3 months ago
Sharky
235 comments
8 recs |
Comments
Look up the word socialism, you fuckin' idiot.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Aug 4, 2009 9:24 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
“An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.”
What was your point?
by Jack Nicholson 1974 on Aug 4, 2009 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point is...
that I love right wing idiots who think that anything to the left of them is socialist.
Now that you have looked up the word, try and understand what it means.
I could easily post a picture of W. with a short mustache and a caption that says fascism too. Ohh, look how creative I am.
My point is that this picture is pathetic.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Aug 4, 2009 10:47 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Same as this?
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/07/bush-as-joker.html
I’m not even saying where I stand on this issue. It is just funny how sensitive Obama supporters are after 8 years if “Bush is Hitler,” “Bush is Satan” and worse. It seems like no tactics were off limits against Bush and now all political discourse must be civil and respectful. It’s just funny to me.
by Jack Nicholson 1974 on Aug 4, 2009 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I believe Bush...
to be one of the worst presidents ever. However I never called or thought of him as Hitler, Stalin, or worse. That picture of W is just as stupid as the one of Obama. You may not have said where you stand on the issue, but you rec’d that pic didn’t ya?
What’s funny to me is that many republicans watch what Bush did with the economy for 8 years and don’t ask a single question about where all the money went and why the deficit is as high as it is. Now after 6 months of Obama everything is about where he’s spending money, healthcare, and how he’s a socialist. Just lame.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Aug 4, 2009 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hence why both sides are idiots.
Libertarianism is your friend.
"Look out, Itchy! He’s Irish!"
Rock Flag & Eagle Radio: Monday - Thursday, 10 PM - 1 AM, on FM 88.7 The Choice, or online @ ktcu.net!
by Maximilian on Aug 4, 2009 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions 4 recs
A thousand times ... This.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
"When he came up with that ball, hop or not, he looked exactly like a homeless guy who had found a long cigarette butt – only to discover it was soaked with gasoline. He could not have thrown out anyone there, even though Cust moves at about the speed of soil erosion." - Ed C.
by Chase Irwin on Aug 4, 2009 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But libertarians can never quite get themselves popularly elected.
Hey la, hey, Halo...
by 44FAN on Aug 4, 2009 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They aren't given a fair shot.
The big parties like to squeeze out small party candidates from debates and from ballots. See; Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, etc.
Additionally, big donors won’t fund libertarian candidates because their numbers are too small within Congress to have any power. They get no bang for their buck. This leaves their campaigns underfunded.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 6:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is a shame it's a two-party system
because the truth is that most lie somewhere in the middle and simply have to choose the side they disagree with the least.
by Agreen07 on Aug 4, 2009 8:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
because
No one really knows what a libertarian is. People call themselves this so that they sound “informed” and above it all. Many people think being a Libertarian is the same thing as being an independent. Independent generally means they are uninformed and don’t want to look dumb by taking a side. They claim to be an Independent, a Libertarian, or their “Undecided” so they are going to wait and decide. They end up waiting and waiting and typically don’t vote.
Of course there are these types of Republicans and Democrats too. They say they are a Democrat, but if you told them what a typical Democrat platform is they would say, “Oh, well, I uh… a Fiscally Conservative Democrat” or they are a “Compassionate Republican”. These people typically vote for who they think will win or what is cool. The reason the Reps. and Dems. are hurt as much by this phenomenon as the Libertarians are is that by definition Libertarians want the Government to stay out of it all. In my opinion this Government outlook will lead on to stay out of government practices themselves, in case voting.
Perhaps the best evidence of all this is that there are Libertarians who support Obama. Whether you like Obama or not, there is nothing Libertarian about him.
Ephesians 1:3-10
by kwellborn on Aug 6, 2009 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow. So many things wrong with this post.
I wouldn’t know where to begin.
Do you really think that shit? I mean … really????
Good grief.
"When he came up with that ball, hop or not, he looked exactly like a homeless guy who had found a long cigarette butt – only to discover it was soaked with gasoline. He could not have thrown out anyone there, even though Cust moves at about the speed of soil erosion." - Ed C.
by Chase Irwin on Aug 6, 2009 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is really misinformed.
Libertarians want to secure personal liberties. Liberals also want to secure personal liberties.
by jwiscarson on Aug 6, 2009 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As long as those liberties are in agreement with thir beliefs...
Both sides are pretty damn weak on personal liberties..
The Texas Rangers have been synonymous with explosive firepower ever since they emptied 130 rounds into Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow in 1934. - Alyssa Milano
by bking on Aug 7, 2009 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What the hell?
That’s even more misinformed than the comment I responded to. You need to learn more about liberalism and libertarianism if that’s what you think.
by jwiscarson on Aug 7, 2009 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do some people have to assume that those who disagree are somehow "misinformed"???
Every group, every political bent has a sliding scale of adherence to principle, depending on whose ox is being gored.
The Texas Rangers have been synonymous with explosive firepower ever since they emptied 130 rounds into Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow in 1934. - Alyssa Milano
by bking on Aug 7, 2009 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW, When I said "both sides", I wasn't saying liberals and libertarians...
That was intended for liberals and concervatives. I don’t really see libertarians as a “side” in the traditional sense.
The Texas Rangers have been synonymous with explosive firepower ever since they emptied 130 rounds into Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow in 1934. - Alyssa Milano
by bking on Aug 7, 2009 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do not follow that logic.
I don’t think inequality is okay regardless of who it’s happening to, and anyone who says they’re all about equality “except when it happens to the rich white guy” (or whatever socioeconomic/gender/racial group you want to put in there) doesn’t really care about equality, which would make them something else.
And you didn’t say “sliding scale” above. You asserted that both sides are weak on personal liberties. What sector of liberalism is weak about personal liberties?
by jwiscarson on Aug 7, 2009 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course there is nothing libertarian
about Republican presidencies either. Putting trillions into defense spending and pointless wars is definitely not very libertarian.
"I saw a soldier try to dig a foxhole with his bare hands. He didn't notice that he'd torn off all his fingernails. I got him out of there quickly; not for his sake, but for ours. Fear is poison in combat...destructive, contagious." - Band of Brothers
by DJCahill on Aug 6, 2009 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
This
It’s just dumb to try to pigeonhole libertarianism definitely into one “side” (Republicans or Democrats) or the other. It’s perfectly possible to have libertarian leanings but be a staunch Republican or Democrat.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
by Clutch on Aug 9, 2009 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"The Myth of National Defense"
"When he came up with that ball, hop or not, he looked exactly like a homeless guy who had found a long cigarette butt – only to discover it was soaked with gasoline. He could not have thrown out anyone there, even though Cust moves at about the speed of soil erosion." - Ed C.
by Chase Irwin on Aug 9, 2009 10:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good grief, every time you speak on matters like this, I am reminded of the fact that you are a teacher
Scary sad.
Your entire first paragraph numbs the mind. Wow.
We'll show you Obama's birth certificate as soon as you show us Sarah Palin's high school diploma...
by Brian Thomas on Aug 12, 2009 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You make very general assumptions
Bush’s approval rating was extremely low toward the end of his tenure yet you make it out like every single Republican supported his policies all the way through. What fantasy land were you in?
by Agreen07 on Aug 4, 2009 8:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Point of contention.
I want to preface my response to the entirety of this thread with the overarching statement that I believe that extremes exist in all directions of the political spectrum. Which is neither left nor right.
The primary difference in the “Bush is Hitler” etc. argument vs. the caricature above is racism. President Obama in white face is patently racist. Nobody ever sent around an image of President Bush in black face.
I find it ironic we are debating, arguing, fighting, defending a position on a baseball blog in the same year the first black President threw out the first pitch at the All Star game.
What would Jackie Robinson think?
by Saigon Hooker on Aug 7, 2009 11:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
sic ranger
Typical leftist who doesn’t know history. Hitler wasn’t a Fascist, he was a National Socialist.
Yes you can post a picture of the former President with a Hitler mustache and write Fascism underneath but it would be a lie.
by dickdigler on Aug 8, 2009 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No shit it's a lie...
just like putting a picture of Obama and a caption of socialism is a lie. That’s the point genius.
Fascism also places race above an individual, feels the strong needs to conquer the weak to flourish, and is ruled by a dictator, all certainly large componetnts of Nazi Germany and Hitler. The term fascism is actually very vague and many historians disagree on the exact meaning, but I’m sure you already knew that, right?
Plus it’s “SLC” as in Salt Lake City, and believe me I know my history, thank you.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Aug 8, 2009 4:59 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Let's see Bush
1) Initiatiated Aggressive war against Foreign nations
2) Lied to the world about the causes of going to war
3) Built torture camps on foreign soil
4) Wire tapped his own people
5) Ignored the Geneva Convention
Seems as if putting a Hitler mustache on him and calling him a Nazi isn’t any farther off the mark than putting the socialism tag on Obama.
