You're Out!
In the world of prostitution the 'john' is the client of the prostitute. When a prostitute takes the client's money, but does not fulfill the contract by providing sexual services, it's called "rolling a john'. Let's see if we can get congress to roll their johns in the healthcare and insurance industries. With the machinations in congress, and particularly the Senate over the healthcare 'debate', I suggest as a motivational tool for the further instruction of recalcitrant Dems, the formation of a Political Action Committee whose sole purpose is to mount primary challenges to those Senators who fail to support the writing of a viable public option, or to vote in support of a public option. That might help divert their attention away from their paramours in the insurance, pharmaceutical and healthcare industries and back to their constituents.
Advertisement
















Yes, I like it!!!
But a John? That's my name, lol!!! And I have never been with a prostitute, well that can be proven at least...hehehe.
July 1, 2009 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing personal... John. :)
July 1, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
All kidding aside we need to use every tool at our disposal to put pressure on them. We can strategize until we are blue in the face but the only thing that will work is the application of blunt force. Where through direct contact, by forming PAC's, whatever...
The time is at hand...Franken getting seated changes the whole dynamic. The Democrats can do it on their own now and it is up to us on the left to take the lead...
July 1, 2009 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we pass along an STD for good measure?
July 1, 2009 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe just a supply of red and blue condoms to circulate/distribute on both sides of the aisle, thus providing party hats for dickheads.
July 1, 2009 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
we can just use the wrappers
July 1, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
TOO FUNNY!!!!!
July 1, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
=D
July 1, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you call it when the client gets serviced and then doesn't pay the hooker? I'm feeling like that hooker.
July 1, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure your analogy totally works, but I get your drift.
July 1, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could it be so easy?
http://www.ehow.com/how_2077352_create-political-action-committee.html
July 1, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_pac.shtml
July 1, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably not, but thanks for the links. Somebody with some organizational skills out there in the audience? Anybody?
July 1, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks to me like the peasants are revolting.
GOOD FOR THE PEASANTS. HAHAHAH!!!!
July 1, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Peasants? and I thought we had an autonomous collective.
July 1, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
ONE OF MY FAVORITE SCENES OF ALL TIME Miguel.
I felt that my entire life. Shoveling and piling manure while spouting Marxist propaganda.
We should make this required viewing in elementary school right after the warnings of nuclear attack. hahahahaha!!!!
July 1, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'M BEING REPRESSED!!! DID YOU SEE HIM REPRESSING ME?
HAHAHAHA!!!
July 1, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
um
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434
July 1, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you... :-P
HAHAHA!!!
And those peasants make a cameo and can still be heard arguing in The Tale of Sir Robin. :-P
July 1, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please define viable...
Cause yesterday I read that it means one that does not threaten insurance companies or decrease costs.
July 1, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
see reply below...
July 1, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
A public option that isn't cut off at the knees before it gets out of committee. One that will be able to negotiate the lowest costs for medical goods and services, and is not designed to just replicate the same role as the private insurers, only in the public's name.
July 1, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'd think it would be "not rolling a john", but whatever.
How about:
"A public option that would be revenue-neutral, and have as its mission the provision of honest, simple, and easy to understand coverage to its customers, at cost, and at the lowest cost it can obtain from vendors."
I actually wouldn't object to that, as long as the "revenue neutral" part of the legislation was categorical and robust. A public option needs to take in in premiums every dollar it pays out in claims.
July 1, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that is going to be realizable eventually. The problem now, is that any public option is going to start out insuring all those at risk individuals that have all ready been excluded from all the private insurer rolls. As such, the public option is going to be starting out at a disadvantage from the private insurers. If those PIs are true to their word, then they should be insuring their enrollees at significantly less cost per person than the public option. If they aren't able to attain that, then something is wrong with the picture. Since those enrolled in the PIs programs are or should be enjoying lower rates due to the fact that the PIs excluded the high risk candidates, the American taxpayers should be compelled to pick up some slack in the public option at least for a while, (10 years?). In the end whatever this bill ends up looking like, it will lack the teeth that a single payer system would have had to reduce costs by pooling all the risk/people. For that we can thank our timid, avaricious, and short sighted elected officials in congress and the White House. My point in this blog is merely to hold their feet to the fire and make them pay a price for crossing the will of 70+% of the American public during the next election.
July 1, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm.
