A Profile in Political Courage -- Barack Obama and Healthcare

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I've had down time these last couple of days. It is possible to strain virtually every muscle in your abdomen if the stomach flue clenches you up hard enough as you vomit. However, it has given me an opportunity to catch up on my right-wing, "hate" radio. It also let me crystalize a thought I have had growing in the back of my head a few weeks.


Obama may be one of the most courageous politicians I have seen in years; certainly since the advent of Reagan.


Obama is a leftie (Remember, my Euro-pals, that I'm using this in "murrican.") with a good grounding in Marxism from his college years and a lot of direct experience in political advocacy on behalf of a group that considers itself marginalized (with reason in many instances). As a politician, he has had most of his experience as part of the Chicago "machine" (modern version), and so we can be sure he has a decent grasp of rough-and-tumble constituency politics. He's also bright, reasonably articulate, and at times truly charismatic.

With the economy heading sideways for a long, slow climb out of our recent depression and with unemployment at its highest level for decades (probably it's highest level since 1937 if we correctly factor in "under-employment"), Obama and his administration have put one issue front and center for most of the last 15 months -- Healthcare.

Despite fierce opposition from the political right; despite popularity numbers that are dropping significantly; despite a public which wants to put the focus on "jobs, jobs, jobs;" despite a public that is increasingly angry with a political process that, however legal in a parliamentary sense seems unethical to most; and despite election reversals for his party in 3 different states over the past 6 months; Barack Obama is forging ahead on healthcare. It seems likely that it will pass now -- given the Slaughter option and a "deemed" vote -- and reconciliation will allow them to sidestep a GOP filibuster effort. Obama has indicated he will delay his Asian trip in order to sign the bill this weekend. It is still possible that the bill will be blocked -- the margin is tight -- but it the rules governing the process favor the majority here, however tenuously.

Folks, this is a display of courage. Obama is pushing for a major shift in US health care, one that is quite likely to push us a substantial step towards a one-payer or German-style system. This is in keeping with the goals of much (most? all?) of the U.S. political left which very much wants to see a USA with most of the power focused and regulated through the Federal Government and that truly believes in the goals/ideals common among many Social Democrat parties in Europe. They'd like to see our laws and government move substantially closer to the Scandanavian model. This is opposed by the majority of the U.S. electorate and the possibility of a nasty electoral backlash in November 2010 is distinct. Obama may well limit himself to one term in the achievement of this objective -- something that I simply didn't see as even a possibility a year ago given the lackluster cadre in the GOP. Were he to drop it entirely right now, he'd avoid virtually all of the backlash and his party would avoid much of it this November.

So why continue? The answer is simple, I believe, is that Obama has the courage of his convictions. He and his key administration people truly believe that nationalizing healthcare is the mete and correct thing to do -- and they are therefore willing to pay the price.

I will continue to oppose this healthcare "reform," on both philisophical and economic grounds....but I have to admire his courage.

Your thoughts?

[Lemur]

You are not the first right-of-center critic to discover that the current President actually has some convictions. Michael Medved (http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2010/03/17/why_didn%E2%80%99t_obama_wreck_the_economy_when_he_had_the_chance?page=full&comments=true), of all people, published this yesterday:


If President Obama really means to wreck the U.S. economy (as many influential conservatives stridently insist) then why didn’t he finish the job when he had the chance—in September, 2008? [...]

No economic analyst doubts that a final defeat of the Bush bailout would have produced a devastating wave of major failures in the financial world and a near total freeze of the banking system. When the House of Representatives narrowly turned down the TARP proposal in its first vote on September 29th, Wall Street responded the next day with the greatest one-time loss in Dow Jones history --- plummeting a gut-wrenching, unprecedented 777 points. That experience helped persuade additional Democrats, and 91 of 199 Republicans, to go along with both presidential candidates and to approve the package.

And what if Obama had split with McCain and Bush, aligning himself with overwhelming public opposition to the bailout, and blocking its approval in Congress? When the market collapsed and companies went under, there’s no chance the public would have blamed the candidate criticizing Bush and Paulson more than they blamed the candidate (McCain) who backed them. In fact, populist opposition to TARP, combined with the resulting financial catastrophe, would have produced an even greater margin of victory for Obama and the Democrats. Instead of winning by 7 percentage points, the Democratic nominee could have easily won by an historic landslide of 20 points or more. [...]

Politically, it made no sense for Barack Obama to join Bush, McCain and the Wall Street establishment in backing TARP. His resolute support for his partisan rivals makes no sense at all without the sane, obvious assumption that Obama (like most politicians of both left and right) actually wants the best for the country, its economy and its citizens.

[Louis VI the Fat]

If Obama pulls it off at last, I'd never vote for another politician ever again.

It takes tremendous courage and political strength to reform what is - owing to its double status as the world's most costly and simultaneously most useless healthcare system - this world's most profitable organised plunder of ordinary citizens. In so doing, America will no longer be the one single developed nation without universal healthcare. What's more, Americans will regain what was once thought the American way: Obama will return power to the people, their financial and physical wellbeing taking preference over organised plunder of them again.

A tremendous feat.




Edit:
Sorry, not trying to be dense here or sway the debate by post three to a discussion about the actual merits of Obama's healthcare reform plan.

In the above scheme, it becomes obvious why Obama would make healthcare a break-or-make issue of his presidency.

If one considers it an exercise in Marxism, against the grassroots opposition of ordinary Americans, at the possible price of a single-term presidency, then yes, one must wonder why Obama would persevere. Rational souls not easily swayed to conspiracist thinking, will arrive at the conclusion that Obama must actually believe in what he's trying to achieve. Which then, perhaps grudgingly admitted, would be telling of courage.

[Centurion1]

I'm a conservative and i can see that Obama is making a "courageous" stand here. Doesn't mean i have to support health-care though. George W. Bush made a few stands of his own.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If Obama pulls it off at last, I'd never vote for another politician ever again.

It takes tremendous courage and political strength to reform what is - owing to its double status as the world's most costly and simultaneously most useless healthcare system - this world's most profitable organised plunder of ordinary citizens. In so doing, America will no longer be the one single developed nation without universal healthcare. What's more, Americans will regain what was once thought the American way: Obama will return power to the people, their financial and physical wellbeing taking preference over organised plunder of them again.

You and I have different opinions as to the efficacy of this approach to healthcare.


Edit:
Sorry, not trying to be dense here or sway the debate by post three to a discussion about the actual merits of Obama's healthcare reform plan.

In the above scheme, it becomes obvious why Obama would make healthcare a break-or-make issue of his presidency.

If one considers it an exercise in Marxism, against the grassroots opposition of ordinary Americans, at the possible price of a single-term presidency, then yes, one must wonder why Obama would persevere. Rational souls not easily swayed to conspiracist thinking, will arrive at the conclusion that Obama must actually believe in what he's trying to achieve. Which then, perhaps grudgingly admitted, would be telling of courage.

I did not say he was a marxist, though that IS the epithet with which Obama is being tarred and featherd by the radio right. I believe he's a Social Democrat in the Eurpoean tradition (watered-down socialism, heavy emphasis on unions to really represent the working class, marginalize religion as counter-productive, increase taxation to pay for broad social entitlements, cut defense spending (and never deploy troops for more than 30 days save in UN authorized peace-keeping efforts, central government has most of the authority -- yes, I know I'm broad-brushing here).

It is also a fact that most of the proposed budget shortfalls engendered by this bill over the next ten years could be offset -- and then some -- by doubling the budget for homeland security and reducing the expenditure on the military and military operations from 4.06% of our GDP to 2.6% France maintains. Even at that level, we would be spending more on defense then all of the G8 (aside from China) combined.

This is, I believe, also part of the objective. With national healthcare the new norm, it becomes almost impossible, politically, for anyone to do more than trim around the edges of the program. This will, eventually, necessitate cutting spending elsewhere. The only realy possibility for a meaningful realignment of funds in the US budget is a sharp reduction in DOD spending. This will, in turn, MANDATE a more collegial and less combat-oriented approach to foreign policy across the board. This too, I believe, is one of the objectives. Yes, I do believe he is courageous enough to pursue these macro goals despite the political ass-whupping the Dems may well receive in the short run. I am, in addition, awed by his leadership....he's getting a lot of Dems to go along with this goal even though they can see a personal precipice between them and the "radiant future."

[Louis VI the Fat]

There are traces of Euro social-democracy noticable in Obama, yes. Combined with Obama's other policies, it would qualify the current administration as moderate European centre-right liberal.



The only realy possibility for a meaningful realignment of funds in the US budget is a sharp reduction in DOD spending.Or the US could, oh I dunno, start to collect tax again from it's top 1% wealthy. Considering that they represent 40% of the US' wealth, taxes amounting to 12% of their wealth could pay for the entire DOD budget.

If that's too Marxist, America could also consider simply raising taxes for its middle class - the actual tax-paying working people. The difference in defense spending between the UK/France and the US is only 2%. I'm sure you'll find a way to cover this 2%.

If taxes are too socialist, America can finance its defense the GOP way: by mortgaging its future by borrowing from Beijing.

Failing all of this, Obama might succeed in his ulterior motive: to destroy America's might and power by a healthy US population, yes.


(Though there are whispered rumours that suggest that because the US spends 16% of GDP on healthcare - double what other developed countries pay - an alignment of the US healthcare system with the rest of the developed world would free up so much funds America could double its defense spending and still lower taxes considerably)



~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~



https://img383.imageshack.us/img383/1748/800pxuniversalhealthcar.png


Blue are Marxist-totalitarian states. They have single-payer universal healthcare. Such as the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan and Sweden.
Green is Marxist-Leninist. They have universal healthcare through other means. Such as Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark, south Korea, Taiwan. And even rapidly (re-)developing countries like China, Russia and Brazil.

Grey are free countries without universal healthcare such as Sudan, Birma, the Congo and the US.




~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~





That all sounds combative, Louis, what with all these cynical, snide comments.Time to fight back, eh?

http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/content/about-us :unitedstates:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Or the US could, oh I dunno, start to collect tax again from it's top 1% wealthy. Considering that they represent 40% of the US' wealth, taxes amounting to 12% of their wealth could pay for the entire DOD budget.

If that's too Marxist, America could also consider simply raising taxes for its middle class - the actual tax-paying working people. The difference in defense spending between the UK/France and the US is only 2%. I'm sure you'll find a way to cover this 2%.

If taxes are too socialist, America can finance its defense the GOP way: by mortgaging its future by borrowing from Beijing.

Failing all of this, Obama might succeed in his ulterior motive: to destroy America's might and power by a healthy US population, yes.

(Though there are whispered rumours that suggest that because the US spends 16% of GDP on healthcare - double what other developed countries pay - an alignment of the US healthcare system with the rest of the developed world would free up so much funds America could double its defense spending and still lower taxes considerably)

We have no system to tax wealth. Taxes are levied from income. Certain kinds of income are not considered income. This is insipid. I am not in favor of a wealth tax, but at least it would be more honest than the bastardized semi-progressive tax we're stuck with. I want a consumption tax. I want as close to pay as you go as it is possible to be. I will never see it in my lifetime.

We will end up raising taxes in one fashion or another. We can only run in the red for so long before the loans will dry up. Without raising taxes, we cannot maintain our defense spending at superpower levels. Side thought? Why did we spend so little on our war department most of the time, but we spend scads on a defense department? Who ever won a ******* thing on defense anyway (strategically speaking).

We will NOT decrease the percentage of GDP spend on healthcare. We will end up increasing it. Cost savings will qiuckly be offset by calls for broader services. Fat smokers will NOT be denied care but we will have to pay for them. Drug abusers will be rehab'ed ad infinitim (saving 5% on each go around) at the public nickel. Oldsters will consume a grossly disproportionate share of care dollars. The model for us will be medicare/medicaid -- not Euro-health. We will expand that aspect of our health system which functions least effectively -- but most inclusively.

Funding everything on Chinese credit is stupid....unless we get enough of it to welsh on the debt and put them under in a single shot.

Obama wants a healthier America. He especially wants the poor have nots -- the group for whom he was a political advocate -- to have care as good as anyone else in the country. He believes it is morally wrong for some rich suburban kid of asiatic extraction to have access to a pacemaker paid for by his father's health package while some hispanic lad languishes in the barrio because his hard working parents work two or three jobs each with no benefits and can't afford a glossy health care package. Equality must be of outcome, not opportunity.

I don't see things that way.

[drone]

So, what you are saying is that Obama is a Socialist bent on the destruction of the American economy, no matter what? ~;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We will NOT decrease the percentage of GDP spend on healthcare. We will end up increasing it. Cost savings will qiuckly be offset by calls for broader services. Fat smokers will NOT be denied care but we will have to pay for them. Drug abusers will be rehab'ed ad infinitim (saving 5% on each go around) at the public nickel. Oldsters will consume a grossly disproportionate share of care dollars. The model for us will be medicare/medicaid -- not Euro-health. We will expand that aspect of our health system which functions least effectively -- but most inclusively.

Obama wants a healthier America. He especially wants the poor have nots -- the group for whom he was a political advocate -- to have care as good as anyone else in the country. He believes it is morally wrong for some rich suburban kid of asiatic extraction to have access to a pacemaker paid for by his father's health package while some hispanic lad languishes in the barrio because his hard working parents work two or three jobs each with no benefits and can't afford a glossy health care package. Equality must be of outcome, not opportunity.

I don't see things that way.

I think this shows two typical American fallacies.

1. An severe under appreciation of the extent of European Healthcare provision. Almost all of what you cited as increasing American costs is already included in European State healthcare, there is currently a scandal over the fact that English (but not Welsh or Scotish) pensioners are required to pay for their own care. The assumption is that the English situation should be better, not vice versa, in order to redress the balance.

As another example, my father, a poor 59 year-old bus driver, had his apendix out on Sunday. He is now back resting at home, having payed nothing, and the whole thing was done with no hassle. His only complaint was the food.

2. That the principle of "equality of opertunity" should apply to healthcare when most of those who need it (the young and the old) have no opertunity to ever improve their situation. If I said that "equality of opertunity, not equality of outcome" should apply to policing you would say the system was corrupt; yet you advocate exactly this concept with relation to your nation's basic well-being.

