies and was just reporting on what she was told in briefings.

I guess racism would explain McCain's actions, but that does not look likely to me.

[JimHow]

Gee whiz, we are going to pick our Secretaries of State based on a choice of words on a Sunday morning talk show as a fluid situation was unfolding ? Whether McCain's motives are racist or not, the specter of two ugly old white men going after a younger attractive black woman is going to be an image that the Republicans are going to rue. This will be recognized for what it is: Yet another political attack by the angry right wing establishment against a popular Democratic president. They tried this once by impeaching Bill Clinton for lying about oral sex, and their popularity plummeted while Clinton's soared. Where do you see this going, Scott? Do you think Barack Obama committed high crimes and misdemeanors here? Do you think the House is going to impeach him? Do you think the Demkcratic controlled senate is going to come up with the necessary 67 votes to convict? The Republican Party is dying hard. They are like going through that final paroxysm like when you spray a cockroach with some Raid and it finally dies. The Republican Party is rabid over thus election defeat. It has learned nothing. You know the party is in trouble when Bobby Jindahl is coming across as the voice if reason.

[JScott]

Jim, I don't think this is going to come back to Obama. I do think it will eventually come back to someone, though I personally believe, as I've said, Obama was involved in this to at least some extent. You must admit, as I've outlined above, at the very least he's been dodging around this and not "the most transparent" president in the history of the union. Will it be worth the political capital? Probably not. There are two different arguments here, though. One is pragmatic politics, and the other is truth. I don't believe they have racial motivation in opposing Rice; I believe they oppose her because it's what they do, on both sides. I don't hold Rice responsible, because I believe she said what she was told to say. I hold the White House responsible for making her go out and promulgate a story they knew to be false. What do we call that? If she's been done a disservice, it isn't by those criticizing her; it's by the WH that sent her on this mission. The GOP may well end up the losers here politically, but it's not like they don't have a point.

I have no particular objection to Rice, but neither do I think she's particularly distinguished. She wouldn't be the first non-distinguished cabinet member we've ever had. It wouldn't bother me at all if she got the post. I guess what bothers me a bit is the notion that everything always seems to go to race when there is not a shred of evidence it plays a role. If she was white, Hispanic, Irish or Druid she'd be getting the same treatment. I understand the political calculus you are bringing up, but it's one of the things that comes from the left that I find disappointing, just as there is much from the right that disappoints me. The idea that anyone of color is automatically exempt from the kind of criticism everyone else gets is, in fact, quite racist, and does not promote the ultimate goal of a color blind society.

[Jay Winton]

You know the party is in trouble when Bobby Jindahl is coming across as the voice if reason.

Yep, The GOP will be a Ghost Of a Party if they don't get their act together and that will not benefit the country. The US is at its best with a strong 2 party system that embraces bipartisanship. We're a longgggg way from there. McCain and Obama clearly don't like each other and their words show it.

[AlexR]

JScott,

Please read these links. They are less a matter of opinion than of facts. And they all come from American publications.
I don't think anyone would say Bloomberg was left wing...

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-can ... tem-2011-3

http://www.businessinsider.com/french-h ... tem-2012-7

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/200 ... ealth-care

Alex R.

[JimHow]

Almost everything comes down to race in the USA, Scott, whether it is fair or not. It is part of our DNA. I cringed when I wrote above that this is going to be old white guys versus younger black woman, but, whether it is true or not, that is going to be the spin. I never heard of Susan Rice before all this, I agree, I know nothing about her qualifications. And I agree, the Democrats attack as well when they are in the minority. But in this time and place, the Republicans have been accused of going after women: Whether it is Rush calling the law student a slut, or those crazy rape guys who ran for Senate, or Mr. 53% himself, who wanted to defund Planned Parenthood. And there's a perception out there that white guys in governors mansions tried to suppress black voters in places like Florida, Ohio, etc. Fair or not, there will be a huge racial component if the white men of the U.S. Senate go after the black woman. They'll want to tread very lightly on that one, is all I'm saying.

[JScott]

Jim, all valid points.

Alex, I will try to get to those links. My point is not that the French system is crap or that the only approach is the U.S. one. Those with access and means in the U.S. would not trade this system for any other, and I think it can be said objectively that those people get the very best health care in the world and throughout history. The problem here is access and funding, as you correctly point out. My point is that in order to address those issues, there will necessarily be a trade off. We have had a system that has given 90% of the population the best care available anywhere. We will trade for a system that gives 10% better care than they've had in generations, and 90% care that will be less than they're accustomed to. One can argue whether this is fair/right/desirable/whatever. The public will decide, but from experience I can tell you that everyone will claim they prefer that tradeoff when they're healthy; when they're sick and the care is not what they're used to, they will not likely be as sanguine.

[JScott]

You know the party is in trouble when Bobby Jindahl is coming across as the voice if reason.

Yep, The GOP will be a Ghost Of a Party if they don't get their act together and that will not benefit the country. The US is at its best with a strong 2 party system that embraces bipartisanship. We're a longgggg way from there. McCain and Obama clearly don't like each other and their words show it.

Jay, I think there's exactly zero chance we're going to see that.

[stefan]

>>
I hold the White House responsible for making her go out and promulgate a story they knew to be false.
>>

Oh, did the WH know the story was wrong when Rice gave the interviews? It was pretty stupid of them not to give Rice the correct information.

The left considered it OK to fire all cannons at Clarence Thomas, Scott; this was not racist. They just try to sell that criticism of leftist people of color is racist.

[stefan]

Why do you expect that the 90% (or whatever the right number is) of people will get less good health care under Obamacare, Scott? Why should anything change for people who keep the same kind of insurance they have had?

I did not know that the French system was so similar to the Israeli one, where there is adequate health care for everyone, but additional private insurance allows for improved care (especially, in the case of Israel, faster access).

[Houndsong]

It's true that if there is some Benghazi conspiracy regarding either the attack, the response or the portrayal of it, it will unravel. A corollary to this is that it is as true that the theory that there is a conspiracy will never unravel. Conspiracy theories are immortal. The undead. There's no silver spike that can kill one.

[Jay Winton]

It appears that the states ex. Alabama that resisted planning for the health exchange networks are abdicating responsibility to the government which plans to employ private contractors to perform the work-maybe not 100%, I'm not sure. I see trouble ahead.

[JScott]

>>
I hold the White House responsible for making her go out and promulgate a story they knew to be false.
>>

Oh, did the WH know the story was wrong when Rice gave the interviews? It was pretty stupid of them not to give Rice the correct information.

According to the various statements, this is exactly correct. Obama has labored to make the point that he identified the attack immediately as terrorism in a Rose Garden speech (to which he referred in the second debate). It was the following weekend where they sent Rice out to pitch the story about the film, which is now universally known to be false. The other curious thing about yesterday's presser is that in his defense of Rice, Obama says not to blame her because she wasn't involved, knew nothing about it, and was only relaying info she had been given, presumably from the WH since he says it was they who asked her to go. If she was so removed from the situation (which I believe is accurate) why the hell send her? Why not Hillary, or Panetta or Patreus? She was thrown under the bus, frankly, by some at the WH (doubtfully Obama, probably Axelrod).

The left considered it OK to fire all cannons at Clarence Thomas, Scott; this was not racist. They just try to sell that criticism of leftist people of color is racist.

Well said.

[JScott]

Why do you expect that the 90% (or whatever the right number is) of people will get less good health care under Obamacare, Scott? Why should anything change for people who keep the same kind of insurance they have had?...

Ahh, this is the point. It isn't going to be the same insurance they've had. Many things are about to change. The public will begin to learn about ACO's as those of us in medicine have over the past two years, among many, many other things. There are quite a few new regulations about what is permitted to be performed, how often, by whom, etc.

As I've said before, just look at the global picture here. Four years ago we had 30-40 million people who were mostly either unable to afford insurance or were too sick to be offered it by a private company. On the day we pass ACA, those who couldn't afford it yesterday still can't afford it today, and those who were sick didn't get healthier. Nothing's changed except that there are now an additional 30-40 million people (some of whom are quite ill) supposedly getting care from the same pot of money. It is not possible to maintain the same standard of care for everyone else with the same amount of money. The only other option is to vastly increase the amount of money dedicated to healthcare, which would make the fiscal cliff look like change in the couch.

Proponents have tried to argue that it will be done through "improved efficiency." Again, ask yourself which huge bureaucracy has been the paragon of efficiency. And this will be the Godzilla of bureaucracies. I can tell you firsthand that all of the changes thus far have led to decreased efficiencies. Next time you see your doc, ask him how much faster and smoother things run on electronic records. Then duck.

[JScott]

It appears that the states ex. Alabama that resisted planning for the health exchange networks are abdicating responsibility to the government which plans to employ private contractors to perform the work-maybe not 100%, I'm not sure. I see trouble ahead.

Part of this has to do with the fact that some of the states smell a trap in participation. By opening exchanges, they fear their Medicaid programs (for which they are responsible fiscally) will explode under the new system (most predict this as likely). They are reluctant to sign on for fear that the new burden will bankrupt their state.

[AlexR]

JScott,

You wrote “My point is not that the French system is crap or that the only approach is the U.S. one. Those with access and means in the U.S. would not trade this system for any other, and I think it can be said objectively that those people get the very best health care in the world and throughout history”.

As for the latter part, money isn’t everything, although no one will deny that the US medical profession is among the best there is.
As for the former part, is it really surprising that those people with privileges are against giving them up, even if it means helping their fellow citizens? It’s a fairly human reaction to be egotistical and self-serving. What’s stupefying, though, is that people who could really benefit from public health care are against it for ideological reasons. Impossible to understand! I read a very good book called “What’s the Matter with Kansas?”. http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/whats-t ... 1102878906 It shows how the Republican party repeatedly fucked over (pardon my French) the inhabitants of that state, who never stopped voting for them!

I must disagree with your statement that “We have had a system that has given 90% of the population the best care available anywhere”. For a start, 15% of the populace have no medical coverage at all. Plus, many people cannot afford the health care they need. The system sucks, big time, and for tens of millions of Americans – except for the wealthy ones, as you pointed out.

In the 21st century, a country that does not provide basic health care to its citizens is a backward country.

As for Benghazi, you are still barking up the wrong tree. Don't you get tired of it?

Best regards,
Alex R.

[stefan]

Here is the link to CNN's fact checking on who said what and when on the Benghazi attack:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/politics/ ... index.html

[JScott]

JScott,

You wrote “My point is not that the French system is crap or that the only approach is the U.S. one. Those with access and means in the U.S. would not trade this system for any other, and I think it can be said objectively that those people get the very best health care in the world and throughout history”.

As for the latter part, money isn’t everything, although no one will deny that the US medical profession is among the best there is.
As for the former part, is it really surprising that those people with privileges are against giving them up, even if it means helping their fellow citizens? It’s a fairly human reaction to be egotistical and self-serving. What’s stupefying, though, is that people who could really benefit from public health care are against it for ideological reasons. Impossible to understand! I read a very good book called “What’s the Matter with Kansas?”. http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/whats-t ... 1102878906 It shows how the Republican party repeatedly fucked over (pardon my French) the inhabitants of that state, who never stopped voting for them!

I must disagree with your statement that “We have had a system that has given 90% of the population the best care available anywhere”. For a start, 15% of the populace have no medical coverage at all. Plus, many people cannot afford the health care they need. The system sucks, big time, and for tens of millions of Americans – except for the wealthy ones, as you pointed out.

In the 21st century, a country that does not provide basic health care to its citizens is a backward country.

As for Benghazi, you are still barking up the wrong tree. Don't you get tired of it?

Best regards,
Alex R.

I'm not arguing or disagreeing with the premise that an ideal system is available to all, or the nobility of altruism; I'm merely pointing out that the great majority of this country (we can quibble over 85 or 90%) will find they can't get the care to which they have become accustomed. How they will react to it remains to be seen, and I have provided my guess.

Regarding Benghazi, no I am most decidedly not barking up the wrong tree. In fact, the more that becomes known, the more my comments here have been proven accurate. I know you are a tireless cheerleader for your guy, which is your prerogative, and I am on record here wishing I would be proven wrong. So far I have been disappointed in that regard. There are still hearings to come, which I hope will completely exonerate everyone. Yes, I do get tired of beating the same dead horse for those who prefer to either ignore the facts or excuse them. Which is why some time ago I suggested moving on from the subject. But since it stubbornly remains headline news I have broken my solemn vow to my BWE brethren not to utter another word on the subject!

[JScott]

Here is the link to CNN's fact checking on who said what and when on the Benghazi attack:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/politics/ ... index.html

Stefan, the CNN timeline is completely consistent with what I've outlined, except it does (conveniently?) omit quite a bit. Some time ago the CIA released their own very detailed timeline which fills in quite a few holes in the one CNN is offering. Among other things, the CIA, in fact, was able to give precise information as to the type of ballistics, RPG's and rounds that were being used from the real time drone flyover within hours, further confirming that they knew in real time this wasn't just a street mob with bottles and rocks. It was known as it was happening, Obama now claims to have called it terrorism immediately, yet claims nearly a week later Rice could not possibly have known, simultaneous with announcing he's the one who sent her, and simultaneous with saying it wasn't clear what was going on while still saying that he gave orders that day to support the unit?!! Yet furthermore, some two weeks later, he made a lengthy speech at the UN still blaming the video. Being as kind as possible, this is inconsistent.

[Jay Winton]

What happened to my wordy post about health care??? Grrrrr

[JimHow]

Good question, Jay, where did it go?

[Jay Winton]

It's Karl Rove's fault.

[stefan]

Scott, Rice was aware that it probably was not just a street mob--she said that in her interview on Face the Nation. She said that they thought it started as a protest because of the film and then the other elements escalated everything. It just does not make sense to attack her on this issue. Also, I do not see what the administration could gain by intentionally misinforming the public about the attack.

The real issue is: Why did the administration not beef up the embassy? Condemning Rice diverts attention from that question and is just plain silly. As I said, the Republicans worst enemies are Republicans.

[JScott]

Stefan, agree it is mystifying why this embassy was ignored. It was bombed in April and again in June, and they sent multiple requests for enforcements about impending escalation. Hopefully there will be answers at the hearings. Someone at some level screwed up.

Regarding Rice, I believe she believed what she was saying. I believe she was conveying the information she was told to convey. At this point it is crystal clear that the film had not an iota to do with any of this. It is also quite clear that this was known within hours. How this intel either didn't manage to make it to the top or was ignored at the top is also a central question. It seems fairly clear the WH knew or should have known the film story was false, and yet someone chose to send out Rice, Obama made his UN speech, and Carney spent weeks denying what we now know to be true. As always, the cover up is the stupidity.

The other disturbing thing is that the system is set up such that back up is automatically sent in these situations unless it is specifically called off. This is iron clad. Either someone screwed up, or someone specifically called off the reinforcements. If someone screwed up, if there was a systematic failure, the WH, State and the CIA would be outraged and investigating. The WH seems only to be outraged about the criticism, not any failures, and most disturbingly not about the deaths. This certainly leads one to conclude that this was policy, it was a decision, and probably from the top.

As to what the administration had to gain, the most obvious answer is that, if you recall, at the time one of Obama's primary stump messages was "bin Laden is dead, GM is alive, and al Qaeda is on the run." The first significant attack on the US on the anniversary of 9/11 by al Qaeda would have been an embarrassment and would certainly have been used by team Romney. There are a few other, probably more conspiratorial possibilities regarding this of which I am still skeptical.

[JimHow]

Scott: You know I love you man. You will always be Dorothy's scarecrow to me when it comes to BWE. But you are mad over this Benghazi thing. You are a madman over this!

By the way... I know this makes me less of a patriot, that nobody can dare criticize the mythic John McCain because he was a POW, but I've never bought into the John McCain myth. I think the guy is nasty little man, a little unbalanced. Not in any sense a leader. Here's the latest example of his intemperance.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ed-by-cnn/

[Tom In DC]

News flash: We now know why Jim's a Dem!

...Younger, attractive black woman, likely to be nominated Secretary of State, attacked by two Republican old nasty white guys. ... Let's get it on.

Almost everything comes down to race in the USA, Scott, whether it is fair or not. It is part of our DNA.

So if race isn't the issue, Jim must either be an ageist (see old above) or he's an anti-ugly-ist, and either factor seems like something that we could litigate! "Your honor, that old white guy just isn't attractive enough to deserve this job."

[hautbrionlover]

Jim-
I'm not exactly a McCain fan, but when crazy Michelle Bachmann and some of her nasty GOP colleagues in the House went after Huma Abedin in a positively McCarthyesque way, with some trumped up nonsense about how she was affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and should be investigated because she was trying to infiltrate the US govt on their behalf, wasn't it McCain who gave a speech taking Bachmann and her pals to task for their unwarranted "sinister" accusations?

[AlexR]

JScott,

You wrote: “I'm not arguing or disagreeing with the premise that an ideal system is available to all, or the nobility of altruism; I'm merely pointing out that the great majority of this country (we can quibble over 85 or 90%) will find they can't get the care to which they have become accustomed.”
I maintain the exact opposite! Isn’t it obvious that Obamacare will enable more people to finance medical care that they might otherwise not have had? This is pretty basic stuff…
You are afraid of the “huge bureaucracy” that will result from the new law. But, if you took the time to read the links I sent you (and confirmed by my everyday reality), there is far LESS bureaucracy in the French state-run system than the mess you have in America, with so many vultures, non-productive pen-pushers and greedy insurance companies! You are afraid of things to happen based on false premises. In any event, the law is passed and there is nothing that can be done about it now.
We have a difference in political orientation (I tend to care about my fellow man), but we also have a big disagreement about figures. So, I ask you, why does it seem to me that you pulled your percentage points out of the sky to support your political bias? What *did* you base them on?
The myth is that health care is available to all in the US. You just show up at the emergency room of a public hospital. When was the last time you did this JScott, not forgetting the importance of preventive care?
I rest my case.

Regarding Benghazi, you wrote “I have broken my solemn vow to my BWE brethren not to utter another word on the subject.”

I tend to keep my solemn vows.

I’m sorry I don’t believe you when you write “and I am on record here wishing I would be proven wrong” because everything else you say points to the opposite.
We hear the most wild speculation about what happened in Libya, including that horny General Patraeus was somehow involved and that he was in cahoots with Obama!

The essence of this false controversy is that A) Obama is supposed to have known about the security problem in a Libyan city and done nothing about it. If you can prove this, I’ll eat my hat *and* send a case of Lafite Rothschild 2005 to every BWEer and B) Obama didn’t qualify this attack as a terrorist action soon enough. As for B), so what? It’s easy to be an armchair historian. So maybe things were not clear at the beginning, maybe a wrong assumption was made. Why keep hounding Obama? The people to blame are in State and the CIA!
By the way, from all I read the consulate was also a CIA base.

Best regards,
Alex R.