"I saw a soldier try to dig a foxhole with his bare hands. He didn't notice that he'd torn off all his fingernails. I got him out of there quickly; not for his sake, but for ours. Fear is poison in combat...destructive, contagious." - Band of Brothers
by DJCahill on Aug 9, 2009 7:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
wait a sec there
1) Was this aggressive war against peaceful, law-abiding nations?
2) Did he lie, or was the intelligence either not correct or not proven?
3) Did he himself build these “torture camps?”
4) Who in the government isn’t wire tapped?
5) Specifics about the Geneva Convention please…are you referring to Guantanamo?
The socialism ties to Obama are clear and present. The nazi ties to Bush are your assumptions and twists of factual information and a historical perspective that simply are too far apart and difficult to effectively argue unless you’re a brainwashed ignorant individual.
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Aug 10, 2009 12:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure
Hitler told his people that Poland wasn’t a peaceful law abiding nation.
I’m sure Hitler also didn’t build the torture camps with his own hands.
The nazi ties are as strong as the socialism ties, and you my friend, are apparently the brainwashed, ignorant individual.

"I saw a soldier try to dig a foxhole with his bare hands. He didn't notice that he'd torn off all his fingernails. I got him out of there quickly; not for his sake, but for ours. Fear is poison in combat...destructive, contagious." - Band of Brothers
by DJCahill on Aug 10, 2009 5:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Settle down there guy
I wasn’t calling you brainwashed or ignorant…I was referring to the people that get a kick out of a sign like the one you posted above. I have to admit the Obama-Joker pic up at the top of this thread is kind of disturbing…no matter what my views towards his presidency are. There’s just no use for either of these views. The chasm between the far left and the far right is as big as ever, but people in the middle or moderates are now being thrust into the fold. I think these things are far more damaging than necessary…and intended for malice. It would be nice if we could work towards that middle. And I think the socialist angle that is being discussed here is a reality, while I think the war mongering finger pointing towards Bush is a little bit of a dramatic reach
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Aug 10, 2009 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think its a reach at all.
Especially when the administration burned CIA agents like Valerie Plame and burned anyone who tried to tell the truth about the WMDs. There is a pretty clear case that they rejected any intel that didn’t fit in their case for aggressive belligerent warfare. It’s pretty clear that by UN standards, our war into Iraq was as illegal as the Nazi’s invasion of Poland.
While Dems may pay people to dig holes, and then fill them in, Republicans like Reagan finance Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida so that other Republicans can burn trillions of dollars eliminating them.
Equating Republicans to Nazis is every bit as fair as calling Obama a socialist. If you insist on using rhetoric like that, don’t cry like a little pussy when similar hyberbolic rhetoric gets used in return.
"I don't condone steroids or any other type of growth hormones or anything else, but I could care less, and, for the most part, I don't think the fans give a (bleep). The people that care about it are the people that probably don't like baseball," - Jim Leyland
by DJCahill on Aug 10, 2009 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
did I shed a tear?
I don’t see how I was out of line. or overreacting.
regardless, do me a favor: define WMD for me.
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Aug 10, 2009 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Umm...
No. The socialism ties to Obama are NOT clear and present. Except to those that drink the Fox News kool-aid. It’s typical republican smear tactics to try and scare the shit out of people like they always try and do.
For you to say that anyone who doesn’t agree with your political views are brainwashed and ignorant is simply put, wrong. Of course for conservatives the claims of socialism towards Obama have to be right and the claims against W have to be wrong. The socialism stuff is just bs. Give it a rest.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Aug 10, 2009 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
first of all
read above in my response to Cahill. It was not a personal attack, and I am not calling out all left/Liberals as ignorant and brainwashed. And I will also point out that I think just as many of the right/Conservatives are ignorant as well.
Second: are Obama’s direct ties to Ayers, the New Party, DSA, etc. all off limits here? Can we not see a direct socialist-leaning set of policies trying to be placed into the system here at the hands of Obama? Is it just your point of view that is rejecting this, or am I wrong here?
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Aug 10, 2009 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Read your comment above...
I thought that last sentence about being a “brainwashed ignoirant individual” was directed at Dan or other far left liberals like myself. Sorry if my rebuttal was a little crass.
I still strongly diagree with this statement though:
The socialism ties to Obama are clear and present.
I don’t see the ties you listed as legit. They certainly aren’t off limits, but I think they are seriously overblown. Again, I’m probably one of the farthest left-leaning people out there though. I always try and preface my opinions by saying so. Perhaps I should try and stay out of these debates because of this. I know no one here will change my opinion, and I certainly don’t expect anything I type to change anyone’s opinion either. I’m just very opinionated I suppose. Of course, we all are. This is why we post our thoughts on a blog for people that many of us will never meet.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Aug 10, 2009 8:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Visa-Versa
For liberals, the claims against W are fact, and the claims of socialism towards Obama are lies, or at the very least misguided, regardless of the facts. Conservatives and liberals are the same, they all believe that they’re right and the other side is wrong.
I’m not calling Obama a socialist, but he is the furthest Left President we have ever had. And he is trying to give the government more control over our daily lives… Nationalized health care, “spreading the wealth around”, government intervention in free enterprise (ie auto industry, banks, Wall st.). While he is not trying to pull the country into strict socialism, putting these measures into place sure slides a little further down the socialism/capitalism scale than where we’ve ever been as a country.
by Topgun22 on Aug 10, 2009 6:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree...
that Obama is very liberal. Not sure he’s the “furthest Left President we have ever had though.” I’m no presidential historian, but I think that would be hard to claim after only 6 months or so in office.
I think many conservatives are so affraid of liberals or liberal ideas that they are screaming that the sky is falling before there is ample evidence to back that up. I don’t claim to be non-bias. I know what side I’m on and I don’t try to hide it. I don’t understand how people who supported W for 8 years can bash on Obama after 6 months. So yes, I guess that proves your first paragraph to be true.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Aug 10, 2009 8:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seems pretty accurate to me
Obama isn’t a liberal, he’s a full fledged socialist.
by GhostofGaryHogeboom on Aug 4, 2009 9:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Govt control of:
1) banking
2) auto industry
3) insurance industry*
4) healthcare*
5) energy*
- targeted
how is that not FUCKING SOCIALISM? You should have perhaps tried to get an education somewhere down the line my friend. Your empty replies here only unveil the realization that you are of limited comprehension and faculties.
we're from Texas
CJ says "Relax"
by eclou on Aug 4, 2009 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
It's actually the free market behaving like babies.
When those industries come crawling to the government for a bailout, you can only blame your elected representatives (Republicans and Democrats alike) for passing through massive packages to help keep “capitalism” afloat.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can appreciate your viewpoint.
we're from Texas
CJ says "Relax"
by eclou on Aug 4, 2009 5:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you.
We already have socialism for corporations, especially financial ones.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Aug 4, 2009 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Six Sigma, Sarbanes-Oxley, FDIC, FDA...
ALL law enforcement, etc. etc. etc.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's also the Gov't that's letting them off the hook
thus promoting risky business.
by Agreen07 on Aug 4, 2009 8:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ahaha...
you telling me to “get an education” after this wonderful post full of facts.
Oh the irony.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Aug 5, 2009 1:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you not realize
That it was one Mr. George W. Bush who came up with the first TARP plan that essentially took over large portions of the banking industry and set the stage for the auto industry takeover, too? Or maybe you forgot that it was the auto industry that came clambering for government “help” and bailouts?
Nice try.
RIP Nick Adenhart.
"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5
by Clutch on Aug 9, 2009 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Baseball Blog
I don’t want to get into a pointless flame war on a baseball blog, as I know there is no way either of us come out of this with our mind changed. Yes, I rec’d the picture because it is funny and serves a valid point.
Please see the attached image for a comparative look at the Bush v. Obama deficits. Bush was in no way a good conservative, but it doesn’t take a genius to look at the chart and see a bad trend. A lot of us have been asking questions for the past 8 years, too.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
by Jack Nicholson 1974 on Aug 4, 2009 11:18 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
And just think a little bit of competent oversight by the Bush administration of Wall Street
and the Banks’ lending practices would have avoided the bailout money that had to be spent, government takeover of the mortgage lenders, and the billions extra that had to be paid out in unemployment compensation. Maddow is the only one that has gone to jail, while GWB remains free, but in hiding to avoid having to answer to anything to the press.
Hey la, hey, Halo...
by 44FAN on Aug 4, 2009 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
A little bit of competent oversight by the Bush administration
would have avoided the recession? I think you’re way off base with reality.
by Agreen07 on Aug 4, 2009 8:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
competent and the Bush Administration? no way that works with reality.
"I saw a soldier try to dig a foxhole with his bare hands. He didn't notice that he'd torn off all his fingernails. I got him out of there quickly; not for his sake, but for ours. Fear is poison in combat...destructive, contagious." - Band of Brothers
by DJCahill on Aug 4, 2009 10:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cause and Effect.
Sometimes it takes a genius to figure out causality.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Truthfully...
There is no other possible way to describe Obama’s proposed health care system other than “Socialist”.
When someone is pushing this hard for 1/6th of the US economy to be nationalized, I think socialism is an appropriate descriptor.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 6:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You clearly have no concept of the actual proposal.