[Centurion1]

We will end up raising taxes in one fashion or another. We can only run in the red for so long before the loans will dry up. Without raising taxes, we cannot maintain our defense spending at superpower levels. Side thought? Why did we spend so little on our war department most of the time, but we spend scads on a defense department? Who ever won a ******* thing on defense anyway (strategically speaking).

are you kidding? There is no longer a "War Department", it was merged from the department of the Navy and the department of the Army as well as the department of the Chair force, excuse me Air Force into the Department of Defense in 1949. Of the department of defense it is made up into two separate major parts, the Department of the Navy and the joint Chiefs of Staff.

Please tell me you were just kidding SF. Please

[Louis VI the Fat]

We will NOT decrease the percentage of GDP spend on healthcare. We will end up increasing it. Cost savings will qiuckly be offset by calls for broader services. Fat smokers will NOT be denied care but we will have to pay for them. Drug abusers will be rehab'ed ad infinitim (saving 5% on each go around) at the public nickel. Oldsters will consume a grossly disproportionate share of care dollars. The model for us will be medicare/medicaid -- not Euro-health. We will expand that aspect of our health system which functions least effectively -- but most inclusively.Unfortunately, I think the system could well develop in this way. It is difficult to take back entitlements once they start being considered just that. Plus, once a corporation or government has its snout in the through, it's impossible to overcome the vested interest.

Good luck with all of that! On the up/downside - the hailed French healthcare system will be unaffordable in the long run too.



Obama wants a healthier America. He especially wants the poor have nots -- the group for whom he was a political advocate -- to have care as good as anyone else in the country. He believes it is morally wrong for some rich suburban kid of asiatic extraction to have access to a pacemaker paid for by his father's health package while some hispanic lad languishes in the barrio because his hard working parents work two or three jobs each with no benefits and can't afford a glossy health care package. Equality must be of outcome, not opportunity.

I don't see things that way.But the social Darwinism is obvious in the example given: its not the parent, but the healthcare of the minor that's at stake here. It is about equality of opportunity.

The problem with social policy is that a lot of your money ends up with people whom you didn't want it to go to. Pensioners? Fine. A twenty-one year old who's bumming out a few years - whatever. Disabled people - a sign of civilisation that one takes well care of them. But a family of eight, who've been on the dole for four generations, a third of their time spend in hospital with ever new complaints, a third spend in prison and the remaining third of their time spend thinking up ever new ways to make my life miserable - no. The Darwinist in me protests. Cut them off and let nature run its purifying course.


Side thought? Why did we spend so little on our war department most of the time, but we spend scads on a defense department? Who ever won a ******* thing on defense anyway (strategically speaking).As a side thought to the side thought: if it were up to me, the US had expanded all the way to Cape Horn and had a billion inhabitants....:vanish:

But it's not too late! After hegemony, you can still exert influence and your cultural preoponderance will ensure vast swaths of the planet will adopt your culture and freedom just like we did in Algeria where all the theaters we build are not closed and no terrorism and anti-Western agitation developed as soon we no longer called the shots and

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The problem with social policy is that a lot of your money ends up with people whom you didn't want it to go to. Pensioners? Fine. A twenty-one year old who's bumming out a few years - whatever. Disabled people - a sign of civilisation that one takes well care of them. But a family of eight, who've been on the dole for four generations, a third of their time spend in hospital with ever new complaints, a third spend in prison and the remaining third of their time spend thinking up ever new ways to make my life miserable - no. The Darwinist in me protests. Cut them off and let nature run its purifying course.

This, cher Louis, is a pretty good point. Some degree of charity is necessary to a civilization. I prefer it to be done privately or by NGO's -- but some degree of charity IS a hallmark of civilization. I truly believe that government running the charity -- service -- etc. all too frequently creates such a "dolist" mind set (and yes some corporate entities <cough sounding strangely like Archer Daniels Midland> are just as subject to this effect). Such an outlook, historically has always undercut the very civilization that allowed this "entitlement" mentality to calcify.


As a side thought to the side thought: if it were up to me, the US had expanded all the way to Cape Horn and had a billion inhabitants....:vanish:

I don't think we make very good hegemonists. I just wish we'd really figure out our priorities, get our house more or less in order, and then move forward on that consistent basis. Are we the world's policeman? Answer honestly and then structure things to do the job or not, etc. I also think "defense" department as a nomenclature is silly. It's W-A-R, as in killing people (some of whom will be innocent) and breaking things. "Defense" is pseudo-Orwellian.


Centurion:

My last comment above is really what I am after. If we are going to be a quasi-isolationist state, then we should pull in our horns and run a 2% GDP military with virtually no overseas presence save for USMC landings to protect/extract. If we're to be the lead cop of the UN, then we should be able to dial back to about 3% GDP and a lot of money for UN projects had better come from other coffers. If we're going to be the superpower, then we should UP the DOD budget and get a lot more boots. Right now, there are too many buttocks needing a swift kick and we have to hop too many times between kicks. Pick a role then make it viable.

[Lemur]

It's W-A-R, as in killing people (some of whom will be innocent) and breaking things. "Defense" is pseudo-Orwellian.
Hmm, "defense" is a misleading contruct meant to distract the listener from the meaning of what it describes. That's pretty much full-on Orwellian, nothing pseudo about it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I accept your correction my proto-simian friend.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Even moreso than Obama, for actual political courage one needs to watch the votes of House Democrats. Especially those in districts won by McCain. They could well sign their own death warrant by voting the bill.

Will Obama get his 216 votes?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/16/us/politics/20100316-health-care-dems.html


Ooohh! The suspense of it all!

[CountArach]

Tremendous courage would have been devoting himself to this from Day 1. The last year has been nothing but dancing around the issue and seeking out a bipartisan watered-down solution to a problem that, I believe, must be done with one ideology in mind. Mixing and matching can't work for something this momentous because you just end up with a lot of half measures that only go halfway to solving the problem.

That said, given that it is either a half measure or no measure at all, I hope the Bill is passed and most of the jaded Left (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/why-liberals-suddenly-love-health-care.html) agree with me.

[PanzerJaeger]

I guess it requires some level of courage for an elected official to ignore the will of the electorate and impose this travesty (http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/03/caterpillar-health-care-bill-would-cost-it-100m.html) on them during a severe economic decline.

A Profile in Unrelenting Gall -- Barack Obama and Healthcare

[Beskar]

I am guessing the electorate was happy with their 3rd World Healthcare and had to resort to bail-outs just to get treated for things we wiped out in this country 40 years ago, PanzerJaeger?

[m52nickerson]

I guess it requires some level of courage for an elected official to ignore the will of the electorate and impose this travesty (http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/03/caterpillar-health-care-bill-would-cost-it-100m.html) on them during a severe economic decline.

A Profile in Unrelenting Gall -- Barack Obama and Healthcare

Welcome to a representative democracy. Which survive because unlike direct democracies they will sometimes enact unpopular measures that are needed.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I guess it requires some level of courage for an elected official to ignore the will of the electorate and impose this travesty (http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/03/caterpillar-health-care-bill-would-cost-it-100m.html) on them during a severe economic decline.

A Profile in Unrelenting Gall -- Barack Obama and HealthcareThe divide amongst partisan lines is complete.

Me, I say it takes quite some gall for a minority party and lobbyists to obstruct to this extent, during a time of severe economic troubles brought about by their policies, a bill that will return power to the people and drastically reduce the deficit.


The US Congressional Budget Office says the final version of the Democrats' healthcare plan will cut the federal deficit by $138bn over 10 years.

The non-partisan body said the proposed legislation, which the House is expected to vote on at the weekend, would cost about $940bn over a decade.
President Barack Obama said the bill represented the most significant effort to reduce the deficit since the 1990s.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8574969.stm

[PanzerJaeger]

I am guessing the electorate was happy with their 3rd World Healthcare and had to resort to bail-outs just to get treated for things we wiped out in this country 40 years ago, PanzerJaeger?

3rd World healthcare? Which country are you refering to? In my country, I have access to the best healthcare in the world... healthcare that people in your country come to my country to get.


Welcome to a representative democracy. Which survive because unlike direct democracies they will sometimes enact unpopular measures that are needed.

Wonderful. The bill is certainly unpopular, but I'm wonder what part of it is needed?


Me, I say it takes quite some gall for a minority party and lobbyists to obstruct to this extent, during a time of severe economic troubles brought about by their policies, a bill that will return power to the people and drastically reduce the deficit.

The Doctor Fix (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Medicare-fix-would-push-apf-2700343586.html?x=0&.v=2) is in (http://amerpundit.com/2010/03/19/revealed-democrats-plan-another-371-billion-in-hc-costs/), ladies and gentlemen.

[Ironside]

3rd World healthcare? Which country are you refering to? In my country, I have access to the best healthcare in the world... healthcare that people in your country come to my country to get.

Wonderful. The bill is certainly unpopular, but I'm wonder what part of it is needed?


Are you going to disagree with that the US have the most expensive healthcare in the world? And that those costs are increasing rapidly?
Are you going to disagree on that the amount of people that can recieve proper healthcare is decreasing in the US?

Are you going to disagree that if Obama fails, then it's pretty much confirmed that touching healthcare is political suecide, making any larger reforms impossible until the system is publically known to be on the verge of collapse?

[Centurion1]

Hey look i have a deal with congress if they drop their Cadillac plans ill jump full steam behind this bill, drop my tricare, and use this health care. But if this isn't good enough for them they can kiss my ***

[m52nickerson]

3rd World healthcare? Which country are you refering to? In my country, I have access to the best healthcare in the world... healthcare that people in your country come to my country to get.

Glad that you have access to it, not everyone in the US does.

......perhaps that is why it is needed.



The Doctor Fix (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Medicare-fix-would-push-apf-2700343586.html?x=0&.v=2) is in (http://amerpundit.com/2010/03/19/revealed-democrats-plan-another-371-billion-in-hc-costs/), ladies and gentlemen.

The Doc fix is normally voted on every year, so it Doctors payments will not be cut. Even if health care does not pass the Doc fix will still be needed.

[Beskar]

3rd World healthcare? Which country are you refering to? In my country, I have access to the best healthcare in the world... healthcare that people in your country come to my country to get.

No you don't, oh wait, I am forgetting you are not actually talking about your healthcare and some random clinic which no body can access unless they are millionaires.

Because the number 1 in the World is actually France. United States of America is number 37 rivalling the likes of Cuba and Slovenia, whilst the United Kingdom is number 18.

Otherwords, remove your head out of your behind.

Source: World Healthcare Organisation.

[Subotan]

https://img383.imageshack.us/img383/1748/800pxuniversalhealthcar.png


Blue are Marxist-totalitarian states. They have single-payer universal healthcare. Such as the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan and Sweden.
Green is Marxist-Leninist. They have universal healthcare through other means. Such as Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark, south Korea, Taiwan. And even rapidly (re-)developing countries like China, Russia and Brazil.

Grey are free countries without universal healthcare such as Sudan, Birma, the Congo and the US.
[/CENTER]
Woo, go Bhutan!


We have no system to tax wealth. Taxes are levied from income. Certain kinds of income are not considered income. This is insipid. I am not in favor of a wealth tax, but at least it would be more honest than the bastardized semi-progressive tax we're stuck with. I want a consumption tax. I want as close to pay as you go as it is possible to be. I will never see it in my lifetime..
Taxes on consumption are regressive.

[Don Corleone]

I have one simple statement to make.... I owe Lemur a hand delivered 8-pack of Guiness ( the bet was a 6 pack, but I wouldn't put the bottled *^! in anyone's hands, and the canned Nitrogen goodies only come 4 or 8 at a time).

Second statement... I have no idea what is in the bill I will be inflicted with tomorrow. Nobody here does. But I know by virtue of the fact that none of the 535 members of Congress or Obama's staff are signing on for it, it cannot possibly be good.

"We are all equal. And some of us are more equal than others.".

[Tellos Athenaios]

Right. After seeing that list I have now vowed never to fall ill or become injured in the USA. The simple fact that the Netherlands is up at place 17 makes me not even want to contemplate how bad it must be down at 37. *shudder*

EDIT 2: Better had post something useful too. Interesting link: http://allcountries.org/health/usa_health_care_2008_nyt.html

[Crazed Rabbit]

Funny how it's the people outside the US saying how terrible our system is.

Even funnier how Canadian ministers come to the US for treatment.

I really hate this bill. Another huge expansion of the government, which will guarantee increased costs and more taxes. And for what? Most people - the ones with jobs and healthcare already, won't benefit.

Instead, we have a massive overhaul just so the poor can have their healthcare paid for even though they haven't earned it. Apparently I'm now responsible to pay for the employment benefits of other people. Your company won't pay for healthcare because you don't produce enough in the way of GDP? Well lets take money from more productive people and give it to you.

Oh, and does this bill do some really simple fixes that could help make insurance cheaper? No! Can we buy healthcare across state lines? Nope! Will the taxes on individually bought plans be done away with? No!

Will more medical schools be founded, or existing schools expanded, nuts to the AMA? Nope!

No, we just get a whole bunch of government controls, which will make all insurance more expensive! And then we'll get a slew of new restrictions on what care we can get. If helping the poor was the only objective, we could just give $1k or something to those in poverty for buying health insurance and co-payments and say they can keep whatever they don't spend.

Oh, yeah, we have the federal government demanding I buy insurance. So much for freedom of choice.

I'll end with an excerpt by the incomparable Milton Friedman (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704784904575111273624979544.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular):

The first major change in those arrangements was a byproduct of wage and price controls during World War II. Employers, pressed to find more workers under wartime boom conditions but forbidden to offer higher money wages, started adding benefits in kind to the money wage. Employer-provided medical care proved particularly popular. As something new, it was not covered by existing tax regulations, so employers treated it as exempt from withholding tax.

It took a few years before the Internal Revenue Service got around to issuing regulations requiring the cost of employer-provided medical care to be included in taxable wages. That aroused a howl of protest from employees who had come to take tax exemption for granted, and Congress responded by exempting employer- provided medical care from both the personal and the corporate income tax.

Because private expenditures on health care are not exempt from income tax, almost all employees now receive health care coverage from their employers, leading to problems of portability, third party payment and rising costs that have become increasingly serious. Of course, the cost of medical care comes out of wages, but out of before-tax rather than after-tax wages, so that the employee receives what he or she regards as a higher real wage for the same cost to the employer.

A second major change was the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. These added another large slice of the population to those for whom medical care, though not completely "free," thanks to deductibles and co-payments, was mostly paid by a third party, providing little incentive to economize on medical care. The resulting dramatic rise in expenditures on medical care led to the imposition of controls on both patients and suppliers of medical care in a futile attempt to hold down costs, further undermining the kind of private practice that Dr. Oreschenkov "cherished most in his work."

The best way to restore freedom of choice to both patient and physician and to control costs would be to eliminate the tax exemption of employer-provided medical care. However, that is clearly not feasible politically. The best alternative available is to extend the tax exemption to all expenditures on medical care, whether made by the patient directly or by employers, to establish a level playing field, in terms of the currently popular cliche.

Many individuals would then find it attractive to negotiate with their employer for a higher cash wage in place of employer-financed medical care. With part or all of the higher cash wage, they could purchase an insurance policy with a very high deductible, i.e., a policy for medical catastrophes, which would be decidedly cheaper than the low-deductible policy their employer had been providing to them, and deposit all or part of the difference in a special "medical savings account" that could be drawn on only for medical purposes. Any amounts unused in a particular year could be allowed to accumulate without being subject to tax, or could be withdrawn with a tax penalty or for special purposes, as with current Individual Retirement Accounts—in effect, a medical IRA. Many employers would find it attractive to offer such an arrangement to their employees as an option. . . .

CR

[Don Corleone]

Responding to Seamus's point in the O.P.... I disagree. Categorically. The speaking head of a minority bent on a takeover of 1/6 of the GDP of a country is not in and of itself courageous. Were Sacco and Venzetti "politically courageous"? Was McCarthy? As I understand it, when Pol Pot first came to power, most Cambodians did not agree with him either, hence the need for his "healthcare reforms". Was he courageous by making it so?

[Strike For The South]

Let me start off by saying I don't agree with the bill in its current form and I think forcing people to pay for health care is wrong

However the fact that some of you (PJ and CR) are using millionare European and Canadians in your posts to defend the healthcare system is whats wrong with the healthcare system. The system costs so much so a select group can cherry pick the best of the best.

The divide just gets wider and wider.....

[Beskar]

Let me start off by saying I don't agree with the bill in its current form and I think forcing people to pay for health care is wrong

However the fact that some of you (PJ and CR) are using millionare European and Canadians in your posts to defend the healthcare system is whats wrong with the healthcare system. The system costs so much so a select group can cherry pick the best of the best.

The divide just gets wider and wider.....

I like how CR says "people with jobs" yet, he forgot to mention its "people with high earning jobs" and forgets the figures that over 60% of the American population cannot afford Healthcare.

Also, I like how CR says about Canadian ministers, pretty :laugh4: as his comment just says how he doesn't know the situation and makes himself look worse.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I like how CR says "people with jobs" yet, he forgot to mention its "people with high earning jobs" and forgets the figures that over 60% of the American population cannot afford Healthcare.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Source?


Also, I like how CR says about Canadian ministers, pretty :laugh4: as his comment just says how he doesn't know the situation and makes himself look worse.

The situation is that he came to the US to get better health care than he would have in Canada.

Oh, and way to completely ignore the main part of my post. Guess it's easier to nitpick the fringes than deal with something you have no argument for.
:laugh4:


However the fact that some of you (PJ and CR) are using millionare European and Canadians in your posts to defend the healthcare system is whats wrong with the healthcare system. The system costs so much so a select group can cherry pick the best of the best.

No, I pointed out a government minister for Canada; a guy who helps force the system that doesn't let them pay for private care but goes to another country to get his own health care. Is the US system expensive in some ways? Yes, but this bill will not help that, just as medicare and mediaid failed to reduce costs.

CR

[CountArach]

I like how CR says "people with jobs" yet, he forgot to mention its "people with high earning jobs" and forgets the figures that over 60% of the American population cannot afford Healthcare.
Gonna have to call you on that one, mate. About 16% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126791/Percentage-Uninsured-Adults-Remains-Elevated.aspx) of Americans are uninsured, with a further 24% on a Government plan already (presumably mostly the elderly). The big problem is the people who have healthcare plans tied to their employment, because with unemployment only now just levelling off and no guarantees that there won't be a double-dip recession (not to mention future recessions) that number could rise, just as it did over the most recent crisis.

Funny how it's the people outside the US saying how terrible our system is.
Yet it is also people from countries with public or semi-public systems who are extolling the virtues of it. That argument is just pointless.

[PanzerJaeger]

Are you going to disagree with that the US have the most expensive healthcare in the world? And that those costs are increasing rapidly?

That depends. You're talking about healthcare as if its a single commodity - like milk. Are you talking about primary care, long term treatment, emergency room visits, elder care, cancer treatment, wellness programs or something else? Also, the US is what, five times as big as France? Which region are you referring to exactly, as each state has its own insurance companies?


Are you going to disagree on that the amount of people that can recieve proper healthcare is decreasing in the US?

Define proper.


Are you going to disagree that if Obama fails, then it's pretty much confirmed that touching healthcare is political suecide, making any larger reforms impossible until the system is publically known to be on the verge of collapse?

Yes, I will disagree. The vast majority of people, even evil right wingers such as myself, understand that there is room for improvement. What the majority do not want is this travesty of a bill. That x-thousand page abortion that will be posted online a day or so before its voted on. What people don't understand is how it is that the oh-so-touted "progress" we keep hearing about from the Left translates into higher premiums and higher taxes on business, especially in this economic climate. (See my link about Caterpiller.) That’s easy to figure out when you cut through all the rhetoric and get to the core of the bill - subsidizing the healthcare costs of 30 million people - the biggest vote grab since Social Security, that other entitlement we just ran out of money for. Someone is going to have to pay for these people, and as usual, it will be the self sufficient that will have to pay for the laggards.




The Doc fix is normally voted on every year, so it Doctors payments will not be cut. Even if health care does not pass the Doc fix will still be needed.

Indeed, which makes it a logical addition to a healthcare bill, unless its authors want to distort the numbers and make it appear deficit neutral.




No you don't, oh wait, I am forgetting you are not actually talking about your healthcare and some random clinic which no body can access unless they are millionaires.

Because the number 1 in the World is actually France. United States of America is number 37 rivalling the likes of Cuba and Slovenia, whilst the United Kingdom is number 18.

Otherwords, remove your head out of your behind.

Source: World Healthcare Organisation.

Oh dear. You didn't really just attempt to lecture me using that old WHO ranking, did you? You know, the one that has been completely discredited (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125608054324397621.html) for years. I mean really, if you're going to be obnoxious, at least be up to date... you're making this too easy.



Yet it is also people from countries with public or semi-public systems who are extolling the virtues of it. That argument is just pointless.

Lambs on the teet.

[Ironside]

Responding to Seamus's point in the O.P.... I disagree. Categorically. The speaking head of a minority bent on a takeover of 1/6 of the GDP of a country is not in and of itself courageous. Were Sacco and Venzetti "politically courageous"? Was McCarthy? As I understand it, when Pol Pot first came to power, most Cambodians did not agree with him either, hence the need for his "healthcare reforms". Was he courageous by making it so?

Technically, the goverment already runs about 50% of the current healthcare, so 1/12 tops. And unless Obama is planning to inprison or execute his political opponents, he have lost quite a bit political clout over this. Which would translate as courageous.


That depends. You're talking about healthcare as if its a single commodity - like milk. Are you talking about primary care, long term treatment, emergency room visits, elder care, cancer treatment, wellness programs or something else? Also, the US is what, five times as big as France? Which region are you referring to exactly, as each state has its own insurance companies?

I was refering to % of GDP. It's about 16% or about 50-100% higher than what other western nations spend. It's also expected to increase (wthout any reform).


Define proper.

Quoting already linked articles would give 75 millions, CountArach posted the number of uninsured and goverment insured. That number doesn't cover those who finds that thier insurance is useless or avoids visiting the doctor due to prefering to avoid complications with the insurance.


Yes, I will disagree. The vast majority of people, even evil right wingers such as myself, understand that there is room for improvement. What the majority do not want is this travesty of a bill. That x-thousand page abortion that will be posted online a day or so before its voted on. What people don't understand is how it is that the oh-so-touted "progress" we keep hearing about from the Left translates into higher premiums and higher taxes on business, especially in this economic climate. (See my link about Caterpiller.) That’s easy to figure out when you cut through all the rhetoric and get to the core of the bill - subsidizing the healthcare costs of 30 million people - the biggest vote grab since Social Security, that other entitlement we just ran out of money for. Someone is going to have to pay for these people, and as usual, it will be the self sufficient that will have to pay for the laggards.


Notice that I didn't even touch the issue of a better major reform, but of anybody touching a major reform for the next decades if this one would fail.

CR, in your opinion, how much to people need to earn to deserve getting cancer treatment? :juggle2:



Instead, we have a massive overhaul just so the poor can have their healthcare paid for even though they haven't earned it. Apparently I'm now responsible to pay for the employment benefits of other people. Your company won't pay for healthcare because you don't produce enough in the way of GDP? Well lets take money from more productive people and give it to you.


And more general question. How is medical insurance through employement supposed to work for retired people?

[m52nickerson]

Indeed, which makes it a logical addition to a healthcare bill, unless its authors want to distort the numbers and make it appear deficit neutral.

Not really because the bill is about reform, not standard year by year maintance.

[Beskar]

Gonna have to call you on that one, mate. About 16% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126791/Percentage-Uninsured-Adults-Remains-Elevated.aspx) of Americans are uninsured, with a further 24% on a Government plan already (presumably mostly the elderly).

You forgot the statistics where they cannot actually use their plans or their premiums skyrocket, or those with plans and they refuse to pay out, or the fact most plans do not even cover full costs. The bunch of issues, etc, raise it to 60%. Cannot remember the source over a year ago, but I also remember a panaroma problem about America Healthcare where this woman had to have her treatment for cancer in a tent, and how charities intended for Africa are in action in America, and the americans queue up 6-hours before the clinics even open to get aid.

[Centurion1]

The number is still no where near 60% that number is ridiculous.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You forgot the statistics where they cannot actually use their plans or their premiums skyrocket, or those with plans and they refuse to pay out, or the fact most plans do not even cover full costs. The bunch of issues, etc, raise it to 60%. Cannot remember the source over a year ago, but I also remember a panaroma problem about America Healthcare where this woman had to have her treatment for cancer in a tent, and how charities intended for Africa are in action in America, and the americans queue up 6-hours before the clinics even open to get aid.

Ah, the statistics you can't link to and likely don't exist. Basically you're responding to actual concrete facts with made-up falsities.

CR

[Beskar]

Ah, the statistics you can't link to and likely don't exist. Basically you're responding to actual concrete facts with made-up falsities.

CR

Yeah, because I made them up. :rolleyes:

What purpose would that serve? I might have not remembered the source, but I sure didn't make them up.

Anyway, here is the panorama documentary, part 1 I believe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VyNbuWbirU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-IokYFy4Rw&NR=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiYc0RMdH6E

[Subotan]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1883149,00.html



The Underinsured
When we talk about health-care reform (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1882824,00.html), we usually start with the problem of the roughly 45 million (and rising) uninsured Americans who have no health coverage at all. But Pat represents the shadow problem facing an additional 25 million people who spend more than 10% of their income on out-of-pocket medical costs. They are the underinsured, who may be all the more vulnerable because, until a health catastrophe hits, they're often blind to the danger they're in. In a 2005 Harvard University study of more than 1,700 bankruptcies across the country, researchers found that medical problems were behind half of them — and three-quarters of those bankrupt people actually had health insurance. As Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law professor who helped conduct the study, wrote in the Washington Post, "Nobody's safe ... A comfortable middle-class (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1882147,00.html) lifestyle? Good education? Decent job? No safeguards there. Most of the medically bankrupt were middle-class homeowners who had been to college and had responsible jobs — until illness struck."

[CountArach]

Woah a lot of lag on the American blogs and news sites I read... people are actually tuned into this news (It made radio news here this morning, which is rare). Now, with the executive order (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/white-house-statement-on-abortion-compromise.php) concerning federal funds for abortion funding Stupak will vote for the bill. I would expect he will drag at least some of the people in his bloc with him, thus making passage of the the healthcare bill almost certain.

[Subotan]

If this legislation passes, you can kiss the Tea Party movement goodbye.

[CountArach]

If this legislation passes, you can kiss the Tea Party movement goodbye.
Nah, it will strengthen them amongst the converted and further polarise American politics... but that's not a big loss as they were going to be the radical wing of the Republican Party anyway. What I would expect to happen would be some people saying "Oh wow, maybe Democrats can do something when they are in power", thus giving them at least a temporary bump in the polls.

[Louis VI the Fat]

"Oh wow, maybe Democrats can do something when they are in power", thus giving them at least a temporary bump in the polls.Oh! The power of perception!


I thought this was funny:


The undisputed top political story in the U.S. media right now is the impending House of Representatives vote (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/uspoliticshealth;_ylt=Av5ApBnviZjPm5VtdQApxIqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNmbjBsMTA5BGFzc2V0A2FmcC8yMDEwMDMxOS91 c3BvbGl0aWNzaGVhbHRoBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMwRwb3MDOARwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9y eQRzbGsDaGVhbHRoY2FyZQ--) on health-care reform. Domestic policy isn't our beat (except when it gets in the way of foreign policy (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/18/obama_delays_asia_trip_to_june_due_to_healthcare)) but we know that in Washington nothing succeeds like success and a vote like this will define the prevailing media narrative on the Obama administration: Come Monday the U.S. president will be seen as either brilliant or bungling. This narrative is going to extend beyond healthcare to other major issues, including foreign policy.



So here's a quick guide to what the state of the world will be, depending on whether or not the bill goes through.