You have a point. Any startup business needs to be able to run at a loss during the initial period of burn in; until there is an installed base, brand equity, or loyal customers providing a certian amount of reliable income. New customers are good, but you can't expect to turn a profit if they're your only customers.
On the other hand, if the public subsidizes the "public option", it rally will be what the private insurers say. In other words, an industry eating monster. A 10% subsidy turns "robust Public Option" into "De Facto National Health Service With No Cost Benefits".
Reason being, there's no way that subsidy is ever going away if its enacted. We can't get rid of FARM subsidies, for chrissake.
Perhaps there's a middle ground where the "public option" is signing up for Medicare or something, and there's no subsidy but the public option gets to feed at the trust fund trough.
Everything else is.
July 2, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the end it boils down to whether we as a culture and a people believe healthcare is a commodity to be exploited for profit or is it a human right whose costs need to be controlled. If it's the latter the choices are trying to control costs through regulation, monitoring, and enforcement in our current convoluted system, public option or not, or bringing the whole system into the public domain such as a single payer system. The latter is the most efficient way to control costs. The creativity of the market is better at maximizing profits, than delivering a public service. That's ultimately the business of government.
July 2, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
We ought to form the Soviet Health Insurance Company. It could be a non-profit, purely mutual insurance company, like those of old. The shareholders are the patients and, as has happened successfully for centuries in insurance, the funds generated by premiums are sufficient to cover the costs of those in need. It worked so well, and the funds became so enormous, these parasites from Wall Strreet showed up and started raising them and privitizing them. We could just go back to a true mutual insurance industry, because it worked just fine.
July 1, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Miguelito, you must not get this: If the health care industry doesn't get what they want, then our illustrious senators won't get all the gazillions of dollars they have been promised!
Rolling the John, as you so disrespectfully put it, would deny the graft, bribery, theft -- okay, you pick the word -- that our senators have come to expect!
Let's just explore a scenario: The Congress passes a Single-Payer (OK, CVille Dem - get serious! )-----OK, they pass a Public Option Plan, which is similar to Medicare except that it includes the broad range of people including young and old, sick and well, and at a reasonable price.
The wonderful health industry companies are still there, offering their coverage, which is contingent upon your remaining healthy, and has always been dependent upon your being healthy in order to sign up for it in the first place.
OK, We have the Health Insurance Industry, which drops you asap when you need it, and we have the very nasty and deplorable "Public Option," which is portable and includes the mandate mentioned above.
This prostitute is going to say, "Hey! As long as you are a rich SOB without obvious scabs, I am going to make you very very happy -- so pay up!
For those who don't want to visit prostitutes, they can remain steady. For the many years they don't need medical care, they will still pay in a regular amount; once they do, they will be able to get the benefits.
That is a reasonable way to look at it unless you are among those who thing your state should pay your airfare, hotel and meals in Argentina even as the schools that you "oversee" rot from lack of maintenance and care.
July 1, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really should have edited this, but I'm sure you get my drift. I had a really hard day! Shhesh! Did I really not edit this stuff? My bad
July 1, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand completely CVille. I personally alternate between depression due to the fact that I finally got a Democrat in the WH, and majorities in both houses of congress, and they still won't step up to the plate and do the right thing, which for my money is a single payer system, and outright anger that they are so bold as to flaunt the wishes of the American Public. If they deliver a hamstrung public option to the floor of congress. I'm going to be burning Max Baucus, and others in effigy.
July 1, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Im a little miffed here Miguelito, consider this
scenario :
A man hires me to do a job and pays me in advance
but instead I take the money and go party.When he finds out he takes me to court and sues me. The week before the trial I take the Judge pizza for lunch every day and hand him an envelope with cash and say "hey judge heres a little donation to your wardrobe fund" Do you think I would be able to lobby the Judge in this way or would I find myself singing the Folsom Prison Blues? So how did it get so screwed up and legal for anybody with some cash to lobby our Reps and Senators to see things their way in spite of what the people say? Are they so bold now that they will ignore the 70% of us that say get us some public insurance, and 45% that say get us single payer? Are they going to offer us some artifical plastic fruit and say, "be happy, its pretty, it looks like the real thing and it will last for a mighty long time?" This lobbying has got to go and our hired hands in Congress better remember who they work for pronto!
July 1, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It gets worse, and worse DonDi.
July 1, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
over and over.
July 1, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yez.
Wait....or wot?
July 1, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink