Tag Archive: 2012 election


Jamelle Bouie, at The Plum Line, offers a compelling case for why THIS election actually matters more than most, and a common take on Medicare changes proposed from the right:

a complete overhaul of Medicare that would end its promise of guaranteed health care for seniors, and move it to a system where — ultimately — you get the care you can pay for.

via Yes, this campaign is negative and nasty — and that’s a good thing .

… which is not news, just a jumping off point for MY rage, as in:

If I don’t get the Medicare I’ve promised my entire working life, can I sue for benefits I worked for but never received?

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that I will have to cough up another $6,500 bucks a year that would have been otherwise covered by Medicare.  Say I start collecting Medicare at age 65.  Let’s assume that I live a long time, like most in my family, and that I make it to 90 years old, a somewhat pessimistic estimate given the rather large number of my relatives who’ve lived into their late 90s or even early 100s.  That puts me at about 25 years on Medicare.

Okay, I understand that with the “premium support” (aka Lousy Voucher) program covering less and less each year, I’d likely have to put out more that $6,500 as the years went by, but for this discussion, let’s say it stays at about $6,500 for the duration.

That’s $162,500.

That’s a wompin’ butt-load of money for most people.  It certainly is for me. And so, dearest Government of mine, I’m puttin’ you on notice:  I might just be coming after those lost benefits, should Medicare-as-we-know-it fall to the wayside.  And guess what, I bet I can get a whole lot of my fellow citizens to join in.  Because, you know, we worked for it.  We paid into the pool. We contributed to our future, on the understanding that we’d be taken care of.  And you know what? I expect to get the benefits I was promised.

Another reason that the reassurances to “those 55 and older” read like betrayals to those of us 54 and under, and generally just piss me off.

[edited 8/22/12 for clarity in first paragraph]

Advertisements

Ann Friedman:

In the dating world, an infatuation with Ayn Rand is a red flag. You might not see it right away: Your date is probably conventionally attractive, decidedly wealthy, and doesn’t really talk politics. But then you get back to his apartment, set your bag down on his glass-topped coffee table, give his bookshelf the once-over — and find it lined with Ayn Rand.

You think back to your conversation at the bar: He treated flirtation like a conquest, a rationally self-interested sexual manifest destiny. He had some dumb pickup-artist questions and maybe a questionable accessory (a cravat? a fedora? a weird pinky ring?) but you overlooked these things, because he was quite charming.

But that dog-eared copy of Atlas Shrugged tells you everything you need to know. He sees himself as an objective iconoclast. He’s unapologetically selfish, because it’s only rational, he says. Sure, he grew up with money but he worked to get where he is today. He’s all about individual responsibility but he just isn’t, metaphorically, into wearing protection.

via Paul Ryan Is Your Annoying Libertarian Ex-Boyfriend – The Cut.

I suppose I’m posting the link and the first three paragraphs just so I don’t forget this article.  I’m not sure I ever had an annoying libertarian boyfriend, but I had numerous such friends (not romantic), and many of them ex-friends because of their annoying libertarian qualities, so it strikes quite the familiar chord. Ryan does really seem to be That Guy.  That Guy You Couldn’t Quit the Room Fast Enough Over.  THAT Guy.

And at first he seemed so charming.

She nailed it. Wow.

The Mittster announced that Paul Ryan is his VP pick for the 2012 campaign.

Gahhhhh!

Leaving aside all the well-founded critique of Ryan’s budgetary vision – Ayn-Randian as it is, and all that – I just don’t get it.  Doesn’t Romney want to WIN?

He’s got the hard-core conservatives in the bag, at least the ones who are willing to stray far enough to the left to vote Republican. So why add Ryan, a hard-core economic conservative, all be it a nice guy from all accounts.  Can he possibly appeal to enough swing voters to pull the ticket Romney’s way?  Seems like an odd pick to me.

But that aside:

Why leak the announcement late on Friday, and announce early on Saturday?  Certainly to make this topic THE topic of the Sunday morning talk shows (who started scrambling their guest lists sometime yesterday I would imagine). But isn’t there a thing about Friday announcements, burying the hard news, leaving something for the regular journalists come Monday, light treatment by the weekend staff, etc etc etc

Of course, I noticed that several of the major bloggers I read – Greg Sargent, Steve Benen come to mind – who normally don’t post much on the weekends were right there, opining left and right as it were.

So it’s not that the announcement will be ignored. But it will be treated differently, I think, than if it had come out early in the week.  The tone is set by the Opinionators, the pundits, who are notoriously (and I think gloriously) biased, particular perspectives held right out front. The tone is also set by the Romney supporters, who’s enthusiastic response to this idealogue (Ryan, obviously; I’m not sure if Romney could even relate to pure idealism).  That’s what will be blasted all over the news this weekend:

– Cheering, happy supporters, relieved that Romney picked a purist who actually talks like a human

– Pundits on the left, railing against everything whacky in Ryan’s budget ideas

– PUndits on the right, lauding the solid pick of a true patriot

What we won’t have is any analysis of any depth by any news organization until MOnday, when journalists and their staff support will hit the ground running.  I’m not saying nothing  is happening this weekend, but the running start is going to be more opinionating, and less research, more rah rah, and less Ah Hah!

Well, as I said above,
Gaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!

%d bloggers like this: