Citizen, your double plus ungood blackwhite abilities are crimethink. I have told miniluv of your need for education, soon you will return to goodthinking.

Uh, doesn't this mean WORLDWIDE (i.e., outside of the US) famine and DOMESTIC obesity epidemic? There's nothing incompatible at all with this, clearly.

Working too hard (and thinking too little) to score a Clinton "gotcha", I guess.

tcg,

Let’s see…. A world wide famine?… there has never been one in recorded history. But let’s not facts and real science get in the way when we need mo govement.

Now obesity is a real problem for politicians that want to have total control over heath care. The tricky part is how to pitch this to the public without losing the fat vote. But, I am sure that Bill and Hill will figure it out.

Come on the former president’s statement makes no sense at all.

I understand him perfectly. People in equatorial Africa are starving because Bill Clinton is eating all the Tater Tots. Bill Clinton is only 0.0000001% of the world's population, yet he's consuming more pasta salad than the world's ten poorest nations combined. Plus, the global warming is making him all sweaty. Yuck.

If we don't have international cooperation to deal with the Bill Clinton problem, like immediately, we might as well abandon all of our zero-sum redistributionist delusions right now, because we're nothing but hypocrites.

Actually, I don't think you are nearly as harsh on a statement like this as you should be.

Clinton is advocating universal health care. That's the subtext of this comment. But a domestic obesity can only be a danger to the national health care system if it is in fact nationalized. If you have a domestic obesity epidemic, it might have dire consequences on economic productivity, but it can't possibly bring down the health care system unless you have the expectation that people have a right to health care. If you don't have the expectation that people have a right to health care, all domestic obesity epidemics mean is that fat people die more often from health complications than thinner people. Tragic, but true.

Where Clinton's comment really leads is to inevitable suggestion that people should not be allowed to be fat, since in doing so they unfairly burden the rest of society.

The natural consequence of giving up responcibility is losing your freedom. If someone else is made responcible for your health, you lose your freedom to make health decisions and you grant authority to whoever you give that responcibility to make them for you.

And that's just one of about six equally wrong things about Clinton's statement. Let's not even get into the question of whether Clinton is implying that a crisis in foreign healthcare represents an existential crisis in domestic health care.

Rev. thanks for a much needed laugh!!

#2 -

Last I checked, the US was still on this planet, thus would be included in 'worldwide.'

WELL THOSE DEMOCRATS do love their DOOM THEORIES.

IT certainly does make sense to spread them out a bit better, doesn't it?
EG: The BBC ran a story recently on how GLOBAL WARMING COULD CAUSE A RETURN OF THE ICE AGE...
This is true, I'm not making it up!

The other funny one was that green house gases were found to block UV light. This would reduce the incidence of skin cancer. The problem was that the Ozone Hole was supposed to be letting in MORE UV light, which would increase skin cancer! Dammit, the two DOOM THEORIES were canceling each other out!

The MSM solution was to stop mentioning the thing about the UV blockage by greenhouse gases. Then they could keep two doom theories going at once (well, really 2 1/2. The Killer Bee thing could be kept as an emergency backup doom theory if one of the others failed).

I figured it out the other day, writing a piece about DOOM THEORIES.
The solution to all of them is Socialism! This is because whether it's Obesity or Killer Bees, the government will have to grow bigger, and take more control of the populace, in order to mobilize against the problem(s).

Then with everyone mobilized, and doing exactly the same thing, we can fight those bees, or those waistlines, or Ebola, or Lizards taking over the government, or, or...

Global famine will wreck the American health-care system sure enough, if everybody in the world with a health problem (such as undernourishment) is entitled to an American taxpayer-funded remedy for their condition, as part of the American health-care system.

That is an extensive entitlement dream.

Recently I read Arnold Kling's book; "Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay for Health Care."

The author explains why socialized medicine fails to provide adequate and affordable health care. Then offers a rational alternative to our nation's drift into government controlled socialized medicine.

As a Navy primary care physician, I have witnessed the deterioration of our health care system under the TRICARE program. I hope that politicians don't use this disaster as a model for national health care.

My opinion is that our citizens would be better served by a health care system that limits rather then expands the influence of government and profit driven health care managers.

"WELL THOSE DEMOCRATS do love their DOOM THEORIES"

"BBC ran a story recently on how GLOBAL WARMING COULD CAUSE A RETURN OF THE ICE AGE."

and the BBC is the official media of the Democratic party or the Democrat party?

Or Hillary owns them. At least the jews who do own the Democrat party don't own them. They're clear on that. Thank the lord.

I believe "This is true, I'm not making it up!" It's too truthy.

Did you know the Clintons were in Kansas and OK just before those tragic tornadoes. The BBC reported they were smirking about something about their pivate planes which are actually capable of clould seeding. And those planes flew east before the tornadoes.