When you understand it, at least a little bit, please come back and share your thoughts.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 6:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guarantee that I have a better understanding of it than you do..
The program is clearly set up to gradually phase out private insurance by making it illegal to change your insurer to anything other than the government ‘option’ (page 16 of the House proposal).
Private premiums will eventually go up as insurance companies have to make a profit to survive, while the government ‘option’ health care does not have to make a profit because of heavy subsidies. If people are not allowed to shop for health insurance, then eventually the only option would be to switch to the single payer system that Obama wants to set up.
There is a huge reason that America has the best healthcare in the world, and its because of our free market principles. Have you ever heard of anyone going from the US to Canada or Britain to receive world class health care? No, because its not.
Reform is necessary (tort reform, more competitive interstate options, or private account options), however a single payer system will NOT work (and does not work anywhere else in the world. Health care is not a right under the U.S. Constitution.
Its very simple economics. I would love to hear your deep understanding on the issue, though. Thanks.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 6:44 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
BTW
I just reread my post, and if it sounds rude or disrespectful, that wasn’t my intent. Sorry if parts of it may sound that way, there was none intended.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also,
I obviously can’t guarantee that I know more about it than you do. Its just something I’m passionate about.
Geez, I wish this place had an ‘Edit’ button, haha.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 6:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
'Edit' would be an awesome feature.
I objected your massive over-simplification of the plan. I still think that “nationalization” isn’t the right word for what it aims to do.
Given the apparent haste with which this plan was thrown together, one can be sure that it isn’t the best solution to the health care problems it aims to fix. I mostly don’t want to have to worry about how I’m going to pay for my health care when my [insert disease here] becomes a pre-existing condition.
Reform: yes. This plan: I doubt it.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 8:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obama's Plan..
I haven’t read it, but from what I understand (admittedly could be misguided) the older you are the less likely you are to receive required procedures, which is counter-intuitive. Allegedly, there is a mathematical formula in place which divides cost by the number of years of expected benefit, thus as cost and age increase, the likliehood of health care decreases.
I know that is extremely over-simplistic. But if that is in fact the core idea of the Obama plan, that seems very, very wrong to me.
by Topgun22 on Aug 10, 2009 6:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with your second paragraph.
The reform there needs to happen with the health care providers. Malpractice insurance premiums and the cost of using hospitals are ridiculous. These costs figure in the inability of a large number of folks to actually pay their bills.
With insurance companies footing most of the bills, hospitals and providers are free to charge as much as the insurances companies are willing to pay. The lack of real competition among health care providers is maddening. Baylor, Children’s, and other hospitals don’t have to compete with each other, so prices keep going higher and higher.
These doesn’t take into account the large number of frivolous malpractice lawsuits which should be reserved for negligence but are often filed when reasonable complications occur.
Your third paragraph is pretty useless in a discussion of facts.
And your fourth paragraph is sort of a short version of what I said in this post.
I’ll have to read page 16 of the proposal because your interpretation of it makes it sound poorly thought-out. The whole notion that people won’t be allowed to shop for health insurance is ridiculous.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 9:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Points well taken
I also think that reform should be made with health care providers, but the solutions I provided were certainly not exhaustive. Clearly, malpractice suits and a payment system with few checks are problems that need to be addressed.
However, I strongly believe that a single payer system would be a incentive-destroying disaster to the quality of our health care system. Even if it takes 20 years for it to disintegrate, it will be irreparable at that point.
My interpretation of the proposal may sound poorly thought out, but in reality it is a very thoroughly thought out proposal. The point of the current proposal is to eradicate the private insurance industry in the long run, and this will be done by doing exactly what is stated on page 16. People will be allowed to keep their current provider, but cannot switch to any provider other than the ‘government option’. If a person quits their job, or if their current employer provided health care is canceled, they cannot purchase a private insurance plan. In addition, the plan proposes a surtax on anyone that chooses to go without health care. The plan is clearly designed to push people toward the public options by making it more difficult for private options to operate.
This is exactly in line with what Mr. Obama claims when he says “you can keep your current plan if you like”. You can keep the current one, but only that one. If prices change, your only option is the ‘government option’.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 9:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, talk about a seriously misinterpreted paragraph.
That section he talks about is Section 102, subsection (a) specifically about GRANDFATHERED coverage – meaning that anyone on an existing plan can keep their existing plan even if it doesn’t conform to the requirements as laid out in the bill.
It doesn’t make it illegal to purchase individual, private health insurance, it makes it illegal to sell insurance that DOES NOT CONFORM to the requirements laid out in the bill.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 10:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
On a similar note...
Irresponsible journalism such as this, specifically the inflammatory kind, really pisses me off. The author of that Page 16 article either ignored facts intentionally or was too lazy to take the subsection in context.
His article affected your opinion and likely many others, and he was just flat out wrong.
It’s enough to make a libertarian seek governmental reform of posting privileges on the interwebs.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I tried to word that so you wouldn't think I was talking about your comment.
I was trying to say that the proposal seems poorly thought out based on what you said about it.
Also, this is not a single-payer bill.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 10:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand that, no offense taken
I also understand that this is not a single payer bill, however it does set up the basis for a gigantic subsidized system that will have a major funding advantage over privately run systems.
I believe that its rational to think that this could lead to a single payer system in the long term.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 10:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The bill does not lay out any kind of subsidies for this.
The enrolled participants pay premiums to fund their coverage as well as the coverage of other enrolled participants. It’s governed by math, like all insurance (basically a pyramid scheme), not subsidization.
Government provided health insurance coverage would work just like any other health insurance coverage. It would be cheaper, obviously, because the coverage will suck compared to private options.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 11:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But as you know...
Government programs that aren’t originally appropriated subsidies will be quickly supplied when needed. When was the last time you saw a gov’t program go out of business?
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 11:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Out of business" is the whole problem with this idea.
This bill does not establish a business. The government isn’t trying to compete with private insurance. The government “option” is not a profit-based initiative. The goal is to provide health insurance for Americans who can’t get coverage from private insurers.
The goal is to make health care available and affordable for every American.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 11:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I honestly don't see...
How health care isn’t already available and affordable for everyone. I believe that it is pretty easy to get.
Also, Mr. Obama has said that private insurers should “welcome the competition.”
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 11:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you kidding me?
Try having any ongoing medical condition. Try having a lifetime cap on your benefits. How easy is it to pay $1,000/mo for your family of 4 to be insured while paying medical bills related to a car accident or cancer treatment or emergency surgery on a heart valve or any number of other conditions that cost a ton out of pocket.
I have great medical coverage and my labrum surgery and rehab still cost me over $4,000 out of pocket.
What President Obama said regarding competition is irrelevant. If you think he has power over this bill in that regard, then I’d like to read why you think that.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 11:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And....
Then there’s “pre-existing conditions” like a herniated disc in your back, certain types of cancer…
Not to mention the fact that a lot of insurers refuse to insure recovering cancer patients because they pose too much of a financial risk. For a lot of companies, you have to be 3-5 years past your “cancer free date” to even qualify for coverage.
For 25-year-old, single guys, yeah, coverage is pretty affordable and easy to get… until you get sick or have kids.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 11:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough points
I’m still gonna argue that the answer to all of these issues lies in reform of the private market, not growth of the public system.
The only thing that will happen with a public system is a decrease in the quality of care, and I still challenge you to find an example that defies this.
You make good points, and I think we both agree that there should be reform. However, this particular bill is nowhere close to the answer.
I don’t think its a coincidence that malpractice suits are far away from everyone’s collective radar (as are completely reasonable private market options). This bill is the wrong kind of reform.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 11:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You've got it wrong.
You want me to disprove something that you haven’t proven at all. How will a government health insurance option DECREASE quality of care? What’s the cause and effect there?
This plan puts health insurance into the hands of millions of people who are currently uninsured. It does not give them a free pass to all the health care they want.
Those currently insured privately haven’t screwed up the industry. Why would 25-50 million publicly insured people suddenly decrease the quality of care? I do not understand this argument.
You can use these arguments all you want if you’re talking about a single-payer or free health care system, but that’s not what this is.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My Challenge...
Was to produce an example of a government-run health care system that is better than the private one we have.
If a government cannot produce a system that INCREASES quality, how could they do anything besides decrease it?
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What?
This is not a system. It is reform of the current system plus a government option for health insurance.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But
I’ve already explained several times how a government ‘option’ will lead to less choices in the long term. It might be nice for a few years, but its going to look more and more like a single payer as time goes on.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No you haven't.
You’ve just repeated that line over and over again.
If you actually have shown me how, please direct me to that comment.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Private Companies
Cannot compete with tax funded public companies in the long run.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a theory.
The only way to guarantee that they can’t compete is to pass legislation that makes it impossible to compete. The “tax funding” itself is not a competitive block.
It is a competitive advantage of government programs, but it doesn’t guarantee their success.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But like I said
Subsidized programs are rarely axed, no matter how much money they lose.
