Democrats Are Slow Learners

Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia is beginning to see what many have known all along, Barack Obama is not believable. We knew it when he started running, we knew it throughout the campaign and we know it now. He says one thing, does another and he has a Socialist agenda that is radical and anti American though he will not admit it. Rockefeller points out that he is beginning to view Obama as not believable as well:

“He says ‘I’m for clean coal,’ and then he says it in his speeches, but he doesn’t say it in here,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. “And he doesn’t say it in the minds of my own people. And he’s beginning to be not believable to me.” Real Clear Politics

Senator, when you get to the point where he is not believable we will welcome you to the club. But this is a beginning…

When Obama starts having Democrats question his believability he is in trouble.

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

26 Responses to “Democrats Are Slow Learners”

  1. Darrel says:

    The first part of clip and the lead in for your quote says Obama wants to eliminate $36 billion in subsidies for the oil and natural gas industry and over $2 billion in tax breaks for coal.

    So Mr. Rockefeller, in representing the big industries in his state, sucking at the government teat, stands up to defend them from Obama’s most reasonable and cost saving suggestion.

    Since we constantly hear how we are so fiscally broke, is it really a sensible and consistent thing to criticize Obama for wanting to stop such subsidies to big energy industries?

    No I don’t think so.

    Obama right, Rockefeller wrong.

    • Big Dog says:

      No, Rockefeller said Obama says one thing out on the road and another in the Congress. He is not believable.

      I don’t care what the motivation is or how YOU feel about what Obama wants.

      I do find it interesting you would defend Obama for wanting to get the industries off the government teat but you support his plans that allows millions of people to suckle at the government teat. Welfare, health care, etc. And when we say government teat make no mistake, that is our teat because the government extorts that money from us.

      Regardless Rockefeller right, Ovama says something different depending on who the audience is. That is what the man said.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “I don’t care what the motivation is or how YOU feel about what Obama wants.”>>

        DAR
        Right! Translation: You will side with whoever says anything against Obama no matter what the facts are or motivation is. But we already knew that.

        Bigd: “…you support his plans that allows millions of people to suckle at the government teat. Welfare, health care, etc.”>>

        DAR
        Actually, we already pay as much per person as some countries do to cover everyone. So there is lots of sucking going on, it’s just that the medical industrial complex has gamed the system so well that we are being sucked dry in order to feed insane profits and profound inefficiency.

        The plan is to actually get people to pay their way and not walk out on an inflated ER bill which gets passed along and taken from the government teat (and everyone else).

        Regarding welfare, as you know, the president that reformed welfare and cut the roles by up to 90% in some states, was a democrat. Obama hasn’t changed this.

  2. Adam says:

    “Obama says something different depending on who the audience is.”

    Got any examples?

    • Big Dog says:

      There have been a few presented in the past and you can look for them. You are playing games now. If we show a video of Obama saying the moon is made of cheese you discount it. Then later we say Obama said the moon was made of cheese and you say got any examples.

      But you can start with Obama telling America the Republicans are the part of no and have no ideas and then telling Republicans that he has gotten their plans and ideas and read them.

      Gateway Pundit

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “[Obama said repubs] have no ideas and then telling Republicans that he has gotten their plans and ideas and read them.”>>

        DAR
        He said that specifically because he HAD read what they submitted!

  3. Big Dog says:

    And from Salon

    Obama’s code-switching isn’t limited to style. The substance of what he says changes, too. In front of a Wall Street audience in September 2009, he politely but firmly cautioned against dangerous credit-default swaps. On 60 Minutes three months later, he excoriated “fat cat bankers”—something he probably wouldn’t have said to their faces. The practice famously got him into trouble during the campaign when he told an audience at a San Francisco fundraiser that in small-town Pennsylvania, some people “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” No doubt he would have phrased the sentiment differently in small-town Pennsylvania.

  4. Big Dog says:

    The insurance companies have about a 2% profit margin. That is not insane.

    Microsoft has about a 20% profit margin, should we give everyone a computer because of it?