[Chateau Vin]

Jim-
I'm not exactly a McCain fan, but when crazy Michelle Bachmann and some of her nasty GOP colleagues in the House went after Huma Abedin in a positively McCarthyesque way, with some trumped up nonsense about how she was affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and should be investigated because she was trying to infiltrate the US govt on their behalf, wasn't it McCain who gave a speech taking Bachmann and her pals to task for their unwarranted "sinister" accusations?

Yeah, it was the same guy who correctly called the fringe elements of the right as 'agents of intolerance' and four years later was in bed with them to court their votes...

It was the same guy who considers himself straight talker, but couldn't talk straight during his campaign to American people...

It was the same guy who was vehemently opposed to torture all his life, but ultimately toned it down after mending fences with W in anticipation of running for whitehouse

It was the same guy who showed his good judgement and sensible side, but failed miserably in those areas by picking Palin as the running mate, which ultimately damaged his campaign more than anything else...

I don't know which side he is gonna show...The old man is losing it...It is time to pick his marbles and head into retirement...

[JimHow]

Agreed, CV. Sure he bucks the nuts in his party once every 5 years or so, but he is basically a nasty, self-righteous old right wing turd with a serious anger management problem. Can't stand the guy, I think he's a phony. He thinks his shit doesn't stink.

Boy, Bobby Jindahl was a regular Bobby Kennedy out there on the airwaves yesterday!

[JScott]

JScott,

You wrote: “I'm not arguing or disagreeing with the premise that an ideal system is available to all, or the nobility of altruism; I'm merely pointing out that the great majority of this country (we can quibble over 85 or 90%) will find they can't get the care to which they have become accustomed.”
I maintain the exact opposite! Isn’t it obvious that Obamacare will enable more people to finance medical care that they might otherwise not have had? This is pretty basic stuff…
You are afraid of the “huge bureaucracy” that will result from the new law. But, if you took the time to read the links I sent you (and confirmed by my everyday reality), there is far LESS bureaucracy in the French state-run system than the mess you have in America, with so many vultures, non-productive pen-pushers and greedy insurance companies! You are afraid of things to happen based on false premises. In any event, the law is passed and there is nothing that can be done about it now.
We have a difference in political orientation (I tend to care about my fellow man), but we also have a big disagreement about figures. So, I ask you, why does it seem to me that you pulled your percentage points out of the sky to support your political bias? What *did* you base them on?
The myth is that health care is available to all in the US. You just show up at the emergency room of a public hospital. When was the last time you did this JScott, not forgetting the importance of preventive care?
I rest my case.

Regarding Benghazi, you wrote “I have broken my solemn vow to my BWE brethren not to utter another word on the subject.”

I tend to keep my solemn vows.

I’m sorry I don’t believe you when you write “and I am on record here wishing I would be proven wrong” because everything else you say points to the opposite.
We hear the most wild speculation about what happened in Libya, including that horny General Patraeus was somehow involved and that he was in cahoots with Obama!

The essence of this false controversy is that A) Obama is supposed to have known about the security problem in a Libyan city and done nothing about it. If you can prove this, I’ll eat my hat *and* send a case of Lafite Rothschild 2005 to every BWEer and B) Obama didn’t qualify this attack as a terrorist action soon enough. As for B), so what? It’s easy to be an armchair historian. So maybe things were not clear at the beginning, maybe a wrong assumption was made. Why keep hounding Obama? The people to blame are in State and the CIA!
By the way, from all I read the consulate was also a CIA base.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Lots to address, Alex, so I will try to do it succinctly.

* As ACA is implemented, most Americans have seen their healthcare costs rise significantly. It was promised that the average family would see a decline in costs of $2500 annually, and the opposite has happened. This is completely consistent with what I've said, which is that you can't care for more people with less money.

*The fact that you don't feel you have a huge bureaucracy in France has unfortunately little to do with what we will have here. There are dozens of new agencies with thousands of new bureaucrats. The IRS alone has added 15K new agents to enforce the mandate. There are already over 13K new pages of regs regarding healthcare, and most of the new committees and agencies haven't even assembled yet.