Could you imagine the outrage if the government axed social security?
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 1:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they axed it completely, people would be able to save/invest more...
I don’t like the concept of forced savings, though. I wouldn’t be outraged, but most people over the age of 50 would be… as well as all the people whose savings were wiped out by the mini-crash.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 1:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
I’m in favor of most entitlement programs being eliminated, but then politicians run the risk of alienating several votes and they get antsy.
That’s why I said that these subsidized entitlement programs almost never go away, they just grow.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 1:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's really a circular trick, dont you think??
A competitive advantage that can’t be removed, yet it somehow won’t guarantee its success?? Huh.
If the government plan is subsized, and the for-profit plans aren’t, then there is an inherent and unavoidable competitive advantage. It’s not like the two sides will be using a different pool of suppliers that could allow for differing costs; they will be paying for the same services. The only way they will be able to retain market share given a cost disadvantage will be via improved service, but it appears to be that the service will be legislated and regulated.
Second point: if the current for-profit companies find certain conditions to be too risky to cover, and the government plan DOES cover these items, then won’t the government plan be forced to raise additional revenues to cover the costs? I haven’t seen any analysis that adequately explains how they will do that without greatly increasing the cost of the program.
I agree that the problems of portability and limits of coverage have to be addressed, but I don’t think the plans being fasttracked focus on these issues. They seek to address everything at once, yet don’t clearly address anything completely, and that’s a horrific risk IMO.
So, in short, we’re asked to believe that a huge, multi-trillion dollar plan with such obvious flaws that they require total ignorance of market forces to overlook, that is being cobbled together on a tighter timeline than any corporate progam of even remotely similar size could meet, and that will attempt to be the first government program EVER to meet its cost and savlings projections, is so sacrosanct that disagreeing with it is inherently wrong on its face??
The Texas Rangers have been synonymous with explosive firepower ever since they emptied 130 rounds into Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow in 1934. - Alyssa Milano
by bking on Aug 6, 2009 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not certain that such generalities can be successfully applied in this case.
As you say, if private insurance can’t compete with government insurance in cost, then they will have to increase benefits.
If private insurance increases benefits, but does not cover some conditions that the government plan does, then can you truly say the benefits are better?
Until we’re certain about the specifics involved in the government’s coverage compared to normal private insurance, I don’t think we can draw a conclusion (on that note, if anyone has access to this information and can link to it, I’d love to read over it).
by jwiscarson on Aug 6, 2009 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I truly doubt it exists..
a) there is damn little chance that a plan being done this quickly can adequately spell all that out, and
b) “details” like this often get deferred until the implementing regs are drafted.
Given that the very efficacy of this “reform” hinges on these details, and that messing it up will be a killer, that’s a pretty large elephant in the room.
The Texas Rangers have been synonymous with explosive firepower ever since they emptied 130 rounds into Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow in 1934. - Alyssa Milano
by bking on Aug 7, 2009 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can guarantee you have no idea of what it entails.
besides the alarming fact that most Congressmen have not read the bill, are trying to push it through like a used car salesman pushing undercoating and credit life, that the Congressional Budget Office itself predicts an enormous increase in the cost of healthcare if implemented, some of the incredible provisions include:
pg50 sec152 healthcare for non-citizens
pg58-59 sec163 govt access to individual finances and bank accounts
pg124 no judicial review against govt price fixing of healthcare
pg145-150 employers must subsribe employees or pay payroll taxes of 2-8%
pg167 individuals who do not subscribe must pay additional 2.5% income tax
pg241-254 govt sets pay scale for all physicians
pg317-321 govt regulates hospital expansion and new construction
pg425-430 govt mandates living wills, power of attorney for individuals and mandates end of life care
read it here for yourself:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3200IH/html/BILLS-111hr3200IH.htm
we're from Texas
CJ says "Relax"
by eclou on Aug 4, 2009 8:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can you rephrase this comment with...
Section numbers instead of page numbers?
Maybe my browser bailed on me, but it stopped displaying content after Section 102. I mostly just got the “table of contents” of the bill. Is there another link?
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 9:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correction.
The link is fine. My browser choked.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 9:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Regarding the sections you did cite...
Section 152 – You understand “without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services” to mean that non-citizens will have their health care paid for by the government? Can you explain that conclusion to me?
Section 163 – This section establishes rules similar to any online bill paying agreement that you would agree to in order to pay your electricity or credit card bills online through your checking account. This section does not give the government unfettered access to your individual finances and bank accounts. To this end, the section amends the Social Security Act with the a section entitled, “SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.”
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 9:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of health services” = race, color, creed, religions, socioeconomic status, citizenship & legal status. Already in most hospital registration depts they are not allowed to ask or probe into citizenship prior to treatment. It should be pretty evident that this would allow blanket coverage to illegal aliens.
Now I don’t know about you, but there is some culpability when your online bill payments to private companies make changes or mistakes. I cannot imagine that the constantly changing fiscal and budgetary maladies of the infallible .gov having access to withdraw from your account would be a comforting feeling.
we're from Texas
CJ says "Relax"
by eclou on Aug 5, 2009 12:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok... but you missed the key part...
This prevents providers from declining service to anyone based on their citizenship, but where does it say that the government will be footing the bill for the illegals? You did cite that as an example of “increased government spending,” did you not?
You’re afraid of electronic government transactions? Do you not eFile your taxes? You can be suspicious of the government all you want, but it’s silly to expand that fear to the government unilaterally deciding to snoop around in your bank accounts… which – thanks to the Patriot Act – they can do anyway.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you need to restructure your response.
The first part answers itself
The second part – a one time e-File is not the same as a recurring withdrawal. Now the Patriot act is an entirely different matter. Targeting suspected terrorist liasons vs mandatory healthcare subscribers is not an equitable comparison. There is also little reason to ignore that FISA was initiated in 1978 no less, and very few folks have had their lives hassled even since it grew teeth in 2001.
we're from Texas
CJ says "Relax"
by eclou on Aug 5, 2009 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clearly it provides the gov't with a competitive advantage over the private industry
over the long-run.
by Agreen07 on Aug 4, 2009 8:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If that's the case...
then the private industry isn’t very good at what it does… which might also be true.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 9:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
While the private insurance industry may have problems...
I defy you to find an example of a public system that works better than our current one. Reform should happen, yes, but it should be kept far away from the governments hands.
A government ‘option’ is NOT the solution. Not even close.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 9:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It certainly depends on what that government option is.
You might not be as close-minded as you seem to be with this comment, but it seems like you don’t even want it on the table regardless of how much sense a “perfect” government plan would make.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 10:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would be all for for any "perfect" plan..
My point is that it simply doesn’t exist and that while we have an admittedly flawed system, it is vastly superior to any other system that any government has yet to provide. Please just look at Canada and Britain where costs rise all the time, health care is rationed, and service is poor.
I’m completely for any “perfect” plan and totally open minded, but I do not personally believe that the proposed plan is anywhere close to perfect.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 10:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My main objection to this line of thinking is...
That a lot of it appears to be based on fear from hearsay complaints of rationing and poor service. I can look at Canada and GB all I want, but until I experience those systems, it’s silly for me to comment on them. Can any of us say how often rationing is even an issue in these countries?
If rationing is just another way of saying “limits to coverage,” just about every private health insurance plan in this country has a lifetime maximum benefit. Does anyone actually know how rationing works and how it complicates health service?
There are just as many health care horror stories in this country as there are in those.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 11:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
An example of rationing in GBP
the British National Institute of Health has determined it is not appropriate to offer “therapeutic” injections of steroids, such as cortisone, which are used to reduce inflammation, to patients suffering from persistent lower back pain when the cause is not known. Specialists fear tens of thousands of people, mainly the elderly and frail, will be left to suffer excruciating levels of pain or pay as much as £500 each for private treatment because of this decision. The NHS currently issues more than 60,000 treatments of steroid injections every year and it wants to cut this to just 3,000 treatments a year, a move which would save the NHS £33 million. This is just one little treatment….
by Agreen07 on Aug 4, 2009 11:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not rationing, is it?
That’s a denial of coverage similar to what any private insurance company in this country would make.
Is this really what people call rationing?
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 11:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rationing=
the NHS currently issues more than 60,000 treatments of steroid injections every year and it wants to cut this to just 3,000 treatments a year, a move which would save the NHS £33 million
by Agreen07 on Aug 4, 2009 11:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Denial of service...
means that your plan (that you chose) doesn’t cover the selected service.
Rationing means that it does cover you, but you’ll have to wait to get it (if you get it at all).
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 11:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So... Agreen07's example is not rationing?
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 11:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly,
I don’t have enough information to determine for sure. I don’t know enough about the British health care system to know whether they do or don’t guarantee this service with their government plan.
If they do, however, then it is rationing by my understanding.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 11:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly, based on what I know about coverage denials...
It sounds exactly like a coverage denial. If you can’t explain why the surgery/procedure must be done, then they won’t cover it.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 11:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In this case
It seems that the patients can pretty easily explain why this particular procedure needs to be done.