This is true, I'm not making it up!

Thanks for the multiple heads up.

At least the jews who do own the Democrat party don't own them. They're clear on that. Thank the lord.

I'm sorry Glen I thought it was clear and the private replies I've received at least seem as though those folks understood.

The Clintons, man, the the Clintons. I mean what in the world isn't about them???????

I'll try to spell things out more clearly in the future. Do note though that I was trying for 1 syllable words and Clinton has two. And that too is their fault. (in words of 1 syl)

Mr Bobker:

What's clear is that your two cents aren't coin of the realm.

So to speak.

I understand the impulse to up the snark ante when presented with snarkiness, but actual wit is more valuable than snark. And sarcasm is best delivered with a needle, not a bucket.

See also the WoC Comments Policy.

Best wishes on your future comments here at WoC.

***
[ Followup: in private communication to me, Mr Bobker seems to think I (whoever I am!) am picking on him and threatening to ban him from commenting because Glen has some sort of protected status.

This is an interesting reaction. Subtlety is lost on some people, as is politeness, I guess. If I was somehow less polite than Mr Bobker, I apologize.

For the record: all I was trying to do here is to remind folks, including Mr Bobker, that low-worth comments are deprecated.

Nobody's picking on you, or throwing weight around, Mr Bobker. I picked on your posts in this thread because they slopped sarcasm on a foot thick, and had little substance; as near as I can tell, your sole claim seems to be that people who jump from comments on Clinton(s) to comments on the BBC are somehow worth heaping gobs of ridicule on. And please note that the person who did that (and was mocked by you) was not Glen. So where's the beef?

Mr Bobker, If this was your WoC delurk and you feel harshly treated, I regret that. Please accept my apology. ]

The Clintons, man, the the Clintons. I mean what in the world isn't about them???????

I don't believe I've ever heard anyone blame the Clintons for bad weather. I actually have heard people blame George Bush for bad weather, in a very literal sense, and they weren't even kidding. But on the weather issue, the Clintons seem to be in the clear.

The Clintons also seem to evade much blame for things that happened "on their watch". Few people blame them for the Waco tragedy, although Nixon and his AG John Mitchell were assailed for decades because of what happened at Attica in 1971. Clinton was allowed to disappear for a few days while his AG Janet Reno dodged the softballs, and that was it. No Joan Baez songs, no lectures from Doonesbury, nothing. This too argues against the idea of the Clintons as a blame-magnet.

No need to go into perjury and subornation of perjury, or bizarre definitions of simple verbs. All the blame for that was dumped on other people.

Clinton doesn't even get blamed for all the stuff he's done to hurt Democrats - like handing the Republicans control of Congress, then letting them run the country for the rest of his presidency. Or his miserable efforts on behalf of Gore and Lieberman in 2000. Or the countless Democrats all over the country (including top names like Tom Daschle) who went down to defeat because they stood by him while he played the fool. For all of this, Clinton was heaped with praise, not blame.

So it's very hard to tell what is "all about the Clintons." But it's not hard to tell what the Clintons are all about - they're all about the Clintons; first, last, and always.

"Clinton doesn't even get blamed for all the stuff he's done to hurt Democrats - like handing the Republicans control of Congress,"

Kind of awkward to blame that on just Clinton, it was a joint effort together with Congressional Democrats, after all.

Ha, Ha, Ho, Ho. Hillarious (satirical)

1) It would be nice to critique clinton on the toltality of his speech, instead of a single sentency synopsis of what he said. Beleive it or not, some presidents can actually give talks that don't need to be summarized to be understood.

2) Worldwide famine could dramatically affect the US healthcare systems. Starving polutions have poor immune systems, and are easily ravaged by sickness... this is prime breeding ground for drug-resistant strains of smallpox, tuberculosis, AIDS (well, more so), Ebola (and ebola-like sicknesses) and other disease that are unfamiliar to our medical systems. There are many other diseases that will be caused by global starvation, and these national diseases slowly filter into first world countries because of globalization.

3) National obesity will be a problem in the near-future. Altough it is difficult to anticipate how big, the american population is definately making bad eating habits (which is within their rights). Most americans eat massive amounts of calories with very little nutritional value. Beleive it or not, your body can starve while gorging yourself on fried potatoes. NOt in the traditional sense, but in that your organs will literally fall apart if they don't have basic nuitritional requirements. These problems also weaken the immune system, which could make the population susceptible to third-world disease. Poor general health is likely to place enormous stress on a healthcare system that is already struggling under pressure. It's reality that we need to accept.

I don't see any line there about regulating what people eat.

Oh, those wacky Democrats and their politics of fear...