*You say we have a different political orientation, which seems to be accurate. Yours, you say, involves caring for your fellow man, so by extension obviously you believe I do not. Despite the frankly smug and self-congratulatory premise and the fairly direct insult implied, I believe you when you say you care for your fellow man and you can choose to believe the worst about me. Whether you believe it or not, I have the same goals but apparently believe in different ways to achieve them. You can choose to deflect the debate over policy and instead make accusations about my character and motives, but it is frankly intellectually hollow and embarrassing.

*As to where I get my numbers and facts, Alex, I work in health care. I do this every day. Not only have I shown up in an emergency room, I have worked in them, in different states. I have spent years serving on state medical boards. You are certainly entitled to an opinion, but, again, claiming you know more about this system in which you are uninvolved, from 4000 miles away, than I do, working in it and with it on a daily basis, is again embarrassing. You can choose not to believe what I say if you like, which is unfortunately a pattern for you. I promise it won't hurt for very long if you ever concede a point.

*The solemn vow thing was a joke, Alex; hence the smiley face. Not sure what point you're trying to make, other than somehow another thinly veiled assessment of my character? I am happy to move on from the Benghazi thing whenever you like. I am only answering points and questions posed directly to me here. Stop bringing it up and I won't either.

*Regarding Benghazi, I have no proof that Obama directly had knowledge or interaction regarding the events, other than his own words, which I've outlined ad nauseum above and which are clearly self-contradictory. (See how easy it is to concede a point?) I will say again I hope everyone is exonerated. I agree there are likely people at State and the CIA who deserve blame. What concerns me is that if they were solely to blame, why isn't he raising holy hell with them over this mess? The fact that he isn't at all leads me to believe - yes this is my opinion - that there is involvement on his part. At the risk of opening another massive can of worms, you state repeatedly and matter-of-factly that Bush lied about the Iraq invasion with not a shred more evidence than I've offered here (less in fact). There can be no doubt he made a bad decision (and don't expect me to defend it) but there is not a scintilla of evidence that he advanced evidence he knew to be wrong, nor is there any credible motive for doing so. Just sayin'.

*Lastly, I wasn't even going to the CIA base thing, which is one of the scenarios I referred to above about which I remain skeptical. Funny, you seem to be more into the conspiracies than I!

[JScott]

Scott: You know I love you man. You will always be Dorothy's scarecrow to me when it comes to BWE. But you are mad over this Benghazi thing. You are a madman over this!

By the way... I know this makes me less of a patriot, that nobody can dare criticize the mythic John McCain because he was a POW, but I've never bought into the John McCain myth. I think the guy is nasty little man, a little unbalanced. Not in any sense a leader. Here's the latest example of his intemperance.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ed-by-cnn/

Jim, lol. I will humbly accept the Scarecrow role, as decreed by our always benevolent dictator. What I'm seeing with the Libyan mess just doesn't add up. Maybe (hopefully) Obama had little to no involvement and he's nobly trying to protect those that did, but someone screwed up badly, unforgivably, in my opinion. We will see what becomes of it. We do need to get it settled and move on to the fiscal issues, which are bad and getting much worse.

Regarding McCain, I know what you mean. I've never been a huge fan, either. To me, he's a complete wild card. He's gone after some in the GOP as well as across the aisle, so it's hard to call him hyper-partisan, but he seems so random at times. I have no idea where his core is. He's all over the place. I do think he's one nasty SOB, though.... guess you'd have to be to survive 5 1/2 yrs in a prison camp.

Edit: missed CV's post above while typing, which makes my McCain comment kind of redundant. Sounds like we all have more or less the same impression of him.

[JScott]

Jim, you know, Jindahl really does have some chops, I think, but I don't think he's got potential for advancement. It only seems to show up in flashes and his State of the Union rebuttal was his Dukakis-in-the-tank moment.....