McIlheran's Unhealthy Approach To Health Care

Once again, McIlheran kvetches about health care reform, this time spurned on by the thought of allowing patients make informed choices as opposed to having Big Insurance make those choices for them.

First he mews about the supposed death panels that only he and Sarah Palin still believe in. Never mind that the private insurance companies provide enough death panels in their own right. Also don't mind that while governmental death panels do exist, they are only found in Republican-controlled states.

At the end of his post, we find what is his real driving factor:

The problem lies in the guarantee -- in thinking in terms of rights and of universality and equity. This doesn’t mean we must embrace some every-geezer-for-himself savagery; it suggests that some more rational approach that centers on the autonomy of the patient -- such as, for instance, the concepts behind Rep. Paul Ryan’s “roadmap” -- be central.

None of this precludes social generosity outside the realm of politics -- indeed, it calls for exactly the kind of charitable spirit implicit in every hospital name that includes the word “memorial.” Not that the government doesn’t have a role, but when we talk about health care chiefly in terms of rights asserted and claims made on strangers via the political process -- as Obamacare does -- then inevitably those strangers will balk at the cost, and they will do so through the mechanisms of the administrative state.

Keep in mind that Ryan's "road map" consists of basically taking Grandma out to the middle of nowhere and pushing her out the door, allowing her the "autonomy" of fending for herself: Life preserving medicine or life preserving food?

His solutions, let the hospitals give free treatment. They'll only turn around and stick it to the rest of us at a higher rate than a centralized system would cost, but it would allow the CEO's, board members and stake holders to profit nicely on our daily struggles for survival.

Gosh, what a humanitarian old Paddy is.

The Real Have Whines About The Have Nots

Part of Charlie Sykes' almost daily repertoire is to attack union workers, especially if they are public employees. He does this because it is one of the normal Republican talking points as well as to bolster the already flagging popularity of Goobernatorial-elect Scott Walker.

But interestingly, I have recently received the latest issue of Milwaukee Magazine, in which they have a piece discussing various people's salaries. And yup, Ol' Chuckles is among the ones listed:

CHARLIE SYKES, Conservative Talk Radio Host, 620 WTMJ-AM: $170,000 plus bonus

(Salary estimated by WTMJ radio insiders; Sykes declined to confirm.)

This does not mention whatever he gets paid directly by the Bradley Foundation, or indirectly from the Bradley Foundation as editor of WPRI (Wankers Promoting Republican Ideals).

I guess the conservatives put high value on talented liars and blowhards.

Remember this when he is bitching up a storm about the county parks worker making $12 an hour. Now you know he isn't looking after Joe Taxpayer when he is attacking union workers. He's only promoting the talking points of the Greedy Old Perverts who are angry because they don't have all of our money yet.

The "What's In It For Me?" Argument

PaddyMac takes on rail again*, this time using a statement by Steve Prestegard, who was complaining that the rail wouldn't take him to Milwaukee to tape Sunday morning's episode of Charlie Sykes' Incite show:

Well, sure -- at ungodly expense and, critically, if you’re in the right spot and have the right destination. Steve Prestegard meets neither of those criteria, he writes at Marketplace.

He starts in Ripon, where he lives. He speaks in Green Bay at 7:30 a.m. He tapes a TV show in Milwaukee at 1. This apparently isn’t atypical. “Good thing I like to drive,” he writes. And:

“Those in business who claim they want the Doyle–Barrett train mystify me, because I am unable to think of many non-office-based jobs that don’t require the ability to go where you want when you want. Unless you sit behind a computer all day every day, or have one location where you do business, you need the ability to see customers or your various facilities, and on your schedule, not someone else’s.”

This is one of the dumbest arguments for or against something, in my opinion.

No, high speed rail isn't go to meet everyone's needs. Especially if they live somewhere far off of the rail line. So what? I am not going to personally benefit from them expanding the I-90 from Madison to points southward. Nor am I going to benefit from the current work of expanding I-94 from the airport south. So why are they doing those?

Supposedly because it is supposed to help the overall region by allowing business people, delivery trucks, etc. get through easier. Well, so would rail.