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “The insurance companies have about a 2% profit margin.”>>

      DAR
      Here is what I said the last time you said this:

      First of all, it’s entirely irrelevant even if it were true. It wouldn’t matter even if every single one of them were “non-profit” (and many of them are incidentally). Don’t be fooled. The number that actually goes in the profit line doesn’t remotely address how much money is being sucked up by an unnecessary industry that employs millions and thus wastes hundreds billions. Remember, a billing clerk per bed just on the hospital side? Add to that the insurance billing clerk talking to them. Add to that the nearly half a million insurance workers fiddling away trying to see if your pre-existing conditions qualify (I am dealing with this right now). And this industry spends billions in advertising while it flips 20% of it’s clients per year.

      Observe the actions of this *NON PROFIT* health insurance company:

      ***
      Blue Cross Blue Shield Execs Profited From Bogus Bonuses

      BISMARCK, N.D. — Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota used premium payments to fund $15 million in employee bonuses, cover $35,000 for a retirement party and pay for other questionable expenses… It was the first audit of the nonprofit company since 2004.

      Hamm ordered the audit in March, following criticism of a sales managers’ trip to the Grand Cayman Islands that cost $238,000…

      Hamm said that of the $418 million in the company’s administrative expenses over the past five years, the audit found “millions and millions of dollars in excessive expenses.”

      The report said that premium payments funded nearly $15 million in employee bonuses that were almost assured regardless of performance, a $3.5 million investment in a hotel in Fargo and sales reward trips to resorts totaling $1.2 million.

      In one case, the audit found that $34,814 was spent for a party for a retiring vice president.”

      LINK.

      And this is with a “non profit!”

      Other countries don’t have this nonsense.

      D.
      ————-
      “Your company’s [Anthem Blue Cross] strong financial position makes these [39%] rate increases even more difficult to understand. As you know, your parent company, WellPoint Incorporated, has seen its profits soar, earning $2.7 billion in the last quarter of 2009 alone,” Sebelius wrote.”

      Obama Admin Demands Answers From Anthem Blue Cross After Private Insurer Raises Rates 39%.

      • Big Dog says:

        The federal government is the largest employer in the country. The words you used “doesn’t remotely address how much money is being sucked up by an unnecessary industry that employs millions and thus wastes hundreds billions.”

        A billing clerk per bed, wrong. That is some more of the fuzzy math. But if government runs it we will have a lot of people who do little ala Medicare.

        Rate increases are necessary when a business is losing money. If government were not involved in regulating every damned thing then they could make money and people could shop around. Government should remove the anti trust exemption.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “A billing clerk per bed, wrong.”

        DAR
        That’s what Duke has.

        “The Senate Finance Committee has heard about the problem of overhead. On Nov. 19, Professor Uwe Reinhardt, who is also on the board of trustees of the 900-bed Duke University Hospital, used Duke to illustrate the problem: “We have 900 billing clerks at Duke. I’m not sure we have a nurse per (each) bed, but we have a billing clerk per bed…” Link.

        Bigd: “if government runs it we will have a lot of people who do little ala Medicare.”>>

        DAR
        We already know what it could look like if government runs it. See the VA, which beats the US private sector “in nearly every measurable category.”

        ***
        Does the government actually run the BEST healthcare?

        Excerpt:

        “The main thrust of the anti-reform argument is that government is bad at running things, and would be terrible at running a healthcare program. Better to entrust running healthcare to the very same private insurers who have gotten rich creating the very problem we have now: skyrocketing premium costs, coverage reductions or limitations, denials due to pre-existing conditions, etc.

        But is there really a good argument to be made against government run healthcare plans in general? Certainly, the healthcare enjoyed by members of congress is government-run, as is that offered to our armed servicemen and women. How do they measure up to privately run medical programs?

        A team of researchers recently set out to compare the quality of VHA care with that of care in a national sample by using a comprehensive quality-of-care measure.

        *VA scores highest in quality of care*

        The research team found that patients from the VHA scored 16 percentage points higher for adjusted overall quality…

        For chronic disease care, the VA finished 13 percentage points higher…

        For preventive care, the VA finished 20 points higher (64% vs. 44%; difference [CI, 12 to 28 percentage points]). The comparison the VA did not win was for acute care.