I think AGreen’s point is that this would be much less likely to happen in such large quantities under our current system.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 11:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough...
But in the current system, which will still be “run” by private insurers, this is a coverage denial. This is only rationing if you are FORCED to use the government plan and if they put a cap on certain kinds of treatment.
My private coverage limits me to 25 physical therapy sessions a year. Call it rationing if you want, but it already exists in the current system.
$20, $25, $50 office visit co-pays aren’t leading to crappy service. Low co-pays and “paid in full” diagnostics aren’t leading to x-ray and MRI rationing.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 11:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't call it rationing...
Because you still have the option to upgrade your plan if you would like.
Rationing means that you don’t have the option, like in GB.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 11:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's my whole point.
We’re talking about options. Options which we currently have and will still have whether or not this bill passes.
Arguing that rationing is a reasonable result of this plan is nothing more than a scare tactic.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But
What would I have to gain by using scare tactics?
My argument is that this government ‘option’ will decrease the overall options in the long run because private options won’t be able to compete with a government funded program.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So...
You’re arguing both of these things:
(1) Government coverage sucks
and
(2) Government coverage will put good coverage out of business.
Which part do I have wrong?
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Both are right.
But when employers start dropping private coverage in lieu of the cheaper public option (lest they be taxed a proposed additional 8%), and private premiums start rising, what ‘option’ will be left?
The government is not a private organization, therefore they do not have to provide good service to stay in business.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another misunderstood element of the bill...
The excise tax applies to businesses that choose to provide non-conforming health plans to their employees.
It does not tax businesses that choose a private option unless that option does not conform to the requirements laid out in the bill.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point
Is that the government is going to decide what these requirements are, which could be anything that they see fit (which could also change over time).
This will eventually raise the price of private coverage, while keeping the price of the public option stable. You say that the public option is fully funded by the users, but that’s not the case. That is why there is a huge debate about how it will be funded (and how much it will increase the deficit.) This shows that it will NOT run like a traditional private health care provider, and will be subsidized.
The 8% tax I mentioned is just a proposition for funding at this point.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
People are treating the 8% tax like it's a "job killer." That's retarded to me.
I disagree with the assumption that private coverage will necessarily go up in response to these requirements.
If you want a guarantee of coverage, which is the whole point of this bill, then people who were previously denied because of medical reasons will now present a higher financial risk for the private insurers. This will necessarily raise premiums. This, however, is part of the necessary (in my mind) reform rather than anything to do with the government option.
I haven’t seen the numbers, outside of that graph, but it seems to me that people are assuming the the health care costs will increase while zero cuts are made elsewhere. Obama has stated several times that funds will be diverted from other government programs.
Yes, this keeps the financial burden on the American public, but it does not increase the deficit as dramatically as some people are suggesting.
I speak from vague recollections rather than concrete evidence here.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The 8% increase
Is in addition to the current payroll taxes. That means that eight percent more of your profits go to the government instead of increasing operations. That’s a definite job killer.
And there’s a graph up somewhere at the top of the page that show the projected deficits. There is absolutely no way that he will be redirecting any significant amount of funds. Why else would they be talking about increasing taxes so much?
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again... the 8% tax only applies to companies that are NOT providing qualified insurance options.
This is NOT a tax on private options. It also does NOT apply to grandfathered coverage.
The tax exists as an incentive for companies to provide qualifying coverage.
That projected deficit chart is ridiculous. The 2011 budget hasn’t been written yet, so there’s no telling what will happen to the deficit in 2013.
Shit. In 2001, there was a gigantic surplus. Who would have projected in 8 short years that we’d have a $1 TRILLION deficit?
Seriously. That chart is dumb.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 1:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The key word is:
Qualifying
Who decides what plans qualify? The government does.
Also, I think the chart is more accurate than you give credit. You can’t just say its dumb because you don’t like it. Obama did just write the largest budget deficit in history (no matter who he blames it on.)
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 1:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obama had to include the bailouts from Bush's administration.
Laying that all on Obama is foolish.
And yes, I can discredit it because they don’t know anything about what’s going to happen. They have only considered one variable – new health care costs – to develop those projections.
For starters, they surely didn’t account for decreased military spending as operations in Asia are scaled back.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 1:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure,
But I don’t think the 2008 bailouts (which I opposed) counted in this year’s budget.
Also, the decrease in military spending isn’t going to take that sizeable of a dent out of the budget: The 2009 “stimulus” package alone cost more than the entire Iraq war.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 1:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They weren't paid until 2009.
There’s no way they were on the 2008 budget.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 1:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And the biggest expense of this government...
has always been military spending. It’s ridiculous.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 1:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
grandfathered coverage doesn't really exist..
Every company I have been a part of renegotiates and shops for coverage on a regular basis. My common sense understanding of “grandfathering” means that every new contract is no longer grandfathered.
GIven the way bills are usually written, I highly doubt the legislation clearly addresses this, but a reasonable reading using common terminology does raise this concern, doesn’t it?
The Texas Rangers have been synonymous with explosive firepower ever since they emptied 130 rounds into Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow in 1934. - Alyssa Milano
by bking on Aug 6, 2009 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree...
Its easy to see the inefficiencies of the Canadian system everywhere:
1. The vast migration of patients wanting care coming one way (into the US) and not the other.
2. The wait times (2 months for simple blood tests, a year for simple operations). I’ve never had to wait for that long for care at all (not to mention my healthcare is quite cheap.
3. The incredible success that private clinics are having up there. For many people seeking care without a ridiculous wait, its the only option.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 11:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Canada is a flawed example anyway.
Canada’s governmental coverage is complete and free. This is not what the bill proposes.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 11:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
Canadian coverage is completely free. My major objection is that this particular bill is a gigantic, irreversible step toward a system like theirs and away from any private system. Isn’t that obvious?
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 11:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's nothing like that at all.
The government option is not free. The only “free” option is Medicaid, and no one wants to be on that.
How is a government-offered insurance option a “gigantic, irreversible step toward” a system like Canada’s?
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 11:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just look at Medicaid
Do you think there’s any way that could be repealed? No, because entitlement programs aren’t repealed because politicians have elections to win.
That’s what I mean by irreversible. Entitlement programs (which this is) only grow and aren’t repealed.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 11:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Medicaid sucks.
There also aren’t enough people on it for anyone to use it as an election topic.
For the record, yes. Medicaid will one day go away. It will probably be replaced by something else, but it’s not something that’s irreversible or not repealable.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 11:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, Medicaid sucks. So does medicare and VA Hospitals.
So what makes you think that the government could set up a reasonable ‘option’ on a much larger scale?
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 11:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What makes you think it's a much larger scale?
Even if it is a much larger scale, it’s a system that will be paid for by the enrolled – just like any other insurance provider. This government option is NOT FREE health care. Your argument keep blurring this line.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 11:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, it is not free at induction
But the current administration is in favor of a long term transition into a single payer system. I believe that this legislation serves as the means to those ends.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's mighty conspiracy-theory of you.
Is Obama on record as saying that he favors a single payer system or is this speculation from those who want the bill to be shot down?
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Give me 2 minutes
I’ll give you a link to a video.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
This one is admittedly less convincing, but Barney Frank’s comment is pretty clear-cut.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This was kind of funny.
I won’t argue about Single Payer models, because I don’t know anything about them.
We know what Barney Frank wants, and we know what Obama wanted in 2003. I don’t understand why we’re supposed to ignore what he’s said this year, though.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok,
A campaign speech. Pre-election, pre-administration, but better than nothing.
What about his actual administration? I don’t mean to sound nitpicky, but things do change once you get into the Oval Office.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, wow.
That was from 2003. Meh.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you
really think he’s softened his views since then?
The other video was not quite as straight forward, but was pretty similar and from 2007.
Why do you think they are in such a rush to push it through?
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rush to make an impact in a "wrecked" economy.
He wants to make a mark. This is not some socialist agenda that he’s pushing forward. That’s absurd.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How?
How will a bill that is projected (by the unbiased CBO) to significantly increase our deficit make a mark on our economy?
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not "on" the economy.
“In” the economy. HUGE difference.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In that case
The best way to make a difference IN the economy is not by singling out one type of expense and providing for it, but by providing incentives for people to spend more, which in turn will cause to businesses to produce more/hire more. The way to achieve this is by relaxing taxes, not increasing them.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You missed my point.
He wants to pass what he believes will be a landmark bill and give HOPE to people that have been crushed or whatever by the economy.
It’s sleight of hand that might have a side effect of increased consumer confidence which might lead to increased spending.
It has nothing to do with actually fixing the economy.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 1:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I didn't get to my point.
You didn’t miss it. I explained it badly before.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 1:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then why?
Doesn’t he propose a better way to give HOPE to people by making it easier for them to buy things/stimulate production/increase hiring?
The best way to do that would be to CUT taxes, but he’s not about to do that.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 1:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought that was the idea behind the stimulus bill.
To respond less glibly, I honestly think that the current economic situation is far more complex than most media outlets and government personalities have said.