Arguing for or against something based solely on how that thing will personally affect you is nothing more than self-centeredness and selfishness. These, however, are traits that are all too common among conservatives, so that is what they most often resort too.

The funny thing is, they really, really don't like it when you turn it back on them.

The sad part is their selfishness causes us to miss out on many things that could have benefited us all, including them, even if not directly.

*You can always tell when Scott Walker or one of their other pets are in trouble. They become monomaniacal in whatever the subject is, no matter how silly they end up looking.

I would expect the rhetoric from all aspects of the right wing media, from Belling to Sykes to PaddyMac to PolitiFarce to harp on this for a while, since it is costing their champion and their cause a number of problems.

We Take Ayn Rand Seriously

This has been making the rounds for a while, but I just can't help but thinking of Charlie Sykes or Patrick McIlheran with their skewed perception of reality when I read this:

Now let me explain why your son was wrong.

When little Aiden toddled up our daughter Johanna and asked to play with her Elmo ball, he was, admittedly, very sweet and polite. I think his exact words were, "Have a ball, peas [sic]?" And I'm sure you were very proud of him for using his manners.

To be sure, I was equally proud when Johanna yelled, "No! Looter!" right in his looter face, and then only marginally less proud when she sort of shoved him. The thing is, in this family we take the philosophies of Ayn Rand seriously. We conspicuously reward ourselves for our own hard work, we never give to charity, and we only pay our taxes very, very begrudgingly.

That does sound like the GOP creed. They want all the money for learning to crap on everyone else, and they don't like to share.

School Choice Is Not The Answer

Charlie Sykes, PaddyMac and all the others like WPRI (Weasels Promoting Republican Ideology) too a hit when one of their own broke ranks and decided to speak the truth:

Milwaukee, in the strongly revised opinion of Diane Ravitch, is almost a textbook example for showing that the prediction that the tide of school choice will lift all educational boats is wrong.

"One might wonder about how much (Milwaukee Public Schools) is coming apart at the seams because of the competition," Ravitch said in a telephone conversation. "The competition was supposed to make things better."

A few years ago, Ravitch was a prominent voice for that latter sentiment. But in a way that has caused a stir in education circles nationwide, she now has come down emphatically in the opposite camp when it comes to private school vouchers, charter schools and the testing-based accountability regimen that is at the heart of the No Child Left Behind education law.

Those ideas just haven't worked, she argues in "The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education." It is time to return to emphasizing better curriculum and instruction as the key to better success, she says, and it is time for emphasizing the needs of the mainstream of public school students.

The article goes on to point out the instability of the entire charter school system with the constant revolving door of new schools opening and others being closed.

It seems to be that is part of the problem with today's society as a whole. There is no loyalty between employer or employee anymore. The days of having a lifelong career somewhere is over as employers continue to seek out more ways to make the most profit at the employees' expense. This, of course, can be directly tied to the ever decreasing number of unions and unionized jobs.

Which also explains why the right is so set against unions. They get in the way of the wealthy becoming even wealthier and the poor getting poorer.

PaddyMac Prefers Profits Over People

Predictably, PaddyMac bemoans the fact that the Senate passed their version of health care benefits. It's not that he is necessarily against people getting health care benefits, since he doesn't even mention that. It is that the insurance companies won't get to gouge:

Only might I add:

While sensible, ordinary people might see this and quake – because it’s disruptive when key industries are destroyed and, worse, it signals that we think it A-OK for government to go around destroying legal industries – those committed partisans of the left, those complaining that Obamacare doesn’t take us to single-payer, would see this destruction as a feature, not a bug.

Gee, who'd have thunk that maybe it's not nice to put gouge people and then deny their claims anyway, just to increase their own profit.

Nice to see him so full of the Christmas spirit.

PaddyMac Shorter

There's nothing wrong with usury...that's why God invented poor people.


Best comment on the post:

Coming soon, McIlheran defends pyramid schemes and Nigerian 419 scams. Stay tuned.

Charlie Sykes: I Have The Right To Make You Pay More

During my travels Friday morning, I caught a piece of Sykes' show. He was griping about a proposed law in California that would limit how much power a TV would be allowed to use.