        The VHA held the strongest advantage in processes targeted by VHA performance measurement, where the VA finished 23 percentage points ahead of the competition…

        From the study, the research team concludes that patients receiving socialized, government-run medicine from the VHA received higher-quality care according to a broad measure…

        What this study really says is that the more accurately we measure, the more we begin to see that socialized, government-run medical programs like the VA provide extremely high quality medical care.

        …This recent study of the government-run VA medical system shows that contrary to those doubters, government-run healthcare leads in nearly every measurable category.”

        Examiner.

        DAR
        “Leads in nearly every measurable category.”

        You can read more about this study here:

        “Comparison of Quality of Care for Patients in the Veterans Health Administration and Patients in a National Sample”

        Annals of Internal Medicine.

        I have much more information and studies showing the quality of VA care but I’ve shared them before.

        D.
        —————-
        “Best Care Anywhere: Why VA Health Care is Better Than Yours” Amazon.

        • Big Dog says:

          Just because Duke has that does not mean that this is the case across the country. Duke is a teaching university so we have no idea how this breaks down. No, we don’t have a nurse per bed because it takes quite a bit more education to be a nurse than a billing clerk and billing clerks do not deal with the unpleasant parts of medicine (dealing with the mess and the death notifications to family, care of terminally ill).

          This is moronic to compare and it is moronic to assume that all places are like this. Duke is not an insurance company, it is a university so you should be going after the high cost of education.

          At Walter Reed there is a floor that costs a million dollars a year and it is hardly used. It has its on chef and concierge, and special staff. It is for memebers of Congress and other VIPs. Are we to assume that this waste is prolific throughout medicine? No, the elitists have set up a better system for themselves.

          I want you to find a local, non educational, hospital and tell me how many billing clerks they have. I bet they have way more beds…

          I never worked at Duke but I have worked in a number of hospitals and I have yet to see what you describe. It is an anomaly that you are projecting as normal.

          Shame on you.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “Just because Duke has that does not mean that this is the case across the country.”>>

          DAR
          That’s true of course. I don’t see why it would be vastly different and the number is so outrageous that even if the ratio was two billing clerks per bed it would be extraordinary. One to one is breath taking. It may indeed be a bit of an anomaly but I no reason to see why it is not representative of a wider problem (see below). I have inquired with a nurse I know at our local hospital, and scoured their website, couldn’t find this out.

          Bigd: Duke is a teaching university so we have no idea how this breaks down.”>>

          DAR
          He was referring specifically to one hospital (“Duke University Hospital”), not the entire University medical system at Duke (you tried that last time!)

          Bigd: “I have worked in a number of hospitals and I have yet to see what you describe.”>>

          DAR
          Here is the point. The US has over 1,000 insurance companies which spend billions in advertising to replace the 20% of customers they flip per year. They also pay nearly half a million employees to yap with those billing clerks at the hospitals, in the effort of trying to deny care and keep profits up. So irregardless of any profit they want to make on top, this is an immense expense (and waste) that single payers systems like the VA (and other countries) do not have.

          D.
          —————-
          “When I was in graduate school in Hawaii, Governor Michael Dukakis taught a health policy course. We didn’t agree on things like employer mandates, but we had fun arguing about it. At the end of the course, he decided that he wanted to visit Canada, and so we went to Vancouver to talk with Robert Evans (a brilliant health economist) and others. We visited a large metropolitan hospital and the governor asked to see the “billing wing”. We took him to a small room about the size of my kitchen and pointed to the small staff who made up this “billing wing”. The Governor was amused.”

          Link.

  5. Big Dog says:

    It is a bumper sticker that was developed by an enterprising capitalist who took Obama’s words and used them to make money.

    To paraphrase what Obama said, in times of trouble these people cling to guns and religion and don’t tolerate people who look different.

    This is not true. People who are religious or who believe in the Second Amendment (those who don’t pick and choose) have their religion and/or guns in good times and bad.

    And we do not care what color a person is oe how he looks. We are concerned with character.