Big banking screwed up, and it screwed up in waves. If you ask me, I think the deficit graph projection above ignores the effect that a bad economy has on taxes, and the overall effect of lower home prices.
Ultimately, I would rather see the government take months to get us a solution (being sure that we understand the problem, rather than just throwing money at it).
by jwiscarson on Aug 5, 2009 1:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
Yeah, except its been proven that small “stimulus” packages have much less of an effect (close to zero) compared to long term private sector job creation. Not to say that the 2009 “stimulus” bill was actually a true stimulus.
I agree that a solution should take a while, but I think we would probably disagree as to where it would come from, haha.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 1:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Despite being a socialist
I’m not necessarily pro-Keynesian. I think the idea that the government can cover short-term job loss gaps is an interesting one, but the economy is a moving target. Outside of creating new public sector jobs in necessity-based industries , I agree with the notion that stimulus bills in general are not effective.
Granted, identifying these underutilized sectors is no small task — you’d basically have to create a business research unit. Nevertheless, it’d surely be better than spending without justification.
by jwiscarson on Aug 5, 2009 1:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
It seems to me that Socialism would incorporate a large degree of what Keynesian theories propagate.
I’m much more of a proponent of Friedman’s beliefs, so we probably wouldn’t agree on much, but I still find it interesting.
This is probably a conversation for when I’m much more full of energy.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 1:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah.
I should’ve been in bed two hours ago.
To respond, briefly: I think the ideas behind Keynesian economics are something of a framework that people take a little too seriously. Do I think the government can cover smaller, short-term recessions (talking on the order of six months or so, assuming it can identify recession trends)? Probably. Do I think the government can handle depressions? No.
I say that I’m somewhat anti-Keynesian because I think it can be abused as a carte blanche for government spending. You have to understand: I’m all about government efficiency (I know this sounds ridiculous) because an overly large government can much more easily interfere with individual rights, so I’m far more interested in temporary public sector job creation, legislating regulation to major national industries, and things of that nature.
by jwiscarson on Aug 5, 2009 1:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah,
I understand your viewpoint, but my major problem is that governmental efficiency that you describe is not possible because major difference in incentives that the government can provide compared to those that the private sector can provide.
I think it sounds nice in theory, but human nature always seems to get in the way on one end or the other (abuse of power, lack of motivation).
I think that a system with very limited entitlements, very low taxes, and very high levels of personal accountability are much easier to attain (and have been) in purely free market societies.
Geez, its late.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 1:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why
Would he ever use the term ‘single payer’ now? That would be a publicity nightmare. Its not like he’s used straightforward terms in any other situation.
Also, I believe that Barney Frank is pretty closely aligned with the administration. He used the term ‘single payer’ and mentioned that it would drive private insurers out of business. Obama has done nothing to distance himself from Mr. Frank.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Geez,
You’re a tough egg to crack, haha.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not going to be swayed by snap-shot political speeches and walking interviews.
When there’s legislation that crosses those lines, then I’ll react to it like it’s a reasonable end.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't expect to sway you
I just enjoy the debate. That’s all.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"tough egg to crack"
I thought you were trying to crack me. Haha
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
When you try and follow this many different trains of though...
You’re bound to misfire a metaphor here or there.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obama has also done nothing to distance himself from me.
That’s a weird argument.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait,
What are you referring to?
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You said he hadn't done anything to distance himself from Frank.
I was pointing out that he hasn’t distanced himself from me either. I don’t understand why he needs to distance himself from Frank.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh,
I see. I said that because Frank is clearly in favor of the single payer system and the decimation of the private insurance market while Obama has made it clear that he will pass whatever bill the legislators (such as Frank) see appropriate.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Frank were writing the bill unilaterally...
then this would be an issue. If the bill is to pass, a lot of people are going to have to like it. I’m sure there are plenty of Democrats that are against a single-payer system.
Obama put it on Congress to draft something that will work. If it doesn’t work, they need to go back and keep working on it.
If it gets through Congress, I can’t say that it really matters whether or not Obama wants a single payer system.
He can write a bill, but it still goes through the same approval process as every other bill.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Same approval process...
But its been streamlined significantly by party majority.
If it gets through, I think it matters a lot what his long term intentions are. This is not a short term plan, this is a major entitlement.
BTW, there is a 2,500 yearly penalty for going without insurance. Who is gonna do that when all they have to do is sign up for the public option?
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's 2.5%, not $2,500.
It’s actually the only part of the bill I severely disagree with. It’s pretty weird to penalize someone for not having health insurance.
I think I missed your point, though.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 1:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quite frankly
I’m not sure what point I’m trying to make up here. Haha. I got lost.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 1:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough.
It’s late, I’m about out of gas anyway.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 1:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've been out
Ha ha, nice go round though.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 1:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes they do..
and things seem to be changing AWAY from any fiscal conservatism he may have campaigned on. To some degree, that is an inevitable consequence of changing times, but he never campaigned on completely revamping health care as “essential to save the economy” , did he?
The Texas Rangers have been synonymous with explosive firepower ever since they emptied 130 rounds into Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow in 1934. - Alyssa Milano
by bking on Aug 6, 2009 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My memory may be faulty, but...
I think he said the opposite, in fact. We need to give unemployed people the opportunity to buy in to public healthcare because so many new people are unemployed and private insurance (bought outside of an employer) is very expensive.
by jwiscarson on Aug 6, 2009 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're forgetting that the government sets the laws such as taxes, etc.
by Agreen07 on Aug 4, 2009 11:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, right.
I forgot. Our government is a giant, lumbering, anti-capitalist beast that wants to crush all competition foreign and domestic.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 11:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, it seems to be moving in that direction...
by Agreen07 on Aug 4, 2009 11:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right...
Because our federalist democracy gives us no control over who runs this country.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 11:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ha,
You’re prolific. This is hard to keep up with.
You’ve mentioned libertarianism several times. Are you one?
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 11:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I lack political affiliation.
In summary: I’m a fiscal conservative to a point – maybe more middle of the road. I’m a social progressive. I’m still not sure where I stand on government size/control – so middle-ish.
I’m mostly dissatisfied with the state of political discourse in this country, particularly fear-mongering and alarmist behavior of the majority of media outlets, regardless of their political affiliation.
I hate that sensationalism is the prevailing method of reporting these days. I’ll argue against anyone who takes a sensationalist stand on a topic even if I know I’ll lose going in.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 11:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Understandable.
I’m not trying to be sensationalist at all. I am completely against this system because I believe that more government is almost never the solution, and this issue is more important than many others.
I believe strongly in looking at precedents, and I see very few past instances in which large government is a positive answer long term. Yes, some is needed, but its getting absurd.
Overall, I think that if we put an emphasis on more personal responsibility and less emphasis on entitlements, we will be a much healthier society.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 11:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can't take personal responsibility for...
$600,000 worth of cancer treatments or weekly $5,000 AIDS treatments. Even with reasonable reductions in provider expenses, there’s no way that these diseases will ever be affordable for 90% of Americans.
I don’t see how personal responsibility enters this discussion. Is it everyone’s responsibility not to get pacreatic cancer? Is it everyone’s responsibility not to be hit by a drunk driver?
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 11:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you misinterpreted my personal responsibility line
I was replying to your line about overall political philosophies, not in regards to the conversation about health care.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 11:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe a little.
I was trying to point out, though, that since this has become a political issue, there’s no way to isolate personal responsibility in the equation. It simply doesn’t account for everything.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 11:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it does a bit.
I have taken it upon myself to purchase an affordable health care plan that covers all of those contingencies you mentioned. I’m covered if that happens, and its because I take the responsibility upon myself to budget enough money for that each month.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 4, 2009 11:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So... if you were suddenly slammed with a $150,000 medical bill...
You’d be able to handle the bills?
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 4, 2009 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure how that would happen...
But yes, I would make a payment plan just like purchasing a house. I don’t see why purchasing health care is any different than purchasing anything else.
Yes it would suck, and yes its totally hypothetical, but if it happened, I wouldn’t be asking the government for help.
(Personally I believe that’s what private charities are for, but that’s a different argument.)
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Spinal injury in a car accident.
Halo. Months of physical therapy. Follow-up surgeries.
You’re unable to work. Disability insurance doesn’t cover your expenses. You need someone to take care of your, so you either have your wife stop working or you hire an in-home nurse.
Your normal expenses remain even (car payments, car insurance, mortgage payment, health insurance, etc.).
Your inability to work leads to you losing your job or being put on unpaid leave. In Texas, you have the option of government continuation (allowing you to keep your current coverage, subsidized by the government for up to 6 months) at which point you can pay ridiculous fees for COBRA coverage or you can try to get new insurance which will surely NOT cover your pre-existing spinal problems.
To top things off, your wife dies. Her life insurance policy lapsed because you didn’t pay the premium in order to keep your electricity running.
Your kids would still be eligible for most private insurers, but you’re up Fucked Creek, even if you can afford everything else.
Then you have a set back with your spinal injury. How do you pay for it then?