The gist of his argument was that as long as he paid for the TV, he could do whatever he wanted and run it as much as he liked, and no one should have the right to tell him otherwise. He tried to paint it that the people with the large energy-sucking TVs were the oppressed ones.

However, the article linked to above tells us only 13% of the TVs wouldn't meet the standards if they were in effect now.

But more importantly, it seems that Sykes, and those that would agree with him, think that they have the right to screw over the public for their own gratitude. When Charlie runs his power sucking TV, it creates a higher demand for the electricity. The higher the demand, the higher the cost it is for the electricity, not just for Sykes, but for everyone. So if the old lady down the street is on a fixed income, she will be forced to decide between buying food, paying for her increasingly expensive medicine, or having the lights on, well, according to Sykes, that's just too bad for her.

If Sykes was really interested in being fair, he would be willing to pay a larger tax to subsidize his higher consumption.

And, of course, none of this even mentions what it would be doing to the environment.

A Good Catholic Would've Known Better

McIlheran put up three posts yesterday.

In one, he promotes the weasel Scott Walker. His only reason is that Walker is trying to shuffle off the debt and resulting tax hikes until he can make his getaway.

In the second, he says he was turning off lights in his house Saturday night, but not to be ecologically friendly, but to save money. Funny how he is continuously griping about taxes, but won't touch the gouge by the energy companies.

In his third post, he criticizes people that want to help the elderly with the upcoming change over to HDTV. His problem, it costs money.

All three of his posts focus on money, and all three he laments every penny that leaves his pocket.

Even Ebenezer Scrooge finally realized that greed is one of the seven deadly sins, why won't self-proclaimed Catholic McIlheran?

Macho Men

Today, Wagner starts out his show scoffing at the local shopping malls that decided to close because of today's winter storm. He feels that people should be out there making money, or at least out there spending it.

James T. Harris echoes this in not one, but two, separate posts scoffing at people that decided that they were going to stay in their houses if they could.

The problem with their ignorant posturing is two-fold. One, even law enforcement officials were telling people not to go out unless they had to.

The other, even more important, argument against their idiotic pseudomachismo is that there are some things more important than the almighty dollar. Like someone's life. I wonder what Wagner and Harris would say to this poor man's family.

The Greed Of The Right

On Monday, Sykes spent a considerable amount of air time, and then posted, on an article that was in that day's paper. The article discussed how some people were considered wealthy enough to be subject to the alternative minimum tax, yet still eligible for at least a partial tax rebate.

Sykes asked the relative question of "What do you consider rich?"

The answers, and Sykes' reactions were amazing. When callers said that they thought a family pulling in $100k was well-off, Sykes gasped in disbelief. Then a lot of callers started saying that they didn't believe a person was rich until they brought in as much as a million dollars or even more.

Of course, this second group of callers would complain about having the cost of taxes on their quarter of a million plus dollar houses, the expense of their Mercedes and BMWs, and the cost of raising six or eight kids and then sending them to Harvard.

I couldn't help but think about it again tonight, as a huge snowstorm hits Milwaukee, about people that are homeless, people found frozen in their own homes, people that have children going hungry, and so much other suffering, and wonder how these people can complain?

For further thoughtful analysis, Jay Bullock took exception to the same sort of issue last week.

Keep Your Hands Off My Cash

Both Sykes and McIlheran are trash-talking Bill Gates for wanting to do something totally reprehensible, like helping people. More likely, in their greedy ways, they are more likely just upset that even wealthy people can see the need to help those less fortunate, which flies in the face of their "All for me, none for you" philosophy.

The honorable 3rd way, the Earl of Evenhandedness, has this to say:

Journal Communication's dastardly duo has once again joined forces. This time they are taking aim at one of our planet's do-gooders. McIlheran and Sykes both linked to a piece that misrepresents Bill Gates as turning his back on capitalism. In reality Gates is putting his money where his mouth is by trying to create capitalists at the grass roots level. Through something he is labeling creative capitalism Gates vows to bring resources, education and market access to some of the poorest people on the planet. In the minds of the far right this somehow equates a rejection of capitalism.

You can read the rest of his insightful post at folkbum's. (And do make sure to read the first comment. What a savvy reader that fellow is.)