If health care passes:


Iran: The Islamic Republic is on its last legs, challenged at every turn by the ever-expanding green movement, which the Obama administration wisely avoided undermining with explicit public support. Instead of a confrontational approach, the U.S. has taken its time to build international consensus, put tough but highly targeted sanctions in place, and given Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just enough rope to hang himself.



Af-Pak: The offensive in Marjah was a rousing success, al Qaeda leaders are being taken out or arrested left and right, the tide is turning against the insurgency, Pakistan is finally cooperating, Gen. Stanley McChrystal is the greatest U.S. military commander since Douglas MacArthur.



Iraq: The withdrawal of U.S. troops continues on schedule, violence is way down, Iraq's sectarian conflicts are being worked out in Parliament rather than in the streets, David Petraeus is the greatest U.S. miltary commander since George Washington.

Israel-Palestine: Finally, a U.S. administration showed some backbone dealing with Israel, condemning the expansion of settlements and working to strong-arm both sides to the table. Netanyahu's settlement freeze was a step in the right direction. Obama has proven that the White House can be a strong ally to Israel without being a pushover.

Russia: U.S.-Russia relations are better than they've been since the 1990s. Thanks to the Obama administration's less confrontational approach and compromise on missile defense, a successor to the START treaty is near and Moscow is finally starting

to cooperate on Iran.

Gitmo/detainees: The Obama administration has restored constitutional norms and proven that the war on terror on terror can be won and valuable intelligence gained without torture or illegal detentions. Dozens of Gitmo detainees have been relocated and the civilian trials for al Qaeda leaders will be a success.

Global warming: Thanks to Obama's last-minute intervention, the climate change summit saved face in Copenhagen. After health care, with momentum on its side, the administration will take on energy and finally make cap and trade a reality.

If health care fails:


Iran: With his shameful silence, Obama hung the green movement out to dry. Iran is closer than ever to building a nuke (if Israel doesn't bomb it first), the Chinese are never going to cooperate on sanctions, and the administration's engagement strategy has been proven a failure.

Af-Pak: U.S. troops are sinking into a unwinnable quagmire, Marjah was a meaningless backwater, Afghanistan's corrupt government and incompetent military will never be able to function without U.S. support, Pakistan is placating the U.S. while still not taking the Taliban seriously. Obama should have listened to Joe Biden when he had the chance.

Iraq: The election was marred by fraud, none of the major political disputes have been resolved, the insurgency is biding its time, the U.S. military faces a choice between remaining in Iraq for decades or watching a sectarian bloodbath erupt as it pulls out.

Israel-Palestine: The setttlements continue to expand, Obama is hopelessly unpopular in Israel and unable to influence Netanyahu, the Palestinian Authority is a corrupt joke and Hamas will never renounce violence. George Mitchell should quit while he still retains a shred of credibility.

Russia: While Hillary Clinton has tea with Dmitry Medvedev, Vladimir Putin is eating Obama's lunch. Russia is building nuclear reactors in Iran, delaying START again and again, meddling in Ukraine, tightening its grip on Georgia's breakaway regions and repressing its own people. The reset was nothing more than appeasement, and the U.S. hasn't even gotten anything out of it.

Gitmo/detainees: Obama hasn't even been able to close Gitmo, but in any event, he's putting Americans at risk of another terror attack by not letting interrogators do their job. The civilian trials, if they happen at all, will be a publicity circus that makes a mockery of the fight against terror. The Justice Department is infested with al Qaeda sleeper agents.

Global warming: Was invented by Al Gore to sell DVDs.

Rahm Emanuel: [Unprintable.]

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/19/a_pundits_guide_to_the_post_health_care_debate_world

[Beskar]

Oh! The power of perception!

I thought this was funny:

It is true, though the Obama-haters will say it is too late even if healthcare passes for those other points.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Vote passed. Yeas 220 (all dem) Nays 211 (33 dem, all gop).

Elections matter.

[Lemur]

Now watch the media narrative change, as per Louis' hilarious scenario. There's a good reason I don't watch TV news anymore.

Well, it's the End of America. We're now officially a Socialist Fascist Tyranny. I suggest that the conservative Orgahs moderate their rhetoric, 'cause I hear HoreTore is going to be helming the Death Panel.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Still needs to pass the Senate. Then we will be socialist.

EDIT: I'm actually not sure if it needs to go through the Senate. Someone told me the bill passed was the same one passed by the Senate a month or so ago. That doesnt sound right though.

[jabarto]

I was going to say something facetious about being a hardcore Bolshevik who gets aroused by the term "wealth redistribution" in response to the last two posts, but I kinda swore that I wouldn't post in any thread in which Crazed Rabbit called for the ability to buy insurance across state lines as witnessing cognitive dissonance that extreme would probably make my head explode.

Whoops. Too late.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I was going to say something facetious about being a hardcore Bolshevik who gets aroused by the term "wealth redistribution" in response to the last two posts, but I kinda swore that I wouldn't post in any thread in which Crazed Rabbit called for the ability to buy insurance across state lines as witnessing cognitive dissonance that extreme would probably make my head explode.

Whoops. Too late.

No, I think it has to do with your extreme ability to ignore the vast majority of content in a post.

So long, personal control over my healthcare. Alas, I hardly knew ye.

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

The end of American exceptionalism. Too bad.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So long, personal control over my healthcare. Alas, I hardly knew ye.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319
Which part of the bill will do that? Point out where with quotes please. Otherwise, take your hyperbole somewhere else.

[jabarto]

No, I think it has to do with your extreme ability to ignore the vast majority of content in a post.

So long, personal control over my healthcare. Alas, I hardly knew ye.

CR

I just looked at your post to make sure I didn't miss anything. It contained the following:

*Complaints about "bgi government'
*The aforementioned state lines thing
*More complaining about choice
*A quote by some hack whose economic ideas have not take off in even a single country at any point in the history of the entire world.

What am I missing?

[Beskar]

Affordable Healthcare Act = End of America?

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I just love the title of it.


Typical Opposition Poster: "America is going down the drain with its Affordable Healthcare Act! I want to be bent over and rogered by Insurance Conartists Companies and don't want my hospitals tainted with poor people."

[Crazed Rabbit]

I just looked at your post to make sure I didn't miss anything. It contained the following:

*Complaints about "bgi government'
*The aforementioned state lines thing
*More complaining about choice
*A quote by some hack whose economic ideas have not take off in even a single country at any point in the history of the entire world.

What am I missing?

Apparently, a lot about the history of the world. And even more about the history of economics.

@ACIN - the mandates of what coverage has to include, and the fact that you become a criminal if you don't buy coverage.

CR

[miotas]

So long, personal control over my healthcare. Alas, I hardly knew ye.

CR

Oh shut it would you, even the Marxist-totalitarian states still have private health insurance.


https://img383.imageshack.us/img383/1748/800pxuniversalhealthcar.png


Blue are Marxist-totalitarian states. They have single-payer universal healthcare. Such as the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan and Sweden.
Green is Marxist-Leninist. They have universal healthcare through other means. Such as Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark, south Korea, Taiwan. And even rapidly (re-)developing countries like China, Russia and Brazil.

Grey are free countries without universal healthcare such as Sudan, Birma, the Congo and the US.

[a completely inoffensive name]

@ACIN - the mandates of what coverage has to include, and the fact that you become a criminal if you don't buy coverage.

You didn't do what I asked. Where are the quotes, the specifics. And you don't become a criminal if you don't have health insurance. You get taxed an additional 2% of your income or a flat rate of a certain amount of dollars depending on which is higher. No jail for those who dont have insurance at all. It's basically the same as what Australia does with those who dont vote, as far as I know no one has been thrown in jail for not voting in Australia.

So please. Stop spouting nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about CR.

[jabarto]

And even more about the history of economics.

Uh, this may seem like an odd request, seeing as I openly decry your posts just about every chance I get, but I'm absolutely serious; could you suggest any good books on economics for a relative beginner? I've had a real itch to learn about it and, well...I mean, if I 'm going to get a good view of the whole economic picture I should see things from the opposing side as well, right? I've already got some books by Galbraith, Krugman, and Marx.

I know that asking you for advice after blasting you on a discussion board isn't the most sound tactic, but still, I find myself curious.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh, I'm sorry. I was under the impression the government only fines you if you've broken a law.
:rolleyes:
Specifics? The horde of democrats who voted for this bill don't even know what's in it, specifically. I do know this bill includes mandates and other items like forcing companies to cover everyone and, IIRC, charging everyone nearly the same amount.

And wow, the arguments from the supporters of this bill are by and large pathetic of late.

EDIT: Let me get back to you with a couple books, jabarto.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oh, I'm sorry. I was under the impression the government only fines you if you've broken a law.
:rolleyes:
Specifics? The horde of democrats who voted for this bill don't even know what's in it, specifically. I do know this bill includes mandates and other items like forcing companies to cover everyone and, IIRC, charging everyone nearly the same amount.

And wow, the arguments from the supporters of this bill are by and large pathetic of late.
CR

You do realize that there is a difference in making someone pay for imposing an injustice upon someone else that is illegal and making someone pay for not following a law as an economic incentive to follow such law and thus such economic action that such law is directed to promote and not because what the person did was bad? Oh wait, your goverment is bad ideology doesnt comprehend that.

The rest of your post basically breaks down into this:
1. The Democratic politicans who have legions of staffers and interns helping them do not know what the bill says (after spending months debating it) but you CR, the average citizen with just his internet connection and sheer determination has become more knowledgeable about it. If only we had 300 million more of you CR we wouldnt even need representatives and we could just switch to a pure democracy!
2. Vague description of what you think is in the bill, again without any specifics (justification for that provided by number one above).
3. General insult to the opposition of their arguments without any substance behind it.

Keep it up CR, show all the newbies what it takes to be a senior member!

[CountArach]

Tensions are running high in America, and I accept this, but can we please keep this away from personal attacks?

[Subotan]

Uh, this may seem like an odd request, seeing as I openly decry your posts just about every chance I get, but I'm absolutely serious; could you suggest any good books on economics for a relative beginner? I've had a real itch to learn about it and, well...I mean, if I 'm going to get a good view of the whole economic picture I should see things from the opposing side as well, right? I've already got some books by Galbraith, Krugman, and Marx.

I know that asking you for advice after blasting you on a discussion board isn't the most sound tactic, but still, I find myself curious.
This is Amazon UK, but they're excellent books nontheless. They aren't very partisan, which is what I presume you want:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Undercover-Economist-Tim-Harford/dp/0349119856/ref=pd_sim_b_2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Armchair-Economist-Economics-Everyday-Life/dp/0029177766




And wow, the arguments from the supporters of this bill are by and large pathetic of late.


Yes, it is nowhere near radical enough to truly provide the healthcare coverage that Americans deserve. National Health Service FTW.

[Lemur]

David Frum, as usual, has a readable and logical take (http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo) on the whole shebang.


No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I pretty well agree. We will shift from a Democratic Republic to a Social Democrat Republic because of this one, almost irreversibly now.

To be fair, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid had long since set us on this path. Nor is it right to target the Dems as the sole culprits. We have, however, added another 3rd rail to US politics.



Insurance companies must accept anyone even with a pre-existing condition as of 2014. Since the penalties for most will average less than the cost of health insurance, the smart angle is to pay the smaller penalty until you are actually ill and then apply when you really need to coverage. Real end result = single payer. Private companies (bought off by 5-10 years of gravy in the bill) will end up being unable to underwrite/handle the actuarial results of this. The government will be prime with a vastly reduced number of private health insureres offering "over and above" coverage to high ticket clients.

[drone]

Gah!

[m52nickerson]

Insurance companies must accept anyone even with a pre-existing condition as of 2014. Since the penalties for most will average less than the cost of health insurance, the smart angle is to pay the smaller penalty until you are actually ill and then apply when you really need to coverage. Real end result = single payer. Private companies (bought off by 5-10 years of gravy in the bill) will end up being unable to underwrite/handle the actuarial results of this. The government will be prime with a vastly reduced number of private health insureres offering "over and above" coverage to high ticket clients.

Well until you take the subsidies and exchanges into account.

[al Roumi]

I pretty well agree. We will shift from a Democratic Republic to a Social Democrat Republic because of this one, almost irreversibly now.

Pf, you might even find a political left wing to go with your two rights -it's perhaps no wonder that America has been flying in circles on healthcare since Roosevelt...

[Strike For The South]

Lame

Although I woke up this morning and everything still seems like it did yesterday. The Obamanation hasn't made its way down to Texas boy howdy

[tibilicus]

Yes, it is nowhere near radical enough to truly provide the healthcare coverage that Americans deserve. National Health Service FTW.

Agreed. I don't know the ins and outs of the bill specifically but to me it doesn't seem like a great triumph for the Democrats, more a poor compromise they want to call a triumph. The sad thing is if America did adopt an NHS style system they would probably be better of than with the healthcare system the current bill outlines.

I think the argument of moving towards "socialism" is also kind of ridiculous. I don't identify with socialism as an economic ideology but I still support the NHS, so does the majority of the UK. Why? because it works better than the American system. How any American can be satisfied with the current system is beyond me.

[m52nickerson]

For those of you interested here is a Subsidy Calculator:

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

[PanzerJaeger]

For those of you interested here is a Subsidy Calculator:

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

What do you know? As a self sufficient citizen who actually pays taxes to this government, I'm not eligible for any Obama money. Color me shocked. Anyway, I'm looking forward to my premiums going up (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2010/0322/Health-care-reform-law-is-only-half-a-loaf) to pay for those that are eligible!


Because the new law is largely modeled after a healthcare law adopted by Massachusetts in 2006, it is instructive to see where that state is headed. Since the state law’s passage, people in Massachusetts have suffered the country’s largest increases in health insurance premiums – forcing Governor Deval Patrick to propose price controls on insurance firms. And this is a state with a high degree of competition within both the insurance and medical industries.


In other news, completely unrelated to new government entitlements and spending, the US continues its march toward losing its AAA rating (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYUeBnitz7nU).

Happy days are here, ladies and gentleman! That is, if you're poor and derelict.

[Kagemusha]

I pretty well agree. We will shift from a Democratic Republic to a Social Democrat Republic because of this one, almost irreversibly now.