With a government option that guarantees you won’t be denied, you can have coverage for this condition. Without a government option, you’re staring at bankruptcy or a mountain of debt that you’ll never climb out of unless you win the lottery.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You have to admit that this is an absurdly worst-case scenario...
Even so, I’m not sure why this person wouldn’t be eligible Medicaid. If I were unable to work, I would clearly be eligible for both medicaid and welfare.
I guess this was a tactic to get me to say that I would have to ask the government for help. In my personal case, I probably still wouldn’t do so. However, the option is there for people that want it.
Would this doomsday scenario be enough to convince you that we need an entire overhaul of the system? Really?
Honestly, like I said, I believe that’s what charity is for. Passing a gigantic legislation like this has negatives that far outweigh the positives.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look, it's a rough case, but you said you were well-suited for disaster, so I had to up the ante.
Realistically, much smaller events can put families under and leave them without coverage.
The real problem was stated succinctly above. If you’ve had cancer and can’t get coverage, you wind up on the hook for whatever health costs you might incur.
The problem here is that everyone who is willing to buy health insurance should have an option available to them.
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 12:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
But I’m still sticking by the argument that government is not the answer. I believe that the private market is much better equipped to serve those needs.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 12:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agreed that reform is needed
1. Costs could be decreased by limiting malpractice suits (won’t happen with a bunch of lawyers in office.)
2. More competition could be created by allowing interstate insurance purchases.
3. Personal Health Savings Accounts have been shown to be a good way to reduce costs and improve consumer options.
The answer to your question is that all these solutions (and many more) are prevented from happening by the government.
So in short, they aren’t because the government won’t let them.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 1:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
?
They are declining coverage to people because the government is stopping them?
by NoNameOnCard on Aug 5, 2009 1:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
Further competition would lower prices. The government is preventing this competition with over-regulation and by neglecting to cannibalize their own (malpractice lawyers).
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 1:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with the idea that regulation negates competition.
Good regulation protects consumers while leveling the playing field for competition. Monopolies may be the most efficient solution in a free market world, but fascism is fascism regardless of where it’s employed.
by jwiscarson on Aug 5, 2009 1:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quite frankly
I self-identify as a socialist, but am just as concerned with fiscal responsibility as I am with social equality and the government’s position as a deterrent to a bloated private sector.
In my opinion, healthcare (along with a handful of other “necessity” industries) is one of the most reasonable cases for a public solution. Government doesn’t have to run healthcare entirely (and I reject the notion that the existence of a public option is indicative of a future where there exists only a public option). I’m probably one of the most liberal people on this board, and I’m not okay with that.
by jwiscarson on Aug 5, 2009 1:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just curious
Can you provide an example of a public health care plan that works provides a more innovative environment than the one we have here?
Basically, is there a place where the Government runs health care that people from all across the world flock to like they do to places in the U.S. like the Mayo Clinic?
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 1:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was just about to say this.
As I understand it, the government there presents all insurance options, including private sector options. If you want private insurance, you buy it. If you want government insurance, you buy it instead.
Swiss people are extremely free market, as well.
by jwiscarson on Aug 5, 2009 1:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Swiss System
Is not based on single payer, its based on a higher level of private competition (87 companies). If we had that kind of competition allowed here, we could be closer to the Swiss (not that we’re ALL that far off anyway).
Not to mention how much lower the obesity rate is in Switzerland.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 1:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you need to ask yourself who's ultimately responsible for a lack of competition.
The government is not always responsible when companies shut down. Many times, smaller companies are bought out by larger companies, or are driven out of business because larger companies can more easily afford to undercut the competition in the short-term to ensure long-term success.
Your second point is definitely spot-on: we would all do well to undergo some preventative care. This is one reason I consider this country’s medical care to be less than the best in the world — treating effects, rather than causes.
by jwiscarson on Aug 5, 2009 1:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to ignore your first point, but I'm pretty tired at this point...
But at your second point, I agree that preventative care is necessary and important. I think that it does promote preventative care though, to a certain degree. Preventative care is primarily a personal responsibility. If you take care of that responsibility, you should have no problem keeping your medical costs relatively low in the long run. You won’t have to worry about the effects (and your health insurance is there for unexpected contingencies).
Forgive me, my thoughts were much better organized earlier in the night, haha.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 1:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Consumer education and insurance-based incentives (both positive and negative) would go a long way in handling this effectively.
In my experience, many people are unwilling to change their day-to-day routines or forgo the so-called “convenience” of fast food (just as a particular example) even if it means positive consequences in the long-term. I myself started to learn how to cook because fast food made me feel disgusting afterward, and cooking my own meal takes about as long as it takes me to drive to the nearest burger/taco/whatever joint, get my food, and drive back home.
by jwiscarson on Aug 5, 2009 1:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A good example...
Of personal responsibility causing positive change because of negative consequences.
I don’t think that was an argument, just an observation.
-Boneless
by Boneless on Aug 5, 2009 1:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Switzerland does not have "universal" coverage though
One of the local energy consultants is a French citizen who broke his hip skiing in Switzerland. Their emergency field services would not even load him into the ambulance until he produced a credit card. This is something that would not have occurred here in the US even with our “flawed” system. When his hip surgery failed, he chose to have the corrective procedures done in Houston vs Switzerland or France.
we're from Texas
CJ says "Relax"
by eclou on Aug 5, 2009 9:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's an anecdotal story designed to scare-monger...
I’m sending this thread to the White House….
The Texas Rangers have been synonymous with explosive firepower ever since they emptied 130 rounds into Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow in 1934. - Alyssa Milano
by bking on Aug 7, 2009 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i just don't wanna die
if i get laid off. that’s all.
" This is the inning that propels us to the playoffs. Mark it down."
- Rohn Warshington on Jul 27, 2009 9:19 PM EDT
5th inning against the Tigers
by gossamer on Aug 4, 2009 6:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
My Cents
So, I cant get into specifics about who these people are, but I have had two conversations with the Pres of Merriyl Lynch division(division not named on purpous) and an exec at Ernst And Young… Agian, I dont want their opinions to be specifically known and come back and hurt them in their careers…
1. You cannot make the numbers work with JUST a government plan… If all you do is open up the governments health care plan to the public, you will push the private sector out of reasonable affordability…
2. Consumers want options, not just affordability…
Solutions…
**Not the White House plan, but the current Senate bill has the following additions to the plan…
- Cost cutting measures that were agreed upon at the “summit of health insurance” companies that Obama hosted last month…
- Stipulations on who can buy into the plan, such as maximum income limits… Their is also a proposed stipulation that would limit citizens who have the option for AFFORDABLE health care through a current employer that they wouldnt be able to apply to get the governments insurance…
- Insurance companies, actuaries, health officials, all will tell you that the United States does NOT have the best health care in the world… Why? Its not the private markets fault, they do what they should in trying to insure all that can afford it and set up companies with affordable benefits options for their employees…
The issue lies for the 10%+ that DONT have health insurance… What happens when they go to the Emergency Room with no money, no insurance? If its a private hospital, they either send that patient to the local county hospital or they treat them, pay for it , and spread that cost amongst their other services… At the county hospital, they treat the patient, and then take the money out of the City and state budget which means you, the tax payer, pay for it… Ever wonder why your property taxes and/or sales taxes are so high? This is a HUGE reason why…
How do you fix this problem? Work on immigration, establish an option that allows for some medical coverage for those who have no employment and cant afford private insurance, and force the current private establishment to cut costs, and take steps to reform their current insurance practices, which to their credit most companies pledged to do already…
Health Care reform is going to happen, no doubt about it… Will we have a national plan next year? Probably not… In the next 5 years? Probably… Do we need to do something about this? Yes…
Whats more important, that you keep your insurance just as you want it, or that all HUMAN BEINGS are covered, that your fellow man has the same right to quality health care as you do… Doctors, and the entire health care system has forgotten what its job is… Not to make money as a high class doctor, but rather to serve the common man, to keep us safe and healthy… We must find the middle road between this basic belied, and where we are now…
And Obama is not a socialist, he actually is fairly conservative as far as “lefties” go… He was handed a bag of shit, and is making brownies the only way we as Americans know how.. Spend. Do you think John McCain would have just stood by and not sponsored any spending for the entire banking industry as it folded, or the auto industry? If he did the same thing, would he be a socialist? Me thinks not… I dont worship Obama, but all the problems he deals with he didnt start, he was handed…
And to the post above about 1/6th of the economy being under government control.. Wow. Actually, just less than 1% of the US economy is government owned… So, we get a way to go before we got socialism…
by PM Productions on Aug 4, 2009 10:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Actually now
its 18% without health care, and that number will go as more corporations shed health care costs.
I think folks need to get over the whole employee pay healthcare approach thats been around for 60 years. Thats basicly dead.