If politicians ever really, REALLY start "to look ahead and cooperate" we are seriously screwed.

#17 Alchemist wrote

National obesity will be a problem in the near-future. Altough it is difficult to anticipate how big,...

Ah, you crack me up!

Actually, I didn't even realize that pun was in there...

I hope someone in the world is collecting Billy Clinton-isms!

Good grief, the eagerness to find fault with Clinton is blinding everyone to elementary grammar and vocabulary. Does anyone in this place know what "could" and "such as" means? You could die in a number of horrible ways such as drowning or burning. A number of disasters could overwhelm the US healthcare system such as famine or obesity epidemic.

A number of disasters could overwhelm the US healthcare system such as famine or obesity epidemic.

It is also somewhat backward to worry about famine overwhelming the health care system, because famine could only occur in the United States after such a social collapse that the health care system would have long since ceased to exist anyway. It is not clear to me - or to anybody except Mr. Bill - how famine in other countries can overwhelm our health care, or it would have done so long since.

What America's Second Oldest Teenager might have said, if he would read something besides Newsweek, is that our health care system might be seriously threatened by anthrax or smallpox if people like bin Laden and Hussein were allowed to have their way. Or by malaria and cholera, because of environmental bans on pesticides and chlorine. Or even by something halfway reasonable like skin cancer - remember when we were all going to get skin cancer?

Or Night of the Living Dead zombie syndrome. Pod people from outer space. Can't the scare-mongers even be half-assed imaginative any more?

Glen, did you bother to read my post?

Maybe I need to spell this out clearer. People who are obese are also at high risk for a number of other expensive and difficult to treat problems: high blood pressure, strokes, heart disease, liver failure, kidney failure, diabetes, broken bones and joint failure, many types of cancer (associations with breast, colon, ovarian and prostate cancer), arthritis, any many other types of problems that we haven't identified yet.

Let's say just 25% of america is obese (studies show anywhere from 31%-60%) and someone who is obese typically spend 37% more on their medical bills than someone who is of average weight.

That seems fair, on tne surface. If we assume that medical bills relate to charges per used skills/time, we could also say that obese individuals consume more ~37% hospital time/care. So just by having an obeisty rate of 25%, we've now increased patient/outpatient time in the US by 9.25%.

It may not sound like much, but most hospitals are already stretched thin. In many cases doctors never even seen non-critical patients, leaving all the working to an army of nursing and technical assistants. They're simply aren't enough doctors, nurses (or hospital beds) to go around. %10 increased care can push hospitals to the breaking point.

And this is nothing. The next generation has even worse health habits than mine. 1/3 kids is considered obese (which may lead to a 40-60% obesity rate of young adults in 10-20 years). This places an added burden of 20-30% hopsital care time (this doesn't even include problems from lifelong obesity, which are basically unknown). If this happens, health care in this country will start to burst at the seams. Minor problems will not be treated with the same ability/follow through they are today, and many problems will go unnoticed until they become larger, more dangerous (and more time consuming) concerns. These problems start becoming cyclical.

All of these problems also raise the costs of health insurance on everyday families, which are already skyrocketing. Are you starting to get it?

Glen,

I'm not sure you read my post...or for that matter, Mr. Sensing's up top at the begining there, which mine was addressing. My understanding of Sensing's was that he believed he found some sort of funny contradiction in Clinton's reported (& paraphrased) belief that two seemingly contradictory events were necessarily going to happen. All I did was point out my belief that Sensing was twisting the meaning in order to take a cheap swipe.

As to the content of Clinton's belief, well, I'm no expert. Alchemest makes a good case, though...better, I'd say, than yours. I don't know if you've ever been to an emergency room lately but from my limited perspective, it wouldn't take much to overwhelm that aspect of our healthcare system. I also know--again based only on personal experience--that costs of both healthcare and insurance are barely affordable for someone with a reasonably high-paying job. I would guess that too large an increase in demand for healthcare would not only inflate prices even further but also make services less available to each individual. Given the consequences---we're talking about health here, not a golf game or picnics--I think "overwhelm" is not too strong a word. It's not like Clinton was saying "imminent collapse"...and the remedy he was suggesting seems sensible and inexpensivie enough. So, to me at least, your accusations of scare tactis are wildly exagerated. In fact, your accusations seem to me to resemble the very type of rhetorical tactic that you incorrectly claim Clinton has employed.

Famine in other countries could easily have adverse affects on our healthcare system since diseases are spread faster in a famine situation due to a host of factors. I don't know whether or not you have noticed but today diseases can spread across large geographical areas much more quickly than they once did. A little more preparation for such possibilities is not an unreasonable request, is it?

Amen to mark and alchemist. I see no contradiction in what Clinton said; he is
just pointing out a contrast we should not
be comfortable with.