Search This Blog

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Let's Put Firing People in Context

I'm sure everyone has heard by now that Romney said, "I like to fire people." Naturally, there is a context for this remark, which makes perfect sense, not that any talking heads are doing such a thing. While they erroneously apply this to his profession, he actually said, "I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

Ah ha! He was talking about services, such as health insurance! Ann Coulter took off running with this topic yesterday.  She talked all about the inefficiencies in government jobs, such as the DMV, and the fraud and abuse that occur in them, without replacing offending government workers or being unable to fire them because of union laws. The conclusion I quote for you because it's priceless:

"These are the people who are going to be controlling your access to medical services if Obamacare isn't repealed. There will be only one insurance provider, and you won't be able to switch, even if the service is lousy (and it will be).

"Obamacare employees will spend their days surfing pornography, instead of approving your heart operation. They can steal from you and even physically assault you. And they can never be fired.

"That's one gargantuan difference with "Romneycare" right there: If you don't like what your insurer is doing in Massachusetts, you can get a new one.

"Now, wouldn't you like to be able to fire people who provide services to you?"

I know some will argue that private insurance is still an option with Obamacare. I caution you. This is only temporary.  Obamacare is specifically and carefully set up to drive insurance companies out of business by requiring coverage of expensive optional procedures such as sex changes, abortions, etc. as well as delivering steep fines for the slightest infraction against the 2000-page law, and thus the premiums go up for these insurance companies and thus the businesses can't afford to use them anymore and hire contract workers instead and eventually HMOs are choked out of a profit and go bankrupt. At which point we will all have to turn to Uncle Sam whether we like it or not.

Rush Limbaugh had a great point the other day: he said shouldn't we be looking for a president who likes to fire people to cut the government down to size?


  1. Even I agree that Romney's firing comment was taken out of context in the media. But Coulter's comment that you quoted above is completely baseless and rediculous. "Surfing porn. Stealing. Physically assaulting". Pullleeze!

  2. If you read her full article, you'll see she's referencing factual past examples of things government workers have done without being fired.

  3. Don't you see that when you or Ann Coulter blame Obama for every problem with the government or government employees, you lose credibilty? I think the point that you're trying to make is that government is an inefficient system with employees who are not held accountable. That may be true, but I'm also here to tell you that I spent the first 12 years of my career in a highly competitive private sector corporation and there were still dead weight, rogue, worthless employees who seemed to coast along without ever being fired. Ann Coulter even noted that some of the examples in her article happened "years ago". Obama has only been president since 2008, Jan of '09 effectively. And by your logic, since all government employees are worthless and shouldn't be trusted with any of our social services, I assume that means you are willing forfeit any of the government services you use?

    This is what's wrong with politics today. You seem to be incapable of pointing out a disagreement in policy without making it a personal attack. I disagreed with Bush's policy of starting 2 wars on principal, but especially without raising taxes to pay for them. I disagreed with his passing of the Prescription Drug Bill, also unpaid for. But I never made that a personal attack on Bush.

    I also ask that you please consider these enormous spending measures by our previous president and the compounding interest on the debt that this caused before you pin all of your attacks on spending on President Obama.

  4. Ann Coulter is a satiricist! I thought you knew that. Her words are not meant to be taken completely literally, but to point out, using hyperbole and absurdity, the issues. Of course there are plenty of hard-working people in government, though I myself have plenty of experience with the opposite kind. And I believe you when you say there are plenty of lazy people in the private sector. Do I believe that I imply all government is bad? I'm for limited government but not no government, as I've written previously. Do I think government should be streamlined and made more efficient? Absolutely. Do I believe in forfeiting any federal government services I use? I don't use any at the moment besides the postal service. Which would be better run private, so I guess not.
    You may not have made a personal attack on Bush, but the leftist media did it for you. I'm not asking you to agree with all I say, but to think about the points I make without flying off the handle. Is this where compromise breaks down? When the left refuses to consider that the more money left in the private sector, the better the economy can grow? Government takes money out of the private sector to pay for itself. It cannot raise or earn money on its own. It can print money, contributing to inflation. If you look throughout history (not the leftist media history, but statistical history), when taxes are lowered, particularly on businesses, the more money the government hauls in because of increased productivity. More jobs, more revenue. I ask that you please consider that a wiser president than Obama would not have added insult to injury concerning our deficit: he would have taken serious strides towards balancing the budget rather than increasing government time and time again, especially at a time our economy is struggling. The size of government is cripping the economy, the size of the deficit cripples our future economy. I do not excuse Bush for growing government and do not support the objections about him you raised. I brought him up more for a comparison in how media treats presidents of different parties.

  5. I'm willing to bet you use more government services than the post office. Do you not drive on the interstate highway system? Buy food inspected by the USDA? Use prescription or OTC meds regulated by the FDA? Keep money in a bank account protected by the FDIC? How about living under the security of international and domestic security agencies?

    I don't think I flew off the handle. I simply pointed out that your arguments against policy are soiled with personal attacks against Obama. Your post didn't qualify Coulter's comments as satire. You used her article to support your argument. For the record, I don't think she's a satiricist. I think an example of a conservative satiricist is Steven Colbert.

    The Bush tax cuts of 2001 are a great example of how lowering taxes in the private sector do not necessarily lead to more revenue.

    Regardless, I do agree with you that government should be streamlined and made more efficient. I hope that our 2 parties can work together to make it so because are are in real trouble.

  6. I thought everyone knew Ann Coulter writes satire! She was making a serious point, through satire, which I reiterated and by 'priceless' I meant 'priceless because it's hilarious!' I attack Obamacare, not Obama. I even reread my post just to check, just now. I know Obama didn't write Obamacare though he supports it and probably insisted on many of its components. You're right, I use interstates very occasionally and the other things. I don't think about them much in terms of wasteful government spending, though all departments could stand for upgrades in efficiency. I'm glad you agree we're in real trouble if we don't sort this out!