  6. Mr Pink Eyes says:

    Many of us have known for two years that Barack Obama was not believable, finally some in Washington– including Democrats– are finally starting to wake up. I think the American people are waking up also.

  7. Big Dog says:

    Darrel, you are incorrect, of course. The government does not use the same criteria that private industry uses. It does not report expenses that it incurs because they are hidden but private industry cannot hide the costs and must report them.

    Government run care costs more than private run care. You can pick and choose comments and you can site studies that support your position but your information is flawed. Government only reports what it wants.

    Case in point, Obama is eliminating a portion of the Bureau of Labor and Statistics that reports items that are unflattering to job numbers. Does NOT reporting the information mean that the job market got better?

    No and not reporting all the costs associated with the VA or other care does not mean it is cheaper. And you cannot sue the government for malpractice.

    I have too many friends who work in the VA system who tell me how it is really administered as opposed to how you are told it is.

  8. Big Dog says:

    But there is the rub Darrel, government systems including the VA are vastly inefficient and waste lots of money. Government is good at hiding costs but there are tons of employees who do little compared to the private sector. They are expensive and inefficient, more so than private insurance.

    There needs to be reform and if you want insurance companies to be more competitive then let people compete across state lines.

    If we can use antitrust laws on Microsoft then we can stop the exemption for private insurance.

    Since health insurance and health care are not rights then there is no reason for government to provide them and there is no reason others should pay for it.

    And Duke University hospital is a teaching hospital. Yes, a teaching hospital. I know that is an inconvenient truth but it is so it is a different animal than a regular hospital.

    All the ones I have worked at did not have 1 clerk for every 10 beds.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “…government systems including the VA are vastly inefficient and waste lots of money.”>>

      DAR
      It seems to me that a careful scientific study of the actual data trumps your mere assertion.

      D.
      ————–
      The VA is “one of the world’s purest models of socialized medicine at work.” Yet, the government-run U.S. Veterans healthcare system is now considered significantly more efficient at providing quality care than private-sector healthcare:

      • The New England Journal of Medicine (“Effect of the Transformation of the Veterans Affairs Health Care System on the Quality of Care, May 29, 2003)

      • The Annals of Internal Medicine (“Diabetes Care Quality in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System and Commercial Managed Care: The TRIAD Study,” August 17, 2004)

      • U.S. News & World Report (America’s Best Hospitals, Military Might, July 18 2005);

      • The American Journal of Managed Care (“The Veterans Health Administration: Quality, Value, Accountability, and Information as Transforming Strategies for Patient-Centered Care,” 2004,10; part2);

      • Washington Monthly (“The Best Care Anywhere,” January/February 2005)

      • The Washington Post (“Revamped Veterans Health Care Now a Model,” August 22, 2005).

  9. Big Dog says:

    The “scientific” study was chart based. They looked at charts and measured against some criteria. You can write anything in a chart. Whether it is an actual indication of what is really happening is another story.

    No, I would think that any study would need to look at all the hidden costs, the red tape, the actual care given (and not charted). This is a bogus study.

    I have seen charts that, if reviewed, would lead you to believe that the patient received the greatest care in the world with no stone unturned.

    The writing did not show that they only had minor problems that were easily taken care of.

    Doctors are paid based on what they do and the ICD 9 codes help with billing and reimbursement so it is to their advantage to get that up as much as possible. It also helps with the quotas they have.

    Too many games, seen too much to be fooled. But you believe what you want.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “The “scientific” study was chart based.”>>

      DAR
      There is no such thing. A chart is just a visual representation of the underlying data.

      Bigd: They looked at charts and measured against some criteria.>>

      DAR
      Yep, that’s how you do it.

      Bigd: You can write anything in a chart.>>

      DAR
      Not if it’s not supported by the data.

      Bigd: This is a bogus study.>>

      DAR
      Oh, okay. If you say so.

      • Big Dog says:

        That is not how you do it. Charts do not tell you how things are, they tell you how things were written.

        I have seen too many charts that are not a visual representation of what actually happened.

  10. Big Dog says:

    Once again Darrel, anything can be efficient if the costs are hidden. Anything can be good if we do chart reviews to decide.