"I saw a soldier try to dig a foxhole with his bare hands. He didn't notice that he'd torn off all his fingernails. I got him out of there quickly; not for his sake, but for ours. Fear is poison in combat...destructive, contagious." - Band of Brothers
by DJCahill on Aug 4, 2009 10:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Knew it was
Just didnt want to go to far out, I wasnt sure on the exact estimate… And it is an estimate due to the sheer number of illegal immigrants…
by PM Productions on Aug 4, 2009 10:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
regarding
people wanting “options” some people have no option. they can’t afford it. would like the option
" This is the inning that propels us to the playoffs. Mark it down."
- Rohn Warshington on Jul 27, 2009 9:19 PM EDT
5th inning against the Tigers
by gossamer on Aug 4, 2009 11:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
But that's bankrupt, so is medicare....
both government run…oh wait…
by Agreen07 on Aug 4, 2009 11:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
many people
do not qualify for medicaid.
" This is the inning that propels us to the playoffs. Mark it down."
- Rohn Warshington on Jul 27, 2009 9:19 PM EDT
5th inning against the Tigers
by gossamer on Aug 5, 2009 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even more people just don't sign up even though they qualify.
we're from Texas
CJ says "Relax"
by eclou on Aug 5, 2009 9:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i just can't root
for an industry that profits by denying customers the very service that they paid for when they need it most. they profit from letting us die. i just don’t think that a socially responsible moral nation would allow people that get sick to stay sick. would bankrupt people trying to care for their cancer stricken kids.
my grandparents live in germany. they are both over 70. they had decent jobs, are now retired. paid a lot of taxes, but they certainly have a good quality of life. they get the care that they need. my grandmother gets the surgeries on her legs and shoulders that she needs. there is no horrible waiting. if you NEED the care that your doctor prescribes you get it. my grandfather is diabetic and my grandmother has many illnesses that go along with getting old. they don’t worry about losing their house or cars or property. my mom had a cousin over there that had some polio like illness. he eventually died, but he lived into his 20’s with a disease that he was born with. didn’t bankrupt his family.
we get horrible stories all of the time about long waits and care that isn’t good. i’m inclined to believe that most of that paid for by the health care industry. they will try and scare seniors into think that “obama care” will euthanize seniors because they are old. try and scare religious groups that “obama care” will push abortion as being just another birth control. try and scare people that they will have long waits, because you know, i would like the other 50 million to have health care but if it makes me have to wait a little longer for a checkup then they can just stay sick.
i am lucky, my job has a health plan. our deductibles went up, but my premium is the same. my wife’s job has a health plan too. her deductibles went up too and her premium slightly. we are on separate plans because, believe it or not, it’s cheaper that way. both our plans are about $60 a month ($120 combined for 2 people). if i were to add her to my plan it’s actually over $200 a month. lord help us if either one of us lost our job. and cobra is a joke.
i’m not gonna feel sorry for big pharma companies that wanna charge me $300 for a prescription if i’m uninsured. if i can get the same meds in canada or any other country for cheaper, i should be allowed to. i’d imagine if you bring down prescrip costs a little, insurance costs would go down too. i’m sure pharma pays more in advertising than they do in R&D. why? why would you advertise prescription medicine to individuals w/o medical knowledge?
anyway, point is that medical costs are way way way way too high. it’s immoral. the costs are going up way faster than inflation. and i generally want to promote the public welfare. this is not the same as giving people food stamps. this is not the same as paying people that can’t find work. this is about taking care of people that are sick.
" This is the inning that propels us to the playoffs. Mark it down."
- Rohn Warshington on Jul 27, 2009 9:19 PM EDT
5th inning against the Tigers
by gossamer on Aug 5, 2009 12:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Holy shit.
I didn’t even see this thread till just now, and I don’t think I can recall a thread so dominated by two people before. This is beyond Josey vs. X territory.
Not that it was as mindless as those debates, but damn.
by brettgardner on Aug 6, 2009 3:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
A little OT...
…but this whole birther thing is laughably ridiculous.
"I love winning." - rockin_rangers, on May 16, 2009
by ghtd36 on Aug 7, 2009 12:42 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Never underestimate the power of nutjobs to find windmills to tilt at..
At the end of the day, what real dfifference would it make?? He’s lived here virtually his entire life.
The Texas Rangers have been synonymous with explosive firepower ever since they emptied 130 rounds into Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow in 1934. - Alyssa Milano
by bking on Aug 7, 2009 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
story goes
that about 45 years ago Islamic fundamentalist terrorists planned on obama growing up to be president. so they planted birth announcements in 2 Hawaiian newspapers JUST IN CASE we didn’t change birth laws to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to be president.
true story.
" This is the inning that propels us to the playoffs. Mark it down."
- Rohn Warshington on Jul 27, 2009 9:19 PM EDT
5th inning against the Tigers
by gossamer on Aug 7, 2009 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great, now that THAT rumor is on the interweb...
Let’s see it take legs…
Meanwhile, I am obligated to forward this post to the White House per their request.
The Texas Rangers have been synonymous with explosive firepower ever since they emptied 130 rounds into Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow in 1934. - Alyssa Milano
by bking on Aug 7, 2009 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
just saying
people that ignore the hawaii paper birth announcements are basically saying that even though those announcements are in the paper it don’t prove nothing. that his family lied. so…obama could be president some day.
" This is the inning that propels us to the playoffs. Mark it down."
- Rohn Warshington on Jul 27, 2009 9:19 PM EDT
5th inning against the Tigers
by gossamer on Aug 7, 2009 5:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's settle this argument right now.
The American People are pretty conservative by world standards. There’s no way in hell a socialist would ever get elected to a high office.
LBJ was more liberal than Obama is, and LBJ’s presidency was consumed by fighting off communism in SE Asia. FDR was more liberal than Obama, but I don’t hear many people calling him a socialist and from what I’ve read only his fiercest political opponents would ever insinuate such an allegation. Carter is at least as liberal as Obama, and it was his adminstration that pulled the strings on some trouble in Kabul, leading to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which many consider to be a major factor leading to the downfall of the USSR.
Bill Clinton was so moderate he’s spoiled you “true conservatives”. Most Democrats look more like Obama than they do Clinton. Deal with it.
by Black Francis on Aug 10, 2009 4:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not so sure about this.
I don’t think LBJ was liberal. It’s my understanding that his liberal policies were largely an extension of fulfilling Kennedy’s wishes (feel free to correct me with evidence if I’m wrong here).
I really don’t think Carter was liberal at all, and in fact he’s self-identified as more of a moderate democrat (sort of the last of a generation of dixiecrats). I would say that FDR is as liberal or slightly more liberal than Obama, and I would characterize some of FDR’s programs and ideas as socialist.
I’ll also add that I don’t thinking fighting this world’s gross misrepresentation of communism is in any way an indictment of a President’s true political beliefs. Soviet Russia and Maoist China were far more fascist than socialist.
by jwiscarson on Aug 10, 2009 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes I'll correct you.
LBJ was very liberal. Kennedy had the opportunity to pass the Civil RIghts Act and didn’t. He also wasn’t planning a War on Poverty or anything of the sort. That was all LBJ. In any event, he didn’t give a damn about fulfilling Kennedy’s legacy. They didn’t even like one another. I challenge you to find a President in American History who had a more progressive domestic agenda than LBJ other than FDR, who by all accounts didn’t even want to do most of the things you’d call “socialist” but felt he had no other choice.
Carter was more liberal than most Clinton-era democrats. He was a bit hamstrung by being President in a crazy fucking time and by not being all that good at being President to begin with.
Fighting totalitarian communism isn’t an indictment of anyone’s beliefs. Or at least I didn’t mean it to be. For years, however, conservatives tried to play on the left as being “soft on communism”. They never were.
Socialism never really found many friends in the USA. The closest it came to ever getting a foothold was in the early part of the 20th century but it was met with overwhelming opposition. These people were far to the left of FDR, and FDR was actually instrumental in crushing some of it by busting some of the coal miner’s strikes. These particular unions were very heavy on socialist sounding rhetoric. FDR was in fact worried about socialism taking hold in this country and that’s one reason the WPA and other programs came about…to keep people working so they wouldn’t turn to that. Times were so hard back then you pretty much had to throw some of your core beliefs out the window in order to make it possible to govern. To a lesser extent, Obama’s doing the same thing. You may think his health care reform is socialist, but he and many others do not see the current system as viable or sustainable in any way. I don’t know how you force a for-profit system to be inclusive and fair, but most people and businesses have come to realize that we do need a system like that. Obama’s task is not an easy one and it’s going to piss some people off, for sure. Obviously the man doesn’t give a damn about his poll numbers. He’s just trying to do what he thinks is right. In terms of the bailout stuff, his hand was forced and this actually began under the previous administration. By all accounts they have managed it better, though.
Nobody likes these deficits but the shit has hit the fan and we’re going to have to live with it.
by Black Francis on Aug 11, 2009 12:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I feel like an idiot
I thought it was a picture of Jon Daniels the for the longest time
by mi_nombre_es on Aug 12, 2009 11:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hold on a second
What does the joker have to do with socialism. Joker was more of an anarchist anyway.
by cashman on Aug 15, 2009 1:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs


