To be fair, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid had long since set us on this path. Nor is it right to target the Dems as the sole culprits. We have, however, added another 3rd rail to US politics.



Insurance companies must accept anyone even with a pre-existing condition as of 2014. Since the penalties for most will average less than the cost of health insurance, the smart angle is to pay the smaller penalty until you are actually ill and then apply when you really need to coverage. Real end result = single payer. Private companies (bought off by 5-10 years of gravy in the bill) will end up being unable to underwrite/handle the actuarial results of this. The government will be prime with a vastly reduced number of private health insureres offering "over and above" coverage to high ticket clients.

I hope that will be a good thing for you. It is not like Scandinavia and for example Germany are the worst places in the world to live in.

[Subotan]

In other news, completely unrelated to new government entitlements and spending, the US continues its march toward losing its AAA rating (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYUeBnitz7nU).

Happy days are here, ladies and gentleman! That is, if you're poor and derelict.
I trust the bond markets not to be stupid enough to jeopardise the recovery by refusing to lend to the USA. Of course, if they are that stupid, we never had a hope anyway.

[Beskar]

I think the argument of moving towards "socialism" is also kind of ridiculous. I don't identify with socialism as an economic ideology but I still support the NHS, so does the majority of the UK. Why? because it works better than the American system. How any American can be satisfied with the current system is beyond me.

There is a big cultural difference at work.

In America, they have the mind set of the "Economics of the Rich". As you will see earlier in the thread, a few of the Americans are saying they got the "Best Healthcare in the World" and how Canadian ministers come over for treatment in the United States. America as a general rule finds to the best, and rate themselves along it, so if Bill Gates has a whole hospital ward devoted to his treatment, the Americans would compare themselves to this and go "I bet you dont have that in the NHS!". Over here in Britain, we value the treatment of everyone, so while the NHS is not like that, everyone gets treatment, no one dies of illnesses we wiped out over here, but still exist in America, people on low incomes can get very good standards of healthcare and can get treatment when they need it. In America, the poor people there just suffer, they cannot afford even to see a doctor, but due to the cultural view of the "Economics of the Rich", you don't see CR, PanzerJ, giving a damn about those people, ultimately, they don't even exist to them, even though they encompass a large percentage of the population.

So in short: Americans view themselves through Economics of the Rich = Deny the existence of silent majority of poor Americans = Don't care about Poor people.

As for the reason America is so low on Healthcare statistics, is it only because a majority of the population actually don't have access to that "Best Healthcare in the World", so ultimately, they have basically no healthcare, and hence, the statistics include this poor people. Obama's plans were actually a step in the right direction.

[drone]

@Beskar - You keep using the word "majority" in your post. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[Tellos Athenaios]

A more interesting question arises from the calculator. What is considered poverty? That calculator apparently uses whatever the particular basement office of federal US government thinks is the “poverty threshold”. You may be surprised; an income of $10,880 a year is considered the poverty threshold of the USA.

[Centurion1]

A more interesting question arises from the calculator. What is considered poverty? That calculator apparently uses whatever the particular basement office of federal US government thinks is the “poverty threshold”. You may be surprised; an income of $10,880 a year is considered the poverty threshold of the USA.

thats bull. it is more like 17k. thats what you get working fulltime at minimum wage at walmart.

Beskar i do have excellent insurance courtesy of the armed forces. i guarantee that will be taken away soon enough. My uncle didnt go bankrupt after his daughter was diagnosed with cancer and fought for multiple years at some of the top hospitals in New England. And he is a gas station manager.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It isn't bull. Instead of you dismissing that calculator or my findings from it outright why don't you try it for yourself? Pay attention at the description of how it works, and look at the subtitle on the income field closely as you get back your calculated results.

Oh playing with some more values I can get it to go as low as $10776 and as high as $10884 which means the mean is $10830. So I stand corrected. The USA considers $10,830,- a year to be its poverty threshold:
https://img651.imageshack.us/img651/4230/povertythresholdusazvq.png (https://img651.imageshack.us/i/povertythresholdusazvq.png/)

[Beskar]

@Beskar - You keep using the word "majority" in your post. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Over 50% of the population? :tongue: I think I am right, as inconceivable as it might be.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Never in modern memory has a major piece of legislation passed without a single Republican vote. Even President Lyndon B. Johnson (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/lyndon_baines_johnson/index.html?inline=nyt-per) got just shy of half of Republicans in the House to vote for Medicare (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicare/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) in 1965, a piece of legislation that was denounced with many of the same words used to oppose this one. That may be the true measure of how much has changed in Washington in the ensuing 45 years
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/health/policy/22assess.html?ref=policyMeanwhile, the Republicans vow a repeal effort against the health bill.


Partisanship has increased, not decreased. Obama's outstetched hand has been met only with a sharp turn to the rght, a whipping into frenzy of the power base, and a Stalinist-like GOP party discipline that is virtually unheard of in US political history. Will any major Bill ever be allowed to pass Congress again via normal means, or has rightwing ultra-partisanship destroyed the core principles of the functioning of America's political system?

[Centurion1]

It isn't bull. Instead of you dismissing that calculator or my findings from it outright why don't you try it for yourself? Pay attention at the description of how it works, and look at the subtitle on the income field closely as you get back your calculated results.

Oh playing with some more values I can get it to go as low as $10776 and as high as $10884 which means the mean is $10830. So I stand corrected. The USA considers $10,830,- a year to be its poverty threshold:

i didnt intend to sound condescending. I just believe that true poverty is a higher income than that. Yes that is poverty but i believe even higher than that is poverty as well.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Ah, okay. No harm done. :bow:

[drone]

The states revolt!
13 attorneys general sue over health care overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/23/AR2010032301642.html?hpid=topnews)

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Attorneys general from 13 states sued the federal government Tuesday, claiming the landmark health care overhaul is unconstitutional just seven minutes after President Barack Obama signed it into law.

The lawsuit was filed in Pensacola after the Democratic president signed the 10-year, $938 billion bill the House passed Sunday night.

"The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage," the lawsuit says.

Legal experts say it has little chance of succeeding because, under the Constitution, federal laws trump state laws.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is taking the lead and is joined by attorneys general from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Colorado and Louisiana. All are Republicans except James "Buddy" Caldwell of Louisiana, a Democrat.

Some states are considering separate lawsuits - Virginia filed its own Tuesday - and still others may join the multistate suit. In Michigan, the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, a Christian legal advocacy group, sued on behalf of itself and four people it says don't have private health insurance and object to being told they have to purchase it.

McCollum, who is running for governor, argues the bill will cause "substantial harm and financial burden" to the states.

The lawsuit claims the bill violates the 10th Amendment, which says the federal government has no authority beyond the powers granted to it under the Constitution, by forcing the states to carry out its provisions but not reimbursing them for the costs.
Which way to Ft. Sumter? ~D

[Subotan]

I see your Tenth Amendment, and raise you an Elastic Clause:

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[drone]

I see your Tenth Amendment, and raise you an Elastic Clause:

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

No, you are doing it wrong. The States are right in this regard, the Constitution gives no power to the Federal government to mandate health care, so the Elastic Clause is meaningless. You are supposed to quote the Interstate Commerce clause.

[PanzerJaeger]

In America, they have the mind set of the "Economics of the Rich". As you will see earlier in the thread, a few of the Americans are saying they got the "Best Healthcare in the World" and how Canadian ministers come over for treatment in the United States. America as a general rule finds to the best, and rate themselves along it, so if Bill Gates has a whole hospital ward devoted to his treatment, the Americans would compare themselves to this and go "I bet you dont have that in the NHS!". Over here in Britain, we value the treatment of everyone, so while the NHS is not like that, everyone gets treatment, no one dies of illnesses we wiped out over here, but still exist in America, people on low incomes can get very good standards of healthcare and can get treatment when they need it. In America, the poor people there just suffer, they cannot afford even to see a doctor, but due to the cultural view of the "Economics of the Rich", you don't see CR, PanzerJ, giving a damn about those people, ultimately, they don't even exist to them, even though they encompass a large percentage of the population.

Pardon?

My tax dollars pay for food, housing, welfare, unplanned dependents and a litany of other benefits given to the poor, not to mention a public education system I've never had anything to do with. Now I'm not happy about the fact that pretty much the only benefits I get from my taxes are an excellent military and crappy roads, but I understand that government handouts are always disproportionately biased against those who actually pay taxes.

The problem I have with this bill is that it does irreparable damage to this nation's finances, which effects everyone's standard of living. Our unsustainable entitlements are already eating away at federal and state budgets, and the boomers haven't even started to retire.



The states revolt!
Hopefully this makes it to the Supreme Court ASAP. I do not think there is any precedent for the government forcing citizens to purchase something solely on the basis of existing, and I do not think the current line up on the High Court would be favorable to such a change. Interstate commerce requires that some commerce actually be conducted, and refusing to buy something does not qualify, imo.

[Subotan]

Along with the Federal Reserve, the Cabinet, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid etc. on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention them? In fact, why not abolish every institution that Congress has ever created, as since the Consitution doesn't mention them, they are un-American abominations? I guess we'd still have U.S. Post, so we can still mail each other stuff if we wanted to.

[Lemur]

My tax dollars pay for food, housing, welfare, unplanned dependents and a litany of other benefits given to the poor, not to mention a public education system I've never had anything to do with. Now I'm not happy about the fact that pretty much the only benefits I get from my taxes are an excellent military and crappy roads, but I understand that government handouts are always disproportionately biased against those who actually pay taxes.
You don't know many farmers, do you? Or defense contractors, for that matter. And why do I suspect you are one of those folks who moans and whinges about taxes all year long, and then asks his accountant to take the most aggressive and potentially unethical stance by April 15?

Anyway, if we're all done bellyaching about the fact that we live in a civilization and that we have to pay some horrible thing called taxes to maintain it, there's more wisdom from Frum today (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/22/frum.healthcare.gop.strategy/index.html). I swear he's rapidly becoming my favoritest Republican ever.

Some Republicans talk of repealing the whole bill. That's not very realistic. Even supposing that Republicans miraculously capture both houses of Congress in November, repeal will require a presidential signature.

More relevantly: Do Republicans write a one-sentence bill declaring that the whole thing is repealed? Will they vote to reopen the "doughnut" hole for prescription drugs for seniors? To allow health insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions? To kick millions of people off Medicaid?

It's unimaginable, impossible.

But there are things that can be done, and here are some early priorities:

1) One of the worst things about the Democrats' plan is the method of financing: an increase in tax on high-income earners. At first that tax bites only a very small number, but the new taxes will surely be applied to larger and larger portions of the American population over time.

Republicans champion lower taxes and faster economic growth. We need to start thinking now about how to get rid of these new taxes on work, saving and investment -- if necessary by finding other sources of revenue, including carbon taxes.

2) We should quit defending employment-based health care. The leading Republican spokesman in the House on these issues, Rep. Paul Ryan, repeatedly complained during floor debate that the Obama plan would "dump" people out of employer-provided care into the exchanges. He said that as if it were a bad thing.

Yet free-market economists from Milton Friedman onward have identified employer-provided care as the original sin of American health care. Employers choose different policies for employees than those employees would choose for themselves. The cost is concealed.

Wages are depressed without employees understanding why. The day when every employee in America gets his or her insurance through an exchange will be a good day for market economics. It's true that the exchanges are subsidized. So is employer-provided care, to the tune of almost $200 billion a year.

3) We should call for reducing regulation of the policies sold inside the health care exchanges. The Democrats' plans require every policy sold within the exchanges to meet certain strict conditions.

American workers will lose the option of buying more basic but cheaper plans. It will be as if the only cable packages available were those that include all the premium channels. No bargains in that case. Republicans should press for more scope for insurers to cut prices if they think they can offer an attractive product that way.

4) The Democratic plan requires businesses with payrolls more than $500,000 to buy health insurance for their workers or face fines of $2,000 per worker. Could there be a worse time to heap this new mandate on smaller employers? Health insurance comes out of employee wages, plain and simple. Employers who do not offer health insurance must compete for labor against those who do -- and presumably pay equivalent wages for equivalent work.

Uninsured employees have now through the exchanges been provided an easy and even subsidized way to buy their own coverage. There is no justification for the small-business fine: Republicans should press for repeal.

That platform is ambitious enough -- but also workable, enactable and likely to appeal to voters. After 18 months of overheated rhetoric, it's time at last for Republicans to get real.

[drone]

Along with the Federal Reserve, the Cabinet, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid etc. on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention them? In fact, why not abolish every institution that Congress has ever created, as since the Consitution doesn't mention them, they are un-American abominations? I guess we'd still have U.S. Post, so we can still mail each other stuff if we wanted to.
Your examples do not promote your cause. ~D

The Elastic Clause applies to Enumerated Powers. The Interstate Commerce clause is how the federal government gets around the restrictions of the 10th Amendment and the Enumerated Powers. If you are going to dismiss the states' argument constitutionally, at least post the correct abuse. :bow:

[TinCow]

Hopefully this makes it to the Supreme Court ASAP. I do not think there is any precedent for the government forcing citizens to purchase something solely on the basis of existing, and I do not think the current line up on the High Court would be favorable to such a change. Interstate commerce requires that some commerce actually be conducted, and refusing to buy something does not qualify, imo.

Insurance companies conduct business nationwide, not within a single state. They are thus subject to regulation by the federal government under the commerce clause. The government can force individuals to do many different things that they don't want to do, such as serving in the armed forces or contributing to social security. Just because the government has never made you buy something before doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

[drone]

Insurance companies conduct business nationwide, not within a single state. They are thus subject to regulation by the federal government under the commerce clause.
The McCarran-Ferguson Act disagrees somewhat.


The government can force individuals to do many different things that they don't want to do, such as serving in the armed forces or contributing to social security.
Conscientious objectors don't serve in the military. And if you don't have a job, you don't pay social security. :tongue:

[PanzerJaeger]

You don't know many farmers, do you? Or defense contractors, for that matter. And why do I suspect you are one of those folks who moans and whinges about taxes all year long, and then asks his accountant to take the most aggressive and potentially unethical stance by April 15?

You're right! Yay for farm subsidies! ....wait what? :inquisitive:

And if you'd bothered to read my post, I do not object to paying taxes for defense. The benefits don't disproportionately help one social class at the expense of another.


Anyway, if we're all done bellyaching about the fact that we live in a civilization and that we have to pay some horrible thing called taxes to maintain it, there's more wisdom from Frum today (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/22/frum.healthcare.gop.strategy/index.html).

Strawman much?



I swear he's rapidly becoming my favoritest Republican ever.

Doesn't surprise me.


Republicans champion lower taxes and faster economic growth. We need to start thinking now about how to get rid of these new taxes on work, saving and investment -- if necessary by finding other sources of revenue, including carbon taxes.

So he wants to promote economic growth and lower taxes in one sentence and promotes carbon taxes in the next. :dizzy2:


Insurance companies conduct business nationwide, not within a single state. They are thus subject to regulation by the federal government under the commerce clause. The government can force individuals to do many different things that they don't want to do, such as serving in the armed forces or contributing to social security. Just because the government has never made you buy something before doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

Not exactly.

Of course, anything can be made constitutional. I just don't think this Supreme Court lineup will agree with this.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The benefits don't disproportionately help one social class at the expense of another.
I think the basic fairness of the progressive tax system comes from the fact that an individual dollar becomes worth less and less the more of them you have. That takes care of the "expense of another" part. And the "helping one social class" is because people think that society should try for a minimum standard of living for its citizens. I don't see a strong argument against that principle. People working hard having their money given to people who are just profiting off the system? That's not an argument against the principle, just against the application. I don't think it applies to medical issues, because people don't rally try and get sick so that they can get it cured for free.


The problem I have with this bill is that it does irreparable damage to this nation's finances, which effects everyone's standard of living.

This is the best argument against the bill that I can see. I can't refute it, but I don't have a reason to think it will happen, so ~:handball:

[Beskar]

I think the basic fairness of the progressive tax system comes from the fact that an individual dollar becomes worth less and less the more of them you have. That takes care of the "expense of another" part. And the "helping one social class" is because people think that society should try for a minimum standard of living for its citizens. I don't see a strong argument against that principle. People working hard having their money given to people who are just profiting off the system? That's not an argument against the principle, just against the application. I don't think it applies to medical issues, because people don't rally try and get sick so that they can get it cured for free.


Because the person with the rolex, the two sports cars, and the condo can afford to give more money in taxes opposed to the minimum wage family struggling to make ends meet. so the actual value of the dollar is worth far more to those at the bottom than the top.

[Subotan]

So he wants to promote economic growth and lower taxes in one sentence and promotes carbon taxes in the next.

Because carbon taxes are taxes on waste, taxes on inefficiency, taxes on laziness. It is not the taxation of labour, profit, success. It is something that companies should be doing anyway in a free market system, yet are unwilling to do so because the incentives are long-term.

[Strike For The South]

Because the person with the rolex, the two sports cars, and the condo can afford to give more money in taxes opposed to the minimum wage family struggling to make ends meet. so the actual value of the dollar is worth far more to those at the bottom than the top.

So making money is wrong?

Gentleman we need to tone down the rhetoric and amp up the pragmatism.

Not everyone is a meth head with 18 kids and 19 fathers nor is everyone someone with a 6000000 sq ft house whom wipes with hundreds.

[Beskar]

So making money is wrong?

No, but you can't expect some one with less to easily pay as much.

(As a context, exploiting people is wrong. So if it is legitimately and morally earned money then no problem at all)

[jabarto]

As a context, exploiting people is wrong. So if it is legitimately and morally earned money then no problem at all

And most wealthy people in this country wouldn't get that money without the creation of an entire society deigned to funnel wealth into their pockets soooooo...:juggle2:

Not that you're wrong. Wealth isn't an inherently bad thing (instances of exploition excluded of course), and the term "marginal utility of a dollar" is not hard to understand.

[Tuuvi]

Meanwhile, the Republicans vow a repeal effort against the health bill.


Partisanship has increased, not decreased. Obama's outstetched hand has been met only with a sharp turn to the rght, a whipping into frenzy of the power base, and a Stalinist-like GOP party discipline that is virtually unheard of in US political history. Will any major Bill ever be allowed to pass Congress again via normal means, or has rightwing ultra-partisanship destroyed the core principles of the functioning of America's political system?

This is one of the things that bothers me most about the health bill. If politicians on both sides weren't so stubborn, arrogant, small minded, angry, etc. and willing to have open minds, sincerely listen and consider the other sides opinions, and actually have intelligent debate ( I didn't really pay attention to the health reform debate but I'm willing to bet money that it was neither intelligent nor sincere) maybe we would've gotten a much better health care reform bill. Also it seems hypocritical to me that Democrats refuse to listen to anything Republicans have to say, because they pride themselves on listening to and being the voice of minority groups, but then when they become the majority they do their best to shut out Republican opinions. Shouldn't minority political groups have a say, not just ethnic/religious minorities? Yes I am aware that Republicans are guilty of this too whenever they are in power, but the difference is the Republican party doesn't try to present itself as the protector of the oppressed minority (well not in modern times anyway). As a disclaimer I am not Republican and I do not support the Republican party.

Another thing that bothers me about the health reform bill is the fact that mostly everyone will be required to have health insurance. To me this seems like an unnecessary intrusion on my freedom to make my own choices, and it scares me that my government has the power to do something like this. This is pure speculation on my part but I believe they may have decided to force everyone to have health insurance to make up for the fact that health insurance companies are now forced to cover people whose coverage will make them lose money. I guess that's fair, but in a way that kind of makes me feel sick inside. Surely there could have been a better way to do health care reform? I believe that reform was needed and the new bill will do some good things but if I was a politician I would have voted against it.

[TinCow]

I don't normally like to lay down the Lawyer Hammer on debates, but this one is just ridiculous. I am referring to the national debate, not this one in specific. Pretty much every Tea Bagger now thinks they're a Con Law expert, and it's giving me a headache. There is essentially no debate about the legality of the law within the legal community; the very idea that it is unconstitutional is a punchline, not a legitimate legal theory. The lawsuits have been filed purely for political reasons, to keep the activist base energized on the issue between now and November; they have absolutely no chance of success. This is essentially a state equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit. And you don't have to take my word for it:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/ID/221377

[Lemur]

I believe they may have decided to force everyone to have health insurance to make up for the fact that health insurance companies are now forced to cover people whose coverage will make them lose money. I guess that's fair, but in a way that kind of makes me feel sick inside. Surely there could have been a better way to do health care reform?
It's not speculation on your part, that was the stated purpose and aim. If healthy people could reasonably stay out of the market, and only sick people purchased insurance, health care premiums would shoot toward the moon. If you want to keep the entire system in the private sector, and you want the costs of premiums to stay somewhat under control, you have to entice/force healthy people into the market.

The "alternatives" you speak of? If you want to keep it private sector, there aren't many. The two solutions pushed by Republicans, Tort reform and cross-state purchasing, would not have pushed premiums down one inch. Tort reform, for example, was estimated to impact at most 1% of healthcare costs. Huzzh. And how could you possibly enact cross-state insurance markets for healthcare when every single state has its own mandates, its own rules, its own regulations, its own structure? Why, you'd have to crush all of those state laws under Federal mandates. Cue 10th Amendment whining from the same geniuses who claimed that cross-state healthcare insurance markets would solve everything.

The only way to seriously impact costs without restructuring our entire healthcare system would have been to introduce a public option, but there was no way that was going to happen. As ugly and malformed as the current bill is, apparently it's the best we could hope for under the circumstances.

Another thought: When rightwing commentators go on and on about how a majority of Americans opposed the bill, they always managed to forget that between 13% and 15% opposed it because they felt it didn't got far enough. When you put that group together with the group that supported the bill (~40%–45%) you come out with a solid majority. Not that majorities matter anyway (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/cheney-war-polls-dont-matter).

[CountArach]

I find it interesting that on the same day that healthcare reform was passed in America, Australia had a debate between the leaders of our two main political parties solely devoted to healthcare. Even the Liberal opposition (the Conservatives here, yes it does get confusing to explain that to Americans) wanted an increased federal involvement in healthcare and more funding for it. Compare this to the American political dialogue where (some) conservatives are striving for something that amounts to complete privatisation and couldn't even begin to imagine a totally federal scheme. Two very different stories that tell a lot in themselves.

[Subotan]

. Also it seems hypocritical to me that Democrats refuse to listen to anything Republicans have to say, because they pride themselves on listening to and being the voice of minority groups, but then when they become the majority they do their best to shut out Republican opinions.
The current bill is very similar to what was proposed by Nixon, the GOP in the Nineties etc. The Democrats have listened and compromised, but the GOP have over the past year refused to engage on every level. And now it's going to come back and bite them.


This is pure speculation on my part but I believe they may have decided to force everyone to have health insurance to make up for the fact that health insurance companies are now forced to cover people whose coverage will make them lose money. I guess that's fair, but in a way that kind of makes me feel sick inside. Surely there could have been a better way to do health care reform? I believe that reform was needed and the new bill will do some good things but if I was a politician I would have voted against it.
Then that encourages them to innovate and keep costs down, whilst maintaining a good level of care. Just how it should work.

[Strike For The South]

I don't normally like to lay down the Lawyer Hammer on debates, but this one is just ridiculous. I am referring to the national debate, not this one in specific. Pretty much every Tea Bagger now thinks they're a Con Law expert, and it's giving me a headache. There is essentially no debate about the legality of the law within the legal community; the very idea that it is unconstitutional is a punchline, not a legitimate legal theory. The lawsuits have been filed purely for political reasons, to keep the activist base energized on the issue between now and November; they have absolutely no chance of success. This is essentially a state equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit. And you don't have to take my word for it:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/ID/221377

Look at this guy....like its his job....that he spent years of school to get

[Crazed Rabbit]

You didn't do what I asked. Where are the quotes, the specifics. And you don't become a criminal if you don't have health insurance. You get taxed an additional 2% of your income or a flat rate of a certain amount of dollars depending on which is higher. No jail for those who dont have insurance at all. It's basically the same as what Australia does with those who dont vote, as far as I know no one has been thrown in jail for not voting in Australia.

So please. Stop spouting nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about CR.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought the government fining you for an action meant you were doing something against the law. :rolleyes: Oh, wait, this is different from the government fining you for doing something it doesn't want you to do, since it's fining you for not doing something, which means the dollars you pay have a different molecular structure from dollars used to pay other fines.


Uh, this may seem like an odd request, seeing as I openly decry your posts just about every chance I get, but I'm absolutely serious; could you suggest any good books on economics for a relative beginner? I've had a real itch to learn about it and, well...I mean, if I 'm going to get a good view of the whole economic picture I should see things from the opposing side as well, right? I've already got some books by Galbraith, Krugman, and Marx.

I know that asking you for advice after blasting you on a discussion board isn't the most sound tactic, but still, I find myself curious.

There's Greg Mankiw's introductory textbook: Principles of Economics 4th Edition. (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Principles-of-Economics/N-Gregory-Mankiw/e/9780324224726)
$70 at B&N for the paperback, but a college library should have an older edition at least.

There's Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html) Available there and likely other spots for free online reading.

Finally for this list is the "Free to Choose" PBS video series based on the book by Milton and Rose Friedman. The videos are available free online and a list of links can be found here. (http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/)


Sadly, the state challenges will likely fail, since the commerce clause is the most abused clause in the whole constitution (and for other reasons). However, I have read at the Volokh Conspiracy that the state suits might have a very slim chance of success, not an impossible chance.

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

The horror!! The distraction!! Sarah Palin leads an armed insurrection against congressional democrats!!! (http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0324/palin-gun-imagery-attack-democrats/) Very important stuff here... according to MSNBC.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Here's another list of myths about healthcare (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/fact-sheet-the-truth-abou_b_506026.html) the various supporters of this bill may find bubble bursting.

Note that it's written by the founder of Firedoglake, a leftist blog, and posted on the left leaning Huffington Post.

Myth 1: This is a universal health care bill.

Fact: The bill is neither universal health care nor universal health insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office:


* Total uninsured in 2019 with no bill: 54 million

* Total uninsured in 2019 with Senate bill: 24 million


Myth 2: Insurance companies hate this bill.

Fact: This bill is almost identical to the plan written by AHIP, the insurance company trade association, in 2009.
The original Senate Finance Committee bill was authored by a former Wellpoint vice president. Since Congress released the first of its health care bills on October 30, 2009, health care stocks have risen 28.35%.

Myth 3: The bill will significantly bring down insurance premiums for most Americans.

Fact: The bill will not bring down premiums significantly, and certainly not the $2,500/year that President Obama promised during his campaign.

Annual premiums in 2016: status quo / with bill:
Small group market, single: $7,800 / $7,800
Small group market, family: $19,3oo / $19,200
Large Group market, single: $7,400 / $7,300
Large group market, family: $21,100 / $21,300
Individual market, single: $5,500 / $5,800
Individual market, family: $13,100 / $15,200

(The cost of premiums in the individual market goes up somewhat due to subsidies and mandates of better coverage. The CBO assumes that cost of individual policies goes down 7-10%, and that people will buy more generous policies.)

Myth 4: The bill will make health care affordable for middle class Americans.

Fact: The bill will impose a financial hardship on middle class Americans who will be forced to buy a product that they can't afford to use.

A family of four making $66,370 will be forced to pay $5,243 per year for insurance. After basic necessities, this leaves them with $8,307 in discretionary income -- out of which they would have to cover clothing, credit card and other debt, child care and education costs, in addition to $5,882 in annual out-of-pocket medical expenses for which families will be responsible.

Myth 5: This plan is similar to the Massachusetts plan, which makes health care affordable.

Fact: Many Massachusetts residents forgo health care because they can't afford it. A 2009 study by the state of Massachusetts found that:


* 21% of residents forgo medical treatment because they can't afford it, including 12% of children

* 18% have health insurance but can't afford to use it


Myth 6: This bill provides health care to 31 million people who are currently uninsured.

Fact: This bill will mandate that millions of people who are currently uninsured purchase insurance from private companies, or the IRS will collect up to 2% of their annual income in penalties. Some will be assisted with government subsidies.

Myth 7: You can keep the insurance you have if you like it.

Fact: The excise tax will result in employers switching to plans with higher co-pays and fewer covered services.
Older, less healthy employees with employer-based health care will be forced to pay much more in out-of-pocket expenses than they do now.

Myth 8: The "excise tax" will encourage employers to reduce the scope of health care benefits, and they will pass the savings on to employees in the form of higher wages.

Fact: There is insufficient evidence that employers pass savings from reduced benefits on to employees.

Myth 9: This bill employs nearly every cost control idea available to bring down costs.

Fact: This bill does not bring down costs and leaves out nearly every key cost control measure, including:


* Public Option ($25-$110 billion)

* Medicare buy-in

* Drug re-importation ($19 billion)

* Medicare drug price negotiation ($300 billion)

* Shorter pathway to generic biologics ($71 billion)


Myth 10: The bill will require big companies like Wal-Mart to provide insurance for their employees.

Fact: The bill was written so that most Wal-Mart employees will qualify for subsidies, and taxpayers will pick up a large portion of the cost of their coverage.

Myth 11: The bill "bends the cost curve" on health care.

Fact: "Bends the cost curve" is a misleading and trivial claim, as the U.S. would still spend far more for care than other advanced countries.


* In 2009, health care costs were 17.3% of GDP.

* Annual cost of health care in 2019, status quo: $4,670.6 billion (20.8% of GDP)

* Annual cost of health care in 2019, Senate bill: $4,693.5 billion (20.9% of GDP)


Myth 12: The bill will provide immediate access to insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition.

Fact: Access to the "high risk pool" is limited and the pool is underfunded. Only those who have been uninsured for more than six months will qualify for the high-risk pool. Only 0.7% of those without insurance now will get coverage, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services report estimates it will run out of funding by 2011 or 2012.

Myth 13: The bill prohibits dropping people in individual plans from coverage when they get sick.

Fact: The bill does not empower a regulatory body to keep people from being dropped when they're sick. There are already many states that have laws on the books prohibiting people from being dropped when they're sick, but without an enforcement mechanism, there is little to hold the insurance companies in check.

Myth 14: The bill ensures consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to challenge new insurance plan decisions.

Fact: The "internal appeals process" is in the hands of the insurance companies themselves, and the "external" one is up to each state.

Ensuring that consumers have access to "internal appeals" simply means the insurance companies have to review their own decisions. And it is the responsibility of each state to provide an "external appeals process," as there is neither funding nor a regulatory mechanism for enforcement at the federal level.

Myth 15: This bill will stop insurance companies from hiking rates 30%-40% per year.

Fact: This bill does not limit insurance company rate hikes. Private insurers continue to be exempt from anti-trust laws, and are free to raise rates without fear of competition in many areas of the country.

Myth 16: When the bill passes, people will begin receiving benefits under this bill immediately

Fact: Most provisions in this bill, such as an end to the ban on pre-existing conditions for adults, do not take effect until 2014.

Six months from the date of passage, children could not be excluded from coverage due to pre-existing conditions, though insurance companies could charge more to cover them. Children would also be allowed to stay on their parents' plans until age 26. There will be an elimination of lifetime coverage limits, a high risk pool for those who have been uninsured for more than 6 months, and community health centers will start receiving money.

Myth 17: The bill creates a pathway for single payer.

Fact: Bernie Sanders' provision in the Senate bill does not start until 2017, and does not cover the Department of Labor, so no, it doesn't create a pathway for single payer.

Obama told Dennis Kucinich that the Ohio Representative's amendment is similar to Bernie Sanders' provision in the Senate bill, and creates a pathway to single payer. Since the waiver does not start until 2017, and does not cover the Department of Labor, it is nearly impossible to see how it gets around the ERISA laws that stand in the way of any practical state single payer system.

Myth 18: The bill will end medical bankruptcy and provide all Americans with peace of mind.

Fact: Most people with medical bankruptcies already have insurance, and out-of-pocket expenses will continue to be a burden on the middle class.


* In 2009, 1.5 million Americans declared bankruptcy

* Of those, 62% were medically related

* Three-quarters of those had health insurance

* The Obama bill leaves 24 million without insurance

* The maximum yearly out-of-pocket limit for a family will be $11,900 (PDF) on top of premiums

* A family with serious medical problems that last for a few years could easily be financially crushed by medical costs

So instead we have a bill that deals with high insurance costs by forcing people to buy insurance. I guess that solves the problem for insurance companies, along with government subsidies. Too bad it ignores the problem of high cost for the American people.

CR

[Beskar]

So instead we have a bill that deals with high insurance costs by forcing people to buy insurance. I guess that solves the problem for insurance companies, along with government subsidies. Too bad it ignores the problem of high cost for the American people.

CR

If true, you know who was responsible for it, those who opposed Obama's low-cost healthplan. It is interesting when the opposition damages a policy then attacks the policy for the damage they caused.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ah, another one of your unsourced, unverified, "I heard it somewhere" 'facts'?


Oh yeah, Obama's plan would've solved all of these problems. Don't ask how; it just would have. The real problem isn't that the bill is a piece of junk, it's the people who opposed our Glorious Leader!

CR

[Beskar]

Ah, another one of your unsourced, unverified, "I heard it somewhere" 'facts'?

Funny, it is pretty much in your post.


Oh yeah, Obama's plan would've solved all of these problems. Don't ask how; it just would have. The real problem isn't that the bill is a piece of junk, it's the people who opposed our Glorious Leader!

That is talking out of your behind and you know it. It is people who opposed it who forced a water down version of the plan, and now you are saying Obama can't deliver on his promise because he was forced to compromise to get it through because of the opposition. Therefore, the opposition forced a water-down version then attack Obama because of the water-down version. It sad and pathetic that this Republican scum tactics seems to be a common trend. In otherwords, you helped in creating a pile of junk, just so you can use it against Obama.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Don't blame the Republicans at all. That is ridiculous.

The bill got no GOP votes, so the dems could have thrown in all sorts of things distasteful to Republicans and not lost anything.

Here's another fun fact; Massachusetts passed a similar bill several years ago, with the promise that premiums for health insurance would go down.

They are currently the most expensive in the country.

CR

[Centurion1]

i like how congress ahs kept their cadillac plans. really reassuring that.

[jabarto]

Hey Crazed Rabbit, thanks for the book recommendations. Also you may be surprised to hear that I agree with you that this bill is a steaming pile that doesn't fix much of anything - for different reasons, of course, but all the same...

[Tuuvi]

It's not speculation on your part, that was the stated purpose and aim. If healthy people could reasonably stay out of the market, and only sick people purchased insurance, health care premiums would shoot toward the moon. If you want to keep the entire system in the private sector, and you want the costs of premiums to stay somewhat under control, you have to entice/force healthy people into the market.

The "alternatives" you speak of? If you want to keep it private sector, there aren't many. The two solutions pushed by Republicans, Tort reform and cross-state purchasing, would not have pushed premiums down one inch. Tort reform, for example, was estimated to impact at most 1% of healthcare costs. Huzzh. And how could you possibly enact cross-state insurance markets for healthcare when every single state has its own mandates, its own rules, its own regulations, its own structure? Why, you'd have to crush all of those state laws under Federal mandates. Cue 10th Amendment whining from the same geniuses who claimed that cross-state healthcare insurance markets would solve everything.

The only way to seriously impact costs without restructuring our entire healthcare system would have been to introduce a public option, but there was no way that was going to happen. As ugly and malformed as the current bill is, apparently it's the best we could hope for under the circumstances.

Another thought: When rightwing commentators go on and on about how a majority of Americans opposed the bill, they always managed to forget that between 13% and 15% opposed it because they felt it didn't got far enough. When you put that group together with the group that supported the bill (~40%–45%) you come out with a solid majority. Not that majorities matter anyway (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/cheney-war-polls-dont-matter).

The alternatives that I speak of? Well I don't really agree with anything the Republicans proposed either. What I was trying to say is that if Republicans and Democrats had been more willing to work together, then maybe they would have been able to come up with better alternatives, and I was lamenting the fact that this didn't happen. If a complete restructuring of the current health care system is what it would have taken, then that's what they should have done.


The current bill is very similar to what was proposed by Nixon, the GOP in the Nineties etc. The Democrats have listened and compromised, but the GOP have over the past year refused to engage on every level. And now it's going to come back and bite them.


Then that encourages them to innovate and keep costs down, whilst maintaining a good level of care. Just how it should work.

I agree Republicans are as much to blame for the mess that is the health care bill as the Democrats are.

[Lemur]

Pragmatic advice (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/pragmatic-libertarians/) for libertarians:


From a purely libertarian perspective, the status quo — with its vast and growing public health care expenditures — was no nirvana. Pure libertarians will never succeed in just wishing the government out of health care, but pragmatic libertarians may be able to push more modest reforms that can make the public role in health care less expensive.

Of course, we all know what libertarians get up to re: healthcare when they think nobody's looking.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ik4f1dRbP8

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought the government fining you for an action meant you were doing something against the law. :rolleyes: Oh, wait, this is different from the government fining you for doing something it doesn't want you to do, since it's fining you for not doing something, which means the dollars you pay have a different molecular structure from dollars used to pay other fines.

That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Again, your overly simplistic view of government shows your lack of ability in recognizing context. When you murder someone, you have committed a criminal act. When you choose to not have health insurance and have to pay more taxes as a consequence for that choice means that you have fallen victim to an economic incentive.

Apparently to you, increased taxes=fine and fine=breaking law and breaking law=criminal. So when someone moves up an economic level in terms of standard of living and wealth, the fact they need to pay more taxes means they have committed a crime in moving up. So why do you support the rich CR and thus sympathize with criminals? And here i thought conservatives wanted to be tough on crime....

[Crazed Rabbit]

Taxes are levied on income.

Fines are charged for behavior.

I thought you could understand the difference. Having health insurance or not does not affect one's income. It's a choice, for which the government demands money if you don't make the choice it wants.

But I guess you can't expect much when people call fines 'economic incentives'. My, that's a good Orwellian phrase!


Of course, we all know what libertarians get up to re: healthcare when they think nobody's looking.

I'd like to assume you're joking, but you're just showing a leftist's group propaganda video about a couple jerks.

CR

[Lemur]

I'd like to assume you're joking, but you're just showing a leftist's group propaganda video about a couple jerks.
Ah yes, the Columbus Dispatch (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/index.html), a famous collective of neo-Marxist revolutionay thought. Really, who isn't a leftist group these days?

[Meneldil]

I'd like to assume you're joking, but you're just showing a leftist's group propaganda video about a couple jerks.

CR

Thanks for finally admitting that teabaggers are jerks. It's the first step. Maybe some day you'll also admit they're a bunch of ignorant, racist, fascist wannabes.

[Ironside]

I'd like to assume you're joking, but you're just showing a leftist's group propaganda video about a couple jerks.

CR

Are you going to argue that the parkinson man is producing enough GDP to earn healthcare? Because otherwise I don't see where you politically disagree with them, outside them being jerks about it. :juggle2:


Instead, we have a massive overhaul just so the poor can have their healthcare paid for even though they haven't earned it. Apparently I'm now responsible to pay for the employment benefits of other people. Your company won't pay for healthcare because you don't produce enough in the way of GDP? Well lets take money from more productive people and give it to you.

[Lemur]

Then again, teabaggers make some pretty great propaganda ... this donkeycorn/zerbracorn thing really sheds a new light on the Obama admin.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH5Eo0bn6zY

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Thanks for finally admitting that teabaggers are jerks. It's the first step. Maybe some day you'll also admit they're a bunch of ignorant, racist, fascist wannabes.

Dial it back a notch, buckwheat. As with any temporary collection of people brought together by some political concern, there are -- no doubt of it -- a few folks who qualify as one or maybe even all of the labels you have so casually applied to the entire lot. However, it is a virtual certainty that most of them are folks who are annoyed/concerned about the issues of the day and trying to express themselves.

[Lemur]

Are you going to argue that the parkinson man is producing enough GDP to earn healthcare? Because otherwise I don't see where you politically disagree with them, outside them being jerks about it.
In fairness to CR, style matters, and there's no such thing as an ideology so pure that a jerk's yelling won't make it ugly. On the other hand, Ironside is quite correct. Under the Libertarian perspective, the man with Parkinson's should be left to die as a drag on the economy.

Slight tangent: Apparently the Parkinson's man is a former nuclear engineer. And the arrogant idiot who threw dollar bills at him is very, very sorry that he got caught. (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/24/dollar-bill-throw.html?sid=101)

[Banquo's Ghost]

Slight tangent: Apparently the Parkinson's man is a former nuclear engineer. And the arrogant idiot who threw dollar bills at him is very, very sorry that he got caught. (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/24/dollar-bill-throw.html?sid=101)

Actually, he seems genuinely contrite in that article. What's disconcerting about this whole saga is the level of sheer anger that seems to be overwhelming people. The chap seems to have lost control and is rather bewildered at how he did so.

You've got increasing numbers of Americans getting to the frothing stage, and it's frightening. I sincerely believe that these talk-show hosts and other rabble-rousers are ruining the tolerance and easy-going acceptance that used to characterise America, and thereby killing the expression of free speech. The chap who lost his temper says he's unlikely to go to a political demonstration again. I'm pretty sure the nuclear engineer is wary of expressing himself too. What a tragedy.

I've said it before - many people in your media, and some politicians ought to be on trial for sedition. They most certainly should be ashamed of themselves.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, he seems genuinely contrite in that article. What's disconcerting about this whole saga is the level of sheer anger that seems to be overwhelming people. The chap seems to have lost control and is rather bewildered at how he did so.

You've got increasing numbers of Americans getting to the frothing stage, and its frightening. I sincerely believe that these talk-show hosts and other rabble-rousers are ruining the tolerance and easy-going acceptance that used to characterise America, and killing the idea of free speech. The chap who lost his temper says he's unlikely to go to a political demonstration again. I'm pretty sure the nuclear engineer is wary of expressing himself too. What a tragedy.

I've said it before - many people in your media, and some politicians ought to be on trial for sedition. They most certainly should be ashamed of themselves.

We've been at this juncture before. US politics of the turn of the 19th and early 19th were contentious to say the least and every bit as divisive.

[Meneldil]

Dial it back a notch, buckwheat. As with any temporary collection of people brought together by some political concern, there are -- no doubt of it -- a few folks who qualify as one or maybe even all of the labels you have so casually applied to the entire lot. However, it is a virtual certainty that most of them are folks who are annoyed/concerned about the issues of the day and trying to express themselves.

Nope, teabaggers are nutjobs that are slowly turning the US into the shame of the western world. They certainly qualify as ignorant racist nutjobs, though yes, on a purely semantical basis, fascism might not apply. Mind you, every country has its own fringe nutjobs. Problem here is that as time goes, teabaggers become less and less fringe.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that not all teabaggers are like that, but saddly, each time I read what they think or see them in motion, I can only facepalm a bit more. Maybe my viewpoint is twisted, maybe I only get to see the weirdest dudes out there. In any case, people who cheer at Sarah Palin deserve no respect whatsoever. It's the level 0 of politics and democracy.

[Banquo's Ghost]

We've been at this juncture before. US politics of the turn of the 19th and early 19th were contentious to say the least and every bit as divisive.

I'm sure, but then that all led to a fairly nasty civil war. Not an outcome I would want to contemplate even this far across the Pond.

[Strike For The South]

At what point can we start using our guns?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Nope, teabaggers health care supporters are nutjobs that are slowly turning the US into the shame of the western world. They certainly qualify as ignorant racist nutjobs, though yes, on a purely semantical basis, fascism might not apply. Mind you, every country has its own fringe nutjobs. Problem here is that as time goes, health care supporters become less and less fringe.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that not all health care supporters are like that, but saddly, each time I read what they think or see them in motion, I can only facepalm a bit more. Maybe my viewpoint is twisted, maybe I only get to see the weirdest dudes out there. In any case, people who cheer at Barack Obama deserve no respect whatsoever. It's the level 0 of politics and democracy.

:stare:

Regardless of who is "more right", demonizing the opposition is what leads to...exactly what you are complaining about.

Not to say that you are going to go around taunting right wingers who have parkinson's, but you can't really complain about angry political rhetoric.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ah, I see.

Lemur doesn't understand libertarianism or libertarians, and doesn't want to make any effort to understand, since that might stop him from blanket criticizing them on a whole range of issues.

And Meneldil rages against the partisanship of US politics by demonizing a group he disagrees with and doesn't know anything about.


Actually, he seems genuinely contrite in that article.

Nonsense! Don't disrupt Lemur's fantasies by suggesting one of those anti-healthcare protesters might feel genuine sympathy.


At what point can we start using our guns?

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe
:clown:

CR

[Strike For The South]

quote jack

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Banquo:

Actually, US politics were divisive enough even without the slavery issue. That sad mistake was only excised with blood -- and I hope we never sink to that level again.


Menildl:

Remember, as you view things on the media, that the media promotes conflict at all times because THAT is what ups viewership and sells advertising. Therefore, you are NOT treated to the reasoned discussions (boring) but to the idiotic "Stupak must die" fringers. As you rightly note, there are fruits, nuts and flakes everywhere. The Tea-party crowd is mostly conservative with a bit of a libertarian flair. Most of this is benign.

Palin, as a demagogue, is pretty good. We'll see when she announces whether she can take a a positive stance or if she only can handle the comparatively easy job of poking holes in the agenda of the current administration. I have my doubts.

Sadly, I think we'll see Romney v Obama and another 4 years of Obama the Social Democrat. He'll have a less DEM Congress though, so maybe things will be a little less "one party."

[Lemur]

Lemur doesn't understand libertarianism or libertarians, and doesn't want to make any effort to understand, since that might stop him from blanket criticizing them on a whole range of issues.
As I've said before, libertarianism: the gnawing fear that someone, somewhere is receiving benefits. Contest it as you like, you know it's true.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Banquo:

Actually, US politics were divisive enough even without the slavery issue. That sad mistake was only excised with blood -- and I hope we never sink to that level again.

Me too. That's why I'm feeling some despair at the current polarisation of positions on both sides. I don't understand why the beacon of democracy has reached such a state. I can see that people are upset by all sorts of government intrusion - those on the left by the Bush administration's trampling of rights and freedoms in the name of "security" and those on the right by ever increasing taxation and social programs. There is no one to vote for save the least worst, and the least worst is getting less palatable each election. But surely the answer is to unite as a people and look to the elected president with respect for the office and demand changes. To allow the citizenry to be divided against themselves only empowers the government of whichever hue, and gives control to the demagogues who want nothing more than antagonism and hatred, for that appeals to the basest of human nature and gains ratings (or political power to be exercised for its own sake and personal greed).

I don't know. Perhaps even its its most shining example, democracy is actually a doomed system because the people can be so easily divided against their interests.

[KukriKhan]

And I'll just jump in and observe that the parallels are striking enough to be paid close attention to (that is, the ACW era and 2010 politics). America tries to have the race and slavery and reparations conversation about every generation (in my definition = 40 years), and it's awkward every time. We have a hard time sitting through it: blood boils, polarisation happens, threats and counter-threats get shouted. Sometimes shots get fired.

Most of the time, the sides cool off after a bit of steam-letting, and a little bit of progress ensues - but it's never satisfactorily concluded. So we have this national ghost haunting us still.

I think, at some level of consciousness just below our public personas, we all sense the danger of directly confronting the issue(s). We know that taken to its extreme, blood will flow... and nobody wants that (despite the passionate rhetoric).

All this talk of creeping communism and sliding socialism and reactionary nationalism - is smoke, in my opinion, smoke that misses the point. BUT: maybe this missing the point is exactly the point - then we can have the conversation more subliminally, less confrontationally. Less bloodily.

Candidate Obama once said (rather: I've heard sound-clips of him saying:) "I don't like Reparations - they don't go far enough." Maybe what is happening is that slowly, via legislation and Executive Order (instead of torches and pitchforks, or armed soldiers), while the right thinks (and says) we're moving toward Euro-style socialism/communism (*gasp!*), and the left thinks we're not moving fast enough in that direction, at the end of 4 years POTUS O can point to Insurance reform, Education reform, Employment reform, Banking reform, and any other reforms he can get done, and say: "Now we are more truly equal." "I can do more, if you want me to; just vote for me. Or, if you think I'm done, vote for the other guy."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe I'm just full of wishful thinking, and the White House really is hell-bent on making us Venezuela. Or worse: they're unskilled incompetents bumbling through whatever crisis pops up. For now, I choose optimism - with a beady eye.

[Strike For The South]

I think we have to realize that these changes (agree or not) do not make us any less "American" nor does it signal the end of some sort of era...It's healthcare

[PanzerJaeger]

Of course, we all know what libertarians get up to re: healthcare when they think nobody's looking.



Straight from the desk of Kieth Olbermann to the backroom.


Thanks for finally admitting that teabaggers are jerks. It's the first step. Maybe some day you'll also admit they're a bunch of ignorant, racist, fascist wannabes.

Mission accomplished. Couldn't have done it better myself. :bow:


Meanwhile, back in the realm of relevance, AT&T and 3M (http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2010/03/27/ATT-Healthcare-law-will-boost-tax-bill/UPI-63081269697685/)join the growing list of American corporations forced to take huge financial hits from this "reform", causing them to question the continuance many benefits they already offer. And the results of this new entitlement only get worse (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/health/policy/27impact.html)in the individual states' budgets.


Because of the new health care law, Arizona lawmakers must now find a way to maintain insurance coverage for 350,000 children and adults that they slashed just last week to help close a $2.6 billion budget deficit.

Louisiana officials say a reduction in federal money to hospitals that treat the uninsured under the bill could be a death knell for their state-run charity hospital system.

In California, policymakers estimate they will have to come up with an additional $500 million a year to make necessary increases in payments to Medicaid providers.

Across the country, state officials are wading through the minutiae of the health care overhaul to understand just how their governments will be affected. Even with much still to be digested, it is clear the law may be as much of a burden to some state budgets as it is a boon to uninsured consumers.

[Subotan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/health/policy/27impact.html
This would be avertible if states were allowed to run deficits, even if only during and shortly after negative growth/rising unemployment. The problem isn't universal healthcare per se; if you ran a federalised armed forces you'd get a similar problem, but the inflexibility of state finances and their vulnerability to changes in demand (E.g. A lot of state revenue comes from sales taxes, gambling, income taxes etc.)

[a completely inoffensive name]

@Panzer: Don't blame the federal gov, for the financial failings of an individual state. Many states have brought upon their own ruin with disastrous "common sense" laws such as a mandated balanced budget law that kills the states ability to handle an economic downturn. California has the brilliance of needing too large a majority for a budget to pass ("because we want everyone to happy" which=less taxes for repubs and more spending for dems) and an out of control initiative system.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Taxes are levied on income.

Fines are charged for behavior.

I thought you could understand the difference. Having health insurance or not does not affect one's income. It's a choice, for which the government demands money if you don't make the choice it wants.

But I guess you can't expect much when people call fines 'economic incentives'. My, that's a good Orwellian phrase!

A increase upon your individual income tax can be a fine in itself. The lines who have drawn are too black and white and in reality it is a gray blur between the two. And that is what is exactly going on with the health insurance choice. That bolded part shows how much you have been paying attention because I have already said, that a possible punishment for not having health insurance is an increase of your income tax by 2% of your total income.

Please don't mention Orwell until the government is working on abolishing the orgasm from the country.

[Subotan]

"Orwellian" is such an overused phrase, and is often used describe situations which pale in comparison to the nightmarish vision Orwell had of a Stalinist state. It's also worth noting that Orwell was a real Socialist (About as far left as you go without being a Communist).

[aimlesswanderer]

Perhaps the only good thing about the frothing at the mouth of many of the opponents of healthcare reform, is that us furriners (who must all be godless communists apparently, universal healthcare system and worse!) can still laugh at you yanks even after you bravely tried to fix your healthcare system. All that craziness is good for laughs - if you don't live there. Always fun to see the president portrayed as some sort of bizarre socialist communist nazi hybrid. That is always good for the movement's credibility and reasoned discussion.

And lovely people like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck, who urge people to be respectful and nice to each other, they are also good for a laugh - as long as they stay well away from here.

[Beskar]

As I've said before, libertarianism: the gnawing fear that someone, somewhere is receiving benefits. Contest it as you like, you know it's true.

It is true, that is why I am a Libertarian Socialist. Some one, some where is exploiting people for massive amounts of money and screwing over their workers, as such, the people should control the infrastructure to prevent this from happening.

[PanzerJaeger]

A good piece on the long term costs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html)of health care "reform" and Obama's reckless spending in general.


With health bill, Obama has sown the seeds of a budget crisis

When historians recount the momentous events of recent weeks, they will note a curious coincidence. On March 15, Moody's Investors Service -- the bond rating agency -- published a paper warning that the exploding U.S. government debt could cause a downgrade of Treasury bonds. Just six days later, the House of Representatives passed President Obama's health-care legislation costing $900 billion or so over a decade and worsening an already-bleak budget outlook.

[Strike For The South]

Is it poissble that something can be such a cluster that it falls out the other end and we all come out smelling like daisies?

Subsidies for people whom make 88,000?

I must not understand this

Can we put a stipulation in the bill? If your dieasese is a result of any vice we don't have to pay?

A nation which is eating itslef to death doesn't deserve healthcare

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A good piece on the long term costs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html)of health care "reform" and Obama's reckless spending in general.

They'll re-center things soon enough. Increases in taxation (Bush tax cuts lapse; current low CG tax allowed to creep up; further "sin" taxes on tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods, fast-food in general) coupled with a reduction in the military spending budget (currently 4.5% GDP including deployment costs, can be quickly dialed back to 3% following the draw-down in Afghanistan which should conclude about when healthcare comes fully on line in 2014). Unfortunately, while re-centering will decrease the deficit relative to the GDP, they will never truly remove it or start paying back principle -- and part of that is strategy to pay off current debt with inflated future dollars on a rolling basis.

[Louis VI the Fat]

a reduction in the military spending budget (currently 4.5% GDP including deployment costs, can be quickly dialed back to 3% following the draw-down in Afghanistan which should conclude about when healthcare comes fully on line in 2014Let's assume this will be the case indeed.

Why is it a bad development? I'd rather my tax dollars are spend on the health of Americans than on paying corrupt Afghanis.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I didn't say this was a bad thing, I merely suggested that it was one of the more likely steps the Beltway folks will use to reduce the deficit threat a few years down the road.

A significant reduction in our War department expenditures MUST be accompanied by an alteration in our force mix/use of forces in order to make sense. I am worried that we will, once again, do what was done in the Carter and 2nd Clinton administrations rather than what was done in the Harding or 1st FDR administrations.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I didn't say this was a bad thing, I merely suggested that it was one of the more likely steps the Beltway folks will use to reduce the deficit threat a few years down the road.

A significant reduction in our War department expenditures MUST be accompanied by an alteration in our force mix/use of forces in order to make sense. I am worried that we will, once again, do what was done in the Carter and 2nd Clinton administrations rather than what was done in the Harding or 1st FDR administrations.B..but what of our peace dividend after our accord with the Russkies? :idea2:


as if...

[gaelic cowboy]

B..but what of our peace dividend after our accord with the Russkies? :idea2:


as if...

My head is soft here have Strike and Louis been the same fella all along?????????

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As if indeed. We had just started to draw down our forces significantly when Hussein decided that the U.S. Ambassador was greenlighting the invasion of Kuwait. When that ended, we had Bosnia, then Clinton drew down forces and maintainence and got us involved in all sorts of little actions, then Bush started to slowly puff out the military but didn't even get to write his own budget before the towers went down.

Ultimately, you make your own peace dividend. Do you want to be the world's cop? Takes cash. Do you want to be the point of the sword for the UN? Takes cash. Do you want to hunt terrorists around the world? Takes cash. Do you want to draw back to CONUS, AK, and HI and leave the rest of the world be? Takes much less cash. What I loathe is when we try to do the first two while giving them the budget for the last one.